BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Consumers' right to make informed choices must be protected by law

Did you know that many of Britain's biggest and best-known high street chains, including Marks and Spencer (1) and Tesco (2), are owned by Jews? You wouldn't guess it from the names, would you? And there are thousands of other businesses that don't have names that make it immediately apparent that Jews own the company either. To some people the knowledge that a store is Jewish-owned would not deter them from shopping there, but many potential customers would be concerned that the some of the company's profits might be channelled to Israel to fund illegal Jewish settlements (3) or to finance Jewish terrorist groups such as Kach and Kahane Chai (4). Now, if customers wished to boycott produce of Israel, they could easily do so because the law requires that all products have the country of origin prominently displayed on the label. However, if customers wished to boycott pro-Israeli businesses they would be unable to without conducting some extensive research beforehand. For that reason, Jewish-owned business should be legally required to have a Star of David (5) displayed in a prominent position over the entrance to the premises, rather like these shops in Poland: http://ww2army.com... However, in the interest of balance, businesses owned by people of other faiths should have their own religious symbols (6-9) similarly displayed. In conclusion, consumers have a right to favour certain businesses over others for moral or political reasons, but without the religion of businesses' owners being prominently displayed they are unable to make a properly informed choice and, therefore, the law should be changed to enable them to do so. Thank you. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://www.ifamericansknew.org... (4) http://electronicintifada.net... (5) Jewish symbol http://gateway.kwantlen.bc.ca... (6) Buddhist symbol http://1.bp.blogspot.com... (7) Christian symbol http://www.haulingforless.com... (8) Islamic symbol http://www.iup.edu... (9) Hindu symbol http://www.ancient-symbols.com...
Consumers' right to make informed choices must be protected by law

While my opponent's line of reasoning seems logical, he doesn't prevent any evidence of any Jews actually sending money to Israel. Additionally, the command to drive out non-Israelis also comes with the command to settle Israel, and given that many Jews are not in Israel, but instead choose to live in other places [1], so they're already breaking the command, making it even less likely that they'd follow through with the rest of it. The boycott of Muslim businesses is equally illogical, given that many moderate Muslims disagree with the extremist terrorists who fight in the name of Allah. My opponent claims that the staff might now know the religion of the "majority of shareholders. " However, there are more ways to find out than just asking. For example, if enough people actually cared, Phil would probably make a website that tracked major businesses and the religious demographics of each. No need to hinder the storefront. My opponent claims that if the store owner lies, he can "so easily be found out. " However, how would you prove that a man is lying about his religion if he makes any effort at all to disguise himself? It would require nothing less than a home invasion, something way too drastic and costly for such little benefit to the people. My opponent also proposes that religious symbols might attract more customers and increase businesses. However, if it would, shopkeepers would be naturally motivated to put religious symbols on their storefronts, with no laws and beurocracies necessary. A law would just be redundant. Finally, my opponent concludes by claiming that the public would have "the ability to spend their money as they choose. " However, at the same time, he plans to restrict the same right of the storekeepers by requiring that they spend time and money to keep a symbol on their storefront. My opponent claims that this law would ultimately stop money from ending up in "the hands of terrorists or illegal settlers," but instead of a law that requires religious symbols to be displayed, wouldn't it be more effective to make the funding of terrorists illegal? In conclusion, the law my opponent proposes restricts freedom, is easily broken, and takes unnecessary law and beurocracy to enforce. We'd all be better off without it. 1. . http://www.simpletoremember.com...
Consumers' right to make informed choices must be protected by law

