BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islam is a Peaceful Religion

When you take time to read the Torah, Bible, or other religious texts, you soon see that many religions have violent and somewhat shocking texts in them. To say that a religion isn't peaceful because of a few radicals makes no rational sense. It would be like people looking at Republican politicians and saying that all Americans are against immigration. The hate that the Con debater spreads by calling an entire religion violent because of a few radicals and a few radical texts is just clearly an irrational argument. Let my provide a few examples of Islamic texts that preach peace. ""We have appointed a law and a practice for every one of you. Had God willed, He would have made you a single community, but He wanted to test you regarding what has come to you. So compete with each other in doing good. Every one of you will return to God and He will inform you regarding the things about which you differed." (Surat al-Ma"ida, 48) This text is telling everyone to compete in doing good, in doing good deeds. ""O You who believe! Enter absolutely into peace (Islam). Do not follow in the footsteps of satan. He is an outright enemy to you." (Holy Quran: 2, 208) This clearly is a quote telling Muslims to pursue peace in all things. Does this look like a violent religions' scripture to you? Absolutely not! We need to stop judging Islam based on the actions of a few and look at the religions as a whole.
Islam is a Peaceful Religion

You can not judge a religion based on the actions of a few? First of all, it was not a few, it was by far more than a few. Second of all, how are you judging Islam as peaceful based on a few peaceful actions of Muslims. I was not judging Christians based on the Crusades because the Crusades happened almost a thousand years ago whereas the Muslims are still committing terrorist attacks. Christians went through a Reformation, Islam did not. Just because a few Muslims have done peaceful things does not mean that the majority of Muslims are peaceful. My second agreement is that just because the word Islam means "peaceful" does not mean the majority of Muslims actually follow this. Defining the word "Islam" is not an argument. The word "Islam" was formed over a thousand years ago. That does not mean it is still relevant today. Like I already stated, the violent rhetoric conveyed by Muslims today was not the original purpose nor intent of Allah and his prophet Muhammad. Another thing is the reason Islam is suppressed in the West is because of their terrorism, not vice versa. For example, Donald Trump does not want to allow Muslims in the United States because of their radical terrorism. Ten or eleven countries legally enforce these heinous justifications, but that is not to say that the majority of other Muslims believe in it, but do not legally enforce it. I will cite ISIS again, because they are nine out of ten times responsible for terror attacks across the globe. Islam is becoming an epidemic due to the fact that they are so devoted to other countries converting to Islam. To them it is either their way or the highway. They will cause mass devastation in any country that does not completely agree with their ideology such as in Cologne and England. Their few peaceful acts do not at all excuse their hundreds of violent terrorist attacks. Look at the list. There are hundreds, maybe even thousands of terror attacks dating back to the 1980s. Is that peaceful? Name me another religion that has had hundreds of terror attacks since the 1980s (that does not include the Crusades from the 11th century). There are none. They are the only one. So if my hundreds of examples of terror attacks are not proof enough, they are the MOST violent religion by comparisons. Open your eyes to the inevitable truth of Islam. They will stop at nothing to conquer the world and convert the world to Islam. I want you to answer the following question honestly: If I gave you a bowl of one hundred M&Ms and told you seven of those M&Ms were poisonous, would you just grab a handful of M&Ms trusting all of them because only 7% of them were poisonous?
Islam is a Peaceful Religion

Now, I would like to start off by providing some evidence for why Islam is peaceful. First of all, Islam is derived from the Arabic root word aslam, which is translated as either surrender, peace, or safety. (This surrender is to the will of Allah, not to Islamic militants). The word Islam itself means peace, so that should be clear enough evidence for the con, but if not, I will provide more. The article I am posting below was published in Time magazine, and provide multiple different kinds of unbiased proof. So even if you don't buy into the Pro's definition of Islam, all of the different reasons the pro provides in the below article should certainly be enough. http://content.time.com.... Second, when the Con states the statistics about Afghanistan and Egypt, he does not provide any evidence, just states a statistic. It should only be counted as an opinion, since no evidence at all has been provided. Prefer my cited evidence over his random statistics. I am being forced to repeat myself, unfortunately, because the Con does not seem to listen to my arguments, but once again: You cannot judge Islam based on the actions of a 7% minority. Just as you cannot judge Christianity based on the Crusaders, just as you cannot judge Judaism based on the Jewish terrorist groups, and just as you cannot judge Hinduism based on the ancient Khans of india, you cannot judge Islam based on terrorism. Most of the teachings of Mohamed, as the Time article states, were to stop the kind of radicalism from Christianity that we now see from radical Islam. The reason Islam has many radicals now is because of the current oppression of Islam by the west, especially the United States. In the 1950's, when Jews and Christians were being oppressed in Russia, Poland, and other Soviet blocs, we saw a huge increase in uprisings against their oppressors. The actions of these extremists stem from their oppression, not the religion of Islam. Many christian denominations also follow radical teachings of the bible. Such people are known as fundamentalists, people who take the Bible 100% literally. It is clear that Christianity doesn't advocate for the killing of homosexuals, but the radical fundamentalist groups of Christianity do advocate for that. My opponent talks about ten or eleven muslim countries enforcing radical laws, but there are 49-51 muslim countries in the world! Again, my opponent focuses on a minority group, but not on the religion as a whole.
Islam is a Peaceful Religion

