BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Torture can be morally permissible

I will reconstruct my argument here, seems nothing to rebuttal from Pro except from his comments which I will rebut later. The first question lies: Why torture? Common answer is to PUNISH someone. As I argue, there are ways to punish in such a way no harsh acts will be implemented. Why torture if substitute can come? There are better ways than to hang a person or to put him/her in a electric chamber. Torture will give us nothing but brutality, not even justice. Torture is TOO MUCH to the point that, it is an ABUSE. "Anyone who is against torture is using utilitarianism in their reasoning because they are against MORE torture. I fail to see how there is not a single situation in which torture could produce results that are more desirable to the act of torture. For instance, would you go so far as to say it is immoral for a father to volunteer for torture if for some reason he had to if he wanted to save his child? I think it would be perfectly moral for a parent to save their child volunteering for torture. So why are the motives of the person in this scenario any more noble than those of the people initiating the torture , who want to save a life, too? " It would be better if two lives are spared or if the punishment is sentenced to lower case, and the parent takes the punish for his child. "My opponent assumes that torture can only be used for retribution, and fails to mention torture can be used as a tool. In fact, I'm not even advocating that torture should be used for retribution. I'm simply arguing that there are cases in which torture can be morally permissible. " Torture will scare people which may even lead to rebellion just to abolish it. Punishment is enough, but torture is too much and an abuse. Back to Pro :) God bless
Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood is better then Attack on Titan

Hmm I guess I'll just bring up some more points.The action in fma imo was a lot more interesting then attack on titan.Attack on titan had some interesting fights but they always felt the same.Fma had fights that were always different because they had. The ability to use what ever they wanted for their weapons. Also the humor in fma was better then aot cause aot had none.
The U. S. adopting Cap and Trade will have a significant effect on climate.

I will start by getting some facts on the table. The United States is a country on Earth. . http://www.answers.com... The world temperature has supposedly gone up about 1 degree in the last 150 years. . http://www.epa.gov... The human population of Earth is over 6 billion. . http://www.infoplease.com... The human population of China is over 1.3 billion. . http://geography.about.com... The human population of the United States is over 300 million. . http://factfinder.census.gov... The average "carbon footprint" for a U. S. household is 19 metric tons of CO2. . http://www.foxnews.com... There are about 100 million american housholds. . http://www.foxnews.com... The average american household adds 0.0000000000148 degrees Fahrenheit to the global average temperature. . http://www.foxnews.com... China has a smaller carbon footprint than the U. S. . http://outside.away.com... The U. S. is responsible for 27% of the global carbon footprint. . http://outside.away.com... From these facts, we can draw three conclusions. 1. In 150 years, the temperature has gone up 1 degree. The U. S. is responsible for about a quarter of this. 2. Even if the United States produced no carbon footprint, about three-quarters of global warming would still occur. 3. If the United States produced no carbon footprint, then there would not be a significant effect on climate. The basic calculations are as follows: 150 years=1 degree 50 years=one-third of a degree 50 years (just U. S. )=one-twelveth of a degree The definition of "a significant effect" has been established as "atleast a quarter of a degree in fifty years". However, even if the U. S. were to have no "footprint", the global climate trend would decrease by 1/12 degree. Further, Obama's plan would "reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. " . http://my.barackobama.com... So, the emissions would not even be completely eliminated, but reduced by 80 percent. Therefore, assuming the Obama plan even works, the current warming trend would be reduced by 1/15 degree. The debate is already won. Basic math discredits that the U. S. adopting Obama's Cap and Trade plan will have a significant effect on climate.
The U. S. adopting Cap and Trade will have a significant effect on climate.

>I will be supporting Obama Cap and Trade. >Cap and Trade is a fundamentally good idea. As my opponent notes, global temperature has been increasing recently. Cap and Trade would limit these effects by limiting the emissions causing this. To support my point, while global temperature has increased by a degree in one hundred years, ocean temperatures have risen one half a degree since the 1970s. Also, the process has accelerated slightly recently as the 8 warmest years in history have all been since 1998. >The Obama Cap and Trade is very vague, but the general concepts would be beneficial to the Earth and to the rising temperatures. >There is not much more I can say at the moment, I await my opponent's arguments.
The U. S. adopting Cap and Trade will have a significant effect on climate.

As Con, I will wait until my opponent puts out his or her contentions until I actually debate. A significant effect is considered to be a global differrence in atleast a quarter of a degree in fifty years, which is very merciful considering that some statistics say that the global average tempertaure has increased about a degree over the last hundred years. The Cap and Trade system is the system that will be employed under both major presidential candidates' administrations. I will let my opponent pick a plan to be specifically debated. McCain's Cap and Trade: http://www.johnmccain.com... Obama's Cap and Trade: http://my.barackobama.com... Unfortunately, neither candidates go into much detail, especially Barack Obama. As we go into further detail, we will quote their debates as to their actual plans. I look forward to the prospect of this debate.
The U. S. adopting Cap and Trade will have a significant effect on climate.

