BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Israel is on the short end of the stick

I will be arguing that Israel has not significantly violated human rights as many, including my opponent, claim. States and collectives naturally violate human rights, this cannot be denied, but my argument will say that Israel has one of the, if not THE, cleanest records in the world. Further, I will be arguing that Israel is fully justified in its actions throughout its history. This is in general and I ask that the voters not exaggerate "minor" isolated incidents to paint a broad picture. _____ Rules: _____ I accept all six (6) rules proposed. _________ Definitions: _________ I think my opponent has arbitrarily selected a definition from a source in order to support his argument, so I propose these more neutral and non-partisan definitions for the voters to take into account: Israel: a republic in SW Asia, on the Mediterranean: formed as a Jewish state May 1948 [1] The State of Israel, a modern country in the Middle East, at the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. [2] I accept the definitions for 'human rights' and 'unjustified' presented by my opponent. _______ Sources: _______ [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://en.wiktionary.org... Good luck to my opponent. I would also like to dedicate this debate to the lovely INH. :)
Israel is on the short end of the stick

The full resolution of the debate is "Israel has clearly violated human rights and is unjustified in its actions. " Juvanya has been adamant in upholding zionist doctrines and beliefs on facebook, and, after several days, he has refused to change his beliefs. No one is really judging the debates, though. Maybe here, the voting will provide for some sort of metric by which we determine who wins. _____ Rules: _____ 1) Round 1 will have no argumentation whatsoever; if my opponent has any alternative or additional definitions he would like to add, he may do so. 2) Rounds 2 - 4 will be for argumentation. In the rounds of argumentation, there will be no ad hominems; all provided points of contention must have sources, but rebuttals do not require them, although they would be preferred if they are not strictly logic-based arguments. 3) Arguments are not temporally restrained, but when they regard history they MUST have multiple sources to back up the facts, given that skewed history can easily be provided. 3 sources minimum for history arguments, otherwise the argument will be disregarded. 4) Round 5 will be a summary round; no refutation allowed. Basically, provide analysis of the debate and a few reasons on why to vote for your advocacy. Also no ad hominems. 5) Both parties will accept an equal share of the burden of proof from here on out. 6) If any of the above rules are broken, my opponent accepts the portion of the round in which the violation occurred as null. _________ Definitions: _________ Israel: Jewish republic in southwestern Asia at eastern end of Mediterranean; formerly part of Palestine [1] Human Rights: The basic rights and freedoms that all humans should be guaranteed, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law [2] Unjustified: shown to have no good or just reason or explanation [3] _______ Sources: _______ [1] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] . http://en.wiktionary.org... [3] . http://encarta.msn.com...
" inappropriate lyrics should be banned from the radio "

The "exact" definition of Freedom of Speech may well be the "freedom to speak freely without censorship" [1]. But that is most certainly not the meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. There are a variety of limitations to our Freedom of Speech.Determining whether or not radio censorship violates the First Amendment, we need to acknowledge that such determinations are an official function of the Judiciary branch. With their interpretive powers, the Courts determine if a law or regulation is unconstitutional.The most applicable court case here would be FCC V. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1073, 98 S. Ct. 3026 (1978) wherein the FCC issued sanctions against a radio station for airing an obscene broadcast [2]. Note that the FCC does not censor, even if it takes punitive actions. Censorship is provided by he broadcasting company itself (which does not violate the First Amendment, as a private entity) as a proactive measure to avoid FCC fines and sanctions.Until a new case overturns this decision, the FCC's authority to punish broadcasting companies for such content remains valid and, even if this authority was invalidated, private companies would still retain the authority to censor their own broadcasts, as the First Amendment only applies to government entities.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.ala.org...
Socialism represents Democratic ideals more effectively than Capitalism.

I accept my opponent's challenge, and welcome him to DDO. It's always refreshing to see an opponent who agrees with me on most major issues. I define capitalism as being any economic structure that provides benefits on the basis of the demand for work completed. It is distinct from socialism because socialism provides equal benefits regardless of work completed. While my opponent has been very specific about limiting this to the United States, my argument will be applicable to any country in the world. Everything else I agree with. My overall argument will be: 1. That democracy and equality are diametrically opposed, and thus we should be aiming for equity. 2. That capitalism has a proven track record of creating societies which uphold democratic values. 3. That capitalism provides mechanisms for overcoming political issues, unlike socialism. 4. That therefore capitalism is a more "democratic" economic system. Of course, I also will rebut my opponents arguments once he has had a chance to make them fully. Let the debate begin!
Socialism represents Democratic ideals more effectively than Capitalism.

