BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Qur'an openly preaches violence and hatred against non-believers.

I will begin this round by briefly refuting some of my opponent's claims. First, going back to verse 2:8 and assuming God is all-powerful and merciful wouldn't he try to help guide non-believers towards faith rather than using scare tactics about hell against them and stating that he will raise the "disease" of non-belief? This gives off an impression of a vengeful God rather than a merciful one. I would much rather worship a merciful God. Secondly, my opponent addresses Qur'anic verses regarding Jews. Verse 2:65 talks about Jews being transformed into apes for trangressing the Sabbath. This and some other similar verses(4:47, 4:160, 5:41, 5:51, 5:64, 3:110, 9:29) all preach hatred towards Jews. Taking the Qur'an as the perfect word of God, Muslims are also influenced by these verses to be Anti-Semitic. . http://www.wikiislam.com... Even 90% of Middle Easterners alone view Jews unfavourably. . http://www.jpost.com... Thirdly, my opponent addresses war as stated in the Qur'an. While my opponent claims the Qur'an preaches to go to war strictly in self-defense this hasn't always been the case. Wars have often been waged in order to convert people to Islam. Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi`i(. http://en.wikipedia.org...) is an example of one such muslim leader who permitted offensive war. Even many modern scholars permit offensive war. . http://www.islamonline.net... Also, another important issue is terrorism. Although not all muslims support acts of terror the numbers of those who do are fairly high and should be of concern. . http://pewresearch.org... Is this due to misinterpretations perhaps? It seems unlikely that this many people would misinterpret the Qur'an. Finally, my opponent mentions friendships with Non-muslims and argues that muslims shouldn't completely trust non-muslims and become close friends with them. Wasn't Islam supposed to be a religion that is tolerant of other faiths? Christians can have non-christian friends, Jews can have non-jewish friends, etc. and more often do you not see these non-believers turning against their friends who belong to different religious groups. Lastly, I will like to address some issues that are not mentioned by my opponent. Mecca and Medina, the two holiest cities of Islam. Both are blocked off to non-muslims. Holy sites of other religions such as the Vatican allow visitors of all faiths. If Islam was tolerant wouldn't they want to allow non-muslims into these two cities as long as they're respectful? In fact, many visitors could benefit from visiting these two cities. They could be educated about Islam while having a cultural experience. I will also like to address the issue of the construction of non-islamic places of worship in islamic countries. While non-muslim countries openly allow the construction of mosques, many islamic countries make it much harder to construct churches or temples. Again, why would a tolerant religion disallow this? Thank you. That is all for now. Now to my opponent. ..
A Government payout of 2000 GBP to every UK citizen each year would be a good idea

I will be arguing for the position that a single Government payout of 2000 GBP to every UK citizen each year would make good economic sense and resolve a whole host of social and economic problems. I would also extend this idea to possible application in other countries. Some opening clarifications: The 2000 GBP payment per year would replace standard jobseeker-style benefits (disability/childcare etc benefits would remain intact) and public pensions. From the ages of 1 to 18, 2000 GBP per year would be held in a locked account. By the age of 18, this fund would have grown to 36,000 GBP. From the ages of 18 to 36, the recipient would receive 2000 GBP per year from this fund, PLUS the 2000 GBP per year that he or she is entitled to as a matter of course. Thus, from the ages of 1 to 18, citizens recieve no direct payments. From the ages of 18 to 36, citizens recieve 4000 GBP per year. From the age of 36 until death, citizens recieve the basic 2000 GBP per year.
The American Jobs Act (Obama Jobs Bill) Should be Passed

Hello, and thank you for viewing the debate today. This round will be centered on whether or not the Congress of the United States should pass the entirety of the Obama Jobs Bill. Here is the round format: Round 1: Pro Intro and Format/Con Arguments Against Round 2: Pro Arguments for and rebuttal to con arguments/Con rebuttals Round 3: Continued rebuttals and addition (if necessary) of more points Round 4: Each side voices their reasoning why they have won the debate. Thank you.
Paint-touching doofuses should be put into a mental institution.

It looked like Pro was going to counter my point about curiosity, but in his first paragraph he just rambles, then most everything in his second paragraph relies on the fact that he proved me wrong, which he didn't. Then he states that 'The smart things are good because they're clever and a good thing has a chance of happening, unlike when you touch the paint.' The entire point of my first argument was that the things those people did were like touching the paint, they served no practical purpose at the time, just like how knowing whether the paint is wet or dry serves no immediate practical purpose. My opponent is arguing that we treat curiosity like a disorder. Now, even if curiosity is a disorder, and the government could remodel all it's institutions, the taxpayer money would be better spent on a cannon that utilizes heat energy under the Earth's crust to fire all the insane people into the sun. No, thank you (read: I want conduct points).
Paint-touching doofuses should be put into a mental institution.

