azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

We can't have a civilized debate because "let's torture people for information" is the antithesis of being civilized. You know how we define a civilized nation? One that doesn't run round torturing people is pretty much a central characteristic. Next why don't you ask me why we can't sit down and calmly and reasonably discuss whether it's a good idea if we kill and eat the neighbors, because you know it's a well proven fact that they have nutritional value so there has to be an argument to be made on the fact that it would work, right? So no reason for anyone to get excited or anything. And people being tortured don't consider long term consequences real well. They're a little excessively focused on the present for some inexplicable reason. So they're not thinking about whether there will be future pain, they're just trying to stop right now pain. And no, torture is not supposed to be quicker, except in badly written action movies and certain television series on Fox. Because one of the primary requirements of something being quicker is that it actually WORKS. Which this DOESN'T. The only thing it does is make terrified little cowards feel better because they can hurt the scary people and make them less scary. In the meantime REAL intelligence officers consistently testify that torturing prisoners is stupid and counter-productive and yields crap results.And in the meantime, you make torture official policy and you put EVERY damn soldier in the field in harm's way when it becomes open season on torturing US personnel since that's how WE decided the game was going to be played. We created things like the Geneva conventions for a freaking reason you genius.I cannot put into words how contemptible the crap is.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

You know how we define a civilized nation? One that doesn't run round torturing people is pretty much a central characteristicOk, you want to play the defining game? What if I tell you a civilized nation is one where noone murders, conspire to hurt, or steal from anyone else? In my civilized nation, we have no crims, so no need for torture, really. But guess what? We aint living in that world. What a shame, cos I'd really enjoy it there..kill and eat the neighborsOk, firstly we actually can sit down and calmly talk about that, but then we'd come to the conclusion that it's a lot better and easier to obtain nutrition from just eating normal grocery :) We also won't have to deal with retaliation from their loved ones, etc, etc....people being tortured don't consider long term consequences real well. They're a little excessively focused on the present for some inexplicable reason. So they're not thinking about whether there will be future pain, they're just trying to stop right now painWell, all you have to do is make it absolutely clear to them before the whole thing starts :) This should be well regulated and clear procedures to be followed and everything like that, so yeah, regulated torture rocks!.one of the primary requirements of something being quicker is that it actually WORKS. Which this DOESN'TIf it doesn't work, why is everyone doing it? Because it's fun? The US didn't have Guantanamo Bay because it's a recreational facility for the soldiers. Torture works! People don't like it because, well, it's painful! But it works :).you make torture official policy and you put EVERY damn soldier in the field in harm's way when it becomes open season on torturing US personnel Soldiers in the field aint eating fairy floss and riding rollercoasters, they're already in harm's way!!! It's called risk of getting shot in the head! Oh and they do get tortured, beheaded and killed and whatever else their enemies do..If torture doesn't work, it's because it was not done correctly. So like I said, research it, regulate it, complement it with other methods.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

I'd love to live in that kind of nation too. So your point is supposed to be "people do bad things... so we should do worse things in response. Genius. Truly brilliant moral theorizing.And we don't want to have to deal with retaliation from the neighbours loved ones but we're fine with dealing with massive international fallout fom becoming a torture regime and the retaliation from the loved ones of all the people we torture. Gotcha. And what is it with you and the insistence that all you have to do is rationally explain something to a torture victim and they'll behave rationally? Do you or do you not comprehend that they are being tortured? They are in no state to be behaving rationally whether you "explain things to them first" or not. Seriously, what is wrong with you?And now you're some kind of expert at torture so you know how it works when you do it "right"? Have lots of personal experience at this do we? Know what is involved better than professional military and intelligence agengy interrogators so you know that all we have to do to make torture "work right" is regulate it properly and those clueless so-called prfessionals don't have any idea what they're talking about? Well gosh. This should be well regulated and clear procedures to be followed and everything like that, so yeah, regulated torture rocks! Are you familiar with the term "antisocial personality disorder"? Might I suggest you discuss it with someone in the psychiatric profession? In person would be best. Tell them all about this discussion when you do.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

