BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Americans like to blame Muslims eventhough its not muslims fault

Why americans hate muslims.Isn't it hypocritical that you say people overgeneralize about Muslims, and then do the same about Americans, some of whom are Muslims theirselves. why americans like to blame muslims about every incident that involve muslims eventhough muslim are innocent such as the missing malaysian plane.The while I am sure that there were theories about Islamic terror, I never heard it attributed to Muslims. As far as we know now, it still could have been Islamic terror.dont judge a whole religion by groups of terrorist.I don't, and most people that I know don't either. Again, you are overgeneralizeing about Americans.islam is a religion of peace.the terrorist groups named the group islamic because they want to tarnish the image of islam and they want the west people to think muslims are bad.I just want to make sure, are you claiming that Islamic Terrorist groups are not actually Islamic, and claim to be Islamic in order to tarnish the image of Islam in the West? If that is the case, I must ask you, why? What modivation would they have?Billions of muslims doesn't support the terrorist group.There are only 1.6 Billion Muslims in the world, including the radicals and terrorists. So obviously, there are not billions of Muslims at all, much less billions of Muslims that don't support terrorism.the terrorist groups just want to mess us up.This is not the goal of Islamic terror and you know it. It is to have a everyone in the world be a Muslim, destroy American and the West, ect.Back to you Pro.
Americans like to blame Muslims eventhough its not muslims fault

Why americans hate muslims.why americans like to blame muslims about every incident that involve muslims eventhough muslim are innocent such as the missing malaysian plane.dont judge a whole religion by groups of terrorist.islam is a religion of peace.the terrorist groups named the group islamic because they want to tarnish the image of islam and they want the west people to think muslims are bad.Billions of muslims doesn't support the terrorist group.the terrorist groups just want to mess us up.thanks.sorry for grammatical error,i'm learning.peace http://m.youtube.com...
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need

I'm afraid that I cannot rebut everything that Zaradi has said. I could rebut certain things, but the rest of the things Zaradi I cannot find rebuttals for (probably because philosophy is a complicated and new thing to me). I am thus, forfeiting this debate. I had no business joining this tournament nor did I have a chance against the top debaters on this site nor did I have any business debating a topic pertaining to philosophy, a field in which I have no experience in. I am deeply sorry for wasting your time, my time and just being an idiot. It's hard to describe how bad I feel about this.
Fast debate: Guns should be more heavily restricted in the US

I meant that text to be for the final round only but that works.First, I will contend that equality is the primary thing our goverment should be achieving. Using social contract theory[1], the natural state of man is one of anarchy where the strongest rules, but this is unmaintainable for many reasons, some of which are obvious. No one has any security and the strong rules over the weak. So, what we do is create social contracts which are rules we must follow lest we be punished for our actions. These rules are manifested as our government, the entity that creates and enforces laws. These laws are primarily to maintain equality and safety, so that no man rules over any other and people do not have to worry whether someone will kill or punish them for not following someone else's self serving orders. With this in mind, I propose that the reason for restricting the sale of guns is to provide this greater ideal for the government, to maintain equality. Assuming that we have a good gun control plan that keeps guns out of the hands of most criminals, this provides a very strong barrier to violent crimes which is the breach of the contract that provides equality. Deterrence with our prisons is nice, but if we can do more, we are obligated to do it. Criminals have easy access to guns now, but if those guns are much harder to obtain for their suppliers, guns will eventually decrease and gun violence will decrease.1. http://www.iep.utm.edu..., primarily the philosophy of John Locke
People can live with a normal life after leaving the criminal one

