BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Torture towards criminals

I think that torture in general should never be used. If a man killed someone and his punishment was to be tortured in some way, that would make you no better then him. "There is little difference between a man on the verge of shooting innocent civilians and a man that retains and withholds vital information that could help save the lives of innocent civilians (possibly millions). " I disagree with this. Withholding information is not a crime and we shouldn't treat it as one. "Both are poised to kill innocent civilians, and both have foregone their right to dignified treatment and life itself. The state has the obligation to protect the rights of the innocent over the assailant in both moments. " Also untrue. Just withholding information doesn't kill anyone. The information could result in saving someone, but it doesn't literally kill anyone. "Second of all, There is substantial support to the notion that, from the decision-makers perspective, torture would be acceptable in the "ticking time-bomb" scenario as a means to save thousands if not millions of lives. " I disagree. Lets think about it mathematically for a second. A persons life doesn't hold a value. They'd just be a variable. So say we have X, the person that withholds information, and Y, the victims. Even if we had 1,000,000Y we can't say it's greater then X since neither have a specific value. You could argue that we just 'know' that 1,000,000Y>X but mathematically speaking, that would be false. "Thirdly, there is an important difference between terrorists and their victims that should mute talk of the terrorists' 'rights. ' The terrorist's victims are at risk unintentionally, not having asked to be endangered. But the terrorist knowingly initiated his actions. Unlike his victims, he volunteered for the risks of his deed. By threatening to kill for profit or idealism, he renounces civilized standards, and he can have no complaint if civilization tries to thwart him by whatever means necessary. " It's true in a way. Any criminal in the act of harming another being shouldn't complain if he gets killed. BUT if he were to be stopped in the process, or even captured after the process, torture or even the death penalty would not be right. There are many alternatives that don't bring us down to his level of insanity. "On another note, any proper application of torture would only be toward the extraction of information that could help save lives. It is a defensive action, not a retributive action. " I still find it to be wrong. You see interrogation all the time when it comes to government cases. Many of these times the person could save a life if he just spoke up. They never cause any type of harm to this person anyway. Why might that be? The answer should be quite obvious. It's wrong. Sorry to say that I can't put up very many of my arguments up. I need to go to sleep because I'm spending the day tomorrow with my girlfriend. With that said I won't be able to reply to the next round until about 5 or 6Pm central time.
Torture towards criminals

As hypocritical as this sounds, I am pro torture of criminals because I am con torture.Torture is often mindless giving of the most severe pain to people for the fun of terrorists and criminally insane people to enjoy. It is thes epeopel who mus tbe tortured, or their minions, to get at the main leader and hence tear down the terrorist and criminal organisations that run horrific 'concentration camp' styled communities.I shall now highlight my contentions.Firstly, while some argue that torture violates the dignity of man, it is necessary to view torture in the proper context of defending the life and dignity of the innocent lives that the man who is being tortured threatens. It would never be questioned morally if a man pulled out a gun to shoot innocent civilians and a policeman then shot him down. There would be no argument about the assailants dignity because the assailant was threatening the dignity, life, and rights of other human beings. As such, the assailant sacrifices many of their rights, including the right to be treated with dignity and to continue living (if the man threatens others). There is little difference between a man on the verge of shooting innocent civilians and a man that retains and withholds vital information that could help save the lives of innocent civilians (possibly millions). Both are poised to kill innocent civilians, and both have foregone their right to dignified treatment and life itself. The state has the obligation to protect the rights of the innocent over the assailant in both moments.Second of all, There is substantial support to the notion that, from the decision-makers perspective, torture would be acceptable in the "ticking time-bomb" scenario as a means to save thousands if not millions of lives. (See the film Unthinkable to see that people actually died because they did not torture him hard enough).Thirdly, there is an important difference between terrorists and their victims that should mute talk of the terrorists' 'rights.' The terrorist's victims are at risk unintentionally, not having asked to be endangered. But the terrorist knowingly initiated his actions. Unlike his victims, he volunteered for the risks of his deed. By threatening to kill for profit or idealism, he renounces civilized standards, and he can have no complaint if civilization tries to thwart him by whatever means necessary.On another note, any proper application of torture would only be toward the extraction of information that could help save lives. It is a defensive action, not a retributive action.In summary, torture, in the "ticking time bomb" scenario, can be effectively utilized to save millions of lives. If those that are engaged in the process of developing torture tactics have this valid and profound national security benefit in mind and at heart, they should have no problem with its morality.
Torture towards criminals

