BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islam is a peaceful religion

Ok, lets get start again by saying the Koran clearly speaks out against premptive attacks but allows self-defense. The radicals of this religion who pick and choose what they like to motivate others to follow them DO NOT represent Islam. They attack others in cold blood and some how take scriptures out of context to justify it. Now the reason why I brought up the radical Christian shooting an abortion doctor is because this is a great example of someone taking scriptures and personal interprtation to the next level. As you say, and I agree, Osama bin Laden says things and justifys it by saying I'm doing this for Allah! Now when the Christian kills a doctor they say "I'm doing this for Jesus". How about the many so-called "Christian Terrorist organizations"? Army of God is a group that is anti-abortion and very radical. This gruop lives by the writings of the Bible and carry on with a motto from "Second Defensive Action Statement" which reads: "We declare and affirm that if in fact Paul Hill did kill or wound abortionist John Britton, and accomplices James Barrett and Mrs. Barrett, his actions are morally justified if they were necessary for the purpose of defending innocent human life. Under these conditions, Paul Hill should be acquitted of all charges against him." Other groups similar the Army og God are The Lambs of Christ and The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord. The puropose of writing this is to show that many religions can have groups of people who take things either the wrong way or out of context to promote their agenda in a violent way. "Of course we don't. Murder is STRICTLY forbidon in the Bible." Yes I know this. But killing in cold blood is also forbidden in the Koran, as I have pointed out. The "full picture" of Islam and the Koran, say Khouj and Nyang(2 Islamic scholars and Muslims), is captured by Chapter 5, Verse 32: "[I]f anyone slew a person—unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people."(http://news.nationalgeographic.com...) "America is sending missionaries into Islamic countries. Would this not be seen as fighting Islam?" Well it shouldn't because the Koran teaches tolerance for Christian and Jewish Brothers and Sisters. In Sura 29:46 we see that Islam believes that all of the 3 major religions (Jew, Christian, and Muslim) worship the same God. Now just like anyother religion they believe only they will achive paradise, and are intsructed to bring as many people to Allah as they can. Not by force though. In closing I recommend everyone to open your mind and learn. Go to the source the Koran itself. Ask Muslims and other Islamic professors. From my research on this debate the consensus is clear: Radcial Islam is far from the fundemental teachings of the Koran. Thanks for the debate.
Islam is a peaceful religion

"lets not assume this photo represents the Islamic teachings." What you are missing is that they do everything thay do in the name of Islam. If you look further into the Qu'ran than you have already, you will find that it teaches that if your enemy is weaker than you, you should conquer him. S. 47:35--- "So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islï¿½m), while you are having the upper hand. God is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds." It also says: Surah 2:216--- "Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows and you know not." "When a fundementalist christian shoots an abortion doctor, we don't say that represents the entire Christian faith." Of course we don't. Murder is STRICTLY forbidon in the Bible. "To assume the men in this picture represent Islam on a whole scale level is very ignorant and intolerant." Excuse me, but these men represent the Jihad. The Jihad is Allah's chosen way of fighting infidels. Look at the verses I have quoted above please, and respond to THEM. "It would be as grave a mistake to see Osama bin Laden as an authentic representative of Islam as to consider James Kopp, the alleged killer of an abortion provider in Buffalo, N.Y., a typical Christian..." May I point out the fact that Osama din Laden, whenever he appears on TV is quoting the Qu'ran. A former Muslim, Egun Caner, says " "It is difficult to take the Qur'an out of context,". If bin Laden is quoting the Qu'ran, he is obviously in accordance with it. In this case he would be doing nothing against the Qu'ran. Does THIS make the Qu'ran sound peaceful? "Now I now my opponet said he/she doesn't care if it preaches forgiveness but I say turning the other cheek is peaceful." Your not getting me. Yes, turning the other cheek is peaceful, but the Qu'ran allows revenge as well. THAT is not peaceful. "But still defending yourself is different than flying a plane into a building." And flying a plane into a building is not permitted? Surah 2:190--- "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you. And slay them wherever you catch them." America is sending missionaries into Islamic countries. Would this not be seen as fighting Islam? According to the doctrine of Jihad, there are three waves of Jihad. The first wave is shock, the second is to show the people that they are vulnerable, and the third is to humiliate them. They are commanded to do this to all who fight Islam. NOT peaceful. Peace is not taught here. You have yet to counter my verses. Please site the what part of the Qu'ran your passages come from. "(4: 90)" means nothing to me. Thanks! Renzzy
Rap Battle!!

