BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Rolling Stone gathers no moss

A Rolling Stone gathers no moss.I am currently undergoing a series of scholarly debates over the authenticity and reliability of certain well-known proverbs. I have recently debated "Ignorance is Bliss," http://www.debate.org... and proved that it is not; and I just finished debating whether a bird in the hand is, in fact, better than two in the bush. http://www.debate.org...Today, my lucky readers, you and I will examine whether Rolling Stones gather moss. The old saw claims they don't - but is it true?Let's examine a few Rolling Stones and find out.First, a definition or two, just to make sure we are all on the same page.A Rolling Stone, of course, is a member or ex-member of the British band, "The Rolling Stones." This debate recognizes Brian Jones, Ian Stewart, Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts, Mick Taylor, Chuck Leavell, and Ronnie Wood as Rolling Stones.Moss is, obviously, "any tiny, leafy-stemmed, flowerless plant of the class Musci, reproducing by spores and growing in tufts, sods, or mats on moist ground, tree trunks, rocks, etc." http://dictionary.reference.com...It is apparent from even a casual observation of the Rolling Stones that they do not engage in any substantial collection of these little plants. So little do tiny, flowerless plants feature in these men's lives and careers, one might suspect them of having some sort of aversion to growing on aging English rock stars.In all fairness to the moss, it is difficult to mistake a British rock star from the 60's with a damp tree trunk (with the possible exception of Elton John). Moss has been alleged to grow on the north sides of certain British politicians, but not on musicians. The Rolling Stones are both popular and highly public figures; Google returns 21,800,000 images of them. https://www.google.com... The only photos of them that had moss were obviously (and badly) photoshopped, and there were very few of them, whereas there were literally millions of images of them sans moss.Furthermore, none of the band members seem to have any real interest in botany that would inspire them to collect samples of Musci. Their interests outside ofmusic range far from the study of botany: one of them played amateur cricket, another golfed; several did drugs, one now raises horses. None of them have publicly expressed (as far as I can discover) any interest in moss, lichens, or any similar plant or fungus. The compulsion just isn't there. These people have lives (well, most of them, except the ones who are dead) that revolve around music; they have no time to concern themselves with relocating tiny bark-dwelling plants.The conclusion is obvious. Rolling Stones gather no moss. This proverb is Confirmed.I thank my opponent, and hand the debate over to him.-C.
Israel is morally justified in its attacks on Hamas

Positive effects are not saving lives if Israel continuously attack on civilians of Philistine! have you ever asked yourself why Hamas does the attacks? because they have to protect their self &they are defending from their nation, if they don't respond, Israel will occupy their country! If you kill innocent people it wont save the future lives, plus Israel is not the only country who thinks of saving future lives! because other powerful countries are in the world who can sort it out, bu Israel constantly attacking on Hamas?? are they the owner of this world? are they the owner of philistine?? are the human lives are in the hand of Israel? Of course not! Please search!; The Rafah shelling in particular was widely criticized, with Ban-Ki Moon calling it a "moral outrage and a criminal act" and US State Department calling it "appalling" and "disgraceful". UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said that both Hamas militants and Israel might have committed war crimes. A Human Rights Watch investigation into three of the incidents concluded that Israel committed war crimes. Just check out, how many people are killed, how the infrastructure of philistine is destroyed! how people are suffering! if you think you are human being and you think you have empathy, checkout cruelties of Israel how are they killing people. Rebuttals: a.Israel is perhaps anti Muslim nation though they kill people! c.Hamas is not the issue because they are not in conflict with any other country, perhaps they are defending from their nation against a country who think they are the owner of world! Overall in conclusion; Both the countries are count guilty, but mostly Israel! because all the attacks are on civilians, and non of their attacks are justified! i request them to stop their attacks to prevent future defends from Hamas! Israel is never justified on their attacks, just by saying we are saving the future lives, they can't continue killing innocent people! Attacks are not justified!
Israel is morally justified in its attacks on Hamas