First I'd like to bring up the point that you never once said your stance or made an argument on; "People can live with a normal life after leaving the criminal one" you just dodged the question. When you are suppose to be defending your point on how one can lead a normal life after doing a crime of some sort. Now i assume you would like me to answer your questions. 1: "Since they are in prison, they have committed a crime, but aren't laws made by either government or democratically ??" A: "Laws begin as ideas. First, a representative sponsors a bill. The bill is then assigned to a committee for study. If released by the committee, the bill is put on a calendar to be voted on, debated or amended. If the bill passes by simple majority (218 of 435), the bill moves to the Senate. In the Senate, the bill is assigned to another committee and, if released, debated and voted on. Again, a simple majority (51 of 100) passes the bill. Finally, a conference committee made of House and Senate members works out any differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The resulting bill returns to the House and Senate for final approval. The Government Printing Office prints the revised bill in a process called enrolling. The President has 10 days to sign or veto the enrolled bill." Source: http://www.house.gov... 2: "2. And in what extend can you judge one's acts without knowing the motive, what if they had been bullied and were forced to make crime ??" A: "Question from a reader: If person A threatens person B with the loss of B's job if B does not cut the brake line of C's car, who can be held liable for the crime? The short answer is that, if B actually cuts the brake line, both A and B can be convicted. That would at least be a vandalism charge, and possibly attempted murder, depending on the specific circumstances. B would be liable as the direct perpetrator, since he did the criminal act of cutting the brake line. A would be liable as an aider and abettor or an accessory because he got B to do it. (Although we usually think of an accessory as being less culpable than the direct perpetrator, that is not necessarily so, as this example demonstrates.)" source: http://www.criminallawconsulting.com... Now I'd like to bring up some points to defend my case that after a crime you cannot go back to your "Normal life" First I'd like to ask you a question; What crime was committed and to what was the extent such as: If the crime was stealing; what did he steal? was it a diamond or a pencil; if the crime was that of killing (murder) who was the victim and how was he killed. This whole question depends on the type of crime. Your move Pro.
People can live with a normal life after leaving the criminal one

1. Since they are in prison, they have committed a crime, but aren't laws made by either government or democratically ?? So does that mean that law makers can decide the moral values of people, aren't they equal to the criminal as a human ?? 2. And in what extend can you judge one's acts without knowing the motive, what if they had been bullied and were forced to make crime ?? Your turn Con
The Jacksonville Jaguars will make the playoffs this year in the NFL

Yes, the Jags are really talented. Yes they are young and fast. But with that comes inexperience. I'm not to sure if Dante Fowler can make an impact. With all these great teams in the AFC I don't think they could do it. The other teams are pretty experienced with good defenses. The Jags are relying on young players to do the job for them, and that doesn't always work out. The AFC South has improved. I think Andrew Luck and the Colts will bounce back and don't forget about the Texans. Gus Bradley is still a question mark as well. There a lot of question marks with this team and the level of competition is to high. But after this season the Jags should be dominating the AFC for years to come.
The Jacksonville Jaguars will make the playoffs this year in the NFL

Sure, the Jaguars could crack under pressure. But any other team could as well. Every team has the ability to crack under pressure, but the Jaguars have a great roster of football players who have played the game their entire lives. Dante Fowler is not the determining factor in the playoff race, but is crucial regardless. By all accounts he is making a great recovery and is already impressing the coaches. It is a fact that the Jaguars have a much better roster than in previous years, and the competition they face is older and slower in general. The Jaguars have 5 players who are 30 or older, much lower than teams such as the Patriots and Steelers. This means that not only are the Jaguars skilled, but they are also faster and younger. So, in conclusion, the Jaguars will make the playoffs due to the immense talent and skill of the young players and coaches. By the way, I really enjoyed this debate! Hope you have a great day.
The Jacksonville Jaguars will make the playoffs this year in the NFL

The Jaguars do have a talented team on both sides of the ball. I'm not denying that. But they are inexperienced and don't know what it's like to be in a playoff race. They might crack under the pressure. With that said, there are still lots of question marks. Can the Dante Fowler bounce back from his ACL tear? I don't know, usually when players suffer a injury early into their career it lingers. He is really talented but i don't know if he can make an impact. Blake Bortles made some massive strides this year, and the Jags will have a dynamic offense, but there competition is really high. They have the Patriots, Steelers, Bengals, maybe the Ravens and the Texans. The competition is really high in the AFC with a lot of great defenses in there to limit that dynamic offense of the Jags. There are so many contenders in the AFC and II think the Jags will just miss out this year.
The Jacksonville Jaguars will make the playoffs this year in the NFL