Hello! This is my first debate, and I couldn't find a topic I was really interested in, so I decided to make one. The structure of this debate will be as follows. The first round will be used for definitions and to provide a brief roadmap of arguments. The other 3 rounds will be for actual debate. Please only take on this argument if you intend to be present for all 4 rounds! To clarify the topic, I am referring to the economic and social policies of Socialism and Capitalism, in respect to America. As the Pro side, I will be arguing that the economic and social policies of Socialism represent the ideals of Democracy more effectively than the economic and social policies of Capitalism, in respect to America. As the Pro side, I will be defining these major terms as follows: The ideals of Democracy will be defined as the following ideals: 1) The equal representation of citizens by their government. 2) The vesting of power in the people as such that majority rules, with regard for minority rights. 3) Minority rights are protected by the government. 4) The guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all citizens protected under the government. 5) The absence of hereditary of arbitrary class distinctions among citizens. Socialism will be defined as the economic policy of nationalizing all aspects of production and business, and the social policy of providing equal government-funded care to all citizens under the government. I leave it to my opponent to define Capitalism. As a brief roadmap of my argument, during the course of debate I will be: 1) Identifying the policies and structure of Socialism in more detail, and explaining how Socialism does not infringe upon the ideals of Democracy. 2) Demonstrating how and why Socialism upholds the ideals of Democracy more effectively through the use of both social aide and welfare and the prevention of corporate corruption and tyranny, as well as ensuring the protection of minority rights while still allowing majority rule. 3) Rebutting my opponent's arguments as necessary.
Flat Tax

I believe a progressive tax system should be used. the richer you are the more you are taxed. i'm not wed to a certain number, just that it should be progressive. the richer should be taxed more because they use more resources, and are primarily responsible for those who "don't have" for not having. a flat tax does in fact cause the richer to pay more, as the same percentage as someone else but on a higher income is a higher tax. but, this is only the beginning of what should be done. this might account for how the rich use more police, courts, transportation systems, national parks and resources, IRS workers, space flight use, represent more needing protected with the military, etc. poorer people participate in all that but not to the same degree... they just exist. we should add a surtax onto the flat tax for the richer because the government often must redistribute to the poor just for the basics. food stamps, health, whatever. i'm sure we could squibble about what the poor should have access to, but by far most people agree they should have access to at least the basics, if it's through no fault of their own... like food stamps etc. hypotheitcal. an average family have five pigs five cows five apple trees. a poor person collects the rubble they find on the ground. a rich man has thousands of pigs cows and apple trees. the average family is just existing really.... the rich man has the excess that causes the poor man to not have anything. the only thing preventing the poor man from getting the apples etc, is man made law and technology claiming it. natural law would allow the poor man to get what we needs, and if we deprive him, we owe him something for depriving him of his rights. it comes most naturally from the rich man who "has too much". we could be principled about the excess that the rich pay as a percentage... perhaps to the extent it's for poor programs etc. the bottomline though, is that we shouldn't just have a flat tax simple as that.
The Media's Powers should be reduced in political decision

I think the media is becoming to strong and it is now posing a threat to freedom of speech and political decision making. I know the media is there to protect the people and it is a symbol of freedom of speech, but I have noticed over the years that the media has grown to become a threat to free speech itself. This is due to the fact that nowadays political decisions cannot be done decisively without the fear of the media. If someone comes up with a very important idea to save the planet such as "the one child policy" the media is always quick to gather biased opponents against that person. The state somehow has become a puppet of the media. I have seen this especially in the trump campaign. The BET television network has labeled Trump racist without any reasonable grounds. And a lot of Americans believe this.
Islam is a religion of peace

