BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Waterboarding is a just method of gainig information from terrorists.

Well, my opponent sure feels very strongly about his beliefs. In his last speech, he made very weak attacks on my case. I will first address these, and then move on to further destroy his. 1. He tries to attack my case with this statement: "protecting the rights of the american people ? pffftttt dont play that card." This is unreasonable! Is he proposing we NOT protect the American people? He gives no warrant to this claim, only that "don't play that card." Pitiful. 2. "Torture is not a way to get information because you are forcing people to tell you something that they have not done. even if you saw them blow up a bomb infront of you take them to be tortured chances are they will seem like they have had enough and tell you a lot of crap." My opponent contradicts himself in this statement. He says we can't torture them because they are innocent, (again, please read the resolution carefully) but then not to torture them even if they blow up a bomb in front of us? This is ridiculous! "Oh, well, I'm sure that guy who just blew up the bomb is innocent." NO! 3. "like i say my american friends , wake up smell the coffee take a god hard look at your goverment and tell me what they do to people is humane ? waterboarding is just one of the many things they do and no doubt about it they do ten times worse." Once again, my opponent's argument does not pertain to this topic. He is being rach, and making accusatory statements. I cannot consider these arguments, since they are irrelevant. Now to my case. So, my opponent makes no additional attacks on my case. (However un-specific his attacks were) He DOES NOT address my analogy, nor my contention 1. I leave my opponent with a challenge, in which he must complete it to win this debate. You must prove what rights terrorists have. (Which is impossible, since they have none, as described in the rules of war) You must then prove why we should protect the rights of radical terrorists over the rights of the innocent citizen. How is that just? Why should we give up the citizen's rights for the non-existent rights of some radical terrorist? Unless you can answer all of these, you have surely lost the debate. "Waterboarding is a just method of gaining information from terrorists." Affirmed.
Waterboarding is a just method of gainig information from terrorists.

thats a stupid response these " die hard terrosists " are human beings becayse the ones you call terorrists are most of the time innocent you say that " we only torture the real terrorits no innocent people " now how the hell would you know that ?? protecting the rights of the american people ? pffftttt dont play that card . You my friend have been brainwashed , seen to much of the news . theres the humane way and well theres the american way , i dont care if i get unpopular comments for saying this but its the truth and you americans need to waken up to what your goverment have done Torture is not a way to get information because you are forcing people to tell you something that they have not done. even if you saw them blow up a bomb infront of you take them to be tortured chances are they will seem like they have had enough and tell you a lot of crap. like i say my american friends , wake up smell the coffee take a god hard look at your goverment and tell me what they do to people is humane ? waterboarding is just one of the many things they do and no doubt about it they do ten times worse.
Waterboarding is a just method of gainig information from terrorists.

Well, it seems that my opponent misses the mark in this debate. His entire argument is why we Americans shouldn't torture innocent people via water boarding. Opponent, would you please read the resolution more carefully? I am saying that water boarding is a just way to extract information from terrorists. (NOT innocent people mind you) "but i mean no offense when i say this , but americans need to calm the f**k down" Wow. Since I cannot attack my opponent's case because of its irrelevancy, I will simply state my own case. 1. Water boarding is sometimes necessary to gain information. It comes down to this: Are we going to honor a radical terrorist's rights, (FYI they have none under the rules of war) or are we going to protect the rights of American citizens? Picture this: Yourself and a terrorist are locked in a room. In the next room, your family is also locked. There is a door separating the two rooms. Only the terrorist know how to open the door. If you do not open the door and get to your family in ten minutes, they will die. Do you (a) Torture the terrorist (b) Honor his supposed rights, and let your family die It seems rather simple to me. Well, until my opponent offers a legit case, I feel no need to expand on my case. "Water boarding is a just method of gaining information from terrorists" Affirmed.
Waterboarding is a just method of gainig information from terrorists.

waterboarding is unjust because it is a FACT that the majority of people it is used against are innocent , and forced to admit to crimes they never done . it is plain and simple it is torture , how would you like it if i grabbed you off the streets tortured you in extrme ways worse than waterboarding ( which america does do ) and focred you to admit to something you never done and put you in jail forever ? the americans have this attitude after 9/11 i accept it was terrible what happend , but i mean no offense when i say this , but americans need to calm the f**k down . they think since that happned they have the right to torture innocent people and bully everybody. America has a join us or die forein policy. so i would like you know to justicfy why torture is ok on innocent people .
Waterboarding is a just method of gainig information from terrorists.

