BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The War on Terror

No. What I am suggesting is that we actually teach our own citizens about the religious and social beliefs that these people have in order to combat this stigma that occurs in our so called civilised society. For example we now see that there is a massive stigma on Muslim people because they have been portrayed as stereotypically bad people. I believe that this type of marginalization makes the situation so much worse. I do agree that there is a lack of any strong logical reasoning behind terrorism and I think it is very difficult for anyone in a rigid culture like Islam to go against those in their own culture when they are more easily persuaded that these acts of terrorism are "right" when they are marginalized by western stereotypes. If our western culture is supposed to be superior to theirs maybe we should start trying to think about more ways of coming to a mutual agreement with those that are terrorising us other than "we have bigger guns, we are going to stop aid to your country, oh and by the way we still need your oil." We still have to put the protection of our own people first but even by labelling this a war we are inciting stigma by suggesting, even unwittingly, that these people or culture are our enemies to be feared and hated. They have done some bad things but no country is unblemished by acts that are selfish and have cost many people their lives. They may be hurting us but if you really want to brandish this a "war" then we must also remember that we are hurting them. When something like this goes on for so long we begin to lose the "why" behind it all and if there isn't as much "why" to start with then it just gets lost quicker. The whole thing just becomes "they are the enemy so kill them" with absolutely no reasoning behind it at all causing so much more damage and harm than is necessary. All it takes is for one country to be more mature and just say "Hold on a minute. Is this something that we actually want and need to do? Do we need to kill these people?". This will not happen over night and this will not immediately stop all of the killing but it is a start. When western countries are seen to take a step back from a conflict to be seen to be using demographic means of discussion unselfishly because they understand that civilians dieing, on both sides of this "war", is not going to help anyone we then have more of a moral high ground and we have more support and backing off of other nations. I also think that this gives more people hope. Hope that some day there will be an end to this violence. Because a lack of hope and the light at the end of the tunnel being a mere unreachable blip causes people to think that extreme violence is the only answer when it is not.
The War on Terror

I agree that terrorist attcks are a major source of concern and police should e taught how to handle these situations. However we have a tendency to ignore the root of the problem and I feel that is what is happening with this so called "war on terror". There is a problem in society, a worldwide lack of acceptance. While I am not proposing that we attempt to make everyone give out "free love" instead of weapons and amunition I don't think fighting fire with fire is working. There is more good to be done in promoting understanding through education instead of promoting stigma by labelling this a war increasing fear on both sides of the table. You may say that this is impossible and illogical even to suggest it but by promoting understanding in our own country (UK/USA) we hold our moral high ground which has been lost over recent years.
The War on Terror

I believe the war on terror is an essential for the survival of a nation. National security is the, if not the most important item on the U.S.'s agenda. I mean major military figures are warning us about the terrorist. It is so worrying that they are informing Police Officers what to do if there is a terrorist attack in our schools, and tell them they should always carry concealed weapons with them. You know things are bad when they are informing them of this. Nation security is by far the most important item on the U.S.'s Agenda. If you still think it is ridiculous after reading this, then that's your problem.
Oil Should not be Used for Electricity Production and Transportation Fuel

However, I am for oil not being used for electricity production or as a transportation fuel, and my thesis was: 'Oil should not be used for electricity production or as a transportation fuel. ' You're against oil not being used for electricity production, and your thesis was: 'Oil should be used for electricity production or as a transportation fuel. ' I clearly stated that those were the thesis's in the first round. CON posted the following last round:I accept. "there are many alternatives to oil that are much healthier for the community. " ^^^thesis^^^I gave CON her/his thesis, and (s)he had the nerve to make up his/her own. Not only that, but CON is against oil being used for electricity production or as a transportation fuel, however, (s)he stated the following: "there are many alternatives to oil that are much healthier for the community. "His/Her 'thesis' agreed with mine, and (s)he made the thesis himself, so (s)he just completely agreed with my thesis: 'Oil should not be used for electricity production or as a transportation fuel. ' So this debate is over.
Oil Should not be Used for Electricity Production and Transportation Fuel

