BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It Is Unconstitutional To Ban Jews & Christians From Owning Slaves

The Bible has many passages that prescribe rules for slavery, and in the New Testament commands slaves to obey their masters and affirms even the right to beat disobedient slaves. The Bible clearly communicates God's will for Christians and Jews to own slaves. This makes prohibition against owning slaves when it is a Christian or a Jew who is owning the slave and when the pattern of ownership follows biblical law, an unconstitutional attack on freedom of religion. The First Amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The current law on slavery is a law that holds the standards and practices of established religions besides Judaism and Christianity to prevail when those other religions prohibit slavery. Effectively, Christians and Jews in this country are being collectively commanded to live according to the rules of other religions. The Bible clearly sanctions slavery, and those Jews & Christians who feel they have heard the call of God to own slaves should be allowed to do so. There are many great things that would come if Jews & Christians were granted their Constitutional right to own slaves within the rules of their respective faiths. Many people in impoverished nations would be given the opportunity to live in a more stable environment. Most would be seeing improvements in their everyday lifestyles.
the war in iraq is necessary until we finish it

I will point out, in this argument, three things. First of all, the war in Iraq was not necessary to begin with. Secondly, the effects of leaving Iraq would be more beneficial than staying. And thirdly, that the war in Iraq has detracted from our ability to fight in Afghanistan. 1. The war in Iraq was not at all necessary. In your case, you bring up the war being necessary to respond to the 9/11 attacks on the US in 2001. That would be fine, except that we attacked the wrong country. George Tenet, ex-CIA director, said on 60 Minutes that the Administration "could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period." A CIA report concluded that, although Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda had contacts in the 1990s, these links never developed into any sort of cooperation, and Hussein was in no way behind the 9/11 attacks. You also mention Iraq's WMD capabilities, however, first of all, the few chemical/biological weapons that were found were no longer usable remnants of the Iran-Iraq war. Secondly, UN inspectors, the military, and the CIA have all concluded that there were no nuclear WMDs in Iraq. Ever. And Iraq *was* obeying UN resolutions, inspectors were inspecting right up until the bombs started falling. 2. The effects of leaving would be beneficial. The US invasion has, without a doubt, destabilized the Middle East. Brent Scowcroft, in an article for the Wall Street Journal, said that invading Iraq would increase the amount of anti-American sentiment, increase terrorism, and destroy the balance of power in the MidEast. All of this has happened since the invasion. In addition, we've destabilized the country itself, with the country slowly tearing itself to pieces before our soldiers' eyes. We waste both American and Iraqi lives, and uncountable billions of dollars by remaining in country and we must stop this deadly flow before it gets worse. You say that we can't allow a despot to possess 60% of the world's oil reserves. First of all, what 60%? Iraq is 4th on the list of oil reserves, which, while significant, is nowhere near 60%. And regardless, all we've done is make that oil less accessible, not more. I would submit that only the Iraqis themselves can stabilize their country, and the US presence is not helping. 3. We're being distracted from Afghanistan. The consensus of most foreign policy experts is that Osama Bin Laden, the man actually behind 9-11, is hiding somewhere in Afghanistan. Not Iraq, but that other country we invaded. And due to the US emphasis on Iraq, the Taliban and al Qaeda are resurging. Attacks on coalition troops have quadrupled between '05 and '06, according to a New York Times article. If nothing is done soon, a UN report warns that the new Afghani government, a success compared to the one in Iraq, will fall, and an Islamist, terrorist regime will rise once more. The US cannot afford to let this happen simply because we are unwilling to give up on our failed experiment in Iraq.
the war in iraq is necessary until we finish it

1. Regardless of whether your argument was "they had them" or "they can produce them", NEITHER is true. Even the president admits it now. The only WMDs they had were the chemical weapons we gave them back in the 80s. And Iraq wasn't a threat because they weren't tied to al-Qaeda, they couldn't produce WMDs, and even if they could, they couldn't attack the US anyway (no long range missiles). And with the body count in Iraq 300,000 civilians and counting, I'd say we're far more damaging to the civilians of Iraq than Saddam ever was. 2. Yes, the Sunni and Shi'a hated each other before the war, but it was only the US's depostion of Saddam that allowed that hate to reach civil war heights. Saddam's strongarming did serve a function after all (think Tito in Yugoslavia). And when the lack of national guard troops leaves California and New Orleans without the ability to respond to natural disasters, then the problem is much greater than just a smaller defensive capability. 3. My point is that we're 'surging' troops to a failed war in Iraq, while the country that we could save is slowly slipping back to despotism because the US military lacks the troops to save Afghanistan. And things aren't "cooling down" in Iraq, 2007 is the deadliest year for US troops on record. If we continue to waste lives and money in Iraq, we'll just be losing two wars.
the war in iraq is necessary until we finish it

