BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Qur'an Misrepresents Christianity

Like I said, "When I said "Misrepresent", I meant, "Describes something incorrectly." (That's how I use the word)". I've always used the word incorrectly, so you should not use my error of misusing the word against me. Please just disregard that, and go on with the debate of how I was attempting to define it, so we can make more progress. I never in my opening statement that the author of the Qur'an purposely made a straw-man argument against Christianity to deceive people, only "Lots of verses leaves Muslims to misunderstand what Christians actually believe.", which is obviously true, because many Muslims interpret Surah 4:171, 5:73, and 6:106 to be speaking of Trinitarian Christians. That's why so many Muslims say that Christians are polytheists. Why, again? Because those verses leaves Muslims to misunderstand what Christians actually believe. The meaning I was trying to convey is, "The Qu'ran Describes Christianity Incorrectly". Of course Islam and Christianity contradict each other, and have similar origins, but these things have nothing to do with Islam's Qur'an describing the fundamental beliefs of Christianity incorrectly. Since I claimed that lots of verses in the Qur'an leave Muslims to misunderstand what Christians actually believe, and showed that Surah 4:171, 5:73, 6:106 heavily imply that Christians are polytheist and believe God sired Jesus (Since it says, "How can God have chidren if he has no wife?" and "Do not say 'Three', because Allah is only one God." and "There is no God but one God."), which is exactly why many Muslims believe Christians are polytheist and believe that God sired Jesus (By the way, since it is heavily implied, and tons of Muslims interpret it the way I do, It's right, since the Qur'an is a very clear book according to Surah 3:7). These things "Descibe Christianity Incorrectly", and "leave Muslims to misunderstand what Christians actually believe."
The Qur'an Misrepresents Christianity

Christianity and Islam come from the same origins, as I have mentioned before. I stated before that the two religions acknowledge the prophets and their ideas. They are both Abrahamic religions, and come from the same roots. I apologize for my previous argument. I was referring to how Qur'an does not directly misrepresent Christianity. All my opponent's claims are assumptions, not direct Misrepresentations. None of these texts describe Christianity in a false way for deceiving or to give a false idea. Both religions use god (or Allah) as their supreme being, so it is not surprising that they have similar rules, yet contradicting one another. Which brings up another point. Contradiction does not mean misrepresentation, and my opponent has derived these "Misrepresentations" from assumptions.
The Qur'an Misrepresents Christianity

The Qur'an does mention Christianity. Sura 9:30 says, "the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah .". I'll give further explanation to my original points, and put in new points. Surah 6:106 - "He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have children when He has no wife? He created all things and He is the All-Knower of everything.". Christians believe God has children (Pslam 82:6, Luke 3:38, John 3:16, Acts 17:29, 1 John 3:1), and the Qur'an says, "How can He have children when He has no wife?". The question towards people who believe that God has children (Like Christians) is a strawman (Probably unintentional), because Christians do not believe that God has children in the sense humans do. Part of Surah 4:171 - "And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God.". It's implying that there are a group of people who say God is 3 (Which is more likely than not the doctrine of the Trinity), and the Qur'an rebukes and corrects them, and says "Allah is but one God.". This is not correcting any of the Trinitarians who said "Three", because they already believed in one God. To say, "This is more of a coincidence that both religions require worship one god." is not accurate, because the Qur'an wasn't saying that Christians believe in one God. Surah 5:73 - "They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the third of three." And there is no god except one God.".". The author of the Qur'an is making an assumption that Christians believe that "Allah is the third of three", and corrects them and says there is only one God. The problem, is that Christians don't believe that God is the third of three, and they believe in one God, thus making the correction absolutely irrelevant and incorrect. Surah 5:18 - "But the Jews and the Christians say, "We are the children of Allah and His beloved." Say, "Then why does He punish you for your sins?". This doesn't give false assumptions about the beliefs of Christianity, but it makes it look like the Christians cannot give an answer to this question (Also, here's another place where Christianity is mentioned). If a Muslim would actually ask this, a Christian would respond, "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth." (Hebrews 12:6). Surah 6:106 - Either generalizing Christians with people who think God/s can have children like a man, or making a false assumption about Christianity (Both are inaccurate). Surah 4:171 - Either generalizing Christians with people who think God/s can have children like a man, or making a false assumption about Christianity (Both are inaccurate). Surah 5:73 - A (probably unintentional) straw-man argument against Christianity. Surah 5:18 - Only giving one side of the argument, thus making it look like Christians cannot defend their position (Look at Proverbs 18:17 on what a Christian would also quote along with Hebrews 12:6)
The Qur'an Misrepresents Christianity