The Jaguars indeed have an extremely talented team. Blake Bortles had a breakout season last year, throwing 35 touchdowns and over 4,000 yards. Bortles is tough and durable, young and already has the skills needed to win games. A Pro Bowl running back in Chris Ivory helps take some of the pressure off Bortles, with an improving offensive line and two exceptional receivers in Allen Robinson and Allen Hurns. On the defensive side of the ball, the Jaguars managed to pick up two Top-5 talents in Jalen Ramsey (Corner) and Myles Jack (Linebacker). To ask if Myles Jack will have an impact is to suggest that he doesn't have talent and/or could be injured. By all means he has extreme talent and he's been cleared to play. A foundation has been set on defense, with the offense already established. Considering the complete rebuild that the general manager, Dave Caldwell, started, it is amazing how far the team has progressed. The AFC South is weaker than other divisions, helping give the Jags a leg up. There are many good teams in the AFC, but with the aerial attack and the young, talented defense leading the way, there no reason to think that the Jaguars can't capitalize.
The Jacksonville Jaguars will make the playoffs this year in the NFL

In my opinion, they will NOT make the playoffs. Yes, they have a very talented team on both sides of the ball. But there are some question marks as well. Their linebacking corps is below average. And they still have a young QB that's getting used to the NFL, he is talented though. The questions are,will Fowler make an impact coming off a injury? Will Myles Jack make an impact? Will Blake Bortles have a breakout year? Those are a lot of questions. Also, they do play in the AFC where there are the Broncos with that elite defense, the Patriots of course, the Steelers, and the Texans who are a really good Football team. They won't make the playoffs this year.
The Jacksonville Jaguars will make the playoffs this year in the NFL

Hello everyone! Today I will be debating as the Pro side that the professional football team Jacksonville Jaguars of the National Football League (NFL) will make the playoffs using a series of arguments in 3 rounds. The format is as follows: Round 1 - Introduction, stance on issue Round 2 - Arguments and rebuttal Round 3 - Closing Citations are not necessary, but are allowed. General knowledge of American football is necessary. Good luck to my opponent!
In defense of evil part 1: The Unabomber was justified in his actions.

The debate is whether or not the Unabomber is justified in his actions. He thought it was ok to send bombs with the purpose to harm or kill innocent people to send a political message. He ended the lives of three innocent people and changed the lives of twenty three others who were injured. http://www.newseum.org... My opponent has listed a number of views which the Unabomber believed in some of which are caused solely by the industrialisation of the world some have many causes. This is however irrelevant in my view. Everyone has ideas and views they feel strongly on this cannot be used as an excuse to send bombs to kill or harm another human being. Osama bin laden hated Americas intervention in the west just as the Unabomber hated the industrialisation of the world Yet I don’t think you would defend Osama bin Laden actions on the 11the of September so how can you defend the Unabomber. Both men committed atrocities in the name of their political views trying to change public opinion using fear and terror. If you accept the Unabomber’s actions act just because he believed in the cause what he was fighting for then you must also say that Osama bin laden was just. http://www.usnews.com... The Unabomber chose not to campaign like any ordinary political movement but instead chose to kill and maim innocent people. If many people believed in what the Unabomber believed in then he could founded a political party with his manifesto as its core beliefs. An example of this being done in the past is the foundation of the green party which was founded to promote a greener world they share many of the Unabombers beliefs. Using democratic channels to obtain a position of power and make the changes he believed in. He made a conscious decision not to do this but instead he tried to force his ideas on the people through a terror campaign. http://www.greenparty.org.uk... To summarise you have listed his views and yes many people will agree with those views. But bombing innocent people to impose forcefully your ideas is exactly the kind of tactics used by al qaeda and has no place in a 21st century world. Bombing people into accepting your beliefs and ideas can never be justified.
In defense of evil part 1: The Unabomber was justified in his actions.

