BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Muslims are terrorists.

You are just citing contradictions in the Qur'an, because there are 109 verses that say contrary to that, Qur'an 3:151:"We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers."Qur'an 4:74:"So let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed or achieves victory - We will bestow upon him a great reward."Qur'an 5:33:"Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,"There isn't some Qur'an 2 that "radicalized" muslims read from that is different from what "peacefull" Muslims read out of, there is ONE Qur'an, that advocates for terrorism, violence, and attrocities. Proving that the Qur'an contradicts itself doesn't change any of this.
Muslims are terrorists.

Islam is the world's second largest religion. Islam is a religion of peace and security. If one studies Islam, the one will come to know that Islam does not promote terrorism and killing. People do not know Islam well and that is the reason they think that Islam supports terrorism or Muslims are terrorists. Terms like "Mujaheddin" and "Jihad" are greatly misused nowadays by the world. Jihad is an Islamic obligation but people in the world do not understand it well. Jihad is allowed in Islam for only two reasons: one is to defend yourself and Islamic state from attack and the other allowance is for fighting the elements which stop or produce hurdles in the ways of preaching and obeying Islam.This shows that Jihad is for defense and securing freedom of religion.Jihad is only applicable in these two conditions or it will become something else which is not Islamic.If someone looks at different Muslim countries today, they are the most troubled places in the world. They are the greatest targets of terrorism. This means that terrorists are not Muslims because no Muslim will attack his own Muslim brethren. This is a fact that terrorist organisations like Taliban and Al Qaeda call them Muslims but one should not forget that Mufti-e-Azam Saudi Arabia and many other ulama have published fatwas declaring terrorists as non-Muslims. So, one should have no point in saying that Islam is terrorist religion. The Koran says: ""Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not begin aggression, for God loves not aggressors." Here is a reference from the history: The killing of innocent non-combatants is forbidden. According to Sunni tradition, "Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first Caliph, gave these instructions to his armies: "I instruct you in ten matters: Do not kill women, children, the old, or the infirm; do not cut down fruit-bearing trees; do not destroy any town . . . " (Malik"s Muwatta", "Kitab al-Jihad") So the world must not relate Islam and religion to terrorism.
Teaching Religion in Public Schools

There are many things that are taught in school that the majority of Americans will not need in order to function is society. However the point of public school is not just to push out functioning members of society, It is to educate people beyond what is considered essential. Think about how much conflict could be resolved if people respected one another better than they do now. I have heard way to many people get angry about things they wrongfully believe about "others". The reason for focusing on the major religions is due to the law of diminishing returns, The more religions we cover, The less time we can spend on each one. So if we just focus on a handful that cover the most people and have had the most impact we can get more quality instead of just quantity. As far as your Horus claims, I'm sorry but you are wrong. I believe you probably got that information from Boll Maher's movie "Religulous". I am sorry, But that movie has been discredited by many scholars, Egyptologist have had to come out in mass and say that Horus was not born of a virgin, His mother copulated with father Horus who was dead at the time, And was born during Egyptians equivalent of November. Jesus was probably born in the summer, The reason for celebrating his birthday in late December was because of the Roman holiday known as Saturnalia which took place at that time.
Teaching Religion in Public Schools

That's an excellent point, And I mostly agree. However, I still don't think religion is nearly important enough to require people to know it simply in order to function in society. I personally believe that religions are simply untrue fairytales, Which if you want to learn more about, You can choose to go to church. America has freedom of religion, And you can learn about any one that you choose without forcing it on people. That brings me to my next point, Which is, Why stop at the major religions? There are roughly 4, 200 religions in the world, All of which are equally unprovable. Some of these religions believe stories that are identical to one another. Look up the story of Horus. It's an Egyptian myth about a guy born of a virgin on December 25th(plus a billion other things that christianity directly copied). This myth existed about 3, 000 years before Jesus walked the earth. My point is, Why force such things on people if they are undoubtedly false? If you are going to force people to believe this stuff, You should probably consider the other 4, 200 of them, Seeing as they are all the same.
Teaching Religion in Public Schools

It seems with both agree on the subject, But we seem to disagree on the methodology. I would make it a mandatory subject because of how essential i believe the topic to be. We can have a more in depth course as an elective (ex: Advanced Religious studies, Christian History and Denominations, Etc. ) similar to how we currently offer foreign languages as a mandatory subject. While churches and other religious institutions are a great place to learn about a religion, It is not realistic to expect the majority of the public to learn a significant amount about all the major religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, And Judaism). I am not suggesting schools teach children that everything that these religions is the ultimate truth, But they should learn what the ideologies behind these religions are, How when and where they came about, And the contributions (good and bad) they made to humanity. There are a lot of misconceptions about these different religions that could be cleared up with a quality education.
Teaching Religion in Public Schools

