BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Control

It seems my opponent is using many rhetorical questions. Given a blank sheet of paper, my arguments would hold water. I haven't made a single argument, so far, that guns are a right. I haven't made a single appeal to tradition or the constitution. I've been giving statistics that say that gun control anywhere is not good. If I was the founding father of a new land, I would let them have guns. The alternative would be to set up checkpoints all around this land and make sure that nobody was bringing in guns, then check to make sure nobody had guns. It wouldn't work even then. And, of course, you're making an appeal to "developed nations." If the founding fathers could have seen this, they would better clarify the second amendment to establish gun rights independent of being in a militia. Also, the purpose is not so much to protect from foreign invasion, but domestic tyranny. And for Great Britain... you messed up. This has nothing to do with gun rights, or pretty much anything. I repeat, I haven't been making appeals to tradition or the Constitution. Statistics are independent of this. The right to bear arms is good because it results in less tyranny and increased safety. So "it would be better" if there was no gunman, but so far all attempts to stop criminals from obtaining guns have been futile. Imagine this alternate scenario: criminal has knife, you have nothing (I doubt people would carry around knives for self-defense). Who's going to win?
Marius should have ended up with Eponine-not Cosette!!!

I am familiar with you as we argued on whether a musical should be made using Michael Jackson songs which unfortunately ended up in a tie. However, maybe second time's a charm. First off, I would like to ask you why do you think Eponine was better for Marius rather than Cosette? What makes here so much more special? But with me, to be honest I actually prefer Eponine to Cosette in character. I find Eponine's character more interesting and I feel more sympathy for her as well empathy. However, there is a good reason why Marius should have not have been with Eponine: Eponine is an impoverished street rat with not a penny on her plate, whereas Cosette is a wealthy lady with high status. If Marius ended up with Eponine, he would have been scoffed and looked down upon by society because back in those days is was not appropriate for a man of his status to marry a woman of low social and economic class. I mean nowadays it would be more acceptable but not back in 19th century France. Second off is because I just think that Eponine and Marius were better off as just friends. They have more of a friendship than a boyfriend/girlfriend, husband/wife bond whereas Cosette has more of that bond with Marius than a friendship bond. The third reason why Marius should not have ended up with Eponine is probably one of the most obvious reasons: Marius did not love Eponine. Why should he be with someone he does not love? He obviously saw something in Cosette that he loved that he did not find in Eponine so that is the reason he ended up with Cosette and not Eponine. Don't get me wrong. I love Eponine and she's probably my favorite character. If I were on the West End I would probably want to play her or Cosette but I just don't think that she was the right girl for Marius. I think she should have moved on from him and found someone who would actually love her that way she probably would not have died.
Do friends have the power to control you and your relationships.

That is true, but some friends try to get more involved in that said relationship. Could this because they like your girlfriend and are trying to get her to cheat on you? This is a possibility. But slightly unlikely. We don't live in the movies, but if it did happen, no one would see it coming until it was too late. Another possibility is that they do it because said friend believes that they are close friends with said girlfriend/boyfriend, and are "looking out for their best interests", even though they rarely ever talk. This could be easy to see. But how would we notice? We probably wouldn't. So tell me. How does one prevent something they can't see coming.
Do friends have the power to control you and your relationships.

Then maybe people should just make "good friends" to begin with. The friends that have control over their lives are the bad friends, they let them have control. In the end good friends don't have control over anyones intimate relationships. It is interesting topic to discuss. I don't believe any real friend would try to make decisions about your relationships for you. I have no doubt that there are "friends" who try and control peoples relationships, be it for their own selfish desires or out of genuine concern. On the same token though, friends of all kinds ultimately influence your relationships in one way or another due to simple human interaction.
Do friends have the power to control you and your relationships.

Before I start I'd like my opponent to know that I mean love relationships. Friends on the outside of that relationship should have no power over how you do, or what you do during in that relationship. Section 1: This section will explore what it takes to be a good friend. A good friend will like and respect you, they know you, can help you when your quirks and faults are showing, forgives you, is always there for you, etc. Friends that do any or all of these things are good friends and are worth hanging around. http://strengthofus.org... Section 2: This will explore what makes a bad friend. Bad friends won't make a lot of eye contact, they have self-centered intentions, and they seek validation. There are probably a lot more ways that make a friend bad. http://www.lifehack.org... Section 3: This section shall talk about where a love relationship controlling friend will be categoried. Personally I believe that those kinds of friends are bad, though I'm curious about whether or not someone thinks they are doing something good. Some people may think that their friends getting involved can help their love life thrive, but it can probably do more damage. Friends like these will tell you what to do and what not to do in your love life. This can get very annoying. To make things worse, sometimes they tend to not stop when you either tell them or ask them to. This may be because they feel that they're right, either way I feel that they should be kept far away from the good friend radar.
Trump is only half right with which media outlets are the enemy of the people

