BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sharia Law is immoral.

My opponent appears to be criticizing another legal system, instead of defending the topic. Con also seems to believe that the only alternative is nihilism. Nihilism - the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. I am not asking that he reject his religion or his own morals, only that he argue in this debate with an open mind, and not only argue from authority. I"ll ask Con: Would you be willing to kill me if I did not allow you to implement Sharia? Answer this in your turn, please. Anti-Sharia Argument #4 " Freedom of Religion and Conscience. (o8.1) - When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. (o8.4) - There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (since it is killing someone who deserves to die). Clearly, Sharia allows the killing of non-Muslims, and those who convert away from Islam. Anti-Sharia Argument #5 " Sex and Killing. (o1.2) - The following are not subject to retaliation: . .. -4- a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring or offspring's offspring o12.2 - The penalty for adultery is stoning. The penalty for unmarried sex (fornication) is 100 lashes. Sharia Law has rather brutal punishments for sexual crimes, and states that a parent killing their children or grandchildren is "not subject to retaliation. Anti-Sharia Argument #6 " Slaves Female slaves are subject to sexual immorality with their owners, whether they like it or not. Here is what www. answering-islam. org has to say: "Sayyid Maududi (d. 1979), a highly respected traditional commentator and scholar, says in his comment on the verse that is it lawful for Muslim holy warriors to marry women prisoners of war even when their husbands are still alive. But what happens if the husbands are captured with their wives? Maududi cites a school of law that says Muslims may not marry them, but two other schools say that the marriage between the captive husbands and wives is broken (note 44). But why would a debate over this cruelty emerge in the first place? No sex or marriage should take place between married female prisoners of war and their captors. In fact, no sex should take place between women captives and their Muslim overlords. But Islam traffics in injustice too often. " "Islam allows deep immorality with women who are in their most helpless condition. This crime is reprehensible, but Allah wills it nonetheless"the Quran says so. (2) In light of one of my arguments, I"ll ask again: Con, would you be willing to kill me if I did not allow you to implement Sharia Law? I will now turn this debate over to Con for the last time, best of luck to him. Thanks for a great debate.
Sharia Law is immoral.

You've quoted, taken verses to mold a favorable context, and taken examples of the authority from a Holy book you don't believe in. You spoke of honesty and fair treatment of others. But what do you mean by fair? It is not fair treatment of others who suffer under the regimes set up by murderous foreign governments in countries across the world. It is not fair treatment for those in prisons who've been the victims of merciless sexual assault and abuse and torture. It is not fair treatment for those indiscriminately killed by drone strikes. It is dishonest to mislead the public for personal gain and the Quran denounces lying to harm others. You may say I argue from authority, but is the alternative nihilism? Tell me how can everyone be moral? What allows for this? To decide what is moral and what is not moral is to decide what is going on in someones head. I cannot do that. Sharia Law decides. That being said, we live in a world of governed law. A man practicing Sharia says, "I am moral." A different man says, "You are not." Where does that leave us?
Sharia Law is immoral.

My opponent"s only proof is that his God, Allah just says so, and that"s that. In order for this to be a constructive debate, Con must realize that not all people believe in Islam and Sharia Law. I refuse to follow the rules of a religion I am not a part of. Con then resorts to an offensive allegation, alleging that I am an "infidel." I urge the voters to take note of this. To answer Con"s question of what I believe is moral, I believe that basic morals are equal and fair treatment of others and honesty. That is what most believe is moral, and those are two things that Sharia Law does not advocate. I am awaiting Con"s Rebuttals.
Sharia Law is immoral.

There is nothing immoral about Sharia. By YOUR standards YOU say it is immoral. The Quran, the Hadith, this is the words of God. You claim that Sharia Law is immoral. But that is to question Allah: "Allah is never unjust In the least degree." Al-Quran 4:40 God is just. He cannot be unjust. Otherwise, He is not God. The word He gives us is true and perfect. There is no mistake in His word. Otherwise, He is not God. Allah is Eternal. He is the One and Only. Sharia is the only standard of morality. It is the only standard of what is right by Him. These rulings are mandatory. They are not left open to YOUR interpretation. Heretics, apostates, and infidels are all subject to the will of Allah- hell fire. What is your standard of What is Moral?
Sharia Law is immoral.

