BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islam is a Religion of Peace as Preached and Practiced.

Islam is indeed a religion which teaches violent [sic]. " He then backs away from this position with a qualifying statement: >> "If by peace, you mean non-violent religion, then I say, without a shadow of a doubt, that islam is not a religion of peace. But if by peace, you mean a law which establishes peace, then I say, without a shadow of a doubt, that islam is a religion of peace. " I mean by both. A true religion of peace, like Jainism, is peaceful in both contexts. And as someone aptly noted in the comments (and stole my thunder doing so), "peace" at the tip of a sword is not peace - it is coercion. The only way the laws of Islam are capable of bringing peace is if all the people on the planet are Muslim, paying a "protection tax" to guarantee their religious freedom, or dead. I submit that this is not peace, but a standoff. Further, the laws of Islam are likely to bring considerable bloodshed bringing about this coerced standoff - so much bloodshed that it would be the case that a MUCH MORE PEACEFUL equilibrium would have existed had Islam never been created. I further submit that the resolution's conjunct "Preached and Practiced" incorporates both my opponent's definitions above. The first is how it is preached, and the second how it is practiced. He has conceded the first of these points. What remains is simply to demolish what feeble argument can be put forth under the second definition. NEGATED.
Islam is a Religion of Peace as Preached and Practiced.

My opponent would like to demonstrate to us that islam is not a religion of peace. His reason's to show that islam is not a religion of peace is based not only on the violent verses of the qur'an, but the expansion of the islamic. Let me first begin with a clear statement. Islam is indeed a religion which teaches violent. My opponent has even taken the liberty to show from the qur'an, several of those violent verses. So the question still remains, is islam a religion of peace? Well, it depends on what one means by the phrase, "religion of peace". If by peace, you mean non-violent religion, then I say, without a shadow of a doubt, that islam is not a religion of peace. But if by peace, you mean a law which establishes peace, then I say, without a shadow of a doubt, that islam is a religion of peace. So in order for this debate to take place, I would like for my opponent to select which definition he is in contention with concerning islam. A. religion of peace - a religion which is non-violent B. religion of peace - a religion who's laws establish peace when followed. If you are in contention with example A., then there is no need for a debate, for we are already in agreeance that islam is a violent religion.
Phone's in School

A very interesting "what if" senerio, however, if the student that missed school had attended school that day, he would not have had time to finish the homework anyway. If this activity is all day and it is 100% unchangable, then the students parents should be able to talk to the teachers to get an extension, as did my parents when I had to attend my grandfather's funeral. "I understand how you believe that texting in class would be diruptive to the child's learning but it seems to me that you are assuming children will recieve the text messages all the time during lectures." Some people send over 10,000 a month[1], with many people (almost all in highschool) sending over 5,000 a month[2]. Obviously they won't be texting the entire time, but that isn't the issue is it. Texting is communication which is designed to have a conversation style to it, so that once the conversation has begun, it keeps going, and that can greatly interfere with classes. "A policy that teachers can apply is to allow students about 45 secoonds every 7 or 8 min to allow students to check their phone's and reply." That would be a horrible policy because that would guarantee that class would be interupted every 7 to 8 minutes every single day. This would greatly effect testing as answers could very easily be sent back and forth, and any lectures or experiments would be greatly negatively impacted by this. The school day would also have to be extended over 30 minutes a day just to make up for the lost time. This also goes against your other points that students won't be texting that much. If they aren't texting that much, why would they need to have their education interupted every several minutes for them to check their messages? That is borderline addiction. [1] http://www.intomobile.com... [2] http://answers.yahoo.com...
Phone's in School

And I apologize for my slow response. "There is nothing preventing said helpful student from contacting the individual that missed class after school" This may be true but what if the absent student needed to quickly finish the assignment because the missing student has a prior engagement that cannot be skipped/ avoided. The school office would hardly let the helpful student (for conventional purposes i shall now call him Timmy) call the missing student (I will call this missing student Sally) to tell her about what assignment/s she needs to finish. If phones were allowed in the classroom Timmy could text Sally and let her know what she needs to finish the moment Timmy knows. Thus this allows Sally to complete the assignment and turn it in on time the next day. "students texting each other in class is the same as talking in class (as it is just a non-vocal form of communication), which is traditionally not allowed during lectures or exams, because is interferes with the learning process and does disrupt the class. " This should not disrupt the class because the whole class is not recieving a text message just the student as long as the student does not tell others about what was said in the text message by talking ;the text message should not disrupt the class. Many students (even when phones arent allowed) text with their phone barely sticking out of their pocket, jacket pocket, and/or purse without dirsupting the class. I understand how you believe that texting in class would be diruptive to the child's learning but it seems to me that you are assuming children will recieve the text messages all the time during lectures. A policy that teachers can apply is to allow students about 45 secoonds every 7 or 8 min to allow students to check their phone's and reply. To recieve you must give a little. When students are not confined to being secretive and feel trapped about their texting many students will wait for that time to text back to whoever texted them in the first place. "most calculators in phones are sub-par. .. " This may be true but most calculators are in math classes where they belong not in all other classes. If a student needed a calculator for example Business Communication. You do not need a hyped-up calculator to figure percentages and money addition and subtraction in class. Just today I had a test in my Business Comm. class and I was allowed to use the calculator on my phone and it worked fine for myself and others who needed a calculator. Also if there are no calculators in your class you must leave class (disrupting the class) and go to a math class, take a calculator and leave (thus interrupting the learning process in the said math class. )
Phone's in School

