BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

consider abortion to be one of the most important issues facing our world today. The reason being is because abortion either is the legalized killing of innocent human beings or abortion is not the killing of a human being. There is no in-between. I will stand against abortion in every case with one exception. That one exception is when the mother is guaranteed to die during child birth or if both the fetus and the mother will die during child birth. I argue that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, the right to life is an inalienable right given to every innocent human being, therefore, abortion, as the direct result of the killing of an innocent human child, violates the inalienable right to life. Thus, abortion is wrong. There are no restrictions to this debate. There is no formal layout other than that my opponent should provide a retort to my main argument in the first round. Feel free to debate however you so choose as long as it remains respectful and courteous.
Placing a Temporary ban on Muslims is necessary for security of our nation

Rules: No slandering, or simply being rude- this debate should be a loose debate, not a stern debate hating on each other. Rounds:This debate will be composed of four rounds1. Acceptance- Thesis2. Opening Argument3. Rebuttal4. Closing StatementsThesis:Placing a temporary ban on Muslims is a necessary security measure that should be taken.
Placing a Temporary ban on Muslims is necessary for security of our nation

u can not put the majority of muslims at risk just because the a small number of the minorities are jihadists. the terrorists in the paris attacks where not syrian refugees. they were french citizens that have lived all their life in ghettos never being properly intergrated, lacking a support system they went to radical mullahs that seemed like strong human being, which is were the actual problem is. u need to have a system and a society in place that which to get them properly intergrated. that does not fear them,but welcome them. the muslims of europe are westernized and good willing members off society. u can put all the problems in the world on muslims. you have much more dangerous groups in the usa that which to change society like the dominionist andthe army of god.In 2011, analyst Daryl Johnson of the United States Department of Homeland Security said that the Hutaree Christian militia movement possessed more weapons than the combined weapons holdings of all Islamic terror defendants charged in the US since the September 11 attacks. lets not forget the Srebrenica massacre, 8000 muslims killed by orthodox christians. and yea, hitler was a catholic christian supported by the catholic church. what im saying is that 21trillion dollars is not a critical problem just yet. most serious economists agree that this can be solved by A tax on Wall Street financial transactions. This would have the added benefit of discouraging short term speculative trading and encouraging more stable longer term investments. Crack down on off-shore tax havens. Estimated to bring in at least $100 billion a year. End the deferral on foreign source dividend income. Obama promised to close this loophole, which also would discourage shifting jobs overseas. Eliminate deductibility of interest payments on corporate mergers. Should bring in at least $50 billion a year and discourage abusive takeover attempts. Raise taxes on short term capital gains. These gains should be treated as ordinary income, as they were before the Reagan era. without any of this affecting muslims immigrants or average americans. so yes america could afford it if they actually to iniative to fix it. u could fix the immigration policy already during this crisis. just look at Sylvi Listhaug in norway, she revamped the entire norwegian immigration policy during the most extreme months of the crisis. u just need a politician who is capable and has a proper solution to the problem. banning them is not solving them problem
Placing a Temporary ban on Muslims is necessary for security of our nation

I must concede that I support a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country until we can get things under control until we can guarantee that no Jihadists will be entering our country and causing terror. While Con seems to be against a ban on Muslims entering the country; suggesting the Muslims aren’t causing any problems, but in fact by placing a ban would cause more problems such as fear, and Muslims causing terror. [how many of them do u really think a terrorists? it is an extremely small majority. u want to refuse them of humanitarian aid because some guy called abu-bakr blew himself up in iraq last weekend?] Of course, they need assistance, but honestly, again, American’s come before they do. 19 al-Qaeda hijackers [who were Jihadists] were able to bring America to its knee’s and kill more than 3,000 citizens, Law enforcement, Government officials and agents, and fire fighters. That small majority killed many Americans. That small majority kills citizens, that small majority is trying to change America, that small majority is hurting America in more ways than you may realize. [ur state budget is still 19 trillion dollars. ur far of from a dangerous debt. this is something the us could afford. getting proper mental care not only for the Muslims coming in but the us population in general is something that would be extremely benneficial for the us. u will get alot of people back in the workforce and it would stimulate the economy in the long run.] Con suggests that the United States if far from a dangerous debt while we are going to be In 21 Trillion dollars by next year. It is 21 trillion dollars of debt, not a budget. The United States is starting to lose the value of its dollar, thus causing our role in world trade to decrease. In fact, the US dollar is now not needed for World Trade- huge problem. ( http://www.truthandaction.org...) By placing a temporary ban, the United States would have an opportunity to reshape our current immigration policy. We would be able to safely provide aid to these refugees who do want to flee the country, and ultimately ensure safety for all citizens, and peaceful Muslims entering our homeland.
Placing a Temporary ban on Muslims is necessary for security of our nation

