BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islam

The problem with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that it's possible that, if the Palestinians were to actually cooperate with the IDF, then maybe the conflict wouldn't exist. Of course, the Palestinian Authority encourages resistance. Such organizations do next to nothing to help end the conflict. Mind you, I am personally biased towards Israel, but Hamas really should stop firing missiles preemptively, as it will prevent possible negotiations. The problem with Hamas is that they target Israeli civilian targets, such as schools. Were they going after military targets, it might be different. However, there is a reason for most things. The videos which you see on the Internet of Palestinians being oppressed, is most likely because they were resisting occupation, and being violent. Of course, I know some people who have served, or are serving, in the IDF, or the Israeli Defense Force. The thing is, approximately 84% of Arabs in Israel actually prefer it to what might be Palestine. Had the area been occupied by Palestine from the start, the US probably would've found an excuse to go in and restore a pro-American government in the area. Also, Israel wouldn't be where it is today in terms of technology had it been occupied by Palestine from the start. The US has invested millions, maybe billions, into Israel, allowing Israel to become one of the most technologically advanced countries in the region, with all people in areas occupied by Israel receiving better medical treatment than if they were in Palestine.
Islam

The issue in the middle east is indeed a very sensitive one xD I personally support the Palestinians as i have seen many videos of them being tortured and violated. I also know of people who've went there and heard their stories. The Zionists have no right to treat the Palestinians the way they are, as Palestine itself belonged to them before it was taken over by the Zionist after World War 2. Just to make it clear I do not like nor support the Zionists and their terror. However, the true Jews, those are the ones I'd gladly accept and welcome. Zionists and Jews are two very different things. What are your thoughts on Zionists and the issue in the Middle East ?
Islam

Your views on the Jewish faith seem to be quite interesting. And, to the extent of my knowledge, there are indeed Jews who still practice the "original" religion, by which I mean that they follow the Bible very strictly. Essentially, they interpret the Bible and the Commandments quite literally; you could say they're Orthodox. But, as I said last round, the media is, to put it lightly, cruel to certain people, and also biased. Especially in America. This is true, not only for Muslims and the extensive coverage of the Islamic State, but also true for Jews and the coverage, or lack thereof, of everything happening in Israel with Hamas and all. Also, Israel is called out in the UN for "Human Rights Violations", more so than countries that you might expect to be called out for such things, such as Syria, or Venezuela. So yeah, I think that the leaders of the world can be classified as, to some extent, anti Semitic. This doesn't apply to all world leaders, though. I'm just saying, though.
Contradictions do not exist

I will not be posting any arguments in this round, since it would be unfair to the Proposition. However, I would like to get some definitions in order so that eventually, the Pro and I can settle on them. Definitions: Contradiction: 1. opposition between two conflicting forces or ideas [1] 2. a statement that is necessarily false [1] Paradox: a statement that contradicts itself [2] Exist: have an existence, be extant [3] Hopefully, we can agree on some, if not all, of these terms. Now please prove why contradictions do not exist. Thanks once again for the debate topic. Sources: 1. . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...; 2. . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...; 3. . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Contradictions do not exist

Unfortunately, my opponent seems to have just run out of time while writing his final arguments. This has been a great debate, especially on my opponent's side. Seeing as there's nothing to do, I'll close. Some of the old and the new contradictions I posted have been left unanswered. As a result, it should be assumed that these contradictions exist, as they were never refuted. For these reasons, the Opposition deserves to win this debate. Thank you, Tigs and readers.
Contradictions do not exist