Round 2: Rebuttals. Round 3: Rebuttals and Closing Arguments. Good luck to the opponent. Sharia Law is Immoral Anti-Sharia Argument #1 " Women. Sharia Law is extremely anti-woman. It states that it is illegal for a woman to leave the house against the will of her husband. It allows husbands to beat their wives under any circumstance. If this is not anti-woman, I don"t know what is. Anti-Sharia Argument #2 " Non-Muslims and Jihad. "Fighting is prescribed for you' (Koran 2: 216); "Slay them wherever you find them' (Koran 4: 89) "Fight the idolators utterly' (Koran 9: 36) Sharia Law states that a Muslim who takes the life of a non-Muslim may not be punished. The legal system also allows non-Muslim subjects living in an Islamic State to live free of harm, but with a nasty twist. They must: Pay a special tax, accept lesser forms of greeting, and never build homes or places of worship taller that homes of Muslims and Mosques. Breaking this agreement may result in lynching. Anti-Sharia Argument #3 " Lying. (r8.2) - The Prophet said, "He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good or says something commendable is not a liar. ' Kulthum added, "I did not hear him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things: war, settling disagreements and a man talking with his wife or she with him (in smoothing over differences)' The legal system permits lying, a practice called Taqiyya, to spread Islam. I now turn this debate over to Con. Good luck to you. Sources and works cited: . http://www.thereligionofpeace.com... . http://www.americanthinker.com... . http://www.billionbibles.org...
Abortion

You see, I would possibly be okay with it if it only happened in situations in which women need it Health problems). Although, the percentage of women who have an abortion because of health reasons either with the mother or with the baby. http://www.operationrescue.org.... 89% of abortions happen for the following reasons that in my opinion take advantage of abortion: inadequate finances, not ready for the responsibility, women's life would be changed too much, unmarried or problems with relationship, too young, doesn't want anymore children. 89% of abortions happen for those reasons, says operationrescue.org. To me, that is disgusting. If women don't want children DON'T have sex! We shouldn't be giving women the option to discontinue a life simply because she was careless when having sex. If she doesn't want the child she should look into other methods of raising it. Life should not, I repeat, SHOULD NOT be ended because women are irresponsible when it comes to sex.
Abortion

I totally agree with you on the taking advantage of it, and I'm not for that and I don't support that either. Abortion is a horrible thing and a touchy topic. But when someone denies a possible human being life due to their irresponsibilitys, I do have a problem with that. On the contrary, I am not completely against it so I am pro-choice, because I believe a woman should have that right to make that big decision. Take advantage of it? No. That is wrong. But have the option if they need it? Yes.
Abortion

I respect that you want to respect the woman's choice, I really do. I'm not going to lie, everything you're saying looks good. We live in a country where we have the right to make our own choices about our body. I accept that. What I have a problem with is people have irresponsible and unsafe sex when they are not ready for children. The only reason that sex exists is so that we can procreate. People take advantage of it. I am so so so thankful that my mother chose life for me. I now know what it's like to talk, laugh, travel, and live a beautiful life. So many "fetuses" are denied that right to a live when their mother chooses an abortion. I don't find an abortion right in any case including rape an incest. Studies have shown that less than 10% people have abortions out of rape or incest. The top reason is that the mother and father weren't ready for children. I would love to tell every single one of those people that if you aren't ready to have children, you shouldn't be having sex. To not fair to the child who had no choice but to be created. If you aren't ready for children, there are options such as adoption. There are so many women who can't bear children but would make great mothers.
Abortion

I don't think it's murder. It is not a human, it is a fetus. A fetus cannot function or being considered a human being yet. Honestly, I think abortion is horrific but, I don't think anyone should have the right to tell a woman what she can do and can't do with her body. No one really wants such a sad procedure done but they realize they have to. For whatever their reasons are. It's a personal and hard decision. It still remains none of my business. Do you call the young woman about to get the procedure done due to her being raped a "murderer"? This is such a touchy topic but It isn't murder. I know people who've had to get abortions due to complications with the baby or being very ill. They're not killers. I am pro-choice. Not pro-killer.
Abortion

Abortion IS murder. I can't stress that enough. By supporting abortion in any way (pro choice, having an abortion, or the doctor who aborts) you are condoning murder of THE MOST PRECIOUS and innocent thing that this big world has to offer us. For those of you who think you are helping women by being pro choice, I would like to tell you that I am too, but not for the mothers. I am pro choice for the beautiful, perfect creation that should have the right to live no matter what the circumstances are. I stand tall and proudly for the babies who don't yet have a voice in this world. Abortion IS murder and murderers are disgusting. For those of you who think pro life is a religious thing, you are wrong. Being pro life is not about God, it's about giving every person the right to life and proudly exercising our right to feel that way.
Pascal's Wager is not logically valid

