BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
islam is a religion of violence

Definition: Violent { I looked this up prior to engaging in this debate. I don't loose over nothing.] 1.acting with or characterized by UNCONTROLLED, strong, rough force: "a violent earthquake." 2.caused by INJURIOUS or DESTRUCTIVE force: "a violent death." 3.INTENSE in force, effect, etc.; severe; EXTREME: "violent pain; violent cold." 4.roughly or immoderately vehement or ardent: "violent passions." 5.furious in impetuosity, energy, etc.: "violent haste." 6.of, pertaining to, or constituting a distortion of meaning or fact. Because as a non-Arabic, non-islam individual you are most likely confused because of your lack of knowledge about the word INFIDEL; Islam is a religion in worship of the God of Abraham; we know that Infidel is not a direct association with those who do not believe in a god, and can even be applied to those who believe in the Real God. **Infidels deny the fruits of Gods wisdom.** the Quran says many times that Christianity is a true and respectable religion. As a Muslim is not permitted to judge anyone, but is instead required to uphold the law, When a man is promoting and engaging in the acts of infidelity, is the only time when they are permitted to remove the infidel from the face of the earth. Muslims are always required to offer wisdom and convert their captives, and only if the captive denies that righteousness is truly a higher means of existing, thus concluding they will go down the lower path, seek those on it, and turn others to it, Can the Muslims incur the final command upon anyone to be slain. I don't need to use scriptures to elude to the fact that this Religion is an exact equivalent of my own. People who promote negative things that will without fail escalate when left un-kept are a national threat, a personal threat, and it is those who are guilty for all things. As a faithful man cannot sin, and all sinners do not represent the religion or faith as they are heretics and blasphemers who use the Lord's name in vain by making his Glorious image sound negative. The term violence does not apply to one removing the entity that creates conflicts.
islam is a religion of violence

you make mere assertions without backing it up with scriptures. i gave plenty of scriptures. if we see repeated requests to "kill infidels" and such, that means it's a violent religion. it's like a wife beater... sometimes they may be nice, but all it takes is for them to be sometimes not be nice that makes them violent. and it's like a positive and a negative.... with both, the overall value is negative. what more could you want to establish that it's violent?
islam is a religion of violence

this debate focuses on nonbelievers, not things such as stoning sinners. if you included this stuff, it'd be even more violent. "The 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." for some of the verses and the link to the above quote see the following link: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
The drinking age lowered

Con Drinking during the adolescent years is very harmful to the brain. Studies have proved that a young person's brain does not stop developing until their early 20s, and sometimes until their mid 20s. Adding alcohol to the mix can be very harmful because adolescents are more vulnerable to the effects of alcohol than older adults. Alcohol affects all parts of the brain including coordination, emotional control reasoning and many other things. Alcohol also interrupts hormones needed by minors for growth and maturity. Adolescent drinkers also do worse in school and are of higher chance to get behind. Also....... During the Vietnam War states all around the nation began to lower the drinking age to 18 since many people started to complain saying how it was unfair because 18 year olds were allowed to enlist and die for their country but they couldn't drink alcohol. However, the result was an increase in Alcohol related car accidents and an increased burden on police. Things got so bad that most of the states that made it legal to drink at 18 set it back to 21. As soon as this was done, a significant decrease in Alcohol related car accidents was seen and the burden of police was lightened. In 1984 Ronald Reagan made the national drinking age 21 on the means that it would save the lives of many people; and he was right The National Highway Administration said that since it became a law some 17,000 lives have been saved as a result of it, that's 900 lives per year. People in the nation should have the right of knowing that driving on the road is going to be safe because a series of studies have shown that people who drive at younger ages have a higher chance of getting into car accidents and killing innocent bystanders on these grounds I have no choice but to accept the idea that the drinking age has only been beneficial to our society.
Quran alone : The misled Sunni/Shia (the followers of hadith for guidance)

Although there is no rule that states I can't start from the first round, I won't in order to allow an equal number of rounds. Since the burden of proof, based on the resolution, is heavier on your side, I will take the last round since it is more suited for rebuttal, which will also allow you a smoother first round to present your claims and evidence. I hope for a fruitful debate InshAllah.
Adult ADHD and alternative treatments

