BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sharia Law in the UK

Sharia law should not be imposed in the UK and any existing Sharia law in the UK parliamentary and law system should be removed. I have several arguments for this. For over 1,400 years religion in the UK has been dominated mostly by various forms of Christianity, whether it be Catholic, Church of England or other. Now don't take the wrong end of the stick, I fully acknowledge that while we are apparently a 'Christian' country, we try to accommodate for all races, religions and genders. However, this means that though we accommodate for the Islamic community, whether that be immigrants or UK born, this does not mean we can let them take over and change our country to suit themselves. With Sharia law in place, we will be living as a country regulated by Islam. We cannot as a nation be ruled under the Qur'an and Hadith. So many things will be affected and be made to run the Muslim way. Marriage and divorce, ethics, faith, food and drink (mainly ritual slaughtering and hunting), judicial matters and even laws of inheritance. Are we really going to punish people with 100 lashes if they commit adultery? This is not the middle ages! Are we really going to control what people eat and drink. What if I want a sandwich? Do I have to make sure that the filling is killed in the manner of tazkiyah? That it is killed in the name of God? Lord knows I can't get it from Subway any more, right? Why should one religion rule in a country over another? I realise that this point contradicts my first, but as I am not a Christian, I shall state it anyway. Why should Islam have power in the UK? What if people want Judaism to rule? Or Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Atheism, Christianity, Shinto, New Thought, Confuscianism, Jainism, Shabakism? We can't let Islam rule just because of Muslim extremists pressuring the government. I will continue in round 3, but I would like to see what you say to this.
Sharia Law in the UK

Firstly we are not equal. That is myth. Equality is metaphysical, you cannot see it, touch it, smell it, or eat it. And one person is smarter, or taller, or stronger, or etc. than another person. So equality falls. But sharia says we are equal in front of God. Equality has meaning in presence of religion, not absence of religion.Homosexuals will be punished. I will ask practical question from the time of prophet till 1920, how many people were punished because of homosexuality? And Nigeria and Egypt are secular countries. There is no punishment for homosexuals, but there is punishment for adultery, and for punishment take place there must be 4 witnesses, at least first study the sharia, don't make argument from ignorance.By using Arabic words (nushuz), you try to look smart. But it does not make any different. Here is the hadith about wife beating:"Do not beat the female servants of Allah.""Some (women) visited my family complaining about their husbands (beating them). These (husbands) are not the best of you.""Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her."Again you are ignorant about the topic.Dude child marriage is acceptable in western countries. In Mississippi there is no minimum age with parental and judicial consent. In Texas 14, Bolivia, Paraguay 14, some European countries 14-15.Treason is punishable everywhere."Sharia states that if they are a Kafir and reject the offer then they must be killed, enslaved or or ransomed." Cite the source for it. Or again you are just making argument from ignorance. You did not cite any source, you did not actually how what sharia says about the points you raised, if you are a lawyer, then you are the worst lawyer.
Shaming Should Be Used To Prevent Suicide

To conclude, then. Using shame as a weapon is rarely a wise plan, and usually backfires into defensiveness or worsening the problem in some other way. Since the primary cause behind suicide is depression and feelings of shame and inferiority are involved there, the threat of shame will either fail to be significant or merely deepen the misery. Pro fails to consider the attempted suicide or suicide in the elderly. In short, shaming is not a sensible plan to deal with suicidal people or to dishonour the dead, however ill-advised their attempts were.
Shaming Should Be Used To Prevent Suicide

