BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The left supports far right extremist Islamic views

Much of my opponent's response consists of unflattering depictions of Islam. However, for this to satisfy the burden of proof, it must also be shown that the left supports this version of Islam. Pro cites Louis Farrakhan, stating that he is condemned by many Democrats, but that "they have been spotted with him." To prove that Farrakhan represents extreme right wing Islamism, Pro provides a variety of surprising and perhaps inflammatory quotes. The first is that "Hitler was a very good man." This is perhaps evidence that Farrakhan is crazy, but it also introduces doubt that he represents any form of coherent Islamist ideology. The next quote says, "White people are potential humans - they haven't evolved yet." This quote directly contradicts the implication of the previous quote. If Farrakhan was sympathetic to the white supremacist views of Hitler, why would he say that whites are less developed than other races? Then, he says, "They call them terrorists, I call them freedom fighters." This quote means nothing other than that Farrakhan disagrees with the claim that someone is a terrorist. From what is provided here, I must conclude that either the quotes have been taken out of context, or Farrakhan is a crazy person that various Democrats have been spotted with. At most, this would seem to indicate corruption in the Democratic Party, but it doesn't tell us anything about left wing ideology at the broader level. Next is Linda Sarsour, who Pro claims is a Women's March leader who "wants Sharia Law in America." As I stated in my first argument, Islam is a broad set of ideas with no single doctrine, and as such there is no single definition of terms like Sharia Law. I mentioned the existence of 'progressive Islam,' which proposes more progressive or liberal interpretations of Islam's ideas. This would seem to be what Sarsour is doing with the term 'Sharia Law,' since if she is supporting the Women's March she must not support the more fundamentalist, conservative interpretations of Islamism. These examples indicate the complexity of the problems of interpreting Islam, but Pro has not yet indicated how these relate to the broader ideas of the left.
The left supports far right extremist Islamic views

My opponent's burden of proof will be to demonstrate that the left supports right wing Islamic extremism. First, let's define the left. In general, leftist philosophy is seen as supporting equality over hierarchies. Left wing perspectives usually support multiculturalism, egalitarianism, economic support for the underprivileged, and so on. Most generally, leftism denotes concern for the disadvantaged. Also, leftism is generally secular, and supports military non-intervention. Now, let's define Islamism. One of the main features of Islam is that, unlike other religions which centre around a particular codified text and set of written laws, Islam is known as a broad set of texts, with no single doctrine but, especially under the more fundamentalist interpretations known as Islamism, comprising a complete 'way of life.' Islamism (also known as 'political Islam' or 'radical Islam') is described by Heywood (Political Ideologies, 1992) as a set of ideas revolving around the construction of an 'Islamic state' based on the sharia, the divine Islamic law. The notion of jihad, controversially translated as 'holy war', on extreme interpretations can signify a global violent struggle for Islamic principles. These right wing interpretations stand in contradiction to attempts to make more moderate or progressive interpretations of the meaning of Islam (known as 'progressive Islam' or 'liberal Islam'). On the face of it, where Islamism denotes extremist and right wing interpretations, Islamism and leftism would seem to stand in stark opposition to one another. A leftist goal regarding Islam would be to support the more left wing interpretations of the Quran, and attempting to subdue the more extremist elements. It would also argue that we should refrain from military interventions which would antagonise Muslim-majority countries and further enflame feelings of hostility and conflict. Further, leftism would support multicultural secularism, tolerance, and less rigid interpretations of religious doctrine. These ideas would be completely opposed to the conservative, nationalist religious fundamentalism of the extreme right wing versions of Islamism.
Banning Guns in America Will Not Stop Crimes in America

Banning Guns Will drastically Reduce Crime In 2015, 13,286 Americans were injured by guns. 26,819 were killed. Guns are one of the top weapons of choice for crime in America. They are favoured over knives and blunt objects in situations like armed robbery, muggings, murder and attempted murder. If we ban guns, we can reduce the amount of lives that are lost each year. Guns are extremely easy to obtain, and require little to no skill when being shot at point-blank range, whereas knives and blunt objects require a fair amount of critical thinking and brute force.
Banning Guns in America Will Not Stop Crimes in America

