BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ISLAM IS THE WORLDS MAIN THREAT

very simply there is only one "religion" that supports * suicide bombers * mass murder of civilians * complete ingorance of its populus (only the crappy Qu-ran can be read) * complete subjugation of women Here is the latest for you 8/5/2008 (Kirkuk, Iraq) - al-Qaeda militants slit the throats of three Iraqis. 8/4/2008 (Baghdad, Iraq) - Jihadis manage to kill two civilians with a roadside bomb. 8/4/2008 (Xinjiang, China) - Islamists stage a brutal grenade attack on a group of police, killing sixteen. 8/3/2008 (Bajaur, Pakistan) - A civilian is shot to death by Sunni extremists. 8/3/2008 (Temargara, Pakistan) - Two government tax collectors are shot to death by Sharia-minded militants. 8/3/2008 (Paktika, Afghanistan) - Two clerics are killed while trying to assemble a suicide vest in their mosque. ISLAM is on that march all over the world the ignorant schmucks who think Islam itself is not the source of all the violence, oppression and insanity are deluded It is coming to a head quickly Muslims often complain of the popular "misconceptions" about their religion in the West. We took a hard look, however, and found that the most deeply held myths of Islam are the ones generated by Muslims and Western apologists. The only glaring exception to this is the misconception that all Muslims are alike (they aren't), but even Muslims fall into this trap as well, as evidenced by the various contrary factions insisting that they are the true Muslims, while others are either infidels, hijackers, or hypocrites. Don't be fooled! Hear the myths, but know the truth. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com... Islam Means 'Peace' Islam respects Women as Equals Jihad Means 'Inner Struggle' Islam is a Religion of Peace Islam is Tolerant of Other Religions Islam Facilitated a 'Golden Age' of Scientific Discovery Islam is Opposed to Slavery Islam is Incompatible with Terrorism Islam is a Democracy The Qur'an is the Muslim Counterpart to the Bible My closing aregument is that ISLAM IS THE MAIN THREAT TO THE WORLD If you look at the 78 conficts going on in the world , 100% of them are ISLAMISTS ATTACKING OTHERS here are some of the countries Pakistan India Iraq Afgansitan Syria Lebanon England Spain Turkey Israel Indonesia Thailand Straight up - Islamists want to take over the world and subdue or kill YOU So you can listen to clowns like my opponent who bury their heads in the sand and think that sexually transmited diseases are more of a threat But you should be warned in stark terms that this is just ignorant and the results of this ingorant and passive view of the enemy Islam results in what you currently see in Europe SOLARMAN
ISLAM IS THE WORLDS MAIN THREAT

you need to address my cogent arguments here are my rebuttals to your areguments (1) Nuclear weapons one word : Iran (run by nutcake Islamic idiots) biggest current threat to the world (2) Biotoxic assault this is a non sequitur there is no evidence of any biological assault ever having any real consequence (3) AIDS this is another non sequitur and is generally only caused by IMMORAL BEHAVIOR, and MOSTLY affects the homosexual male community Once again, Islam is the main threat to the world references www.prophetofdoom.com www.jihadwatch.com
ISLAM IS THE WORLDS MAIN THREAT

I negate. While I disagree that Islam is threatening, I negate on these grounds: 1 - Nuclear War is more of a threat than Islam. Note: Islam solely refers to the religion of Islam, as dictated by the Holy Quran. No where in the Quran is the doctrine of nuclear war affirmed, so my opponent cannot argue that nuclear war is a part of Islam. Muslims may have the capability to create nuclear war, but that's not a part of Islam. And even if we do view it like that, Islam is still not the MAIN threat; the US (lead by a CHRISTIAN) has more nuclear bombs and as such is more of a threat. 2 - Biotoxic diseases are more of a threat than Islam. Think Resident Evil 3. 3 - AIDS is more of a threat than Islam. Unknowingly AIDS infected blood in Africa (in blood banks), combined with their rate of transfusion means that it is inevitable that (without intervention) the continent of Africa become infected with AIDS. As it is, the AIDS rate is off the charts. AIDS is present in every other country in the world as well. This is a threat. NEG.
GY] THBT carrot is better than stick