Suicide is ultimately a selfish act that hurts one's loved ones. People who commit suicide often feel lonely and unloved. This shows that these people commit suicide with the motivation of getting more love and attention when dead. Society could decrease the risk of suicide by making it abundantly clear that it considers suicide to be a shame and does not feel sympathy or sorrow for the "suffering" of suicide so-called 'victims'. When someone commits suicide a mass assembly should be held where a speaker gives a lecture on suicide and how it impacts society. Then the people who loved the suicider should each get a chance to speak. They can cry if they want over THEIR personal loss but need to make it clear that it is the fault of the suicider and that they are disappointed and upset at that decision and that the tears are being shed from the loss of companionship not for any 'suffering' the suicider was going through. The assembly should also stress that while suicide is a shame there is no shame in getting help dealing with suicidal thoughts. Speakers who had thought about suicide and decided not to do it should talk about their experiences and stress that suicide is always a choice BUT it is NEVER the right choice so don't commit suicide. A person who commits suicide should have their tombstone labeled "Suicide" and then "This man/woman hurt (names of close friends and family) with his/her choice to take his/her life." Currently the way the media handles suicide is to paint the people who committed suicide as poor victims of taunting, bullying, or depression, removing all responsibility from the person who actually committed suicide. The message that sends is that if you face social rejection or are depressed that you have no choice and must commit suicide. This decreases the chance that a person about to commit suicide is going to stop themselves and get help. Suicide in society today also has a romantic dimension to it, especially with more and more gay teenage suicides reported in the media. Many teenage drama stories also romanticize suicide. This cultural "romanticization" can't be stopped with censorship. That would infringe on the 1st amendment. But it can be stopped by stressing that the suicider is the main culprit, the one responsible for his/her actions and that suicide is not in any way romantic or otherwise desireable. Stressing that suicide hurts society could also be a big help in stopping people from committing suicide out of feelings of "doing wrong", because the assemblies would stress that even if you had done something wrong or as in the case of gay people growing up in homophobic families something that you are only told is wrong, that regardless suicide is worse.
Abortion needs to be legalized in all states

Yes, I am aware I wasn't given much information on justifying my opinion, because I waiting for what YOU had to say, but now that you said what you said, here's the fun part. Are you ready?? As you stated that there is no such thing as being a "legal human" yes, I am going to give you credit on saying that but I will not 100% agree. Though it may be a human even when the woman is 3 months pregnant or less, is that human alive? No. Like I said the heart and brain have no fully developed, matter a fact a heartbeat isn't even detected within 3 months of pregnancy prior to the zygote. Now, let me ask you a question. I happen to be sitting in my chair in front of my computer, which is probably what you're doing too. If my heart were to stop right now and my brain were to 100% shut down; what would happen? Yes, my friend. Indeed, I would be dead. Am I still a human? Yes. Am I still a female human? Yes. But am I dead? Yes. So if someone were to come in my room and saw me dead, and they started stabbing me repeatedly and possibly started shooting me, is that murder? No. If someone where to input stab wounds and bullets into my already dead body, the body that has already been deceived minutes ago. That person would not be a murderer because my body was not alive before they stabbed me. SO THEREFORE if a woman is getting an abortion it is not murder and it is not wrong. Is it a human? I'm not going to deny it but i'm also not going to condone it but however what matter is that is that human alive.
Abortion needs to be legalized in all states

I feel that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body. Christians and Catholics need to stop throwing their religion in everyone's faces. If Christianity is a such a loving religion, then how come whenever a woman gets an abortion she is treated like crap? No, abortion is not murder, about 3 months of pregnancy is when it is not a legal human, for it is just a zygote and the heart and brain is not fully developed. People need to stop worrying about what other people are doing and worry about what they do. If you don't like abortion then don't get one, easy as that. There is no need to hold up obnoxious pick-it signs at women who chose to get an abortion, what if they were raped? NO ONE is holding a gun up to your head and is forcing you to have an abortion, worry about what you do and how many kids you want or if you want kids at all. If men were to get pregnant I swear abortions would be legal and free and abortion clinics would be on every street corner.
Abortion needs to be legalized in all states

