BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama is either not a Muslim, or a very bad Muslim.

I do not actually believe that Obama is a Muslim, however I will argue for the sake of arguments, because everyone knows I'm a huge whore for attention. 1. Shahada"This is a phrase said before prayer, a declaration of faith and trust in God. It translates to "I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship except God and Muhammad is His Servant and Messenger." Obama has never been heard or seen reciting this phrase in English or Arabic."------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------You see ladies and gentlemen, Obama has been seen reciting this phrase. Not in English, or Arabic, but in Pig Latin."I was shocked last February, as I witnessed Obama clearly say "Iay earbay itnessway hattay heretay siay onenay orthyway foay orshipway xcepteay odgay ndaay uhammadMay siay ishay ervantsay ndaay essengermay." He was clearly reciting the Shahada. There is no doubt in my mind." --JustStein B. Bear (The Great Philosopher) 2. Salat"Since Obama is almost constantly watched by the Secret Service and other government agencies, it would be next to impossible for him to get away for that much time five times each day, every day. Not to mention, there is no evidence that Obama has every tried to slip away for extended amounts of time. It is also required that Muslims wash themselves before prayer, in a process called wudu. That adds about 10 minutes to the amount of time Obama would need to get away from people." From the White House, Mecca is Southeast. Obama is a very busy man, and therefore does indeed not have time to slip away and pray to Mecca like the Ala loving bastard that he is. However, he has improvised, and found a way that he is still able to pray to Mecca. Obama is frequently sighted with his eyes closed. And his eyes are only closed when he is facing Southeast. Also, people have sighted him mumbling to himself during these times as well.3. Zakathttp://www.youtube.com...Look at Video'nuff said.4. Sawm"This is a kind of religious fasting, or not eating food for long periods of time to show your devotion to your faith. In the month of Ramadan, it is an obligatory act to fast from dawn to dusk in order to show your faith and seek nearness to God. Ramadan in 2012 lasted from July 20th to August 18th. Obama held at least one White House dinner within this time frame, where believe it or not, he ate food."First off, WYF does 'where believe it or not' mean? Next, I have a simple, but powerful rebuttal. The food Obama ate was not food. It was fake food made out of edible paper. 5. HajjActually, Obama already has taken the pilgrimage. And seeing as you think he has not taken it yet, he did a damn good job of covering it up. Obama told every one he was going to Wallmart to get groceries for a few weeks, but in reality, he went to Mecca. No one suspected.Randomn Sights: (Very Important)http://bit.ly...http://bit.ly...http://bit.ly...http://bit.ly...
Obama is either not a Muslim, or a very bad Muslim.

In this round, I will show how Obama fails to participate in all of the 5 Pillars of Islam, and therefore can't be a Muslim, or is a very bad one. I'm sorry if I insult anyone of this faith. I don't know much about it, so most of this is new information to me. Shahada This is a phrase said before prayer, a declaration of faith and trust in God. It translates to "I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship except God and Muhammad is His Servant and Messenger. " Obama has never been heard or seen reciting this phrase in English or Arabic. Salat Salat is the Muslim practice of facing Mecca, and praying five times each day. Once at dawn, noon, mid-day, sunset, and night-fall. Generally, prayers last from 5 minutes to 15 minutes. Since Obama is almost constantly watched by the Secret Service and other government agencies, it would be next to impossible for him to get away for that much time five times each day, every day. Not to mention, there is no evidence that Obama has every tried to slip away for extended amounts of time. It is also required that Muslims wash themselves before prayer, in a process called wudu. That adds about 10 minutes to the amount of time Obama would need to get away from people. ZakatThis is a practice of giving money. Muslims, when they can, give at least 2.5% of their earnings to the poor. In 2010, Obama gave 14.2% of his income to charity. In the two most recent years, there are too many websites saying too many different things, so I can't give a figure that is definite. There are five principles that should be followed when giving the zakāt: The giver must declare to God his intention to give the zakāt. The zakāt must be paid on the day that it is due. After the offering, the payer must not exaggerate on spending his money more than usual means. Payment must be in kind. This means if one is wealthy then he or she needs to pay 2.5% of their income. If a person does not have much money, then they should compensate for it in different ways, such as good deeds and good behavior toward others. The zakāt must be distributed in the community from which it was taken. Obama also fails to follow this holy process when giving to charity. SawmThis is a kind of religious fasting, or not eating food for long periods of time to show your devotion to your faith. In the month of Ramadan, it is an obligatory act to fast from dawn to dusk in order to show your faith and seek nearness to God. Ramadan in 2012 lasted from July 20th to August 18th. Obama held at least one White House dinner within this time frame, where believe it or not, he ate food. HajjThis is a the pilgrimage to Mecca that all Muslims, if they have the resources to, are required to take sometime in their lifespan. Obama, although he still has time to, has not taken this pilgrimage nor has he ever been to Mecca. Even if he attempted it, we're talking about him disappearing for days, if not weeks. He would never be able to cover that up. Sources: . http://www.islamicity.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://money.cnn.com...http://muslimvoices.org...http://www.whitehouse.gov...http://www.when-is.com...
Animals should be protected, within reason