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. The motion that we are going to debate about today has been hot potato for many years. For my stance, I believe that carrot is better than stick. Before I begin my speech, I would like to define today's motion. There are three key terms, in this motion, that I would like to define. I will define carrot as a 'Giving an incentive' such as compliment or reward and stick as a 'Giving a sort of pressure in either physical or psychological way. Also, I will define the key term' A better than b' as A being more practical and moral then B. In other word, I would like to define the motion 'Carrot is better than stick' as 'Incentive is better than punishment." First, I believe that people tend to act more likely by incentive rather than punishment. According to one experiment, when an act is done by incentive, one factor , which is the hope for reward' contributes to action. However, when an act is done by punishment, one factor which is hope for not getting a punishment has contributed and usually incentive has better consequence than punishment because people's desire to crave something usually outwards one's desire to evade a certain situation. For my second argument, I believe that compare to punishment, work that is done by incentive has better efficiency. People do better job when they have incentive, because they have a strong motivation and therefore, more passionate and hard-working, while punishment only makes people tired and less enthusiastic. My third argument is that incentive implants good memory to people and thus makes them to work another time. When punishment is given, though it can result an immediate result, it implants a bad memory and thus leads to bad consequence. On the other hand, Incentive not only drives an good result but also implants on good memory that can lead to do working more than one time.
Developmental assistance should be prioritized over military aid in the Sahel region of Africa

In this Argument, I will attack my opponents case. My opponents first contention states that military Aid has caused instability in Darfur. This point is irrelevant to todays debate because my opponent talks about the militaries of the Sahel region, not Military aid from other countries like France, Germany, and South Africa. My opponents second contentions states that we should attack the roots of terrorism, which is poverty and hunger. But we cannot have food aid without military aid to protect it from those terrorist/extremist group.
Developmental assistance should be prioritized over military aid in the Sahel region of Africa

Alright to begin I agree with your first point on how we need military aid but the point is we need to know which one is more important and you just say that we need military aid therefor that cant be used if you want to use it say in the point that we need it more then developmental assistance.. Point two and three It more important to build the economy. The two main reasons people become terrorist is that they have little food and little money. They live in poverty and need this boost. Developmental assistance will bring food and money and since those are the main two reasons of people being terrorist, giving them more developmental assistance will reduce terrorism not military aid.
Developmental assistance should be prioritized over military aid in the Sahel region of Africa

Contention one: Military aid has caused instability in Darfur Darfur is a region in Sudan the size of France. It is home to about 6 million people from nearly 100 tribes. Some nomads. Some farmers. All Muslims. In 1989, General Omar Bashir took control of Sudan by military coup, which then allowed The National Islamic Front government to inflame regional tensions. In a struggle for political control of the area, weapons poured into Darfur. Conflicts increased between African farmers and many nomadic Arab tribes. In 2003, two Darfuri rebel movements- the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM)- took up arms against the Sudanese government, complaining about the marginalization of the area and the failure to protect sedentary people from attacks by nomads. The government of Sudan responded by unleashing Arab militias known as Janjaweed, or "devils on horseback". Sudanese forces and Janjaweed militia attacked hundreds of villages throughout Darfur. Over 400 villages were completely destroyed and millions of civilians were forced to flee their homes. Darfur is today continuing to suffer and the innumerable problems facing Sudan cannot be resolved until peace is secured in Darfur. According to UN estimates, 2.7 million Darfuris remain in internally displaced persons camps and over 4.7 million Darfuris rely on humanitarian aid. Resolving the Darfur conflict is critical not just for the people of Darfur, but also for the future of Sudan and the stability of the entire region. In the genocide, African farmers and others in Darfur are being systematically displaced and murdered at the hands of the Janjaweed. The genocide in Darfur has claimed 400,000 lives and displaced over 2,500,000 people. More than one hundred people continue to die each day; five thousand die every month. The Sudanese government disputes these estimates and denies any connection with the Janjaweed. According to the United Human Rights the weapons that were provided by the United Nation. This is a major example where military aid where military has been a huge bad idea. Contention two: Attack the roots of terrorism. There are two main reasons that there are terrorism in the Sahel region. There is Poverty and Hunger. Poverty When people have no money and are looking for ways to get money to have a life they turn to terrorism. In the Sahel region There are many terrorists who because war has ruined their homes this is their only option. By giving them food, medical supplies and build building for them we will eliminate that poverty. We need this to happen and in doing so it will reduce terrorism by 45% in the sahel region according to the study by the potomac institute. In order to reduce poverty we need a functioning government. In order to make one we need development assistance. By giving them this we make them stronger and are able to help fight poverty. If we provide more military aid then we will just make them want to fight harder because we are being more stricter. There for we need more developmental assistance.
Developmental assistance should be prioritized over military aid in the Sahel region of Africa

My opponent has stated that "Darfur is in the Sahel region and second were not talking about there military were talking about military aid in general from anywhere.", but the resolution states that "development assistance should be prioritized over military aid in the Sahel region of Africa." because i am the Negative side, I say otherwise and that military aid should be prioritized. Military Aid is other Militaries that are not from the Sahel providing Troops and Military resources. With my opponents 2nd contention, it will not work. My opponent is saying that we need to feed the people, but like i have said, we can not provide food aid to a region that has terrorists and extremists that will do anything to get that food. And our intentions are to get it to the people, not the terrorists. And the only way to stop the terrorists is to use the militaries. And therefore, we need to prioritize Military aid over Development aid in the Sahel region of Africa.
Developmental assistance should be prioritized over military aid in the Sahel region of Africa

