BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religious Debate Tournament: Islamic polygamist practices are flawed, ...

Thank you Medv.You have pointed out the only issue that can be agravated by polygamy, that is gender ratio imbalance.We have seen the example of KSA where the Female/Male ratio is initially not balanced, and where polygamy is still practiced with full support of islamic law, but still the imbalace isn't agravated by polygamy, for the following reasons:-KSA Polygamists usually take at least one of the wives from other countries.- rarely do you see a polygamist having 4 wives.-Women have the choice to stay or leave.-Men usually marry later then women do, which creates a sort of delay and corrects ratios virtually. It is also important to note that there have never been any imbalace issue due to Islamic polygamy, but if it was to happen in the future, it can be self corrected by islam itself, that allows the ruller to rule whatever can benefit the Muslim nation or avoid the harm on them. implying allowing homosexuality isn't required to solve such an issue.For all these reasons, Islamic rullings regarding Polygamy and Homosexuality are coherent and consistent. Note: here the link about Indis statistics that I missed to post on round 4:http://censusindia.gov.in...
Religious Debate Tournament: Islamic polygamist practices are flawed, ...

She was respectful in regards to my family emergency, and I appreciate that. It’s unfortunate that I don’t speak, or read Arabic. The 1428 report Con linked is interested with just the table data. From what little I can read, I believe, table 3 is reflective of my point. I believe this is a report of the population of Saudi Arabia, and the table indicates that only when the population is over the age of 80 does the population of women start to exceed the population of men. Even table 17 which shows the population that is never married shows that the Never Married male population is larger than the female up until the age of 65. It is safe to say that after the age of 65 that most of the population shift is due to the male life expectancy being slightly lower than the female life expectancy. In my view Muslim Polygamy is by far one of the most fair versions of polygamy practice. However, it is not without its faults.
Religious Debate Tournament: Islamic polygamist practices are flawed, ...

Thank you again Medv. As you complain about the usage of percentage, I get you the truenumbers from Saudi government website that you can contemplate here: http://www.debate.org... Table that I got from here: http://www.cdsi.gov.sa... Islamic year 1428 being equivalent to 2007 CE. The previous percentage of male Saudi singles can also be compared toSwitzerland Saudi singles here : http://marriage-statistics.findthedata.org... So as a male, whether you are monogamous or polygamous, you’ll have agreater chance being married in KSA than in Europe! About India, you can check this link to see how Muslim population inIndia are above the national average ration , all with being the fastestgrowing community according to a 2011 census . Please to keep in mind that usually females are ready for marriagesooner than males are, and ratios don’t take this data in consideration, so a14 year old female may get married but wouldn’t be even considered in the statistics! Also Muslim males do marry Christian chaste women as well as Jews, which increases possibilities for Muslim communities. WHY POLYGAMY IS UNDER CONTROL IN MUSLIM LANDS? Polygamy is nothing but a man tied with more than one marriage contract. And who sayscontract says rights and responsibility. -In Islam a woman can choose to accept or refuse a marriage proposal and nobody can forceher, even if she is young and never got married. -In Islam again a woman can choose to end the marriage relationship if her rights are notmet, or if she can no longer stick to her marital obligations. This allows women to make pressure on men, so a wise man wouldn’t go to the polygamyadventure if he can’t afford it, otherwise he would lose more than he may gain. Now you try to show that polygamy can eventually hide lesbianism or female bisexuality!you have to admit this is easier in phantasms than in a Muslim society, and ifit ever does exist, I can’t see in what way would this show Islamic polygamy isflawed, as homosexuality remains a sin, and the women involved in such a practice are married to aman, which still ensures social fertility!
Religious Debate Tournament: Islamic polygamist practices are flawed, ...

