BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islam is a peaceful religion

Not only can we see in its history that Islam was born out of and spread through violence, we can simply look in the texts upon which the religion is founded upon as their code and example for how to live in this life. We can also see how these teachings encourage great violence in followers of Islam today. Muslims are encouraged to follow the example of the Prophet Muhammad:"Allah says: “You have indeed in Allah’s Messenger an excellent pattern of conduct for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and who engages much in the praise of Allah” (9).The life and sayings of the prophet are recorded in the Hadith, which are texts used to supplement the Koran for Muslims to follow as a perfect example There are 43 cases in the Koran or the Hadith where the prophet Muhammad ordered or supported the killing and sometimes the torture or beheading of other individuals. These include apostates (a Muslim who leaves the faith of Islam) as well as many cases of poets who opposed the prophet in their writing and people who insulted the prophet in one way or another (6). Thus, when we read in the paper of violence being committed in the name of Islam due to someone insulting the prophet, the Koran, etc. it is not without precedent. Muslims use the example of the prophet found in the Hadith as justification for how they are to live now. I have shown that there are many cases where the prophet ordered or condoned violence and death on others simply for reading or writing a poem about him. Is it any wonder we still see the same today? After a Danish newspaper published cartoons of the prophet Muhammad violent demonstrations broke out throughout much of the Muslim world leading to the deaths of more than 100 people, the bombing of the Danish Embassy in Pakistan and acts of arson against their embassies in Syria, Lebanon, and Iran (7, 8). This is just one of many, many examples that we see today of violence being perpetrated by followers of Islamic teaching.Pro may argue that these people were not following Islamic teaching, because Islam teaches peace and love. It is a historical fact that Islam was born out of and spread through violent military force. I have shown that their own holy texts condone and depict the prophet ordering horrible violence and death onto people simply for writing poetry about him that he found insulting. I have shown that Muslims are taught to model their lives on the example given by the prophet in the Hadith, and so I have shown that these acts of violence that we see to this day are Muslims following the example taught to them by their religion. Far from being peaceful, Islam is a religion that encourages war and great violence.(6) http://wikiislam.net...(7) http://www.spiegel.de...(8) http://articles.cnn.com...(9) Surah al-Ahzab: 21
Islam is a peaceful religion

In order to win I have to show that Islam is not a peaceful religion. Islam- "a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur'an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God, 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. An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim (1). " Peaceful- Inclined or disposed to peace; peaceable. 3. Of or characteristic of a condition of peace (2). Peace- The absence of war or other hostilities. Freedom from quarrels and disagreement; harmonious relations (i. e. roommates living in peace with each other. ) (3). Religion 1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship (4). The prophet Muhammad founded the religion of Islam and immediately set out to spread the religion through wars of conquest. This movement met with such success that they became an Empire that used military conquest to spread Islam throughout what is now the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia. This was all accomplished through military invasion of other people (5). Far from being a peaceful religion, Islam has been a religion of war, conquest, and dissent from its early beginnings. (1). http://en.wikipedia.org... (2). http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (3). http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (4). http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (5). http://library.thinkquest.org...
Islam is a peaceful religion

Extend my arguments from R2 and accept as my closing statement. This is a subject I have a genuine interest in and about which I would very much like to hear opposing arguments. I would like it if my opponent would be willing to try this debate with me again so that her side can be heard. Since you are new here, feel free to contact me through a personal message if you need help with how the system here at DDO works. Cheers.
Non-human animals are mindless automatons who cannot feel pain nor suffer.

Interesting. There are actually people on this site who hold these types of, in my opinion, illogical views. I could have used more references, but I chose not to on purpose. I was waiting to see what you would post and whether or not you would cite any sort of meaningful references at which point I would have cited a considerable amount of data. That is why I finished the last round asking for references. Believe it or not, I am all but entirely certain that you could find references even today out on the internet which agree with this stance. If you had not cited any meaningful references, I would still have cited a considerable amount on this last post. As I see it, from the beginning I knew I would have the last word. It makes more sense to me to use my best information and my most meaningful evidence last, because, again, I would have the last word. In doing so, you would not have had the ability to refute my strongest evidence. I am actually undecided on how to handle the rounds of a debate which I have proposed. I have only, as yet, proposed a single debate, and I felt it necessary to come out with fairly strong evidence as soon as my opponent had made his first post. To me that seems to be the most logical way to do it, but I am still developing that strategy.
Non-human animals are mindless automatons who cannot feel pain nor suffer.

