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

that doesn't mean we should not follow our own moralsYeah, I agree. We have 2 sets of morals. One for us and one for them..Means justifying themselvesWell, in my mind the means of torture justify themselves AND the ends perfectly. There's no need to get complicated. And if the ends don't justify the means, no matter how good the means is, it's useless..Once we start changing our core values in order to meet policy instead of the other way around we lose all of our credibilityWe've already lost credibility, evolve with the times or become obsolete. Allowing daily life to give us input as to how to adjust our core values is called decentralization of power. You can't have a set of values and then never change it while things around you change with time. You'll be out of touch and become irrelevant..I'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 thisThere you go again. Nothing new. The same old "it doesn't work" argument.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Yeah, I agree. We have 2 sets of morals. One for us and one for them.Well... double standards are not in themselves not moral... how is it just to treat two groups differentlyWell, in my mind the means of torture justify themselves AND the ends perfectlyHow is the act of hurting someone moral? How can you justify abusing someone? How do the means justify themselves? You're not debating here... there are no analytics or evidence... in your mind? explain that...We've already lost credibility, evolve with the times or become obsoleteThat means we need to work to get it back. We just can't give everything up willy-nilly saying "Fuck it, it's gone anyways"You can't have a set of values and then never change it while things around you change with time. You'll be out of touch and become irrelevant.That is why we influence change that is positive to our values... that is how we should stay relevant. Instead of degrading ourselves why not stand up for what our core ideals our. In a sense, once those core ideals are changed we're not the same anymore... There you go again. Nothing new. The same old "it doesn't work" argument.I'm still using it because it still stands... you haven't countered it... you've provided no sound logic or evidence to show that this claim is bad. I used psychological example to show how it doesn't work. This argument is till valid that is why I am using it. It's how debate works... you don't have to bring up new things if your old arguments still stand. So if you want me to bring up a new example destroy the one that I already have.I don't see how you're not comprehending this little fact...
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

how is it just to treat two groups differentlyBecause the 2 groups are different. Your parents watch TV and porn till late, but you have to do your homework and go to bed at 8pm... are you going to tell them you don't like the double standard?.How is the act of hurting someone moralHow is it not moral? Why do you call it "abusing someone"? Why don't you just call it what it is: extracting vital info from a criminal by applying pain measures.It's what you make of it! I think it's moral, but you think it's not. So let's go to the ends and look at that instead. The ends justify the means..We just can't give everything up willy-nilly saying "Fuck it, it's gone anyways"I'm not saying give up. I'm saying deal with it head on. Don't sweep it under the carpet. Manage it properly..That is why we influence change that is positive to our valuesRight, so if our core values say we shouldn't accept homosexuality, abortions, interracial marriages, etc... we should influence life to align with those core values? Ok, you try. By the way, have you read the Constitution of China or Vietnam? May be those core ideals shouldn't change huh?.Torture works or notJust think about a very simple scenario where you've hidden the TV remote control from your big bully of a brother. He asks you and you refuse to tell him. He then grabs your wrist and twists your arm until pain tells you to spill all your beans and begs him to stop. Now, like any other methods of investigation, torture may yield negative results, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work. Criminal organizations use it for a good reason, and they use it for doing bad. We've been using it for doing good, but we just need to manage it better, weed out the false positives, etc...
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

or your younger brother may of been the one to actually hide the remote and your big brother twisting your arm deserves to be knocked on his ass by you. Fact of the matter is you don't know what other people know in most situations, in most situations for that simple fact alone, torture should not be used. Other situations in which it could reasonably be used are rare. "wheres the bomb"" i don't know and you have no conclusive proof that i do""wheres the bomb""what the mom?""the bomb""ooo the bomb, you take drewy lane hes right next to the muffin man""wheres the bomb, the one you hide""... He actually was quite content to hide on his own, you see a big stupid brute is after him and the muffin man has a nice bed and break...uoh""wheres the bomb""...do you know the muffin man?"
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

