BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The universe is made of only one particle

You have been deceived by the science community. They want you to believe there are hundreds of different particles because there is more money to made from a complex universe than there is from a simple universe. The many particles theories are a total illogical nonsense which destroys theories such as E=MC2. Nobody knows what a particle is. We only know what the properties of these particles are. The universe only has positive, negative and neutral. Thus, the universe is simply designed and easy to understand. But, unfortunately, scientists don't like a simple design, so they ignore it and image a complex design which suits their agendas.
a terrorist with a bomb in an unknown location ready to explode, should be tortured to get the info

lol I messed up. What I meant to say was my opponents argument was its illegal but that's irrelevant. @ voters: SHE HAS NEVER SUPPORTED THAT STATEMENT WITH FACTS My opponent takes a red herring on my analogy, whether or not it was good is irrelevant as it missed the point of the argument. The point was we are prohibited in doing so, and breaking these laws will hurt our international standing and warrant scolding from the UN. As this point was never refuted the argument stands as torture is illegal. My argument wins. My opponent did this in her main rebuttal: a) dodged the point b) focused on an analogy red herring As it is a red herring much of my opponents argumentation this round is a moot. Meaning I should win this debate. My opponents final objection is arguing it is ineffective is not logical. He actually cherry picks the argument down to one statement instead of the whole paragraph. "Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, who has confessed to planning the September 11, 2001, attacks as well as personally beheading Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, was subjected to waterboarding 183 times in March 2003."[1] It is perfectly reasoned. If it takes 183 times and multiple months of torture we can assume the method fails. Also the scenario was we had 1 day. (see round 1) This means we are doing an illegal practice that wont work. CONCLUSION: I have refuted all of my opponents weak points, my opponent relies on flawed logic refuted in round two and subsequently dropped and red herrings this round. --Dropped points-- She dropped my important analysis if the a), b), c). Dropped how water boarding has alternatives which are more effective hence water boarding is unnecessary pain inflicted on the person The bomb killing of "millions" is exaggerated and likely closer to 50. --> Why con won args -- Dropped points and flawed logic + red herrings means con wins args sources -- I had sources, she did not S/G -- She had terrible grammar and capitalization mistakes everywhere Conduct -- you choose VOTE CON 1. http://www.csmonitor.com...
a terrorist with a bomb in an unknown location ready to explode, should be tortured to get the info

"My opponents only argument is because its illegal means we should not do it." actually, that's your argument. this is an illogical statement. "This is like saying I should murder because i think its right" it is not at all like murdering because you think it's right. at least if you are talkin about any old murder. torturing, or perhaps murder yes, in what is effectively self defense of a country, is where you are protecting innocent lives by hurting or killing the non-innocent. your point is only slightly analogous in that a law is being broken... but the actually details as to why one should be allowed and one shouldn't, are so different as to be night and day. it's almost a joke of an analogy. what is more analogous is... "Joe is sanctioned by the government to kill people indiscriminately. therefore, we should not stop joe or even kill him, because that would be illegal". this is almost directly analogous as there are innocent v noninnocent people involved. "My opponents scenarios are not convincing even if we do know their guilty, as to get the info they still need to spill it. And as stated it is ineffective. [1] Likely because their convinced god said so." this is vague and not very well reasoned. you seem to be asserting its not effective without proof. and something about a god? it's too incoherent to make out what's being argued here. my scenario is saying... all other tactics have failed almost assuredly, by definition. we could keep trying and failing, but what good is that? might as well up the ante and do what is necessary.
a terrorist with a bomb in an unknown location ready to explode, should be tortured to get the info

the question is whether we should torture that person or not. just because torture might be illegal, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. a good citizen is always wakeful to the need to rebel against a tyrannical society, its laws etc. simply put. should we abide by the law for technicality's sake.... or quite potentially save millions of people? we save millions of people... this is the obvious solution, especially when compared to mere technicalities, so i should win the debate. this is of course assuming that there's a real prospect of getting caught... which isn't clear in this hypothetical. if we aren't going to get caught, who cares at all? (if we cared about this... opponent would only win in some scenarios, but on balance, my argument is most convincing considering we're not talking about all scenarios) even more important, even if we thought we'd get caught... or we were respecting the law for it's own worth.... why on earth would anyone care about these things? how worthless is a person if they are not willing to break the law to save millions? or even risk spending life in jail, or execution, in order to save millions of people? opponent's arguments are morally weak and, frankly, spineless. and for that reason pro should win the debate.
a terrorist with a bomb in an unknown location ready to explode, should be tortured to get the info

