BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion has done more good for the world than bad.

Thank you, Con, for instigating this debate. My case shall consist of both my own contentions and a rebuttal to my opponent's argument.C1) CharityThroughout history, religion has been the propelling factor behind charity and helping others. It motivates people to contribute to humanitarian efforts and issues such as world hunger, poverty, and abuse. Many Christians have decided to "take up the cross" by looking after "the poor, their widows and orphans, their sick and dying" as the Bible asks of them. The first hospitals in the West were built by them, and Christian leaders are the founders of many charities around the world, such as the Kiwanis Club, the Rotary Club, and the YMCA. Vincent de Paul[1] and Mother Teresa[2], both of whom were religious, dedicated their lives to the service of the poor and sick.C2) InspirationSome of the most enriched and genius writers, artists, musicians, architects, and scholars in all of humanity's history have been inspired because of religion. The beautiful Catholic cathedrals of Europe display a unique kind of art that has stood for hundreds of years, from the medieval periods and earier. Galileo, Copernicus, Boyle, Newton, Pasteur, and many others all saw their scientific vocation in distinctively Christian terms. Holidays such as Christmas and Easter would not be around today had it not been for religion.C3) Moral ProgressReligion helps people to have faith to keep moving forward, such as with alcoholics, criminals, and the depressed. The anti-slavery movements of America and England both began with Christians who believed slavery to be morally wrong and something that ought to be rid of. William Wilberforce was driven by Christian convictions in the late 1700's to begin the anti-slavery movement[3] that would eventually have slavery abolished in England by 1833. Many morals and laws of modern society were influenced by Christian and Jewish teachings.I can elaborate on these arguments more in future rounds, but for now I will keep them as they are.R1) HolocaustCon's single argument is that if it weren't for religion, the Holocaust would have never happened. This is a poor argument, and a silly one as well. Is it really rational to blame a mass extermination on a single factor, one that was the victim of what happened? There are many things we can attribute to the causes of the Holocaust, such as anti-Semitism, Hitler's rise, German embarassment after World War I, and so on. This is like saying that boys who wear purple jackets are the cause of bullying that happens to them, when in reality it is the bullies who are the cause of the problem. There are many different factors that would have made the Holocaust never occur at all, so it really is absurd to blame religion out of all things. Religion was not used to harm Jews, nor was it the leading factor behind any of the exterminatinos that happened, so this argument is doesn't hold up very well.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://www.biography.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Religion has done more good for the world than bad.

Throughout the course of history, religion has played a huge part in the events and culture of the Human race. Religion has inspired great minds to build and do great things, such as Michelangelo, or Queen Isabella. But all too often religion is a hindrance and bane to mankind and his progress. Where it not for religion would there have been a mass extermination of Jews in WWII? Would 6 million lives be extinguished where it not for their faith and that their faith conflicted with the faith and ideology of the Third Reich? Is anyone's faith or religion an acceptable justification for the loss of even one human life? As far as my godless morals tell me, the answer is a resounding "No!"
The Internet Of Things Outweighs Decreased Personal privacy

However, I am personally offended by the fact that he has used offensive language on me in the comments. I would also like to clear some things in this debate. My opponent has stated that there is no such thing as "The internet of things" However there clearly is as I have stated in my definition. The internet of things are devices or sensors other than computers, smartphones, or tablets that connect, communicate or transmit information with or between each other through the Internet. This is clearly not the same as the internet. These are examples of the internet of things: Pacemakers, Bluetooth, Disaster detecting sensors, and many others. If my opponent is still mixed up on what the internet of things even means then he should look at this website: . https://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent has also stated that the internet is used for many different things however this is completely unrelated to this topic as this is not the same thing as the internet of things. Additionally, my opponent has brought up NO EVIDENCE to back up his claims. Overall, we must weigh the saving of lives through increased help in health care and public services because of the internet of things over the unrelated content that my opponent has brought up. If this itself has not won me the debate, then I have won because of my framework which clearly states that since I have proven that the internet of things has saved lives, then I have won this debate. And for all of the reasons above I urge you all to vote for a proposition ballot.
The Internet Of Things Outweighs Decreased Personal privacy

The InterNet helps people. This is obvioous because A. Everyone loves the internet. 2. Everyone is on the internet. PS stop calling it an Internet of Things. Its called the interNet. Now first off, let me start off right now and begin by saying that if you take away the internet, like you want to do, a thing will happen which is that people will go crazy. this is a proven fact that goes back in time. Your claim that the internet is evil is wrong because the internet has helped many people. I have read many books and articles, and have had numerous conversations with decorated doctors who concur that the internet is actually beneficial to the health of the subject. The internet helps poor African American countrys to stay updated on current events, and also other third world countrys. This is my argument. Hopefully you will see reason and realize that destroying the internet forever is not the way to go xD
Children being tried as adults (please give all thoughts and opinions)

