BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Russell Westbrook will win the NBA MVP

Russell Westbrook is the only NBA Players in the last 2 seasons to have 4 straight triple doubles. Also, he is the first NBA player in years to score a 15, 15, 15 triple double. He is a top 10 fantasy scorer in most standard fantasy leagues, and he's missed 1.5 months. He's not a selfish player, and is helping his team make their way to the playoff, while starting off with a below .350 record without him.
Islam does not oppose pluralism

Resolved: Islam does not oppose a pluralistic society.DefinitionsIslam: A monotheistic religion characterized by the acceptance of the doctrine of submission to God and to Muhammad as the chief and last prophet of God. [1]Pluralism: A condition in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a society. [2]Rules Round 1 is for acceptance. Rounds 2 and 3 are for arguments and rebuttals. Round 4 is for rebuttals only. Sources cannot substitute arguments, only support them. Sources must be posted in debate rounds only. No semantic arguments, personal attacks, and deliberate misrepresentation of opponent's position are allowed. These acts, including forfeit, count as conduct violation. The debate will focus on verses from the Qur'an and Sahih Bukhari/Muslim hadith. This is not a debate about current Islamic societies and their politics, nor the deeds of regular Muslims. The foundation of Islam consists of the Qur'an and the deeds of the beloved Prophet Muhammad. We will discuss whether or not Islam opposes a society where tolerance for different groups of people (i.e., religious, ethnic, etc.) is present. References[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Islam does not oppose pluralism

1] But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)." 8:61i just want to know what this "peace" is? is it stoppage of war? or is it acceptance of islam by non believers? i think stoppage of war is not peace because the infidals of mecca and madina never attacked muslims at first instance. so it is not stoppage of war. then it must be, as seen from my source given in previous argument, acceptance of islam by infidals. oh yes. thats what it should be. we saw it in the days of muhammad and in current days alike. just accept islam and no jihad will be against you.this makes islam a very aggressive religion.2]What's more, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) forbade any kind of murder on innocents, even during war. And Muslims are instructed to offer refuge to the enemy soldiers who give up and do not wish to engage in further battles against Muslims. again who is this innocent people? i think infidals are not innocent in the eyes of muslims. then it must be those who accept islam. thats why Muslims are instructed to offer refuge to the enemy soldiers who give up ( read accept islam). this is not a symbol of peaceful religion.I don't know any other religion which obliges its followers to do this kind of an act.really? my dear? there is a religion on earth called hinduism which says the entire world is my family and forbade all sort of violence. islam is the most blood thirsty, devilish religion, if it is a religion at all.3] Islam supports a free market,and that this enables individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, to prosper economically.i just don't understand why then islamic countries are so poor? besides islam forbids taking interest on loan. thus it makes banking business unprofitable. islam forbids eating flesh of pigs. it makes hamburger business impossible. islam forbids practice of science which makes scientific progress impossible. just read the first chapter of sharia. there you will find all forbidden knowledge which includes science. how could one be prosperous if business is hindered in such way? 4] shia/sunni division.the point is muslim world is divided. it is no longer one world. reason for division is immaterial. 5] If anyone wishes to find out how Muslims prospered in the Middle Ages, read something about the Islamic Golden Age. Islamic societies were the most prosperous.and how they become prosperous? by occupying, plundering africa, spain, asia and countries. this is not a sign of prosperity. it is a sign of barbarism.
Islam does not oppose pluralism

1] What's more, Con hasn't showed us why the verses that were revealed in Mecca don't count.they don't count because according to islamic law, if there is conflict between 2 verses, later verses will be preferred to former verses. this means, on conflict, medinan verses would be preferred to meccan verses. this means violence would be preferred to peace. so peaceful verses don't count.2]it is important not to ignore the reason why there was a difference in the messages of the Meccan and the Medinan verses.the reason pro gives is ridiculous because muhammad himself killed all those who don't accept islam. he attacked tribe after tribe, kill all men: these are not self defence at all because none of those pagan tribe ever tried to assassinated muhammad.just go through these links and you will discover yourself how much self defensive muhammad can be:http://www.flex.com...http://www.flex.com...http://www.flex.com...http://www.flex.com...3]Coming to social classes, the sunni/shia conflict has nothing to do with Islamic beliefs in social classes.why not?4] division of Muslims and non-Muslims isn't taking the rights away of anyone, but securing them.really? this division taking the right to life granted to the non muslim away from them towards muslims. in any muslim country, non muslims are treated like 3rd class citizens. this division really matters.islam opposed pluralism from its very begining.
Islam does not oppose pluralism