I will first counter Pro's arguments and then present my own. 1) "For one if a student is absent from class and he/she needs to finish an assignment. .. " There is nothing preventing said helpful student from contacting the individual that missed class after school, as was done before cell phones became popular among school kids. 2) "When these students get caught it is the teachers that disrupt the class by making a big ordeal about the student communicating with another student. If these students have there phone's on vibrate this should not disrupt the classes. " students texting each other in class is the same as talking in class (as it is just a non-vocal form of communication), which is traditionally not allowed during lectures or exams, because is interferes with the learning process and does disrupt the class. The teacher's duty is to do their best so that everyone learns the material as best as possible. Texting (or gaming or music, which can be done on many phones) draws attention away from the class and from the teacher, thus making it a distraction. 3) "If we let children have phone's in class the children won't have to buy things such as calculators becuase many phones have calculators built in. " The calculators in phones are often subpar. Even the calculator in the iPhone is only about as good as a $10 calculator. These will not suffice in any kind of algebra or higher math class or in a physics or chemistry class, and so calculators will still need to be purchased. So no money is saved. There are a verity of reasons why cell phones are not allowed. From cheating on tests to actually using them to harass teachers (I had a teacher in high school that would be cracked called by students using their phones hidden under their desks) [1], to a disturbing growing trend of arranging fights to record with their camera phone. [1][2][3][4] [1] . http://educationalissues.suite101.com... [2] . http://www.kplctv.com... [3] . http://wcco.com... [4] . http://archives.chicagotribune.com...
Phone's in School

Phone's should be allowed in school for several reasons. For one if a student is absent from class and he/she needs to finish an assignment, a helpfull student can text that student that is absent thus saving the missing student from recieving a bad grade. The helpful student could just text the missing student as soon as he knows what the assignment is. When phone's are prohibited during class the helpful child might/ will still text the missing student and is risking getting caught and phone taken away. The fact here is that many students bring prohibited phone's into the school and still text others during their classes without disrupting the class (as long as they don't get caught.) When these students get caught it is the teachers that disrupt the class by making a big ordeal about the student communicating with another student. If these students have there phone's on vibrate this should not disrupt the classes. If we let children have phone's in class the children won't have to buy things such as calculators becuase many phones have calculators built in. Thus saving families money. More examples when someone accepts.
Pokemon Go is causing/will cause harm to society

The brand new mobile game Pokemon Go is quickly gaining popularity at an unprecedented speed. As the game becomes more popular however, more people are realizing the dangers of it. The game uses a phone"s GPS locator so as to make a virtual reality. As one walks around in the real world a Pokemon might appear on one"s phone so that the user can capture it. These Pokemon can then be trained at "gyms" which are real locations such as a gravesite or a police station. In addition, there is also something called a lure module which causes pokemon to appear more frequently in your location for anyone playing the game. I believe that this game is causing unintended harm to our society. I have three main points. 1: Social Interaction 2: Unintended Injuries 3: intended harm To begin with, the game represents a danger to the building of relationships and our interaction between each other. Because the game is easiest to use while moving around, whenever an avid player goes anywhere that person must have the game playing otherwise they have just "wasted time." Whereas with other video games or even mobile games, people always have the option to wait on playing until they get home, Pokemon Go players have to be out and about. Therefore, if a gamer wants to be proficient at the game, they must have the game on whenever they go anywhere. If you wanted to go out for coffee with a friend of yours who is hooked on the game, be sure that he/she will have the game on when he arrives at least. Since the player is already out of the house why not use that time to capture Pokemon instead of waiting till he has no desire to leave his house? As a result, Pokemon Go will cause people to pay more attention to their augmented reality than their actual reality; their friends. My second point is that because of the nature of the augmented reality, people become so absorbed into the game that they stop paying attention to the world around them. Because of this people may accidentally injure themselves. Users may trip over objects or place themselves in other dangerous situations while remaining completely oblivious to the threat. If you don"t believe me read these. http://fraghero.com... http://losangeles.cbslocal.com... Part of this second article leads into my third point. Criminals are using Pokemon Go to lure in their victims. Several incidents have already been reported even though the game is still in its infancy. https://www.theguardian.com... According to pcmag.com "The [police have] recorded around eight or nine Pok"mon-themed robberies so far." Source is below http://in.pcmag.com... For these reasons, I believe that Pokemon Go, while undoubtedly fun is causing harm to America.
The Boston Celtics would have at least beat the Orlando Magic if they had Kevin Garnett