C1: Torture is illegal Yes, it is. We have signed many treaties arguing that torture is illegal, and by my opponents opening response it seems as though she agrees something as water boarding is torture. (verbal questioning is irrelevant as that's not torture) Common article 3 of the geneva convention is highly relevant to the debate, the US signed it, and the Bush administration actually agreed it was relevant and applied to the war on terror. [1] This was made for prisoners of war. Which again implies to the war on terror as if we arrest you based on these charges (we are at war with terror) we can assume that they are prisoners of war. As this article states: "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; . . . outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." [2]The second treaty we signed is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treaty. This was made to promote civil rights and human rights and was made to make them stronger. As it states: "[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." [2]The third is the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment treaty. This states: "[e]ach State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction, [...] [e]ach State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture . . . ."[2]As we can see, torture is illegal. As my opponent implied water boarding was. The resolution also states "torture". With this in mind if we take the resolution literally we can assume she means torture. Something that's unconstitutional and banned under the three treaties above. Now, the resolution here lakes it easy for me to prove it is unconstitutional. The wording of torture wins me the debate. As my opponent argued we might have to use full out torture, which is illegal, therefore I win this debate. And lastly the 8th amendment. "The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause applies to the states. [...] Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." [3] Torture is illegal. This is already a winning argument.VOTE CON1. http://www.nytimes.com...2. http://lawreview.wustl.edu...3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
a terrorist with a bomb in an unknown location ready to explode, should be tortured to get the info

hypothetical. a terrorist has a nuclear bomb in NY city. he says he knows where it is, and that it will explode in a day. all evidence supports that there is a bomb, and that he knows where it is, etc. when i say "torture" i am assuming we might try a progressive set of tactics, rough talk first, then a little violent, then things like water boarding, then full out torture, if necessary. most would argue against this as a matter of 'the ends does not justify the means'. even if we assume that that might be usually true (read, 'proportionalism' v. deontology), we cannot assume it all the time. it would be immoral to let millions die because of your mere thoughts of what's "moral".... it would be selfish, and immoral as a lack of action in doing what is necessary to save the city. i am open to other arguments about why we shouldn't torture them, but i assumed the "ends means" argument would crop its head up, so I got it right at the bat.
The Political Compass is inaccurate and/or misleading

Not incidentally, my position is not only my opinion; it's also the opinion of the creators of virtually every political compass ever made.Examples of other political compasses employing the same terms as the own pertaining to this debate (no cherry-picking necessary) :focusedpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/political-compass-parties-1972-to-2008.jpg">http://solution focusedpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/political-compass-parties-1972-to-2008.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org...http://img391.imageshack.us...http://www.politicalcompass.org...http://www.mwaddell.com...http://www.examiner.com...(2).jpghttp://www3.telus.net...http://gotoquiz.com...Rebuttals: 1)"Con claims that the political compass does not equate conservatism with authoritarianism, because Conservatism is a socioeconomic scale, and authoritarianism is a sociocultural scale. This is false; by definition conservatism is a sociocultural scale, and authoritarianism is sociopolitical. Con agreed with these definitions back in round 2. Just because the political compass redefines conservatives as socioeconomic, does not make them socioeconomic. All that does is create a semantic shift." The compass does not redefine 'conservatives' as anything, as it never uses the term 'conservative.' 2) "If you wanted to poll a population to determine how many people are conservative, but you only counted those who agreed with the economic platform of conservatives, than you are engaging in selective bias."Is this compass doing this?3) "Other than selection bias, the political compass also suffers from information bias. Due to the faulty axes, people are placed in the wrong categories."The compass doesn't put people into categories; that's for the people to determine themselves with the information the compass provides. 4) "My opponent keeps claiming that the political compass does not reference left wing and right wing. Simply because the compass does not say “wing” does not mean they are not referring to the “right wing” when they use the word “right”. My opponent has already claimed that the compass’s “economic right” refers to “conservatives”, thus associating “conservatism” and “progressivism” with a socioeconomic scale. By definition “conservatism” and “progressivism” are not socioeconomic, but rather sociocultural. Once again, the two are not synonymous. If the “economic right”, refers to conservatism, than the compass is semantically shifting the definition of conservatism."I've already rebuted this sort of nonsense in previous rounds. 5) " My opponent has already claimed that the compass’s “economic right” refers to “conservatives”No I did not. And if I did, I would be wrong.
The Political Compass is inaccurate and/or misleading