I will be taking the stance that Trump is completely wrong. I believe fake news only exists if the news site is totally and admittedly satirical, or pretending to be another news site, for instance "cnn-trending.com" is not actually a product of CNN, someone just named their site after the company. Everything else is real news even if they are wrong or opinionated about many things. When a small group of people get to choose which is fake and which is not, is when you have an enemy of the people and illegal censoring of the press for their own political gains.
Trump is only half right with which media outlets are the enemy of the people

Facts of this debate:At about 1:30 pm pacific time, or 2 hours ago as of when this debate was written, Trump tweeted "The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!" You can see this on his twitter page here[1]My positionMy position is that Trump is hallf-right, and that more media than just those he listed are the enemy of the people, I would also name Breitbart, Fox News, infowars and others in there. My opponent's position: My opponent would take the position that Trump is completely correct and that right-wing news media is not fake news and the enemy of the people, but only liberal news is. Or, they could take the position that none of the news is fake news or the enemy of the people. In other words, either they will argue Trump is completely wrong or completely right.Rules of debate:1) Be civil, no insults, ad hominem, or personal attacks2) The total number of rounds minus 1 should be used for argument, since I am not using round 1 for argument.3) The last round used for debate should just be rebuttals to your opponent, no new arguments here. Source:[1] https://twitter.com...
Hell

Sending anyone to a eternity of hopelessness and pain and misery is without a doubt THE CRUELEST THING IMANGINABLE!!!!!!!!!!! there is no human sin that can justify that especially for something as simple as not being a Christian. Whoever does that is a sadistic monster not a loving deity. Many today so not believe in that version of God and yet many of those people are honest, loving and decent souls. To resign them to that kind of fate FOR ETERNITY is cruel and sick and no loving God would do that furthermore it serves no purpose it is completely pointless both as a punishment and as a motivator to be good. One should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do not because they were bullied into doing it by fear.
Hell

You are not talking about life. You don't know what you are talking about. You are living or you are dying. You are not living and dying, it's either one of the other and both of them are forever. If you are not in eternal life, you are in eternal death. If your sin is not coverd so you can be united with God in life, your sin separates you from God in death and that is all you have. If you will not accept God's payment for your sins by His own blood He gave when He took on a body like yours and suffered the death you deserve so you can be spared from Hell, then you will pay for your own sin in Hell where the fire justifies your existence by consuming your sin agaisnt God and you know only His wrath after you refused to believe His love in that He died for you when you were still His enemy. Saying it's not fair for God to punish you in Hell will not ease God's wrath against you after you refused to thank Him for giving His Son to die in your place, to pay your price, so you could be forgiven and not have to pay in Hell. If you refuse His gift of eternal life through the death of His Son, and you will not believe on His resurrection and receive Him as your God and Saviour, then you will be your own god unsaved in Hell. God is being more than fair with you now by holding you back from Hell's fire. He is giving you air which you use to badmouth His Son who died in your place. You are asking for death when God is offering you eternal life. Death belongs in Hell and that is where it is taking you and it's your own fault if you will not believe on Jesus Christ and trust Him so He can save you from Hell. He offers His blood as the payment for your sins, and if you simply trample His blood under your feet, He will trample you under the winepress of the wrath of God and you will be denied from life in eternal death of Hell, and your eternal home will be in the Lake of Fire which is the Second Death. You can believe God loves you now. You can know God loves you, you can have eternal life through jesus Christ now. If you reject God's offer of pardon so you can be held not guilty, forgiven, and bought back from sin, death, and Hell by God Himself, then He wil reject you and the same Jesus Christ who you reject as your Saviour will be the One you are rejected by and you will be cast away into the Lake of Fire, guilty condemned forever with no way to make things right with God because you can never change your history with is full of black marks which have forever changed you and the lives and world around you. You are a mess and only God can fix you but He won't when you are fighting against Him. It's good to know God will separate sinners away from life forever in death of Hell fire where only the smoke of their torments will rise forever. It' s good to know heaven will be free from sin, undisturbed peace and joy beyond anything good a person can imagine. It's good to know God loves me but He hates my sin and He will one day completely remove sin from my soul and my character will be entirely purified and I will be perfect like Jesus one day.
Amanda Knox is more likely innocent than guilty

