BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

"That"s dark, and we already covered that, it"s not just a fetus but a baby." No. It's a fetus. It hasn't developed organs, it hasn't developed nerves. It can't feel pain, it can't feel anything. There isn't a consciousness. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I'd like to see the part in the constitution that relegates these rights to an unborn potential citizen. "Well cutting a baby to pieces isn't the same as refusing to donate an organ" You're right. The only problem here is that you're falsely equivalencing a fetus as a baby. A baby can feel pain, a baby has a consciousness, and above all else, a baby can live without a host. A baby does not depend on its host for oxygen, it doesn't depend on the host for nutrients. A baby can physically do these things for itself. Furthermore, your mistaken if you think that a fetus gets "cut to pieces" during an abortion. "So disabled people who rely on others to live don"t have a right to life?" You'd have to define disabled better. If they require another person to breathe for them, no. If they require another person to digest their food, and deliver nutrients to them, no, but you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone like that. To be fair, Mother Theresa also murdered people, or at the least manslaughter, so I don't think she has a right to talk about murder. What's shocking is that since the Roe v. Wade decision, abortion rates have been the lowest it has ever been. https://www.scientificamerican.com... https://www.npr.org...
Abortion

"What gives the fetus a right to life?" That"s dark, and we already covered that, it"s not just a fetus but a baby. Also the constitution has a right to life law"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Secondly what I mean by average abortions are no rape, and no mothers death. "Is it murder for me to refuse someone one of my kidneys, and because of that they die in the process. The fetus is essentially using its mother's body in order to live. A right to life doesn't imply that you get to sustain your life on someone else's body." Well cutting a baby to pieces isn"t the same as refusing to donate an organ. "Murder should be illegal because we already have a right to life, that we do not depend on others for." So disabled people who rely on others to live don"t have a right to life?" I don't see how Mother Teresa can speak on acts such as abortion, as she has committed atrocities that are considerably much worse. Seeing how she allowed thousands of people to suffer and die from curable diseases, to get closer to god. She was effectively torturing and murdering people herself." Ok well to be honest, it"s was about the words anyway and she also got a Nobel Peace Prize and opened up orphanages and hospitals I don"t know if you can fully blame her on lack of medical needs as she provided needs in the first place. Plus she dedicated her life to the poor and did many things to help them. She did very good things and bad things. https://www.biographyonline.net...https://www.thoughtco.com...
Earth is Only 6000 years old

I believe that about 6000 years ago God created the heavens and the Earth in six days.4400 years ago there was a flood. The big bang, carbon dating, the geologic column, and Pangaea are all false teachings. I believe that Evolution is a totally ridiculous and dangerous idea. Evolution is not Science it is a religion. There is no solid evidence of evolution therefore it must be believed. I can prove everything i have said using only science and the scriptures. No outside sources. I am not against scinece, i am against the lies being taught. Evolution is wrong and creation is right. todays population, math, science and scripture is what i will use to prove my points. 6000 years ago God created the heavens and the earth. 4400 years ago there was a flood. Adam was the first man in the world, he begot seth, seth begot enosh , so on and so forth... the ages of these men leading up to noah span about 2000 years, if you dont believe me then go do the math for yourself. 4400 years ago in the time of noah there was a flood. The flood reduced the population down to 8 and time history was recorded from that point on. Equaling about 6000 years. There it is proven in math^^^. Earths oldest tree is only about 4000 years old. The sahara desert (oldest desert) is only around 4000 years old. the great barrier reef (largest reef) is only around 4000 years old. These ages date back to around the time of the flood. When the flood waters receded everything was reborn... Now tell me if the earth is billions of years old.. Why is the oldest tree only 4000 years old, why isnt there a bigger desert, and why is there not a bigger reef? The governement watched the great barrier reef grow and calculating its growth rate sais that it was about 4000 years old. The saraha desert has a wind that sweeps up its sand and spreads it increasing its size, using that information, they were able to calcutlate that the Sahara dessert is only 4000 years old. There is your scientific proof^^^ The moon is moving away from the earth a few inches a year. now if the earth was billions of years old... The moon would have been hovering just barely over the surface of the earth... talk about high tide...More scientific proof^^^ The rapid increase of our population also proves that 6000 years ago God Created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. If you look at the increase in population you will see that about 4000 years back... there were only about ten people... Dont believe me? Do the math. What happened 4000 years ago? oh! thats right! a flood wiped everybody out. and our population dropped to the 8 people and all the animals on the ark... Population evidence^^^ "In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth"
9/11 was an inside job: new perspective.

