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

There are people (including myself) who sleep soundly at night because of what we do to terrorists. It may be morally wrong but these people can and will kill hundreds of innocent others, and it's also wrong to see heads get cut off on TV.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Torture must be allowed and regulated because it has merits as a way to obtain information that otherwise may be withheld (that's why it's done regardless of the law, and the US does it by doing everything it can to circumvent the laws and conventions regarding it, so why don't we just legalize it?). .There's just 1 important proviso: if it cannot be regulated, it must be banned. Simple as that..- Torture must not be done for a confession. (as confessions without hard evidence to back them up are (in my view) useless, torture or not. But if you have hard evidence already, then a confession is no longer necessary).- The law must regulate the methods, tactics and pretty much everything else about torture to maximize effectiveness and minimize harm to the torture victim. For example: Torture must be done in a controlled environment with supervision and video monitoring, etc.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

It may have some merits but, these merits are heavily outweighed by moral and practical issues. Why should we use a questionable method of obtaining information when we have more modern and humane ways of obtaining information?
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

It may have some merits but, these merits are heavily outweighed by moral and practical issuesThose who take the moral high ground when it comes to treating criminals should go and form a country by themselves. Then when they get robbed, killed, kidnapped, perhaps they'll send those crims into a piece of land outside their jurisdiction so if torture takes place, it's not on their land! The moral high ground always makes me sick, when it disregards reality..On the practicality of torture, it works, that's why it's used. Sure we have modern and humane ways of obtaining info, so keep using those methods, torture is meant to be a complement, not a substitute..Torture should be strictly regulated.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Those who take the moral high ground when it comes to treating criminals should go and form a country by themselves. Hmmm that just happens to be the USA... just look at amendments 4-8 and you'll see what I mean, This country has always been for defendants rights. Without morals we are no better then the terrorists and we loose all rationale for our efforts in the middle east. We can have peace and morality it just means that we will have to rise above torture and use more of the NSA, CIA and FBI large institutions whose job it is to find information through legal investigations.it works, that's why it's used.Yeah it works to get us false info and to make enemies out of those who were once on our side. Torture can't be used at all... not even as a complement.Torture should be downright outlawed.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

This country has always been for defendants rights. Without morals we are no better then the terrorists and we loose all rationale for our efforts in the middle eastAre you fucking blind or did you deliberately ignore what I wrote after that sentence? The US does torture and everybody knows it. So much for the moral fucking high ground..Yeah it works to get us false info and to make enemies out of those who were once on our side. Torture can't be used at all... not even as a complementIf it doesn't work, the entire investment into a facility like Guantanamo Bay was a waste of money then? The rest of the world is wrong then? All the movies (and TV shows) that portray torture as an effective means of extracting info is basing it on wrong facts then? If you caught an enemy and torture him, he was not on your side to begin with!.I'm now of the opinion that you're incompetent when it comes to understanding properly what you read, unimaginative in rebutting arguments (because you simply repeated what you said previously without adding anything new when it's already been rebutted). Me: It works because of reason A.You: It doesn't work.Me: Yes, it works because of reason B.You: It doesn't work.Me: Um... there's also reasons C and D.You: No, it doesn't work.Me: But everyone's doing it, including us.You: Um... well, but our Constitution said we're not doing it.......Ok, fuck you!
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Okay, if you look at the Constitution it shows the US standing for defendants rights. Sure the US tortures but does not make it right; it shows that our policy needs to be fixed. We went into both the Afghani and Iraqi war on the premise of spreading democratic ideals yet, how can we do that when we follow undemocratic ideals ourselves... that's just absurd. It's my point... we can't stand on this moral high ground. Just because we aren't on the moral high ground doesn't mean we shouldn't be there.If it doesn't work, the entire investment into a facility like Guantanamo Bay was a waste of money then? The rest of the world is wrong then?Yes Guantanamo Bay is a waste of resources; that's part of the reason it's being shut down. Other democratic countries don't torture. We are in the wrong.... just because the US is doing it that doesn't make it right. And you're basing what works off of movies and TV? That's just pure bullshit; movies and TV have been known to contain elements of fiction thus, they can't be reliably used to determine what works...Okay, now I don't appreciate the personal attacks. I have rebutted using what I've said before (while adding more to the mix) because you did not touch upon enough and thus they were still valid arguments. Your logic used to form your rebuttals was weak where most of the time you stated that torture can carefully regulated while providing no actual examples yet you used time after time. You never gave a reason B,C, or D just a reason A which was faulty. You're logic on the moral argument has failed and your arguments on the practical benefits have been properly disposed off by my psychological reasoning on why torture won't work . Now I feel that you are resorting to these pitiful ethos attacks that fall flat.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