Now i will rebuild my case. First my opponent says my first point is irrelevant but its not. I give an example on how military aid has been bad but what you have to see is that Darfur is in the Sahel region and second were not talking about there military were talking about military aid in general from anywhere. 2nd i said we need both but we need for of developmental assistance for the fact with less developmental assistance we can't feed the people we put in or other people put in. For these reasons vote Affirmative
Testing on Animals

So many animals are killed because of products being tested on animals. I believe the only reason we do it is because they are like us, but helpless and can't stop you from testing products on them. Taking innocent animals, making them go through pain and suffering, and then killing them is not a humane way to treat any living creature. They should be able to live a happy life and not one in pain and suffering that will ultimately lead to death because of a science experiment. Test it on something else; there are other ways to test if a product's safe than putting it on animal. Animals cruelty is NOT okay and should be banned. Whoever excepts my challenge: good luck.
Testing on Animals

I am glad you didn't forfeit. I still have many things to say. I just have a lot of time on my hands. Now to start my rebuttals. You said, "As for the New York Times site, you said the last quote is the most important. It says, "over time, the use of animals for testing could be greatly reduced and possibly eliminated. " The use of the word 'could' in this sentence is very important. In this context, the word 'could' means "expressing possibility. "[4]". I'm wondering if you read the NY Times article. Here's what it says in the first few sentences: "HUMAN skin, eyes, the lining of the throat — snippets of these and other tissues are now routinely grown in test tubes from donated human cells. The goal is not to patch up ailing people but to use the human tissues in place of mice, dogs or other lab animals for testing new drugs, cosmetics and other products. " Thus, I did give you an example of how we could get around testing animals. "Google Images is unreliable. Not only are most images on the Internet touched up and edited in some way". Well, yes, they can be touched up, but it still has the same picture. Some of them must be true because some pictures were as gruesome as the ones in the videos. I would love to pick your brain about this. You said, "[You] [would] be arguing the position that animal testing is "acceptable in most cases. "" How can mistreating an animal be acceptable? You wonder where I get animals abuse from, here's the answer. Animals in those labs are being abused while their being tested on. They are being killed, force fed things, forced to breath in toxic gases, etc. If we did that to a human, it would be called abuse. They are being abused. If you search abuse on dictionary. reference. com it says that abuse is "to use wrongly or improperly" or to "treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way". Animals were not put on this Earth to be slaves to us and to die for us. This is where I get animals abuse from. When does abusing and animals become acceptable? "1. Humans lives are more valuable than animal lives"- I believe that is false, but that's just my opinion so we won't go into that. "2. Medication must be tested before release"- True"3. The only available test subjects are live animals"- False. There are donors who will donate some of their cells to test on, pushing animals aside. "4. Testing on humans is worse than testing on animals"- False. If it's voluntary like the NY Times article said, it's completely okay. No one's really getting hurt. People can heal quick. "5. Medication must be tested on animals"- False again for the same reason as reason #4. The NY Times article disproves almost all your points. Read it over if you need to. . http://www.nytimes.com...Notice this was in 2007. We should have eliminated animals completely by now. Look forward to your last response. This was a good debate. Good luck and nice debating with you.
Testing on Animals

Do you think that those two sites are false? On the Google site, there are tons of pictures that shows the life animals have because we, as a selfish nation, want to improve our society. No, not all animals go through this pain, but the majority do. Animals should not be tested on. On the New York Times page, the last sentence in my opinion is one of the most important. It shows that there are ways around killing animals to test products. Some of the things I use weren't tested and they work just fine. On the peta.org site, it tells you how many animals die, the type, etc. http://www.peta.org...http://www.nytimes.com...http://www.google.com... Now, I will begin my rebuttals. Does it have to be between human and animal? Why can't we just choose both. There are ways around animals testing and in some ways, the other ways are more accurate since animal and human cells don't react the same all the time. I have prioritized my values on life and I want to make it so that both are giving a fair chance at life. I would rather have both survive than one die and then perhaps the man die as well because the medicine didn't work.I went to the extreme with a dead corpse and almost being sarcastic with that. I was trying to get the point across that there are other ways to test medication. There should also be fellow animals rights. No animals has the right to be abused and be killed for the sake of medicine that might not even work. Also, since there's another way out, that even makes the animal abuse stand out even more. We can save lives in different fashions, like I've been talking about the whole time. We wouldn't do that on a human, would we? No because humans have rights. We can take away animals' rights and they get no say. We HAVE the control to do whatever we want and we are using it against them. We wouldn't do it to humans because they would fight back, they would try to prevent it. Animals are helpless and cannot fend for themselves as well as we can. Animals are abused in the labs. That's where I got animals abuse. Animals are tested on and are misused and have horrible lives. A life filled with poking, jabbing, etc. http://www.youtube.com... Does this look humane? Is this what we need to do to animals when there are other ways to test? How about this one?: http://www.youtube.com...Or this one: http://www.youtube.com...Or this one:http://www.youtube.com... All of these things takes place in the lab. This is immoral and inhumane and should be stopped. Don't you agree? There is too much evidence to how it more wrong than right and millions of animals die because of us.
Testing on Animals

