BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islam the master of religions and the most complete

But why is it that I have seen videos of Muslim extremists making children behead kneeling men for petty crimes such as minor theft? Yes, I have seen videos and it's repulsive. The kid must have not been more than ten years old. Of course, I do not think all Muslims would do that. But because the Quran specifically says "2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers." Also,Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)". I am sorry, but I am having trouble seeing the ultimate peace in the very end of Islamic theology. According to this site: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com..., there are at least 109 verses in the Quran " that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule." So, if I was a Christian or a Jew, would you feel obligated to cause harm to me? Because according to the Quran, I'm an infidel. In one of your earlier posts, you mentioned how the Bible mentioned "the sword" 720 times, but the word "sword" and things such as "armor of God" are metaphors for protecting your spirit against demons and Satan. But as far as killing other people goes who are not believers, as I mentioned before, that is in the Old Testament when God was a wrathful God, but because of Christ's sacrifice (according to the Bible), God found the ability to love his creation, humans, again. But the Quran never seems to cease talking about killing infidels. Sure, it may not change, but is that such a good thing in the end? Correct me, please, if you must. Yes, there actually is. Just look at England and the incidents they have had there not too long ago such as the July 7th, 2005 bombing of London by Muslim extremists? And how about the Muslim brotherhood wiping out every last Christian in Egypt and doing to them what the Nazis did to the Jews in WWII, marking their homes with crosses instead of the Star of David and crucifying them in their homes? So to answer your question, yes I do. You say it is literal, but is it literal to all Muslims? Can you account for all of them? Isn't all religious scripture subjective, at least to an extent? Seeing as how this is the last reply I can make, I thank you for debating with me. I am glad that we can be civil. It's silly to turn a debate into anything else, especially seeing as how we are on a debating site! Namaste
Islam the master of religions and the most complete

I never said my faith is better then anyone, and there are people with no religon that are good and kind people, i never said not, but how many? and they take many time to probably get it, Islam like i said just puts laws which make the human not behave like animals. And i dont want to talk about gays cause that well lead us into other subject, i am more then welcome to debate gays any time later in another debate. Jihad exist to protect Islam from A) getting missed up like Christianity and Jew did, B) Its enemy's, and for the "Why bother being sent out on a borderline crusade to force those to believe in an invisible being which even you yourself cannot prove inevitably exists?" tell me, do you see anyone fighting in non-muslim countries to bring Islam to it? no? can you bring me any verse that says so? no? like i said Jihad to protect not to invade. This verse is literal, not all of them are through.
Islam the master of religions and the most complete

But why does your faith have to be better than anyone else's faith? Who says you need to have religion or faith to have morality, men or women? Who says women are more prone to being less respected and regarded as less of human beings? Why cannot one simply exist? As far as the sword being mentioned in the Bible, part of that depends on interpretation. Much of the Bible is taking literally, when most of it is metaphorical. For instance, the stories in the Bible and the Torah (the Old Testament) and the Quran take place within a similar chronological point in time. These are all part of Judeo-Christian culture, which is primarily male-dominated. In the Book of Leviticus in the Old Testament, it states that "a man shall not lie with another man as he does a women. It is an abomination" is not referring to homosexuality per se, but it is referring to the fear that the men in power had, that if a man had sex with another man, that would make another man at the same level as a women, which is subservience. The total point of fear is that they did not understand that homosexuality is a part of nature. It exists in 490 species, including our own and aside from us, fruit flies have many homosexual and even bisexual specimens. If men in Judeo-Christian culture began regarding other men in a romantic way and thereby bringing the other man down to the level of a women, it would undermine the power of the men and would make them look less "dominant". From a medical perspective, it was to prevent diseases back then, but we all know anyone of any sexuality can get any sexually transmitted disease. What is the point of a Jihad existing? What is a positive purpose of it? Please elaborate on Jihad bil Saif. Why bother being sent out on a borderline crusade to force those to believe in an invisible being which even you yourself cannot prove inevitably exists? And yet, you say Islam is the highest of all religions. Well what about Buddhism? You don't see them doing any Jihad of any sorts. They work to help, not to persecute. The idea of God is the source of many conflicts. Buddhists do not typically believe in a God. They say that nature is nature and there is no answer and how we got here is not important. Therefore there is no need to fight. Now, referring back to the example of homosexuality: "We also sent Lut : He said to his people : "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Qur'an 7:80-81 Now is this literal or metaphorical? How do you take it?
Islam the master of religions and the most complete