When you reduce populations to a percentage it become difficult to do a comparison that all readers will understand. As an example, if I say that, in a given population, 50% of the women are married and 50% of the men are married people naturally assume that the populations are equal. However, you could easily have a population of 100 women and 10 men with only half of each being married if each married man had 10 wives. This is why I cited the actual ratio for Saudi Arabia in Round 2 which has been over 120 men per 100 women since 1985, and the closest ratio was 101 in 1960. Even Iran has had a slight, but consistent, over population of men compared to women, and that’s even with the Iran-Iraq war in the 80’s reducing their male population a bit[1]. You should never expect to see a 100% of the male or female population married regardless of the population balance. As long as you have a consistent birth rate, and a portion of individual putting marriage off you’ll never see it hit 100%. That doesn’t mean that there is plenty of available women for marriage. A simple comparison of population size reveals if there is a sufficient number of men or women. Even though most people associate India with Hindus there is a significant portion of the population that is Muslim. Even though polygamy is outlawed in India under The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937 polygamy is still legal for Muslims in India[2]. Even with the clear gender imbalance Muslims insist on preserving polygamy in India. Increasing the practice of polygamy would only make the problem I’ve described worse not better. The reason why, in spite of an overpopulation of men, Islamic countries haven't reported an issue with men being unable to find wives is that a significant portion of the population is homosexual. They have no need to complain because there are plenty of men to choose from. The prospect of a monogamous male having a relationship with another man poses no risk or danger to Islamic polygamist. In fact, having a sibling who is homosexual could be an advantage. Since they’d be unlikely to have children of their own, and in the event of an unexpected demise they could take over your responsibilities. I will leave Cons argument regarding sperm count and optimal number of wives mostly unchallenged. It’s a red herring, and irrelevant. I could easily twist that to say that each woman should have four husbands. I have a family emergency that I need to address this weekend. I don’t have the time I’d like to address bisexual women as clearly as I would like. I will leave it up to the rebuttal if it’s needed, and to the voters to decide if a man would be like or unlikely to “report” two bisexual wives. I also apologize for any grammar mistakes since I haven’t had time to proof this as much as I would have liked. [1] . http://esa.un.org...[2] . http://www.wluml.org...
Religious Debate Tournament: Islamic polygamist practices are flawed, ...

I accept the definition given for polygamy. Since this is restricted to Islamic polygamy I believe group marriage, and having more than one husband is expressly forbidden amongst most, if not all, Abrahamic based religions. The definition for homosexuality is also acceptable, but I will include bisexuality as well since it includes homosexual relationships. I will start off my argument by saying that there are scenarios where polygamy is rational, and acceptable. If the male to female population of an area is severely skewed polygamy may be necessary to correct the population ratio, and pacify sexual tension for a generation. It can also be practiced very poorly like in the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints Sect that casts out excess boys resulting in a “Lost Boys” phenomena[1]. I’ll now review how polygamy can work under Islamic practices. In Islam a man is allowed to have up to four wives. Now, normally the male to female ratio is 105 males to 100 females at birth. Typically, because male mortality rate is higher, it slowly tilts to 50/50, and by 65 there are far more elderly women than elderly men. However, in Saudi Arabia, the ratio is closer to 124 males to 100 females[2]. I could speculate about why, but the fact it is tilted heavily towards males will only help my case. Lets assume that only 10 percent of the male population practices polygamy, and each one gets four wives. I’ll use the 105 males per 100 females since the would be more fair on a world scale. Males Females Total 105 100 Polygamy 10 40 Monogamy 60 60 Single 35 0 As you can see we’re left with one out of every three males would be unable to marry in this scenario possible under practice of Islamic polygamy. Now this could be corrected with a divorce rate of 35 percent among women, which is a flawed solution. Group marriage, or allowing a woman to have more than one husband would fix it, but is forbidden under Islam. The easier, less flawed, solution is just to admit that there is a portion of the population that is comfortable with having homosexual relationships because they are homosexual, or bisexual. Determining how much of a population is homosexual is difficult because of social stigmas. However, experts estimate almost 10 percent of the population, and the average american estimates closer to twenty percent are homosexual[3]. For bisexual women Islamic Polygamy could be seen as an ideal marriage solution. However, the tendency of islamic countries to execute homosexuals[4] makes this far from an ideal solution for homosexual males. It also wouldn’t be too hard to see that Islamic styled polygamy could be the very selective pressure needed to result in homosexuality as a form of social evolution[5]. Thank you for your time, and I await the response. [1] . http://www.guardian.co.uk...[2] . http://esa.un.org...[3] . http://www.gallup.com...[4] . http://www.guardian.co.uk...[5] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Religious Debate Tournament: Islamic polygamist practices are flawed, ...

and I allow myself to add definitions to the topic. .Polygamy: a marriage relationship between more than a husband and/or more than a wife, but we will limit the definition here to a marriage between a man and more than a wife simultaneously, which is in definition polygyny. . http://en.wikipedia.org...Homosexuality: a sexual relationship between two people of the same gender. As Con, I will defend Islamic teachings regarding Polygamy and Homosexuality.
Universal Health Care