The resolution states: The Boston Celtics would have at least beat the Orlando Magic if they had Kevin Garnett However, the Celtics did in fact have (present tense of had) Kevin Garnett. Since the Celtics did have Kevin Garnett, the resolution is negated. See my source on how the Celtics 'had' Kevin Garnett. http://www.nba.com...
The Boston Celtics would have at least beat the Orlando Magic if they had Kevin Garnett

The Celtics were the Champs, correct? Untill the Lakers this year. KG has great stats and can easily hold 2 people from scoring. http://www.databasebasketball.com... He has the height advantage to stop points in which this is how we lost to the Magic, we couldn't stop them from scoring. http://www.squidoo.com... Enough said.
I imagine a little girl next to me

I imagine I imagine a little girl next to me A 4 year-old girl She emerges from her sleep A beautiful butterfly Her eyes slowly open Observing the nudity of man's body before her But the little one is not surprised Because we have played this game before And the little one knows it well For the lessons I have taught her have prepared her well I said to her Do not hide your body like a precious gem Enjoy in this life before it ends Her body, Is the body of a butterfly Desiring to play with the naked old man You can do it right, You can do it wrong It's fine as long as you remain strong Play with life, Oh little one Play with an old man like me Let us be together Let us play forever
You are mentally ill

"It's true, Bryan. I think I might be insane. I'm hallucinating that I'm talking to some weirdo who thinks that people are cannibals on Christmas. It seems like it might be fake, I mean, it's just too insane to think that some weirdo would actually think that, so I might just be hallucinating about this guy named "Bryan Mullins". Maybe he doesn't exist." I don't exist, really? Maybe you are just an online troll that is mentally I'll, and have no real intentions in life. You're fifteen, does you parents know that you are talking this much trash? Here is evidence that you are mentally Ill in the comment section of one of your lost debates: 1. "Awful debate, ya big hunk of baloney." 2. "My opinion is correct. Go look at his stuff. There's nothing wrong with it. It's all comedic gold." 3. "i can cite rock and ROOOLLLLLLL guy as an example." Link to debate: http://www.debate.org... Your next argument, troll.
You are mentally ill

I accept, man! Finally! I love your freakin' debates! Man, you really came through on this one! It's true, Bryan. I think I might be insane. I'm hallucinating that I'm talking to some weirdo who thinks that people are cannibals on Christmas. It seems like it might be fake, I mean, it's just too insane to think that some weirdo would actually think that, so I might just be hallucinating about this guy named "Bryan Mullins". Maybe he doesn't exist. Nobody could be that weird. NOBODY in their right minds would believe in cannibalism and stuff. Worse yet, I can't find anything online about the stuff he continually insists is real. I might be going insane. Nah, I'm not insane. But you are. Go ahead.
You are mentally ill

Frankfurter50, you are mentally ill, you keep harassing me to challenge you to a debate that I simply refuse to accept, harass me with debate challenges, even though you challenge me when I simply decline it, just because you see me and challenge me, doesn't mean that you see how harassed and pissed off I am, you think my proven fact is a "comedic gold" joke, but you don't open your eyes to the truth that you're just mentally I'll, you also drive Debating_Horse crazy. Which is why you are mentally I'll, I hope you accept my challenge, you mentally ill troll. Your next argument.
You are mentally ill

Hello, Bryan. Hello, judges. Man, this whole thing has happened in a day. Let's finish it off. Providing links to your own stuff is not valid proof, because they are just as biased and insane as you are. It has to be from somebody else, or it never happened. You don't seem to know how evidence works. Sorry about providing a link to your OLD YouTube channel. Here's a link to a video from your NEW one: Here, we see a man's slow, slow, painful descent into insanity. I hope he recovers, but he may not. He might kepp going until he dies. You, sir, a one of the most psychotic and twisted individuals I have ever spoken to, and the ARG that is Bryan Mullins is highly intriguing. But I'm not a fan of your utter tripe. The Roast game is not real. One article, sir, or police report. That is all I ask. Since you cannot provide either, good day. Vote wisely, judges. Vote with compassion. This nut case clearly can't bear defeat.
You are mentally ill