While there is proof that Islam is responsible for violence and terrorist attacks, which I have stated multiple examples, you have given no direct example of how they were peaceful, so do not listen to the Pro's unproven arguments. The most you have given were a few Quran passages. Just because the Quran has a few peaceful passages does not mean that every Muslim follows the Quran. ISIS alone has 31,000 fighters out of the 1.6 billion Muslims. That is only ISIS. That is not including every other violent Muslims that were responsible for September 11th, Cologne, England, Orlando, Istanbul, Nice, OSU, the list goes on... and on. Do not even feed me your leftist views of Islamophobia. I know people who have made claims that Islam is violent and they get messages from Muslims saying guess what? Surprise, surprise! They were going to kill him. Yes, I guess they proved me wrong that they are not violent. And I know what your next argument is going to be. "You can not judge an entire religion based on the actions of a few." These are not just a few. I am giving you hundreds of example of Islam's violent rhetoric. At least ten Muslim countries enforce the death penalty for committing apostasy. Executing people for having different beliefs than you is violent. It is not peaceful. It is the only religion that acts like Mafia if you say the wrong thing or wave the wrong flag. Not only was it the 100 or so Muslims that said they believe in hanging homosexuals, but at least ten Muslim countries enforce it. Not only was it the 100 or so Muslims that said they believe in stoning women for infidelity, but at least eleven Muslim countries enforce it. Not only adulterers , but also rape victims. Stoning rape victims for something they can not control is violent. It is not peaceful. 39% of Muslims in Afghanistan and 29% of Muslims in Egypt support terror attacks. If you ask me, that is not very peaceful at all. Of course not ALL 100% of Muslims believe in this, but they belong to a religion that does. And again, like I said earlier this round, please give me proof of peaceful acts Islam has done in the past hundred years.
Islam is a Peaceful Religion

First of all, I would like to point out a mistaken claim stated at the end of my opponents argument. He states that "the vast majority of Muslims will fire a gun or bomb a building so..." as I am posting the evidence against that claim, a study on radical Muslims shows that only 7% of Muslims are radical (!) http://media.gallup.com... Do not listen to the Con's unproven arguments. The rally the Con debater mentions is another case of extreme Islam. Extreme Islam is not the same as mainstream Islam, and to get those confused is a dangerous assumption that leads to Islamophobia. Also, the fact that there have been multiple terrorist attacks does not in any way disprove my claim. 7% of Muslims are radical, and the fact that they have committed many terrorist attacks doesn't change the fact that they are still a radical minority in Muslims. To judge a whole religion based on a video or terrorist attacks is a dangerous path to follow. As I said in round 1, if you watched a video of 100 Americans who believed that men were more then women and that homosexuals should be killed, that does not make America a violent nation. The same goes for religions. Generalizing a religion based on the few is an illogical action and one that should be avoided at all costs. Due to these, I firmly stand in my stance that Islam a peaceful religion, not a violent one.
Abortion is Murder (providing for exceptions in extreme medical emergencies)

(A) -noone who is sane wants to be murdered -We define 'murder' as the intentional ending of human life by another individual when not done --during war --in self-defense --as an 'assisted suicide'* --as a last-ditch effort to save another life, in such a scenario where to refuse to terminate one life is to endanger another along with it** --by the State, as capital punishment for grievous crimes -We therefore call for the legal protection of all human life, save for the aforementioned exceptions. This has led to a social condemnation of murder (the individual ethical reasoning of the people are not important to this argument) (B) Human life is defined as -Being alive -Being human (C) A child, from conception is alive- at any point of development Quote: 1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment (within the organism) 2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life. 3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components ... 4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish. 5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment.... 6. Response to stimuli 7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth. derived from The question of sentience has no bearing on the classification of something as 'alive' (D) Since a human child is, by definition, alive from conception, any purposeful destruction of that life is murder, as outlined in brief in (A) and cannot be allowed. One cannot condemn murder and simultaneously condoning the killing of an unborn child (save for the noted exceptions), for that would be logically contradictory *for those who support such a clause; this is currently a matter of debate **such as rare forms of conjoined twins or the medical termination of ectopic or other medically dangerous pregnancy that endangers he life of mother and/or child EDIT:: Before any of the libs call a baby a 'tumor' -A tumor has the same genetic code as the host, adn is therefore their body -A child has a different genetic code from with parent, therefore a child is not a part of a woman's body. Since the child is by definition alive, is genetically human, and is not a part of the woman's body, it is- by definition- a separate human life.
A serial killer is usually more intelligent than a serial rapist.