Tis true.. it's the first time I be rapping you.. This ain't a zoo.. you're gonna get what your due.. You think you're cool.. messing 'round with me.. but no.. You're just a fool.. step on off of me.. and so Your rhymes.. are worse than.. HNOFClBrI.. Worse than.. playing a game of.. monopoly Yeah.. so here you are.. probably thinking That girls... aren't good at anything So here I am.. to show you what I mean.. You gave me nothing.. so now start playing..
Rap Battle!!

This is my first time, but I'd like to take a try, I'll give a rap battle a penny or dime, unfortunately-- I'm really bad at rhyme. There will be three rounds, no forfeit is allowed, you can start in round one, or in round none, it is your choice, nothin's chokin' your "voice", So come, rap with me, if you dare to accept, let everyone see-- what's your rep!
Video Games

I know that most video game players are good people who wouldn't actually hurt anyone else and I know that video games just games. Also all my cousins and most of my friends play video games and they're all good people. Video games and tv shows or movies that have lots of violence desensitize people to violence. When they see pictures of actual dead people on the news they're less likely to be grossed out or saddened by it. That doesn't mean people who play video games don't have emotions or are psychopaths or that they never get saddened by images of actual dead people but they are less likely to. Also we shouldn't premodern violence. Violence is only good for self defense. BTW I also play slender man. It's pretty scary and it's really fun but it's not that bloody or violent.
Policing sexual "harassment" should not be the responsibility of employers

Only militant lesbians and frigid religious girls don't enjoy a little bit of "slap and tickle" at work. Most ladies spend a lot of time and money on clothes, cosmetics, perfumes, low calorie diets and gym memberships in order to look attractive to men. So what's the point of young women going to all that trouble and expense if their male colleagues at work fail to compliment them with a suggestive remark accompanied by a playful pinch of her bottom or an innocent fondle of her breasts? Just to be absolutely fair, it should be the same rule for a man and he should have no right to complain to his employer if some leggy blonde stunner caresses his groin area and suggests that he joins her in the stationery room for a little bit of "corporate entertainment". If an employee is seriously molested against their will on repeated occasions then they should consult their lawyer or call the police because managing inter-personal relations of staff should not be the responsibility of employers. Thank you.
Online debates are better than real life debates

I would like to do this debate in public forum format, I shall write a 'case,' and then we shall have a question 'round' Contention 1: Debates in Real Life provide necessary life skills. To debate in real life, you must maintain eye contact with your judge, you must have proper hand gestures, etc. If you were to talk to somebody for say a job interview, for example, if you couldn't maintain eye contact, and you were constantly fiddling with your fingers, you would come across as a shy, bashful individual. Furthermore, debating in real life requires for you to be calm, and to maintain your composure when all you want to do is yell at your opponent at the top of your lungs. You must resist the urge to speak out against them and shout back just as loud as they were. You also learn respect and manners. If you are a male and debating a female, you must respect them and be polite. Being rude and showing no etiquette will get you nowhere in debate. This can also be applied to real life. If you're a rude and obnoxious individual, less people will like you. Contention 2: Spur of the moment In a Public Forum debate round, each team gets a total of two minutes for prep time. This means that for the majority of the speeches, you have to be a quick on your feet, you have to create your speech as you say it. Tying back to contention 1, this is also a relevant life skill, at least once or so, you'll be put into a tight situation, and you'll have to make something up on the spot. You don't get an opportunity to research what you don't know, you have to know everything already. Yes, you have more time to prepare your speech with more analysis in an online debate, but it doesn't compare to making your speech up in a matter of seconds based on the notes you took earlier. Contention 3: A Real Life Debate is more engaging. In an online debate, you submit speech after speech with no direct contact with a person online that you're debating with. The judges are voters who are people that happen to come upon this debate. In a real life debate, you actually meet these people, the judge, and the opposition. You get to directly communicate with the opposition in cross x's, and often times these get 'heated.' You argue back and forth non stop until the time runs out. Once again tying back to my first contention, interaction in person greatly improves your speaking skills. Debating online is nothing compared to debating in person. Once your debate is over, you go up to the opposition, thank them for the debate, and leave. Even if you didn't win the round, you still interacted with people, and were engaged in this debate the entire time, rather than writing a speech, waiting two days for your opponent's response, then writing another speech. Therefore, I strongly urge a negative vote on today's ballot.
Make Smoking Illegal

My opponent has now laid out 3 reasons for why people should not take up smoking, but they did not prove that these reasons warrant a ban on smoking. 1.My opponent makes the claim that smoking is the reason that the United States is not one of the top-10 healthiest countries, but they do not prove that this is due to smoking, and not obesity, sugar intake, alcohol consumption or any other cause. Therefore, this is a moot point, and does not warrant a government ban on smoking. 2.My opponent then makes the claim that says restrictions on smokers" rights are not strict enough, but why is it the smoker"s responsibility not to smoke around other people? My opponent has not proven that a government ban would remedy this, nor did they show that non-smokers have a right to clean air. 3.I would also like to state that minors are not allowed to smoke. My opponents point only proves that a smoking ban would be ineffective and easy to circumvent. Now I have proven that both the smoking of meat and the smoking of cigarettes should remain legal. My opponent has completely avoided the topic of this debate (meat smoking), and therefore has not fulfilled their burden of proof. Vote Con!!!!
Make Smoking Illegal