We went into both the Afghani and Iraqi war on the premise of spreading democratic ideals yet, how can we do that when we follow undemocratic ideals ourselves... that's just absurdThe very act of waging war is already undemocratic. True democracy is when the people themselves want it and demands it and successfully gets it without a foreign army going in to give it to them. If you want to spread democracy the pussy way, do it by peaceful means only, stop all manners of trade sanctions that can harm the enemy's people. Again, let's get back to reality. We do wage war, we do have crimes, we do torture. Let's do it properly..Yes Guantanamo Bay is a waste of resourcesHow do you know it didn't yield any positive results? Hell, it may have saved millions of lives including your own..Reasons torture works:A - Pain is not a friend, you'll avoid it if you could. And you will.B - It's widely used (or misused) all over the world, especially by criminals, for the reason that it works.C - Mental or Physical torture could drive a person to suicide, so it should work to extract info.D - In prison, if an inmate plays up, he/she gets put into solitary confinement, that's a form of torture, it works.E - It's a well known fact that torture puts the victim's mind into so much stress that it's difficultl to lie.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

On the practicality of torture, it works, that's why it's used. And just you nevermind what all the experts who know the first thing about it say. Sure they might say it doesn't work, and it's counterproductive... on top of being contemptible. But we're talking to the real expert here folks!
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Experts are the ones using torture right now as we speak! It's being used! And also those experts who think they're not torturing people, think about what it means when depriving a crim of recreational drugs when he needs it. Have you seen the amount of pain a drugs addict feels when going through rehab cold turkey style? .Pain for good is good.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Sorry kid, I'm done playing with you and your pathological need to live in a world of your own imagination. Run along and play now.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Ok, I'll run along and play, you can come and play with me whenever you want to, but don't bring that dismissive attitude towards problems if you decide to come.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

In certain circumstances torture is useful and it does work. As a lot of you are saying"when you are tortured you will say anything to make it stop" That is true and if you have the information i need you will tell me to stop the torture!Also, sometimes you have to play by the rules of the other team, they torture and kill our guys...we will do the same to you! even if that doesn't give us the info we need it might work as a deterrent for some.Why should we always be the "good guys"
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Guantanamo Bay tortured non-uniformed terrorists that did not serve a country. As long as they are non-uniformed and are confirmed guilty, not just suspects, it is ok to torture.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

The price we pay for living in a free society with guaranteed civil liberties and provisions which prevent cruelty towards citizens is inclusion of criminal suspects among the protected. When we start to allow torture of criminals and suspects we start to lose that dignity which makes our country worth defending against other countries which have few civil liberties.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Yes it's always nice and inspiring to take the moral high grounds but the fact is we DO torture people, the only way to have any dignity left is to acknowledge that and manage it better.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Yes it's always nice and inspiring to take the moral high grounds but the fact is we DO torture people, the only way to have any dignity left is to acknowledge that and manage it better.Or pressure other nations to ensure human rights universally. Another approach is to ban torture by proxy with stiff and swift penalties. This isn't a light subject that we should just accept, it's a matter of people being kidnapped and transported to foreign nations where they are at best interrogated using morally ambiguous methods such as sensory, food and sleep deprivation combined with battery; at worst it means being placed in excruciating positions in order to break the person down.This is a matter of inflicting harm upon a person without even a proper trial.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Ban torture? You're another one to deal with problems by simply banning it. Let's just ban everything:- Your children abuse their mobile phone usage, let's ban it. - They abuse computer usage, ban that. - TV? Banned.Ban ban ban ban, that's why circumvention exists. Ban torture by proxy? You think people can't circumvent that too? .Banning things is the simplest and laziest approach to solving any problems. It requires no thinking whatsoever, a 5 year-old kid could run a country by doing that.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Ban torture?You're another one to deal with problems by simply banning it. Let's just ban everything:- Your children abuse their mobile phone usage, let's ban it.- They abuse computer usage, ban that.- TV? Banned.Ban ban ban ban, that's why circumvention exists. Ban torture by proxy? You think people can't circumvent that too?Ban genocide?You're another one to deal with problems by simply banning it. Let's just ban everything:- Your children abuse their mobile phone usage, let's ban it.- They abuse computer usage, ban that.- TV? Banned.Ban ban ban ban, that's why circumvention exists. Ban genocide in other countries? You think people can't circumvent that too?I hope that illustrates your (lack of) argument.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Ban genocide?You're another one to deal with problems by simply banning it. Let's just ban everything:- Your children abuse their mobile phone usage, let's ban it.- They abuse computer usage, ban that.- TV? Banned.Ban ban ban ban, that's why circumvention exists. Ban genocide in other countries? You think people can't circumvent that too?I hope that illustrates your (lack of) argument..Ban prostitution?You're another one to deal with problems by simply banning it. Let's just ban everything:- Your children abuse their mobile phone usage, let's ban it.- They abuse computer usage, ban that.- TV? Banned.Ban ban ban ban, that's why circumvention exists. Ban prostitution in other countries? You think people can't circumvent that too?I hope that illustrates YOUR (lack of) argument.God, I can play this stupid game all day!
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

