BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
At the root, the United States was at fault for 9/11.

org\. My argument will mainly be focused on proving that not only was the United States not at fault for 9/11, but that 9/11 was in no way politically motivated. In contrast, I would like to prove that 9/11 was in fact completely motivated by religion. I would first like to refute my opponents claim that supporting of the nation of Israel placed the US in danger for Muslim attacks. The first piece of evidence I would like to present to dispute my opponents claims is taken from the writings of Ibn Warraq, and Islamic scholar. He states that "It is extraordinary the amount of people who have written about the 11th of September without once mentioning Islam. We must take seriously what the Islamists say to understand their motivation, [that] it is the divinely ordained duty of all Muslims to fight in the literal sense until man-made law has been replaced by God's law, the Sharia, and Islamic law has conquered the entire world. " Sharia is defined as the moral code and law of Islam. It's codes and laws range from circumcision of children to the belief that woman must cover their entire bodies, excluding the hands and face. Other customs include speaking in Arabic during certain events such as eating, greeting someone for the first time, and when sneezing. An interview of Mullah Mustapha Kreikar, the leader of a radical Islamic group known as Ansar al-Islam, also states that terrorist attacks are politically motivated. The interview can be found in the following url: . http://archive.frontpagemag.com.... In the interview, Kreikar states in part "The resistance is not a reaction to the American invasion, it is part of the continuous Islamic struggle since the collapse of the caliphate. " The Caliphate refers to a form of Islamic government led by a Caliph, which refers to who is believed to be the successor of the prophet Muhammad. This form of government ended in 1924, long before the United States intervened in the Middle East. I would also like to point out that Muslim countries were taught to hate western countries for centuries. As far back as the middle ages Christian knights invaded "The Holy Land" (Jerusalem) when it was under Muslim rule. What followed were decades of bloody crusades, one side in the name of Jesus and the other in the name of MuM17;ammad. I would like to end my first round of the argument with a letter released by Osama Bin Laden in 2002 to the American public, stating "What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you? The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam. .. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. " Of course, "reigning supreme" means an international, worldwide caliphate where Sharia is forced upon all resisting non-Muslim nations.
At the root, the United States was at fault for 9/11.

The contention "At the root, the United States was at fault for 9/11" must, obviously, examine the underlying causes of radicalization in the Middle East, specifically of al-Qaeda, and of the causes of their rise to power. "At fault" therefore will be construed as "responsible for."My contention rests on three major supports:I. Support of Israel,II. Funding of Islamist rebel groups,III. Repeated intervention in the Middle East.First, the United States' support of Israel directly placed the US in danger by supporting a country that was arbitrarily placed in a region holy to several major religions, and, essentially, giving it a monopoly on Jerusalem. By supporting a state that arouses hostility by Islam countries, both moderate and extreme, the Unites States becomes more vulnerable to terrorist attacks by creating an environment conducive to armed resistance against Israel and, therefore, its prime supporter, the United States.Second, the United States has a repeated track record of funding groups that later turn to attack us. In the case of al-Qaeda, funding began during the Mujahideen insurrection against the Soviet Union. Viewing the Mujahideen as a lesser evil than the Soviet Union, the United States provided it (the Mujahideen) with automatic assault rifles, grenades, ammunition, and various other non-military supplies. One of the leaders of this Mujahideen was Osama bin-Laden, who, at that time, was openly hostile to the United States. This later turned out to be true after the USS Cole attack and, ultimately, 9/11.Finally, the United States intervention in the Middle East has served to alienate Muslim groups, which then can turn into adversaries. Examples of this include the 1953 overthrow of the Iranian government, the 1979 Hostage Crisis, the Black September. This repeated intervention has been cited by Osama bin-Laden as the primary reason for the 9/11 attack. Therfore, because of the United States' support of Israel, funding of rebel groups, and military intervention, the United States' is at fault for the radicalization of extremist groups and, thus, the 9/11 attack.
Mormons can and do not have more than one wife

wellll there are nutty ppl out there. What if an "active" mormon had marriages outside the country? There are people that do that. Just like the amish, they do/have stuff they arent suppost to do/have but they never get caught. I dont doubt one second that there is not ONE mormon that pratices polygamy. When these people come over to check on the families, do they go through their cell phones, bills, mail, emails? i would hope not. So to the public eye these families that might be praticing polgamy might not falunt it. Well i wouldnt either if i was doing something totallyyy wrong.
Mormons can and do not have more than one wife