Yes, so what are you arguing that commercial companies are more advanced than DARPA or Los alamos national laboratory?We know that is not true and any commerical device that uses explosives is less advanced than what the military have otherwsie the military would go get it an classify it for national secutiy.The point with this device is that is plausible to use thermitic materials to pulverise and vaporize concrete and steel.YES! None of the inventors of the thermite charge were working for the government. Just because you find that hard to believe doesn't mean it's not true.-Not the Bush administration, but insiders in bush administraion which included the oil and gas companies, those insiders have been linked to insiders in NIST who investigated 911 but not global warming.And what do oil and gas companies have to gain from a terrorist attack?It is well known that they were waterboarded.Where's the evidence?Remote control as in computer inputs are more effective than a pilots hand.And if they couldn't do it by hand why would they be able to program it into a computer?The terrorists couldnt have access to the planes to damage the system .A claim with no proof.One conspiracy source was well researched and had sources such as the NY times Newspapers are NOT good sources for information about the collapse of the twin towers because news reporters like to sensationalize everything.2 sources were independent Peer reviewed scientific articles in mainstream scientific journals such as the Enviromentalist.I found two THE ENVIRONMENTALIST sites; one is a political weblog and one is from the UK and niether are scientific journals. If you are talking about a different one please provide a link.The technology to take over the planes was in the pentagon .... not airports, they had the technology to retake control that is why people in the know like Von buelow said the only logical conclusion is that because they didnt retake control of the planes it means they were in control the whole time. The planes did have people and pilots and maybe even the muslims in the plane yet they couldnt do anything as the communications were severed.Another logical conclusion is that the terrorists damaged the the system that allows control of the plane to be taken.1. I have no idea why that is neccesarySo that furniture doesn't become a 300 pound bullet. 2. Yes now you understand, this is why a gravity caused collapse wouldnt work... You cannot have it both ways saying on one hand a controlled demolition wouldnt work because there were load bearing walls yet a gravity caused collapse would have worked .Then provide an alternative to controlled demolition and the official version.CONCLUSIONPro used known conspiracy theory websites, and made unsupported claims. Therefore Pro has not proved that 9/11 was an inside job.
9/11 was an inside job: new perspective.

In previous debates about the controlled demolition "hypothesis," physical artifacts and video's of and after the collapse have been used in an attempt to either prove or debunk it. In this debate I'd like to take it from a different perspective; that of the supposed orchestration of the act.PREPARATION FOR CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONSteps to prepare for controlled demolition:1. clear out any debris(it would fly out due to explosives and cause large amounts of damage.)2. remove non-load bearing walls(they would stiffen the structure hindering collapse.)3. (optional) weaken columns with sledge hammers(makes it easier to destroy.)Obviously it would be virtually impossible to remove the walls without anybody noticing since it takes weeks to months to prepare the building.EXPLOSIVESFor the steel columns a powerful explosive called RDX is used. To make it explode a violent shock is needed, so a weak explosive is set on a wire connected to a trigger.In this case it's going to be very difficult to get the explosives attached without anyone noticing. There is also the problem of detonation; the wire is connected to a trigger that is manual, so someone has to be inside pressing the trigger, and it would be very difficult to not be noticed during the day.THE PLANESTwo planes crashed into the towers piloted by terrorists; that was confessed in court by other members of Al-Queda and they were given a life sentence. The planes came from a flight school that the terrorists had been going too which means that the flight school would have known that they were piloting the planes.It seems highly unlikely that someone would fly into the world trade center knowing they would die unless they were terrorists. It is also highly unlikely that innocent people would falsely testify in court to something that would give them a life sentence.CONCLUSION The "orchestration" of the controlled demolition scheme would have been virtually impossible to carry out; therefore the controlled demolition "hypothesis" is incorrect.SOURCES:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Russia should be involved in the war in Georgia.

This war is about South Ossetia's problem with the Georgian government. South Ossetia wanted to secede from Georgia. Therefore, Georgia attacked South Ossetia. I do not have a problem with this; it is only right for a country to defend what is theirs. However, Russia has no right to get involved in a civil war in Georgia. They are acting solely out of greed and imperialism and have no business in Georgia.
Russia should be involved in the war in Georgia.

