BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is a god

There is a saying about counting chickens before they've hatched. It might be unwise for you to proclaim victory at this point.Your points toward arguing God exists can be summed up as two main arguments:1. You argue that the passages you quote from the Quran are evidence of messages from God, directly handed down to Muhammad.2. You assert the unwavering accuracy of the Quran from the moment it was first transcribed.On point 2, it is worth noting that a number of scholars do in fact doubt the Quran has never been altered or amended in any way, and at the bottom of this rebuttal I will provide links to several arguments that cast doubt that the Quran represents an unaltered document.On point 1, beyond the word of Muhammad, what proof is there that God revealed this information to him? The Quran was written by human beings, after being transmitted verbally by human beings, and was not completely brought together into a coherent documen until Muhammad's death. There is a lot of room for misinterpretation or mistakes in that time.http://www.studytoanswer.net...http://www.answering-islam.org...
There is a god

I have read your argument but it seems you have evaded my statement. It is true that the Quran was made by man but the words were not arrange by them. You have not answered my question on how the Quran was able to give this knowledge a thousand years ago. If it was purely made by man then how have they acquired these knowledge. Even if there was changes how could these verses contain so many scientific facts that were only RECENTLY discovered to be true. I have a feeling you doubt these verses exist, i recommend you to check them and verify if you want. Also it has been historically proven the the Quran has never changed not even a letter. A copy of Uthman"s Mus"haf, kept in Topkapi Palace in Istanbul was found this was around 644 and nothing has changed only style of writing. Thats actually the reason why that it still uses arabic words which was to prevent that. There are still many more, feel free to research you self. You should not be antagonistic in your argument as it will be your downfall in this argument. I think i have won this argument as you have not proven anything wrong i have said.
There is a god

Whilst it is compelling to believe that God's word was the driving force behind the texts you quote, it is important to remember that the Quran, like other religious documents, was written by human beings, and is not the direct word of God.Interpretation is everything. Prior to the age of science many events were chalked up to miracles and God. Every religion contains passages with several possible interpretations of events written from the perspective of falliable human beings who would not have understood what they were observing.The primary means of transmission for the Quran was verbally back during Muhammad's life. This is not an efficient or reliable means of accurately passing information from one generation to the next. It is also worth noting that the Quran has, like other major religious documents, undergone changes since its original documentation. I will agree that its predictions are impressive, but they do not automatically translate into the direct influence of God.
There is a god

Ok so i'm going to base my arguments on the Quran and proven scientific facts so basically i saw you mentioned about people needing scientific proof so i have gathered scientific information, so this is all from the Quran i have cited all my sources so you could check if you want . Take note that the Quran was completed in 632 CE and in it contains not just morals or stories but scientific facts so i'm going to start with the first one fact which was "We made every living thing from water? Will they not believe? [21:30]" so this has been proven to be true we now know that cells are mostly made up of water as 80% of the cytoplasm is made out of water . This then was proven to be true hundreds of years later after the invention of the microscope. Another verse was "We made the sky a protective ceiling. And yet they are turning away from Our signs! [21:32]" This yet again was proven to be true, the sky plays a vital part because as we know the sun's ray can be dangerous so with the sky it suppresses the rays of the sun preventing us to be radiated. The sky also functions as a blanket to protects us from the cold of space as without it we would all freeze in minutes "And it is We (God and his angels) who have built the Universe with [Our creative] power and keep expanding it. [51:47]" This verse talks about the expansion of the universe and remember there was not much technology back then and not even the telescope was invented and only recently it was discovered that this was indeed true that the universe is expanding. "It is He who created night and day, the Sun and the Moon, each floating in its orbit. [21:33]" This talks about how the sun is in orbit, before the 20th century people thought the was wrong Quran now it was proven that it is moving in an orbit around the centre of our Milky Way galaxy. Honestly i could go on and on, these are just some of the scientific facts that were in the Quran and were just recently "discovered" but i would prefer to say verify by modern technology and knowledge. The Quran teaches us to learn and learn but also not to forget in the existence of god. As you can see the Quran contains a lot of science in it that were far ahead of its time. I recall my teacher saying religion is the death of science but as i have shown you he has been proven wrong. Who could knew all of this at that time, how could so many scientific information be inside a book that was made a thousand years ago.how is that possible?. One answer god, religion was not made to control it was made to guide us. Islam started in the middle east because (sorry to say) they were deemed as barbaric people and no offense they still a bit are. Knowledge is important but know that humans are not perfect, if we were then the whole world would be a utopia. Its not religion that causes the decline of knowledge but arrogance, lust for power and many more horrid qualities. Also i am basing this on Islam and im not going to find facts on any other religion as i myself am a muslim.
The best joke.

Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy whips out his phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps, "My friend is dead! What can I do?" The operator says "Calm down. I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence, then a gun shot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says "OK, now what?" By the way, I didn't find your joke that amusing... Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_funniest_joke (is that cheating?)
The best joke.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF MEDICINE 2000 B.C. -- Here, eat this root. 1000 A.D. -- That root is heathen. Say this prayer. 1850 A.D. -- That prayer is superstition. Drink this potion. 1940 A.D. -- That potion is snake oil. Swallow this pill. 1985 A.D. -- That pill is ineffective. Take this antibiotic. 2008 A.D. -- That antibiotic is artificial. Here, eat this root. Sources: http://www.jokes.com...
Common Core

See, what makes the Common Core standards good, is that it gives everyone a guideline to learn off of. It shows who will and won't do their work. This makes college, jobs, and other applications easier to know who did what best and the most. It truly shows who gives off their best effort and deserves to go to such-and-such college more than someone else where the person who did the same thing better and the best wins. Because in this environment now, competition is fierce on college, jobs, etc. It will show the best workers. Also it will make more reliable, experienced people do jobs instead of incapable people who refuse to put forth their best effort.
All public parks and nature areas should be sold off and privatized in the USA.

I'm a fan of capitalism and laissez faire. I think we need to minimize government. This includes public parks and nature areas. The idea of government having too much control is creepy to me. As you can see by links [1-4] the idea is popular with national parks, so I say take it a step further and sell of and privatize all parks in the USA. Worried about global climate change? Don't worry I'm sure God will provide. Animals? Remember, animals don't have souls, so therefore we can exploit them anyway we desire. 1. http://www.esquire.com... 2. http://www.dailykos.com... 3. http://thinkprogress.org... 4. http://m.seattlepi.com...
Abortion

I'm not going to bother to argue why abortion is wrong, as you said yourself that you are against it. If you could clarify specifically what you mean by that I would be grateful. I will do the same. I believe that human life begins at conception, and so a fetus should be treated with the same value as any other life. The only case in which I think an abortion can be justified is in a situation where the mother's life is in danger. It puzzles me that you think every woman should have the right to choose, even though you are against abortion. If someone held a gun to someone else's head, would you respect their choice to pull the trigger? If you are against murder, than you cannot, as you can see that the life of the victim is more important than the murder's right to pull the trigger. Of course, I could be mistaken as to what your specific view on abortion is, and I am assuming you believe life begins at conception, and it is as important as any other life. If I am wrong, correct me with your response. 'I believe it is not the government's job to decide what we can or can not do with our bodies' The fetus is not a part of the woman's body. The fetus belongs to the fetus. A pregnant woman is simply carrying the fetus. The fetus has separate DNA to the mother, and will grow up to be unique and different from the mother as well. The only part of the fetus that is connected to the mother's body is through the umbilical chord, but this is just a temporary arrangement. At birth the fetus can survive without the umbilical chord, and therefore the mother. Continuing my point about the fetus not being a part of the woman's body, let's consider another analogy. (For this analogy I am again assuming you believe life begins at conception, and that all life is equal). There are two men. Man A has man B tied to his leg. The rope which ties them together cannot be broken, and man B cannot move, let's just say he is paralyzed. If man A doesn't feed man B, man B will die, as he is not capable of feeding himself. However in 9 months, the rope will break and man B will be separate to man A. Man B is not a part of man A's body, he is only attached to man A's body. After 9 months, man A will be without man B, so if man B was part of man A's body he would never come off. In the same way that man B is separate from man A, and is only temporarily attached, the fetus is not a part of the mother's body,as it is only temporarily attached. As for your section about the trauma of abortions and the difficult choice, wouldn't you agree that the life of a human should take president over the feelings of it's mother? It may be traumatic, but it's not traumatic enough that women don't have abortions.
"At certain points in their careers celebrities should move on"