I just wanted to test your mettle. The idea of animals being mindless automatons is completley obsolete. Sadly, this idea did exist at one point and that's how I heard of this concept. I heard the idea in my psychology class. Apparenlty psychologists used to think animals were mindless automatons. Advice, use more outside sources. With the internet at your disposal you could have easily scienfically proven me wrong in the first round of the debate. Thanks for the debate. I eagerly await your response.
Non-human animals are mindless automatons who cannot feel pain nor suffer.

"Dogs may forget an event less than two minutes after it happened, according to a new study." James Owen, for National Geographic Animals are stupid. They only have a memory of less than two minutes. As for pain, that's just stimulus response. Think of a plant moving towards the sun, or a microscopic amboa engulfing its prey. "As we know from looking at plants on a windowsill, they grow toward the sunlight to be able to generate energy by photosynthesis. Now scientists have provided definitive insights into the driving force behind this movement -- the plant hormone auxin. "Technische Universitaet Muenchen " Amoebas locomote by ways of cytoplasmic movement. (cytoplasm is the cell content around the nucleus of the cell) The amoeba forms pseudopods (false feet) with which they 'flow' over a surface. The cytoplasma not only flows it also changes from a fluid into a solid state. These pseudopods are also used to capture prey, They simply engulf the food. They can detect the kind of prey and use different 'engulfing tactics'." W Wim Van Egmond As you can see animals are just like amoebas and plants. Sure they can response to stimulus.http://news.nationalgeographic.com...http://www.sciencedaily.com...http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk...
Non-human animals are mindless automatons who cannot feel pain nor suffer.

I have a feeling that you are another one of the trolls which I have encountered on this site, but I will take this challenge nevertheless. I am trying to move ahead on this site and win some arguments, and it is always a good idea to boost oneself by looking for low hanging fruit. First I will define automaton as defined by Merriam Webster. An automaton is "a machine that can move by itself" or "a person who acts in a mechanical or machinelike way." Notice that the dictionary made no reference to animals as automatons. I believe your argument to be that, when dealing with an animal, you get a very predictable sequence when dealing with the inputs to the mind of the animal and the outputs from that mind based upon the inputs. Basically, it would seem your argument is that animals are not capable of logic, which would be a fallacious assumption. Some animals are not capable of logic, for example a sponge, whereas others are capable of quite advanced logic and problem solving. The rather trite example of a mouse navigating a maze to find the hidden cheese is an example of this. The mouse can smell the cheese, so he knows that it is there, and he is able to navigate until he finds it by process of elimination. By taking each route until he has taken all that he can find, the mouse will eventually find the cheese by remembering where it is not. http://www.merriam-webster.com... To address the topic of your argument that animals cannot feel pain. Animals can indeed feel pain. If you strike an animal it will cause it to behave in a certain way. If your blow was not particularly damaging, the animal may decide not to do whatever it was doing so as not to anger you again. The animal might also decide that you present a threat to it and do considerable bodily harm to you as a response to the pain that you caused it. In terms of suffering, there are animals which are capable of emotional suffering on a similar level to humans. It is well documented that both cats and dogs will search for missing family members, whether those be people or other animals which used to reside in that household. Often times cats and dogs will display symptoms of depression when a family member dies. These include refusing to eat, no longer participating in activities in which they used to participate, and even increased aggression. http://pets.webmd.com... http://pets.thenest.com...
Success in life means money

* Professional success People enter a profession for reasons other than the money they might earn from their career. People want to be successful in a career when they love the type of work they do, even though they might earn no more than average pay. * Sporting success Being successful in sport is not about earning money. People do not always earn a lot of money from their sporting achievement, but success in competitive sports does lead to personal triumph and public glory. * Parenting success Successful parenting involves years of childcare, a lot time and much effort, in addition to the amount of money that needs to be spent on the children. Even when they have little money to spare, successful parents know when they have given their children the best start in life.
Success in life means money

Success is often associated with celebrity. Celebrities do earn a lot of money, but notoriety and being famous for the wrong reason should never be equated with success. When the goal is to become a millionaire, in building a career, starting in business or entering a profession, then success will depend on how much money is earned, but many people do not have that ambition to be immensely rich. Most people gain satisfaction from experiencing success when reaching career goals, by being innovative in business or from recognition of excellence in carrying out professional duties.
Success in life means money

