BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Finishing in the top 4 of the EPL is like a trophy

I will do my best to suppress my instincts urging me to belittle Arsenal's rival. Calling the UCL "just another competition" is a mind-boggling understatement. It is the premier club competition in the world. Taking part means huge financial boosts for the clubs that participate. With players having say-so in their transfers, being in the UCL is crucial to acquiring and maintaining top talent (a certain Welshman comes to mind). For me, the prestige element of football is about the memories--being able to recall those thrilling moments of sheer joy that binds fan to club. The setting of these moments is highly salient to the significance, and what setting could be higher than the UCL? I still remember the all-out Gunner attack at Bayern following a loss in the first leg. We came one short of advancing, but it was a remarkable game that lives on with Gunner fans just do to the competition and calibre of the opponent. Arsenal's 7-5 win over Reading was a much "better" game, but doesn't have that air of significance because it was a League Cup.
Finishing in the top 4 of the EPL is like a trophy

First off, I'm a Tottenham Fan (What a Coincidence?!). But that has nothing to do with it. Even if Tottenham were to make it to the Top 4 and secure UCL, I wouldn't feel that it would be like a trophy. It is just another competition that matches the team against others of the same level in a knockout-type of competition, instead of the regular league competition with the accumulation of points and whoever has the most at the end wins the title. It is also more exciting than the league (at least during the middle part of the season). If you actually WIN the competition, then obviously, it would be a trophy, but just being able to participate in the competition/financial privileges, isn't grounds to claim the spot as a trophy. Thanks!
Prophet muhammad [s.aw] raped aisha

firstly,my opponent failed to obey one of the rules of this debate. First of all,it is important to know:, Aisha's parents were the ones who married her to our Prophet, and that no Muslim or even pagan objected to the marriage because it was widely practiced. And even until today in 3rd world countries (Muslims and non-Muslims), little girls as young as 9 or 10 do get married. Anyway, the reason no one objected was to the Prophet's marriage was. . http://www.answering-christianity.com... 1-The Bible's Prophets, and even Roman Emperors married girls as young as 8! [ 1] 2-Mary got pregnant between the ages of 11 and 14. 3-The minimum age for marriage in the US-State o fDelaware in year 1880 was 7 4-According to the Jewish Talmud, Prophet Moses and his followers had sex with girls as young as 3 years old. The prophet himself was against rape and murder. 1. . http://www.systemoflife.com... 2. . http://www.answering-christianity.com... however,i should not forget to define rape and who is a rapist. RAPE[ reyp ] noun 1. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. 2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person . http://m.dictionary.com... RAPIST Noun1. rapist- someone who forces another to have sexual intercourse . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... i will like the PRO to show us 1. where aisha was forced to be sexed 2. where marrying a 9year old means rape 3. the marriage age limit in prophet muhammad's[s. a. w] era. *If a male or female is being raped,he or she should be the one to report the rape,DID AISHA REPORT BEING RAPED? *The PRO quoted an hadith where Rape nor force was not written,if the prophet truly raped aisha,WHAT WAS THE PUNISHMENT FOR RAPE AND WHY WAS HE NOT PUNISHED? Joseph the husband of mary[mother of jesus] was 90years when he married mary who was around 12-14years. WAS HE A RAPIST TOO? . http://wiki.answers.com... . http://www.newadvent.org... I think the pro is making a great mistake here by arguing for the topic,"THE PROPHET MARRIED AN UNDER AGED"[which i can deal with] instead of showing us how "PROPHET MUHAMMED[S. A. W] WAS A RAPIST" the prophet's was married to aisha,LEGALLY! the marriage was more than 1,400years ago,and i will give videos of little girls giving birth in this our century 1. . http://m.youtube.com... 2. . http://m.youtube.com... 3. . http://m.youtube.com... . http://m.youtube.com.... That prophet muhammed[s. a. w] raped aisha is baseless,factless,heresay,hypocritic,due to hatred,a lie,an untrue invention of his enemies,intentional defamation of character! I AWAIT THE PRO TO TELL US HOW THE PROPHET RAPED AISHA AND HOW AISHA REPORTED SHE WAS RAPED. This is a friendly debate,regardless of your view about the topic,don't vote biasly nor sentimentally. .. .. THANKS!
Prophet muhammad [s.aw] raped aisha

