BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islam is a religion of peace rather than the stereotypical Islam represented by the terrorists

Well i would recommend you to first of all mind your language in religious matters. Allah has commanded to go on war only when the infidels are on their extreme. The Talibans had done extreme in Pakistan. Thus the Pakistan Army is doing their operation, Zarb-e-Azb. And those terrorists who you consider as Muslims, are not Muslims. And in the case of prisoners of war, the Holy Prophet (SAW) forgave most of them, kept them as slaves or asked them to teach 10 Muslim children to get free. And he kept his promises. Only those who were most brutal were killed. And as you that Allah will send those "hypocrites" to Hell. But i am sorry to say Jihad in Islam is of many kinds. One way is to provide the finances of war. Or even to provide food for war is Jihad. Fighting in the way of Allah is Jihad is another form of Jihad and it is best. And also, you have proved that infidels are cowards whereas the "audacious" Muslims find them from where they are "hiding" and kill them. And as you said that Islam says to kill Homosexuals. Well i am afraid that those people had it done to their extreme. There are punishments in Islam. For example, sex before marriage in Islam, carries the punishment of 100 whips to both the man and and women, and stoning them. And if they live after that punishment, they are considered equally pious as compared to others. ISIS people are not Muslims. They are cowards. They kill women and children and the elderly. Islam prohibits in killing any of these people. Shirk (the association of Allah with other people) is considered the greatest of sins and is not forgivable by Allah. And that is why he orders such things. But if Muslims do this, and then for the rest of their life ask Allah for His forgiveness by crying and maybe whatever else; Allah may forgive them. Read the Quran further more in regard to enemies. If one wages war against the Muslims, Allah commands to fight against them. He uses such words so that Muslims are told of the fact in how to deal with people waging war against the Muslims.Well in the case of no prisoners, the Holy Prophet (SAW) had several prisoners in war in the Battle of Badr. He forgave most of them, and asked them to teach 10 Muslims to get their freedom. He only killed those who persecuted him the most. The people of Taif persecuted him so much that his shoes were full of blood, but when the Angel of death asked to kill them all, he asked Allah to guide them on the straight path. And after some years all the town of Taif were Muslims. ISIS people are not Muslims. Allah asked the Muslims to respect all other religions and not force people to convert to Islam. I therefore stand against your statement and ask you to study the Quran for further evidence.
Islam is a religion of peace rather than the stereotypical Islam represented by the terrorists

Islam is a religion of peace. The terrorists are not Muslims. They only portray themselves as Muslims but have tattoos which is strongly prohibited in Islam. Islam encourages not to force people to convert to Islam and not to harm even animals, plants, children and women in war. Terrorists just portray Islam as a terrorist religion but it is not because Islam encourages fight only in self defense. If terrorists are Muslims, then who are those fighting against the terrorists. Why would the Pakistani Army fight against the terrorists is they considered them as Muslims. Muslims never fight with other Muslims. So this shows Islam is a religion of peace. As the Quran says, "Fight in the way of God those who fight against you, but do not transgress. God does not love the transgressor." Quran (2:190) At another place it says, "There is no virtue in much of their counsels: only in his who enjoins charity, kindness and peace among people..." Quran (4:114) So Islam is a religion of peace and prosperity.
The United States should not grant citizenship to immigrants if they cannot speak English

My opponent's metaphor is that visitors to his house can't move the furniture around. New citizens are not visitors, though. They are new habitants of his house, who live there too, and maybe they do have equal rights to shift the furniture around to suit them. That's the whole point of citizenship, I think, voting - having a voice - and belonging.My opponent argues that witholding citizenship from immigrants would be no hardship for them, that they would be able to live in the US without it. At the same time, he argues that they would NOT be able to live in the US without speaking English, and that learning English is in their best interest. I find this totally confusing. Can people who don't speak English live here or not? Given that there are babies, and deaf people and monolingual Spanish speakers already living perfectly happily here, how can he be so sure that learning English is essential to citizenship?He also argues that people are already being forced to do things that are in their best interest, and he uses the example of school children. Children are different. We accept that they are not mature enough to make wise decisions for themselves and that's why parents are allowed by legislation to decide things for their children. However, immigrant adults are not children and may make decisions in their own best interests. If learning English is something that is best for them, then we can rely on them to decide to learn it. There is no need to tie it to citizenship.He didn't really address my point about other skills. Basic maths skills are really useful for living in modern society, as an example, as well as driving skills and cooking. Why not tie those skills to citizenship? I suggest that my opponent's obsession with English is due to prejudice rather than any real concern for immigrants. I think he dislikes seeing signs in Spanish and hearing Spanish spoken and would like to get rid of it.
The United States should not grant citizenship to immigrants if they cannot speak English

