BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islam Is a Religion of Peace

You said "I'll debate this", so here's the challenge. Full Resolution: Islam is a religion that preaches peace. Definitions: Islam: "Islam is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur'an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Arabic: الله‎ Allāh), 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."[1] Peace: "A state of mutual harmony between people or groups, especially in personal relations."[2] Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is an automatic loss and all seven points for voting should be given to the other person. 3. No semantics. Debate Structure: Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: All arguments made (no rebuttals). Round 3: Rebuttals (no new arguments). Round 4: More rebuttals (again, no new arguments). Round 5: Conclusion (just summarize your arguments and the flaws in your opponent's arguments, no new arguments, max 2500 characters). By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to the full resolution, definitions, rules, and debate structure. Please make this debate clean and mannerly. May the best debater win. Sources: [1]:http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]:http://dictionary.reference.com...
Tom Brady is a better quarterback than Peyton Manning

Highly respected and decorated NFL coach Vince Lombardi was once quoted in saying, "Football is like life - it requires perseverance, self-denial, hard work, sacrifice, dedication, and respect for authority." Lombardi was completely right. It is because I agree with the criterion Coach Lombardi has laid that I negate the resolution. Peyton Manning has fulfilled the role as quarterback at a superior level over Tom Brady. C1: Pre-NFL When you look at pre-NFL levels of play, Peyton Manning is far superior. Considering college play, Peyton Manning was a serious contestant for the Heisman trophy on three occasions;1995(6th), 1996(8th), and 1997(2nd). His stats were also superior. C2: Ingenuity Peyton has such better ingenuity and playcalling ability. His capability of audibles and changing a would-be failure into a success is unmatched, even by Tom Brady. C3: Statistics When comparing important stats (such as passing touchdowns in a season and career), Peyton is indubitably on a higher level than Tom. Sources: http://www.sports-reference.com...
Tom Brady is a better quarterback than Peyton Manning

contentions: 1. Playoffs: Tom Brady has played in the most amount of Playoff games as a quarter back. He has more playoff wins then any other quarterback in the playoffs. He has made it to the Super Bowl six times and won three(four as of Sunday). Brady has won his first 10 playoff games. He has the most playoff touchdowns and most passing yards. 2. Wide receivers: All of Manning's career he has had un-real wide outs. From Marvin Harrison to Thomas he has always had multiple people that could get open. Brady has not. 3. Smartness: on the wonder lick Brady got a 33 while manning only got a 29. Brady also generals the offense. He started during the hurry up when not needed and designs many of the plays. As well as audible them on the fly.
Lonley Island is the best band

It has about 2million views. This vid has 84million. http://www.youtube.com...So I guess Michael Jackson is the best singer in the world. And is 40 times as good as Lonley Island. (sarcastic of course). //If you go to Itunes, most of the songs in the top 100 are rap,//But I thought my opponent said Lonely Island isn't a rap band. So whatever they are I guess their genre isn't as popular as rap.And please provide links. //and for youtube, they have the most views (except for Justin Bieber in which girls view whore it)//Haha that's funny as I showed Michael Jackson has 40 times as many views.My opponent has done nothing to prove Lonley Island is the best band.
Lonley Island is the best band

Definitions: Best: The most superior. Of the highest quality, excellence or standing. http://dictionary.reference.com... The burden of proof rests heavily on my opponent. Lets get started. So my opponent is saying that the band Lonely Island is better than any band in existence. Aish that is a big burden to prove and I highly doubt anyone could prove it. For one thing my opponents tastes in music are not at all substantial evidence. Judging by the video http://www.youtube.com... their genre is rap. Also they use filthy language. I for one don't like rap much, as do many, and I don't like filthy language, as do many. You will find that most people like rock. There are also many other genres like hip hop, jazz, electronica, metal, heavy metal, screamo, indie, classical, opera and many more. In this poll [http://www.lazylightning.org...] the people liked, in order; rock, indie, country, other. Rap wasn't mentioned on the list so I assume some of the twelve percent who chose other had rap as their favorite. In this poll [http://www.kh-vids.net...] of the three choices rap is last. As rap isn't even the best genre of music how can this band be the best band in the world?
The God of the Bible is Not Consistent and is Not a Desirable Role Model

As my opponent has forfeited round two, I extend all arguments. I hope my opponent is well and remind him that there is more than sufficient time left in this debate. However, at the risk of the remaining three rounds being forfeitures as well, I am compelled to point out to potential voters that my opponent has had 3 days time to construct an argument and is currently online. Anticipating your next round, Con.
The God of the Bible is Not Consistent and is Not a Desirable Role Model

