azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

and the innocents who are tortured?? is it better to not give you freedom of speech if a lot of people would disagree with what you say, have a gun because people could be harmed, give you a trial if people have to take a day off. the inalienable right of not being denied life liberty and property without due process should protect you and me and "them" alike. if we don't protect individual liberties, what are all those soldiers dying for anyway?
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

They are dying to keep you and me safe from any future terrorist attacks. I've read that Osama bin Laden has sworn to launch more attacks, and that North Korea has threatened, at least twice, to 'wipe America off the map'. I'd say that those are more important threats to worry about than a few people being tortures - and tortured in a relatively harmless method.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

There are some kinds of torture I do not believe in. Waterboarding, however, is not one of them. It is not extremely cruel, yet can make the suspects talk.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

who should be subject to these rules? anyone but you? is life imprisonment extremely cruel? if an enemy warlord turns you in to get reward money and we take you from your country without your family even knowing what happened to you and never give you a lawyer or trial and then fake-drown you to get information you don't have - is that extremely cruel?
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

Not if it'll potentially save lives.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

To some it may sound barbaric , but "Rules of war" is an oxymoron. The world got together at Geneva, and wrote out some "Rules of War". That sounds so enlightened and so Humane. And, in a world where everyone lives up to their agreements, it is "enlightened". However, that's not the world we live in. Since signing the Geneva Agreement, we have never fought an enemy that adhered to the rules. When we engage an enemy, that "Cut off the heads" of our soldiers, it time to put down the rule book for a bit and stop the evil. Water-boarding is a Mind Game, with a little water thrown in. It may be frightening, but it dose no real harm. and it gets their attention. Water-boarding is very humane way to deal with an enemy, who happen to be Psychopaths.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

It should. Many people on the other side of this argument repeatedly and groundlessly exlaim that "torture is ineffective". Well, we both can play this game : Torture is effective. There you have it.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

They generalize WAY too much.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

what is the effect of making waterboarding illegal?it strengthens the resolve of terrorists, certainly.if they know they can expect to be interrogated over tea and crumpets at the hilton, they can be bold and fearless.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

are there many terrorists out there that are just holding out on wanting death to America cuz they might get waterboarded? a suicide bomber whose afraid he might get fake-drowned? or is it more likely to make new enemies with the families of those who have been tortured, or used as a recruitment tool for more terrorists??
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

We are not attempting to imply that the fear of waterboarding will stop the terrorism. What we are implying is that waterboarding will provide invaluable information which can potentially save innumerable lives.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

you are saying that it being illegal - which it is - somehow "strengthens the resolve" of terrorists, and I'm saying that is silly - there is no terrorist that has the resolve if we don't waterboard but doesn't have resolve if we do waterboard.when it comes to information - I'm inclined to go with the opinion of the professional interrogators and former POWs like John McCain - when they say that it is torture and provides bad intelligence that we spend valuable time, money, and even lives following dead ends.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

I just said the exact opposite of that, you idiot. YOU said that.You are generalizing - some may lie, but that doesn't mean that all of them will.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

Torture has shown to be a useful means to gain information.Waterboarding is a form of torture. Maybe waterboarding itself isn't so effective, but I'd prefer to direct my answer towards torture rather than waterboarding itself.However it should be used alongside other tools for information. Sole dependence on torture is stupid. We all know that.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

If waterboarding can possibly cause a terrorist to give up information pertaining to a terroristic attack on American, then the waterboarding would have saved thousands of lives. So either you leave him alone and allow thousands of our own citizens to die or you torture him and save all of those lives.Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of torture in the least bit, but, like war, it is a necessary evil sometimes.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

People always seem to think that, by torturing somebody, we are lowering ourselves to the same level as them. I do not believe this. I believe, if they are willing to kill thousands of innocents, than what is wrong with us causing pain to one or two people. Without that torture, they could die in the terrorist attack anyway.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

and they think - hey if they are trying to ruin our whole society with their heathen ways its ok to kill some of them instead - you're right your logic is sooo much different.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