Your opponent does want to add something, thank you for continuing the debate. Have you no heart? It is that kind of thinking that starts wars. For example, take when Spain and Britain conquered the Americas. They pretty much considered the Native Americans animals, and slaughtered them as such. All so they could take control of the resources here in America, to "expand their territory". Imagine, if you will, a world where people have driven all predators to extinction, and are overhunting all prey animals. Just so they can build their factories. The thing is, saving places of wildlife drives to humanity to new discoveries. We could learn a lot just by studying the way ants and beavers build their houses, or how the animals in environments hostile to humans survive. Which could lead to us being able to survive on Mars(giving us much more population room than conquering all of Earth) or curing cancer. Do you want to give up barbeques, or hot dogs at baseball games? I highly doubt that we could find a vegan substitute that tastes the same. While you make a good argument about overpopulation and making more hospitals and police stations, the "beasts" you suggest we kill off are not actually hostile to humans unless provoked, or unless humans take away all their land and starve enough to be desperate to eat humans as food, which would be our own fault.
Animals should be protected, within reason

I'll begin my own argument now. Argument:The majority of animals are hostile to other creatures, like us humans. Some examples of hostile animals include: Wolves, Bears, Tigars, Lions, and Rhinocerouses. If we kill off these beasts, we'd be able to expand our territory. With all this extra territory, we'd be able to create new factories and research centers. Disease is a problem, especially cancer. And I don't see too many areas for extra houses, with our increasing populations. With extra territory, we'd be able to thrive, and make more hostpitals and homes. Crime's an issue too, so more police stations. But what about the animals? Don't they have a big part in our society? Not really, except for hunting purposes. We'd still keep animal factories and farms, and perhaps put these in our new territory. But even if our farm animals get hunted to extinction, we've got plants. No more meat? I'll take an apple. In conclusion, we should lower or remove the effectiveness of hunting restrictions so we can continue expanding our teritory, which we'd then build farms, factories, and hospitals in. If this leads to the extinction of farm animals, no worries. We've still got crops. Anything my opponent wants to add?
Animals should be protected, within reason

Sure we can leave them behind, if you don't want any more burgers or pepperoni/sausage pizza. Animals play an important role in our diet, and I don't think people want to be stuck eating bread and fruit all the time. Or what about pets? The wolves and cougars out in the wild are larger, wilder versions of your puppies and kittens, and I don't think anyone with a heart would want to just over hunt, fish, or farm animals until they are extinct.
Hitler wasn't such a bad guy

Alright, let's get this started. 1. Hitler was a great leader -During the great depression, it took literally 4 TRILLION German marks to equal a single U.S. dollar. Adolf Hitler turned that all around. In today's world, Germany is the world's fourth largest economy. Hitler was the catalyst to get Germany out of depression 2. Morality is totally subjective -Do you think abortion is wrong? whatever your answer, many people disagree with you. That doesn't make the other side total monsters, does it? If you think something like abortion, or stealing, or genocide makes you an awful person, that's YOUR opinion. There are many people who undoubtedly think one of your opinions makes you a monster. Are you going to agree with them just to win this argument? 3. Hitler did what he believed was right Teddy Roosevelt once said "In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing." So many people in this world do nothing despite them seeing a problem in the world. Hitler saw what he perceived as a problem, and he went so far to fix it. How much time do you spend trying to make the world a better place? No matter how much you disagree with his personality or his actions, he's still done more for what he believes is right than you probably ever wil. With that, I think i'll let you go.
Cannabis should be legalized

