BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Alien does exist

"Rule: You must prove that Aliens does not exist to win." Since my opponent failed to provide a definition, and I love semantics; Alien; 1 - strange and frightening; different from what you are used to [1] 2 - from another country or society; foreign [1] 3 - not usual or acceptable [1] My opponent is implying that Aliens are people but by definition is it a sense or feeling or a different location. I expect clarification on round two. I pass it onto the Pro [1]http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com...
ABM is a positive movement in DDO

Cosmo continues to insist that I dropped his opening argument about how funny and ridiculous ABM is. I find this odd, because I 100% did not do this. I'm going to go ahead and copy and paste my response from round 1: "Cosmo's main argument is that allowing children to troll on DDO allows us to learn how silly racism is. But what it actually does is normalize everyday forms of racism by defining racism as the silly type of trolling that the ABM does, and not the more insidious forms of racism that pervade our society, such as microaggressions, exclusion, higher standards on minorities for jobs, etc. (http://www.npr.org......) In order to advance society, we should be focusing on modern prejudice, not on troll debates about how black people should be forced to run on hamster wheels to make energy, how black people are inherently inferior to whites, how Jews should be forced to work in the mines as slaves, etc. I fail to see how these are funny to minorities. These are incredibly offensive and triggering because they relate to actual issues that people have faced in the past, such as slavery and trafficking. We should not trigger black rape victims by claiming that they should be FORCED to become prostitutes (meaning that if they complain of rape, they should be raped again). Rape is not funny, even if the victim is black." That was from Round 1 and it was cold dropped. Now I'm going to copy and paste my response to the same argument that I made in round 2: "Cosmo makes an odd claim that I dropped his argument, which is blatantly false. I very explicitly explained that 1) ABM stuff isn't funny (unless cosmo thinks raping black people, enslaving them, making black rape victims prostitutes, enslaving Jews, making black people run on hamster wheels, etc. is hilarious comedy material) and that 2) allowing them to post normalizes and defines ABM material as racism and distracts from more modern forms of racism, which is detrimental to the advancement of society. He very cleanly dropped these arguments, so do allow him to bring up points against these later. These demonstrate that 1) Cosmo is incorrect because ABM posts and debates have no discursive value on this website and 2) the impact of these posts is detrimental to minorities." So Cosmo is BLATANTLY IGNORING MY RESPONSES and then is claiming that I dropped his argument. He drops every argument I advanced, including the fact that they want to drive black people off DDO, the fact that airmax ruled that they were spammers in violation of ToS, and the fact that they admit to trolling and inappropriate behavior. There is 0% reason to vote for him in this debate. He's dropping MY arguments and then claiming that I was the one who dropped things. This is a clean vote for Con. airmax banned the ABM and it was 100% justified.
ABM is a positive movement in DDO

"Cosmo makes an odd claim that I dropped his argument, which is blatantly false. I very explicitly explained that 1) ABM stuff isn't funny (unless cosmo thinks raping black people, enslaving them, making black rape victims prostitutes, enslaving Jews, making black people run on hamster wheels, etc. is hilarious comedy material) and that 2) allowing them to post normalizes and defines ABM material as racism and distracts from more modern forms of racism, which is detrimental to the advancement of society. He very cleanly dropped these arguments, so do allow him to bring up points against these later. These demonstrate that 1) Cosmo is incorrect because ABM posts and debates have no discursive value on this website and 2) the impact of these posts is detrimental to minorities."I claimed, and rightly so, that my opponent has dropped my argument because he failed to discuss any of my points. He explains that he didn't drop my argument because he "explicitly explained" other points, which are entirely irrelevant to my argument. Nowhere in his arguments has he ever once discussed anything regarding my argument."His final argument is that we need to be the bigger person, but I think Cosmo really doesn't understand what this means. He has failed to justify why allowing children to troll, spam, and perform their stated function (that they themselves have admitted!) of driving black people off of this website is desirable."Either my opponent has ignored my argument made in Round Two, or he chooses not to discuss any of my points. In Round Two, I explained that ABM is a good influence because the actions of the ABM "teaches us... of how ridiculous racist and sexist ideologies. Their image makes sexists and racists seem like a joke and an utter embarrassment.""More importantly, he has failed to prove that they are a force for good, which is the resolution of this debate. This debate is not "should we let them do as they please". It's about whether or not this racist group of trolling children is a good force on debate.org. Cosmo has utterly failed to prove this."Again, my opponent clearly demonstrates that he has completely ignored my opening argument.
ABM is a positive movement in DDO