Before I move onto my argument, the only source you have been using, thereligionofpeace, is a questionable source to take evidence from, as it had not cited, both formally and informally, this "FBI Report." The two other pieces of evidence it has given are both by sources likely to show anti-Muslim bias, one even being an academically criticized hate speech site run by Robert Spencer, a "counter-jihad" listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hate List. If you connected the dots, there is a reason I talked about statistics in Europe and America. Those two places have much anti-Muslim bias due to recent events, especially President Trump's election and the Refugee Crisis. And the amount of Muslims that live in Europe? Doesn't it say something? For such a small population to come in, how much controversy has been stirred up? For the statistics showing the amount of crime in Europe, despite the burden of the immigrant crisis, it is still relatively low. Even then, of course natives of each country will still commit terror on their own soil, which I will come to when I address Sharia and Sharia Law.And for the Bible? I said the Bible verses were significantly more violent, not had more violent quotes.As for the quote about transgression, it does not refer to Sharia Law. In the Quran itself, Sharia Law isn't mentioned, but Sharia is. Sharia itself is a type of philosophy, a guide, an optional spiritual path. The Sharia Law, colloquially called Islamic Law, is, however, a changing set of governing laws that many Muslim states each have their own version of. Sharia Law was put into place after leaders wanted to make religious belief law. Sharia Law has many personal interpretations of many different people cemented into the Law, some putting in something new, others taking out pieces, and some just ignoring whole parts or contradicting the Quran or Sharia. Because of all the variances of time, location, culture, and history, it is hard to pinpoint whether or not the Law is a "good" thing or not. But the Law was made after the Quran. All the personal interpretations blur whether the Law agrees with the peaceful intentions of Sharia and Quran, but nevertheless, some people do continue to say Islam and the Quran "support" the Law, no matter how astray the Law might be. This is why terrorists often justify their actions by saying it was in the name of religion.And for the other quote you've mentioned, it does say the penalty of waging war against Allah and His Messenger is death, crucifixion, or dismemberment, but you left out the part that says to do it if said person strives and goes out of their way to cause corruption and that they can also be exiled. Going back to the Bible anecdote, just because there is something questionable in either text, whether explained or unexplained, it doesn't mean the religion and believers are against peace. The Bible has some strange quotes, and so does the Quran, but that doesn't they don't want peace. Sources in comments
Islam is a religion of peace

Your first claim is that the majority of terrorist are not Muslim and you proved this by saying "In Europe, more than 98% of terrorist attacks are by non-Muslims and in America, 94%. And compared to the entire Muslim population, that is 0.00009% of Muslims." First of all, you picked two places where the Muslim population is small. In Europe, the Muslim population is 6% and in the USA its only 1%. at - https://www.thereligionofpeace.com... The source I linked says "Even by the FBI"s curious standard, the sort of truly violent terrorism that most concerns Americans is extremely rare in the United States. Only 29 attacks on their list of incidents between 1980 and 2005 resulted in actual death. Of these 29 attacks, Islamic extremists were responsible for 24%, accounting for 2,981 kills (civilians only), while the non-Muslim attack body count is 196." You also said that the bible is more violent but that is only because the Bible has way more verses then the Quran. You showed me this verse "Do not transgress, for God does not love the transgressors." The problem with this is that the word translates to "someone who has broken a particular rule or law or has done something that is generally considered unacceptable" law = sharia law. the problem with is verse - "Saving One Life Is As If Saving Whole Of Humanity" is that after this verse it says "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides." so your peaceful verse is followed by a hateful verse.
Islam is a religion of peace

Islam is indeed a peaceful religion, and both of your claims aren't representative of Muslims. Your first claim is that "A majority of terrorists are Muslim," which is a myth. In Europe, more than 98% of terrorist attacks are by non-Muslims and in America, 94%. And compared to the entire Muslim population, that is 0.00009% of Muslims. If compared to other statistics, being killed by furniture is likelier to happen. Even Americans are 9 times more likely to terrorist attacks on their own soil than a Muslim person would. The Media has done a very bad job of reporting these facts, placing much more attention on a crime perpetrated by a Muslim. And just because of that information inequality, 1.3 billion Muslims are held responsible. Half of the Nobel laureates in the 21st century have been Muslim, so by the same judgement, why aren't they all seen as peaceful or accomplished?Responding to your second point about violence in the Quran, that is also not representative of Muslims. Violence is common upon religious texts, but that also is not representative of the religion or the believers. Quoting the religion historian Philip Jenkins, "Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible." There are, however, many instances in which peaceful thinking is promoted. Some of these include Muslims only being able to go to war in defense or if defenseless people need help, to stop war if peace is offered, and that Muslims should never be hostile towards those who have not attacked them. The Quran has also gone as as far as saying "Do not transgress, for God does not love the transgressors." Terrorist groups, like ISIS and Al-Qaeda come into violation of most, if not all of these statements, and are definitely not what Muslims stand up for. "Saving One Life Is As If Saving Whole Of Humanity" -Quran 5:32Sources:https://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.independent.co.uk...https://www.npr.org...http://www.independent.co.uk...
Islam is a religion of peace