My opponent argues that immigrants will not learn English unless they are "required" to, and he also argues that learning English is in immigrants' best interests and therefore it makes sense to withhold citizenship until they do learn.At first I protested that not everyone can learn English, including deaf people, traumatized people and very young people among others, and my opponent has conceded this point. People who are unable to learn English should not be required to. Implicit in this idea is that English is not essential to becoming an American citizen. There are some people who cannot learn it and who are nevertheless entitled/deserving of being citizens. This negates the resolution, I think.My opponent then shifted the argument to those immigrants who do not speak English but who are capable of learning it and yet refuse to despite it being in their best interests to do so. There are lots of skills that are in people's best interests to learn and yet they refuse to do so. Good nutrition, negotiations skills, defensive driving, basic maths. There are countless skills that really are essential to living in modern society. I don't really understand why my opponent has chosen English particularly.We don't force people to learn skills because it's in their best interests to do so. We don't withhold citizenship from people because they refuse to learn these other skills, and I can't see why it makes sense to do so for English.Why not just market English learning a bit better, make it easier and more accessible? Most of all, we have to trust people to act in their own best interests. If learning English is so great for immigrants and makes sense for them, then they will learn it. If trying to get a house and a job and establish friendship networks seems more important to them initially, then they will focus on those things first, and I don't see why we should interfere.
The United States should not grant citizenship to immigrants if they cannot speak English

Government encouraging English lessons is already going on. There are night schools which take place in public schools where they teach English to those who are new to the country, guess how many people go? Not many. If it is not required they will not learn. If public school is not required half of it's students will stop showing up. For many who have just moved to the country they can get by without learning English as they work in a family run store or they live in a district where many people speak their native language. This is not okay. If you read the quote from cheyennebodie above you would know what i'm talking about. A lot in this country is done in English as it is the language laws, politics, libraries. People need the language to succeed and that is what you aren't understanding. You keep going into the deep questioning, deaf peoptle, and those seeking immediate help. What you don't understand is this is supposed to help. Not hurt! From what I can see you aren't making an argument against, it almost seems as though you are agreeing with me but listing off the other possibilities as well.
The United States should not grant citizenship to immigrants if they cannot speak English

"When I visit a person house I do not demand that they switch their furniture around to suit me. That is what is happening in America to day. And the coward businesses are falling in lockstep with the immigration pimps, the democrats, and posting dual language signs in their store. Why don't we just give them California. Of course we would have to build fences on that border as well when they destroy its economy as they did in Mexico. Although the democrats are already doing a good job of that." -cheyennebodie That right there is what i'm getting at. I don't mean children or immigrants needing immediate support or help I mean people seeking permanent refuge in the United States, people who will have an influence on our economy, our education, our children, and our technology. I mean no offense to those who seek shelter the country, or those who are to young (They will attend school as part of the law so of course they will learn English). I mean those who are older. Deaf people would not be considered to learn English as there is no need for them to learn the language. As long as they have some form of communication or understanding (sign language) then they should be accepted as citizens, assuming they meet the correct requirements. This would be by no means to discriminate or make it difficult for those who urgently need a home. As I stated earlier they would not be traumatizing and they would be given a period of time to learn the language, supplied by school systems. Night classes would be open for those who do not wish to pay for a private tutor. The level of English they will be required to speak would be at a minimal level, just enough to understand and get by. I think that is a reasonable requirment if you wish to live in a country where the main language is English, where signs and politics take places. If you have the right to vote you should understand who you are voting for, if you are signing up for a job you should understand the main language of the country. Learning the English language is something that is necessary if they wish to succeed in a new country. It's not for the benefit of those already living in the country already it's to help those who have just moved to the country have a better understanding of their abilities a better understanding of what they are capable of, it's to help them understand that when they are given citizenship they are given a choice and a control over what happens in their new country, a limit on stereo types that come along with only speaking one language, and a whole new understanding of the culture in general allowing them to avoid scams, bullies, and other negativities that come along without understanding a language.
The United States should not grant citizenship to immigrants if they cannot speak English