The evidence that places Amanda at the crime scene (specifically Meredith's bedroom) is on very shaky ground (I'm being generous here). No one disputes that this is where Meredith was killed and yet not shred of reliable evidence shows Amanda was in that room. Apparently the chief Judge in the joint appeal, Judge Hellman thought the DNA evidence should be reviewed as well. He ordered two independent investigators to look at the evidence and re-test it if possible and to look at the procedures used during the original testing. The independent investigators found that regarding the supposed murder weapon, the double DNA knife: 1) Tested negative for blood 2) Tested positive for vegetable matter 3) DNA sample on blade could not be positively confirmed to be from Meredith Kercher [1] This debate is not about whether Amanda is in any way culpable for the Murder of Meredith but rather if she, by her own hand killed Meredith as the prosecution maintains. Either Amanda was in the room and killed Meredith or Amanda was not in the room and didn't kill Meredith. The evidence that isn't in dispute is that Rudy Guede left DNA and prints all over the murder room. With no evidence that Amanda was in the room at the time of the murder (remember that not even the knife, if valid, could prove this) my opponent will have a difficult time proving she killed Meredith. Amanda was not in the room during the murder; there is NO evidence that Amanda was there. Therefore, Amanda did not kill her flatmate, Meredith Kercher. The prosecution only presented evidence that placed Rudy and Raffaele at the scene [2]. Sources: [1] http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com... [2] http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com...
The Cubs will repeat as World Series Champions in 2017

You have BOP and have proven nothing. Also they lost Chapman, and it is hard to go back to back. There have been 14 instances of teams winning consecutive world series and most of those were the Yankees when they dominated, the last time a team went back to back was 2000. There are plenty of other teams that will contend with the cubs, the Mets, Red Sox, and dodgers come to mind. It is not 100% certain that the Cubs will repeat therefore pro has lost this debate.
The Cubs will repeat as World Series Champions in 2017

Dexter Fowler was a big loss, and to a division rival. However, while John Jay is no Dexter Fowler, he offers a solid glove, and speed. Jason Heyward should improve at the plate and settle in behind Brizzo, Zob and Addy. Starting rotaion remains in tact, bullpen has been rebuilt in offseason, even with the loss of Chapman, whom is good that the Cubs dont have to face him since he went A.L.. Also, Schwarber's bat is back, The pressure is off to win for the organization as a whole.
The Islamic religion is racist.

Wow! Good excuse for surrendering. There were no language barriers. Voters, open your eyes! THIS IS JUST AN EXCUSE. A non-official YouTube video isn't counted as an argument. In this debate I have said repeatedly that : ' I request my opponent to take an impression on any religion not by it"s dwellers, but by it"s original belief, taken from religious texts.' Saudi people enslaving blacks don't represent Islam. They are AGAINST ISLAM'S TEACHINGS. Conclusions: I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments. The Arab-Non-Arab racism contradicts with black-white racism. Just one statement from the Prophet pbuh can refute all of my opponent's arguments whcich is: "There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab, nor for a non-Arab over an Arab. Neither is the white superior over the black, nor is the black superior over the white " except by piety."I request my opponent to take an impression on any religion not by it"s dwellers, but by it"s original belief, taken from religious texts. I also ask my opponent to make sure that any story he narrates is real, and sufficient evidence that it is. LASTLY, I REPEAT:Islamic tradition known as Hadith states that in his final sermon the Prophet Muhammad, Allah"s Blessings and Peace be upon him, said: "There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab, nor for a non-Arab over an Arab. Neither is the white superior over the black, nor is the black superior over the white " except by piety." This Hadith alone denies ANY type of racism in Islam. I REQUEST ANYBODY SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH TO JUDGE A RELIGION NOT BY IT'S DWELLERS, BUT BY IT's ORIGINAL BELIEF. I STRONGLY ASK VOTERS TO VOTE BY POWER OF DEBATE, NOT BY PERSONAL OPINION. Thnx, Adil Muhammad, A Non-Arab brown Muslim, QATAR
The Islamic religion is racist.

I'm just going to defend my arguments this round. "“There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab, nor for a non-Arab over an Arab. Neither is the white superior over the black, nor is the black superior over the white — except by piety. "" JustVotingTiedDebatesThis is the problem with religious texts they are contradictory. If you want to press one point you use one phrase if you desire another direction, you use a different phrase. So, how valid is a religious text that contradicts itself repeatably? Not very reliable, you must then look at real life examples. As in the slave trade of black Africans that continues today. "-Never take an impression on a religion by its people. See what the religion’s texts say. I can easily say ALL Christians are racist, based upon Donald Trump, leader of racism, with the excuse that he is a Christian. " Justvotingtieddebates To the best of my knowledge Donald Trump doesn't have slaves. "Again, if you say that white people are MORE BEAUTIFUL than black people, that is not called racism. Black people could be better than white people even if white people are more beautiful. " JustvotingtieddebatesThis is an overtly racist remark within your argument. "TO ADD TO ALL THAT, black here doesn’t mean black colour. It means cheerless, sullen faces. Radical leftist scholars don’t deconstruct these text as they know they’ll get a powerful rebuttal full of proofs. Nobody opts to lose reputation. " JustvotingtieddebatesSounds racist to me. "-I won’t rebut one vague argument two times. I’ve already mentioned the statement of the beloved prophet Muhammad (pbuh), which is strongly against racism. " JustvotingtieddebatesAction speak louder than words. Slave trading of black Africans is immoral and racist. "My opponent starts the debate by white and black racism, ending it with Arab non-Arab racism, where most Arabs are actually black! !" justvotingtieddebatesBoth forms of racism qualify as racist. Many white supremacists are racist against more than one group. "I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments. " JustvotingtieddebatesJust saying you have doesn't make it true.
The Islamic religion is racist.

