BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islam distribution in the world has pernicious influence on society

Islam now is the most extending religion in the world. Of course, freedom of worship is legislated almost in every country and it is everybody's right, but sometimes it seems, that people are so obsessed about it. Here are some facts about the religion for you yo know:Islam is the monotheistic religion articulated by the Qur’an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Arabic: Allah), and by the teachings and normative example (called the Sunnah and composed of Hadith) of Muhammad, considered by them to be the last prophet of God. The Pillars of Islam are five basic acts in Islam, considered obligatory for all believers. They are:TestimonyPrayer (must be performed 5 times a day) You can notice that some shops,whose owner is muslim, are closed 5 times a day, here's a conclusion can be made - he or she, but mostly he is praying. Why mostly he? Because women in Islam have very restricted rights, they must wear FastingAlms-givingPilgrimageAnd the most important fact,the most discussed nowadays, which is connected with the most popular Islamist militant group Al-Qaeda - it is JihadJihad is a religious duty of Muslims.Traditionally Jihad was understood to be a military effort. In an offensive war it is an obligation on the Muslim community as a whole, and in a defensive war it becomes a personal obligation on every adult male Muslim. Jihad is the cause of uncountable acts of terrorism. The duty generates agression, millions of killed people and more and more agression. And it's without considering women rights, particularly born in Muslim countries, whose destiny is to stay at home, to take care of children and inspire them to fight for the faith, besides being gun meat for terroristic acts.
Peyton Manning is better than Tom Brady

1. Game-winning drives. Game winning drives are always cited as an aspect of football that truly shows off the great quarterbacks. The factor that's forgotten is that in many ways, the best quarterbacks don't need to have a game winning drive. Brady: 30 Game winning drives in 118 Wins Manning: 45 Game winning drives in 146 Wins 2. Touchdown to interception ratio: Brady: 2.35 TD's Per Interception Manning: 2.06 TD's per Interception
Peyton Manning is better than Tom Brady

Well lets see where do I start. So last year Tom Brady had Wes Welker a great wide-receiver and Gronk who is one of the best if not the best receiving TE. Last year Peyton Manning had Eric Decker as his number 1 wide out...Eric decker is a number 2 or 3 on most teams. And last year Peyton Manning still had more yards and TD's. So don't use the wide outs as an excuse. A great QB can work with anything.
Peyton Manning is better than Tom Brady

My stats say the opposite. to be a good quarterback, you shouldn't have to rely on game-winning drives, like manning does. Also, my second stat proves that manning throws more interceptions for every touchdown, unlike Brady who has a much better ratio. Since you don't have any points to support Peyton Manning and you are just refuting my points, this shows that you aren't saying that Manning is better than Brady in any way so I should win this debate.
The American Nuclear Family is absolute.

The family consisting of Mother-Father, with either a son or daughter, by either biological or non-biological relation is said to be a nuclear family in the system of sociology. This definition only covers the measure of the number of Parents and Children in the family, it is too narrow an identity to give any good sense as to what an American Nuclear Family is. I propose to form a debate so as to make clear whether or not the American Nuclear Family is relative or absolute. I welcome and encourage anybody to argue.
The American Nuclear Family is absolute.

Physically fit does not describe a life expectancy, it is not a measure of overall health, it is a measure of physical appearance. A fit man of Ancient Greece would be considered a fit man today, and vice versa. As would a fat man be considered a fat man in both cases. Your thought on acceleration is not plausible. Acceleration is force divided by mass. To have 0 acceleration is to say one of two things: A. There is no force being applied to the object. In this case according to Newton's First Law, if no force is applied the object will remain at rest unable to accelerate. Also we see that some force is required for an object to move in Newton's 3rd law, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Thus an object and motion had a force applied equal to the mass of the object times the rate it accelerates at (F=MA). It is explained that a moving object has been acted on by a force, and this force implies the object has been accelerated. Now we look at the option B. The object has no Mass. If the object has no Mass, it does no exist. Even the smallest atom, the quark, has a measurable Mass. Unable to see something does not infer it has no mass, ex. Helium, Oxygen, Hydrogen, etc. Now that I have answered your questions. In response to the initial. We cannot simply change a words meaning to "include" more people. Why not change the definition of rich to simply someone who possess money, or even more, a person of sound mind with the opportunity to acquire wealth. That way the majority can all be considered Rich. The point is, some people are rich, some people are poor, some are heterosexual, some are homosexual. There is a true difference between a homosexual and heterosexual as there is a difference between a man and woman, not to say these differences are good or bad, but needless to say they are differences. In this case we need to be able to differentiate between groups of people, when I want to pull data on how many two parent heterosexual homes are in the United States I would look up how many Nuclear Families are in the US. If anything a new term should be considered to describe homosexual homes.
The American Nuclear Family is absolute.