>I again thank my respected and esteemed opponent for this debate. >My opponent goes right out and asks whether or not the UN is a part of the US. Obviously it isn't but it is influenced heavily by the US. To update the disagreements: 1. Will Obama's work in the US and UN affect other nations enough to create a 45.8% emissions cut by 2059. 2. Will the Obama Cap and Trade plan work? If yes, then please vote PRO. >My opponent has clearly noticed that "Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. " is separate from the other sub-point "Make the U. S. a Leader on Climate Change. " Apparently, however he has not notice that they are BOTH underneath the larger title "Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050. " Therefore, they have been grouped together. I would now like to prove why this is true: Separate: unconnected; distinct; unique Together: into or in one gathering, company, mass, place, or body As the Obama website (. http://my.barackobama.com...) clearly says, these are both grouped together into one gathering under "Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050" and are not unconnected, distinct, or unique. The above negates my opponent's claims of separation and in fact proves that these two sub-points are together. >My opponent has obviously used the logic of "can't do it here" Do it there. " To take his logic one step farther, the Obama plan is global. Because it covers the entire Earth, no matter where these companies go, the Obama plan will metaphorically follow them with its wants to cut emissions around the world. My opponent has said that oil companies pay more taxes than they gain in profits. While this USED to be true, it is no longer. I would like to present figure 2: . http://www.taxfoundation.org... According to figure 2, while what my opponent said used to be true, at the moment oil and gas companies DO have more money each year than they started with. Due to this, emission caps on these companies WILL, in fact, work. > So, Disagreements (myself and my opponent): 1. Will Obama's work in the US and UN affect other nations enough to create a 45.8% emissions cut by 2059. YES 2. Will the Obama Cap and Trade plan work?
The U. S. adopting Cap and Trade will have a significant effect on climate.

This is the last round and I will condense this debate. First, I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. This is the complete list of disagreements: 1. Is the UN part of the US? 2. Will Cap and Trade work? If both are yes, then you vote PRO. Else, you vote CON. 1. As we look at the structure of the website, it immediately becomes clear that the section "Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. " is separate from the section "Make the U. S. a Leader on Climate Change. " . http://my.barackobama.com... All of Obama's goals are not included in Obama's Cpap and Trade Policy. For example, Obama's tax policy is not part of Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade is a domestic program and has no direct effect on other countries. Its indirect effect is driving our emmissions overseas, which is also part of this planet and therefore has a net effect of zero on the global climate. Overall temperature difference after Obama Cap and Trade = -0.118584 degrees Fahrenheit. This is much less than .25 Degrees Fahrenheit. Therefore, this effect is not significant. Though international policy may or may not effect climate as well, this is not part of his cap and trade plan. The full details of his plan are: "Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. The Obama-Biden cap-and-trade policy will require all pollution credits to be auctioned, and proceeds will go to investments in a clean energy future, habitat protections, and rebates and other transition relief for families. " This is his plan. Cap and Trade is, again, domestic (in the U. S. only). 2. Oil and Gas companies were only one example of companies that will just go oversees when taxed out of this country. There is a lessening reason for them to stay here as regulation and taxation increase. A company plans to max out profits. In order to do this, they will go to a country with less regulation and less taxation. No problem. More profits. No matter what country they are in, they cannot go without pollution. A government policy isn't going to change that. My opponent has also made the claim that oil companies make big profits and would not be effected to a major degree by this program. However, this is not true, either. Oil companies already pay more in taxes than they make as profits. . http://seekingalpha.com... However, some countries do not tax oil companies, but subsidize them instead. So, a smart oil company that wants to maximize profits would. .. I urge voters to drop bias and vote CON because Cap and Trade's purpose is lost. It has such a minimal effect on climate and has such a harmful effect on the economy.
The U. S. adopting Cap and Trade will have a significant effect on climate.

