BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islam allows men to pressure/force their wives into having sex

I should start off by tell you that Muslims don't believe in both Hadith and Tafsir INDEFINITELY. I disagree with this statement to a large extent. Most of the obligatory rituals and observances that muslims follow are described in the ahadith and not in the Quran. Theu Quran does not explain the details of how salah is to be performed for example. Many articles of faith that are part of the aqeedah of a muslim are described in detail in the ahadith and they are not just found in the Quran. Most muslims believe in the authenticity of the sahih ahadith collections. bukhari, muslim and tirmidhi are amongst the most reknowned. My friend, the way the quran was preserved is very similar to the way many of the ahadith were preserved as well. you can't just follow the quran and ignore the sahih ahadith.Only the words of God are eternal.Again, the same people who preserved the quran are narrators and presevers of many ahadith. If you believe in one and not the other, you have doouble standards.But I am not denying that there are marital duties towards BOTH husband and wife. The thing is, your quotes are not bad, the quotes don't say that the women will be harmed in ANY WAY. The angels are not robots, they don't go on auto-curse the moment the woman refuses. She has rights too, and God being the all-knowing knows how SHE feels and the stresses she is going through. Islam would recommend the logical solution: either get marriage counseling or get a divorce but it is unfair for both the husband and wife to not enjoy marital life.So basically, all that talk about only respecting ahadith and not necessarily following them was uselss, because you don't see anything wrong with the wording of those ahadith. The quotes (the ahadith in other words... the sayings of your holy prophet) state that the angels curse the wife. and you seem to imply that this is not what they mean. What is your proof of this? I agree counselling or divorce seem like a much more logical solution but clearly this is not what Muhammad was recommending here. Unfortunately, a woman, as I am sure you know, is not legally allowed to ask her husband for divorce. The husband however, can tell his wife that he is divorcing her. Very unfair. I know a wooman can go to a qadhi to ask for a divorcee, but even then she will not be granted one until she provides evidence that her husband is performing acts of kufr. Please don't try to deny this as people can easily look this up and many muslims prescribe to this version of Islam.The fact that you just want to hate on Islam would be a totally different subject, but I truly think you are looking for a productive conversation.I was, but this is not a productive conversation. In my opinion, you did not even come close to proving me wrong and I was hoping that I was misinterpreting these ahadith. I am fairly certain however, that in your heart, you do not like the fact that Islamic scriptures are so unfair towards women. I am certain of this because the solutions you suggested are much better than the 'solutions' provided by the quran and sunnah.
Islam allows men to pressure/force their wives into having sex

I should start off by tell you that Muslims don't believe in both Hadith and Tafsir INDEFINITELY. We respect them, yes, but if we don't we are not sinning. Why? Simply because God clearly says that His word and His word alone isprotected from falsehood. Meaning that Hadiths that are related to the Prophet pduh can be easily changed and mutilated, some of them are complete baloney, but you know what? I don't care because I mainly heed to word of God which He protects in contrast to the allegedly said words of the Prophet. Tafisrs are also the hard of work of learned men, not scripture. So they too can easily be mistaken OR their opinions can relate to THEIR time line. Only the words of God are eternal. But I am not denying that there are marital duties towards BOTH husband and wife. The thing is, your quotes are not bad, the quotes don't say that the women will be harmed in ANY WAY. The angels are not robots, they don't go on auto-curse the moment the woman refuses. She has rights too, and God being the all-knowing knows how SHE feels and the stresses she is going through. Islam would recommend the logical solution: either get marriage counseling or get a divorce but it is unfair for both the husband and wife to not enjoy marital life. The fact that you just want to hate on Islam would be a totally different subject, but I truly think you are looking for a productive conversation.
Islam allows men to pressure/force their wives into having sex

From BukhariAllah's Messenger (saws) said, "If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the Angels will curse her till morning."From TirmidhiAllah's Messenger (saws) said, "When a man calls his wife to satisfy his desire she must go to him even if she is occupied at the oven!"Please argue against the idea that these ahadith imply that women are basically obligated to have sex with their husbands even if they don't feel like it.The idea that if a wife refuses sex, it is basically considered a sin.
Tony Stark (Iron Man) is Smarter than Bruce Wayne (Batman)

Con proves many valid points ... But with all of Bruce Wayne's skills and ideas. Without the money from his deceased parents he would never have been able to learn all of this or fund any of his creations. Batman: Genius-level intellect, called the world"s greatest detective by his enemy Ra"s al Ghul. Iron Man: Genius-level intellect, called the world"s greatest "futurist" by fellow superhero Reed Richards. Verdict: Both are highly capable thinkers, but IQ is a relative measure, not an absolute one. So how do they stack up to their peers? Batman is universally hailed as the smartest man in D.C. Comics, with Lex Luthor his only real competition. This does not mean that Wayne is more intelligent than Stark ... Stark is a quick thinker, VERY QUICK THINKER. Tony has a genius level intellect that allows him to invent a wide range of sophisticated devices, specializing in advanced weapons and armor. He possesses a keen business mind. Let me remind you, Stark has even created artificial intelligence References: http://marvel.com... https://en.m.wikipedia.org... https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Tony Stark (Iron Man) is Smarter than Bruce Wayne (Batman)