I make these so called " attacks " because you feel so patoritc about your country that you are willing to say its acceptable to break basic human rights ?? these people do not recive trials , dont say they do because they dont. Let me put it this way you say terrorists have no rights , to an extent i agree . However there was a saying once " one mans terrorist , is anthour mans freedom fighter " i understand you americans feel strongly about this , after 9/11 i dont blame you to be honest , however whenever american or even british troops have been captured in the past and have been tortured, you americans and the british as well act in outrage when hearing the news , so do i ; i am a british citizen . But is thaat not hypicritical ? you grab a man from his country and torture him ? without trial or anything , i understand the soilders never recvice a trial etc . but thats because they are walking around on the terroritory they shouldnt be in . now i want you to think about this , you tell me to answer the question . How about you think that torture is in humane and should only be used in the most extreme of cases.
The Catholic Church IS the ONE TRUE CHURCH

I see my opponent is not a believer of Apostolic Succession. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own." First of all, the Foundation of the Catholic Church was ST.Peter. Peter is the Rock Upon which the Church was built.(Matthew 16:18) Peter's Authority did not end with Peter, instead the Authority was passed to his successors which are the popes of today. The bible tells us apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop. (Acts 13:3) Paul calls his position a divine "office." An office has successors. It does not end at death or it is not an office. (Colossians 1:25) Hebrews 7:23 also tells us an office continues with successors after the previous office-holder's death. My opponent says "Without a foundation, no structure can stand" and he is right. The foundation of the Catholic Church is the successor of ST.Peter the Pope. The Second Vatican Council says But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, "handing over" to them "the authority to teach in their own place." This is True. My opponent also says that the Pope is in no way mentioned in Christ's teachings. Jesus made Peter the first pope. (Matthew 16:18) In John 21:15-17 Jesus tells Peter to feed, tend and care for his sheep. Jesus makes Peter a shepherd even though Jesus is the shepherd. (John 10) Peter became Christ's vicar and after the death of Peter, his authority was passed on to the next and this is succession. Also, not everything Jesus did is in the bible. (John 20:30) Also, nowhere in the Bible does it say to follow the Bible Alone. We as Catholics follow Tradition which was passed on to us from the Apostles. Finally, we become witnesses of Christ when we have faith that he is alive.
The Catholic Church IS the ONE TRUE CHURCH

I ask my opponent to present arguments supporting his position that the Catholic Church is the one true church, rather than imposing new requirements on me outside of the initial premise of the debate.I am not going to attempt to persuade anybody as to why they should or should not be Catholic, I am only going to present arguments showing that the Catholic Church is not the one true church.The Organization of Christ's Church Christ's church was built upon a specific foundation of prophets and apostles, with Christ at the head of the church.[1] Without a foundation, no structure can stand, so the foundation of prophets and apostles must exist for a church to be eligible to be called Christ's church.Apostles After Judas, there was a vacancy in the apostolic leadership of the church. Peter showed the importance of an apostle being present for Christ's ministry from baptism to resurrection. The apostles must be able to act as witnesses of Christ's resurrection.[2] This requirement for apostles is universal, and one cannot call them self an apostle in this sense without being witness to the resurrected Christ. I propose that the Catholic Church(assumption is Roman Catholic) has no foundation of apostles that can bear witness to the resurrected Christ. Instead, the Catholic Church has a Pope, which is in no way mentioned in Christ's teaching or organization of His original church.All of the apostles listed in the Bible have passed on. There are no more who can fulfill the role of being witness to the resurrected Christ, so there can be no church with the apostolic foundation.[1]Ephesians 2:19-20 NIV[2]Acts 1:20-22 NIV
The Catholic Church IS the ONE TRUE CHURCH

Many people like to say that the Catholic Church is evil, corrupt and is not Christian but all these claims are incorrect. The Catholic Church is not only Christian but it is the TRUE Christian Church. It is estimated that there are 33,000 denominations in the world today and only 1 of them is the Church Christ founded. The Catholic Church is scriptural, it is tradtional, it is historical and it is archaeologically proven to be the TRUE Church. The other curches have SOME Truth but the Catholic Church alone has the FULLNESS of the Truth. Can anone try and prove this wrong?
Thos who say "no WMD were found in Iraq are either Misinformed, or Prevaricators