For what I assumed anybody could read in between the lines of what I said, I'll need to explain it now as you are not understanding any of my points. For the Europe and America example, you've contradicted yourself. First saying there is anti-Islamic controversy, and then saying there is anything but. Many of your claims throughout the debate are just opinion based. Stop assuming how billions of people live and believe and what they think of others from what just you think. This isn't a debate to voice your opinions, this is a debate to discuss said topic. Here is something that shows there is anti-Muslim bias. https://www.splcenter.org...http://ec.europa.eu...Please stop denying culturally and statistically accepted facts. Also, can you not understand what I am saying? Are you able to understand the topic I'm trying to get across without immediately denying what I'm saying and poorly backing it up? You've did this for the Europe and America anti-Muslim bias, which is an established fact, yet you deny it. The reason I bought up Christianity is because it too has violent assertions in its texts and I'm sure Jesus did some pretty crazy things in there. Even God is off telling things we now think are implausible. But that doesn't mean Christianity or Christians are unable to find peace. I hate sending this link. It isn't representative of what Christians believe and fundementally are. It will show that Christianity too has faults, but doesn't render them incapable of making peace. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...Does that link mean Christians are bad? No. And it is truly disappointing that I have to break the fourth wall in this debate to address what you think. I'm comparing Christianity and Islam together because they are both the world's two biggest, both Abrahamic religions, that both believe in different things, but both want peace for all their believers. If I am "cherry-picking" the best out of the Quran, what is wrong with that? Shouldn't people "cherry-pick" the good moral aspects they want to believe in life? Just explain. Why are Muslims incapable of being compassionate and peaceful people. Just a couple lines in a book written centuries ago (and still having many peace promoting statements) doesn't justify your argument about Muslims. This debate isn't like any other. It has such a factor of ethics placed in it, it's difficult to discuss, and so is the conclusion. But I can confidently say, you are neither an open-minded nor understanding person.
Islam is a religion of peace

You said that you have chosen Europe and the USA because of President Trump's election and the Refugee Crisis. You made a very weak claim by saying despite anti-Islamic controversy there has been no increase in Islamic terror attacks.These two places are definitely not anti-Muslim. You can't justify the Qurans hatefull verses such as Quran 9:5 https://quran.com... because "there are hateful verses in the bible" and we are talking about islam, not Christianity. Also if you are cherry picking verses of the quran than you can't say that Islam is peaceful based on the cherrypicked verses you have given me when I have just given you a contradiction. I also want you to justify the prophet Muhammad of him marrying a 6-year-old and raping her when she was 9 in the Bukhari hadith volume 5 book 58 234 to 235 he should also beat her as well. The prophet set fire to a man's chest and has also owned sex slaves. You can't justify that https://www.sahih-bukhari.com... https://www.muslimhope.com... There's also a good video explaining the Muhammad
School uniforms ought to be worn in primary and secondary schools.

School Uniform: An outfit of clothing to be worn daily to school. "Traditionally, school uniforms have been subdued and professional. Boys' uniforms often consist of dark trousers and light-colored shirt, often with a tie. Girls' uniforms [...] typically consist of a dress or a blouse worn either with a skirt or culottes or under a pinafore." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) It is assumed that wearing the school uniform (as described above) does not conflict with any religious beliefs. Since my opponent is Pro, I will allow him to make the opening argument.
United States citizens should not be denied the right to bear arms by government

I will rebut in reverse order. The government is not trying to take away assault rifles from the military if that's what your insinuating I'm saying. My argument is that an assault rifle is an unnecessary weapon for anyone in the common public to own. If one is so inclined to have a rifle and use it for a good cause join a military force. As for the burglar scenario, in most house robbery situations the distance between you and your intruder is less that 10 yards a shotgun (which can be used for hunting) would be more than sufficient enough to either intimidate said intruder or take him down. Gun control laws does not equal the violation of their second amendment right. One can't own a RPG in most states. Is this a violation of ones second amendment right? The answer may differ between us but i would say with all certainty NO because this is an unnecessary weapon that has no other practical purpose opposed to a shotgun or handgun which could also be used for hunting and are more than sufficient for protection against a burglar. 3 shots is the average amount of bullets fired in a home invasion, now tell me why you would need a 30+ shell magazine and an assault rifle when a handgun would be just as effective. And if it takes someone that many shots to hit a target they should not be trusted to operate such a weapon.