BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islam vs The Press

Definition from Oxford Dictionaries. Religionthe belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:I'll start off with rebuttals. "Tell me that when a completely anti-muslim action is blamed on an Islamic group that isn't exactly what the Quran says"Following are quotes from the Quran promoting violence. "Slay them wherever you find them. .. Idolatry is worse than carnage. .. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. " (Surah 2:190-)"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. " (Surah 5:51)"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. " (Surah 9:121-)"If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men. " (Surah 9:37-)"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home. " (Surah 9:73)"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)," (4:34)It's obvious that ISIS is in fact, doing exactly as is told to them by these quotes in the Quran. They fight against anyone who doesn't subscribe to their beliefs, which is what they are instructed to do in the Quran. Also, ISIS's treatment of women is also permitted in the Quran, as you can tell from the last quote. "Atheists, who want whores and drunken idiots alive blow up children int eh streets when they want to blame islam. This is how the war has been propagated. "The burden rests upon my opponent to prove the legitimacy of this claim. If it can't be proven, then it is void. "Pagans(non believers) who pretend to be islamic and True Muslims"I'd like my opponent to state what he believes are the qualities of a "true Muslim. " I would also like him to provide evidence of how his depiction of a true Muslim is in fact the real depiction of Islam.
Islam vs The Press

If a muslim bomber wanted to kill people, he wouldn't kill children and wives on the street. He would blow up the club. Atheists, who want whores and drunken idiots alive blow up children int eh streets when they want to blame islam. This is how the war has been propagated. Learn the difference between Islam and Pagan Muslims. And learn to notice when ISIS is being used as a mask for atheistic war crimes with the intent on blaming religion. Because religion is all that stands between the world and sex slavery. Tell me that when a completely anti-muslim action is blamed on an Islamic group that isn't exactly what the Quran says, "to learn the difference between. Pagans(non believers) who pretend to be islamic and True Muslims, - that that is NOT false propaganda against Islam. I say it is.
The Anti Homosexuality Bill will help prevent homosexuality among families in Uganda

There are very strict time limits on this debate so I shall have to be brief. Pro is arguing the case that legistlation can affect not only human attraction... but the total sexuality of a person. Not only this, but that it can affect it in such a way as to "help" prevent attaction to half of an entire species.There are so many points in this to contend that I bearly know where to begin. First, homosexuality has been illegal in both the UK and the US historically and during both of these periods, homosexuality was rife. More recently homosexuality has been made illegal in ghana and yet "Homosexuality is on the increase in Ghana despite police brutality against homosexuals who are arrested and brought to the police stations." (http://www.ghanaweb.com...)Second, as equally as a heterosexual is not attracted to all members of the opposite sex, homosexuals are not attracted to all members of the same sex. Moreover, it is likely that the inverse in also true. Whilst heterosexuals are unattracted to most, it is unlikely that they are unattracted to all. As freud notes regarding latent bisexuality " The conception which we gather from this long known anatomical fact is the original predisposition to bisexuality, which in the course of development has changed to monosexuality, leaving slight remnants of the stunted sex." (http://www.gutenberg.org...) Those slight remenants being what I was refering too. In a sense this bill is attempting to legistlate against a natural part of the human psyche. They may as well try to make it illegal for people to have ten fingers or to ejaculate at climax! The final point that I shall raise is a pre-emptive counter to pro's likely fall back, which is the fallecy that was used to argue this law into being. That it was simultaniously against God, Evolution and Ugandan culture. It is catagorically not against Evolution as has benn written about hugely (not least here http://www.debate.org...), neither is it against Ugandan culture because there are homosexuals who are clearly Ugandan and therefore part of ugandan culture. As for whether the bible expressedly opposes homosexuality... there is still debate regarding this (http://iammrmagic.blogspot.co.uk...), though even if it does, Uganda is not a theocracy! Back to you :)
The Anti Homosexuality Bill will help prevent homosexuality among families in Uganda

I shall keep this very short and only raise one final point. The Anti Homosexuality Bill will not "help" prevent homosexuality among families in Uganda. At its most devastating, it may be a FACTOR in the prevention of homosexuality amongst Ugandans, but to attempt to equate this bill with the positivity of words such as "Help" or "Family" is immoral. The bill, as far as nearly all humanist organisations are concerned, will help nothing. It is, in part, anti-union, which is to say, in part, anti-family. To conclude, attraction cannot be legislated.
The Anti Homosexuality Bill will help prevent homosexuality among families in Uganda

