BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Alcohol

Thank you. Since it's not been established, the BoP is on Con. Alcohol is currently legal, and as such, he is arguing against the status quo. I'll briefly rebut my opponent's arguments and mention my own. I'll expand these in the next round. My opponent argues that alcohol should be banned because it sometimes negatively affects society. However, this is faulty reasoning. Simply because something sometimes affects society negatively, this does not mean it should be made illegal. Cars cause car accidents sometimes. Does this mean we should ban cars? Of course not. My opponent argues: P1: Whatever affects society negatively and causes people to die should be banned P2: Alcohol affects society negatively and causes people to die. C: Alcohol should be banned. As you can see, the first premise is what I have attacked. It's simply too broad, and would also mean the ban of many other things. (Ie. texting). How many people die from texting while driving? Should we make texting illegal? Obviously not. My arguments: I'll briefly mention that since so many people drink alcohol, More than half of Americans 12 and older drink alcohol. (http://alcoholism.about.com...) It's unlikely that simply banning alcohol would stop them from drinking. I'll also mention that alcohol sales contribute greatly to the economy. To ban it would create a vast blackmarket, which the US economy would have to fight. In other words, the US wouldn't be making any money from alcohol sales, and would have to spend money to fight it. My opponent's arguments stand refuted.
ban islam

As you have not done me the courtesy of addressing my points in any real way, and present answers with no substance in a reply that had little thought to it, I will now proceed by addressing your points in a list format to save myself from wasting time writing a long winded argument. *Islam is most definitely a religion; it is as real a religion as any which you happen to follow. Unless you are going to say to me that out of the hundreds of recognised religions in the world, yours is the only one which is valid. *Muslims follow the guidance of their holy book same as most religious followers do. Sticking the word terrorism at the end of a sentence does not constitute a credible point. *Nobody said that religion is the cause of terrorism, that"s exactly what I am here to prove against. I don"t understand what you mean about religion being reliable. Reliable in what sense of the word? *When you say Islam is forced, I am again astounded that you think this is unique to that one religion. A child growing up in a Christian household is baptised and accepted into a church before they can speak. A child growing up in a Jewish household is accepted into the faith, and genital mutilation is carried out on the males before they can object. Indoctrination exists in all religions. *Indeed a Muslim is a Muslim, whatever you mean by that. Please be clear to make the distinction between radical Muslims and non-radical Muslims. The same way you would differentiate between a radical Christian and a non-radical Christian. *I find it rich that you recognise my argument as drivel. I put thought into my argument, I drew upon previous knowledge as well as carrying out some fact checking and research to provide a solid argument. What I get in return is poorly thought out, poorly written and a bigoted list of nonsense.
ban islam

islam is not a religion.. a true muslim follows the koran.. terrorism your non sense claims have no value or truth religion is terrorism.. we are talking about islam not religion.. religion is reliable, islam is forced a muslim is a muslim.. to say there are radical muslims is to be ignorant, nothing more.. the book is the book it dosnt change ever.. islam condems itself, a curse on humanity.. your insanity is what makes the sickness possible anything good in the koran is non religious and dosnt make any one a muslim to accept.. every word so far from you.. utter drivel... the truth stands untouched and unchanging
ban islam

Personal Introduction Firstly, I would like to make a distinction; I am an Atheist, only interested in science and facts. I am not a defender of religion but I am a defender of human rights, people"s right to beliefs, and practice of religion. I am currently studying towards my bachelors in physics and planetary science but I also have a keen interest in understanding the motives that drive certain beliefs. For this reason, I own copies of different religious texts, including a copy of the Quran. I will not stand for such hateful incitements and outrageous bigotry, especially when it stems from misunderstanding and ignorance. Argument I find no better way of describing your proposition than a gross violation of human rights, which entails genocide on an unprecedented scale. What you are proposing here is the annihilation of 1.6 billion human beings based upon your misguided views. Is that really something you could live with? Why are you so aggrieved with Islam as a religion anyway? I"ll make the assumption that you make the link between the religion and terrorism and I will proceed with this assumption. There was an investigation carried out by the FBI which received little news coverage, even though its findings revealed something interesting; "An FBI study looking at terrorism committed on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 found that 94 percent of the terror attacks were committed by non-Muslims." Why does Islam stand out to you as any more deserving of mass annihilation than any other religion? Bearing in mind that virtually every religion has been used as a guise for extremist action by a group of radicals, sometimes on a large scale. Would you call for the prohibition of Christianity based on the countless atrocities committed under that religious guise? Would you call for the genocide of Buddhist monks based on murdering of countless Muslims in Burma, by a handful of radicals? When you propose this act, you condemn nearly 2 billion innocents and a handful of extremists to death. If you consider this to be justified, which I am deeply concerned is the case, then you need to revaluate your thoughts towards your fellow human being. The Bible and Quran preach the same amount of good and bad as each other. You can cherry-pick either, as you can with virtually any text, and find good or evil. Have you read the Quran out of interest, I am curious where you gained your knowledge of its preaching"s? I put it to you that Islam is not the problem, people who, like you, spread bigotry, hatefulness and prejudice are.
ban islam