Here I will respond to your statement that words are defined upon the assignment of meaning and are then made concrete. Physically fit is a good example for comparison with words like motion which requires an observation and a corresponding measurement. Whoever is not over or under weight and in possession of a healthy system is considered physically fit. If being fit in the fifteenth century meant living to be at least 30 or 40 and having many grandchildren, then shouldn't that word have remained to mean living to a certain age and still having children? And trajectory motion is defined as the sum of the acceleration, the velocity and height of the particle at any time. And trajectory motion is only defined in so far that those properties are measurable or able to be deduced. What happens then, when a particle moves without any acceleration on it? Does the particle move at all? Can the particle be considered in motion? Now consider the case when the entire population of Earth has severe depression. Will the population, after some time, realize they are depressed or will they only consider it normal and leave it as it is? Would normal in their era be depressed in ours?I look forward to your response.
The American Nuclear Family is absolute.

This is comparable to re-defining the term "physically fit" in light of the growing population of over weight families. Words are not meant to be exclusive or inclusive, they are used to convey a message. To convey a new message, you need a new word. Ex. The "N-Word" was not redefined as blacks gained rights, even today we have a black president, though the "N-Word" is still the "N-Word" (ending in er). I use the word Nuclear Family to describe a home with a mother, a father, and children. A homosexual home, is a family, however it is not a Nuclear Family. Possibly it is a Nuclearish Family.
The American Nuclear Family is absolute.

The American Nuclear Family is both absolute and relative. The American Nuclear Family is not a result of evolution, god, nature, or any other outside work. According to Merriam-Webster The Nuclear family consists of a Mother, Father, and children. The term is relative to families that fit this criteria. Families that fit this criteria, are absolutely Nuclear. *The definition of a word can always be described as the word itself, the word itself can be applied to other items relative to how those items fit in its definition. In other words: If your family is classed as a nuclear family then your family consists of a mother, a father, and two children. (Relative) A family is nuclear relative to how it fits the definition of nuclear. If you family consists of a mother, a father, and two children, then your family is a nuclear family. (Absolute) The definition of nuclear family will always be a mother, a father, and two children. There is no argument. It is both relative and absolute.
all of the movies made about comic books or previous writings have no differences

The way I have done so is the only way to respond to your outrageous topic. Please show some respect and refrain from typing in all caps. If you wish me to further generalize, I can sum up my argument as such: - Protagonist Institute arises from unusual circumstances - Protagonist Institute has conflict with Antagonist Institute - Antagonist Institute grows stronger - Antagonist Institute appears on the verge of victory - Protagonist Institute overcomes some obstacle and is victorious Following that insanely generalized model, it is true that the composition of comic book movies does not substantively differ from movie to movie. Refutation of the details of the movie is completely and utterly impossible, as I'm sure you well know. We'll trust the voters to decide who produced an effective attempt at debate.
all of the movies made about comic books or previous writings have no differences

Much of the reason I've lost is due to the impossible terms of the debate, which I misunderstood. Granted that's my fault, but I can provide the best argument I still can for the Pro side. Within a subset of the comic book style, most movies share no true conceptual differences. By subset, I refer to a grouping such as Superheros (Batman, Superman, Spiderman) or Teams (300, Fantastic 4). Looking at the Superhero subset first - we always see a superhero, characterized by an abnormal power who has a weakness of some sort. The superhero can never be the fastest, strongest, or most powerful - something always stands in the way. Kryptonite for Superman, morals for Batman, the lure of fame for Spiderman. In this way, there is no substantive difference in the characters. The movie plots themselves follow the same formula as well: - Superhero can fight bad guys well - Superhero has slight run-in with nemesis - Nemesis grows stronger - Nemesis appears to gain upper hand - Superhero defeats nemesis, saves day Looking at the Teams subset, we see a group of individuals that must overcome a looming tragedy. The invasion in 300, the growing power of Dr. Doom in the Fantastic 4. The group holds together for the most part, but has some internal weakness - the arguments between the Fantastic 4, and the lessening numbers and traitor among the 300 as the invasion proceeds. The movie plots follow a standard formula: - Team forms under unusual circumstances - Team realizes their need and capability in light of obstacle - Obstacle grows in threat - Obstacle becomes imminently dangerous - Team pulls back together, defeats obstacle as best they can Above is the best argument I can conceive supporting this ridiculous proposition. Obviously, the inclusion of the absolute "no differences" makes it impossible to successfully argue the Pro position. An unfortunate mistake on my part.
all of the movies made about comic books or previous writings have no differences