In the realm of medicine, 'alternative' is defined as a treatment not commonly acknowledged by the medical community. As the Oxford dictionary observes, "Of or relating to behavior that is considered unconventional and is often seen as a challenge to traditional norms" -- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... What is acknowledged my the medical community? (1) Stimulants. These are extremely effective and have not been found to be dangerous. They are effective 75 - 90% of the time http://europepmc.org... (2) Diets. Although diets are generally not enough to treat ADHD, they can have some effect. (3) Therapy. Therapy has been found to help cope with changing behavior and decreasing any destructive behavior from ADHD. http://www.nimh.nih.gov... My opponent must find an alternative treatment that works in *adults*. It should be noted "Publications on alternative treatments for ADHD are sparse in the peer-reviewed literature but abound in the popular press and on the Internet." -- http://www.sciencedirect.com... There is no good evidence in favor of alternative treatment, and modern medical techniques seem to be effective.
Adult ADHD and alternative treatments

The ability to complete day to day tasks is not always easy for an adult with ADHD. These adults deal with difficulty paying attention, become easily distracted, inability to finish tasks, making careless mistakes, procrastination and disorganization. Medication to help in treating these symptoms can cause symptoms and reactions of their own that are not ideal. Research has sown that alternative therapies such as Meta-cognitive therapy, coaching therapy, and nutrition can be very effective in treating symptoms. Should medication be the answer or are alternative treatments the way to go?
money creation should be abolished

The resolution is basically that counterfeiting, by a central bank, commercial bank, or otherwise, should be illegal. Now most people kind of already thought that counterfeiting is illegal, but unfortunately the Fed is allowed to print free money all they want, Commercial banks are allowed to loan out money they don't have, and Credit Card companies simply create fictional money out of nothing and charge 12-18% intrest on it. The resolution, in the context of our current economic system, is that fractional reserve lending should be abolished. MORALITYIt is blatant usery to charge any ammount of intrest on money that you don't have, or that you created out of nothing. The intrest rate on this "money" isn't 12% or even 18%, it is infinity. It's like if I gave my opponent a fictional house and expected him to pay me rent on that house that doesn't exist in real non-fictional money. TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATIONThe creation of mone out of nothing diludes the value of our money through inflation, which is a tax. The really nasty part is that this tax is imposed on us by the Federal Reserve and the Commercial Banks, nd the 7 goveronors of the Fed are not elected, nither are the CEO's of these banks! This means that inflation is not only taxation, it's actually taxation without representation. SPECULATIVE PRACTICESCreating free money out of nothing not only increases the price of goods, it also causes people to do stupid things and to make unsound investents. A classis example of this is the Great Depression, when the Fed created a surplus of currency and lent it out to people at rock bottom intrest rates. This created a bubble which popped, sending us into a depression. The housing bubble is another example of this- the banks began making exorbinate loans to just anyone who wanted to buy a house, this inflated the money and created a bubble, which popped,and sent us int a depression.
money creation should be abolished

My opponent has allowed me to set-up the rules for this debate and they shall be provided bellow. Rules1. No forfeits2. Citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and act civilly/decorously in the debate5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. The BOP is on Pro.9. Follow the structure of the debate properly11. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate such rebuttals' appropriateness)12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Con terms and definition; R2. Pro's Case/arguments; Con generic Case/argumentsR3. Pro generic Rebuttal of Con's case; Con generic Rebuttal of Pro's caseR4. Pro defense; Con defense.Should- used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)Abolished- to officially end or stop (something, such as a law) : to completely do away with (something) (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Jewish martial arts are mint! Disprove!

With many thanks to my opponent for bringing this matter to our attention but, with all due respect, my conscience obliges me to contradict his assertion that the gentleman pictured is some sort of Yiddish yobbo. No, this is no Semitic Samurai, or anything like it. He's the famous crazy dancing Jew - just watch the embedded YouTube clip and see him strut his stuff! Point proved, case closed. Thank you. http://www.youtube.com...
THE UNITED STATE government should decrease overcrowding in prisons and jails

