BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islam is NOT a religion of peace

I understand your argument and yes, there is text in the Quran that says to fight against non Islamic's to convert them, but the founder of Islam Muhammad Ali, believed in peace and didn't have any problems with people living in his land such as Jews, Christians, and Muslims because what they believed in had the same aspect as Islam, and every religion has its extremists and its history. For example, when Christianity rose, the Roman Catholics waged war on neighboring European countries to convert them, and thousands were slaughtered; another violent act committed by Christians is the Crusades that occurred. They may have been a complete failure, but thousands died for a cause that never succeeded. There are thousands of people who have completely dedicated themselves to Islam and Allah, and can read and speak in Arabic. These are people who fast and pray so much you can see their cheekbones. If Islam really were a religion of violence as you say it is, don't you think that there would have been a lot of riots by now caused by these people? ISIS members haven't dedicated themselves so much as these people have, and were probably some Islamic people that took this text way to seriously, but all these crimes they have committed don't give them any philosophical experiences besides maybe a desire to kill more people.
Islam is NOT a religion of peace

You failed to understand my argument. I didn't say Muslims aren't peaceful. I said ISLAM is not peaceful. There are many wonderful Muslims out there many of which are my personal friends. However, in any religion, the adherents don't necessarily represent the beliefs of that religion. While most Muslims aren't extremists, those that are unfortunately represent the true face of Islam. The Quran, Islam's holy book and scriptural reference is a book of violence and hatred. The Quran contains more than 109 verses of violence commanding Muslims to wage war on infidels. I could list all of them but it would exceed the word limit in this argument. Refer to the link below to see all the wonderful verses in the "religion of peace". The Quran instigates hate in the heart of Muslims towards nonbelievers. It is in many ways similar to Mein Kampf (The Autobiography of Adolf Hitler). One interesting thing to note is that if you translate Mein Kampf into Arabic, it would read 'My Jihad'. The Quran puts forth a belief that Muslims are a superior class of human beings and all others are pigs and worthless. The reason many Muslims believe Islam is peaceful is because they're taught that by their parents and the never bother to read the Quran and actually understand it. Most Muslims I know recite the Quran in Arabic having no clue what the words mean. I urge every Muslim to read the Quran in English or another language they understand. As for Islamic extremism, the radicals don't represent the majority of peaceful Muslims but they do represent Islam. Did you know that according to the Quran, the peaceful Muslims are all going to Hell because they're not fighting for the cause of Allah and killing infidels. Islam means "submission": submitting to the rule of Islam. Islamic terrorists are thriving because they use the Quran to support their cause. The Quran validates their atrocities. On the other hand, it is hard for someone to kill in the name of Christianity without violating the teachings of Christ because Christ never taught violence or hatred. If you're a Muslim wanting to live peacefully, live a life of freedom and don't want to spend your life fighting others, then Islam is not the religion for you. Quran's Verses of Violence: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
Islam is NOT a religion of peace

Even though I am not religious in any way, I will stand to debate on absurd comments made on things that seem different due to the media and press. What you posted is literally a sentence that is itself, a flaw. There is no reasoning, no evidence, and no bias, not even personal opinions or reasons to conclude that Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is literally the word for peace and its religion is full of many people that are as nice and dedicated as someone you would see in a Christian church or Catholic church. Anyways I'm tired right now and I have already clarified my thesis, so I will just say that I accept your challenge.
Bsh v. Harder: Hot Guys Battle

Name: Maxwell ZagorskiHeight: 6'2" [1]Age: 26-27 [2]Weight: ???Pics: Ignore any and all pics in the sources:[1] http://www.maxtalent.com...[2] http://malecelebbio.com...;("Maxwell Zagorski, born in 1988, in New Port Richey, Florida, is an American model.")
Bsh v. Harder: Hot Guys Battle

