BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Islamic Empire has contributed so much to science.

Ok because you forfeited for some reason I will continue with my statement. This time I will quote verses from the Quran that predicted scientific facts centuries before it was even studied. For example, in chapter twenty-one verse thirty it states "We made every living thing from water? Will they not believe?". In this verse water is pointed out as the origin of all life. All living things are made of cells. We now know that cells are mostly made up of water. For example, 80% of the cytoplasm (basic cell material) of a standard animal cell is described as water in biology textbooks. Second is Iron. Iron is not a natural material. It did not form on earth like water did. It may be weird but scientists have found out that billions of years the earth was struck by meteorites which contained Iron. In the Quran chapter fifty-seven and verse twenty-five it states the following "We sent down Iron with its great inherent strength and its many benefits for humankind". God uses the words "sent down" for Iron. It is clear from the verse that Iron is not an earthly material, but was sent down for the benefit of humanity. The fact that Iron came down to earth from outer space, is something which could not be known by the primitive science of the 7th century. The sky plays a crucial role in protecting the earth. The sky protects the earth from the lethal rays of the sun. If the sky did not exist then the sun"s radiation would have killed off all life on earth. It also acts like a blanket wrapped around the earth, to protect it from the freezing cold of space. The temperature just above the sky is approximately -270oC. If this temperature was to reach earth then the planet would freeze over instantly. The sky also protects life on earth by warming the surface through heat retention (greenhouse effect), and reducing temperature extremes between day and night .These are some of the many protective functions of the sky. The Quran says in chapter twenty-one verse thirty-two We made the sky a protective ceiling. And yet they are turning away from Our signs! The Quran points to the sky"s protection as a sign of God. The protective properties of the sky were discovered by scientific research conducted in the 20th century. P.S I have used a Modern Standard Arabic Quran that is available for purchase in Amazon. http://www.amazon.co.uk...
The Islamic Empire has contributed so much to science.

Thanks for accepting. Firstly Islamic Empire is meant as a term. A Islamic empire, at least in my opinion is a empire that is primary Muslim in demographic, and follows the shariah law. Secondly I admit that the Islamic world didn't contribute much compared to the Greeks. In spite of that there are many examples were a Muslim or the Islamic empire (I will be referring to the Ottoman empire) have made ground breaking achievements that have determined the future of the western way of living. For example Ab$3; F3;Abdallāh MuM17;ammad ibn M$3;sā al-Khwārizmī a Muslim who had been living in the Abbasid empire had been the first to develop the mathematical system called algorithm. I admit what he made and called algorithm is primitive compared to what we have now. But none the less without algorithm there would of been no computers and no facebook and no debate.org. Another part of the Islamic empire that had effected the way we live now is literacy. Back then most people had no idea how to read or write. Only the rich and male could. But the Islamic empire had stressed literacy so much because of the prophet muhhamed teachings and how he said that knowledge is better than anything. This led to books that taught revolutionary techniques that changed astronomy, geography and medicine. All these revolutionary discoveries had made a big contribution to the European Renaissance.
The Islamic Empire has contributed so much to science.

The Islamic Empire put nothing into science. For instance we look at the Greeks who came up with first of all the calendar and so much to do with space. From establishing using the moon to tell whether the tide is high or low to knowing when seasonal patterns with occur. Then on to the Romans who named all the planted after their gods just by using a single telescope to notice the planets moving around in space. I don't see anything the Islamic Empire contributed to our sciences now. I mean even up to now where we have rocket scientists, the science that the Islamic Empire thought they contributed to was obviously traded with them. And another way proven why Islamic Empire's never were recognized as contributing so much of their scientific ideas, is they had no philosophers. The Greeks and The Romans had many Philosophers from the beginning of the science area that I'm telling you right now that Greeks and Romans were basically the fathers of science. Unless you have any specific evidence that disproves that, I have some right here.. http://ancienthistory.about.com... On that website it specifically says that we owe all our science inventions to the Greeks because they were the one's that gave us the ideas of science. Those ideas that led to other ideas that are brilliant from Evolution to Theories. Greeks came up with so much inventions of science that the Islamic Empire didn't even knew existed like a telescope. I would admit that Islamic Empires were smart and knew they seasonal weather patterns, but I would only say that is that and they never put anything big into what we have today. Everything should be credited to the Romans and Greeks.
This House Believes God Exists As A Trinity