Thanks for the response, Tigs. Refutations "This is an interesting example, however it demonstrates a rule that is impossible to follow rather than a contradiction. The false premise in this statement is that ignoring the rule is following it. There is no restriction on other rules that may be followed, meaning it is possible to ignore this rule without falling into the circular pattern which makes it demonstrably impossible to follow." "In this example the false premise is the category itself "Category needed". There is no contradiction here due to the fact that the requirement for an article to have a category is satisfied irrespective of what that category is defined as." Please explain how the false premis would be the category. Here's how I view it. If a Wikipedia page requires a single category, it would put "One category needed" somewhere on the page. However, if one puts a category in, but fails to take off the "Category needed" sign, then there is a contradiction, as there is no longer a category needed, yet the page still has such a sign. "I fail to see any indication of a paradox or contradiction in this paragraph. Good and evil are moral judgments and as such are subjective rather than quantifiable. I am especially confused by what is meant in the comment "distort and pervert good to the point that it became evil?"; perhaps you can elaborate on this so I can more adequately respond to what you intended to raise here." Sure thing. Rand believes that man is naturally evil. But we know that not all men do evil deeds. So how can good exist if we're all naturally evil? How can good and evil co-exist, or how can good acts and evil acts mutually exist? Good and evil are opposites; they contradict each other. Hopefully this cleared something? "Ayn Rand once said "Reason is man's tool of knowledge, the faculty that enables him to perceive the facts of reality." [2], and I would agree with the author it would invalidate her definition of reason if in fact she were to profess a belief in the soul as a supernatural existence; it would not indicate a contradiction but rather evidence that one of her statements was false." This is indeed a contradiction. Her own quote disproves one of her statements, as you say. This is definitely a contradiction. Her two statements are the opposite of each other. My opponent has refuted the above contradictions incredibly well. For this reason, I have dropped two of my contradictions. But in this round, I'll pose a couple more. Examples 1. PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them. How can a god be merciful and willfully destroy everyone? 2. EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen. Self-explanatory. I await the response with gusto.
Contradictions do not exist

Thank you for replying, Tigs. I, too, may not be replying swiftly due to some business I have. Nonetheless, I will provide examples of what I believe are contradictions and see if you can disprove them. Now, I'm unsure whether or not you and I mutually agreed on the definitions I presented, but I'll still bring in some examples, regardless. Examples As stated in my first speech, I showed that paradoxes are contradictions and I will be using one in my first example. 1. My first example will actually come from Wikipedia. "If one ignores the rule Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, then one would be following the rule, thus not ignoring the rule. Yet if one follows the rule Wikipedia: Ignore all rules, then one would no longer be ignoring all rules." [1] 2. Another paradox from Wikipedia. "If one adds Category:Category needed to an article, it technically no longer needs the category because it now has one. Yet if one removes the category, then the article now does need a category, so Category:Category needed will have to be added back." [1] 3. Now one from Atlas Shrugged, written by Ayn Rand, which I hope you are familiar with... maybe? Anyways, Rand repeatedly refers to the bad side of man as “evil.” Rand must believe that evil does exist. But if man is only truly alive and good when he is true to himself and his virtue, how can evil exist? Where did it come from? How could this good and wonderful being called man, distort and pervert good to the point that it became evil? Good and evil contradict one another. The presence of both in this world is clearly a contradiction. There must have been a source from where good and evil came, but how can these two co-exist? [2] 4. Another contradiction from Atlas Shrugged. Fourth, Rand believes that men are made of a soul. A soul is supernatural in itself. We cannot see it. We cannot prove that it exists, but there are few who believe that it does not exist. If reason overrides all superstition, how can she make the claim that a man is more than what meets the eye? Does this not contradict the very essence of reason? [2] I guess that's all for now. Hopefully, we can agree to some definitions. Hope to hear from you soon. Thanks again. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.freerepublic.com...
Contradictions do not exist

I apologize for my delayed response as I am unable to post from work. The principle of contradiction stated symbolically: ! (P&&! P) [1] This defines a contradiction as something simultaneously possessing a property and its inverse. The appearance of what most people might call a contradiction is simply a result of incomplete information. Here is an example: Jerry loves fish; Jerry hates fish. In this example it is understood that Jerry in both parts of the statement is indeed the same individual (and he does not suffer from bipolar disorder or schizophrenia; if he did it would indicate his attitude towards fish fluctuates in a period of time). This at first glance may seem to some that Jerry has contradicting feelings towards fish; but is it some particular species Jerry has an affinity or disdain for? Perhaps Jerry loves consuming fish but hates preparing fish because he too often overcooks it. The appearance of any such contradiction can be dispelled by examining the premises. The mistaken premises often lay in the assumptions that are made by the observer. Since my opponent is defending the existence of contradictions, I would be interested hearing some examples so they may be discussed. Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Cops should not be allowed to tasered you if you refuse to get out of a vehicle