No, it is simply impossible for an active mormon to be a polygamist. The mormon religion is very very sotial and consists of members going over to another members house once a month just to check up on the family and make sure they are doing fine. Through this it would be impossible for a member to lead a polygamist lifestyle and not get noticed. If you do practice polygamy you would be exomunicated and probably arrested as well because most states have laws against polygamy. And your welcome for the invite to this debate
Mormons can and do not have more than one wife

Well i guess you saw my comment on that one debate. i dont like the mormon religion it gets on my nerves just like the jehovah witnesses when they start knockin on your door constantly you will understand. So your telling me that there ISNT ONE mormon who doesnt pratice polygamy? Yah they havent praticed it since the 1800's but there are still "private groups" around that still do just like the KKK , mafia etc. Thank you for challenging me for this debate. (:
Mormons can and do not have more than one wife

Toria, i believe your judgement of the mormon religion is wrong and based on un-education on the specific religion. Mormons since the late 1800`s have not practiced polygamy in the least. It is against their religion to take more than one wife. It is also against the state laws to practice polygamy. Now tell me why would a mormon take more than one wife, if he would get arrested and excommunicated from the church?
The Ethics of Star Trek: Ethnic Cleansing

PrefaceThis is my third installment in 12-part series on the "Ethics of Star Trek." I think Star Trek holds a wealth of moral and philosophical quandaries that are fertile ground for debate and controversy. While some may see these kinds of TV show-related debates as "fluff" topics, I think that the serious ethical implications that underpin the topics I have selected belie that idea.My hope for this debate and for this series is that I will be able to have some fun delving into my inner nerd and my inner trekkie, while still having some lively and informative discussions. In this debate, particularly, I hope to explore the concepts behind and ethics of cultural relativism and self-defense through the example of the Borg's near destruction. Full TopicThat Capt. Kathryn Janeway’s destruction of the Borg constitutes an ethical form of ethnic cleansing.TermsEthnic Cleansing - "Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory with the intent of making it ethnically or religiously homogeneous. The forces applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), intimidation, as well as mass murder." [Wikipedia]Ethnic Group - "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a socially-defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience. Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, myth of origins, history, homeland, language (dialect), or even ideology, and manifests itself through symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, physical appearance, etc." [Wikipedia]Ethical - conforming to accepted standards of moral conductContextThis debate concerns happenings found in the Star Trek: Voyager episode "Endgame." In an attempt to rid the galaxy of the pernicious Borg threat, Capt. Janeway allowed herself to be infected with a virus designed to harm Borg. She subsequently allowed herself to be assimilated into the collective, spreading the virus to all the Borg, leading to the destruction of huge numbers of them. [1]Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's Constructive CaseR2. Con's Constructive Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's Case and CrystallizesR4. Con defends Con's Case and Crystallizes, Pro waivesThanks......to whomever accepts. This should be a fun debate![1] http://www.debate.org...
All drugs should be legalized (or decriminalized)

I would like to agree with my opponent on the issues that drug use can cause, however with the experiment and results that CO has offered us so far, many of those concerns have proven to be irrelevant. Almost every argument used discussing discouraging drug use is either taken to the radical extremity or filled with hypothetical "what-if" scenarios that represent statistical outliers. Violence and drug use are associated together because of gang related violence on most occasions. Let's also not pretend that making drugs illegal reduces the number of users. Drug users are going to use drugs regardless of the law, and legalizing them can only help. We all know a drug habit is addictive and costly. Making the drugs legal makes the purchase legal and taxable which would put more revenue into our government. Colorado has taken in about $23 million in recreational and medical marijuana sales in 2014. On a much larger scale, the revenue would obviously be considerably larger due to the population and the increased number of substances. The addictions are not up to the government to decide. Why on Earth can the government decide how I harm my body? I fully believe in the ownership of self, and by restricting my habits and decisions my rights are violated. Drugs are only dangerous when they are made dangerous. Propaganda is fully responsible for how drugs are viewed in our society, seen as next to the devil when the war on drugs was originally declared. When discussing the health effects of drug use, I would again like to emphasize individual rights. If health effects are the main and only relevant arguments nowadays, then anything and everything that damages health should be illegal. On marijuana, yes the carcinogens are greater (1 joint is the same as 5 cigarettes is considered the accepted ratio). However, generally speaking I would have to smoke 4-5 full joints a day in order to equal the carcinogens of the average cigarette smoker. The health effects are harmful overall, though, and I will agree that drug addictions are harmful to the health of the individual. However, the government should not be able to dictate my health. Speaking from a Darwinist outlook, the deaths that result from drug use can be justified. Those who do not survive are not fit to survive. Dealing with drug use is much more difficult than mandatory counseling or rehab. If someone does not want help, forced rehab will do absolutely nothing. To get help, the user has to want help. If rehab is the punishment, sobriety can be seen as something undesirable. Problems can only be dealt with if the person is willing.
Atheism is the superior position on the existence of a god or gods