I'm taking the position Con, for I don't think of torture to be 'just'. I ask that will Pro be someone that is for the idea of torture to be a good punishment for criminals(or some criminals). I'm sure you'd know this already but no spammers, swearers, or in general, anyone that would be bothersome to deal with. So just make it somewhat formal. .. I wish Pro good luck and let begin!
Scientific Problems with the Big Bang

This sounds interesting, let me start with what you stated missing population III stars > you need to understand that population III or sometimes referred to as generation I stars were very massive, on the order of 60 to 300 times the mass of our own sun, and made almost purely of hydrogen, so the most if not all have died long ago, http://astronomy.swin.edu.au... Regarding the missing mono-poles and not enough antimatter, i ask you to go into more detail about that.
Government should NOT require GMO labeling for food products

Would prefer a beginner debater, since this is my first time. The burden of proof will reside on me. Note that this is under politics, so this debate will focus on political arguments supporting or opposing GMO labeling of food products. Most discussions of health benefits or harms will be irrelevant (usually). That is not to say pro or con cannot bring them up, only that they are not the focus of the debate. 72 hours per round should be plenty for you busy workers and students out there. Good luck and may the force be with you! *2nd round is arguments made. 3rd round should be rebuttals, and 4th round last minute rebuttals and closing remarks. Thanks and have fun! **GMO-genetically modified organisms. This debate focuses on the product labeling of genetically modified foods or those containing ingredients with genetically modified organisms/substances. ***In case it is misunderstood, I am against government requiring gmo food and food products to be labeled
The current educational system is flawed (K-12).

To counter, In reading your rebuttal I am forced to make 3 assumptions: A) The data is not skewed in your favour and is perfectly legitimate, B) That your sample size was large enough to compensate for the entire nation's views; and, C) That by mentioning "many" famous people I must assume that the "many" students will also become famous and successful. Argument A By not providing any information regarding your "study" how can I be sure that the results are not hypotheticals or fabricated? Argument B Because this sample size is likely not to be extremely diverse, like a census, it is implied that everyone else must feel the same way. This is known as the logical fallacy of composition, inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. (LogicallyFallacious, 2016). Therefore 'x" (the number of people surveyed) must equal "y" (the general consensus). Which cannot be true. Statistically speaking it is highly unlikely that every single American (assuming you are American) feels the exact same way. Argument C First lets me define many: Many (noun): a large number of, or the majority of people. (Google, 2016) The statement "the educational system has lead to many famous people's success" is incorrect. "The majority of" famous people that assumed their fame through success is marginal, as most become famous for their natural talents whether it be artistry, leading (politicians), comedy, acting, pioneering, etc. Times 100 Most Influential People demonstrate that very few actually obtained their fame through education. Schools generally frown upon subjects such as art, music, comedy, etc. whilst placing emphasis on subjects such as Math and Science as though they are more important than Arts and Humanities. If it wasn"t hard enough to become "famous", stats have recently been released by Forbes stating that 60% of college grads couldn't get jobs.
The current educational system is flawed (K-12).

I have conducted a survey with students grade six and onwards, and 89.7 percent of them say that they are perfectly happy with the way things are taught. Furthermore, I have asked the same question to graduates ages twenty to thirty, and I have seen that 91.3 percent of those say that they are happy with the way their education has turned out. Many schools these days have 'suggestion boxes' and the suggestions are either considered by the Student Council (ages vary) or the teachers themselves. Another thing is that teachers do care about their student's education first, which is why we have homework and parent-teacher conferences. Also, part of the principal's job is to decide teachers, and if they feel that their employees are worrying more about other matters than the education and well-being of their students, they will not allow them to teach at their school anymore. The education system has lead to many famous people's success, and there is no doubt that it will do the same to children in the present. "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world."- Nelson Mandela.
The current educational system is flawed (K-12).