ban islam or kill all muslims are the only solution to the sickness of islams existence muslims are not immoral if they have no choice.. islam must be banned from all civilized nations, so that the curse of war becomes clear to muslims, as they will be forced to live in muslims countries or will have to convert to escape that horror prison.. islam is not a religion but a political way of creating a war with no end.. a religion is relied on, while islam is forced on people.. so without a choice islam is not immoral, as the only other option is death.. and survival is morality true muslims follow the koran.. terrorism
My opponent has just lost the game.

//My opponent agreed to the definitions I set when starting this debate- new ones are irrelevant. // My opponent makes a false assertion. I did not accept his rules. In debate you are allowed to argue against definitions. This is what I have done. It is perfectly legal. All I did was add the rules that my opponent forgot to add, or was not aware of. He also says it is a new definition. This claim is incorrect. I was adding to the definition as my opponent did not fully set out all of the rules. Again this is perfectly legal in debate. //You lost the game, regardless of a new game you created. // My opponent does not even make an argument in his second contention. He simply claims that I lost the game regardless of a new game I created. He has made no effort to prove that I am not allowed to create a new game. To prove that I lost the game, he has to prove that my game should not be allowed. He has not done so. In fact when he says "a new game you created", he is admitting that I created the game. If my opponent has no problem with me creating a new game, why am I not allowed to play it? All my points still stand.
My opponent has just lost the game.

I look forward to having a rigorous philosophical debate! =) My opponent has not posted all the rules of "the game". Therefore I will do so now. In this link [1] you will find all the rules of the game. Contention 1:I did not just lose the game. I actually lost "the game" before I took this debate. If you look at the rules of the game, after you lose the game you have 30 minutes in which you cannot lose the game. So you do not lose the game every time you think about it. You lose the game after you have not been thinking about it for 30 minutes. Since I was thinking about the game before I was even sent this challenge I did not lose the game at the time of accepting this debate. Nor did I lose the game at the time of reading the debate prior to accepting it. Now It is probable that most people here don't know about these rules and have only just been enlightened. But this is the same game that my opponent is talking about, and the same game that is constantly being brought up in discussion on this website (and who knows where else). Therefore according to the rules I did not just lose the game. My opponent needs to prove that at the time I accepted this debate I lost the game. I have proven otherwise. Contention 2: The game does not hold any power. It is completely made up like my opponent says, it is a mind game. I could just as easily make up another game with the following rules: 1. I am always playing this game no matter what unless I wish to stop playing it. 2. While I am playing "this game" I cannot lose "the game". The game that I made up has just as much power as "the game" and therefore by it's rules I cannot lose "the game". "The game" is completely made up, my game is completely made up as well. They are just the same only with different rules. I do not see why I would not be allowed to make up a mind game like this one, when someone else makes up a game very similar to it. I have given 2 reasons as too why I did not just lose the game. Therefore vote con. [1] http://www.funnycorner.net...
My opponent has just lost the game.

Definitions:The game- A mind game. The rules are:r -Everyone in the world is playing The Game. (Sometimes narrowed to: "Everybody in the world who knows about The Game is playing The Game",or alternatively, "You are always playing The Game.") A person cannot not play The Game; it does not require consent to play and one can never stop playing. -Whenever one thinks about The Game, one loses. -Losses must be announced to at least one person (either by using a statement such as "I Lost The Game" or by alternative means). By this definiton, my opponent has just lost the game.
school uniforms

Uniforms are held to a specific standard when they are given to the school for re-use, just as if you were donating clothes to the needy. Children will not receive uniforms that are stained or worn down, they have to be in moderate shape. Kids at pubic school wear spandex to school and ill fitting clothing that isn't appropriate to wear to school. If the school isn't strict with their dress code, then children will be able to dress more freely.
It is appropriate to say "It takes more faith to be an atheist than..."