For some reason, my opponent is blaming me for his/her wrong use of the term. This is very unfair to the debate. "And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God"-Sura 4:171"They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the third of three." And there is no god except one God." Ok so, how is this a misrepresentation? This is more of a coincidence that both religions require worship one god. In fact, the Qur'an does even mention Christianity! So it cannot be a misrepresentation of christianity!All this shows is that Christanity and Islam are similar, not a misrepresentation. . .
The Qur'an Misrepresents Christianity

When I said "Misrepresent", I meant, "Describes something incorrectly." (That's how I use the word), so using the word "Mispresent was a slight mistake. While Christianity and Islam have similar origins, the Qur'an's text describes Christianity incorrectly. I showed Sura 4:171, 5:73, and 6:106 to show my point.
The Qur'an Misrepresents Christianity

I will perform rebuttals later, however for now I will provide my definition. Misrepresentation: To describe (someone or something) in a false way especially in order to deceive someone : to give someone a false idea about (something or someone) . http://www.merriam-webster.com... C.1 Both religions come from the same root Christianity and Islam share a historical and traditional connection, with some stark theological differences. The two faiths share a common origin in the Middle East and are often considered Abrahamic religions. Christianity developed out of Judaism in the 1st century C. E. It is founded on the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and those who follow him are called Christians. While Muslims follow the teachings of Muhammad. Both religions acknowledge Muhammad and Jesus, however the two religions believe that those two people played different roles (1) What does this mean? Since both religions came from the same root, neither one of them are describing the other religion falsely. Both religions come from the same root and acknowledge and another. Neither one of them truly “Misrepresent” according to the definition That was really all for my case. Now moving all for rebuttals. R.1 So my opponent goes on and talks about the Qur’an. His argument (he does not have a clear resolution) talks about how the people misrepresent, not the texts. Which is irrelevant. Furthermore, he gives no sources about people misrepresenting. On to you Pro
The Qur'an Misrepresents Christianity

Lots of verses leaves Muslims to misunderstand what Christians actually believe. Surah 6:106 says "He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have children when He has no wife? He created all things and He is the All-Knower of everything.". Firstly, since Allah can see without eyes, he should be able to have a child without a wife. Secondly, Christians do not say God had children in the sense this verse says. God's "children" are his creations, and Jesus (Who is eternal, meaning God didn't need a wife to have him). Part of 4:171 says, "And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God.". Christians believe in one God (Mark 12:29, Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 45:5, 1 Timothy 2:5) Sura 5:73 says, "They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the third of three." And there is no god except one God.". Christians do not believe that God is the third of three. They believe that God is all three.
The Qur'an Misrepresents Christianity

My opponent's arguments are very confusing to some degree. However, I will continue to rebut them. If the MUSLIMS interpret the wrong about Christianity, then it is the MUSLIMS that are misrepresenting Christianity. Not the Qur'an. As my opponent said, the Qur'an only "heavily" IMPLIES. Therefore, It does not truly MISREPRESENT. And, irrelevant to the argument, it may be that christians are Polytheist, but the Bible has it wrong about Christianity. So, my opponent really makes no valid point there. And as for the "Misrepresentation" that is somehow implied (which is impossible to prove because it order to objectively prove that it misrepresents something, you can not base your arguments off of implications) it is the Muslims that are interpreting Christianity, not the Qur'an.
We don't need a government

We are forced to pay them for basic public services, their priorities then become that of those who willingly pay them, expecting something in return. Because the government continues to receive money regardless of their quality of service. Reasons why we would be more successful without a government. 1: There wouldn"t be any taxes meaning everything around the globe would be cheaper and everybody would have about twice a much money 2: We"d have no foreign wars Canada spends billions dollars a year on military defenses and weapons. If we shut down the whole government then that would be billions dollars going towards computers, housing and food. Instead of being spent of bombs to kill people. 3: We'd have no corporate welfare (which is giving money to people who need it, basically free money.) "That means no more banker bailouts,( I know it is only in the states but it doesn't matter it is still a fact,) "no more handouts to the health insurance companies and big pharma, and no more subsidies for connected special interests. That translates to lower prices and more competition. Health care costs would drastically fall and housing would finally be more affordable. 4: We"d have no more drug war. The miserable drug war would come to an end and we would stop wasting trillions of dollars on keeping drug prices high. 5: There wouldn"t be any more police. This means instead of the government running a billion dollar industry with people getting abused left and right, we would hire private bodyguards at a mere fraction of the cost. Another positive about doing this is they wouldn"t have to enforce any of the ridiculous drug laws which account for the majority of the time. "
religion is religion, not true