"It is true that Russia does have a right to protect its citizens. However, does this right extend to occupying parts of another country?" --> My opponent has conceded a main point of the debate. however, he goes to say that it doesn't warrant the occupation of another country. Well, seeing as though Russia has left, it is not occupation. Only peace keepers remain in S. Ossetia for protect of citizens. "The USA would certainly help Britain if it were attacked. However, we would not be helping separatists rebel against a legitimate government.* The Georgian government is a legitimate government that should have the right to solve its own internal problems, rather than have a larger country aid in a rebellion against it." --> turn this argument against him. He has not provided a way that a government is legitimate. So for case sake, I will explain for him. A legitimate government is one where the people back it. S. Ossetia wants independence, and the majority of Ossentians do as well. Therefore, S. Ossetia has a right to secede and form its own legitimate government. Now you can infer that Russia has a right to aid it's ally in creating its own government which was being suppressed by the government of Georgia. [Voting Issues] 1. My opponent has concede the point about protection of citizens. Therefore, to protect them, military force was needed. 2. My ally point still stands. Thus, Russia has a right to help its ally receive independence and halt Gerogian aggression against a province that wants freedom. For these reasons I urge an affirmation.
Russia should be involved in the war in Georgia.

The fact still remains that Russian citizens were living there, thus to insure protection, Russian forces moved in." It is true that Russia does have a right to protect its citizens. However, does this right extend to occupying parts of another country? This could be likened to the USA's war in Iraq. Although I support this war, the only reason I support it is because we need to fix Iraq now that we have messed it up. We of the USA did not even have a substantial amount of citizens in Iraq. However, we invaded and ended up causing violence among Iraqi citizens. We did ruin their peace; even though it was forced by intimidation, we could have handled it in many other ways than attacking them. The same is true of Russia and Georgia; the two countries did not need to go to war with each other. "South Ossetia is a Russian ally, and they recognize its sovereignty. ... South Ossetia doesn't need to be a part of Russia. It was aiding an ally. Wouldn't you agree we should help Britain if they were being attacked? I believe that you would agree." The USA would certainly help Britain if it were attacked. However, we would not be helping separatists rebel against a legitimate government.* The Georgian government is a legitimate government that should have the right to solve its own internal problems, rather than have a larger country aid in a rebellion against it. Russia should not remain in Georgia, where it is effectively enforcing its will upon a much smaller country. Instead, it should be simply escorting its citizens out in a more conservative manner, and allowing South Ossetia to handle its own problems against the legitimate Georgian government. These are the mistakes that the USA made in Iraq. By invading and throwing out peace, we created a situation that may very well be impossible to solve. Russia may have done the same thing. *Yes, we did throw out the Iraqi government. However, this was during the Bush administration. The government is about to undergo a regime change. Also, even if something happens within 4-1/2 months, President Bush should have learned from his mistakes.
Russia should be involved in the war in Georgia.

"This statement is true, however, if they are Russian citizens, then why are they living across the border in Georgia? Unless they have a legal reason to be there and are Georgian citizens, then they should either stick to Russian soil or apply for Georgian citizenship." --> That's a rather ignorant statement. The fact still remains that Russian citizens were living there, thus to insure protection, Russian forces moved in. "That is also true. I admit that I probably overstepped on claiming Russian intentions to be imperialist. However, it is not necessary for Russia to help South Ossetia rebel against Georgia. This would be like the USA helping Quebec secede from Canada. Instead, if Russian citizens are in danger, Russia can use the military to escort the citizens out of the country and back into Russia. If Georgia attacks this convoy, then by all means Russia has a right to defend its citizens. However, unless this situation happens, then Russia should not be aiding and abetting a rebellion in a foreign country." --> South Ossetia is a Russian ally, and they recognize its sovereignty. Your example is flawed because Canada is an ally, and we would probably help Canada. Furthermore, the attack by Georgia did hurt infrastructure, which indirectly hurts the Russian citizens living. Therefore, according to your standard, Russia has a right to use military force. "I have said this before, but South Ossetia is not part of Russia. There are Russian citizens living there, but Russia still has no need to aid Georgian citizens in rebelling against an established government. Although I reiterate, it is important to note that we in the USA would feel a lot different if it were the United States helping Quebec rebel against Canada or something of a similar sort." --> South Ossetia doesn't need to be a part of Russia. It was aiding an ally. Wouldn't you agree we should help Britain if they were being attacked? I believe that you would agree.
Russia should be involved in the war in Georgia.

"Many Russian citizens live in South Ossetia" This statement is true, however, if they are Russian citizens, then why are they living across the border in Georgia? Unless they have a legal reason to be there and are Georgian citizens, then they should either stick to Russian soil or apply for Georgian citizenship. "The 2 major things they wanted were: 1) Protection of Russian citizens" That is also true. I admit that I probably overstepped on claiming Russian intentions to be imperialist. However, it is not necessary for Russia to help South Ossetia rebel against Georgia. This would be like the USA helping Quebec secede from Canada. Instead, if Russian citizens are in danger, Russia can use the military to escort the citizens out of the country and back into Russia. If Georgia attacks this convoy, then by all means Russia has a right to defend its citizens. However, unless this situation happens, then Russia should not be aiding and abetting a rebellion in a foreign country. "2) That South Ossetia receive it's own sovereignty." I have said this before, but South Ossetia is not part of Russia. There are Russian citizens living there, but Russia still has no need to aid Georgian citizens in rebelling against an established government. Although I reiterate, it is important to note that we in the USA would feel a lot different if it were the United States helping Quebec rebel against Canada or something of a similar sort.
Russia should be involved in the war in Georgia.