Ummm... ok. I suppose I was expecting a more fierce debate, especially when we take the extremely tight Time limit into consideration.Or perhaps my pre-emptive counter arguement was so devistatingly brilliant that it silenced my opponent?... yep, actually I think I am going to go with that theory.Either way, there are several other points of contenture with regards to this debate subject. How is this law to be enforced? How is the evidence to convict going to be gathered? How does this coincide with Ugandan privacy laws (if there are any) as we are discussing extremely intimate relations.Why does the debate topic specifically mention families? This I find Interesting, that Most western cultures are opposed to organised marrage by families but here we have one step further, organised sexuality! and its not just by a persons family, but by their entire culture minus only one person. Them.I shant keep on, else this become a one man rant and resemble more of a blog post than a debate.I once again refer back to Pro.
Climate Change is real and caused by humans and can/should be stopped!

I said, "Cutting grass with non renewable resources was idiocy." So my opponent, lacking substance to support his own claim, Says "HA! look at this fool." and he wasted his entire round two debate, pointing out what I had already said. He then goes on to deny that animals that have no food or water, can't outrun seasons or predators, can't catch prey etc... some how evolve. And that evolution thereby suggests that millions of years of change in the climate is or is not real, but regardless had no evidence to prove that. NOR were the last 90 years of temperatures recorded, day and night, day to day, or even month to month. Then he goes on for two more rounds about the OZONE, because he had no other claims to make than, "there is a hole over the Antarctic" sure sure, and McDonalds isn't being attacked by BurgerKing, Wendies, A&W and all other privately owned restaurants who also sell burgers for $7 because they sell cheap burgers. To debunk the Myth, ~ McDonalds sells so much meat it's always fresh. Derp. But the OZONE Gullible strike a bell? I agree Eating up non renewable resources sucks for the future, "Hey dad, Can I ride the motorbike?" *kicks kid* "Nope!" ** BRRM BRRRMM *** and polluting water is retarded as shitting in it. But You can't bring evidence the OZONE is real here so bring substance to the debate. I made it easy on you. Billions in government embezzlements in media and military, and you went head over heals for the topic of debate used to disillusion the masses. :P Pulling some strings here :P But what is the difference between 'Climate' and 'Weather' ? I had no debate here. I was playing. Because I thin it helps everyone to read what I say about things. You just happened to be atheist, so your brain stopped working, as apposed to a theist, who thinks their opponent is so stupid there is no point in communicating.
Climate Change is real and caused by humans and can/should be stopped!

I am surprised that such a novice at debate and at fact, yet you have such a large vocabulary. Your arguments seem to fly all over the place, I can only compare it to the videos on "illuminate confirmed" that to be funny try to find connections between pretty much everything and the illuminate. You explained that climate change is not real by explaining evolution isn't real and you explained ozone isn't real by saying the earth isn't more than a couple thousand years old. When you are wrong or made a mistake in your argument instead of admitting it (a mistake about how you formed your argument), you are arrogant and reply with some vulgar word. You seem to believe that nothing can exist without you or the church seeing it, or without someone physically seeing it. This is false, if a tree falls in the forest with no one there to hear it, does it still make a sound? YES. If there is a lightning storm, and no one is there to hear the clap of thunder, does it still happen? YES! I refuse to argue with someone that cannot argue against the current subject with any tactic besides somehow changing the subject or by saying you don't see it so it can't be real or by forming something from your imagination or form somewhere you read online (such as your fire example, fire needs oxygen, but it does not take in unlimited amounts, unless the planets atmosphere was for the most part lacking oxygen, fire would not be attracted to leaves as they don't need a new source of oxygen, they are getting there need).
Climate Change is real and caused by humans and can/should be stopped!

Humans do not cause CLIMATE CHANGE, cutting grass with non renewable resources does. Humans do not cause climate change, refusing to live closer to your choice of work does. Humans do not cause climate change, planes burning jet fuel as an alternative to slower flights does. Humans do not cause climate change, neglecting to grow trees in concrete jungles does. HUMANS are incapable of causing climate change, Its everything we preference that causes problems. like not growing food, flat ground, and damned house pets. I'mma smoke ur turkey. SO it's ur shot. Lay out ur case. you can argue with mine later.
Climate Change is real and caused by humans and can/should be stopped!