It seems everyone has an excuse for being stupid these days, which includes the humans.Con says that the human race is 'pushed by innovation, which is the direct result of curiosity' However, this is not an excuse. A sane human should be all curious about things like what an idiot would do in the situation that they're in and whether it actually matters that much whether the paint is wet or dry.Con then lists some things that smart people did, like find out stuff. He argues that these actions were driven by curiosity, which then means that touching paint on a wall to see if it's wet or dry is this revolutionary thing that's really good, but as I've proven, it's dead stupid. The smart things are good because they're clever and a good thing has a chance of happening, unlike when you touch the paint.Con then makes a comment about the big space you'd need to put all those bozos into mental institutions. However, it's definitely worth it to get rid of the mentally insane.I thank you.
Paint-touching doofuses should be put into a mental institution.

1000 character limit. I understand that the first round is generally for acceptance only, but since you did not clarify, and there are only two rounds, I will post my arguments now. 1: Curiosity The human race is pushed by innovation, which is the direct result of curiosity. Newton didn't really need to make his laws, it wouldn't actually effect what happened. But he still did. And now his formulas are helping us send rockets to the moon. Mendel's experiments with pea plants were basically ignored, but now he is considered the father of the field of genetics. Einstein's theory of relativity is the result of a simple change in perspective. All these men have something in common: They made huge advances in science simply by using their natural human curiosity. If people were told that they would be considered insane due to curiosity, we would be at a standstill. 2: Space For every curios person in an institution, that's one truly insane person running amock outside. Good luck!
Paint-touching doofuses should be put into a mental institution.

There you are, next to a wall. It has recently been painted and is unset (apparently) and you're wondering whether it's actually wet, so you test it out. You touch the wall to see if it is.Are you out of your mind?Getting your hands all mucky with wet paint is something you want to avoid. So, why touch the wall? If it's wet, then you look like a doofus because now you've got wet paint on your hand. If it's not wet, then you look like a doofus because in anyone else's eyes, you've just randomly decided to touch a wall.I understand that this ludicrous scenario is fairly common, but I propose that anyone who touches a wall to see if the paint is dry is mentally insane and should therefore be put into a mental institution.So that's what I'd like to debate today. I hope for a good debate.I thank you.
The practicability of Youth Offenders should be Imprisoned

First, let's address the definition of youth. According to the UN, youth refers to people aged 15-24 [1]. So unless you don't like that definition, that's what we'll use.If you're okay with it, we'll change your scenario to a 15 year old guy shoots his uncle, as I wouldn't think a 10 year old should be imprisoned for a mistake.When people are 15 years old, they have experienced (most likely) elementary school, middle school, and some high school. They have spent approximately ten years in school, interacting with kids their own age, younger than them, and older than them, as well as adults, who are authoritative figures. The adults will (most likely) teach them the difference between right and wrong from when they're much younger.They also will (probably) know what a gun is, and know the difference between a toy gun and a real gun. If someone holds up a gun that is heavy, mostly metal, has a safety and distinguishable features that show it isn't a toy, they should know (or assume) it is not a toy. I don't like saying this, but common sense plays a big part in these types of scenarios, and by the age of 15, it is safe to assume most people have pretty good common sense.For someone to pick up a gun and shoot someone while thinking it is a toy is ridiculous and absolutely idiotic. Even if there was zero intent to harm, it is clear that this person is unfit to interact with society, as they lack common sense and basic logic skills.I would appreciate it if you could give your definition of "imprisoned." Do you mean confined with other people in a prison type place, but with other "youth offenders," up to the age of 24? If so, I would say yes, they should. If you mean locked in a prison with every other type of criminal, no matter how old... I would still say yes, but I'd be hesitant about it.The bottom line is by the time you're 15 years old, you've experienced enough and have developed your logic enough to know the difference between right and wrong, and also have decent common sense. If you shoot somebody, especially on purpose... but even if it's an accident, there's no reason you shouldn't be punished for being incapable of interacting with society, as you end up killing someone when you do.I'd like to hear more of your points before I bring up my own, as I will in round 2.Thanks for challenging me to this debate![1] http://www.un.org...
Smoking Bans in the United States

I will close my argument with this. Smoking Bans are NOT about a smoker's health. They are about the health and consideration of non-smokers . With smoking bans in place, there will still be plenty of places for smokers to enjoy a cigar or a cigarette. They can smoke in smoking bars, and in the privacy of their own homes. They can smoke in smoking restaurants. They can smoke in their cars. They would simply be banned from smoking in public places, like on the street, in parking lots, outside restaurants. Its about OUR health. Not YOURS. If you are soo addicted to smoking that these limitations are painful then you have a huge problem.
Smoking Bans in the United States