premises 1 -Ok what i mean about premise 1 is inmates get release early is influence on overcrowding in prison. so they get release without successfully complete their terms. i understand your position is those who get release early are non-violent offenders who commit non-violent crimes. i would have to diasgree on your statement because what not to say that violent offenders would start to act like non-violent offenders just to come out. once these offenders are out they will commit violent crimes again. therefore, the government should decrease overcrowding in prsion by adoptingbetter policies to screen who gets out and who do not. One way of doing this is to build more prisons so nobody gets out and their is enough space to accommodate all prisoners until they satifiy their terms, rather than to pick who sentence get shorten just to free up prison space. Premises 2- i totally agree. But you must have misunderstand me. i was not thinking of violence in terms of gangs when i was writing my second premises. i was thinking of violence as when a non-violent inmate is house with a violent inmate because of overcrowding in prison. The violent inmate in this argument is generally not a gang member but just violent. when this occurs, the non-violent inmate will learn to get violent in prison just to survive. when he gets early release to society ( since you say in the previous premises, people who get "released early do so when they commit non violent offenses") will more likely to become violent when he get out. therefore, they either must be better screening on who gets out or build bigger prison and nobody gets out. premises 3- your last premises is a little bit confusing. are you saying that because nonviolent offenders get release early, it is not fair for people who commits more violent crimes?
THE UNITED STATE government should decrease overcrowding in prisons and jails

Premise 1: Your first premise is a bit confusing, early release of offenders would be a remedy to your conclusion which is that, "The United State government should adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons and jails in the United States", but you state that early release would be a bad thing, so I'm not sure what you mean. As far as you stating that offenders that are released early would pose a threat to the safety of our community is not true, because most people who get released early do so when they commit non violent offenses. Premise 2: Overcrowded prisons are not the source of increase violence and neither is the spread of infectious diseases, but rather the fact that prisons house rival gangs and diseases spread whether they are overcrowded or not. Violence in prison is going to happen regardless especially with violent offenders who have rival members housed in the same facility. Premise 3: Criminal offenders get sentenced what they do for a reason and should not be lessened over something like overcrowding. The first issue that would occur is that this type of tactic would be arbitrary. If one part of the United States is lessening sentences due to overcrowding, it would not be fair to others everywhere else. The general way of thinking is that you can do certain crimes in certain areas because you will barely be punished for it. Conclusion: The United States should not adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons and jails in the United States.
THE UNITED STATE government should decrease overcrowding in prisons and jails

Issue: Wheather the United State government should adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons and jails in the United States. According to the website: http://www.alec.org... "There is currently not enough space in prisons for all convicted criminals to fully serve their sentences. This leads to the early release of offenders who are not ready to successfully reenter the community. The emergency release of offenders out the back door, in an effort to free up space for those at the front door, threatens the public safety of communities" Premises 1 Having overcrowding prisons and jails is linked to early release of offenders which threatens the safety of our community. According to the website: http://gov.ca.gov... "the current severe overcrowding in 29 CDCR prisons has caused substantial risk to the health and safety of the men and women who work inside these prisons and the inmates housed in them, because: A. With so many inmates housed in large common areas, there is an increased, substantial risk of violence, and greater difficulty controlling large inmate populations. B. With large numbers of inmates housed together in triple-bunks, there is an increased, substantial risk for transmission of infectious illnesses. C.The triple-bunks and tight quarters create line-of-sight problems for correctional officers by blocking views, creating an increased, substantial security risk" Premise 2 Having a overcrowding prison poses many safety and health issues for the prison guards and inmates such as an increase risk of violence and spreading infectious diseases. Also, according to http://gov.ca.gov... A overcrowding prisons causes an overload in " the prison sewage and wastewater systems [ which] has resulted in the discharge of waste beyond treatment capacity, resulting in thousands of gallons of sewage spills and environmental contamination" " And when the prisons 'overdischarge' waste, bacteria can contaminate the drinking water supply, putting the public"s health at an increased, substantial risk" Premise 3 A overcrowding prison causes sewage spills which can contaminate the public's drinking water with bacteria posing an health issue for the general public. Conclusion The United State government should adopt a nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons and jails in the United States
THE UNITED STATE government should decrease overcrowding in prisons and jails