RebuttalWhile many animals die because of animal testing each year, you cannot only look at the negatives of animal testing (though I realize that is your intention in a debate). Animals that go through animal testing are not all going through pain and suffering or even death due to their testing -- even if all of them did, you must prioritize your value on life. Many of these animals, including mice or primates, are used to test medicines which range from stopping headaches to saving lives. Would you rather the testing animal die, or a man on his deathbed who needs a certain medicine which must be verified first? You say there are other ways to advance in science (I assume you mean the advance of experimental medicine) than placing "chemicals on innocent animals. " This is a faulty claim. These medicines must be verified that they actually work in the living immune system of an animal, and since we cannot test an experimental medicine on a fellow human with human rights, we must test it on the other members of the animal kingdom who have immune systems. You even claim we can "test it on a dead corpse" -- you completely miss the point of testing experimental medicine on animals. Testing on a corpse whose bodily functions have ceased to work is pointless. The medicine must be tested on an immune system that can respond in a realistic fashion. You then go on to list reasons for "killing animals" -- again, the argument is on animal testing, which does not necessarily mean death -- "because we can, there are 'too many', and we think it's okay. " You have again missed the point of animal testing. We do not test experimental medicine on animals BECAUSE we have the ability, population control, or morality. We do it to advance medicine which could potentially save lives. Animal medicine testing is not used for population control, and we do not do it merely because we have the ability or find it moral; we do it for a very practical reason. Then you proceed on a tangent about animal abuse, which is irrelevant. ConclusionSeveral important medical advances have been made in the twentieth century due to the testing of non-human animals. These advances in medicine could not have happened without the use of animals as testing before releasing it to common people. You must understand before we go any further that although animal testing sounds inhumane, it helps us save lives.
Testing on Animals

Ok. Thank you and good luck. I will copy and paste my introduction since there are many things that we could argue about. So many animals are killed because of products being tested on animals. I believe the only reason we do it is because they are like us, but helpless and can't stop you from testing products on them. Taking innocent animals, making them go through pain and suffering, and then killing them is not a humane way to treat any living creature. They should be able to live a happy life and not one in pain and suffering that will ultimately lead to death because of a science experiment. Test it on something else; there are other ways to test if a product's safe than putting it on animal. Animals cruelty is NOT okay and should be banned. In our society, killing animals is just fine because we want to advance it science. There are other ways to advance in science without putting chemicals on innocent animals. The way this thing works is that they use the animal, put it through pain, and then kill it. What a life. Testing on animals can be avoided and instead you could test it on a dead corpse (I'm going to the extreme) or something else. We are killing innocent animals because we can, there are "too many", and we think it's okay. We should not only advance in science, but in love and compassion. We are killing innocent things everyday and yet, everyone feels it's ok. Do you think a homeowner should abuse his/her dog or cat? Do you believe they should be able to do that? So many people go off on the foreign countries because they eat dog or they eat cat or they eat etc., but as a hypocritical country, we do not see ourselves almost doing the same thing.
Stendhal's The Red and the Black is a product of romanticism not realism

John Lye has written that "Realism is faithful to our experience of life lived in a physical and social environment, and governed by causes and effects. The most powerful argument for realism is that it represents life as we live it -- sequential, contextualized, rooted in the concrete. ". Now what this means is that Stendhal's voice comes out in the novel, a lot of the time through Julien, seeing as he was a part of Napoleon's army. He also portrays religion and the upper class as using their influence to benefit themselves. This coincides with his personal views and values, especially those that he cultivated in Italy. Stendhal's The Red and the Black. Ed. Harold Bloom. New Haven: Chelsea House, 1988. Print.
Stendhal's The Red and the Black is a product of romanticism not realism

Literary critic Michel Crouzet argues that Stendhal's Romanticism offers "an explicit will to ensure the domination of interiority over exteriority." Along these lines, I will argue that Stendhal's The Red and the Black has Romantic elements thematically, structurally, and stylistically. To ground argument, I use the example of Julian Sorel, the central character of the narrative, who embodies Romantic characterists in his concern for internal authenticity in the face of radical uncertainty, and thus provides readers with a vision of the Romantic life.I assume Pro has the BoP. That said, let us begin.