The topic I have chose to debate is the need for Uiversal Healthcare. This is an extremely volatile issue, due to our way of life in the United States. We live in a society based on free enterprise, and free choice. While at the same time we are one of the richest countries on earth, we have tens of millions of people who don't have Health Care. There are thoses on both sides of the issue that feel that they have are right and their way is the best. The United States provides the best medical care in the world, but many wonder if we should adopt a government administered Health Care system like Canada provides to its citizens. After you have heard the arguments that are for and against Uiversal Health Care I think you will be able to make a more informed decision.
Abercrombie and Fitch has discriminatory policies

Abercrombie and Fitch has policies that discriminate against many people because of weight, social status, and ethnicity. Their policies put down anyone who does not follow their idea of a "cool kid".1. ) Abercrombie and Fitch openly discriminate against people that are overweight. Their size chart publicly shows this, and their CEO has also made public statements concerning this. I will provide a link to Abercrombie and Fitch's sizing chart here:. http://www.abercrombie.com...This sizing chart demonstrates the discriminatory policies of Abercrombie. The sizing chart only includes women's' sizes through large, excluding XL and XXL. This discriminates against a large percentage of the United States:"To whit, the “average” American women now wears a size 14 (with “plus-sizes, often classified as 14 to 34, account(ing) for 67 percent of the population) a number that typically hits the ceiling size charts of most American-distributed stores and brands. "Read more: . http://www.businessinsider.com...This demonstrates that Abercrombie is discriminating against about 67% of American women because of their size. This makes them feel inferior, which can harm them psychologically over the long run and make their life more difficult in the present.2. ) Abercrombie also discriminates against women that are not American (racial discrimination). Their CEO gave a statement saying:"In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids," he says. "Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don't belong [in our clothes], and they can't belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely. Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don't alienate anybody, but you don't excite anybody, either. " . http://retailindustry.about.com...In this quote, Mike Jefferies admits to believing that in order to be cool and popular with a lot of friends, you have be "all-American". This is discriminatory towards those that may be of other ethnicities or originate in other countries. Again, this can cause many adolescents who do not fit this description to feel insecure, like they aren't good enough because of their ethnicity. This quote also can go back to my first argument, because it is a direct quote saying that Abercrombie does not want "fat" kids wearing their clothes, and that they will never belong.3. ) Abercrombie discriminates against those that are not considered to be popular. again, this is coming from the previous quote, where Mike Jefferies openly says that these people don't belong in their clothes. Those that are considered to be unpopular often already face social challenges, and to be told that they don't belong anywhere could make them miserable. Again, Abercrombie discriminates because of weight, ethnicity, and social status. I look forward to hearing my opponents arguments.
The war in Iraq was a joke

I DO believe that a war was a necessity, and I mean absolutely no disrespect to the soldiers that fought and died in it and am deeply sorry if I have offended you in anyway. I think that the USA should have initially focused on removing Saddam from power, establishing democracy, and hunting Al Qaeda; not 6-8 years later. Taking out the infrastructure and making it seem like the country itself was at fault for terrorist actions on 9/11 was what made Al Qaeda's numbers swell to massive proportions, as the population was furious about the invasion. Take my information as you please, but you know that what I say is true. Vote Pro!!!
The war in Iraq was a joke

It is impossible to expect that warfare will produce perfect results. I admit that the war in Iraq has produced some unwanted side affects, but what possible counter attack to terrorism wouldn't. I believe that given the circumstance the actions taken were necessary and not a "joke". To call the war a joke would be dishonoring to the soldiers who participated including myself. Every decision might not have been the best or yield the most pleasant outcome but the war as a whole was no joke, but a necessary step in order to protect the United states and the people who abide within it. All of my opponents arguments were small examples of mistakes or bad outcomes within the war. I could give 5 times as many describing World war 2, but this doesn't mean that the war was a joke, it means that the people in command weren't perfect. I personally experienced the civilians welcoming me and my fellow soldiers on various occasions. As to the government. The Country of Iraq is now more sovereign than ever. They are slowly but surely rebuilding their infrastructure which might I add was previously run by a cruel terrorist dictator. Now that have the opportunity to start again and become once again a recognized and sovereign country. Once again I admit that the Iraqi war is not perfect, but what war is?
The war in Iraq was a joke