No lies Voters, I've made the fatal mistake of consuming a bit too much alcohol before composing my final round. I rest assured, however, that my arguments will be as strong as before when I was sober and everything. Please ignore my opponent's outbursts about my "crazy mind". .. My opponent still has not addressed the consistency of the Bible, and cannot introduce it in this last round as I have no chance for rebuttal. So half of my resolution remains uncontested- making it impossible for my opponent to win points on argumentation. 50% concession leaves me with only one task: the "role model-ness" of God. I used to eat at McDonald's, but now I go to Burger King because their motto is "have it Yahweh". No, but seriously. Even if my opponent defends the intrinsic moral high ground of some omniscient being, that in no way allows us to view him as a roll model. My opponent says there are certain points in God's character which they can draw out for us to emulate. I could, however, say the same thing for Adolf Hitler or almost any inhumane monster. A role model is someone who we seek to model our entire lifestyle after, an example is someone we learn certain select character traits from. In the end my opponent hasn't touched the continuity of the Bible, and has offered no real evidence for God being a role model. Perhaps God is omniscient-ally good, but we could certainly not emulate that? Perhaps certain traits of God are desirable, but not all? Voters, the resolution does not involve whether God is moral or has some desirable character traits.
The God of the Bible is Not Consistent and is Not a Desirable Role Model

My opponent has failed to address my first contention about the consistency of the Bible in any way, and therefore has conceded half of this debate. That being said, I will move on to address the argument he did acknowledge: whether God is a role model. My opponent makes a false conclusion. He claims if God is definitively perfect and as such intrinsically cannot be flawed, then he must by those standards be the perfect role model. I remind my opponent that the only offered definition of role model thus far in this debate is someone whose actions we can morally emulate. This contention in no way addresses whether God is a moral being, but whether or not we can morally emulate his actions. I suggest that we cannot. My opponent has already partially conceded this point as well: he states that man cannot comprehend God's moral code. Therefore, man could not properly emulate it. However, taking God's actions prima facie, my opponent will be hard pressed to present a moral framework in which torturing and killing the innocent over simple differences in lifestyle or personal belief is desirable to be carried out by any man. Simply put, my opponent has failed to address the continuity of the Bible, and has failed to present compelling evidence that God is a role model. He has only offered the vague idea that although we may see God's actions as immoral, as he knows everything and is perfect he must also be moral. My opponent has in essence presented an argument similar to Peter Griffin's "Ghost Who Cannot Lie" that only he can see or hear. It has no legitimate impact.
The God of the Bible is Not Consistent and is Not a Desirable Role Model

I'm not gonna go into a lot of details from start, but this debate is very weird. Because how can we say that God is not a desirable role model? The god your talking about created the ideal of role model, you cannot possibly come up with a better way that he has not thought of already. His actions cannot be calculated by a human, who is limited to the amount of knowledge given to him, you cannot creat your own knowledge of role model. We know that in the Bible God said that no man have seen him and live, and Mose talked to him from a burning tree, when he came out his appearance changed, God is a spiritual being, for the fact that he is able to tune in to human emotions , that is a task we must give him credit for. He send Jesus to example what it means to be a human, for he was to great for that task, if your argument was Jesus is not a desirable role model it would be soundable.
Voting Requirements on DDO should be reduced or removed

The voting requirements here on DDO are quite interesting. If you go to where you get the privilege, it tells you this: "These steps, although annoying, are in place to protect the integrity of the debates by ensuring that only confirmed, unique accounts have voting privileges." Let's break that up a bit. They admit that these steps are indeed annoying. The other factor is about "confirmed, unique accounts" Haven't we already confirmed ourselves with email? Isn't every account unique? The fact that you are required to have completed 3 or more debates does make sense. However, this means that the people who do these debates will not quite have the knowledge of how the audience might act. I am inclined to mostly agree with this rule. The second rule is much worse. It requires you to connect with a mobile device, or to "Confirm Identity." In the mobile section, it tells you that you must have a mobile phone with the ability to receive messages. Without this, it is impossible to vote on debates. The FAQ's say nothing about if you don't have one, and the customer support is only to add carriers. Not everyone has a mobile phone that can receive messages. That is all I have to say for this round. Sources: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org...
Voting Requirements on DDO should be reduced or removed

Hello, and welcome to this debate about whether or not voting restrictions here on DDO should be reduced or removed entirely. I will be arguing for reduction or removal of those rules here. Here is how the rounds should work: R1: Acceptance and Definitions R2&3: Arguments and Rebuttal R4: Full Rebuttal and Conclusion The only round one definition I am making is: Voting Restrictions: What is required in order to vote on for debates on this website. The current voting restrictions are to connect with a mobile device and to have participated in 3 or more debates. I await your acceptance.
Voting Requirements on DDO should be reduced or removed

