BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Aisha was married at six years old to the last Islamic prophet.

"'Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (May peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old." [0]Seems Aisha was married to the last Islamic prophet when Aisha was six years old. Sourcehttp://hadithcollection.com...
We should place a birth tax on Blacks.

The General Idea? The general idea is that we should have a birth tax on blacks. I propose $50-125 per baby. Twins,Triplets etc. will be 125 for everything. Less Crime. African Americans make nearly one million to 2.3 million incarcerated in prison. Now if both Hispanics and African Americans are both incarcerated the same rate as whites the prison and jail population will decline about 50%. Now how do we solve this problem? . The solution a birth tax. This birth tax will help reduce the amount of crime. With this birth tax there will be less baby's. Less baby's means less crime. This birth tax can help African Americans even up the same rate as whites in prison. So that means Prison population,and jail population will decline about 25%. Less Carbon Footprints. With this birth tax there will be less carbon foot prints. The average carbon footprint of a average American is 20 metric tons. Compared to the world average of 4 metric tons. Now how can we reduce this number and save the environment? . Well my friend it is a birth tax. With this birth tax we can reduce the amount of Carbon Footprints thus helping to save the environment. Reduce Global Warming. We can reduce global warming by reducing waste. How is this relevant well with this birth tax it helps reducing waste. It also reduces carbon emission by having less people use waste such as throwing things,recycling we can entirely stop the carbon emission and reduce Global Warming. Now the second part is conversing water. Cities consume a lot of energy purifying waters,and distributing waters. Saving water reduces carbon emission. Now the average human needs 2 liters of water. I did the math and a average human needs 720 liters of water a year. With this birth tax we can reduce the amount of water they need. Thus reducing global warming. In conclusion this is why we should place a birth tax on Blacks. Sources and Cites: . http://www.naacp.org... . https://www.sciencedaily.com... . http://homeguides.sfgate.com... . https://authoritynutrition.com...
We should place a birth tax on Blacks.

My opponent ask why I exempted other social groups. The disabled don't need the birth tax because odds are they won't reproduce. The unemployed most likely won't reproduce. Thus a birth tax is not needed amonsgt them. My opponent says that I assume Blacks will do crime based on race. Than my opponent says I demostrate the "Criminal Gene". There is no criminal gene. The reason why I say the birth tax will have less crime is that if a black baby is born depending on there state of character,and parents. These factors contribute to the child commiting crime. Over 72% of black kids are raised in a single parent household. Now how is this information relevent? The reason why is that more kids commit crime living in a single mother with no father than a kid living with two married parents. A 1987 survey on youths in custody shows that 70% did not grew up in a two parent household. Another survey in 1994 on Wisconsions Juvenile found that only 13% lived in a single parent household. There is a correlation with single parent households doing crime than a two parent households. Unlucky for us it's the black race that has 72% of black kids in a single parent household. My opponent than says that poverty is a reason why blacks are in jail. No people living in poor households have the basic nessecitys of life. In this Survey on poor households conducted by the United States Depratment of Residential Energy Consumption they found that 99% of those households have refriagtors,television,stove or a oven. 81% has a Microwave. 75% have airconditioning. 67% have a second T.V. 64% have a clothes washer. And 38% have a personal computer. Now if there living in poverty why would they commit crime if they have basic nesscitys? I believe they are morally inferior. If I was living in poverty I would not rob,rape,and kill. And I must ask my opponent would you? Any person of any income level who robs,rapes,and murders are morally inferior. Now how are these two points benefits the birth tax? This shows the reason that the birth tax is needed. This tax will reduce the crime and morally strengthen these kids to not do crime.My opponent talks how a strong working populous with a large birth rate stimulates the economy,therefore generating wealth,and how humans generate energy through their work as well as consuming. Now I must say water is limited. So I must say how is more humans gonna help us save water and reduce carbon emmision? I explained that the average human needs 720 liters of water. Now if we had less of a human populatiion we will have more resources avaible to us and we use less resurces. With less resources we have more time to genrate ideas than we do with more humans using more energy to make resources that will cause carbon emmision and thus increasing global warming. With less humans going to jail and more useful morally superior humans to make ideas we can help reduce or stop global warming. Sources and Cites:https://newsone.com...https://www.theatlantic.com...http://www.nationalreview.com...
We should place a birth tax on Blacks.