I am of the opinion that Muhammed indeed raped Aisha according the evidence from the Hadith..but firstly, I will like to give a definition of rape and who rapist is. 1. DEFINITION OF THE WORD "RAPE" Rape the offense of forcing a person, esp a woman, to submit to sexual intercourse against that person's will 2. DEFINITION OF THE WORD "RAPIST" The person who unlawful compelling another person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. According to Islam's second Holy book called the Hadith, we read CLEARLY of how Muhammed had sex with a 9 year old girl against her consent. We read from the Hadith Narrated 'Aisha:that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). [Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64] I also have an evidence that Aisha' father was not also in agreement with the marriage in the first place.
Prophet muhammad [s.aw] raped aisha

If a rapist is said to be a prophet of God,that is nothing but IRONY. it is a widespread rumour that prophet muhammad[s. a. w] is a terrorist,which i believe he is not. *. The pro must be able to tell us how the prophet was a rapist. *the pro's points should be void of hatred and hypocrisy,but with reasonable points. *no fallacy of begging the question *straw man fallacy is welcomed.
Its wrong that our civilization lies to the children about Santa Claus

A last Hello, for the last round. First of all, its the damn Argumentum ad populum again. The mass believing and popularity in the population makes people simply to go where the public goes. That's how many beliefs spread, and is probably one of the many reasons of collective beliefs. Example from Wiki: One could claim that smoking is a healthy pastime, since millions of people do it. However, knowing the dangers of smoking, we instead say that smoking is not a healthy pastime despite the fact that millions do it. But it has evolutionary origins, because proto-Homo and other Homo species united in tribes and had a sort of hierarchy. Its still visible in some species of monkeys as they still have alphas. Young children don't need to learn lying by their parents lying to them. If you make a serious lie to your child, he may learn lying but he"ll get depression as well. I lie a lot and especially to my parents, but they don't lie to me, I learned it my self. It is true that Children lie too if their parents lie to them, but you can learn it your self as well. Your statement that almost no one believes it is wrong. In 1896, 54 percent of parents said they perpetuated the myth of Santa since it made their children happy; compared with 73 percent in 1979 and 80 percent in 2000. So if your parent tells you it, you"re probably going to believe it (as long as you are a child,of course). Ya statement: Santa Claus is just a narrative about a holiday, a mythology we collective narrative we all agree too. Looks like some including me disagree, plus the Santa C. is so popular ad so many people agree to it because of collectivism, again a paradox of Argumentum ad populum. As I said in the last round, Sceptics are being ejected or are very unpopular, just like people comment me. So because the next point is connected to your question I"ll answer it first. The US is only a fraction of the World, so if the US does that, it does that. Like what do you care about if everyone in Uzbekistan or Burma doesn't celebrate the holiday of Lalipabuba. Next, Well, you still can celebrate a ritual or any holiday without Santa Claus or religion or collective beliefs. You can still celebrate Christmas by setting up a tree, gathering your family and giving presents and all the love will stay, except that you wont go to the church, no Jesus, no Santa, but simple facts. You still can enjoy facts, somehow. Thanksgiving doesn't have to be cancelled, I personally don't celebrate it, but I also don't care about if you or the rest of the society will. Basically we still can enjoy holidays, but without miths and all other stupid collective or inaccurate beliefs. Some facts from: http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... Merry Christmas, without Christ and Santa, but with your family and gifts. Good Luck
Its wrong that our civilization lies to the children about Santa Claus

I don't want to sound like a crazy fanatic, who"s trying everything to prove that Santa doesn't exist, but we all know that he doesn't and I'm going to debate peacefully about it. The first round is only to accept the debate. The debate, may go a bit off topic. And CON is supposed to say a nice argument, why do we still have to lie to our children about Santa Claus (like tradition"). In mine opinion its quite wrong to lie to our children, every generation, on and on, and on, and on,on" Why cant we tell them simply the truth (but of course, in a reasonable way)? Well, Good luck.
Should Don't ask don't tell be allowed

I'm against the military policy of dont ask dont tell not banning the movie i'm sorry if i didn't make that clear. at first i named this debate should Dont ask dont tell be a law, then someone said it's not a law its a military policy so i changed the name to Should Don't ask don't tell be allowed. If you have a problem with openly gay people serving in the military then respond if not then this debate is over because i don't think we should ban the movie.
Should Don't ask don't tell be allowed

-----Definitions----- should - used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Don't ask don't tell - is a 2002 movie directed by Doug Miles . http://www.imdb.com... allowed - permit; to forbear or neglect to restrain or prevent . http://www.merriam-webster.com... I am arguing that the 2002 movie "Don't ask don't tell" should be allowed (to exist). My opponent is arguing that the 2002 movie "Don't ask don't tell" should not be allowed (to exist). My opponent obviously has a tremendous burden of proof. I can think of no good reason to not allow a movie to exist, I hope my opponent has some. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
4 wolves would kill a lion in a fight.

