BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Large-Scale Islamic Belief is Harmful to Society

In my opponent's first paragraph, he/she agrees with my statement that the Quran gives a man the right to hit his wife. While he/she claims it is in a specific case, the fact that it is included in the Quran at all proves my statement. Also, the fact that statement is vague and open to interpretation is very dangerous, especially if it can be used to justify oppression against women. Also, I am not sure whether your saying the people of Afghanistan are uneducated or not in your second paragraph, you I would request clarification in that. In your third paragraph, you question the validity of my sources, despite you not sourcing any of your claims in your arguments, but I'll ignore that for the time being. I was very aware that the United Nations Development Fund for Women has a feminist basis, mostly because they are a organization specifically for women. Also, and this may sound personal, so forgive me, but I would presume that the United Nations, a organization based upon bettering the welfare of humanity, would most likely have accurate information of the various injustices occurring around the world. Also, the well-documented report on the abuse of women in Iran was not open to the public around the time the journalist posted, and if you read the post, you would have seen that only specific people (scholars, journalists, and researchers) were allowed to view it. [1] I also took into account the fact that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but I countered that with precision, by showing consistency with the percentage belief and abuse. On your fourth paragraph, you directly lie and say that the Caliphate's tax system is equal to that of a modern-day country, such as France or Norway. Being taxed based upon your beliefs is not something normally seen in many (read: none) Western countries, so to say they are both the same is very ignorant. In your last paragraph, you say that religion will be used to rally people, proving my point that Islam can be cause for some of the violence occurring in the Middle East. Though there are variables outside of religion that have caused turmoil, you say that religion unifies them, and in this case, it hasn't brought them out of the state they are in. Ultimately, I think you are arguing with an opinion, and are making statements that offer not even a hint of a source. I would encourage you in your final statements to bring out some sourced info instead of merely stating an opinion; everyone has one, but a debate has a balance of opinion and fact. References: [1] http://iranian.com...
Large-Scale Islamic Belief is Harmful to Society

In my opponents second paragraph, specifically the words "...practice integrity", in which the word integrity means "adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty" [1], he/she implies that the Quran instructs its followers to be truthful. While there are passages in the Quran that encourage Muslim to speak the truth to one another, it also encourages Muslims to lie to non-believers. In the Hadith, (Volume 3, Book 49, Number 857) it states: 'That she heard Allah's Apostle saying, "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." ' [2] Obviously, this is implying that a Muslim may lie in order to achieve peace, which is quite dangerous for the parties involved with said peace agreement. Another verse can be found in the Quran, which states: 'Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.' [3] In this verse, a Muslim is instructed not to makes friends with anyone other than a Muslim, unless he wishes to "guard himself". An example of the use of deceit can be found in the Hadith (Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369) in which Mohammad allow his fellow Muslims to lie in order to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf [4]. Next, in your third paragraph, you claim that "those who do not believe on peace" are obligated to pay taxes to their conqueror. Despite your statement, it is a hard thing to accept, especially since a person should not have to pay for their right to live the way they wish in a country. Imagine if in the UK or the United States of America forced anyone who had immigrated from a country that they had won a war in to pay taxes because they weren't Protestant, or Catholic? And in your fourth paragraph, you make the statement about Byzantine Rome; where are your sources? It seems that if Mohammad encouraged his followers to lie in order to advance Islam, they are not being presented with incentive from just the outside world. It seems there must be a source from within their doctrine they may use to justify their actions. References: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.usc.edu... [3] http://www.thereligionofpeace.com... [4] http://www.usc.edu...
Large-Scale Islamic Belief is Harmful to Society

In this debate, I will be arguing that large-scale cases of Islamic belief (such as in Muslim-majority countries, past and present, and cases of Muslim immigration), cause harm to society (meaning to countries where the Muslim majority/immigration is present, and the World as a whole). To clarify, I am not trying to assert that merely being a Muslim causes one to harm society, I am asserting that in places where Islam is very prevalent, harm is caused to society.
There are successful left wing models

I did not say socialist policies are now more successful i said the left or progressive, All systems are and have always a combination of socialist and capitalist state and private, All systems are that way, To claim that in order to claim victory we have to make some old traditional socialist models work is a straw man argument, Thats just the opposite of what i claimsed, What i said we have found models that provide a quality of life on objective standards are the best on the world, The nordic nations top the scale on all sorts of objective standards livability quality of life, Business frinedly ness individual freedom a long list i don't have to find a model of old socialism that works they did not what i am seeing is if you are digging a hole if you practicing policies that don't work you find new ones, I don't have to call them socialism, They don't have to be socialist, All the have to do is create a prosperouse egalitarian society that provides opportunity and care for all citizens, And i have mationed that such socieities exist actually the nordic nations are very socialist to this day labout protections codeterrmination the fact that about one in 3 workers are employed by the state many state run companies
There are successful left wing models

