BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
THW allow the use of torture on criminals

Bugle that's a lot of words and thoughts to sift through. Not your last round, But the whole shebang, Ah well. It's a bit late, But not too late for this "Torture would only be used when the house suspects the known criminal is hiding information/intelligence " Torture would not be used if the criminal agreed to give up intelligence beforehand Any form of torturing is allowed Torturer:"Mr Giles are you a witch? Planning to cast spells and such upon us? We think that you are, And to safeguard our community we must have an answer. " Mr Giles: "More weight! " My opponent makes the assumption that we somehow know that these criminals have vital information, Yet do not know what it is. Thus we must torture them till they tell us. . . . Sometimes people are innocent. Sometimes people don't know anything. And it's by trivializing torture that a slippery slope is reached and we treat it commonplace. I'll not hear any fallacy claims here, Because we've already seen people tortured without us 'truly knowing that they know something of worth. Also won't hear it due to it being the last round. Popular opinion may lean toward torture, But I still can't find many, Really any, Links touting torture as some grand invention. I'll say again that torture is immoral, And I'll 'not explain why. People may justify it with Batman beating the Joker or that 24 series. But I'll not forget even at it's best it's chosen by those people as the lesser of two evils. Still evil. As my opponent has not given sufficient evidence for it reducing the terrorism rate, I feel comfortable saying that is won't. That ideas and ideals drive people, That there's d*mn plenty of them already. And unless you plan on torturing them even after they confess, It would be an easy enough price for them to avoid. And you're not suggesting retributive torture, Are you? The sadistic choice is mentioned for it's absurdity. It seems to me after the fact capture is more common than before. It seems to me evidence is lacking beforehand to 'know you must torture. Unless you seeing Harold and Kumar on a plane is reason enough for you. The fact that there are alternative methods of interrogation mean we don't need to filthy our souls. What, Are you going to torture a guy when you could talk to him instead? Again, I'll not explain why torture is bad. For reasons that seem obvious to me. As for the bombs, You're a type of person that would enthusiastically advocate total war then? I really don't have more to say than that, All's already been said in previous rounds. A raspy argument may sound a bit coarse, But the truth spoken even if coarsely ought be enough against a false argument made by twist and turn of tongue.
THW allow the use of torture on criminals

Mayybe I need a new search engine. But even when I try typing in Torture 'is effective, I keep getting all these various sites telling me that it is 'not. Various studies and peoples telling me. . . That it does not work. Well, That helps me start to make an argument toward dismissing the claim that torture works. I suppose people might claim this is an appeal to authority, But it's more than 'just a claim of torture working, Or not. So, My first argument is that it is a commonly accepted notion that torture does not work, A notion that can be verified by Googling does torture work? And looking at any number of links, I'd include some, But this site 'hates links. My second argument is that it is generally considered 'immoral to torture people. 'Which is why people are so against it as a common practice in our institutions. We worry about 'who has the say so in torture. We weigh against it our understanding of the Spanish Inquisition, Of Dictatorship, Mistaken identity, And people becoming monsters to fight monsters. Many people might say ja dictatorship is fine, If 'I or people 'I trust are in charge, But not other people. People might say 'this situation torture is fine, But not others. We cannot allow such a monstrosity of ethics to become common practice. To warp our souls, Our minds, And way of life. And to refer to it as special circumstance, Eh, Not much difference between such a scenario and those ridiculous sadistic choice hypotheticals. Check TV Tropes. As for fear, Do the people on death row fear the death penalty? The prisoners fear prison? Or any supposed afterlife? Not to commit again? Last argument in this round is because I find it icky. Out of curiosity, Ever read about Legalism in China?
THW allow the use of torture on criminals

I would present my 2 arguments for the case 1. Torture can gain intelligence By using torture on one or groups of criminal they would suffer extreme pain, And since it is impossible for the criminals to physically resist the pain and suffer they would give up their information that the house needs. That matter because often terrorist captured contain crucial information to the house such as where the next bomb is going to explode or their terrorist campsites and so on. If that terrorist gave up any of that information the house can then take action and save a huge amount of people and time. For example, The house just captured a known terrorist and is suspected to hide the location of their next bomb that the house doesn"t have a single clue about the location. Instead of wasting time trying to find the bomb without any clue and ending up thousands of people dying, Torture and interrogating the terrorist would make the terrorist gave up the information the house needs and then thousands of people would be saved. Therefore by allowing torture to be used on criminals, It would get them to give up intelligence needed to save lives. 2. When a bill of allowing tortured is passed, It would decrease the number of terrorists. There is much reason why the terrorist US existed: - To communicate a political message - For the sake of money - To symbolize something - To kill people for "fun" And ultimately is because they are not scared, Not scared of being torture since torture in all forms is banned by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Hence when they get taken they can choose to be silent and not spill out any information to the house. Therefore by announcing tortured is allowed to the public it sends out the message to terrorist that the house would torture them if they choose to not give up the intelligence, Therefore the terrorist would begin to be frightened of the thought of extreme suffering, Then, In the end, The number of terrorists would be starting to decrease. This matter because since the beginning of US we"ve been trying to completely scrap terrorism, And we can allow torture to be one step closer to our resolution. Therefore by allowing torture to be used, It would lead the number of terrorist decreases to be one step closer to scraping terrorism.
This house believes ethical egoism is false

