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

But torture doesn't necessarily lead to good intelligence. In fact, it can lead to the exact opposite causing a waste of resources. Plus, there are more than just two outcomes; this isn't a do or die topic. There are boundless ramifications of the use (or non-use) of torture. Also, there is no way to prove that everybody in a military prison is actually a terrorist or an innocent bystander who was mistaken for a terrorist. This leaves the possibility that we may torture innocent persons; an atrocity that we, as a nation, cannot stand for.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

But torture doesn't necessarily lead to good intelligence. In fact, it can lead to the exact opposite causing a waste of resourcesDo it properly and it won't result in misleading intelligence..This leaves the possibility that we may torture innocent persons; an atrocity that we, as a nation, cannot stand forThe reality is that we do our best not to capture and convict an innocent, but we inevitably do imprison innocents. This does not mean that we should carry on investigating and imprisoning criminals. The same goes for torture.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

But torture doesn't necessarily lead to good intelligence. In fact, it can lead to the exact opposite causing a waste of resourcesThere 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 tortureThe reality is that we do our best not to capture and convict an innocent, but we inevitably do imprison innocents. This does not mean that we should carry on investigating and imprisoning criminals. The same goes for torture.Yeah I think that's actually a good reason to tread carefully around interrogations... which means no torture
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Sorry, I need to amend what I wrote: "The reality is that we do our best not to capture and convict an innocent, but we inevitably do imprison innocents. This does not mean that we should NOT carry on investigating and imprisoning criminals. The same goes for torture.".Sorry if I mislead you, i neglected to put the word "NOT" in where it is now. Sorry about that. So it means that just because we might torture someone innocent, doesn't mean we should stop it all together. Besides, we should actually have overwhelming evidence against a criminal before we torture him/her for info about other things related to the crime.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Yes it does mean we have to stop the use of torture, if there is a chance that me may harm an innocent person we have lost our moral cause.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Well, this is what the link below says:"Among defendants sentenced to death in the United States since 1973, at least 2.3 percent—and possibly more—were falsely convicted, said U-M law professor Samuel Gross in a study co-authored by Barbara O'Brien, a professor at Michigan State University College of Law"and"If defendants who were sentenced to prison had been freed because of innocence at the same rate as those who were sentenced to death, there would have been nearly 87,000 non-death row exonerations in the United States from 1989 through 2003, rather than the 266 that were reported, the study said".So, should we stop pursuing criminals because we might convict an innocent? Or should we manage it better? Same with torture. Manage it better.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Okay... tell me... how in the hell do you mange Torture --a process which is inherently flawed?Also, this evidence supports my side better. It just shows you how much shit regulation misses when it comes to criminal law.No, we need to stop treating criminals like shit so, that in the off chance we imprison someone who was innocent there time in prison wasn't so bad.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

How to manage torture? I'm no expert but let's see: Look at where we've gone wrong with the technique and adjust it!1 - The methods used should be considered. Things like false positives must be weeded out. If you ask someone "is so and so a bad person" and then torture them for an answer, then the answer you get won't be very reliable if you can't verify this info. The question was stupid in itself. But if you ask "where is x or y", the info given can be verified and the torture victim will see there's no point in lying!2 - Supervision and video monitoring of tortures to avoid abuse.3 - Permission from court to torture, just like search warrants, etc...4 - The victim of torture must be considered also: At one end of the spectrum, if you're a convicted murderer and you're going to be executed anyway, it should be ok to torture you for info, but on the other end of the spectrum, if you're a suspected robber with only circumstantial evidence against you, it's not ok to torture you.Why do I need to come up with ways to manage this when I'm not even the professionals in the field? I only need to argue that it should be regulated and not abused like it is now!
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Something I'd like to note is that the torture of terrorists is not likely to be as successful as the torture of criminals of other crimes. This is because the terrorist has more conviction than a common criminal. Terrorists are likely to believe in a greater cause very strongly and so pain or even death may not break them. The common criminals on the other hand are either motivated by money or are simply psychologically deranged, pain would suit them quite nicely :)
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Do it properly and it won't result in misleading intelligence.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. You're a fool.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

