BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse.

Yes. The prophet Muhammad peace be upon him did fly to heaven on a winged horse. My opponent didn't give any definitions, so I'll define them. Definitions: 1. Muhammad: (Arabic: محمدR06;R06;)is the central figure of Islam and widely regarded as its founder by non-Muslims. He is known to Muslims as the "Holy Prophet", almost all of whom consider him to be the last prophet sent by God to mankind to restore Islam, which they believe to be the unaltered original monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets. 2. Winged horse: Al-Burāq (Arabic: البُراقR06;R06; ) is a steed in Islamic mythology, a creature from the heavens that transported the prophets. Most notably Buraq carried the Islamic prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem and back during the Isra and Mi'raj or "Night Journey", as recounted in hadith literature. Arguments: In my argument, I'll just show a Hadith, saying, of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. Narrated Abbas bin Malik: Malik bin Sasaa said that Allah's Apostle described to them his Night Journey saying, "While I was lying in Al-Hatim or Al-Hijr, suddenly someone came to me and cut my body open from here to here." I asked Al-Jarud who was by my side, "What does he mean?" He said, "It means from his throat to his pubic area," or said, "From the top of the chest." The Prophet further said, "He then took out my heart. Then a gold tray of Belief was brought to me and my heart was washed and was filled (with Belief) and then returned to its original place. Then a white animal which was smaller than a mule and bigger than a donkey was brought to me." (On this Al-Jarud asked, "Was it the Buraq, O Abu Hamza?" I (i.e. Anas) replied in the affirmative). The Prophet said, "The animal's step (was so wide that it) reached the farthest point within the reach of the animal's sight. I was carried on it, and Gabriel set out with me till we reached the nearest heaven." - Sahih Al-Bukhari 5.227 Sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.islamawareness.net...
Prostitution should be legalized in Nevada

My opponent makes a good point on the insurance; the insurance benefit was only an idea. However, employees have to follow the regulations in a job whether they like it or not. Therefore Prostitutes should pay for the medical testing. It is to ensure their well being and also to regulate a business; if the prostitute wants to keep on working then they have to be aware of their overall health. Prostitutes would actually get paid more, because if the brothels were scattered throughout cities (especially a highly populated city), then there is no doubt that business would thrive. Men/Women would seek sexual service that is close to them. It is not likely that they would seek the cheapest brothel that is 25 miles away. Even if prostitutes weren't paid according to will, the prostitutes would still receive a decent amount of money. Again, the legalization of prostitution would allow more brothels to be built, and yeah the brothels might compete with one another but the location of the brothels matter. The government could specify how many brothels can be built in one particular area. I apologize that I did not fully explain my proposal of the brothel like buildings. The brothel like buildings are not like brothels, these buildings would be rather small and wouldn't need so much taking care of (maintenance, electricity, administrations, plumbing and licensing). The brothel like buildings are specifically for the prostitutes who work on the streets. The brothel like buildings would only supply prostitutes with condoms and security, the prostitutes wouldn't be Some women/men don't have any educational background and would rather prostitute themselves than work in a job that requires hard work. It is likely that brothels will have employees. Therefore eliminating (since my opponent states) the overcrowding of brothels and street soliciting. I apologize for not touching on all of my opponents points but I still have to rush, I will fully touch them on the conclusion.
Prostitution should be legalized in Nevada

The traditional arguments for legalizing things that are illegal are to allow it to come within government regulation. Recreational drugs, for example, have frequently come up as an example of something that could stand to be legalized in order to regulate it. In addition, there is the argument that legalizing prostitution will allow it to generate tax money. I will argue that the legalization of prostitution differs in that proposed regulations for prostitution are impractical. My opponent states that our state government should not "have a say on how people treat their bodies". I disagree with this notion. The government is made up of representatives to ensure the well-being of the population. It is responsible for balancing the good of the whole with individual liberty. Legalizing prostitution, superficially, seems to be proper in terms of lifting restrictions in individual liberty. However, there are many societal consequences to doing so. As I am a Pharmacy student, I shall give an analogy involving antibacterial medications. With the advent of Penicillin, many diseases that once threatened the lives of Americans were saved with just one course of the medication. However, as time went on, the diseases that were beaten by this miracle drug developed resistance and became far deadlier than before. This is due to irresponsibility and overuse of Penicillin. Today, oral antibiotics can only be purchased with a prescription from a doctor. Similarly, the legalization of prostitution will raise the customer pool. The appeal of prostitution is not like that of drugs. Some may argue that the appeal of recreational drugs may stem from the very fact that they are illegal. This is not the case with prostitution. Prostitution supplies an outlet for a very natural, biological urge. Legalizing it as a business would raise it much higher in usage, rapidly increasing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases among the population. My opponent may argue that the legalization would undoubtedly come with regulations that will inhibit the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, but I will argue that any regulation I list following will be impractical: STD testing, provision of free condoms or other contraceptive/hygenic measures, monitoring of condom use, price control There are many others that escape me as of this moment, so I shall end my round one here. I look forward to my opponent's response.
mass murder gun should be banned by statute