The rules of this debate are rather straight forward:1) There is to be no use of separation of arguments through subheadings or headings, or any technique other than basic essay writing (that is, paragraph-by-paragraph). 2) The definition of ethical egoism is roughly that moral agents value only their self-interest. This definition may be contested, but massive departure from its meaning counts as a forfeit of the debate.3) 4,000 characters, first round for acceptance, second round for opening arguments. No rebuttals in the first round.4) Please state in the comments that you want to accept this debate. I'd rather go against an established debater. If you wish to take part, send me a message or comment.Thank you and I look forward to the challenges! EDIT: narrowed the definition of ethical egoism to be more explicit about what ethical egoism refers to.
Contender chooses topic

I strongly appreciate Con's willingness to continue this debate. Seeing as I cannot post any points, I may only refute. That is okay. I would, however, like to point out that I do have an excuse. I let my friend use my IPad...which is what I use for all debates...and she locked me out of it for like forever because my password was incorrectly entered, and didn't have enough sympathy to let me use hers. I would also like to point out that I have never EVER forfeited a round before, (you can look at my account) and I am so so so sorry it was not intentional and I blame myself for trusting my friend with an electronic device of mine. DEFINITION [1] 1) exist - having reality or being A. Reality - the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. REFUTES My opponent's whole case is based on a false assumption - that souls themselves exist. As stated in the dictionary definitions, to exist means to have things actually be not imagined or assumed. Therefore, as there is no real proof of a soul, we cannot say that it exists. Con said that this topic is "concievable". Yes. It is possible To conceive, or think about this, but that does not mean anything. This topic is based on a scientific aspect, seeing as Con used many parts of science in his arguments, and science is based upon proof and experimentation. Human truth [2] states that since we are able to be influenced by drugs, we are in control of our own body. Therefore a soul, which by definition controls our behavior, cannot exist. Also, Psychology Today says that assuming souls are real is "illogical...having faith in the system and our beliefs." Judge! Faith and Believing are not science...science is data and logical theories, not unrealistic assumptions, which build Con's entire case. Finally, Con kept using his CAT as an example. Yes, this debate is about cats, but one source proves nothing...and this debate must use EVIDENCE, not personal theories about your pet secretly being another species. In the end, I believe that I have defeated Cons BoP, and attempted to strengthen my case without laying any points onto the table. I completely understand why you may vote Con seeing as I forfeited a round, but I truly am sorry, and I urge you to vote Pro on this debate. Thank you. SOURCES 1) http://www.humantruth.info... 2) https://www.psychologytoday.com... 3) http://dictionary.reference.com... By the way...I apologize strongly to Con. I know how terrible it is when an opponent forfeits,mans it kills the sport. I am (again) so sorry. I have officially kicked my friend out of my room forever. :)
Contender chooses topic

My opponent has forfeited, but since there's one more round to go, and since she might be back, I thought I ought to make at least one argument in support of my burden of proof.According to the indiscernibility of identicals, if whatever is true of A is also true of B, then A and B are the same thing. For example, whatever is true of the evening star is also true of the morning star because the evening star and the morning star are actually the same entity, namely the planet, Venus.If there is something that is true of A that is not true of B, then it is impossible for A and B to be the same thing. So if I can show that there is something true of a cat that is not true of that cat's body, then that will prove that the cat is not its body. It's personal identity resists in something immaterial.A soul is just an immaterial self, so this debate is really over whether cats have selves that are immaterial.I have a cat named Aristotle. Aristotle has all the necessary and sufficient conditions for him to be a cat. He looks like a cat, walks like a cat, purrs like a cat, and he has cat DNA. If Aristotle does not have a soul, then Aristotle would be his body, or his brain, or some part of his brain.But it is conceivable that Aristotle might've been something other than a cat. It is conceivable that instead of being a cat, Aristotle might have been a dog. Using possible world semantics, there is a possible world in which Aristotle is a dog instead of a cat.Well, if it's there is a possible world in which Aristotle might have been a dog instead of a cat, then there is something that is true about Aristotle that is not true about his feline body. After all, a cat cannot be a dog because cats and dogs are distinct species. To be a cat is to not be a dog, and to be a dog is to not be a cat. Since there is something true of Aristotle that is not true of his feline body, then Aristotle is not the same thing as his feline body. That means Aristotle is an immaterial self.And since an immaterial self is a soul, it follows that my cat, Aristotle, has a soul. So cats have souls.
Contender chooses topic

