BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Latter Day-Saints (Pro) vs. Nation of Islam (Con)

Hey guys, Im trying out a religious debate now.I am arguing that the Latter Day-Saints (Mormonism) is more correct than the Nation of Islam.Keep in mind that I am not a Mormon and have many disagreeances with the Mormon church and often debate Mormons. But I decided to have a debate on which one is morally and socially better.I will accept any challenger. :)
All defendants should be guaranteed a reasonable bail

The 8th amendment is designed to prevent only two injustices of the government against the people.....1) Someone proven guilty to receive a cruel, unusual, inhumane punishment for a crime2) The government posing an abnormally large bail for the sole purpose of ensuring that they cannot make the bail.The amendment protects against excessive bail because if the government gives a large bail, it would be for the sole purpose of keeping someone detained in jail and denying them freedom.......... That is an injustice and infringement on human rights. The 8th Amendment allows for people to be denied bail because the judge may feel it could be justified in order to prevent the criminal from fleeing and avoiding the trial, from intimidating witnesses, harming others, etc. In that case the idea of denying bail to a person could be justified and NOT and infringement of Human rights because bail would be denied to protect the public and prevent the criminal from fleeing the state or country to avoid the trial. Giving a ridiculous high bail to keep someone imprisoned = illegal because it can not be justified under any circumstanceDenying bail to keep someone imprisoned = not illegal because people are not entitled to bail, they are only protected from excessive bail by the 8th amendmentIn my original 6 arguments for why a person might not be denied bail, the 8th amendment does not override them. All 6 of my original examples are perfectly legal reasons of why a Judge may deny somebody bail and none of them apply to the 8th amendment because the 8th amendment only protects against the government abusing the rights of citizens by preventing excessive bail for the purpose of keeping them detained.No where in the constitution is bail a right given to the people. The 8th amendment only protects against excessive bail being imposed on the people, but people still are not authorized to bail because bail is not a right, it is a privilege that can be given or denied to the accused.
All defendants should be guaranteed a reasonable bail

The 8th amendment only protects against people receiving EXCESSIVE bail, such as your alleged 1 trillion dollar amount. The 8th amendment in no way states that the right to bail is a constitutional right for every man and woman, the 8th amendment only protects against the courts keeping a person in prison by imposing an outrageous amount of money for bail..... Innocent until proven guilty is not how courts operate. Lawyers in any case are out to either defend or prove the criminals guilt/innocence and they will go to any length to try to win. It is then up to the jury to decide if they feel that the accused person is innocent or guilty. Until the verdict is given though then the accused is considered "innocent until proven guilty" but that is not how the courts operate. Having police keep tabs on suspected criminals would be better is what the Pro is saying. Look in any major city in the US anywhere, police forces are underfunded, understaffed, and most likely would bu under-equipped to follow around each and every criminal who has had charges filed against him while at the same time continue to protect the public from other criminals as well.... The England relation does make sense but again this only warrants the rights of people AGAINST EXCESSIVE Bail, not the right to receive bail.... If the lawyer of the accused has any belief that the judge has given their client a large amount of bail that he sees as unreasonable he has the right to consult other judges and state his case, but many times the bail is not considered excessive by lawyers from both parties, the judge, and the juries It makes perfect sense that courts cannot give a high amount of bail but can deny bail because there is no justification for giving a person an ungodly high bail, but it can be justified that the courts can deny bail, see the 6 reasons in my first argument... The governments do not deny bail to the accused the judges in the courts do!! its their decision on whether or not bail should be offered or denied not the supreme courts, not the federal or state governments either!!! The Pro is very confused on this whole matter because they think that it is the government or the supreme court that denies people bail when it is judges in the courts who decide who gets bail. Also the Pro has misread the 8th amendment because the 8th amendment clearly states that, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." This protects criminals from excessive bail, and protects them from receiving a cruel or unusual punishment if found guilty. The 8th amendment in no way authorizes bail as a legal right to each and every US citizen.... Lastly the Pro has not offered an argument to why denying bail for protection of the public would not be justified....
All defendants should be guaranteed a reasonable bail

The ability for civil courts, criminal courts, state courts, district courts, etc. to deny people reasonable bail is in no way authorized or protected by the US constitution. Courts have many many good reasons for denying bail to suspected criminals. If the accused may commit further offences while on bail then not giving the person bail would be a sensible move to protect the public. If granted bail then the suspected criminal could potentially interfere, intimidate, threaten, or even kill any witnesses, so denying such a suspected criminal bail would be justified If the crime committed were serious or could result in capital punishment then bail could be denied to prevent anyone else from coming into harm from he accused. Denying bail for the safety of the victim would also be a good idea and would be entirely justified If the accused person's bail record shows a history of skipping court ordered trials then bail could be denied to prevent the criminal from skipping on bail AGAIN.... Lastly if there is just overwhelming evidence that a person committed a heinous crime then that person could be denied bail since it is very probable that the accused is guilty of a felony and is a danger to society.....
Yahweh is a homo