Thank you so much for the warm welcome from my opponent! I look forward to what is to come. (Also, I'm ecstatic to be debating a fellow cuber.) My opponent is correct in assuming that "superior" was intended to mean "preferable" and "more rational." I do apologize for this instance and others of admittedly sloppy wording and hazy definitions. I'm new to this, so I hope you'll show a little mercy. On my opponent's response to Premise 3: Whether we should hold these claims to be false or simply not believe them depends on the particular claim, evidence for or against it, etc. God claims, definitions, and beliefs tend to be very different from person to person. In general, they should simply not be believed. If a more specific definition of "god" is brought into the argument, we may go as far as to hold the claim to be false. However, I do not intend to argue for that position in this debate. On my opponent's response to Premise 4: Once again, I apologize for sloppy wording. I will concede that some arguments for the existence of a god or gods are convincing to SOME. However, I argue that they should not be convincing to any as they are all logically invalid and/or unsound. I do realize that this still leaves me with an immense burden of proof that I will likely be unable to meet. Arguments for the existence of a god or gods likely approach innumerable, and I simply do not have the space to refute all of them here. However, a quick internet search will turn up a refutation of any theistic argument you care to search for. Ontological Argument? Refuted. (http://www.jstor.org...) Kalam Cosmological Argument? Refuted. () Argument from Design? Refuted. (http://rhetoricsanspareil.wordpress.com...) These sources are not meant to be definitive answers, of course. They simply serve as examples of the countless refutations of theistic arguments. I invite my opponent and any readers of this debate to find a single example of such an argument that has not been refuted. If necessary for satisfaction, my opponent or any readers may even search for more theistic arguments and their refutations. I admit that I cannot prove definitively that every single theistic argument in the history of man has been refuted, but I can invoke the countless refuted arguments and utter lack of unrefuted ones to act as evidence for the provisional conclusion that theistic claims have failed to meet their burden of proof. If my opponent wishes to discredit this conclusion, then he must present an argument or piece of evidence that contradicts it. I invite him and any readers who wish to leave a comment to try to do so. Back to you, Con!
Atheism is the superior position on the existence of a god or gods

I look forward to a thought-provoking exchange. Since this is my opponent's first debate, I would like to welcome him to DDO! :)BoP and definitionsI'd like to clarify the burden of proof, and context of debate quickly. As the title states, Pro shall have the burden of proof to establish "Atheism is the superior position on the existence of a god or gods. " It shall be my duty to refute the arguments he presents. Also, by "superior" I assume my opponent means "preferabble", "more rational", or anything to that degree. My opponent's argumentsMy opponent also provides an argument which I shall proceed to cast doubt upon. "1. It is best to hold true beliefs and reject false ones. "Agreed. "2. Claims, arguments, and evidence should be critically examined in order to determine truth and falsehood. "Once again, I agree. "3. Claims lacking convincing argument and evidence should be rejected. "Here, I must ask my opponent what he means: Does he mean we should not believe them, or hold them to be false? "4. God claims lack convincing argument and evidence. "This is an immense claim. My opponent is not stating "I don't find the arguments for God convincing" but rather that they are not convincing to anyone. Unfortunately, there is just no reason to accept this. My opponent has set himself a huge burden of proof. He must show that all arguments for the existence of God are unsound. In addition, he must also show that any sort of "evidence" we have is not evidence for the existence of God. Thus, my opponent's argument cannot be considered sound, and he has not yet met his burden of proof. ConclusionIn conclusion, my opponent has set himself an immense task. His argument rests on the almost impossible-to-prove premise that there are no sound arguments for the existence of God, and no evidence. Thus, until my opponent shows that there is absolutely no evidence for God, nor are there any sound arguments, we cannot accept the resolution. Over to Pro!
Atheism is the superior position on the existence of a god or gods