RebuttalsIslam strictly advocates peace, no social classesCon has ignored most of my arguments from this section. He argues that the verses of the Quran can be divided into two classes. It is true that verses that were revealed when the Prophet came to Medina mention fighting more than the earlier verses. However, Con has not cited them - so I cannot go in detail on all verses and explain their history. What's more, Con hasn't showed us why the verses that were revealed in Mecca don't count. Additionally, it is important not to ignore the reason why there was a difference in the messages of the Meccan and the Medinan verses. The reason why Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) migrated to Medina in the first place was to avoid being assassinated. "It was migration from a plot that was set by the leaders of the Quraysh who were plotting to kill prophet Muhammad, and to destroy the truth that today is being conveyed to mankind everywhere against tyranny and injustice. Their purpose was to destroy the foundation of the Islamic state, the Sunnah of the tradition of the prophet, and to prevent the revelation being delivered by Allah's messenger to mankind." [1] In Medina, the Pagans and Jews did nothing to stop much their oppression and persecution of Muslims. Because the Muslims faced these challenging times, they needed some strong guidance. Their best guidance was the Qur'an. That's why it commanded Muslims to fight in certain ways. However, the Qur'an never calls for an aggressive war on anyone. Even the Medinan verses explicitly call for self-defense only. Coming to social classes, the sunni/shia conflict has nothing to do with Islamic beliefs in social classes. Moreover, the division of Muslims and non-Muslims isn't taking the rights away of anyone, but securing them. Making non-Muslims have freedom of choice that Muslims don't have isn't dividing anyone into social classes (i.e., by discrimination). [1] http://www.aljazeerah.info...
Islam does not oppose pluralism

1] Islam strictly advocates peacethe ayats of koran can be divided into two classes: mecca and madina. the ayats that appeared in mecca are peaceful but the ayats that appeared on madina are violent. these madina ayats make it a duty to all muslims that they should kill infidels (kuffar) wherever they found them(kuffars).the application of these ayats are very logical. where muslims are outnumbered by non muslims, there peaceful mecca ayats are applicable.examples are europe, america, india, china etc. but where muslims outnumbered non muslims there violent madina ayat are applicable. now you see in islamic countries where muslims are majority, the conditions of non muslims are terrible. examples are iraq, iran, saudi arabia, bangladesh and pakistan. nice strategy musses.so islam does not advocate peace at all.2] Free market, no social classesreally? why then shia muslims fight against sunni muslims? why then dividing the entire human race into 2 classes: kuffar and momin? and if free market advocated by islam really brings prosperity then why in islamic country some people are rich and some people are poor?i think you better do some research before you post argument.
Will the important questions be asked of Hillary about 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya

. I KNOW that you, like myself and many others are undecided at this time and we're waiting to find out more about each republican candidate that we feel would make a great president. Its absolutely critical to the future of this country that we elect a person to be president of this country who can bring America back from the decline in the countries position in the world to where it use to be before Obama,the apologetic president, determined that America needed to be brought down a peg and went about the business of doing just that. We need a president who sees America as "That shining city on the hill"and as the "last great hope of the world" a president who knows the goodness of America and its people and will refuse to ever apologize to anyone for either. Ronald Reagan in his farewell address spoke of the America he knew, "Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: "We the People." "We the People" tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us. "We the People" are the driver; the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the People" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the People" are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past 8 years." Obama and the democrat party has forgotten that Its "we the people "....who..."tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us" America is looking for another president who will restore America's pride in its self, If we're fortunate there is such a man who sees America as Ronald Reagan saw America,as"That shining city on the Hill" "the last great hope of the world."
Will the important questions be asked of Hillary about 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya

Will the important questions be asked of Hillary about 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya I am agreeing with the question asked in the Title of this new subject and am anxious to find out if the important questions will be asked. If possible, these questions will never come up when Hillary Clinton is taking part in the hearings and if they do they will be answered in lawyer legalese. Questions that should have been asked but probably won't be. Secretary of State was asked by Ambassor Stevens for more security at the American Ambassy in Benghazi, Libya and was ignored... Why was the requests for more security as the Documents Back Up Claims of Requests for Greater Security in Benghazi ignored. "Issa and Chaffetz say they've "been told repeatedly" that the Obama administration not only "repeatedly reject(ed) requests for increased security despite escalating violence, but it also systematically decreased existing security to dangerous and ineffective levels," and did so "to effectuate a policy of 'normalization' in Libya after the conclusion of its civil war." ( B ) When other countries were withdrawing their ambassy personal and closing down their ambassies did the secretary of state not provide more security or also close the the American ambassy in in Benghazi,Libya as other countries were doing so. "This "normalization," the GOP congressman write, "appeared to have been aimed at conveying the impression that the situation in Libya was getting better, not worse. The administration's decision to normalize was the basis for systematically withdrawing security personnel and equipment - including a much-needed DC-3 aircraft - without taking into account the reality on the ground...." ( C ) Why was security for the American Embassy provided by Libyan personal instead of American military forces ... The panel faulted the department for ignoring requests from U.S. diplomats in Tripoli for security assistance and for relying on ill-prepared local militias and inadequate equipment to protect the mission in Benghazi....." ( D ) QUESTION....Why were the Military told to stand down when the American ambassy in Benghazi, Libya were under attack and were asked to come to their assistance. [Forbes, October 2012] Just one hour after the seven-hour-long terrorist attacks upon the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began, our commander-in-chief, vice president, secretary of defense and their national security team gathered together in the Oval Office listening to phone calls from American defenders desperately under siege and watching real-time video of developments from a drone circling over the site. Yet they sent no military aid that might have intervened in time to save lives. " The attacks by dozens of Islamist militants killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans and set off a broad reexamination of how the U.S. government protects its thousands of diplomats in dangerous parts of the world" These are questions that need to be answered, the American citizens need to know who in the Obama administration were responsible
Enviromental Protection

Dude, you forfeited?!?! What the heck! I thought this topic was important to...*sniff*...us. You are clearly only taking from this relationship. Its time you started giving back to his companionship. If you don't have the decency to reply to debates that you start then you should no longer taint these hallowed halls of debate.org! Clearly Pro is experiencing dread and fear as he/she has realized that their position holds little merit in the critical eyes of public scrutiny. I rest my case! Viva Free Markets!
Enviromental Protection

It's good to know we both agree that private entities should manage the parks. I'm glad your Libertarian principles have not been too diluted with the swill of contemporary liberalism. That was step 1. Step 2 is convincing you to agree with the position of moving all control and property rights of all parks to the respective states in which they are contained. In the case of a park crossing state lines, an agreement between the affected states will be easily reached. My reason for this? There is no constitutional basis for the federal government to operate a national parks program or department. See Article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and also Amendment 10 of the same. "Public" parks are clearly a state issue. Only when the states have regained their valor by owning their own land again will I consent to government's malicious meddling in parks. A state-owned park is more easily controlled by citizens. It is easier for cautious, circumspect citizens to beat back and brush off bumbling, boring bureaucrats set on beadledom with their un-relenting, repulsive red-tape if all park affairs are limited to one fairly local government body. As to your examples of privatized parks irreversibly marring the face of beautiful natural vistas, the first one was on an Indian reservation. Reservations should never have existed in the first place, but since I don't want to start another debate... Tribal governments are not known for their high IQ, I admit that, but I will also admit that a sky bridge is kind of a neat idea. And with around 277 miles of Grand Canyon, its position is unlikely to rob the masses of their park experience. If anything it will enhance it because now you can look directly down the canyon and gain new perspective and appreciation for the depth of this national landmark. Your second argument about lights and railings in caverns is hollow (get it?). Without lights how are we supposed to appreciate the rock formations? Without a conservative application of safety railings how is the park going to avoid the liability of injury or death if someone slips and falls down some crevice and is eaten by Gollum? Your point is so empty it echoes! I certainly appreciate your conjecture about private businesses itching to construct resort hotels on top of Old Faithful, but I think the free market is wiser than that. Knowing that a majority of park-goers seek a natural experience, corporations will undoubtedly deliver. And if it ever came to the point where the vast majority demand a flashy, luxurious, synthetic experience, there is always huge profits in the niche market. However, with the advent of virtual reality and its advances in the future, all those synthetic types will be walking through Yellowstone and Glacier national parks in the comfort of their air conditioned, baby-seal leather recliners. They won't be the ones actually visiting the parks, anyway. In summary, your fear-mongering will not win you this debate. Your appeal to emotion is what starts wars and decimates civilizations. Are you prepared to let your feelings dictate your principles?
Enviromental Protection

