BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
a terrorist with a bomb ready to explode in an unknown location should be tortured to get the info

It isn't apparent to me that the efficacy of torture is a function of how urgently that information is needed by the interrogator. The scenario seems a bit stylized, no? It seems if it were as binary as you'd like it to be, then the most ethical answer seems to be that you save the city. But this scenario makes just as much sense as talking about the possibility of a square circle, i.e. one could never truly be confident that "all other alternatives" have been used up, even in theory. In fact, so much does this seem to be the case that it seems to make the hypothetical somewhat incoherent.
a terrorist with a bomb ready to explode in an unknown location should be tortured to get the info

the efficacy of torture might often be low, but when the knowledge of the bomb and perpetrator with the requirsite knowledge is known, the efficacy increases a lot more. also, there may be alternatives to getting the info, but this assumes all other alternatives are used up and time is running out. you basically are forced to torture or do nothing, which could easily be argued as more immoral, allowing millions to die just to protect an ideology.
a terrorist with a bomb ready to explode in an unknown location should be tortured to get the info

This is a classic, intriguing hypothetical; one that even until very recently I was uncertain as to what a good answer for it might be. For the sake of argument, I will exclude treating morality as a perspective-independent standard by which actions can be evaluated. Instead, I will argue from a weaker, practical line of reasoning, and demonstrate that even from this standpoint my counterpart"s claim is unsound. One may still call this rationale "weak moral reasoning", as pragmatism itself seems to carry some moral content--but this seems to be an inescapable reality. My main argument (MA): 1.Torture, when not used maliciously, is one strategy among many used to extract information. 2.All strategies must, at minimum, be evaluated by their level of efficacy 3.Used as a strategy, torture's efficacy is low compared to other strategies available to interrogators. 4.On a reading of what to do with regards to the proposed dilemma, such a low efficacy strategy is not, pragmatically speaking, wise to pursue. Conclusion: A terrorist with knowledge of the whereabouts of a bomb that is imminently about to explode should not be tortured to obtain such knowledge. I will only submit MA to my counterpart"s scrutiny, I will once again emphasize that I think this is the weaker of the two claims I could be making against torture of the terrorist. That latter, stronger claim seems to rest on (you guessed it) an account of morality--call it "strong moral reasoning". I will readily admit being bested should a credible objection be raised to 3--which seems to be the only premise that does not follow in a deductive fashion. I will of course provide further elaboration of premises when such is requested of me.
a terrorist with a bomb ready to explode in an unknown location 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.
Human Nature Exists

Evolution wouldn't be true if there was no such thing is innate behavior. Natural selection is mostly known as the force that causes physical changes to a species, but it also influences their behavior. My opponent writes that "Since nature changes constantly so does what is naturally present in human behavior." It is imperative to acknowledge that certain behaviors remain favorable despite changes in the environment. For example, say (hypothetically) 200,000 years ago the average global temperature was forty degrees cooler than today. As the temperature gradually rose over time, humans would have stopped growing as much body hair, which they had needed to keep warm. But throughout those years, behaviors such as crying have always persisted as an innate behavior. Why? Because they are still beneficial to the survivability of the species. Just because nature changes does not mean that humans must start over with a blank slate. Of course our behavior is subject to change just like nature is, but our behavior doesn't have to change if it remains beneficial. This debate was whether human nature exists. My opponent wrote "...I am not denying there are many things we do naturally." I believe I have demonstrated that human nature most certainly exists. Thank you Saberen, I had fun debating you!
Human Nature Exists

Now you are just re-stating things we naturally do and label it as human nature as you have for most your arguments. When i say i disagree with the existence of human nature i am not denying there are many things we do naturally. What i am denying is that they are innate and are not subjected to change based off external factors, regardless of how long it takes for the change takes. This whole debate just comes down to a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of human nature. Human Nature: Distinguishing characteristics including ways of thinking, feeling and acting which humans tend to have naturally. Since nature changes constantly so does what what is Naturally present in human behavior. Thank you for this debate. I would have most likely put more effort in but I have been busy with life.
Human Nature Exists