To support his argument, my opponent argues that the ABM group violated the terms of service and negatively impacts on DDO Diversity.He explains that the group violates the terms of service by posting content that is "obscene, defamatory, libelous, harmful, hateful, harassing, pornographic, threatening, racially or ethnically offensive . . . ." and " unsolicited or unauthorized advertising or promotional material, 'junk mail,' 'spam,' 'chain letters,' 'pyramid schemes,' or any other form of solicitation." He claims that "ABM admits to trolling and posting inappropriate racist comments, as evidenced by this forum post by the leader, Masterless." This is, however, untrue. While Masterless says that "when first formed, [ABM] was responsible for a number of outrageous and quite frankly racist debates." He does not admit that ABM was created with the sole purpose of trolling. He explains that there were a lot of obscene and inappropriate debates as a result of "new members being poorly vetted by myself and the rest of the ABM. We allowed trolls into our group that tarnished our reputation, and used our name to put forth their unsettling ideologies." Yes, some of ABM's members were responsible for extremely inappropriate debates and posts, but Masterful, the leader of ABM, never admitted to, as my opponent puts it, "trolling and posting inappropriate racist comments."My opponent makes no further attempt to provide specific evidence for the ABM being in violation of the terms of service.My opponent continues by saying "If we let ABM violate terms of service, what would the justification be for enforcing it on other people? Degrading the ToS would destabilize the basis for all discussion on DDO and turn it into a spam wars site." Certainly, we can censor the ABM; we can wipe every member off of the face of this website; take the IP addresses of each ABM member and ban them for life from the website. That'd be a simple solution. It'd take a day at most. Or we can actually work against this threat and tackle it maturely and civilly. We can be the "bigger man;" be the example for others; we can unite as a large group, we can teach people why trolling is harmful, and we can teach others about how racism and sexism are outdated. But hey, we can always just complain until the mods ban the ABM movement...In regards to my argument, my opponent makes little to no attempt to refute it.
ABM is a positive movement in DDO

I hope we can have an informative, civil debate. I support the ABM's right to stay on DDO is because, through these outrageous comments and debates made by the ABM, the rest of DDO is able to be informed about how terrible and offensive racism can be. Also, the ABM represents racists in such a jocular and ridiculous way that it would be embarrassing to be a part of their white-supremacist and sexist ideology, thus discouraging racism and sexism in DDO. To support my position, I will use the Ku Klux Klan as my prime example. II) The KKKThe Ku Klux Klan, as many people know, was a white-supremacist movement that emerged in the late 1800s to suppress the rights of minorities, primarily African Americans. The Ku Klux Klan is responsible for torturing and murdering African Americans and sympathetic whites. Freedom schools, Churches, and groups of African Americans were targetted by the KKK, and attacked and firebombed [1]. They were greatly involved in the Civil Rights Movement during the late 1900s. They violently attacked peaceful protests and denounced the movement, calling it a "Communist, Jewish conspiracy," [2]. III) The KKK and the Trump CampaignThough most of the KKK has disbanded and has been reduced to no more than peaceful protests and internet arguments, it still plays an influence in politics. During the 2016 presidential election, the Ku Klux Klan openly endorsed Trump. The KKK's official newspaper embraced Trump, and the KKK's leader, David Duke, publicly praised Trump for his controversial opinions on terrorism and his "Muslim ban. " Because Trump had refused to publicly condemn the support of the KKK, he lost a fair amount of traction during his campaign trail [3]. Many Trump supporters were frustrated with the KKK's endorsement. especially with Trump's reluctance to condemn the KKK. Even Trump's ghost writer, Tony Schwartz, responded by tweeting: "Is it really possible that in 2016 we would elect a president who is an admitted sexual predator and has been endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan? " [4]. IV) The KKK and the ABMThe ABM is, by no doubt, a troll group inspired by the KKK. They try to offend and get hilarious reactions off of those who are angry with the movement. The ABM teaches us, however, of how ridiculous racist and sexist ideologies. Their image makes sexists and racists seem like a joke and an utter embarrassment. V) Sources:[1] . http://ocw.usu.edu...[2] . http://law.jrank.org...[3] . http://fortune.com...[4] . http://www.attn.com...
If all faiths are given the chance, public displays of faith are constitutionally acceptable.