So your point is supposed to be "people do bad things... so we should do worse things in response. Genius. Truly brilliant moral theorizingThanks :)Look at it this way, Hitler tried to take over the world. We stopped him with guns and bombs and split his country into many pieces. We didn't invite him over for dinner and ask him to nicely stop..And we don't want to have to deal with retaliation from the neighbours loved ones but we're fine with dealing with massive international fallout fom becoming a torture regime and the retaliation from the loved ones of all the people we torture. GotchaPeople think what they want! We allow our citizens to bear arms and other countries think it's stupid, we execute murderers and other countries think it's stupid,... they think what they want anyway. And don't think for a second that people don't know what Guantanamo Bay is, so you go ahead and take that moral high ground, people see reality for what it is..And what is it with you and the insistence that all you have to do is rationally explain something to a torture victim and they'll behave rationally? Do you or do you not comprehend that they are being tortured? They are in no state to be behaving rationally whether you "explain things to them first" or not. Seriously, what is wrong with youOk, I sit you down, then I give you the usual: tea/coffe, cigarettes, mineral water, etc... then I tell you that I'm gonna ask you a few questions and that you should answer them honestly otherwise you'll feel a lot of pain, then I show you the implements of torture, if it's not clear in your head that you should be cooperating with me by then, I would then make it clear by giving you a little taste of it, not too much of course. What is wrong with giving people a clear indication of what you will do before you do it? .Are you familiar with the term "antisocial personality disorder"? Might I suggest you discuss it with someone in the psychiatric profession? In person would be best. Tell them all about this discussion when you doYou can dismiss my arguments as antisocial, but you should pull your head out of your anus and see the sunlight for what it is. Sure, take the moral high ground. Be all high and mighty. Have a no cheating policy with your wife, then sneak around behind her back. You'd have more respect from me if you were an honest swinger partying it up at an all-night orgy. .I'll have you know that if I caught a murderer and he has another victim hidden somewhere alive and he doesn't feel like telling me about it, I'd beat him until he's inches from death to extract it from him. I wouldn't be asking him nicely. .Regulate it. Do it properly. Don't abuse it. Just like gun control. Just like police brutality. Just like searching people's houses.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

I'm sorry, it is impossible to take you seriously. You are now ethically equating fighting the war against the nazi to the torture of prisoners. You apparently think that being deemed a torture regime by the rest of the world has no more material impact than people "thinking bad things" about the US so I can only assume the words "foreign policy" have never been heard or comprehended by your ears. Just so you know... people ACT on what they think.And you really DO think you know how torture works better than professional interrogators! Good grief! It's imposible to even satirize your positions. It's like you live on your own imaginary planet.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

You are now ethically equating fighting the war against the nazi to the torture of prisonersYou brought the "using bad to fight bad" argument up. I'm just jumping on the bandwagon. The nazis did bad, but we fucked them up pretty good ourselves, raping some 2 million of German women in the process.... .And you really DO think you know how torture works better than professional interrogatorsThey're the ones practicing the art of torture right now!!! I'm just saying to regulate it so they don't abuse it..It's like you live on your own imaginary planet.Well, if I was, would you come visit me?
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Wow. That little imaginary planet of yours is an interesting place. Feel free to contionue playing there without me.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

you're no fun, you're no fun, you're no fun, baby you're no fun.....
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

It should only be done to obtain information from uncooperative suspects. And if the info they give you is bs, then they'd get double pain when you find out. So lying in that case isn't a way to stop pain.Have you ever been tortured? Have you ever been actively drowned, deprived of the ability to breathe as water covers your face? You'd say anything to make it stop.If you're up front about it and do it properly for the right reasons, people will support it. It happens everywhere, why wouldn't people support it? They only don't support its abuse.People wouldn't support it because torture is one of the defining human rights abuses of "regimes" in the world, used as a method to intimidate the population. It's one of the privileges of civilised society that we are protected from such abuse.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Why should terrorists be protected? Why should they be protected when they seek to destroy our country and the free world?
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Why should terrorists be protected? Why should they be protected when they seek to destroy our country and the free world?Social laws exist as an all or nothing gambit. When you start torturing people in a nation governed on principles of citizen rights, you erode everyone's safety from torture by creating a loophole. You need to understand that this is the cost of living in a civilised society, we cannot disregard our social laws when they are inconvenient, we cannot deny our citizens or prisoners rights because it would expedite matters, without undermining what our society stands for, and putting innocent people at risk.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