Having surveyed your three points, I believe your real vexation is with an apparent American overpopulation constraining societal resources which you seek to solve by unjustly discriminating against one sect of that population. I would like to know why other social groups are exempt from your tax; for example, the disabled and the unemployed feature as significant exponents in all three of your categories, causing inimical effect in purely monetary terms, yet the charge only applies to African Americans and Hispanics. These two groups make up 88 million people; why should the 85.7 million be taxed due to the marginal number of 'blacks' in prison? Shouldn't we treat all these sects of society with the respect they deserve as fellow human beings? http://www.infoplease.com... Less Crime. Contrary to your first argument, you assume that crime occurs by virtue of race. I look forward to your demonstration of a 'criminal gene' showing that a person's racial genetics necessitates the criminality of their actions. Couldn't it be that the 'black' prison population is constituted by the conditions of American society? Firstly, there remains an undeniable racist undertone throughout America (most obvious in the numerous police shootings of African-Americans) meaning that blacks are more likely to be jailed. And, moreover, this racist undertone typically situates many blacks into austere environments (namely poverty) where they are denied the privileges of other races meaning, with limited options, they are coerced into crime. Being put under poor societal conditions induces crime; taxing birth will not reduce it. Only by counteracting these conditions may we seek to reduce the crime rate. As Foucault would say, we are 'the effects of power' (Discipline and Punishment), and the power relations of America are causing black incarceration. Not their births. http://stateofworkingamerica.org... The Environment Conflating your second and third points, you seem concerned about the effect of how consuming resources effects the environment and reduces societal resources. This is highly contradictory. A strong working populous, having a large birth rate, stimulates the economy thereby increasing general wealth; humans generate energy through their work as well as consuming it. Taking a slippery slope argument, your reasoning would justify the Holocaust by virtue that it helps the environment because there are less people. Whilst I agree that current human consumption of natural resources is unsustainable, the solution is not in limiting the population by introducing a birth tax. The solution is devising new ways to create environmentally friendly ways of sustaining ourselves, investing in renewable energy that we can 'waste' without harming the environment, not returning to a smaller population. The more humans we have, the more ideas will be devised helping us to oppose global warming. If we had a smaller population, less money, less human resources, it would take longer to devise these solutions.
In the book 'Faults in our Stars' the grenade metaphor that is used is not good.

Definitions: metaphor - a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance[1] good - adequate, satisfactory[2] I will be debating CON against the resolution: the grenade metaphor is very good in the context of the main character's predicament. If my opponent can show that the grenade metaphor is not good, he wins. I am burdened to prove the contrary. If I can show that the grenade metaphor used is indeed good, then I win. Best of luck to the both of us. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Resolved: The U.S. should rejoice over the death of Osama Bin Laden (2)

Thank you for giving me a time extension, lets begin.Mutually exclusive Now, this is the hidden premise for all of my opponents arguments.A constant (if not predominant) theme in my opponents round is that "We can celebrate something for both itself and/or what it produces" and he argues that "In terms of my case, I am saying the externalities are enough for the US to celebrate". He finally says that "He drops this argument, and only responds to half the objection".So, have I dropped this? No, I made what my opponent calls "wine argument" and this argument establishes the two as different things. Hence, I haven't dropped the argument. Now, to defend my wine argument:Wine Argument"We WOULD celebrate wine because people like it." Contradicting is not arguing. "If wine didnt have a positive externality there would be no reason to celebrate it." We still can celebrate it."That would just be an arbitrary date to celebrate win. Not analogous to the Osama example" Not explained, how are the two different? My Arguments Plato"He is using a quote from Plato, which Leo Strauss argues writes in esoteric language (refer to wiki synopsis). My opponent just threw out some quote by did not analyze that quote first for esoteric meaning. Thus, my opponent is misusing classical philosophy. He has dropped and thus has conceded the substance of the Kritik."Leo Strauss can be right that this quote has an esoteric meaning and I can be "misusing classical philosophy" but it won't change the obvious meaning of the quote."Yes analysis is needed, he cant just say Plato says so, so its right"I never said that. Instead, I showed an argument made be Plato."I could post ant post-modern quote about death being meaningless, but that wouldnt make the quote right."No, but if t contains a valid argument then death is meaningless.Death isn't good"(1) his analogy assumes agency because death is bad because it kills good people who can do good things. This would not apply to bad people doing bad things, thus death in this case could be celebrated because it prevents future evil, like terrorism."Actually, my argument was that "Indeed, death is bad for good people, but do not bad people also suffer the permanent losses of death? So, it is bad for both". Hence, death is bad for both groups."Osama and Al Qaeda doesnt care about diplomacy or getting along. They want to kill our citizens and cause terror."Doesn't change the effects of death. Also, how do you know that Osama would have never changed his ways? Is it completely impossible? Even if there's a minor possibility death is bad for it destroys that possibility."Yes, thats why it is good. The losses depend on agency and/or the results of that death" Irrelevant (refer to "mutually exclusive" section).
All personnel in developed countries are free