Final Rebuttal Pro's main concern with the current restrictions is that "Phone Confirmation" would limit debaters without a phone from joining the site. Pro acknowledges that there is a manual process to get past this requirement, but complains that "It is not immediately obvious, having to realize that you must head to 'articles' and realize that 'cell phone confirmation' is indeed what you are looking for. " I actually agree with Pro here. We should make it more clear to new members of the site. This suggestion however doesn't mean that we should reduce or remove of DDO's restrictions. Pro's other concern is that vote bombing can still be done if someone intends to do it. As I said earlier, while this process is not perfect, it does help deter users from abusing it. Having multiple phone numbers is much harder than having multiple email accounts as I've demonstrated earlier. This doesn't mean that all abuse would be eliminated. Nevertheless, the fact that it deters and limits vote bombing, is sufficient to justify maintaining these restriction. It may even call for increased restrictions, but that's not what we're debating today. Conclusion I've demonstrated that these requirements are important to reduce vote bombing and maintain the integrity of the site. It would ensure that certain individuals find it difficult to vote themselves into winning every debate. Therefore, I negate.
Voting Requirements on DDO should be reduced or removed

Final Summary: The voting restrictions on DDO should be reduced or removed for the following reasons: 1) The mobile phone confirmation requires a person to own said mobile phone, or else they may have to go through a manual process. Con has indeed suggested that it is possible without a phone, but one may note that it is not immediately obvious, having to realize that you must head to 'articles' and realize that 'cell phone confirmation' is indeed what you are looking for. 2) If anyone was indeed dedicated to vote bombing, then said person could possibly own more than one mobile phone. This can be used to vote bomb, even with the current restriction. Con has pointed out that not many people would do this, however, anyone dedicated to vote bombing could and quite possibly might do this. And that's about all the arguments I have. Back over to Con for the last round.
Voting Requirements on DDO should be reduced or removed

Defense of Negative Case Pro provides these challenges to my argument: Rebuttal 1: Creating multiple email accounts is a deterrent to vote bombing Pro doesn't disagree that vote bombing is not good, but argues that creating multiple email account is a deterrent. I don't disagree with Pro that it is somewhat of a deterrent. However Pro didn't specify how much of a deterrent it is. So I'll explain below why the use of "email accounts" only is not efficient to deter vote bombing. 1. Many people have multiple email accounts. Statistics show that 17% of Americans create a new account every 6 months [1]. So it's not difficult for someone to have multiple email accounts to help up vote himself. I personally have 4 email accounts. I only use two (personal and work email), but if I want to up vote myself, it's not difficult at all to submit 3 votes for every debate I generate. 2. Creating a new email account is extremely easy. Mail.com requires 7 easy steps [2], which are basically the same steps for Gmail, hotmail and yahoo. In fact, you can use " fakemailgenerator.com" which would generate a fake email and even receives the confirmation email back [3]. It explains it services as follows: "The Fake Mail Generator is an absolutely free disposable email system. By simply visiting this site the above address has already been activated. Enter it into any form on a website that requires email verification, and when the email is received it will pop up instantly on this page." So it's extremely easy to create 10 accounts in less than an hour. What kind of a deterrent is that? Rebuttal 2: Phone confirmation may be ineffective Pro argues that phone confirmation may be ineffective because one can create multiple accounts if they have different numbers. I agree that the current system is not perfect, and it can be manipulated. But it's quite obvious that having multiple phone numbers with text messaging capabilities is not that easy to obtain. Mostly because obtaining phone numbers is not free, and that's why it's a good deterrent. Rebuttal 3: Manual process for those who don't have a phone account takes time Pro doesn't explain why this is bad. I argue that the time it takes someone to verify themselves serves to deter people from abusing the site and reduces vote bombing. If a new member of DDO, like my opponent, doesn't have a cell phone, he can contact Support to resolve this issue. While this may take a day or so, but a member only needs to do this once. So if a new member truly values the integrity of DDO, this little annoying step shouldn't be cause for so much stress. Providing a bit more convenience by removing one step doesn't outweigh the damage caused by vote bombing.Therefore I Negate. Over to Pro. Sources [1] http://www.convinceandconvert.com... [2] http://www.mail.com... [3] http://www.fakemailgenerator.com...
Voting Requirements on DDO should be reduced or removed