In order to determine what is a net benefit (making the action justified), we need to look at the positive effects compared to the negative ones. Positive effects: Saving lives. The main point my opponent has yet to refute is that Hamas is constantly attacking nonmilitary targets in Israel. If Israel doesn't destroy Hamas, Hamas will destroy Israel. Killing a few to save many more is by all means justified. Potential negative effects: First I'd like to point out that I agree that people being killed is sad. I value human life as much as my opponent. Innocent deaths in Gaza. What is key to understanding how Israel is justified is realizing that Hamas is in no way defending its people. If you require proof, look at the links I provided in one of my rebuttals. Hamas is simply using the civilians as it wages war on Jews. Jews are not waging war on Islam, it is but a few terrorists waging war on the Jews. These deaths, although unfortunate, are not the fault of the Jews, they are the fault of Hamas making the only reason the attacks wouldn't be justified invalid. Now to talk about the WW2 argument. To respond to your response A: Hamas is in no way defending its people, Hamas is a terrorist organization that is waging war on Judaism. B: Hitler wasn't powerful militarily or economically until he was given time to grow without being attacked, this is precisely what we're trying to avoid with Hamas. C: Hamas is not trying to solve any issues because Hamas is the issue, they are raiding innocent Israelis that aren't military targets. Israel's attacks are against military targets while Hamas is just killing Jews. In the end, this debate has been won by the affirmative because all 3 voting issues have been won by the affirmative. Israel's attacks are justified because without them, more people would be killed. Any casualties inflicted are simply the fault of Hamas. Finally, we cannot repeat the mistake that lead to WW2, we cannot stand by as Hamas grows in power. Thanks.
Israel is morally justified in its attacks on Hamas

We can not simply blame someone for just an action! Rebuttals: 1. Hamas just simply protects their nation, and they are not using civilians as shield, but they are protecting them and protecting their rights!. 2. Who knows those hidden rockets were owned by Hamas? maybe its kept there for showing a bad image of Hamas to the world. 3. Israel is forgetting the humanity, and they simple kill innocent people by blaming they are terrorists and they are part of Hamas. Your point of WW2 is totally different from this scenario, because of the following reasons; a. Hitler who is known the most dangerous terrorist in the 1940s, he was doing it for reason which was personal or maybe for power, while Hamas is doing so to protect their nation and they do not want power! b. They were powerful in terms of military, economic, and other resources though they wanted to occupy more countries and role on them, while Hamas is not doing so! c. Can you analyze how Philistine is destroyed by Israel brutal attacks? If you are agree that people is dying for wrong, then why should Israel continue their attacks on Philistine? Everyone knows that by attacking, only innocent people is killed, they can not kill Hamas! if they think they have the power, why don't they kill Hamas personally, rather than continuing brutal attacks? Hamas is defending their nation and country, though they need to sacrifice their civilians, just to protect their rights! If Israel stops their attacks on Hamas im sure Hamas will also find a way to solve these issues. Keeping in view all the above reasons and descriptions, Israel must stop their attacks because their attacks are not morally justified!
Israel is morally justified in its attacks on Hamas

Any casualty inflicted on civilians by Israel are the fault of Hamas, not Israel. Hamas uses civilians as shields to protect themselves. They hide rockets in schools! Israel is not waging this war because it is religious, Israel is simply accepting the fact that some civilian casualties are necessary BECAUSE HAMAS IS FORCING IT TO BE SO*. You completely missed my last point about Europe's mistake in WW2. If Israel allows Hamas to grow without even the threat of attack, Israel will soon be destroyed. I agree that not all Muslims are terrorists, but Hamas is a terrorist organization. I agree that people dying is wrong, but those casualties are the fault of Hamas, not Israel. If Israel needs to attack to ensure its safety, as it does, and the civilian casualties are the fault of Hamas, as they are, the attacks on Hamas are nothing if not justified. *http://www.ijreview.com... http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.thetower.org...
Israel is morally justified in its attacks on Hamas

Human Being is the best creature of Almighty Allah, and he is the only one who decides about the future and living organisms (Humans). If he decides to take the lives he is the owner but Israel is not!!! Why Israel should attack to save the human lives in long term? are they the only nation in the world? are they only caring about human being lives? OFCOURSE No! because continuing attacks on Hamas will only results to killing innocent Muslim people, and Muslims are not terrorist!! It does not seems logical to kill someone today for saving the future lives! how can you judge on peoples lives? It is not a racist war? but it is more than racist war! because it is more killing Muslim People than killing Hamas and his group!
Israel is morally justified in its attacks on Hamas

Political means have many times failed to resolve this conflict. When we're looking at a situation where killing fewer people can save more down the road, we need to take that option. The main thing Europe did wrong at the start of World War 2 was let Germany build up forces. Attacking them the second Hitler showed military intent would have prevented World War 2. Sure, some people would have died, but those deaths would have prevented more deaths later. Israel is in the same situation. By continuing the attack on Hamas, lives in the long term will be saved. These lives will outnumber the ones being lost by attacking Hamas. This is not a racist war, this is a war for the security of a nation, something always justified. I want to emphasize that this is not a racist war, this is a war of protecting lives, what you yourself think is most valuable.
Israel is morally justified in its attacks on Hamas

