BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
child labour

'Work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential and their dignity, is harmful to physical and mental development.' In its most extreme forms, child labour involves children being enslaved, separated from their families, exposed to serious hazards and illnesses and/or left to fend for themselves on the streets of large cities " often at a very early age. I think the child should be left free to do whatever he/she wants until he/she reaches up to a certain age of maturity. Then only he/she is perfectly fit to do all physical labour.
child labour

very cruel, yet very common scenario in poor countries is that parents considering their children as only reliable source of income. When rich society faces this cruel reality they simply raise their voice and go against it without any second thought. But believe me, income from children can be huge supportive for poor families. In developing countries family income always has been below poverty level and lifestyle remained worst and uncomfortable. Moreover in most cases weak or sick elder members cannot afford medication, accommodation, food and all other basic human needs. To ease the situation some income from mature children can have a big impact on family. At least minimum life style can be ensured with that income. Therefore, I am very much in favor of child labor. But Children should work during leisure and vacations to not hamper their education. - See more at: http://www.extremology.com....
Most offensive funny joke.

Here is a long(but good!) one. A couple is about to have a baby and the doctor ask the father, "We have a new machine that allows to pass 50% of the pain of childbirth to the father. Would you like to give it a shot?" The couple smiles at each other and he agrees to use it. "Okay", says the doctor, "it's powered at 10%, do you feel anything?" He felt nothing. "Alright, 20%!" Again he felt nothing. 30 and 40 percent and he still felt nothing. They increased it to 70, 80, and finally the doctor got frustrated and increased to full power. The wife felt no pain and the child was born healthy. When they arrived home from the hospital, they were surprised to find the dead corpse of their mailman, on their front lawn, covered in a pool of his vomit.
Most offensive funny joke.

The other day I needed to pay a visit to the public toilet, so I found a public toilet that had two cubicles. One of the doors was locked. So I went into the other one, closed the door, dropped my trousers and sat down. A voice came from the cubicle next to me: "Hello mate, how are you doing?" Although I thought that it was a bit strange, I didn't want to be rude, so I replied, "Not too bad, thanks." After a short pause, I heard the voice again. "So, what are you up to?" Again I answered, somewhat reluctantly, "Just having a quick sh%t... How about yourself?" The next thing I heard him say was, "Sorry, mate, I'll have to call you back. I've got some cunt in the cubicle next to me answering everything I say."
terorisem should not be blamed on muslims only on islam

Which previous point was the link for? Also since you're back to your original position, and you are now blaming individuals for jihad,instead of admitting Islam's culture of hate,1) how is it logical to blame victims of jihad for jihad? 2) How is the Iraq war a answer on Israel,India,Kashmir,Indonesia,etc. moreover your denying global jihad is typical extremist argument and strategy to make it a local issue and blame the infidels for their action see here http://www.cnn.com... on your argument blaming all countries following sharia law for being corrupt, you support my argument that the best excuse Allah has is having a major communication problem since all following him become corrupt
terorisem should not be blamed on muslims only on islam

First off, the link I provided was for my previous point rather than the one about Iraq so your point is irrelevent. As for the citizens of Iraq being oppressed, this is evident in several sources. Over 100,000 Iraqi citizens have been killed in this unjustified war: http://www.iraqbodycount.org... . As stated in the Qur'an it is permissible to defend your faith against agression and Jihadists are doing exactly that just as Americans continue killing innocents. In reality, both sides are waging "Jihad". My opponent also made points about Shari'a law as it is practiced in Islamic countries. Many of these countries are controlled by corrupted leaders which grossly misinterpret Shari'a law as explained in the Qur'an. More to come next round...
terorisem should not be blamed on muslims only on islam

Since my position against blaming individuals is clearly established by my position as pro /and the last 2 rounds, I like to make 2 additional points 1) the argument con made blaming the victims of jihad, for jihad. & saying" US occupation of Iraq. The people feel oppressed and want to fight back" is nullified by con's own link to a site (that i like and request more of that -but unfurtunatly outrage vs artists painting muhammud wrong is stronger then vs jihadists-) outraged on jihadic actions long before that..!2) Con refused to address violent acts based on shaira. like hanging gay kids & rape victim girl hanging,who's victims are mostly Muslim http://www.asianews.it...
terorisem should not be blamed on muslims only on islam

