BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ISLAM vs atheist evolution ( islamic view about evolution is different and pointed in Quran)

Chapter: 7 , Verse: 54 your lord is allah, who, in six days created the heavens and the earth, and then willed to the throne. he throws the veil of night over the day. swiftly they follow one another. the sun, the moon, and the stars are compelled to his order. his is the creation, his is the command. blessed is allah, the lord of the worlds. Chapter: 25 , Verse: 59 (it is) he who, in six days created the heavens and the earth and all that lies between them, and then he willed to the throne. the merciful; ask about him from he who knows him. Chapter: 57 , Verse: 4 He it is who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is moreover firmly established on the throne (of authority). he knows what enters within the earth and what comes forth out of it, what comes down from heaven and what mounts up to it. and he is with you where so ever ye may be. and Allah sees well all that ye do. 4- Chapter: 11, Verse: 7 he it is who created the heavens and the earth in six days - and his throne was over the waters - that he might try you, which of you is best in conduct. but if thou wert to say to them, "ye shall indeed be raised up after death", the unbelievers would be sure to say, "this is nothing but obvious sorcery!" 5- Chapter: 32, Verse: 4 It is Allah who has created the heavens and the earth, and all between them, in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): ye have none, besides him, to protect or intercede (for you): will ye not then receive admonition? 6- Chapter: 10 , Verse: 3 verily your lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority), regulating and governing all things. no intercessor (can plead with him) except after his leave (hath been obtained). this is Allah your lord; him therefore serve ye: will ye not receive admonition? 7- Chapter: 50 , Verse: 38 we created the heavens and the earth and all between them in six days, nor did any sense of weariness touch us. Following verse, explain these six periods: 8- Chapter: 41 , Verse: 9 say: is it that ye deny him who created the earth in two days? and do ye join equals with him? he is the lord of (all) the worlds. 9- Chapter: 41 , Verse: 10 he set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measure therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four days, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (sustenance). 10- Chapter: 41 , Verse: 12 so he completed them as seven firmaments in two days, and he assigned to each heaven its duty and command. and we adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. such is the decree of (him) the exalted in might, full of knowledge. http://www.quran-islam.org... the above link gives the exact pictures of every step. I think in above link every thing is mentioned, I do not need any thing more to present. Any who wanted to know, please read the above article given in above link. The following link also gives information. http://www.ediscoverislam.com...
ISLAM vs atheist evolution ( islamic view about evolution is different and pointed in Quran)

(Note that my sources are clasped between brackets and assigned a number, in order for fast consultation) To begin, let us examine what Islam is. Islam, in it's purest etymological sense, means "submission" or "obedience" (1). Contextually, it means "submission to God" In other words, you shall consider God (whom I shall call Allah to distinguish from the other versions of God in the other Abrahamic faiths). Islam believes that Allah created man, in his own image and likeness, that he is his supreme and most sublime creation, and that he was made to bow to him. This is one of the most basic tenets of the faith that Muslims profess. Atheistic evolution states that man was created via evolutionary process, mandating no divine hand or guidance, and that he came to be by completely naturalistic means. Also, people who take this view often reject any form of supernaturalism, rejecting the idea of angels, jinns and other creatures of non-natural origin. These creatures are talked of often in the Quran and thus not believing in their existence is by default, not being a Muslim. In this debate, my case shall be made in 4 points: 1: Philosophical discourse; in other words, I shall show philosophical arguments against the existence of a deity in any form, implying that Allah does not exist, therefore invalidating the Islamic view of evolution supported by my opponent. 2: Evidences of evolution by completely natural means; I shall show that evolution, as mandated by the naturalistic and completely scientific theory that it originated from is correct. 3: Evidences of lacking in Islam's view of science and evolution; I shall show that quite often, the Qu'ran is wrong on many scientific issues. 4: Responses to my opponent's arguments (1) . http://www.barghouti.com...
ISLAM vs atheist evolution ( islamic view about evolution is different and pointed in Quran)