Countries who accepted the morality of the left means success for you, Is alright - no arguments there. Since when looking at morality - it's only relative: If you believing gay marriage is good then you think it is a success, But if I say "I don't believe in gay marriage" then to me it's not a success. Though morality doesn't exactly tell a country if it's successful or not. To me it is the Economic and foreign policy. "Uruguay spends a lot on social programs has a solid social security system but provides incentives for business growth. " Yes your statement might be true, But Uruguay is also like the Nordic nations that aren't exactly socialist and comparing those two I think Uruguay is somewhat more in the capitalist side and small in the socialist side. . . Here's a quote from an article: Mujica points out that his government has opted for a middle ground, Favoring private sector projects to spur economic growth and modest interventions to distribute wealth. "The numbers speak for themselves", Says Oya Celasun, The mission chief in Uruguay for the International Monetary Fund. This states that they only modestly intervene to distribute wealth which is totally not socialism (Since the government didn't own those companies). . . But more like a capitalist country with somewhat a 10% corporate tax increase. And they only have a small portions of social programs on Uruguay which explains their 10% to 25% tax there. . . That explains their unemployment in their country. Which is totally opposite from being a socialist country in which there are 45% tax to those people living in those type of countries especially the rich. ". . . Or do they only succceed because they are leftist societies that have adopted moderate centrist policy" Yes. "It may not be socialist in any real way. . But it is a sustainable model that works very well. . And is an exmple of how to apply leftish values in a practical way" No, The fact that they have small socialist economic policy and greater in capitalistic policy clearly proves that the socialist policies or the left economic policies are clearly not sustainable. You might think that it is a success because they are applying socialistic ways and they succeeded, But remember those countries you mentioned applied a greater capitalistic policy than socialistic policy. . . Now the question is. . . What if they truly apply the Socialist policies? Isn't not sustainable? . . . Look at Brazil and Venezuela, They are an example of failed states that applied socialist economic policies. . . Now look at those countries who truly applies the capitalistic policies and values, Like Singapore. . . Their unemployment rate is 2. 0%. . Lower than those countries that you have mentioned. . . That's why to me Even changing the socialist economic policy it won't truly be a sustainable economic system. https://www. Gov. Sg/factually/content/unemployment-in-singapore https://internationalliving. Com/countries/uruguay/taxes/ marcapaisuruguay. Gub. Uy/en/fortune-uruguay-unexpected-champion-capitalism/
There are successful left wing models

I was looking at articles on Economy in the Economist magazine. Venezuela is often used as an example of a failure of left wing ideas, I suppose it is, It definetely is a failed state a disaster run by leftists, No doubt. But are there any societies that show left wing ideas can work? Do the Nordic nations show that, Or red China? Or do they only succceed because they are leftist societies that have adopted moderate centrist policy. . I would use Uraguay as an example of a society run by left wing parties that has over the past 15 years done very well. They legalize Gat marriage, Abortion, Legalized weed, And preside over stable and democratic economy that does very well compared to its neighbors without becoming fascistic as Brazil just did Uraguay spends alot on social programs has a solid social security system but provides incentives for business growth. . It may not be socialist in any real way. . But it is a sustainable model that works very well. . And is an exmple of how to apply leftish values in a practical way
Single round debates