First, we are not assuming that the Obama plan will even work. It may, or it may not. My statisctic, not the debate, assumed that the Obama plan actually worked. W can further debate whether or not the plan will work or not. The debate, however, based on both people's calculations, establishes that nature automatically puts out a climate change of 0. Further, this debate does not entail the entire Obama plan for Climate Change, which also may or may not work, but just the U. S. adopting his Cap and Trade program. Therefore, I must only disprove that the U. S. adopting Cap and Trade will (by itself) result in a significant effect on climate (.25 degrees Fahrenheit). The rest of Obama's plan (involving the U. N. ) is not part of Obama's Cap and Trade plan. Assuming that the Obama plan does not stop at 2050, then, yes, we can assume that Obama will continue to constrict the United States' carbon footprint to 2.4% of what it is now. This is the overall effect of Obama's Cap and Trade program. For these reasons, my opponent's calculations do not apply. 1. I will redo my calculations: 1.35 degrees warming=150 years 50 years= .45 degrees warming 27 percent U. S. x .45 degress warming=0.27 x 0.45= 0.1215 U. S. degrees warming contribution 0.1215 U. S. degrees warming x 2.4 percent left by 2059=0.1215 x .024 = 0.002916 U. S. contribution after 50 years 0.1215 current contribution - 0.002916 remaining contribution=0.118584 warming difference Therefore, after 50 years, even with my oppoenent's contribution to the statisctics, even making the grand assumption that it will work, Cap and Trade will not have a significant effect on climate. 2. Further, Cap and Trade will not even work to the degree that Obama anticipates it will. Companies would just pay a high amount of money and eventually die out. This would result in power crisis (as the Coal Industry dies out), a transportation crisis (as the Oil refining industry dies out), etc. This is impractical. Power and refined oil would be imported, and thus produced in other countries, especially ones that aren't in the U. N. From this, we know that the other countries would just end up producing everything that was produced domestically, and no emmissions would be lessened overall. In the meanwhile, jobs go overseas. I again reassert that Cap and Trade will not have a significant effect on climate. My opponent having the U. S. annex the world does not apply to this debate.
"Under God" Should be Removed from the Pledge of Alegiance

My argument is very simple, and needs little to no explanation. First, the mention of "God" in the pledge of allegiance is a violation of separation of church and state. As a nation, we have elected to try our best to keep the government completely free of religious influences. Yet, somehow, we acknowledge a single god used only by some religions in the official pledge to our country. Yet, this is taken a step further. The majority of schools have their kids say the pledge of allegiance at some point during the day, yet not all kids are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or even monotheistic. Those kids are forced, not legally, but via teacher encouragement and peer pressure, to acknowledge a god they do not believe in. Second, the mention of God in the pledge contradicts the first amendment, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." True, congress didn't necessarily write the pledge, but the obvious intent of this statement is to prevent the government from acknowledging one religion over another. The pledge, as it currently stands, clearly acknowledges the monotheistic god of Christians, Jews, and (arguably) Muslims, over deities in Hindu/Buddhist/etc. faiths, or even over no faith at all. Third, it wasn't even there originally. The only reason "under God" is in the pledge at all was because Eisenhower added it in 1954 in response to the Communist threat. Eisenhower thought that it would remind Americans to remain "humble," despite their strength, and that it would help to unify the nation against the communists. A great idea, but not a very unifying one. The only people it would have had any effect on was Christians (despite the fact that the Christian, Jewish and (again, arguably) Muslim god are technically the same thing), because it was a movement from the Knights of Columbus that originally influenced "under God" to be added. So, it wouldn't even by unifying among Christians. Just among Catholics. It excludes any of the millions of non-Catholics living in the US. Hardly what we need for patriotism and unification. The mention of God in the pledge defies what we're most proud of in our country. Our diversity. We have people and cultures from all over the world here, and mentioning God makes us forget what we are : a nation of immigrants. We can't pretend as if some cultures and beliefs take precedence over others. This is supposed to be the one place on the globe where that doesn't happen. If we want to truly have a pledge to inspire people to stay loyal to this nation, the unnecessary "under God" has to go.
Should everyone have an alternative gay partner just in case their straight partner relationship fai

I believe everyone young child at the age of 8 should get indoctrinated into the sweet succulent messy stick relationship of being with a person of the same sex. They should have an alternative gay partner just in case their straight relationship fail. With a gay relationship, people will become more accepting of homosexuals. If everyone is forced to have a backup gay partenr, they will accept gays for who they are and not as disease infested a*spumpers. I want women and men to both a new partner. Plus if they have a backup gay partner it will be easy for them to understand each other since they are both of the same gender versus having an opposite sex partner which is harder to understand due to differences in brain phisology, social norms and physical phisilogy. I also think if someone has a backup partner, regardless of sexual orientation, they will be more likely to get over a breakup which can cause damage to mental and physical health. Conditions of the Debate: The amount of rounds is the amount you see, you wanna fight about it? Also if someone misses a round they forfeit. Definition of gay: (of a person, especially a man) homosexual. Definition of alternative: look it up dummies.
Should everyone have an alternative gay partner just in case their straight partner relationship fai

He forfeited the debate. This guy is definitely a troll, but on the off chance that he is not, I will argue against his assertions. You are stating that everyone needs a "homosexual partner" in case their heterosexual partnership does not work out. This is plainly absurd. You cannot justify by any means any sort of created conformity to a forced relationship. This is unconstitutional and defies basic human rights. This is similar to marriages that are set up by families, however, the state decides. This is a just a stupid idea. Since Pro forfeited the debate twice, just vote for me.
ethical principles of veganism

