azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Smart-ass? Don't elevate yourself. You're more a dumb-assC'mon, you know I'm a smart-ass :).Can it be? Did you ACTUALLY concede a point and LEARN somethingNow, there's definite signs you're hallucinating... failing to see sarcasm like that, must be the desperation for victory coupled with the frustration of knowing you don't have the ability to ever get there... ok fine, you can keep that point for your team, but if anyone else asks: I didn't give it to you, mkay? .Finally a link to something interesting... by st. Peter's dusty gown I can't believe it! Damn you really know how to make us wait... respect for you restored, a little bit... Now, thanks for highlighting the abuse of the law, I do hope the Obama administration will keep to its words on more transparency and tighter control... something I've been advocating since the beginning of this debate.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

You resort to hyperbole in nearly every post...You accuse me of using hyperboles, right, here's a list of hyperboles I gathered from YOUR posts:Oh it starts that way, the exceptional circumstances one can imagine to justify inflicting severe pain upon a person in order to get information. Then it becomes about using torture on normal suspects because it's easier, and then your rights just vanish so quickly and now you look no better than the backwards countries in Africa, the Middle East - sure we'll become Africa and the Middle East..This is why people downrate you all the time. You display a child's understanding of ethics and morality. I shouldn't be surprised though, this site attracts teenagers and you're probably still in high school - Anyone you cannot argue against is a child..I would like to hope that we can rise above this type of behaviour in the same way we rose above cannibalism and slavery - eating people? wow... I was wrong, you DO have an imagination!.So how could you rationally defend us simply abandoning a core human right of protection over fear of a war or some dead people - abandoning a core human right of protection... are you like a woman experiencing PMS?
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Way to use a chewbacca defence. You're not impressing anybody with an intelligence higher than that of a pudding. It must be miserable for you having this as your big gun. Oh, wait, that's right, you honestly think that this is how debating works.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

OooozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzI'm starting to be really impressed with your ability to display total wankerness.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Your mother must be so proud... you knowing exactly how debating works and all that jazz... :)
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

But wait, there's more!.You keep saying that as if you have no idea how torture works, and you think there's some magic technique that works all the time - Magic technique? For the life of me I can't find where it is I said anything about a single technique....go get waterboarded and then come back and tell me it isn't abuse - I should go and get tortured so you can make a point? Right....Why are you even on this debate if you don't even know what torture is, and what our rights are? You're really dense - Right, if I don't agree with your definition of torture, I'm dense... gottit!.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 - you're getting really desperate now... comparing taking someone's life to application of pain for the extraction of information.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Poor guy, whatever I write to you just goes above your head and you miss the point completely.To any other readers, look at this gem: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 - you're getting really desperate now... comparing taking someone's life to application of pain for the extraction of information.So this idiot defends the idea that torture isn't torture any longer if it's legal. But somehow he can't grasp the comparison to murdering someone, getting off on a legal technicality (like insanity, a well-played legal defence, faulty evidence), and yet being still condemned as a murderer in the eyes of people despite being legally clean.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Wow I really have to thank you for being so thorough with your explanations... they totally change the fact that you're comparing murder to interrogation tactics. Please draw us another hyperbola, Mr. Hyperbolan :)
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

What you shoulda done was to compare your perceived intelligence with your debating ability. See, you and your recycled rhetorics no matter how intelligent they sound doesn't change the way people see your lack of imagination when it comes to debating... Given that you've pretty much got it bagged with your side of the debate, you still manage to fumble and never quite get there in the end... if only you'd think of something other than the: abuse, doesn't work, human rights defense that have already been shot to shreads numerous times...
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

I tend to shy away from the word suspects in this debate. I will put aside the morality argument as it will get nowhere. No one should torture a suspect for information. There are two properties to be weighed in performing an action such as torture: definite harm and potential harm. Definite harm is the harm you will directly inflict upon a suspect and will undoubtedly happen. Potential harm is the harm that will result from not retrieving the information. The issue with potential harm is that gaining the tools to prevent that is purely a matter of chance. If you catch a suspect in a murder investigation and torture him for information, the harm you inflicted upon him or her is real and definite, but the suspect may have no useful information, resulting in an irrelevant potential harm. At the end of the day, the interrogator may go home saying, "Well that was useless, and I just [expletive]ed up someones life."
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

No one should torture a suspect for information.I agree. Suspects are not convicted of any crimes. They are no different to anyone of us and should be afforded the same rights..If, on the other hand, you are a criminal, you have the right to remain silent, but you should also have the right to pain. :).This is useful for extracting info from a criminal who's been caught robbing someone at gun point. He/she may have info regarding the whereabouts of accomplices, etc... So if there's overwhelming evidence of his criminal activities, then even before he is convicted in court (or his lawyer agrees on a plea bargain), we should torture him.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

This is where we agree on some ground. I feel that I have no moral obligation to protect an individual who has committed a crime. The issue is the position of the bright line. Where is the bright line between suspect and criminal? Until that question can be answered, issues with torture are much more plentiful. Obviously, the scenario you gave shows an individual as an obvious criminal, but sometimes it is not that simple.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