I will give out 3 rebuttals for what you say. Lets go with the rebuttal of why smoking cigarettes (not meat) should be illegal first! Rebuttals: 1. You say that the government should not ban responsible adults from smoking, well here's a fact against that. The Top 10 Healthiest Countries in The World are (from 1 to 10) Japan, Sweden, Iceland, Switzerland, Germany, France, Italy, Denmark, Austria, and Australia. Do you see the United States of America up there? The answer is no! (. http://www.healthfiend.com...) The reason why is because 20% of all Americans use tobacco. If the government were to ban production and consumption of tobacco products, the United States of America will be up in the Top 10 Healthiest Countries. (. http://www.cdc.gov...) 2. Like you said that most parks, public restrooms, and airplanes prohibit smoking. How about outside of parks, public restrooms, airplanes, restaurants, and taxicabs/public transportation? When your at home or walking on streets there aren't strict restrictions so people could smoke wherever they want and get away with it! That increases risk of COPD/Asthma/Bronchitis/Allergy Attacks. If the government bans smoking police and businesses will be more strict. 3. I totally disagree with your statement that "The government should not ban responsible adults from harming themselves. " Well 33% of high school students use some kind of tobacco. One reason why is they don't read the Surgeon General Warning Label because they are too lazy to read it. High School students are ages 14-18 so that means that not all smokers are "responsible adults. " (. http://www.livestrong.com...) So Challenger lets see if these people think that I'm debating about smoking cigarettes or smoking meat!
Make Smoking Illegal

My opponent has provided several examples of how smoking can be bad for your health, and for the environment, but none of those proves that the government should outlaw the action. You will argue that cigarette-smoking causes harm, however every single smoker is well aware of danger of cigarette smoking. In many countries, cigarette companies are required to leave a warning message on their cigarette pack regarding the danger of smoking. Often, they are also required to illustrate the message with gruesome, grotesque and gory pictures of what excessive smoking can do to a person (1). Already, smokers are restricted in many ways so that they do not harm others, such as restrictions on smoking in parks, public restrooms and airplanes. Laws can prevent smokers from harming others but the government cannot/should not go further and stop responsible adults from harming themselves. The funny thing about this though, Is that I do not even have to address the smoking of cigarettes as this debate is about meat smoking, and my opponent has provided no reasons as to why meat smoking should be illegal. Vote Con!!! Sources 1.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Make Smoking Illegal

I see no reason why the smoking of meat should be illegal! It's the smoking of cigarettes that should be illegal. I have three arguments why the smoking of cigarettes should be illegal (not the smoking of meat, challenger! ) Arguments: - Second hand smoke from cigarettes could cause nearby sufferers of COPD, Asthma, Allergies, or Bronchitis to have an outbreak of their symptoms which include trouble breathing, nausea, and even death! This is one reason why the government should make the production and consumption of cigarettes illegal! - The problem of cigarette smoking in the United States of America lowers life expectancy rating which make U. S. Citizens leave the USA. This is caused by about 200 known cancer causing poisons in cigarette smoke like tar, nicotine, methane, lead, and carbon monoxide! This is another reason why the United States of America should ban cigarette smoking! - Michelle Obama and the rest of the United States of America have created plans to cut down on obesity, diabetes, heart attacks, and strokes but they are forgetting one disease that kills more people than the 4 disorders that I listed above combined, that is cancer! One way that the White House could cut down the cancer rate in the United States is by banning the production and consumption of cigarettes! - My last argument of why consumption and production of cigarettes should be banned is it will lower the rate of wildfires! Approximately 50% of all wildfires are created by careless loggers, moonshiners, and other people that flick lit cigarettes at wood which ignites the wood and creates a wildfire that depending on it's location could kill more than 100 innocent people and 200 innocent animals. This is my last argument why the production and consumption of cigarettes should be illegal! Since I proved something, I no longer have the burden of proof.
Belief in God is Rational

