BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Construction of Islam

Mirza was previously going to accept my "Convert Me" debate, but someone else bogarted it. Mirza had indicated that he wanted 2 full rounds to introduce the Koran. So here's how the debate will work. Mirza will make arguments in round 1 and 2. My rebuttals in round 2 and 3 will consist only of 4000 words. This is to give Mirza's first rebuttal in round 3 a chance of actually addressing all my counter arguments. Afterwards, there is no char limit. Now I'm just going to run prestandards. You can argue against them or you can leave them. They aren't directly offensive. === Prestandards === Its all about abuse. In debate, an “abusive” argument is one where one side cannot win no matter what. 1) Bringing up new arguments in the last round is “abusive” because the other debater cannot respond to them. So no new arguments in the last round. 2) Dropping arguments and bringing them up later allows an unfair advantage. For example, if I argue A B and C in R1, then change to D E and F in R2, I can just pick whatever combination of arguments my opponent did not have space to address in R3. Particularly, I could just wait untill the last round to pick up ABC again, and then my opponent wouldn't be able to have any defense. So to avoid abuse, dropped arguments count as concessions. *note this does not apply to Mirza in R1/2, because I've given him permission to run arguments A B C and D E F. Starting in R3, Mirza is responsible for everything. 3) Evidence! Consider that if linking evidence were sufficient condition for advocacy, rounds could be technically won by spamming evidence. Debaters could link entire books, and so long as the opponent did not address every argument made in hundreds of pages, the spammer would win. Therefore, evidence should be tagged explicitly to have an impact. Quoted if possible/necessary. Debaters ought not to be responsible for unexplained sources. Anyway, cheers!
Women should not play a ministerial role that consists of teaching men

To begin, I would like to address an inappropriate point of protocol used by my opponent. My opponent tried to defend the ambiguity of his topic with the remark; "everyone knows what I mean". To simply refute this statement I would like to say that I did not "know what you mean" thus deeming this statment false. But to further my rebuttal, I would like to point out the conceded bias expressed by opponent with this statement. According to religioustolerance, only 33% of the world population was Christian as of 2000. My opponent was obviously making the statement "everyone knows what I mean" under the bias of his own personal religious views and by doing this, he has disregarded 66% of the religious views of the people of the world. My opponent clearly composed this whole topic with little consideration to the majority of cultures in the world, and when he himself requested voters to put their religious bias aside, my opponent based his whole argument on a very self centered view of religion. Next, I did not refute your definition of church simply because it was not used in the topic OR the first round, and because I defined the parameters of this debate under the book of the pali canon, my opponents definition of church is null and void. I refuse to discuss the Christian religion with my opponent today simply because he established this debate on a blind, one-sided view of religion, and expected me as well as viewers of this debate to disregard 66% of the world. I take the con side in this debate to refute my opponents case with two simple points: 1: I defined the parameters in the first round, and my opponent did not 2: My opponents arguments as well as his topic were based on a conceded and bias view of the largely universal term: Religion For these two irrefutable reasons, I have clearly won this debate and urge all viewers to vote Con. Thank you. . http://www.religioustolerance.org...
Women should not play a ministerial role that consists of teaching men

I agree that my opponent defined Bible first. Although I believe it was a rather silly semantic because everyone knows what I mean, I still negated it two ways. First, I said "the Bible", not just "a Bible". The dictionary definition is referring to "Bible" or "a Bible", not "the Bible". The means the main one. For example, if you say "the director" with no context to a movie, it is referring to the most popular director. Thus, "the Bible" is referring to the Christian Bible. Secondly, my opponent did not refute my definition of Church. Since this point flows to me, that shows that the definition of Bible will be the Christian Bible. With this point alone I have proved semantically that I am referring to the Christian Bible. Also, in round 1 I said the rules will be like policy. In policy, dropping an argument = conceding. My opponent forfeited round 2, thus all my responses fall through and those are enough to disprove his semantic. Moreover, Con did not refute my arguments in round 3 in any way shape or form. Thus those are conceded and they are enough to completely destroy my opponent's definition. Among the things Con conceded was the fact that from now on he is to prove his point with the Christian Bible. Thus if he does not do so, he has failed his duty. Next round is the last round he has to create arguments based on the Bible. (Round 5 is off limits because creating new points when you have the last say is abusive). If Con does not do so, I would ask that you vote Pro. If he does do so, I will disprove his Bible verses. Thank you, please vote Pro. At Con: Please use the Christian Bible rather than trying to argue with the pali canon any further. Using the pali canon now = ignoring all of my points.
Women should not play a ministerial role that consists of teaching men

