BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ISLAM is a religion of HATE

All Surahs of the Quran, with the minor exception of Surah 113, are abrogated by Surah 9. Islam, as fantastically revealed to an illiterate desert nomad, has practiced expansion by enforcing Surah 9, verses 5 and 29, which state: 1. Convert to Islam, OR 2. Pay a special tax in an unspecified and unlimited amount in person to a tax collector who must 'make the unbeliever feel subdued.' This means a literal slap in the face, genuflection to the tax collector, wearing of special clothing which identify the wearer as a non-Muslim to the Muslims in the population, in order that tax-payer can be'protected.' The question to the reader is. "Protected against what?" OR 3. Be summarily murdered. The Islamic expansion into then Christian North Africa, Spain, France, the Caucasus, and the Balkans was done far from Mecca and into disparate societies using the same justification of Surah 9 verses 5 and 29. The societies in the cited societies and locations were not forbidding Islamic prayer. They did not attack Mecca or Medina, in present day Saudi Arabia; they are thousands of miles distant from the locus of Islam. The expansion of Islam was clearly not defensive; it was offensive. Offensive war against 'hypocrites,' as the people of the cited countries we said to be by Surah 9 verse 73, is justified, is it not? Those people, in distant lands, who have not attacked you, who do not prevent you from your prayers are, by fantastical revelation to an illiterate, uneducated desert nomad, fully deserving to be slaughtered because they are 'hypocrites' for not believing in Islam, and no other reason. We are told that 'their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.' Surely those distant people are not truly human beings. Don't want to go to kill distant hypocrites who have never harmed you? Surah 9 verses 38 and 39 warns that you, as a Muslim, will go to Hell if you don't, and therefore not enjoy Heaven with all the pretty boys with teeth like pearls. Muslim apologists attempt to obfuscate the meaning of the final prescriptive Surah 9 of the Quran. Muslims have not been fooled. Muslims know what those verses REALLY mean. Their history has clearly manifested the REAL meaning of Surah 9. That manifestation was a trail of blood across North Africa and into both Eastern and Western Europe. The blood trail continues to this day to the railways of Spain and the United Kingdom, and to the office buildings full of 'hypocrites' in New York City in the USA. If this blood trail does not prove HATRED, I do not know what could.
ISLAM is a religion of HATE

The subjugation, conversion, or murder of non-Muslims is specified in the Quran. Surah 9, which abrogates all older Surahs except the very short Surah 113, states: Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had the power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert. Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. This was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths. Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell. Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith. Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
Personal pictures as avatars should be disallowed on debate.org.

"No, as I explained in the comment debate from your other debate. I posted my picture to make clear my identity, as it accompanies my real name. And it is meant to convey boredom, as is my primary emotion. No one is going to vote for me based on how pretty i am and how ad they want to sleep with someone that looks like me. Further my picture does not contribute even slightly to the objectification of my gender." Have you considered that my picture is to more fully make clear my identity? Smiling conveys my primary emotion. Given, it is entirely more complex than boredom and can not be summed up in one word. "The number of people willing to do so because of my face is so vanishingly small, they may be safely disregarded. Your face however as explained before has a trillion dollar advertising push behind it." You are presuming a hell of a lot here. There is not a way for you to know how may people online find you attractive, just as there is no way for you to know how many find me attractive. Furthermore, it is even more unlikely that you knw how many people's votes are swayed by the appearance of either of us. "How do you know? Spend much time in public looking like i do?" Spend any time in public looing like I do?? "We are both spoiled, you more so than I am however. " "In fact you could take your clothes off and make more than a doctor. So don't tell me *i'm* more spoiled." So now I'm spoiled because I have the option to make money while taking my clothes off? I would say you're spoiled because that option is not available to you, hence people wont ever treat you like it is to win a debate. "Indeed i have and seen the movie, I hate the value placed on beauty in the book. Beauty will not cure cancer, beauty will not get us off this planet unless aliens find us sexy, beauty will not solve any meaningful problem." I think you missed the point of the story. It's too bad I didn't make you realize your own handicap in the stance you hold, but at least I can honestly say you haven't convinced me either.
Personal pictures as avatars should be disallowed on debate.org.