Con writes "My opponent claims that we have mostly stayed the same for most of the time." This is not what I said. I stated that "...most of the traits that nature views as 'favorable' have more or less remained the same in [the time humans have existed]." Of course our height may have changed a bit and our immune system has certainly developed; I am talking about the most basic traits. It is still beneficial to have legs and to have eyes. I am saying that the baseline traits and behaviors that have kept our species alive over the last 200,000 years are still at work today. For example, crying is another innate behavior. "Scientists who study evolution say crying probably conferred some benefit and did something to advance our species - because it's stayed with us" [1]. It is accepted that crying has evolved as a way for the mother to know when her child needs help, something that is still very much beneficial today. My opponent states "...our behavior could greatly change in the next couple hundred to thousands of years or maybe much sooner." Perhaps, but this debate is concerned over whether "Human Nature Exists," as in the present. I believe I have shown that it clearly does. To conclude round three, I will write my own premises in a way I believe is more accurate than that of my opponent's. Premise 1: Humans have exhibited the same basic behaviors despite changes in nature. Premise 2: These behaviors have evolved to better human survivability. Premise 3: Human behavior is passed down genetically and socially. Conclusion: Humanity still exists, therefore "human nature" must be innate. Source 1. http://www.npr.org...
Human Nature Exists

I don't exactly understand why you think I didn't know evolution influences our behavior as my entire argument against the notion was based on evolution. My argument goes like this: Premise 1: Humans have certain behaviors that we've evolved. Premise 2: Humans evolved these behaviors to better survivability in nature. Premise 3: Nature is not innate as it evolves as well. Conclusion: Therefore, "human nature" cannot be innate since nature itself is not. " When we say "human nature," we are talking about the general behavior of Homo sapiens (aka modern humans), who have been around for approximately 200,000 years [1]. Nature may have changed, but most of the traits that nature views as "favorable" have more or less remained the same in that time. This includes behaviors that have survival advantages, like the rooting reflex." My opponent claims that we have mostly stayed the same for most of the time. This couldn't be further from the truth. Our height has changed and we have evolved immunity to many diseases since we've officially become homo sapiens.[1] Because of this shift our behavior could greatly change in the next couple hundred to thousands of years or maybe much sooner. Because of our close proximity to many different kinds of people we have most likely accelerated human evolution making behavioral changes more likely and more frequent than ever before.[1][2][3]. Sources: http://anthro.palomar.edu... [1] http://www.wired.com... [2] http://johnhawks.net... [3]
Human Nature Exists

My opponent writes that because life is constantly evolving and Earth is constantly changing, there cannot be human nature. With all due respect, this is a poor understanding of evolution. Evolution does not only determine changes to a species' physical structure, it also influences behavior. Its goal is for us to be prepared to survive before we are even born. If certain behaviors increase our odds of survival, they will be passed down. This is the fundamental principle behind the growing field of evolutionary psychology. The basic assumption is that we are born biased (though not necessarily determined) to express certain behaviors with respect to the environment we are exposed to, among other stimuli. At certain points in our ancestor's history and even still today, these behaviors improved our odds of survival. For example, all babies are born with the rooting reflex, where they will involuntarily turn their heads and begin sucking when you stroke their cheek with your finger. This evolutionary response prepares the baby for breastfeeding, a crucial step in the baby's development. Con states "...since nature is always changing, so will what nature deems "favorable". This in itself should prove that "nature" is not innate." Yes, nature is always changing. But not to the extent that we must change our behavior on a daily basis in order to adapt to nature. When we say "human nature," we are talking about the general behavior of Homo sapiens (aka modern humans), who have been around for approximately 200,000 years [1]. Nature may have changed, but most of the traits that nature views as "favorable" have more or less remained the same in that time. This includes behaviors that have survival advantages, like the rooting reflex. Sources 1. http://humanorigins.si.edu...
Human Nature Exists

I would like to argue that nothing is innate do to evolution itself. One of the methods for a species to evolve is through genetic mutation. The way we got to being how we are today is thanks mostly to changes in our genetics. Our genetics influence the way we think, act and empirically interact with the world. But genetic mutations are random. [1] Genes do not mutate at the will of what will be beneficial to the organism. In fact, 70% of gene mutations cause harmful effects or non at all. [2] This itself disproves the notion of any innate nature because nature is always changing, or evolving. The organism with the more favorable genes will mate and it's genes will be passed on. But since nature is always changing, so will what nature deems "favorable". This in itself should prove that "nature" is not innate. I will wait for your rebuttal. Sources: . http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [1] . https://teaching.ncl.ac.uk... [2]
Human Nature Exists

