BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.

One cannot assume that the victim provoked the argument to plan the fight. Self-defense is a justifiable form of torture because if someone brings deadly force to you, you must protect yourself to survive. Let"s say someone is holding an innocent individual gunpoint. If that individual held at gunpoint uses a self-defense tactic to get out of the situation, you"re going to say he or she was wrong for using torture? Obviously not because in order for that individual to survive, some form of torture is necessary and that act is justifiable. Indeed, one"s definition of morality does not concern the rest of the world however, it affects how they think, they"re actions, and what they think is justifiable. Murder is a definite impermissible act of torture, but I think everyone can agree that self-defense is a justifiable act of torture. Indeed, there are acts of torture that are morally justified, but there are some acts of torture that are minimally, morally justified. As said before, acts of torture are justified when it saves the lives of others, a life is threatened or in danger, when self defense is necessary to protect your own life, or when the action of someone is causing a threat to someone else. Torturing someone causes the moral standards to be compromised in order to prevent others from being harmed. If the focus is saving the life of an innocent person, there are no limits to torturing the person putting their life in danger. In order to be interrogated, you must have done, attempted, or been involved in a crime, or something morally unjustifiable. Because of the actions that individual chose, they have to pay the consequences. There are many cases of justifiable torture that also include interrogation. Interrogation is known to be the most effective strategy because it causes fear upon the individual and therefore they confess to what they did. If your behavior was ethically right, it would have also been morally justifiable and therefore torturing you would be morally impermissible. If one does not want their rights to be violated, they should not have violated another person"s in the first place. Unreasonable torturing of an individual is impermissible. However, it is clear who is or isn"t a terrorist and who is trying to hurt others. In the cases where it is obvious that an individual or a terrorist is attempting to bring suffering upon another individual or many individuals whom are defenseless and unwilling, torture is justified.
Some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.

No acts of torture are justified. The claim off self-defense is allowed in courts simply for someone to try to avoid a guilty plea. It is very probable that the "victim" provoked the altercation with a plan to use deadly force against the "aggressor". Torture is still torture and trying to cover that fact up does not justify self-defense. Self-defense is not a justified torture. How a person defines morality in his or her own minds does not concern the rest of the world. A murder may see nothing wrong with what he/she is doing he/she may be under the delusion that he is actually helping. I am sure that we both can agree that murder is not justified. If we think logically we can say it is wrong to burn people with lit cigarettes, starve and beat people to death there is nothing moral about that. If we went of each individual"s moral views we would be in a world of ciaos. The moral and ethical views impact how they think but since it does not impact the rest of the world it is irrelevant. Ok if it is agreed that all acts of torture inflict pain or are harmful what is then justified about it? Interrogation is morally unjustified; it manipulates people through degradation and torture. We both agree that innocent individuals are forced into prisons every year at an alarming rate. This is due to people who see nothing wrong with torture and just want people to say what they want to hear. Inflicting an excruciating degree of force unnecessarily on an innocent person must sound perfectly ok to you. Why do you think the criminal justice system has rules? Why is it that we have rights? There are reasons why and one of those is not to be violated. Just because it is your belief that they are intending to harm others does not give you a right to harm them first. Two wrongs together are still wrong. Your argument is that torture is sometimes justified because you could be saving lives, and since we already agreed the individual could be innocent you would be harming and even killing other innocent man in hopes of saving other innocent people. You do not have any proof of these so called "terrorist" doing anything. So, by inflicting pain on a "person" you are violating their rights and possibly inflicting unnecessary torture.
Some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.

Although rape is not justifiable, there are other cases in which torture is permissible. All acts of torture are not justifiable, however some are for explicit reasoning. For example, self-defense is a justifiable form of torture because without defending yourself your life may be taken. Every person has different moral values and therefore, each person defines his or her own morality. What one might see as an impermissible act of torture, another might see as a permissible act. Indeed, all acts of torture are not justifiable but there are, however, many acts of torture that are reasonable. Your moral and ethical views impact which acts of torture you believe to be permissible. I agree all acts of torture inflict pain and are harmful, but that is irrelevant because we are arguing whether or not those actions are justified, and some of those are morally justified. Indeed, interrogation is a form of torture, however it is a form of justifiable torture. Just because there are rare cases where the individual being interrogated was not guilty, does not prove all cases in this matter are similar. In interrogation cases, the individual in interrogation is purposely not cooperating because they have already set in motion a plan for a tragedy to occur. Because they intended to inflict pain on others, torture is used to interrogate them in attempt of preventing his or her action to follow through and save lives of all who would be affected. It is justifiable to use torture to gain information because the information will most likely be used to protect innocent people. A holding case prevents an individual from pursuing an action. In preventing it, many lives can be saved. For example, a police officer is entitled to use torture on a terrorist who is trying to shoot an innocent individual. By inflicting pain on the terrorist, the police officer is saving the innocent individual"s life and therefore, it is justifiable.
Some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.