There HAS been tension in the Middle East for many years, I do not disagree with this. What I disagree with is how it was dealt with. The invasion and destruction of Iraq's infrastructure for a second time should not have been necessary. The splintering of Iraq into a groups of small terror cells and the like started back in the Gulf War, where Saddam Hussein (a know unstable leader) was left in power for 10 more years, ultimately dooming Iraq to it's current fate. According the timeline in the link below, major combat operations were completed in roughly two months in May of 2003. that means that for roughly 8 years, our troops sat in Iraq doing "peacekeeping and eliminating the terrorist threat". 8 years later we found Osama. Meanwhile our troops are being picked off in guerilla attacks and suicide bombings with a civilian population that has no love for the troops. All while this is going on, Al Qaeda is growing to record strength with hundreds of new recruits from the outraged civilian population. This could have been handled so much better and was a needless waste of life. I turn the debate over to my opponent. http://thinkprogress.org...
The war in Iraq was a joke

It's no secret that the tension in the middle east has existed for may years. The war in Iraq was initiated not only beause of this ongoing tension but it was more importantly a result of the 9/11 attacks. Once the terrorist brought the fight to our soil the United States government had avery limited time to retaliate somehow before they lost their credibility and power to prevent an open season on American people. The Iraqi government was in shambles and could not control its own people, leaving the commander and chief of the United states no choice: take the fight to them.
prolife folks should agree, abortionist tiller should have been shot

"Your link doesn't go to a direct article that would support these claims.", this is your problem. You have anecdotal evidence which is fine but the claims of guilt are not actually falsifiable and half of the "quotes" aren't cited. That aside none of this justifies murder. You also failed to explain how Just War theory could apply at all. There is no rational reason (thus far) that I can see a pro-life person should go forth and support the murder of doctors who perform abortions, legally or otherwise, since the two are not directly linked. This is akin to a member of PeTA murdering a fashion designer who uses fur in their wear.
prolife folks should agree, abortionist tiller should have been shot

con mostly just questions the validity of my sources that he did them illegally. it's a reasonable question, but all you've done is offer speculation on what looks like credible information. the sources are a bit bias, but that doesn't mean the information if false. when a court acquits someone that doesnt mean they are innocent, it just means for the purposes of the law, they are held to be presumed that way. the evidence could have not been included for all kinds of reasons, maybe the employee didn't testify and it was deemed heresay and not included. or maybe there was a doctor patient privilege that kept the information out of court. i've given at least presumably credible information, so con should have more of a duty to rebut it than just 'it looks bias'.
prolife folks should agree, abortionist tiller should have been shot

[HIS DEATH WAS JUSTIFIABLE PHILOSOPHICALLY we have just war theory, and defense of others if death is imminent. i think just war applies. otherwise we have defense of others.... while not literally imminent who cares? we donty have to be just whatever orhodoxy says. its the point that matters. desperate times desperate measures.... defense of others but not truly immenient, a death will soon occur. understood not normative law or ethics.... but bottomline, if u are gonna kill us very likely etc... u should die. otherwise wed just be sticking to tradiotion of whats been allowed and overlooking the point involved, and not be a little more unorthodox. bottomline... what if they were killing two year olds and it was generally legal? not only that what if it was illegal at times and efftive to shoot the few two year old killers? poltics and law werent working.... what is the moral thing to do? (also, the prolife building next to tiller had very high success preventing abortion when getting a chance to talk to the women. before and after tiller was shut down. why didnt tiller refer them there first at least as a suggestion etc? it follows that he cared more about money, why else wouldnt he do things to help reduce abortion] "we have just war theory, and defense of others if death is imminent. i think just war applies.", how? " otherwise we have defense of others.... while not literally imminent who cares?", you just invalidated this argument. While this is actually an appeal to emotion and I really shouldn't have taken this I'm curious as to what would drive you to use this number of red herrings and unsupported and really unsolicited information to try and justify murder. Your evidence is weak at best and while a person's viewpoints on something should effect their worldview it would be less than sensible if not almost outright dangerous for "Prolifers" to decide that murder of doctors is justifiable. Dr. Tiller did his job. ( http://www.nytimes.com... ) he was acquitted (meaning not legally held to) any illegal abortions. The claim that they were illegal is false. Your link doesn't go to a direct article that would support these claims. I don't know if that's an error or not. While the sources are biased throughout I am still more concerned with the justification of murder for a man who did not break the law according to historical contexts.