BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Torture is a practice that should be avoided by the US.

Before I begin, thank you for taking this debate on such a short notice. Also, do not worry about your grammar. Without further ado, my rebuttal . First, I should probably reiterate the statistic I used. Yes, I will concede that a majority of people in the statistic I used had shown that 32 people did in fact tell some sort of information to the the CIA after the torture was administered; however, I also stated that a lot of the information we get from torture is fabricated. You try to respond to this claim by stating that faulty information is better than no information, unfortunately, this could not be farther from the truth With fabricated information, it is impossible to further our fight against terror. Also, your attempt at refuting the faulty information point, while seemingly logical, falls once it is realized that when you are being tortured, you may not have the information that the CIA wants, so fabricating information would not only solve the predicament, but ruin our information system. Also, I provide evidence on the contrary which you lack. Second, you never mentioned my propaganda recruitment point that I used in my second contention. If our torture program is used for propaganda to recruit terrorists into organizations, we can see our national interests at risk. After all, with more people joining terrorist organizations, we see more people we are fighting against over in Syria, and we see more unity and prowess in fighting forces such as ISIS, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda. With recruitment processes already being a problem in the status quo, we don't need to add on to the problem. Finally, I would like to suggest an alternative to torture that may give us the information we need, with very few consequences. We can expand our military presence in Syria for purposes such as information retrieval and look toward defectors from terrorist groups to tell us information. As clearly shown , the pro side has clearly won due to it's arguments being extended and the con has nothing to stand on, thank you. Note: Your English isn't actually that bad, don't worry, and good luck.
Torture is a practice that should be avoided by the US.

Hello, I apoligize in advance if my english is bad, as its not my first language. I'm hope it is good. I hope to have good and civil debate. I think torture neccasary in some cases. First off, if tortured person did something bad, they deserve it. You say out of 39 people 7 did not provide any information at all. the other 32 provided information, which is the majority. Now, faulty information is a problem, but most want to get it over with and will just tell the truth. The majority of totured people will provide information and tell truth, so it is working at least some. I do not condone innocent people being tortured. think that the govorment should stop taking people and torturing them when they are probably innocent. However I do think that taking someone and asking them some questions fine. Without torture, people would not be forced to give up information. as there would be no punishment for not saying anything. Even if information wrong, I think it better than no information at all. Again i am sorry for my english.
That debate.org should implement https

"[. http://www.wikipedia.org......][https://www.wikipedia.org......]You may need to close tabs to make sure you are getting the https if you have a non-secure tab to wikipedia open. Wikipedia is also not an e-commerce site. "Contention 1 : Pro didn't understand the logic behind the slow performance in accessing websites that use https. I will explain more below. Just accessing a single page in wikipedia doesn't prove the faster performance of website using https. There is more work done at the background. With HTTP, you sit at your browser and interact with data. HTTP’s job is to present that data to you, and browsers are the means of doing so. Mozilla’s Firefox browser, for example, understands HTTP instructions and arranges the data as the site’s designer intended. The browser knows what to do when you click. It uses HTTP to do this. But HTTP cannot do much beyond that. How the data travels from Point A to Point B, or even if it travels at all, is none of HTTP’s concern. This is a great compromise if you want speed and elegance and couldn’t care less about security. One does not require security to view debate. org's debates. To further reinfore my point , debate. org doesn't even require a user to be logged in to view the debates. So why secure the website on top of it? .IT is open to public. "As debate. org has pages that collect data, those pages should be secured. This affirms my resolution"Contention 2:At debate. org, you only fill out your profile information. And they are aware that many of them are not using the right information. They don't need to collect data. . they already have the information in their database. . Pro doesn't understand the difference between collecting data and profile information. With HTTPS, the story is quite the same. But when security is a must, HTTPS differentiates one sender and receiver from another. SSL takes the data, going or coming, and encrypts it. This means that SSL uses a mathematical algorithm to hide the true meaning of the data. The hope is that this algorithm is so complexit is either impossible or prohibitively difficult to crack. The encryption begins when the owner of the Web site purchases a time-sensitive certificate from a trusted certificate authority such as VeriSign. You can get a certificate anywhere, or even make your own, but is it trusted? Your browser will let you know. This certificate is a security code created specifically for that one user, or even for that one Web site. The code is so complex that no one else on Earth should have a duplicate. Well as you can see why it would slow down the performance of websites. "Con did not provide sources or discuss privacy policies at all. Therefor I urge you to vote PRO! "since pro invited me for a debate on a more generic topic I didn't feel the need to provide sources since most debaters are aware of https vs http. But pro proved he doesn't have adequate information about http vs https so here you go . http://www.biztechmagazine.com...http://www.snopes.com...http://www.wisegeek.com...I proved Pro doesn't have basic understanding of https.
That debate.org should implement https