I would like to thank Mongeese for accepting this debate and for his worthy contribution to which I respond as follows: It is entirely reasonable to assume that money from Jewish businesses will be channelled to Israeli settlers and terrorists because Israel is fundamental to the Jewish religion and it is the religious duty of all Jews to support the settlement and expansion of Israel. As Rabbi Eliezer Melamid explains: "The commandment to settle the land of Israel requires that we conquer the land. It is thus written, "Possess the land and settle it, for I have given you the land in order that you take possession of it" (Numbers 33:53), and our sages explain the expression "possess" to imply the conquest and establishment of Israeli sovereignty in the land. Moreover, this commandment remains binding upon us in all generations In addition to the more general Torah commandment to take possession of the land of Israel, the Torah warns: "Do not allow them to reside in your land" (Exodus 23:33). The Rambam (Hilkhot Avoda Zara 10:6) explains that when we have the power it is forbidden to allow any non-Jew to reside in our land. The Torah also exhorts: "...do not give them any consideration" (Deuteronomy 7:2), and the sages interpret this to mean that it is forbidden to provide non-Jews with any sort of foothold upon the soil of the land of Israel (Avodah Zara 20a). The Almighty God has given this land to the nation of Israel and every Jew has a portion in it." http://www.yeshiva.org.il... In other words, Jews believe that Greater Israel (the land between the Nile and the Euphrates) belongs to all Jews and that all non-Jews should be driven out. However, many people believe that Jews are not "the chosen people" and that they have no "god-given" right to occupy other lands and to displace families from their homes and farms, and to slaughter any that resist. In fact I doubt many people would be happy if they realised their money was were helping to fuel the fire of the world's most volatile trouble-spot. Similarly many people would be unhappy if they thought their money was supporting Islamic terrorists which is why many people boycott Muslim businesses. http://www.haindavakeralam.com... A Star of David, Islamic Crescent or other religious symbol at the enterance to a business would not substantially interfere with the overall appearance of the enterprise but would allow people to make an informed choice without having to enter the premises to enquire about the religion of the majority shareholders – something the staff may not know anyway. This would not lead to proprietors being deceitful – they wouldn't risk their business when they could so easily be found out – and, in any case, a religious symbol may actually increase business by attracting customers who follow that faith. In conclusion, this proposal would give the shopping public the ability to spend their money as they choose by equipping them with the information they need to ensure their money will not ultimately end up in the hands of terrorists or illegal settlers. Thank you.
Consumers' right to make informed choices must be protected by law

My opponent claims that many people would wish to boycott pro-Israeli businesses. This may be true. However, just because a business is Jewish-owned does NOT mean that its profits are being used to fund Israeli operations, and to assume so is rather unfair to the Jewish business owners. Additionally, I think that the number of people who are concerned about the religion of the owner of a business is slim to none. I think that if they're really all that concerned about the owner's religion, they should just ASK. A problem with my opponent's proposed law is that it would restrict the right of a man to display his shop in a way that he desires, a subset of the right to the pursuit of hapiness and the right to liberty [1]. A shopkeeper ought to have the right to display what he wants to on the entrance to the premises. If he wants a painting, fine. A Star of David might interfere greatly with the arrangement of the entrance, and turn away potential shoppers. Another problem is the easy tendency towards fraud. If a shopkeeper realizes that his profits are down ever since he started displaying the Star of David on the wall, because the shoppers are there for shopping, not religion, he would have great motivation to take it down. It would take somebody who knows that the man is Jewish to expose him, and in court, there'd have to be evidence of the shopkeeper's religion, which is very subjective and nearly impossible to decide by court. In conclusion, this law would only help a small subset of the population that generalizes based on religion and is too lazy to ask the religion of shopkeepers, which may or may not exist; at the expense of having religious symbols displayed everywhere in the stores; and at the expense of more police investigations, lawsuits, and court battles, dramatically increasing the costs to the government, and therefore the taxes. Again, thank you, brian, and good luck with your next argument. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
This House Believes That Krishna Or Jesus( God) Could Soon Join The Avengers/Justice League

To restate, this house believes that not Krishna nor Jesus have a high likelihood of joining the Avengers or Justice League. We will now begin our arguments, The Avengers are part of the Marvel Multiverse, existing throughout many different incarnations, particularly the Prime Universe, Earth-616 (Marvel Wikia: . http://marvel.wikia.com...). Jesus of Nazareth is also a character that is part of Earth-616 and due to his interactions with characters/events within that universe, we can easily determine that he will not become a member of the Avengers. Jesus, after crucifixion "[ascended] to Heaven, which began Christianity" (Marvel Wikia . http://marvel.wikia.com...(Earth-616)). Jesus was again mentioned twice in Ghost Rider, though each time his image was created by an exterior entity, whether by Miracle Man attempting to recreate the immaculate conception or by Mephisto, as a trick to manipulate Johnny Blaze, the Ghost Rider. Jesus' last appearance was in Howard the Duck Volume 3, sitting in a bar with Howard, YHWH, and The Holy Spirit. Since this comic was released in 2002 it is safe to say that Jesus has no precedent to appear in the Marvel universe again, especially as part of the Avengers. In fact, since the Howard the Duck cartoon depicts YHWH alongside Jesus, we can gather that the Marvel universe does not have such a character as Jesus (God), since they are separate entities. As for Krishna, according to Marvel Wikia, he is part of the Council of Godheads which makes sense judging by how important Krishna is in Hinduism. However, due to his allegiance to the council of Godheads, he will likely not join the Avengers who are mortal. Vishnu also has absurd power levels, far greater than any member of the Avengers. It should be noted that the aforementioned all apply to Vishnu, as Krishna, an avatar of Vishnu, has not been featured specifically. The DC universe, home of the Justice League, also featured Jesus though he has not played a very major role in the franchise. Jesus's rebirth was disproven by the discovery of the Shroud of Turin (Dc Wikia . http://dc.wikia.com...(New_Earth). Jesus has not featured prominently and has not been part of any recent Dc comics so once again it is safe to assume he will not be joining the Justice League of America. Finally, Krishnu in the DC universe will once a gain be represented by Vishnu, which is the God of Heaven according to one of his titles. Needless to say, the DC universe has absolutely no precedent for including a cannon God in into the Justice League. This argument should sufficiently disprove the titular claim.
Science should play a bigger role in society than religion or personal beliefs.