1.Okay, *again* I never said that they *had* any nuclear weapons. You mention that Iraq did not have the capability to produce WMDs yet you also said that "the few chemical/biological weapons that were found were no longer usable remnants". If they once had the capability to produce even those, could they not also have the ability to create more now? Though the "evidence that Iraq had any ties to terrorist groups to give WMDs to" is limited, it is there and we should look into that. Where is your evidence supporting that there never was *any* threat from Iraq? I have found at least 5 credible sources sources that say that those documents found were written to Afghanistan. And I think the fact that Saddam's treatment of his people, his disregard for the U.N. (& yes there was a refusal to obey their policies in accordance with his mentions of WMDs amongst other things), and his hate for America was threat enough. 2. The Shi'a and Sunni war has been going on long before we got there. They've had hostilities since the day they were founded as religions. They've always been fighting and America shouldn't be held responsible for triggering their distaste for one another. As for Iran becoming more powerful, well, i believe that it's not that they're becoming more powerful, it's that they're becoming more of a threat. The only reason, I believe, that we aren't finished with Iraq is that Iran continues to allow al qaeda to enter into Iraq. Of course America is left with less defenses, but what war hasn't left it so? "No sacrifice, no victory". I'd much rather that the military be in a foreign land making offensive progress than here on our soil taking up a defensive position. 3. Forces will be stretched thin as long as America doesn't give them the support they deserve. Just because the amount of forces there haven't *risen* doesn't mean that we're distracted, because forces haven't *risen* anywhere. Besides, with Saddam gone things are *slowly* cooling down in Iraq and maybe if we give our best effort that can speed up that process. Without Iraq posing threats, America is better able to defend ourselves, secure "the real target", and be prepared for anything Iran decides to throw at us.
the war in iraq is necessary until we finish it

1. First of all, I apologize for misreading your first post. However, you *did* bring up intelligence about Iraq's WMD capability that did not exist. Iraq never had WMDs, and any evidence that Iraq had any ties to terrorist groups to give WMDs to is limited at best. And Iraq *never* threatened to support Afghanistan in any way. 2. True, religious divisions haven't helped mideast stability- but neither have we. The US invasion has caused a civil war to slowly play out as we speak, with Shi'a and Sunni death squads killing civilians left and right. In addition, we've only increased the power of Iran, as they have positioned themselves as the only true anti-American power in the region. We've triggered this civil war, we can't afford to be drawn into it any further. Also, the fact that such a significant portion of our forces are in Iraq means that the US has less ability to respond to crises back home, or any new trouble abroad. 3. And, yes, with our forces stretched this thin, we are being distracted. The amount of NATO forces in Afghanistan hasn't risen, despite the Taliban resurgence. Thanks to Iraq, we're dangerously close to losing our control of the real target, Afghanistan. And I would say that the war in Iraq has very little to do with the absence of new terror attacks, but rather the increase in civilian watchfulness and the performance of the FBI and CIA.
the war in iraq is necessary until we finish it

lol I love how you're putting in words that aren't there. 1. I DID NOT say that the war Iraq was necessary to respond to the attacks on 9/11. I said that we attacked Afghanistan for that. I said that it was necessary for war in Iraq because they threatened to support Afghanistan. I never said that they HAD any nuclear weapons. Documents were found saying that they could PRODUCE nuclear weapons in as little as 2 weeks, not that they already had them. 2. You mention that our presence in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East. I'm sorry but can you name a time when the Middle East was ever stabilized? Their religious confrontations have been the cause of their destabilization, not our presence there. 3. Our presence in Iraq has not distracted our military from Afghanistan. Our presence in Iraq has distracted the American public from the war in Afghanistan. Just because the public isn't as aware about the war waging in Afghanistan doesn't mean it isn't being fought just as hard.
That there is reason to believe that experience after death is possible.