hi. there must be rules. 1 no spelling and grammar jargon (means no point shall be awarded for spell and grammar) 2 the voting would be only for arguments and evidence or resources. all outer sourced evidences must be read. and also be replied, if necessary. 3 every thing must be presented with definition ( linguistic or literal meaning than specific meaning). 4 i will use Quranic verses and Hades ( saying of our prophet saww) 5 the final and important the debate must be in series. like not only one debate but series of debate to come to some conclusion. 9 No slag and disrespect to our believes. ( ALLAH swat and prophet MUHAMMAD SAWW) or Qur'an 7 NO trolling and also no mockery. IMPORTANT. the debate must be in section, all part must not be mixed. Also the topic must be start from the very beginning of universe or if there was any other universe and shifter or transformed into this. i want u to present the case in systematic way and also step by step. because this debate is gonna be in series so u can choose one part from this list. i will use this debate in other debate that's why i put the list also here. u can do all part in the list but some other guy can also. (ID or intelligent design must also be discuss at every stage) 1# the evolution of universe. (cosmological, physical and chemical) 2# the evolution of human. (biological) 3# the evolution of animals. (biological) 4# Relation of ALLAH with evolutionary process. (for me) 5# your explanation of evolution. all above are connected and interrelated and also belong to each other and without connecting each other and also explaining the very first stage late is automatically void or meaningless. ( means for biological evolution the earth must be in existence so first talk about evolution of earth). First of all here i will take the word evolution as literal not biological. http://en.wikipedia.org... from the above link The English noun evolution (from Latin ēvol$3;ti!3; "unfolding, unrolling") refers to any kind of gradual change. It is used in biology, of biological evolution, in economics, historical linguistics, and many other technical fields where systems develop or change gradually over time, e.g. stellar evolution, cultural evolution, the evolution of an idea, metaphysical evolution, spiritual evolution, etc. i want u to put your case right in this round. and also i am most concerning the atheist view about evolution. resolution. i will try to prove that atheist view about evolution is wrong. ( we are evolved from apes or the shifting or transformation of micro to macro evolution). .... u have to prove my idea or view. means burden of proof is shared. also no spell and grammar restriction. ( things must be understandable but the not much restriction like capital in the beginning or punctuation like that) plz present your case in this round. let start. any mistake must be correct in comment or next round if necessary. and things can be put in comment and consider if necessary. even after the debate and before voting time finished, like any mistake which need to be corrected.
Smoking should be banned

My response to your arguments: "Smoking rates can be reduced in other ways" You provide no examples of this, so this point is invalid. "Reasonable restrictions can be placed on smoking" Again, examples please. You also state that banning smoking will be harmful. How? It would be helpful as it protects bystanders, property, and the smoker. Finally, there are no reasonable restrictions on smoking. If you smoke in your house alone, you hurt yourself. How can a government allow that? If someone has kids, but smokes outside, it's a terrible role model and the kids could lose their Mom or Dad. If they smoke indoors or outside in the presence of others, both parties get harmed. None of these are good situations, therefore there are no "reasonable" restrictions on smoking. If the ban went into effect, tobacco plantations would grow other crops, and we would no longer import it. Cigarettes, pipes, and cigars would no longer be sold, therefore most people would no longer able to smoke. Unless people turn to illegal methods, which many wouldn't, then smoking rates would drop to less then a percent. Also, you would not be arrested if caught smoking; you would get fined every time you are caught. If you are addicted, then you can go to rehab with tobacco companies paying for you. I look forward to seeing your final arguement.
Smoking should be banned

Continued ArgumentSmoking Rates Can Be Decreased In Other WaysIn the last 40 or so years there has been a significant pushback against smoking by both governments and NGOs which has lead to a significant decrease in smoking rates [1] which would likely no have occurred under a smoking ban. A smoking ban would likely not have achieved the same results meaning many more people would have died because of smoking related conditions.Reasonable Restrictions Can Be Placed On SmokingWhere I live (Scotland) it's illegal [2] to smoke in most places where anyone could conceivably cause problems with second hand smoke and this has lead to most people smoking in their homes or in places where they would never possibly pass smoke onto anyone. This means that they smoke in the places where people would likely smoke with a smoking ban in place however it has several benefits:1. It's much easier to get treatment because it isn't criminal to smoke.2. Packaging legislation can be introduced (such as the current campaign in Australia where cigarette packets carry pictures of the damage of smoking).3. The rebellious attraction of the use of illegal drugs isn't present leading to lower smoking rates among young people. 4. People who above anything else need help to get off smoking aren't criminalized. Something that we have seen fail in the war on drugs where the problem hasn't been addressed (see previous sources) and the prison population has hugely expanded [3].Rebuttal"First of all, a government is supposed to protect it's citizens."Yes it is meant to protect it's citizens, this doesn't mean keep up the image of protection through the imposition of ineffective and damaging laws."Also, your argument is also like saying because people murder even with it being illegal, we should make it legal, as people will murder anyway."No, an analogous situation with murder would be if we had empirical evidence that legalized murder lead to less murder as we don't it is not analogous. We know that the use of drugs can be empirically shown to be curtailed better through paths of than criminalization (see sources from last argument)." With that, a ban on smoking would not prevent everyone from smoking, but it would stop smoking in public, smoking in presence of kids, and it also would prevent things such as celebrities, movies, TV, video games, ads, and books from influencing kids to smoke."It is more than possible to legislate against this without banning smoking. In the US and the UK the tobacco industry is forbidden from advertising (through legislation in the UK and through self imposed rules in the US). [1] http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...(Scotland)_Act_2005[3] http://www.delanceyplace.com...
Smoking should be banned