Finally, I am limiting it to the U.S. because this are the individuals effected most by this. To extend my arguements, the oppenent brought up, movies in acting is portraying a bad image. Yes and no if the movie glorifys the individual. They need to openly say it is wrong to do this action, If they are playing someone who is portrayed badly. For instance Sly Stallone's new movie, "Rambo", He said, "I personally do not condone this kind of violence anywhere", This was a very important arguement in that a celebrity must not promote negative acts, otherwise it can lead to Teen suicide, death and destruction, I.E. Columbine. Vote Aff just on the Fact that sometimes celebrities do need to better themselves, such as practice or get better, which my opponent dropped.
"At certain points in their careers celebrities should move on"

I'm not sure why we are limiting the scope of this debate to the US as celebrities exist in just about every society and even cross borders with their celebrity status. Argument :"Celebrities can portray a negative impact." How do you portray a negitive impact? If you mean that sometimes actors play controversial roles that portray drug use and violence that impacts their characters life in that movie or show, then maybe, sort of that statement makes sense. Now if you mean that celebrities are letting their real life get out of control, or at least it is being marketed that way, is having an impact on the youth of apparently only America then that there is a more competent argument. Celebrities are individuals that life highly publicized and glorified lifestyles, which may or may not be of their doing. Some celebrities hire a PR person to help or deter these kinds of things. At the end of the celebrities are just people making a living, and living life. They have no responsibility to control how media outlets and the public as a whole want to portray them even if it is the truth. People, even celebrities don't need to live apologetic lifestyles. If Celeb A does an illegal drug, has a big downfall but then goes to rehab, shouldn't we be more concerned over the time and energy put into complaining, judging, researching, and covering the behavior rather than what this person actually did? Isn't it our fault just by mentioning the name of Celeb A that we helped preserve their celebrity status? Valuing a good media image can mean very little in real life terms. The majority of what media is, is a vehicle to sell you something. Most news is chosen on big outlets for its entertainment value, or in less appalling terms its ability to keep people tuned in so they can see the shiny ads that are being sold to keep revenue flowing. Show me an independent non ad revenue celebrity news source, just one. Now filter out the porn blogs and blogs in general, because trolls scraping up what they can find from paparazzi sources isn't news either. Now what do you have left? Nothing, because no one cares about a celebrity unless they can sell them. Do you believe that all people, everywhere should arrange their lives as to not possibly influence children or young teens in any way? If no then why should a celebrity? If little girls start being too slutty and little boys start thinking their street thugs in suburbia then responsibility is on the parents not the people who made it look cool. If you have a kid dumb enough to try a stunt from the Jackass movie then maybe you should have payed more attention to him and taught them not to set themselves on fire. If we removed what is percieved influential behavior from all media then there would be no media, people would have to shut their eyes and cover their ears and scream LALALALALA as loud as they could as to not be influenced, titillated, or excited by anyone or anything.
"At certain points in their careers celebrities should move on"

I provide the definitions for this debate. At certain times-varys from profession careers-a job the celebrity does celebrities-are well known U.S. people known in the U.S. media move on-To get a new job or project. A project is something that betters oneself. I value Good image in the media Con. 1 Celebrities can portray a negative impact. Many celebrities such as Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, and various other sports figures, who do drugs, need to move on to rehab,make a foundation, etc., in order to portray a positive impact on the nation. Celebrities have a big influence on the younger nation and by having a negative impact it can harm so many individuals.
The monetary system is not working for all of us

You say "Based on the fact that paper money is literally worthless..." So first off I would like too state a question, what gives something worth? People. Therefore your later statement that "Gold is the only true representation of true wealth." Is false since only people can give something worth and just like money, gold has been given worth by people just like money so saying money is worthless is like saying gold is worthless because the only reason gold is given worth is because it costs alot of money.
Polygamy should be legal in the United States

