BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
CBA Debate - The use of Torture in order to prevent Nuclear Detonation.

Since my opponent provides no definition of torture, I will offer this observation: Water boarding is not torture. The scenario takes place in the United States with a man under US custody. The United States Justice Department's Office of Legal Council ruled that water boarding does not constitute torture.[1][2][3] My contention, then, is that we should not waste valuable time torturing Jim when we could be waterboarding him instead. Refer to my opponent's case about the benefits of waterboarding for warrants of waterbaording's effectiveness. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.latimes.com... [3] http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/olc_08012002_bybee.pdf
CBA Debate - The use of Torture in order to prevent Nuclear Detonation.

My opponent in the last round seemed rather condescending of my argument. I'll assume it was purely unintentional and nothing malicious on PRO's part, but the problem still remains. He has dismissed my previous post as frivolous and inconsequential when it isn't and he has failed to rebut my case. ::Rebuttal:: 1. "he has no benefits whatsoever" Correct me if I'm wrong, but this debate was to be a cost-benefit analysis of the action perscribed by the resolution. PRO was to provide the benefits, I was to provide the costs. I did outline a cost in my last speech. 2. He is only posting the evidence that he has already posted in round 1. This is completely nonresponsive to my case. My argument is not that 'Waterboarding won't extract the proper information.' My argument is that 'This Jim dude probably doesn't know anything.' 3. By all means, disregard that evidence if you want. It is purely analytical and doesn't necessarily require a source: Jim can't give his torturers information he doesn't have. ::Summary:: PRO has proved that waterboarding is very effective in eliciting a confession. (I have not rebutted this) CON has proved that Jim probably does not have the correct information to confess. (PRO has not rebutted this) Thus, we reach the conclusion that torturing Jim will lead to unreliable information that, more likely than not, would lead us to a dead end if followed. This is a major waste of time. What we should do instead of wasting our time on this frivolous pursuit I do not know for sure, for I am not in the CIA. -Perhaps, we should evacuate the city? -Try alternative methods of interrogation on Jim? -Ask all the citizens of Boston to search for the bomb in their local area? 600,000[1] heads are better than 1. -Explore new potential suspects involved with the plot Regardless of what the specific alternative is, I have met my burden in justifying a vote CON, which is showing that the harms of torture (probable unreliable information) outweigh the benefits (a forced confession) and thus you vote CON. [1] http://www.google.com...
CBA Debate - The use of Torture in order to prevent Nuclear Detonation.

Unfortunately, I am very low on time, so I won't have time to fully address my opponent's arguments. I suppose I will have to concede that water-boarding is considered torture. I think my side of the argument is still winnable, but my opponent has made multiple effective arguments that I don't think I can do justice to if I try to cover them in the 30 minutes I have left. I guess I'll have to let the definitional argument go to PRO. PRO has not capitalized on his ability to post new costs/benefits until round 3, but I suppose I will. ============================== =COST: Torture leads to inaccurate information= ============================== Read any of PRO's arguments. Waterboarding is incredibly painful and incredibly effective at eliciting information. People will do anything to stop the torture. This includes lying.[1] We can never trust torture because people will say anything to make it stop. People confessed to being witches during witch trials and Jews or Muslims during the Inquisition. "decently reliable leads on the plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in downtown Boston have come to an abrupt end except for a mans intelligence of the operation" All we know is that from 'decently reliable leads' that this man probably has 'intelligence of the operation.' Because of the possibility of being caught, it is very unstrategic for terrorists to divulge the entirety of their plan to any one member. Only knowing the above information, there is little to nothing we can actually conclude about Jim's knowledge. Torturing him is sure to elicit a response, PRO's evidence proves that much, but we would be wasting valuable time following the leads that Jim gives. We can't know what Jim knows. There is nothing at all to guarantee, for example, that Jim would know the location of the bomb. We don't know whether he knows the names of the other terrorists involved. We don't know if he knows how the bomb works. Because of this utter uncertainty, there is no way we can trust his intelligence. The excrutiating pain that torture brings guarantees that he will give some response to alleviate the pain, but without first knowing that he has knowledge of the plot to begin with, we have no way to know whether this forced confession is accurate or just a suffering soul's method of self-preservation. Because of this, torture equates to little more than a waste of time. [1] http://www.tampabay.com...
Keeping animals in Zoos is better