I am also anti-big government, but clearly I represent a higher order and caliber of those that are critical of government run programs because I feel that national parks and the whole of society is better served by having private companies manage if not out-right own the land national parks are on. Take that wannabe! Due to budget constraints many parks are falling to shambles. You know those tax dollars are better spent subsidizing expensive ObamaCare and oppressive foreign undeclared wars. As a result parks are put into permanent 'deferred maintenance' and never get the attention they deserve for upkeep. This displeases visitors who regret their lengthy family road trip complete with hundreds of bathroom stops and are-we-there-yets. News travels faster than a cold at preschool and soon very few people are taking the time to experience what used to be great national treasures. As you are well aware, capitalism hinges on the consumer wanting a product because that product is awesome. Governments are not good at producing such products. In fact, as you know, they produce almost the exact opposite of awesomeness. They specialize in that biting-cold, dark feeling of regret and self-loathing that we experience when we see how much money was stolen, I mean, "withheld" from our paychecks. Does that sound like the type of people you want inspiring awe and wonder in the eyes of our tender youth as they touch a giant redwood tree for the first time?! Here is a healthy dose of Patriotic Conservatism in the form of free market models for public parks: http://parkprivatization.com... http://parkprivatization.com... http://camprrm.com... Not enough you say? Well, check this out. Many public services that people thought could only be provided by clunky, biased, government bureaucrats are now being privatized. Police forces, judges, and yes, road building (because, well, who will build the roads if the government doesn't?) are all being managed by private contractors who keep costs low and service high. See the links below, if you're Libertarian enough. http://sjc.ca.lwvnet.org... http://www.nlc.org... (Look at page 4 of this one) I'll end with this little gem from a super liberal. Even he understands the advantage of free markets in this case. Do you? "It is not a government's obligation to provide services, but to see that they are provided." "former New York Governor Mario Cuomo
Rape should be made legal as long as the man wears a condom.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed sit amet auctor lorem. Vestibulum ultricies lacus vel velit convallis, vel euismod ante ultrices. Donec ut consequat elit. Proin luctus nibh tortor, non dictum ligula fermentum ut. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Aliquam eu dolor tortor. Vestibulum sed gravida ex, id suscipit sem. Vestibulum fringilla lobortis quam, et condimentum felis commodo id. Vivamus tempor magna a dui lobortis luctus. In nec consectetur odio. Maecenas lacus metus, commodo vitae nibh a, suscipit mattis nisl. Proin malesuada nulla non nisi pulvinar, vel condimentum tellus varius. Maecenas ipsum mauris, vehicula nec dapibus ut, mattis sit amet mauris. Vivamus ac elit imperdiet nisl egestas fermentum quis id purus. Aenean eu aliquet leo, eu cursus tellus. Donec cursus tellus id quam aliquam aliquet. Duis at feugiat enim. Vestibulum a mi eget eros condimentum dignissim at eget nulla. Phasellus sit amet porttitor lectus. Mauris vehicula neque et nisi rutrum pharetra. Vivamus porta convallis dignissim. Cras orci lacus, imperdiet ac malesuada quis, consequat consectetur mi. Aenean finibus sem vitae ultrices sollicitudin. Maecenas finibus consectetur dictum. Aenean in odio eget lectus sagittis bibendum id id purus.
Rape should be made legal as long as the man wears a condom.

"Rape me." If you ask someone to rape you it wouldn't be rape would it? My opponent has failed to contest any of my round 1 arguments. My opponent has also failed to provide any reasons as to why rape should remain illegal. I hope to see more substance from my opponent in their next argument. Let's not forget that we are legalising drugs such as cannabis. Like rape, cannabis is proving to be harmless. When you start putting people in prison for things like smoking pot, or raping a black woman, then you begin to clog up the prison system with petty crimes, this costs the tax payer millions per year. In this day and age women are starting to get out of hand, they think they can give men abuse and get away with being abusive. If men are now able to rape a woman for being abusive, then this will discourage women and put them back in their place. If you jump into a lions cage and being acting like a slab of meat, that lion with eat you like a taco. If you start walking around my street wearing a mini-skirt , then you're effectively playing the role of a slab of meat, I will also eat you like a taco. Humans are by definition animals, I might be somewhat civilized, but at heart I'm still a primal beast with a bloodlust for pu.s.sy. If you're on heat then I'm gunna eat. Let's face it, rape victims get raped on purpose anyway as they get free sex and attention from people. Rape victims are attention seekers. How can having sex be traumatising? The only reason they get hurt is because they struggle. In conclusion we shouldn't have to put up with loud women and we shouldn't have to put up with lying women and attention seekers.