Premise 1: If the federal government were to spend less for prisons and more for education, crime would reduce significantly. According to http://sites.psu.edu... the lowest performing schools were in areas in which incarceration rates were highest. Instead of spending millions of dollars or more creating new prisons, hiring more officers, paying high salaries to wardens, and housing even more prisoners, we should invest in education to stop the vicious cycle of people committing crimes. Education is directly linked to crime committing. Right now the average student pays anywhere from $10,000-$20,000 a year for their education whereas our tax dollars spend about $168,000 per prisoner each year in New York City. http://www.nytimes.com... For each prisoner we spend on we could have educated about 17 college students for a year. Premise 2: I see no evidence supporting that water spills and a risk to our public health is directly linked to overcrowded prisons. Premise 3: Since you mentioned that more space in prisons decrease violence, I do not believe that creating more prisons would be the answer for the reason stated on Premise 1, but rather to change the policy in decriminalizing certain non violent offenses. We have people serving sentences for shoplifting small items and a for possession of small amount of recreational drugs. Sending someone to prison for retribution, which is why we send Americans to jail, sends the message that they must pay back society for the harm they have done. But if they are using something like marijuana, they are only "harming" themselves, so why should they be incarcerated? Locking people away gives the idea that they are not fit to be in society and perhaps pose a threat, therefore I do not believe that certain non violent offenses should be given prison time. Changing the laws in how we criminalize can solve the issue you mentioned not by building more prisons. http://rt.com...
THE UNITED STATE government should decrease overcrowding in prisons and jails

Premise 1 - I Agree that the American government should use our tax dollars to fund schools rather than to fun prisons. yet I still believe if the money goes to funding prisons than for school, it will benefits society as an whole, because not only will new prison be needed to keep up with the increase of prison population, but it will protect society as an whole. Premise 2- there is also an issue of overcrowding and the public water supply. overcrowded prisons increase the chances of water spills because the massive amount of water the inmate uses at the same time. When that water spills and get into our water supply, it can post a risk to the public health. Therefore, more prisons should be built so less spills can occur in our main sewage. The more overcrowded a prison is, the more likely a sewage spill will occur. Premise 3- I understand that lessen a sentences of an individual just to avoid having a overcrowded prison is arbitrary. That is why the government needs to create new and more fair policy towards overcrowding in prisons. Also, I degree with my opponent, overcrowded prisons does increase the chances of violence among inmate. When people are cram together in society, they starts to act aggressive toward each other, compare if they have space in prison. Therefore we should build more prison. Not only new prison will create jobs but also will help to decrease violence within our prison system.
THE UNITED STATE government should decrease overcrowding in prisons and jails

Premise 1: Whether violent offenders start "acting non violent" is irrelevant because the state is not going to choose someone who has murdered or committed aggravated assault in the streets as opposed to someone incarcerated for something non violent like possession of marijuana. So even if they "act non violent" they will be less likely to let go over someone else. Building more prisons would just increase spending which could be used for education. The federal budget for incarceration and education comes from within the same bracket so the more money you spend on building prisons the less there is for higher education. This would actually contribute even more to overcrowding because the people associated to committing crimes are usually uneducated. http://prospect.org... Premise 2: I didn't mean that the people in prison were inherently in a gang already sometimes they are formed in prison. What I meant to say was that overcrowding is not the reason for violence in prison. People in prison are already dangerous and can be violent to begin with. Many times they segregate themselves and form groups which can lead to rival group formation and may lead to fights. So whether it's overcrowded or not violence will still most likely occur. Premise 3: What I meant in my last argument is that lessening sentences in cities or states that are overcrowded would make the policy arbitrary. For example if the government says that once a prison has reached a certain amount we should lessen sentences to avoid overcrowding that sort of act is unfair. Some part of the country where prisons fill up quicker will have people not serving their full term whereas places who do not fill up their prisons will have to serve their full sentences. That would create a huge problem in the country.
Capitalism

Quote: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill. Well there are always kind people so there are rich people who will give lots of money to poor. Poor turn into beggars because they cant find a job or they are to lazy to just get a job. So they just wait for welfare, but my opinion is if you want more money use Capitalism.
Capitalism

Facts show that Capitalism always has poor and rich people. Do you think the rich people will share their money with the poor? Most likely NOT. Will the poor turn into beggars, making up lies so they can feed themselves and their families? Yes. The poor will do anything to find food for their family, they might even kill. They would rob a store, steal from other poor people, or beg people on the sides of the roads. The rich will stay arrogant. They will save their money up to see who is the richest, and then will use their money to buy useless things to flaunt in other's faces. The point I'm trying to put across is that Capitalism is not good. It separates society. It takes from the poor to give to the rich. It is taking Robin Hood's ideas and work and spinning it around. It is evil.