If we see nothing in the universe that cannot in principle be explained by natural processes, the principle of parsimony precludes our postulating a God behind it all. I value reason because I know it works. Most religious believers agree with this and are perfectly willing to apply reason to most areas of their life. But not to the area of god belief. One of the things that concerns me about such believers is their justification of their decision to suspend critical thinking in one case but not in another. They readily laugh in my face when I fail to provide compelling evidence in support of my claim that my neighbor's garden gnome comes to life, but they refuse to apply the same standards to their god belief. From a nonbelievers point of view, I see thousands of gods invented over thousands of years and all have been myth, so I ask which one do I believe in, this can't be done rationally, because there is no good reason to believe. One need not own beliefs of any kind to establish scientific facts, observe and enjoy nature, or live a productive, moral, and useful life. If there's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, then there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods. Therefore, atheism should be adopted for purely pragmatic reasons.Thanks for reading
Belief in God is Rational

my round 4 argument. I never claimed that I am 100% certain God exists. You can still believe in God, while not being certain He exists, as just the same you can disbelieve in God without 100% certainty. You have shown three improbable ways that it is "possible" that the universe could cause itself, all of which you have failed to explain how and why these are more rational than the obvious principles of normal causality required on a B theory. You need to do more than just present ways how it could be invalidated, you need to present reasons why these options are more probable and rational. Not only that, but you fail to explain how any of the first 2 alternatives enable the universe to cause itself, much less make atheism more probable than theism. "Since humans are naturally prone to assess thinking in keeping with the above criteria, it is not surprising that we, as a species, have not developed a significant interest in establishing and teaching legitimate intellectual standards. It is not surprising that our thinking is often flawed." This statement applies to atheists as well, as they are after all humans as well. It is obvious that believing in something does not make it true. What my opponent has failed to show is that this somehow makes belief in God irrational, even if it based off of the evidence. Showing a bunch of irrational ways people can believe something, in no way undermines the rationality of that belief itself. Furthermore, this line of reasoning chops off your own branch, because atheists could disbelieve in God for those very same reasons. response to round 4: My only rebuttal is that my opponent has completely misdefined the biblical definition of faith, and to an extent even the common usage of the word. The biblical definition of Faith is trust in something you already believe to be true, not a belief in something which you do not have enough evidence for. Furthermore, the topic is not, "is faith rational?", it is "is belief in God rational". While it is an important question, it is not the one currently up for discussion.
Belief in God is Rational

The function of thought is to promote understanding. For understanding to be possible, we must have some method of assessing the accuracy of various claims. This method is reason. If I tell you that I believe in unicorns, you are in the position of evaluating the truthfulness of my claim. In applying reason, you expect me to provide evidence. After all, I'm the one making the claim. In your pursuit of the truth, you are likely to discover that my belief about unicorns is based on faith. Faith is required for me to maintain my belief because my belief has no justification, no supportive evidence. Faith refers to the belief in something for which there is insufficient evidence to otherwise warrant belief. the core of faith entails conflict with reason. Knowledge requires justification in the form of evidence, however, faith is belief in something without adequate justification. If evidence emerged that unicorns do in fact exist, faith would become unnecessary, even irrelevant. If faith is the basis for holding religious beliefs (and it almost certainly is), then the inherently irrational nature of faith applies to such beliefs. Atheists and theists accept different standards of evidence, but this does not mean that faith is in any way equal to reason as a method for assessing the accuracy of knowledge claims. Of course, it must be acknowledged that just because Christians are irrational with regard to their religious beliefs does not in any way imply that they are necessarily less rational than atheists in any other domain. This may seem like a minor point, but it is actually an important one. By dismissing Christians as completely irrational human beings, we are guilty of the same intolerance with which we accuse them. Their religious beliefs are irrational; nothing else about them need be. Note that many Christians also recognize that the basis of their religious beliefs (i.e., faith) is irrational. The difference is that they may see no problem with this irrationality.
Belief in God is Rational

Of course a belief does not establish that what you believe is true, but at the same time, a belief in God can be based off of the evidence. Consider the following:1. Whatever begins to exist has a causeNow the first premise is frankly common sense. Something simply cannot pop out of nothing, it is worse than magic, because at least then you have the magician, not to mention the hat.2. the Universe began to exist, This is established by the current scientific model of the universe; The Standard Model, or the Big Bang Theory. The universe exploded from a point of infinite density, prior to which there is literally nothing. [1]it is furthermore established by the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the level of usable energy in a system will decrease over time, until it reaches equilibrium. If the universe has existed forever it would have already ran out of energy. But it hasn't, therefore implying that the universe has not existed forever. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.Since the universe cannot cause itself, the cause must transcend the universe. It must therefore be timeless, spaceless and immaterial, incredibly powerful; uncaused(for the first cause cannot have a prior cause.), and plausibly personal. There are two things which are conceivably spaceless: a disembodied mind, or an abstract object like a number. But numbers cannot cause anything. A timeless, spaceless, immaterial, incredibly powerful, uncaused, and personal being, is basically God. [1]http://www.big-bang-theory.com...