BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The 1,001 Inventions Tour is a Fraud & The Golden Age is a Myth

The primary issue being debated is whether the 1,001 Muslim Inventions is a fraudulent exhibit that is historically false and falsely conflates medieval science with modern science. At issue are inventions or discoveries existing long before Islam. Secondary issues would be the erroneous claim of scientific "miracles" in the Qu'ran, the total lack of Islamic contributions to modern science, and the myth of the so-called "Golden Age" in the Islamic World.
The odds are, most of us have backed the wrong horse!

Wow. You so totally switched my words around! I excepted this debate because it so one-sided you for sure would have one by a land side, and no one else would ever accept it. Anyways here is my response: "Now, my opponent speculated that God is "very forgiving". No I said "God might just be a very forgiving guy!" MIGHT BE FORGIVING not stating that he is. "Well, assuming she's referring to the deity Christians worship, let's put her theory to the test" Assumptions have no place ina debate. (Interesting that you chose one of the most god-fearing religions that there is...) No you can not put it to the test, because we don't know if Christianity is the so called 'correct' religion. Nor do we know if any of the religious texts are accurate. "But the truth is, we can't know until we die." (what I already said, and you already ignored) "Therefore, if the Christians that make up a third of the world's population have gambled wisely and their idea of the afterlife transpires to be correct, only the most pious and worthy amongst them will make it to Heaven and the other two thirds of the population that are non-Christian will most certainly have backed the wrong horse!" How can anyone know which religion is most probable to be the 'correct' one. For all we know it could be Hinduism, we shouldn't base which one is the most 'correct' on the amount of people who follow the religion. My point of my argument was to say 'we do not know if anything about god is a certainty, but, more then likely he isn't going to throw you into hell for choosing the incorrect religion, he is going to throw you into jail for rape, burglary, or murder. Therefore we could all be backing the correct horse by following good morals. Or god could just be a 'jerk' who made life a guessing game, and if you choose the wrong door out of 500 (I'm sure there are more religions in the world then this) you spend an eternity in hell.' I think the first one is more probable. But either way it proves my side that 'we can't know for certain that we are all probably not backing the right horse. Until we die.'
The odds are, most of us have backed the wrong horse!

I would first of all like to extend my thanks to Bricheze for accepting this debating challenge. Now, my opponent speculated that God is "very forgiving". Well, assuming she's referring to the deity Christians worship, let's put her theory to the test. Imagine yourself as a devout Christian drinking in a pub and after five pints or so you are very anxious to relieve yourself. However, there is a long queue for the toilets so you decide to go in the car park instead. Now, as you step outside you see an old man wearing a Darwin fish t-shirt lying on the ground. He has been beaten up badly and is on fire. Now you have a choice, you can either: 1 - allow him to burn to death, or 2 - save his life by urinating on him to extinguish the flames. So you ask yourself, what would God do if He were in my situation? Well, even though the elderly gentleman on the floor supports the theory of evolution, and is therefore a heretic, you remember that in Exodus 34: 5-7 it says that the Lord God is compassionate and gracious and forgives iniquity, transgression and sin, so you think that if God was in your place he would save the aged atheist's life by peeing on him. But then you remember that in the same passage it says that God will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, and will visit the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations, and you therefore conclude that, in actual fact, if God was in your place, He would not only let the old boy burn, He would also find out where his family lives and burn their house down with them in it. Hardly a "very forgiving" attitude, I think you'll agree. Then my opponent continued by saying that: "if you lived a life with basic morals, then you will be excepted into heaven. Regardless of your religion". God may see fit forgive the minor transgressions of pious Christians and, provided their parents, grandparents and great grandparents all lived wholesome, God-fearing lives, admit them into the Kingdom of Heaven. However, all other Christians are going straight to Hell in a handcart. Therefore, He certainly wouldn't grant entrance to a non-believer, no matter how morally sound they might be and the Bible is quite clear about that: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16. Therefore, if the Christians that make up a third of the world's population have gambled wisely and their idea of the afterlife transpires to be correct, only the most pious and worthy amongst them will make it to Heaven and the other two thirds of the population that are non-Christian will most certainly have backed the wrong horse! Thank you.
This house believes that animal testing should continue.