Hi! I'll be happy to debate with you. Although I am not a vegan myself I shall try my best. Let's begin. Some may become vegan because of ethics. Which certainly has some merit. Let's take milk for example Dairy cows are constantly hooked up to a milking machine which must cause discomfort. Animals exhibit emotion. They are not bugs that have a hard coded mind. Eggs also come to mind which unless they are cage free eggs. The hen is locked in cage laying eggs until it dies or is taken to become meat. I must remind you that this is veganism, Not so milk and eggs are not accepted in vegan culture. Animals are like humans in many ways as we are with animals. Love is just a chemical so we mate. Animals should have many rights we humans have. We survive off them so they should be able to survive off us. Not be forced to produce products in cruel ways. Many animals are social but many factories deprive them of social interaction. Animals at the very LEAST must be given the basic human rights most of the world enjoys.
ethical principles of veganism

I did this debate with absolution2012 and wanted to see someone else's opinion from the same perspective Pro will be defending: "There is no trait absent in an animal, Which if absent in a human, Would cause us to justify treating humans like animals. Veganism is a logical extension of human rights. " my argument is this: "there are traits absent, Such as advanced reasoning, Any form of society, Or any form of basic technology" also absolution please don't be pro i want to see someone else's response
The human mind

I will counter all three. I will even counter any argument. If someone smokes dimethyltryptamine, that person could be able to see every color inconceivable; Colors that do not exist in this world or any world/ plain of existence. You could argue that maybe the person just believes or thinks that the colors they see are different than any other color. You would be wrong because DMT (Dimethyltryptamine) does not change you. It does not make you high like cannabis, or intoxicated like alcohol. The viewer is completely sober, and is seeing everything as it is or could be, reaction to is as if it were real, and in fact is it anyway. There are no boundaries to the natural psychedelic known as DMT, but I will move on to your other points. You could argue that hallucinations are not real, and hold no significance as they are false. Who is to say hallucinations are not real. Who is to say this (our shared existence) is not real, but just a collection of memories created by goats. If hallucinations are not real, then neither is real life. Taking DMT can easily let you witness 4D as there are not boundaries. DMT pushes are brains so far, that see a simple 4D thing is in the early stages of the DMT journey. Our minds existing forever huh? You might want to source that one. Nothing is certain, but I believe if I take all 3 forms of DMT (4Aco, 5MEO, N,N) I might go braindead from astonishment , and then time TRULY means jack then an infinite, painful or blissful, or painfully blissfull trip will go on and on and on. Even if my body was shot in the head, I would have live for an eternity an infinite number of times with the minutes I had alive. The mind and body are separate even though they need each other. You can't disprove the existence of an afterlife with the knowledge we have. After you die, your body releases all of its DMT stored from the pineal gland in our brain. The brain lives on after we die for about 7 minutes. In those 7 minutes, there might lie the endless afterlife of existence. In conclusion, the power DMT is unrivaled in scope. Anything is possible, believing in anything is possible, and doing anything is of course easy enough with mother's help. You should all smoke DMT and join my cult!
The human mind

Resolution:The human mind has the potential for anything (as per comments)It is my job as Con to negate this resolution.Opening argumentIf I can provide even one thing that the human mind cannot do, then I win.Contention 1There is an extremely large frequency of different colours and lights that our brains cannot process or even begin to understand. http://www.physicsclassroom.com...Contention 2The human mind cannot push itself to exist forever. I don't think I need a source for this, but if you wish to argue this point, I will provide sources in the next round.Contention 3We cannot picture a 4 dimensional object. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...I will provide more contentions if my opponent is able to successfully counter all three.
The human mind

Can we do anything if we have the knowledge and brain power/will. Are we able to do the impossible. So little is know about our brains and I have been thinking about this for months experimenting with weed. (You have never meet someone as sensitive to weed i guarantee) Our brain are so powerful, making amazing music with our ears, making humbling paintings with our hands. Can I learn how to fly and change the outlook everyone has to amazement and awe at what can be accomplished with our brains. We are not even close to tapping our potential of brain power Read more: http://scienceray.com... (From the link) "We are not even close to tapping our potential of brain power" It makes me almost teary eye if i have not be thinking about it for so long. Technology is awesome and so it everything else there that is good, but we don't have an understanding. Albert Einstein, Mark Twin to name two call under (maybe) only limited brain useage. I had a thought today remarking how close i am to understanding the power my brain has and can do. I figured that maybe i was from the earth looking at the sun, it being millions of miles away..or farther. Maybe there is no distance, and its infinite. I think EVERYONE that has an interest on humanity..but not limited to humanity. Is ignorance bliss? Hell yes it is.