Religion, however, is purely based off of belief. Science has helped society advance in a countless array of ways including fascinating feats of architecture, people walking on the moon, and diseases that once infected millions being almost completely eradicated. Religion, though should be perfectly legal to practice and shall not be infringed upon, should not decide how people, especially those who do not follow that religion, live their lives. Science in universal, religion, in a broad sense, is so diverse that within a religious decision there will be numerous people fighting over which religion should be considered the best one to use.
Science should play a bigger role in society than religion or personal beliefs.

I believe that Religion and beliefs matter just as much (if not then more) than science. Science is a concept humans have created millions of years and years ago. Religion however, was created before humans even though about science and the revolution of things now. A person cannot believe in science if they do not have beliefs, or then technically they are not "believing" in today's science. Therefore, I believe beliefs and religions matter, or if there was no such thing as this, there might be no science.
Science should play a bigger role in society than religion or personal beliefs.

Yes, but that is the beauty of religion, not everyone follows it! Since everyone has their own ideas, we are able to have fun debates like this and what not. Honestly, I believe every single person on this earth today believes in science. Science is a concept, just like gravity. You could not believe in gravity, but whatever you think, gravity will always be there. Science is real. Religion however, are people's ideas, not everyone has to follow it. If everyone has their own ideas, they are able to live happy and content because now they are able to do what they want to for themselves. If everyone followed the same religion, that would be scary, that is why there are many different religions. It would be scary because everyone would be the exact same, making everyone not unique, which is what makes this world beautiful, the differences of everyone and their ideas. Whatever anyone thinks, if they think science isn't real, then they are wrong, and I completely agree with you on that fact. But, I do not agree where you said people will disagree. Of course people will disagree...but not everyone has to follow it, only the people who believe in this religion. Well played "stopyellingatme"! Good luck!
Science should play a bigger role in society than religion or personal beliefs.

Yes, if one's actions harm no one then that action should be allowed. The problem is that different religions have different ideas that clash and what people should and should not be allowed to do. You believe that women should not wear short skirts and makeup, many people, predominantly women, will disagree with you. The thing is they have the right to choose. Your mother can wear jeans and no makeup and some other girl can wear short skirts and makeup, neither style will hurt anyone. Science affects us all, we all are influenced by gravity, we all breath air, and we all have complex chemical reactions going on in our body. We all live on this planet in this solar system in this universe. Religion, however, does not affect everyone. Not everyone believes it, and, like I've said before, religion is based on belief whereas science is based on fact.
Science should play a bigger role in society than religion or personal beliefs.

First of all, today's world, science has completely taken over. The entire world is based off of science, from organisms as small as a flea to the exploration of the moon. I agree with you that science should be considered the best one to use, but I disagree with you when you have said that religion should not be a excuse to break the law. For example, I agree with you if your referring to ISIS, because I too believe that what ISIS is doing is completely wrong. But, I am a Christian, maybe a different kind of Christian from a lot of you either judging this debate, or "Stopyellingatme" yourself. For example, I believe that women should not wear skirts and paint their face with makeup and that sort. I am not using this to offend anyone, but hey, everyone has their personal beliefs. I believe that if someone came up to my mom (I don't have a wife yet, I am still in high school) and told her that she has to wear pants and she has to soak her face in makeup and she has to wear earrings, I will not be happy, for we believe that women should not do that, and that doesn't affect you at all. I believe no one has the authority to tell us what to do, unless it is something that affects others. Therefore, I believe that if the action doesn't affect anyone, then no one should tell someone in what to believe in (in my opinion).
with all due respect dude i dont have a clue where youre coming from

everything you post is basically damming all of man and telling people we are invisible wave lengths and deceived cause we don't understand how dammed we are and that you're a saint and you're good to go Romans 3:23 all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god mark 2 17 And hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners." 1 timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, i honestly have no idea where youre coming from and why you think what you do if youre basing it off of the bible, but im interested to hear your viewpoint
The USFG should prohibit children from possessing rifles