"Trying to ruin our whole society with their heathen ways"?What was that about? First of all, they aren't heathens - they're infidels.Secondly - I said nothing about Islam (if, of course, that is the religion in question) or about attempting to ruin our society. This is not about culture - this is about saving lives.P.S. I warned you - one more post and you'll be banned. I do not know if you read it, so I'll give you one more offense.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

i was trying to illuminate their position - though thanks for calling them infidels and showing just how in common your position is with theirs.If you would rather debate yourself then go ahead.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

I'm a linguist - I was attempting to have an accurate choice of words (something I rarely do on sites like these).I am not a threat, nor are most Muslims - there is no reason to waterboard me, I am not the one going out and killing myself along with dozens of innocents.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

that would be a great argument if those were your only two options - nothing or torture - however, there just so happens to be a way to get information that also isn't torture and doesn't throw away things Americans think they believe in (e.g. innocent until proven guilty) - win-win-win.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

In terrorism, there is rarely time for the legal system. By the time that an appropriate trial could be had, the threat would be over.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

24 is just a tv show.Step 1 - inform yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding notice the lack of ticking time bomb information and success of legitimate techniques success
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

I don't watch 24! Why does everybody bring this up?
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

People have a illusion that 24 is based on real intelligence tactics and events. Keither Sutherland is the third worst actor in the biz. Only behind, Nic Cage, Steven Segal and Keanu Reeves being fourth.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

I think that Kiefer Sutherland is pretty good - worst actor would have to be Brad Pitt.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

Terrorists are useless pricks, why should they destroy everything around us and kill millions of people. Waterboarding will help us to stop their attacks. I'm for it.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

I wonder why, in war, it's okay to kill so many people but we can't do something that fraternities do to haze pledges...
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

Terrorists don't deserve a fair trial because they are unlawful combatants. Water-boarding is more of a way to mess with their heads. If you ask me we should take it up a notch. Why should we care what we do to them when they would kill hundreds of innocent people without losing a bit of sleep over it?Torture saves American lives.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

Try telling that to a liberal.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

just ask yourself...if your child was being held by terrorists threatening his/her life, and we had other terrorists in custody who may have information on your child's whereabouts, would you want them waterboarded?
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

Waterboarding has been shown to be ineffective.I don't believe torture, especially ineffective torture, should be aloud by a country which advocates world peace.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

What good is torture when a country that advocates peace and democracy? Yet we continue to used methods contradictory to our apparent ideals. Torture is ineffective.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

The torture is used to keep world peace.Funny, I always heard that waterboarding was quite effective.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

It's only effective if you're a quantity over quality kind of person.It's such an unbearable act that the person being tortured will succomb almost instantaneously, and thus give any answer, fuck all if it's good intell or not.Acting on bad intell is worse than none at all.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

But it is not as if it'll kill them. It is more psychological than physical.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

Your answer in no way addresses the point pineapple made. You seem to be talking about something else altogether. Pretend for a second we're not talking about torture but Boggle.Pineapple says "Boggle is a game where you put letters together to make words," and your reply is "yeah, but it comes in a red box."Great, what does the color of the box have to do with what the game does?Jeesh, CD needs to require members pass a logic test or something.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

First, I had so many responses that sometimes things got confused.Secondly, I don't get the analogy.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

Drowning is one of the most horrible ways to die, let alone live and continuously suffer through. Waterboarding only widens the gap between them and us, making it less likely that this conflict will ever be resolved.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. That is my firm belief.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

then communism is the government you're looking for - since America believes in the rights of individuals
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

Yes - communism is the government that I am looking for, but even in it's purest form I know it cannot work.Why should one man's rights to trial trump the rights to the lives of many?
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