The fool is you, who think that it doesn't work contrary to overwhelming evidence that it does work, is used and abused all over the world. You don't have to go search very far for proof that it works, next time someone hides the TV remote from you, just twist his/her wrist until its location is revealed. It won't take long, 2 seconds would be my prediction.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

The fool is you, who think that it doesn't work contrary to overwhelming evidence that it does work, is used and abused all over the world. You don't have to go search very far for proof that it works, next time someone hides the TV remote from you, just twist his/her wrist until its location is revealed. It won't take long, 2 seconds would be my prediction.Because twisting the arm of someone who takes away a television remote is comparable to kidnapping a suspect, taking them to another country, engaging them in heavy white noise, bright lights, sleep deprivation for periods of days at a time, restricting their diets to Ensure with a maximum of 1500 calories daily, while using abdominal punches, suspended uncomfortable and straining positions, and simulated drowning in order to extract information.There is no form of torture that bypasses an individual's ability to lie, and pain encourages deception. But since you're stubborn, do an experiment: have someone try waterboarding on you, with the demand that you reveal your most humiliating, darkest, deepest secrets to make it stop.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Whatever.If you're torturing people to ask them to reveal their deepest darkest secrets, it probably won't work:1 - It's useless info, as in you're not using it to do anything good with it.2 - you probably can't verify,.Regulation and strict control of the processes of torture will enable it to be more efficient, while minimizing abuse. The right candidate, the right kind of info, the correct methods, abuse safeguards, etc... See my post on managing the process.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Whatever.If you're torturing people to ask them to reveal their deepest darkest secrets, it probably won't work:1 - It's useless info, as in you're not using it to do anything good with it.2 - you probably can't verify,Number two hit it on the head. You can't verify what they said without already knowing something about what they know. They can always say something that sounds plausible, only with the intent of making the pain stop. Torture doesn't motivate a person to give accurate information, but only to make it stop.Regulation and strict control of the processes of torture will enable it to be more efficient, while minimizing abuse. The right candidate, the right kind of info, the correct methods, abuse safeguards, etc... See my post on managing the process.Regulation and strict control of the processes of slavery will enable it to be more efficient, while minimizing abuse. The right person, the right kind of service, the correct training, abuse safeguards, etc...I know you aren't advocating slavery, and I know that torture is not slavery, but I only wanted to make the point that ANY backwards process or behaviour can be legitimised to the public through regulation.The point of civilised society is to abstain from centuries old processes like state religion, slavery and indentured servitude, torture chambers, show trials, witch burning, etc. This is the cost of becoming civilised, can't have both.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

They can always say something that sounds plausible, only with the intent of making the pain stopThat is why you don't ask those questions. Instead, ask something like "where is the briefcase?" or "where is that bomb", something that you can verify. Once the person knows that lying results in more pain, lying will stop, you'll end up just be having a nice conversation with each other..ANY backwards process or behaviour can be legitimised to the public through regulation (slavery)Slavery HAS been regulated. It's called employment! You work for someone else, but now you get proper pay, benefits, etc... sometimes you don't..Don't kid yourself. Civil society is the same as the societies of days gone past, only more regulated. You still have witch burning, show trials, all of that, just not under the same name or methods. If we regulate torture well enough, it may well be known by a much nicer name in the future, or the dictionary definition may even change to reflect that.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

