BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islam is not a religion of war and terror

I am happy that you have joined this debate my friend... Firstly, less than 50% of Muslims are radical, in fact only 7% of all Muslims are "Jihadis" who kill in the name of Islam. Of course there are between 3-5% that believe that the actions of ISIS and Taliban are rightful. Let me ask a question... why is it that these terrorists kill more Muslims than any other religion around the world? 97% of fatalities related to terrorism are Muslims. https://www.bbc.com... Why is the Egyptian army fighting ISIS soldiers in Sinai? The answer to this question is because ISIS doesn't want to kill Christians, Jews, or Atheists..... Muslims are the target. There are many Muslim families who want to send their kids to school and live a happy life. about the verse (3:151) god talks about what will occur in Judgement day... and by terror he did not mean terrorism, he meant fear (In judgement day). the (9:123) verse talks about when Muslims are in a state of war.. they have to fight aggressively against their enemies. [2:191] "You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers." as you can see in this verse, if the enemy did not wage a war on you, don't you dare fight them. Now lets talk about the prophet Muhammad "peace be upon him", the prophet never hanged any girls and if you may type your source in the next round. There is also a hadith by the prophet (or a quote by him) --> "there will be people near the end times who create violence and have a corrupted Islamic clergy, with their own "state". Doesn't that sound like ISIS to you?
Islam is not a religion of war and terror

First of all it's not racist. Racist is discriminating someone on race. Religionist is not a word it's called religious discrimination. I don't care about their race, gender, but I do care about looks. I do in fact have "something"against the religion of Islam and muslims. My main problem is that more than 50% of Muslims are radical Muslims. This includes about 2.2 million radical muslims in America. These people include people who believe ISIS is okay, 9/11 was okay, honor killings of women are okay, and sharia law should be the law of the land. Now into the actual religion. In Surah (3:151) it states all people who don't subject to Islam are not innocent. Surah (9:123) says that anyone who isn't muslim shall be killed. Muhammed was also a very bad guy. He hung two girls for singing satirical songs about him Hisham (819). He also married a 12 year old and sexually abused her. He also married 3 times. In Quran (8:39) it says again to kill all non believers. And finally about looks. I don't think women should wear hijabs, burkas, etc. because it was made to oppress women by Muhammed. I hope you see where I'm coming from. https://www.youtube.com...... https://www.youtube.com......
Should Trump Support "Dreamers"

First off I would like to say there are probably a lot of illegals that are hardworking good people that are here trying to make a better life, but we should not negate the fact that illegals are lawbreakers, why should we as a nation of laws give privileges to criminals. Trump should prohibit the dreamer act because it encourages illegals to enter are country knowing that they have an opportunity to seize citizenship, America already has an immigration problem we don't to add fuel to the fire. To your point that deporting these illegals is futile and expensive the truth is if they are deported for breaking the law they have a chance to enter the country the legal way, many of these illegals are not here on good merit but take the opportunity to take advantage of social security and the welfare system, illegals themselves cost the U.S billions of dollars, we even have to pay for refugees that have entered the country. We already allow 10,000 refugees into America where do we say enough is enough, We shouldn't award those who break the law, if their serious about assimilating into are society then they should take the necessary steps to become a citizen. Finally how can you determine what illegals are good and those who are bad, many illegals might have not been caught for other crimes unrelated to entering illegally. You can't just build bridges you have to secure the country and the natural born citizens should benefit not those who break the law.
Hell is not what you think it is. Pro hell

Although this was a fairly interesting topic and one I haven't been able to debate in the past, however the arguments were fairly simplistic. I'll address the two points my opponent brought up (as my opponent has effectively designed these so that they cover the entire argument), and show how they cannot prove that my idea of Hell isn't what I think it is.1.) Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that one who sins will never be able to get into heaven, by "sinners" I mean those who have been judged by St. Peter at the pearly gates and weren't able to be let in because their sins were too great. As that's what I was talking about, this point doesn't really do anything.2.) My opponent's second point deals with the metaphorical sending dealing with free will, however this point simply doesn't hold up. This is because although we do choose to sin, we don't literally throw ourselves into Hell. After our sins are judged by St. Peter, and if we aren't allowed into Heaven, we are sent to Hell by God to keep us from tainting Heaven (this point was made last round and was completely dropped by my opponent, so according to debating rules it is considered true). And so, even though we do have free will, because we don't literally choose to walk into Hell, we have to be sent. And because we have to be sent to Hell by God, the resolution is negated as I have proven that Hell is indeed what I think it is, which means my opponent's BoP cannot be upheld.
Hell is not what you think it is. Pro hell