Be it resolved that Yaweh is not a homo (I apologize in advance because I probably got out of hand) To rebut your first point. All you did was say I don't beleive what I said because I don't beleive what I said. If I'm wrong, Please clarify. I'm not the smartest or the best debator. "Don't even beleive our own garbage, " sorry but that garbage is what the entire religion is based off. To rebut your second point. Notice I didn't say God did not love gay people. Not once. God loves all his children equally because even though we all make mistakes, He loves us all the same. Its only through the grace of God that we have a chance of not going to hell. To quote a decent debator "And the reason almost none of you can live with that stuff, Is because it's unbelievable! So you don't believe in it! " It is unbeleiveable. Its also unbeleivable that anyone would forgive someone who breaks all your guidelines and basically spits in your face untill they come whining for forgiviness. Thats what grace is. This is getting to deep. On a different note, Some great games came out this year. Wanna talk about that instead?
Yahweh is a homo

I don't believe for a second, That you actually believe any of what you said. If you bible thumpers were one drop for real, With you being in the 90% majority, The nations leaders would be honest, As opposed to them all being in agreement that they "don't want to start a precedent that it's wrong to lie, " as reported by John Roberts on the CBS evening news. Yeah, They're all a bunch of vermin. It's plain to see that you bible lovers don't even believe your own garbage. And the reason almost none of you can live with that stuff, Is because it's unbelievable! So you don't believe in it! Just some crazy bs part of your brain keeps telling you that you do. And since you're going to resort to crazy bs, So will I: god chastens those he loves. And since god made crippled people, Gay people etc, And crippled and gay people are being harmed (chastened) it means god loves them. Hence gods sexual (lol) orientation is backwards. He just put that anti gay stuff in the bible so that gay people were chastened enough.
Yahweh is a homo

Alright fine. I not sure if you're trolling, But what the heck I'm bored. King James Version (1611): "Knowing this, That the law is not made for a righteous man, But for the lawless and disobedient, For the ungodly and for sinners, For unholy and profane, For murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, For manslayers, For whoremongers, For them that defile themselves with mankind, For menstealers, For liars, For perjured persons, And if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine" The term relevant to homosexuality, "that defile themselves with mankind", Translates O36;`1;`3;^9;_7;_9;_4;_9;^3;`4;_1;`2; arsenokoitēs, The same term for homosexuals used in 1 Corinthians. Other translations of the term include: "them that do lechery with men" (Wycliffe 1382), "those practicing homosexuality" (NIV), "those who abuse themselves with men" (Amplified Version, 1987). Ungodly. Meaning not like god. Meaning the opposite of god. Do you have a rebuttal?
Should college athletes be paid

Alrighty. Well, I believe collage athletes should bot be paid because many-if not all- receive scholarships for their work. Getting a free education and being paid may sound great, but collages and universities don't have an unlimited supply of money. Most collages will have a basketball team, a football team, a hockey team, and a cheer squad, and that's just the tip of an iceberg. A football team has 53 active roster players (http://m.bleacherreport.com...). That is 53 players getting a scholarship and getting an athletes pay. And that's just one team. My point is, collages don't have unlimited money. Either be paid, or no scholarship.
April Public Forum Practice.

"Extending Contention 1: Unempoyment is a main problem leading to this reccesion because if people are unemployed they don't have money to spend which would stimulate the economy. As of yesterday morning a yahoo article reads that 80,000 jobs were cut and unemployment went up 5.1% If 80,000 people dont have money there is no way the economy will stimulate. Also the buisness insentives will be used for new machinery which will only cut jobs leaving more people without money" Job cuts have increased across the nation but the unemployment rate has remained relatively stable around 5%, or the natural rate of unemployment. For there to be concern on the macroeconomic scale as you contend, there must be relatively high unemployment. Seeing as how the recession has already started and unemployment is NOT relatively high, then unemployment must be a consequence, not a cause. Unemployment did not go down 5.1% (that would equate to about 9 million jobs lost in one month). The unemployment rate rose to 5.1%, and is incomparable to the high unemployment in the economic recession of the 1980s. While 80,000 people no longer have a source of income, they do not all definitively rely upon one source of income or have no liquid assets. The tax incentives given through the stimulus package to the population will readily counterbalance the job loss. "Extending 3: Inflation will occur because if 178 billion dollars goes into the economy at once that is to much money and that will cause inflation. Too much money into the economy at once causes inflation. " You dropped my point about how the rebates will function. See my arguments from the first round analyzing how the money will enter the market and not cause significant inflation because of the high saving to spending ratio. I say "significant inflation" because small amount of inflation are harmless and natural in a free market capitalist economy. "Also the economic stimulus act of 2008 does nothing about the horrible gas prices right now. For example a bottle of coke used to cost 1$ but now that the oil prices are so high it cost more for the trucks to transport cokes so the price goes up $.30 that may not sound like alot but now less people buy coke and it does not help the economy when not as much money is going in. " Gas prices are the painful result of a monopolistic free market used to set oil barrel prices. The economy will not be dreadfully harmed by the gasoline prices, however the high prices will restrict the economy.
April Public Forum Practice.

