BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
women has a lot of freedom in Islam

i would like to talk about some of the verses that you have put up and a big the MISUNDERSTANDING you have about them. "The share of the male shall be twice that of a female " you see this verse as sexist. how? i would like to explain to you somethings that has happened in the past. Before the Prophet PBUH's time women were not allowed to earn any living, If their father died she was not able to have any sharing from that fathers earnings. But when the Prophet PBUH came, he change everything and allowed women to have some sharings passed on. BUT. Imagine this. You have a brother. Your father dies. You are allowed to get some sharings that the father left but more has to be given to the brother. WHY? Well because the man takes care of the family. Women in those times didnt work, mostly men did. So the care taker of the family is the men. In this case the brother must get most of the sharings because he must take care of the sister and mother and the whole family. You have totally misunderstood that verse. If you think about it. Women is getting most of the sharings. this is because the brother is spending most of his money for the family's wellbeing. The sister can use that money in any way possible and it doesnt necessarily be for the family. But the brother cannot. He msut use the money for the family. How is this sexism. Also i relized that you love giving examples from the quran but you have failed to noticed that in the quran the words 'female' and 'male' is written in exactly that same number. Both in exact smae quantity. Women was seens as property in the past and islam changed this. so how dare you say that islam does not give rights to women. Please answer this question. Which part of the world with the main religion islam discriminates women? you say that i experience soemthing some women in islam does not. but you have forgotten that islam has obligatory acts so all women in islam should be treated exactly how i am being treated because i come from an strict muslim family. To tell you the truth women is kinda more equal then men, in my opinion.
Resolved: The Use of Marijuana for Recreational Purposes Should Be Prohibited

Rules:1) Do not troll, please debate appropriately. 2) Have proper debate etiquette (e.g. use proper grammar, capitalization, etc.).3) Do not use fake or satire sources. (A list of fake and satire websites can be found here: www.snopes.com/2016/01/14/fake-news-sites/)4) Arguments must be submmited within a 72 hour period.5) Arguments must contain 10,000 or less characters.Layout:First round is acceptance.Second round is your first argument.Third round is rebuttals.The last round is why you did better than your opponent.Definition(s):Marijuana - "the dried leaves and flowers of the hemp plant (Cannabis sativa)."I (Pro) argue that the use of marijuana for recreational purposes should be prohibited.My opponent (Con) argues that the use of marijuan for recreational purposes should not be prohibited.Let the debate begin, and good luck to my opponent.
There is not enough evidence to prove that I am not the easter Bunny.

Thank you for posting your next argument. So you claim that something is only real if everyone thinks it is? This is a logical fallacy. I noticed that you are Muslim, most people do not believe that your religion is true. So does that mean your religion is only Imagination? Same could go for Atheism, Christianity, Mormons, ect… As I said in my previous argument, just because we say and think something is false does not make it false. If everyone but one person said that there is no sky, would that make the sky disappear? No, the sky would still be here. Thought can not change anything. So you admit that I could be the Easter Bunny in my imagination, yes that is true. But I also could be the Easter Bunny in real life. You also can not prove that I am just imagining. Where is your solid proof that the Easter Bunny does not exist? You have failed to provide it. There is not much more I can say this round. You have made it clear that I am most likely not the Easter Bunny, but you still have not 100% confirmed it. I look forward to your next argument.
There is not enough evidence to prove that I am not the easter Bunny.

My opponent states that the easter bunny myth is a part of folklore. Folklore is generally accepted by most people as fictional stories which means that the easter bunny story is not believed by most people. As a result, it would be impossible for my opponent to be the easter bunny unless it was accepted and believed by everybody. My opponent could be the easter bunny in people's imaginations only. Imagination: 1. the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses. 2. the action or process of forming such images or concepts. 3. the faculty of producing ideal creations consistent with reality, as in literature, as distinct from the power of creating illustrative or decorative imagery. Compare fancy (def. 2). 4. the product of imagining; a conception or mental creation, often a baseless or fanciful one. 5. ability to face and resolve difficulties; resourcefulness: a job that requires imagination. 6. Psychology. the power of reproducing images stored in the memory under the suggestion of associated images (reproductive imagination) or of recombining former experiences in the creation of new images directed at a specific goal or aiding in the solution of problems (creative imagination). 7. (in Kantian epistemology) synthesis of data from the sensory manifold into objects by means of the categories. 8. Archaic. a plan, scheme, or plot. http://dictionary.reference.com... The act of imagining things is a mental process which involves images of things that aren't actually present. As my opponent is physically present and the easter bunny is not, it is a fragment of his imagination that he's the easter bunny. He just imagine that he is. As for the various possibilities my opponent provided as to how he could be the easter bunny, they are yet unable to be proved correct or incorrect by science. My opponent imagines them to be true so he can be the easter bunny which then again is the work of his mind. My opponent also claims not to be a crook. Even if this is true he would still be convicted for trespassing onto other people's property. This doesn't happen to the easter bunny because he's imaginary, inside people's minds.
There is not enough evidence to prove that I am not the easter Bunny.