Your argument is concise and made of words. My opponent did not use any sources, but it is easy to tell if using https significantly affects your internet experience. Surf Wikipedia using http, and then surf it using https. [. http://www.wikipedia.org...] [. https://www.wikipedia.org...] You may need to close tabs to make sure you are getting the https if you have a non-secure tab to wikipedia open. Wikipedia is also not an e-commerce site. Con argued that "You should only secure those pages that collect data. " As debate. org has pages that collect data, those pages should be secured. This affirms my resolution. Con did not provide sources or discuss privacy policies at all.
That debate.org should implement https

Definitions: https is a protocol that protects digital communication against eavesdropping from client to server using encryption debate.org is the web site you are on I hope this debate serves to illustrate technical, legal, and perhaps moral principles that go on behind the scenes in todays networked Social Media world. Challenger should know the difference between secure and insecure protocols before accepting. Main Points 1. When logging into a site that does not implement https, login/password can be "sniffed" at certain points along the way. Sniffed in this context means reconstructed by third parties. 2. Debate.org's Privacy Policy is misleading until https is implemented. Debate.org's privacy policy is quoted in italics. All Member accounts are password-protected. Protected: To keep from being damaged, attacked, stolen, or injured; guard.(1) Password protected is not the same as protected. A more accurate statement would be: "All accounts are protected by a password", or alternatively and more complete: "All accounts are protected by a password. Any person with access to certain network equipment between wherever the user connects from and the debate.org server also has access to this password." The privacy policy further reads: We go to great lengths to protect the account information that you have provided us. As the account information is not protected, I contend that this statement serves only to mislead debate.org members. The Privacy Policy further states: Access to this information is limited to only the Juggle employees who need it in order to perform their job function, such as customer service representatives. 1. Administrators have access to member details 2. Administrator accounts are not secure (no https) 3. Member details are not secure 3. By not using https, debate. org violates its own TOS, a legally enforceable agreement between Juggle LLC, and debate.org users. Section F reads: "Will not disclose your password or transfer your account to any third-party, or allow any third-party to access your account." (2) By not transmitting passwords over the internet in a secure manner, third parties are implicitly given access, or the opportunity to access, the password. 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2 http://www.debate.org...
ROBLOX is better than Minecraft

Usually I debate religion and politics, but I feel like bringing out my inner 12 year old now, so here we go.Pro first says that Roblox is better than Minecraft because: "...you can build and play games, and you can learn from the building."Well, you can build and play games in Minecraft, too. In Minecraft, there are entire servers dedicated to certain games, such as:-Hunger Games-Hide n' Seek-Jail Break-GTA-Cops n' Robbers-Parkourand so much more. If you would put all the mods and games together in Minecraft, they would far outnumber the games in Roblox. I don't know how you could learn anything from building things in Roblox, since that isn't the game's target. Sure, you can build levels, but you need Builder's Club (a monthly cost) to have more than one "place" running at once. In Minecraft, you pay once, and there's nothing else to worry about. You can make servers for free (expensive to run 24/7, but Mojang is not taxing you to have a server) and have more than one running at once."Minecraft is overated too, people say that mods or texture packs or skins are absolutely free, which they are, and that's fine. But on ROBLOX, you actually have to EARN the customisation. You don't just get it usually."Right, like having to buy Builder's Club to play some games, and getting only ten tickets per login to slow you down from getting Robux. Sounds like "earning" to me."Also, you say with minecraft, the possibilities are limitless. Well, my argument to that is the height limit of 200 and something. Limitless? With ROBLOX, you can make what you want, do what you want."Since when are you going to build something 140-200 blocks high? Without any mods, that's at least 4 hours of your time just building, never mind decorating. With Roblox, you can't make what you want. It's all pre-set for you. You're not "creating" anything. You're just placing things pre-made into an order that you like."Also, how can ROBLOX be a copy of Minecraft if it is:1: Made before it2: More advanced than it3: A friendlier place where it isn't pay-to-win?"I would like you to go into specifics how Roblox is more advanced than Minecraft, I'm not catching onto that point. Also, I think that Roblox would be "pay-to-win" as you get the most benefits by making monthly payments.I look forward to the next round.
ROBLOX is better than Minecraft