I oppose the statement! Israel's attacks are not justified! Let's understand the reality! Israel is attacking on the world's most precious creatures which is human being! are the human beings worth killing for no reason? of course NO! Israel does not have any rights to kill innocent people! if there are political conflicts, they should use other peaceful ways to reduce the conflicts! WAR is not the tool for solving the problems! if you wash blood with the blood it wont be cleaned! lets make another way of making peace! Israel is not attacking Philistine! but they attack on ISLAM! they want to show that how cruel they are, and how they had forgotten their humanity! Israel is seeing political and economical benefits on attacking Hamas! they want to occupy Bait-ul-Muqadas (بیت المقدس) at the cost of killing Muslims! I strongly oppose that Israel Attacks are not morally justified!!!
Israel is morally justified in its attacks on Hamas

I affirm, Israel's attacks are justified. To start, I'd like to look at what qualifies as justified. Any action that has a net benefit (includes preventing a greater harm) is a justifiable action. A net benefit means that at the end of the effects of the action, more good was done than bad. With that in mind, I will move on to my arguments. My first is that Israel's attacks are warranted by the threat of Hamas. As already seen, Hamas is willing and has been willing to carry out attacks on Israeli civilians for no purpose other than killing. Without continued military pressure on Hamas, this could only intensify, leaving more innocents dead. Israel's attacks may have killed civilians, but they have all been against Hamas targets. It is not Israel's fault that Hamas hides behind civilians. Israel's attacks are morally justified because the net benefit (preventing Hamas from rampant killing) is far greater than the harms (the number of deaths from attacking Hamas). My second reason is that any move that is defensive is morally justified. Israel's attacks have often been targeted specifically at Hamas military installments that pose potential harms for Israel. Attacking these as a safety measure is morally justified, as again, the lives saved outnumber the lives lost. If Israel were attacking Hamas as an offensive operation, things might be different, but as a defensive measure, moral justification exists. A large part of this case is built around the fact that Israel actually threatened. This is true. First look in the news. Hamas has already killed many civilians whether it be from hidden tunnels or the few rockets that beat the iron dome. Second, a story. I have been told first person accounts of being in Israel and hiding from rockets pouring from Hamas. Needing to hide in shelter on a vacation. No person, no country should have to live in constant fear of being killed. As an operation to liberate civilians from the shackles of fear, Israel's actions are justified.
Cannabis should be legalised

P1; It seems that 'prohibition' of Cannabis has little effect on it's usage. This would suggest that legalisation wouldn't affect that factor at all. [1] P2; The drugs in Cannabis that give that 'high' are also extremely low in toxicity making it impossible to overdose. So that leads us to the long term effects. P3; There's not real evidence for the long term effects. This is because of the illegality of the drug. A lot of the tests done have been proven to be inaccurate and having very bad methods, and a lot of them could have been bias. P4; There is also the argument of personal choice. It's not like you're putting anyone else's life in danger. You could mention 'driving high' but sleep deprivation or just mere reckless driving is a lot more likely to 'cause accidents. Like I mentioned in my earlier point though, it is unlikely to increase usage much if at all. All 'prohibition' does is victimise users and waste police time and money better spent elsewhere. [2] P5; The United States Government, itself, filed for and was awarded a patent (#6,630,507) on cannabinoids as neuroprotectants, useful in the prevention and treatment of a wide variety of diseases including stroke, trauma, auto-immune disorder, HIV dementia, Parkinson's and Alzheimers. P6; Making it illegal means there's a black market for it, meaning it fuels crime, I don't need to point out how that's bad. P7; You can also tax it which would bring in more money for governments. P8; You can also use the hemp from Cannabis for many products including paper. It is a lot more renewable than cutting down the rainforest. I'll leave it at that for now. :) 1. http://healthland.time.com... 2. http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Cannabis should be legalised

I congratulate my opponent on knowing his own beliefs. It remains to be seen whether he can back them up. I represent the status quo in this debate. Pro argues for a change and he must justify it. He must show that cannabis should (not could or will, but morally ought to) be legalized. I await his opening arguments. First, though, by way of clarification, let me make it clear that I will assume unless corrected that he means "Cannabis (marijuana) should be made legal to possess, grow, sell, use, and transport in the United States. "
Cannabis should be legalised

Tiresome. I was hoping to have this big controversial argument, where I take the unpopular side and defend it against all odds, losing bravely to a worthy opponent and incurring the scorn of all the cool kids on the block. They would take their strange-smelling cigarettes out of their mouths just long enough to boo me as I pass on my way to execution; I would smile wanly, my courage sustained only by the thought that I would soon join my dear sainted aunt, who perished chainsaw in hand trying to cut timber in the woodlands devoted to the holy Spotted Owl. Instead, not only do I survive to win the debate (against all reasonable expectations), but to add insult to injury it gets buried by forfeits on the back pages. This is beyond bearing. My aunt will have to wait a while yet, I'm afraid, as my opponent failed to even show up for half the debate. It should have been an easy win for him, considering the fact that almost everyone on this site agrees with him; all he had to do was disagree with me. I don't know, he still may win. Votebomers, and all that. I'm just rambling now; this debate was in truth rather a disappointment to me, as I expected to have to fight for the win. I wish my opponent better fortune and more time in his future debates. C.
Why is Jesus Christ always being portrayed as white almost every church all over the world (racism)