Round 1: Accept challenge and give 1 paragraph intro. Round 2: Create argument and rebut. Round 3: Add to argument and rebut. Round 4: Rebut, add to argument, and make 1 paragraph closing. I believe in the fact of climate change, I believe in climate change due to 99.5% (the actual stat according to many many sources, do a basic Google search) of all scientists believing in it. I believe in man made climate change due to 97% of scientists believing in it (according to many sources including the US Gov and UN). I believe in climate change being a problem as the scientific consensus does too, and I believe we can take action as if we are a major cause of it, we can stop doing what we are doing to cause it.
The Philipines should become a federation

Argument 1: The Phillipines is a Cultural Melting PotRecently, the Philipines have had to give autonomy to a muslim extremist region, and it brought up new questions on the current organizationof the Islands. The Philipines are a melting pot of different systems, and many groups are willing to resort to violence to get their system in place. Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, and even Sharia. The Phillipines are now famous for their terrorist groups, so what is the solution, federalism. http://www.youtube.com... http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph...http://www.youtube.com...Argument 2: It would help to end extremismWith so many different groups, all wanting to seperate and govern themselves, the union of the philipines is at the risk of fracture. The solution is to let each region govern itself, while they are moderated by a central government. This would surely end much extremism from seperatist groups, and provide more rights to people of different culture and ethnicity. Currently, the idea is supported by many officials.http://www.forumfed.org...
All Christians are homophobes!!!

It seems like my opponent has forfeited this round as well. I urge him/her to return for the fourth round.All I am going to say is this: being opposed to something does not necessarily make you a bigot. I don't even think that someone opposed to interracial marriage is a bigot or homophobic. As long as they are tolerant of people who think otherwise, they are entitled to their own opinion. However, if you definition of bigotry or homophobia is someone who has a differing opinion to you, then so be it.
All Christians are homophobes!!!

My opponent has forfeited this round. But I will continue regardlessLike I said before, most people take homophobia to mean an irrational hatred or disdain toward homosexuals. Many Christians oppose same sex marriage and they are correct in doing so, however not all of them are correct in how they carry out their beliefs. Some Christians go round attacking gays and calling them derogatory names and this is wrong. However, some Christians are very compassionate towards homosexuals as well as heterosexuals and this is the right attitude. As Christians, we are encouraged to hate the sin but love the sinner. A lot of LGBT activists say that those (including Christians) who disagree with gay marriage are intolerant, hateful and homophobic. While they may be correct at some times, this is not always the case.Take this for example. Let's say I have a best friend. I love her to death and I would do anything for her. However, she is having sex with her boyfriend outside of marriage which is the act of fornication in the Bible and is listed as a sin. I do not agree with her sexual life but this does not mean I hate her. There may be lots of things you don't agree with with someone but that does not mean you are hateful and intolerant. Let's say a two business partners disagree over something. Does this mean they hate each other? No. It is just a simple disagreement.LGBT activists also use the argument that the Bible tells us not to judge others whether or not they are doing something wrong. This is wrong and inaccurate. Yes we are not to judge others because we are all sinners who deserve to go to hell but that does not mean we should not tell someone what they are doing is wrong. However, LGBT activists say doing so is unloving. This is wrong also and I will explain how.Take parents for example. Parents love their children more than anything and will strive to protect them at all costs. They have sacrificial and unconditional love for their children. So let's say that your teenage child is on dope, selling dope and comes home late every night as drunk as ever, suffering from depression, damaging their body with weed and cigarettes. Would you just sit there and let them continue mutilating themselves because they love what they're doing? No, you would step up and confront them that what they are doing is wrong and could possibly kill them in the near future. This is comparable to homosexuality because homosexual couples are more likely to catch AIDS than heterosexual couples and thus leading to death.So in conclusion, not all Christians who oppose gay marriage are homophobes. It all depends on how they carry out this belief.I hope my opponent will come back and debate me in the third round.
All Christians are homophobes!!!