This is laughable. If they were all the same with "no differences" there would be just that - no differences. I call your attention to 2 movies made from comic books: Spiderman and Superman. Right away, one can see a difference in the title. That is contrary to "no differences" - I have refuted your proposition. Additionally - look at plot between things like Spiderman and 300 - Spiderman is the classic "superhero saving the world" plot. The men in 300 are eventually overrun even though they made Xerxes bleed. There are innumerable differences in just those three movies. The burden of proof is now on you to show they have no differences.
Brexit

My opponent seems to be missing the point. I'm not saying one shouldn't use sources. What I'm saying is that when you do use a source, you need to use quotation marks, and reference your source. If you don't, you're guilty of plagiarism. REBUTTAL I'm glad to see my opponent has finally made an original argument. Having said that, I hate you inform him that he went too far the other way. This time he's fallen into a logical fallacy known as a "bare assertion" fallacy. [1] This is when someone makes a claim without providing any substantiation. With this in mind, I ask the voters to reject his arguments as the baseless claims that they are. NEGATIVE CASE According to India's Secretary General of Industry, A. Didan Singh, "We firmly believe that leaving the EU would create considerable uncertainty for Indian businesses engaged with UK and would possibly have an adverse impact on investment and movement of professionals to the UK." [2] Finally, England leaving the EU could lead to the volatility of the pound. This could lead to increased risk for businesses within India. [3] Sources: 1. https://logfall.wordpress.com... 2. http://m.economictimes.com... 3. Ibid
The Bible is right! Part 2

Resolved: The Bible is right! Part 2 In a recent debate I stated the Bible was right. Though I was over flooded with contradictions and was unable to reply properly to all of them. So in this debate I will allow my opponent to choose three contradictions(only three) to focus on(except the one below.) My opponent can choose any three contradictions in the Bible. This will be the topic. My opponent propses the three contradictions and I must provide reasonable answers to retract the contradiction. If I am unable Con wins. If I am able to dispose of all three contradictions then Pro wins. Note: The only suspected contradiction that is unusable here is the entire Exodus and Slavery in Egypt. Pro is not conceding to it not being real but is claiming it to far in the past to determine if archeaology is correct. Hence that no evidence is not proof of that the event did not take place. Therefore this issue is unable to be negated properly from either side.. Rules: 1. Must stay on topic. (Three chosen contradictions) 2. Must be respectful. 3. Must provide resources. 4. If any round is forfeited by debator then that is automatic loss. 5. Winner is the debator would negates the best solution. Rounds: 1. Terms/Agreement/Con Provides 3 Contradictions 2. Explanation/Rebuttal 3. Rebuttals 4. Conclusions I thank any who accepts and do not forget to provide 3 contradictions in Round 1. Good Luck!
The Bible is right! Part 2

Because this is the final round and I argued in the previous round, I will use this round for conclusions only. I first wish to point out that my opponent has broken the rules of conduct by arguing in the final round. Why vote Con? ConductMy opponent has set up this debate from the start to win. He has shown horrifying conduct throughout this debate and has set up false resolutions and has given me a false (and impossible) Burden of Proof. First, he has stated in the opening round, "You can use any contradictions EXCEPT. .. " which were the ones he cannot explain. Then, he expects me to concede the entire debate to him in the third round before I even had a chance to refute my arguments. S/GSpelling and grammar should be tied. ArgumentsI believe that I have successfully shown that the Bible is not right and contains contradictions in the previous rounds. Moreover, he has not attempted to refute most of what I stated. SourcesI have used sources throughout all arguing rounds. As such, I urge a vote for the negative.
Resolved: Current trends in American political dialogue compromise meaningful democratic deliberatio

I urge the voters/spectators to vote for a tie all the way down or not vote at all, seeing as this was only a chat that has turned into a think tank; unless you wanna vote for me ;) which you have sufficient reason to because last round I clearly stated that if he did not post arguments he will forfeit. But this doesn't really matter, I presume we will both forfeit our next rounds, or leave a funny comment so we can become cooler in the spectators eyes. I hope you all have a great summer; 20 days of school left! :D (but we still have nationals June 13-19, so we'll be busy for a while)
Resolved: Current trends in American political dialogue compromise meaningful democratic deliberatio

the odds of us debating are like 500 to 1. I accepted your debate, and if you don't post arguments you are forfeiting. At least post dummy arguments, all I wanted to do was see what types of arguments there are. I already have a lot of research, but no arguments. I guess make it like a conversation debate? Nonetheless, you need to go first to make it even.
Video Games effect children's minds in a harmful manner