"fine i will debate this , my opponent of course needs an easy win so lets hand it to him on a plate shall we." >This debate was not intended as an easy win, but instead to expose the flaws of single round debate. "'These debates are typically initiated by those new to the site, and unfamiliar with the parameters of debate.' wrong , i belive that single round debates are percise to the point and snappy and allow both sides to post an argument that packs a punch and will allow people reading to decide based on the debaters abililty to delvier a knock out blow. i have seen many debates that have 5 rounds but are one in round one , without tricks etc." >My opponent fails to address the statement he cites. Nor does he address my first point. Therefore, given its lack of relevance to my argument, I will consider this argument to be part of the PRO case, and will address it later on. "'Single round debates spread misinformation. It is a fact that debaters occasionally post incorrect facts, and unwarranted aruments. ' wrong , single round debates dont give the wrong information , well they can but so can debates lasting any amount of rounds , thats an inncorrect statement because a debate is not measured on rounds but quailty of deabter and information." >My opponent concedes that debates can contain misinformation. This misinformation is furthered by the inability by the misinformer's opponent to provide refutations, whereas, in multiple round debates, misinformation can be refuted. Pro case: As my opponent presented no actual case, please note that he has the burden of proof, I will adress his one non-defensive argument. "wrong , i belive that single round debates are percise to the point and snappy and allow both sides to post an argument that packs a punch and will allow people reading to decide based on the debaters abililty to delvier a knock out blow. i have seen many debates that have 5 rounds but are one in round one , without tricks etc." >Once again, a debate without refutations is slated toward the Contender, and permits misinformation to spread. This far outweighs "snappiness". Thank you for reading, and thanks for the debate. I urge a vote in the Contradiction of this resolution.
Single round debates

fine i will debate this , my opponent of course needs an easy win so lets hand it to him on a plate shall we. "These debates are typically initiated by those new to the site, and unfamiliar with the parameters of debate." wrong , i belive that single round debates are percise to the point and snappy and allow both sides to post an argument that packs a punch and will allow people reading to decide based on the debaters abililty to delvier a knock out blow. i have seen many debates that have 5 rounds but are one in round one , without tricks etc. my opponent says "Single round debates spread misinformation. It is a fact that debaters occasionally post incorrect facts, and unwarranted aruments. " wrong , single round debates dont give the wrong information , well they can but so can debates lasting any amount of rounds , thats an inncorrect statement because a debate is not measured on rounds but quailty of deabter and information. " As I've said, single round debates do not permit a rebuttal by the instigator. Therefore, this misinformation persists, unrefuted, and is more likely to be perceived as correct. This reduces the educational value of the site. In addition, the falsified information may be present in future debates." rebutalls by instigators can be posted in comments if so badly needed , this site is not desgined for educational value. Also who posts what they know is delbritaley false information.
Single round debates

Please note that my opponent, as Pro, has the burden of proof. However, as he has not posted any arguments, I will proceed with my own. 1. Single round debates skew voting. These debates are typically initiated by those new to the site, and unfamiliar with the parameters of debate. In order to negate an argument, it is neccessary to directly refute it. The instigator cannot do this in a single round debate. Therefore, the contender, given traditional debate voting, will always be victorious. This allows superior argumentation to fall to an inferior case. Resultantly, win ratios and percentiles are less reflective of ability. 2. Single round debates spread misinformation. It is a fact that debaters occasionally post incorrect facts, and unwarranted aruments. As I've said, single round debates do not permit a rebuttal by the instigator. Therefore, this misinformation persists, unrefuted, and is more likely to be perceived as correct. This reduces the educational value of the site. In addition, the falsified information may be present in future debates. Thank you.
Single round debates

bravo He is con and is agaisnt what he says when he makes the point "Resolved: The existence of single round debates is, on-balance, of positive net benefit, to the site, society, education etc. " I would say he has the burden to prove otherwise. otherwise ehhhhhh my arguments ehhhhhhh . .. BANNANHAMMOCK ! !! ! . . sorry i cant cope under pressure . now till we await con's response please enjoy the following song. its raining men. . http://www.youtube.com...
The police force is only around due to human stupidity.

But there should be no need for a police force in the first place, throughout any time period. If people were to fix themselves, a police force would be made useless. No matter what the people did use before the police where invented, the point is that if man where less violent and criminalized there shouldn't have been need for any crime control force at all. As for whether it was invented by naive progressive reformers, I have no opinion on that. In conclusion, I once again state that the presence of the police force's around the world should call the people into action to try and better themselves. Not out of fear for being arrested but simply because we should be attempting to make ourselves a less violent, selfish, and ignorant people.
The police force is only around due to human stupidity.