Pro concedes that the unborn at three months is human but now denies that it is alive. But it's clearly alive because it has all the basic requirements for a living organism--growth, reproduction, reaction to stimuli, and metabolism.[1] Of course it's alive! If it weren't alive, it wouldn't be growing and developing.Pro is right that if Pro's heart stopped right now, Pro would die. But it doesn't follow that a zygote without a heartbeat is dead. A frog whose lungs collapsed would die, but that doesn't mean a tadpole is dead. Just as frogs/tadpoles require different organs to be alive at different stages of development, so also to humans require different organs to stay alive during different stages of development.The rest of what Pro said about whether stabbing is a dead body is murder follows from her conclusion that zygotes are dead, which is false, so we can dismiss the rest of her post as not being relevant. 1. https://www.boundless.com...;
Official May Tournament Final: Global Warming

PrefaceThis is the Final debate of the Official May Regular Tournament [http://www.debate.org...] on solely highly controversial topics, hosted by Unitomic. On account of RoyalFlush100 and KingKD being inactive, Lannan and I are the only ones to pass Round 1 and Round 2, to go onto the Final. In Round 1, I defeated Mister_Man, while Varrack dropped out, to give Lannan a bye. In Round 2, both of us gained byes due to inactivity. Therefore, we are the last standing in the tournament. There is a minimum required Elo of 2500 to vote on this debate, with a 72 hour time period, 10,000 characters, and five rounds. I wish Lannan the best of luck, and thank Unitomic for the tournament!Full TopicOn balance, mankind is probably the main cause of global warming. TermsAll terms and definitions influenced by the Oxford Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam-Webster, and Wikipedia. On Balance - 'when all factors are taken into consideration'Mankind - 'the human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind'Probably - 'is likely to take place or be true'Main - 'chief in size, extent or importance'Cause - 'the producer of an effect' or 'a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition'Global Warming - 'the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation,' and 'the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system and its related effects'Rules1. No forfeits2. All arguments must be within this debate, but sources can be in an external link directed to within this debate3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or deconstruction semantics6. No "kritiks" of the topic (or any other "kritiks")7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understanding of them that fit within the logical context of the debate9. The burden of proof is shared10. The first round is for acceptance only11. Violation of any of these rules or any of the R1 set-up is a conduct violation, and any violating arguments (e.g. "kritiks," rebuttals in R4) should be discredited by judgesStructureR1. Acceptance OnlyR2. Pro's Case, Con's CaseR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's CaseR5. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case, both CrystallizeThanks......again to Lannan13, and to Unitomic for organizing the tournament; I look forward to a truly stellar discourse!
Suicide Is Immoral

I. Opening Construct A. Human v. Human killingTo keep things simple, I will start off with a generally accepted fundamental of morality, the intentional, unjustified killing of a human is morally incorrect. As examples, consider the morally wrong murderer vs. the morally correct police officer. One kills with no justification, while the other ( is supposed to ) only kill when absolutely necessary. Like when the life of an innocent is hanging in the balance.Now, when you substitute suicide into the equation, things get a bit weird. One must ask, is there ever justification for suicide? If so, then the justified killing of a human would still bode well with morality. It really depends on specifics. Just as with homicide, not every death is morally justified, while others are. It would therefore not make sense to try to claim "Every suicide is Immoral", just that suicide is generally immoral. So let's look at the general "justification" of suicide. B. Depression Let's make yet another comparison to homicide. A man sets a gun to a teen's head and says "This is so you don't have to live with depression." The teen doesn't object because he agrees. I find it hard to believe that the general public will accept the man as morally sound. He most likely will be sent to prison for life. Suicide is comparable. The only difference is who pulls the trigger. The man is no different from the child in that sense. They both decide that his life is not worth living due to an emotional problem. This applies to any situation really. Whether it be bullying or fascination. If you apply the justification to the killer in a homicide, the moral ideals are not supported. C. Hurting OthersThe main reasoning behind killing being wrong is because people dislike being killed. However this makes little sense, as you wouldn't care if you were killed. You'd be too dead to dislike the consequences of dying. It's not you who has to live with you being dead, it's the people around you. The people who know the one dying are the people who suffer. And generally, causing people to suffer is immoral. Again, this can be tied back to suicide. Suicide doesn't morally solve problems, it immorally creates them by causing others to grieve.II. ClosingSo, in conclusion, a human killing a human is immoral without justification. Suicide provides bad justification and makes others suffer. Suicide is immoral.Back to Con for opening refutations.
Suicide Is Immoral