Introduction As it is, the world is falling apart. People are dying from preventable causes while governments turn a blind eye, students cannot get jobs, the government is slowly becoming corrupt and people are unhappy. Logic and reason are now as highly endangered as black rhinos while debt is as high as the twin towers used to be and to think all of this could be cured with the next generation"s highly educated people - if there are any" Education is the trigger to success like a firing pin to a bullet. However, when governments set out to educate their citizens they go about it the wrong way. The problem is that everyone is unhappy and they have been taught in school to become tolerant and observe without input. That is actually one of many arguments you will come across in this debate. Aside from petty matters (e.g. schools caring more about your uniform than your education), there are serious problems in our current educational system. BOP Education is flawed in the sense that it is highly ineffective and the system is inefficient. Initial Arguments (1) In Australia, at the current state school I am attending, the period (length of time) goes for 70 minutes. The average length of time for selective sustained information (concentration) only lasts for 20 minutes in most healthy teenagers and adults. By having lessons run for 70 minutes the only information that would be retained is information from the first 28.571% of the lesson. (Excluding bell curve theory) (2) Dreams are constructed, whilst curiosity and imagination are punished. (3) Instead of pushing students to things they want to learn students are pushed into harder subjects as they make the school look better. "Don"t let your schooling get in the way of your education." - Mark Twain I bid you good luck in the following debate!
The current educational system is flawed (K-12).

Ok so we will begin with the rules. 1) No swearing or profanity. 2) You will try your best. 3) The first round is acceptance of the debate. 4) Evidence and arguments will be placed thereafter. 5) Max 2000 characters. I agree that the current educational system (K-12) is flawed. (Pro) Those who disagree will be against (Con)
The current educational system is flawed (K-12).

In your rebuttal, you have said that 'with or without school [Albert Einstein] still would have developed his theories'. However, if Albert Einstein did not attend primary school, for example, how would be learn the basics he later expanded on? Also, you have said that students are taught to strive for good marks, although isn't healthy challenge the thing that motivates us to study? And, most teachers (especially in lower schools) create interactive programs and teach their students to love and 'enjoy' learning. And, yes, it is true that 'I don't know' is a common response for asking about future career, although students who use it are still picking their path to life, which makes it beneficial for those students to study subjects they are not interested in; they may easily change their minds in the future. You would be lying if you said you had the same ambitions ever since you were a toddler. You have stated many sources as to prove where you recieved your information, which is admittedly a sign of a good argument. However, do you really think that your five-year-old self would have taught himself how to read, and therefore access these sources? No. So, if it wasn't for the education system, you wouldn't even be able to debate like you do now. All of the sources that you have read you would be able to make nothing of, and if the education system closed down even earlier, they wouldn't be able to find their information either. Thus, I may conclude that both sides of the debate would have no function if neither of us was sent to one of our schools. That is all. "Education is the movement from darkness to light." - Allan Bloom
The current educational system is flawed (K-12).

REBUTTAL It was never stated that Mathematics and Science should be minimized and the hypothetical forecast you developed is incorrect. It is often quoted that "he who wants to learn will always find a teacher" therefore, if someone wanted to study theories and become a great mathematician then they would find the class intriguing and go on to study at university. Same goes for science. If a fifth grader wanted to learn algebra or calculus then they would find a teacher. From the beginning, Einstein was interested in Math and Science. He was accepted into the Luitpold-Gymnasium and was studying calculus at 12 (ABC.net, 2004). With or without school he still would have developed his theories. This directly links to Argument 1. Ancient Greek and Roman education formed the basis of our western educational system. Back then it was not compulsory that students studied subjects they were not interested in. You may argue that "students are allowed to pick their own subjects" however; they are not to the extent that would prove beneficial to society. . Similarly, when students do find a subject they enjoy they consequently achieve higher marks (OECD, 2003). Many students are asked what they are going to do when they leave school, most replies consist of an "I don"t know", adding to the unemployment rate every year, thus slowing sustainable economic growth. Students are taught to strive for marks and fear failing. The fear of failure has been bread into students since a very young age and is a significant problem as is being taught to work and not enjoy it. Who says that you cannot find a job you enjoy and love it? Teachers. It is also taught that students should strive for marks, in a sense this is good. However, it is compounded and they continue to grow and when they do reach it they too are consumed by some other mark they haven"t achieved to see how well they did achieving the first. Therefore creating a vicious cycle that continues into their adulthood.
The current educational system is flawed (K-12).

Imagine if the world's schools shut down or minimised Mathematics and Science to fit in an unnecessarily long Drama lesson. Exactly what would happen is that our future generations would not be able to expand on the theories that we already have. Mathematics is vital to calculate solutions to your problems as a grown-up, and Science will explain more about how our world works. Cultural Arts are important, too, but they are very easily learnt freehand or without any guidance, while a fifth grader who tries to teach himself Algebra will probably fail miserably. And, while it is true that a number of famous people have not relied on their education, if Albert Einstein was taught no theories while he was in school, he would not at all be able to manage what he achieved in his time. Also, you said in Round One that schools push students to take harder courses than they can manage, but isn't there a required GPA to get into a class? And while you might say that students will feel pressured to devote time to earn those grades, what is wrong with challenging students in new classes, which is not necessarily to 'make the school look better'. If a student can absolutely not cope in class, they will either receive a Special Needs teacher or be pushed down to a lower grade, according to several school's policies. "He who opens a school door closes a prison." - Victor Hugo
"White people" in America have an affirmative duty to combat systemic racism.

