BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islam

#1 I'm an atheist, because i haven't seen any evidence that any GOD is real. #2 You didn't bother to quote the quran you are using, or say which version you are using. I quoted from the quran that i am using, and the fact that you didn't implies that you know that your version of the quran reads the same as the version that i am using. #3 A myth can't tell people to kill other people. #4 If a GOD was real, and that GOD could talk to people, and that GOD had an important message for me, then that GOD should be able to get my attention and give me the message directly, making the quran irrelevant. #5 Since the quran is the only way most muslims claim their GOD can speak to them, i have no reason to believe the GOD of the quran is real. Thank you for making this debate so very easy for me. I suggest next time you want to get into a debate that you should actually find some evidence for the issue you are debating on. Which reminds me. . . #6 If the GOD of islam isn't real, then islam is based on false beliefs, and false beliefs can lead to very harmful actions. SUCH AS KILLING SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THEIR GOD WANTS THEM TO KILL PEOPLE. Therefore the world would be better without islam.
Islam

1. God does not tell us to kill people, and by the way we believe in the same god, i heard a story, a prince did not know which religion to follow, so he got a jew, a christian and a muslim, and he asked them all, why are you going to heaven, the jew said because i believe in Moses, the christian said because i believe in Jesus, the muslim said because i believe in Moses Jesus and Mohammed. I am not trying to convert anyone, now that i think about it that was kind of irrelvant to the converstation, but anyway. There are a lot of people who put a fake Quraan on the internet, in fact, especially the internet. So i ask you, what kind of Quraan did you read?
Islam

Which version of the quran are you using? I'll quote from the version of the quran that i have, it says 37:102 And when (his son) was old enough to walk with him, (Abraham) said: O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must SACRIFICE THEE. So look, what thinkest thou ? He said: O my father! Do that which thou art commanded. Allah willing, thou shalt find me of the steadfast. (37:102) "When (his son) was old enough to walk with him, (Abraham) said: O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice thee. So look, what thinkest thou? He said: O my father! DO THAT WHICH thou art commanded. Allah willing, thou shalt find me of the steadfast." When Abraham's son, Ishmael, was old enough to walk, Allah told Abraham in a dream to SACRIFICE Ishmael. So Abraham asked Ishmael if it'd be OK with him, and Ishmael said, "Sure thing, Dad, go ahead and kill me for God. I won't even flinch." 37:103 Then, when they had both surrendered (to Allah), and he had flung him down upon his face, 37:104 We called unto him: O Abraham! 37:105 Thou hast already fulfilled the vision. Lo! thus do We reward the good. 37:106 Lo! that verily was a clear test. I also think the test was clear, and that test was to see whether Abraham would kill because your god told him to. However because Abraham was willing to perform a human sacrifice for your god it shows that Abraham failed the test of morality. Maybe you should study your quran more, since apparently i know more about your god than you do. If your god told you to kill people, would you obey your god and be willing to kill people for your god?
Islam

ok, first of all you got so much wrong about Abraham 1. He isnt our main leader 2. He was not exactly willing to kill his son, here is what happened: He had a dream one night and in that dream god told him that he needs to kill his son, he knew this was real cause he is a prohpet, so he ASKED his son and he agreed, but before they did it, god sent down a sheep (maybe a cow dont remember) to tell them, kill this instead, sorry to any vegans/vegetarians out there. That is what really happened Now that you know that, please tell me other reasons a religon of peace is bad
it is morally permissible to kill one innocent life to save more innocent lives

Pro introduced ideas such as utalitaianism, for example, but did not elaborate on those ideas until R2, which gave me the advantage of arguing against that philosophy before Pro even had a chance to begin. His lack of rebuttal in R3 only establishes that this point goes to me. 2. I showed how Pro's argument of the greatest good for the greatest number of people cannot be factually demonstrated by his advocation of killing 1 to save the few. He had no response. 3. Pro very briefly introduced the concept of war in R2. However, he did not elaborate on this issue in the slightest, and therefore did not use it to help his case. Thus it should not be considered at all whatsoever in the debate. 4. Overall, I stand by my R2 assertion that Pro did not make and certainly did not win any arguments in the previous rounds, especially on the grounds of either his value or value criterion. Thus a vote for Con would be much appreciated. Thanks!
it is morally permissible to kill one innocent life to save more innocent lives