I'd say ROBLOX is far better than Minecraft, because you can build and play games, and you can learn from the building. Many Minecraft users say the community is bad, but they are really all just copying each other. Minecraft is overated too, people say that mods or texture packs or skins are absolutely free, which they are, and that's fine. But on ROBLOX, you actually have to EARN the customisation. You don't just get it usually. Whoever is debating against should have a good re-think about what they're gonna say, because if anyone hears you saying "but roblokcz got bad hakcrs n gotbad comuminty but minecraft hasn't" then I think they'll explode with anger. Okay, probably true that the community is a bit bad, but is that your only argument? Also, you say with minecraft, the possibilities are limitless. Well, my argument to that is the height limit of 200 and something. Limitless? With ROBLOX, you can make what you want, do what you want. Also, how can ROBLOX be a copy of Minecraft if it is: 1: Made before it 2: More advanced than it 3: A friendlier place where it isn't pay-to-win? Think before you type, guys, that's all I have to say. And thank you for taking a lot of time to read all this.
States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

My opponent thinks he can win this debate by ignoring half of my points, ignoring the global realities that underpin even his own argument, and by committing the logical fallacy of appeal to uncertainty over the future. My opponent concedes nuclear weapons have been helpful in the past, and that they are a powerful deterrent. He has strategically ignored my point that nuclear weapons have saved more lives than they have killed, that nuclear weapons are less dangerous than many other items, and that people have forfeited their right to safety. He never told us why the value of a human life is so relevant, given that there is no reason to suppose the nukes of today will ever be deployed – indeed, I have given clear analysis as to why they never will. He claims nukes the sizes of small spacecraft are as easy to steal as a diamond ring, for an uncoordinated small group of rebel fighters. He thinks that although the US has the capability to bomb every square inch of this Earth, they cannot bomb a small portion of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. This has been an excellent debate, in its portrayal of the many inconsistencies and fallacious arguments that permeate the affirmative's case. A vote for my opponent is a vote based on fear – a fear which I have shown to be unfounded. My opponent has been unable to give any reasons to back up his fear of a powerful "weapon" (if it can be called that, for really it is only a deterrent, as I have shown). Let your vote send a strong message to my opponent that we will not give in to this fear – that we are reasonable human beings. I hope this is not the argument my opponent runs when he does this for real, because as it stands, my opponent has failed to counter my claim that the removal of nuclear weapons is unnecessary. That's why the moot falls. That's why I am proud to be opposing the motion.
States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

I agree that this debate needs a value. And the value that I would put forth is the value of the human life. Wouldn't you agree that a human life is more important than anything else? So going with this value of human life, how could it possibly be good to keep around nuclear weapons that could end millions of them in an instant? Secondly, you said terrorists could never get nuclear weapons because nobody is willing to give nukes to them.... The obvious responce is that they would just steal them. Pakistan is an extremely unstable country that possess nuclear weapons. Coincidentaly it borders the afgan mountains that Al Quada opporates out of. Actually it is suprising to me that they have not yet tried to steal a nuke from Pakistan. Also as a sub point, you claim that one of the US's nukes could hit a 1000 mile radius. That is simply not true. It was also said that without nukes we would be unable to fight of aliens. I think it is safe to say that we do not know enough about aliens yet to make that assumption. You then say that mutually assured destruction would stop any nation from using these nukes on another. I agree that it has prevented it in the past, but what about the future? Plus wouldn't it stop people from using nukes equally as much if we just didn't have nukes in the first place? And this brings us back to the value, and center of this debate, human lives. As I stated in the beggining, Nuclear Weapons these days are 180 times more powerfull than the ones used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So how could it possibly be a good thing to have them around? The debate is titled, "states ought not possess nuclear weapons". And just because of the devistating power of them alone, I think that, no, states shouldn't possess nukes PERIOD. To finish, I would like to thank my opponent for this great debate. It had been a lot of help to me. I would also like to urge a strong vote in the proposition of this resolution.
States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