RULES 1. Topic must be fair and cannot have only one side. 2. This debate can not be about entertainment/pictures or games or anime. 3. You cannot have arguments in third round or rebuttals in second. You can, however, strengthen in the third round. 4. No trolling. .. only choose to debate if you actually plan on completing the debate. 5. Any breaking of these rules results in automatic Pro win.
Kids should not be able to use a laptop at school until high school

Though you may be right that everything is hackable, people can check if the block is still their. They can check the student's computer, making sure the block is still their. If this doesn't work they'll probably threaten to take computers away. To make sure everybody believes it, they take away someone's computer that has been playing or anything else on it. OR!!!! They could record the student's screen. Then they could fast forward though it to see what they were on the whole day. Also, this argument is about the use of computers in middle school, not at home. To your other statement I say that it is much easier for many people to keep many of their files on the computer. It also makes it a lot easier to store away files, and also, it is also easier for teachers to share assingments with students. Editing on the computer is also easier. You are also using a specific person a little too much as an example. You know who. :D
Kids should not be able to use a laptop at school until high school

Con believes that 1. Forbidden sights and Games can be blocked and monitored 2. He believes that papers are easily lost if not stored in a computer 1. Yes games and sites can be blocked but there is always a way around everything. Almost nothing is unhackable. Also people watching you will not literally watch you every second of the day. There is always time for students to play games. During the time when children are at home, they can also play behind their parent's backs. Parental controls are not strong enough because the influence on children that games cause is uneraseable. The children will always want to play games. 2. Not if you are a very organized person. I can keep all my papers neat and clean. Having a computer will not make a WHOLE lot of difference. I find not bringing my computer a lot easier because it makes my backpack lighter and easier to carry. I believe children should not have computers because: 1. They make backpacks heavier and harder to carry 2. They influence kids to play games and will scar them for life It is a bad influence for kids also... shhhh..... con has bad grammer :D VOTE PRO!!!!!
Kids should not be able to use a laptop at school until high school

All these things can be prevented. One. Video games, illegal web and downloads, and forbidden sights can be blocked. There are very fortified blocks that will allow for a very strong and hard to hack through block. Either that, or you could just You could do either that or have an application that can see the user's screen. Someone could monitor the screen and catch anyone doing something not supposed to be done. As for the problem with carrying the books, you could carry a binder around, one that could fit your computer and your books. Having a computer allows a person to keep files easily. If you have all those papers that a teacher assigned all lost up in your backpack, you are bound to loose something. Keeping it all on a computer is a lot easier.
Witches or Vampires

For those of us who like supernatural type shows, books or other media, I thought this may be a good debate. As it is, I have trouble picking one or the other.Debate:I will leave it to the challenger to pick either the side of the vampires, or the witches; specifically which one would be the better one to be.I will then pick the other one, so we can have a proper debate.Notes and clarifications:For the purpose of this debate, we will just assume it is the normal styles of both as usually described in media. Immortal bloodsuckers, with heightened reflexes, speed, strength, etc.Or witches, while not usually immortal can use spells or other magical abilities to make pretty much all of the rest of their life easier.And to be immortal, I mean simply not aging, or being succeptable to any of the effects of age.And also, there is no gender limit on witch in this case. This can mean a sorcerer/ess etc. Since it all essentially just means the same thing, at least in the purpose of this debate. If you want to be a male witch, that is all fine and good :)
Scenario Debate

Alright, so I will address what my opponent has said this round. "Again, I must reiterate my point that it IS the US's job to protect Taiwan per the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979." This is not necessarily true. Please note the following: "The act stipulates that the United States will "consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States" but does not mandate that the United States intervene in these situations." Note the "NOT MANDATE." This neutralizes my opponent's first statement. "My proposal holds water and my opponents does not as just ignoring them would be unconstitutional." Unconstitutional? Where in our constitution does it say we will always act on Taiwan's behalf? Warrant please. Having negated my opponent's argument, and seeing as he does not attack mine, I urge a negative ballot. Thank you.
Scenario Debate