God, I can play this stupid game all day!I thought it might dawn upon you after seeing it that you made no argument but only engaged in hyperbole.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Well, it dawned upon me that you're potentially a big waste of time. You compared genocide to torture. Are you aware of what genocide means? Stop making stupid comparisons to exxagerate your points, it makes you look... exxagerated.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Well, it dawned upon me that you're potentially a big waste of time. You compared genocide to torture. Are you aware of what genocide means? Stop making stupid comparisons to exxagerate your points, it makes you look... exxagerated.I figured that you were bright enough to see your error if it was highlighted with exaggeration. Was I wrong to assume you were capable of this?
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

I figured that you were bright enough to see your error if it was highlighted with exaggeration. Was I wrong to assume you were capable of this?I thought you were a potential waste of time. I'm now assured of it. You're incapable of any real arguments against torture. Instead, you rely on the assumptions that it doesn't work, on the abuse of it, and human rights, all of which are due to the fact that torture is not regulated. Come back and debate when you're more capable.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

I thought you were a potential waste of time. I'm now assured of it. You're incapable of any real arguments against torture. Instead, you rely on the assumptions that it doesn't work, on the abuse of it, and human rights, all of which are due to the fact that torture is not regulated. Come back and debate when you're more capable.I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You can't possibly be this obtuse.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_abuse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_abuse I thought you'd be smart enough to grasp that torture is by definition a form of emotional and physical abuse. I even pointed it out to you. But you just kept running with it, like you were oblivious to the fact.We do not have the right to abuse our prisoners. In the united states this falls under cruel and unusual punishment, and no-doubt other legal codes since added to prevent further abuses.I shouldn't have to even explain this preliminary stuff to you. 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.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

I thought you'd be smart enough to grasp that torture is by definition a form of emotional and physical abuse. I even pointed it out to you. But you just kept running with it, like you were oblivious to the fact.I thought you'd be homosexual enough to grasp that torture is by definition a form of emotional and physical abuse. I even pointed it out to you. But you just kept running with it, like you were oblivious to the fact.Again, look up torture, don't go wandering in the woods. Abuse confers misuse. Regulations should take care of that. .We do not have the right to abuse our prisoners.I'm not saying we should. It's not abuse if you lawfully sanction it and do it properly..I shouldn't have to even explain this preliminary stuff to you. Why are you even on this debate if you don't even know what torture is, and what our rights are?Like I said, you're not very imaginative are you... Same old shit: doesn't work, abuse, human rights. Next please!
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Again, look up torture, don't go wandering in the woods. Abuse confers misuse. Regulations should take care of that. I'm not saying we should. It's not abuse if you lawfully sanction it and do it properly.Physical abuse is abuse involving contact intended to cause feelings of intimidation, pain, injury, or other physical suffering or bodily harm.Psychological abuse, also referred to as emotional abuse, is a form of abuse characterized by a person subjecting or exposing another to behavior that is psychologically harmful. Such abuse is often associated with situations of power imbalance, such as abusive relationships, bullying, child abuse and in the workplace.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_abuse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_abuse This is what torture is, you nitwit. It is an intrinsic property of torture that it inflicts pain, injury, power imbalance and so on.It's like I'm trying to explain to you that murder requires that you kill someone, and you just keep writing "if we regulate it, no one will die from it."I've never met someone so unable to grasp the most basic conceptual relationships.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Did you look up the definition of torture? I even gave you a link to the wikipedia article. Abuse confers misuse, and that's why I've been arguing that we should regulate it. And don't equate murder to torture, you idiot....Abuse...Doesn't work...Human RightsZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