My internet is not working so I am writing on the phone. I will keep this extremely brief. My opponent has agreed to there being a Godhead and a Son the only thing he doubts is the Holy Ghost. Now here is why if there is Jehovah and Jesus there must be this Holy Spirit. You see, Jehovah is the pure God and Jesus is God in human flesh , at pole opposites, just as when there is a father and a son other entities may be accounted for. If there is a father and son it means there must be a mother, it means that there must be the fathers seed that entered the mother. The Holy Ghost is that seed. Also the Holy Ghost is not mute, he appeared to Mary did he not? He speaks to saints like Paul. The Holy Spirit is the synthesis of God and Jesus so that he is indeed also God. Lastly the Holy Ghost also transcends time space and number, verily he is it, therefore since no other being except god can do this, the Holy Spirit is also god.
This House Believes God Exists As A Trinity

Con's Proposition: The Trinity, esp. when capitalized, is primarily a concept springing from the roots of Christianity. Based on this, the Trinity idea is that God is 3 Persons in One--Jehovah, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. If this is aligned with Pro's proposition, I will attempt to discredit it, if Pro is referring to any other "trinity", I will forfeit. Let us begin.
This House Believes God Exists As A Trinity

I want to see how far fundies will go. The resolution that is being debates boils down to Pro arguing that if God existed then logically, or rationally He would exist in a Trinity. I have laid out the rules below:1. The Burden of Proof rests on the Proposition. 2. It is my duty to show logical errors in Pro's arguments, and it is Pro's job to logically prove that God exists ina Trinity. 3. No arguments may be based on the Bible. 4. Proposition should start immediately, and pass on the last round. 5. The first official postings of arguments will be positive case only. 6.
Short Story Challenge

In this challenge, pro will throw out a few writing areas and topics for each one. (3 to be exact) Con will then choose a topic. The simple way to vote is: Spelling and grammarv is literal. Conduct is the relevance to the topic. Best arguments will be to the better story in the opinion of the reader. Sources shall be graded on the amount of rhetoric used by the author (I.e. Tricolon, anaphora, anecdotal synapses, etc.) Round 1 is the presentation of topics and round 2 is the posting of the story. Dialogue is allowed. Again, i will throw out three topics, you pick one in round 2 then write your story, in round 1 you throw out three topics and i will choose one in round 2. Your topics to choose from are: -romance -non-fiction -biography Good luck.
Is Religion Still Relevant in the Modern Day

Yes, religion was built off of explaining the occurrences of natural events. Everyone knows that part of it, but it was also built off of a faith of an afterlife and heaven. Morals were based off religion, not humans. This is true in the US Amendments and any other law or rule. Yes, I know some religions can have that holier than thou persona, but Islam, not Christianity, is the worst of this, by calling for the death of non-believers. Some Christians do have that persona, and it is wrong ad not Christian behavior. And I know that even Christianity has its bad roots and has been set on the wrong course. This is definitely evident with older Catholicism and some modern Catholicism. But religion is still evident. Whole countries, including the U.S., were built off religion. And therefore, it still must have some relevance.
Is Religion Still Relevant in the Modern Day

Morals come from what humans think is right and wrong about the world around them. Religion is what humans try to use to enforce their morals. They try to use the images of "God" and "Heaven" to invoke their morals. But what ends up happening in some cases is they force the wrong morals on them. Christianity is not even immune to this. People will do anything for their religion, and their are certain groups within religions that will take advantage of this fact to make people do bad things lets make this clear: I don't think that all religious people are bad, unlike some people. However, religion was really built on explaining the answers to things we didn't know at the time (such as the origin of the universe, and humans, and the explanation for events occurring.
/b/oxxy is queen of /b/