Like I had previously stated, I understand when it comes to endangered species, but you are saying that all animals is better. And going to where you were talking about a bigger animal killing them in the wild: 1) That's the circle of life 2) Each animal has their own way to survive against those odds of dying and if you keep them contained they will never learn how to do that. Moving on to where you said they have to hunt for it, they may have to kill the animal but its still given in a certain radius of them, which is not a natural thing. Out in the wild they'll have to go search for where those animals will be. And before you say, we wont have that problem if we just keep them contained, the whole point of animals being in a zoo, is to prepare them for the real world once they're ready. They will never be truly ready if this process continues. Also, continuing on to where you asked how I would feel if I saw a grizzly bear at the store, the probabilities of that happening are very rare. And we as a nation have dealt with too many animals before, we gave society a hunting season, that's how we as a society deal with that problem. Also when you mentioned how animals were attacking humans, animals are more afraid of us than we are of them. And if they do so, its because of lack of food or not having the ability to find food. Which is one of the major causes of being put in a zoo. They also may grow some anger towards humans because the only experience they have with humans is locking them up and putting them off for show.
Keeping animals in Zoos is better

As I had stated animals don't have food "just given to them" like you mentioned at the end of your argument. The zoo keepers have them hunt for it. Do you really want animals let out into the wild? Not only can they harm other people, they will die off so much faster. Think about it, if zoos were shut down, we would have a much greater population of animals. Imagine you were at a store and a grizzly bear was roaming around the parking lot. That would be pretty scary. Also, if we let animals back out into the wild, they would die. Even if they did know how to survive, other bigger and faster animals could kill them. By caring for these animals in a safe place, we are helping to protect wildlife. In fact, as of right now, there are only three white rhinos left in the world, which have gone basically extinct for being kept out in the wild.
Keeping animals in Zoos is better

Animals need the wild life experience to be able to actually survive. If they are kept in zoos, its like babying them. With most zoos, the animals get let out into the wild but how are they supposed to survive like that if they cant survive on their own. And being observed and caged up by humans can be very traumatizing whether they are being abused or not. They are just as much of living beings as we are, so you can compare it to putting a human in a cage for paying people to see. Its exploitation and unacceptable to keep all animals. I can get maybe a few but not just caging them up so they don't roam wild. That's the whole point of an animal, they are meant to be independent (from humans) organisms that can survive on their own. They are not able to do that if they are constantly being kept in cages and having food just given to them.
Keeping animals in Zoos is better

I believe keeping animals in zoos is a better choice than letting them roam free out in the wild. First of all, I'd like to say that I don't think animals should be abused which is what most people think zoos are about, yet most zoos treat their animals quite nicely. Individual interaction with exotic animals face to face, allows an experience that promotes wonder to enter our lives. Without the wonder of the encounters that they experience, people will quickly lose interest in safeguarding the few wild places that are left in our world. Exhibits and programs about earth's aquatic ecosystems also become important parts of most zoos public-education efforts. They are kept in well looked after environments where they are able to be in the same habitat as the wild. They are fed their normal diet and keppers make them hunt for their food in hiding spots, so its not like they are taken away from the wild
Homosexuality is a Behavior, Not An Identity

The resolution here defended by Pro is logically inconsistent in itself, the reason being that Pro is presuming an either/or relationship between the propositions "Homosexuality is a behavior" and "Homosexuality is an identity". Since, as I will show in my argument, one of the above propositions being true doesn't necessitate (or show) that the other is false, the resolution is akin to the proposition "The present King of France is bald." That is, it is impossible to justify because the proposition itself rests on an error of language. ===Behavior vs. Identity=== Let's take an example first to explain how something can be both a behavior and an identity. Sky-divers, owing to the niche nature of the activity, will often times identity themselves in some sense by the activity they practice. This isn't to say of course that that is the only aspect of their identity. Far from it, it is only one of the factors which lends itself to the overarching identity of the person. Likewise, owing to a variety of factors (historical and contemporary discrimination [a fact which lends itself to the development of homosexuality as a niche in many cases], community, and the fact that outside forces in society themselves have historically viewed homosexuality as a relevant identity marker), homosexuality has become in some sense (relative to the individual of course) become an identifying marker of LGBT peoples. This is true even when taking into account that homosexual acts are themselves behaviors. ===Either/Or=== But to move back to the problem with the resolution itself, Pro is incapable of defending the resolution if my point obtains. That is, if homosexuality can be *both* a behavior and an identity (in many cases) than arguing that it is one over the other amounts to incoherency. I have no intention here of arguing that homosexuality isn't a behavior. In large part it would seem more a matter of semantics than of genuine investigation. If Pro is unable to refute the above point that homosexuality (and other activities) can logically be a member of both sets (behavior and identity) than the resolution fails to uphold.
Linux is better than Windows