1. Torture is defined as intentionally causing pain or suffering on an unwilling, defenseless individual either to break their will, get that person to say or do something or for pleasure. 2. Rape causes pleasure for the attacker, breaks the will of the individual being assaulted and causes pain and suffering. Rape is not minimally morally justifiable. 3. Torture is not justified because you are then infringing on the rights of that individual by forcing him/her to tell you what you want against their own wishes. 4. Indeed, morality is the principles that distinct good actions, characteristics, or beliefs from bad. 5. What an individual believes morality to be is arbitrary to what morality actually is. 6. Indeed there are different forms of torture, all forms are harmful to the physical or mental state of the victim. 7.Whether it is minimal or maximal torture is still torture. An individuals rights is still being compromised. They are still forced against their will whether it be for a short amount of time or a pro long period. Neither minimal nor maximal torture is morally permissible. 8.It is unlawful for to use torture to get information. 9. Just because one-off acts only happen in times of emergency does not necessarily make them justifiable. 10. The goal of an interrogation is for an officer to force or persuade the suspect to confess to a crime or the knowing of one. A large amount of people are put away every year for crimes they did not commit, if we are sticking to the definition of torture then interrogation is a form of it. 11. It is never justified because an innocent individual could be held and tortured but not know anything at all. It is harder to prove innocence rather than guilt. 12. No, cases of torture are acceptable. 13. The holding case is to stop an individual, this is torture because it is then against the will of the individual. Therefore, no cases of torture that are minimally, morally acceptable. Non-Controversial: Premise one and is agreed upon between pro and con it is the definition of torture. Premise nine, it if agreed that there are different forms of torture. Controversial: Premise two is controversial I do not agree with some forms of torture being minimally morally permissible. It is a definition but it is not agreed upon. Premise three is controversial because although it may benefit someone else it is still torture. Premise four is controversial because anyone can have a moral belief and not everyone agrees. I can believe having indoor plumbing is immoral that does not make it so. Premises six, seven and eight from the pro side is controversial because no matter what is done torture always hurts some one physically or mentally. Rights of the individual are denied. Premises ten to thirteen are controversial because the pro side is naming things that are and are not minimally morally permissible and I disagree. Pro premise 4: Who defines what morality is?
Some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.

1. It is agreed that self-defense is torture. 2. The morality of society is not affected by what a few tainted minds believe to be moral but by what actually is right and wrong; that of which has been taught to you from young. 3. There is an enormous amount of evidence that proves that torture is ineffective and that torturers cannot be trusted to identify exceptions. 4. The results of torturing are answers, those answers are highly unreliable. 5. Simply being under the suspicion of committing a crime does not justify using torture against that individual. 6. Just because the pro side believes interrogation is one of the most effective forms of torture does not make torture justified, it simply states a belief. 7. Investigators and police cannot possibly have been watching a suspects every move because if this were true there would be no questions to ask and therefore no torture would take place. 8. Using torture and depriving individuals of natural born rights is illegal and can never be justified. Therefore, no form of torture is justifiable. It is agreed that self-defense is torture. People such as murderers and psychopaths have a different view of morality then the rest of society and that means that society knows that the acts committed are wrong. If this is true why is it that society cannot see that torture is also wrong? Torture is basically another word for abuse to people who could have possibly did something to jeopardize the life of another person.
Some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.

1.Just because self-defense is an act of torture does not necessarily make it a deadly force. 2.One"s moral rights can affect the actions and decisions that individual makes. 3.We are arguing that some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable, therefore moral values are relevant in this debate. 4.Torture is justified when it saves the lives of others, a life is in danger or self-defense is necessary to save one"s own life. 5.If someone is under suspicion of committing, attempting, or being involved in a crime, they deserve the torture they get. 6.Interrogation is one of the most effective forms of torture. 7.Just because the public is misinformed of who terrorists are does not mean investigators and police have not been watching their every move, and therefore sure of whom they are going after. 8.Unreasonable torture is impermissible, however, there are other acts of torture that are justifiable. Therefore, some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.
1st debate:Police in poor communities do more overseeing and suppressing then protecting and serving