Nobody gives a crap about boxxy, 4chan memes, and face it - we've got much cuter girls around here (with intelligence to boot). Also, most importantly, I'd like to point out that Pro is the instigator of this debate. As such, she has the burden of proof. She must prove that boxxy is the queen of 4chan. Meanwhile, I must prove that boxxy isn't. You'll notice that Pro has not presented ONE argument proving that boxxy is the queen of 4chan. As such, you have absolutely no incentive to go along with Pro's assertion. Meanwhile, I have presented several arguments in my favor. And here's a final one: The word queen is defined as (1) a female monarch, (2) the wife of a king, (3) a male homosexual. Source: . http://dictionary.reference.com... Pro has not proven that boxxy is any of those things. She has referred to boxxy as a female, so #3 is out. She hasn't mentioned there being a 4chan king, so #2 is out. And finally, I can prove that #1 is impossible. A monarch is defined as a sole and absolute ruler of a state or nation. Because 4chan is a website (Pro concedes to this) and not a state or a nation, it can have no monarch, meaning there's no queen. As such, Pro loses. I'm the queen of DDO. Take your nonsense elsewhere.
/b/oxxy is queen of /b/

ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. 1. Yes there is a queen. /b/oxxy. 2. Proof is not needed for this. Has any other meme commanded more attention and love than /b/oxxy? Name me another meme that has a greater following. 3. My opponent gives a picture of a person who supposedly is the "new queen of 4chan". However, there is no proof that a young man made this picture. It could just be "angelspark22" putting a picture of herself proclaiming herself queen. Additionally, one poster does not a queen make. http:// myspace. roflposters.com/ images/ rofl/ myspace/ 1235042886801. jpg. [roflposters.com]. myspace. jpg ^^^^This doesn't prove she's cute?! Then what does?!? http://(SPACE)www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yavx9yxTrsw Proof that she is cute, jittery, whatever. My opponent also provides a picture of a barren wasteland, with the caption. "4CHAN: Guys, what the f*** did you do?" However, waking up this morning and posting this argument, I looked outside my window... ... to find the sun shining and no traces of whatever my opponent was asserting with that picture. Moreover, an internet site could not bring abut the apocalypse. /b/oxxy is still queen. /b/ hurrrrr durrrrr
/b/oxxy is queen of /b/

1. There is no queen of 4chan. If there were, I would usurp power and stop making the site suck so hard. 2. Boxxy does not ruin all other mems on 4chan. This type of claim requires proof, which Pro hasn't provided. 3. Next, Pro asserts that Boxxy is attractive and appealing to young men. I negate. Proof that people don't care for Boxxy: http://images.roflposters.com... ( Because I can't post the links directly, I'll spell it out with spaces for you to eliminate ) Proof that Boxxy is not cute, not funny, not clever and not original: http:// myspace. roflposters.com/ images/ rofl/ myspace/ 1235042886801. jpg. [roflposters.com]. myspace. jpg Further proof that she's not attractive: http:// myspace. roflposters.com /images/ rofl/ myspace/ 1239069998843. jpg. [roflposters.com]. myspace. jpg 4. Pro claims that Boxxy's personality is cute and jittery. We'll first note that the definition of cute is affectedly or mincingly pretty or clever; precious. Pro has not proven that Boxxy is so, and from what I gather, Pro won't be able to since I highly doubt that those attributes would apply to Boxxy. Additionally, the definition of jittery is extremely tense and nervous. Why would Boxxy have an extremely tense personality, and how can Pro prove this to be so? Moreover, why is this appealing? 5. Now, perhaps most telling of all, we can see what happens under Boxxy's alleged reign: http://media.photobucket.com... That type of destruction hardly makes her fit for a queen. The resolution has been negated; Pro hasn't proven a thing. Sources: www.dictionary.com
/b/oxxy is queen of /b/

Unfortunately my opponent concedes her entire case with her last sentence. If she can merely proclaim herself queen, why can't boxxy be queen of 4chan? And boxxy has a following. Thelwerd does not. She doesn't refute my points, therefore she agrees. I have given proof how she is queen. Vote /b/oxxy and you will win +1000000 internets while simultaneously be given love by none other than /b/oxxy herself. <3
Cigars and Cigarettes should be banned and stopped being sold in shops.