NO! Definatly not! Torturing people will not get you anywhere. Violence is not the answer.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

It's not right to tortue people. It's not fair. The word torture shouldn't even exist in the English language. Violence will never be the answer!
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

You cowardly hippie! Life is unfair- get used to it! Violence has solved most of the worlds conflicts. WW1, WW2, Civil War, Revolutionary War, the French Revolution etc.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

umm, i think not because when you are being tortured for a long (or even short) period of time, your gonna say whatever you need to, to get out of that situation. for example... if someone tortured you because they thought you took there wallet, your not gonna keep denying it if they say ''if you tell me the truth that you took it ill let you go''... even if you didn't take it... wouldn't you want to get out of that situation as quick as possible by just saying ''YES!!!, i took the damn thing!!'' think about it. the same thing applies with more serious information, many non guilty inmates where put in jail just because the police kept grilling them. what do you think now?!?!?
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

No.For one, it is an inhumane way to treat people, just to get a piece of information, and for the second, the information given is likely to be false, simply to end the pain and suffering. It gets you a quickly constructed lie to stop the pain.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

No. What if you get someone who legitimately does not have the information you are looking for? Aside from the fact that it is too late to say sorry, they might say what you want to hear just to get it to stop.And it strains foreign relations.There are some rather devious psychological interrogation methods that while frightening, are not in violation of the Geneva Convention.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

NO NO NO! There is an EXTREMELY High Rate that the person could admit to something they didn't do!
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

How can anyone vote constitutional? Putting "in God we trust" on money CLEARLY violates the Establishment Clause of the first amendment above. "Respecting" a religion means to promote it above others so putting God on there is the government showing that the US promotes christianity over islam, wicca, buddhism, atheism, and any other religious sect in America.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

The Congress is not establishing a state religion, neither funding one. Thus it's constitutional. Furthermore, the money isn't even minted by the United States, it's minted by a private bank. The bank can put whatever the hell it wants on the money, so long as the money is made of gold and silver.Any currency short of gold and silver however IS unconstitutional, and that's what we should be up in an uproar about, not the inscriptions upon the coins.Fun fact:The "oath of office," according to the Constitution, IS a religions test, and harks back to the legal maxim "to swear is to call God as a witness, and is an act of divine reverence." The ability to "affirm" was to make exception for Quakers, who believed the New Testament forbade actual "swearing." Atheists were never intended to hold any public office under the United States.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

The Congress is not establishing a state religion, neither funding one. Thus it's constitutional.That isnt what the Establishment Clause means. What is means is that the US Govt cannot in ANY way promote any religion at all. The government of the US was formed to be purely secular, as in, indifferent to religion entirely. They are supposed to stay well away from it. Furthermore, the money isn't even minted by the United States, it's minted by a private bank. The bank can put whatever the hell it wants on the money, so long as the money is made of gold and silver.If it was JUST the federal reserve's decision within itself then technically it would be fine, HOWEVER, the US government was the one that thought of it AND passed it to be our motto and the motto is put on the money.The "oath of office," according to the Constitution, IS a religions test, and harks back to the legal maxim "to swear is to call God as a witness, and is an act of divine reverence." The ability to "affirm" was to make exception for Quakers, who believed the New Testament forbade actual "swearing."Atheists were never intended to hold any public office under the United States.While the oath-taking dates back to the First Congress in 1789, the current oath is a product of the 1860s, drafted by Civil War-era members of Congress intent on ensnaring traitors.In 1789, the 1st United States Congress created an oath to fulfill the requirement of Article VI of the United States Constitution:I, A. B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.[58]swear [swair] Show IPA verb, swore or ( Archaic ) sware; sworn; swear·ing.verb (used without object)1.to make a solemn declaration or affirmation by some sacred being or object, as a deity or the Bible.2.to bind oneself by oath.3.to give evidence or make a statement on oath.4.to use profane oaths or language: Don't swear in front of the children.verb (used with object)5.to declare, affirm, attest, etc., by swearing by a deity, some sacred object, etc.6.to affirm, assert, or say with solemn earnestness.7.to promise or undertake on oath or in a solemn manner; vow.8.to testify or state on oath: He swore it on the witness stand.9.to take (an oath), as in order to give solemnity or force to a declaration, promise, etc.The word swear doesnt ONLY mean the religious option and, based on the secularity the Government was intended to have, it DOESNT mean that one.The FIRST oath of office was PURELY SECULAR and was created by the men who created the constitution in the first place! AFTER they all died off the government was hijacked by religious types who then revised it to fit their religion.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