It feels weird having the first and last say, even though the instigator said I could. So, I'll keep this brief. I haven't saying, "it takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian. " But a theist, simply believing in God. No add-ons that any religion may have. You can be a theist and not believe in Jesus, or Muhammad. And so what if the you define faith in a way that makes it bad. It just shows faith, along with several other english words, have different meanings.
It is appropriate to say "It takes more faith to be an atheist than..."

im very busy right now so I apologize for the short response. My basic point is that if you define faith in any way most Christians would, and in any way that includes God or the supernatural, and in any way that is virtuous according to the Christian, the atheist has less of it. On the other hand, if you define faith as belief in spite of evidence or against reason, then atheists might have more or less of it depending on your argument. But if atheists have more of it, this means Christians have to admit that faith is bad and that is the point
It is appropriate to say "It takes more faith to be an atheist than..."

This is a debate over the often used statement "It takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian/theist." Sometimes this is phrased "It takes more faith to believe in evolution or the big bang than it does to believe in God and the Bible" It is my argument that both of these statements, or any other forms of these statements are incorrect and misused. This means that I think it is not fitting to say any of those statements. This is not an argument over which belief is better or more true, but whether or not the STATEMENT that I have written above is in fact a correct statement or an appropriate statement given the situation. I will let pro start with round 1. Pro can put their argument as to why the statement is useful or applicable. I will then respond. It will last until round 4 where pro will have the final say.
Victory breeds hatred, for the conquored are never happy. -Buddha

Okay. Assuming you're right about the fact that the conquered don't have liberty, people without liberty can still be happy. For example, let's say someone is in prison, and has therefore lost their liberty. Then they realize that their best friend is in the cell right next to them. They will be overjoyed to be there with their friend, right? Although they have lost their liberty and are therefore conquered, they are still happy. Thanks again for this opportunity to debate.
Victory breeds hatred, for the conquored are never happy. -Buddha

I disagree, but I shall move on to my next point. The quote says that "Victory breeds hatred, for the conquered are never happy." Well, even if the conquered are always unhappy (which I proved to be false), that still might not cause hatred. Those who are unhappy are not always feeling hatred. Anyone could be unhappy but not have hatred. Therefore, even if the latter half of the quote is true, it does not support the first part.
Victory breeds hatred, for the conquored are never happy. -Buddha

Well, I think that everything in this debate depends on how you define conquered. If you look at it from a military standpoint, to conquer means to take control of using force. There is another definition, which is to defeat using force. Lastly, there is another definition that is not literal, which is to gain control of through great effort. The reason I assumed we were discussing the first one is because the the title of the debate mentions victory, and I thought it was military victory.
Victory breeds hatred, for the conquored are never happy. -Buddha

Thank you for this opportunity to debate. My first point will be that sometimes those who are conquered are happy. For example, let's consider that someone in a communist government supports democracy. If that country is taken over by a democratic one, the person who originally supported democracy will be happy that the government they support has conquered the other one. So, the person in the conquered country is happy, which is contradictory to the quote.
Jesus Can't Be God

My opponent has stated that Jesus cannot be god, according to the Bible. So is it implying he believes in the Bible? Otherwise, why would that be his one and only source? Anyways, he will have to prove that Jesus absolutely CANNOT be God. He never said anything about being in accordance to any religion, so I will have to assume we are using logic to determine the answer. So far, very few if any things in the universe, if any, are absolute. Most things we deem "impossible" is just practically impossible or the chances are so slim we dismiss any hope that shines through. So is the fact that Jesus cannot be god really amongst the impossibilities? That will be what my opponent has to argue. I am not saying Jesus is god. I don't need to;What I have to argue, is that there IS a possibility. However, I am not saying that Jesus is not god either. I will not answer if Jesus is god or not if asked, as that is irrelevant. So over to Pro. How will you prove that Jesus Can't Be God? I await your response.
Jesus Can't Be God

In Christianity, There are ten commandments. The first one, which is undeniably one of the most important, says that, You shall have no Gods before me. It sounds simple, since my religion (Islam) also believes in the following of one god. As it is mentioned in many other Islam Vs. Christianity debates, one of the most well known mistakes in Christianity is the fact that they worship Jesus as God which directly defys the first commandment. It had come to my attention that It is also believed in Christianity that Jesus is God himself, a basic hollow shell forged for God but while still maintaining divinity, is lower then the Angels of God. If Jesus is indeed god, then why would God himself be below his very creations? The ones bound eternally to him.Evidence extracted from:John 10:30-33 " I and The Father Are One."
economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve forign policy objectives

