BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Waterboarding is an effective strategy.

Waterboarding is an effective strategy for gaining information. But is the said information real facts or a lie concocted by the terrorists to get you to stop torturing them? Waterboarding is not in fact just dripping water down somebodys nose and playing music... Wikipedia's definition of waterboarding is this: "Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure." ------------------------- Though in some cases torture has been known to work... the majority of information gained from torture has not been found true...
Waterboarding is an effective strategy.

Waterboarding has already been a proven success. Zayn Abidin Muhammed Hussein Abu Zubaydah, an al Qaeda chief, was waterboarded in 2002. Within 30 seconds, he broke. He provided valued information, such as: Omar al-Faruq, an agent of Jemaah Islamiya, al-Qaeda's Indonesian branch. Information he provided caused U.S. officials to raise America's threat level from Elevated to High in September 2002; Rahim al-Nashiri, al-Qaeda's Arabian Peninsula operations chief, trained terrorists in Afghanistan and led al-Qaeda's October 12, 2000, bombing of the USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen. That attack killed 17 American sailors and injured 40 others. On October 6, 2002, al-Nashiri's men bombed the French tanker MV Limburg, killing a Bulgarian sailor and spilling 90,000 barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Aden; Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a key 9/11 organizer, studied with hijackers Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Ziad Jarrah in Hamburg, Germany. While he tried and failed to join his comrades after they moved to America, he was a liaison between al-Qaeda leaders and Atta, and provided several hijackers funds and travel arrangements. When arrested in Karachi, Pakistan in September 2002, bin al-Shibh already had recruited four new hijackers to smack jets into London's Heathrow Airport; and Hambali, the Muslim fanatic who slaughtered 202 innocent vacationers in two Bali nightclubs; Iyman Faris, convicted of plotting to cut the Brooklyn Bridge's cables with torches so it would tumble into the East River. There were a few others he mentioned, but I'll leave it at that. The point is, waterboarding is an effective strategy. I am perfectly "ok" with terrorists experiencing something United States Navy Seals go through. I'm not going to get all misty-eyed if a few finger nails are ripped off to save American lives, but that's not the case. We're not ripping off finger nails. We're playing loud music and dripping water down their noses.
Waterboarding is an effective strategy.

"So, you're using MSNBC to support your position against torture. I should just use Rush Limbaugh to support my position then, huh? You're under the delusion that Zubaydah was waterboarded numerous times. He wasn't. He was waterboarded ONCE and he broke within 30 seconds." If Allah told him to cooperate in his cell why didn't Zubaydah just tell them the information instead of getting waterboarded? The people of Islam are very religious and would not dare disobey Allah... "And about the "psychological" nonsense. I'm so sorry that you've grown emotionally attached to terrorists, that you're so worried about their mental well-being and completely excuse the fact that they wouldn't think twice about disemboweling a small child. I guess you and I have different opinions." Yes I guess we do have different opinions or we wouldn't be debating. Were do you get your information from? Disembowling a small child? Please. Instead of ranting about the horrible acts of the terrorists please start debating...
Waterboarding is an effective strategy.

So, you're using MSNBC to support your position against torture. I should just use Rush Limbaugh to support my position then, huh? You're under the delusion that Zubaydah was waterboarded numerous times. He wasn't. He was waterboarded ONCE and he broke within 30 seconds. "A much more useful approach to gaining information is a rewards program that gives the prisoner more and more freedom the more they tell..." -Why don't I use your argument and say, what if they aren't telling the truth? Are you going to reward a terrorist for lying? This is ludicrous. You want to reward terrorists for providing information that will save American lives. Wow, I guess times really have changed. And about the "psychological" nonsense. I'm so sorry that you've grown emotionally attached to terrorists, that you're so worried about their mental well-being and completely excuse the fact that they wouldn't think twice about disemboweling a small child. I guess you and I have different opinions. The article you posted, even though it's MSNBC, still confirms that some of the information was accurate, however, I'm not going to give in just like that to MSNBC. The information he provided concerning possible future attacks on banks or financial institutions was accurate. The information he provided concerning al Qaeda's interest in constructing a "dirty bomb" was accurate, although it didn't exactly match with U.S. intelligence, it's still relevant. This article doesn't cover everything Zubaydah admitted. It covers a few things that some people are skeptical about. You have yet to prove the rest of the information wrong, but the fact of the matter is, you can't, because it's already been proven to prevent possible attacks. I'm willing to accept half credible information given up by a terrorist because that half bit that is accurate can still save American lives. You, on the other hand, want to reward terrorists for "being good" and doing what they're told. Oh and about the whole "dripping water down the nose" deal. Of course I know it's more than that. I was providing a euphemism. I still believe terrorists would prefer "simulated drowning" over having their finger and toe nails ripped off, their tongue cut out, or have their genitals hacked off, wouldn't you agree?
Waterboarding is an effective strategy.