Agreed it be unfair for you to rewrite your argument, My Closing statements is this....."according to what you believe, What you think hell is" can be broken down in 2 ways. 1. Hell is a place for sinners. 2 God sends people to hell because he created it. 1. i agree hell is for sinners, but the key element is that they can change the outcome. Sinners is someone who is against God, its natural if God doesn't allow them into heaven, can you image walking around In heaven saying hey God I'm against you but thanks for ignoring all the bad things I did and allowing me up here. The good news is that our sins can be washed away, and forgiven, every bad thing you ever did would metaphorically be put in a paper shredder. Once you accept Jesus into your heart, It bridges the gap between us and God even if you sin, you don't take advantage of his grace but 1 john 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." and Isaiah 43:25 "I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more. 2. God gave us free will, doctors have told patients because they have heart bypass surgery they better start eating better, but many never changed their lifestyle, it seems silly why they wouldn't, I guess some would rather die than change, but this is our human nature, in 2010 auto manufacturers recalled 20million cars for defects, but what's strange is executive directors told owners, because of this, its a free repair get it done. 30% never responded. Likewise many ignore Gods Call unlike the defect in cars the moral defect is not the makers fault he made everything good (Gen 1:31), if God forced us to love him, we would be puppets, devotion is only real when unfaithfulness is possible. Knowing the consequence and then still choosing not to respond, is a choice you make that you could have changed, especially if the gift is free. People send them self to hell, Not God.
Hell is not what you think it is. Pro hell

To keep it clear, I'll address this in terms of paragraphs.Paragraph 1:1.) Yeah, don't worry about it. It happens to all of us sometime. All I can see happening is you losing the conduct point, because you never said in the rules that a forfeit leads to a full loss.2.) That's why you need to learn to make your resolutions as clear as possible. In a debate, one debates whether the resolution is true or false, and then each side argues about the other sides argumets. That's why even when the resolution is not clear, people will state "Resolved:..." in order to clarify. It would be unfair to make me restructure my entire argument now because you didn't properly phrase the resolution.Paragraph 2:My point exactly, god cannot let sinners into heaven, and so he sends them to hell. That was exactly the point I was trying ot make throughout the round, so it benefits my argument more.Paragraph 3:Actually, you have a bit of a point with the creation of the water, but you're forgetting one big thing. People do not voluntarily choose to walk into Hell. It's not like they're given the option between the Pearly Gates and walls of flame and think "hmm, that Hell place sure sounds good". They choose to send, and then God, through St. Peter, physically sends them to Hell. Also, you can't change the fact that you sinned. What's done is done, and St. Peter weighs it all.Answers:1.) I think it can be used as one, but I don't think that's the intention. I just think that's where God sends sinners, as I've stated and restated.
Hell is not what you think it is. Pro hell

Thanks for your patience, because of the forfeit this could damage votes, but what's done is done, life events and I could not get here in time for previous round, my apologies. I feel the debate has changed flow, to actually refute What you think something is, is tricky because one cannot change what someone else thinks, they must change on their own but we can influence. As I mentioned before my intended argument was not literally "Hell is not what you think it is" that was just a title for my debate, but not the actual debate, in my opening argument after giving many examples it hinted at the fact Hell is not used as a fear tactic, so when my title says Hell is not what you think it is, it was just a opening hook and not my argument, because traditionally people who don't understand the purpose of hell see it as a fear tactic. "Because God made the conscious decision to not allow sinners into heaven and instead send them to hell, Hell is indeed what I think it is." If God let Sinners into heaven, then anyone could do what they wanted with no consequences here on earth and still get to heaven, that's not justice and this would mean God didn't care what people do, but he does. 2 peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." God Created Hell but people have free will, they can Choose between options. He doesn't send them, as I mentioned in the example, if Jesus was in a life boat reaching out to save you but you refused, he created the water that drowned you, but you only drowned because you didn't take the free chance to get saved. Just because the water can kill God is not responsible if someone chose to stay in it. So he does not Send them if that's what you think, it is a personal choice that can be changed if they wanted. Questions. Do you personally think Hell is a Fear tactic? If it is not then what else could it be?
Hell is not what you think it is. Pro hell

