BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People should be allowed to wear what they want.

The veil that you describe for Muslim women is called either a niqab or a burka, depending on the style of the facial covering. In a Muslim country that is ruled by Sharia Law, it is fine for women to cover themselves up. But if Muslim women travel to a country that is not governed by Sharia Law, then they are subject to the laws of that country. There are many reasons why a country may have certain laws regarding dress codes. If a photo is required for a passport, driver license, school ID, etc., then obviously a woman can't have her face covered. Her face has to be shown so that she can be identified. If she has contact with law enforcement for any reason, they have to be able to identify her. This is not limited to Muslim women though, as the original argument was "people should be allowed to wear what they want." The inference of that statement would give people the freedom to not wear anything at all, if they so choose. Do you really want grown men walking around a playground naked, exposing themselves to children? There are laws in place for a reason, and people should abide by them.
All places of worship need to fall, as no stone shall be upon another.

https://en.wikipedia.org...(poem) "As I was going up the stair I met a man who wasn't there! He wasn't there again today, Oh, how I wish he'd go away!" When I came home last night at three, The man was waiting there for me But when I looked around the hall, I couldn't see him there at all! Go away, go away, don't you come back anymore! Go away, go away, and please don't slam the door... Last night I saw upon the stair, A little man who wasn't there, He wasn't there again today Oh, how I wish he'd go away... Now we are on the same page are we not? Now look at this poem and when you come to "any more" the spell check just can't determine if it's any more or anymore but it can within this current state of ones and zeros are logic. To speak with articulation is a mix of logically and laterally. The be poetic is to be literally within the boundaries of expression. The barriers with-in communication stop, if you stop to listen. As all it took was a line between any-more and that man upon a stair had gone away. What you wish upon another you wish upon yourself. When all he asked of us was to love each other and we will learn how to love our self and don't do to another what you wouldn't do to yourself. The tongue is as a double-edged sword it cuts both ways. Practising; Empathy, Humility, Sympathy and Cooperation throughout our lives, create's an understanding of the surroundings that we are subjected to, doing this teaches us how to talk to each other, so we can speak with each other and not at each other. Peace be with you. All praise and glory belong the Nature our own existence creator of the known universe. Amen
All places of worship need to fall, as no stone shall be upon another.

Pro has changed the debate topic. Pro seems has not rebutted any of my arguments but has instead chosen to attack me personally based on an assumption. Pros attacking points contradict. How can someone live to work and have power and money to change the world? Average Joes are the corporate slaves- not the rich. I don't see how my arguments are anything against the average Joe. If anything your argument of bringing down religion impacts average Joe's the most. Also, your analogy was really just an attempt by you to act smarter but truthfully, it is juvenile but since you asked if I understand it, I will translate it for the mature people out there. Pro is basically saying that life is just being wasted by people trying to achieve things that are not worth achieving. And that should we change our take on life. If only pro could debate as well as he makes similes because I really liked that last sentence. The problem is that pro does not explain why my attempt was hollow or anything. Now back to the debate please By destroying places of worship you are simply harming people.
All places of worship need to fall, as no stone shall be upon another.

Well, aren't you a good student that fits right in with the 1% of the population that have the power and the money to create a little less dread in the world but they won't. I once upon a time wondered why. Are you one of them? You put the blame on the average Joe as to say if you don't like it then give what you have away. Have you been conditioned that well to be a happy little slavey? Prove me wrong and tell me that you work to live not live to work. While the sea water rises and go on just say it, like all of you other brainwashed media junkies, climate change is just bull sh#t and the world is flat. It's just all fake news. Life is but a pubic hair definitely standing upon the toilet bowl, justly waiting to be pissed off into the accolades of a notice that wasn't worth noticing, to begin with. Until the toilet roll asked, have you got the message yet? Do you sit down or stand up pubic hair? Is it more than sh#t on a stick or a sponge on a stick? Let us see if you have the ability to comprehend the message written on the toilet paper. Move along little donkey and that will do pig. If what you have put forward is the best you can do as you speak for the human race. You had better leave as your attempt was as hollow as an election rally promise.
Presidential Debate: Lannan13 vs. TBA