As in it has no mistakes, everything in it is true, if a one is to follow it his life would be perfect, everything is just 'perfect' in it. Oh back to the classic chopping heads, 1) There is not a single verse, not a single, which says go and kill them like that, the verse that says this is said defending only, "If they take your land and get your women and kill your men you must fight them and wait for them in every corner..." 2) whats up with that fingers thing too? never heard of it. 3) The Jihad call dosent have to be obeyed, there are rules, if the family has only a one male then he must not go to Jihad, if Father and Mother don't agree on their son going to Jihad then he can't go, other things too.. so please have some real sources before saying anything. Islam was never said to be that complete freedom and democracy, Islam brings Justice and Equality and most important, Guideness and Law to a person life, if you want freedom just become a atheist, Islam brings Law which of to be followed well bring good life to the person, now remind me again of the rape rate in Islam countries and in the west? or remind me of pedophile rate? Hijab is anti democratic? haha so is rape, Hijab make a female respected and not a sex machine, make it a human being, to be respected and treated good, not looking at them 24/7. And by the way, source for that Quote? Fun Fact: The word sword was mentioned 0 times in Qur'an, While in Bible its mention over 720 times.
Islam the master of religions and the most complete

What is your definition of "whole" and "complete"? Also, "he Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter." How can a religion that says this be "whole" and "complete" if by those words you mean spiritual wholeness? I am not a Christian, but in the Old Testament, it speaks of happenings such as this, but in the New Testament, when Jesus came, he appeased the law of God and made him into a loving God instead of a wrathful God. The Quran, however, seems to be constant about killing infidels throughout. And Muslim women only seem to be respected if they obey and remain subservient to their men. Also, this is a typical scientific finding, but some men are born biologically prone to physical weakness, and some women are born the opposite. What is typical is not constant, even biologically. "The Burka and Hijab are symbols of oppression. I believe the women don't have the same rights as men in their religion and are essentially subjugated concubines. Also because they don't believe in freedom or equality, the Burka, Hijab etc being medieval totalitarian symbol of oppression and a dehumanising form of slavery. It is also something that is anti-democratic, splits society and does nothing to promote integration or harmony between different people. The Burka is derogatory to Women. It is not an expression of freedom and being free to wear what you want, it is a symbol of the oppression of women worldwide, and the treatment of women in the Muslim world by extremists, as concubines and property. It is a very anti-social, dark and sinister item to wear and I can"t think for the life of me why anyone would want to unless they had someone forcing them to, they had been brainwashed, or they simply didn"t like or want to be a part of this country, in which case you would need to ask why they were here in the first place?" Seems legit.
Islam the master of religions and the most complete

I am basing this of the completion of it, Christianity and Jew, are good religions, but they are not whole and complete a lot of mistakes can be found, Islam is complete and whole. Science has proven that Female are more sensitive and weaker then men(1), but of course that's the origins, there are females who are strong but its not their origins, they either go to a gym or something like that, and come on, do you like a muscle women? And Muslim women are one of the best treated women in the world, don't believe me? show me a place where Muslim women said they are getting treated badly (other then Iran and badly cause of religion not cause of people), and another thing, Bible has way more restrictions on women then Qur'an and even Torah. Just like i said, I am basing this on complete of Islam and wholeness. (1): http://www.dailymail.co.uk... , http://www.psychologytoday.com... , http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Islam the master of religions and the most complete

My side of this argument is not, by any means, an argument against the religion of Islam. I myself have Muslim friends who are quite wonderful and I think there some valuable lessons from the Qur'an. However, when you say it is the master of religions, what criteria are you basing this conclusion off of? Theology, customs, scripture, etc? Personally, I can see where one person would think Islam is very sexist. It upholds the Christian Old Testament view of things where women are subservient to men. I personally know plenty of women who could do anything that a man can do, if not better. In some cultures, women are considered to be more dominant and men subservient. Physique as little to nothing to do with it. Also, how do we know it is the "master of religions" if one has not visited any sort of afterlife to find that out for themselves. The way I see it, organized religion is theologically organized one-sided theories, although many religions and spiritual paths are gray-area oriented, meaning there are things and phenomenon that could be either. Religion is the theological interpretation of what is not known or what is believed, but not scientifically validated to be true.
Islam the master of religions and the most complete