<<1. Good, you've made a statement. Now argue for it.>> I'm sorry that you missed them. Allow me to re-post them: "Now I will list just a few reasons that support why Linux is NOT better than Windows. 1. Linux isn't user-friendly. 2. When problems arise in Linux, IT experience is often require to resolve the problem. You almost always have to have a high degree of understanding of the Linux program to trouble-shoot. 3. When problems arise in Linux, you can't just Google the problem and find a fast solution." I hope you don't miss it again this time. <<2. When I say Linux is better than Windows, I'm referring to the obvious point of comparison- product quality. That's why I said "Linux is better than Windows", not "Linux has better profit margins than Windows".>> And I'm to read your mind? You should say what you mean and mean what you say in the future to avoid confusion. My points still stand. Windows is superior to Linux in the ways that matter and count. <<3. And this is important how? Besides, Windows is only more used in the consumer market. The majority of servers run Linux.>> Popular opinion is what determines what is best. It is how we elect officials to government. It is how we rate movies and sports. The more people that favor one thing over another determine what is best. It is the way of the world. ~~~ <<1. What is this, 1998? Linux may not have been particularly user-friendly then, but a lot has happened in ten years. Have you tried Ubuntu [http://www.ubuntu.com......]?>> Irrelevant to this debate. This is about Linux and Windows. You're confusing yourself and getting off topic. <<2a. Not anymore. You may need lots of IT experience to fully understand how the system works, but the smae applies to Windows.>> I disagree, but assuming you are correct, there are help-lines that offer tech support. Technicians can walk you through the necessary steps, over the phone, to correct your problem. Linux offers no such service. <<2b. You may need a high degree of experience to troubleshoot on your own, but thats what support forums are for. You can just tell people your problem, and they'll tell you how to give them enough information to fix the problem.>> Yes, but with a superior product like Windows, the forums already have a solution to the problem more often than not. Linux requires people to investigate the problem and get back to you at their leisure. That's if they can even figure your problem out in the first place. < > Actually, my points have been very relevant to my argument and it is you who has been wrong. Very much so. < > I'm not sure if what you expect after making a comment like this. Should people take pity on you and give you their votes because you lack debating ablility? I don't know what to make of this, so I'll just allow the voters to decide. Thank you for the debate!
Linux is better than Windows

1. Good, you've made a statement. Now argue for it. 2. When I say Linux is better than Windows, I'm referring to the obvious point of comparison- product quality. That's why I said "Linux is better than Windows", not "Linux has better profit margins than Windows". 3. And this is important how? Besides, Windows is only more used in the consumer market. The majority of servers run Linux. ~~~ 1. What is this, 1998? Linux may not have been particularly user-friendly then, but a lot has happened in ten years. Have you tried Ubuntu [http://www.ubuntu.com...]? You don't even have to install it to test it out. Although not everything is guaranteed to work as-is, you can get help. There are actually several problems with the user-friendlyness of Windows. For example, putting the "shut down" command under "Start". It doesn't seem difficult to someone who is used to Windows, but if you give someone without computer experience a Windows system and a Linux system (both ready for use), they're more likely to use Linux. 2a. Not anymore. You may need lots of IT experience to fully understand how the system works, but the smae applies to Windows. 2b. You may need a high degree of experience to troubleshoot on your own, but thats what support forums are for. You can just tell people your problem, and they'll tell you how to give them enough information to fix the problem. 3. Wrong. I just searched for the error "There was an error creating the child process for this terminal" (I've never had that, but it apparently happens). 2nd Google result is someone who had the problem and got it fixed. And this is without the too-common fix for Windows problems-- "format and reinstall", which is seen as something that has to be done all the time in Windows, just like rebooting often. So far, too many of your points have not been relevant to my argument that Linux is better than Windows, or they have been wrong. Should I expect some better attempts at arguments now that I will not have a chance refute them?
Linux is better than Windows

>> I will make my argument that Linux is different from Windows, not necessarily better. < > 1*. Linux is different from Windows, not necessarily better. There. Done! >> allow their respective sales figures determine which is "better" < > 2. You admit Windows produces "better" profits. >> I will also allow their respective popularity and the daily use of each system also speak as to which is "better". < > 3. With this statement, you're admitting that Windows is more popular and more widely used on a daily basis. So, in two out of three points, you've indicated that Windows is "better" and Linux. Now I will list just a few reasons that support why Linux is NOT better than Windows. 1. Linux isn't user-friendly. 2. When problems arise in Linux, IT experience is often require to resolve the problem. You almost always have to have a high degree of understanding of the Linux program to trouble-shoot. 3. When problems arise in Linux, you can't just Google the problem and find a fast solution. With the way that technology is evolving, Linux may be better than Windows SOMEDAY. But that day isn't today, nor is it tomorrow. Thank you.
Linux is better than Windows