So surgery is abuse then? Because it's contact intended to cause bodily harm?
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

The real world is not "24" with Jack Bauer. And people need to grow up and stop thinking it works that way. Professionals interrogate. Terrified amateurs in way over their heads torture.Torture isn't used to extract intelligence, it's used to extract confessions... TRUE OR NOT. People being tortured will tell you anything they think you want to hear to make the torture stop.And we pay an extremely heavy price in international credibility and support for engaging in this kind of contemptable behavior. You can't run around the world telling everyone they should support your agenda because you're the good guys while engaging in the most despicable criminal behaviour and declaring it's ok when you do it because you're special.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

Yes, we agree with something. Interrogation using torture is only only ineffective but morally wrong.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

People being tortured will tell you anything they think you want to hear to make the torture stopThat's why you should never use torture to obtain a confession. .It should only be done to obtain information from uncooperative suspects. And if the info they give you is bs, then they'd get double pain when you find out. So lying in that case isn't a way to stop pain..And we pay an extremely heavy price in international credibility and support for engaging in this kind of contemptable behavior. You can't run around the world telling everyone they should support your agenda because you're the good guys while engaging in the most despicable criminal behaviour and declaring it's ok when you do it because you're specialThis is because the US goes about it the wrong way: Sneaking around, circumventing laws, unregulated methods used by undisciplined personnel, etc... If you sneak around and you get caught, it's a bad thing.If you're up front about it and do it properly for the right reasons, people will support it. It happens everywhere, why wouldn't people support it? They only don't support its abuse.
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: No

I'm sorry. So... it's bad to get false confessions but it's good to get false information?And we're doing this in situations where we have time to take their information, act on it, discover whether it's correct or incorrect, come back, repeat the process... etc... meaning we're not talking about "ticking bomb" scenarios but just general "tell me something I want to know or I'll torture it out of you" scenarios?So... we're basically North Korea now? That's your brilliant idea?And you think the problem is we don't ADVERTISE torture programs? Are you supposed to be on some medication that you've gone off of?
Debate: Interrogators Should Be Allowed To Torture Suspects For Information
Side: yes

Your power of interpretation is phenomenal: How did you get "it's good to get false information" from "It should only be done to obtain information from uncooperative suspects. And if the info they give you is bs, then they'd get double pain when you find out. So lying in that case isn't a way to stop pain.""It should have been interpreted as meaning: if you torture for info (as oppose to for a confession), you're not likely to get false info as info can be verified. The resumption of pain will deter suspects from lying. After all, the suspect wants to stop pain, not get more pain from lying..And we're doing this in situations where we have time to take their information, act on it, discover whether it's correct or incorrect, come back, repeat the process... etc... meaning we're not talking about "ticking bomb" scenarios but just general "tell me something I want to know or I'll torture it out of you" scenariosWhy not "ticking bomb" scenarios? One person doesn't have to do all these tasks. You can have a torture specialist to beat it out of them, then you've got a team out there acting on the extracted info, much quicker :) . And remember that torture is supposed to be quicker than other methods of investigation, this should actually make it a more suitable method for time sensitive scenarios. .we're basically North Korea now? That's your brilliant idea?Don't get all excited. To be North Korea, you gotta brainwash everyone to worship the dictator, etc, etc....And you think the problem is we don't ADVERTISE torture programs? Are you supposed to be on some medication that you've gone off of?Dude (or dudette if you're female), you make me out to be some kinda sicko, which is, again, inaccurate cos I'm not :) Why can't we just have a civilized debate?! The problem is because the US's gone about it the wrong way. I didn't say to advertize anything.