While all that may be true, I was more referring to having religion taught as required classes in schools. I suppose I'm okay with giving students the right to have religious studies as an elected class, But then again, That is what church is for. It's perfectly okay for people to have their beliefs and even share them with other people, But when they start teaching them as fact to children who don't know any better, That's where I draw the line. I believe if a adolescent is interested in religion, They should go to church. School is for teaching facts, Church is for faith.
God exists .

You have wasted an ample opportunity to provide a good solid argument, but maybe that's a technique which I am not aware of. Firstly I know that I can easily say there is no evidence of any higher being, at which point you will say there is not any evidence of there not being some higher being. So let us put that "lack of evidence" aside and discuss this matter theoretically and philosophically. Firstly we should ask what are the important events which we can discuss. The creation of the universe is the most obvious. Then there is the presence of human life in the universe. And also we can discuss the impact of god on life today. I am assuming for the sake of this debate that you wish to argue the existence of the Christian God. If I am incorrect in this assumption please correct me so I can ensure that my argument is relevant. First point: Creation. Now the theory of creation related to the presence of a "god" is basically that God created the world in seven periods of time - which we now call days. Personally I am a believer in the Big Bang Theory. Basically at one point in time the universe became infinitely dense and hot , the reason for this is unknown, but basically it was an anomaly , which if you think of it was bound to happen. Now I am sure that a somewhat educated man such as yourself is aware of the evidence for the big bang ( if not let me know and I will explain in my next post). Now my friend, I am what people today would call a realist ; in my opinion the occurrence of a widely accepted scientific theory with extensive evidence and which is incredibly understandable , seems just a tad more believable than the idea that some "higher being" spoke the words "let there be light" and so immediately he created part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Which leads me to my next point, if there was a "god" then who created him ? Did he just appear as if by fluke much like the big bang ? Out of nowhere did a being so complex appear that he was able to create all we know today? Why is it that you believe in god? I am greatly interested to gain a simple Christian's point of view . Why is it that you would rather believe in a fictional entity than basic scientific principles ? Now I am a firm believer in "to each his own" and am not criticising your point of view, just enquiring as to why you have that point of view when so many more likely theories point the other way . In your next post may i advise that you rebut what I have said and then move onto the next 2 important discussion points - the creation of man, and the presence of a higher being today. Thanks, and good luck.
Hilary Clinton is better than Donald Trump

If you best argument for Hillary is that she will not secure the boarders or otherwise defend the nation against the Muslim and South American hoard, then I believe the debate is over, for the debate presupposes that we both love our country, even to the point we sacrifice political correctness, at least in my mind As you do not share that love, I have no idea how to respond to you. Perhaps if your wife and your daughters get raped by Muslim men, you will change your tune. I pray that not happens, but given your love of the tyranny Hillary represents, you will get it soon enough.
Hilary Clinton is better than Donald Trump

I would rather have a fascist like Hilary than a racist,sexist,belligerent,bullheaded bigmouth like Donald Trump. Here is why Hilary is better than Trump, because she is not a racist,sexist,belligerent,bullheaded bigmouth like tTump. A person who calls all Muslims terrorists and all Mexicans rapists is not a suitable commander and chief for the United States of America. U think i sound like Jeb right now but is true. Why does he always talk about radical Islam , why not radical hinduism. Look I'm a Christian and i know that some Christians are also extremists and there have been attacks by some Christian terrorist groups. let me tell you some attacks by radical Christians, Wisconsin sikh temple August 5th 2012. The murder of Dr George Tiller, who by the way received many threats from Al Queda and ISIS was killed by a white american . Bottom line is, no religion doesn't have bad people but we should not be so against Muslims to the extent that we ban non american ones. That in my books is just ruining the amserican dream. Let me tell you something about Trump, forget about Muslims coming here , Donald himself will be banned from close allied Muslim countries like Iran,Saudi Arabia,Iraq. Look our closest allies are the Kurds , what are we gonna ban them too. Now talking about allowing refugees the 99.9999999% of innocent people freeing ISIS who u r deporting are just gonna be terrorised by ISIS more and the 0.0000001% of people who are from ISIS u r sending back are just gonna come back better trained. Trump is dumb. Trump talks like a 3rd grader, someone should tell him that if he will be president he would be president of America not some kingdom from game of Thrones. Fasicist is also another word for illiberal , which is Donald Trump.
Hilary Clinton is better than Donald Trump

