BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the islamic belief of getting a bunch of virgins upon death shows it is a false religion

Since you are saying Islam is a false religion purely because of that fact is wrong. There are many religions with wrong aspects, and there is no way to prove that one religion is a false religion. I believe you might be Christian, and you think Christianity is the right religion? Please correct me. Because as you are saying that Islam is a false religion, I believe you are implying that other religions may be true? I will first present my case then do rebuttals in upcoming rounds. Definition of false: not real or genuine Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com... My case: I. There is no way prove any religion is false, or true Since my opponent states "bunch of virgins upon death", makes it a false religion, I would like to add that there is no way to prove that it is false. Is it immoral? Yes. But, theres is no way to prove that is false, and other religions are true. Again, the idea may seem immoral, or impractical, but not false. II. Other religions are also immoral My opponent is not concerned if its true or not. My opponent's logic is that if it seems immoral, its false. (Which is wrong, based on the definition of false). Using that logic, I can state that most of other religions are also false. Again, please do correct me if I'm wrong based on my assumption thinking that you believe that there is a true religion. Christianity: 1. Witch burning 2. Crusades 3.Kill homosexuals 4. Charlemagne beheading all saxons 5. Marry the rapist 6. Holocaust (Hitler stated in Mein Kampf "hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.") 7. Kill people who work on Sabbath You see, these are all aspects of Christianity that are immoral, but that doesn't make it false, BASED on the immorality. Its possible the logic can make the religion "false", but not the morality. Sources:http://biblehub.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://biblehub.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikiquote.org... https://www.biblegateway.com... http://biblehub.com...
Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology

1. My opponent in Round 2 mentioned some environmental and physical conditions under which people's sexual orientation is affected. What I tried to prove through queer animals is that the factors mentioned for sexual orientation in case of humans are absolutely absent in animal world. Therefore all animals should have similar sexual orientations as they grow up under similar condition unlike humans. Parents of animals do not have divorces, some of them dont live in cities and some in forests and yet there are a range of sexual orientations in animals. 2. The sexual fluidity as mentioned by opponent seems as if he has assumed that sexual fluidity is change in sexual orientation. No! http://www.scienceofrelationships.com... Sexual fluidity is not a change in sexual orientation. Sexual fluidity does not imply that a person is homosexual for a given period of time and then turns heterosexual for a certain period of time. It also does not equal to bisexuality. Kindly donot confuse fluidity with bisexuality. 3. The fact that conversion therapy does not work is itself a proof that environment is not a factor. If I were depressed due to something bad happening to me (a physical factor) I could be cured by therapy but sexual orientation is not.
Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology

Before beginning with my rebuttals i will quote con: 3. If any kind of behavious is created by environmental factors, or society, they should be able to be healed using therapy like the one that has been used for rape victims and criminals. If being gay has a social/environmental factor, then therapy of any kind must change them into heterosexuals or 'reduce the amount of homosexuality'. Why is there a need to "reduce the amount of homosexuality"? It is not a psycopathology. There is no need to cure it. The DSM-5 does not include homosexuality. When i talk about sexual orientation, i'm not only considering homosexuals and heterosexuals, i'm also considering bisexuals, asexuals, sexually fluid people and so on. REBUTTAL (Sexuality in animals): The fact that there are queer animals does not make any point. I said biology does affect sexual orientation, i didn't deny that. (Animals regardless of the kind of place they live will show the same amount of variation of sexuality): The link you showed me doesn't show any experimental or statistical information, so you cannot make such assumptions. Just gay penguins, again, i didn't say they aren't gay, in fact they are. 1) Sexuality alters through time (at least for sexually fluid people): http://www.hup.harvard.edu... And i quote from this very link: "Lisa M. Diamond argues that for some women, love and desire are not rigidly heterosexual or homosexual but fluid, changing as women move through the stages of life, various social groups, and, most important, different love relationships." Also, epigenetics is influenced by the environment: http://cdp.sagepub.com... I agree with you, conversion therapy should not be done, and hurts homosexuals. I will finish with the abstract of an interesting link i found on pubmed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology

I believe my point may have been misunderstood: Sexual orientation doesn't originate ONLY from biology. Sexual orientation is a multivariable dynamic process. Of course there are some biological factors that influence sexual orientation, such as: - Genetics - Epigenetics (prenatal androgen exposure) - Brain structures Biology has a great influence on sexual orientation. But not everything is as it seems. 1) A study from Denmark proves that the environment increases or decreases the proportion of heterosexual and homosexual weddings. What did this study find? - Demography: People in cities are more likely to marry a same-sex partner and less likely to marry heterosexually. - Family issues - Having no brothers http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2) Younger men from the Sambia tribe fellate other adult men as a rite of passage. 3) The greeks were equally comfortable with the same-sex and that helped the formation of more "men on men" action. And finally this one, which i think isn't that good but can raise an interesting topic: 4) Homophobia is for some a latent homosexuality. By now all i can say is that homophobia correlates with homosexual arousal. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Are the people in 4 homosexual? Is homosexuality defined by conduct or is it enough if we consider physiological response? I believe sexual orientation is a social construct. So it doesn't really matter how you identify yourself, what matters is whether or not you are taking every aspect of yourself into account, or maybe just letting it be.
There should be a death penalty for murderers

An eye for an eye:I don't believe in an eye for an eye. If one keeps fighting in the name of vengeance then others will needlessly suffer and there will be no peace. The concept is more from an emotional point of revenge. Some might commit murder after being released from prison but many won't and having a system of capital punishment will kill more than it saves. I don't believe that someone deserves death for killing another.There are other ways to lower murder rates and other punishment could be more effective:How could one teach moral values by shooting someone for their wrong-doing? I think that we have a different idea of moral values. Unfortunately the hyperlink didn't open for me so I couldn't see what it said.Murderers could have killed without intention of destruction:I agree that no one should be sentenced until conclusive evidence is found but a trial cannot go on forever. On many occasions the person is sentenced before proved guilty because their trial would last too long.Conclusion:It was also a pleasure for me to debate with you. Ultimately I believe that life is too precious to take away even if it caused the destruction of another.
There should be a death penalty for murderers

Let me respond to your rebuttal one by oneMurderers could be rehabilitated:An eye for an eye is a good policy for murderers. They deserve to lose their life because they killed innocent people. If murderers get a second chance than most potential murderers will still commit murder. Giving murderers a second chance does not deter future murders. If murderers get a second chance than some of them might commit murder after they get out of prison. Some people do commit a crime again after they get out of prison. The government shouldn't take the risk of that happening. The government should keep inncocent people safe by making sure that murderers lose their life instead of getting a second chance. The government should only use the death penalty when there is clear evidence of murder. This way innocent people will not get the death penalty. There are other ways to lower murder rates and other punishment could be more effective:I agree that teaching moral values will prevent people from commiting murder but that's not the only way to do it. The government should also prevent people from commiting murder by making the punishment is a lot worse. There are studies that show that the death penalty deters future murders. The studies are described in this article. http://www.washingtonpost.com... the death penaty may not have an effect on the murder rate but abolishing it would not deter future murders. If the death penalty is done in a painful way than it will deter murder by even more because more people will be scared to commit murder. Why would anyone want to get killled in a painful way? The way they should use the death penalty is by shooting the murderer with a gun. The key to lowering the murder rate is teaching moral values and scaring potential murderers by using harsher punishments.Murderers could have killed murdered intention of destruction:If the court is not sure if the murder happned by accident, for self defense or intentionally than they should not give the defendant a punishment. The court should get clear evidence and find out if the muder happened intentionally or not before they give the defendant a punishment.Conclusion:It was a pleasure having this debate with you. The voters will vote for the person that did a better job debating. Good Luck on your last chance to argue.
There should be a death penalty for murderers

Time for me to rebut what you rebutted...Murderers could be rehabilitated:We seem to disagree on the matter that anyone who kills deserves death - I would say, in the words of Ghandi, "An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind." Families of the victim would want the murderer dead but that would be from an emotional point rather than a logical one. I think that they deserve another chance. And suppose someone was falsely accused of murder? Then they would get the death penalty which they did not deserve.There are other ways to lower murder rates and other punishment could be more effective:Teaching moral values would be far more effective. It would not only stop people from killing, it would make them realise that it is wrong. 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. Solitary confinement is unnecessary in the case of a murder but so is the death penalty. I believe that the value of one life is far too important to be taken away just to get even.Murderers could have killed murdered intention of destruction:We seem to agree that at east the death penalty should not happen when it is by accident or in self defense. But what if the court didn't believe that it was this way?http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
There should be a death penalty for murderers