I would like to note that in america white people are discriminated against, by affirmative action. Do all minorities, and women have a job to combat the racism and sexism that comes in the form of AA? of course not?. If you are able to combat a problem, if there is any small thing you can do to improve your life or others lives than you should. But you should not go out of your way, or put your self in danger in order to combat problems if you don't want to. All people who have relatively easy lives should do a little bit to help those with harder lives, in the forms of donations, voting ect. But no one should try to fight a problem by disadvantaging innocent people who did not benefit from ad had nothing to do with the problem facing the other group, like how AA, witch is done to combat problems of anti black and anti women discrimination, disadvantages innocent men and whites. Certainly no one should solve a problem by blaming them selves for it, Simply because they are a certain race. Assuming that all whites benefit from racism or participate in it is bigotry. I explained in my last post about how most American whites did not benefit from racism or take part in it (as only 5% owned slaves) and how most american whites don't have racist or slave owning ancestors. Most american whites have ancestors who came as indentured servants, (https://en.wikipedia.org... ) and were treated horribly by their masters, while others have ancestors who were poor farmers, craftsmen and later factory workers. Most whites came to america from Europe because of economic problems in Europe. After the Irish potato famine in the 1850s 3million Irish came to America. Other whites came to america because they faced religious persecution in Europe http://christianity.about.com... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
"White people" in America have an affirmative duty to combat systemic racism.

White Americans are always shamed. We are shamed for what members of our race did decades ago, even though many of our ancestors fought against those things (my ancestors were Mennonite abolitionists. One fought in the civil war, voluntarily to free the slaves). Not only are we shamed for things that our ancestors did not take part in(most white Americans have ancestors who came from Europe in the 1800s, with little money and worked in dirty factories for long hours, while others have ancestors who came earlier and worked as indentured servants, farmers and craftsmen), and even for what our ancestors suffered from (Irish, Italian and white Catholic Amerindians were discriminated against), We are shamed for things that happen today--things we as individuals have no control over. If I knew that a thug was going to walk into a church and kill 9 people, I would have stopped it, but I didn't know the killer and I don't even live in SC. No one should be judged for what members of their race, who they don't eve know do. We should be judged as individuals. If a member of your community who you know, shows signs of racism than you should help that person overcome any racist thoughts they have, but if it is someone in a different state who you don't know than it is not your job teach them about equality. White Americans cant be painted with a broad brush, as there are many sub cultures within the greater white america community--Italian Americans in NYC, German Americans in PA--and all those sub groups have different cultures and history. I didn't hear any People saying that black people had to combat racism within the black community after any of these black on white hate crimes. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
"White people" in America have an affirmative duty to combat systemic racism.

I would like to point out that there is no problem of systematic racism within the white American culture. There are 200million white Americans, all living in different states, speaking different languages or dialects , practicing different religions ect. There are many sub cultures within the white community. For example there are white English American Mormons in Utah who are descendants of people who settled there in the 1800s. Than there are whites in the Upper Midwest who are descendants of Scandinavian settlers. If racism is ingrained in White English Utahan Mormon American culture than it is the job of white English American Mormons in Utah to stand up to that problem- not Upper Midwestern Scandinavian Americans who have a completely different sub culture than English American Mormon Utahan culture . I am not claiming that there is a problem of racism within Mormon Utahan culture, that was a example. This thug who shot up the church belonged to a sub culture within the greater white ,American culture. If the sub culture that he belonged to has racist tendencies than members of that sub culture need to fight those tendencies--not Scandinavian upper Midwestern Americans , German Americans in Pennsylvanian, Italian Americans in NYC or any other white american who are members of a different sub cultures. Still we can not blame entire sub cultures for the acts of individuals. What would be most be efficient way to end racial attacks is to start within ones close community--ones town, neighborhood ect. If you believe that someone in your town is likely to commit a violent crime than do something. But people 5 states away who do not know that person have no responsibly of stopping a particular individual from committing a crime, even if that potential criminal belongs to their sub culture. White america, as well as black america cannot be painted with such a broad brush. http://humanevents.com... \