If anything Trump is fascist and I'm sure most Americans including me would want Hilary instead of Trump. I am not saying that Hilary is the next Kennedy or Reagan , I'm saying she would be better than Trump. Also i would rather have a fascist (in your opinion , Hilary) instead of a rascist, sexist and arrogant leader like Trump who goes stereotyping Muslims and Mexicans.
Should the Government be allowed to put a visual descriptor on sex offenders passports

"You cant just toss out facts because they make a very damaging blow to your argument." And you can't treat rare flukes as if they are common. It's a war on crime and war comes with casualties. "That's just insanity". It's illegal. Get over it. "in no way does anyone under 18, belong on the registry." Sure, let's not punish a few people over technicalities which could cause the more harsh criminals to believe they can create loopholes for themselves as well. The bigger criminals seeing the lesser ones catching such harsh punishment is more persuasive for them to refrain for such actions. It's a war on crime and war comes with casualties. The different ages were selected for different locations based the average maturity level of kids for that area. In some areas the average maturity level is higher and was agreed upon to be high enough to be fairly trusted to make decisions about sex. So, based on your example, a 14 year old from New Jersey on average is not mature enough to to be trusted with such decisions while a 14 year old from Georgia is. "They are at about 2.4 percent." Technically, that's just the repeaters that got caught again. The number is higher when you consider the ones that learned how to not get caught again. Also, the victims of that reported 2.4 percent would have really appreciated it if we were harsher towards their attackers so that they might not have become another victim. "which makes them more likely to break laws to survive." And exactly how does raping and molesting help someone survive? The closest way would be that it gets them arrested and now they get 3 free meals and shelter. Though, it increases their chances of being murdered by other inmates that don't take too kindly to people who touch kids. Drug users aren't helpful to you, they partake in victimless crimes. "tell them that the registry does not work" That's your opinion. "its all a money making scheme." It's a war on crime, wars cost money. "government take away our basic rights under the constitution". The criminals took them from themselves. They made their choice and broke the rules that you must abide by in order to maintain rights and freedoms. "what happens when they come for your home because they need it". Yeah I'm sure they really need a small house in a poor neighborhood. "what about when they start censoring our speech, our TV, shut down the internet, and put us into a police state". And guess what would end up causing that? Too many criminals cause they weren't scared straight. "The constitution is applicable to all people". That's your opinion. In my opinion, criminals don't deserve any constitutional rights. "The last know civilization known to mark people like this was Nazi Germany". Marking a group of people due to racism instead of criminal activity is not equal to marking people convicted of heinous crimes. It doesn't help your point. "do you want to live there?" Wouldn't have to. I know how to walk, swim, climb, etc and they can't watch every inch of the border.
Should the Government be allowed to put a visual descriptor on sex offenders passports

First, a 17 year old with a 16 is legal. Kids being kids by "playing doctor" is not illegal either. Each state has their own age limit. The most common I've seen is there has to be a 4 year age difference while one is below 16 years old and the other is above 16 years old. Everyone else you mentioned broke the law and that comes with consequences. If they don't want to be punished, then they shouldn't break the law. You say that majority of sex offenders have served their sentences. In my opinion, they haven't served enough. They should endure punishment for the rest of their lives. That's subjective though. Putting them on a list is part of protecting potential future victims. Criminals can not be trusted to not break the law again. When it comes to people who commit crimes, screw the constitution. They made their choice even though they knew it was wrong. Being gay, black, or transgender is not a crime. So, that is irrelevant. They might be treated differently than other people by other individuals, but a person should not have to avoid offending them just cause they're part of a "special group". You mention people having their basic rights removed. They removed their own rights when they chose to break the rules that go along with their rights. If you can't abide by the rules, then you deserve to lose the rights that come with them. You can not have rights without rules.
Should the Government be allowed to put a visual descriptor on sex offenders passports