First off I would like to apologize for the issues with the graphs. In the preview it looked different; the issue is in the site’s code, not my post. Miscalculates Con claims that I “miscalculated”, due to the different terms of left and right, and that the terms “left”, “right”, “libertarian”, and “authoritarian” apply to the definitions of political compass, rather than those of the oxford dictionary. The point I was trying to make, is that by redefining these political terms they are using deceptive terms, by creating a semantic shift. When I calculated where the ideologies fell on the political compass, I disregarded the oxford definitions, and used the political compass definitions. According to the political compass, Conservatives are Right Wing Authoritarians, National-Socialists are Left Wing Authoritarian, Progressives are Left Wing Libertarian, and (true) Libertarians are Right Wing Libertarian. The results are shifted slightly the left, in an attempt to create a semantic shift; Liberal Conservatives are not authoritarian, yet according to the political compass, they are; Populists are not Libertarian, yet according to the political compass, they are. The political compass is deceptive. Right and Left Con claims that the use of the terms “Left and Right” are not synonymous with “Left Wing and Right Wing”, but the Political Compass website claims they are; they just redefined left and right as an economic scale. http://www.politicalcompass.org... Con claims that Collectivist Economics are inherently Left wing and Individualist Economics are inherently Right Wing. This statement is false; Economic Nationalism is collectivist, and would therefore be Left Wing according to the Political Compass. Definitions Con did not rebut the Oxford dictionary. Con claims that the political compass focuses on the socioeconomic aspects of the Left and Right, and the sociocultural aspects of Authoritarian and Libertarian. This claim is false; I have already pointed out that economic collectivism is not inherently Left Wing. The political compass’s Authoritarian Right is just as authoritarian as their Libertarian Left. As such, the political compass engages in deception. The Shift By changing the definitions of Left Wing, Right Wing, Authoritarian, and Libertarian, the political compass shifts the results to the left. Here are the political compass’s results for the various ideologies; http://www.debate.org... Here are the results of the various ideologies using the real definitions; http://www.debate.org... The political compass is attempting a semantic shift, in order to negatively equate conservatism with authoritarianism and positively associate progressivism with libertarianism. According to the political compass, Conservatism is just as authoritarian as Fascism, and Progressivism is just as Libertarian as (True) Libertarianism.
The Political Compass is inaccurate and/or misleading

My opponent miscalculates when he takes the terms used to label the political compass out of context. The terms are properly analysed within the dichotomy they establish. The terms 'left' and 'right' are used to establish the dichotomy of thought for the economic spectrum while the terms 'libertarian' and 'authoritarian' are used to establish the dichotomy of thought for the social spectrum. Each of these terms entail more than they explicitly represent within the confines of the compass, but that's not to say this is misleading or inaccurate. A libertarian, for example, has libertarian views on both social and economic issues, meaning 'libertarian' can define only those views which are pertinent to the axis it's on (in this case the social axis). The case is no different for 'right' and 'left' properly defining the sides of the economic spectrum.Rebuttals:(1) "The Political Compass gives 4 possible results;"1.) Right Wing Authoritarian2.) Left Wing Authoritarian3.) Right Wing Libertarian4.) Left Wing Authoritarian"This is technically incorrect. One being 'right' on the economic axis does not necessarily mean one would be 'right wing'; it only means one has economic views similar to those of the right wing, or that can be described as being 'right wing' as per what each axis explicitly sets out to define.(2)"The Oxford Definition of collectivism, individualism, authoritarianism, libertarianism, left wing, and right wing does not match those used by the political compass. By definition the Authoritarians are Collectivist, Libertarians are Individualist, Conservatives are Right Wing, and Progressives are Left Wing. According to the Political Compass, this is not the case."Because the political compass uses two axes, and no terms exist that solely mean 'economic right' or 'social liberal', the political compass must use terms that may entail more than they do within the compass. This is not to say that this is a problem. The two axis are defined as being the social views axis and the economic views axis, barring any faulty interpretations. There is only one conclusion to be reached for each of the terms paired with the axis.
It's morally permissible to kill domestic abusers

Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. Since the last one I did (sadly) ended in forfeits, I decided to give it another go. This is an old LD topic. This debate will be done as such. All types if LD cases are acceptable. Round structure will be as such: Round One: AFF PRESENTS CASE, THIS ROUND IS NOT JUST FOR ACCEPTANCE. Round Two: Neg case/rebuttals, Aff rebuttals Round Three: Neg Rebuttals, Aff rebuttals Gl to my opponent!
It's morally permissible to kill domestic abusers

First of all, my opponent has failed to clarify what situation the said victim of domestic violence is in. Is she able to flee? Is she forced to stay inside her house by her abusive misogynist husband? Is the person in question even the person who is a victim of domestic violence, or is it a bystander? Is it even between a husband and a wife, or is it between two siblings? Either way, I'll begin making my case as to why using deadly force against repeated domestic abusers is justified. There several things you can do to react to being abused. You can flee, you can try to get the abuser to stop, you can leave him, you can endure it, you can report him to the police or you can kill him. If you flee, you must be willing to pack up and leave immediately were he to ever find out where you live, which he could do if he tried to. If you try to get the abuser to stop, you may or may not succeed. You probably wouldn't succeed, as he clearly has no problem with abusing you, and in the meantime you're still being beaten up. And what if the level of violence were to escalate until finally he killed you, intentionally or accidentally? If you leave him, it's basically the same thing as the first option, which I've already shown to not be a particularly good idea. If you endure it, well, you're being beaten up, and you have no hope in your current state. Now, my opponent will probably suggest this option. Report him to the police. Good idea, right? Well, that raises the question of whether he'll be in prison his entire life. If not, then several decades later you might return from a trip to the mall to see him standing there with a machete or a mallet. And then you'd be dead. If he were in prison for his entire life, he'd likely abuse other prisoners, just because violence is in his nature. So somebody is still suffering under this scenario. And let's assume for a moment that in none of these scenarios would he come after you. He might still find himself a girlfriend and beat up on her. So basically, as long as he is alive, he is a danger to either you, others, or both. The only sure way that you can be safe is for him to die, and he'll probably live several more decades if you don't give his time of death a little shove. Even if you were to spend the rest of your life in prison for it, and you'd likely receive some leniency due to the circumstances in which your crime was committed, it'd be worth it. Of course, this entire scenario assumes that you are able to simply flee or call the police. What if he has you locked inside the house, with no way to reach the outside world? In this case, your only options are to continue to suffer or to kill him. This concludes Round 1. Make your case, Con.
An atheist President would be okay

Since con has made no arguments I will present some he might make.1. MoralityAtheists don't have morals, so they'd make a bad President! Well, considering my last point about us not being serial killers, I'd say we have morals. The Red Cross, The Foundation Beyond Belief, and Doctors Beyond Borders are all some non-religious charaties. In fact, I'd say that one of the only reasons churches do so much is that they want to "spread the word," and avoid their hell. Here's a little quote from a link I found (http://www.livescience.com...)"'Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not,' study co-author and University of California, Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer said in a statement. 'The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns.'"Just going to go out on a limb here and say that the Bible isn't exactly a great moral standard.Deuteronomy 22:28-29- “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."Numbers 31:17-31:18- "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the women children that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."Sorry for the lack of possible arguments but I had only a short time to construct this. I hope my opponent returns.
An atheist President would be okay

I would like to point out that my opponent has plagiarized Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org...) and broken the rules I made in the first round."An Atheist in my opinion should not be president due to the fact that freedom of religion and freedom of speech would also be broken."By electing an atheist President, the US is not prohibiting anyone from practicing their religion, so how would it break freedom of religion? Where'd you get freedom of speech from?"Also even though many feel that being an atheist isn't a religion, it is classified in one. Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is the belief that science and proof of theory is key. Key word being Belief."So any belief I hold makes it a religion? That makes no sense. Maybe you should explain it to the IRS, 'cause I don't see them exempting us from taxes.My argument is that an atheist President would be okay because an atheist is just like anyone else on the planet, they just don't believe in a two thousand year old myth. We're not evil child abusing wife beating stealing prostitutes. We're people, too.