i want to start off first by apologizing to the poorly constructed layout of my first speech i am new to this and was not sure as to what to include however will do my best to keep the round interesting from here on As a brief roadmap i will clarify my own case, while extending certain key points and then move on to the attack of my opponents First regardless of the fact that i simply just layed out my points rather then elaborating on them the initial ideas should still be flowed throughout the round for there significance is of vital interest to this debate. For example my whole claim by affirming is to base my society off of a utilitarian based jurisdiction, with ideas such as an ends justifies means based mentality being present. With that said it leads into my point of clarification in response to my opponents claim regarding the affirmative being in charge of killing what my opponent fails to understand is that either way on either side people are going to get killed as a result of the end decision so what you need to refer to is a quantitative number. My opponent clearly expresses interest in the idea of quantity due to the pure logic she keeps bringing up in regards to the victims family's. however what she fails to take into consideration is the reality/actuallity behind such a cliam. my opponents sole contentions are based off of nothing other then ASSUMPTIONS that are used in a way of favoring her side. if i were to do the same all i would have to say is well three heads are better then one so the chance that the three people i save could cure cancer is of a much heigher percentage then but a mere one, as well as the whole family claim. Its safer to assume that a larger group of people have a combined total of way more relatives then but a mere one. however the point being since all of this is hypothetical its point should be non releveant in the round. which makes one have to look to the affirfitive side. for i will now supply you with actual logic and practicallity. As for my war claim the way i look at it as as follows if by negating you are essentially saying that every combatant in every war ever fought commited an immoral act. wars are ment to protect the majority of its peopel at the expense of innocent being killed for the greater good. SO you must refer to this real world example for it is the only warranted evidence/claim brought up throughout the entire round. so in conclusion my idea of a util based society should still stand the reason of total consequentialism supporting it should still stand for it only makes sense as well as my contentoins pertaing to war and morals should still stand thank you
it is morally permissible to kill one innocent life to save more innocent lives

Derived from a society where the majority rules and the greatest good is strived for, a mentality is created that in essence upholds the practice and belief of a ends justifies means based community. Where ones sole value is utilitarianism, supported through the ideas of a value criterion of total consequentilism. As it pertains to the following resolution It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people I stand here before you today in the strongest affirmation. As a brief road map the following will be addressed throughout the duration of my speech: total net good, morality, war, and the distinction between deontology and consequentilism. However Before I continue anymore the following must be defined. My value of utilitarianism is essentially the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number of people My VC of Total consequentialism being- the moral rightness depends only on the total net good in the consequence as opposed to the average net good per person AS well as the definition of morality- The quality of an action which renders it good
Divorce should not be granted after child birth

"You said Fights dont always solve, You have never seen your parents fight. " I have seen parent's fight, to make an assumption like that without even knowing me is. . wierd. Anyway, I don't think anyone would be embarassed saying their mom got married again, maybe just you because you might have grown up in some rural town, but anyway,My opponent has made the claim that "In your way of life Marriage is trial and error method. Marriage is something special. "I find that funny which you have never met me, and I have never said that, you are twisting my words into something that I did not say. ALSO, Marriage is special, but sometimes, it DOESN'T WORK OUT. Now, if you have been divorced 2 times or more, that is worry-some, but 1 time is ok. Divorce is BETTER than parents fighting 24/7"If divorce is not given after child birth, People will be more carefull in chosing relationship and they will have less problems after marriage. " People are careful, but you have to realize, NOT EVERYTHING IS MEANT TO BE. AND sometimes things don't work out. "You are a child of divorced parent and you are supporting it, iam sure you will get marriedand after child birth you would gladly apply for divorce. "Now you are making claims and assumptions about someone you have NEVER met, and saying how I would divorce anyone. I can't believe how you would make that, YES I DO support my parent's divorce, as do LOTS of people.
Divorce should not be granted after child birth

Hey first i would like to state this, Please dont use the word my opponent often,.This so no court, its an online debate Just relax Dont go crazy saying my opponent makes bold claim and all those things with big fonts.Back to the debate, You said Fights dont always solve, You have never seen your parents fight.What if somebody asks about your mother will you be proud to say "she is married to another person".In your way of life Marriage is trial and error method. Marriage is something special. If divorce is not given after child birth, People will be more carefull in chosing relationship and they will have less problems after marriage. You are a child of divorced parent and you are supporting it, iam sure you will get marriedand after child birth you would gladly apply for divorce. Family llife teaches you a lot things, Love,Affection,Obedience and most importantly responsibilities in life.
Divorce should not be granted after child birth