Just for clarification this debate has no intent of bashing on foreign immigrants seeking shelter in the United States. The base of my argument is that they should not be granted citizenship to the United States if they have not learned English (to a very low level) at least the ability of carrying out a simple conversation should be required if you wish to have permanent citizenship of the country. Please no swearing or terrible spelling mistakes. Good luck!
indian and western culture

"india's culture and heritage is so rich and deep rooted that it may take several days or even years to understand all its dimensions." Western culture and heritage is much more rich and deep rooted. *shifts eyes* Ok then; India is one country, western culture is heavily influenced by European, American, Canadian history and society etc. It will certainly take many more years to write about it let alone understand it all. It has extra dimensions! Like a lot. Heaps even. True India has sacred cows, but we have a Spaghetti Monster God. RAmen.
Whether students should wear uniforms Part 2

School Uniforms promote school staffs control over the students. Students are no longer given the tools need to succeed and are instead forced to conform in order to succeed. Wearing school uniforms can cause stress on a student to dress and act like everyone else in order to abide by the rules. Public Schools should not be able to enforce uniform dress codes because they are free institutions open to all. Uniforms cannot be totally enforced in public schools because it can then violate the open policy of accepting students. Students who cannot economically afford a student uniform can become discouraged from attending school and feel unwelcome. Student Uniforms do little to improve a students education. If students aren't distracted by their clothing choices they will find something else to get side tracked with. Student mandated uniforms will take away from student expressive individuality. Some students express themselves through their clothing choices and find common interests with others based on shared fashion choices. If a student can't express themselves through their outfit choices their personal identity and individuality is compromised. Thought school uniforms would aim at increasing students success, the solution is too controlling and the benefits wont out weight the means. If all students are forced to wear uniforms what would be next? Administrative approved backpacks?
Whether students should wear uniforms Part 2

Referring to your hostile "environment claim" school uniforms eliminate baggy clothing which eliminates any concealment of weaponry. Bullying will happen regardless, I am not stating that uniforms will prevent this horrible act, but instead it will at least lower it by a certain degree. There are a lot of measures to prevent bullying and this is a great way to start the prevention of it. They do not enforce an unrealistic expectation instead it helps students strive to be a lawyer or a doctor, someone with a certain type of professionalism. The stress of not having enough uniforms can be easily combated with my previous claim, buy them at discount prices. But this solution doesn't exist with modern day apparel because anyone would see that you bought something in the clearance isle and then you get bullied for it. Preventing schools from having uniforms is just taking a step back in the fight against bullying. Uniforms play no downside in the educational realm, and you claim it doesn't help, Statistics show that it at least does something and if that's all we got in this fight we should take it.
Whether students should wear uniforms Part 2

Being forced to wear school uniforms will do little to prevent bullying from happening. If a student isn't being bullied about their clothing they could get picked on for what shoes they wear or what accessories or backpack they have. School Uniforms don't create a safer environment but instead enforce a more hostile one. Students who violate the uniform dress code can be taken out of instructional time based on their outfit. Some students might also stress over having enough uniforms or how much money they spent on their uniform, these feelings exist with both regular clothing and uniform apparel. While uniform policies try to even the playing field among students, students find ways to break the dress code or modify their uniform to outshine each other. Uniforms don't even the playing field instead they create a whole other playing field that students still compete on. School uniforms enforce unrealistic expectations of unity amongst a large number of people. In the real world you don't dress exactly the same as the person next to you. Everyone strives to be their own person in society and one way of showcasing your individuality is through uniforms. Students can begin to lose a sense of individuality by continuously looking like everyone else. Students should have the right to express themselves through their choice of dress as long as it abides by the safety dress code regulations. Uniforms can't fix the bigger picture of creating a safer environment for students to attend.
Whether students should wear uniforms Part 2