I. DefinitionsSuicide shall be defined as:A Homo Sapien Sapien intententionally killing himself. Morality cannot be completely defined and therefore will sway with the debate. Each debater is free to interpret his own connotation, as long as the voters feel it correctly complies with the general ideals of morality. II. Terms1. 72 hours to post argument2. 8,000 character limit3. BoP rests on Pro ( AlexanderOc) to affirm the resolution 4. Single forfeiture results in loss of conduct point. Multiple resluts in loss of all points. I turn it over to Con to form his acceptance and such.
Where can you find my poems

I understand that many people want to read my poems, But just can't find them all or have difficulties in finding them. That's why I have decided to upload all of my poems to one site. https://trumpmagadonald. Tumblr. Com So there it is. Now you can follow me and read my current poems, As well as read my future poems in the future. If you want to know more about me, Well, Here it is. I am 21 years old. I am a poet. I am a pedophile, And a pedosexual. I think that rape is not wrong, And even if it is wrong, I think it shouldn't be punished. My favorite song is "Expose yourself to chilren" by GG Allin. You can find it on YouTube. You can also find me posting my poems on different sites, Including this site and Omegle. I have stopped posting my poems on YouTube due to censorship that I have experienced there. Apparently, On YouTube, It's okay to upload videos where children are violently circumcised and crying in pain, But God forbid if you say the word "nigger". The music that I often listen to is: This song inspired my poem "You Give Rape A Bad Name" https://youtu. Be/S9tKwSboJeg Other favorite music of mine: https://youtu. Be/yFHg0uRAyVs https://youtu. Be/QqejB3Nk1RA https://youtu. Be/T5mxNy7Ytxk https://youtu. Be/FB2fZsHlfSQ https://youtu. Be/CQ0ftoiIQxU https://youtu. Be/t_djkPMdSMw I hope this entertains you.
The Qur'an was a revelation from God.

Sadly, my opponent forfeited his last round so I shall extend some of my arguments and I also shall readdress a few of the key points. I have four different sources for scientific studies that contradict the reproductive organs proceeding from the backbone and ribs. My opponent didn't provide any evidence for these claims about the scientific issue involving sperm. My opponent cannot refute this. "When studying the Qur’an and its unique literary form one would find it extremely problematic to attribute it to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), as he was illiterate, and it would have been impossible for him to stay consistent in the matters regarding within the Qur’an for 23 continuous years" My opponent seems to suddenly agree that the Qur’an has not been consistent and therefore is flawed. “What I had meant to say is that for Shajahanahmed to win this debate he will have to try and show that the New and Old Testament can be properly and plausibly appropriated and grounded by and through a Qur'anic approach and premises. Merely stating that a verse says one thing in the Qur'an leaves the differentiated Christian bridge logically unamended. If this is the case (My opponent claiming the Bible is corrupted) you merely have to reject this declaration as an unsubstantiated declaration which begs the question--the codices and New Testament papyri positively contradict this assertion made by Mohammed.” –Dimmitri.C This goes to show that the Qur’an says that the Gospels are not corrupted. This is a problem for my opponent because the Gospels directly contradict the Qur’an. My opponent still needs to answer the following question: Then how do we know that the Qur'an hasn't been altered or been corrupted. What makes this document any different from the other holy texts that haven't been corrupted? I would like to ask my opponent for evidence of the reliability of the Qur'an. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have shown that all of my opponent’s “scientific accuracies” are quite invalid and I have present a verse where the Qur’an claims the Earth is flat like a carpet. Who has laid out the earth as a carpet for you and has traced highways on it for you, and sent down water from the sky, We have brought forth every sort of plant with it, of various types. - Q. 20:53 I have extended my arguments and because of the forfeit Con should win this debate. However, I still wish to see how my opponent responds. I extend good luck to him in the next round.
WAR DEBATE: United States of America (Pro) vs. Selected Country (Con)