Rebuttal:"No rebuttals for your verses because my belief is in line with your presented case, except for the fact that God does Not purposely send them to hell, some verses you listed refer to a specific group of people when he says send, but ultimately because they chose to be wicked they ultimately sent them self"It would seem that the Con actually agrees with the Pro's case, exept for the fact that God does not send them to Hell, but - metaphorically - they send themselves. However, regardless, God has to make the decision to send them to Hell for their sins. He decides that those who have sinned cannot enter Heaven because sin cannot bear to be around him. Because God made the conscious decision to not allow sinners into heaven and instead send them to hell, Hell is indeed what I think it is.Answers:Q1:The last part of this question is a little confusing, but from what I think it means, I'd say that the only benefit we humans have from believing our loved ones are in danger of going to Hell (remember that Hell was not created for our benefit) would be to do their best to keep their family members from sin, so God will not have to send them there.Q2: Although I'm unsure of whether or not God created Hell himself (there are several theological debates on this), if he did do so, it would likely be as a place to punish Satan and the other fallen angels, from what I know of the scripture.
Hell is not what you think it is. Pro hell

No rebuttals for your verses because my belief is in line with your presented case, except for the fact that God does Not purposely send them to hell, some verses you listed refer to a specific group of people when he says send, but ultimately because they chose to be wicked they ultimately sent them self "Would you say that your opening statement is focused around the fact that Hell is not used as a scare tactic, rather than focusing around the resolution?" yes, this is my first debate on this site, and I am unfamiliar with proper presentation of what I was actually trying to convey, I am little green in debating in general so I wasn't clear and probably inaccurately started off my debate in the direction I wanted to go. But yes My Opening argument objectively hints at the fact I was arguing that Hell is Not a fear tactic, and Pro for the the fact that it is not, being aware that it can be used that way, but advocate that, it is not the way it is to be used or the proper use for it. "Would you say Sinners don't neccesarily go to Hell?" Sinners do go there according to my belief, but everyone can be saved, but have to make the choice, but in the end my answer also furthers your point if I cant refute that hell is NOT what you thought it was, which was i line with mine, then I inevitably lose, based on that being the argument I was ACTUALLY trying to covey, But based on my Opening, it is argued for the fact that hell is not a fear tactic, I don't Know if I'm allowed to present this argument as the main one. When I said in my title, Hell is not what you think it is, I did not intend that to be my argument, but as a title and my argument was displayed after clicking on it and looking further. At this point not sure where this debate will Go. Go ahead and answer my first 2 questions and I ask you 1 new one. What benefit does a Christian family member get by continuing to hold on to the belief of hell knowing what it entails and telling non saved family members
Hell is not what you think it is. Pro hell

I'll accept this argument, arguing that Hell is in fact what I think it is. Namely, That it's a place where God sends those who go against the commands and restrictions shown in the Bible. I'd like to state before we begin that even though I'm an athiest, I'm not adding "fictional" anywhere in what I define Hell to be. I'm debating based on what I believed Hell to be based on when I was a Christian.Opening Statement: My main argument for this case is that Hell is where God sends you if went against the Commands, Restrictions, or other guidelines listed in the Bible as punishment for not listening to God's word. As my opponent is both the Pro and the Instigator, the Burdenof Proof lies upon him to prove that Hell is not actually what I think it is. THerefore, if Pro cannot prove that Hell is not where God sends sinners, then I win the round.I will now back up my position with a few Bible Verses:Psalm 9:17“The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.”Luke 10:15“And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.”Luke 12:5“But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.”2nd Peter 2:4“For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment…”These quotes show that the "wicked", in this case meaning sinners, are sent to Hell, thus confirming that Hell is in fact what I think it is, and so the resolution is negated. I would list more, but the 2,000 character limit is a little restricting.Questions:1.) Would you say that your opening statement is focused around the fact that Hell is not used as a scare tactic, rather than focusing around the resolution?2.) Would you say Sinners don't neccesarily go to Hell?
Hell is not what you think it is. Pro hell

I'm not Pro hell in terms of I like it, a sense of its a great place, but Pro in the sense of understanding the reason for it. Debate Flow Round 1 Opening Argument personal view of Hell and MUST ask 2 questions for opponent Round 2 rebuttals/ answer questions/ additionally can ask up to 3questions Round 3 rebuttals/answer questions/ can ask up to 2questions Round 4 Rebuttals/answer questions/ ask 1 question/closing statement part 1 Round 5 rebuttals/ closing statements part 2 Note, Rhetorical questions are okay not part of the number of questions, if used specify. Questions mandatory part of formality. any question is permitted. Opening argument if Jesus was in a lifeboat and you were in deep water and he is reaching out his hand to save you, but you refuse, that is not blackmail, you made that choice. If you knew a friend was about to walk off a cliff you would warn them the devastation of what would happen if they didn't listen, to me that's not a fear tactic. If you knew a plane was going to crash and you put yourself out there and made yourself look crazy yelling that they should get off the plane, some would know you were genuine and get off, some would ignore you and stay on, some would be skeptical but at least ask you, well how do you know? You tell them that you saw people do certain actions before they happened, that was proof the story was true. telling people about hell is not suppose to be a fear tactic, do people use it that way? that does without saying, but that does not mean that is the purpose of Christianity when they mention it. Some use it for bad I get that, but for the ones who care, It's a loving warning just like you would warn a family member or friend, no difference. Question1 if you have loved ones who believe in hell as well, what benefit do they have in believing in it is their own loved one was in danger? Question 2 why Do you think God made hell?
Creationism is scientific