"I'm not going to get over this until you end your bizarre pipe dream once and for all. If you post one news article, or police report about this, then I'll believe it and give up. Otherwise, I'll give the same speech that the president gives in Independence Day until you stop." That was a ridiculous you said. Just admit that you're mentally ill and just shut up about The Roast Game, the proven fact has nothing to do with the debate I'm intending to have with you. Second, that is not my current channel, that was my old channel, here is a link to my current channel: https://m.youtube.com... You provided an incorrect link, that also proves that you are mentally ill. Just shut up about The Roast Game, Debating_Horse said, I said it too, you are mentally ill. Here is a video for example though: https://m.youtube.com... Here is a wikia page: http://bryan-mullins-the-roast-game.wikia.com... Carry on!
You are mentally ill

Sorry, sir. Debates in which you have won do not prove the cannibalistic apocalypse you claim to have witnessed. rather, you won because your opponents were inept at debating. I need ONE news article or factual image of the events you describe, or their validity is highly questionable. I'm not going to get over this until you end your bizarre pipe dream once and for all. If you post one news article, or police report about this, then I'll believe it and give up. Otherwise, I'll give the same speech that the president gives in Independence Day until you stop. Hey, here's a video from your stupid YouTube channel: Is this the voice of a sane man? I ask you, judges. Think hard and figure it out. You live in a frickin' funny farm. Or maybe a nut house. Either way, you're insane. One article. It's all I ask.
You are mentally ill

Here are the links to prove you wrong: [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.debate.org... "The Roast Game has not been proven in one of your debates. You may have won one of your debates, but perhaps your opponent was worse. There is no way to prove the Roast game, because it's a delusion that has sprung from your head, sir. There are no Christmas cannibals, there never have been, there never will be. Christmas is going to happen in a few days. At that time, you will have to admit you were wrong. Can't you simply admit your idiocy now?" Still talking about The Roast Game, you need to carry on, and open your eyes to the truth that YOU were wrong and not me. I showed links above. I live in apartment in Columbus, Ohio, Not a "Funny Farm" I also said "It has been debated, proven, get over it, now carry on." You can't seem to do that, you are mentally ill.
You are mentally ill

The Roast Game has not been proven in one of your debates. You may have won one of your debates, but perhaps your opponent was worse. There is no way to prove the Roast game, because it's a delusion that has sprung from your head, sir. There are no Christmas cannibals, there never have been, there never will be. Christmas is going to happen in a few days. At that time, you will have to admit you were wrong. Can't you simply admit your idiocy now? Half of your round 3 argument was a repetition of my round 2 argument. Please, post better arguments. Also, the word count here is too low. You were BORN in an Air Force base, now you live at the funny farm. There is no Roast Game. Post something about it, though, and I'll believe you. You are nuts.
You are mentally ill

"I mean, I don't think you exist. For one, you can't provide an article about your cannibalism thing. For another, you said in a recent debate that Christmas wasn't going to happen this year, and I think it is. For another, your wife is a cartoon dog. For another, you live in an Air force base, so I can guess your mind is pretty messed up from all that. I think you are the mentally ill one, since the evidence points towards you. Post ONE article about your cannibalism thing, and Ill believe it. I swear." I don't even think you mean these things, you have no intention, other than this dumb quote, you say you "might be crazy" as your other statement. I do not LIVE in an Air Force base, I was BORN in an Air Force Base, preferably, a hospital wing. Keep The Roast Game out of it, you are mentally ill, you should never trust the media, keep them out of it. You also rant about The Roast Game, keep the proven fact out of this debate. It has been debated, proven, get over it, now carry on.
You are mentally ill

I mean, I don't think you exist. For one, you can't provide an article about your cannibalism thing. For another, you said in a recent debate that Christmas wasn't going to happen this year, and I think it is. For another, your wife is a cartoon dog. For another, you live in an Air force base, so I can guess your mind is pretty messed up from all that. I think you are the mentally ill one, since the evidence points towards you. Post ONE article about your cannibalism thing, and Ill believe it. I swear. If there's cannibalism anywhere, there'll be something in the news about it. Without evidence, your arguments essentially mean nothing. I could be crazy. But I doubt it. You seem much, MUCH more insane. Your mind has some bad wires. Post an article about the Roast game, and you win. Otherwise, I win. Those three quotes are highly accurate. I'm not a troll. Go back under your bridge, please. pick on the 3 Billy goats Gruff.
The Existence of God

I'll be glad to debate you on this topic Hayd, but a few stipulations are in order. I do not accept all your definitions. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy atheism: means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. (http://plato.stanford.edu...) Second, omnipotence does not mean God can do whatever He wants. It means He can do anything with the proviso that it is consistent with His nature. God is rational and does not create squared circles or married bachelors. I'm anxious that we not start out with you having set traps with these definitions of yours.