Wow, uh, that isn't like you said it would be. I thought it would be really laid-back. Given your proposal, you only allow me to say that we should stand back and watch. That is rather unfair. I will try my best! When looking into this situation, Taiwan has not requested US aid. Not once in my opponent's sources do they actually request our aid. Is it possible that the US should not be policing the world? Is it possible that the rest of the world's affairs might not be ours? my opponent gave me no room to propose anything realistic, so I will add on a vital piece of information to his proposal, making the amended proposal my own. I propose that we take action as my opponent suggested, only if and when Taiwan asks us. They may have a strategy, plan, or other device to work things to their benefit. If we go barging in on their affairs, we might interfere with the good of Taiwan. I propose we take all necessary action, ONLY IF AND WHEN Taiwan requests it. Thank you. (Might I suggest a new scenario for next round? Something less one-sided?)
Scenario Debate

For the view of the voters: You should judge on logic and sustainibility. Because this is a scenario, there are no real statistics out yet. Read each proposal and vote for the proposal you think is best. I do thank my opponent for joining this NEW premiere debate and wish him good luck. With the current situation we are facing, we must think for the best of the United States. Now, one of the United States main objectives ever since the establishment of our government is according to Federalist Papers No.2 "to promote the better good of humanity and to protect its allies. My fellow constituents, what i propose that we do today is begin Economic Sanctions on China or that if China does not stand down, we back Taiwan as our ally, using soldiers and forces based in Afghanistan, to prevent an imminent attack. ============================================================================ According to a BBC News article of December 5, 2008 "China's main power in this World today is its economy and trade. Without these, China is practically a scratch of land." By cutting trade with China and encouraging other countries to do so as well we may actually be able to force them to stand down or we will continue the economic sanctions. As John Locke once said "A man without his money, is nothing." As a matter of fact, an Economist article reported on February 4, 2009 that economic sanctions work approximately 63% of the time and if ever, there were to be an economic sanction on the People's Republic of China, it could possibly ruin them. Furthermore, the United States is known to China as the number 2 exporter of US goods to China. By enabling this proposal, my fellow constituents, we are attempting to end this potentially deadly conflict in a peaceful and civilized manner. The world is already in turmoil, so instead of sending troops and causing more casualties, we should begin economic sanctions and attack the core of Chinese substantiability. ============================================================================ This brings me to second part of my proposal, that if China still does not stand down and does pose a threat to Taiwan after economic sanctions, then, and only then, will we send military aid and bolster the Taiwanese army. The US Department of Defense states that the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 required the US to trade arms with Taiwan. However, even with the trade of arms, an attack from China will still crush them. While my opponent might ask "How will we get the man power?" I say, "Bring them home, then back out!" That's right. In President Obama's speech on February 24, 2009, he stated that the US army will be fully withdrawn from the middle east by August 2010. This would give up the sufficient manpower to fight back. I urge you to vote for my proposal (PRO). Thank you and Good luck to my opponent again.
Scenario Debate

In this debate there is no pro or con. Nor is there a right or wrong. Instead of voting for which side is better, vote for which person comes up with the best proposals. Ex. Scenario: There is a ball hurdling towards your head. PRO (Speaker 1): Duck. (support goes here) CON (Speaker 2): Catch it then chase them down and peg em' (support) WINNER: IS SPEAKER 1. (more logical and beneficial) Soooo, lets give this a shot. Scenario: China has 500 ballistic missles aimed at Taiwan Threatening to fire if they do not join china per the "One-China" Policy. Considering that the US is a major trading partner and ally with Taiwan, what should we do? Your job as the Contender is to reply "I accept for round 1" then debate in round 2. In round 3 i will alter the scenario and we will debate in round 4. Just say "I accept in round 3"
why do car manufactures continue to make cars which use fossil fuels and dont find alternatives

The main reason that car manufacturers do not find alternative methods to gas and continue building cars is because of how expensive it is to find an alternative. While it is conceivable that car manufacturers or gas companies will find an alternative for the time being it is much more economical for them to continue doing light research and make high profits. There is no doubt in my mind however that as profits begin to shrink a company will come out with a synthetic clean gas that will become the alternative to gas.
I Don't Like You

Ill take a shot at this... 1) You dont know me, how could you dislike someone you've never even met before? 2) We agree on 68% of Big Issues implying we have a lot in common and that you would agree with me on many subjects, meaning you would like me 3) I am a fan of almost every movie that you like (personal information on his profile) meaning we have the same taste in movies, so we would like each other 4) We both support Obama 5) We are both in College low character limit -________________-