But how many of the people being tortured are innocent? This is why we have a justice system that relies on evidence not just suspicion. What if your neighbor had it out for you an accused you of a crime you did not commit? This is just one reason why torture is unacceptable. Not to mention any 'benefits' for the many are dubious at best, since war and torture creates animosity which leads inevitably to a future filled with more conflict, not less.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

Everybody here is using some warped form of personal logic. The number of lives saved must be superior to the number of lives lost. The preceding statement is my belief about torture. If you torture ten people, one of whom is guilty - then it is better than torturing nobody and having two hundred fatalities.Regarding your remark about the neighbor:My neighbor does not have purpose to torture me. The crime that I allegedly committed has happened - there can be no more casualties. Torturing me would be done out of a desire for revenge, it would serve no purpose.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

I like at least that this debate accepts the fact that waterboarding is as of now illegal, too many on the right believe it is actually legal thanks to faux, it most certainly is not and we ourselves have convicted others for waterboarding our soldiers.That said,1. as tempting as it is from a strictly cro-magnon perspective to somehow get "revenge" on a terrorist, it is essentially one of the many things that separates our society from there's.We are more humane, that's why Western civilization is so far ahead of the rest of the world. That's why the rest of the world either wants to be like the Westernized nations or are insanely (quite literally) jealous of us.2. It doesn't work. Studies have shown it doesn't work. We know it doesn't work. It's not a matter of opinion. Trained interrogators have always and continue to get better and more information by using other means. (read linked paper for more on this)3. Both logic and the Generals on the ground tell us that terrorists still to this day use the fact that we waterboarded way back before 2003 (yeah if you forgot, even the Bush administration wisely discontinued the practice, no idea how it turned into a debate again all the sudden)as a very effective recruiting tool.Terrorism is not like fighting an army of another nation. If we go to war for instance, we use soldiers who already signed up. These terrorists do not work that way. They need to use anger and hatred to fuel a general population's hatred for the West in order to recruit, things like torture and Guantanamo go a long way toward fueling the crazy hatred these people feel toward all things Western.So yeah, while I understand the temptation to torture someone for info like in the show 24, it simply does not work in the real world, and does more harm than good.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

"Torture and Guantanamo go a long way toward fueling the crazy hatred" is an wonderfully idealistic yet erroneous view of the reality. It supposes that you are dealing with rational people. That's where it looses sight of the facts. Their hatred is Religious in nature. Their culture only respects strength. That can witnessed in their actions, long before the first one was tortured. They will stop only when they fear the results of not stopping, or they win. If we fail to come to terms with that, we delude ourselves.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

"Torture and Guantanamo go a long way toward fueling the crazy hatred" is an wonderfully idealistic yet erroneous view of the reality. It supposes that you are dealing with rational people. That's where it looses sight of the facts. Their hatred is Religious in nature. Their culture only respects strength. That can witnessed in their actions, long before the first one was tortured.Where is your proof that they only respect strength?While the ones actually blowing themselves up are certifiably insane, the ones supporting the ones blowing themselves up are often quite sane, and not the least bit influenced by any religious ideas at all, but by stories about how evil America is.They will stop only when they fear the results of not stopping, or they win. If we fail to come to terms with that, we delude ourselves.This is demonstratably not true at all of terrorists. If it were one of the thousands of bombs us and Israel and a number of other nations have dropped would have ended it long long ago.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

We are more humane, that's why Western civilization is so far ahead of the rest of the world.Really. So to be human civilisation you have to make nations built on slavery, rape and kill everyone, pillage everyone and rid yourself of any honour or codes to 'win'. You're proud of all of that? That in order for you to drive an SUV children in Africa will die of malnutrition. Cause and effect. You've raped the world - but you're proud of it. It's good to know 'whites' still haven't changed.Torture IS an effective way of gaining information. It doesn't mean it should be the only means used. It's useful to have another means of gaining information - aslong as nobody is reliant on it.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