I welcome anyone who want to debate this, and this a serious debate. Islam the master of religions and the most complete because: 1- The Qur'an It has never been re-written, it still the words of god till this day 2- All of the knowledge in The Qur'an has been proven by science(1), and prophecy's (not all of them yet). 3- Most of Modern technology's was discovered by Muslims.(2) Debate. (1): http://islamtomorrow.com... , http://scienceislam.com... , http://www.missionislam.com... (2): http://en.wikipedia.org...
New Gay Marriage Debate

Lets Recap: You believe that Homo Sexuals should not be allowed to get married because it does not benefit society. You believe that homosexuals do not make good parents and stated that even if they did raise children properly that it would not be enough to let them get married. My challenge was that they do infect benefit society because they adopt children and can provide homes to very needy children! I even went as far to say that IMHO their eagerness to adopt makes them almost more valuable than couples that want to add to our exponentially increasing population that needs to compromise somewhere to help conserve our precious resources! Allowing homosexuals to get married would help benefit the adopted child and provide benefits for those who are committed enough to raise a child and have a meaningful relationship recognized by the state! You asked for evidence but I would rather argue with common sense. Like I said, if you want to do the research and find that gay marriage is beneficial the information is out their, but you went looking for the evidence against gay marriage because you have a "bad feeling about it. That bad feeling is called fear of what you don't understand. Its an irrational fear. In this case it has been called homophobia. You see that word as an insult but it is very real. It has been part of the church doctrine in our culture spreading hatred and protest against gay rights! (Not calling you Westboro) It is very common in fact I could admit that I had suffered from it in my adolescence. My biggest clue to your homophobia (Other than your religion) is that you easily shrug off my adoption argument because you are repulsed by the idea of two gay men having a child together. Not because you care about the implications it has on our society! I do enjoy being feisty and "clever" with my arguments, but it is not to be taken personally. Like I said before, I love to argue. I think the Gay marriage debate is extremely opinion based reflecting the morels of the debater. In this case we are at a stale mate because of the stubbornness of both debaters! I'm unwilling to accept your evidence on homosexuals adopting because it is so extreme that it is obviously biased. When I looked at the information for either side of the debate it all seemed extremely divided, like the abortion debate. It is also like debating religion. It is one persons belief that they are perfectly entitled too but there is hardly any proof for either side! I know that sounds like a closing statement and we have one round left but I will be thinking and researching a new angle to bring this debate to a satisfying finish! Hats off to my opponent for your patience and endurance through my erratic debate style!
New Gay Marriage Debate

The constraints of this debate structure hardly allowed for a proper back and forth! We argued about the semantics of your opening statement! Anyways Gay marriage is in no way problematic for our society! There is no proof of anything you have put forward, but you present it as if you have evidence! I went off on a tangent about population because that is your main argument! You stated that gays getting married somehow can have an adverse effect! I'm saying, that could not happen! Nature dictates our time here and our population! Our resolve and number of people procreating does not support your argument at all! Over population is a plague on this planet and our species! From a biological perspective we are like a bacteria in large masses! From an archaeological perspective our mass has spread exponentially in a very short time consuming and secreting waste! From a sociological perspective Our limited resources is already in dire need for millions of people that exist today in poverty and desolation! Basically you have nothing to worry about! Letting people get married is not a catalyst for the downfall of man! How would it change anything at all? People will still be gay and not procreate regardless of how fabulous their wedding is! I think you give to much power to marriage! It is a wonderful institution that should be shared by all! This time debate don't just dance around my answer because I have you whipped.. BTW... My main argument still stands that you are in fact supporting a homophobic regime!
Moral absolutism does not explain moral judgments