1. AbortionMy opponent States that he wants to take abortion out of politics and then in the same breath States that he wants to distribute more abortion pills when he stated that he wanted abortion out of politics. Couldn't he make up his mind. It is also very important that the child has parental permission before an abortion. 2. Gay marriageMy opponent believes in a complete legalization of gay marriage but according to the 10th Amendment States that it is left up to the each individual States for cases not stated in the Constitution. This is an issue to needed you be left up to the States.3. Voting rightsIt needs to be a federal priority. We have the dead lined up to vote. Also we must require a photo ID at voting unordered to keep down on voting fraud, so we can have a fare vote.4. Foreign policyISRAELI Iran- Israel is are greatest ally and we must support them. Iran has been nothing but trouble for the US and they have threatened the US with scud middles that can take out any US base in the Middle East.Syria- I agree with my opponent on Syria, but we must still support these reble s, because if we don't Syria could turn out to be another Egypt.North Korea- At the minimum we post trade sanctions against this axis of evil nation and declare war on them if they attempt to aquire the nuclear bomb.5. Welfare & Social SecurityI agree with my opponet that people should be able to keep their 401k, but all in all Social Secuirty has had a bad streak of ruining people's retirement so inorder to prevent this from happening in the future Social Security must be abolished. As for Welfare it needs mass reformation, for example people that recieves its money must contribute back to society like maybe community service and they would need to push their applications. America has got thousands of jobs under Obama but where are they? Why are there still people on welfare if there are thousands of jobs have been created. 6. DronesWe agree here so lets not waiste time here.7. DeficitWe do need to bring jobs back from over seas even if it means more expensive items, but the U.S. can finaly go back to the Made in the USA era. The trillion dollar coin can easily get us out of debt with many nations and soon the U.S. could be debt free. But as soon as we pay our debts of they'll apear again, because of our mass spending that needs to be cut.8. Electorial CollageI didn't say that the electorial collage should be abolished what I said was that the electorial college's main job should be to tally the popular vote and that elections should be determined by popular vote.9. Gun ControlIn the status quo we have extensive back round checks before one is even able to do paper work to get a gun. These back round checks take 5- 7 days and they get everything. So my opponet wouldn't be changing anything as a matter of fact he is just reinstating the status quo. There is no need to change it if it isn't broken. Like my momma always said, "Don't fix it if it ain't broke."
Presidential Debate: Lannan13 vs. TBA

Welcome to the presidential debate. I'm Lannan13 and I represent the republican party. Rules preferably my opponent is from a different party. Cussing isn't poor conduct it's actually encorage no ff. Other members on this site can bring up questions in the comments and they must be answered unless it is past round 4. In this debate you will bring up your running mate in round 2. The main issues in this debate will be but are not limited to abortion, gay marriage, deficet, drones, foreign policy, voting rights, welfare, social security, electorial system, and more. In first round you must state your Moro. First round you state your party and were you're from. Other then that it's acceptance. No new arguements made after round 4. So help I'm Lannan13 and I'm from Topeka, Kansas and I'm here to work for you.
The christian god does not exist

Cool. Thanks for accepting this debate. I also will be doing a lot of refutation, but I will start with my arguments. 1. There are infinitly many different gods that could possibly exist. Perhaps there are many gods ( like in greek mythology), perhaps there is a god that is all knowing and all good, but is not all powerful, or maybe a mayan or nordic god exist. There is no evidence that shows that the christian god is more likely to exist than any other conceivable god. Then, logically, the chance of the christian god existing is one in infinity. 2. If god was all good, all knowing and all powerful he would not allow all the evil in the world. There are cases where really bad things happen to good people and really good things happen to bad people. While some of this is conceivable because of freewill, there are also cases of extreme evil. For example if a criminal burns a good person alive instead of shooting them. Therefore god is not all good powerful and knowing. 3. If god cared about humans he would want us to know about him. God does not want us to know about him. If he did all he would have to do is come down now, in the age of science and tell everyone he exists. Then it would be clearly documented and people would believe in him forever. It is unfair for god to judge humans without saying he exists. It is unfair to want people to believe in something without evidence. Therefore, god does not want humans to know of his existence. Because of this he is not an all caring god.
The christian god does not exist

definitions-exist-a : to have real being whether material or spiritual.http://www.merriam-webster.com...I will be arguing that the Christian god does exist, Most of my argumentation will be based on logic.If I can prove logically, practically, or ethically, or spiritually that god exists in at least one of these aspects then this debate should won in cons favor.I can assure the readers that The meat of this debate will be in reffutaion.This should be interesting because my approach is a bit differnet than normal. So let it rip.
Gay Marriage should be legal.