I am also happy he stuck with it all the way. I am new to the site and this is the first time an opponent has stayed through the whole thing. I would have to disagree with his straw man accusation. Is it not the case, as far as misconduct goes, that you stated my argument was fallacious? Then to go on stating that I am a "totalizing straw man' or that I said your argument was stupid. I never said that at all as I do not think your argument is stupid. I stated in Round 2, that you mistook me for saying philosophy was wishful thinking. I stated that you made an intriguing, even poignant philisophical argument. I maintain that view now. However you failed to demonstrate any 'reason' to believe the resolution at all. I am very aware of the resolution that we were debating, you can select any definition of reason, science, belief you want, it doesn't give your argument any foundation whatsoever. He demonstrated a massive error in his last rebuttal that I must admit I was a little taken aback by. When there was no good logic in his retort, he resorted to insults. I would extend an apology to the instigator if he thought my refutations were more crass than his. I will end by stating why I think I carried the day. My opponent demonstrated reasons he has to believe a concious experience is possible after death, but they are HIS reasons. It is in fact the case, that there is no tangible evidence for the resolution, therefore, no reason to believe it. I say again, you may very well wish for it to be true, I could understand why you would, but this does not denote reason. To make a claim and try to use metaphysical claims from 1929 to justify your point is to show a willful ignorance of the facts. The fact is there is no evidence for it. Period. If the resolution were "There is a reason to hope that experience after death is possible. " I would not have accepted the debate because I would enitrely agree with him. My opponent wished to sling insults and assume that I had no idea what resolution we were debating. More untrue statements. He made a valid point when he said I did not in fact refute much of his points. He is correct on that statement and that is my fault. I merely wished to address facts, and he presented none. Again, I thank the Pro for the debate and appreciate anyone who followed and voted. I look forward to participating in more debates in the future, perhaps even with our instigator today. Thank you all again.
That there is reason to believe that experience after death is possible.

All right, I will keep it simple. B: “Given the terms of my present, conscious, experiencing state, there is reason to believe that future states of consciousness and experience are possible so long as they proceed from the same terms.”B1: Terms with respect to experience: 1) There was an interval in which I did not exist. 2)The interval of nonexistence was followed by an interval of existence.B2: Death satisfies our first term. Therefore, should consciousness and experience proceed from death, it will proceed from the same terms.To say that there is indeed reason to believe experience after death is possible because one did not exsist in the first place and now does is hardly an argument. Then to follow by saying death satisfies the first term when which we did not exsist but since we do now, there you have our conciousness. This sounds vaguely familiar to reincarnation, which this argument is not about (but I would be glad to refute also.) Then he goes on to refute himself by saying "should conciousness and experience proceed from death, it will proceed from the same terms." Should conciousness proceed from death? My opponent is demonstrating an argument from the assumption that conciousness does in fact proceed from death, a fact he has yet to demonstrate adequately. In a nut shell he is saying "So if this is true, I am right." It cannot be proven that exsistence follows death in any meaningful sense. Because we had a period of non exsistence before our lives now in no way asserts that we have a conscious one afterward, or that this cycle somehow repeats itself. He is coming to the assumption, he called it a logical and valid resolution, that an interval of existence follows an interval of non existence everytime, or should at least, therefore...REASON. Reason where there is none. I am confident the readers will see through his rather long and unlettered argument for what it is, fatuous. You may very well believe in an afterlife, but this does not give it substance in fact. Certainly not in my opponents argument anyway. Then he goes on to say I refute myself because the video I recommended mentioned religious people, or to say I implied philosophy was equatable to wishful thinking? This surely couldn't have escaped any of you could it?Lastly, and almost comically he states "science shouldn’t be considered the only legitimate avenue to truth." Science is a tool for understanding the natural world. It's not perfect, but it's the best tool and the only tool we have got. Whatever is not consistent with the facts is thrown out or revised. The psuedo philosophical and meta physical claims of my opponent are simply untrue.
That there is reason to believe that experience after death is possible.

I think this is a fascinating topic and look forward to a spirited debate. I accept your terms, and I am confident I can refrain from referring to religious text. I instead will base my argument as the con to this subject, that it is based not on any scientific evidence (which I will cite) but on wishful thinking. Thanks ahead of time to my opponent and I am confident we can keep this respectful.
That there is reason to believe that experience after death is possible.

Before we begin, I'd like to at least mention something that everyone is already probably thinking: my case is probably going to be pretty desperate. This I admit wholeheartedly as I realize the unconventionality of my position. However, I do believe that despite its unconventionality, this topic should be part of the open forum of debate. I look forward to debating someone who can treat the debate seriously and with at least some sensitivity.Now then, this debate will have for its resolution that there is reason to believe in the possibility of at least some form of experience occuring after biological death. I will argue for the resolution, con will argue against, and the onus will be mine. Additionally, one self-imposed condition will be that neither Pro nor Con can refer to any form of religious scriptures or teachings as evidence. Reason, here, will mean any justification that meets the standards of logical validity.Biological death, here, is the irreversible cessation of life processes by an organism.Experience, here, will refer to any form of qualia or impressions without restriction to human qualia or impressions.I look forward to a stimulating debate and a thanks in advance to my fellow interlocutor.
Clinton(CON) or Trump(PRO)