'1) My opponent states that drug prohibition will barely affect or even encourage drug use. ' No I did not state that it will barely affect it , It might it might not we don't know there is many factors to consider , (like demographics and religion) even if it does I don't see it as a problem since marijuana is not highly addictive , It is better than tyrannical cops and over-populated prisons . ' First of all, these are mostly state taxes. ' yes and ? most countries in the world don't have a system like the US does . 'once marijuana use begins to cause more deaths, marijuana sales will decrease, making the cannabis tax decrease.' My opponent says that marijuana use will cause more deaths and doesn't explain why it would and says that marijuana tax will decrease because of that , why would it cause more deaths than it already is ? . 'Third, since marijuana is addictive, it will cause people to buy it more and more,which will basically drain their money.' Marijuana is not highly addictive The large majority of people who try marijuana do it experimentally and never become addicted. Unlike other substances, pot has very few severe withdrawal symptoms and most people can quit rather easily. for example It is estimated that 32% of tobacco users will become addicted . About 10% of recreational users will develop problems serve enough to impair their work and relationships. ' what I am really doing is quoting from a source.' okay . 'The effect of marijuana on drivers is milder than alcohol, but what reason is this to legalize it? It's still worse than normal driving.' Once again legalize cannabis not stoned driving . 'l but not everyone is going to follow the law. ' Oh and prohibition will magically make them follow the law? . ' Yes, people have their agency but as Americans we don't want people to die. ' If i wanted to kill myself it is not your responsibility to tell me not to , I will do what i want with my body and again explain to me why more people would die because of it . ' If we don't legalize it, we are preventing many people who could've taken the risk and died to not take the risk and not die. ' again why would more people die because of it? ' By legalizing it, the death toll of drivers will increase. ' why would it? . ' but following legalization marijuana will become more commonly used, and harder to get away from' Marijuana is not Tobbaco Marijuana is a party drug and is less addictive It's not going to be much harder to get away from . ' What if you're snowed in your own home and someone pulls out a joint? I mean, you can choose to be right next to them but it is going to be more difficult to get around places without breathing marijuana smoke.' It's your private property you can ask him to smoke outside . Sources : http://www.psychologytoday.com... http://www.drugpolicy.org...
Same Sex Schools

Same sex schools are not better for education. When children aren't learning and working with the opposite gender, they aren't learning how to work with the opposite gender. My opponent may say that school is for learning and the less distractions there are, the more the students learn. I argue that school is for preparing students to be successful later on in life. To be successful you need to know how to work with all people and all genders. School is for helping students become successful, not for learning facts in a easy non distracting environment.
Same Sex Schools

Same sex schools are better for education. They create a less distracting learning environment for the students. My opponent might say that same sex schools are bad for education because you need to be able to work in a multi gender situation. But school is for learning, and it's harder to learn when your distracted by school drama caused by both of the genders creating conflict. And those skills are very easy to learn when your older, because your more mature. Would you rather have your child be well educated and have a less distracting social life or have your kid not as well educated but with gender variety.
Same Sex Schools

Same sex schools are not good for education. They don't prepare students for real life situations. In real life, there are both genders and you have to be able to work in any environment. My opponent might say that there are less distractions in same sex schools. However, I say that in real life those distractions are there and students need to learn how to work efficiently in difficult environments. Do you want students to learn how to work in environments that are unlike the real world, or do you want them to be prepared for real situations.
Lady Gaga's Music as a whole is Immoral

I would like to remind my opponent that the resolution states "Lady Gaga's Music as a Whole..." meaning that the intention of this debate is not to argue whether or not specific areas that my opponent is able to argue are immoral or not, but to argue Lady Gaga(Stefani Germanotta)'s music as whole. Any effort to deviate from what is specified in the resolution is classifiable as semantic and warrants a loss of the debate. That said, I will not go onto to present my constructive arguments. While there is nothing wrong with sex on a basic level (otherwise no-one would exist) too much emphasis on sex is horrible detrimental to humanity as a whole. It causes people to become overly conscious of their bodies, and take dangerous steps to make sure they fit into what is classified as as attractive, and acceptable. And it cannot be denied that many of Lady Gaga's have this heavy emphasis on sex. such as Love Game, Alejandro, and Teeth to name a few. Despite the fact that many of these songs may have secondary meanings (I wouldn't know, I don't listen to her music anymore) a majority of people aren't going to be looking for these secondary meanings. And will simply take the songs for face value. This will (and has) lead to many people gaining warped ideas about sex, and they will take it as something that can be used merely for pleasure. This will lead to STD, Unwanted pregnancies, Abortion as a form of birth control, broken hearts, broken home, and romantic Nihilism. Also being a Christian as well, my opponent would agree with the following verse from Acts 15:20 "Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." Next we can look at the vanity aspect of Lady Gaga's music. With songs such as Beautiful Dirty Rich as a prime example (Which when reading through the lyrics make me ashamed of my own username). It cannot be denied that the image Lady Gaga's image is one that has immense focus on image; i.e. vanity, intense concentration on one's self. However this debate is not about her image, but her music. Now the sad thing is, this concentration on vanity and self image crosses over into her music as well. The prior mentioned "Beautiful Dirty Rich" is one example (as well as advocating drugs, pornography, and getting into debt beyond what one can bear but those are different arguments altogether) However other vanity centered songs include but are not limited to, Black Jesus and Fashion of his love. That's all I have to say for now, and I feel like this is enough fodder to start a good round, so I'll end here. Good luck to my opponent, an here's to a fantastic debate! (see I didn't even take the easy win by linking to her music videos)
Lady Gaga's Music as a whole is Immoral