I've often heard the statement "there were no WMD found in Iraq". When I challenge this statement, I recieve disdain and contempt from the prevaricator who made the statement. When asked, I delineate the WMD that were found, only to recieve more verbal attacks. The truth of the matter is there WERE WMD found before, during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom. Those who state otherwise are either misinformed or Intentional prevaricators.
Thos who say "no WMD were found in Iraq are either Misinformed, or Prevaricators

Final piece of evidence that there was WMD in Iraq before, during and after the removal of Hussein: INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE Uranium removed from Iraq nuclear site By Alissa J. Rubin and Campbell Robertson Published: July 7, 2008 BAGHDAD: American and Iraqi officials have completed nearly the last chapter in dismantling Saddam Hussein's nuclear program with the removal of hundreds of tons of natural uranium from the country's main nuclear site. The uranium, which was removed several weeks ago, arrived in Canada over the weekend, according to officials. The removal was first reported by The Associated Press. Although the material could not be used in its current form for a nuclear weapon or even a so-called dirty bomb, officials decided that in Iraq's unstable environment, it was important to make sure that it did not fall into the wrong hands. There are also health dangers associated with concentrated forms of natural uranium. American military personnel helped move about 600 tons of uranium in the form called yellowcake. It had been stored at Tuwaitha, an installation south of Baghdad that had been the site of Iraq's nuclear program. We have now established the definition of "WMD", and established their existence in Iraq. Most of the documentation/evidence I provided crosses all three requirements of being in Iraq While Hussein was in office, and found during or after his capture. This subsequently addresses the scope of the time table. Having established the validity of the claim that WMD WERE found, the reasonable conclusion is "People who say no WMD were found in Iraq are at best misinformed, and at worst prevaricators." One could make the claim that they are in the same boat as the challenger, that they are mentally ill and can't tell the difference between truth and untruth. These would be the exception the premise. My heartfelt sympathy is extended to the challenger; and aplaud him for his willingness to publicly admit his illness. I hope his doctor can help his overcome this sad predicament, and wish him a happy normal life in the near future
God exists

1: Fibonacci If there is a non-random pattern in nature it follows there is a creator. If atheism is true the universe came about by random means and theres no non-random patterns.The Fibonacci sequence starts with two numbers then gets its next numbers by adding the last numbers0,1,1 add the two ones, 2 add two and one, 5, add five and two,7.........When coming up with a ratio for this pattern we have 1.61803... the title given to it is Phi.Phi shows up an astonishing amount of times in nature.The narwhal shell is a case but io9.com lists 15 examples in naturehttp://io9.com... Its in flower petals, seed heads, galaxies, hurricanes, pinecones, faces, fingers, animal flight patterns, our DNA are only a few cases. This is a mathematical pattern that shouldnt occur this many times if the universe was random. Maybe once or twice is believable but not this many. A God is responsible.http://www.youtube.com...2: The Model Ontological ArgumentModal ontological argument shows gods existence through deduction and modal reasioning(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.(2) Either God has necessary existence, or he doesn‘t.(3) If God doesn‘t have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn‘t.Therefore:(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn‘t.(5) If God necessarily doesn‘t have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn‘t exist.Therefore:(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn‘t exist.(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn‘t exist.Therefore:(8) God has necessary existence.(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.Therefore:(10) God exists. "The first premise is based on the idea that God is perfect, and that something is better if it has necessary existence than if it has merely contingent existence.The second premise of the argument is simply the law of the excluded middle.The third premise, “Becker’s Postulate”, is a widely accepted principle of modal logic. All modal properties are generally accepted to be necessary.Four follows straightforwardly from the second and third premises.Five is entailed by premise one.Six follows from four and five.Seven is plausible at first glance, but is widely thought to be the greatest point of weakness in the argument.Eight follows from six and seven.Nine is self-evident.Ten follows from eight and nine."http://www.philosophyofreligion.info... 7 must be attacked. Should we find no good argument against premise 7, then God existsThank you :)
Homosexuals are delusional