MANPOWER:Population: 145,500,842Available Manpower: 69,117,271Fit for Service: 46,812,553Reaching Military Age Annually: 1,354,202Active Front line Personnel: 766,000Active Reserve Personnel: 2,485,000LAND SYSTEMS:Tanks: 15,500AFVs: 27,607SPGs: 5,990Towed Artillery: 4,625MLRSs: 3,781AIR POWER:Aircraft: 3,082Fighter/Interceptor: 736Fixed-Wing Attack Aircraft: 1,289Transport Aircraft: 730Trainer Aircraft: 303Helicopters: 973Attack Helicopters: 114NAVAL POWER:Naval Strength: 352Aircraft Carriers: 1Frigates: 4Destroyers: 13Corvettes/amphibs/troop carriers: 74Submarines: 63Coastal Defense Craft: 65Mine Warfare: 34RESOURCES:Oil Production: 11,000,000 bbl/dayOil Consumption: 2,200,000 bbl/dayProven Oil Reserves: 80,000,000,000LOGISTICAL:Labor Force: 75,680,000Merchant Marine Strength: 1,143Major Ports and Terminals: 7Roadway Coverage: 982,000Railway Coverage: 87,157Serviceable Airports: 1,218FINANCIAL (in USD):Defense Budget: $76,600,000,000External Debt: $631,800,000,000Reserves of Foreign Trade and Gold: $537,600,000,000Purchasing Power Parity: $2,486,000,000,000GEOGRAPHY:Square Land Area: 17,098,242Coastline: 37,653Shared Border: 20,241Waterways: 102,000(http://www.globalfirepower.com...) My WMD is a 15 ppm VX nerve agent.For the purpose of this debate the stats are this round and next round my opponent will give the reason for war and I will begin my invasion.
Abortion is wrong

Since I believe that abortion is right in most cases, I will first define those cases, which will be in accordance with current abortion laws. Since I live in Illinois, I will cite that law, which you will have to agree to up front. "720 ILCS 510/1, et seq. ; 750 ILCS 70/1, et seq. ; act barred by permanent injunction by unpublished opinion from Zbaraz v. Ryan, No. 84 CV771 (N. D. Ill. 1996) Statutory Definition of Illegal Abortion - Use of any instrument, drug, or any other device to terminate pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase the probability of live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a dead fetus. " Statutory Definition of Legal Abortion - If fetus nonviable and abortion not necessary to preserve mother's health, M. D. must certify nonviability; if fetus is viable, abortion must be medically necessary to preserve life, health of mother; M. D. must certify this necessity. . http://statelaws.findlaw.com... The definition of nonviability is has follows: Any baby that is under 26 weeks is not viable and is not a life. Life does not begin until a baby can live outside of a mother"s womb. Good luck!
Abortion is wrong

In conclusion, a woman has a natural right to abort a non-viable fetus if she does not want to carry it to term for personal emotional reasons, e. g. , she cannot handle the discomfort; she believes it will ruin her life and be a serious financial difficulty. She beliefs that she will not be a fit mother. There are many reasons. But, it is her body, and no one has the right to tell her what she has to do. Again, as long as the abortion is legal, it is her right.
"Phineas and Ferb" is not very factual.

I decided to debate imabench on a topic i was arguing with my friend the other day. I am for the claim that the show "Phineas and Ferb" is not a very factual show and that it can't happen in real life. If imabench Accepts, he will take the opposing side to my possition. RULES: No opinions from other people are allowed only your own. You can only use facts from the show. Every opinion that either person says has to be supported by reasonable evidence.