Last speech. Here goes line by line on what you said. "your theories are not basis in facts." >>Yes they are, population is growing, people are starving. More population = more starving people. "the US europe etc are known for leveling off in population. that's the natural result with humans etc. Africa will increase and we'll get to 9 billion. the reason this happens is because people would rather have more stuff than to scrumamage up the means to support more people." >>First off you admit we will be getting to 9 billion in this post thus confirming my case. Secondly how is population leveling off the natural result with humans? We are always attempting to develop better health care and live longer. We are a population that strives for longer and longer life, thus our population increases and increases. U.S is at 300 million now, it is projected to be at 400 million by 2050. Leveling off? "micronutrients etc are fully capable of supporting all that. corn has energy content of like 2000 units per corn, and thigns like switchgrass has units like 9000. so, that'd support more than four times our population. and, other countries could do the same thing. they just need the technology which we could get." >>What....? Things like switchgrass has units like 9000. so, that'd support more than four times our population? Where are you pulling this information from? If your evidence is factual then why do we still have million of people dieing all the time of starvation? Roughly 30,000 people a day to be exact. Its more than apparent that certain sections of the world have already become overpopulated and we are already seeing some of the problems. "my theoriest have much more basis in fact that your's... yours are just spouting off random theories..... like if global warming were true, the cities would flood and droughts would occur and we'd have no means to grow food... when in fact it could be that warming is better. my point is that you're offereing pure speculation." >>I'm giving you theories from prominent scientists that can seen to be true through real world empirical evidence. You offered me "switchgrass has units like 9000" something that I'm not even sure the meaning of. "my theoriest" are fact. Global warming has nothing to do with this debate. "i don't have speculation, at least as much, given my facts. plus, it's not a problem now.... gun ownership etc... so we should't be allowing it now until your problem were to actually occur." >>Let me evaluate what you just said. "We shouldn't be allowing it now until your problem were to actually occur." My problem is this, "people starving in mass." Thus, what you just said is essentially this: We shouldn't do anything about the problem until people are starving in mass. Not a sound strategy at all. Thus I rest my case. We can allow the least needed members of our society to destroy each other while solving for overpopulation at the same time. This is a win scenario for us. Thank you.
mass murder gun should be banned by statute

your theories are not basis in facts. they're just theories the US europe etc are known for leveling off in population. that's the natural result with humans etc. Africa will increase and we'll get to 9 billion. the reason this happens is because people would rather have more stuff than to scrumamage up the means to support more people. micronutrients etc are fully capable of supporting all that. corn has energy content of like 2000 units per corn, and thigns like switchgrass has units like 9000. so, that'd support more than four times our population. and, other countries could do the same thing. they just need the technology which we could get. my theoriest have much more basis in fact that your's... yours are just spouting off random theories..... like if global warming were true, the cities would flood and droughts would occur and we'd have no means to grow food... when in fact it could be that warming is better. my point is that you're offereing pure speculation. i don't have speculation, at least as much, given my facts. plus, it's not a problem now.... gun ownership etc... so we should't be allowing it now until your problem were to actually occur. so, you've created a problem where there's not one any way you slice it.
mass murder gun should be banned by statute

is this like a joke debate to you or? first. if the population is really increasing so much we need to be concerned, then instead of arming the populace as you propose, we should work on getting the populations fed etc. this can be done if you have faith... there's already ways to make alt energy, nuclear etc. ways to increase the energy of our food. we eat what we eat cause it tastes good, not cause it's msot productive. people starve because we can't agree how to handle poverty in africa... how to control them, how to make the economy there. most of it's laziness. poverty does not have to exist. also. even if that argument doesn't work, which it does. then don't allow AKs but allow other guns. AKs etc simply kill people. it's known for bad, never known for good for the normal citizens. you can defend yourself with just a pistol in todays society just fine. AKs would only make things worse.
mass murder gun should be banned by statute