My opponent has said "If you have a problem with somebody you totally get rid of them, That is nonsense. If there is a nuclear bomb explosion in India people in america wont get affected, That does not justify that nuclear bomb is not dangerous." Which I have no idea how this relates to divorce, but I will jut ignore it.My opponent has also stated that "Parents fighting with each other will surely turn around at a time, Children need parents guidance to live a good life, Please dont say you have a good life, i am talking about entire population of kids."Everyone knows that fights don't always solve, and that is will never turn around. The yelling, cussing, leaving that the parents do scars the kid more than the divorce. Also, The majority of kids would rather have their parents happy than having their parents fight and fight. I think its outrageous how you shrug off my argument by saying it isn't valid because of your opinion of "the entire population of kids."My opponent also said "u get to know a lot of good things when you are around with your parents, Supervision is definitely required for Growing kids by their own parents." Yes, No one can argue that you can learn good things with your parents, I don't see where supervision comes in with divorce, so I will ignore that.And the "I am sure divorced parents will fight among them about who gets to keep the child. Parents might hate each other but they will definitely love their child." Is not true, most parents after divorce are friends, they will love their child.My oppenent ALSO makes the bold claim that ALL kids divorced are stuck with 1 parent, this is not true, not even CLOSE to true.
Divorce should not be granted after child birth

If you have a problem with somebody you totally get rid of them, That is nonsense. If there is a nuclear bomb explosion in India people in america wont get affected, That does not justify that nuclear bomb is not dangerous. Just because you are happy it does not mean all children will be that way. Parents fighting with each other will surely turn around at a time, Children need parents guidance to live a good life, Please dont say you have a good life, i am talking about entire population of kids. u get to know a lot of good things when you are around with your parents, Supervision is definitely required for Growing kids by their own parents. MOTHERS LOVE & DADS CARE ARE ESSENTIAL for every kid in this world. I am sure divorced parents will fight among them about who gets to keep the child. Parents might hate each other but they will definitely love their child.
Divorce should not be granted after child birth

I agree to the debate. I think Divorce SHOULD be allowed to be granted after child birth. Since my opponent did not define "Divorce" I will. "The ending of a marriage by a legal process. "On to the debate, I think that they should have a choice. I think children would rather have their parents seperated, than to be fighting 24/7. You have provided no proof that ALL children are mentally affected by it. My parents divorced when I was 12 years old, and I was fine with that, They are both happily married again.
islam a religion of peace.

I will prove that Islam is not a religion of peace, and more of a religion of violence and war. Case 1: TerrorismI don't think I will have to cite a source to prove ISIS is a Islam extremist group. Nor will I have to cite a source for the fact they do awful things in the name of Islam. The fact that ISIS exists is proof that the Quran and the teachings of Islam can be interpreted in a way so that it is violent and warlike. Case 2: Muhammad was a Barbarian. Little quote of Muhammad starting a war"From his base in Medina, Muhammad began a series of raids against the Meccan caravans. While the first six raids failed, the seventh raid—the “Nakhla raid”—was a success. The problem was that the Muslims attacked during a holy month in which everyone had agreed not to fight. An innocent man was even killed during the raid. This eventually led to war between the Muslims and Mecca. "Second quote:"For the next ten years until Muhammad’s death in 632 AD, the Muslims never stopped fighting. ". http://www.4truth.net...I find it difficult to believe that Islam is a religion of peace if your prophet is starting wars. The site above also has more ugly things that Muhammad has done or has allowed his men to do. This Includes: Raping women (18+) Raping young girls (13-18) Raping REALLY young girls (6-13) taking slaves of above girls sell and kill slaves kill all men. Muhammad himself had raped with a girl who was only nine. a quote of Muhammad: “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims. " After the quote above Muhammad attacked the Jews and killed all the grown men and raped all the women. I think we can conclude that Muhammad was a Warmonger at the least. Case 3: The Quran encourages WarmongeringHere is a couple quote of the Quran encouraging Terrorists like ISIS. Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember. "Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land. .. "Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! "Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination. " This is not cherry picking, there are websites that have hundreds of quotes from the Quran like this, like this one:. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com... And this one:. http://worldmediamonitoring.com... This website alone has 532 Quran quotes!532! !! !. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com... I have proved that Islam has been a religion of war from its beginnings until now. I have also proved their "holy" book is evil. I am looking forward to rebuttals
islam a religion of peace.