Greetings! I thank Saberen for creating this interesting debate topic. Seeing that my opponent did not list a format for this debate, I will go ahead and begin. I will argue that human nature exists. My opponent gave a simple yet solid definition of human nature, defining it as "Distinguishing characteristics including ways of thinking, feeling and acting which humans tend to have naturally." Note the word "tend," meaning that these behaviors are incredibly common across humans, though there may be a few exceptions. A basic characteristic that is universal across human beings is smiling. Smiling is our way of non-verbally communicating to others that we are happy. Some people used to believe that smiling was simply a behavior we learned by observing our parents when we were a few weeks old, but this was refuted when we realized that blind people naturally smile as well. This led us to accept that smiling is innate [1]. Another innate human feature is laughing. "Researcher Disa Sauter, of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, says that laughter and smiling likely evolved as ways of diffusing confrontation. She said: 'Even other primates laugh, if you [tickled] a gorilla or orangutan'" [2]. Laughing is certainly innate. If you think about it, the array of different muscle groups used during laughter is too complex to be learned by observation. A baby could not know to contract its abdominal, facial, jaw and throat muscles if laughter was not an innate response to a pleasing stimulus. Some behaviors are universally considered wrong. For example, incest tends to be seen as a taboo by all cultures. Anthropologists believe this encourages exogamy, relationships outside of one's family or clan, which usually results in greater genetic variation. Studies have shown that women tend to avoid their fathers during peak fertility. They were found to be half as likely to call their fathers compared to low fertility days. "In humans, women are only fertile for a short window of time within their menstrual cycle. Sexual decisions during this time are critical as they could lead to pregnancy and the long-term commitment of raising a child. For this reason, it makes sense that women would reduce their interactions with male genetic relatives, who are undesirable mates" [3]. Certain behaviors tend to be seen as immoral by all humans, such as murder, theft and rape. Humans seem to be biased to develop notions of empathy when born, as shown when babies cry upon hearing other babies crying. Lastly, I will bring up music. Many call music "the universal language," and for good reason. All human cultures have music. "Studies show that people are pretty good at detecting the emotions conveyed in unfamiliar music idioms - that is, at least the two basic emotions of happiness and sadness" [4]. I believe I have demonstrated that human nature does indeed exist. I look forward to my opponent's response! Sources 1. http://www.livescience.com... 2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 3. http://pss.sagepub.com... 4. https://www.psychologytoday.com...
21st century indian women positive or negative change

My opponent says, "No matter how much they are educated, they are never free from traditions." However, I submit to you the question of, is this in fact a NEGATIVE thing? The answer is, absolutely not. The claims I use to support this assertion are two fold. But first, since my opponent has offered no clarification for the round I offer the following definitions and observations: Indian- the term used to refer to a Native American observation: this resolution pertains to the overall way of life of 21st century native American women FIRST, my opponents claims are stereo typing ALL Indian women. While the stereo types may hold true in some cases it is important to remember that they are certainly not true in EVERY case. There are Indian women that are, as a result of their education, quite well off. This argument is critical to the debate, as my opponents entire premise is based on this negative over generalization that cannot possibly be proven to be true. Moving on... SECOND, tradition is not negative. Just the opposite in fact. When one considers the Indian way of life 300 years ago in contrast to today, their culture and traditions are in fact dying. We cannot say that these traditions, disappearing thought they may be are a negative thing. On the contrary, traditions are a living window into the past and should consequently ought be preserved. This argument is also critical because the negative suggests that these traditions are the reason that the 21st century Indian women is a negative change. I affirm with the fully supported assertion that these traditions are neither negative, or gaining prevalence; on the contrary, they are just the opposite in every way. Thus I urge the voters in today's debate to affirm.
21st century indian women positive or negative change

i think that there has been a negative change, in the sense that no matter how much they are educated, they are never free from traditions. The modern day Indian woman is strong and bold, courageous enough to stand up for her rights, but what has it changed? Nothing at all. They are still the ones that we hold responsible for looking after the house, cooking, and most of the household chores. Most men have accepted the fact that the modern woman has come up to their level. Yet in this patriarchal society of India, if ever some man has an extra-marital affair it is the woman who is blamed. so now what happened to the big change that occurred in the past decade?
The Bible has not been changed and corrupted