I accept. I'd like to clarify a few things, though. For the purpose of the debate, I will use (and expect my opponent to use as well) songs performed, written and published (no leaks, etc - you can get them on iTunes and in a store) by Lady Gaga (Stefani Germanotta). Remixes are not separate songs. We are focusing on the music and its lyrics - not anyones interpretation of those lyrics, etc. Music videos are irrelevant as well. The music must be on an actual United States major release album (not necessarily hers) - no iTunes specials, etc. Thanks!
Abortion

Well, I guess I won by forfeit, which is a shame. My Opponent willingly took on this debate. Maybe I was unclear on some things in the beginning, I can take blame for just that much. My Opp's unwillingness to adapt to whatever he misinterpreted is not my fault. As you can see, my Opp resorted to insults and the like. I have not. He just cannot come up with retorts to my arguments. Anyone can disagree with an argument from anyone, but you must be willing to defend your position, as I have did. This seems just an angry attempt to further defame me as one not so esteemed member of DDO has tried and failed to do (not my Opp). My point in having this debate was as I stated, I thought I had a good argument against abortion being a viable choice. (see my argument on rape trauma and post abortion trauma specifically). Yes I initially said "why abortion should be illegal ", but upon questioning from my Opp, I made things more clear, the way I had intended. He took the debate anyway. I did not want to have this debate to win, I wanted this debate to see what argument a pro choice person would have against my arguments. And my Opp did that. Pretty well I believe. But when it came time for rebuttals and cross examinations, he could not take the heat, as any of you reading can tell, he resorted to bullying. I welcome anyone to debate me on this or any other topic. Anyone with two eyes can see I do not resort to sneaky underhanded tactics. I apologize for not being clear, but I do not apologize for my arguments or my rebuttals.
Abortion

I believe I have the perfect argument on why abortion should be illegal. I really really want to debate this. Please someone, anyone, on either side of the argument debate me. You will be the Pro position Rules 4 rounds R1 acceptance of challenge, acknowledgement and acceptance of rules R2 opening statements on both sides plus any questions my challenger wants to have answered regarding my opening statements R3 rebuttals R4 closing statements voting period 3 days time to argue 72 hours 10,000 Characters (more than there was allowed the last time I logged on, over a year ago haha) Sooooo..... Any takers?
Abortion

Nice try, but that's not going to suffice. Here is your entire first post: "believe I have the perfect argument on why abortion should be illegal. I really really want to debate this. Please someone, anyone, on either side of the argument debate me. You will be the Pro position Rules 4 rounds R1 acceptance of challenge, acknowledgement and acceptance of rules R2 opening statements on both sides plus any questions my challenger wants to have answered regarding my opening statements R3 rebuttals R4 closing statements voting period 3 days time to argue 72 hours 10,000 Characters (more than there was allowed the last time I logged on, over a year ago haha) Sooooo..... Any takers?" Note that in this first post there is no mention at all of abortion as a "viable choice." It only mentions legality. You weren't "clarifying" this in your second argument, but you changed the rules. You say that I simply took on the debate. What was the alternative? Forfeit? Was that your strategy? Change the debate after the point of acceptance in the hope of having me forfeit? You weren't clarifying: you changed the topic in its entirety. Those are two completely difference questions, and the "clarification" on the two exceptions was introduced long after the fact. Also, I really resent the fact that you would posit that I attacked you personally. That never once happened. I pointed out facts--(1) your remarks that women are irresponsible was inaccurate and hateful and (2) you cheated. You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.
A National Curriculum: Lower Education for a Lowerclass??? I think not...

These kids aren't dumb! They dwell in the lower classes because their parents screwed up, not them. If we dont allow them a better education, simply because they are poor, then they are going to remain poor. Chopping up any hope of a better future for these kids because of their parents mistakes is not fair. Second, this is not an elitist society. Here elitism doesnt even work because those poor ignorant folk who were doomed by the current school system are still voting. Because of the way our country works (and I love the way we pick our leaders) these uneducated people's opinions still count. It is to our advantage to educate them. Lastly, deciding that someone is dumb based on their class is pure ignorance. Ive lived in the most expensive area in the country and I have lived around the poorest areas in this country. i have seen both types of people and every side has dumb and smart people. I have hung out at my friends trailor park and Ive watched movies in a friend's 16,000 dollars basement home theater. A childs intellegence has nothing to do with their social class. It has to do with their enviroment. if schools are placing a stronger emphasis on education, then the kid will care more about their education. These schools in poor areas, aren't. They are trying and they aren't helping the students try. This is a problem that is easily fixed by a national curriculum and a national standard.