That is why you don't ask those questions. Instead, ask something like "where is the briefcase?" or "where is that bomb", something that you can verify. Once the person knows that lying results in more pain, lying will stop, you'll end up just be having a nice conversation with each other.I really hate explaining the obvious but since you're acting unable to put two and two together, it's simple:Pain versus information is a very simple rational process for just about anyone to comprehend. If a person gives you pain, in exchange for information rooted to something to must not talk about for whatever reason, the obvious choice is to give information that is vague enough that it can be of no use, unverifiable so you won't be retaliated against, or incriminating so that you lead your torturers into either a trap or a position that actually isn't in their favour because they lack the complete picture you could have provided. Remember we're not dealing with a television show where it's some random guy who has no attachment to his cause, the people who are tortured generally are very dedicated to their ideology and will do whatever they can to not betray it.But go ahead with your magical "pain equals instant honest information" routine. You only sound like a fool who watches television.Slavery HAS been regulated. It's called employment! You work for someone else, but now you get proper pay, benefits, etc... sometimes you don't.Please be serious. Slavery WAS regulated, over a century ago. People were regulated as property, and there were people out there defending it as a public service, like you are with torture. Needless to say, they were proven wrong.Don't kid yourself. Civil society is the same as the societies of days gone past, only more regulated. You still have witch burning, show trials, all of that, just not under the same name or methods. If we regulate torture well enough, it may well be known by a much nicer name in the future, or the dictionary definition may even change to reflect that.Since you're acting with a crass lack of insight on the subject, I'll leave you with these:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazen_bull http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carding_(torture) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_(torture) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaphismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catapeltahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apega_of_Nabis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_wheel Go ahead and advocate a slow return to the type of society which employed these devices and methods. Be a fool who throws away the rights guaranteed to you and your children to never have to face cruel and unusual punishment, all because you are given to pettiness.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Remember we're not dealing with a television show where it's some random guy who has no attachment to his cause, the people who are tortured generally are very dedicated to their ideology and will do whatever they can to not betray it.See my post on the use of torture on terrorists. I agree that terrorists believe in a greater cause then themselves, they are soldiers who are likely to give their lives for their cause, so pain doesn't work as well. Other criminals on the other hand are motivated by much less, so pain will do just fine. You have attached yourself to the idea of torture being used for terrorists only, but please look at the debate topic and get back on track..Employment = regulated slaveryYou still think that it's not, that's because it's no longer perceived as such. The main differences being the benefits of your employment and the freedom to leave employment whenever you choose (most of the time)..Go ahead and advocate a slow return to the type of society which employed these devices and methods. Be a fool who throws away the rights guaranteed to you and your children to never have to face cruel and unusual punishment, all because you are given to pettinessYou have not rebut my argument that society hasn't changed. Just the methods and names of the things you mentioned have. Don't give me links to historical methods of torture, I'm not interested in bringing back the old days. I'm interested in progress:- Strict controls and regulations, - efficiency, - abuse safeguards. Please address these in your next reply. Otherwise we're just going around in circles with you thinking of the old days and terrorists. Get them out of your head.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

See my post on the use of torture on terrorists. I agree that terrorists believe in a greater cause then themselves, they are soldiers who are likely to give their lives for their cause, so pain doesn't work as well. Other criminals on the other hand are motivated by much less, so pain will do just fine. You have attached yourself to the idea of torture being used for terrorists only, but please look at the debate topic and get back on track.I thought you were arguing for use on terrorists only, because when you start to include OTHER criminals you only make the position you're defending even more offensive to human rights.You still think that it's not, that's because it's no longer perceived as such. The main differences being the benefits of your employment and the freedom to leave employment whenever you choose (most of the time).The discussion would be expedited if you had a basic grasp of the language. Slavery is ownership. You are not owned by the company you work for, you can never be their possession. Employment confers wages, slavery does not. Learn the meaning of words before you try to be clever.You have not rebut my argument that society hasn't changed. Just the methods and names of the things you mentioned have. I really thought you were smart enough that you were just being facetious. I'll let you in on a secret: I hate stupidity, and you're starting to cross my threshold for it.If society hadn't changed, state religion would still be the law of the land. If times hadn't changed, slavery would still exist. If times hadn't changed, we would not have a basic bill of human rights guaranteed to us. If times hadn't changed, we would still be ruled at the whim of monarchs. Do I really need to go on, or are you telling me that you honestly don't see the failure of your position?Don't give me links to historical methods of torture, I'm not interested in bringing back the old days. I'm interested in progress:Those methods are the "progress" you speak of. Progress means upholding our ethics which guarantee rights, torture means going backwards, and you can bet that if torture became approved in society that some of those devices would inspire new forms of inflicting pain.- Strict controls and regulations,- efficiency,- abuse safeguards. Which doesn't apply to torture categorically, because:Torture is applied BEFORE guilt is ascertained, meaning that regulations which already exist are forfeit.Torture is NOT efficient because it leads to wrong information, because the motivation for the tortured isn't truth.Torture IS abuse, so your statement about safeguards is contradictory.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