Yeah. The EAC (Evil Atheist Conspiracy) eats babies. Or they would if they existed. You should take a look at my "Once Saved Always Saved" debate and tell me that people can't lose a debate and still get a ton of votes. I bet I could debate you on Wicca and each time it was my debate turn I could say "He's a witch!" -- and win.
If all faiths are given the chance, public displays of faith are constitutionally acceptable.

I fear for the future of humanity if I concede defeat in an argument and I still win. Not that I don't already fear for the future of humanity, I would simply have more justification for my paranoia. And of course you shouldn't believe me. We've only just gotten enough people to hate us to get labelled as satanic cult leaders. I'm holding out for baby-eaters, personally. You aren't truly despised until someone says you eat babies. Neither are in any way true, but hey, you gotta strive for something in life. Eh, I figured I might have a crummy outcome or two before I really got settled into this site. Having read some of your other debates, I'm glad to have conceded to you. Good luck and merry debating!
If all faiths are given the chance, public displays of faith are constitutionally acceptable.

Well, excluding religious symbols would perhaps qualify as prohibiting the free expression of religion. Moreso if it's on public property which allows for displays. Yeah, that tombstone crap was a complete and utter bit of pathetic nonsense (the atheist community was pretty annoyed with it too). If you want to use tax payer's dollars to add a religious symbol to things you don't get to pick and choose which religions are allowed, they should let you have anything you want etched there. The American Atheists' A was allowed, after all, but pentagrams "oh noes!" -- now they are getting put up and getting defaced. Pluralism is just a way of saying all religions are equal, and some religions are just a bit more equal than others. -- Due to awkward wording, I win! (Watch, I still will get voted down...) I may be an atheist... but he's a witch! Vote for me, I don't believe you have a soul. Have you considered the possibility that you have blighted your whole life with fantasy and are polluting the minds of defenseless children with dangerous nonsense? If not, ask me how you can do so.
If all faiths are given the chance, public displays of faith are constitutionally acceptable.