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I will quickly go over my points: 1) Sanctions are immoral because they violate human rights. I measure this by using Kant's Categorical Imperative. Basically the people are being used like tools in order to accomplish something. 2) Sanctions cause harm. They deprive local and foreign citizens of economic opportunities such as trade and business. 3) Sanctions don't accomplish their goal because they are, by their nature, ambiguous. Simply hoping the citizens would do what was intended. 4) Just War is a better option because it is more direct, going around the innocent citizen and striking directly at the tyrants in control. Thank you and remember, vote Aff.
economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve forign policy objectives

thanks to my opponent for answering cross ex! "Can an Economic Sanction be used for more than just issues involving a nation causing harm upon another? Explain." okat, i am assuming that they could be used to influence other things and i appologize, i know that this is your cross ex, but i answer that with a question, have they been? Who determines what punishment fits the crime? the crime determines the punishment , example, the death penalty, when a person has multiple offences of murder then they will recieve the death penalty. Would you say that Economic Sanctions are a better option than Just War? Explain. i think that they can be , war is costly in lives and the point of economic sanctions is to protect lives. How can the nation being sanctioned determine what will be sanctioned? Doesn't the sanctioning country decide this? i answer this the same as the crime - punishment question, the offence determines the crime. i am not sure that i understand this question , but as you said the citizens should not have to suffer that is why only the components causing harm are sanctioned. Would you say Safety is a Human Right? Why or why not? i would and as i have said several times , the point of economic sanctions is to help ensure safty. Why do you talk of "Sub Point 1, 2, and 3" when I only have two contentions, of which these seem to not be what you reference? merely the big parts of your contentions , i appologize if i have confused you, i should have clarified that point. i now await affirmative rebuttal.
economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve forign policy objectives

would you say that if someone has done something wrong that there should be an consequence? clarify human rights "would you say that if someone has done something wrong that there should be an consequence?" Yes certainly, if someone violates or infringes upon another they are deserving of reprimanding. But only they, the offender, are to be given any consequence. The innocent that surround him/her should not be allowed to be caught in the crossfire. As Economic Sanctions use the citizen to cause changes this is not a just way of delivering that consequence. "clarify human rights" Certainly, I define Human Rights as inalienable rights that all people do or morally should posses. To go farther, I would use the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (signed December 10, 1948 buy the General assembly of the UN) as a document listing what I hold as Human Rights. - - - Now my Cross Ex: Can an Economic Sanction be used for more than just issues involving a nation causing harm upon another? Explain. Who determines what punishment fits the crime? Would you say that Economic Sanctions are a better option than Just War? Explain. How can the nation being sanctioned determine what will be sanctioned? Doesn't the sanctioning country decide this? Do all materials need to be cut off for citizens to feel the effects of a sanction? Would you say Safety is a Human Right? Why or why not? Why do you talk of "Sub Point 1, 2, and 3" when I only have two contentions, of which these seem to not be what you reference? If we take something away from a country, can that affect their economy? If it does can that cause other things to become hard to come by? Explain. --- after my opponent responds I will give my rebuttal.
Sabaton one of the best power metal bands

I'm pretty new to this but two years ago I fell in love with a power metal band. One particularly from Sweden. Their name i s Sabaton. I never heard of this band till i wiki'ed a book called a higher call and looked at the popular culture section and saw that This band made a song called No Bullets Fly. I played the song and instantly got hook. The scores in the song just fit. within a minute i was head banging to the song. I started to listen to all of their other songs, they were well made as well. Some sounded familiar to another song, ad yes there were a few that sounded simplistic. But it's that mastery of simplicity that makes Sabaton good. Metal Machine is a beautiful song , that has a great mix of bass guitar, vocals and drums. The song truly is a master piece. Now I know there are some of you who like Hammerfall, DragonForce, Helloween etc. Yes they are great bands as well, an sabaton is by no means better or worse than these other bands. DragonForce is most notable for their 200 fret (or something like that I can't remember.) speed in their songs. Although young, I believe Sabaton earned its right to sit with these other Power Metal legends. Tat's it and i would like to see how this turns out .