Thank you for the debate topic. I will be devil's advocate. I ask everyone to vote on who you felt did a better job debating and not on your personal views. I see where you are coming from and I totally agree with you that they are murder machines. But it is for this reason that we need to keep them around and not ban them. By 2050 the world population is projected to be at 9 billion conservatively. This means that there will be 1.5 times the amount of people now on earth to support. Think about our situation now. We have millions of people already in poverty in the U.S. Not to mention Mexico, parts of Africa, India, China etc... If we can't keep our people out of poverty at this point what makes anyone think we will be able to with another 3 billion thrown into the mix. Death is a natural part of life, and ultimately it is something that we have little control over. We can delay death, postpone it, but in the end it will have us. Therefor the only real control we have is over the quality of our life. I propose the idea that 2 billion people living in total harmony would be better than 4 billion living in poverty. Thus I also propose the idea that death is a natural check to life and something that must happen. Your idea is therefor to prevent the death of our fellow humans by banning the AK-47 but like you have said it is employed by gangs to kill people. Thus I can only condone this killing, gang shooting by me are entirely fine. Gang shootings effectively get rid of the rabble of our society, often people who are already in poverty. Thus not only do they decrease the people in poverty but combat over population effectively. Without them we would be a much more sorry nation than we are now. Thus I offer a counter proposal. We should not only allow AK-47s but make them more available for people to get. Then in turn we should increase our public school security a step our two as to prevent school shootings. Gang shootings fine. School shootings bad. Gangs like to shoot at each other. School children don't really enjoy that idea (usually). Thanks.
The Idea of Heaven, Hell, and God is Irrational

Excellent! I look forward to an interesting debate! I consider religion as irrational because it can not back itself with repeatable, collectable and falsifiable information. The most cited evidence for religion comes from their own religious text, which neither the subcribers of that belief, nor have any third parties been able to prove the most significant and definitive portions of the aforementioned religious text (for example, no one argues with certain wars accounted in the Christian bible, but the obvious question of god's existence remains). When I say repeatable, collectable, and falsifiable, I am referencing prayer/meditation. Prayer, while widely practiced in most religions, has yet to show any amount of collectable data, or any manifested effects directly rooted from the prayer itself. Those who claim thzt prayer has had fantastic effects have not emperically backed their arguments, and so their "research" can not be trusted or used in any respectable scientific community. The idea that there is an omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal being poses many problems with both fundamental logic and observed data: 1) There has been no peer-reviewed, scientifically backed paper that proves the existence of an almighty deity 2) Why is it that an omniscient being is surprised by human actions? 3) Why would an omnipotent being, that created everything, care about what we eat on sunday, how we dress on monday, or how often we pray to it? Furthermore, why would any rational being support a deity that has commited murder on a global scale, that condones things that we would consider immoral (slavery, abuse of women, removal of their rights, etc.). I wish to add that the last piece was a reference directly to christianity specifically.
The Idea of Heaven, Hell, and God is Irrational

When I say "Heaven, Hell, and God", I refer to religion in general, and not just a specific one. Before we start, however, I would like to clear some definitions: Heaven: A place regarded in various religions as the abode of God (or the gods) and the angels, and of the good after death, often traditionally depicted as being above the sky. (. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) Hell: A place regarded in various religions as a spiritual realm of evil and suffering, often traditionally depicted as a place of perpetual fire beneath the earth where the wicked are punished after death. (. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) God: (In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. (. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) Irrational: Not logical or reasonable. (. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)
This House believes that Jesus Christ was a historical figure

For clarification, historical figure means simply that we can reach reason to believe Jesus Christ existed through a historical lens. I'll be attempting to show two things: firstly an importance on Prussian forms of history, which means the acceptance that second-hand sources are astronomically unreiable as evidence, and that primary sources are the key to proving any real case, which includes the criticism of much of the historical work by biblical scholars as not truly following a justified historical method. I shall then address the evidence my opponent puts forth in favour of the historical figure of Christ. Thank you, and I look forward to his opening pitch.
This House believes that Jesus Christ was a historical figure