You are arguing something altogether apart from what I said.I'm talking about now, and our current laws, you are talking about how 1 of the Western nations came about. Besides, it is not as if England's history is much prettier Kinda, it's just more distant.Anyway, all of that aside because it has 0 to do with anyting I said,I can tell you have some kind of bone to pick. Why not find the source of your anger and start a new debate and I'll join you.In the meantime, torture is not only immoral, it also doesn't work. There is no proof otherwise.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

You are arguing something altogether apart from what I saidNope - I just picked an incredibly dumb statement and decided to argue it, regardless of its relevance to the topic.1 of the Western nations1? I'm talking about several. Including England.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

Waterboarding is a form of torture, it's never ok to torture a human being for any reason. The CIA has been known to use this "technique" in the past, it has worked, but has failed more times than not. Question:If our Government did not see waterboarding as a form of torture, thus rendering it wrong, then why do they try so hard to cover it up? It's wrong and shouldn't be done. There are more effective ways to get information from terrorists than torturing them.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

Why would torture never be okay for any reason? Is it not better to harm one person than to allow hundreds of others to come to even greater harm?
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

Torture is not okay because we need to be able to exemplify the values that distinguish us from the terrorists. Once we go that route we are no different from the terrorists we wish to stop. Government-run torture rots the soul of a nation. I think of the dark ages. I'm not history buff, but I understand there is well established historical precedent for state-sanctioned torture, and the effects last for centuries, if not longer. This is why our Government goes out of it's way to cover-up the fact that we still use torture as a means to get information from terrorists.I believe it says that the U.S. will not engage in "cruel and unusual punishments". We need to stand by our word as a Nation.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

What do values matter if everybody is dead?Osama bin Laden has made threats to attack again - ought we not protect ourselves?Who knows how many more terrorist activities may have taken place had torture not been used.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

Values are an important part of every Nation. If you cannot stand by your values, then nothing you say or do can be trusted. Without values, there is no Nation, and therefore nothing worth defending in the first place, IMHO.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

You're right!we could break their fingers and toes with a hammer.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

In 1947 Yukio Asano was sentenced to 15 years hard labor in U.S. prison for committing war crimes.The charge and specifications against Asano were:Charge: That between 1 April, 1943 and 31 August, 1944, , at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch Camp Number 3, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Yukio Asana, then a civilian serving as an interpreter with the Armed Forces of Japan, a nation then at war with the United States of America and its Allies, did violate the Laws and Customs of War.Specification 1: That in or about July or August, 1943, the accused Yukio Asano, did willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Morris O. Killough, an American Prisoner of War, by beating and kicking him; by fastening him on a stretcher and pouring water up his nostrils.Specification 2: That on or about 15 May, 1944, at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch Camp Number 3, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Yukio Asano, did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Thomas B. Armitage, William O Cash and Munroe Dave Woodall, American Prisoners of War by beating and kicking them, by forcing water into their mouths and noses; and by pressing lighted cigarettes against their bodies.Specification 5. That between 1 April, 1943 and 31 December, 1943, the accused Yukio Asano, did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture John Henry Burton, an American Prisoner of War, by beating him; and by fastening him head downward on a stretcher and forcing water into his nose
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

You've made about eight of these arguments. You are littering my debate - any more and I'll ban you.P.S. He was convicted because he did it to Americans - the most egoistical bastards this world has ever seen. If he did it to, say, the Russians or the Chinese (for example), would America have given a damn?
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

don't you think the Russian's or Chinese would prosecute him in those cases? Should America be the one to prosecute people for crimes by foreigners against other countries?I am not making repetitive arguments - just valid arguments against the positions posted - if you can't handle that then by all means ban me.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

I don't care what Russia or China would have done in that circumstance.I do not believe that I used the word 'repetitive,' rather I said that you were littering my debate with over a dozen different arguments, when they could have all been written in one argument.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

During the revolutionary war, John Adams was the attorney for the British soldiers accused in the Boston massacre - while we were at war. We should not do to suspected anything what we don't even do to convicted murderers and rapists if they were born in our longitude and latitude