BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Torture is not right

Torture is inhumane and horrific. I do not care what the circumstances are, and I don't care if they are not an american or not; the government should never have the right to torture a human being. Torture cannot be justified, period. It is to cause them extreme pain in order to get what you want. There is no doubt that the Government will take advantage of this right. Things like this kill democracy. Things like this slowly drown (no reference to the current issue intended) democracy to be replaced by a centralized government, in which no one has the freedom of speech. Sure, at first it will be strict regulations on the use of torture, but eventually it will be a common thing. I now realize that my argument can be summed up easily: Torture is bad because it hurts a lot. I am sorry if my views are not idealistic enough (I do not like idealism), but torture is very, very, very painful. I am sorry if this sounds naive, but it is completely true. This is a violation of the fifth AND eighth amendment. (and the geneva convention) People will say: "Oh, but the people the government tortures are not american, so they don't have our rights" Sure, this is true legally, but it is against american values, and I think that a true american would want to give the rights that he gets to the whole world, instead of taking peoples rights from other parts of the world. How dare anyone justify the torturing of someone simply because they are not an american?
money is more important then true love

love verb: like very much; find pleasure in. (dictionary) love takes on more forms than just between a significant other, it is compassion and understanding Answering argument 1- money makes the world go round money is not needed to survive-- cavemen up prove. Many of people have lived in the wild People who organize together support each others needs Im not asking for a social experiment but an understanding that cooperation (ie: loving one another) can work with "money" Answering argument 2- money makes the world happy money does not lead to the perfect society. Money (especially unregulated) leads to corruption and establishment of authority over those who work. The dialectic story of history show the bloody fight between the beorgousie and the proletariat. argument 3 love satisfies a higher level on maslow's hierarchy of needs. after our bare necessities (solved by my answer to 1st argument) Love, compassion is needed before we can truly understand our self (self-actualization)
money is more important then true love

Argument 1 Money is more important then love because you need money to live A. With out money your going to die. You can not possible live with out money because you need money to buy food, water and other living essentails. Argument 2 Money can make other people happy A. With money you can help other people live. when someone else sees that it makes you happy and feel good they will give money to. Then it will be a big chain reaction of people donating money to help other live. Which is good because the econamy is better more people live and more jobs are created, new ideas brought to the table, and people are happy which helps them live longer.
Rainbows do not exist objectively

Furyan5 states: You say that rainbows do exist objectively.(Con)Furyan5 states:'(1) My argument is that our perception of reality is a function of the human subconscious and therefore not subjective. (2) This all occurs in our subconscious and therefore should be considered as objective and not subjective as it is not open to misinterpretation.(3) Obviously I'm referring to the image that exists in our mind, as everyone knows there is no actual arch in the sky.My definition clearly states the perceived arch.(4) So just to clarify, there is no substantive arch in the sky, but there is an objective image that exists in our mind. Objectively there is no arch. So please stop evading the issue. This debate concerns the objective existence of a perceived object in our mind. So far you have offered no argument to oppose my view.'This is your argument, I think???The internal image of the rainbow has been constructed from 'light' data in raw form to create what you then regard as an objective entity. You state that this proves your point. In (1) above you state that it is objective because it has not been misinterpreted in a subjective conscious way.This is what you mean in real terms.'Any' and I do mean 'Any' internal image of 'a rainbow ' is an objective existence. It can be in any head that is capable of creating this image. So any one incident of this.I draw our readers attention to (4) Furyan5 ''This debate concerns the objective existence of a perceived object in our mind.' There it is A. My advice to you is to read this or something of this nature. https://ccrma.stanford.edu...The subjectivity within this debate was introduced by your via oversimplification and concealment. It anyone can find a point to this , please contact me in comments. Vote as you see fit. Thank You for your efforts here, Furyan5. Have you any idea how hard it is to unravel your 'deductions' with Jack Nicholas pointing his finger at you? (You probably have)
Rainbows do not exist objectively