Pro uses Stark's skill of crafting to back up his intelligence. To counter this, Bruce Wayne has built just as many, if not more, amazing technology than Stark. Wayne creates new innovations for the Batcave and constantly adds more settings and functions to the Batmobile. Let's not forgot things like the Batcopter and the motorcycle. These creations are seen in every Batman film to date, predominantly in Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy.Wayne does not rely on technology. Stark seems to use JARVIS to get most of his answers while Wayne mostly knows them all himself. He has a PhD, and he has taken a huge interest in things like lierature and martial arts ever since he was a child, as seen in the TV show "Gotham".Let's not forgot that Batman is the World's Greatest Detective. In fact, that's one of his nicknames. He has solved the hardest challenges from The Riddler and can solve nearly any case, while Stark is yet to prove any investigation skills he possesses.
Tony Stark (Iron Man) is Smarter than Bruce Wayne (Batman)

Pro states that Wayne would not be able to learn or fund his creations if not for his deceased parents. However, Pro fails to realize this is the exact same situation for Stark, so considering it a bad thing on only Bruce's part is an invalid argument.From the Tony Stark page on Marvel's Wikia: "When he was 21, his parents were killed in a car crash, and he inherited his father's business, Stark Industries."Source: http://marvel.wikia.com...Pro says that Wayne's enemy Ra's al Ghul is the only one who calls him "The World's Greatest Detective". This is untrue. That name is universally used around the DC Universe for Batman, in fact it is his second most common nickname, behind only "The Dark Knight".Pro then seems to give support to my resolution. He points out that Stark is called a great futurist, which doesn't have much to do with intelligence. He points out Wayne is a great detective, which has a lot to deal with intelligence.Definition of futurist: "A person who studies the future and makes predictions about it based on current trends." As you can see, being a futurist requires little intelligence, if any. All it requires to be a futurist is studying.Source: https://www.google.com...Pro says that Stark is a very quick thinker. Notice how in the movies, Stark repeatedly asks JARVIS to pull things up and answer things. If Stark is such a great thinker as Pro claims, why does he count on JARVIS so much?Pro also says Stark has a keen business mind. So does Wayne. Wayne heads Wayne Enterprises and all its factions. And since Pro continually asserts the fact that Stark is an inventor, here's a picture that shows only a few things Wayne has invented: In case the picture doesn't load correctly, I'll type the text here: "Bruce Wayne has won numerous patents for inventing sport injury prevention products, medical and surgical products both for himself as well as for medical manufacturers."
Religion has no place in a Modern Society

I would consider myself a respecting anti-theist, which means I believe religion should not exist, HOWEVER I fully respect the right of others to worship at their leisure. I believe religion has its merits, however, the negatives seem far more numerous. In this debate, I will be trying to argue that religion does not -overall- positively effect a developed society and only hinders its progression forward. Religion can cause friction among members of society that, otherwise, would be just fine alongside one another. There is an old adage that 'the two things you must never discuss with an acquaintance are religion and politics'. I believe communication is very important among any relationship, be it personal, educational, or work related. A topic that creates friction -often becoming derogatory or violent- that is both so taboo to discuss and so widely spoken of and displayed seems very opposed to a smoothly functioning society. Religion can also cause far more serious problems, such as the Crusades(1) and Jihads(2) of times long past. While in developed societies these are infrequent and rare, it is evidently seen today in the spread of ISIS in the Middle East, and in the burning and pillaging of churches in Africa. Religion is a faith, an idea, that is based in belief. Beliefs that can turn violent, even genocidal, have no reason to exist in a society that is focused on the progression of equality. I will concede that religion does have its finer points. Religion can bring an individual peace and self-happiness, which is a pivotal part of life. It can also bring communities together, centering themselves around their shared faith. But of course, that also means these same communities will clash with others of a differing religion, or lack thereof. The same faith that binds together is the same that clashes against others, and especially for larger societies, this seems horrific. Society at large should be focused on progression, be it matters of social issues or science, of developing economies and eliminating poverty. Religion seems to be just a thorn in the side of that society, hindering it from taking the strides it must to ensure a safer, healthier, more educated society for everyone to enjoy. (1) http://www.history.com... (2)https://en.wikipedia.org...
There are no sound arguments for creationism