"Can we please leave Wikipedia out of this discussion for the sake of credibility? Thanks." Sure thing. Dictionary.com gives the exact same definition so I am still going to use that as my idea of what waterboarding is... this is not just dripping water down peoples noses... this is drowning a person, then saving them again and again until they give an answer... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A much more useful approach to gaining information is a rewards program that gives the prisoner more and more freedom the more they tell... The goverment gives them an agent to befriend who coaxes information from them... Under "Mental and Physical effects of waterboarding" on Dictionary.com it says that "that the psychological effects can last long after waterboarding ends". Abu Zadaydah may have been driven crazy from the waterboarding, causing him to tell the truth... or lies... Some of the information he said lacks verity... This article from MSNBC( http://www.msnbc.msn.com... ) sums it up pretty well... This technique can damage the person mentally for the rest of their lives... which in the case of their potential release could mean more criminal activity from them at worse degrees of violence...
Waterboarding is an effective strategy.

"Though in some cases torture has been known to work" -Thank you for conceding. "Wikipedia's definition of waterboarding is this:" -Can we please leave Wikipedia out of this discussion for the sake of credibility? Thanks. "the majority of information gained from torture has not been found true..." -I see no effort to prove my display of events incorrect. In fact, it will be quite the challenge to succeed in proving my information incorrect. The fact of the matter is, by waterboarding Zubaydah, we were able to prevent a number of future attacks, possibly dozens. "But is the said information real facts or a lie concocted by the terrorists to get you to stop torturing them?" -Well since the information Zubaydah provided aided in the prevention of future terrorist attacks, I think we know our answer. Zubaydah admitted that Allah had visited him in his cell and instructed him to cooperate. Given these men are deeply faithful to Islam, I'm willing to put money down that he wouldn't lie in the name of Allah.
Abortion

"Your source also says a life is "a characteristic state or mode of living;" and who is to say a fetus is not a mode or state of living. " I did not post that definition as it is in no way technical or scientific. As this is the last round and we have still not agreed on a definition I declare this debate to have been a waste. "My point in reference to your scenario is that your only argument against abortion is if a scenario like that happened. " I was not posting an argument in favor of abortion. I was demonstrating the fallacy of your argument. I do not have to post any argument as the burden of proof is on you. All you have said is that abortion is killing with no evidence to support your statement. "Everyone has a right to life and that should never be taken away no matter what the circumstance may be. " I assume you are also against defending one's own life. How is life precious if it's not even worth defending?
Abortion

Your source also says a life is "a characteristic state or mode of living;" and who is to say a fetus is not a mode or state of living. My point in reference to your scenario is that your only argument against abortion is if a scenario like that happened. Additionally, who is to say if one life is more important then another. It is just like saying if that same man who took 31 people hostage, but wanted to kill one specific person and if he was not turned over everyone else would be killed. It is ridiculous to think like this. A person should not take a stand against something just because one fears a ridiculous scenario will happen. One life is no grater then any other. Abortion is stopping a life. Everyone has a right to life and that should never be taken away no matter what the circumstance may be. Abortion should never be an option. Even if a mother does not want a child, there are places that would take her child in. There is no reason for someone to chose abortion.
Abortion

http://www.nrlc.org...... Your link to your definition of when life begins is not from an unbiased scientific source. Therefore it cannot be accepted. Alive "the period during which something is functional (as between birth and death); "the battery had a short life"; "he lived a long and happy life" http://www.google.com... This definition is from a website that is neither pro-choice nor pro-life. And the definition defines life as between birth and death so naturally anything before birth or after death is not alive. "The scenario you give me is a "what if" scenario." Something like this has never happened before. When it comes to situations you can't think like this." I merely pointed to a scenario where abortion would clearly be the morally correct choice. I was just pointing out the fallacy of your deontological argument.
Abortion

Thank you, I also look forward to this debate. A human life begins at conception. I brought up my point earlier because many people believe an embryo is not a life. After an egg has been fertilized all human chromosomes are present in the embryo. It is a life, a potential human being who will grow to be able to live on their own. http://www.nrlc.org... The scenario you give me is a "what if" scenario." Something like this has never happened before. When it comes to situations you can't think like this. You could make plenty of other "what if" scenarios fore many other topics. This is not the reason abortion is legal though. Abortion is legal because the government feels that it is a woman's right to privacy to do what she wants with her own body. My rebuttal to this is that the right to life should over power a right to privacy. Abortion is equivalent to killing in many peoples opinions.
Abortion