"This war is about South Ossetia's problem with the Georgian government. South Ossetia wanted to secede from Georgia. Therefore, Georgia attacked South Ossetia." --> This is true, I concede. "However, Russia has no right to get involved in a civil war in Georgia." --> This is untrue. A country has a right to use military force in cases where the government feels that their citizens are threatened. Many Russian citizens live in South Ossetia, therefore they are threatened by an eruption of war. Therefore, your claim that they do not have a "right" to sue military force is wrong. "They are acting solely out of greed and imperialism and have no business in Georgia." --> Russia has gained no monetary or industrial advantage by invading Georgia. Furthermore, they have pulled most of their troops back. Imperialism is domination of the government. They have done nothing of the sort. The 2 major things they wanted were: 1) Protection of Russian citizens and 2) That South Ossetia receive it's own sovereignty.
mohammed+jesus=unicorn droppings..

Chicken fingers, also known as chicken tenders, chicken goujons, chicken strips or chicken fillets, are chicken meat prepared from the pectoralis minor muscles of the animal.[citation needed] These strips of white meat are located on either side of the breastbone, under the breast meat (pectoralis major).[1][2] They may also be made with similarly shaped pieces cut from chicken meat, usually the breast.[3] Chicken fingers are prepared by coating chicken meat in a breading mixture and then deep frying them, in a manner similar to the preparation of Schnitzel.[4] In the Northeastern United States, chicken fingers served in Chinese restaurants are often made with an egg batter and have a smooth texture.[citation needed] They are commonly served either as an appetizer or as a main dish. Chicken fingers are a common snack in the U.S..[5] Chinese chicken fingers In other recipes, the breading mixture for chicken fingers can lack eggs and the texture of the dish itself can often be rather coarse.[citation needed] This version is often served alongside various dipping sauces. The dipping sauces can include: ketchup, blue cheese dressing, ranch dressing, barbecue sauce, honey mustard, Buffalo wing sauce, butter and garlic, plum sauce, curry mayonnaise, or sweet and sour sauce.[citation needed] Chicken fingers of this kind are often served in a basket with French fries, served on a garden salad, or in a sandwich, such as a wrap or on a bun.[citation needed] Chicken fingers are offered by fast food chains. They are also a common offering on children's menus in American restaurants.
Large-Scale Islamic Belief is Harmful to Society

I would like to comment on your first paragraph, in that I never claimed fighting was better than peace; I merely stated that lying in order to find peace causes mistrust: how can anyone believe anything a Muslim says if they will purposely lie in order achieve a peace build upon falsehood and deceit? I would have you notice my emphasis on "inventing". In your second paragraph, you claim I am trying to make the verses very "controversial"; I'm merely pointing out what they are and what they can entail. Also, if the translations I am using are "clunky", why not show me an instance that is more in what you perceive as adequate, instead of merely saying they are clunky? If I were to follow the logic of your third paragraph, in which a man is murdered because he makes poems denouncing Mohammad and rallies people to wage war, then every person that acted in the Ferguson protests who tried to attack police officers and encourage people to kill police should be killed for treason. [1] And my statements above contradict the "level of honesty" that you claim is required of Muslims. Next, like I said before, a regular tax is one thing, but taxing based upon one's religion can be used as a form of oppression and discrimination, and while Muslim-majority nations may not be imposing those types of taxes, Saudi Arabia is going to be breaking it's beheading record this year, for some crimes as minor as drug smuggling [2]. Also, the source you reference in your fifth paragraph makes no reference of the taxes imposed under the Muslim rulers. In fact, the majority of it revolves around the Christian Roman Empire, and praises the advancements and social structure during that time. Hopefully this has been very informative for you and the voters, especially involving the use of sources. If you haven't noticed, you gain points for providing sources of everything you say; voters shouldn't have to look for the information themselves. That alone is going to provide me with an advantage; I would take this debate as a learning experience. So with that, I conclude my statements, and wish luck to my opponent and trust in the non-partisanship in the voters, in that large-scale Islamic belief is indeed harmful to society. References: [1] . https://en.wikipedia.org...'b_ibn_al-Ashraf [2] . http://www.independent.co.uk...