Furyan5 states: Obviously I'm referring to the image that exists in our mind, as everyone knows there is no actual arch in the sky. I thought as much. You may have managed to clutch defeat from the jaws of victory here. I was about to concede ground to you on this debate and admit to an objective entity in the sky. My logic for doing this was as follows.When three people see the same anomaly and identify it's type simultaneously it suggests that a real occurrence is happening. My son is colourblind and he struggles to identify berries on bushes. That does not mean that they are not there. If one of the three men, afore mentioned had a dog and it was unable to identify the rainbow by barking then this would not suggest in any way that the three men were delusional. Some real objective occourence is happening. I was prepared to give you this. I said that I want you to win. This would have lead to a fantastic consideration of the relationship between the actual real sky phenomena and the visual creation of same within the cerebral space. I was about to discuss the visual language of colour. But no, you want to go elsewhere. You want to insist that a cognitive image is objective in that it was not composed in a conscious subjective manner, ie that it is a subconscious creation. This is like my wife taking me into a clothes shop. Furyan5 states: The image exists objectively within their mind, be it only as data. We have effectively flip-flopped here, Furyan5 , now I have it in the sky and now you have it in the head. Keep talking.
Rainbows do not exist objectively

I'll start with your last question. Obviously I'm referring to the image that exists in our mind, as everyone knows there is no actual arch in the sky. My definition clearly states the perceived arch. This image exists objectively within our visual centre and is not a imaginary creation of our minds. As for cats and dogs, I don't see the relevance of this line of questioning. Yes, some animals do posess the ability to distinguish different colors and due to this, will percieve a rainbow in a different way than we do. But this does not mean that they imagine it. The image exists objectively within their mind, be it only as data. When a TV antenna recieves a signal, it sends this signal to the television, much like our eyes receive light waves and sends electrical impulses to our brains. The television, and our brains imaging centre perform the same function, turning these signals into a visual representation. So just to clarify, there is no substantive arch in the sky, but there is an objective image that exists in our mind.
Rainbows do not exist objectively

Hi Furyan5,I hope to enjoy and learn from our conversation. I kinda hope you win. I am tired of feeling 'in the ascendancy'.Let us examine the progression of your argument together.(A) Furyan5 states: My argument is that our perception of reality is a function of the human subconscious and therefore not subjective.(B) Furyan5 states: Light waves reflected off various objects, strikes the cones and rods of our retina, sending electrical impulses via our optic nerve to our brains imaging centre. Here the brain converts these electrical impulses into a visual representation which is what we percieve. (C) Furyan5 states: This all occurs in our subconscious and therefore should be considered as objective and not subjective as it is not open to misinterpretation.With regard to (A) one could draw the following conclusion without deviating away from logic. One could say that the image of the rainbow made by us was not done intentionally. by us. It is therefore a 'subconscious act' . Agreed. What this will have to do with the objective existence of the rainbow remains to be revealed by you, one would hope.Now let us look at (B) This is a description of human 'infrastructure' and a nice one at that. How does a mouse or a dog get on here. Do they see the rainbow too. If not, then why not. After all, you are attempting to insist that it is there? Is it because their 'infrastructure' is inferior that they fail to see what you insist is there objectively. This same anomaly occurs when a man, a bat and a dog cognitively engage with a common object, ie a tree. Are you saying that they received the same data but that they assembled it differently. If this is the case then which of these three life forms was 'closest' in their approximate of what is there and why do you think that your answer is correct. I apologize for the questions that are inspired by your (B)Let us look at (C) So the creation of the image is 'objectively' reached, so therefore what? How does this indicate that the rainbow exists objectively. Are you talking about a cognitive image or an 'objectve' entity in a sky. Please explain.
Rainbows do not exist objectively

Thanks for accepting. My argument is that our perception of reality is a function of the human subconscious and therefore not subjective. Light waves reflected off various objects, strikes the cones and rods of our retina, sending electrical impulses via our optic nerve to our brains imaging centre. Here the brain converts these electrical impulses into a visual representation which is what we percieve. This all occurs in our subconscious and therefore should be considered as objective and not subjective as it is not open to misinterpretation.
Rap Battle

Never a word about Christianity or spirituality Just bring up this inability to coexist humanity With people who've the incapacity to understand reality And claim the immorality in homosexuality I think saying F@ggot makes you the evil one Because those aren't the words of god"s only son So think what you say because it can"t be undone You"re only hurting yourself here in the long run Don"t plant the seeds if they"re not fertilized Cuz I think what I do, don"t make me hate Jesus Christ I love the lord just don"t think as formalized You"re more wine and bread, and I"m burgers and fries
Rap Battle