This is where the strict regulations should kick in and prevent abuse. I suppose if it's not clear the suspect will be convicted or not, torture should not be allowed.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

"Prevent abuse"? When TORTURING someone?Do you know what the definition of torture is? That's like saying we can institute regulation to prevent abuse while allowing "properly regulated" wife beating.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Wow, the emotional content in your argument is suffocating... Personal drugs use is decriminalized in many places in the world and it's proving to be a successful way of controlling its abuse. It's not wife beating, you're just too hormonal to think straight when debating. Seriously.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

On a side note, if you were a wife beater, i'd have no hesitation in torturing you just for fun... personally.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

did you seriously just try to equate substance abuse to TORTURE "abuse"? As in... hey, torture is fine as long as it's in moderation? You know, a little torture after dinner once in a while... but don't go doing that all day long or your hand will cramp up?What is wrong with you? Seriously?
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Substance abuse is never a good thing, so it actually doesn't even deserve to be in the same league as torture. Torture done properly is good. I know you know that I know that you know deep down inside you think it works.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

I believe that torture is inhumane.Why should we put someone through pure hell simply because they know something that we want to know? If the tortured person was a terrorist, and torturing this terrorist was therefore considered by people as the right thing to do, then wouldn't that be an "eye for an eye," which seems to have brought more trouble than it has removed?
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Actually, in almost any situation in this might be realistically used it's because they MIGHT know something we want to know. If the Bush admin's track record is anything to go by we'll be torturing innocent people who don't even know anything half the time and they'll be yelling out pure imaginary answers just to make it stop, then we'll be running around chasing fairy tales, finding nothing, and torturing them again because they "lied" to us.People are morons, they really are.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

this is why the use of torture must be strictly regulated, like the use of guns.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Just repeating it over and over isn't going to make it any more true. Regulating something that DOESN'T WORK doesn't suddenly make it work.And saying you need to "regulate" torture to make it work "right" is like saying you need to "regulate" car theft or rape and then they'll work the way they're supposed to and everyone will be fine with it.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

The method DOES work. Do not deny that. If you've ever dealt with criminal organization you'd know that. They're using it for doing bad, we're using it for good. Let's regulate so it won't be abused. Please leave the crazy emotions at home when debating.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

No, I will deny it. Because everyone who knows what they're talking about denies it and your private little fantasy that you know better has no credibility here.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

I might be in a private fantasy, but it's not little. And it's people like you, who are wide awake and aware of reality (so you think) that are sweeping this issue under the carpet and allows Guantanamo Bay to exist. Torture happens and is being abused. Keep on denying it if it makes you sleep better but I hope your conscience is never clear.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Why should we put someone through pure hell simply because they know something that we want to knowSomeone already made the point that the information extracted may save lots and lots of lives, so 1 person going through pure hell is ok if a lot of people get to live..It's not an eye for an eye, it's some pain in exchange for a lot of lives.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Look, it saves lives, sometimes, I don't deny that, but let's face the fact that torture is something that no-one deserves, and that we don't have the right to judge as to who should be tortured and who shouldn't. Now, this doesn't comply to interrogators, as they know who they are interrogating and what they are hoping to get out of them, but the message is still there; it is an undeserving act of abuse. Why don't we start upgrading our Lie-Detecting system and start using that as a supplement? We get the truth and false defined without anyone getting hurt. If people start messing up the system, then we work to fix it. Sure, it is harder, but it is less demoralizing and much more humane.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Why don't we start upgrading our Lie-Detecting system and start using that as a supplement?For people to tell the truth (or lie) they would have to speak first. If people won't say anything, we gotta beat it out of them, then we can use lie detectors..Criminals don't deserve civilized treatment like the rest of society.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Please re-read sentance 5 of my previous post (the one you just argued against), as it pretty much says what I would say here.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Right, ok, now please re-read my previous post, the whole thing. It pretty much argues against your point.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

No, it doesn't, I basically said we work towards another means, whether it be something chemical or God knows what we can think of. If we discover a non-violent method of obtaining truth and which still enforces people to speak, why shouldn't we use it?
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Well, you didn't say that at all in that post... but now that you've said it, here's my rebuttal:It'd be great if we have another method of obtaining truths, but as it stands, we still don't, we might be working on it, but we haven't got it yet, so if a suspect remains completely silent (as in not saying a single word or making a single sound), then what dya do? YOU BEAT IT OUT OF THEM :)
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Temporarily perhaps, until we manage a better solution. If we have one, we use it, so we should be working hard to find one since so many people have issues with interrogation.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Torturing terrorists, contrary to popular belief, is not meant as a form of punishment. It is done to gain knowledge which could potentially nullify a future terrorist attack. Is it not better for the terrorist to be put through hell then for the innocent Americans being attacked?There is no time for humanity during war - if you believe it to be inhumane now, how will you feel with your entire family dead?
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Torturing terrorists, contrary to popular belief, is not meant as a form of punishment. It is done to gain knowledge which could potentially nullify a future terrorist attack. Is it not better for the terrorist to be put through hell then for the innocent Americans being attacked?You presume that the people being tortured are known terrorists and not simply suspects who are innocent and will suffer extreme emotional damage. You also seem to believe that somehow a barrier exists that will never let torture be applied to say, enemies of the state, or political enemies. One of the hallmarks of a civilised society is the dependence upon law and human rights instead of violence and intimidation.There is no time for humanity during war - if you believe it to be inhumane now, how will you feel with your entire family dead?If there were no time for humanity during war, we would have reduced Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan to smouldering beds of glass instead of using intelligence and diplomacy. Only fools act flippantly like you are over our core concepts of human rights, because they do not realise how difficult it is to get human rights back once you start to give them away due to fear.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