There have been many other systems throughout history to deal with those who are "stupid and evil". Many of them did not involve a police force. A form of banishment where the community members would refuse business to criminals was common. Before the last century the only police force used was a trained military, and only to quell rebellions or "bring order". So we essentially had no police force to speak of for thousands of years, and not because of a lack of stupid people or criminals. In america during the 1800's there would only be a sheriff and he would call on the help of other townsmen if he had to arrest a dangerous criminal. The police force is a direct result of the progressive movement in the early 20th century. The progressives thought that all problems could be magically solved through government intervention...if only the government worked right. So police forces were created in major cities to deal with crime, not because there was any evidence that a police force reduced crime, but because it made progressives feel happy about themselves. America's police force went into a major expansion during prohibition, because they became quite busy trying to stop alcohol sales and the huge crime wave caused by prohibition. So in a way i agree that the police force is around because of human stupidity, but i do not think it is to deal with that stupidity. Rather, the police force is a direct result of the relatively naive and stupid ideas of the progressive era reformers.
The police force is only around due to human stupidity.

First off, I never said anything about others paying for your broken wrist. I only said that breaking a wrist is something uncontrollable, that can happen to anyone, which also includes illness. I apologize if you interpreted health care to mean insurance. I'm only talking about the medical practice. Second, it extremely debatable whether all humans are stupid and evil, I'm only making the point that the purpose of the police is to control those who are, beyond a doubt: stupid, corrupt, evil, wrongdoer's, etc. My word choices may not be exact, but I assume you get the gist. What does make the police different? Nothing does. There are just as many corrupted cops as there are decent one's. But they can use that power, and 9 out of 10 times be found just through the legal system. Here is my main biff with the police: They only exist because there are scummy people. Their mere presence only means that the human race is desperately flawed. This includes the military. What I meant by my last sentence is that the common goal of the people should be to ensure that we no longer need a police force. Mankind should improve itself to the point where the police are obsolete and no longer needed. In a sense: lets get rid of the police. The people's main goal should be to get rid of these two jobs by way of fixing themselves. The presence of two jobs specifically managed to deal with disagreements using brute force, quite frankly, are two payrolls this world should do without. At the moment, if either where to vanish, I think we can all agree that crime would run a mock. So no, I'm not saying that the stupidity will disappear should the cops go, I'm saying that once the stupidity goes, the cops will disappear, and should.
The police force is only around due to human stupidity.

First off i would disagree that the medical expenses from falling down stairs and breaking your wrist should be paid by someone else. That is a personal responsibility issue, and i shouldn't have to pay for anyone's wrist but my own. Second i think its debateable whether or not all humans are inherently stupid and evil. Self serving and imperfect, yes, but not necessarily stupid and evil. Third and my actual real argument against what you say is...if humans are inherently stupid and evil then what makes the police different? Unless you have robots running around arresting people (which would still force us to deal with the inherent stupidity/evilness of lawmakers) then i dont see why police would not be plagued with the same problems as their citizen counterparts. Just looking throughout history at any fascist regime, the police or the military are usually the first institutions to fall under the evil influence of the dictator. Then they are just used as weapons against the general population to force conformity. I dont understand your last sentence: "It is therefore the one public service that all of the world should be attempting to get rid of." It makes your entire position kind of ambigous. Are you suggesting that by getting rid of something that in your opinion is used to manage stupidity that the stupidity that they manage will disappear?
The police force is only around due to human stupidity.

Anyone can fall down a flight of stairs and break a wrist, thus the need for on public service: health care. As well, any stray spark form a number of sources can cause a fire, thus the need for the second utility: fire control. However, it is a person's choice to steal a TV. It is a person's choice to take a knife and stab someone. It is a person's choice to kidnap a girl and rape her. Thus, the police force is only around to manage mankind's inner corruptness and evil. It is therefore the one public service that all of the world should be attempting to get rid of.
Cops should be allowed to have high IQs

PROMOTIONS Most detectives are actually promoted from within and start as street level Law Enforcement officers. People with higher IQ's typically have higher IQs as a result of problem solving skills so even if the ideal IQ for an officer patrolling the streets is within the normal range it is still probably advisable to keep some people with greater problem solving skills around so that cases don't go cold as often. You want the detectives to not only catch dumb criminals but smart ones as well who are a little bit better at creating puzzles and forcing the police to be smarter to get the answers. These same problem skills that should be prominent among detectives can also be invaluable in the heat of the moment when coming to the scene of a hostile situation. CONCLUSION There really is no downfall to having smart cops and a bunch to gain. Given the extreme lack of a down side and the more than obvious plus side (better detectives so less serial killers roaming the streets), I think it's obvious we should allow smart people the opportunity to be police officers. EMPATHY Though both smart and average intelligence people can either lack or have great empathy it's far more likely that a person of extremely high intelligence can pick up on subtleties that others may miss. Subtleties that could to prove very important in confrontational situations or when handling potential victims of domestic abuse.