School uniforms are not necessarily expensive, most schools allow students to purchase uniforms from outside the school, meaning you can always find discounts while back to school shopping. And I agree other efforts can be made to make students feel united, like joining a club or a team. But the reality is the whole student body can't participate in one single club or one team, the best way to include the entire student body in a unifying manner is to appoint students to professional school attire, which they will be using in their future careers as well. And uniforms are not stripping of them of their individuality instead it will be used to even the starting points in all students' character, and allow them to be judged on their actions in the school as in joining clubs or participating in school events, instead of how many name brand clothes you have or whether or not you are under the poverty line. Which in turn is preparing them for their future careers, because in reality you will be hired on how many internships or volunteer work you've done, your actions not how good you look in a suit. And my argument does not contain Red Herring because everything I said is relevant to school uniforms, its just one of the reasons school uniforms are promoted and bullying is a big reason, the topic of safety is commonly brought up and what it does is make gang identification is obscured. Group violence and theft are dissipated... Children are no longer identified by their 'colors.' Uniform dress alleviated the feelings of imminent danger for students who were afraid they might inadvertently dress in gang colors. As well as prevent bullying as I've stated before. Your argument on the other hand presents itself with the straw man fallacy because you misrepresented my conclusion by saying it strips individuality and then attacked it with the oncoming premises. Conclusion: School uniforms are inexpensive, safe, and should be required by schools.
Whether students should wear uniforms Part 2

1) Other efforts can be made to make students feel more united that don't include stripping them of their individuality. 2) While it"s true that less wealthy students can't always afford to compete with other students, lesser fortunate students won"t always be able to afford the high prices of school uniforms. 3) School uniforms negatively enforce the idea that all people are the same, should look the same, and should fit in with everyone else. Schools should promote individuality rather than enforcing conformity. Pro"s argument can be considered a Red Herring fallacy argument because their focal points are centered on bullying instead of school uniforms. C) All schools should not mandate or require school uniforms.
Whether students should wear uniforms Part 2

1)Students should have school uniforms because it creates a feeling of "oneness" and produce a feeling of being on the same team, which would reduce bullying by a great deal. http://edsource.org...... 2) Most of bullying is caused because the less wealthy students cannot afford name brand clothing, which has an adverse effect on their self-esteem and their educational motivation. C) All schools should mandate school uniforms
Prom

I have not taken any debate courses, so please excuse my message if it doesn't fall within the normal format. My opponent has brought up 3 problems that he believes that are wrong with high school proms. First off, I went to prom and didn't even know people drank there or even used drugs, but then again you did say "almost anyone. " Teens will be introduced to drugs sometime in their life regardless of prom or not. Some proms, like the one I went to, had security to check for concealed alcohol and drugs. Breathalyzers were also used before and during this event to suspected drinkers which discourages any alcohol being consumed there. As for the drug problem you mentioned, drugs are harder to suppress, however they should have paramedics awaiting at the event or nearby like most major events. Again, the problem isn't prom being "a home to heavy drug use," its about security and preventative measures. If teens have access to it regardless of the event, they will use it somewhere else without so much supervision. Secondly, prom is a school function. indeed I do AGREE that it requires some money, however so does your high school graduation cap and gown. Public schools do not have enough money to pay for all the events, so these are all optional events to attend. To tally up the bill of going to prom, for men we have the suit rental (~60.00 m**'s warehouse), prom ticket (~65-90), optional limo split between your friends (~35-70), corsage if you have a date (~15-20). So Roughly about 180 dollars to go to prom as a male. However to answer your issue of females spending more than 400.00, its all optional. The dress can be rented for anywhere from (39.99 to 99.99), the prom ticket (~65-90), optional limo (~35-70) totals up to around 200 dollars. Again these spending you claim are for those who want to spend that much, but not all of it is required to attend prom. Also with today's economy, I welcome those who want to spend more to help boost the economy. Lastly to address the social issue of standing out. There are plenty of students who decide not to go, and still are not labeled as "looser" or social outcasts. Heck, even some of the more popular jocks during my high school years decided not to go just because. This didn't phase them socially at all. Again this is just from my experience. Standing out is what you make of it and how you respond to people asking why you didn't go. To respond to the issue of pressure to go from teachers, other students and parents, everyone has a choice and whether they go with it or not is up to them ultimately of course. Your friends will always suggest you come so you can all "hang out. " your teacher will NOT always pressure you to go to prom, some will even say its not the end of the world if you don't go. As for your parents, some parents won't pay for it so I don't see the pressure from them. As for the other parents, they want to continue on the American tradition of high school prom. But as loving parents, they will understand if you don't want to go.