Alright, two prong attack. A. The idea that someone becomes mature at the age of 18 is completely and utterly ludicrous. Some people are going to be mature by the age of 12, others will not be mature until 30 or above. Thus under my opponents idea some children do deserve to be tried as adults. B. A viable alternative that solves for the problems in my opponents case. The United States jail system should be scraped in favor of a rehabilitation system. The focus of which will be on making criminals into decent members of society. Thus under the revamped system children being tried as adults is perfectly acceptable, in fact this rehabilitation system will simply have one category of "people".
Children being tried as adults (please give all thoughts and opinions)

If a child is mature enough to commit a very serious adult crime then they should be mature enough to handle an adult trial. The bottom line is that if you do the crime then you do the time, simple as that. But it's not that simple kids are not mentally ready to be tried as an adult because they aren't an adult. Children should not even be tried as adults because then they don't even have a chance of being rehabilitated. They are not mature so they deserve a shot at rehabilitation. A 1996 study showed that youth transferred to adult court in Florida were three times more likely to repeat a crime than those sent to the juvenile justice system for the same crime and with similar prior records. Obviously juvenile detentions are more efficient of rehabilitating then sending a child to jail. Also the youth that had been sent to an adult court rather a juvenile court repeated crimes at twice the rate. And right now you might be thinking how an adult jail would make a child less overcome of their crimes than juvenile detention centers is be cause youth in Florida prisons are nearly 21 times as likely to report being assaulted or injured as teens in the juvenile justice system. Also nationally, children in adult jails and prisons are 5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted, twice as likely to be beaten by staff, and 50% more likely to be attacked with a weapon than youths sent to juvenile justice system. I hope you now understand why children should not be tried as adults.
Extemp: Goth girls are prettier than preppy girls

Ill start with definitions A goth is a peasant: a crude uncouth ill-bred person lacking culture or refinement (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...) A prep is basically a girl who wears main-stream clothes such as Hollister, A&F and American Eagle. She dresses nicely but never out of style. She mainly wears clothes with some brand name glued to it. She listens to anything featured on MTV or Much Music and also music from popular radio stations. it's uncommon for them to listen to screamo, but they will listen to rock. Usually stereotyped as a bimbo, rich and a whore/bitch but in reality some can be in any class, pretty smart, and kinda nice. (http://www.urbandictionary.com...) For this debate I will use definition 2 given by webster to define pretty as having conventionally accepted elements of beauty (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Let us compare some pictures (http://9gag.com...) Clearly that is not pretty compared to (http://3.bp.blogspot.com...) which might add both of those pictures fit my definitions. Also this girl (http://www.taistoisoisbeau.com...) is much more pretty than this ill bred peasant girl (http://i55.photobucket.com...). I would contest that a bimbo in ANY situation dresses more atrractively than a person lacking culture or that is a crude peasant girl. I would say vote or me because I have shown how preppy girls are prettier than goth girls. Also, other preppy girl photos include http://ecx.images-amazon.com... http://www.monetsexycostumes.com... http://4.bp.blogspot.com...
Extemp: Goth girls are prettier than preppy girls

1 round extemporaneous: Contention 1: Devian http://fc00.deviantart.com... Contention 2: Kat von D http://www.dhadm.com... Contention 3: Pauley Perrette http://l.yimg.com... Contention 4: Vampress http://ll-images.veoh.com... Contention5: Shell http://www.debate.org...
Abortion should be allowed in a country

I'm not sure why my friend ngabojackson forfeited . I was really looking forward for this debate. Nonetheless, I'm going to provide a brief summary of the argument I was supposed to present. 1- Abortion should be allowed in certain medical conditions which endanger the life of the mother and make the birth of the child impossible. 2- Abortion should be allowed in cases where the life of the mother is really endangered and she agrees to abort her child. 3- Abortion should be allowed in cases where the foetus has a deadly disease like the Harlequin disease, which ensures that the child would only survive for a short period of time, ranging from a few days to a few years. 4- Abortion should be allowed in the early stages of pregnancy, when the foetus is still a fertilized egg in its developmental stages. I was going to expand those points by providing clarifications and references. However, it seems to me that my friend is not willing to continue the debate.
In the United States, misdemeanor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation

I am sorry but I cannot debate this subject as PRO. I know a truly good debater would be able to debate something that he's against, but I just can't on this particular subject. The problem is that I am CON to what is being said and I can't think of an argument that actually mean's something for the other side. I'm sorry but I officially FORFEIT this round and this debate.
In the United States, misdemeanor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation

I affirm that I am PRO for the resolution above. ::CONTETNION 1:: Preventing Further Crime: Once someone does a little crime like petty theft I believe they are more likely to move up to bigger things like robbery, drugs, and murder. That's why we can't just shut these people up in jail for a couple a months and let them go. We need to rehabilitate these individuals to prevent further crimes. ::CONTENTION 2:: Small Jail Time Doesn't Work: What is the point of jail? It's to get dangerous criminals away from the rest of society in a safe and "humane" place. It's a punishment, yes, but it's not really suppose to teach criminals a lesson. That's why for the more "minor criminals" it would be best to rehabilitate them to be a functioning member of society rather than throw them in a jail cell for a couple months then throw them right back out on the street. ::CONTENTION 3:: Jail Hurts Job Chances: There's a couple things needed in life to make sure you can take care of yourself. One of those things is having a job. If someone doesn't have a job or has a bad one they are more likely to turn to crime to make more money. When someone goes to jail not only does this hurt there resume but it also alienates them from society. With rehabilitation it is more likely that someone will hire them and therefore keep them out of trouble. That's all for now, I'll post more points as the rounds progress. Good luck.
Golden Goose May of

Yes. Dominating women have a target audience for sure. And Sammy Sung the Chinese fella sure likes May, The hot girl. Goldengooser: The new specialist penetration range from G. G. G. Lubrication Products. (Applicators supplied) Hugh is definitely aching for synthetic materials. Tight and stimulating and no holding back, On the trail or in the woods. Mid sole cushioning, Technical lacing and carbon interfacing without a doubt. Did you see the fox? Jane Lynch did. She's full of glee and plays the accordion. That's an added bonus for sure. Justin ropes on the Ranch, It's common practice as is cannabis. Though the other Justin, Mr Boots doesn't have any presently. It seems odd that most ranch hands are called Justin. Oh dear! Pale or dark brown balls. Best keep them covered when it's sunny. G. G. G. Aftersun without a doubt and definitely work it in slowly. Yes. Hundreds of supplements for the products cabinet. Beautifully fitted and nice corners. You call it the salon, The room adjacent to the en-suite opposite the walk in wardrobe. Simple lines and as a rule the specialist gear's got it's own special drawer. Ok we're aware of your agenda, Some refer to it as drag others refer to it as cross dressing. But let's be honest it all comes down to that singularity of the moment, When all energy is in flux and all fluid exertions coalesce into that finality of vital mass extrusion. Don't hold back Hugh. Work it slowly and let that nylon extravaganza and all other mirrored embellishments fuse with all penetrative thoughts. All gadgets and G. G. G Goldengooser surety of smooth insertion (applicator supplied) and those red patent 6 inchers against the black are the icing on the cake. Let I go Hugh. Let it go.
laptops are better than books

Hello supernatural. I am very happy to be debating you on this topic. Before I address your arguments, I want to state that my position is to negate that a laptop is better for reading than a book. Pro didn't say this but I want to make sure that there is no confusion about this later on in the debate. For this debate, I am going to copy and paste Pro’s text in apostrophes and make it italic. Pro’s Argument: ‘I feel that laptops are way better than books as a large amount of information can be stored in a laptop most laptops are Eco friendly as many laptops run on solar energy.Rather than carrying 10 books, you can just carry a small laptop.’ Pro first says that a laptop can store a large amount of information. This is true, a laptop could hold many books. In a run on sentence, Pro states that laptops are eco-friendly because a lot use solar power. This may or may not be true and I think that Pro should get a source to back this claim up. Lastly, Pro brings up a good point with saying that a laptop is smaller than carrying around ten books. This is very true! A laptop is smaller than carrying ten books, but in most cases, it isn’t smaller than one book. It isn’t practical that someone would be carrying ten books around though. People usually don't read more than one or two books at a time. My Argument: 1. A laptop is much bigger to carry around than a book. Not only this, but a laptop is much easier to damage than a book. A laptop hitting the ground can permanently ruin it but a book dropped the same way could take little to no damage. 2. A laptop needs to be charged to stay on. This can be an inconvenience if you’re trying to read and have the battery run out. You’re then stuck having to find a place to charge your laptop. A book doesn’t require electricity to run, so you never have to worry about not being able to read it. 3. A book is easier to read than a laptop. Laptops are large and clunky which can make reading comfortably a challenge. With you book you can lay down, stand up, or even be upside down. You couldn’t do that as easily with a laptop. A book is also, in most cases, lighter than a laptop which can reduce fatigue that the reader could’ve experienced from having to hold the heavier laptop. Good luck in round 2.
Is Islam a religion of violence