The real issue here is public health, and consideration for others. First, I will discuss public health. Your remarks regarding public health a a bit ridiculous. My opponent said: "There are some who insist that smoking bans are intended to protect the the public health. If this were the case, why aren't those same people fighting against sky-diving, the NFL, underwater welding, pizza delivery, construction, the NHL, ice road trucking, lumber jacking, automobiles, and the list goes on and on. Everything is dangerous but that doesn't mean that everything should be illegal. I can give you the differences between the activities you listed and smoking. 1. The activities you listed have a CHANCE of hurting you. They are only risks. Smoking doesnt have a chance of hurting you. IT DOES. Furthermore, it hurts everyone around more than it hurts the person actually smoking! Smoking is ALWAYS harmful and it is harmful to more than the person doing it. 2. The activities you listed are risks only to the person involved. It is their choice to take the risk. Smoking (like I said before) hurts everyone around. It is a personal choice that is harmful to the health of others. I dont wanna lose 8 years off of my life because people around me were too inconsiderate to smoke somewhere where others cant take in the second hand smoke. Smoking is a HUGE public health risk. It is harming everyone who is even near a smoker. If people wanna smoke, they can do it in the privacy of their own homes or in areas specifically designated for smoking. Second, there is the matter or majority consideration. In your opening paragraph you said the following: "Smoking bans do not protect the rights of anybody, but rather, protect the preference of the majority." Thats exactly what smoking bans do and thats the way its supposed to work. The MAJORITY rules in a democracy. The fact is, most americans dont smoke. A majority of Americans would prefer public smoking bans. Democracy then requires that such a law must be passed. In this government we should try and cater to everyones needs the best that we can. In the respect we need to focus on the majority. With smoking bans in place, smokers may not have the freedom to smoke where they please, but without them, the majority doesnt have to freedom to roam where they please without taking in harmful smoke. It comes down to this. What is our priority??? A smokers comfort??? or a non-smoker majority's health??? That seems like a pretty easy choice.
Smoking Bans in the United States

Smoking bans encompass a severe form of collectivism that is beyond the scope in which the American form of Democratic government is intended. The sole purpose of the United States government is a form of collectivism that is supposed to protect the rights of each individual: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Smoking bans do not protect the rights of anybody, but rather, protect the preference of the majority. There are some who insist that smoking bans are intended to protect the the public health. If this were the case, why aren't those same people fighting against sky-diving, the NFL, underwater welding, pizza delivery, construction, the NHL, ice road trucking, lumber jacking, automobiles, and the list goes on and on. Everything is dangerous but that doesn't mean that everything should be illegal. Every person has a choice whether to participate in dangerous activities, a "personal responsibility", if you will. (apologies to all the liberals. I know how much you hate that phrase) If a person doesn't want to be harmed by second hand smoke, that person shouldn't enter a smoking bar or restaurant, in fact it is the individuals obligation. By prohibiting smoking to protect, a government is using force to restrict the property rights of proprietors, and the pursuit of happiness of smokers. If the government would leave the issue alone, it would find that the free market would better suite the desires of everybody, including the majority. Bar and restaurant owners are solely interested in making money, and therefore will do whatever it takes to make the most money. If the majority of their customers are appalled by smoking, then of course, the majority of bars would prohibit smoking. This may explain why bars and restaurants throughout the country have been prohibiting smoking without the institution of a smoking ban. That is not to say that every bar or restaurant will be smoke free becase there is a niche, probably a much larger than most beleive, who prefers a smoke filled bar or restaurant. In England, after the institution of their smoking ban, pubs are experiencing signifigant losses in profits which could result in the loss of 78,000 jobs. Pub's profits are down 15%, 10% of pubs are operating at a loss, and 60% of pubs have been forced to layoff employees, who coincidentally were supposed to benefit from the smoking ban. http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk...
Weed legalization

Why marijuana should be legalized you ask me? Well I want to tell anyone who is against me, get some research done. Did you do some research? Let's assume you did and if you are still reading this and still against it, then I guess I have someone to debate with (Cheers). I live in Canada, a beautiful place with a lot of forests and wildlife. Justin Trudeau, our Prime Minister, won the federal elections primarily because he said that he was going to fix our economy and that marijuana will be legal.Also, he just stated not so long ago that cannabis will be legal and taxed in July of 2017. Economy will go up, crime rates will go down and medical marijuana patients will no longer need a doctor's prescription. Just that by itself adds up to the fact that tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol kills cancer cells, helps glaucoma, is anti inflammatory, slows down the progression of Alzheimer's disease, lessens the side effects of hepatitis C and AIDS, keeps your metabolism strong and protects your brain from having a stroke and after having one. Many reasearchers have proved that pot is extremely less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes (If not harmful at all...). Now, I know your next argument is going to be about addiction and teens with developping brains and stuff like that. Only about 9% of people who smoke weed for the first time develop addiction. Furthermore, a research in Pittsburgh www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/08/marijuana-use.aspx said that teen marijuana use does not lead to depression or cancer or brain cells not developping.
DDO Olympic Debate: That the Hyde Amendment Ought to be Repealed