"I'm sure you have considered this." Not seriously no. "Why then do you have a picture of yourself up? Does that not compromise the integrity of your contribution here?" No, as I explained in the comment debate from your other debate. I posted my picture to make clear my identity, as it accompanies my real name. And it is meant to convey boredom, as is my primary emotion. No one is going to vote for me based on how pretty i am and how ad they want to sleep with someone that looks like me. Further my picture does not contribute even slightly to the objectification of my gender. "According to the scenario above, there will always be those who give you the same treatment." The number of people willing to do so because of my face is so vanishingly small, they may be safely disregarded. Your face however as explained before has a trillion dollar advertising push behind it. "It's more out of defiance, not ignorance. I refuse to compromise what I want to do and I think is fair to do, because there are people who exploit women, or give preferential treatment to attractive women." Thats the best argument you've made, but I still think you're making an ethicall unsound decsion. But of course my goal was never to convince you, merely to make others think. And i've accomplished that. "I'm not past that point of beauty where things get handed to me or become easier for me than anyone else." How do you know? Spend much time in public looking like i do? "We are both spoiled, you more so than I am however. " Thats a whole other debate, and you just don't know. Its irrelevant anyway but i just have to say you're wrong. I cant pout my way or flirt my way into anything. And regardless of you taking the option or not, you have it. In fact you could take your clothes off and make more than a doctor. So don't tell me *i'm* more spoiled. "Have you ever read "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut?" Indeed i have and seen the movie, I hate the value placed on beauty in the book. Beauty will not cure cancer, beauty will not get us off this planet unless aliens find us sexy, beauty will not solve any meaningful problem. "About submission, there is a reason I wrote, "not more so than you or anyone else". That was a bit of clarification without going to much into detail." Fair enough. Thats pleasing. Happy new year guys and gals i wish we could spend this energy cooperating. *sigh*
Personal pictures as avatars should be disallowed on debate.org.

"When you know the reaction, yes. So now you get a choice, openly admit that you're a part of the system I'm attacking which objectifies women among countless other horrors, or admit to previous ignorance and find a more candid photo of yourself or something meaningful to you. That may be a false dichotomy but I really personally can see no third option, feel free to point one out." I wont admit that I contribute to the objectification of women; I simply don't believe that's true. As far as ignorance is concerned, I can only admit to being ignorant of the stir one photo would cause. I have always been aware, as every women is, how men sometimes react to women, however, I think if you posed the question of whether a smiling face has such an impact that someones vote may be swayed or that it objectifies anything, I think the majority would say no. If we go by your argument that something should be removed because of the way someone may react then let us consider this. While you have stated that you don't find yourself attractive, some may. It's not a far stretch to say that some women would find you handsome and attractive. I'm sure you have considered this. Why then do you have a picture of yourself up? Does that not compromise the integrity of your contribution here? Maybe not on as grand a scale as you say mine does, but still. "There will always be people who give you a little more attention, a little more courtesy, a little more leeway, than you would otherwise strictly deserve, and I refuse to believe that you're refusing to give that up out of ignorance." According to the scenario above, there will always be those who give you the same treatment. Yet you are not smiling, nor are you an attractive woman. It's more out of defiance, not ignorance. I refuse to compromise what I want to do and I think is fair to do, because there are people who exploit women, or give preferential treatment to attractive women. I think that comment about my beauty/your mind is funny. I'm not past that point of beauty where things get handed to me or become easier for me than anyone else. If anything, my mind is what makes things easier for me. We are both spoiled, you more so than I am however. Since I used to be part of the rest of the world you compared this country with. "The difference is, I'm aware of what I am and what I have, and I'm not willfully exploiting anyone, if I possibly have another option. Can you truly say the same?" Yes. You are exploiting everyone you debate with when you present arguments they may not understand, as in, lack the mental capacity to understand. You do not have to do this, just as I do not have to show my picture but choose to. Have you ever read "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut? I can't stop thinking about it while writing this. About submission, there is a reason I wrote, "not more so than you or anyone else". That was a bit of clarification without going to much into detail.
Personal pictures as avatars should be disallowed on debate.org.