I see that the topic wasn't entirely clear. I'm not arguing for the exculsion of non-faith based displays though I can see my wording was poorly chosen in that regard. I am actually arguing that religious symbols being included in that mix is not expressly unconstitutional. I don't see how you got that I was somehow suggesting anyone directly solicit religious displays, which was definately not my intent. I wouldn't want any city hall coming out and saying 'place your religious symbols here' either. I do agree that on a practical basis it hasn't gone very well. I read about the pentacle that was backed over. But this year has also seen a display in Green Bay, WI that, while controversial, includes several religious groups, a Festivus pole (not expressly atheist, but it certainly is inclusive thereof) and has an expression of intent to post a display arguing against the hyper-commercialism of the holidays (I'm not sure how that will be accomplished, but more power to them). The jury is still out on whether or not it will work, but if it can be made to work, I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed to. I had reservations on the atheist thing, by the way, but in a debate in the pagan world over getting the pentacle recognized as a symbol of faith on military tombstones it was pointed out that at least one symbol of atheism had been allowed. I'm not sure what symbol that was, and it certainly isn't any kind of widespread thing, but it does exist, so I felt it appropriate to mention. I'm not sure if the debate is worth continuing in its current form at this point. Aremis
If all faiths are given the chance, public displays of faith are constitutionally acceptable.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" It is the basis for the Separation of Church and State in the United States. While it does not expressly prohibit the separation of the whole of the state from religious practice (only congress), that is the way it has been interpreted as long as it has been a debate. What it prohibits is the recognition of a national religion as well as government bans on any religion. I argue, however, that it does not expressly prohibit religious displays on public property so long as all faiths are elligible to do the same. By opening it to all religions as well as atheism, it finds a comfortable middle ground that neither specially recognizes nor prohibits the display of any particular faith. As a matter of side-stepping any assumptions, I feel it necessary to mention that I am a neo-pagan, and not a Christian. Not that it makes my argument any more valid, simply that I don't want this to be a discussion on any particular religion, but on religions as a whole. Without stating it, the assumption may be that I am christian and that I am arguing for the manger scene or the ten commandments, which I am not.
Muhammad, the final prophet of Islam, was a civilized, peaceful man.

I. This just proves that he didn't want to stop preaching, not that he wasn't sex-hungry. II. Muhammad says himself in your quote that women have a mental deficiency. It doesn't matter how many people were at his party. You just change the wording of the Sacred Scripture to make it sound innocent! You say yourself that women fail more and apparently don't live as good lives as men. You said that "women weren't able to get ideas across". The point I'm trying to make is that because they didn't even mention their name, they have a lot less respect for them. Look in many predominately Muslim cultures in the Middle East--they aren't even allowed to drive or show their faces! III. As a side comment, this website looks exactly like Wikipedia. I have not told a lie! The website doesn't say "raid" but it does say "ambush", two very similar words. Your source says "Muhammad had given orders for the Muslims to attack with their ranged weapons." Sound pretty violent to me. If he were peaceful, he would've said "forgive thine enemy". Your source says exactly the same thing as mine, so we can agree on that. Here's a definition of ambush: ambush - those who attack suddenly and unexpectedly from a concealed position. http://dictionary.reference.com... IV. I'm not sure what "Osman 989" is, I tried researching but got nothing relating. My final point is that if he truly believed slaves should be free, he would lead by example, not by having it in his book how nice he tried to be. Anyway, thanks to my opponent for a great debate, and I strongly urge a Con vote!
Muhammad, the final prophet of Islam, was a civilized, peaceful man.

I. So he preached marriage to 4 wives but then justified it for his sake to "create allies"? Seems a little fishy to me. Why couldn't other people "create allies" then? I'm not approving of polygamy, but it seems that if he were to preach something, he should go by it himself. II. I just came across this in my research and I will site these. Muslims should consider this book still to be reliable, since it is a holy book. However, to clear up any speculation, I will quote the Hadith directly. Here, he says women are inferior to men. The description says "Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri": "The Prophet said, 'Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?' The women said, 'Yes.' He said, 'This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind.'" (Hadith 3:826) The next source is here: http://www.sacred-texts.com... "The Prophet replied, 'I saw Paradise and stretched my hands towards a bunch (of its fruits) and had I taken it, you would have eaten from it as long as the world remains. I also saw the Hell-fire and I had never seen such a horrible sight. I saw that most of the inhabitants were women.'" (Hadith 2:161) Your quote does not prove that he loves women at all. Also, let it be noted that Mary (Mother of Jesus) is the only woman named in the Qur'an. III. Wikipedia's reliability is known to be shaky, so I found another source from about.com on the battle. If you read the article here ( http://asianhistory.about.com... ) it says that they had going back and forth for a while. The city of Mecca kicked out Muslims, and the Muslims retaliated. It says nowhere that the Muslims tried to retreive their "stolen goods", nor does it say that Muhammad was against the fighting. What is does say is that the Muslims tried to raid the caravan, then Mohammad marched his army. After the battle, Muhammad ordered that the held the wealthy be for ransom. That doesn't sound very peaceful to me. IV. This is another widely debated issue. I can't find any legitimate source saying that he "preached the freeing of slaves to everyone". The fact of the matter is, he owned and traded African slaves. Take a look at this article as well: http://asianhistory.about.com... The myth that he allegedly "bought the freedom of slaves" (not that you said this, but I saw this online) is false. Many times he traded slaves for more slaves. Whether not he believed in slave rights, he still encouraged slavery through his actions. Thank you for the response, and good luck in the final round. Final note: could you please include sources? Thank you.
Muhammad, the final prophet of Islam, was a civilized, peaceful man.