That isnt what the Establishment Clause means. What is means is that the US Govt cannot in ANY way promote any religion at all. The government of the US was formed to be purely secular, as in, indifferent to religion entirely. They are supposed to stay well away from it. -----Cite your source for the legal decision determining that interpretation. Consistent with the interpretive understanding evident in the Federalists and Anti-Federalists papers.As for Swearing- Legal Maxims predate the Constitution, and govern it's lawful and legal interpretation. "To Swear is to call God as a witness and is an act of Divine Reverence." Prove otherwise. You should try reading a Legal Dictionary.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

Puting "In God we Trust" on a dollar bill is constitutional. It does not conflict wih your first amendment rights at all. There is no LAW being made which is the critical thing one must realize. It does not validate your right to express your freedom at all. It does not limit you in any manner. You can still spend the currency if you want to. The State and Federal government are not making any sort of LAW. The making of a LAW that conflicts with religion violates our first amendment rights. Not this.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

Puting "In God we Trust" on a dollar bill is constitutional. It does not conflict wih your first amendment rights at all. There is no LAW being made which is the critical thing one must realize.The constitution IS the law. Its the baseline absolute law for the United States on which we have based everything. It does not validate your right to express your freedom at all. It does not limit you in any manner. You can still spend the currency if you want to. The State and Federal government are not making any sort of LAW. The making of a LAW that conflicts with religion violates our first amendment rights. Not this.I know it doesnt mess with the Freedom To Practice part of the 1st amendment but it DOES violate the establishment clause:The establishment clause says that the government cannot promote any religion over other religions or no religion. Basically the government is supposed to be secular and NEVER was meant to have ANY connection to religion at all. Declaring "In God We Trust" as the US motto AND putting it on currency is CLEARLY a violation of this. The government promoted Christianity OR just religion in general by doing this.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

You are failing to realize that it says LAW after sentence it makes before it states something. You must realize that it cannot violate it if no law is made. The dollar bill is not law. It clearly says LAW.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

Not just the money."in god we trust" was made the US official motto. That is in acting it into law. That is a violation of the constitution. Also, there's a girl named Jessics Alquhist (poor spelling sorry) who just won a lawsuit against her school for having a prayer banner put up in her public school. It was rules UNCONSTITUTIONAL based on the establishment clause of the first amendment because public schools are technically part of the government through funding or whatever. The banner wasn't a law, or even passed by congress. If what your claiming is true why was this decided to be unconstitutional?
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

That is acting it into law? I see no law that says that it must be their. I do not see hiw this can be so if there is no law made. The rhetorical style of yours would have convinced me but you are giving two completely separate things. One is a school funded by government with laws entangled into it. Not a dollar bill.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

Also we know the constitution is law. But there is no law being made. How is it violating if no rule is being tainted? You are taking out the "LAW" part and placing it in your favor.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

What about polytheists living in US ?
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

"Not true, even in poly theistic religions there is still a supreme God and ruler of the universe accompanied by lesser Gods. For example Zeus."I delt with this early in the debate.In god we trust pertains to all religions and no religion not just one. The assumption that it pertains to only one religion is a false assumption and there is no proof that that claim is even remotely true.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

