BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Stan Thompson was, in all likelihood, a psychopath

Point 1: Meg is a psychopathEven though it is true that Meg has done some very idiotic things, this doesn't mean she's a psychopath. She is going through her teenage years, a period of extreme awkwardness, changing, and impulsive actions. As a teenager you will find yourself liking one thing one day, but something else the next [1] (which explains her brief obsessions for Joe and Brian). But what could be another reason? Like you said, what if Meg got this psycoticness from a parent? So, besides her father, who else could be the cause of her psycoticness? Who else but the mother herself, Lois Griffin? Lois isn't exactly squeaky clean and has a checkered history and home life. Very abusive, mentally unstable (first video: Lois' reaction to the family running out of paper towels). http://www.youtube.com... and is one of the biggest control freaks I've ever seen. And Meg isn't even the only psychotic child in the family. Obviously, Stewie also suffers from major psychotic problems as he wants to kill his mother. Regardless of who Stewie's father is (Pizza Delivery Porn Guy or Peter) there is no doubt in my mind that this insanity branches from Lois' side (like how you mention how Lois has done all kinds of drugs and has dealt with shady characters). But what if the psychotic behavior from now probably all 3 of her children wasn't genetic? Now, it all turns around to the case of Lois' brother, Patrick. He was traumatized at a young age and has been admitted to a mental hospital because this traumatic event caused impulsivness and murderous thoughts/actions. This almost seems to be an exactly identical case to not only Meg's, but ALL of the Griffin children. With a mother like Lois, traumatization is very likely and nearly impossible to avoid so instead of looking at Stan, why don't we all look at Lois and honestly say who would most likely be the source? Point 2: Lois associated with shady characters Further adding to the conclusion that it is actually Lois who is insane as she has done as you quote: "Numerous allusions have been made during the show's run including her past association with pornographers, and her past use of (and possible addiction to) drugs such as crystal meth and cocaine, and marijuana. " And if the Stan was really into that business, he would have most likely have shown up in one of her pornographic videos or flashbacks. Sources:[1]: . http://kidshealth.org...;
Islamic banking system prevails over other banking systems

A person goes to a normal bank and takes 200,000$ loan for a house with 10% interest, if that person returns the money in 2 years he will have to pay back 240,000, and if he returns it in 5 years, he will have to pay 300,000. And as the time increases he has to pay more. And if a person is unable to return the money quikly due to some problems the amount of money he has to pay back keeps on increasing. In some cases this might leave the person in a huge debt. In India many farmers suicide because they are unable to pay back this huge debts which keeps increasing usually as a result of crop failure, whcih unables the farmers to return the debt. Almost two-thirds of people who took out expensive payday loans have used the money to pay household bills or buy essentials such as food, nappies and petrol, a survey by Which? has revealed. But while payday lenders say the loans help people ease through tricky points of the month, the research indicates many become trapped in a spiral of debt because they cannot afford to repay their loans by the agreed date, and so incur exorbitant penalty charges. A third of people said they experienced greater financial problems as a result of taking out a payday loan, while one in five were unable to pay it back on time. A quarter said they had been hit with high, hidden charges for reminder letters and failed payments. http://www.theguardian.com... http://www.newrepublic.com... http://archive.indianexpress.com... In Islamic banking interest plays no role. eg: A person who wants to buy a house, goes to the bank and says that he wants a particular house the bank buys the house, lets say it costs 200,000$ and sell it back to him in 250,000$. He can pay back that money in installments and the money which he has to pay back does not keep increasing with time. of course there is a time limit for the returning of money. The bank can always add pressure on the debtor for the return of the money as the bank keeps something as mortage. Since the bank does not charge any interest, the person does not end up getting trapped in a huge debt. Other then that people who deposit their money in the bank do not recieve any interest, rather they become shareholders. If the bank do not make enough profits they do not get any share, if they do make good profit, the shareholders will get there share of profit acordingly. If the bank makes 20% profit in the end of the year, the shareholder may get 10% more money of what he has deposited. In normal banks the amount of interest the depositers get back is fixed and only the top 20 % of the rich people keep getting the interest, while the rest of the 80% of the population is is usually giving the interest. This increases the gap between the rich and the poor or average income family, which does not happen so much in Islamic banking system. The amount of money held in Islamic banks totals about $1 trillion, or less than 1 percent of global financial assets. But in many countries Islamic banking is growing rapidly. Sources: http://www.rferl.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Islamic banking system prevails over other banking systems