This debate is about whether or not oil should be used for electricity or as a transportation fuel. My thesis shall be: 'Oil should not be used for electricity production [1] or as a transportation fuel [2].' My opponent's thesis shall be: 'Oil should be used for electricity production or as a transportation fuel.' This debate has conditions, though: Any information gained from Internet research needs a link to where you got the information from, and any information gained from book research needs the title, creator(s), chapter and page that has the information you're using. No opinions can be accepted as evidence, unless it is that of an expert [3] (if you use an expert's opinion, you need the expert's name and occupation as well as the link or book page). This debate will follow the format below:Round 1) Acceptance of Conditions and Debate--No ArgumentsRound 2) Opening Arguments--No RebuttalsRound 3) Rebuttals/More ArgumentsRound 4) Summary and Conclusion of Arguments--No Rebuttals or New ArgumentsPlease note that you only have 24 hours to respond to a post. If CON forfeits round 2, leaving me nothing to refute, and (s)he comes back in round 3 with arguments, I am allowed to refute his/her arguments in round 4, as it is not fair that (s)he didn't give me a chance to refute, and (s)he cannot refute anything in round 4, no matter any circumstances. CON, you are allowed to make part 2's of your opening arguments in round 3 if you wish. By accepting this debate, you accept all conditions above and all definitions below. With that, Good luck, CON.[1]-Electricity generation is the process of generating electric power from other sources of primary energy.References:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]-Fuels used to power cars, planes, anything that is meant to transport things. [3]-A person who was enough knowledge and experience in a specific part of a field to be a reliable source in that specific part of that field (eg: an elementary school teacher is an expert at elementary education).
Convert Me

To begin, 1) Extend all of my arguments. My opponent did not refute a single claim. 2) Question all of my opponent's arguments. He provided not a single source. To conclude, My opponent did nothing but make false, unverified and arbitrary claims against a religion he is clearly misinformed about. There has been no debate here. I hope my opponent will actually make an argument in the next round; we should have a debate by round 3, but apparently we don't have one yet. So, with that, I'll hand it over to Pro. I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving break.
Convert Me

I simply want to win my case. I will do a full look at the scientific claims later but will now talk about whether a religion was made really to enlighten or for ones own benefit. If it a religion is created purely for ones own profit, such as Scientology, it is a corrupt religion and it is very unlikely divine inspiration was involved. Trusting a self interested entity for help would be similar to reading an IBM investing guide. So therefore religions made by those with no reason or benefit from the knowledge of their belief such as Buddha who gained no power. Mohamed (purposefully misspelled) on the other hand despite his humble origins I am afraid to say gained much power, so much he is in a book of great generals not even mentioning his religion, which is going to be my primary source. From the beginning he promoted his religion similarly to a businessman, at one point trying to cooperate with the Ethiopian government, because with his spread of belief came power and an empire. We know that this religion has been toyed with for personal effect on two ocassions. The first was during negotiations with the Byzantines and he put them under the Umma or protective place where violence can not occur for religion. Purely to prevent war although this is a supposedly holy act. The second proves what his motive is because it was actually common for his pagan subjects to practice their former religions, only showing political submitance, not to be enlightened. (I tried my hardest not to put the last word in quotes. ) I am not against this religion, but instead do not trust the reliability of every action. Mohamed could have received the word of Allah but I do not believe his former empire was fully committed to it but possibly wrote the Q'uran and made many other important decisions based on the interest of self preservation rather than enlightenment. Next I will cover the scientific claims you made but first must shuffle through endless amounts of Fundamentalist lies before uncovering a few facts.
Convert Me

You have not really debated but rather introduced which is alright, but I would like to learn more than the tenets as there are many more parts of a religion. This will be a very lengthly debate so two parts will be a given. Also quite interesting is your choosing of the religion of Islam. If you would notice my profile says conservative that will remind you my kind have used that religion as an insult to our president but it is an interesting choice. Try to see what you can do.
Convert Me

I am asking you to introduce a religion to me and convert me to it. I first state my beleifs. *I am an agnostic who I might describe as a Deist in the Sense of Thomas Paine *I am still traditionally Catholic meaning I take mass but do not believe it. *I follow the tenets of Chritianity and sometimes follow Taoism and Confucianism (Which I don't beleive to be religions but philosophies.) I ask my opponent to convert me to a new religion (Deism is prohibited.) I would appreciate variety and I think it cheating to use my native church of Catholicism as it gives me tremendous guilt. Please try to do this task and I apologize for any lack of response although I will be finding holes in your pleadings.
The are Starkids celebrities

There are lots of celebrities who may not be as known as other ones. What about local artists? They may be considered celebrities. Especially if it is a celebrity from an entire region, like from the entire midwest. Even in schools, there are celebrities. There are good dancers, smart people, and people who are good at sports. A school can think of some of these people as celebrities. Now, think of starkid again. They are much bigger han a school hero.
Religion is Undeniably Grand Escapism