Definitions; Justified: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable . http://www.merriam-webster.com... The word reasonable is highly subjective so for the purposes of this debate , I will be arguing that the Unabomber was just or right. When I say the Unabomber's actions I'm specifically referring to the ones that made headlines before his real name was known by the public. If you don't qualify to accept this tournament but can show you will be a worthy opponent who will see this debate through then I will change the requirements so you can join it.
School Uniforms Are Good

Ok,first of all I believe that uniforms can be a double edged sword. In your first point You made a valid point,you mentioned that they don't make students express themselves. maybe so,But on the other hand they stop bullying,this is the main problem that uniforms solve people from different parts of society attend school, lets say for example we have a poor student that has a very limited wardrobe with bad and torn clothes, a student who can afford to wear better and newer clothes will start annoying and bullying him for using the same clothes over and over and this has some really negative psychological and academic effects, children might start to lose confidence in themselves and maybe even hate themselves, because at school age students tend to enjoy bullying without much regard to the other person's feeling,and some people like to have a certain style in cloths that match their personal believes and style that might lead to bulling and making students feel not accepted for who they are,so the main reason for uniforms is they reduce social conflict and violence in the schools,I boarded a school that doesn't have a uniform for two years and seen this first hand. Second of all uniforms Keep the school atmosphere studious and focused on education. Well dressed students do better in school and well dressed teachers command more respect, adding to that,having a uniform relieve the parents from the burden of buying fashionable and expensive clothes every now and then,as students demands might get higher than their parents abilities, in light of this, I contradict the point where you said that school uniform might be expensive because I believe that it's the other way around, they save money also some students may wear clothes that are really not appropriate for school environment and this happens a lot. Third of all I feel that uniforms make students take school environment more seriously,Uniforms improve discipline, self-esteem and self-respect. They focus attention upon learning and away from such distractions as fashion competition, they learn that they should take care of their uniform and be responsible enough not to let it get dirty as they will use them again adding to that, when wearing school uniform you'll have to act more responsibly outside the school also, if you were on a field trip for example and a young student got lost whoever finds him/her will know where they belong in case the student isn't able to give info about themselves. And finally I agree with your third point, but I believe that most if not all schools have alternatives for skirts like trousers for example,as I don't think that schools force short skirts without having an alternative for them and if there are, I think it's an individual case and those certain schools should change their dress code. Also uniform helps with small issues like 1- it provides an identity to the students. Intruders cannot enter school due to the school uniform. 2-Any sort of gang related identity or markings would not be an issue. In addition baggy clothing to used to hide weapons or drugs.
School Uniforms Are Good

Thanks for the response. Of course I'll accept you as my opponent! First off, I don't think that school uniforms are good because I feel that students are not able to express themselves well and that they would be more comfortable studying in an environment where they feel they can be themselves instead of being forced to wear a uniform. I understand that by wearing school uniforms, we are symbolising that all the students are the same but what we should be trying to do instead is to show them that despite their differences and cultures, they are all attending the same school and doing the same thing together. Schools should try to teach students that they can be different and still work together in harmony instead of forcing children to wear the same thing and try to make students see that they are all the same. They should let students embrace their differences and show them that despite these differences, they are all still one. Third, I don't think that school uniforms are good for everyone because some of them may be insecure about their bodies. For example, certain school skirts are quite short and this may cause girls who are insecure about their legs to feel uncomfortable studying in their uniform. Religious beliefs also play a part. Some religions do not allow the legs of girls to be exposed and sometimes require certain areas to be covered. This may be a problem for students who want to study in a certain school and are not allowed to because their religion does not allow them to wear the uniform that the school requires them to be in. Fourth, a particular uniform is not always flattering on every body. A certain uniform will not fit every student perfectly and this may lead to them being taunted by their peers. So this may also lead to bad behaviour. Once again, I say that students should feel comfortable in their own clothes and should not feel out of place in their school environment as this may distract them from their studies. They may be self-conscious about who is watching them and what others think about them, leading them to be unfocused during lessons. Fifth, uniforms can be quite costly. Poorer students may not have sufficient money to pay for their school uniforms and may have problems buying new ones when they grow out of their old ones. Wearing their own clothes would allow them to study without spending extra money on uniforms and instead wear what they already have.