Thank you for responding. I realized that I forgot to post links, so here they are: https://my.clevelandclinic.org... http://www.who.int... But now onto my counter. You state that banning smoking wouldn't work because people would still do it even with the ban. While that is true, that would still do many positives. First of all, a government is supposed to protect it's citizens. So even though done would still smoke, some people will follow the law and stop, helping themselves and others. My second point is that there will be gangs and others of that sort who still smoke. But people in public will be helped by this as no one will be smoking on sidewalks. As for people smoking in there homes, kids can tell teachers or realitives and they will make the parent stop. Also, your argument is also like saying because people murder even with it being illegal, we should make it legal, as people will murder anyway. That would be horrible. With that, a ban on smoking would not prevent everyone from smoking, but it would stop smoking in public, smoking in presence of kids, and it also would prevent things such as celebrities, movies, TV, video games, ads, and books from influencing kids to smoke.
Smoking should be banned

Prohibition Doesn't Work Over and over again prohibition has been used as an answer to the problems caused by various substances which are considered dangerous. It has been tried with alcohol in america [1] and with drugs today [2]. Neither of these significantly impacted the rate of the consumption of these drugs [3] [4] and all of these lead to gangs profiting off of the prohibited substances [5] [6]. My point is not that tobacco isn't dangerous but that banning it will not address tobacco consumption in any significant way and that it will lead to gangs taking profiting from illegal tobacco. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.fourpoundsflour.com... (btw there is a significant drop but that comes right before prohibition, after 1920 when it came into effect) [4] http://content.gallup.com... (as we see here cannabis use has considerably increased since prohibition). [5] http://www.thefinertimes.com... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Smoking should be banned

Thank you for accepting. 1) Smoking is harmful to your health. We all know that smoking causes diseases. It causes millions of smokers to die early, and get illnesses like Cancer and emphysema. Why should we allow something that causes so much harm? In fact, cigarettes and similar objects, are the only products that if used how the manufacturer intended, can kill you. Only cigarettes can do that. 2) Secondhand smoke. Smoking also has 2 nasty byproducts, toxic cigarette buts, and secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke is the smoke that bystanders involuntarily breath in. Studies have shown that secondhand smoke is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous then firsthand smoke. Smoking should be banned to prevent us from all that harm. As for smoking areas, why should businesses have to waste space and money building special areas to allow people to hurt themselves and others. Those people also could have kids, so where do they go? People also smoke at parks, hurting many kids who just want to play and have fun. If you have kids, smoking indoors and in the car with them can leave them with asthma and the same diesases as the parent. That is unfair. What is also unfair is for the people who walk outside in cities also have to breath in disgusting smoke all the time as smokers smoke on sidewalks. Why should that be harmed for a smokers disgusting habit? 3) Litter. Anyone who has walked on the sidewalks have seen tons of cigarette butts all over the ground. That is littering, which is against the law. So why are smokers not getting in trouble then? The butts look gross, and kids like to grab interesting things, which could be a ciggarette butt, which could then lead to dangerous situations where the kid eats the butt. Ciggarette buts are discusting and animals could also eat them. Conclusion: As you can see, smoking has many horrible effects, including harm to the smoker, harm to bystanders, harm to kids, harm to businesses, and harm to the environment. With all these downsides, there is absolutely no reason to allow smoking.
The Existence of Global warming