Thanks to Harder for this debate! I am really looking forward to this, and I hope Chris enjoys it, too :)Name: Shivdhruv GuptaHeight: 6 feetAge: 23Weight: ???I don't know his waist (that wasn't required though), but other interesting measurements include a 30 inch waist, 15 inch biceps, and 40 inch chest. On, now, to the pics: ...Thanks! Over to Harder... :)
Bsh v. Harder: Hot Guys Battle

PrefaceI am having this debate to honor Harder's coming out on DDO, and as a statement of support for him. I hope that he enjoys the debate---I am pretty sure it will be fun :)This debate is a non-voting debate; however, people are free to cast null votes providing feedback. Both Harder and I (by accepting this debate) agree that all votes cast on this debate should null (awarding no points or equal points to both sides). Any non-null votes should be deleted by the moderators unless an egregious violation of conduct or a clear-cut rules breach occurs within the debate. The response time for this debate is 48 hours. There is a maximum of 5,000 characters. Please be prepared for a swift debate.Purpose/StructureThis is a battle of who can present the hottest guys. No arguments should be presented for who is hotter--the photos should speak for themselves. Voters are free to cast null votes expressing their thoughts on the debate, but again, the end-result will be a tie.In each round, each debater will post 5 to 7 photos of a given model. All of the photos posted in a debater's portion of the round must be from the same model. So, all of my Round 2 photos must be from the same model/actor/person-who-exists, and all of Harders's Round 2 photos must be from the same model. However, we are not allowed to use the same models--so the person I pick for Round 2 cannot be used by Harder in Round 2 or any other round. Moreover, we may not repeat models, so I cannot used the Round 2 model in any other rounds.We should post the name of our selected model in each round, as well as--if we can find it--height, age, and weight. The name is required, but the other stats aren't; we will rely on the honor system to ensure that both of us made decent efforts to attain and furnish the other information, though. Also, while I use the term "model," it can really be any guy we think is hot.Round 1 should just be acceptance and acknowledgement of the rules. Rounds 2-5 are for us to post our images. Images may be linked to our photo albums on DDO or embedded in the debate. They should not be taken to outside links. All images must conform to the TOS--they cannot be nudes (even ones that aren't fully revealing) or display graphic or inappropriate imagery. I think that this sums up the debate and its expectations pretty well, actually. Again, this is a non-voting debate. So, that concludes this portion of the OP.Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere4. No trolling or semantics5. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossThanks......and congratulations to Harder--I (and DDO) support him! I look forward to a delectably sexy debate :)
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is the best video game ever made.

Thanks for accepting, and good luck. First I would like to explain why I make this claim. Obviously it isn't for its graphics, but is this needed for a game to be the best ever? Well, I suppose that's why we're debating this in the first place. Awards and ScoresI probably don't already have to say this, but Ocarina of Time is the most critically acclaimed game of all time. With the most perfect scores of any game ever made. IGN- 10.0/10 "Masterpiece"Allgame- five out of five starsEdge- 10/10Electronic Gaming Monthly- 10/10Famitsu- 40/40GamePro- five out of five starsGame Revolution- "A"GameSpot- 10.0/10Electric Playground- 10/10GameStyle- 10/10GMR- 10/10Next Generation Magazine- five out of five starsNitendojo- 10/10RPGamer- 5/5Thunderbolt- 10/10It was awarded "Game of the Year" in 1998 by the following publications: the CESA Award, Electronic Games Monthly, Games, Game Spot, Interactive Achievment Award, Japan Media Arts Festival, and the VSDA award. It has also been awarded, "Greatest Game of All Time" by the following publications: CVG, Edge, Entertaiment Weekly, GameFAQs, Game Stats, Game Trailers, Guinness, IGN, Metacritic, Next Generation, and Nintendo Power. The Perfect Game?Many people argue that a game can't be perfect, and that every game has its flaws, but what is considered a flaw without something for a game to be compared to? Ocarina of Time established this foundation against which other games would be judged. Edge magazine commented in its 2007 "The 100 Best Games" special issue, "[Ocarina of Time] was an astonishing achievement in 1998 and, almost a decade later, still serves as the landmark for its successors and 3D adventure games in general... In a series composed of awfully big adventures, Ocarina may no longer be the prettiest, or even the biggest, but it's still the best of all."SalesAt 7.6 million sales to date, OOT doesn't seem very impressive, but just when the PS1 seemed like it would eliminate the N64 from any contention, Ocarina of Time single handedly evened the playing field between consoles, and kept Nintendo in the race. Sony wasn't able to match Ocarina of Time with a game as good, which some believe won Nintendo the fifth-generation war. GameplayThe total game takes about 20 hours if you have some idea of what you're doing, and much longer if you're first playing it. Zelda games have traditionally been long and entertaining, giving you more than what you've paid for. I will get into more specific gameplay in later rounds. I eagerly await my opponent's response.
tax cuts