In every debate, one must consider policy implications AND value implications, for no good value supports the impossible. Explain to me how it's actually possible to do what you support, answering all the concerns I raised earlier, or else tell me by what "value" you support that which you impliedly agree cannot be done. You rebutted two very nuanced sub-points of my overall rebuttal. First, yes, Osama does not care for America, but he DOES care for his own life. He cannot risk being nuked, dying as a martyr, because Al Qaeda would collapse without his figurehead. The US does know where he is, within a radius of a few thousand miles, which some of their larger bombs cover. I also contend that no world leader is presently willing to give Osama nuclear materials. Look up the military doctrine of "Mutually Assured Destruction" for more info. Second, you have claimed that nukes are not "good" and thus distinguishable from other, more deadly items. No wonder you commented you wanted to drop this! Go on - distinguish between a good and a bad death. Also please address some of my other points - ie nukes cause standoffs and the people support them. Meanwhile, two new issues. First, if aliens come from outer space and try to take us over, what do we do? The only missiles we have that we can launch into space cheaply are nuclear missiles. Second, what about expansionist countries like Russia under Putin? We can never know just how big a role the serious American nuclear threat deters these nations from committing grave injustices. We can never know whether the power of the nuclear bomb has deterred alien invasion. One more issue. Some states are only non-nuclear as they are protected by other, nuclear states (esp. in Europe). By telling some states they ought not to have weapons, you tell these other smaller states they ought to have weapons instead. Because I stand for a more peaceful world, which does not support ridiculous impossible pipe-dreams, I oppose!
States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

First off I want to say thank you. Admittedly you have some fantastic points here that will help me when I debate this for real. But since I am arguing against you here, I must say that you are completely wrong. First I will cover your rebuttal to my argument that Nuclear Weapons ought not be possessed because of Global Security. You stated that if a terrorist such as Osama bin Ladin gained possession of a nuclear weapon, he would not use it because the USA would just shoot one right back at him. I do not believe this is the case because extremist like Bin Laden do not care about their own life, or the lives of their comrades, as much as they do about killing millions of Americans. This is most apparent in the many suicide bombings that have taken place over the years. Plus, you make the point that the USA would just shoot him right back, but that would be completely unfeasible because he is in hiding right now so we would basically have to just guess where to aim, press the big red button and hope it turns out for the best. You argue against my humanitarian case stating that basically people die in other ways, thus it should be okay to keep nuclear weapons around. But I don't think it matters if more people have died in other ways. If a single of these weapons was set off in a populated area, then deaths by nuclear weapons would far exceed deaths by car crashes. Not having nukes would completely get rid of this threat right away. You say that since car crashes are deadly, so why don't we get rid of cars? Be cause cars are good for something, transportation. Nukes are good for nothing except destruction. You said that how would we stop somebody from getting nukes after they are all gone. This comment, however true, is not relevant in this debate because the debate is, "states ought not possess nuclear weapons". If the resolution was, "The United Nations should get rid of all nuclear weapons." it would be relevant, but this is a value, not policy debate.
States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

Hey, I'm new here too. This is an interesting topic so I'll begin by rebutting some of your major points. My overall argument is that removing nuclear missiles is unnecessary. First, I think that most states are neither founded on ideals of pacifism nor presently pacifist. Those that ARE either of these two conditions are generally small in nature and therefore do not have the sort of resources required for another country to bother to launch a missile at them. By having aggressive aims, weapons or capabilities of your own, you forfeit your right to safety. Most countries today are democratic in nature. This means that every taxpayer of these countries supports these militaristic aims, for if they did not those in power would be voted out. Secondly, your humanitarian argument is not an argument against nuclear bombs but against weapons in general. More people have died in vehicles than by nukes, so should we abandon cars, boats and aircraft too? Second, as to your global security point, that's not how it works in reality. When two states have nuclear weapons, the result is not confrontation but cold war. Sounds familiar, right? Indeed, this lack of confrontation is MORE humanitarian than actual confrontation, because nobody dies. If Osama built a nuclear warhead in his cave, he would not fire it at the United States for fear the USA would bomb him back. Similarly, the USA might ease their attacks on Al Quaeda as public opinion in the USA would give way to fear of being struck by Osama's missile. But your case really fails because it is totally unfeasible. First, you won't be able to prevent another state from just making a new weapon after abolishing them. Second, what about covert nuclear weapons - each nation has an incentive to hold them. Third, you cannot destroy a nuclear weapon without deploying it - which has huge environmental and economic costs. You can't give me a clear model for how you intend to enact your plan. The motion falls.