I don't understand pro's point, the fact that something is old earth creationism doesn't change the fact that it is creationism. Pro hasn't proved that old earth creationism is not creationism, he has not even argued the point. Based on pro's statement that I have convinced him that there are valid arguments in favor of old earth creationism I have won the round. Pro never proved that old earth creationism is not creationism. As I stated in the 3rd round creationism is the position that God created the universe, and that there are two views within creationism, thus both old earth and new earth beliefs are in fact creationism. Pro accepted that my arguments where in fact valid, and I have proven that my arguments fell under the hood of creationism, thus by default I have won this debate round. I have proven that there are valid arguments in favor of creationism, and pro has accepted that they are valid. Thus I have proven the universal negative wrong, and I should be awarded this debate round.
There are no sound arguments for creationism

Creationism is the position that God created the universe. There are two views within creationism, the divide is based upon the time period that the earth was created. Young earth creationists believe that God created the universe, the earth, and living things on the earth and that the Old Testament literally describes six, 24 hour periods. Therefore, they maintain that the universe is, more or less, anywhere from 6,000 to 10,000 years old. They further maintain that speciation occurred during this time as a result of the extant genetic information and environmental pressures. Old earth creationists still maintain that the universe, the earth, and all living things were created by God, but that the Universe is very old, and not necessarily created in six 24 hour periods. Old earth creationist do believe in the 7 day representation in the bible, but as was stated in the 2nd round, the hebrew word for day could mean a general, vague time. Thus old earth creationism still coincides with the biblical explanation of creation, yet is open to interpretations of the bible. Pro has limited his opinion of creationism to just one side, that of the new earth creationism. I presented my case in the 2nd round for old earth creationism, and thus pro's point is irrelevant. All of my arguments still stand and have been unchallenged and I should be awarded this debate round. When Pro stated that my explanation is "an interpretation of the text" he accepted that the arguments I brought up in the 2nd round are indeed logical. In short he is stating that the arguments don't belong here, yet are indeed logical. I proved that they do belong in this debate round in my above point. He accepted that these arguments are logical by not responding to them. Pro has not responded to any of the points that I brought up, and the mere fact that I brought up points proves the round should be awarded to me. Because none of pros responses has a leg to stand on I should win this round because the arguments that I presented are indeed logical. The resolution presents a universal negative, stating that there are no arguments in favor of creationism, however I have proved this wrong by presenting a number of logical arguments in favor of creationism. I have proved this resolution false, or in this case con, and thus I have won this round.
There are no sound arguments for creationism

I will now negate all of cons arguments in one sentence: what con is describing is not creationis.This is the definition of creationism: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.What con is describing is an interpretation of the text. Creationism is literal; there is no interpretation.All con has done is tear down a strawman.
Marijuana should be legalized and alcohol should be illegeal.

That was a good response, Con. However, my only real contort is this: the illegalization of alcohol has not, nor will it ever, stop people from using alcohol. It will simply create more problems. From your quoted link, it appears as if you are saying that the reason that alcohol is so dangerous is because so many people use it. I say, therefore, that prohibition will not stop the use, and therefore your justification for your wish to prohibit it is moot.
Marijuana should be legalized and alcohol should be illegeal.

I commend con for pointing those points out. But i took US history and am aware of the problems prohibition caused but if you consider this. My source said this "Most people agree that drugs are bad, but some British researchers have found that alcohol is most dangerous to your health and lifestyle. The new study conducted by a team of British scientists is abuzz on the Internet. After evaluating drugs like alcohol, cocaine, heroin and marijuana, the team found that overall, alcohol is most dangerous to individual users and society as a whole. Hardcore drugs like heroin, crack cocaine and crystal meth are the deadliest drugs. However, when researchers analyzed several categories -- the addictive nature of drugs, how they harm the body, their role in tearing families apart and economic costs -- alcohol far exceeded all the others. "Unquestionably the reason it's so harmful is because so many people use it," said Dr. David Nutt, who lead the study. "So many people are dependent on it, so many people get into trouble with it." The World Health Organization estimates alcohol abuse is responsible for 2.5 million deaths a year. That number includes heart and liver disease, suicides, cancer and auto accidents -- like one in North Carolina that claimed the life of a 20-year-old aspiring ballerina. The driver who hit her had a blood alcohol level more than twice the legal limit. Researchers hope their study causes governments to rethink the way they classify drugs. One researcher said they should consider more education programs and possibly raising the price of alcohol, so it isn't as widely available." http://www.cbn.com...
Marijuana should be legalized and alcohol should be illegeal.