OutlineI. IntroII. Racism in actionIII. Racism in the scripturesIV. ConclusionV. SourcesI. IntroI figured I delve more into what Islam is about. I figure if the Islamic religion is anti one minority group its most likely anti another. My findings are startling. I hope I can find an opponent who can prove me wrong. Thanks in advance.II. Racism in actionYikes!"A racist (and ‘religious’) division exists between the ‘muslim brothers’ where Arabs are considered superior to all others. Black people in particular are regarded as inferior (black=slave) and treated inhumanely.Islamic imperialism and slave trading which continues today has removed tens of millions of black Africans. For a brief period whites bought slaves from Arab slave traders. The book 'Slave' (2004) tells the story of Mende, a black muslim Sudanese girl, enslaved and raped by Arab muslims shouting allah akhbar! The Arabs waged holy war –jihad on the black tribes for land, women and children. Sharia law is used in Africa to take land from black Africans." [1]III. Racism in the scriptures"Allah promises in verse 3:185 that life in this world is an illusion, that every person shall die, and every person will receive his judgment on the resurrection day. In verse 5:26, Allah vouches that all that is on earth will perish. Allah says in verse 10:26 that He will reward the doers of good with paradise and much more; their faces will be radiant-stained. They will never be humiliated.Ibn Kathir says that there will be no blackness or darkness on their faces. In contrast, the faces of the non-believers will be stained with dust, blackness, and darkness. On the Resurrection Day Allah will remove His veil and show His face to the dwellers of paradise. He will make the believers’ faces white.Where are all the radical leftist scholars deconstructing these texts in the way they have done to Western literature?The Islamic texts clearly reveal that Allah is a white supremacist; He does not like black faces; He likes white faces." [2]Would you want to worship such a God? I find this type of racism appalling. IV. Conclusion Clearly my fears were justified, a religion that so openly oppresses one minority group oppresses others. "The fact that Allah Most High has chosen the Arabs over other nations is affirmed in rigorously authenticated hadiths of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and give him peace; related by Bukhari and Muslim in their “Sahih” in the beginning of the chapter of merits, # 5897, on the authority of Wathilah ibn al-Asqa` who said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, ‘Verily Allah has chosen Kinanah from the son of Isma`il, and He has chosen Quraysh from among Kinanah and He has chosen Hashim from among Quraysh and He has chosen me from the Bani Hashim.'”" [3]V. Sources1. http://islammonitor.org...2. http://www.islam-watch.org...3. https://irrationalislam.wordpress.com...
Pro Jews or Con Muslims

This is not a serious debate, so I will take advantage of this opportunity to present a message of reason against the forces of ignorance and hatred that have taken root in the west's religion of peace: Progressive Western Secularism. Religious or Atheist, Conservative or Liberal, White or Non-White. If you have been raised and educated in a western nation, than you are almost certainly a Progressive Western Secularist, and you have the privilege of access to fundamental human rights that many people around the world do not have access to. You have the privilege of viewing yourself as a free thinking moral agent, and you are affluent compared to most of humanity throughout history and location. As a progressive western secularist, is is vital not to buy into the narrative that other people's religion is inherently the source of all evil, and that secularism is guiltless. Both the historical crusades, and the current jihad, are a response to foreign aggression and imperialism. Islamic imperial expansion and military aggression gave the crusades the moral impetus necessary to gain traction as a response. Similarly, secular western imperialism has given Islamic jihad movements the subjective moral justification necessary to gain support in their host countries. Rather than keel over paralyzed by Progressive Western Secular guilt and finger pointing, the mature stance is to objectively analyze why things are the way they are, and steel yourself for the difficult times ahead of us. Also, realize that you will potentially be forced to make difficult decisions as a free moral agent. Avoid ethnocentrism in all it's forms. Peace, and may your pens stay sharp. -Vox Ex Rationis.