when did i ever talk about mexico? the oklahoma bombing is also a significant point for this. it was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the September 11 attacks, and remains the most significant act of domestic terrorism in United States history. Now the United States is following their example and taking in 10"s of thousands of refugees" what are u going on about? Halfway into the fiscal year, the U.S. has accepted only 1,285 new refugees. most american states are in opposition of taking in muslim refugees. that there will be a number higher then 9000 the next couple of years is higly unlikely. still whites are in the major majority of the rape cases. yes some vets are getting attacked, as far as i know there was one such occurence in the us last year. i would like to see this poll. u may be able to find this people when u go into backwater countries like pakistan and afghanistan. but so high in a western state, i would very much like to see it. how many of them do u really think a terrorists? it is an extremely small majority. u want to refuse them of humanitarian aid because some guy called abu-bakr blew himself up in iraq last weekend? u are already putting americans at risks, u have one of the highest murder rates in the west.More than 30,000 people are killed by firearms each year in the us. far more then killed in the 9/11 attacks. u have people walking around with guns, people with severe diagnosises that the US health system does not take care of. mental health is one of the united states biggest threat, much higher then what this minority of muslims would do to your country. 1: ur state budget is still 19 trillion dollars. ur far of from a dangerous debt. this is something the us could afford. getting proper mental care not only for the muslims coming in but the us population in general is something that would be extremely benneficial for the us. u will get alot of people back in the workforce and it would stimulate the economy in the long run. 2: neither is banning them. 3: a minority has dangerous views. at the highest 5% (source, ssb.no) 4: if they are clearly too dangerous, dont allow them into the country. it may not be democratic, but usa is already fading further and further away from democracy, doing such an action anyway would not damage their reputation. norway is already doing the same thing.
Placing a Temporary ban on Muslims is necessary for security of our nation

on topic 3: this is not improving the immigration policy, this is ridiculing it. the modern populace of united states is already seen as a laughing stock by the rest of the west because of their ignorance and their hyper patriotic attitudes.this idea would set back americas immigration policy years. it would damage the united states reputation with the rest of the west. and you can forget all about your beloved saudi oil. "We should not at all risk a chance of anther Paris attack; we simply cannot put working Americans in harms way." im sorry, but how many americans die every year from school shootings? there is a school shooting almost every month, and what does statistics show us ? they are white,christian,uneducated,mentally unstable men. at the lowest statistics shows that it is atleast 62% (source is politicalresearch.org) as you can see, muslims are not the blame for americas problems. ur doing that fine on your own. most of the refugees are not extremist, again facts show that after prolonged stay in a westernized country their attitudes and ideals change. they learn to trust the government, not to fear it.they will not do america any harm. have u seen the news? have u read what is happening down there? they just want to get out of that hell of a country. what ideas like this does is harboring fear, you establish some kind of idea that muslims are bad people. you make people afraid of them, you make people wish to stay away from them. you make them not welcome in society, and then what happens? they are not included in society, you are not able to properly itergrate them. Topic 6 we dont need screenings. what they need is psychological treatment caused by severe war trauma. include them in political discussions.make them open up and discuss. and before they go see an immigration officer make them go through a 2 week course that shows what is accepted and not accepted in a westernized society. that we view women,gays,transexuals as equals and that you are free to practise any religion as long as you do not harm any other individual. if u get anyone with clearly ultra conservative views, then maybe block them from entering the united states or maybe atleast make it clear if they do not throw away their values then they are not welcome in a westernized society
Placing a Temporary ban on Muslims is necessary for security of our nation