You'd say anything to make it stop.Including the truth. This is why we should regulate it to eliminate abuse & false information..People wouldn't support it because torture is one of the defining human rights abuses of "regimes" in the worldThis is because of its abuse. Proper and regulated use of well researched interrogation tactics would be nothing like the human rights abuses committed in many dictatorial regimes.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

This is because of its abuse.Proper and regulated use of well researched interrogation tactics would be nothing like the human rights abuses committed in many dictatorial regimes.Torture by definition is a form of abuse, you nitwit.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Torture by definition is a form of abuse, you nitwitNope, you're the nitwit :)Torture is the use of pain to obtain information, or as a form of revenge, or as a form of punishment.Regulations should take out the revenge & punishment components.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Nope, you're the nitwit :)Torture is the use of pain to obtain information, or as a form of revenge, or as a form of punishment.Regulations should take out the revenge & punishment components.Inflicting pain upon someone is a form of physical abuse. Ergo torture is abuse.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Inflicting pain upon someone is a form of physical abuse. Ergo torture is abuseWith that same line of logic, I can say that imprisoning someone is a form of abuse, so let's release all criminals. The fact is inflicting pain is not a form of physical abuse. Certain members of society are treated differently to the vast majority to protect the vast majority.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

With that same line of logic, I can say that imprisoning someone is a form of abuse, so let's release all criminals. The fact is inflicting pain is not a form of physical abuse. Certain members of society are treated differently to the vast majority to protect the vast majority.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_abuse Physical abuse is abuse involving contact intended to cause feelings of intimidation, pain, injury, or other physical suffering or bodily harm.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Don't go backwards. You claim that torture is abuse so look up torture:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TortureAt the very top of the page, you'll find the definition of torture according to the UN Convention Against Torture. Torture is all of that. Now take out all the bad stuff with regulations and then it won't be bad any more. Notice this sentence at the end of the definition:"It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions." So if the law sanctioned it, it's not torture. Make it so.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

At the very top of the page, you'll find the definition of torture according to the UN Convention Against Torture. Torture is all of that.Now take out all the bad stuff with regulations and then it won't be bad any more. Notice this sentence at the end of the definition:"It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions." So if the law sanctioned it, it's not torture. Make it so.This reminds me of an aphorism: "it is better to be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."You can legally define torture to mean imprisonment in solitary confinement for a year. The legal definitions aren't important here because I wasn't using legal definitions of abuse. I was using language definitions.If you are applying pain to somebody in order to punish them, get a confession, or get information, you are torturing them. Pain is a form of abuse. Stop being foolish.This is the same as using the legal definition of murder to defend someone's right to kill another human being under a certain circumstance. We all know that laws provide sanctions, but in this case we would be using the lingual version of murder.I honestly can't believe that you think that if it becomes legal, it is no longer torture, as if that has everything to do with it.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