As I stated, I won't deal with arguments in this round. I must leave it up to the voter. Also, I would like to apologize to the voter for my opponent's behavior. It's obvious that he wasn't brought up right, and I'm sure he doesn't mean to make humans in general look bad. The fact that he is a flaming homosexual must leave him with much guilt and pain emotionally, and I can understand this as I am used to working with children. You have seen my arguments, and I urge you, voter, to vote Negative. Thank you!
Gay Marriage should be legal.

This is meant to be a friendly debate about basic human rights, created primarily because I am terminally bored. Homosexuals, be they male or female, aren't part of some secret sect, they aren't in any way different physically, mentally or emotionally, their political views are just as collectively diverse as heterosexual views, their private activities with each other should be dismissed as none of anyone's business just as easily as the private activities of heterosexual people. Let them marry if they so wish, they're ultimately no different from heterosexuals, they just have alternative tastes in intimacy.
Money Can Bring Happiness

all Pro's arguments are summing up to one thing. "Money is even required for our basic needs, so if our needs are met we become happy". yes i agree that money is required even for spreading religion and spirituality, but that is not the ultimate thing which brings us happiness. Pro is saying he has seen some poverty ridden people on TV who are unhappy. Yes, i agree it is due to their misuse of their own freewill. what is the guarantee that after getting food and shelter they will become happy? then unhappiness will come in some different form. Pro has stated in one of the statements that saints are nonsense. Why does he think so, Saints are the people who are self realized, i am talking about real saints. I don't think Pro has ever met any Saints in his life, that's why he speaks so. And about the argument about happiness in married life. Pro says a wife gets a letter from husband that he is coming home and she feels happy. Please notice here that the neither the paper nor the ink is giving her happiness. It is the message and the relationship between her and the husband which is giving happiness. similarly, it is not money which brings happiness, it is ultimately the relationships. Of course money is required for our minimum needs, yet doesn't bring happiness. There are poor people who lead a life centered around God, and they are the people who are happy, If you come to India you can find families like that. I don't think in America or Pro's country there are families like that. talking about unhappiness in poverty, it is due to laws of nature that brings them unhappiness and nature does not provide them the basic needs. it is something called as "karma" if you have heard of it. all these laws are ultimately comtrolled by God Himself. talking about getting a billion dollars myself, Pro said i would have a grin from ear to ear. Yes, I may have but my ultimate happiness depends on how i use it, whether in service of God or selfishly. As long as i use it selfishly i always have the fear that i will lose it, and that worry brings misery. talking about the statistics of happiest people, The most happiest country is statistically proved to be Bangladesh, though the country is very small and not a developed country, Pro can himself check in his country which is developed and every family has a lot of money, are the people most happy and are the people free of stress and anxieties? one last thing, Even at the time of death , a person is desperately strugging for his life, how much happy does he feel if his life is just extended for even a second.. but whatever money he gives, even billion dollars, he cannot get that second.. so how do you think money can bring happiness? maybe just for a small amount of time it may satisfy us. But not eternally. Eternel happiness lies in satisfying the self. If you see self realized souls who leave the body,(i don't think Pro has ever seen, I have.) they leave their body with peace and satisfaction and go to a higher destination.
Money Can Bring Happiness

>> money or currency is just pieces of paper with something printed on it.. how do you think be source of happiness. >> The richest actor was once interviewed, he said " I have so much of money, i can purchase anything i want, but i am not happy and satisfied. Because relationships have become artificial. Everyone pretends to love me but they love my money". >> On the other hand you see people who lead a simple life for ex:Saints, they are happy and satisfied. >> more the money , more is the worry and more is the fear that someone will steal it. i can tell you many more things, but this first round.. To know what is actual happiness and whether money will real happiness, please take time to sit these sites, they are very inspiring and you'll get answers to all your questions. http://www.richardslavin.com... http://radhanathswami.blogspot.com... http://radhanathswamionline.com... .. and there are many more..
The practice of circumcising babies should be discontinued

Thanks for the debate, bluesteel. While most people probably agree with my opponent, I took this debate as a challenge both for myself, and to see if Pro could really fulfill his burden of convincing the audience that people should no longer seek circumcisions for babies. As Sieben rightly pointed out in the comments section, it's pretty undeniable that circumcision has vast medical, aesthetic and physical benefits, and that waiting to get a circumcision later in life can be more dangerous, and it's certainly more uncomfortable, inconvenient and painful. Therefore, Pro's argument will essentially be that despite those realities, it's morally preferable to give the individual the choice later on in regard to his own body. However throughout this debate I will demonstrate that parents have both the right and responsibility to make choices for their small children that will undoubtedly impact them, and that circumcision is merely one of these many choices.
The practice of circumcising babies should be discontinued