Let me rebut each of your arguments one by one. The arguments you stated are in bold.Murderers could be rehabilitated:The death penalty does not cause an unnessesary loss of life. It kills criminals who killled innocent people. The murder victim's family would most likely want the murderer to get killed. Murderers should not have the right to live because they took away someone's life. The murder victim could have had a bright future and done good things for society if the victim didn't get killled. Therefore murderers deserve to get the death penalty.There are other ways to lower murder rates:Sure there are other ways to lower murder rates but the death penalty is one of the ways to do it. You're right that a lot potential murderers will still commit murder even if there is a death penalty but some won't commit murder. Some murderers care about the punishment. Not all murderers are pyschopaths or willing to die. You can't expect all potential murderers to still commit murder when there's a death penalty for doing it. If some potential murderers don't commit murder than the murder rate will go down. Teaching moral values to children may prevent them from commiting murder but adults should also be detered from commiting murder by having a harsher punishment for doing it.Other punishments could be more productive:The only other punishment that is as productive as the death penalty is solitary confinement for many years. Solitary confinement is also a really harsh punishment and would deter crime as well. Just putting murderers in prison is not the right punishment for them because it's not as bad as what the murderer did to the person.Murderers could have killed murdered intention of destruction:If a person kills someone by accident or for self defense then that person should not get a punishment. The person would go court and be investigated but would most likely not get a punishment. This is not a good argument because there's no way that a person should get the death penalty for killing someone accidentally or for self defense. The death penalty should be given to people who commit murder intentionally and to take away someone's life.
There should be a death penalty for murderers

I should let you know that I believe that life is far to valuable to be wasted and there are additionally another number of reasons why I am against Capital Punishment:Murderers could be rehabilitated:Although there will always be some people who might carry on with murder after being released from prison, killing those who would be rehabilitated would be an unnecessary loss of life which would no longer be a lethal threat to others.There are other ways to lower murder rates:Firstly, attempting to deter people from murder by killing those who do would not stop psychopaths, people who are willing to die for their murder or those who think that they can get away with the crime. Things like teaching moral values to children from a young age or teaching the value of life may work better as it gives someone a real conviction to be against murder rather than just fear. Furthermore, legal changes such as the prohibition of arms could and has worked to lower crime rates.Other punishments could be more productive:Killing someone as a punishment doesn't really solve much - they are taught nothing by it. Making their death painful as a punishment is simply inhumane. On the premise that they need to be punished (which is morally debatable), perhaps something along the lines of mental and psychological punishment would achieve something more than ceasing their entity.Murderers could have killed murdered intention of destruction:On the face of it, this may sound strange but I will explain with examples: manslaughter where the death is accidental; being forced by something to murder; being involved in circumstances where if one does not murder, something worse may happen etc.
There should be a death penalty for murderers

There should be a death penalty for murderers to deter future murders. The death penalty would deter some future murders because some people who want to commit murder won't do it because they know that they will get killed if they do so. Studies have shown that it deters crime. Most criminals don't want to die. The death penalty should be done in a painful, harsh way so that it would be more likely to deter crime. Some People will be scared to commit murder if the death penalty is done by getting shot with a gun. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Did the government plan 9/11

You stated that we had been going in circles implying that information had been repeated, when in fact i had not repeated any information, your argument every time was exactly the same just worded differently, i gave justification for all of my reasons yet you would not justify anything you said. Also you have not acknowledged any of my information that i stated, you are dancing around the facts in your arrogant state you are just trying to avoid the truth so that you can be right, but in reality everyone gets fooled at on point or another and you my friend have been fooled. you have avoided everything i said so you can be right, but your wrong, you cannot always be right and now is the time to admit defeat you arrogant sore loser.
Did the government plan 9/11

In saying that you are admitting that our government is corrupted the constitution. By saying there are many possible outcomes to these questions you are saying that bin laden was not given a fair trial which he is entitled to in the constitution. If given a fair trial the jury obviously would have found reasonable doubt (that you admitted existed), his name would have been cleared and the investigation would have continued. And why wouldn't the government give him a trial, because they knew he wouldn't be convicted and they knew the investigation would eventually point towards them.
Did the government plan 9/11