I am arisen from the dead! Anyways I was busy and forgot. So, Killings all you need to do is plan when and where to kill someone then when and where to put the body. It is complicated but a rapist has to worry about DNA evidence left, how to keep her/him silent, whether or not to let them win, and if you kill them then you need to find a when/where to get rid of the body. Both are complicated but you need more brains to rape a person then you do to murder someone.
Circumcision is wrong and useless.

I am debating for circumcision specifically Muslim circumcision. First I will admit the challenges I have that go against me. Pain it causes getting circumcised and the way it may effect a man's manhood in terms of sex life. Both these arguments are countered in terms of the benefits the members would get if what they were practising religiously had basis. It depends on what kind of reality your considering being real. If it's about mainstream science I will not argue for that as I think it's more genuine to support the circumcised mens views and beliefs. I will argue for Islam and it's cosmology and how circumcision is a rule that should help a man within that world. I will never argue for fgm it is straightforwardly bad.
Should the bible be used in religious arguments

Ok, going by that my original argument still stands. There are plenty of good parts of the Bible that don't involve supernatural occurrences. In addition to this, the Con does not make any arguments for his side, even though it is his job to prove that the Bible should not be used and my job to show that it can be used in some situations. The one almost-argument that the Con makes is that you shouldn't just automatically accept everything in the Bible, but that is true for everything. Because that is not specific to the Bible, it is not applicable here. Without any real contribution from the Con, this is all I can do.
Should the bible be used in religious arguments

Because of the nature of the topic, I do not have to prove that the Bible is true or that it can be used in all arguments, only that it can be used in some situations. The topic is not very clear, but I assume from your first argument that you mean arguments along the lines of whether or not there is a god, or atheism vs. theism, so I'll talk about that. If you were talking about arguments between religions, like is one religion better than another, then the Bible should be a significant part of the argument. Firstly, there is proof that at least some of the stories in the Bible took place http://en.wikipedia.org..., so that refutes your argument. My stance on this is that the Bible can be used in religious arguments, but it should not be unquestionably accepted as true. If a situation arises where Christian doctrine can be used without assuming the truthfulness of the events then the Bible is an acceptable source.
Should the bible be used in religious arguments

Ok, seeing as this is the last round I will sum up the arguments. The Con holds to his claim that the Bible shouldn't be used because it is not 100% factual without responding to any of my arguments. This is his only real argument, but it doesn't do him any good. Because the Con has not given any real limits to what type of religious arguments this debate is about, I can use any kind of religious debate to prove my point. Because the Bible shows what Christians believe, it is a reliable and accurate source for what Christians believe. For this reason it could be used in an argument to prove what Christians believe, therefore I win this debate. The Con's only other claim is that the Bible can't be used because it talks about Jews. Anyone with an elementary understanding of the Bible can see that this is not a contradiction, nor does it prove the Bible false. Because I have sufficiently refuted all the Con's arguments and proven that the Bible can be used in some religious arguments, I win this debate.
Should the bible be used in religious arguments

My argument doesn't mean the bible will convict someone it is that the bible isn't 100% factual so it shouldn't I repeat it shouldn't be used to make a point and yes the bible uses Mosses story (I'm using the bible to prove that the Pro is wrong) Exodus 6:6 "God" talking to Mosses "There fore, say to the Israelite 'I am your Lord and I will lead you out of Egypt' proving the Bible talks about Jews meaning it can't be used in religious arguments.
Should the bible be used in religious arguments

I am not proposing to use the Bible to convict someone as guilty, only saying that it can be used in arguments. To prove my point, there could, for example, be an argument where an atheist said Christians don't believe in Moses. In a situation like this, you could pull out the Bible and use it to prove his argument false. The Con is continuously making and doping arguments. If he cannot hold onto an argument, then I win by default. Also, the Con is stating that the Bible is not 100% proven, not that it is 100% untrue. This means that parts can still be good. It is possible to accept part of the Bible as true, but not the whole thing.
Should the bible be used in religious arguments

