BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christian Faith Against Islam

The center of this debate is “Islam is fake”. But I cannot find a single reasonable argument against my affirmation. I find in your counter-arguments support for the fact that Islam is a false religion. I will expose in a comment the simple reason that debunks your argument that Islam considers Jesus as divine, Son of God and the Word of God, Creator of the Universe. But for now, this is my third argument to affirm that effectively Islam is a false religion:Islam as religion was born circa 610-630 a.D., that means 600 years after the birth of the Church of Christ and almost two thousand years after the law of Moses. At that time: Jews and Christian communities were very respected and flourishing in Arabia. Muhammad took certain teachings from these two sister religions: the Monotheism, the belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the Scriptures, then he gave it a different hue, let's say, a version for Arabs that would then "conquer" the entire world -by the word or by the sword-. We can readily assert that the Quran is not a book of revelation from God but a human artifice -in the best of cases- or a demonic inspiration supported by three reasons:A. There is no new message or revelation. Every acknowledged prophet in the OT until John the Baptist brought a "new" and "seasonable" message from God, but the Quran only comprises comments -some of them absurd- purportedly from G-d (Allah) to a man about the Scriptures and apocryphal traditions.B. Salvation comes from the Jews (John 4:22). The Bible tells us the history of Salvation of human kind. God chose a lineage and brought the Salvation through Jesus Christ -the son of David, the son of Abraham-. Ishmael, son of Abram -not yet Abraham-, forefather of the Arab people went out of the line of Blessing just as Esau, Zarah and many others. So why would the Lord bring a "new revelation" -if any further revelation required- through a non-Jew, non-Christian?C. Islam absolutely contradicts the Revelation of Jesus Christ: He freed us from the Law (Moses Law). Although the law is absolutely necessary to worship G-d in Truth, He knows our weakness and gives us The Holy Spirit to be in us, with us and above us to help us accomplish the law in truth and love.But the fruit of the Spirit is Love Gal 5:22Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Rom 13:10 Jesus was against the Pharisees by two main reasons: they sat in Moses' seat and filled it with human traditions, rituals and rules that were not from God. They bound heavy burdens to people and then condemned them -even though they didn't observe Moses' law-. And that is exactly what Islam is: phrases purportedly told to Muhammad, to see whom are believers and whom are not, and whom they would take as enemies and even kill. The Sharia Law -Islamic legal branch- is nothing but a swarm of human rituals and rules enslaving human beings by telling them "Submission to Allah", while they are from men, which is nonsense.
Smoking Ban

Alright then.I would agree that is not an acceptable behavior and that it affects people - DUIs, mainly. Which is why... it's illegal. Public drinking is illegal. [1] Drinking and driving is illegal. [2] So why is it not illegal to smoke in public? Or smoke in a way that would endanger others? I did say 18% of the population smokes. However, not all 18% of them would have to go to prison. According to studies done in Ireland after their 1998 and 2004 bans on smoking in certain places - not even the whole country - 88% of people said that they quit after these were put into effect. So, obviously, it wouldn't be as bad as you think.Assuming that the kind of ban put into affect would not jail people (I am anti-jail), it would actually gain money for the state in the form of fines. Assuming that it was the same thing as marijuana is (for most places, where I live, it's legal for people over 21), it would be a year in prison plus a $1, 000 fine [3]. For the prison, it would be 340 billion (based on [4]), which would be more than we are currently spending on tobacco by around 50 billion dollars, but wait... the fines. We can't forget about the fines. Which would be about 70 billion. It would cost less. Yes, good for them. Those were merely examples of rules like that working.Um... I hate to rain on your parade, but those are for houses. Only. They don't really work for the entire Earth. Actually, Helena, Montana, has a very average crime rate. [5][1] http://criminal.findlaw.com...;[2] http://dui.findlaw.com...[3] http://norml.org...;[4] http://www.lanecounty.org...;[5] http://www.city-data.com...;
Smoking Ban