It is unquestionable that there have been many popular people that did not have enough money. They have achieved a lot but they have no fortune. Are these people successful? According to the definition, they are not successful. Being successful is about achieving a lot, becoming popular and having a lot of money. How much do we know about people who have achieved a lot yet they do not have any money? How much do we know about people who have a lot of money and yet they have not achieved as much as those popular-but-poor people? Our knowledge of both categories is incomparable.
Success in life means money

Earning money is not, and never has been, the only way to be successful. The greatest success in life is achieved by overcoming obstacles, facing fears and dealing with difficulties. Each small achievement in personal development should be seen as a step towards success. Personal success is gained by meeting challenges and overriding the hardships of life, so anyone who is disadvantaged can become a success. Poverty and debt can successfully be overcome without acquiring great wealth. Earning money is a necessity, but it is not the only way to success
High school students should have to pass a national exit exam to graduate

Most schools teach all the same subjects such as common edu like English, math and history. It doesn't have to do with schools teaching different things it has to do with what they know and what they have learned. Here are just some objectives of the test. "Students know what is expected and that the test really counts, so they work harder. "Schools identify and can address student weaknesses early. "Similarly, schools discover areas of overall weakness, prompting them to refocus resources where they are most needed. "Education across the state is more consistent, eliminating situations where schools in some districts are superior to others. "The public sees gains from year to year and regains confidence in public schools. Source used http://www.ecs.org...
High school students should have to pass a national exit exam to graduate

But the whole issues tie into kids taking it.Every state has a different program which deals with preparing young minds for the future. Some believe in statewide testing. Others might have other ways. You also have to take into account private schools vs public schools. How about the parents who teach their kids? http://www.education.com...Tests also should not even be completely the part. Sure, tests are part of it.National exams would also be too costly.We have to be pragmatic about education.
High school students should have to pass a national exit exam to graduate

The problem with national examinations is that it would place authorities over examination to the federal government. Many things that our Founders fought for were to eliminate things about central government. The ideal government was to restrict federal government to war and defense. Many things were to be restricted to the state. Every state has their way of preparing kids for the future. Why trample that? Why not let control of education be to the states and citizens. Federal government, if it has too much power, can take on a God complex. We've seen happen in foreign countries. So, no. I don't believe there should be a national exam. It would just make the states unhappy.
High school students should have to pass a national exit exam to graduate

1st of I would life to give the definition of the High school Exit Exam: "The California High School Exit Examination, or CAHSEE, is a test that every student in California must pass before they receive their high school diploma. This test was developed in response to concerns over students graduating high school without the basic skills they would need to succeed in the workforce or in college." 2nd)The main reason why schools give an exit exam is to cover all material that has been covered through the kids high schools years. It lets the Board of Governors of the school to know how well children are doing, its also a way to know if a child needs help in a certain subject. If a kid doesn't pass the exam, they shouldn't be able to continue and go into college unless they pass it. When you fail the test, obviously they are struggling and if we let them continue and go to college they are just going to have a much harder time and they will be taught stuff that wont make sense to them just like in the exam.
pumas should be forced to wear shoes

"We've tamed lions, walrus's, giraffes, etc. Yet you think we can't control a minor puma. The best way would be to use a tranquilize and sedate each puma; put shoes on them and then let them roam. As for the sock point you stated, you could easily see that the puma has fur fully covering its hide." Thus it doesn't need shoes. It would take a lot of effort to do all this, especially because it would have to be done for each and every puma. "As for the shoes not fitting them, we could easily manufacture new ones in the shame of puma paws." It would still try to rip it off. "Now as for the reason to put shoes on them. It would force them to stop impregnating our iguanas." Clearly, this makes no sense. Besides, pumas and iguanas are two completely different species, even different classes. How would shoes make a difference either way? "Voters as u can see I have brought distinct reasons why to put shoes on pumas and how. Vote pro" All of which made no sense AND I still negated them. Clearly, a CON votes is in order. Conclusion: Forcing pumas to wear shoes would be a waste of time and effort, and do harm but no good.
pumas should be forced to wear shoes