A cop's judgement in an immediate situation is an appropriate trial. In a situation like the refusal to exit the vehicle, there is no time to get a trial on the spot. lifting by itself is a punishment, so this argument doesn't make sense. this argument about a civil society makes no sense. We use pain as a punishment all the time, and pain is not a bad thing all the time. How did we learn not to touch a hot stove? or not to touch a cactus? pain. pain is a necessary part of life to our survival and society. you make a timeframe argument that we should punish them later, but this is irrelevant because you're suggesting that we lift them out, which is a punishment by itself, yet not an effective one. what's the use of an ineffective punishment? we need to prevent future defiance by showing authority over the people, so it's really not a separate issue. thanks
Cops should not be allowed to tasered you if you refuse to get out of a vehicle

alright so in the case of an innocent simply refusing to get out of there vehicle, they will tried, and probably be issued a minor sentence such as a fine, or a short time in jail depending on the situation. However, what's to say this is enough to prevent them from doing the crime again? There have been many repeat offenders that have repeatedly gone to jail for small crimes again and again. However, one deterrent that has been empirically proven exists. pain. It is human nature to want to avoid pain, and pain has been proven to be effective in many cases. Pain is used in the training of animals also, and it is a great teacher at times. Therefore, tasers are much more effective, and besides, after the tasing, they will also receive the jail sentence or fine, which is the most appropriate punishment to ensure deterrence. i don't understand what you mean when you say "people have a right not to be shocked." you don't control when you're shocked or not, and it's not a right. if you'd clarify on that it would be helpful, instead of repeating it again. and yes, it does usually lead to violence. You say they aren't strangers, so are you telling me that you are friends or even acquaintances with every cop you might ever meet? Simply because you know what their position or who they are in general is doesn't matter. addressing your hobo example, you have just addressed them as hobos. you know they are hobos therefore they aren't strangers either according to your logic. This stranger thing isn't that important anyways, it's just to prove the point that people will usually resist and be violent when being forced out of their vehicle, but you have agreed with me here, so it's fine. The cops need the ability to have authority over the people. If they cannot show the people their power, the people will rebel or begin to take them lightly, which leads to disorder and chaos. i'm not saying verbal defiance itself is necessarily disorder, though it can be, i'm saying that this verbal disobedience justified and leads to further chaos, which includes physical fighting. You have also agreed that your own alternative of lifting leads to physical fighting usually, so i don't see what you're trying to say here. Once again, you try to make verbal defiance seem petty, but it's not. If a cop has a reasonable reason for suspecting you and ordering you to pull over and get out of a vehicle, that is legal. refusing to do so is a crime, and will just make them suspect you even more. Lifting is not effective because once again, it doesn't provide the pain and the punishment that tasering does. This is clearly outweighs any kind of shock you receive, because that shock is a good thing. it is a punishment for defying the authorities, and it is well deserved. it's a good thing, so i don't see how you're trying to use it as an argument against me. Basically, defying the authorities is an act that cannot be tolerated because of it's consequences which outweigh any negative points you might talk about such as this "opportunity" they should get.
Cops should not be allowed to tasered you if you refuse to get out of a vehicle

you said "However once again, if the individual is simply lifted out, what punishment do they get? none.: I say... -Punishment is suppose to come after a trial and after somebody has an opportunity to defend themselves. It is not suppose to come on the street corner by the cops. -The punishment for verbally refusing to listen is the extra charge of resisting arrest or whatever you want to call it with it coming extra jail time. you say: "f that person is verbally refusing to come out the vehicle, trying to force someone out of their own car can easily become violent, as people will become provoke when strangers try to grab them out of their own car." I say: -Even if lifting somebody out of a car usually leads to a physical fight, people have a right to not be shocked until they actually start fighting. -They are not strangers, they are law enforcement who should have identified themselves first. A hobo on the corner is a stranger you say: "The cops need the ability to maintain order and control the people, to prevent further chaos.: I say -Verbal defiance is not dis order,physical fighting is you say: If a method is the most effective way to stop an action, it should be given much more weight than an alternative that doesn't solve as well." I say -The effectiveness is outweighed by the fact that somebody is violently shocked for doing nothing but being verbally defiant. Lifting somebody may not be as effective, may not be as quick, but it can and should still be done UNTIL the person becomes violent. Lifting may not be AS EFFICIENT, but is still effective. The people deserve that opportunity. Violence or lack thereof factor should be put ahead of effectiveness factor. Get it. What other points do you have??
Cops should not be allowed to tasered you if you refuse to get out of a vehicle