Blaming "type of individuals" based on race or ethnic group in this situation is incorrect as there's Muslims from all backgrounds. By labelling all Muslims as terrorists you would even be labelling your own Muslim community there in the US as "terrorists". As Islam itself is against these acts of terror this conclusion would be incorrect. Many Islamic scholars have ruled against terrorism and suicide bombings as something that goes against the Qur'an(http://www.islamfortoday.com...). It all goes down to the motive as to why these certain "Muslim" individuals are committing these acts of terror. There are varied opinions, but a widely accepted one is the US occupation of Iraq. The people feel oppressed and want to fight back.
terorisem should not be blamed on muslims only on islam

I assume we now agree that Blaming "type of individuals" is wrong. As I pointed out" that (hence accepting the notion that terrorism is an Arab thing)Which is a racist notion." and i pointed out 3 reasons why the notion is wrong and racist! Moreover I see you added a additional point that only 18% Muslims are Arab which makes it a total of 4 reasons ... furthermore I would place your link of the story about " deserting in Afghanistan" as additional proof that without the culture of hate the Muslims are nice people. And we need more of this type of stories… but if we get stories like this http://www.asianews.it... or http://www.realcourage.org...-/ lets not blame the people only its culture
terorisem should not be blamed on muslims only on islam

I would like to point out two things, starting with your point stating that terrorism is an Arab thing. Only about 18% of all Muslims are Arabs, a small percentage which means not all terrorists can be Arabs. There are acts of terror in many Non-Arab countries such as Afghanistan, India, and many Non-Arab African countries. One such example of Non-Arab Islamic terrorism is this: http://www.cnn.com... . Next point I would like to address is that it's impossible to blame Islam for terrorism when you have deserters(http://english.aljazeera.net...). This proves Islamic teachings are against terrorism as people wouldn't be deserting if they weren't.
terorisem should not be blamed on muslims only on islam

Welcome.blaming "type of individuals" is wrong.. because if we are not blaming the culture the blame is falling on the people, (hence accepting the notion that terrorism is a Arab thing)..which is a racist notion.! since the biggest victims are Muslims themselves its not something easily dismissed as coming only from some bigots!!here is reasons why : 1) example you see how Muslim girls feel http://www.ansamed.info... 2)chopping of kids hand for shop lifting and hanging gay kids ,and hanging rape victim girls in nations run by sharia law is not something limited to some extremists and its victims are Muslims 3)If only a few extreamists approve it,where is mainstreams out cry for help to save their own victims.!
terorisem should not be blamed on muslims only on islam

I'll begin by first defining the word "terrorism": terï¿½rorï¿½ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm) n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. There are several violent acts committed around the world which would fit under this definition while only a small percentage of Muslims in the world support these acts thus concluding that these acts must be blamed on individual Muslims rather than Islam as a whole.
terorisem should not be blamed on muslims only on islam

establishing islamic guilt for terorisem is done by the the turn of events or a alternative used to prove guilt. using parts of qoran in debate is not honest and ilogical here is why 1) just like oj simpsons dnial could not be used as evidance 2) allah should hire dale carnegie instead of muhammud -since no one sluaghtered people, after reading dale,s book... - so the best excuse allah has is having a major communication problem... so using a book thats so guilty of bieng mis understood is non appropriate..!! 3) since aside of the terror and hate,islam is a good religion challanging the quran is not our miision and defeats the purpose. we assume that we all agree that islam killing gay kids is wrong.! and hanging rape victims is wrong!
terorisem should not be blamed on muslims only on islam

It's perfectly logical to blame individuals for Jihad as these acts of violence contradict the Qur'an as I have proven in one of my earlier arguments. As for other examples such as Israel, those acts of violence are committed in self-defense as Palestinians are suffering under Israeli occupation(http://www.palestinemonitor.org...). As for Shari'a law, these policies are often put into effect by extremists such as the Taliban rather than ordinary Muslims. It's these ordinary people who suffer from the selfish desires of these extremists who twist around Qur'anic teachings, http://www.growley.com... . As stated in the link, even Islamists in Iran aren't supportive of the activities of the Taliban.
God Exists.