In this debate, I will not provide the usual essay style debate. Instead, I will use the cut-paste approach, where I take statements from Pro and reply with a direct rebuttal.Firstly, some definitions. By "white," I am assuming my opponent refers to the shade of skin color that is caused by a lack of pigmentation (melanin) within the skin cells of albino and caucasian peoples. All Pro statements will be underlined. Why is Jesus Christ always being portrayed as white almost every church all over the world ?A good question. However, a better question to ask would be: Why are almost all of the painters who depict Jesus in their paintings white? This is a much more appropriate question and shows that it is in effect not racism, but actually just a human tendancy to depict the unknown similar to themselves, especially if they wish to emulate said depiction. This is not inherently due to racism. Racism, according to google dictionary, is a noun which means, The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as... Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief. On first glance, it would already be made clear that racism is not a cause of the depictions being white. This is because in medieval times, potrayals of Jesus was white. (It is probable that prior to this there were few, if any, depictions of the Christ) As such, the main contention, that of racism, is mute. (Oh, I like that word).I think history of colony racism is the main reason behind this. This is simply incorrect. By the medieval stage of European cultural development, Jesus was already being portrayed as white. This makes your second contention mute because the barbaric Europeans (compared with the civilized easterners) would not have any sense of superiority in terms of colonization and race.The last is not important to the debate, but I believe Jesus is of similar skin color to the rest of the Jewish population (They have always been known as Jewish). This skin color is dark-olive-brown. In this few paragraphs, I have shown that Pro's wall of text is filled with errors. Back to Pro.
Why is Jesus Christ always being portrayed as white almost every church all over the world (racism)

Why is Jesus Christ always being portrayed as white almost every church all over the world ? (I'm not here arguing about religion and faith ), but If we think more logically, we assume that Jesus Christ was born near Jerusalem, he must be Hebrews (or mostly nowadays jews or Palestinian ) , he shouldn't have that kind of lossen light white skin but maybe a little bit darker, something in between scandinavian and Arab, but almost every church I've been to , even bibles of some different Christian branches, it's showing Jesus as a caucasian. I think history of colony racism is the main reason behind this. Since the renaissance and the discovery age, western of the world at that time started to become the main dominate and leading places ,the "center" of the world started to westshift from ancient china, India, Persia, Ottoman Empire Turks...etc . As Europe main power like the British , French, Spain grew and expand their colonies all over the world, Christianity also being introduced in many places, but these new churches that we can visit today only remain Jesus "white " identity. One of the most supporting reason is that these European colonizers need to portray a "white" messiah for lots of reasons political stability, the legality of their superiority over the other races Colonization and white power ruling . I was just wondering how did Jesus "look "like during the late Roman Era till middle ages in Europe or other places like middle east. Even till now , in this about 250 years old nation so called United States, we can only see that Jesus be portrayed in black or dark in some black church. But this is only recent 30 yrs which happened in this country after the civil right movement. Thus finally, I think since there is no proof which skin color Jesus got,thus either white and black make not logical, maybe a little bit dark brownish white with black hair in my deduction. In conclusion racism and colonization are one of the main reasons which can well explained Jesus Christ's "skin".
Abortion

Life: The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter. It took me 5 seconds to find this explanation of life. Why would it take Con 2 hours to write the same. What Con differentiates between, is the value they are prepared to attribute to the lives of different species. and not life itself. This is simply a human centred, selfish disregard for all other species. Life is a singular almost magical property that is present and equal in all species. The questions are. Does life have real value. Is life merely a quirk of evolution Does life have any significance beyond it's Earth bound home. The honest answer to these questions is, we do not know. All we have is theories and theories are guess work. Keystone species: Another and completely different debate really. But I would assert that in proffering this argument,Con exacerbates their misunderstanding and consequent double standards with regard to the value of life. Addendum response: Con's response to this quite simple question is confused to say the least. Either they accept that the taking of human life is justifiable or they do not. They say yes, but then wish to pick and choose which lives they take. Once again, double standards. Which clearly suggests that Con's arguments are based on emotive thought and not logical thought. From a logical and realistic debating standpoint, I would assert that the life contained within an embryo or fetus has exactly the same value as the life contained within a terrorist bomber. Society makes rational collective decisions, that justify the taking of life, whether it be the life of a terrorist or the life of an embryo or undeveloped fetus. Not everyone will agree with those decisions, but accepting those decisions is the price we have to pay to be able to live in a relatively safe and stable society. One day our respective nations may decide to legislate against abortion and I for one will whole heartedly support that decision.