The Contention has certainly made good points. Here is my rebuttal: When you first log in to DDO, you are required to confirm your email. In order to create multiple accounts, you would also need to create multiple emails, which is a deterrent to the vote bombing that has been suggested. Also, using your mobile phone to confirm your identity may be ineffective. What if a person has multiple emails accounts and multiple mobile phones? While unlikely, this could create the same situation of having 5 dummy accounts. With the fact that 3% of people do not have mobile phones that can receive texts, this 3% is not 0%. It means that there are people, perhaps a small amount, that don't have one. I am one of those people. Do remember that manual processing here takes time, and during that time, the owner will remain unable to vote. Those are all the arguments I have for now, back to Con.
islamic societies against human rights

Con forfeited the previous round, which is a loss of conduct. I refrained from posting any arguments because I had no obligation to do so. In addition to this, Con did not respond to my arguments at all. Nor did he cite sources for anything.Con has no sound response to my defense of music and arts. I said that music would most likely not be prohibited, and definitely not wholly prohibited. I said that arts has been a part of the Islamic World throughout centuries. In fact, even today I hardly know of a Muslim country that fully prohibits music. Somalia and other such countries do not count. Their politics have nothing to do with Islam.Con claims that a Muslim organization made a fatwa (i.e., a religious opinion) that someone should be put to death for apostatizing. Again, this in no way has a relation to Islamic societies in general, especially not to Islamic Law itself.Con argues that certain Islamic countries have death penalty laws against apostasy. However, he cites absolutely no sources. For example, he mentions Malaysia among such countries that prohibit changing your religion. But, Malaysia has freedom of religion as an inherent part of its constitution. Malaysia has different so-called states, and each deal with apostasy differently. I hardly find evidence that there's punishment as harsh as the death penalty.Con makes an unsupported assertion that Islam has influenced all these Muslim-majority societies to be like they are. This is untrue. While Islam plays a role, there are far too many factors to simply narrow it down to blaming Islam. If one goes to India, he'd see Muslims abiding by the caste system. This has nothing to do with Islam, rather Hinduism. But, Muslim outside India have no support for the caste system. This shows a completely cultural influence on Muslims. In Pakistan, honor killings take place. In Bosnia and Turkey, they hardly ever existed.Con has failed to explain how Islamic societies, in general, go against human rights. I agree that they are corrupt and often failing, but Con has not explained how some bad laws make all these societies go against human rights as a whole. He doesn't even have sources. And Egypt has about 15 million Christians - none were forced to become Muslims.Resolution negated.
islamic societies against human rights

i think it is islam that has given all these muslims the idea of death penalty for blasphemy and all. again with the prohibition music and arts the religion is something that stands in the way of disagreement again many muslim organizations declare fatwa against people recently veena malik was issued a fatwa by some muslim cult . (i know u might disagree withe meaning of fatwa and all) i most islamic countries apostasy is dealt with death penalty like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Congo, Malaysia, Tanzania, Nigeria. its is a fact that islam as influenced these countries in abiding to thee practices .
islamic societies against human rights

1) you can convert to islam but you cannot leave islam.Those who leave islam are liable to prosecution (mostly death penalty)in accordance with quran. 2) Islam prohibits music and arts.The only music permitted is drum beats 3) islam prohibits freedom of clothing. 4) Questioning islam or the prophet can lead to blasphemy and results in death penalty. 5) Any woman suspected of indulging in adultery,extra marital affairs is liable to be stoned to death or else lashes in her back.
The person that accepts this debate will lose.

Hi, Penguin. I'm sure we can agree that due to the fact that we both accepted the debate, we both lost. However, you created this debate, and technically accepted before I accepted, meaning that you lost before (and for a longer time) than I did. To conclude... the only possible outcome would either be a draw, as we both accepted the debate, or loss for Penguin, as he lost for a longer amount of time than I did. Thank you oh so much for this thrilling experience.
Socialism is immoral

I accept.As for the question, I assume you are trying to get me into some sort of trap, where I assent that those are the only inherent rights of man, and thus social welfare measures and the such cannot be unjustified.As far as my answer, I say there are no inherent rights of man, because there is nothing that can never be taken from a man given the circumstances. When people speak of "rights", unless they are followers of unreasonably strict deontology, they really just mean something which is inherently valuable and should generally be given to people unless they do something to remove it.If we take rights in this sense, then happiness and opportunity should be added to the rights you listed, since these fit the definition of rights I described. Happiness and opportunity to pursue whatever the person wants (which falls under liberty, but I label it separately for emphasis on this kind of liberty), are both inherently valuable and should be given to people by an authority that has the power to do so, assuming this authority does not trangsgress on a greater "quantity" of rights in the process.