Thank you. My opponent states that there's not enough evidence to prove that he's not the easter bunny. However, I can try to prove otherwise. Technically speaking, Koopin couldn't be the easter bunny. He/she is defined as being a large rabbit that goes around to children's houses on easter to deliver eggs and other treats to children. This is done in a fashion similar to that of santa claus; the children are sleeping while he comes and must be well-behaved beforehand. http://en.wikipedia.org... It is a common fact that it is in fact the children's parents acting as the easter bunny as the easter bunny as described in the myth doesn't actually exist. By this logic, any parent is technically the "easter bunny" for their children. I doubt my opponent has children(at least I hope he doesn't at his age...) or that he breaks into other people's houses in order to give stranger's children gifts. Doing so would have him convicted as a crook. Also, my opponent also has his religious views listed as "Christian". Easter is traditionally a celebration of Jesus's resurrection after being crucified on good friday. This alone has no relations to a bunny or eggs and this is the holiday my opponent likely believes in as a Christian. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
There is not enough evidence to prove that I am not the easter Bunny.

I apologize for not realizing there was a fourth round. Now to continue. .. Sources may say that the easter bunny has its origins in Southwestern Germany, however these origins lie in the imaginations of German children rather than an easter bunny actually existing in Southwestern Germany. I highly doubt my opponent is German(according to his profile he is American) or hundreds of years old. Also, I highly doubt bunnies can type or use a computer so if my opponent was the easter bunny I doubt he would be using a computer. If the easter bunny really was a super intelligent rabbit he would have no reason to use a computer even if he could. :) He would know everything that's going on anyway just like how he would know if children were bahaving or misbehaving. Parents are able to confess the non-existance of the easter bunny as in reality they're actually the easter bunny. The children just believe the easter bunny exists because of their parent's actions in secrecy. However, the same cannot be said about religious beliefs. A child's parents isn't God as that goes against the complete Abrahamic view of God. I aslo would like to bring up my opponent's point that humans cannot know everything. This is a true statement thus making it impossible for any one human to be the easter bunny as he supposibly knows stuff that any human does not. So once again, I say that it's impossible for my opponent to be the easter bunny.
There is not enough evidence to prove that I am not the easter Bunny.

Thank you for posting your next argument. There are many things wrong with it though. You claim that it is a myth created by children's imagination, this is wrong. Your very own source says that the Easter Bunny seems to have its origins in Alsace and southwestern Germany. No where does it say that it was created by a child's imagination. It also does not say that the Easter bunny is a myth. The fact is that no one knows exactly where it came from, but it was first mentioned in German writings. You say that Parents confess to their Children that the bunny is not real. Let me ask you something, do parents know everything? If one of your parents told you that you are a Atheist does that make you an Atheist? If your Parents tell you that your hair is green, does that make your hair green? If your parents tell me that your whole religion is wrong, dumb, and foolish, does that make your religion wrong, dumb, and foolish? Humans are not perfect; therefore they can not know everything. The reason parents tell their kids that there is no Easter Bunny is because it is most likely that the bunny does not exist. In reality, parents can not prove to their children that the Bunny is real or not real. You say that there is no definite proof that the Easter Bunny exists. If you re-read my round 2 argument you will realize that I am not trying to prove that I am the Bunny. Rather, you must prove that I am not, which is impossible. Take my religion; I can not logically prove to everyone that my God exists. Does that make him nonexistent? Same thing with your religion, and Atheism. You say that because there are pictures on my profile of me, makes it impossible for me to be a bunny. Well first of all, pictures never tell the truth. That could be some random person I found on the internet. I will prove that by uploading a random person to my pictures here: http://www.debate.org... Secondly, read my argument in round 2. I state that I could possibly turn into a human, dog, or cat. I do not have to prove any of this, you must prove that I am not the Easter Bunny which you have failed to do. It would seem that you have given up; there is still one more round. you still have not refuted all the possibilities. Even if you refuted my possibilities I listed, you would still have to disprove every single possibilty. I look forward to your response. Audience, I urge a Pro vote. Sources: (1). http://www.debate.org...
There is not enough evidence to prove that I am not the easter Bunny.