Extending Contention 1: Unempoyment is a main problem leading to this reccesion because if people are unemployed they don't have money to spend which would stimulate the economy. As of yesterday morning a yahoo article reads that 80,000 jobs were cut and unemployment went up 5.1% If 80,000 people dont have money there is no way the economy will stimulate. Also the buisness insentives will be used for new machinery which will only cut jobs leaving more people without money I will drop my contention 2 because I do agree that it is contradictary and I would like to congradulate my oppenent on realizing that Extending 3: Inflation will occur because if 178 billion dollars goes into the economy at once that is to much money and that will cause inflation. Too much money into the economy at once causes inflation. Also the economic stimulus act of 2008 does nothing about the horrible gas prices right now. For example a bottle of coke used to cost 1$ but now that the oil prices are so high it cost more for the trucks to transport cokes so the price goes up $.30 that may not sound like alot but now less people buy coke and it does not help the economy when not as much money is going in. Thanks.
April Public Forum Practice.

Resolved: That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns over the next year. Observation 1: The resolution is that the economic stimulus act will successfully mitigate the economic down turn in the next year. You can not win just by showing that there was some mitigation. It has to be successful mitigation. That means that the stimulus act has to meet the expectations of those that advocated and passed it. And it has to do that in the next year 2009. Def: Mitigate- to lessen in severity or force Rercession- A period of an economic contraction sometime limited in scope or duration. Successfully- Having a favorable outcome Inflation: a continuing rise in the general price level usually attributed to an increase in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods and services Contention 1: Aff will not attack core of economic slowdown. The reason for economic slowdown is due to unemployment. The 2008 Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 does not propose any benefits for the umemployed in America. So it is insufficiently mitigateing the economic slowdowns- which is the point of the the resolution. Contention 2: Spending will not increase The Aff believes that the American economy will be restored will increase in consumer spending. However, realistically, 40% of the claims will actually directly spend their rebates according to the drudgereport.com. Other Americans may choose to do something else with their incentive. Also the $200-$600 rebate given to select Americans will not boost the economy. With only 40% of Americans spending the money, there is not chance that the economy will stimulate. Thus, when this theory is applied, it gives little or no benefit to the resolution's quest for restoring economic balance. Contention 3: Rebates will cause inflation The deficit spending will not be solved by giving money to Americans. It will result in the American dollar value becoming unstable. This will only increase the prices for gas and agricultural products. Thus, the rebates will never solve for recession. "Consumer Confidence Boost" is empirically false. Although the idea behind the simulus package is mainly to increase consumer spending, the truth is: The tax incentives do not work. 1)It targets the wrong people. It gives people with less money more money when in all reality who is more likely to spend the money. A rich person who goes shopping every day and spend hundreds of dollars. Or the poor person who's in debt and can't afford to spend any of his money. 2)People will not spend this money. Many people are in debt at the moment. The act will only work if a substantial amount of money is spent. But 60% of people are either, saving the money or paying off taxes. With over half the nation not actually spending this money the stimulus act does not uphold the idea of "consumer confidence". Because the stimulus package does not boost consumer confidence like it promises, the economy will continue into downfall.
It is unethical to use Truecaller app

Pro begins bringing up new points in the last round which is commonly seen as poor debate etiquette. They bring up something about hackers (who on Earth is going to hack you from knowing your number?) and also raise the point of fraud and spam becoming easier with TrueCaller App. This is not true because fraudsters tend to target people and then find the number later (rather than find a number and then locate a target). As for spam-calling that's possible without TrueCaller.Another point they raise is reverse searching but this has nothing to do with the debate as that is not what Truecaller does or currently offers and so is out of the scope of if it is currently unethical. In actual fact Pro doesn't defend against a single one of my rebuttals at all. The only vague attempt is stating that in Pro's country all numbers are shown but revealing unknown caller numbers as well as then making further use of this is a huge defense which Truecaller offers and is far more ethically beneficial than it is malicious.
It is unethical to use Truecaller app