Since this is the opening round, I am going to provide my argument on my current position, Which is that human being are not free. Argument 1: The definition of freedom: According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, The word Freedom stands for: - The quality or state of being free, Such as: 1. The absence of necessity, Coercion, Or constraint in choice or action; 2. Liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : INDEPENDENCE. From the definitions, We can clearly see that the word of freedom is to have a person acting according to his will however, This is indeed not the case in the modern society. Regardless of whether you are in a Developed Country or a Developing country, There is always some sorts of rules you must abide by in order to survive in the society you live in. Argument 2: Freedom is never real Despite repeated claims from countries such as United State saying that they are the ultimate Free West, These claims aren't true. First of all, From the Argument 1, We can understand that being free is to live by no one's rule, Which is not the case in United State, Or other places on earth. Everyone must abide to the law in order to survive. One of the most outrageous example of the freedom that was took away from people, Is the electoral right. The Electoral College, The most notorious government branch today, Controlled by 583 representatives from all states, Selected by people. Despite it's continual framing as free election, The election is not free as the electoral colleges are weak against corruption of the electoral representative. For example, In the 2000 presidential election, The most controversial part was the California part. While the California Court had ordered for a recount, The Supreme court called the recount: "Unconstitutional" and ordered to stop the recount, Effectively giving Bush the presidency. While this is perhaps normal, Gore is still the only presidential candidate in the history of United State who had won the General vote but had lost the Electoral vote. The US system of election is simply, In 1 word, Anti-free election. C3: The Social Structure Of Developed Country: One of the most significant point that should be pointed out here is the radical change in society after the Industrial Revolution, While introducing money and mass production, The industrial revolution also began to shape our mind into a stable structure. Currently nearly everyone simply have 1 way to go in life: Go to school - University - Job - Retirement - Death. That is not what freedom truly is, Human is a creative species. However, With all these requirement that we had now make into our shackles, Human kind is truly, No longer free.
All personnel in developed countries are free

First Of All, Thank you for responding to this debate. My Opponent offered an argument based on people's freedom of speech. However, That is certainly not totally true. Despite the surface claim of free speech, US continues to have bias and restricted news that were not released. In the UN definition of freedom of speech, It was stated: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, Receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. " However, Many news media and also other types are being targeted in not only US but also other developed countries. For example, Spotlight, A 2015 American biographical drama film directed by Tom McCarthy. The film follows The Boston Globe's spotlight team as they uncover the crime done by a catholic priest called John Geoghan. Revealing to us that not only does the government censor news, But also large cooperation. Secondly, There is something very important on the definition of speech: everyone have the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Which means they also have the right to receive informations. Edward Snowden might be the best example of this. Employed by both CIA and a NSA sub-contractor, Snowden gave up a comfortable life of 200 thousands US dollar a year, And revealed to the public about the project PRISM. A project that is suppose to spy on US citizens' online activity and also personal information. While the public does have a right to know this, And indeed falls under the freedom of speech, US government still declared him as a traitor, Proving to us how government must be hidding secret from the public, Not for their own good, But for bad ways.
All personnel in developed countries are free

My Argument: I do agree that in developed countries people may not be completely free, But do have freedom to do certain things. What people have freedom to do is said in the Bill of Rights, Or the first ten amendments to the constitution of the United States. One example is the freedom of speech. This means citizens of the USA have freedom in this particular area. So they can have unrestricted direct communication to other people and cannot be punished for speech due to them not having any restrictions in this area.
The Law is not always right.

Letting my opponent argue first. Australian resident preferred as the laws in different countries can be very, well, different. Note: I am by no means telling people that we should just go around killing everyone just for fun because the law said that it is illegal to do so. I myself have never gotten one parking ticket in the 3 years I've got my driver's license. All I'm saying is that some law/s are unreasonable and should be changed.
A live chat for members should be attached to this website.

"Live chat would be a bad idea b/c ppl would create voter alliances and ask their friends that they acquire to vote 4 them all the time." Uhhh... Hmmm... Well.... Yea actually. Crap. So, I hadn't thought of that. I concede the point. I guess on a side note I'd suggest a button to surrender when your opponent convinces you. Don't vote for me people. The last thing I want to see is cliques and clans. God I can see it now, "vote netting". A tiny version of the party system.
A live chat for members should be attached to this website.