I would agree that animal research has given humans great cure as described by proponent. I would agree that animal testing had a positive impact in saving human lives . However, it would be wise to note that given the great advances in science and technology today, it would be impossible to believe that there are no alternatives to animal testing. Point: Research can be done effectively without experimenting on any living creature As of now, there are methods such as growing and testing human tissue cultures rather than on animals. Hence, there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. There have been many examples of success in research which does not require animal testing. Here are some examples: The National Research Council advocates testing on human cells rather than animals and the council also encourages companies to make the switch. One great achievement was the 3-dimensional model of breast cancer so scientist are able to study cancer in its earliest stage which allows scientists to test for possible treatment. Instead of using animals like rats to study cancer, the 3D model uses actual human tissue. Actual human tissue would well be a much more effective medium for experimentation compared to other animals which could provide a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. This could bring research to a whole new level. (References: https://academic.oup.com...) Addressing the proponent's point of sacrificing a rat would be better than a human, it would seem to me that a human have more rights than a rat. However, I feel that animals have as much right to life as human beings. Animals do behave in ways that can convey meaning just like a typical human. For instance, animals recoil from pain or appear to express fear from being tormented. If animals can feel what a human can feel, shouldn't they not be discriminated just because they belong to a different species? Like humans, animals are sentient beings. So, animal testing should not continue as animals have their rights too. Addressing the proponents second point about people are free willed. Of course, it is against human rights to test on humans. However, given the advances in technology as mentioned in the point made in the beginning, I believe there are better ways to do testing rather than on animals. To sum this up, I feel that animal testing should not continue given the fact that science and technology have been so advanced which provides us with much more testing alternatives as compared to in the past, where science and technology are more backward. Animals have as much right to life as human beings and given the fact that there are other alternatives, people could make a much better choice that would allow us to reap a greater benefits.
maybe=it may be

May i had the honor to state my arguments in Two main points1) Maybe had differrent usage than it may be 1.1)In speaking, we sometimes use maybe at the end of what we say when we are making a suggestion which we are not very certain about: A: There’s something wrong with my PC. I can’t load my photos. B: It could be a virus, maybe. In speaking, we can use maybe as a response when we agree that something is possible:2) Maybe is grammatically different from it may be 2.1)Maybe is an adverb and it means the same as perhaps. It is written as one word: Maybe no one will come to the party. 2.2)In the phrase may be may is a modal verb and be is a main or auxiliary verb. Here may and be are two separate words, whereas maybeis one wordsources :http://dictionary.cambridge.org...i look forord for a fruitful response, thank you
The U.S. should sell Wyoming and Florida to China.

===REBUTTAL=== "Ireland has sold off parts of the Island. We sold the 6 counties which now compromise of Northern Ireland [1] [2], in exchange for Independence." Yes but great Britain is not communist. Northern Ireland had to compromise its laws in the processes. I am a Cuban American and do not want to compromise my freedom and liberties in order to pay off a debit… it is not worth it. And what about those people who fled china that now live in Wyoming and Florida. I understand that you are looking to clear the debit but this is not the way… this would be the most extreme method that should not be considered till all other options are exulted. http://en.wikipedia.org... "I now ask my opponent to suggest another way which America could deal with this debt." Well we need to stop needless spending on a war that makes no sense. We have at least 10 million in pork-barrel projects we can get rid of… it is all about chipping away at it and not trying to do crazy things to pay it off… and we need to stop spending more. " The U.S., for the most part, is a bought nation" Yes, buying land that we could claim and bring freedom to. Not selling land that is unconstitutional for the federal government to just sell states with out the people approving. http://www.usconstitution.net... "The purchase was a vital moment in the presidency of Thomas Jefferson. At the time, it faced domestic opposition as being possibly unconstitutional. Although he felt that the US Constitution did not contain any provisions for acquiring territory," http://en.wikipedia.org... ===CON ARGUMENT=== "Not necessarily. The concept off selling off land isn't to the ends of completely reducing your debt. In terms of Japan, they'll be more than happy to take land, as well as money." If you give a piece of our land to china then all of the people that we are in debt to will want a piece. Completely against what our country was founded on. We would be a tiny America with a ton of foreign compromise. "I would please ask CON to rephrase this statement." I was stating that you said your proposal was more then worth what the debit is… so I was just stating that it was not really fair for us then. I stand to my original statement even if people do not like it or not. Voters…. Think about it as if the United States were selling your state to china… would you agree… It not vote…
The U.S. should sell Wyoming and Florida to China.