My opponent reposted his Round 2 argument without addressing any of my arguments. Based upon his comment, this was likely an accident. However, seeing as you get the opportunity to review your argument before submitting, this is not grounds for a tie. Based upon everything that has been said thus far, it is clear that I have shown my original Round 1 argument to be valid and additionally I have shown that even if it wasn't valid, I'd still win given my Round 2 content.
Homosexuals are delusional

1. Straw man fallacy. I didn't say you did and I wasn't referring to all gays because I did not use the word "all"... All - used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing. 2. Straw man fallacy. I didn't say you did and I wasn't referring to all gays because I did not use the word "all"... All -" used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing" 3. Straw man fallacy. I didn't say you did and I wasn't referring to all gays because I did not use the word "all"... All -" used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing" 4. Straw man fallacy. I didn't say you did and I wasn't referring to all gays because I did not use the word "all"... All -" used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing" 5. Straw man fallacy. I didn't say you did and I wasn't referring to all gays because I did not use the word "all"... All -" used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing" 6. Straw man fallacy. I didn't say you did and I wasn't referring to all gays because I did not use the word "all"... All -" used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing" 7. Straw man fallacy. I didn't say you did and I wasn't referring to all gays because I did not use the word "all"... All -" used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing" Con's entire argument is a straw man fallacy.. the word "all" would not even exist if it wasn't necessary. Caon argued as if I used the word "all" in which I didn't
The United Socialist Dictatorship of America

Based on the resolution, my opponent presumably has to prove that we either live in a socialist dictatorship under Barack Obama (as was implied), or that we're rapidly heading in that direction (also implied). Pro will have a hard time proving either one of these things. Barack Obama is not a socialist; he's simply very (economically) liberal. Ron Paul clarifies and agrees that he's not a socialist - he's a "corporatist" which he defines as caring for corporations that inevitably run the country [1]. While that's how a libertarian Republican considers Obama, even socialists agree that Obama is far from a comrade to their cause. "Socialists understand him more as a hedge-fund Democrat -- one of a generation of neoliberal politicians firmly committed to free-market policies" [2]. For one thing, Obama's administration is avoiding structural changes to the financial system. Regarding ObamaCare, it would give private health insurance companies license to systematically underinsure policyholders while cashing in on the moral currency of universal coverage. Socialists note that even regarding the issue of war, socialist foreign policy would call for the immediate removal of all troops. It would seek to follow the proposal made recently by an Afghan parliamentarian, which called for the United States to send 30,000 scholars or engineers instead of more fighting forces [2]. In short, most of Obama's policies lean away from socialism. Socialists for one want to inhibit the power of corporations; Ron Paul noted that Obama and his policies does the opposite. I'm wondering how much my opponent really knows about socialism considering he criticizes and undermines the intelligence of others who do not agree with him. It's fairly obvious to anyone whose actually read Marx or other socialist propaganda that Obama is not at that level, and ignorant Republicans just have to keep repeating that falsity because they're desperate for attention and votes. It doesn't make it true. Next, we can wonder if the United States is really headed toward a dictatorship. Well, a dictatorship is defined as an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual, the dictator [3]. However, the U.S. Constitution - what we use to govern our society, including under Obama - very blatantly negates this concept. We have a system of checks and balances that negates the idea of a single ruler government. For instance, the legislative branch of our government can check on the executive (President), and impeach him, put him on trial, may override presidential votes, etc. [4]. So, if our legislative branch consists of members of the House and Senate [5], which amounts to 435 House members plus 100 Senate members, that's 535 people who have the power to challenge the "dictator" Obama's authority meaning he's not a dictator at all. In conclusion, Obama's not a dictator or a socialist. The resolution is negated. [1] http://blogs.wsj.com... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.usconstitution.net... [5] http://www.whitehouse.gov...
The United Socialist Dictatorship of America

This once free and prosperous nation is moving quite rapidly every day towards complete socialism and bankruptcy/chaos. Barack Obama my friends, is not change.. He has proven to be either (economically speaking) a fool, or, a genius in the construction of a new socialist/communist USA. I'm not going to go as far as to say he is 100% to blame, because it seems to be that a majority of people have absolutely no grasp on economics; be it a political analyst on CNN or FOX, a college professor, or even the young college student struggling to find the truth. People need to stop thinking that they are intelligent by simply stating "greed is bad", and that we should steal from the rich and give to the poor. ITS FOOLISH. come at me.