There is a moral and a practical argument against torture; the moral argument is obvious and, the practical argument is easy to explain. The moral argument is that it is wrong to cause pain to others. This holds true even if torturing people would help out the common good because we have to judge morality based off of actions --not consequences. This is true because it is only our actions that we can really control; that to judge an action on its consequences allows external factors to influence how we determine morality.It is easily seen how torture contributes unjust suffering to captives. Why is it unjust? Well to find that out you all you need to do is read the 8th amendment to the constitution that prohibits the use of cruel punishment. Some may argue that the Bill of Rights only applies to citizens of the United States but, that simply is not true. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that these rights are limited to citizens and, the 9th amendment can be used to apply these rights to our captives. Essentially, we are bound to give all of the Constitutional protections to those under our jurisdiction. The second argument is the pragmatic argument. Simply put, torture actually slows the justice process down instead of making it easier. Sure, information can be obtained quickly by torturing people but, that information is likely to be misleading. People will say anything they think a torturer wants to hear; it doesn't matter if it's true or not. This slows down the whole system because it forces out security forces to stretch out its resources amongst many (probably false) leads. This won't lead to anywhere good for the US.Because of the moral and practical ramifications of torture interrogators should stop using it.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

The moral argument is that it is wrong to cause pain to othersYes, it's wrong, but when people do cause pain and plan to cause pain and have info regarding their plans to cause pain as well as info on the locations of others who caused pain or plan to cause pain, then we should inflict pain on them to minimize pain. Doing that will result in a society with as little pain as possible..Sure, information can be obtained quickly by torturing people but, that information is likely to be misleadingDo it properly and you won't get misleading information. It works, that's why we do it..Take the moral high ground if you want, but torture exists for a reason and because we've swept it under the carpet for too long, rejecting on these moral high grounds, we end up abusing it. If a violent convicted criminal is caught and is likely to hold information that could stop more crimes, then we should not spare him of any pain. The other thing is if we will execute a criminal, that is to end his life, we should not shy away from inflicting pain for info that would further the cause of justice..Accept it, research it, regulate its use.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

MoralityUtilitarianism is a faulty way of judging morality because it can be used to justified any action just by skewing how one looks at a society; the means must justify themselves, which in the case of torture they do not. Keep in mind that we have an obligation to not violate the constitution in any way, which torture does.  Quality of InformationThere is no way to do torture properly because it is a flawed system of interrogation. People, in times of duress, because of their fight of flight response will start to spout off information, regardless of its accuracy, in order to stop the torture.And if we are fighting for democratic ideals like we claim to be doing we should have to use these democratic ideals in our own policies.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

On morality:Utilitarianism is a faulty way of judging morality because it can be used to justified any action just by skewing how one looks at a societyThere's no skewing here. It's as plain as day. Besides, crims operate on a different set of moral values to you and I..the means must justify themselves, which in the case of torture they do not.Says you? The means do justify themselves. Torture is an effective method if done properly..Keep in mind that we have an obligation to not violate the constitution in any way, which torture doesWho wrote the Constitution? God or humans? People wrote it, it can be changed. Even God designed his creations to evolve and change..There is no way to do torture properly because it is a flawed system of interrogationIn its current practice it may not yield optimal results. Regulate it, make it more effective in complementing other methods, practice it properly and you'll minimize the unreliability of extracted info.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

There's no skewing here. It's as plain as day. Besides, crims operate on a different set of moral values to you and I.that doesn't mean we should not follow our own morals.The means do justify themselves. Torture is an effective method if done properlyWhat you have provided is an example of the ends justifying the means. In order for the means of torture to justify the means of torture it has to be shown that regardless of consequence torture is justified (and since you stated that is justified if it works it is shown that the means don't justify the means)People wrote it, it can be changed. Even God designed his creations to evolve and change.Once we start changing our core values in order to meet policy instead of the other way around we lose all of our credibility.  Quality of InformationI've stated before in this debate about how torture will always lead to unreliable information being spread yet you've provided no counter example to this. You just can't use the magic bullet approach --there is no way to regulate a system which is inherently flawed.