Opening Arguments: The Case Against the Hyde AmendmentC1: The Hyde Amendment harms low-income womenBy withholding funds from Medicare, the Hyde Amendment disproportionately harms low-income women. Abortion can cost up to $3,000 out of pocket, which leaves many low-income women without the means to pay for the procedure (1). Stephanie Poggie notes (2): “Because of the Hyde Amendment, more than a million women have been denied the ability to make their own decisions about bringinga child into the world in the context of their own circumstances andthose of their families. ”"[P]oor and low-income women are harmed, some grievously, by the Hyde Amendment’s discriminatory restrictions prohibiting Medicaid funding for abortion. By restricting these women’s access to abortion, the law violates their fundamental human rights and denies them their reproductive autonomy. Free from these restrictions, women throughout the country would be empowered to make their own decisions regarding what is best for themselves and their families. After 34 years, repealing the Hyde Amendment offers the United States a critical opportunity to restore women’s equality by making a genuine commitment to reproductive health for all women, regardless of economic status. " Although the current Hyde Amendment allows abortion funding for cases of incest, rape, or when the mother's life is at risk, women with cancer or other health issues that are threatened by pregancies are still denied coverage, thus putting many women's health at risk (3). Indeed, a 2015 report showed that low-income women are more than 5x more likely than their counterparts to seek out an abortion (4). Part of the issue, as the report noted, is that poor women often lack access to contraception. If they did have the same level of access, it would cut the birth rate of those living in poverty to over half. Consequently, abortions would also be significantly reduced. C2: The Hyde Amendment Harms SocietyResearch has concstantly shown that unwanted children and children who are born in severe poverty are far more likely to be abused, suffer malnutrition, have limited education, show emotional distrubances, have learning and behavioural problems, and brings about a higher infant mortality rate. (5,6) I wish I was able to write more, but I have been very busy and do nto want to forfeit. I turn it over to con and look forward to an exellent debate. Sources1. . http://bit.ly...;2. . http://bit.ly...;3. . http://bit.ly...;4. . http://slate.me...;5. . http://bit.ly...;6. . http://huff.to...;
DDO Olympic Debate: That the Hyde Amendment Ought to be Repealed

This debate is for the DDO Olympic tournament hosted by bsh1. I would like to thank my esteemed opponent for agreeing to debate this topic with me. Preface The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortions except to save the life of the mother, or if the pregnacy arise from incest or rape (though this has not always been the case). [1] Contrary to popular belief, the Hyde Amendment is not a permanent law, but rather it is an amendment that has been added to appropriation bills since 1976.In that time period, there has been attempts to get the amendment codified into actual law. [2]In this debate, I will be arguing that the Hyde Amendment ought to be repealed entirely - that is, federal funds should not be prohibited from funding abortions. Full Topic Resolved: That the Hyde Amendment should be repealed. Terms The burden of proof is shared. I will be arguing that the Hyde Amendment should be repealed - in other words, federal money ought to be able to fund abortions - and my opponent will be arguing that it should not. Full arguments and rebuttals are expected from both sides. Rules 1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss Structure R1. AcceptanceR2. Pro’s Case, Con’s CaseR3. Pro rebuts Con's case, Con rebut's Pro's case. R4. Pro defends his case, Con defends his case. R5. Closing/Summary Sources1. https://en.wikipedia.org...;2. https://www.congress.gov...;
RESOLVED: Pointing out typos or mispronunciations should not be considered in Rating a Debate

" They reflect the participant's care in debating. " How does one's intelligence and vocabulary represent the care and attention one puts into a argument. "Debate has always been about the presentation of arguments, not wholly the "logical substance" of said arguments. " Debate's original purpose was to solve disputes. The debate should be valued on substance, not style. " It is hard for people to be convinced when you are taipeeng lyke dis[sic]. As such, spelling and grammar are essential elements in a debate. They convey meaning more accurately then do long spiels[sic] reminiscent of 3rd gr" Thank you for proving my point. I was going to touch on the difference between a comprehensible and an incomprehensible typo. Your first typo and second typo were easily understood, and did not detract from my evaluation of your argument. If they detracted at all, it was as much as spreading diminishes my understanding in policy debate.