Then its sad. I am saying that it is completely fine for two reasons. 1) The bill itself is not law. It cannot violate anything if no law is created.2) Federal reserve is private and thus you will strip them of their rights.You cannot say it violates this if no law is made which it clearly states.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

I just meant that it's not fair ...Some polytheist may found it offending :D
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

I agree. I want Athena to be on a dollar bill.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

I want Jesus on the 20 Dollar bill, some republican money for the win lol.....
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

Lol if that happens then I want Oreos on the back of a 100 dollar bill. Hahaha.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

I want Christopher Hitchens on a $100 bill :D
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

Lol Heads will roll here in America, that would be funny though just for 1 day I would love to see the outrage. Wait how about the head of Raptor Jesus?  lol
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

Putting "in God we trust" on money CLEARLY violates the Establishment Clause of the first amendment above.False, the only thing that can violate the first amendment are laws.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, thus, all of their money is also unconstitutional.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

There are people who don't trust in God and no one should force them to!
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

The motto first appeared in 1864, on the short-lived 2¢ coin. It was still due to the Civil War, but as an expression of faith that it might end soon, not because the war was already over. Between 1866 and 1873 it was added to a number of other denominations. In a few cases, such as the nickel, it was later removed due to design considerations, but by 1938 it was permanently on all coin denominations. During the 1950s the US was in the depths of the Cold War against the Soviet Union which was officially atheist. As a reaction to what was called by many "godless communism", Congress passed a resolution in 1955 that the motto should appear on paper money as well. The intent was to point out the significant difference between those societies and our more faith-based one. The motto was put on $1 bills starting in 1957 as well as some 1935-G and H bills still being printed then despite their series date. In 1963 it was added to all other denominations. It was put on US currency just to show horse the USSR (propaganda) It is unconstitutional even if the Fed reserve creates the money, reason is they are printing US currency, because so it should not have God anywhere near it, that's like you or me printing money from our house because we got hired by the government and printing "I love cock" on the currency just because we created it, so because the currency is used for the US government as an exchange that makes it federal, there for "In God we trust" is in deed unconstitutional because of the separation of church and state and God is clearly church and has no right on anything state or government
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

I'm not sure if it's unconstitutional, but I'm on this side because I think it's a bad idea.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

Upvote in the name of freedom of belief and speech. You did not deserve to be downvoted.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

Thanks! These down votes with no explanation really annoy me.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

I think that people should be required to leave a comment if they rate a comment up or down.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

I don't mind anonymous up votes, though it would be nice to know who it was, so maybe that could work. Eliminating down votes altogether could work too.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

Yeah, downvotes serve no purpose. I propose a system where you could upvote them to add to their points, but eliminate downvotes. If something is that bad, leave a comment or report it.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

And I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for that meddling Jew! Muahahaha!
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

Same here, I know one thing American Christians would go "ape shit crazy" if the money said "In Allah we trust" (even though it means God in Arabic) or "In Science we trust", I say get rid of it, I feel it is Unconstitutional.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

Not me. Allah is the Arabic word for God. As a Christian, I have no problem with saying Allah.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

Please explain what part of the First Amendment it actually violates because I see no violation of anything.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

Can't be unconstitutional if money isn't regulated federally and under complete government control. It's made by a private organization and under freedom of speech they are technically allowed to do this and get away with it."I know one thing American Christians would go "ape shit crazy" if the money said "In Allah we trust""I agree, they probably would but, it doesn't really matter.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

Interesting I have always said it was unconstitutional as it is forcing God on people who might not believe and in doing so affecting their freedom of religion. I hadn't thought about the fact that the government don't make the money so not having it on there could affect that companies freedom of speech. Good call, given me a new insight into this.To really answer this we need to know who's idea is it to have in god we trust on the money, if its a government stipulation then its unconstitutional, if not as you say its the manufacturing companies choice.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

Hum that's right the Fed reserve is privately owned I forgot about that, interesting thought.