Yes I do remember my tobacco and drug education, but who ever said I condoned it. I have never smoked, I've never done drugs, and I don't drink. Do you know what Else is not a responsible activity? Over drinking and getting a hangover in the morning. That could potentially affect other people with the behavior of the guy who over drank. So should we have alcohol bans? No. And also, if you did declare a war on tobacco, it's just logic you would need to pay more. A. prisons, which since you said 18% of the population smokes, it is likely we would need more prisons and more maintenance for prisons to keep all the smokers locked up. B. Enforcement. You would probably need to pay more on law enforcement to enforce the war against tobacco. Good For Amherst and the other colleges. It is private property, so they can do whatever they want with their property. I have no problem with that, I just don't think the government should make decisions for the millions of property owners in America. And yes, I do realize that it spreads through the air, but if your so concerned about it in public spaces, why don't you get air filters? It actually is very effective. http://www.rabbitair.com... http://www.achooallergy.com... Also Helena Montana might not have a lot of crime originally. I'm asking you to imagine a nation wide- or state wide ban. Don't you think crime rates would go up a little bit? One small town is not the equivalent of an entire state or nation. Also think what would happen If you initiated an all out smoking in Chicago or oh her cities like that. Heck think of what would happen if you did that in border cities like El Paso, where a reasonable amount of cartels are starting to operate. Also if you did do it on the border, it would just make it another opportunity for something the cartels could sell, not to mention probably increasing cartel activity in the United States. Organizations like this could come into play http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Smoking Ban

Yes, we can go after tobacco companies. The government is free to ban tobacco, and is it really any less than the government is spending on tobacco at the moment? The U.S. spends more than $289 billion a year due to smoking, with around $133 billion of it going to direct medical care. [1] Should we ban soda? No, because it doesn't hurt people who don't make the decision to drink it, and isn't near as destructive. I have no arguments here, however, I have to open you up to a little bit of the world. According to your debate.org page, you are a 24 year old, which is 10 years older than me. I don't know how much you remember from your tobacco education, so allow me to fill you in. We were taught the bad things in around... I don't know... 3rd or 4th grade, definitely not into middle or high school, and here is how they "ensured" nothing would happen. We tied a knot in a string that meant we would never do drugs or alcohol. Useful. As a current teen, exposed daily to those who are just now beginning to smoke, I can tell you that 95% of people will just ignore you. And my decision to not smoke, to not drink, to not use marijuana (all of which I could do if I wanted, I have an older brother who has offered me these things on several occasions) is not in any part due to the education I have had on the subject from public education or otherwise. It has come from personal research - the place where I learn over half of my current knowledge base. Those who don't don't care about what they have been taught, it's just that they don't want to. A war on tobacco wouldn't waste any more money than we spend on it now, and will save lives. Some places have actually found a decrease in violence upon a tobacco ban, [2] and there has no notable violent uprise in cities such as Helena, Montana. Rather, there has been a stunning decrease in heart attacks, and it has overall, gone quite well. [3] Do you approve of heroin legalization? It's the same concept. A smoker doesn't affect one person. It affects a whole family, the environment, and people's health. Just because they want that activity going on, doesn't mean it's a responsible activity. Sometimes a government needs to make a choice for people's health, despite what the person wants. I would agree that they are less effective. According to this San Diego University study [4], it is more effective to ban smoking altogether. According to a New York Times article I will cite below, smoking bans have been largely effective in most cities with little to no problems such as violence. [1] http://www.cdc.gov...;[2] http://rcnpublishing.com...;[3] http://www.forbes.com...;[4] http://health.ucsd.edu...;[5] http://world.time.com...;
Smoking Ban

Which is exactly why you can go after tobacco company's. You can regulate them and control them if you want, but don't out right ban them! Declaring a war on tobacco would just cause billions of dollars to go down the drain by enforcing it. People drink soda, and it is unhealthy, and if you drink too much, you could become obese and potentially die from obesity. Should we ban soda? I think we should have tobacco education, and educate people about the dangers of it. In fact, more and more addiction help centers are popping up. But declaring a war on tobacco would just waste a lot of money, encourage more people to do it, increase crime rates, because then we would have a bunch of "tobacco" dealers and cartels, and that would cause more gun violence (which you are clearly against) between competition and the police, which could also stretch the police thin, with having to crack down on all the smokers. Then we might have another government agency that would continue to waste our tax dollars; not to mention that would probably add significantly to how many people would be in prisons, causing the prisons to overcrowd, and then we would have to spend more money on prisons. Do you know how much money that would cost? Alot But also, you want the government to make the choice for millions of property owners, that people can't smoke on their property. It is up to the owners, if they want that kind of activity going on, and if they do, the government shouldn't make the decision for them. Do you think that's right. When they start making decisions for people like that, what's to stop them from telling people where they're kids can go to school, and what they can eat and drink? ___________________________________ |PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK| -------------------------------------------------- Also I find the "location bans" are really ineffective, because people do it anyway, which means you would still have to get people to patrol and enforce those unreasonable smoking bans.
Smoking Ban