My opponent has stated something as a fact yet provided no evidence or reason for me to believe him. Here are two definitions of religion from the Merriam Webster Dictionary.(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observancehttps://www.merriam-webster.com...The worship of God or the supernatural is not contradictory to itself. They may not all be right, but this does not mean they are automatically all wrong.
I spy Debate

This is an I spy debate. I will give a riddle telling about a historical landmark,historical place or just a regular place/landmark. If con gets it right, he gets 7 points. If he doesn't, i get 7 points. In the first round i will give my clues, then he will guess. I'l tell him if he is right in the next round. I'l also ask him for advice. Then he will give it to me, and the winner gets 7 points. Here is my clue: The only 1 standing, of the 7 of it's kind A place to preserve the body and mind Cheops helped to make the shape And still today, it doesn't For a civilization, a place to go when you die And there you go, for your eternal lie
In 21 century, E-learning is far more fun and effective than classroom learning

While E-learning is fun for those who use it, open classroom learning is an experience that cannot be provided via electronic learning. If all people used e-learning for education, then when skills are needed to perform an action, they may not be able to perform their task properly because they lack the hands-on experience that classroom learning can provide. E-learning should be used instead for information gathering or teaching some subjects that do not require some hands on experience.
Free Will is impossible to prove.

It is impossible to prove that free will exists because we never make the same choice twice. Just a simple example. You walk into your kitchen. You make a pb&j, you can choose between Grape and Strawberry jelly, you choose grape. Now we assume you could have chose strawberry, but you didn't, so it's impossible to prove you could have. It is not impossible to prove that free will exists. By examining your own statements, we see this to be true. You say "...you can choose between grape and strawberry jelly, you choose grape." By saying that I CHOSE grape, that implies a choice between two different options. By giving me a choice, that implies that I can choose between two options. I ended up choosing one of the two, grape, but that doesn't mean that before the choice I couldn't have chosen strawberry. You say that because I didn't choose something I couldn't have chosen that, but that isn't true. Now let me give my own example. You are walking and come to a fork in the road. The road to the left is Washington, and the road to the right is Lincoln. Before I choose which road to take, I have the possibility of taking both. I can choose to go down washington, and I can choose to go down Lincoln. You try to say it is impossible to choose something AFTER THE FACT. It is impossible to choose something after you have chosen the other object. That is true, because you can't go back in time. But before the actual decision is made, there is the possibility of choosing one or the other. Otherwise there wouldn't be a choice. By saying that there is a choice in the very beginning, that means that there is free will to choose.
Free Will is impossible to prove.

We know that there is the possibility of choosing the other, because there is still the other choice. If there are two choices, then there are two possibilities. Let's look at math. The possibility of a coin landing heads is fifty-fifty. If it lands heads, then we know that it was possible for it to land tails, because the option tails was available. No, it didn't land tails, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have. The same goes with choices. Let's look back to my example of the fork in the road. If you didn't have any information at all about either one of the roads, then your choice of one or the other is fifty-fifty. If you choose Washington, then the choice of Lincoln was still there. You just didn't choose it. Like I said earlier. You're looking at it from the wrong standpoint. You are looking at the situation AFTER the decision has been made. You must look to before the decision is made, because by doing so, the possibility is there to take one of two things.
Funniest jokes wins

The athiest An atheist was spending a quiet day fishing when suddenly his boat was attacked by the Loch Ness monster. In one easy flip, the beast tossed him and his boat at least a hundred feet into the air. The monster then opened its mouth while waiting below to swallow man and boat. As the man sailed head over heels and started to fall towards the open jaws of the ferocious beast he cried out, "Oh, my God! Help me!" Suddenly, the scene froze in place. As the atheist hung in midair, a booming voice came out of the clouds and said, "I thought you didn't believe in Me!" "God, come on, give me a break!" the man pleaded, "Just seconds ago I didn't believe in the Loch Ness monster either!" "Well," said God, "now that you are a believer you must understand that I won't work miracles to snatch you from certain death in the jaws of the monster, but I can change hearts. What would you have me do?" The atheist thinks for a minute and then says, "God, please have the Loch Ness Monster believe in You also." God replies, "So be it." The scene starts in motion again with the atheist falling towards the ravenous jaws of the ferocious beast. Then the Loch Ness Monster folds his claws together and says, "Lord, bless this food You have so graciously provided.....
Funniest jokes wins