REASON 1: THE LAW IS BASED ON CONSENT Consent, v. To permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often followed by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented. Most of international law, and all of United States law, is based on consent. The word is most often used in the context of sex. Here, we can see the obvious need for laws to be based around consent: if two parties are being affected by an action decided on by only one party, the rights of the other party are being intruded upon. As a result, we must ask ourselves: Why would we prevent consenting adults from partaking in an event that affects only those involved? As I defined previously, we are discussing legalizing only polygamy between consenting adults. This is because we have determined those under 18 not mature enough to be allowed to consent to marriage, as their brains are not developed enough to make such a decision. If this sounds like an argument for gay marriage, that"s because polygamy should be legalized for the exact same reasons. No one who is not a consenting adult will be harmed by the action of polygamy, and no one is being forced into it. REASON 2: ILLEGAL POLYGAMY IS HARMING MANY Like many drugs, the issue with making polygamy illegal is simply that the practice will continue unregulated. Many cases of polygamy occur regardless of whether they are legal or not. However, because the practice of polygamy was illegal, many unregulated instances of polygamy are occurring, and it is harming many. I doubt I even need to address the issue of child swapping, but if I must, we need look no further than the case of Ruby Jessop. According to Daily Mail UK, "Ruby Jessop was just 14-years-old when she was deemed "sexually mature" by polygamous sect leader Warren Jeffs and forced to marry her second cousin and step-brother and have sex with different men. She was held against her will at the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for the next 12 years, in which time she bore six children and lived under the iron first of their pervert leader"(Quigley, 2013) This is a prime example of how unregulated polygamy can be a very dangerous thing. If this type of polygamy was being focused on by law enforcement, as opposed to the completely harmless marriages between consenting adults, surely this would lead to a better society for the United States. It may even encourage those who would otherwise participate in illegal behavior to be willing to be in safe, legal, polygamist marriages to avoid arrest. I apologize for the rather small opening argument, but although I am on the "pro" side, most of the argument will naturally be you trying to prove that a legally monogamous society s superior, you do have the burden of proof. As such, I will mostly be focused on refuting your arguments against polygamy. I look forward to your rebuttal of my arguments as well as your own original positions.
Polygamy should be legal in the United States

1. No trolling or spamming 2. First round is acceptance only 3. I will be assuming the "Pro" side (that is to say that I believe polygamy should be legal) 4. Be on topic, any arguments not pertaining to the discussion will be counted as an automatic forfeit. 5. Just to specify: "Polygamy" in this debate will refer to the marriage between 3 or more consenting adults to each other.
Superman can't beat Batman.

Ahh so batman may be smart, and in the comics he may have defeated supes once or twice, but the only reason why, is because supes held back, superman knows that batman does some good in the world. However if supes where to use real raw power, batman has no chance, batman couldn't slow him nore would he even faze supes, with his "intelligince". Superman has 2 weaknesses, freinds, and kryptonite, so no doubt he holds back if he fights his freinds aka aquaman, the reason for being knocked out. And in my previous argument I mentioned lex Luthor, let me rephrase, lex is basicly a bad Bruce Wayne, so In turn if lex can be beaten, so can batman.
Superman can't beat Batman.

Apparently you don't read comics, and I'm sorry for that. Batman has defeated Supes on many occasions, and I'm sure he can do it again. Just because Supes is way stronger than Batman doesn't mean that he can beat him. Bats defeated this guy twice. I mean twice! And he's just a human. Batman is also intelligence, he could plan a way to defeat Superman, which he did before. and also Bats has defeated the freaking Justice League! Do you not know how that makes Batman more awesomer? and basically when New 52 Supes fought Aquaman, Supes got knocked out.
Superman can't beat Batman.

First thing, it all depends on batman and superman fight, first thing is that batman, no matter how much of a stubbern person he seems, is extremely weak, look at how many times batman has been, stabbed, broken, and beat to hell. I know you will start spouting that batman can beat superman, because he may have enough money to get kryptonite, and superman has no chance, but, look at lex luthor, he had money, he had kryptonite, he had a special suit, and above all he was also rich, like someone else we know, yet he was beat down every time he tried to rise to power. Second, superman is not 100x stronger, in fact according to newer comics, he has no limit to his strength, or speed, or anything, in fact he is fueled by sunlight. It is said that if superman where to stay in the sun for a few days, he would be able to destroy a planet with just the clap of his hands, again with the kryptonite, it may be his weakness, but he can still perform activities, like laser vision, and super breath, he can blow it away, and he would be able, to hit whoever carries it with heat vision, so therefore your point that batman can beat supes, is invalid.