I apologize for missing last round, I was at my cabin without Internet. So to continue, Dictionary.com defines the word bible as: "the sacred writings of any religion" therefore the pali canon does in fact fall under the definition of "Bible". furthermore, basic rules of debate.org permit terms to be established in the first round, and because I was the only participant to specify the word "bible" in the first round, my definition is the only one existing and all rebuttals to it are thereby out of order. At this point, my opponent has still failed to refute my first and only contention therefore it is most logical for you to vote in the Negation. Thank you.
Women should not play a ministerial role that consists of teaching men

Con did not respond. He concedes my point, and therefore next time he must use the Bible. Also, for those that want a semantic response, I'll take the liberty to define Church. Church will be defined as a Baptist, Christian church. Now, have you ever seen a Christian church use a Buddhist Bible? No. Have you ever seen them use anything BUT the Christian Bible that this is about? No. Therefore my opponent's analysis falls apart. Since the church is defined as Christian, the Pali Cannon will not and should not be used.
Women should not play a ministerial role that consists of teaching men

All I need to say is this: Of course I meant the Christian Bible. The "Pali Cannon" is not even called the Bible. As far as I know, the only Bible called the Bible is the Christian Bible. I did not say "a Bible", I said "the Bible". I hope that Con will now stick to the Bible that he knows I truly meant. Using a semantic on such a verge of silliness is, frankly, silly. You, as the voter, know I meant the Christian Bible. I eagerly await a real response by my opponent rather than a semantic or trying to argue that Pali Cannon further.
Women should not play a ministerial role that consists of teaching men

And thanks to you sir! Now to begin this debate, I would like to point our that my opponent did not specify in the topic or previous post, which bible we would discussing in this argument, and because he has allowed me to go first, I assume he is allowing me to define it. In this debate we will be disputing the text of The Pali Cannon. I stand in the firm negation of this topic for a single reason today. The overpowering deity in The Pali Cannon said himself: "there is no gender bias in Buddhism and nothing prevents a woman from becoming his successor." -The Dalai Lama Here we can see that it is the will of the hierarchy himself to allow women the place in a position of upper most religious power. For this reason I urge you all to vote strongly in the negation of the topic that Women should not play a ministerial role that consists of teaching men.
Women should not play a ministerial role that consists of teaching men

Secondly, I'll let my opponent begin with his/her arguments. I look forward to the debate round. Pro's stance is that Women should not, in essence, be pastors. Con will argue that women should. The debate will be based on the Bible. Thus whoever proves that the Bible agrees with their point wins. I would ask that the voters put aside all personal bias on the issue except for the top two radio buttons, which are purely opinion. The vote should be based on what the debaters said, not what you put in their mouths. Rules will be like policy debate. Con must present his/her contentions in round 1.
Do you think homeschooling should be aloud.

Hello Paul, and thanks for responding even with your busy work. In your arguments, there was a single thing that I wanted to ask you. What IF the parents force their kids to believe in religions, what IF they do not teach properly, what IF they do not have experiences? First of all how can you say that parents teach better than the teachers. Yes, parents MIGHT be a professional scholar. However, if you are saying that they are going to be a professional scholar, all the parents HAVE to be a professional scholar. And some parents might not have that quality. Second, you mentioned about night scouts. I strongly disagree with that. Night scouts are only about 3~4hours and compared with the 5~6 hours of daily social time in school, I have to say that it is not that effective as the schools. Plus, night scouts only does sports, recreation and stuff like that. But, school does more than just sports and recreation but, they study together, and work together as a team much more than the night scouts do.(As I said, kids spend about 5~6 hours in school) Third, you said about the subjects. However, you said, "but their parents will teach them subjects that they do not like as well especially if its a subject that is crucial for going to a good university" I do not think this is a good idea. This means that parents will force kids to study the things that they don't like no matter what of their opinion. I've found that more than 50% of the people thinks that students should decide their own future. In comparison, I've found that only 16% are agreeing that thinks parents should decide their future. Fourth, HOW CAN YOU BE SURE that parents will care for their child? What about the parents who work until the night? What about parents who can't afford money to do homeschooling? So, which is better? Good education quality with a professional who knows about teaching, or somebody who did NOT have ANY experience about home schooling? Fifth, you said about families being close. I do not think that parents and kids don't go together that well these days especially with all the modern technology and the Internet. This BIG generation gap will do a lot of impact on the parents and the kids as well as the whole family. Teens, for example disagree with their parents a lot. How are the parents going to teach them if they don't obey their parents? Sixth, you said about Christopher Paolini. Well... I can't exactly agree with you... He is only one person that is taught by home schooling and became a great person. What about all the people that are great? Some of them like General Douglas MacArthur was in a school, and was not taught by home schooling. In conclusion, we can say that home schooling is not very effective and public schools are much more better than home schooling.
Do you think homeschooling should be aloud.