Begin we shall.First off. The literal definition of homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexual people, like an irrational fear of spiders makes you agrophobic, however most people take the word homopobia to mean an irrational hatred or hostility toward homesexuals. I would like to focus on the second definition. Just because you disagree with homosexuality and or same sex-marriage does not automatically make you homophobe. It all depends on how you carry that belief out. There are many Christians that I have seen who love homosexuals and don't look down on them because of their sexual orientation. I am one of them. Though I don't know any gay people, I know that I would not hate them and I'm sure when I'm older I will probably come across some. As a Christian, you are supposed to love others and treat them the way you want to be treated (Matthew 7:12). Any Christian who goes about attacking homosexuals and calling them f*****s are completley in the wrong and you would have the right to call them homophobic. But not all Christians are like that and I am tired of people scoffing us thinking we are intolerant bigots.This, is what a homophobic Christian looks like: This is Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona who looks down on homosexuals, treats them like inferior beings and acts like he is better tham them and that they cannot go to heaven or retain salvation at all. He preaches about how we are supposed to love others, not act arrogantly toward them, but he seems to think that these rules do not apply to homosexuals. This is a true example of a Christian homophobic. However, not all Christians are like that and either way, no true Christian should ever be like that.
Public schools Should ablish The current numirucal grading system

My opponent has introduced a plan that is not fully formulated. We have a system right now that works. Does it have some small flaws and negative aspects? Of course. No system is perfect, and my opponent has pointed out these flaws in his arguments. But the bottom line in this debate is that we do not see a better alternative presented. My opponent argues that letter grades should be removed, but we don't see a grading system presented to replace letter grades. Without seeing an alternative, we cannot evaluate whether the action should actually be taken or not. Permit me to draw a situation for you. You are stranded on a desert island, and your only supply of food is cheeseburgers. My opponent argues that the cheeseburgers should be removed, because they are unhealthy. That may be true, but I would argue that, given that the cheeseburgers are your only known source of food, the cheeseburgers should be kept for lack of a better option. At the end of the day, I agree with my opponent that the letter grade system has some negative impacts. But we cannot vote to remove the system, without being absolutely sure that we will be able to institute a better one. If you get rid of the cheeseburgers, it's possible that lettuce and cucumbers nights start growing on the island. But it's also possible that you will be left without a source of food, and find yourself eating wood or sand. I would submit to you that the possibility of the later far outweighs the benefit of removing the cheeseburgers, and ask that you vote against removal of the letter grade system. Thank you.
Public schools Should ablish The current numirucal grading system

I understand my opponents standpoint on this, although i am not proclaiming that this should be a straight shot alternative. rather a suggestion to an idea that may have many answers. for example you may still give them a grade but not in a manner that may bring the students self esteem down. for example if the teacher hands back a test that you think you did so well on and find out you failed with x amount of points the student will begin to think about the current grade in their class going down causing more stress than failing a test with x amount of point.
Public schools Should ablish The current numirucal grading system

The grade system may be flawed, but it is the only way to provide objective record of a student's performance in school. In order to side with my opponent in this round, you have to be convinced that there is a better solution, or a solution that fulfills the requirements that a grading system must fulfill, while avoiding the harms of the status quo. The alternative that my opponent presented was that of the "teacher's opinion." This is impossible for a number of reasons. 1. Teacher's opinion is not objective. Any opinion from a teacher will always be influenced by... the teacher's opinion. This does not give an objective measure of how the student is doing, rather one individual's opinion that cannot be trusted as absolutely true. 2. Teachers do not have time to form and write up opinions on every student. Every teacher has hundreds of students - no teacher could be expected to offer a subjective opinion in every instance. 3. Teacher's opinion does not file as easily. When a college looks at accepting a student, they look at his high school grades. The college cannot review, and the high school cannot be expected to keep, written opinions from every teacher on every student. I submit to you that objective letter grades are the only plausible way for a school to be run, as we have seen no alternative. Thank you, please stick with the status quo.
Public schools Should ablish The current numirucal grading system

Public Schools should abolish the grade system because it can cause lots of stress and cause low self esteem. also the amount of homework some kids can get all at one time is insane and all it take is the homework to be wrong and to lower their grades dramatically. In a study the more homework that a child has can lead to a higher chance of stress, depression, and lower grades http://tinyurl.com... Also low grades are not just stressful for kids it is also stressful for parents too. for example no parent would like their child to stay back and therefore put more stress on the kids to work harder. so the kids will be having so much stress from school and then their parents plop a whole lot of stress onto them witch can also cause their grades to go down. also grades are just a number yet people take it in as life or death/make or break. a good alternative to grades may be just the teachers opinion and not a number and if a teacher believes a kid should stay back they should sit down and talk to them and let it be the kids or their parents decision.