Definitions. ( i will list them as my opponent compares them. ) Supress-to forcibly put an end to. Serving-to perform duties and give oneself for others. Overseeing-to supervise. Protect-Attempt to prevent from harm or injury. Google. com Structure Round 1-opening case( no refutation) Round 2-reffutation Round 3-summary/refutations, no new arguments I base my posistion on the fact that pro cannot prove that the police force does any one of these four defined words over the other in direct objectionable data in direct result of One police district being more poor than another area. This claim pro makes is nothing more than a subjective opinion and pro cannot prove this resolution to be fact. According to. .. " . http://education-portal.com... main duties are to protect and to serve their community etc. . with that being said I shall also say that in serving means you must supress as needed. While a officer protects he must at times oversee. So as we see these four words share a relationship that is nessesary for a police officer. So as we see an officer cannot protect without sometimes overseeing and he also cannot serve without at times suppressing. So we cannot say there doing more than the other simply because of being in a poor neighboorhood. In order for pro to prove his point he must show policemen In poor communities does one relative action more than the word attatched to it in direct result of a neihborhoods economic status. He must also prove that an officer can serve majoritively more than suppress. He must also show that when an officer oversees in these Poor neighborhoods majoritively more than he can protect, he m must also show that a policmen can do one of these actions and not have a symbionic relationship with other word being compared with it.
1st debate:Police in poor communities do more overseeing and suppressing then protecting and serving

I've lived in or been around poor communities in NJ, PA, NY and CA. I rarely see police doing anything that makes a community better. I do see and have been a victim of, obnoxious police who treat every civilian like criminals. Police do more to denigrate and suppress it's community, through blatant and obnoxious actions, where the police treat every citizen as a criminal than strengthening and building relationships. Thus, destroying any feelings of good will towards police. Which in turn, means the police do more suppressing than protecting.
God and Free Will are incompatible

Simply put, this is the argument: If we have Free Will, then our actions cannot be predicted to 100% by any means. This is because with Free Will, our actions cannot be determined by solely physical/material means. Then how can God know everything, including our future actions? If God is omniscient, then that means he knows every action that we will take which means that our actions CAN be predicted solely by physical/material means, which means we don't have Free Will. So either we have Free Will and God doesn't know everything because with Free Will it's impossible to predict our actions, or God knows all and we don't have Free Will because our actions are determined solely by physical/material means. I curiously await your response.
Free will probably does not exist

This argument will be on whether or not human beings possess free will. Here I am going to define free will as the following: Free will- "Free Will is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives."-Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy In other words we will be arguing whether or not humans have the power to choose a course of action from various alternatives. First round acceptance only please. Good luck to whoever accepts. I'm looking forward to a very good debate.
School's should arm and train teachers to use firearms

Welcome to DDO, btw! Pro's entire argument rests on one contention- namely,'IF we arm teachers and students, school shootings go down.' I think I've read this right. Two problems with this. R1) Pro produces not a shred of evidence to say that this would (my caps) a) reduce school shootings b)be the most efficient method c) also not cause any secondary problems (gun crime etc.) This makes it his word against mine. But, the BoP is on Pro, and so he must prove this claim- extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. R2) Who is we? The government. I'll mainly focus on the government in my points, in order to take out the other pillar of Pro's argument thus far. POINTS C1 That the costs of taking such a measure are prohibitive. Assume the average (legal) [1] gun costs 700$(not really, but an average). There are 98,817 public schools in America. [2]. Assume ten(nice round number, and probably typical) teachers in each. That's 691,719,000$. That's nearly 700 million dollars. That's a lot of money for something that is (C3) inefficient and to prevent a problem that is (C2) fairly rare. C2 That the relative occurence of school shootings is fairly rare There have been 74[3] school shootings since Sandy Hook. Compare that with the number of public schools above(not even adding private schools, because they're not the government's responsibility). C3 That testing if this is efficacious is very hard/impossible to do ethically. This one should be pretty obvious. If there have been only 74 shootings since Sandy Hook versus 98817 schools, it's pretty hard to have a trial in a 'typical' environs. Of course, if a teacher wants to carry a lawfully concealed weapon to school to prevent school shootings, that's fine. Second Amendment rights and all that. 1.)Simplification 2.)https://nces.ed.gov...... 3.)mashable.com/2014/06/10/school-shootings-since-sandy-hook/
School's should arm and train teachers to use firearms