I'd first like to say I appreciate the comments about not attacking me personaly and I would love to believe that; however you've contradicted that statement in the comments section of another debate. I will give you the benefit of the doubt in an actual debate forum however. "Even if that were true, the absence of a negative does not imply a positive. Just because it doesn't hurt anything means it's good." That is true, however I'm not arguing for a positive, I am simply disputing your negative. I'm not here to prove photos on this website are beneficial, I am disproving that they are harmful. I was not being sarcastic. You can not debate for the removal of one aspect of a website if it poses the same discrimination as another aspect which you are not including in the removal. Actually you can because you are but it is ineffective. You have stated that I should remove my picture and replace it with one that means something to me. You have also voiced great displeasure for my smile, claiming that it is some sort of ad and that it feeds into society which often times demeans women. I have already challenged your first claim with the argument that I took a simple picture of my face the way that it looks most of the time and that I don't have to show anyone what is important to me or what my accomplishments are. I am here to vioce my opinions on matters I find important and interesting and those opinions are what should speak for me. You may argue that my face is what is speaking for me. Since this a picture of my face, smiling, and not a picture of me in a skimpy halloween costume or a swim suite or even one that shows any part of my body, I'll ask the readers of this debate to conclude it is appropriate to be posted and to represent me fairly, without prejudice.
Personal pictures as avatars should be disallowed on debate.org.

First of all thank you for joining in this debate. Secondly, I'm not trying to insult you personally, I'm merely attacking ideas, actions, and trends. While they may be ideas you hold, actions you take, and trends you support (or not), I'm saying here and now saying once and for all that I don't know you and assume the best as a matter of personal choice. You will never see my attack a person unless I know them IRL, if it appears that way, I assure you and everyone else that it was not my intention. The English language is weak, and I will not further cloud my expression with continuous sycophantic qualification beyond this one. I am not debating you per se, I'm actually debating a policy. I said that to make it clear I don't expect or plan to attempt to convince you personally, as thats impossible people convince themselves, never are they swayed form outside. At best the outside forvides evidence when the person will then accept or reject, in either case its a deeply personal decsion and cannot be forced, even by fact. I am merely going to express my position for the record. Now, with the equivalent of the terms of service out of the way. on to the debate! :) --- "Personal pictures should not be disallowed on debate.org because they do not present any problem as far as a debate is concerned." Even if that were true, the absence of a negative does not imply a positive. Just because it doesn't hurt anything means it's good. "Debate.org is a website in which people are encouraged to debate one another in a mature and effective manor. If the idea of a picture being distracting, encouraging stereotyping, and serving no purpose is an argument for disallowing pictures, than why should other aspects such as age remain? Or whether one is a male or female? These encourage classism as well." Bravo! I'm deeply impressed you see that, even if you are being sarcastic. That's actually something I've written about. (Underlore.com if you or whoever would like to read some of it.) I've argued precisely that point, that if gender and race are supposed to be non-factors, then why ask for them on every form? I would indeed have them stripped as well, but the likely hood of that is far slimmer than simply removing personal pictures. I may be insanely optimistic to hope for either one, but as cynical as I am, I'm also deep down an optimist. May I suggest looking over the comments of this and the other debates you and I've participated in for arguments in your next post? I would like to cover some things mentioned in them, but I don't want to put words in your mouth, also I'm sure your cadre of supporters would love the opportunity to come to your aid. Perhaps after this we should have a separate debate on the removal of gender and race from all forms. I'd even like single person unisex bathrooms like on airplanes, or in private residences. Again thank you for your time.
Personal pictures as avatars should be disallowed on debate.org.

Personal pictures should not be disallowed on debate.org because they do not present any problem as far as a debate is concerned. Debate.org is a website in which people are encouraged to debate one another in a mature and effective manor. If the idea of a picture being distracting, encouraging stereotyping, and serving no purpose is an argument for disallowing pictures, than why should other aspects such as age remain? Or whether one is a male or female? These encourage classism as well. It is true that photos can easily be fake, but so can everything else in your profile.
Affirmative action