Fewer LoansUnder the Islamic banking system the lenders will be less willing to lend to small businesses because they have to take on much more risk that they have to under the mixed banking system. This means that ultimately more people will be trapped in poverty, unable to escape because they cannot get any capital to start a business. The Problem of InterestI think my opponent should be reminded that the option of default is open to those who become trapped in debt. Now this does have its drawbacks but these people are not eternally trapped in debt. Furthermore remember that accumulated interest means that more people can have loans granted to them. Also under the Islamic system when money isn't repaid on time there are a number of problems. The first is inflation, the value of money tends to decrease and because of this without charging interest banks will constantly loose money this means the economic viability for banks will be difficult.The other problem is that banks will struggle to grantee a certain amount of income which causes problems both for share prices and the maintenance of a permanent staff.
Islamic banking system prevails over other banking systems

Yes there are complex equation to find out how much a person will have to pay back, but still the money to pay back keeps increasing with time. Its kind of more like a trade, where the banks buys what the person wants and sells it back to him for s little higher price,which the person can return as intallments over a period of time. So nothing to do with interest.Small buisness can recieve loans the rsk factor is mostly 50:50, same goes for the benefit.Yes the islamic banking system can exist in mixed banking system, but what i am trying to prove is that the method of banking used in an Islamic banking are better then the normal banking system.Two disadvantages of present banking system1) A person who takes loan from the bank and is unable to return it due to some reason like losing his job will fall in huge dept as the amount to be repaid keeps increasing,2) The present banking system promises to give certain amount of interest back to its depositers, When many people are unable to return the money back to the bank, the bank finds it difficult to pay the interest to its depositers. Which could in some cases lead the bank to get bankrupted https://www.fdic.gov... whereas in Islamic banking this does not happen1)when people are unable to pay back the money due to some reason , the amount of money to be payed back does not increase with time. Therefore the person does not fall into huge debts.2) The bank does not promise any interest to its depositers, so when people are unable to pay back due to some reason,and if the bank does not make enough profits it does not have to pay to the depositers. So the bank has lesser chances of getting bankrupted
Islamic banking system prevails over other banking systems

Erroneous Numbers and FactsThe amount of money a person will pay back isn't as simple as 10% or 20% any more, there are now complex equations to figure out what a person will pay back and 10% doesn't necessarily mean 10% and 20% doesn't necessarily mean 20% [1] [2].The Islamic banking system doesn't actually stop interest ("money paid regularly at a particular rate for the use of money lent.") it stops some parts of it (you admit this yourself in your 3rd paragraph).Why the Mixed ("Western") Banking System is Superior to the Islamic Banking SystemUnder the Islamic banking system it is much more difficult for small business to receive loans, this is because it is harder to distribute risk when accumulated interest is eliminated from the equation [3].Furthermore the system known as Islamic banking could exist within the mixed banking system. It is totally within the realms of possibility for the sort of agreements that would occur in an Islamic banking system to occur in the mixed banking system. This is especially the case because if the populous agrees with my opponent about the superiority of the Islamic banking system. Under the system I would instigate, the people would be able to chose (through the free market) which system they would prefer and have some degree of choice in the matter.Post ScriptThe current version of the western system isn't exactly what I advocate as it has become shall we say a "little" corrupt.[1] http://www.math.hawaii.edu...[2] http://www.1728.org...[3] http://www.eib.org...
Gentrification in cities

Thank you for your response Problems Segregation I proved last round that gentrification is a means of integration in intensely segregated neighborhoods. Con asserted that there are other means for integrating neighborhoods but gave no such method. Given that gentrification is literally integrating the neighborhood I cannot think of any other method of integration than integration itself. Con then points to education and I do not completely disagree with what he was saying. While this may solve a problem of education which I agree is crucial, it does not solve problems within the neighborhood itself because the data stands that these areas remain segregated. Crime Con seems to be arguing that a reduction in crime can be attributed to education. I would like to argue on this point. I would actually like to argue the opposite that a reduction of crime leads to better education within the community. Graduation rates are caused due to positive public safety outcomes and lower levels of crime [1]. Now I do agree with con about the importance of education for this issue. But Gentrification invests within the neighborhood as con alludes to as a solution. Deterring crime is just as much of a priority in addition to bringing in more educated people into the communities. Another point for con’s education point is that perhaps that is a solution on an individual level but not for the community level which is what is being dealt with. People do not live their life always solely based on the education they receive but culture in the community. Gentrification combats the culture within a community. Sources: [1]: http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com...
Gentrification in cities

