BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Muhammad Ibn Abdullah spoke falsehoods in some authentic hadeeths

Niqash, your assumption of my argument being weak and etc. is subjective, objectively they are not. I did not misinterpret anything, I just gave the same interpretation of Muslims of last 1.4 centuries, it is you who tries to interpret it as you want, and then say it is wrong. Hadith says keys of unseen knowledge is 5, not the unseen knowledge, because we know that unseen knowledge is more than 5, for example we don't know who will go to hell or heaven, if the Hadith means what you want it to mean, then prophet gave one less item. But we know that Hadith does not mean what you want it to mean, because the very first word of Hadith (first word in English translation of Hadith) - "KEY". And if we leaved in Newtonian universe your claim would be somewhat rational, but in our universe it is not. And it is fact that you cannot make an absolute claim for/about anything and anytime. Sorry, I think I gave the wrong source, but I also lost the web links. But I did enough research on it. You are claiming that Uzair is Ezra, but you need to empirically prove it, and you did not. Secondly it is historical, therefore whatever you say about it is going to Testimony, we cannot observe it or test it in lab. Thirdly Uzair is not Arabic version of Ezra, the Arabic version of Ezra is Alif-Zaay-Raa-Alif or 'Ayn-Zaay-Raa-Alif, however Uzair is 'Ayn-Zaay-Yaa'-Raa, entirely two different words, thirdly there are several western scholars, such as Professor Gordon Darnell Newby associate Uzair with Enoch, who is son of YHWH[1]. And there are some who even associate Uzair with Azariah such as Professor Viviane Comerro. So if you say Uzair is Ezra you have to empirically prove that all other versions of Uzair is false. And I do not know how are you going to observe or test them, but you can try.Debating the sex of baby as other topic is irrational when you already brought up the keys of unseen. Because it is already included there. And I gave the answer. I read your rebuttal, and I laughed, because it shows you do not have any idea who God is and who God is not in Islam, God does not depend on anything or anyone or anyone's question(s) for His actions. But anyway let me give you a lesson on grammar. Hadith says "would it be" not "will it be", the rational people would (or rather should) ask what the difference is. When we say "will" we talk about future, things we want (or willing) to do, or we making promises. But when we say "would" we talk about past. Therefore when angel says "would it be" that means it is already decided but the angel does not know. Hereby, I thank my teacher. And yes God gives the shape, because God is Creator, and as Creator when He creates, He creates with attributes, properties, therefore He is also Creator of attributes and properties of His creation. I used ridicules, in the argument, and my intention is not to insult anyone. I just want to show how Niqash's argument is irrational in funny way. :)1. - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Muhammad Ibn Abdullah spoke falsehoods in some authentic hadeeths

Five things only God knows. These five things belongs to Ilmi Al-Ghayb, which means only God knows these things. But that does not mean Ilmi Al-Ghayb consists of only these five things. And it does not mean these things are unknown for eternity, for example, "nobody knows what will happen tomorrow" does not mean, whatever happens tomorrow, when tomorrow comes, will be unknown for everyone, even when we are in tomorrow. For example, you are pretty sure (with confidence interval 99%) tomorrow you will hack debate.org website. What if you die tonight, or website crashes, or your stuff explodes, or you have been hacked or etc. (I can go for eternity, if it was physically possible). Premise: "Nobody knows what will happen at next second of his/her life." Therefore all these five things are true. Whatever you will say about tomorrow (or any data relating with one of these categories) is going to be based on retrospective data of our experiences, which means we are arguing for future based on data from past.And point of hadith is "do not make absolute claims regarding these issues" not "do not rely on statistical data" or "do not study weather conditions" or etc.. Ezra The source is "Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 6, Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, page 1108". Your counter argument is Ibn Hazim lived in Cordoba (around 9th-10th century, and Cordoba of Spain) then his arguments are purely conjecture without any basis, which throws out the majority historical data. And it underestimates Ibn Hazim, who is the author of "Scope of Logic" who said "the Sun is always vertical to a particular spot on Earth" and "woman can be political leader". Baby The hadith does not say the sex is given after certain period of time, it says God decides to give it final shape, which is true, if God created an object, it means God created its attributes and properties with it. And angel asking for sex of baby and etc., means even angels, for certain time period does not know the sex of baby. Which means for a certain time period no one knows the sex of a baby, except God. Your assumption fails, because hadith does not say anything about sex is given after the certain period of time, it just say angel does not know the sex, so he asks God and then writes it and other stuff.
At school pieces of art work shouldn't be graded/levelled