===REBUTTAL=== "How would you feel if Ireland started to sell off property to a country that is opposite to you countries belief in freedom? " --> Interesting question. Interestingly enough, Ireland has sold off parts of the Island. We sold the 6 counties which now compromise of Northern Ireland [1] [2], in exchange for Independence. I so no reason why America would not make a similar deal in exchange for the removal, for the most part, of her debt to China. "We are in debt to china and yes we do need to deal with that, but it is not fair to sell parts of our country to a society of communistic rule. " --> CON brings up a good point here, however, I now ask my opponent to suggest another way which America could deal with this debt. "We should not be in the business of selling America with prejudice to any state Wyoming, Florida, or even California" --> The U. S. , for the most part, is a bought nation [3] [4]. Buying land was a method of expansion, at the cost of money to other superpowers at the time. It was a way to reduce debt over all. I see no reason why the U. S. can't reduce debt by giving up some of it's territory. ===PRO ARGUMENT=== "I understand that America did this to them selves. If you have a debt and to pay off that debit you just start selling off everything you have, would you really learn your lesson? " --> Of course you would have learned your lesson. You would have sold off your property to relieve a portion of your debt. People do it all the time. They downgrade their house to reduce their mortgage, or business' close factories for the same purpose. "in theory your proposal will have us sell all of America to countries we are in debt to. When you say it is ok to sell portions of America you open up the can of worms proposing if we don't turn the spending problem around, it will be a trend of selling America. When we sell to china, who is to say that Japan would not accept anything less. " --> Not necessarily. The concept off selling off land isn't to the ends of completely reducing your debt. If a corporation is in debt, they don't sell of 3/4 off their buildings simply to get rid off their debt. They sell of some buildings. And they make cutbacks elsewhere. In terms of Japan, they'll be more than happy to take land, as well as money. "You do state that the two states you are proposing are "worth is more than enough to pay off China" then why would we even settle for what is not even completely fair. " --> I would please ask CON to rephrase this statement. "Voters…. Think about it as if the United States were selling your state to china… would you agree…" --> I would kindly remind voters the object of debate isn't who you agree with, but who argues the debate better. ===SOURCES=== [1] = . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] = . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] = . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] = . http://en.wikipedia.org...
The U.S. should sell Wyoming and Florida to China.

I do understand where you are coming from. ===DEFINITIONS=== "Sell" or not to "sell" You are from Ireland or so your profile says, so I will start there. How would you feel if Ireland started to sell off property to a country that is opposite to you countries belief in freedom? We are in debt to china and yes we do need to deal with that, but it is not fair to sell parts of our country to a society of communistic rule. We should not be in the business of selling America with prejudice to any state Wyoming, Florida, or even California (as it seems to be more popular among other believers in the system of selling off America" === Rebuttal to PRO ARGUMENT=== I understand that America did this to them selves. If you have a debt and to pay off that debit you just start selling off everything you have, would you really learn your lesson? Spending is like a drug; in theory your proposal will have us sell all of America to countries we are in debt to. When you say it is ok to sell portions of America you open up the can of worms proposing if we don't turn the spending problem around, it will be a trend of selling America. When we sell to china, who is to say that Japan would not accept anything less. You do state that the two states you are proposing are "worth is more than enough to pay off China" then why would we even settle for what is not even completely fair. Voters…. Think about it as if the United States were selling your state to china… would you agree… It not vote… Con
The U.S. should sell Wyoming and Florida to China.

I thank in advance whoever accepts this debate. ===DEFINITIONS=== Sell - To transfer (goods) to or render (services) for another in exchange for money; dispose of to a purchaser for a price [http://dictionary.reference.com...] Wyoming - http://en.wikipedia.org... Florida - http://en.wikipedia.org... U.S. - http://en.wikipedia.org... China - http://en.wikipedia.org... I think I have done enough to stop semantics === PRO ARGUMENT=== Currently, the U.S. $772 billion dollars to the People's Republic of China [1]. The debt is currently growing, and the U.S. lack the capital to pay off this debt. Therefore, I propose the U.S. should sell Wyoming and Florida, who's worth is more than enough to pay off China [2] . Currently, they make, combined, 764,080 billion dollars [2], enough to stave off their debt to China, and wipe out almost 1/4 off their foreign debt [1]. [1] = http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] = http://en.wikipedia.org...
Islam does not promote peace

con never refuted my last point so I will continue my argument from round 2. I will also add a few more passages from the quran to prove my point farther. - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme." Quran (9:111) "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."Quran (9:123)
Islam does not promote peace