As Theta Pinch challenged me to this debate, I get the last word.Theta Pinch said that he was wrong about a spherical earth and the earth hanging on nothing being common knowledge in Bible times, and that he wasn't intentionally lying, so it's cool.A similar question would be "if other civilizations didn't know how to make underwater concrete, why would the Romans?Ancient cultures are constantly surprising us with their knowledge; one example would be the antikythera mechanism which had gears 1500 years too early. There is still no reason to think that it was God who gave them these ideas.That is correct, I suppose. This amazing scientific knowledge in itself does not prove creationism or the Bible as fact. However, it shows that the Bible, and therefore Christian Creationism, have already made predictions that have been proven right. Making predictions is scientific, right?Then, you said that William G. Dever never claimed the Nation of Israel didn't exist. I'm sorry for messing that up. It was your second source, Ze'ev Herzog, who said something along this line. Anyway, the Kingdom of Israel did indeed exist.Then, about transitional forms: This isn't relevant to this debate so I won't say anything more about this than this: we know because they exhibit traits form both their ancestral group and descendant group.So is a platypus a transitional form then? Did Rhinos come from Triceratops?On the speed of light and carbon dating:Yes they have slowed light down that much but it wasn't in a vacuum where it is supposed to be constant so that doesn't make it any more likely. Radioactive decay on the otherhand doesn't change in any known condition.I don't have an answer for that.Next: Next, you said that evolutionist scientists are not biased. Look, everybody has a bias.That is not what I was saying. I was saying that pseudoscience promoters ONLY care about evidence that supports their claims. That is but a claim, but even if it were true I could say the same about many evolutionists.Finally, concerning evolutionists having an anti-creationist bias:Yes many scientists do, but the very nature of science requires naturalistic explanations (unless they can prove that it was supernatural empirically.) Also tht anti-creationist bias makes their results more likely to be accurate because they are not simply looking for evidence to affirm their unfalsifiable, unwarranted beliefs.Basically you said we have no evidence of our claims. Actually, we do. You simply have rebuttals, but a rebuttal doesn't make you right.Finally, I'm finished with this last round and therefore this debate. May the better debater win and may the voters vote fairly.
Creationism is scientific

"It's core assumption is that God exists and the bible is correct." Not necessarily. Though most Creationists are Christian, a large variety of religions believe that the Universe was created by God. Therefore, it's not Christian-exclusive, though it may certainly seem that way at times. You imply that the belief in God is not scientific. Is it unscientific to believe in a higher power? I think not. Now that I gave a rebuttal, I'll move on to the business of proving Creationism is scientific. Okay, let's see. It's scientific if it makes predictions and it uses evidence to support its cause. Creationism uses evidence. We don't simply make this stuff up. We use the evidence to help our cause. We look at the fossils and the lack of transitional fossils and the complexity of life and other factors as evidence. It's almost as scientific as it is religious. As for predictions...I've said it before and I'll say it once more, until somebody answers me on this subject: the Rapid Decay Theory. It has been accurate on multiple different planets. It accurately predicted that this planet has a magnetic field, this planet doesn't, this planet used to, and stuff like that. The Dynamo Theory has been wrong before where the Rapid Decay Theory has been right. And there's plenty more out there. So, we use evidence and we make predictions. Sounds relatively scientific to me. HOWEVER, we will not abandon the overall conclusion, that this Universe was created. We will never stop believing in this. However, we don't have blind faith in this. We gather evidence to support our cause. And if there is an objection to Creationism, we will find a way to defend our theory, with science. Of course, if we were ever backed into a corner and there was no way to defend ourselves scientifically, we could always rely upon the contention that it was a miracle. However, we don't typically do this, except in regards to the Creation of the Universe and planet Earth, and maybe a few other cases such as Noah's Flood. Yeah, I know all that was probably kind of weak. But like I said, I'm not a scientist, and I have very little scientific knowledge. P.S. Please answer my contention on the Dynamo Theory and the Rapid Decay Theory.