ISLAM a religion of peace: where our greeting start with Assalam u alaikum (English: peace be on you) today people says that Islam is a religion of terror and Muslims are the terrorists. i am asking that how you can judge a whole religion by the actions of few people or a group of people. actually people who are declaring Muslims as terrorist are the types of people who don't believe in truth. why we forgets about 1st world war who started 1st world war ? who started the second world war? who threw atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? who killed hundred and thousands of Muslims in Iraq? who are killing hundred and thousands of people in Palestine? who killed thousands of people in Afghanistan? who killed hundreds of people in Pakistan? which country is doing UN justice to be the super power of the world? in these all questions you will not found any single Muslim person or any Muslim country. the example of Libya and Syria is in front of us. Muslims lands are invaded. Muslim children s became orphans what is fault of children s? Islam condemn to kill Female, child, old age people, sick people, weak people, people without guns, poor people, disable people which means Islam is against terrorism. our beloved PROPHET mentioned in his hadith ( if you want to be a real muslim you will make people safe). islam does not allow terrorism islam does not tell us about discrimination. islam does not allow us to become cruel towards animals. islam does not permit us to hurt others. this is our believe as a mulims that if we hurt someone without reason then we will answerable to our ALLAH (the creator of entire universe) on the day of judgement. Islam does not permit us to killed children s and women in battle. but the fact is that no a days no one want to agree with truth because every one know who is the real terrorist who are violating the rules. people who are talking about to condemn attacks in Paris why they are silent on the destruction of Syria, aqsa mosque, Palestine, Iraq, Libya, Egypt.. all Muslims countries are under fire are under attacks their land are invaded and still people calls Muslims terrorist and Islam a religion of terrorism. no no no i condemn that Islam is terrorism support religion....ISLAM IS RELIGION OF PEACE.
Cattle, Pigs, Sheep, And chickens are better off in free range farms than in nature

Not really, No. You can argue that these animals would've preferred a chance at living in nature. You can argue that the way they die (be it by predator, Starvation, Or disease) in nature is preferential to their helpless slaughtering. You can argue that their inability to escape the farm negatively impacts their wellbeing. Man, There are plenty of cherries to pick. Also, By domesticating an animal you might be removing decreasing or amplify its certain features, But you're not directly taking away its ability to survive in nature. Sure, Currently domesticated animals have a low chance at surviving in the unexplored, Vicious environment we call nature, But the same can not be said about their offspring (which would then grow up in nature).
Cattle, Pigs, Sheep, And chickens are better off in free range farms than in nature

This debate isn't about what feels right or wrong but rather, It asks us, The debaters to place ourselves in the shoes of these animals, Regardless of how feasible that is to do, And attempt to make a preference decision for these animals with regards to what is preferable, Free roaming in the wilderness or kept and slain in free-range farms. I believe animals that are bread, Taken unconditionally fed, Rigorously looked after, And protected from the harms of nature (and eventually prematurely slain for food) are better off than in the scenario where they are let out into the wild and are exposed to the horrors of disease, Starvation, And constant fear and stress from wild predators, Which would eventually dictate the eradication of these now domesticated animals. On average these animals wouldn't survive as long in nature, As they do in free-range farms, And their quality of life is significantly worse. Also, The slow and painful death to disease or starvation is, Although less of a shock, Far worse in terms of the accumulated pain and suffering than getting knocked out and then getting your throat slit, Or even without the 'getting knocked out' part.
Gay Mirriage

First of all i wanna say sorry for my bad English, It's my second language. I want to talk about Gay marriage i don't think that gays have the right to get married as the only thing that we do now is making it easy for non-gays to become gays. You may think that's normal, But i want you to imagine with me that every single person in this life is gay just imagine.The human race will extinct, Indeed that's not the reality but it could happen in closed, small socities .
Gay Mirriage

In this round, Con only responds to one of my five arguments, dropping all the others. Therefore I will defend the one argument he responded to; Adoption.Con says my argument is null because the adopted child would not be able to celebrate either Father’s Day or Mother’s Day. I would like to point out that in an orphanage, the child would be celebrating neither. Con also says that the child would be missing the mixture of mother and father, yet fails to explain how this is better than a father and a father or a mother and a mother.He then concludes that a gay family cannot provide what a ‘normal’ family can provide. Here Con does not explain how a normal family can provide ‘more’ than a ‘gay’ family. I also point out that a gay family can at least provide more than no family would.Con has also dropped my argument that legalizing SSM (Same-Sex Marriage) would increase the amount of adopted children.Same-Sex Family Structures Are Not as BeneficialCon breaks round structure and provides even more new arguments, sadly I have to respond to these.Con argues without evidence that SS couples that raise children, the children experience ‘more’ problems than a ‘normal’ family would. The problem with this is that Con does not show how it is worse than if the child had no parents at all and was raised in an orphanage his/her entire childhood. This argument only has impact if Con can ‘prove’ this.Same-sex Marriage Makes It WorseThinking this would be a different argument than the former, I made another section. Yet it is just an extension of the first, my response is still the same.