You have right to defend yourselves from malicious calls/people. But the means by which you are defending is not correct. In your process of defending, you are exposing phone numbers of other people to hackers.In 2013, hacker group called Syrian Electronic Army hacked Truecaller database and downloaded millions of phone numbers. (Source:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...?)Any leak of such databses is a gold mine for spammers and fraudsters.At present, Truecaller enables to know name from a number. What if it introduces reverse search in future? i.e searching a phone number with a name. Then, anyone can know phone number of anyone. It may lead to cases of harassment. Those are the dangers to which phone numbers are being exposed by Truecaller users.Hence, giving away phone numbers is a bad thing.-----------In my country, all phone calls have numbers. So it is possible to block them with in-built phone feature. I don't know much about hidden number
It is unethical to use Truecaller app

Pro is yet to explain how Truecaller is not a fair and ethical defense against people who can only be malicious or at the very least deceptive if they are hiding their number.Pro mentions blocking a number; how can you block a number if you have no clue what the number is? How is giving away numbers to an app that is only used defensively and to prevent 'evil' a 'bad' thing? Please elaborate.
It is unethical to use Truecaller app

Con has said that'Truecaller requiring the user to give them their phonebook and details is not relevant to the debate'. It is very much relevent to the debate. It is the primari reason for which I have started the debate.Con said -Using the app could not be unethical to yourself since you are consensually giving that information to help the app better locate you contacts to others who may be getting unknown rings from them.Doing something consensually does not make it right or ethical. The intention of helping others who may get unknown calls is good but that should be limited to user's phone number only. If the app asks the user to give his/her phone number to be stored in their database to help others, no one can say it is wrong or right. It is their phone number and they can do whatever they want with it. (The app can ask user to upload identity proof to avoid fake identities).But what is happening is - user is giving away phone numbers and names of other people. The user has no right to do it even if it may help others in finding out unknown callers. It is like doing charity with others' money.My contention is that - you can give your own phone number, but not others. And Truecaller cannot be blamed because it is asking permission of users. It is users who are unethically giving away numbers. If users decline, True caller cannot do anything.Coming to harassments, the mobile phones in which truecaller can be installed are mostly smart phones. They have feature to block calls and messages from a particular phone number. People can utilise that feature.(Not all names in the Truecaller database are correct. If I save a phone number as xyz in my phone, it is recorded as such in database. I have seen many numbers wih names such as dad, mom , etc. You cannot completely depend on it.)
It is unethical to use Truecaller app

Truecaller is an application which allows a user to find out Name of the person calling from any unknown phone number. In order to have this facility, the app asks a user to give access to all contacts in phone-book. The phone numbers in the phone-book along with associated names get saved in Truecaller's database. Thus Truecaller gained access to names of millions of phone numbers. User is trading his/her phone-book contacts for knowing unknown caller. It is unethical to give away personal information of people without their consent.
The Qur'an openly preaches violence and hatred against non-believers.

These arguments have been nearly impossible to refute so I will try my best. First off, my opponent mentions that terrorism is a result of a bad mental state. However, in non-islamic countries you also have people in bad mental states and I don't think I have ever heard of a christian suicide bomber. While I am aware there are non-islamic terrorists(Lord's Resistance Army, Tamil Tigers, and Shining Path to name a few. . http://www.strategypage.com...) they don't blow themselves up in hope of obtaining physical pleasure in paradise. It could possibly be more than mental illness that causes these people to blow themselves up. Even in the poorest non-islamic countries in Africa terrorists don't blow themselves up. Why is this exclusively an islamic thing? The Qur'an or Hadith perhaps? Secondly, I will like to address my opponent's point about the Vatican. It is true that most people can't enter the inner offices of the Vatican. However, non-christians can still enter the Vatican. Non-muslims cannot enter Mecca or Medina at all so the Vatican is still more tolerant. He states that these two cities in Saudi Arabia are very holy, but so is the Pope to Catholics since he is their main figurehead. Thirdly, my opponent fails to provide a proper explanation as to why there's very few churches or temples in most islamic countries while there being many mosques in non-islamic countries. I do realize that this could be a result of demographics. Most islamic countries are almost entirely muslim while many non-islamic countries are a mix. This leads to another interesting factor though. Could that be a result of non-muslims not feeling comfortable living in islamic countries? I look forward to my opponent's responses. :) Good luck!