Although you are correct when you say that guns prevent some amount of crime, that doesn't mean that running around arming citizens is going to miraculously solve everything. Sure, if every Jewish person was armed with a gun during the Holocaust, then maybe more lives would have been spared. But the most likely scenario is that people would have been killed due to erratic gunfire. Unless citizens are well-trained and know how to properly and safely use a firearm to protect themselves, then they are useless. I don't even consider your second argument about the founding fathers relevant. It contains nothing more than speculation and opinion, and I choose to overlook it. At least attempt to include some sort of facts. Guns are not what this country needs. We need to stop losing innocent lives to bullets and DO SOMETHING! The NRA has this country in the palm of their hand, and yet you still try to defend them! from January 2007 to May 2018, there have been 61 mass shootings, averaging about 5.4 per year. This is getting out of hand. Guns do way more harm then good. Let's work towards a gun-free America. *mic drop*
Banning Guns in America Will Not Stop Crimes in America

But guns are saving MILLIONS a year. Again you haven"t respond to my Study that showed guns stop anywhere from 500,000 to 2,000,000 crimes EVERY YEAR! At the time when the founding father wrote the Second Ammendment when there were guns like the Belton Flintlock, Giradoni Air Rifle, Puckle Gun, and Pepperbox Revolvers all of which would be banned by today"s gun laws. Every founding father knew about these and their destructive capabilities and still wrote the second Ammendment. Also it is not like the founding father were stupid. They knew that weapons would evolve. They had evolved during the fathers lifetime and before. From swords to bow and arrows, to metal swords, to cannons, to guns and behond. They second Ammendment was not just written for muskets, it was written for highly advanced weapons and it still applies today. Governments turn oppressive all the time, again te me point out Nazi Germany, Communist China, Cambodia, Democratic Republicof the Congo. I"m not dealing in extremes I"m dealing in events that happen very often, and trying to not let our country repeat history. If every black slave had been armed with a gun there wouldn"t have been slavery. If every Jewish citizen had been armed, the Halucaust would not have happened, at least not to the extent it did. Guns protect citizens and keep the government in check. The second Ammendment is part of the system of checks and balances in our government Scenario A: Government disarms citizens knew oppressive whilst limiting freedoms Scenario B: Cotizens keep their guns and the government never become oppressive because of the armed backlash of the people Scenario C: People keep there guns, the government tries to become oppressive and the people stand up and keep their liberties I"d love to have Scanario B, but if need be I"ll fight for Scenario C, I just won"t let Scenario A happen. It"s a threat to me, my family, my friends, and this country which I love dearly. Gun are foundational to this country and this countries values. Guns are also detrimental to the safety of citizens and limitation of the government Mic Drop
Banning Guns in America Will Not Stop Crimes in America

"Nobody knows what can happen in twenty years." How about what's happening RIGHT NOW? Guns are killing hundreds and thousands of people every year! The 2nd amendment was written in 1791. People didn't plan for these modern day weapons, like the AR-15, which shoots about six hundred rounds per minute. Nobody will use nuclear weapons in a war? Are you for real? Precious Mr. Trump seems to sleep with his red button, and Kim Jong Un has a heavy finger. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a nuclear war, and arming citizens won't help in a situation like that. Oppressive government? Mass genocide? I think, honestly, we're screwed either way. Scenario A: citizens are stripped of their firearms, government kills 3/4 of the population. No more America. Scenario B: citizens arm themselves with firearms, government gets scared, civil war breaks out, people fight amongst themselves, 3/4 of the population are killed in erratic gunfire. No more America. See the similarities? If you want to deal in extremities, than so will I. America is in a dangerous spot, and guns aren't going to miraculously make everything better. Guns NEED to be banned. Keeping them is a recipe for disaster.
Banning Guns in America Will Not Stop Crimes in America

The rules that were made 200 years ago STILL apply today. I"ve explained that in my arguments above. Do you have ANY idea about police arrival time?!? That is one of the dumbest arguments for gun control that I have heard. That statement is completely non-sensicle. When I see somebody breaking into my property, I"m not going to wait for 5-10 minutes or more for the police to arrive, I"m going to pull out my gun and shoot them before they are able to harm me or my family. Not see that the "Intruder bears a weapon" and "back off". Thats a recipe to get killed and your stuff stolen. You are confusing two different laws, I am not able to kill somebody to take their land, that"s murder. If somebody breaks into my house I have every right to defend my property. Nobody will use nuclear weapons in a war. After seeing the destruction to Nagasaki and Hiroshima in Augest 1945, and knowing that if they use them, they will get nuked back, they are impractical for war. It is highly unlikely that a government can invade us, but Britian thought they invincible too, nobody knows what can happen in 20 years. Right now, there are no threats, but have some foresight and realize that the world changes. As for the most important part of the second Ammendment, protection from the government, I"m sure that Germany thought the same thing in 1931, that the government could never start a mass genocide. Little did they know that in 10 years, 7 million people would be systematically murdered. I"m sure that China thought the same thing until Mao took office and murdered 50 Million people. Just because a government is not oppressive now does not mean they will never. Governments turn oppressive all of the time and the FIRST thing they do it strip citizens of their arms so that they cannot defend themselves. That is what has happened before every mass genocide. Again please have some foresight and let"s not let history repeat itself in America. Guns are ABSOLUTELY 100% necessary for our safety and protection!! or else we could end up with an oppressive government
Banning Guns in America Will Not Stop Crimes in America