My religion isn't a superstition And for a f@ggot you got ambition But your still in no condition So let me helpful from your homo self cause this is a search and rescue mission And I don't the all the answers, your just judgmental But to "planting the seed" to help people us fundamental And to wanna be women when your a man dude your pretty mental So your definitely not on my level Wow saying that teens are in fornication man that's pretty evil Ha and you say Christians are "bad people" Well I can't change cause only god is able Maybe you should let god so you won't be so unstable
Rap Battle

In no way will I live a life near dull I live my life with my glasses forever half-full And I like my men nothing less than swool And live with the passion of Taurus the bull. Compare yourself to Eminem quite dramatically I concur your sh!t does add up mathematically So if I may handle this a bit diplomatically When I suggest you invest in a semiautomatic please Claim you know the answer to the question of religion Claim to know the answers like you wrote the definition Claim that faith is beyond your superstition But all you sound like to me is republican politician New flash for you dude and your blind side information Teens are still participating in fornication And gay guys are getting up there reputation Sorry if that"s against your differential equation
Rap Battle

Well I'm afraid this battle is gonna be graphic So by now you better be in panic Cause I ain't losing to no f@ggot And my victory will be automatic And your single cause most men are normal Cause to most guys, men who look like women is abnormal So maybe you should go straight a find a nice wife And have some companionship instead of a dull life I'm like Eminem cause I've lost my first ones But it helps in the long run And just admit that you've been outdone
Men should work and women should stay home and look after the children

In conclusion, the reason why women should work and not stay home is that women and men should be treated equally. Each have valuable skills that could be added to a country's workforce. If a woman and a man work, the income in a house increases. This could make a house feel more secure and they will also improve a country's GDP by having enough money and buying luxuries with it. When women work, in most cases the child has to learn to be more independent. This is an important characteristic to learn and can aid the child throughout their life. Nannies, Transportation and Aftercares could also be used. These provide jobs, contributing to the employment rate of the country as well as an increase in production.
Men should work and women should stay home and look after the children

You are supposed to be arguing for the topic. In other words, you must argue that women should stay at home. Your argument is unclear. Men and women should work, as it encourages their children (sons and daughters) that work is important and this improves productivity in the long run. When children's parents work, the children learn to be more independent. Dr. John Duffy, Psy.D., a clinical psychologist and life coach says that holding onto your children too tightly can be harmful and that independence is one of the primary goals of childhood. When a child is independent, it makes them more confident. This should carry onto adulthood, and confident workers are more motivated, efficient and effective. When both parents work, services such as nannies, transport companies and aftercares are used. All of these services employ people and if the services are not needed, employees will lose their jobs. This has a negative effect on the economy. https://www.care.com...
Men should work and women should stay home and look after the children

Women have a right to do whatever they want and are not slaves. What is the difference between males and females? Why is it always women? Why can't men stay home? Women are just as important as men are. I think I said exactly what was on my mind about women portrayal. Plus the father should stay at home and have time to bond with their children as well. Fathers can stay home with the child no just the mothers. If the father don't have a job than the father should stay home with the child. K=like if the family has a boy the father should bond with and make the kid feel like he cares. But it all depends on what the mother and father wants to do. Me I would want to work part of the day but I also would want to be with my child for part if the day.
Men should work and women should stay home and look after the children

Women and men should work and get paid and women shouldn't have to stay at home to look after the children. Both genders offer different skills which are valuable to society. Just as those skills can be utilised in a home setting, they can also be used in a boardroom. Over the years, women have fought for equality and the right to work. It isn't fair that a man should have to work and make the money while the woman stays at home. If men and women work, it also increases the income in that house. This enables extra money to be spent on luxuries and in turn improves the country's GDP. If businesses cannot sell their products because families do not have enough money to buy them, the businesses may have to lay off employees. This detrimentally affects the economy as now the laid off employees aren't earning a salary. This turns into a cycle.
The government should give preferential treatment to people based on their race or gender.