1. The Effect of Smoking DirectlySmoking effects nearly every organ in the body - the skin, the heart, the brain, the liver, the lungs, etc.. It also kills more people year around than HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle accidents, and firearm accidents. The odds of a person getting lung cancer are multiplied by at least 25. [1] Lung cancer is the second leading cause of death in the U.S.A., [2] and 90% of lung cancers are caused by smoking. Smoking increases your likelihood of heart disease and stroke significantly, and if no one in the U.S. smoked, one out of every three cancer deaths could be prevented. Smoking kills a massive amount of people - around 480, 000 people a year [1].2. The Effect of Secondhand SmokeSecondhand smoke is not much better. It exposes you to 7000 chemicals, 70 of which are known carcinogens. It causes 42, 000 deaths a year, [3] and since 1964, the Surgeon General estimates it has caused 2.5 million deaths [4]. As many as 40% of men, 35% of woman, and 33% of woman are exposed to secondhand smoke regularly. [5]3. Will the smoking ban work? You have mentioned that The Prohibition did not work. While that is true, smoking is a dying fad in the U.S.A.. In 2012, 18% of people were smokers, down from 24.7% in 1997, and 20.6% in 2009. It is also an entirely different issue than the prohibition and the two cannot be compared adequately. It requires examination of logical evidence, which I have found. Multiple college campuses, such as Amherst, Salem State, University of Massauchusets, and Northwestern University have initiated smoking bans. And, they have been working. [7] It could be reasonably assumed that a similar situation would arise if we initiated a smoking ban throughout the U.S.A., or in public places. [Citations][1] http://www.cdc.gov...;[2] http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com...;[3] http://www.cdc.gov...[4] http://www.cdc.gov...;[5] http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com...;[6] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com...;[7] http://www.bostonglobe.com...;
Smoking Ban

I will argue against smoking bans. Honestly, it's kinda like the war on drugs. People have the right to do stupid things. Go after the tobacco corporations, but don't ban smoking! What's next, alcohol? If history has showed us anything it's that prohibition does not work. Prohibition on alcohol did not work! Prohibition on drugs does not work! Prohibition on tobacco does not work! Having a war on tobacco and smoking will just turn into another fiasco like the war on drugs! Not to mention the costs of enforcing this law! And if your one of those people who only wants it ban in certain places like homes, what if the home owner is ok with it! If he/she is ok with it, why does the government need to make the property owners choice and ban it there! Also, why would you ban it in public places! It is for the PUBLIC to use! So people can participate in whatever they want to do as long as it abides by the law!
belief can changes our life

Ha ha. This is more like a conversation than a debate. If you said what I said, pretty subtle there. But we'll take Muslims for example to add on to my idea. They want peace and will only declare war for self defense. But Osama bin Laden committed terrorism due to the fact that the United States established military bases on Saudi Arabia and claims that it's a declaration of war against God. I'm not religious, but I do like to "play God."
Deportation or Elimination

Oh so not only are you a complete idiot but you also happen to be a sick piece of sh!t. Now flight attendant salaries vary as well as locomotive engineers so I do just barely go over the $150000 and that's true Secondly Obama will drive this country into the ground but that irreverent so we could save that for another time. My opponent has created a very weak response with no substantial information other than insulting me so even though my stance on this topic may be audacious and unique, I cannot be punished for my views for debating purposes. My opponent claims that I said the "immigrants are stealing jobs". I never said that in either of my entries in fact I said the complete opposite. I said that the immigrants are NOT working and are just living of the governments money which they steal from hardworking families. Of course their are exceptions but most immigrants are not eligible for many jobs which leaves them with nothing to do except live of the american peoples money. I have witnessed first hand piss poor alcoholics become homeless then all of a sudden be given a home that was bought from families that actually work. This "come to America for a life" motto has become a vicious cycle that if continued more and more money will be sucked out of the working family and into the immigrants hands so they can "live the American dream". My opponent also compares immigrants now coming into a civilized country to the past where civilized Europeans came to a large land mass where the people there were extremely uncivilized and could barely speak to eachother. Times have changed you idiot and its not me that should be deported.... It's you
Deportation or Elimination

First of all, there is no way your total income is 150k a year. My brother is a locomotive engineer and he makes 60k a year. Also, the average flight attendant salary is around 18k. That's approximately 78k per year, a little more than half of 150k. Second of all, I am an Obama lover. However, that's irrelevant to the topic. As you stated, you're white. Do you think when the first Caucasians came to America they were welcomed? We all started as illegal aliens. You also say that the immigrants are stealing jobs. That's just plain stupid. Honestly, you should be deported you sick son of a bitchl. America is the land of the free and no one should be excluded from entering the country unless they are a threat. My rock hard penis is very unhappy with you right now. Seriously.
Deportation or Elimination