I am for tax cuts because the money paid to the US is not necessarily making the best of what american taxpayers are giving them such as using the money for trials that aren't need, or sending money to welfare and people who are to lazy to get jobs. the money should be going to things that matter such as raising military budgets and defense budgets. the money should also start being saved to pay off the great deficit so that we can stop going further into debt. another reason that tax cuts would be good for the US is more people would be able to afford them and be willing to pay them and the more people that are paying taxes the more money the government is going to get. People work hard for their money there is no reason that they should not be entitled to keep their hard earned money so that they can pay for their families well being and other things and ideas that they want to make out of the money they have. tax cuts will also reduce welfare recipients because companies won't be spending as much on taxes so they are going to be able to hire and pay people more than before bringing in great amounts of revenue for the US.
tax cuts

It"s a nice idea, but in reality, tax cuts will increase the deficit, without giving the US enough growth to compensate for the loss of revenue: for example, the current tax cut on the table in Congress will add more than $1.23 TRILLION to the deficit over ten years, while only boosting economic growth by 0.7% in 2018 " which would not generate anywhere near enough new revenue from growth to compensate for the loss from tax cuts. This from the Tax Policy Center. A caveat: of course, if taxes were at 50% for everyone in the nation, it would be strangling the country and its people: but that"s simply not the case here, with most taxes being paid by the wealthy, who don"t seem to mind much. The classic middle-class family is sadly in the minority now, and they pay tragically little: the top 20% of earners earn 95% of taxes, with the middle class filling in most of the rest (from the OMB). And you even say that "money should also start being saved to pay off the great deficit so that we can stop going further into debt", but how does that make sense when you"ll be adding to the debt and deficit with tax cuts, and delaying the necessary pain of actually raising more revenue from the citizens to pay off our massive debt? It"s just kicking the can down the road for votes. The rest of your arguments I will save for later rounds. Gimel
abortion should be illegal in first trimester, but not investigated nor punished*

im not sure why con says i haven't provided argumentation. my first post was beginning to end argumentation. con gives a decent standard for how we should create our laws. one's right ends where another's begins. but this is the point, that it could be applied to the abortion debate. personhood is hard to pinpoint, legally, and at least morally, which is the main point in defining our laws. so, as a matter of deference to not wanting to kill people, we should ban abortion. but we recognize the moral ambiguities, and other considerations i gave in my first post, and make the laws have no legal consequence.
abortion should be illegal in first trimester, but not investigated nor punished*

I feel like there wasn't any formalized argumentation from my opponent to start this debate, so I fee like this is a chance for me to present an opening statement of sorts that explains where my argumentation in this debate is going to go. Abortion is a subject that people simply refuse to agree to disagree upon. Thus, I feel that this is an important debate. I look forward to seeing what argumentation my opponent plans to provide. In negating this resolution I will argue specifically that the legality of an action comes form the idea that one's rights end where another's begin. This is a basic legal philosophy constructed by John Stuart Mills and is where we justify legal principles and laws. Using this conception of the law and justice, I will argue that abortion should not be illegal in the sense that abortion does not infringe upon a fetus' rights (if they indeed have any) in such a manner that it constitutes law to prevent it. I will explain this more fully in my further argumentation. Good luck to my opponent. I look forward to debating such an important issue with you.
abortion should be illegal in first trimester, but not investigated nor punished*