Starting with what we disagree: 3. Firearms can easily be within arms reach of children at home, the parent just needs to teach the child not to touch. Of course supervision would be necessary just to teach the child how to shoot, what to shoot, and how to be safe while shooting. Controlled environments are not required, especially not in Kentucky with a very small population density. 4. I do not believe that the mother should be punished any more than losing her daughter. This is my opinion, but still, why just go and outright punish the woman. 5. "Guns make it easier to kill people" Though this is true, a screwdriver is just as easy to kill someone with. You can run with a knife and fall on it. That also kills kids, but you are not complaining about knife control. Society has demonized guns. Why, I do not know. Knives are just as dangerous Cars kill more kids than guns, but your argument that that is why we do not let kids drive is irrelevant. The kids still get killed even though they are not driving. So why not make it illegal to drive or drive with a kid in the car. Again, society has demonized guns, and they are the smaller threat. 7. Fine, blame the government for the nine a day who get shot, but only after car deaths are eliminated. 8. I am sixteen and if a person breaks into my house when I am alone, I WILL shoot them. I will keep shooting until I run out of bullets. 9. All that I will say about that is that there is nothing wrong with hunting. 10. True, we do not know, but until you do, you cannot really blame the mother or child or say that it was done on purpose. You do not know. Thank you.
The USFG should prohibit children from possessing rifles

1. This is a tragedy. 2. This is the mother's fault. 3. The mother should have taught her child that guns can be dangerous when handled improperly. Notice that I added, " when handled improperly". Guns do not accidently go off. Someone sets them off. It is actually easy to handle a gun properly. It is easy to learn. It is easy to teach. The mother should have taught that child. 4. No action should be taken against the mother. She lost her daughter. Why would she need to be punished any more than that? Prisons should be about reform, not outright punishment. The woman has been reformed. 5 Nine children are killed by guns every day in America. I will not disagree. However, this data does not specify whether this is just because the kids were playing around, or if they were killed by a criminal. If it was a criminal, the parent could have prevented it by owning a gun. The child could have actually shot the robber and prevented their death. Let us assume that the deaths are just because of irresponsibility by the child, it is just nine. Sad, I know. But the hundreds of car accidents that kill minors in both America and Europe is an outright tragedy. You do not see the British outlawing driving do you? 6. Do not blame the government. Blame the mother. Blame the irresponsible parent. Why punish those who are responsible. I was eight when I got my first .22, I never got shot or shot anyone. Why punish me? 9 get killed everyday, a million do not. 7. Guns are guns, not weapons. They can be used as weapons, but are not inherently weapons. This is just as a screwdriver can be used as a weapon. What right does a child have to run around with a weapon as lethal as a pocket knife? 8. Maybe five is too young, but minors do have reason to carry a gun. Protection. 9. The mother did not just hand the boy the gun and say go play with it. He got the gun as a gift. He gave it to him so that he could learn to shoot and kill a few squirrels. That is what people do when in SouthEast America. 10. You seem to be making it apparent that the child just did not like his sister and wanted her dead. This was a tragic accident. Not some murder. My sources are simply logic, common sense, and personal experience. There is no need for me to include internet sources for this. I will let you post your next argument.
Selective Breeding Should Be Implemented in Humans

Let's go through some of those pros. 1. No, diseases wouldn't be eliminated. GENETIC diseases would be. And while there are some genetic disorders that really should be wiped out (cystic fibrosis for example) the effect they have on populations are minimal, at least when compared to "regular" diseases such as malaria. Some people are naturally immune to these types of disease, but they are few and far between, so in order to create a population of solely immune people over 99% of the population would have to be sterilised everytime you wanted to eliminate a single strain of disease. What's more, this process would take so long that by the time you had bred out a single strain, a new one would almost certainly have cropped up. 2. OK I'll give you that one. 3. Remember how I said that in the time it took to eliminate one disease through a breeding program another will have popped up? Well so long as it can infect one of the new humans, it can infect them all. And if you are continually mixing the same types of DNA (stronger, faster, smarter) then it becomes increasingly likely that no one would be immune to it as everyone's DNA is pretty much the same. Having variety in a population is what keeps it safe from epidemics and such a controlled population removes variety. 4. Again, I'll give you this point. 5. You know what's a really good way to prevent a pregnancy and way cheaper than controlling the fertility of an entire nation? Birth control. Surely the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies is to give women the option to not get pregnant when they have sex. And on the topic of abortions, the highest rates of abortions happened around a hundred years ago, when if you got pregnant before marriage you would be ostracised from society and would most likely end up in poverty. In this society you are proposing, people would most likely still have sex anyway but now if they get pregnant they have to turn to illegally set up clinics which history has shown have a much higher death rate than official clinics. 6. Wouldn't a selectively bred population not have children in need of adoption as every child born (legally) would have a family by default?