I find it a tad bit humerous that my opponent resorts to trolling instead of refutting my arguments. Nevertheless, I shall continue the debate. EconomyDonald Trump is going to make America poor again. A group of expert economists did a study on Trump's purposed 35% tarrif on Mexico and 45 tarrifs on China and the results are disasterous. It will cost the Average American $11,500 in increased prices over the next 5 years, and these numbers are expected to continue to climb [1]. It will cost poor Americans 53% of their income and prices will rise 30%. US exports to these nations will decline by 78%! If you want to make America great again, then Trump is not the right answer. Sure Trump may oppose the TPP, but so does Hilary [2]. Trump is simply in love with Hillary and the Democrats, "I've been around a long time. And it just seems the economy does better under the Democrats than under Republicans. [3]"Foreign PolicyI have previously brought up Hilary's peace deal with Israel and Hamas stoping a war. What has Trump done to even come close to this? Trump actually supported the Iraq War, Trump had stated on the Howard Stern show that he supported the Iraq war when asked. In a seperate interview, he said he'd supported it since the markets would skyrocket [4]. Sounds like strong support to me. As much as Trump likes to bash the Iran deal, we can call this a huge success for Hilary, she created the sanction that finally brougth Iran to it's knees while all the other sanctions just encouraged Iran to continue nuclear developement [5]. Trump stated that he would hammar them with sanctions, but if that was true, Iran would have a nuke under Trump. Speaking of the Iran deal, Trump had originally supported the deal [6]. This is just another foreign policy flip flop by Trump. Bengahzi is a dead issue, Hillary Clinton was interviewed by the Bengahzi investigation pannel headed by Trey Goudy and easily won out. There's nothing else here to prove. We are talking about Donald Trump here who wants to bring back torture and kill family members of terrorists. Which is why so many people actually oppose the US in the first place. Sources1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...)5. (http://tinyurl.com...)6. (http://tinyurl.com...)
The Internet can help you survive a Tornado.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...This topic on the BBC site made me wonder: can the internet help you survive a tornado? The answer is yes.Yahoo Answersblownaway423: There's all this windy stuff and it's blowing me across town. What is it and what should I do? Please answer as soon as possible Responses (4)Knitted_trumper: did you fart? If so, cut your nose offSource: my brainAthleticMan7: try running in the opposite direction!NotaBig: Turn off your fan!Robin1: Stop flying! Debate.orgForum Topic: advice pleaseSwirlyWhirly0118999: What should I do in the event of a Tornado? Please respond A.S.A.PKingDebater: l What should I do in the event of a Tornado? Please respond A.S.A.PJust wait a bit longer. That's what I'd do.RoyLatham: Instigate a debate about it with me as your opponent and I'll win.Yay842: No Airmax1227: l What should I do in the event of a Tornado? Please respond A.S.A.PPM me and I'll be able to verify the answer.PryorPirate93: Hey, guys! I'm back! Rational_Thinker1991: l What should I do in the event of a Tornado? Please respond A.S.A.P Discuss.Moderator: SWIRLYWHIRLY0118999'S ACCOUNT HAS BEEN TERMINATED CreateDebate DDO Ripoff #6252765: advice pleaseSwirlyWhirly0118999: What should I do in the event of a Tornado? Please respond A.S.A.PQopel: I won't tell you because you're stupid and don't understand the burden of proof.FacebookTornado Victim's Status: WHAT SHOULD I DO THERS A TORNDO HELP ME ASAP6 People like thisCommentsJohnny Funny: *Tornado34 people like this TwitterTORNDO-VICTUM5 @HELPME@Help4ThoseSufferingAtornado HELP HELP HELP TORNADO ADVICE PLEASE5 Retweets 2 Favourites Replies JUMMY PING @slickmates@HELPME lol Myspace Windy Day: HELP I'M IN A TORNADO WHAT SHOULD I DO17 Years AgoNo Replies Ask.fmQ. (SENT TO EVERYNE) HELP I'M IN A TORNADO WHAT SHOULD I DO?A. Shut up anon So you see, the internet really can help you survive a Tornado. Even if those methods don't work, you could still just sell the Tornado on eBay (think of the money you'd get from the postage and packaging!) or just e-mail it to Mars or something. What I'm saying is that the internet is a wonderful place. Thank you.
phantom's 99th: Israel Should Intervene Militarily Against Iran's Nuclear Program

Resolved: Israel Should Intervene Militarily Against Iran's Nuclear ProgramIntervene militarily - a small scall military operation, most likely done by air or sea that utilizes few if any ground troops instead sticking to long range and unmanned operations.Against - opposed to, in order to preventNuclear program - the Iranian nuclear program which is enriching uranium for supposedly peaceful purposes.First Round is for acceptance.No new arguments in the final round. 3 days to post an argument. No schemantics.This is Round One of phantom's 99th percentile debate tournament.