*aside from rape and mother's health, abortion should be illegal in the first trimester, but not investigated nor punished. given there are no legal consequences involved, these are more about arguments on principle. abortion should be illegal, because we should recognize that we should be giving the benefit of the doubt to human life. it is clear enough that we should outlaw it, but not clear enough that we should be punishing them. for example, to establish the uncertainty, note that a snowball is not a snow man, and a lego is not lego man. same could be argued for the cell in early pregnancy. at what point does a lego or snowball become the corresponding man? it's unclear there, as it could be said to be with personhood. but, on the other hand, the earliest cell does meet the requirements for what would constitute an 'organism', albeit it would probably be viewed as more like a parasitic organism given it must live off of the mother. and it's not like every other cell, given not every other cell can grow into a person. the pro and con about human life here are enough to say in principle we should defer to human life, but not clear enough to make any meaningful punishments for it. human life is such a strong factor to be weighed, that it is not unreasonable for a person to be against abortion, and want to punish so as to deter and for justice's sake. but, i would not go that far. i would take that same reasoning, though, and argue that it's such a strong consideration, that it should at least be illegal, albeit with no legal consequences. and the last reason it should be illegal in principal, is because the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy. having sex is something that can result in pregnancy. it's not like it just happened, getting pregnant, out of no where. another reason why we shouldn't punish is deferment. while we are deferring to human life, we are respecting the autonomy of the woman involved. given there is uncertainty, who should decide? should the government decide? why not give the autonomy to decide to the person most affected by it, the mother? plus,there are uncertainties involved, but there are other considerations as well. while the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy, she may have tried her best not to get pregnant, and got pregnant anyways. things happen, plus she has a lot of other things to consider like making sure she can hold down a job, or continue in school. or maybe she's poor and doesn't want to bring another kid into the mix. the common arguments in favor of abortion should be used here, as holistic approach to why she should be able to decide given the various moral considerations involved. but again, this stuff is just sufficient so as to not make legal consequences for the abortion, but not enough to make it legal.
This house will ban animal testing

Hello today we have 3 rounds.1. Acceptance/ Introduction2. Body3. ConclusionRulesFlaking= LoseTroll= LoseForfeit= Lose Status Quo: Medical research is the hardest case for proposition in this debate to prove, since it has previously yielded substantial benefits for humanity , while contemporary animal research continues to contribute demonstrably to the speed and efficiency with which new scientific break throughs are achieved. Focussing the proposition case on toxicology, or cosmetics alone would divert the debate into an area of law and ethics that is settled in most respects: many states around the world have instituted bans using animals to test cosmetics and the toxicity of domestic cleaning products. Thus the best proposition strategy is to focus on the hard case of medical research. Animal research has been used for several centuries as part of efforts to better understand the world around us. Almost all states actively research on animals at present. The total scale of all research on vertebrates is hard to measure, but according to some estimates it could be as high as 115,000,000 animals per year, with the vast majority of these being euthanized at the end of the period of experimentation. The pharmaceutical industry spends a significant amount of time conducting research on animals. Due to the relative paucity of drugs that make it on to the market place after the initial testing phases, the global cost of each successful new drug in terms of animal lives, is around 5.75 million animals. By contrast the now shrinking industry sector on chemical safety testing using animals, uses around 860 animals per chemical when screening for carcinogens (cancer-causing substances). Whilst much the research described above is categorised as causing minimal pain and suffering, figures obtained in 2010 show that in the USA alone 97,123 animals were used in research likely to involve pain and suffering, where pain killers and sedatives would not be administered. However, it should be born in mind that this figure is equal to only 8.5% of the total number of animals used in research activities covered by the US Animal Welfare Act - but the act does not cover mice, rats, birds or fish.Defintion: Testing: In this debate "testing" should be defined as all testing on animals including, medical research, cosmetics, toxicology testing, and psychological research involving animal subjects. Most existing bans on animal research, when they have been implemented, have involved some form of disciplinary action by a professional body and the possibility of criminal prosecution.Animal: A living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs andnervous system and able to respond rapidly tostimuli:Sources:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...http://idebate.org...;
This house will ban animal testing