>> I will make my argument that Linux is different from Windows, not necessarily better. Please do so, then! >> allow their respective sales figures determine which is "better" Remember that Linux is (usually) free. So dollar amount sales figures reflect nothing. Your next argument is use. >> I will also allow their respective popularity and the daily use of each system also speak as to which is "better". Microsoft is a monopoly, which does not necessarily make their product better.
Linux is better than Windows

I'm not going to dispute these very good points you make, but I will make my argument that Linux is different from Windows, not necessarily better. I will however allow their respective sales figures determine which is "better", as sales figures speak for themselves and people, in general, accept that as a reasonable means to determine the superiority of one entity over another. I will also allow their respective popularity and the daily use of each system also speak as to which is "better".
Dungeons and Dragons has no demoralizing effects for the average gamer

"My point is that by playing D or D you are destroying your mental sanity. If there were no humans there would be no d and d so we should enforce the voluntary extinction movement to keep people like you from taking it.You said that playing once a week isint addictive well i say it is.You should not waste your productive life on nonsense like d or d." If you are to believe that we must work all our lives without having any recreation, you live in a very bleak world. Just saying that something is unnatural or man-made doesn't make it evil either. If you believe in those things, you must also think that baseball and dancing are also evil. Not only are you wrong, but there is evidence that recreation is good for your health. (http://stress.about.com...) "The purpose of your life is to get a law passed under anarchy to have the 55 year cap." First of all, why do you define the meaning of life as getting a law passed? Second, having a law under anarchy is completely paradoxial. Finally, what does your other debate about the "55 year cap" have anything to do with my debate? "When a person becomes old and stops working or takes d and d he will be thrown into a......" As you did at the end of your last round, you supplied me with two links that are entirely pointless after an overly long ellipsis. I have no clue why you mention throwing people into a volcano as this point of the debate, and it troubles me to read that. --In Review-- In the previous round, I urged my opponent to take his time to touch on my points and take his time to develop a clear response. It has been nearly 24 hours since I made that comment, and he still doesn't take this debate very seriously. I would like him to please touch on my subjects. As long as he refuses to do this, I have absolutely nothing to say except that which I have said before. I give you fair warning, if your next argument has no place in this debate, I fear for your credibility in future debates.
Dungeons and Dragons has no demoralizing effects for the average gamer

My point is that by playing D or D you are destroying your mental sanity.If there were no humans there would be no d and d so we should enforce the voluntary extinction movement to keep people like you from taking it.You said that playing once a week isint addictive well i say it is.You should not waste your productive life on nonsense like d or d. The purpose of your life is to get a law passed under anarchy to have the 55 year cap.When a person becomes old and stops working or takes d and d he will be thrown into a....... http://en.wikipedia.org... or a http://en.wikipedia.org...
Dungeons and Dragons has no demoralizing effects for the average gamer

I am quite confused by my opponent's brief argument. I request that he please review his arguments before posting. "The problem with D and D is that it puts the user in aa [sic] sedated state of no return[.]" In the DnD groups I've played with, most of them meet less than weekly. However, there may be a few hardcore groups that meet daily, but given the long average game time per sitting, this is highly unlikely. To say that there is no return from this sedated state is absolutely ridiculous. One of my DnD friends has just finished basic training, something that is hardly sedentary. "the[sic] drug tortures the mind and soul of the user." Yes, for some DnD can be addictive, but for most, it's just a way to pass the time on a Friday night. I can attest that the game in no way tortures the mind. In fact, the game helps build on your creativity skills, especially if you are the Dungeon Master(DM.) As for the soul, I have not yet expirienced anything during a DnD match that involves harming anyone other than the forces of evil. "Most users of the drug get their drug from........." So far, this is the sentence that puzzles me the most. From where do most users get their "drug" from? The website that you cited? Which brings me to my last point. "http://www.vhemt.org...; I take back what I said earlier. THIS is what puzzles me the most. Why you decided to cite a website that supports the killing of human being to control the population is beyond my understanding. --In Review-- So far my opponent has not touched on a single one of my arguments. He has instead chosen to state a few disjointed ideas without any supporting evidence. Furthermore he has supplied a source without explaining it's purpose. I pray that you will please touch on my points and explain the purpose of your citation. Please take your time with your response; we have a 72 hour time limit after all.