Fishing Trip A man calls home to his wife and says, "Honey I have been asked to go fishing at a big lake up in Canada with my boss and several of his friends. We'll be gone for a week. This is a good opportunity for me to get that promotion I've been wanting so would you please pack me enough clothes for a week and set out my rod and tackle box. We're leaving from the office and I will swing by the house to pick my things up. Oh! please pack my new blue silk pajamas." The wife thinks this sounds a little fishy but being a good wife she does exactly what her husband asked. The following weekend he comes home a little tired but otherwise looking good. The wife welcomes him home and asks if he caught many fish? He says, "Yes! lots of Walleye, some Bluegill, and a few Pike. But why didn't you pack my new blue silk pajamas like I asked you to do?" The wife replies, "I did, they were in your tackle box!"
Funniest jokes wins

Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson go on a camping trip. After a good dinner and a bottle of wine, they retire for the night, and go to sleep.Some hours later, Holmes wakes up and nudges his faithful friend. “Watson, look up at the sky and tell me what you see.”“I see millions and millions of stars, Holmes” replies Watson.“And what do you deduce from that?”Watson ponders for a minute. “Well, Astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. Theologically, I can see that God is all powerful, and that we are a small and insignificant part of the universe. But what does it tell you, Holmes?”Holmes is silent for a moment. “Watson, you idiot!” he says. “Someone has stolen our tent!”
The US government should substantially decrease its authority to search without probable cause

By going on the social media we are exposing ourselves and our actions. Yes there may be cases where a search leads to an arrest and there are times when they are for minor things but it is still not reasonable. Taking a chance and searching someone without probable cause is similar to mi identification of a witness. Some officers ask for a search warrant or arrest someone based on witness identification and 75% of the convictions are overturned by DNA tests. If this is probable cause then we are also taking a change and it is not a fact that the person is the right person and the same is with searching without probable cause. Conclusion: The US government should substantially increase its authority to search without probable cause.Source: http://www.innocenceproject.org...http://www.law.cornell.edu......
The US government should substantially decrease its authority to search without probable cause

P1: To search an individual or place without a probable cause is an invasion of privacy and that breaks the fundamental rights given to the individual by the established constitution. The government will be breaking the established fundamental rights. Whatever the noble cause it may be but to search without a probable cause is taking away the individual's freedom of rights. No one has the right to do that. P2: Even if you say that most searches may not to lead to an arrest, you can't be sure that would be the case for every individual. And to carry out an arrest you would need a probable cause that needs to be based on facts rather than mere belief or suspicion. By searching (even if it was done out of a noble intention) without an probable cause is acting upon mere belief or suspicion because you are just randomly searching someone without a reason and seeking an opportunity for an arrest of an individual, and by law, this is considered to be the " fruit of the poisonous tree", which is unlawful.With the famous cases Mapp Vs. Ohio (1961) and Katz Vs. US (1967) the US court ruled that unreasonable search and seizure to be unconstitutional and the evidence obtained from an unlawful search may not be introduced in court. No individual should feel intruded and that their rights taken away. C:The US government should substantially decrease its authority to search without probable cause. Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu... http://www.uscourts.gov... http://www.uscourts.gov...
The US government should substantially decrease its authority to search without probable cause

P1: I am not questioning the steps / guidelines required to search like a search warrant but what I disagreeing with is requiring probable cause for a search. For example searches being done at the train station should be allowed and continued because there are people traveling who might cause harm to others. Even if the person does not look suspicious nor has a big bag there is still the possibility that they could be planning to do harm to people. P2: When the cell phone was searched after Marcos death it was also done without probable cause and they the boyfriend of the mother was not convicted because the search was not done according to the guidelines and this lead to the freedom of a murderer. P3: To repeat my third premise from before only one in ten searches leads to an arrest. The people that are being searched are not going to be arrested unless they have done something against the law. Conclusion: The US government should substantially increase its authority to search without probable cause. Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu...... http://www.dmlp.org...... http://www.stop-watch.org......