Integration can be solved without gentrification. In order to integrate, one group of people does not have be wealthier than the other. The main reason that these areas are not educated is not because of their poverty, but because of bed governance. For example in August 2014 the DC Council approved a zoning change for Wilson HS. [1] This is one of the better public schools in Washington that is not a charter school or a STEM school, [2] and as you can see the zone was changed from the poorer, black neighborhoods to the richer, white ones. [3] Surely the government did not need to do this, or could have prioritized the lower income areas. However, they did not. A better solution to this would be public charter schools, which come from the community, not forces of gentrification. These schools have higher graduation rates for economically disabled minorities than actual public schools, and this task is completed using the resources already available to the city. If education in lower income communities is prioritized then crime will decline. In 2016, New York city had it's highest graduation rate in city history. [4] Simultaneously, crime rates in New York City decreased drastically. One may say this is because of better police work, but "First-year Police Commissioner James O"Neill and Mayor de Blasio also cited the department"s recent embrace of neighborhood coordination officers who work in local precincts as a factor in the crime reductions." [5] This coordination inside of neighborhoods is the exact opposite of gentrification, working from the inside to make a city more safe and friendly. I am not saying because people are poor they will be criminals. However, if decent education is not made available to them their options are limited. To quote WEB DuBois ""The function of the university is not simply to teach breadwinning, or to furnish teachers for the public schools, or to be a centre of polite society; it is, above all, to be the organ of that fine adjustment between real life and the growing knowledge of life, and adjustment which forms the secret of civilisation." [6] [1] https://dme.dc.gov... [2]https://osse.dc.gov... [3] http://www.city-data.com... [4] http://newyork.cbslocal.com... [5] http://www.nydailynews.com... [6] https://www.goodreads.com...
Gentrification in cities

Thank you con for instigating and good luck.I am willing to accept con’s definition of gentrification but I just hope that he understands that is very limited in terms of the scope, purpose, and effects of gentrification. I am deciding to begin arguments this round because I think the pro should usually go first in a debate by making the affirmative case. Problems Segregation Gentrification is a measure that is taken to solve a certain issue. It must be established what the issue at hand is first before analyzing if this is a proper solution. It is very easy to simply characterize the issue as one of poverty but this does not sufficiently address all the issues at hand. The areas that are invested in for gentrification are downtrodden areas. These areas tend to be extremely racially segregated. This is environment is certainly no recipe for success for somebody who grows up in such a neighborhood. There is an example of such a neighborhood in Washington D.C. The issue with such racial segregation is that the poverty is concentrated as well in the area. In addition to that the statistics shows that these areas are far less educated and have an inferior education system [1]. In short, there is a clear negative correlation between racial and income segregation and relative economic mobility. Crime The issues certainly do not end there, however. Probably the biggest contributing factor to why these neighborhoods remain downtrodden is crime. People who grow in such neighborhoods have a far higher risk in experiencing crime including violent crime [2]. Most people do not want to open a store or invest their business in an area where there is a larger chance that it will get looted or vandalized and rightly so. Once again, this ensures that downtrodden areas remain downtrodden if productivity cannot function A Potential Solution How do you solve a problem of segregation? It should be a foregone conclusion that integration is the solution. The same is true for crime as well. A major part of segregation is investing in removing crime in the areas. If done properly, gentrification has been successful. Take New York City. Crime was significantly reduced in the 1990s due to heavy policing and some demographic changes and this led to an economic boom in the city as well [3]. Mayor Giuliani summed up the policy perfectly explaining “If the neighborhood looks as if someone is watching and maintaining order, it’s far more likely that order will prevail” [4]. Once again, this is true in terms of crime and in terms of economics as well. More people are willing to open businesses and invest in these neighborhoods if they are well maintained. Only under such circumstances can more productivity be created in such neighborhoods. On to you con! Sources: [1]: https://www.brookings.edu... [2]: http://www.apa.org... [3]: http://www.nber.org... [4]: http://nypost.com...
Gentrification in cities

I believe that gentrification in cities is bad for the community and only drives the working class families out because it increases the cost of living. It solves no problems and only marginalizes people more than they already have been. Definitions gentrification-the change in the character of a traditionally working-class area following an influx of new middle-class residents. [1] (From what I have experienced this usually entails people coming from the suburbs with their money to newly "vogue" city living.) Working Class- People in this group typically have blue-collar jobs " the kind where you work with your hands " and are paid on an hourly rather than a salaried basis. They also tend to have low levels of education. < $32,500 (2012) Lower-Middle Class- The article defines this group as "lower-level, white-collar workers": office workers with lower income and little authority. It says most of them have college degrees, but not advanced degrees, and their income ranges from $32,500 to $60,000 ($33,670 to $62,150 in 2015 dollars). Upper-Middle Class- This group, also called the professional class, fills the upper ranks of offices. Workers in this group often have post-graduate degrees and can earn as much as $150,000 ($155,390 in 2015 dollars).[2] Percentages of People in these brackets Working Class- Bottom 32% Lower-Middle Class- Bottom 31%-Top 43% Upper-Middle Class- Top 43%- Top 9% [3] Both parties provide burden of proof and first round can be acceptance or you can make your argument. [1]http://chambers.co.uk... [2]http://www.moneycrashers.com... [3]http://www.nytimes.com...
The story of Noah's Ark is false.