The Ban Details: Topic 1 A ban on Muslims until the criteria is meet, and we can ensure safety for all Americans.[See Topic 2] The ban will not deport any Muslims in the country- it will start by increasing screening for Muslims.[See Why in Topic 3] The ban would not be meant to be extended indefinitely, thus making it permanent; but a temporary ban, ideally not exceeding 6 months. [See Topic 3] Criteria of the Ban to be lifted: Topic 2We have succeeded in Re-defining our screen process.[See Topic 3] Tightened immigration laws.[See Topic 3] Reasoning: Topic 3As seen in Topic 1: Point 2 "The ban will not deport any Muslims in the country- it will start by increasing screening for Muslims.[See Why in Topic 3]"We need to be reasonable: The United States already has millions of Mulisims living in it, to deport them would be unreasonable. The United States should start by completely redesigning the process we have of clearing immigrants into our country. We should not at all risk a chance of anther Paris attack; we simply cannot put working Americans in harms way.As Seen in Topic 1: Point 3 "The ban would not be meant to be extended indefinitely, thus making it permanent; but a temporary ban, ideally not exceeding 6 months. [See Topic 3]"I agree our country is built on diversity, and culture; that is why I would not support a permanent ban on Muslims from entering our country. Muslims are part of our culture, by the United States improving immigration policy, not only will we provide safety from terrorist attacks to full Americans, but to African- Americans, Chinese- Americans, Mexican- Americans, and to Muslim's living in the United States. As seen in Topic 2: Point 1 "Re-defining our screen process.[See Topic 3]"Our Current system is failing; we hardly know whoever comes into our Country. The President states that the screening process is extensive and working well. It simply is not- the people (refugees) that attempt to enter the country don't bring documents, we know nothing about them.. yet they still get cleared to enter.Miscellaneous: Topic 4 We have no records to check Syria. Their government will not provide any database's, or any aid. We are going in blind, and allowing potential terrorist entry into our country. I believe the United States' founding values is to be a humanitarian country, liberating the oppressed; but we cannot do that at the expense of security for citizens. Jihadist's mission is the destruction of Western civilization as said in their Koran. Conclusion: Topic 5Our current system is not working, in order to reduce the risk of terrorist activity in the United States, we must improve our security screening. We cannot take any risks with it; the reality is, we are at War with Jihadist.Questions for Con: Topic 6 If you are against the Temporary ban to be able to 'catch up' and improve screening and security; what is your proposal to reduce the risk of terrorist attacks?
Israel criminalizes the Palestinians

"In what strange universe are Palestinians not a threat" This one :). Israel is a first world country with the support of the world's biggest superpower. Palestine is two developing territories in Israel, With little provided to them from anyone. They pose as much as a threat to Israel as Taiwan does to China. "They try to destroy Isreal every single day. . " "They" implies all of Palestine. Of course they want it back, But you seem to be referring to HAMAS and the many terrorists that violently contend Israel. "Dude open a history book. . Its been going on for thousands of years! " But Israel has only existed for 70 years. . . Palestine hasn't ever existed as an independent entity, But the identity has for over 1500 years. Most of the Jews were in Europe from their exile to 1948, So how could the Palestinians have been fighting them? How could they be trying to destroy a not yet existent country? Incorrect facts.
Israel criminalizes the Palestinians

Isreal is doing to Palestininas EXACTLY what the nazis did to them nazism and zionsim are exactly the same thing, Either zionists need to change their ways or at least admit the nazis had a point, Sometimes in this world in order to save your people, You have to destory the enemy completely. . And just acept the consequences of history on your reputation, Maybe the jews learned an important lesson about survival. . You can't view the enemy as if they were human. . Only as an objective to be liquidated. . And they also need to admit they have no moral highground on the german people, And reparations they bleed from the Good German folk to this day must cease, This isnt about right and wrong its about survival, And if they wish to survive they have to admit, They are no more moral or humane than the nazis are, They are just in survival mode and this is what the nake ape does when his survival is threatened, We are all this we even the "chosen people" thye are no different than the "master race" in any way. . Except maybe germans make better cars because like no one one can make a luxury car bettter thn the krauts. Face that
Israel criminalizes the Palestinians

Since it's initial establishment, Israel has done nothing but attempt to build it's ego, And stabilize democratic relations. It was born from British lies, And only receives support because of bribery and corruption. Especially in recent years, Much because of widespread islamophobia, They have been criminalizing the Palestinians. Many Palestinian children have to go to bed not knowing if they'll wake up the next day. Palestinian deaths are over double Israel's, And mostly civilian. Israeli deaths are usually caused by HAMAS, The terrorist organization that currently controls Gaza. On the other hand, Palestinian deaths are typically caused by Israel. HAMAS hides missiles in schools, So Israel would have to bomb the schools to destroy the missiles. And Israel seems to be fine with that. The worst part of it all, Is that Israel tells the rest of the world that "Palestine" is the enemy, And we believe them! They criminalize the Palestinian people on a daily basis, And combined with the heavy influence on the US, Have the entire west on their side. The Palestinian people are in the middle of a firefight between Israel and HAMAS, And there is nothing they can do about it.
riddles