I have a very close friend, she draws amazing. She now started going to this art class (not in school) and she came back to me and she was very lightened up. In their art class they were told to bring something they had created, and the art teacher showed them how to make it better. He taught them painting techniques, and how you know where to put more shadows and such things. The painting she brought back after class was a very improved version of the original one. If an art teacher is not acting professional thats not ok, and they should be changed, but that is irrelevant, unless you want to see that all art teachers are incredibly unprofessional, which is highly unlikely. And I disagree with you that there is no wrong in art. Art has "fashions" times where specific kinds of arts are more accpeted and others less, some art is timeless, which is usually if you draw a painting very true to the actual thing you were capturing, nearly like a photo, it will always be amazing and treated well.
At school pieces of art work shouldn't be graded/levelled

Yes but can you really learn art ? I believe that you can draw naturally or you can't. I don't think someone can just walk in and teach you art. It is good to get feed back on a piece of art work but not everyone wants it from an art teacher. Yes they may have an art degree but it doesn't mean they will mark it professionally. I think that art teachers will go on their personal opinion of the work rather than looking at the piece with an open mind. I think that mark schemes are completely wrong in art. There's no right or wrong answer in the subject. It's your interpretation.
At school pieces of art work shouldn't be graded/levelled

yes, people should draw whatever they feel like, at home. In art class, the point is to teach you, when they grade you art work badly, they should give you feedback as to why you got that grade, what would have made it better, perhaps if you added color or shadows. You don't need to accept their criticism, but if they grade all ok art pieces a very high grade, no one will learn. It should be thought of as a professional's opinion, I do think the teacher should explain in class that it's her personal opinion and although somewhat professional, it might be that other people disagree with her. She should say that if you get low grades it doesn't mean you are a bad artist, in fact, most really successful people kind of failed in their fields in school. Because there are better and worse pieces, I do think people should be graded, as long as they are given feedback and it's a learning process.
At school pieces of art work shouldn't be graded/levelled

I understand what you are saying. I'm not trying to say that everyone is a great artist but I think that if someone has done a good piece of artwork and they get a low grade for it ( when it is a good piece ) they may be disheartened and think they are no good at art. Every bodies interpretation is different for instance some people think that Matisse's snail picture was rubbish while on the other hand people may like it. I mean I'm not trying to say every piece of artwork is spectucular and should be hanged in a gallery. Isn't art all about expressing your self though? So shouldn't people be able to draw, paint, sketch how they feel and not be judged for that?
At school pieces of art work shouldn't be graded/levelled

There is a reason why some artists are very famous and a lot of money would be paid for their art work, and other people's art isn't as popular/famous. In school, when a kid is not as good as another kid at math, sometimes no matter how hard they try, they will never be as good. Some kids will never be able to solve very very difficult mathematical problems, and some kids will never be incredibly artists. Those subjects both are graded in school, because that is a way to allow you to know which one is better than the other. Saying all art pieces are just as good, is undermining the subject of art. My drawings will never be as good as Piccaso's or Dali's. Art is harder to measure, just like it's harder in a history test to say if the answer you gave should be graded 80 or 90, and in math it's rather straightforward -how- you grade it. That doesn't mean that there is no one that is better than the other in art, it just means you need to think harder to know how to grade it. Usually, school standards allow you, even if you are very bad at something, to hold decent scores, because it's fit for the average kid and not for the brilliant one in each subject. In that way it doesn't majorly harm you if you are not amazing in arts, or for that matter if you struggle in history/math.
Should same sex marriage be legal? Yes or no.