Thank you for the opportunity to debate on such a hot button issue. Good luck. "Abortion should not be allowed." As you are the one making the positive assertion the BOP falls on you. "The question of "When does a human life begin" is the major question asked when debating this topic." As you have the BOP you must provide a legitimate answer on when life begins. "Their is no scenario where abortion should be allowed." Deontology rarely fares well. Let me just think of one scenario. What if a man took 31 people hostage and demanded that a woman in her first week of pregnancy must have an abortion or he will kill all his hostages? Is a one week old embryo more valuable then 31 grown people with families? It cannot even live outside the womb. Of course this is a ridiculous scenario but it is just to show that there are never any absolutes. I look forward to our debate and will be looking forward to your arguments.
Abortion

Abortion should not be allowed. The question of "When does a human life begin" is the major question asked when debating this topic. Abortion is equivalent to killing, it is aborting a life so what else would it be called. Many people feel that a woman should have the right to make her own decisions bout her body, but shouldn't the right to life overpower that. Abortion is morally wrong. Some people can not raise a child and that is why they do not want to have a child, but there are programs out there that take unwanted children in. Their is no scenario where abortion should be allowed. Every baby should have the right to be born. No one should be able to take a baby's right to life away. Woman should not be allowed to argue their right to their own body over their baby's right to life. Abortion should not be allowed in any circumstance.
Mayonnaise is better than Miracle Whip (and any other condiment, for that matter)

Ok first of all, the title of this debate was not "Miracle Whip is Better Than Ketchup". It is "Mayonnaise is Better Than Miracle Whip (and any other condiment for that matter). Really I intended the debate to be only mayonnaise vs. Miracle Whip, but I just had to throw in that last part- that's how much I love mayo, sorry if it confused you! I am not a fan of Miracle Whip at all. To each his or her own, but in my opinion it is just an overly sweet, artificial cousin to mayo. But anyway, I will accommodate you and change this debate to Mayonnaise vs. Ketchup. Let's go! To begin, yes- egg yolk is a primary ingredient in mayonnaise. My opponent says "imagine putting egg yolk on a burger". Well yes... I CAN imagine, in fact, putting an egg on a burger has been quite the rage lately. I've seen chefs such as Bobby Flay do it many times! Next, it certainly sounds like our taste buds are very different- because mayo DEFINITELY enhances the flavor of any food I put it on- sorry you're missing out on this wonderful experience! You state "I suppose everybody has different tastebuds but everyone loves ketchup. If you do not love ketchup you are obviously a commie". Well that's a pretty ignorant and ridiculous thing to say, because some people's taste buds HATE ketchup! I have a few friends who think ketchup is disgusting, and they are definitely not "commies". Geez, I would never even say that about somebody who hated mayonnaise!! Lastly, you say that "Ketchup is still the number one condiment in America." Well, according to Huffpost.com, mayonnaise is America's favorite condiment! Now, check this link out from Quartz- http://qz.com.... Mayonnaise is the KING of American condiments! "The US now consumes some $2 billion worth of mayonnaise each year. The ketchup market is worth less than half that"around $800 million." Well my friend, I guess you learn something new each day! And no, I have never tried Miracle Whip on strawberries. Have you?
Mayonnaise is better than Miracle Whip (and any other condiment, for that matter)

There is no way miracle whip is better than ketchup. It is a disgusting lumpy white substance that has a resemblance to semen. It is mostly made up of egg yolk; imagine putting egg yolk on a burger. Sometimes I just deal with it because fast food chains dont even ask they just put it on. For my taste buds it doesnt really enhance anything; it kind of just drowns out the taste of the food a bit. I suppose everybody has different tastebuds but everyone loves ketchup. If you do not love ketchup you are obviously a commie. Ketchup is still the number one condiment in america. I think most would agree mayo even if they like it is in the top 20, not the best. As for miracle whip, have you tried it on strawberries?
Should Muslims be Banned from Entering the USA

What we must remember is that America created the very instability in the Middle East. The invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq; the overthrow of Iran's government whereby they put in a very dictatorial Shah that led to the Iranian revolution, the maintenance of dictators, etc. Now that people are fleeing for the instability, you cannot back down and say "I helped cause this, but I wont help them." These people are human beings just like you and just like me.
Should Muslims be Banned from Entering the USA