To start off with, I have never smoked weed. However I know people that do. My source states " Scientists have confirmed that the cannabis plant contains active ingredients with therapeutic potential for relieving pain, controlling nausea, stimulating appetite, and decreasing ocular pressure. Cannabinoid-based medications include synthetic compounds, such as dronabinol (Marinolï¿½) and nabilone (Cesametï¿½), which are FDA approved, and a new, chemically pure mixture of plant-derived THC and cannabidiol called Sativexï¿½, formulated as a mouth spray and approved in Canada and parts of Europe for the relief of cancer-associated pain and spasticity and neuropathic pain in multiple sclerosis." http://www.drugabuse.gov... On the other hand my source says this about alcohol."Alcohol affects every organ in the drinker's body and can damage a developing fetus. Intoxication can impair brain function and motor skills; heavy use can increase risk of certain cancers, stroke, and liver disease. Alcoholism or alcohol dependence is a diagnosable disease characterized by a strong craving for alcohol, and/or continued use despite harm or personal injury. Alcohol abuse, which can lead to alcoholism, is a pattern of drinking that results in harm to one's health, interpersonal relationships, or ability to work." "In 2009, 51.9% of Americans age 12 and older had used alcohol at least once in the 30 days prior to being surveyed; 23.7% had binged (5+ drinks within 2 hours); and 6.8% drank heavily (5+ drinks on 5+ occasions). In the 12-17 age range, 14.7% had consumed at least one drink in the 30 days prior to being surveyed; 8.8% had binged; and 2.1% drank heavily." "The NIDA-funded 2010 Monitoring the Future Study showed that 13.8% of 8th graders, 28.9% of 10th graders, and 41.2% of 12th graders had consumed at least one drink in the 30 days prior to being surveyed, and 5.0% of 8th graders, 14.7% of 10th graders, and 26.8% of 12th graders had been drunk." This is a few stats and facts.
Germany was most responsible for the starting of WW1.

Here are my opening arguments. Aplogies if my arguments are unusually short. 1. Russian Mobilization On July 31, 1914, Russia mobilized it’s military against Austria, following the diplomatic crises between Austria and Serbia. This was preceded by a partial or “prepatory” stage of mobilization [1]. Germany demanded for French neutrality if Russia declares war. This demand makes sense because if France declared war, Germany would be left with little choice but to enact the Schlieffen Plan [4] By definition, Germany cannot be held most responsible if Russia and France had mobilized their military’s first. Especially since France had little interests in the region aside from diplomatic ties to Russia [3]. France had left Germany with no choice other than to enact the Schliffen plan by refusing the remaining neutral in the war. Sources: . http://www.historyplace.com... . https://causesofwwi.wordpress.com... 2. The "spark" that caused the war was not from Germany Austria was the first country to declare war by invading Serbia. The declaration came as a result of Austria wanting to subjugate the Serbs, as they were the strongest voice for the creation of Yugoslavia. Austria saw such as a major threat to their power in the Balkans, a region recently abandoned by the Ottomans, and recently annexed by Austria [1] The general consensus on historians is that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the “spark” that caused the war [2]. Since The death of Franz Ferdinand was what compelled Austria to invade Serbia and for Russia to begin mobilizing, otherwise known as the July Crisis. Yet note that in the entire month-long diplomatic cerfuffle, Germany was barely involved. The most that the germans did was issue a “blank cheque” [3] with Austria. Only promising support, as mentioned in the previous argument, Germany made no declarations of war until *after* Russia’s military mobilized. Germany had little role in the perpetuation of the July Crisis, only taking sides in the case of conflict and not making any declarations of war until after facing the threat of war. How can Germany be most responsible for the war when Austria, Serbia, Russia, Beglium and France all mobilized before Germany finally declared war [3]? This alone cleary shows that Germany was not *most* responsible for WW1. Source: . http://www.history.com... . http://www.historyplace.com... . http://www.theguardian.com...
Germany was most responsible for the starting of WW1.

Thank you UtherPenguin for allowing me to debate this topic. I will be lengthily referencing a very intreresting book written by famous WWI historian Laurence Lafore, called "The Long Fuse"As this is a historical debate, opinionated argument that do not delve into fact are to be discouraged. However, you could argue to an extent the feasibility of one historical occurence in relation to WWI.I will be pulling information from my personal library, and most of these works will not be found online. I acknowledge the rules set forth by the instigator, and I shall act in those regards. In Round 2, I shall present my argument as to why Germany was the biggest contributor to the start of World War I. In Round 3, I shall present counteraguments to what my opponent previously stated.In Round 4, I shall conclude and counter any rebuttals made.I await your opening argument, and as always, good luck (You may be needing it).
The death penalty should be legal in all US states.

How to add pictures to debates http://www.debate.org... Note: Pro has not posted any arguments, thus I extend all points over. This is unfortunate for Pro because Pro cannot post any new arguments in the final round, per rule I proposed in R1. This rule was never contested by Pro, so it ought to be valid. This doesn't leave Pro much to say in the final round here, so I suggest, if Pro would like to continue discussing this topic, to redo the debate.