The whole point of Pascal's Wager is that it is better to believe in God regardless of whether or not he exists. Obviously, you missed that point. What do you lose? Well, I already addressed that. First of all, Pascal does imply that simple belief is not all that he is concerned with. From Pascal's "Pensï¿½es": "Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful." Obviously, such qualities could not stem simply from a belief in God. This statement implies the following of a religion that extolls these virtues, or at least the belief that God wants you to behave in a certain way. The idea of how God wants you to behave is still inevitably going to come from a religion. But in following these religions, you will end up losing the greatest pleasures of life for an afterlife that may very well not exist. We know that our current life exists. We can observe it directly. However, we have zero evidence for an afterlife. Wagering on something for which we have no evidence of existence versus something that we know exists is clearly foolish. Furthermore, in any one single belief, there is no such thing as 99.9%. You either do believe, or you don't. Even a shred of doubt in your mind amounts to a lack of belief. You may accept the possibility that this thing exists, and you may even believe it to be probable. However, belief is %100. If it isn't, it isn't belief. And you still have yet to address Pascal's faulty assumptions that either a)the correct methods have been used to worship God or b) that God needs only belief and not worship or c) that any worship is fine with God. To say what he did, Pascal must have been assuming one of these things, yet he presents proof for none. You also didn't address the fact that he assumed without proof that God rewards belief at all.
Pascal's Wager is not logically valid

So now you argue that Pascal's wager applies only if it is better to believe in God NO MATTER WHAT. So what is NO MATTER WHAT? If it is 51% sure that you will got to Hell if you don't and 49% sure that you won't even if you don't? So what. If it is 95% sure you won't got to Hell even without Pascal's wager, then how does it hurt to believe and be 99.9% sure. I think the real question here is "What do you lose?" when you agree to believe in God. Pascal's wager only applies to belief in God and does not neccesarily insist that you take up practice of any specific religion. Now if this was arguing that an atheist had to change his ways and become a Christian and live a lifestyle in which all is focused on God, then maybe it would not be logical in every situation, but this simply says, "Should you BELIEVE in God or should you not?" Pascal's wager implies no physical exertion other than belief. Now, this belief places you a little bit more sure that you will not be punished for disbelief. The physical exertion taken in belief is so miniscule that it is certainly worth it to believe and place yourself a bit more surely to the idea that you won't be punished than it is not to believe and risk being punished in the next life.
Pascal's Wager is not logically valid

All I can say is that I extend my arguments. You didn't actually refute any of my arguments. I accept that it is possible (in the most literal sense of the word) that there is a deity out there who rewards belief and punishes disbelief. I was never arguing the mere possibility of this. I was arguing against the conclusion made by Pascal's Wager that NO MATTER WHAT, it is always better to believe in God.
Pascal's Wager is not logically valid

Here is the deal, you argue that human reason is enough to know whether knowledge of God (or on the other hand his nonexistence) is possible or impossible. Here is the problem. Nobody thusfar has any proof or disproof of God, at least nothing they can prove. Some have claimed to have had mystical experiences with God but that lies on their experience alone. I have had two out of body experiences in my lifetime, but I don't expect anybody to believe it because it is based on what I have felt alone, the only way is to get into my head. All we know is that God, if he exists, it invisible to our naked eye and if he does not exist then there cannot possibly be any card that comes down from the sky with the words "God does not exist" written upon it. Now, many religions claim to know of the existence of God, but it is a basis of acceptance of faith. They also often claim that their revelations show that God could punish us for refusing to accept his existence and his rule of this world. Maybe it isn't true, but it could very well be. Here is how Pascal's wager comes in. First of all, God might not exist. You can argue that human reason could possibly prove or disprove this, but you can't be 100% sure. The same is with his existence, you can't be 100% sure until you see him. If he does then you can't be 100% he won't punish you for disbelief. So in the end there are many situations that could be true but in the end there is always the chance, the possibility that there is a God out there who will punish you for disbelief. The only way to be sure that you will avoid this is to acknowledge him. Maybe Pascal's wager isn't the only bet, and maybe it is not even good, but it is the way you can be closest to 100% sure that you will not be sent to Hell or punished by God, whether they exist or not.
Trial by jury