First of all, the rules that were created years ago made sense in that time period. but if science and technology are evolving, why aren't gun laws? "Defense from unlawful citizens" is ridiculous! It's sad that the first thought that comes to your mind when you witness a home invasion is not to call the authorities, but instead to pull out your gun and potentially kill, or at least wound the intruder? Gun shots are extremely painful, and can cause lasting nerve damage.In all states, in all jurisdictions you do not have the right to kill someone over property (this includes pets and livestock). If you can you have a duty to retreat (although not always required by law). The only lawful way you can use deadly force as a civilian or private citizen is when your life is in danger of death of great bodily harm, therefore, unless the intruder bears a weapon, you should back off. "Protection from external and/or foreign threats." Maybe, back in the days of the Old American West. If some foreign country wants to declare war on the U.S., I can guarantee that it won't be by marching through each and every state, killing citizens off one by one. Nuclear war is much faster, easier and more deadly. Carrying a gun to protect yourself from "external threats" is laughable. "Protection from the government". Well, since President Trump doesn't seem to be too concerned about guns, it is highly unlikely that the government is preparing to launch a mass genocide. Since 2014, guns have been killing nearly as many people as vehicles are. It seems that not only do most families in America own at least one car, but they also own a gun. More than one third of Americans say that either themselves or someone in their household owns a firearm. Guns are NOT necessary for safety and protection. Why do you think we have police officers?
Banning Guns in America Will Not Stop Crimes in America

There are three reasons that we need Huns and the founding fathers intended it this way, and it still applies today. 1) Defense from unlawful citizens "arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property" " Thomas Paine 2) Protection from external and/or foreign threats "A well regulated militia being necessary to the SECURITY OF THE FREE STATE the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" " Thomas Jefferson 3) Protection from the government "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left, but that original right of self defense." " Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #28 "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize"the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear arms" " Tench Coxe Before every great slaughter the government has first disarmed its citizens so that they cannot fight back. Nazi Germany; Soviet Russia; Communist China; Cambodia. They all combined for over 100 Million cold hearted murders. So don"t even try and say that guns do more harm then good. Not one government has been able to tryannize and slaughter citizens while those citizens are armed and ready to fight back. Guns are absolutely necessary. By private sellers I"m assuming that you mean family members. If you are giving a gun to a family member then no, you are not required to give a background check, but ANY licensed dealer is required to give an FBI background check and see a valid ID. And yes this includes gun shows. There is no gun show loophole. That was a myth made up by the Obama Administration. The people that are lost at mass shooting are tragic and should never happen, but guns are not the problem. Evil people are. The Las Vegas shooting could have been done just as deadly or even more effective by running a car through, but he didn"t because good people with guns would have shot him. That"s why that coward did what he did with a gun. Those murders are senseless, but evil people do evil things, and there is very little we can do to stop it. What we can do is stop the 500,000 to 2,000,000 Crimes that Guns DO stop each year. That saves lives. Guns are needed for our safety and our protection
Banning Guns in America Will Not Stop Crimes in America

"Gun bans do not work" is a very black and white statement. Let's remeber that correlation does not equal causation. I will, once again, plead the argument that guns are easy to obtain. in states like Nevada, Virginia and even Florida, neither a waiting period or special permit are required. Private sellers are not legally obliged to perform any background checks. semi-automatic rifles are commonly used in mass shootings, and are one of the easiest guns to legally obtain. Mass shootings are a huge problem in the U.S. Think of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, or the one in Las Vegas, or even the one at Pulse nightclub in Orlando. Killing ten or twenty people within mere minutes is easy with a gun. Besides, why do we need guns? For "protection"? Maybe in the instance of a home invasion, perhaps. Of course, that is, if you can get to both the gun and the ammo on time, which are required to be locked up in seperate places. Guns aren't necessary. They are unsafe and illogical, and cause more harm than good.
Banning Guns in America Will Not Stop Crimes in America