Thank you I did not mention honor killings in my response. Can you provide me a specific passage where honor killings are prohibited? How do Muslims view people who do not believe in Islam. Islam is submission to God and logically Muslims should have the same views that God has if they should submit to him. Muslims believe in the Qur'an but do not follow every rule of the Qur'an because they cannot. Just like Christians like myself believe in the Bible and have biblical vies but we cannot follow every biblical commandment as Romans 3:23 says all have sinned. Are Muslims commanded to fight those who do not believe in Islam? Surah 9 is the last major section of the Qur'an revealed. There is a doctrine called abrogation. Shakir Surah 2:106 "Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?" If there are two passages one teaches to fight offensively and one teaches to fight in self defense the only question we would need to ask is which one came later? Since Surah 9 is the last major section of the Qur'an revealed then it's the final marching orders to Muslims. Even granting these passages, the terrorists do believe that the y are defending themselves against the west. Can Muslims be friends with unbelievers? When was Surah 60:8-9 revealed? TafsirAlJalalayn 60:8 God does not forbid you in regard to those who did not wage war against you, from among the disbelievers, on account of religion and did not expel you from your homes, that you should treat them kindly (an tabarruhum is an inclusive substitution for alladhTna, 'those who 7 ) and deal with them justly: this was [revealed] before the command to struggle against them. Assuredly God loves the just. This means that this was abrogated by Surah 9.
Is Islam a religion of violence

With the recent terrorist attacks, many people have come to a conclusion that Islam is, indeed, a religion full of violence and killings. Many justify that, by using verses from the Quran that call for the killing of infidels. I'm against that idea. Just because people commit terrorist attacks, it doesn't prove that the religion calls for them. Men commit the largest number of crimes and the simple explanation for that is this chemical in their brain which makes them more violent than a woman. There are billions of men, who have that chemical in their brain as well and still haven't committed a crime once in their life. We can't blame the crime for that since there are many factors to take into consideration when studying the reason they commit a crime. Islam forbids killings of innocent people, and terrorist do kill innocent people. So we can fairly say that they do go against the religion of Islam when killing people. In Muslim countries, crimes are happening and very scary crimes I mean. But it's because the majority of those are 3rd world countries. In non-Muslim 3rd world countries, same terrible crimes happen. So we can see, that this is a thing of education, poverty and so much more.
Honest and poor is better than being dishonest and rich

I am definitely pro for being honest and poor vs. being dishonest and rich. Honesty is a really important quality in a person considering that now a days everybody lies. On the other hand comes the poor vs. rich factor. Money comes and goes. There will always be money in the world. In the industry, if a person is "dishonest" they aren't going to be making as much money as they would be if they were being "honest." In fact, at least every single person has lied at least once in their lives which considers them at that moment being dishonest but imagine always being dishonest. That person will never be trusted with anything, money, jobs, or any kind of responsibility and money can only bring so much happiness. If a person is honest, they can always be trusted and although they would be poor, money will come to those who deserve and earn it most.
Generation 5 in Pokemon isn't as bad as people think

Some of the biggest complaints about gen 5 is usually brought up by only 3 Pok"mon from gen 5 (Vanilluxe, Garbador, Klingklank), and nothing else. Nobody complains about how the game is played out, or how difficult it is, its just those 3 mons. It's getting to a point where I sigh because of how people think that those examples can apparently shut down an argument.
Laveyan Satanism is much more moral than Christianity

Pro has failed this debate for 4 reasons.1) Pro failed to provide a basis for morality.2) Pro proved that LaVeyan Satanism has no passionate acts for a moral reason, either positive or negative but not that it is much more moral than Christianity.3) Pro asks questions in Round 3 showing that he has no faith in his own cause and this questions only leave doubt in the reader's mind, they are not rhetorical.4) Pro has literally not explained anything about LaVeyan Satanism, only about Christianity which is insufficient to meet the burden of proof.
Laveyan Satanism is much more moral than Christianity

What makes something for a good cause then? Because the things mentioned before, slavery and pillaging and so on, were only for a good cause in the mind of the christian that followed exactly what the bible says. Its an opinion that makes a choice for a good cause. Can we base moral goodness on an opinion? Hitler believed his internment camps were for a good cause. Do we see his morals as proper, or righteous?
Laveyan Satanism is much more moral than Christianity

There is nothing immoral about slavery, murder, destruction and pillaging as long as it's for the sake of a greater good.There is something immoral about doing nothing.As Einstein said:The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com... The fact is that I'd rather a person to do bad things for a good outcome than do less severe things and be fundamentally selfish in all ways.
Laveyan Satanism is much more moral than Christianity

Before I state this, I will presume that you know about the two. The old testament promotes slavery, murder, destruction, pillaging etc. When was the last time anyone has viewed these things as moral? And what kind of moral person would follow such guidelines proposed in Deuteronomy and Leviticus? But, take a look at the 9 satanic sins or 11 rules and see that they don't support violence in anyway, unless the violence is provoked by the opposite party. Wherein the bible, it says to seize towns by offering them peace, then taking advantage of their acceptance.