when you start to include OTHER criminals you only make the position you're defending even more offensive to human rights.You have not rebut any of my arguments with anything intelligible. Human rights should see all prisoners no matter how violent or cunning or damaging to society go free. They're humans, no? They too should have the freedoms to do as they please? Why do we confine their existence to "rehabilitation facilities"? Your hypocritical attitude makes me sick..Slavery is ownership. You are not owned by the company you work for, you can never be their possession. Employment confers wages, slavery does not. Learn the meaning of words before you try to be clever.I explained the primary difference of slavery and employment in the very sentence that you quoted. Ridicule my "grasp of the language" all you want, until you can do the same, you're not even worth an insult to me..I hate stupidity, and you're starting to cross my threshold for itI was wondering when your inability to argue logically would result in your own frustration... .Society has changedIn your stupid rant, you failed to see the point of my statement that society hasn't changed. The basic elements are still there, they simply go under different names and methods. The world is still ruled by the rich and powerful few and the majority has illusions of freedom..Torture is applied BEFORE guilt is ascertained, meaning that regulations which already exist are forfeit.Torture is NOT efficient because it leads to wrong information, because the motivation for the tortured isn't truth.Torture IS abuse, so your statement about safeguards is contradictorySee my post on how to manage torture, it outlines some basics. But to rebut your desperate points:- Search warrants are issued before a person's guilt is ascertained.- The motivation for the tortured is to stop the pain, not tell a lie.- Torture is not abuse. Only in your head.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

You have not rebut any of my arguments with anything intelligible. Human rights should see all prisoners no matter how violent or cunning or damaging to society go free. They're humans, no? They too should have the freedoms to do as they please? Why do we confine their existence to "rehabilitation facilities"? Your hypocritical attitude makes me sick.Protection from incarceration is not a human right. Learn2Research.I explained the primary difference of slavery and employment in the very sentence that you quoted. Ridicule my "grasp of the language" all you want, until you can do the same, you're not even worth an insult to me.You mean this little gem which underpins you lack of ability to reason and substitute with hyperbole?Slavery HAS been regulated. It's called employment! You work for someone else, but now you get proper pay, benefits, etc... sometimes you don't.In your stupid rant, you failed to see the point of my statement that society hasn't changed. The basic elements are still there, they simply go under different names and methods. The world is still ruled by the rich and powerful few and the majority has illusions of freedom.I'm sorry, I can't take this statement seriously since I've yet to see negro slaves in cabins on plantations in the country, and we aren't burning people alive in public displays any longer. Learn to acknowledge when you've lost a point.See my post on how to manage torture, it outlines some basics. But to rebut your desperate points:- Search warrants are issued before a person's guilt is ascertained.- The motivation for the tortured is to stop the pain, not tell a lie.- Torture is not abuse. Only in your head.This debate isn't "Is your ideal form of torture which will never be implemented permissible for interrogation?" Torture is abuse, stop being stupid. Better yet, go get waterboarded and then come back and tell me it isn't abuse.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Protection from incarceration is not a human rightDid you just deny that the right to freedom of movement is a human right? Look up article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights..You mean this little gem which underpins you lack of ability to reason and substitute with hyperboleYes the little gem that you fail to even understand. Perhaps the sentence structure was too difficult?.I'm sorry, I can't take this statement seriously since I've yet to see negro slaves in cabins on plantations in the countryBut you do see people working their asses off for little pay. So I will repeat: The basic elements are still there, they simply go under different names and methods.....and we aren't burning people alive in public displays any longerWhere were you when people were persecuted for being a communist? Wake up idiot!.Torture is abuse, stop being stupid. Better yet, go get waterboarded and then come back and tell me it isn't abuse.Again with the:Abuse, Doesn't work, Human Rights bs...I'll tell you what's abuse: Debating with dull idiots like you.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: Yes and No

yes they can torture if the subject if they are absoulutely sure that they have the infromation. but if they are not sure then no they should not be allowed to torture the suspect if they have no convincing evidence that they know
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: Yes and No

yes if the interrogators are are sure beyond reasonable doubt that the person is guilty or has the infromation that could save lives then yes torture them. if there is any reasonable doubt then don't torture them unless some new facts turn up or you catch them trying to leave the country.