Okay, So lets say that the job of a jury is to represent the people. By this extremely loose definition, Yes juries would be effective. However, I don't think this should be the job of the jury. When a person is on trial, Their very freedom could hang in the balance. So in my mind, The most "effective" jury is the one that arrives at the correct verdict at the highest frequency possible. To take a funny but true quote from a movie "a jury consist of 12 people who weren't even smart enough to get out of jury duty" Funny but true, There is no requirements that a juror know anything about legal proceedings. Furthermore, The lawyers have a say in which jurors ultimately get selected, Which means they were selected through bias. A lawyer who wants to in their case isn't going to select the best jurors, They're going to select the jurors that win their case. A trained jury would be familiar with legal proceedings and can be rotated to different courts to eliminate bias. They could be selected by a non partisan source and we could have more confidence that they're making their verdicts based off court proceedings because they're trained to do so. In our current system, A lawyer could veto people that sympathize with the opposition and get a jury full of people who only decide on their gut instinct. You say that trained juries are no different than judge rulings. I disagree. The judge is responsible for sentencing and moderating court conduct. In fact, Anyone who's spent enough time in court knows that the judge makes every effort to allow pleas or plea bargains beforehand and only make a ruling when it's the last resort. A trained jury would not have nearly as much power as a judge. I reject that lawyers could manipulate the juries because we could constantly rotate them. Since the jurors are employees of the government, They can afford to put in more time and effort and can travel more often, Since they don't have a job to get back to. Is it a perfect solution? Probably not, But saying there's a perfect solution would be a slippery slope. The fact is, Trained juries fix most, If not all of the problems that we have with random juries. I think when a persons' freedom is on the line, That "representing the people" is not the chief concern. The chief concern is making sure the defendant receives the just verdict. Period. Your floor.
Trial by jury

Untrained juries are effective at what they are designed to do. Represent the people. Not convict people who they have a shadow of a doubt are innocent. To say they are not, You have to have numbers that state there is another system that is superior in these regards. Judges do not represent the people, And you would have lawyers picking a choosing judges to win their cases for them. It would be a percentage game. It already is in every way judges alone are used. This makes them immediately less effective. Additionally, Jury failures can be appealed. I would be for improving the legal system to where more people had appeals or to where shadow of a doubt was emphasized more. I am for improvements. Trained juries would mean lawyers can pick juries whose positions they know ahead of time. It would be a fight over not whether a person is innocent or guilty, But it would be even more of a fight over "how well did my lawyer pick my jury? " It is to some extent already, But less than it would be in the other system. Trained juries are no different than judge rulings. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht.
Trial by jury

I've laid out my protests: 1. Who pays for them? 2. Their bosses can pressure them. 3. The selection of them is still biased. 4. Will there be enough professional jurors? 1. Jurors nowadays are not paid much. I would be paid dirt compared to my normal hourly if I was required to do jury duty. If this was not so everyone would want to do it. You have to pay something people will be willing to dedicate their entire lives to become pro jurors for there to be anywhere near enough to cover all the court cases that happen in the US already. Your answer to this is that "They both get paid by the government. " The level of corruption is entirely different between people being paid a pittance and people doing something salaried whose entire lives are in the balance of whether or not they keep their job. 2+3. I don't know how you can pretend that you aren't falling into a nirvana fallacy when your prescription for how your system would work is so vague. "It could be between 1-3 people" and "it would be unbiased" and "They would have no information on the case itself or the jurors themselves. " You can't develop a system that actually works around these lines, And you know it. To actually make the statement that your system would be less biased than what currently happens and the balance that we currently have in jury selection, You have to actually have a system to compare it to. You're leaving your system vague. I'm throwing punches against ethereal shadows. Your system is morphing to whatever shape allows it to dodge those punches, But its lack of substance simply shows your idea isn't fully thought out well enough to actually make statements like "it eliminates bias" or "It would be more effective. " You currently have no solid system for me to really debate against. I've presented the problems with a system of pro jurors, But you have simply declared the problems to not be so, And to in fact be superior in your system, Even though your system is not well-defined even by yourself. I submit you can't make the statements you're making without a more solidly defined system. As such, No one should find your position convincing for the sake of this debate. You may create a solid system and you may indeed win a debate along these lines in the future, But currently the judges should be able to see that a vague concept of a system can always be conceived to be flawless since its definition can shift whenever it likes, But once you actually pin down any numbers to a solid consistent system the flaws become clear. Your system then is unconvincing. I could present you a hundred similarly vague systemic changes if you'd like and you'd declare the flaws with them immediately and I'd shadowbox my way out of them and you would not find it convincing. I'm uncertain why you expect a suggestion to replace a solid system with a system that has no substance to be convincing to the judges or myself. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
Criminals are born, not made.

Yes they are all caused by circumstances raping, murdering ect. They happen because of things that happen in there life. I mean seriously, a baby doesn't come out wanting to rape someone. It doesn't come out wanting to murder someone. For instance the shooting at the Columbine high school, they weren't born wanting to kill 12 people and wound 20 others, it was by circumstance that they chose to shoot people. Because of bulling it was provoked, by things such as video games, movies that influenced them to do so. It was shown that they even planned to bomb the high school but could not. Theses things don't happen because of genes. But the point is taking life isn't in there brains from the time they are born it gradually get imbedded in there brains.