Hello Paul, and hello to all the people who are watching this debate. First of all home schooling means that a parent thinks that a public school's education systems are not sufficient enough and thinks that they could teach better than the teachers in the public schools. However, there are many flaws in this system and I will say that in the following paragraph. 1. If the public school systems are not sufficient enough, why can you just make it better? And you cannot say that public school's education system are less efficient because, the public school's education system is proves by the government and which has been accepted by the specialists who study education of students. How can you say that unless you are an professional in education, that your teaching method is more effective than a professional scholar? 2. The child who does home schooling will not be used to the society. In school, we could build social relationships among people. However, when you do home schooling, it's only you, your parents, and maybe your tutor. This means that when they get in to the real society, they will not be able to get used to it and cry for their mother. 3. You said that the students will have more freedom in choosing subjects. But here's the bad part; what if, they only choose subjects they like, and they don't choose the subjects that are necessary to the education? For example, you don't like math, and you tell your parents that you don't want to learn math and if they don't teach you, how are you going to pass the college test which requires math? 4. You also said about physical freedom and religion freedom. If you have physical freedom, you will just play and do nothing and play things like PSP or Xbox or something like that. They will not be able to study enough to get the best score in the test. Religion freedom means that even if you don't like the religion, you will be forced to believe in that religion. For example, let's say that you like Christianity. But, your parents say that you have to learn Buddhism because they're Buddhists. This is a clear expulsion of the constitution in which it states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It saids congress but, it also means any individual. By forcing the student to believe in a religion is unspeakable. 5. You said that by doing home schooling, it will be able to improve family relationships. I do not think so. If the student has a different view point in a subject, there will even be more fight in a family. So, we can conclude that home schooling is not very effective and therefore, it should not be permitted. And thank you for listening.
Do you think homeschooling should be aloud.

Hello Daniel, as you know this is Paul and i want to say that i am really sorry for rejecting your debate. The reason was because it's so obvious that landmines are not good and also that the fact i agree in banning landmines. So i decided to make a simpler debate, please except my challenge and people who are going to comment thank you ^^ this is my first debate. I think that homeschooling should be aloud for the following reasons 1. Educational Freedom Most students have the choice to study what they want, and when they want. 2.physical Freedom Without revolving around school hours, homeworks, and the school schedule(the schoo caledar) they can have free time going out for vacation whenever they want live their lives how it works for them 3.Religion Freedom In schools you cannot study and believe the relgion that you believe, however many people think that relgion plays a very important part of who they are. Also parents can incorporate their beliefs in their lives. 4. Superb family relationships Nearly all the people who does homeschooling can find time to develop loving ties between family members. Also teens benefit a lot, the rebelious and destructive behaviour begins diminish. 5.Being able to rest well When homeschooling there is no need for lacking sleep. Sleep is vital to the emotional and also the physical. without it, could end up to a devastating day or class.
Is Lionel Messi a better player than cristiano ronaldo

Messi is not a better player than CR7,that is,Cristiano Ronaldo. One can say he was a better player for a little period but now even if Messi playing the game,Suarez replaces him.Besides, Cr7 set a new record by reaching 30 La Liga goals in sixth season recently.So he is back....The bomb disposal expert,DA GAMECHANGER!!!
Is Lionel Messi a better player than cristiano ronaldo

I think Lionel Messi is better than Cristiano Ronaldo because Lionel Messi is the best player in his league and the highest paid for his rank as #1 for best player. Why I say, Messi is better than Ronaldo is because Messi has four ballon d'Or and Ronaldo has 2 ballon d'Or. So that's why I think Messi is better than Ronaldo.
Participation trophies

Young athletes should most definitely get participation awards. Participating whether or not you win shows bravery and willingness to try even if you know you will not win. Sociologist Hilary Levey Friedman said,"That first participation trophy, it does mean something, especially among the younger kids. The children see them more as symbols and remembrances of an experience,". Winning also isn't as important as hard work and determination to show up to try, which is what these trophies are symbolizing. Self-esteem is also extremely important. Many kids nowadays feel upset because some other kids are naturally better at some things that they put so much time in and feel like "losers" when they don't win. These participation awards boost self-esteem celebrates trying something when you know you won't win so that is why I believe in participation awards.
Participation trophies