My opponent has yet to provide a definition of corruption. I defined it in the previous round as a change in the text that alters the texts meaning. Thus based upon that definition, I negated the resolution. We cannot say the text had not been corrupted or changed as we have seen how the Bible attests to its own corruption, the translators altered the texts meaning and the gospel writters took the old testament passages out of context to give it a different meaning. Thus the resolution has been negated because we cannot say the Bible has not been changed. PRO I suggest you give a definition of "corruption" in the next round. VOTE CON! Ps.
The Bible has not been changed and corrupted

I want to start the debate from a few quotes from fundamentalist christians. "In fact, after the death of Jesus a whole flood of books that claimed to be inspired appeared. .. . Disputes over which ones were true were so intense that the debate continued for centuries. Finally in the fourth century a group of church leaders called a council and took a vote. The 66 books that comprised our cherished Bible were declared to be Scripture by a vote of 568 to 563. " [1] "A study of 150 Greek [manuscripts] of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings. .. . It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the [manuscript] is wholly uniform. " [2] In order for me to win, I need to show only 1 corruption while my opponent has to go through the entire Bible to prove otherwise. Good luck! References1. Answering Christianity's Most Puzzling Questions by: Richard Sisson, Christian apologist.2. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible by: Rev. George Author.
Video Games Cannot Be Blamed For 'Corrupting' Children.

Ok pro, please sit down we need to have a serious talk.Now I'm aware that "attacking the opponent" is a serious logical fallacy but you know what, I need to get straight to the point.Your argument for lack of a better term, sucks. First of your main argument supports ME, you are supposed to be proving that video games do not corrupt the "youth" instead you are basically arguing that retailers should not be selling games to minors. Your argument of blaming the parents for the corruption of youth is invalid and to quote a famous alien "Highly Illogical"By saying, and in direct quote "If games like this are played by children, they will be effected. I understand that it is true, but the fault lies with the parents that let their children play games that clearly aren't suitable for them." What I bolded is your arguments problem, you fully 100% agree that if children play violent video games THEY WILL BE EFFECTED. Which makes the purpose of this debate no longer nesascary for you agree with me.Your are supposed to be proving video games do not effect youth, im supposed to prove it does. Not the other way around. Also the reason that the game industry gets the bad rap unlike the movie and music industry is because unlike those two, YOU ARE THE CONTROLLER. In sandbox games like GTA the entire game is dictated by your actions, you can play the whole game without the need to kill anyone besides the 1 or 2 story driven missions that require it. Of course, most people, actually everyone will target anyone they see, because its mindless fun, but also because of this they end up feeling less greif and sorrow for attacking innocent bystanders in the game, which will eventually link into real world interactions as I stated before in my previous argument. Also im going to play the "burden of proof" card on you, if you can't cite sources how can I know that what you say is true. I will await a response, but please, remember youre supposed to be saying the games are not effecting youth.
Video Games Cannot Be Blamed For 'Corrupting' Children.

http://vgboxart.com... - this is a link to the box art of GTA V. It clearly says 18 in the corner... I understand all of those points, but the fact remains that children should not play games that are not suitable for them. The game industry make 18+ games to suit adults who are not as susceptible to violence in games (sorry I do not have enough time right now to cite this, but I am sure it is true). Obviously there are exceptions, but as a whole, adults are not going to become more violent from witnessing things like this. The film and music industries do not get any grief over the same things in their 18+ movies and swearing in songs, why does the game industry? If games like this are played by children, they will be effected. I understand that it is true, but the fault lies with the parents that let their children play games that clearly aren't suitable for them. You cannot say that violent games should not be made, that would be the same as telling people they can't swear in songs or make films like Kickass. If the game is not suitable for the child, don't let them play it. It is as simple as that.
Video Games Cannot Be Blamed For 'Corrupting' Children.

I have seen a lot of headlines recently that basically say video games are bad for children. It actually makes me quite angry, given the age restrictions on games. The video game industry can't be blamed for this, it is bad parenting that is to blame. I was in a Game store last week, and saw children as young as 14 discussing what games to get. One of them bought Bioshock 2, another bought GTA Vice City, and the third bought Prototype 2, all with their parents permission. I own or have played all 3 of these games, and they are definitely not suitable for children of that age, hence the age rating. The average age of gamers is 37 (as of 2011) [1], and the games that are rated 18+ are all aimed at people in that age group. Anybody who is younger than that that is playing such games is only doing so because their parents, or their friends parents don't care about the age rating. [1] http://www.theesa.com...