Alright, I see where you are coming from. But you have yet to understand the technology of the modern world. . We've tamed lions, walrus's, giraffes, etc. Yet you think we can't control a minor puma. The best way would be to use a tranquilize and sedate each puma; put shoes on them and then let them roam. As for the sock point you stated, you could easily see that the puma has fur fully covering its hide. As for the shoes not fitting them, we could easily manufacture new ones in the shame of puma paws. Now as for the reason to put shoes on them. It would force them to stop impregnating our iguanas. Voters as u can see I have brought distinct reasons why to put shoes on pumas and how.
pumas should be forced to wear shoes

No, the problem is not solved. If you try to staple something onto a puma, the puma will kill you. This makes it quite impossible to enforce the rule, so if the rule is not enforced, then pumas aren't forced to wear shoes. Plus, when moving, the shoes could bounce on its legs, making noise, startling prey, so the puma starves. When the pumas starve, the population of their prey will grow in number, destroying the balance of the ecosystem, throwing off the entire bioshpere. It would be a bad idea. You have still not presented any reason for why they should be forced to wear shoes, so far we have no reasons to, and many reasons not to. I am winning.
pumas should be forced to wear shoes

In order to force it to where shoes, someone would have to actually give it the shoes, and put them on their feet. A puma would rip anyone who tried this to shreds. It would not be enforcable, and thus should not be considered. In additon, not even humans are forced to wear shoes. It is optional. What if the puma wants socks? It wouldn't be able to express itself. It would also fall off, because their feet are not as flat as human feet, which is why we can walk on two legs. And, it would alert its prey if it did manage to walk, and prevent it from climbing trees, because it must claw at the bark. It would make pumas extinct. Resolved: Pumas should not be forced to where shoes.
Getting a piercing is self-mutilation

I accept.Definitions: Since my opponent has not provided any, I shall.Self mutilation: "to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part." (http://dictionary.reference.com...)Arguments:Now, piercings must meet this requirement in order to be classified as self-mutilation. Obviously, they do not. Piercing your ears does not deprive you of any ESSENTIAL part of your body. That is as simple as it gets.Rebuttals: Everything in my opponent's argument is irrelevant except the last scentence. I would address each one, but my character limit is short. Now, her last scentence is not consistant with the definition of self mutilation, thus not self mutilation.
Getting a piercing is self-mutilation

People take fashion very seriously. Piercings won't improve your physical appearance, considering it could improve the style you're going for, how far is society willing to go? Piercing holes in your skin purposely is pretty harsh already, you've been given a body and you're supposed to take care of it and leave it the way it has been given. A piercing isn't going to make you any skinnier, prettier and its definitely not going to get you a boyfriend/girlfriend. My grand-mother previously owned a jewelry shop and some people came to get piercings, one has gotten her belly button infected and she demanded another one, clearly the answer was no. Getting a piercing is self-mutilation because you're piercing a hole in your skin purposely, not because its needed.
debate.org is a good source of information

Once again, no evidence from my opponent." majority of the people said 'ugh mitt Romney sucks obamas awesome' this is a classic example of not using real world issues they just use their own opinion."I encourage any reader to look through the debates, I promise that most debaters provide sourced information, "if people come on this website thinking they are going to find what they what they are stupid morons because debate.org ranges from games to creepy pastas there is an extremly small chance that people will find what they want and like i said earlier people mainly go off their own opinion because they this website as a thing to do in their own free time"Well this seems a bit harsh, and unjustified.As we all know, many people to take the site seriously and there are only a small percent of trolls and games are a small part of DDO.Con failed to provide an argument addressing the resolution.
debate.org is a good source of information

thank you what I mean by real world examples is that they use real worlds arguments like for example barrack obama V's mitt Romney majority of the people said 'ugh mitt Romney sucks obamas awesome' this is a classic example of not using real world issues they just use their own opinion. now to my argument if people come on this website thinking they are going to find what they what they are stupid morons because debate.org ranges from games to creepy pastas there is an extremly small chance that people will find what they want and like i said earlier people mainly go off their own opinion because they this website as a thing to do in their own free time that is the end of my second to last argument.
debate.org is a good source of information

well thank you for accepting my challenge now for my argument... i must say all your argument was is a bunch of maths and stuff that didnt actually Have anything to do with the topic what i meant by my previous argument is that most of the time people who use debate.org do not use actual real world examples it"s just their opinion and don"t get me wrong there is a small percentage of people who use actual information like you That is the end if my second last argument.