I would first like to refute what my opponent has stated. They had 2 main points, That affirmative action can lead to qualified people missing out on jobs, And that affirmative action just increases discrimination, First tackling the job point, According to the U. S. Commerce Department, There are about 2. 5 million unemployed Black civilians and 114 million employed White civilians (U. S. Bureau of the Census, 2011). This means, Even if every unemployed Black worker in the United States were to displace a White worker, Only 2% of Whites would be affected. And this is assuming every single black worker actually took the job of a white worker, Making the percentage in reality, Even lower. And now to the perpetuates discrimination point, My opponent misunderstands the term discrimination. They agree that minorities are being discriminated against, But then say that affirmative action would only increase this discrimination, And I take this as my opponent saying discrimination against whites. Well, The purpose of affirmative action is to include minorities and deter bad stereotypes against them. I think it can be agreed upon that whites have a good reputation, So there is no need to further that. Instead, We must increase the reputations of those races who don't have positive reputations. Therefore, We are not discriminating against whites, Just including minorities and deterring negative stereotypes. My first point is that affirmative action helps increase diversity, As without affirmative action there is nothing set in place to help those minorities truly succeed. This fact can be shown with a study conducted by the Washington Post, Where they looked at admittance rates for the University of Michigan Law School, Finding that after a state law banned race-based preferences, Or affirmative action, In the college, The admittance rate of African American, Hispanic, And Native American students dropped from 40% to only 6%. I think this is a clear case of discrimination as when affirmative action was taken away, Less then 10% of minorities were accepted into college! This large plummet in admittance rates shows us the role affirmative action plays, As it is allowing so many more people of minorities attend college, And my opponent is trying to say affirmative action is a bad thing? Without affirmative action, Our colleges would be overrun by majority races, Meaning our jobs would be overrun with majority races, Which is a very harmful thing. This can be shown with the statement according to Sophie Deering, A writer for the undercover recruit, Showing that "Employees are more likely to feel comfortable and happy in an environment where inclusivity is a priority. Equality in the workplace is important for encouraging workers from all backgrounds to feel confident in their ability and achieve their best. " By having affirmative action in place, We are benefiting everyone in company by causing a more diverse group of people working under the same team.
Halo is better than COD

I also have grown up and along with both the series' of Halo and CoD, but I have to say you are wrong. In both story and in game-play mechanics, CoD is the better. In story, in Black Ops for example, leads you on a perilous journey with characters dying and being introduced (along with homage to Fidel Castro and the history for that time) all centered around Alex Mason, the almost-perfect soldier. However, in Halo, you follow Master Chief, and sometimes the Arbiter, through boring characters (minus Captain Keyes and Cortana, of course) that all eventually die anyway (even Captain Keyes and the Arbiter). In gameplay mechanics, you don't get some two-shield malakey, and killing people is more fair and balanced. For example, in CoD, if you don't check your corners and constantly check your back, there is a fat chance you will get shot, just like real combat. However, if you get shot by anything other than the Sniper (headshot only) and the Spartan Laser, you have an almost impeccable chance to either get away or shoot back. I'm trying not going to compare CoD or Halo to realistic combat, because we'd both lose that argument pretty quick.
Halo is better than COD

But is there truly a definite answer to this on going debate? Yes, there is. The answer is Halo. Now i grew up with both games and i will say that i liked Call of Duty all the way up to World at War and possibly Black Ops, but even back then i loved halo more than i did Call of Duty. Halo has a better gameplay. For example, if u are getting shot from behind and u didn't know it was coming you get a chance to either hide and recharge or you can turn around and totally own the other player with your "mad skills. " Call of Duty, however, if you are seen and you don't know it you're screwed. Now if it was u both saw each other and it was a duel than maybe yes it invovled some skill but in reality no one is going to play a game like COD and not chuck the controller across the room because you never know where anyone is. There may be other reasons that people like Halo better than COD, but the main reason is what I've said to you all today, and I think that everyone that is a Halo fan will agree that what I said is the overall best reason for the debate.
The Christian God is Immoral

so man like what you were saying about zeus and how all that stuff was immoral, Do you see the christian god doing that. . . . . . Man. I don't see what's immoral about the christian god. I mean like, He sent his son to give his life for us humans man. I wouldn't send my son if i had one to die for anyone man. Like he's pretty cool and like, Since when does god support kidnapping and raping people man, I think you're looking for allah, You got the wrong god.