I state that my opponent is not the easter bunny in real life. It is impossible as it is a myth created by children's imaginations. Many parents often confess to their children that there's not really an easter bunny, but that it's them taking on the role of hiding the eggs on easter. The easter bunny only becomes a part of a child's imagination if their parents allow it. This proves that there's no definite proof that the easter bunny exists. Even if he did my opponent isn't the easter bunny. There are pictures of a human Koopin on his profile thus eliminating the fact that he could be a bunny. One cannot be human and bunny at the same time unless it's in their imagination(just like people could imagine the sky disappearing, but it wouldn't actually disappear). My opponent imagines he's the easter bunny rather than actually being the easter bunny. Plain and simple. I thank my opponent for a fun and clever debate. Cheers!
Developing countries ought to prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction

Since the argument is set up that their is no other possible alternative: Developing countries OUGHT NOT to prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction. Developing nations need security. Developing nations are vulnerable to attack from stronger nations and thus need to use their own resources for Economic self- sufficiency and military development, least they be prey to more developed nations. Developed nations will start wars to take advantage of less developed weaker nations so that they can exploit these resources at the expense of the environment.
I will not contradict myself

there are only three rounds; Questions 1. are you gay? 2. Is DDO the greatest site in the world? 3. Are your ancestors from africa? 4. Is technology progressing to fast? 5. is carbon dioxide good for the planet? 6. was the tsunami in japan objectively speaking a good thing? 7. In case the population gets to high should we bomb Inida? 8. Are humans moral? 9. Does god exist? 10. Did you join DDO because you're alone and have no friends?
I will not contradict myself

Resolved: I will not contradict myself.Rules:1. CON must post 10 questions, directed at PRO, that could be answered with a 'yes' or 'no' or else CON loses. This does not apply to the final round.2. PRO must respond to all questions posed by CON in some manner or else PRO loses.3. If PRO's response does not give any opinion (e.g. "I don't know" or "I'm not sure"), then CON is entitled to another question next round. This is the only reason CON may post more than 10 questions.4. PRO wins if he is found never to have contradicted himself. Likewise, CON wins if he can prove that PRO has contradicted himself.5. Only statements made by PRO in rounds 2, 3, and 4 of this debate are subject to be examined for contradiction. No outside sources (my profile, previous debates, etc.) are applicable. Statements made by PRO in this debate not in direct response to any question posed by CON are still applicable.6. Round 5 no more questions can be asked, it is for final defense of PRO that in the previous rounds he has not contradicted himself and CON to make his/her finale case that PRO in fact did contradict himself.++++++++++I bid good luck to my opponent! Let the debate begin!
I will not contradict myself

Sure we can try again, but continuing onto another debate might confuse the voters. Q5I was using the term "can't" and "doesn't" synonomysly. Regardless, I didn't contradict myself, but rather the rules of nature. Q7This is an opinion question. It violates rule 1.Q10Nowhere on my profile states why I joined DDO.Q9O.K.Q8Violation of rule 1.Q4I agree technology is developed by science, but that doesn't mean things like cars and planes are prohibited from moving.Q3It can be percieved as one. If you don't like it, ask another question (well its too late now. Damn.)Q1Then I would disagree with that survey. I can assure you, I am not gay and in fact against the idea of it.1 Do you smoke?No I do not smoke.
I will not contradict myself

If you want we can continue this in another debate. Q5 I would like to point out that the planet can't care what it's composed of since it has no brain do you agree? since you stated the planet doesn't care you attributed thought to 'the planet' Q7 If the population get's to high that means that there will be less food, and oxygen, and more diseases. So how can it not be a good thing to bomb the most populated country in the world. And why should we help them? Q10 you're profile disagrees with you :p Q9 i don't get it Q8 a nuclear power plant is spilling waste into the ocean. it is not at all a good thing. so how can it be perceived as a good thing. Q4 it wasn't meant to be too it was meant to be to technology doesn't move at all, technology is developed by scientists. do you agree? Q3 can that even be considered an answer? Q1 are you sure you seem gay to me. what if there was a survey taken and it said do you smoke?
I will not contradict myself