Teachers should have the choice to be armed and trained, even if just one teacher is armed, it could save many lives. School shooters would deter from shooting students and/or teachers because they would have opposition. The current system is flawed, what makes you think someone who is about to murder many people will think," oh hey there is a sign I better listen to it" they don't even follow the law, let alone some sign. The children are like sitting ducks to the shooters, like shooting fish in a barrel. I know some will think, "what makes you think the teachers will be responsible and practice proper gun safety?" If we cant trust teachers to carry something in case of an emergency, why can we trust them with our children? Sometimes the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
Indoctrination within religions should come to an end

It's funny to me that I felt very drawn to debating this topic, while not being sure we necessarily disagree. The definition of indoctrination is certainly in question, but I feel I will help to define it within my response. Indoctrination is essential in human development. We are taught throughout our childhoods what is and is not accepted by our societies. All of these tenets, while practical advice, are inherently arbitrary, and have no true ground in any realm of science or serious, modern philosophy. Yet, they are important. We as humans don't act in strictly logical ways. An indoctrination into the customs of a community provides great benefit to those living within it, whether you believe in the metaphysical claims or not. Thus, the metaphysical claims to belief, seem less important than it's practical realities, at least in my opinion. While I certainly agree that most beliefs in the divine lead to more violence, more distress, and more confusion than a purely secular view, I'd like to direct your view to a religion, oft forgotten and nearly lost to history: Jainism. Jainism is a religion formed by Indians that follows many of the same tenets of Hinduism and Buddhism, but differs (in many small ways, but majorly) in the principle of non-violence. Jainism is truly a religion of peace. There will never be a Jainist suicide bomber or a Jainist crusade. Jainist monks take the tenet of non-violence so seriously that they wipe every chair they're about to sit on with a cloth to avoid accidentally sitting on an insect that might be mistakenly inhabiting that area. The question I wish to poise to you is, if every person in the world was to wake up tomorrow, fully believing in and indoctrinated in this belief, would the world not be a better place?
World War III

, China would enter the war for sure immediately. Me as a Chinese know that China would help North Korea and China has the most people in its army (2,285,000). China has 150,000 of its troops on the Korean border. If Russia was to get into this war, it would be because South Korea threatened to destroy their S-400 war machine and destroy their other weapons in South Korea. Then Russia would come in. At least they would use S-300 & S-400 which actually could destroy North Korea if on the opposite side so there is no doubt that those war machines could easily face South Korea. I don't think America would go send more troops to help South Korea because they would ruin their trade with China which would really hurt their economy. America would not use THAT MUCH MONEY again because the Americans remember from Bush's administration. Anyways, let's get USA, Japan, UK, & Germany. USA, as I said wouldn't come over from America but maybe Japan and Guam! Don't argue with that point. Russia has a huge army and has a great ability because it has one of the largest economies in the world and a huge GDP! Therefore UK would come to our aid though much later! Japan would fight for South Korea but China's and Russia's immediate army already in Korea with many more coming would overwhelm U.S. and Japan's army there. U.S. would only send the troops in the Pacific while Japan would launch their army to South Korea NOT North Korea. Therefore UK would start to send troops in a matter of months while Germany would not also come in around the time of UK coming in! PLEASE TAKE YOUR TIME BECAUSE I WILL BE GONE TO LAKE TAHOE UNTIL TUESDAY TO WEDNESDAY! If I forfeit on accident because going on vacation, please don't post an argument because I shall be gone! Thanks!
World War III

* Actually No Lincoln-Douglas! Way Too Complicated! WWIII-North Korea would first invade South Korea! We all know South Korea is no match to North Korea without the other nations. They would easily wipe out while having China. South Korea down! Japan would probably come in but don't argue that China would easily wipe out Japan! The tough part is U.S. and Germany! I will expand if necessary because lack of time! Please only talk about South Korea and Japan! Later on we will add U.S., Germany, UK, and Russia! I studied the weapon's system and I feel that South Korea & Japan can't beat China & North Korea because of their great military. I feel I need to study more about the U.S. & Germany to find a better case against them. Thank you. Con is may state his case. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... , http://en.wikipedia.org... , http://en.wikipedia.org... , http://www.globalsecurity.org...
World War III

I choose the US, Germany, South Korea, and Japan I stole the US because every voter here probably thinks its bullsh*t that the pro gets to choose first and went ahead and picked the 5 best countries, so I stole the US and only chose 3 other countries to make it even..... Pro = China, North Korea, Russia, U.K. Con = U.S., Germany, South Korea, Japan Dont argue that me stealing the US is unfair because the fact that you assigned yourself 5 countries before the Con (me) even chose the debate, me stealing the US makes us even. If you want to debate who would win then lets debate, Pro may state their case