You stated that there is no afterlife. Can you prove that to be true? I can't and I am a Christian, you see neither of us can prove anything. Religion is not for comfort. In fact, here is an example of religion not being all warm and fuzzy. The Muslim religion worships a god that hates his people according to themselves. And with Christianity We worship a loving God, but people all think that He is evil for various reasons, but a that's a debate for another time. Anyways, a friend of mine is going to go live in Indonesia because God called her to do missionary work there, and I am sure you know that Indonesia is not the most comfortable place to live. Some people think that all religious people just have religion for comfort, but with Christianity at least it is not comfortable, and you will see supposed Christians living in lavish conditions which is not wrong, they just may be wealthier than other Christians. But many will say they are Christians, yet their actions may say otherwise. And yes some people do accept religion for comfort. But not all. And religion does not always give peace of mind, in fact, I have found that things can get more stressful with religion. So know I see that you are calling me a coward and a fool. But let me ask you this; would you go to a foreign country or any hostile part of the world to preach your beliefs? Are religious people really cowards? Or is it the ones who seek to destroy the beliefs of others with flawed reasoning and the only incentive of offense to prove a point? Now I ask, who is the real coward?
Religion is Undeniably Grand Escapism

Religion is, by definition 'the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power; God(s)'. While in this debate I am not discounting the personal beliefs of others, as everyone is entitled to their beliefs, I am simply saying I believe them to be wrong. Not only this, but illogical. I was raised in a Catholic household, and raised Catholic. Both of my parents attended a Catholic school. This being said as to make it a point that I was not raised to believe in Atheism. I discovered based on my own logical thinking that religion is simply a grand distraction that humanity uses to escape the horrors of reality. Taking a step back, you will see that at their core, all religions essentially stand for the same thing. Of course there are select religions that yield considerable extremities to this rule, however most do not. Religion as a whole promts the idea of an afterlife. I believe this to be false. There is of course no afterlife. When people die....they die. Nor has there ever been any scientific evidence that says otherwise. Humans, naturally, are fearful of death. Religion compensates for much of that fear. Religion gives peace of mind to the believer that when he or she dies, they are going to 'a better place'. And therefor much of the fear and pain of death is diminished. That is great, as who am I to say people should be fearful of death? I am all for less fear, and more happiness. My only concern, is that the happiness instilled by religion is that brought on by false pretenses. People are not less fearful of death because they go to a happier place, they are less fearful because they falsely think they will. That, if nothing else, is living (or I suppose dying) a lie. "Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible god, and destroys a visible nature. Unaware that the nature he is destroying is the god he is worshiping," -Hubert Reeves ..and no one says it better than Robert Green Ingersoll: "Fear paints pictures of ghosts and hangs them in the gallery of ignorance." ^^Religious thinking is an excuse for these kinds of actions. Religion is a cowards response to fear, and a fools excuse for ignorance.
should we change " under God " in our pledge to " under government".

To be honest, I am not a big fan of pledging allegiance to any political entity, including the United States of America, especially when so many things have changed in America since its founding. The support of abortion on demand, the redefinition of the family and the support of homosexual marriages, opening the military up to people who engage in a particular sexual practice, the confiscatory nature of our taxing and spending system, and perpetual wars do not endear me to what the flag now represents. Adding "one nation under God" does not cancel these moral outrages. In fact, it would not surprise me that liberals don"t care that much about the Pledge including "under God" because its addition appeases many Americans. The courts have ruled that "In God We Trust" can stay on our money, and "under God" is still in our Pledge. God is in heaven, and everything is right with America. Wrong. The people of Israel cried out, "This is the the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord" (Jer. 7:4) thinking that all was right with their nation. In the same verse, God described such a belief "deceptive words." Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com...
should we change " under God " in our pledge to " under government".

I never said we would change it.You need to convince me and others why it is inappropriate to change it to " under government".Since over half of Americans are now dependent on government. There are probably hundreds of bureaucracies that feed the freeloader class.From healthcare, food stamps,public housing, utilities,childcare,prolonged unemployment benefits,obamaphones, cars,free bus rides. I could go on and on.That does not even address the " earned" income tax credit. People receiving a refund for money they did not even pay. I think that " UNDER GOVERNMENT " would be an ideal replacement for the pledge. You tell me why I am wrong.
Should U.S civilians be allowed to own flashlights.

wait a minuet ant think about what you just said. you don't want lights that blind the driver, then you don't want batteries that are bad for the environment. so you are suggesting we all go without cars because cars have headlights and a battery to start the car. then we all go Amish because we have no way to store power or light our homes if the power goes out. which it will because power companies are like one big battery.
Writer's Debate