Let me ask you if you are in a trial you have evidence that points to the man that you know did SO IF ITS NOT 100% FACTUAL HE IS GUILTY you could be putting an innocent man in jail this bears to the bible by your calming that this is right o by the way there is no proof its all real but that's ok I fail to see your point pro you clam that you should USE A DOCUMENT THAT IS NOT 100 TRUE
Should the bible be used in religious arguments

It does not prove everything in the Bible, but it does show that the whole thing is not completely unfounded. The Con clearly has no real understanding of the Bible if he thinks that because Moses led the Jews out of Egypt, then it can't be a Christian book. Christianity came from the Jews not believing in Jesus, so Jesus' followers left the Jews and became Christian. To defend my claim that the Bible can be used in religious arguments, I say that it does not have to be 100% factually proven to be used in an argument. Key points of Christian doctrine can be used from the Bible without referencing sections about resurrection and miracles. If my opponent cannot deny this then I win.
Fast Food

To elaborate on my previous arguments. First, the minimum wages allow more people to be hired and therefore to be productive members of society. These poor wages are enough to scrape by and survive and also help consume ones time, something that could help them stay out of trouble. Those fat cats that you blame for exploiting the employees are the ones who give them jobs in the first place. If they didn't have all those people above them trying to run a profitable business, there would be no jobs at all. "There is also evidence of workers kicking, throwing, stepping on and drop-kicking live chickens. These horrific actions should not be allowed anywhere near live animals...The disgusting process the animals at the...slaughterhouses...should be illegal...Fast food chains are terrible to their animals!" Yes, it is terrible, however this is merely evidence that some people are abusive and these people are a minority. You also make it sound like the fast food companies own the animals, and that is very deceitful. These animals are sold to the companies for slaughter and any prior care is not caused by the fast food company. When these animals are slaughtered, they are killed rapidly and don't feel much of anything. The next part is not for the faint of heart and if you can't stand the meat, stay out of the kitchen.
Fast Food

The demand for meat is steadily rising as the developing world grows a hunger for red meat like the Western World. This in turn has increased the demand for meat and to cut costs and insure consumers are able to afford it, companies are forced to use Factory farming. These cheaper methods attracted Fast Food companies who serve good tasting, and inexpensive food to the average person, which ironically drives down meat prices (in the long run) for the average American. Factory farming is more efficient than free range, as the cost of eggs would climb almost 40% if we changed over to "better methods". These methods also require massive plots of land, which would be impossible for a small farmer to afford and maintain, which would evolve a share cropper like system, and share cropping didn"t work out too well for the farmers if memory serves me correctly. These companies would more likely than not use traditional methods if the public demanded it, however meat would become a commodity the average American could no longer afford. As for your concerns about the workers, what"s better, getting one chef for 30,000-55,000 or a staff which can help you run your restaurant quickly and cheaply? As a former staff member, work in the fast food industry was one of my first jobs and helped me get a reference to get a better job the next summer. People who are impoverished also can use these jobs, which are often much better than there other options. This rapid and inexpensive service is one of the reason people go to fast-food places over other restaurants. As for hygiene, there are often Cameras in the cooking area and people are required to wear hair nets and gloves. I've heard of complaints about rats and mice in Fast food restaurants, but go to a restaurant in NYC (or anywhere) and try to find a restaurant without one of those buggers (roaches, rats, mice, lice, anything you can think of) living inside, it"s a lot more common than you think (the summer after my fast-food job I worked for a friend"s family business as a pest remover). http://cornellsun.com... F.Y.I The part about eggs I saw on another debate on this site, and I paraphrased and used the same citation.
Fast Food

The facts are that, KFC and McDonald"s animals are never free-range, meaning that they are never allowed to run free in fields. Sadly though, not only are the animals in these factories not allowed to run free in fields, they are also rarely allowed to leave small, enclosed spaces, or isolated, fenced in areas. There is also evidence of workers kicking, throwing, stepping on and drop-kicking live chickens. These horrific actions should not be allowed anywhere near live animals. The workers doing the manual labor, working with animals, and preparing our meals are usually given minimum wage, have few health benefits, if any, and have very little experience dealing with food. And it is hard to know whether you should blame the companies, the highest ranking bosses, the managers, the suppliers of the meat, or the employees themselves, but there have been many accounts of disgusting things happening to the food before it being served. The disgusting process the animals at the "farms", slaughterhouses, and in the Fast Food Kitchens go through is awful, gross, and immoral and should be illegal! Fast food chains are terrible to their animals!