Young athletes should not get participation trophies. Because they are not meeting their original purpose, these young athletes should not be awarded for simply participating, and losing is a more important lesson than winning. Some may say that participation trophies are good for kids because then everyone can be a winner. Others argue, that participation trophies are doing that because the lesson of losing can be more important to learn at that age so that they get it in their little heads that it is ok to lose. Kids should not get participation trophies because they are not meeting their original purpose. Evan Grossman"s article " How participation trophies are making our kids soft," discusses how, today"s young athletes are celebrated just for showing up, as youth sports programs now universally award trophies no matter if your kids won or lost. This means that the players that are putting in the extra work/practice at home are getting awarded just as much as their teammates on the bench that just sit there. Meanwhile, if you"re one of the star players that you are basically ranked on the same level as your teammates on the bench. This is unfair treatment to the star players because they deserve more credit then their teammates that are slacking. Ashley Merryman, the author of "Losing Is Good for You" she said that the self-esteem movement failed to teach kids how to succeed, and giving kids a participation trophy stunts their competitive edge. This just goes to show that the participation trophies have forgotten about their original purpose. Part of the original purpose was to improve self-esteem. Obviously, this isn"t being met if these kids are turning out this way.
It is morally and ethically right to steal both big and small.

Welcome to the debate. First round is for defining and last round is for conclusions. I define "morally and ethically" as "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour". I define "steal" as "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it". I define "big" as "monetarily expensive" and "small" as "monetarily inexpensive". Any direct and indirect results of stealing (such as revenge) are NOT counted as stealing, UNLESS it is stealing. However, the direct and indirect results can be used as arguments.Please use Google to define words. Type in "Define WordHere". Replace WordHere with the word you wish to define.Thank you.
Technology is great

Technology: it makes people lonely, (1) lazier, (2) fatter, (3) dumber, (4) and antisocial. (5)Technology simply can't be good.1 https://www.theodysseyonline.com...2 https://thenextweb.com...3 http://thehealthcareblog.com...4 http://fortune.com...5 http://universe.byu.edu...
Technology is great

Technology is a great thing to use because say you get into an accident and you didn't have technology you wouldn't be able to call anyone for help and you would be stuck there without any help and then look at the bright side of the story. You are stuck in the woods because you got into an accident and you do have technology then you can call 911 or you can call family or even friends to come help you then you wouldn't be stuck in the middle of no where. Now that is why I am not against.
Zoos, the pros and cons

Endangered animals would be better suited to be in a sanctuary where they will have more open spaces and better environment for them to relax and get treated. Zoos will keep them cramped in a tiny space which is not what they need to get better. Animals should not be forced to repopulate which is what happens when they are in a zoo. All the public wants is to see a new baby animal so the animals are forced to mate so that the public can get what they want as well as the zoo. They will in turn make more money off the people who come to see the new baby animal.
Zoos, the pros and cons

When thinking about animal rights, we do not have to right to capture, breed and confine animals, even if they happen to be endangered. Animals are not meant to be confined and paraded around for the world to see. Animals kept in zoos can feel confinement and suffer from boredom and stress. When animals are suffering from stress, they can often develop some form of health issues. If people want to see wild animals they can go to one of the many sanctuaries that are across the U.S. This way they are being kept in their natural environment and not something that was made to look like it. Animals can tell the difference then they are in their natural environment and when they are not. When animals are in zoos they often don"t live as long as they would have if they were living in the wild like they should be. Animals can escape their enclosures and that can cause danger to themselves as well as the people who happen to be around when that can happen. There is nothing like hearing of something like this happening on the morning news. Then people often think that there is something wrong with that animals and that something needs to be done to it, when this is not the case at all. "Zebras at the National Zoo in Washington D.C. starved to death because of insufficient or incorrect food, and the same zoo's red pandas died after ingesting rat poison." (1) Animals in zoo"s don"t always get the right amount/correct food for their specific needs as we can see from the statement above. Animal"s food can also be contaminated from other things that it will come in contact with before it even reaches the exhibit that it is meant for. If the purpose of zoo"s are conservation then we don"t need to be showing the animals off to the world, they need to be left alone so that they can live peacefully. (1)http://animals.howstuffworks.com...
Atheists Are Smarter Than Theists

"... phuk you ... I will respond in attempt to make the claim that the contestant's argument is evident enough the prove that he is in fact intelligent, thus proving my claim." That is a translation of my opponents round 2 argument. This is a direct violation of term "4. Contesting terms 1-5 is an automatic forfeit" By stating that I am "in fact intelligent" even though term 5 states that, as con, I cannot possibly be intelligent, they have forfeit this debate. https://www.google.com... Smart = Intelligent.