ok 1 ten fish are in a tank 2 drown 4 swim away 3 die how many are left? 2 a woman shoots her husband. then she holds him underwater for five minutes . Finally, she hangs him. but five minutes later she takes him out to dinner how could this be? 3 what is so delicate that even mentioning it breaks it 4 Two men are playing chess. They play five games total. Each man wins three games. How? 5 A man was murdered in his office. The suspects are Gerry, Julie, Jason, Nick, and Sophie. The numbers 6, 4, 9, 10, 11 are written on the calendar with blood. Who is the killer? 6 i am A necessity to some, a treasure to many, I"m best enjoyed among pleasant company. Some like me hot, some like me cold. Some prefer mild, some like me bold. What am I? 7 what is brown and sticky?
More than 2 genders

I am not copyrighting here, I am this user on debate island, FEEL FREE TO ASK ME ON DEBATE ISLAND IF IT'S ME (unless I am dead or quit DDO or DI at the time of you reading this. https://www. Debateisland. Com/discussion/2013/lgbtq-has-misinterpreted-their-case-they-believe-there-are-actually-0-genders-not-more-than-2"To be crystal clear: I am on the left-wing side and completely anti-conservative on anything other than gun rights and Islamophobia (I agree with conservatives on those two things). I am extremely sure that the reason the 'there are only 2 genders' quip keeps hitting LGBTQ+ hard is because they are trying to fight it when they really should deny it from the angle there are ultimately no genders and we invent the 'gender roles' from 0 and add the 2 as well as many others that could be added and identified with. No, I didn't steal this idea from anywhere, I searched the Internet far and wide and other than mock-meme images mocking LGBTQ logic, There is no-one explaining it how I do and truly meaning it. The term 'physical sex' is binary according to them but the translation of that into a gender is purely invented according to them and thus ultimately they think there are 0 genders and we add them on, Not that there are more than 2 and this is why they lose when they defend the idea there are more than 2 as the Conservative debater makes them concede that male and female are 2 and the other genders on the spectrum have no clear name. "- Someone234 of Debate Island THIS IS ME
More than 2 genders

These people nowadays say "only 90"s kids will remember the two original genders" and yes at the time there were only two genders but time has evolved. In my personal opinion there are two sexs and 63 genders. Of course some people are stuck in the 1700"s with there heads in there butts but times have changed people are starting to open up more. The thing is I"m not saying peoples opinions are wrong I"m just saying as a upset Pansexual that I believe there are more than two genders so if you want to debate I am open for it just make it a good one to convince other people to side with u looking forward to hearing your arguments
The United State's Use of Drone Warfare does more Harm than Good

I will commence with refutations. RefutationsMy opponent provides no examples or sources of drone warfare actually help in gathering information. I want examples of times drones have actually helped in combat and battle preparation, and how specifically drones were built for doing this job. My opponent also cites a quote about what drones can do in the future, however please discard this becuase it is completely irrelevant. The debate pertains to the United State's Current use of drone warfare, not some hypothetical in the future drone. This is like saying "in the future drones might be able to shoot laser beams into the stars and cure world hunger! It could happen! ". My opponent mentions that drones reduce civilian casualties, but clearly it does not. He says that it helps the US military target less civlians, but as I have proven in my first point, drones are capricious and rarely accurate. My opponent cites a quote about the Pakistani Army on foot and Israel's missile strikes, however, this is irrelevant because the debate is limited to America. My opponent said that civilian deaths are going down, but that doesn't change the fact that there are still too many civilian deaths. The rate at which terrorists are caught is so low that the non combatant lives lost are so much more than the terrorists that die. According to Bill Moyers, 60 terrorists have died since 2002 in drone fights. Those are 60 terrorists that might not have even been threats. Compare this to the thousands of innocent non combatants terrorized by drones everyday. My opponent says that drones are able to keep soldiers away from death or injury, however as I have talked about in my points this dehumanizes war. Also, many innocent civilians are killed. Are you saying that our soldier's lives are more important than the lives of innocent civilians? I will weigh the debate so far. On my side, drones kill thousands of civilians and terrorize many thousands more. They have a low sucess rate, and dehumanize the very ethics of war. On pro's side, they are flying cameras (he gives no examples of when this has helped), kill less civilians than bomb strikes (duh), and it saves some soldier's lives while RUTHLESSLY killing thosuands of innocent non combatants. Which arguments would you give more weight?