Here, I shall argue for the rejection of god claims. My argument rests on 4 premises that I am prepared to defend if challenged. 1. It is best to hold true beliefs and reject false ones. 2. Claims, arguments, and evidence should be critically examined in order to determine truth and falsehood. 3. Claims lacking convincing argument and evidence should be rejected. 4. God claims lack convincing argument and evidence. Therefore, God claims should be rejected.
Conservatives are better than the Lib Dems

| Are you seriously comparing the United Kingdom Independence Party to the Liberal Democrats.I am in the sense that both use abbreviations in website names, and more people use the abbreviations than the full term itself.| Liberal Democrats are supposed to be serious, not like the United Kingdom Independence Party who are frankly a joke.Unsupported assertion/opinion. UKIP, to Nigel Farage, at least, is not a joke, and happens to be the most influention position he's held in his life. Unless, of course, Farage thinks that a joke is still funny even if the punchline is delayed by 22 years.| Liberal Democrats' main promise was to bring electoral reform, unless i've been living in a parallel universe for the last five years that hasn't happenedYou haven't. And yes, electoral reform has not happened so far, but that is because Nick Clegg hasn't been Prime Minister so far. Maybe he has in your parallel universe, but as far as I know, David Cameron is the current PM. It's like asking the Green party why they haven't yet created a "a just, equitable and sustainable society" (ref 1). They just haven't been in a position to get it into practice yet. Natalie Bennett isn't Prime Minister yet either.Neither the Lib Dems nor the Greens (read: Green Party of England and Wales) have been in a position to introduce such a measure. Electoral reform would create representation in Parliament similar to the current polling - 30-ish% for the Conservatives. The Conservatives would have to pass the bill, and they'd rather have a 40% standing than a 30% one. Obviously, they wouldn't let it through.The Conservatives, to improve their own standing in the House of Commons, have made sure that truly proportional voting will not happen.
Conservatives are better than the Lib Dems

Are you seriously comparing the United Kingdom Independence Party to the Liberal Democrats. Liberal Democrats are supposed to be serious, not like the United Kingdom Independence Party who are frankly a joke. My second point is that the Liberal Democrats' main promise was to bring electoral reform, unless i've been living in a parallel universe for the last five years that hasn't happened. The Conservatives however brought the economy back from the ruins of Labour and limited immigration from when Labour said "Hey we love all of you, come live in Britain.
Conservatives are better than the Lib Dems

| First off the Lib Dems are lazy: they can't even be bothered to make their web address their full name: libdems.org.ukWell, by that logic, so are you. You can't even be bothered to use their full name in the motion or in the arguments. Lib Dems is an acceptable shortening of the term - and the longer version opens itself to many typo possibilities. Hardly anyone, except when being formal, ever uses the full length. Besides, when's the last time you heard someone say "United Kingdom Independence Party" as opposed to just UKIP?
Nationality Status for Srilankan Innocent Tamil People!

Then they should wither migrate to their homeland and become citizens, or move to another country which accepts new people and apply for citizenry in that country. I believe I have stated my point fairly clearly, and I wish you praise for using a language that is not your primary on a website full of strong, fluent speakers. This was a nice debate, and I enjoyed the "Absurdity" and deciphering, as a challenge, very much. Thank you for your time, and I hope you have good luck in all aspects of life. Adieu.
Nationality Status for Srilankan Innocent Tamil People!

You must be very serious while discussing these issues. I am not talking about countries where they can apply for Resident Visa for permanent stay. I am talking about countries where you cannot apply for those kind of VISA and they can extend their Business class of VISA for the required stay of time. Ultimately they should leave that country and return to their homeland. It is very funny to hear that it is the people to find solution. Unless government decide to bring an amicable solution it is very difficult to solve ethnic issues.
Nationality Status for Srilankan Innocent Tamil People!

It is not that they are staying there illegally. In those African countries they cannot obtain Nataionality status so easily. Either they can stay their with Business Visa. They are prolonging their stay there, because they could not reach home. As I told early the Srilankan Government should work with a limited time frame ( 3 to 6 months ) and try to bring peace in Srilanka politically and settle Tamil's issue without further delay.
Nationality Status for Srilankan Innocent Tamil People!

My dear friend, I should thank you first for advising me to learn English. Please understand in so many countries Srilankan Tamils are living without Nationality status, nor they could return and settle themselves in Srilanka. So we are talking only about the people who are still in refugee status in different countries. Try to post valid comments otherwise you please stop advising others. What security measure has been taken for the Tamils who are still in camp in their own land in Srilanka and when they will be assured a normal life.
Nationality Status for Srilankan Innocent Tamil People!

Very Very simple to understand! It is very simple though Tamilians who were born in Srilanka and their ancestors where there in that land for generations together or not given any human rights. It is very simple they don't even know whether they are citizens of their own land. What a shame in this 21st century. Not only that, still Srilankan Tamils who left during the problem who stay in country like African Countries are still in very big problem. They cannot stay peacefully there also nor they can re-enter Srilanka peacefully. Why still Tamils in their own land are kept in a camp as refugee?