C1: CO2My opponents argument proves NOTHING. It has nothing about warming trends, just argues CO2 is rising. This is likely an appeal to the greenhouse theory, but fails for a few reasons:1.) According to climate models and the greenhouse theory, if we increase CO2 the higher atmospheres should heat up faster then the ground temperatures. The problem is using air baloon data, they found the atmosphere had no/little heating. [1] This already refutes the fact global warming has an impact. 2.) There is little correlation it is even causing the warming! There is not even a century of data supporting the point! In 1940-70s we saw a decrease in temperatures, 1914-78 all decrease. Almost 4 decades. Why is this important? At the same time the economy was booming and CO2 was raising. According to greenhouse theory, it would be rising consistently. It was not. Before 1940 was when most of the warming occurred, also a time of little CO2 and depression lead to lower industry emissions. THERE IS NO CORRELATION. My opponents argument may work if there was correlation, but there is NOT. 3.) There is no historical correlation, if there where natural increases in the past there would also have to be natural increases due to CO2. Few problems. First, historically CO2 came AFTER the warming by about 800 years. [2] "To establish a causal relationship it must be demonstrated that the presumed cause precedes the presumed effect. [...] In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years!"[3] Yes, ~800-1000 years wait period. Also there is no correlation even with the precede/follow effect. To make it easier to understand my sentence here is this: Source is printed on the graph. Further the cycle is predictable (Not through CO2 as shown) but by natural factors. As this 1990 IPCC graph shows: As we can predict, our temperture will fall as we are flatlining. In the medivial period, they flatlined then fell. It is predictable through natural factors, and not co2, hence the argunment fails for reasons above. And cooling/flatline is predicted.C2: Climate changeNo proof was brought of this data, no source no anything. As there is no proof behind this, just assumption, I will quote to refute: "According to Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist and former NASA scientist, satellite data for June shows that global temperatures are falling. The Earth has cooled an astounding .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released his propaganda piece "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006."[4]No need to argue my opponents non supported point, for those wanting to do research go to this site for more: http://www.c3headlines.com... VOTE CON[1] http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk... [2] http://www.co2science.org... [3] Ibid[4] http://www.iceagenow.com...
The Existence of Global warming

Sorry be i'm really considering conceding due to small Time frame i have to do this,but i'll give it a shot. C1: CO2 emissions Wolrdwide Co2 have increased 26% from 1990 to 2005,that a extra 10,000! tons of Co2, "In 2008, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,957 million metric tons of carbondioxide equivalents, a 14 percent increase from 1990" "During the period from 1990 to 2008 (see Figure 1):o Emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas emitted by humanactivities, increased by 16 percent.o Emissions of fluorinated compounds, released as a result of commercial,industrial, and household uses, rose by 66 percent. Although fluorinated gasesaccounted for only 2 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in 2008, they areimportant because they have extremely high global warming potential values andlong atmospheric lifetimes.o Methane emissions decreased by 7 percent, largely because of reduced emissionsfrom landfills and coal mines.5o Nitrous oxide emissions, largely derived from agricultural soil management,nitrogen application, and vehicle emissions, declined by 1 percent.• Electricity generation has accounted for about 32 percent of total U.S. greenhousegas emissions since 1990. Transportation is the second largest source of greenhousegas emissions, accounting for 27 percent of emissions since 1990 (see Figure 2).• In 2008, 14 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were offset by uptake ofcarbon and “sequestration” in forests, trees, agricultural soils, and landfilled yardtrimmings and food scraps (these are referred to as sinks, as shown in Figure 2beneath the axis).• Emissions per capita have remained nearly level since 1990 (see Figure 3), as emissionshave increased at about the same rate as the population"All this from the Epa(yes i'm using this for my main source) Could they be Lying?But Why? C2:Climate Change The climate is changing the U.S and other places around the world, Not going down but increasing by 2-5 degrees Farinheit each year.The heat outside is getting hotter and hotter.And it's not the Sun its the depletion of the Ozone Layer and the Increase in Co2.Still not conviced? Well I've got something for you.Over the past years .......................... Forget it I don't have enough time for this i have about 8 finals to study for.
The Existence of Global warming

This debate is about Global warming existence,16kadams is arguing that global warming doesn't Exist and I to prove its Existence.Here are some parameters.1.The bird is the Word.2.All sources must be posted.3.No theories,ONLY FACTS.4.Circular logic may be used.5.The opponent must not contradict themselves.Round 1:Acceptance and First arguments.Round 2:Other arguments and proof.Round 3:RebuttalsRound 4:Closing arguments and statements.Voters are Recommended to choose wisely.
My (Labrat228) win ratio should be higher.

As shown in R1 I have at least 4 debates when my opponent never argued. These debates are won by default, therefor my win ratio should indeed be higher than 33.33%. "Just because you thought you did better on those debates doesn't mean you should have won." Again, my opponents didn't argue, therefor I win by default. "And just because you think your win ratio should be higher doesn't mean it should be higher." I proved that it should be higher. "Some people may think that they should be the president but that doesn't mean they are gonna win." While running for president against an opponent, your opponent drops out and nobody hears from him again, you win.
My (Labrat228) win ratio should be higher.

People can vote for whoever they want to vote for. Just because you thought you did better on those debates doesn't mean you should have won. People have the right to vote for who they want to and so they do. And just because you think your win ratio should be higher doesn't mean it should be higher. Some people may think that they should be the president but that doesn't mean they are gonna win. Thanks for this topic and Good Luck.