All of your statements were opinionated and none backed by facts. The topic was not changed, as the result was still one lion versus four wolves, regardless of the type of lion. There is no distinguishable average size, as all sizes are distinguished to their genetic coding. A full grown lion is a very vague term, as is a full grown wolf, due to the variety of species. The season does in fact matter, as certain animals, including many lions, are known to make more rash decisions in winter, whereas a wolf could use the season to its advantage. Pit bulls have shown physical superiority over wolves many times. Though the wolves do have a chance of winning, the odds are stacked in the lions favor.
4 wolves would kill a lion in a fight.

The lion would be by itself, therefore at a massive disadvantage. This is a theoretical situation, nothing to do with mountain lions, you cannot simply change the debate topic. These factors are irrelevant when answering this question due to the fact that it should be automatically assumed that size is average for both animals, and both are fully grown. Season doesn't matter, it's a fight not a survival course. Three pitbulls? We're talking about wolves. Fully grown, wild wolves. Not little pitbulls that have no idea how to fight compared to a wolf. I disagree, we're talking four wolves. Not three pitbulls, versus one lion. The lion would have a hard time dealing with 4 wolves attacking it at the same time, the lion is simply outnumbered.
4 wolves would kill a lion in a fight.

For one, though wolves are pack hunters, lions are as well. However, wolves and lions do not typically reside in the same environments, so more than likely it would fight a mountain lion. For two, there are multiple factors to weigh in this question. How old is the lion, how old are the wolves, what is the size of the lion, what is the season, how do these animals behave? For the most part, mountain lions not only excel in strength, but in speed and agility as well. In many situations, wolf packs and far worse have failed to take down mountain lions. In one record, a pack of three pit bulls had encountered a mountain lion. The mountain lion mauled all three dogs, and walked away unscathed. The lion would be almost guaranteed victory.
4 wolves would kill a lion in a fight.

Me and my friend were debating this ourselves. I personally believe that 4 wolves, whilst all smaller than one lion could take it down. I think this because even though a lion has far superior strength to a wolf in every way including bite force, I think that wolves outnumbering a lion 4:1 would give them the upper hand, their combined strength, intelligence and teamwork would in my opinion be able to take down a lone lion due to how wolves have evolved to become efficient group killers. Granted, this fight would probably never occur naturally, but it's interesting to think about.
Abortion is morally wrong and unjustifiable.

Well, as I've already gotten you to admit that abortion is justifiable, the child is unborn. When a person such as a developmentally or intellectually disabled person would be born, it should be the rights of the parent. Also, if a parent decides that pregnancy isn't for them, they should be able to abort the child. The child is not the one that will have to deal with caring for itself for the first 18 years of its life, and if is it disabled then the parents could be potentially having to work with them for life. I happen to LOVE working with disabled people but for some people, it just isn't right for them and many people feel guilty about adoption as then the child remains born but knows that the parents didn't care enough to keep it and that it might not ever have anybody to call mother or father. Yet again, I am against abortion but these are the arguments I hear most in support for it.
Abortion is morally wrong and unjustifiable.

See. It isn't always right. However, the debate topic is that it is wrong and morally unjustifiable which you just admitted that it could be justified (yet again, I am only going this way cause I commited to it and I might as well see how well I can argue something I don't believe). However, if a mother also finds that the child could have disabilities (I work with people with disabilities so no direspect it meant) it is well within the rights for them to ease both their lives and the unborn child's. That's all I got til you respond.
Abortion is morally wrong and unjustifiable.

I know I messed up I Should have put pro because I'm pro life but anyways thanks for debating with me. For the first part about rape a human life is more Important than anything and more so than school or popularity or ones social status. 15 is very young and abortion would probably be better because the of health of the mother. The only justifiable reason to abort a baby aka murderer a baby is if the pregnancy is a health threat to the mom. If you are too young or something like that you Should have a choice about aborting but no one else should.
Abortion is morally wrong and unjustifiable.

Well, to start I was confused by the question and believed I would be going against abortion but I 'm going to go ahead and take the for abortion just to see how well you can make your arguement. *Point 1: Pregnancy due to rape should have a way out. No 15 year old (age just for example) should have to give birth because of someone's else wrongdoing. That is to young of an age to have a child and even to go through the process. Abortion is often the only way out without taking time out of school or a possible job and without going through the pains of child birth.
Abortion is morally wrong and unjustifiable.