Hello there my friend. Good luck on this debate. :) IntroductionBefore we begin, I'd like to say that I in no way at all am against homosexuality as a concept. Some of my best friends are gay, some of my favorite musicians and actors are gay, Et cetera, Et cetera. I am also in no way against homosexual individuals being together. However, The subject of marriage is a different one. Today in this debate I contend that gay marriage is, On whole, Not allowable in society and thus should not be legal. Contention I: Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman This argument is constantly dropped by conservatives everywhere, But there's meaning behind it. Marriage, Before the times of Judaism and Christianity, Was viewed as a civil union for the benefit of the man, But these religions transformed it from something to be done for the benefit of both families into an everlasting bond of love. The tradition that marriage should be a union between man and woman is something held for millenia in the Christian faith, And as such has grown to be a traditional, Sacred aspect of Christian life. Legalizing gay marriage slanders that tradition. Again, I am not arguing against the union of gay individuals, But I am arguing that they should not be brought into wedlock. Contention II: Statistics show children need both a mother and a fatherIt has been statistically shown that children benefit extremely from having both a mother and a father. a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. (see sources). Another study by David Poponoe suggests that a father's pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter, That a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, And gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends. As for gay couples, It has also been shown that mothers provide emotional security for young children. Obviously, They also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, Emotional, And social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence. As such, It should be quite clear that marital unions (Which are generally formed to raise children) should be reserved for one male and one female. ~~~~Thank you for your debate today. I will now await your response. Best wishes.
Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the US

I will attack my opponets case then provide my own, one of his main arguments is economics. You must see the negation to be the most beneficial economical option for these reasons. First when immigrants become documented citizens this qualifies them for welfare programs such as obama care and unemployment benefits. According to cis 57 percent of immigrants documented and undocumented use at least 1 welfare program costing an estimated 517 billion dollars. So you must see that immigrants cost more then what they provide and making them documented sends a message that it is okay to not seek employment but to just live off welfare programs. Second his stats saying that immigrants boost gdp do not stand any ground because we cannot directly correlate gdp with immigration. Then he goes on to argue cultural diversity, there will be no enhancement in cultural diversity because A) He has no stats to further this claim and B) There is a 20 year waiting list for immigrants to seek citizenship so therefore prioritizing the undocumented citizens will not further cultural diversity Now you must see the negation for these reasons A) It is unfair to not let the people who are in the twenty year waiting list and who are going through the fair legal process not proiritize people who came into the country illegally B) It furthers that it is permissable to break legislation and come here illegally. For these reasons i urge an negative ballot
Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the US

Undocumented immigrants granted citizenship would contribute immensely to both our economy and culture. According to the Center for American Progress in a report published in May of 2013, the acquisition of citizenship would allow undocumented immigrants to produce and earn significantly more, creating 121,000 new jobs each year and paying an additional $109 billion in taxes. Not only that, according to a report titled "Immigration and the Economy," immigration reform would create a 3.3 percent increase in the Gross Domestic Product in 2023, and a 5.4 percent increase in 2033.
Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the US

In my opponent's arguments, he fails to provide evidence to support his claims. Also, the structure of his arguments are quite confusing to follow. He only says my arguments are unreliable but does not go on to explain how or why, giving no legitimate refutations. My opponent claims my cultural diversity argument is "substancial"; in other words he is saying that it is in fact of considerable importance. Yet even if he meant that cultural diversity is not substantial, how can this be true when America was a nation founded upon immigrants? Some of you may have heard of the American Dream; James Truslow Adams, in his book The Epic of America, stated that the American dream is "that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement . . . a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position." What right do we have to kick out these immigrants who seek the same freedoms and opportunities that our founding fathers had sought? Now to address my opponent's "counterplan," he states that for these undocumented immigrants to join this country, they must "adhere to the legal process." However, this is not possible for the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently residing in the U.S. because THERE IS NO PATH. The only way for them to go through the legal process is if we deport all 11 million of them--an impractical feat that would only further complicate the situation. Therefore, a path to citizenship is the ideal solution. As for my Christian Science Monitor statistic, my opponent claims that it is also not "substancial." However, he does not refute my argument on any ground; my opponent has only been claiming my arguments to be unsubstantial without providing any evidence as to why. Therefore, all of my arguments still stand true. Additionally, my opponent claims that I have stated "through illegal immigration can we prevent illegal information" when I have done nothing of the sort. Finally, my opponent calls my argument about the quality of life for undocumented immigrants "subjective." Yet how can it be subjective when it is the truth? There are millions of undocumented immigrants who are being abused and harassed in our very own nation--their HUMAN RIGHTS are being violated. How can you turn a cold shoulder on all these people who have come to our nation seeking freedom and opportunity and are constantly harassed due to their illegal status? Human rights are entitled to any and every person, regardless of race, sex, ethnicity, origin, etc. It is immoral and unjust to deprive these people of their basic rights. For all these reasons, I strongly urge a PRO ballot in this debate. Thank you.
Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the US