Correct. Video games will never effect a common, regular, 10+ year old anyone. But thats the thing. Personally, I've been playing video games my entire life, and its not video games that cause those things to happen. Its what games you play. I know a six year old that plays GTA, AC, Duke Nukem, and whatever the crud else. I once heard a news story of a six year old shooting his grandmother after playing GTA. With that said.... That child was probably mentally unstable. The question here isn't if Video Games effect children, it's which children it effects.
Video Games effect children's minds in a harmful manner

The thought of video games such as GTA or CoD causing kids to go out and shoot up schools or their family is extremely ludicrous its the equivalent of saying Cooking Mama will cause kids to become cooks. While kids especially from the ages of 10 to 13 (Which is the age group I hear the most referred to in regards to this issue ) are not known for their intellect or their concept of the world, however, they aren't so dense that they can not tell the difference between the game and the real world. Plus its not like any of the games such as GTA, Hitman, CoD don't punish you for killing the innocents or any other immoral activities. Grand Theft Auto causes the police to pursue you if any civilians are killed or even if you steal their car. In the case of GTA V there is only one mission you are actually forced to kill any civilians so apart from that one mission you could go through the whole game not killing a single civilian .Hitman will deduct points for killing innocents and actually rewards you if you don't kill anyone except for the person you are meant to kill. In the case of CoD you are a soldier like in the real world and you don't kill any civilians only soldiers from the other army which is what soldiers do in the real world. In the game modes in which you can kill your team mates you are punished if you do it by getting kicked from the game if you kill 3 of your team mates.
Bitchy contest

http://v.gd... http://v.gd... Ehhh....they don't look that bad at all.... *shrugs* Ok, so... your bias on attractiveness makes no logical sense at all--just because a person looks bad doesn't mean he or she is bad themselves. One great example is in Disney's Beauty and the Beast, in which a prince was cursed to look terrible by an evil witch, but the witch depended on the fact that nobody likes ugly people. However, this was proved wrong by the fact that a princess who visited saw the inner good within him. As you can see it's what inside that matters, not what's outside! Speaking of inside, your "inside" is horrid--all your crazy insults without any proof, all your biased "arguments"...even your personality is boring--a solid grey background?! Why, I have a colorful background, with the whole color spectrum on in! Obviously I am much more diverse and have a more intelligent mind than you, no offence or anything. Your profanity is as bad as a sailor's, and you insults make no sense what-so-ever. It is apparent you are some little child attempting to win some insult contest, but do you HAVE to be insulting? I doubt it. I could be obnoxious and condescending without being insulting. One example could be tricking you to visit this website: http://v.gd... or, maybe, if that's not enough, I could perhaps trick you to visit this website: http://v.gd... But those are so low-handy, I would never ever dare to do such thing! Posh all the way, that's my model. Your contest is defined as a "female dog", but I will do the opposite--being a king, at the top, mighty and unmoved by your poor peasant insults! Kings do not interfere with mere peasants, so shoo, shoo! If that's not enough I hire this guy: http://v.gd... There! You'll have to click all the links twice to get to where I want you! That should keep you occupied.
Bitchy contest

You don't deserve my apologies if this ends up offending you. For anyone who plans on voting, I ask this; do I give a bag of monkey d*cks? Hello Mr. Name-I-didn't-care-enough-to-copy-and-paste. It seems like you might finally get into the sunlight to tan your pale skin that you have from doing no outdoor activities. Not that you could really lift any weights besides the five pound. I would post a clip of sponge-bob lifting the teddy-bear dumbbell, but you really are just not worth the effort of going on youtube. Is it too late for your parents to get an abortion? I ask, only a public service, to prevent the future harm you may cause to society simply for existing in your current form. I suggest that you change your name to 'Lola' and do an underground drag show instead of being in public. (Kinky Boots anyone?) I wonder how you do in school. I wonder, because if I were your teacher, I would probably put you in the back of the class, then write really small on the board, to prevent you from learning anything that might be useful, mostly because I don't want unattractive people to be smart. This way, evolution will weed out the dumb and ugly, until we are just left with attractive people, smart people, and attractive smart people. I hope you know how to give yourself a bl0wj0b, because, let's face it, you will never get laid. HeII, even if you were rich, no gold-digger would hit that. My suggestion for you is to get yourself really drunk, so when you wake up in a strange house, you think you got laid. If you were living next to my house, I wouldn't say hello to you. I would have big block parties whenever you were away. If you have ever watched the Office, and seen Michel's attitude towards Toby, that is my attitude towards you. You are not worth the sh!t I took five minutes ago, which I must say, was one of the worst 10 dumps I have ever taken. It was worse then looking at a picture of Rosie O'Donnel or Michelle Bachman. Now if you don't mind, this debate is blocking my perfectly good view of the solid grey background that I have selected as my desktop.