There are really only two major factors that affect the credibility of this story. 1) Whether or not God is real If God is real, then He could have easily helped Noah to do what He commanded. If God is real, He could have sent certain animals TO Noah directly. 2) How reliable are the methods for determining the age of the earth and objects on it? Are radioisotope dating and carbon dating really as reliable as they are made out to be? Then the third and less significant question: How reliable is the information from the scientists? Is it automatically true because it is printed in textbooks? This is truly an argument of great futility, given the fact that neither side can find significant evidence to appease the other. I will respectfully forfeit this debate, not only because I recognize the futility of this argument, but also because I don't have time to come back to this. Before I close, I would encourage you to read this article regarding Noah's Ark and the Global Flood: http://www.icr.org... And I close: This has gone to many different places other than the original argument, and I am noticing that it has gone across the many subjects related to debates of biblical credibility and the existence of God, thus becoming little more than multiple people pitted against each other - and what for? If you're only doing this to get the voting privilege, then you can have this one. You may think what you wish. I am not quitting; I merely forfeit. I'd love to continue this argument, but I honestly do not have time. It seems that there's more of a debate going on in the comments. This has aroused quite a bit of contempt and misunderstanding, as is common in any argument on these subjects. Congratulations, and enjoy your victory... although it probably is not worth much seeing that I'm only 13. Thank you for the opportunity to try at least.
The story of Noah's Ark is false.

There is no way to get animals from around the world to all collect in 1 location at the same time, without force, AND in male/female pairs. The Ark would not have been nearly large enough to house said animals. You could not have prevented the animals from eating or fighting with each other. There would have been no where to put food, water, or animal feces. There is no sign that a flood of that scale ever took place. How would certain animals (kangaroos, penguins) make the journey to the ark? How did all the plant life on earth survive such a flood? There is no sign of the Ark's remains anywhere.
War is a necessary evil.

Round 1 pro stated "I will have to prove that war is a necessary evil." In the comments he clarifies that he "need(s) to prove that it is necessary and a evil." Pro has neither shown war necessary or evil. Both claims remain unwarranted. Pro has conceded that there are times that war is moral. Therefore is cannot be concluded that War is inherently evil. Moral is what ought to be done. If something is necessary, as pro argues war is, and there are cases it ought to be done, then war is moral. Since evil has been defined as immoral the stance that war is a necessary evil is incoherent. Thus we see that by the definitions provided the resolution could not be affirmed as it is incoherent. Even if this was not the case, pro has failed his burden and the resolution is negated.
War is a necessary evil.

Now not all wars are necessary, not all are evil. But my point I want to make is a good amount are needed. While at the same times the others are usually well evil. These other wars usually are in third world nations. These nations have suffered under years of oppressive rulers, and years of civil war. So for these nations sometimes war is a necessary. It is needed for them, they want to create a better lives for themselves and for there familys. So they rise up against the evil corrupt governments. But while they are fighting for a just cause usually things start to turn bad. Usually these rebles become as bad if not worse then the same government they are fighting. They will kill those that oppose them. They will attack areas that have civilians, all in the name of peace. Yet more civilians are dieing then they did before the war. Isn't that evil? But it was necessary at first, someone needed to try to stand up for whats right. How about this world war 2, that war was necessary. Because we where fighting to keep our freedoms, and protect those that would die if we or the britian would fall. But at the same time we where mass bombing any lands under germanys control. This lead to thousands of civilians deaths, and sometimes not even hitting the target. If we never fight for what we believe in, and never stand up for whats right. Then this world would have one leader, most likely a dictator. He would most likely kill those he hates, not allow basic freedoms. You need to sometimes stand up for what you know is right or wrong. Even if it means you need to kill people, because sometimes if you don't do anything then who will stand up for the little guys?
War is a necessary evil.

Pro says that “The world would not exist as we think of it without fighting for what is needed.” This neither shows war necessary or evil. Pro has still not warranted the case that war is necessary. We see there are times that war is moral. Therefore is cannot be concluded that War is evil. As pro has argued the concepts of necessary and evil it becomes clear that something cannot be both necessary and evil. Moral is what ought to be done. If something is necessary, as pro argues war is, and there are cases it ought to be done, then war is moral. Since evil has been defined as immoral the stance that war is a necessary evil is incoherent.