This topic is all about preferential treatment of people based on race or gender, otherwise known as affirmative action. Affirmative action is wrong because: 1) It is the very thing it intends to destroy. It boosts the status of minorities above the majority so they can feel equal. However, this largely affects the majority because the minority will feel better than the majority. 2) Minorities will feel less accomplished. If a minority is seeking to find a job, most of the time they can easily find one because the person who doesn't hire them might be questioned of racism or sexism. They will not have accomplished much because it's easy to do what they want in an affirmative action area. 3) The best person is not always hired. Let's say a white person and a black person (or a man and a woman) get job interviews at the same time. The person interviewing them might see the white person (or the man) is more qualified than the black person (woman). However the person doesn't want to be accused of racism (sexism) so the person hires the black person (woman). This kind of thing happens more than America is aware. I have more proof I'll use later on. This should be a good start though. Bottom line, although racism is going on it has died down more than in the past. America was founded on EQUALITY. We should maintain that and treat everyone equally.
The government should give preferential treatment to people based on their race or gender.

Affirmative action is applicable in some cases. -I do agree with you on this point. For instance, often a black man may go to jail just for his race. This has happened many times in many cases. -I know. But there is a difference in affirmative action and treating people as equals. If affirmative action was taken he probably wouldn't be arrested at all. The court system can't say, we won't give him a fair trial because if we do, we'll have to give a fair one to the white dudes we ripped off to. -Well that's the funny thing about America. Once we do something wrong we seem to have it in our heads that we can't reverse it. If they right now started to do fair trials for everyone the world would have a better example to follow. Back on topic. They can't give the black person a trial because if they did they would have to give everyone trials too. Even though it's wrong it shows equality to everyone instead of affirmative action. Thanks for this debate. I look forward to your final response.
The government should give preferential treatment to people based on their race or gender.

Affirmative action is applacible in some cases. For instance, often a black man may go to jail just for his race. This has happened many times in many cases. The court system can't say, we won't give him a fair trial because if we do, we'll have to give a fair one to the white dudes we ripped off to. You see where I'm going with this?
The government should give preferential treatment to people based on their race or gender.

For this I'm going to request that preferential also cover "different"? -OK. By "has" I mean, people think they should make up for it. -I do agree that at one time affirmative action was probably necessary. And no doubt it will be necessary in the future for Muslims and Mexicans. But it has gotten out of hand. They're raising the minority and lowering the majority making nicknames like "poor white trash" and what not. It is basically reverse discrimination. Most races who faced some sort of discrimination whether it is 10 years ago or 200, seem to think two things. 1)Everyone is still racist. -Well they shouldn't think EVERYONE is racist. When they think this they themselves sometimes become racist. This is what pro-affirmative action people are teaching. And when people are still mad after 200 years you know there's a problem. 2)The government has to make up for it. -I believe in the case of black people and women they've more than made up for it. They've over made up for it. Now women are being sexist, black people are getting arrogant, and white people and men are becoming racist and sexist again. Everything is slowly starting to go downhill and it will continue to if affirmative action is not stopped.
The government should give preferential treatment to people based on their race or gender.

For this I'm going to request that preferential also cover "different"? You can decide. Different/preferential treatment obviously begins at the airport. It is like Carlos Mencia said. 'You see the spanish guy and ask, well why doesn't he search the black guy? He was enslaved for a 100 years. Why not the women? They didn't get voting rights for 125 years. Why not the white guy? He's the one who gave him the job.' Obviously that is meant as a joke but it also is showing how much the government "has" to make up for. By "has" I mean, people think they should make up for it. Most races who faced some sort of discrimination whether it is 10 years ago or 200, seem to think two things. 1)Everyone is still racist. 2)The government has to make up for it.
The problem of evil and the concept of God are irreconcilable

This debate should be impossible to accept. Comment if you want to debate.I will be arguing that one can not reconcile the problem of evil with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God.My version of the problem of evil goes as follow:1) If an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God exists, then there can be no gratuitous evil or suffering in this world.2) There is gratuitous evil and suffering in this world.3) Therefore, the tri-omni God does not exist.I added the word "gratuitous" in order to get rid of the freewill argument right off the bat so we can focus on other refutations.If you do not believe in the tri-omni God, then DO NOT TAKE THIS DEBATE.While I have thought about this issue quite a lot, I have never actually confronted my thoughts to exterior criticism, so this debate should be interesting.EDIT: If you do not believe that evil and suffering exist, then DO NOT TAKE THIS DEBATE (and perhaps take some time to reevaluate your view of the world.EDIT: It was pointed out in the comments that "gratuitous" may be subject to interpretation, so I will clarify what I mean by it: Not caused by humans.