Darn. I messed up. Oh well. 1. are you gay?No, I am not gay.2. Is DDO the greatest site in the world?No, DDO is not in my opinion the greatest site in the world3. Are your ancestors from africa?I am not aware of any of my ancestors being from africa, but it is a possiblity.4. Is technology progressing to fast?If the "to" was meant to be "too", then my answer is: In my opinion, technology is moving too quickly.5. is carbon dioxide good for the planet?The planet doesn't care what it is composed of; it could be composed of trees or radioactive material and wouldn't make a difference in the slightest.6. was the tsunami in japan objectively speaking a good thing?It can be perceived as a good thing.7. In case the population gets to high should we bomb Inida?It would not be beneficial to humanitarian efforts, so no in my opinion we should not bomb india if the population gets too high.8. Are humans moral?I don't know. Ask a different question.9. Does god exist?I believe a god exists.10. Did you join DDO because you're alone and have no friends?No, I joined DDO because I was interested in the subjects of Gay marriage and abortion.
Economics should be taught in every primary school

Pro said it only educates younger minds in what they should do in their future life and how to make better decisions. Kids and/or teens should not be forced into learning about economics, especially in school. Kids should chose whether they want to take this course. If someone wants to learn something they are not forced into it. Same applies here! If one chooses not to have knowledge on economics then let them be. Therefore, students should not be forced into taking economics and they should not be forced to have the knowledge on economics.
Economics should be taught in every primary school

The first question I ask is why not have economics at all primary schools? it only educates younger minds in what they should do in their future life and how to make better decisions. How come there is a debate about if 16-year-olds should be able to vote when they are not educated in politics? We could perhaps have that debate later on but it is unthinkable now since so many have no idea what is going on in the world of economy! Anyway, I think that i have voiced my opinion well and will let anyone challenge me if hey would like to. Moving on to the opposition...
Economics should be taught in every primary school

Pro has stated : I only said that it should be taught in schools meaning that it should be introduced into every curriculum, and that The opposition has not also fully addressed their point. First of all what i meant by forced was that if economics gets introduced into the curriculum it should be optional to have that class, me personally, i am not interested in economics at all so why should i have to take a class i dislike just because someone suggests it. And i have clearly stated my point. Economics is not something everyone appreciates. The course should be optional, and music does become optional when you get older so that is nothing to complain about pro. ( i take it that you don't like music much? ) :)
The dominance of two major political parties in the U.S presidential elections undermines democracy.

My opponent's only argument that was made, was that democracy does not mandate that there are two parties. This is not in any way what I am getting at in my case. First and foremost, I am talking about how the two party system works through the Electoral College to stop third-party candidates getting anywhere in the elections. Right there, we can see that I clearly acknowledge that there are more than two parties in the United States, yet there are only to major ones. Whilst people have choice, it is only further distorted by the two major political parties. This leads to polarization and leads to no moderates in politics which is problematic in its own right. Also, my opponent never hit the main point of my case that the two party system through using the Electoral College distorts the "consent of the governed" and in turn violates it. Being that the two party system through the Electoral College violates the "consent of the governed" (there was no argument to this fact, so my opponent must agree and it must stand for the rest of the round) it in turn violates democracy and is there for a detriment. Thank you, I strongly urge you to vote for the affirmative ballot, thank you.
Affirmative Action

Second Round: 1st Constructive (Arguments are presented and refuted. ) Third Round: 2nd Constructive (New arguments can be presented but old arguments do not drop unless conceded to. ) Fourth Round: Rebuttals (Final rebuttals and a summary of debate are presented. Voters MUST be provided! ) Affirmative Action: This debate will be about being For or Opposed to Affirmative action and nothing else. All citations must be noted ([1]) inside the arguments after quotation marks if necessary. Definitions of words that may be argued specifically must be provided before using said words. If you use a word for a specific reason that word must be defined. If it is not, and your opponent infers it differently and presents a definition, you must use that definition. Conversely, if you would like to present a counter definition, you must explain why you meet it, and whether or not you meet the opponents definition as well. Spelling and grammar will be voting issues and are valid arguments in this debate. Good luck to Pro, I look forward to an educational debate.