First, the word "support" was not in the article. The article used the term "favourable"; now what does this term mean? When X is favourable to Y, does X support Y unwavering? No, the word favourably means that there is a common interest. For example, many Pakistanis view the Afghan Taliban as favourable due to their fight against the hegemon, but they dislike the Pakistan Taliban. Second, the numbers you supplied, how does one calculate that? You need to essentially talk to all 287 million Muslims to get their opinion, which I can assure you, the newspaper did not do, and nor did anyone else. Third, ISIL's objective is to create a Christianity v Muslim dichotomy; if they can create such narrative, they will have a much easier time proving to Muslims that a crusade is being waged. By closing off one's borders to Muslims' in plight, you are essentially verifying that dichotomy. Fourth, Let us say 500 000 refugees from Syria enter the United States and let us say 10 of them are ISIL members. Said group of 10 then commit a terrorist attack in New York; is it justified to deport or halt any new refugees just because 10 of them became rotten? Hell no. These are human lives, you do not leave thousands of people in danger just because a tiny minority may hurt you. That is morally wrong. If a man came to my door at night; he was shivering, bloodied, crying, and starving, my first priority is to open my door and provide him shelter. My safety does not stop me from doing this. This is another human being just like you and just like me. Fifth, the USA has a responsibility to these civilians. The USA has no right going into countries, funding militia groups, and leading the country to collapse. The USA funded ISIL, they funded Al Nursa, etc. It is not right that the USA contributes to the destruction of a nation and not also toward its reconstruction and humanitarian assistance towards its people.
Should Muslims be Banned from Entering the USA

Approximately 63 million to 287 million Muslims support ISIS in only 11 countries. As ISIS is currently a big problem the USA is dealing with, this number is terrifyingly large. With only a Muslim population of 16 million, these numbers are far larger. In the wake of deadly terrorist attacks from ISIS, Donald Trump's plan doesn't seem as radical as many people think. If no new Muslims are coming in from areas where ISIS occupies, then the chance of another attack is reduced greatly. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com...
Does God exist

Conclusion: Con did not even try to prove the negative, and did not even try to post his arguments why he thinks God does not exist, Con did not post any argument for his position, he only barely answered my first argument on the origin of the universe, He said nothing created the universe, but I proved nothing only creates nothing, and I proved that quantum fluctuations come from energy not nothing ameen, Also Con talked about abiogenesis and evolution, which were irrelevant to the argument, abiogenesis (if it was even possible) can only create life not the whole universe, it doesn't disprove God, furthermore, abiogenesis is not even proven to happen naturally, scientists have yet to create a single cell ameen, I proved that amino acids are like nothing compared to a cell, yet Con hasn't answered that, a cell is more complex then an airplane, yet airplanes don't create themselves, so this point is not valid and isn't even relevant, and evolution is completely irrelevant, because evolution only changes what already exists, it can't create from scratch, so it doesn't disprove God ameen, and I proved the Quran and Hadith are ok with evolution, as long as homo sapiens came from Adam and Eve, while other organisms such as animals, plants, and cavemen, came from evolution ameen, and Con completely ignored my arguments for God, such as, the fine tuning of the universe, morality, and the Miracle of the Quran, Con only barely touched my first argument on the origin of the universe, he ignored my other three, and Con finally forfeited, round 4, because the Evidence for God is overwhelming Alhamdulillah ameen so Vote Pro inshallah ameen JazakAllah khair ameen
Does God exist

Rebuttal 2 Con isn't making any sense, my argument is absolute nothingness never existed, absolute nothingness can't exist, because it is inconcievable 1. and 2. if it existed there would be nothing now, nothing has no attributes it can't create something, it doesn't have the power to, God on the other hand does have the power to create something from nothing, creation ex nihilo what this means is, God is alpowerful and can create matter without any pre existing matter ameen See God always existed, and Created the universe, without any preexisting matter ameen, now Con's view, absolute nothingness existed, and then became something some how, look Con's view is impossible, because nothing by itself can't create anything, we don't observe something arising from nothing in this world, we don't see pink elephants coming into existence from nothing ameen, and I already pointed out Stephen Hawking is a liar, and that virtual particles come from energy not nothing ameen, so Only God can create something from nothing, because He has the power to do so ameen, nothing has no power therefore it can't create anything ameen, Evolution: "Nothing can be completely proven. This process would take millions of years also. I provided evidence that this could have happened. God wasn't needed to explain the origin of life. Using god to explain the origin of life is much easier, but proving this would be near impossible. How would we test this? Is there objective evidence of this?" Evolution has nothing to do with Creation itself, Evolution only changes already existing lifeforms as I pointed out, It can't create life from non life, and it most certainly can't create the universe itself, so evolution is an irrelevant point, Whether evolution happened or not is irrelevant to the point whether God exists ameen, God created the universe and life, evolution happened after that, there is nothing wrong with this ameen, so Con did not disprove God at all ameen, "This is all I have time for. I am sorry." It's okay Con, but you missed all my points ameen you missed my point on the fine tuning of the universe, you missed my point on morality, you missed my point on the Quranic Miracles, so I hope to see you address them in this round, otherwise vote pro ameen