The Shaun, which one of the vile and disgusting sex offenders are you speaking of? Is it the man who raped and killed John Walsh's son, because you have no argument from me. Or is it the 17 year old who has consensual sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. Perhaps it is the 6, 7, and 8 year olds on the registry for playing doctor? Maybe the married couple who has sex on a beach, or the drunk guy who peed in public? No I got it your after the cheerleader who took a inappropriate photo of herself and text it to her boyfriend making him in possession of child porn and her a maker of child porn.. The biggest problem with the registry is that it encompasses so many people who don't belong on it that you cant start giving away their basic human rights. And on another point you stated. You said that they "want to get out of punishment" that's not true, the majority of offenders have served their sentences, so in a word have had their punishment. This would be an EX Post Facto punishment, which would be a violation of the constitution on the US. The very same document that allows us to freely and civically express our opinions in this forum , granted some more eloquent and articulate then others. Once you start down a road of removing ones basic rights under the constitution where do you stop, gays, blacks, trans-gender's. Its a very slippery slope, and we must use extreme caution before we take a step.
Should the Government be allowed to put a visual descriptor on sex offenders passports

The government very sneakily passed a very expensive and bad legislation that will put a visual descriptor on passports of "registered sex offenders" stating its to protect the children of other nations fromf child and sexual tourism. This is an affront to the rights of any individual and once we start to become indifferent to the mistreatment of any class of people we have lost our humanity. We need to all stick together and tell the politicians while we want our children safe and to prevent sexual assaults and tourism, making certain individuals wear a badge identifying them is wrong.
The more fear a government inflicts on its citizen, the greater risks of civil disorder it carries.

I am happy I meet a very strong opponent on my first debate here (I scanned through your records), but I do have compelling arguments for my resolution. Well, part of. My opponent has failed to address my proper claim that not only authoritarian governments utilize fear as a tool. Democratic government has created fear in its people's mind under different forms, such as media-generated fear ("They are going to bomb us any second," "The potentiality of war is increasing every minute", and "The economy recovery is so fragile"), suppressive riot police (toward protesters), and being invasive of the bedrooms of the nation. In fact, my opponent has supported my argument that the more fear a democratic government creates for its citizens, the more likely there are civil disorders! Therefore, my argument stands. My opponent's main argument in this debate is a rather common-sense-generated one: "It's pretty basic - the more afraid you are of what might happen, the less likely you are to go out there and protest or cause disturbances. " However, I find his argument rather based on the assumptions that no other factors in the society will change the more fear a government creates. He has assumed that the citizens' anger of the government and of the society does not increase if more fear is created in their mind. Especially in a democracy, this anger will often outweigh fear and results in civil riots. The democratic part of my resolution stands. On the other hand, awed by the good amount of empirical research my opponent provided, I realize my cycle of fear only stands theoretically in a police state/authoritarian state. I adopt my opponent's position on that aspect. Thanks those who advise me in the comments section. Thanks Bluesteel. By the way, my username is Coltrane, not Coltrain. Coltrane is a very cool guy, and you can check him out here: . http://www.youtube.com...
The more fear a government inflicts on its citizen, the greater risks of civil disorder it carries.

Since the type of government that uses fear as motivation is an authoritarian government, we should compare extremely authoritarian governments (experimental group) to moderately authoritarian governments (control group). If the more repressive authoritarian governments have greater stability, this proves that fear creates stability, under authoritarianism. I'll cite one statistical analysis by Oxford economist Paul Collier to show that this is in fact the case - that within the authoritarian sphere, more repressive regimes suffer less internal violence. I'll also use the examples of Syria (compared to Libya) and North Korea, to show that repressive police states have less civil disorder than non-repressive states.
The more fear a government inflicts on its citizen, the greater risks of civil disorder it carries.

Hello my opponent and all, This is my first debate on this site. I have been reading and following many other debates, but this is my first one. I fear I do not have much experience in terms of formatting and conventions, therefore, please correct and advise me whenever you can. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ My position on this topic: The more fear a government inflicts on its citizen, the greater risks of violent civil disorder it carries. When the citizens is afraid of their own government, less likely there is political, social, and economic stability. All arguments will be posted from the second round. --------------------------------- Definitions: Fear a : an unpleasant often strong emotion caused by anticipation or awareness of danger b : anxious concerns Civil Disturbance: An unlawful assembly that constitutes a breach of the peace or any assembly of persons where there is imminent danger of collective violence, destruction of property or other unlawful acts. Burden of proof will be shared equally. __________________________ Side note: I will have to make it a bit informal since I am very new to these debates. Thanks for your understanding! : )
i can list more lies from trump than you can from hilary

i can list more lies from trump than you can from hilary trump said he was on sixty minutes with putin. putin was in russia the whole time and not with trump. trump said he wasn't pretending to be his own assistant in the nineties when someone sounding similar to trump was praising himself in the nineties. he earlier admitted it was him. trump said he saw large crowds of muslims cheering the world trade center falling, on tv. this apparently never happened.