Pro thinks that he has the right of stopping smokers from giving themselves a slow death while having pleasure. I ask why? Who made good health manadatory? Who gave him the right to decide what other people do in their lives? And who said that we should live long lives? Pro's argument is flawed because he gives himself the right to prohibit others from following life habits that might affect their health or cause them death. That is absurd. The same argument can be used on a soldier in the army who operates on the frontlines and has the stench of gunpowder stuck to his nose. He is expected to die soon or die earlier than others because of his job and his exposure to toxic gases, but do we have a right to stop him from doing what he likes? I believe that public smoking should be banned because it affects other people's health. But what about private smoking such as smoking alone in your backyard? Why should Pro have the right to force smokers to have a good health and quit smoking? Pro also doesn't realize the consequences of banning private smoking and the outrage that would cause, knowing that many people are addicted to it. His solution is fascistic and forceful. People would always find ways to get illegal cigs if they become banned. That is to say, Pro's solution will cause an outrage and encourage people to follow illegal methods to satisfy their smoking addiction. I take the Con position that Cigars and Cigarretes should be sold in shops. My only condition is that public smoking is banned.
Cigars and Cigarettes should be banned and stopped being sold in shops.

Cigars and Cigarettes should be stopped being sold, because it can kill and/or give them fatal illnesses (e.g. cancer). I don't get why people still sell them. If people are still smoking, and they suddenly get stopped from being sold, they don't know where on earth to get them from, and they'll no longer be smoking. Doctors say that it's around 8 years after you quit smoking, you'll be around as healthy as you were before you started smoking. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org... It should help me convince you to be on the Pro side of this debate. Other readers, please comment, because I'd like to hear your views of this debate, and what side you're on. I have a feeling this will be a good, interesting debate. I hope David Cameron or Barack Obama will read this! (It's very likely they won't).
Cigars and Cigarettes should be banned and stopped being sold in shops.

Pro has not offered us one good argument why his proposition should be taken seriously, and clearly indicated in the previous rounds that such a measure should be implemented because "he thinks this should be the case. "I thought he was approaching this from the underlying assumption that people should have healthier lives, but he then denied that and said that he just argues for that position because "he thinks this should be the case. "I've offered a total of three arguments supporting my position, and showed the limitations and absurdity of what Pro suggests.1- Stopping cigs from being sold is a violation of the rights of the sellers and the buyers, specifically the right to have health and life as personal decisions. 2- The fact that Pro's solution is an unprofessional, forceful way to stop addicted smokers from smoking.3- Huge economic losses for farmers and companies who make money out of selling cigs and cigars. In 2007, Marlboro's income was an estimated $11.4 billion with $66.3 billion in sales in the U. S and abroad. Imagine all the money the US government makes from tax money. Not to mention all the employed farmers. In attempt to counter Point 3 while ignoring the rest, Pro said that we can find other jobs for those people. I salute him for his problem-solving techniques, and await to see how he could find other jobs for CEOs of mass-corporations in the smoking industry who are making millions of dollars out of their jobs, thousands of employees in such corporations and tens of thousands of farmers. It seems that my opponent has not yet been introduced to the notions of practicality and pragmatism. I had some hope this would be a thrilling debate, but from the start. .. it felt more like a monologue due to Pro's lack of debating skills and actual content. This is not a forum discussion as Pro seems to think when he asks others to share their views. This is an actual debate where you should provide good arguments and refutations to convince others, and "I think this should be the case" isn't one, I'm afraid.
Cigars and Cigarettes should be banned and stopped being sold in shops.