Despite there are unanswered questions, very strange oddities and inconsistencies that still does not tie in any governmental people. There is no hard proof of any kind of governmental knowledge or precipitation. I would like answers to many of your questions myself, but the conspiracy fails the who, what, where and why test. The conjecture isn't solid enough that most people would reach the same conclusion. There are way too many and too varied opinions of what transpired, why it occurred, who all was involved and where it actually originated and took place.
Did the government plan 9/11

While I will agree there are many unanswered questions this does not prove a conspiracy. The other questions raise a left to speculation with many possible reasons and outcomes. The aftermath of 9/11 has not proven any benefit from the allegations mentioned, to the people listed. If anything the government is guilty of not being more vigilant as the Israeli airplanes had reinforced and secured cockpits in the 70's. Hijackings aren't new and why it took the U.S. to mandate more security on airplanes is a different discussion. Is the government incompetent and allowed 9/11 to happen? Yes. Could and should have steps to make 9/11 more difficult for the terrorist if not impossible? they sure could have, but again no conspiracy.
Did the government plan 9/11

Consider just a few more of the other unanswered questions from among the thousands of unexplained loose ends that all point to 9/11 being an inside job. Who benefited from the suspiciously high numbers of put options purchased prior to September 11 for shares in companies whose stock prices subsequently plummeted, on the supposition that whoever was behind the hijacking was also behind most of the purchases of these put options? And what was the role of the new executive director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard, who handled these transactions? Why was the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers removed from the site with no forensic examination? Why was almost all of it sold to scrap merchants and shipped abroad where it would not be available for scientific examination? Why does the government refuse to release any transcripts of communications or any records at all relating to signals of any form transmitted by those jets? Why did so many people, from San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown to many employees of companies in the World Trade Center who failed to come to work that day, know in advance that something bad was going to happen on Sept. 11, 2001? Why do all the major U.S. media continue to act as if none of these questions is legitimate or relevant? Today, millions of people around the world are protesting the criminal destruction of the nation of Iraq. But these protests won't change the number of minds necessary to stop America's criminal madmen from continuing with their genocidal aim of enslaving the entire world. What WILL stop them is spreading the realization that President George W. Bush and his billionaire accomplices in the oil industry perpetrated 9/11 as an excuse to begin the militarization of America for the purpose of world conquest. History has shown all too clearly the deceived American people WILL support the destruction of faraway countries on phony pretexts of defending so-called freedom. Thus the needless wars continue. Right now we watch high-tech weapons slaughter the defenseless people of Iraq. Soon it will be Iran, Syria, Colombia, Venezuela, North Korea, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and who knows where else. All these misguided atrocities will be possible because of the hoax known as 9/11. But the American people will not " and cannot " tolerate leaders who kill our own people merely to invent a pretext " the war on terror " to go around killing anyone they like.
Did the government plan 9/11

my opponent claims someone in the government wanted to destroy documents. There are far better and more efficient ways to do a "cover up." Just like emails, documents have back up copies often stored securely off site, but certainly a fire, "accidental shredding" or other destruction methods would be far superior than what transpired on 9/11. No documents where destroyed and nothing came to light to incriminate George Bush as my opponent had claimed, therefore no documents ever existed, thus none needed to be destroyed. If someone in authority planned the hijacking of the airplanes, it would be reasonable to believe they would have conceived a plan where the terrorist would have had better weapons than box cutters. Why would hijackers kill themselves to destroy documents that could incriminate the President? Incriminate how? in what?
Did the government plan 9/11

There is to much reasonable doubt surrounding 9/11. The real target was not the world trade center but the pentagon. They were trying to destroy important documents which would have incriminated George Bush or someone high up in the government. There was not a thorough investigation by the U.S. government because they knew that they planned it. The only reason that they killed Bin Laden is so people would have "Closure" and would stop questioning who planned it, but in reality the govenrment just needed a fall guy to divege attention away from them
Did the government plan 9/11

Resorting to insults and name calling is not done by the victor. You have stated the same arguments in different ways all of which are simple conjecture with not substance. I don't have to rebut what you have said because you haven't said anything that contained any substance. You didn't site one reference where you got any of your facts from. You asked a lot of questions and yet didn't follow up with answers that had any credible proof. If you really believed you are correct you wouldn't have resorted to childish antics. You own words did a better job of discrediting you than mine.