Now, calling the opponent an idiot won't get you anywhere instead actually saying something with substantiation. First off I can clearly tell you are a Obama lover from not only your name but how you called me a rich white pig. If immigrants are coming across the border pregnant and will have their kids born as US citizen then guess who has to pay for them? ?? You guessed it the rich white pig. And do you want to know what being a rich white pig is? Making a total of $150000 for the whole family so hard working "pigs" are supporting illegal immigrants and their kids so they can do nothing. So to keep things in context a household that makes over $150000 would be a couple where one is a flight attendant and the other is a locomotive engineer so we are clearly not talking "rich white pigs". Of course were not going to kill them I just named it that because the title sounded cool and the word eliminate means "to get rid of something" so we are just simply deporting these aliens far away so they can never come back. I await to hear this "idiots" response
Deportation or Elimination

How could you be so ignorant?!?! I assume "elimination" is murder, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Even if the immigrants are illegal, they most certainly should not die. I assume you're a rich, white pig who cares nothing about others. These people work harder then you have or ever will. You're just an idiot. The immigrants shouldn't be deported, you should be. You're a disgrace to humanity for even suggesting the mass murder of an entire people. This shouldn't even be a debate.
Animals don't have souls!

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to have a debate which I haven't had before and I still don't find my way around the site...after posting the argument, I realized 5 minutes later, I hadn't written any actual arguments concerning the subject. So read my possibly weak conduction of arguments: Why I doubt animals don't have souls? -If they had souls there would be no difference between them and us. -If they had souls they would have consciousness about what love is. -Love is something we use when referring to other people. -Because of love you feel an intimate connection between you and others. Because of love you marry people, which you don't do with animals. -If animals had souls they would speak. -If they had souls they would use their strength(ex. lions, gorillas, leopards and other strong offensive, hunter species)to defeat us in need of space, food, weapons other things necessary to be a dominant species. In other words, we wouldn't be able to keep them in cages and have them under control which we can at the moment whenever we want. -If you look at the Bible(advised for everyone not just for religious ones)you will find that God said during Genesis that people should rule over animals and every created life form on Earth that is not human.
Animals don't have souls!

Your argument is that animals do not have souls. If we could get a few things cleared up before the start of the debate that would be great. Your definition of soul. As you have not provided one I will. Soul- the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part. My argument will be that if humans were born with souls which are not detectable by any scientific instrument then the same principle would rightfully apply to animals. That is, if they had a soul it would be impossible to detect. Therefore it is impossible to disprove. You cannot prove that animals do not have souls just as you cannot prove that humans do have souls. You automatically lose the debate as you cannot prove your resolution. However, since there are only two rounds we might as well finish the debate.
US Border Control Should Shoot On Sight.

I'm not sure if my opponent is serious. He is advocating that we murder people for trying to have a better life. That is their only crime. Let's look at some of his points. " They come here stealing jobs and bringing diseases like cockroaches." If your concern is really the jobs of America, maybe we should crackdown on the companies who break the law and employ illegal immigrants and not shoot the poor Mexican man who works $3.00 an hour just to feed his family. And please elaborate on these diseases you speak of. "Tell me what do you do when cockroaches infest your house? You exterminate them." Cockroaches are not human. They don't have a conscience. No thoughts. Feelings or emotions. These immigrants do. "And yes there are the issues ofchildren crossing the border.But they must have an exception for they are unreliable to think for themselves and are not independant yet.Although coming from mexicio being cared for is probaly absent....all in all dont shoot the children." Ah yes. Don't shoot the children. Let's just kill their parents. Who the hell needs providers and family anyway? "And yes shoot the sick and elderly as another issue you may say. Why should tax money go into harboring and helping them? Im sure no one wants there taxes going towards harboring and medicating a waste of space." No one is providing for them. You can't get healthcare unless you are a US citizen. My opponent has no strong argument as to why we should shoot innocent people for trying to be what this country was built on. Immigrants. Even if it is a message to other immigrants, do you really think it won't set of an international conflict?
US Border Control Should Shoot On Sight.

It is a reliable solution because it will indeed send the message that they are not welcome here. They come here stealing jobs and bringing diseases like cockroaches. Tell me what do you do when cockroaches infest your house? You exterminate them. Once 10 or 20 of them go down it will surely send the message. And yes there are the issues of children crossing the border. But they must have an exception for they are unreliable to think for themselves and are not independant yet. Although coming from mexicio being cared for is probaly absent....all in all dont shoot the children. Unless they are harming border agents...er border snipers as I hope them to become. Now that does not mean let them into the country, It means ignore them. And yes shoot the sick and elderly as another issue you may say. Why should tax money go into harboring and helping them? Im sure no one wants there taxes going towards harboring and medicating a waste of space.