haha nice username, got me chucklin a bit there ;) I. MULTIPLE WIVES (11) Muhammad has obligations apart from normal people, like extra prayers to God. Muhammad preached marriage with only 4 wives to all Muslims of the world, however he was obligated by God to marry with individuals of different tribes in order to create allies and friends from all people, all races, etc. (promote no discrimination against trivial things like skin). We can also infer that Muhammad did not marry for sex: 1. Because in his lifetime after receiving revelation, a Pagan tribe offered Muhammad riches, women, etc. in exchange, he would stop preaching, yet he refused such a deal for the sake of Islam. 2. Muhammad's first wife was a middle-aged widow, Khadija. II. HADITH QUOTES I'm sorry but which Hadiths are these? I personally tend to distrust some Hadiths, as many of them are deemed "weak" by various Muslim Scholars, and it seems that almost all of them have problems here and there. If we're talking Hadiths though, we can tell that Muhammad did not think women were inferior: 1. a man came to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said, "O Messenger of Allah! I intend to go on a (military) expedition, but I have come to ask your advice." He said, "Is your mother alive?" He said, "Yes." He said, "Then stay with her, for the Garden (Jannah) is under her feet." This hadith is declared to be sahih by al-Hakim, al-Dhahabi and al-Mundhiri. --Kashf al-Khafa', no. 1078; Al-Da'ifah, no. 593. 2. Why would Muhammad give rights to women in the Quran at all if he viewed them as inferior? III. Wars In the Battle of Badr, on the Wiki Encyclopedia it says Muhammad maintained a "a strong defensive position." We can see Muhammad did go to war, but in his own defense. As Muslims we believe that God is the master, and if the true religion (we believe is Islam) is under threat to be annihilated, we must defend it with our lives. If we read, we find that the Meccans have been having skirmishes with the Muslims for quite a long time. This time, the Muslims heard the caravan was carrying stolen goods that belonged to the Muslims, which they stole at the migration to Medina. This caravan was large, outnumbering the Muslims 3:1. We find that according to early Muslim sources, Muhammad didn't even intend any fighting in the first place. When it was almost time they met, the Muslims found out it was a giant army. IV. SLAVES Muhammad gave the slaves the choice of being free, and he preached the freeing of slaves to everyone. 1. It's quite famous that Zaid bin Hartha was a slave of Muhammad. Muhammad freed him and gave him the choice to go with his father, who had come to take him, but he refused to go with his father and preferred to stay with Muhammad. 2. Muhammad preferred people call his slaves, sons and daughters, rather than "slaves." 3. There's explicit rights for slaves in the Quran. If Muhammad encouraged enslavement, why would he bother creating these rights?
Muhammad, the final prophet of Islam, was a civilized, peaceful man.

I'll be arguing Con for this one. Since there are only 3 rounds, I'll start right up: Whether or not Muhammad married a 9-year-old girl, it is a well-known fact that he had 11 wives. He owned slaves. He thought of women to be inferior to men (see Hadith 3:826). He also says that "hell is mostly inhabited by women" (see Hadith 2:161 for that one). Although Muhammad does preach to not kill innocent people, he led a troop of Muslims in battles (look up the Battle of Badr). I want to clarify something: I have nothing against Muslims, nor do I want this to be a personal debate. Let's just look at the facts. Thank you and peace be with you.