RebuttalsIn Con's first argument which was that In essence, animal testing is just another way humans utilising our intelligence to our advantageI just want to say that, Do you need to do it with animals? Animals are living things like us so it is wrong to just have a experiement which might kill the animal when it is a living thing. That is just plain cruel. Also they have the right to not get harmed because it is the same thing. Elephants might kill people on there experiments. Is that fair? And many people use lab rats which are also animals but many people don't think they are.In Con's second argument which was, Animal testing is only used when other alternatives are inadequate. Yes, but not always. We do not just test things if it is wrong. It says that they tested an animal but it got killed. It wasn't wrong. It was perfect. But they just did it one last time, then it died.In Con's third argument which was that Animal testing has the potential to benefit both humanity and the animal, I just don't get it. In the third paragraph Con said that there is no impact, but why did you say it is a benifit? Also we are not sure. A lot of testing is successful, but an animal might die.And also in Con's rebuttal when she said they don't have a right, that means that animals have no freedom to act and we rule the animals. That is just cruel and we should stop it. Lets go to the animal perspective. The animal has to be tested with chemicals that are dangerous when it can be free. The animal wants to go around too. Lets feel if the animal tests us. Would we like being tested. Of course we won't. Then what about the animal. The animal feels the same way we do.Also about your sources. Your sources aren't really good because no one needs to know about human rights. Also you have a pdf.Sources Usedhttp://idebate.org... http://www.createdebate.com...https://cus.org... http://www.smallworlds.com...http://www.neavs.org... http://www.merriam-webster.com... Please vote for Pro!!!
Russell Westbrook will win the NBA MVP

The current problem in OKC is that Kevin Durant is out. When Durant is out, Westbrook is the only play maker on the field. When Durant plays Westbrook doesn't take 20+ shots. And, Russell Westbrook is now the leading scorer in the NBA averaging 27.4 Pts. 8 AST and 7 REb Lebron is averaging 26. 7. 5 Harden is averaging 27, 7, 5 Curry is averaging 24, 7, 4 So I think I've made my case, Westbrook is the highest scorer, assister, and rebounder out of the 4 contenders. games.espn.go.com
Russell Westbrook will win the NBA MVP

Russel westbrook is not gonna win the mvp and im gonna tell you why.Russell westbrook is posting triple doubles left and right its amazing i get that its in losses.When durant went down against dallas 6-3 in their last 9 the important stat here is their 1-3 against 500 teams,3-2 in their last 5 and all those games russell westbrook posted monster numbers in losing efforts.for example phx suns 39 pts 11ast and 14 rebs lost por 40 pts 11ast 13 rebs in a lost chi 43 pts 8ast 7 rebs Another stat in all these games hes has taking 30+ shots and took to many shots in the 4th quarter which is why hes not winning these close games.The difference between the other mvp candidates James harden steph curry,lebron James these players plays mvp ball they know when to let their teammates take control and pick their spots to score a bunch of points.I Said this before with all my russell westbrook debates Russell cant run a team if he keeps playing hero ball and not looking for his teamates down the stretch.The mvp this season is James harden or steph curry russel is up there but i put him behind anthony davis because the pelicans is about to past okc for the 8th seed and Anthony is playing out of his mind.