I honestly can't believe that you think that if it becomes legal, it is no longer torture, as if that has everything to do with it.Stop pretending to be stupid, at the risk that I may believe you.It is me or are you still on the 3 defeated points of your debate: abuse, doesn't work, human rights... Next, please!
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Stop pretending to be stupid, at the risk that I may believe you.It is me or are you still on the 3 defeated points of your debate: abuse, doesn't work, human rights...Next, please!What's this? You didn't rant with hyperbole or bring up how your magical torture solution is different?Your present "debate tactics" don't work and you're running out of ideas.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Your present "debate tactics" don't work and you're running out of ideasYou're the one running out of ideas. Before road rules exist and traffic lights were used, driving may be very bad for society too, because it would cause too many deaths, but guess what? People put in traffic lights and regulate road usage... Just try and argue why we can't make torture work with regulations.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Just try and argue why we can't make torture work with regulations.I told you, several times.It violates our long standing ethics towards human rights and prisoners. So from the outset it is unconstitutional.It is a practice that abuses people by definition both physically and emotionally, thus undermining our justice system's practice of fairness.Why are you so unable to understand the obvious?
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Why are you so unable to understand the obvious?Dear oh dear, it is because I've rebut the arguments so many times before, but since you're still in lala land, here's the rescreening:- Human rights applying to prisoners: Prisoners are deprived of many of their human rights already, article 13 of the UDHR being the primary right. If an inmate misbehaves, he/she gets the solitary confinement treatment, that's a form of torture. Why do we see fit to treat criminals differently from the more civilized population? It's because they're different!- Abuse: this is a word that you use over and over and it denotes misuse of the practice of torture. Like many other things that can be abused (cigarettes, alcohol, power, trade practices, etc.), if properly regulated, it can be managed. But pain is just wrong right? To that I say, if a surgeon cuts you open to help you but in the process he causes you pain, is it still bad? If you need to lose 100 pounds and your personal trainer pushes you through a painful training schedule, is it still bad? If you're a drug addict and to kick your habit you have to go through a painful rehab program, is it bad?- Effectiveness as a means of obtaining information: It's a proven method. The type of questions, the candidate, the methods all need to be considered to maximize effectiveness..I trust this should settle your doubts. If you want to rebut any of these points, please do so with something more interesting this time.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Dear oh dear, it is because I've rebut the arguments so many times before, but since you're still in lala land, here's the rescreening:You don't read ANYTHING I link to you, ad infinitum. You are incapable of learning. You have no concept of RIGHTS versus LAWS versus LANGUAGE. Talking to you is like talking to a mentally handicapped person. A regular person LEARNS what physical abuse and emotional abuse are after you define it for them two times in separate posts. A regular person can appreciate the subtleties between solitary confinement and torture proper without needing an explanation, like "one of these is a limited form of punishment with damage being limited to emotional only after long periods of time, while the other is an enduring form of physical and emotional scarring."A regular person comprehends the difference between abuse, physical abuse, and emotional abuse. A regular person can comprehend the difference between starving a person for weeks, depriving that person of sleep for days, battering that person with your fists, drowning that person with waterboarding, hanging that person on a wall rack, and the practice of surgery and physical training. Who here is dumb enough to need the differences spelled out? You are, apparently.A smart person should have done their research before going on this debate, reading about the torture methods used in extraordinary rendition, noting that the process is actually regulated and still has lead to the deaths of inmates who were detained, and has proven unable to extract information from conditioned people.But you're not a smart person. Your entire debate style is fluff. You resort to hyperbole in nearly every post, you use style over substance to try and bluff the confidence of your arguments, all to mask your centrally flawed premise of "I just know it can work gosh darnit! Why don't we torture more people!"This is why stupid people grate on my nerves. They think they know better than everyone else when in reality they are like the town fool running through town yelling about the latest end of the world prophesy while everyone else shakes their heads.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Gosh, u've really put me in my place now.i think i'm gonna cry.i was really hoping for something interesting to read, instead all i got was more of the same old shit: "I'm really smart and you're just a smart ass dammit! Why don't u go get an education! Blah blah blah" .solitary confinement is not torture, gotcha!.Never mind me saying we should regulate it for proper use and efficiency, you don't need to rebut any of that if you could just recycle the same old rhetorics, highlighting the most negative aspects of unregulated torture..To the definition of torture, I'd like to add: the reading of stupid arguments from smart people like you.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

i was really hoping for something interesting to read, instead all i got was more of the same old shit: "I'm really smart and you're just a smart ass dammit! Why don't u go get an education! Blah blah blah" Smart-ass? Don't elevate yourself. You're more a dumb-ass.Never mind me saying we should regulate it for proper use and efficiency, you don't need to rebut any of that if you could just recycle the same old rhetorics, highlighting the most negative aspects of unregulated torture.Can it be? Did you ACTUALLY concede a point and LEARN something? It was probably just a typo but I'll remain hopeful that my referencing physical and emotional abuse for you no less than three times finally got through to you, and you learned that torture is a form of abuse.However, minus a point for suggesting that there aren't only negative aspects to torture.Never mind me saying we should regulate it for proper use and efficiency, you don't need to rebut any of that if you could just recycle the same old rhetorics, highlighting the most negative aspects of unregulated torture.I just told you it is already regulated and still lead to deaths, but whatever, guess you can't be bothered to do the research yourself.http://www.aclu.org/human-rights_national-security/aclu-obtains-detailed-official-record-cia-torture-program