Your argument isn't that Islam promotes warfare, it's that Islam doesn't promote peace. Islam in fact does promote both. Though contradictory it may sound, different passages pertain to different ideology within the Muslim faith. Also, the passages relating to war were brought in during the holy wars, before that, you couldn't really ask this question. For the most part, they just didn't take it back out when the holy wars ended. If you want to change it to "Islam promotes war". then I guess we could argue interpretation of the Quran's text. But you'd be right in that regard anyway.
Islam does not promote peace

this is a passage from the quran. Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not" here is another. Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." passages such as these cant be ignored and disregarded. we cant just accept the lie that its the religion of peace because the quran disproves that notion.
College admissions should give preference to minorities

Ah, but that's where the beneficiaries of society come to the rescue. The list is exhaustive, but some of the signifiers of this benefit are whiteness, maleness and straightness.With that in mind, the more privilege these beneficiaries have, the more they have to help minorities unconditionally. This means if someone is simply white then they'd only have to give up they're whole life's earnings to minorities. But if they're the full deck, so to speak, then they must give up their life's earnings, their parents' life's earnings, their property, and their life. The list can always be refined, but think of it as a progressive stack for education.Is a minority lagging behind in their course? Don't worry, just vanquish another white male! This solution is rock solid. Obama and Al Sharpton would be proud !
Objective Moral Values and Duties must be grounded in God

"There must be a stopping point, an axiom upon which any analysis must be based. {...} These differences have no way to be arbitrated, absent God." I believe that the fundamental nature of reality (i.e. the laws that govern all things) would be able to be the axiom you speak of. One cannot break the laws of reality, for they would not be laws if they can be bypassed. The Nazis could not be said to have used logic any more than someone, when asked to recite the numbers from one to ten and said zero, could be said to have counted correctly. The fact stands that there are set rules by which the universe runs, and any attempt to ignore these rules would result not in a "different" kind of logic, but a form of thinking that is not logical at all. If we were using "not-A", we would be wrong whether we accepted it or not. Even if we had no way of knowing which way of thinking was logical, the existence of a logical way of thinking would still exist. "Why not prefer the morals (or, "clubs"), of sociopaths, or Nazis?" The same argument could be made against the "unconditional oughts" you have put forward. There is no such thing as an unconditional ought as you describe it. If one has the power to choose a path in life, then they can surely choose the "wrong" one. If they prefer that path, using your arguments, morality even with God is not objective. Either way, it's irrelevant when considering whether a system is objectively moral or not. Objectivity is granted by consistency, which, in turn, is governed by the rules of the system as set out by the "builder" of it. These rules are not man-made, however, as they still must reside within the rules set forth by reality itself, and a system based on rules that disregard reality cannot be considered to be objective. " My opponent is obviously begging the question by assuming that people are doing something really, objectively, immoral. How does he arrive at this conclusion? He still has not explained how his morality is anything other than arbitrary." My comment about God was on a bit of a side note, and was not meant to fill my burden of proof. I do not feel that I was begging the question, as I had already laid out arguments beforehand to justify my position. After all other arguments against my position had been countered, your argument loses its weight, as it relies on morality not being objective. This was a very interesting debate, and I have to commend my opponent for his debating skills. Multiple times throughout the debate, I had difficulty responding to his arguments. Thanks for the opportunity to debate this topic!
You have to have some sort of government

so what are you saying? We need a better government? Or no government at all, Not to be racist but nations run by caucasion peoples perorm well, As do nations run by east asians, If you loo at africa and south america you see nations where there is poverty violence and crime and governments commit much worse repression, So there really isntany evidence white people are bad at governing, On the contrary there might be problems but when they are removed from governing positions the society immediately goes to hell, That is a fact repeated every time
Dictatorship improves a countries Economy

Marcos P"rez Jim"nez, President/Dictator of Venezuala 1952 - 1958 is one of them that change the economy of his country in his ruling. His ruling period is characterized by marked improvement in development, with the rise of oil prices facilitating many public works achievements. Political and economic stability, along with the completion of ambitious public works and the rapid development of industries such as hydroelectricity, mining, and steel were achieved during this period as well. P"rez Jim"nez was also responsible for the modernization of the military and the nation enjoyed a period of high prosperity and social tranquility. His 2001 obituary in The Guardian provides some detail on the development program that took place under his rule, which also included construction of a highway system, you can read more on the following links [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...... [2] http://www.guardian.co.uk......