The issue at hand is whether or not moral absolutism is a viable analysis of moral judgments. Moral absolutism is the view that morality is a factual entity that has a truth value. For example, if I were to claim that "Eating chocolate ice cream is morally reprehensible," I have put forward a claim that is either true or false for all people under moral absolutism. To be fair, moral absolutism can either be a naturalist system, i.e. utilitarianism, or a purely intuitionist system, i.e. Kantian ethics. Since I only have to show that moral absolutism is in error, I will offer several reasons why moral absolutism is incorrect, and I will give examples of several systems that are, at the very least, more plausible. First, if the moral absolutist wishes to work within the intuitionist framework, then he/she will have an insurmountable epistemological dept. As Michael Smith states in "The Moral Problem," if universe x contained all natural properties y and has moral standing z, then a universe x* that contained all natural properties y would be hard to explain as having a different moral standing, and, therefore, would typically be thought to have moral standing z. The lack of explanation for how moral properties could be independent of natural properties and yet there be an apparent correlation between natural properties and moral claims demands explanation (21-2). In other words, if the intuitionist wishes to claim that they have knowledge of something outside of the natural order of the world, they have to explain the apparent correlation between natural facts and moral facts. If the moral absolutist wishes to go the route of the utilitarian, it is similarly easy to debunk them. A.J. Ayer stated in "Language Truth and Logic" that it is not self-contradictory for a man to claim that an action is right, but decreases the net happiness of the world (105). Ayer is claiming that an attempt to naturalize the language of morality is fruitless because there is no natural point of reference (utility, pleasure, etc.) that are inherently a part of 'right.' Therefore, attempting to produce an absolutist position using definitional naturalism is also fruitless. I will leave it up to my opponent to address my first two points before moving on to counter-examples in the second round.
Unite the fools, king of tyranny

Sorry type-o, I was asking you if you could guess what my rhyme's theme was. I was guessing what your OP was all about. Sorry for the mix up. I'll just Name my Rhyme to start with. DMT I have knowledge of all things, In this world and more. Please trust me, and you will sore. Don't listen to them, they may say i'm fire. But am a you, I'll show you what is and isn't desire. Send you to a world with a crackle sound. A strange alien place, like there is a mountain all around. I may terrify, cause you great fear. Maybe for thousands of years, just lend me your ear. Healing is what I'm best at, thats what momma always told me. Sent to earth, said some will see, Like my little brother, I'm got a mission. Tell him I said "Hi", he will cure you of your addiction. The ultimate convencer, as loving as I can be. Please try me, and maybe you will see. 1,000,000 browny points to the first person to tell me DMT's little brother! XD
Unite the fools, king of tyranny

There is cocaine and and liquid-as*, good deal for your glass Stripped heathens as you walk the mind gives you a purple colored talk You stretch yet crumble and beg it to stop as you reach the earth, your ears pop. Let me show you, give you some time if they asked you to stay, what would you remember this rhyme? Feel your hand with your eyes, mind caving and colliding with things a trillions times your size Mind overcame this, mind still not pure here. Rich and wild, more than fear Every time is the same, I shed a tear Back to X, wherever this place is, is my mind a faker or am I really here? Shocked mouth and wide eyes is my only reaction I need to think about this, why this interaction Tell my what this is about, if you can. I think what you wrote about is what everyone in this world normally thinks, and does not think again. You talk about people wanted equality but there is not much in the world anyway. And the government being the tyrant and censer Just a guess.
It is to be considered cheating to copy and paste your entire argument from another website.

PRO- "Ofcourse it is cheating. The format of this website is to nurture original thought and intelligent debate. If you want to present and argument for or against something and use a source to back up your offerings it should merely be inserted as a foot note." i agree that this website was formed to be based on original thought and intelligent debate. But posting info from another site, just shows that the site has good information. And if you agree with it there is no difference from saying it than in putting it in the debate. If your were going to put it in the debate yourself, you would basically be re-peating the same thing the site says any way. so technically there is no point in re-writing all the stuff when its already written and explained well. Again however i only believe that it should be used in opening statements. Other than that if some one wish to post info from another source they should cite it and add some things of their own.
It is to be considered cheating to copy and paste your entire argument from another website.

Ofcourse it is cheating. The format of this website is to nurture original thought and intelligent debate. If you want to present and argument for or against something and use a source to back up your offerings it should merely be inserted as a foot note. Plagiarism should result in expulsion and the debate should be terminated with the offender placed in the losing collumn. For cases of repeated plagiarism, or for cases in which a student commits severe plagiarism (e.g., submitting a copied article as his or her own work), a student may be suspended or expelled. --Wiki-- http://en.wikipedia.org... QUOTE: "That makes it part of your argument too." That's impossible when your entire argument is plagiarized. Because you have no argument, only someone elses you are deeming as your own.