A fetus and an embryo are both people. They're not the same type of person as. 1 year old or teen or 25 year old or 70 year old but they are people. Would you tell a pregnant women who wants to keep her baby that her a why has no rights? Of course not. They feel pain and they're like us only smaller and still inside the uterus. The only reason anyone can get an abortion is if carrying the baby to term is a health threat to the mom. It's not the baby's fault that it was a rape. The baby's not a rapist. If you want your career and don't have time for a baby sad day for you the baby is more important than your career. A human life is more I potash than anything and no one can take someone's right to life away (unless it's self defense)
Resolved: That mormons are Christians

Con's assertion about this scripture referring to the kingship of Israel is purely interpretation. The word is wives, and whether or not this is literal or figurative is personal opinion. As to the issue of Lamech, a wicked person doing something doesn't make that practice wicked. The same logic would condemn eating, drinking, and breathing, so that argument says nothing to the practice of polygamy.Con hasn't shown any Mormon belief that is contrary to the teachings of the Bible or even, more specifically, the words of Jesus Christ. The issues he has brought up I have answered with scripture, asserting that Mormons follow the Bible. Furthermore, I have presented basic arguments that show Mormons to be Christians, and these haven't been refuted by Con.As such, it is clear that I have fulfilled any burden of proof. Mormons are Christians, they worship Christ, and they believe the Bible to be inspired scripture. If Con wishes to challenge me to another debate, he is free to do so, but I have answered Con's questions about Mormon beliefs, fully showing them to agree with the Bible.
Resolved: That mormons are Christians

Notice the Lord condemns David for taking Uriah's wife for his own, but he says, in regards to the wives that he(the Lord) gave him, 'I would have given you even more.' The Lord doesn't condemn polygamy, and in some instances, He directs it to happen. If the Lord gave David multiple wives, and even said He would have given more, then we can clearly see that polygamy isn't an inherently evil or condemned practice. However, when reading the passage, it is clearly referring to the kingship of Israel. And, while it never does, we obviously have no examples of righteous men practicing polygamy. In fact, the first mention in the Bible (first mentions are the definers of people who do a practice in the Bible) is Lamech, the descendant of Cain. He boasts in Genesis 4:23 of how he killed people. Obviously not a good guy. I would like to ask my opponent if he would accept having a round 2. We will continue this debate then
Resolved: That mormons are Christians

First, let us consider the Mormon position on polygamy:"The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. At certain times and for His specific purposes, God, through His prophets, has directed the practice of plural marriage (sometimes called polygamy), which means one man having more than one living wife at the same time. In obedience to direction from God, Latter-day Saints followed this practice for about 50 years during the 1800s but officially ceased the practice of such marriages after the Manifesto was issued by President Woodruff in 1890. Since that time, plural marriage has not been approved by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and any member adopting this practice is subject to losing his or her membership in the Church."[1]The bible never specifically condemns polygamy, yet there is evidence of righteous men practicing polygamy, and even being given their wives by God."Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own."[2]Notice the Lord condemns David for taking Uriah's wife for his own, but he says, in regards to the wives that he(the Lord) gave him, 'I would have given you even more.' The Lord doesn't condemn polygamy, and in some instances, He directs it to happen. If the Lord gave David multiple wives, and even said He would have given more, then we can clearly see that polygamy isn't an inherently evil or condemned practice.As Con is only asking questions, I propose that my answers to these questions fulfil the burden of proof, along with the arguments presented about Mormons' belief in the Bible and in Jesus Christ. In this instance, Con would have to show, using the Bible, that polygamy is incorrect.[1]http://lds.org...[2]http://www.biblestudytools.com...
Resolved: That mormons are Christians

Mormons do indeed believe in God, and that Jesus Christ is the only way to get to heaven(Con's reference distinguishes between Christ, the Son, being the way to the Father):"But what do we mean when we say He is the Savior of the world? The Redeemer? Each of these titles point to the truth that Jesus Christ is the only way by which we can return to live with our Heavenly Father. "[1]"God. The supreme Governor of the universe and the Father of mankind. We learn from the revelations that have been given that there are three separate persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "[2]Mormons clearly accept Christ as their Savior, and even incorporate His name in the title of their church. They also believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. [3][1]. http://mormon.org...[2]http://lds.org...[3]http://lds.org...
Resolved: That mormons are Christians

This is a response to my opponents earlier debate. Definitions:Mormons - Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.Christians - [people] who follow or belong to a religion based on the worship of one God and the teachings of Jesus Christ as described in the Bible . Christian(Biblical Definition) - A follower of Christ, from the Greek 'Christianos'In this, I will ask my opponent a simple question:Christians believe that there is one God, and that He is the only possible way to get to heaven. Period. That is the most basic of Christian beliefs. (John 14:6). Does this fit into Mormon beliefs?