The next speaker whose task it was to elucidate all the finer, more nuanced parts of the competition that surely none of the other competitors but I had already read began to speak. What a waste of time, when people could just read. I got up and walked back outside. Pacing outside I thought to myself what could possibly be the meaning of this ostentatious theme. The 'art' of science. What hogwash. Discovery in and of itself is beautiful, perhaps, but the sublime is a thing for people who feel rather than think. I was a thinker. I was not one of those emotionally malleable trollops who allowed their sentiments to be pimped by feeling -and yet I knew that discovery was beautiful. If beauty was something that I ever knew, that I could ever appreciate it would be the kind of beauty that meant a revolution not only in the academic world, but in the real world. Discovering a new use for a compound, perhaps might be one way but something more, I knew, would be the only means to distinction -and I needed Kenneth. I needed Kenneth not to solicit ideas from or even to talk 'to' but rather to talk 'at' -as I knew that my own ability was far superior to his. He was there to listen, to make facial expressions, to pretend to understand what I was saying. Cigarette. Yes. Now would be an excellent time for a cigarette. I began to pace back and fourth as the meeting let out. I inhaled, and exhaled as I looked back up at that damn statue with a condescending scowl. "Of what real value do you offer?" I asked it. "What purpose do you serve other than wasting space that could be otherwise occupied with a public water fountain?" An older gentleman sitting on a bench looked up from his newspaper at me. I turned away and took another drag from my cigarette. "What nonsense." I muttered, as I stared at the concrete sidewalk. "I've said it before and I'll say it again... Bertrand Russell would always dismiss something he didn't like as 'nonsense' whenever someone spoke in such a way that didn't please him." Kenneth said as he walked over. "The meeting is over, by the way." "Brilliant, now we can finally get to work. I have a few ideas." I replied, expeditiously. "Ok, Bertrand." Kenneth put his hand on my shoulder. "Let's get to work, then." "Damnit, Kenny!" I grumbled. "Why on earth do you call me Bertrand with such regularity?" "Because you and he are one in the same." Kenneth began to laugh. "Oh? I have published a litany of books on logic that no one other than Wittgenstein ever cared to read?" I pushed his hand off. "No, but like him your head is so firmly planted up your own posterior that your brain is starved for some fresh air." Kenneth replied, in jest. "So it is." I flicked my cigarette but at the statue. "So it is."
Reasonable and reasonably intelligent people should not debate with creationists.

Definitions Engage- prosecute: carry out or participate in an activity; be involved in; "She pursued many activities"; "They engaged in a discussion" Debate- the formal presentation of a stated proposition and the opposition to it (usually followed by a vote) Creationism- the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities. ... Reason- a rational motive for a belief or action Waste- use inefficiently or inappropriately; "waste heat"; "waste a joke on an unappreciative audience" Over the Brief period of time I've been on Debate.org I've noticed a rather unhealthy trend. People with as much as a college level understanding of evolution and natural selection are taking time out of their day to debate with creationists. This, to me, seems like a bad turn of events. Here is what we now know about our world. The universe is far older, larger and more magnificent than either the Bible or Koran suggest. We know for a fact that the Universe is approximately 14 billion years old and that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Humans evolved from non-human ancestors along a continuum with all other forms of life on Earth. Many Christians will scoff at the notion of common ancestry by saying things like Evolution is only a theory and not a fact. Such sentiments are born out of a serious misunderstanding of the word theory when it is used in a scientific context. In science there are facts, which must be explained by reference to other facts. These larger explanatory models are theories. Gravity like evolution is a theory and a fact that is not likely to be overturned even if we were to witness a rock falling upwards. If you doubt that evolution is true then you may as well doubt that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The fact that there are some scientists who proclaim the failures of Darwinism does not in the slightest suggest that there is an actual debate in the scientific community on whether or not evolution is true. Debating with creationists is a bad idea for the following reasons. It further legitimizes their position and causes uninformed people to think that there is an actual conflict of ideas when in reality this is not the case. Of course none of what I have just written should be an indication that I believe we shouldn't engage with creationists or even talk to them. We may choose to engage with creationists, holocaust deniers, flat earthers, or 911 conspiracy theorists but that does not mean we should legitimize their views by putting them before the alter of debate. By refusing to debate creationists we are denying them the important PR victory that they live for. Sources http://evolution.berkeley.edu... http://www.scientificamerican.com... Resolved, reasonable people shouldn't debate with creationists.