I will attack for opponets attacks and provide my own He counteracts my statistic and says that altough there is aburden it cant outweigh that they are provideing jobs in that survey it didnt provide a job success rate meaning we cant weigh those statistic but he counters by saying they bring 776 billion revenue but most of this revenue goes to the buissnessman and about 11 percent goes to the country so therefore his statistics cant counteract mine. And he attacks my source but his attacks are conspirical and this is a fact based debate. Secondly the lack of warrant to causation in the gdp statistic non weighable. Thirdly his cultural diversisty has no impact That is substancial. Forth my counterplan os that in order to join thus country you have to adhere to the legal process and in order to prevent this deportation and enhhancement inn security wil prevent this. Also his christan science moniter statistic is not substancial and there will always be millions of people coming into the country. And saying that through illegal immigration can we prevent illegal information makes no sense. Finally his attacks on quality of life is subjective and most people would rather adhere to fairness than non legislation Vote neg
The 13 British American Colonies could have become a Federation with a Constitutional Monarchy

I agree with the idea. I will use the history of Canada as an example of why this would have been very possible south of the border. First, the geopolitical situation was in favour. Spanish threats to the south and threats from Aboriginals were good grounds for colonial leaders the call for unity among the colonies just as colonists in Canada had done with the perceived looming threat of an American invasion post-civil war America. Second domestic political structure would be in place. The Colonists feud with Parliament would have brought up the idea of an "American Parliament" which would deal with the domestic affairs of the state while the British Parliament dealt with foreign and constitutional affairs as what happened with the Dominion of Canada. Third, this idea was already supported. Benjamin Franklin who was a delegate to the Albany Congress in which he proposed a "plan of a union under Britain" one that was rejected by the colonial legislatures and the British Board of Trade. Franklin even concedes that had the colonies united the revolution may not have happened or at least not as it did and at the time it did.
There is no proof of God

as I stated before, I can't exactly prove his existence, only evidence that infer God may be real. we don't exactly have his autograph or his hand print in the sidewalk of Hollywood you know. I never said the bible was a historical book, just that it had prophecies that came true. which if i'm not mistaken is a staple of what God can only do;tell prophet what will come to pass. if he isn't real then how would a man logically calculate something very specific far away in the future? it Highly unlikely it was fabricated either since the book of Daniel is a Jewish scripture, a religion that condemn false witness and prophets, and for it to even be possible it can't be some ordinary person editing it; it would have been a highly educated scribe that had comprehensive knowledge of history and current event. that would mean they were a prominent member in society. in other word a person who does has something to lose if he desecrated holy texts. i'll give you the fact the bible was edited several times over the course of history before the invention of the printer. but so far most biblical texts we found such as the Dead Sea Scroll are %98 the same to what you can find in a regular Bible or Torah also you forgotten to evaluate the laying of hand part or the book of Enoch as for the ten horns I mention. I used the word "initially" so I don't bombard you with text but to put it in context here SKIP IF NOT INTERESTED Revelation 13 " I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. and to address your mistaken belief that God want to kill you if you don't follow him; No, he want you to be "good" and to walk by grace. which is why he sent his son to redeem the world. a parable to illustrate that point "any tree that bear bad fruits will be uprooted and cast into the fire" Matthew 7. Jesus even state that those the follow him but practice wickness will be condemned. it a long story, so to summarize it, you eventually worship him because you realize what he is and what he represent:hope. so even if God isn't real, I'll still follow him. though at that point I be called a Humanitarian. therefore I believe God didn't condemn those people for receiving the mark itself. but by extension reigning humanity to a eternal nightmare.
There is no proof of God

Also yes I was talking about the Christian God, sorry about that. So what if a prediction came true, that doesn"t prove God"s existence. Also what proof do you have that show these predictions were made before Alexander the Great. The bible was finalised about 100 years after Jesus" death, 300 years after Alexander"s death. Therefore the predictions could have been altered so they made sense. The bible isn"t a history book written by historians. It will be wrong. The story about the horns is a bit weird as although there is something to do with the horns, or so you say, in the same bit of text, God says something along the lines of, worship me or be killed. That doesn"t sound like a God i would want to know about, let alone worship. For your thing I would like you to answer the question, why we haven"t found any proof of God if he exists.