Before starting this debate, I want to lay out some definitions and rules.DefinitionsJesus Christ: The person called Jesus, Jesus of Nazaretch, Christ Jesus, Lord, teacher, son of God, son of Man, etc., who was believed by the apostles Peter, John, Paul, etc. to have been the Christ. This is not a debate on whether Jesus actually was the Christ. Nor is it a debate on whether all of the things attributed to him in the gospels or elsewhere are true. However, I will be arguing that at least some of them are true.Historical figure: Luke Timothy Johnson makes a distinction between the "Real Jesus" and the "Historical Jesus."[1] The real Jesus is the actual person who lived 2000 or so years ago. The historical Jesus is what we can reconstruct about the real Jesus from ancient sources. For the purposes of this debate, "historical figure" will be taken to refer whatever we can find out from ancient sources that corresponds to a real person who actually existed. Saying that Jesus was an historical figure will mean basically the same thing as saying that Jesus actually existed as a real human being.Rules1. No game playing. For example, let's not pretend that we don't know who we're talking about. Granted, there were many people in the first century named Jesus, but the one we're talking about is the one who is supposedly behind the Christian movement in the first century.2. The burden of proof is shared. That is, it will be my burden to show that Jesus existed. It will be Con's burden to show that Jesus did not exist. If neither one of us is able to bear our respective burdens of proof, we should be tied on arguments. However, you can still give us points for conduct, sources, and spelling & grammar.3. Voters should vote on the content of the debate; not on your own opinions or arguments that you would like to have made; nor on whatever goes on in the comment section or elsewhere.4. Honesty and fairness are required by both debaters and all of the voters. But no motive mongering. If you can't read another person's mind, you should give them the benefit of the doubt.5. Round 1 is for acceptance, well wishes, definitions, rules, clarifications, etc. Round 2 is for opening arguments. Con may rebut Pro's opening in Round 2. Round 3 is for rebuttals and any additional arguments either sides wants to make. Round 4 is for conclusions. No new arguments for our respective positions are allowed in round 4; however, whatever new arguments are necessary to refute/rebut whatever is said in round 3 are allowed. Or, in Con's case, he will be allowed to refute/rebut what I say in my conclusion.That's about all I can think of.[1] See The Real Jesus by Luke Timothy Johnson. http://www.amazon.com...
The UK should become a Federal Republic.

Argument 1: It still won't be over because Irish people, Scottish people, Welsh people, and English people will still want to be "free" of each other. Like the song you posted, the Irish have been trying to gain independence for 800 years, sock don't think they'll ever quit until Ireland is one country, without any other British influence. Argument 2: I agree with you for the most part, but a confederation would work towards giving the states and people many more rights, and federalism would be like the US, but the government is much too powerful there, so federalism will not give as many rights to the people as a confederation will. Argument 3: I say that we break up the Unites Kingdom entirely. Wouldn't Scotland and and Wales be better off without England? Ireland has proven this, because it is operating Normally.
The UK should become a Federal Republic.

Argument 1: It would help to end seperatists movements in the British IslesCurrently, the United Kingdom is a centralized government that controls the regions of Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland. While each region is culturally, and ethnically different, they are all controlled by the same centralized government. At the moment, seperatist movements exist in all 4 regions, and the United Kingdom is certainly looking like some sort of split might happen in the near future. So what do we do, we let each region govern itself, while all contribute together to form a centralized government.http://www.youtube.com... http://www.npr.org...Argument 2: It would give citizens more rights and freedomsFederalism is a system that divides countries into different states, and lets them govern themselves. For the UK, it would most likely break the kingdom into 4 different governments, who all contribute to a centralized "federal" government. Meaning, Scotland can make any law or provison, that does not interfere with the central governments laws or provisions. Simmilar to the US. This system would give Scottish, Welsh, and Irish citizens more rights, while also keeping the Union and national identity together. http://www.federalunion.org.uk...
The UK should become a Federal Republic.

"I 100% believe it can work . They have been living under the same kingdom for most of history, and right now, not even a majority of Scots want independence. What must secessionists don't realize, is that many Scottish industrys are reliant on Welsh and English companies. That is why the movement has gained little educated support." The british have NOT been living under the same kingdom for most of history. The united kingdom of Great Britain (England and Scotland) was founded by a treaty in 1707. A majority of Scottish people DO want independence, so much that the Queen has said that she does not want the UK to fall under her reign. "I want to inform the audience what confederalism actually is. It is an outdated system, that has not been used for 200 years. It involves breaking up a country into seperate states, and making them pledge military allegiance." First off, the European Union is very similar to a confederation, so it is not completely outdated, and if it is, then the Confederate States of America was one of the last ones, and it existed barely 150 years ago. Secondly, what is wrong with pledging military alligiance? Nothing. In fact, citizens of Russia and royal family members are conscripted into the military, then they obviously pledge alligiance to the military, and they are federations! Thirdly, you are incorrect about confederalism. A confederation is a military, economic, and political alliance or union where the federal government only controls trade and the military. The rest of the power goes to the soveriegn states that make up a confederation.