That number (27,000) includes suicide. 2/3 of those deaths are sudcides, that leaves only 9,000 deaths. Using that number the USA has LESS murders and much LESS violent crime per capita than other high gun controlled areas (i.e England, Australia, ect). Even if that number is high, guns stop more crimes that they are used in. A study done by a Tennessee professor (who is a registered Democrat) found that anywhere between 500,000 and 2,000,000 crimes are stopped by food guys with guns. Guns are not easy to obtain. You actually need a valid ID a place of residence, and you need to go through a full FBI background check. If you are a domestic abuser or have committed a violent crime, you cannot buy a gun. Australia's mandatory buy back has not helped. The violent crime rate has been decreasing, but at a much much slower rate than before their ban. After Englands gun ban, the violent crime rate has now gone up and they have more violent crime than New York City. The most densely populated city in the world. Gun ban DO NOT WORK! There is a lot of statistical background to prove this.
The Christian Bible Does Not Teach Sexual Oppression/Inferiority

You're the one assuming things, by assuming the cultural problems were because men blamed women for the fall. I admit that one specific verse I was reading into it, that women had to marry the rapist as it was what was best for her. I don't need that verse tthough to make my point tho. I've cited all the other verses, which indicate God's take on the matters: not just a reaction to cultural problems but in fact God mandating things that are inherently demaning to women, that thereby show them to be inferior. The passage does not have to say "women are inferior" or say that only those with a dick will make it to heaven. For example, you say women are being beautified after the rape. By paring her nails. Now for paring, it's not clear what's meant… it could be simply filing them such as beauty people do, as a technical argument. Any use of that word I've ever hear means they simply file them down so much so as to be nonglamourous and flat. And that's supported by the fact she has to shave her head, something not glamourous but infact an act of shame. You've avoided the obviouis shameful nature towards the women who who raped that "God" has mandated. This is showing them to be inferior, because men are not shamed like that, and it's inhereiently disrespectful to do that to someone raped, even if men did have to, You said the paying is simply to show how the man can support her. A man could simply show that he has the means to support but that's not what's done here. He's paying money, for no apparent reason and no good ones, but in fact bad ones, stated by you. If there were a bad culture against women, making them be paid for would only exacerbate the inferiorority applied to them. The apparent reason then for the act, is to treat them as property or inferirorly, and to have a double standard aginst them that is not applied to men. the argument that it's a liturgical law. That's simply imputing more contemporary notions of mass and canon type law into what otherwise is a clear verse. Other passages of the bible when they refer ot the law it's referring to jewish law. That's what's probably the case here too, so it's mandated by "Gods" law. Even if it were liturgical law though, why do men have a "man's session" or at least why aren't there passages referring to women's sections of the liturgy. and why aren't there any passages that assume that men gossip or that regulate bad things men do; surely they weren't perfect. It's again the inferority treatment that is inherent in the passage. Just like it's apparent in all the other passages I've cited. What's apparent is that you're rationalizing these verses. without rationalization, they certainly treat women inferiorly as a result of God's unjustified desire to treat them that way.
The Christian Bible Does Not Teach Sexual Oppression/Inferiority

When it comes to these early "evil Bible" Old Testament passages, it's important to remember that the law was being given to a society which was culturally unevolved and often resistant to the laws being given. Such that a woman in this position.... --Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. ....would more than likely be otherwise unable to be married at all after being despoiled, even if God and Moses had said "You shall be willing to marry a woman who has been raped." The result in those days would almost certainly have forced the woman into prostitution. Furthermore, note the end of the passage, "and he will never be allowed to divorce her." That is, he will never be allowed to abandon her. AND according to the marriage laws, if he cheated on her he would be put to death. The passage is clearly meant to protect the woman involved. Similarly, it's easy to assume that because men and women are treated differently in Exodus.... ---When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) ....that the woman is somehow meant to be inferior because she wasn't to be released from her slavery. But this passage follows the same pattern as the other one, being designed explicitely to protect the woman from the cultural consequences of her time period. A man who was sold as a slave became a physical laborer. But a woman, whether it was explicit or not, would be assumed to be despoiled in her slavery. "Freeing" her would leave her to the same life of harlotry above, which was unfortunately the consequence of a woman who went unmarried. On the other hand, as the passage outlines, if the man married her and then failed to look after her, her walking free becomes a very different thing in the eyes of the people around her. She's no longer the slave girl, the implied harlot, but rather her situation becomes much more legitimate and her position much more fit for re-marriage than before. So that the passage which you've suggested undermines a woman's claim, when understood in its historical and cultural context, instead is a clear defense of the woman against the oppressive nature of the culture surrounding her. Finally, about the women wearing hats, do you have the quote which directs it to the Law?