I think it would be quite nice to talk to all of you people real time. :) The moderation is quite annoying, ...Phil! (he runs the site, supposedly. We can handle the dirty words, seriously. Live chast would be a bad idea b/c ppl would create voter aliances and ask their friends that they acquire to vote 4 them all the time. the judges are biased anyway now. the judging would be even more unfair later if ppl could talk to each other without having to stay on topic for a debate.
We should relax restrictions on guns

For my argument this round, I want to ask you some questions. Can you prove to us that there are more schools than police officers? (by the way each town has an average of 3-5 schools and each police station or barracks should have A LOT more than that). Isn't it also not possible to keep guns out of the hands of every single crazed citizen? What type of schools keep their kids for 24 hours? If there were no police in the school, wouldn't a lot more people be shot because they would have to take the time to call 911? Now for the reasons why there are so many shootings (for the 3rd time actually). Newtown, VA tech, Aurora, and many more happened because of the mental illness system in this country. That's what we need to regulate, suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death in children ages 15-24 and nearly 20% of teens are clinically depressed. This needs to end, and I'm sure that regulating guns would not solve that issue. Again, if someone really wanted to do a mass killing they wouldn't even need guns. Before 9/11 and these mass shootings, restriction on guns were as relatively low as people like me want them to be. Have you seen mass shootings when nearly everyone owned a gun? No, it started with the increase in other crimes which led to murder in many cases. That's how it starts, we need to teach young children to respect guns as much as alcohol or cars. Banning objects wont do any good. Oh, and please cite some sources for the information you've been getting with terrorist attacks in 2010. http://www.nimh.nih.gov... http://www.teenhelp.com...
We should relax restrictions on guns

I completley disagree with you.This is not a debate on car issue,etc .But only on guns.Now i start my argument. As you have said "put armed police officers in the schools":-It is not possible to put EACH AND EVERY armed police officers in schools since the number of schools is more than the number of police officers in the country, and even how many police officers will be able to be vigilant for the complete 24 hours ,even they require some break and during the break time if someone comes and kills anyone who knows a life is lost and if there would have been a law to not to own guns there would have been no such killing, and bu relaxing gun control we are adding more petrol to fire. And by relaxing gun control we would invite the following problems:- More killings . More terrorism . A faith of disbelief among the foreigners. Very low reputation for U.S.A. 1.More killings:- By more killings I mean to say that if we relax gun control more goons would be encouraged to buy guns and to cause violence among the people of America and disturbance because of which many citizens would suicide and our poulation would gilde down enormously.2. More terrorism by our own terrorists/goons:- By relaxing restrictions on guns we would be opening the doors for more terrorist attacks on USA and since 2010 have been 4 terrorist attacks and by relaxing the restrictions on guns, America would become the centre would become the hub for terrorism and our prestige in the world as a superpower would be dashed. 3. A faith of disbelief among the foreigners:- If we would relax the restrictions there would be more terrorist attacks day by day and the there would be a feeling of disbelief among the foreign countries that we will not be able to protect their ambassadors and they would call them back and our economy will also be on the downturn since we would not be able to protect the industries/commercial offices of the foreign countries.4. Very low reputation for U.S.A:- Since i had said our prestige would be dashed and our economic conditions would be on the downturn and therefore it would be better if we would not relax restrictions on guns.
We should relax restrictions on guns

Your numbers and statistics are correct, USA has countless cases of gun-related homicide and accidents related to poor handling procedures. But sometimes I wonder, why don't people die from mishandling knives as much as guns? And I'm sure that automobiles are more dangerous than guns, but why don't we have "car control" also? We do in a way, things that people use intelligently are either taught on how to use correctly or it's something they grew up with their whole life. Which brings me to a whole other argument, why the government wants to implement gun control. Countries like the USSR, Nazi Germany, China, Nicaragua, and Cambodia all had gun control right before many people were exterminated. http://www.mercyseat.net... This may be far fetched but how do we know the same thing isn't happening here on our soil? And also the school shootings are exactly why we need to teach people to use guns correctly AND put armed police officers in the schools. If this happens, the killer can probably be stopped before killing anyone. If someone had to take the time to call 911 and get the police to the school, 30+ people may be already dead. And I can't stress more that without guns, people would use knives or any other dangerous object. It's not an object issue, it's more of a moral issue. And your right, fist fights would be murder cases because they wouldn't have any guns to fight with. So, they just use their fists.