This debate has gone beyond absurd.Pro has the notion that if group of mothers forced their children to stay in their rooms, and some of them were able to sneak out of the window and climb down the roof, then the children were not forced to do anything.Pro wants to force many people to stop smoking by making it a hassle for them to get a smoke, and yet he argues that he isn't forcing anyone to do something because some of them could use illegal workarounds. Not to mention all the companies and shop-keepers that would be forced not to sell any cigs.As I also explained earlier, the underlying assumption in Pro's arguments is that people should have good health, and thus he aims to have a world with less smokers. The problem is that good health is a personal decision. Such measures only seek to mandate good health and intervene with the negative right to have bad health. Negative rights are simply rights that call others not to intervene in your personal life.Pro has not offered us any argument to support his position. He clearly conceded that this is only what he thinks, and presented self-contradictory justifications to support what he personally thinks without one shred of evidence or a good argument.My arguments for my position are the following...1- Stopping cigs from being sold is a violation of the rights of the sellers and the buyers, specifically the right to have health and life as personal decisions. 2- The fact that Pro's solution is an unprofessional, forceful way to stop addicted smokers from smoking.3- Huge economic losses for farmers and companies who make money out of selling cigs and cigars. In 2007, Marlboro's income was an estimated $11.4 billion with $66.3 billion in sales in the U.S and abroad[1]. Imagine all the money the US government makes from tax money. Not to mention all the employed farmers.It is better for Pro to consent the debate to me, given that he is unable to support his argument with anything other than "I think this should be the case."[1] http://marlboro.blogsome.com...
Cigars and Cigarettes should be banned and stopped being sold in shops.

Nobody made good health compulsory. I never said that I had the right to decide what people do in their lives, and nobody said to live longer lives. I think that: Smoking should no longer be sold in shops You CAN find illegal ways to smoke Public smoking should be banned You CAN smoke privately The above will lower the amount of people who smoke, and this will help create a healthier population. Con asked "Why should Pro have the right to force smokers to have a good health and quit smoking?" I am not "forcing" smokers to have a good health and stop smoking. They could still find illegal ways to smoke, it will be lesser than the population of smokers who smoke now.
Cigars and Cigarettes should be banned and stopped being sold in shops.

Ignoring all my major refutations and focusing on a side-point is a subtle admission from Pro that he cannot properly defend his argument.While it is advised on "debate tips" websites to only focus on your opponent's weak points and to ignore his good ones, you shouldn't be asked to do that when you just find one possibly-weak point in your opponent's response, while his response breaks your argument apart like a dissected Barbie doll.I clearly asked why should Pro have the right to tell people what to do, force people to live healthy lives and not enjoy short lives they choose to spend as they wish. But he completely ignored my questions. I awkwardly have to quote myself to respond to Pro."Pro thinks that he has the right of stopping smokers from giving themselves a slow death while having pleasure. I ask why? Who made good health mandatory? Who gave him the right to decide what other people do in their lives? And who said that we should live long lives?"Pro has not given us convincing reasons why cigarettes should be banned, even though smoking is a personal decision. I'm still waiting for him to make one good argument.Furthermore, I'm against making people resort to illegal cigs since that encourages people to play the system to get what they want. My argument is only moral; I know that if we stop selling cigs, we would have less smokers, but it is apparent to me that such a solution violates the rights of smokers wanting to live their life as they wish. It's up to them whether their personal health is good or not, their life short or long, etc. Pro's solution encroaches on personal liberty, and if taken seriously(and I'm sure it won't) would act as a prelude for governemtal intervention to apply fascistic measures on all citizens.I personally believe that I have the right of bad health, poisoning myself, doing scientific experiments on myself, etc. Pro has not yet convinced me that he has the right to violate my rights and tell me how to live my life... and it is apparent that he can't.