The lack of specificity of an agent in the resolution implies that people should all collectively discontinue the practice of circumcising small children; the resolution does not imply a state-mandated ban on the practice of circumcision. My opponent should offer a brief introduction in round 1. Argumentation will begin in round 2. ==Definitions== According to Princeton's Wordnet: Circumcision means "surgical removal of the foreskin of males." [1] Practice means "a customary way of operation." [2] Discontinue means "put an end to . . . an activity." [3] Baby means "a very young child (birth to 1 year)." [4] ==Citations== [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [3] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [4] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Clothing Style/Amount Should Be Up to The Individual and Not Enforced by Law

I don't mean that actual relationships will be damaged. I mean future relationships will be damaged. I believe that relationships are more reliable and more stable if built on friendship and mutual interests. If relationships were built on that then there would be no need for revealing clothing, as showing off ones body becomes far far less important. On quite the contrary, in today's society as revealing clothing is becoming more and more frequent, relationships are being founded on physical attraction and so veyr often end up unhappy. I think society on the whole would be happier if sexuality was kept in the confines of the bedroom between intimate partners, rather than used as a tool to attract partners in the first place. I think that sex and sexual attraction are far more precious when kept as a treat to be shared by committed partners. Of course people will feel sexually attracted regardless, however I think its importance in society ought to be downplayed so both boys and girls learn the importance of personality in relationships rather than looks. With regards to nudity, of course nobody should be forced to be nude. However even if everyone wanted to be nude, again I think that there is something special about having things that are reserved only for the eyes of a loving partner. I think the whole idea of sex being something that occurs between partners and so being nude equally reserved makes the whole ordeal far more exciting and fun. Sex is a good example and a pro creation society would be a very boring one to live in. Hence promiscuous sex is generally discouraged as it makes the act of sex far less sensual and more of a social activity.However arguably being self conscious about your body shape is a very healthy thing to happen considering the current obesity crisis. We already have Sadiq Khan in the UK banning pictures of women in bikinis because they make overweight women feel insecure. It is so important that we fight this censorship and have healthy bodies celebrated, so perhaps revealing clothing is required to try to bring healthy bodies back into the norm.
Clothing Style/Amount Should Be Up to The Individual and Not Enforced by Law

I think that sexuality is a personal matter and so shouldn't be shown to everyone who looks. Sexual drive is part of human nature and will always be present in young adults. Revealing clothing is always going to stimulate that sexual drive, and so relationships are always going to be damaged if revealing clothing is heralded as the norm. I'd like to ask, what is your argument against everyone going nude? Other than the health impacts, if being open about the body is the key to improving social esteem, then surely we should abandon all clothes when we can? I don't think it's fair to the younger generations to have them constantly compete for sex appeal, especially considering most people are tremendously unattractive (by modern standards). People are always going to look for partners based on looks, but I do think it is best to discourage such things so that lasting couples can be formed on mutual interests rather than just sex appeal. I don't think anyone is shaming anyone about their sexuality. A scantilly clad girl walking down the street may be gay or straight, who knows. Unless you mean people should be less self conscious about their own bodies, which of course should be the case. However arguably revealing your body is not necessarily the best way to stop self consciousness. I think that it would be better to have girls just not care about their looks and see more to their lives than such things, rather than simply draw more attention to their bodies by wearing less.
Clothing Style/Amount Should Be Up to The Individual and Not Enforced by Law

I would first like to say that we both agree that modesty is a virtue, and of course relationships are about far more than sex. Your argument against clothing as a cover for dangerous activities is an interesting one. One could say maybe it should be a law to show your face when you enter an establishment, but that wouldn"t cover the people who would get robbed on the streets. My argument was targeted at those who want to wear less clothing rather than more, but I didn't explicitly state that so your argument is definitely warranted. I will concede that half of the argument to you, however I would still like to debate that lack of clothing should not be discriminated against. Young people are told that showing off their sexuality is immoral and wrong, when in many parts of the world people walk around in nothing but a small cloth. There are no statistics that collate nudism and sexual activity. It is our own confusion about it being something that is immoral that causes our brains to fire when we see the opposite sex dressed in a revealing clothing. I only mean to argue that if people were allowed to be more open about their body if they wished then maybe there would be much less shaming for being open about our sexuality.