I'm not sure why you're still talking about acceptance....i don't know what that is either. if you'd like to enlighten me, go ahead. It's really hard to debate about the actual philosophy of an action if what you state is extremely vague and you don't specify, which is why i used a definition. We are debating "Cops should not be allowed to tasered you if you refuse to get out of a vehicle," and what you stated in your first speech were your arguments to support your pro view. I guess this misunderstanding is what skewed our debate. Whatever, I'll do my best to argue against what only what you said then, considering you kind of switched your advocacy to become mine. So we're taking into account a few factors here to determine whether tasers or lifting is a better method. I'll make an analogy for this. A bullet would be the death penalty, a taser would be a jail sentence, and lifting would be letting the individual go. Sure, a bullet is the most effective, as you stated, but it doesn't allow for any flexibility and the individual dies. A taser gives the individual a punishment which is appropriate due to the fact that the individual is defying the government (i'm assuming that this is the case, and not that the government is corrupt, etc) which is unacceptable in today's society because it spurs anarchy. However once again, if the individual is simply lifted out, what punishment do they get? none. they can simply refuse the next time, and so on. your argument about the poll supports this. more people would want to be lifted, because it's the smallest punishment. The cops need the ability to maintain order and control the people, to prevent further chaos. This outweighs any probability of death tasers may pose, and technological improvements in the future will always help to reduce this rate anyways. I'm honestly not sure what this lifting is you're talking about. From what I can tell you're having the cops pull the people out of the vehicle. If that person is verbally refusing to come out the vehicle, trying to force someone out of their own car can easily become violent, as people will become provoke when strangers try to grab them out of their own car. a taser on the other hand subdues them immediately, reducing this risk of further escalation. You actually say that they might start a physical fight, then you call this serving the people? how is fighting with a person serving the people. You say effectiveness doesn't matter, bu sure it does. If a method is the most effective way to stop an action, it should be given much more weight than an alternative that doesn't solve as well. of course it's not the only factor like i have discussed above, but it means that you should still weigh effectiveness as a major part of whether tasers should be allowed.
Cops should not be allowed to tasered you if you refuse to get out of a vehicle

-Yes, I am proposing legislation to make tasering illegal somebody simply because they refuse to get out of their vehicle. I have seen this done before and it should not be allowed. That is my point -Yes I meant cooperation -I never said tasers should not be allowed. I said they should not be allowed in this case. I think they are misused in other examples too, but we will stick with this one example to make the argument more targeted. There are cases when tasers should be used and cases where guns should be used. Neither one should be outlawed completely by cops, but like I said let us stick with the vehicle example -I don't care about "acceptance" of an argument. I don't even know what that means. I just joined this site a few weeks ago and am interested in the philosophical reason why people believe something and want to know if they can back up their argument with sound reasoning as opposed to simply saying "that is what the law is" or "that is what the courts have ruled" or "if you don't like it, leave" or "the people voted that way" kind of arguments -I don't really care about the technical or legal definition of a "vehicle". I am talking about a car, truck, semi or whatever else enclosed motor vehicle. And I definitely don't care about "souls" This argument is not about semantics. Please don't waste my time be going off on that kind of a tangent -If a criminal is in a vehicle and shooting at a cop or is causing others to be in direct immediate physical harm then yes it is ok for a cop to use a taser or gun more likely in that case. As I said in my original statement the situation I oppose is somebody who is simply verbally refusing to get of their vehicle. They have no weapon. I am not saying being inside a vehicle is like being safe on base and the cops can't do anything to you. I am sure you could assume I did not mean such a silly notion so the more of those silly semantic arguments you can avoid, the faster this will go. -Lifting people out of their vehicle is not absurd. Cops subdue people all the time and will have to do that eventually to cuff them up and frisk them anyway. I think if you poll 100 people, most if not all would say they would rather get forcefully lifted up than have 100,000 jolts of electricity forced through their body so a taser is not the least aggressive method. It might be for EASIEST for the cop but is very violent and shocking for the "criminal." -If police call for backup, it should not increase the likelihood that a taser will be used. There could be a million tasers lying on a table or there could be 1 and the likelihood I use one should be dependent on the person who has control of it which is the whole point I am arguing....THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO USE IT IN THIS CASE, be it one cop or 10 cops. -I could not care less about the navy league or warfare. Once again. Please stick to the issue