Thanks to blackfirewolf for her willingness to debate this topic.Arguments-The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentP1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.P2. The universe began to exist.C1. The universe must have a cause.Defense of P1-Premise 1 is perhaps the most compelling and irrefutable part of this argument, it remains so sound because everything that begins..... starts and to start is to come into existence, if one were to claim Premise 1 to be inductive they would be flying in the face of thousands of years of human observation and reasoning.Defense of P2Since this is the most controversial premise I can imagine Con will spend most of her time attempting to debunk this one. On the scientific side of the Universe being formed you have, "The Big Bang" which has stacked up well verified evidences and repetitive testing. Arguments that support this are the Red Shift, which shows that the Big Bang is still expanding due to a singularity collapse in on itself and exploding. On the other hand you have the philosophical side, which conduits a finite Universe is the only case because a eternal universe is unable to exist. I will attempt to prove P2 with an example; Infinite Dollar BillsInfinite Dollar Bills- A person takes an infinite amount of dollar bills and lines them up in a serial order. They then take out all of the dollar bills with even serial numbers, the result of this would be an infinite number of even numbered dollar bills. This is powerful logical farce, because this would mean infinity minus infinity equal infinity. This means that an inifinite, eternal universe is logically deductive and blindly applicable.Conclusion- We can logically conclude that from P1 and P2 + the overwhelming logical absurdity of and eternal universe, that God exists. And since nothing can logically create itself the cause must be outside of our contingent universe. The only things able to be exist outside of the universe are numbers and minds, absract objects. Numbers cannot viabally create something, ergo a mind did, God. Things strongly confirms the God hypothesis. I rest my case.
English is necessary

Hello, I look forward to a fun and informative debate I would also like to establish the framework that as a society as a whole English is necessary C1- Language in the world As the united states, united kingdom and Canada are prominent players in the world economy, all countries that wish to do business with or engage in long term diplomatic ties with America, England, or Canada must first be able to communicate. Indeed if any person wishes to deal with an American company, they will most certainly have to learn English [1]. Diplomatic ties with countries such as the united kingdom and the united states require that a person know a proper amount of English, this is a given. C2- language in the countries English is the dominant language in Canada, England, America, Australia, Bahamas, and new Zeal and. And is the official language of India, Pakistan, Ireland, Jordan, Sudan, and so many more [2]. So if any one country wishes to Now I will do a line-by-line of my opponents case >>>>Twice as many people speak Chinese then English -first this does not refute the idea that English is necessary, second this does not mean that English is not prevalent in the world, it just means that Chinese is too >>>We have lots of multi language to learn like French, Spanish, Japanese, Dutch. Learning English is not a law. We are self-motivated to learn multi languages! - First this has nothing to do with the topic, secondly,this contradicts here last contention, thirdly it still doesn't answer the resolution >>>>"English" is not an official language anymore -extend 2nd contention >>>>translation tool -once again it has nothing to do with the topic. >>>>Kids get stressful because of academies. Kids are getting stressed out because they have to go to the academies. But not only academies are the main reason of their stress, but their homework. Homework eats up half of their time. They won't have many times for rest. -ok,one she doesn't claim spillover on schools, 2 this isn't unique to learning English, 3 once again no link to the topic, 4 no impact and stress isn't an impact, 5 no cited back-up >>>>>we lose our culture. Due to learning English, we might lose our culture. If we keep learning the western culture (English, which is also western) we might lose our own traditions and cultures -First off, I'd like to clarify who "we" are, second, she claims no impact for loss of culture, third she doesn't claim spillover so you can't say that western presence will disappear post-fiat, Fourth no link, even if you buy an impact of loss of culture this doesn't mean that English is unnecessary 1-http://www.ncpa.org... 2-http://en.wikipedia.org... I await my opponents response
English is necessary

In my opinion, learning English is not that necessary. First, Twice as many people speak Chinese then English. We have lots of multi language to learn like French, Spanish, Japanese, Dutch. Learning English is not a law. We are self-motivated to learn multi languages! Second, "English" is not an official language anymore. We believe this because nowadays there are translation tools such as Babelfish. This tools translates any information on the Internet into your languages. We also have Universal Translator 103. You simply speak into the UT-103 and it repeats back to you in your language of your choice. Third, Kids get stressful because of academies. Kids are getting stressed out because they have to go to the academies. But not only academies are the main reason of their stress, but their homework. Homework eats up half of their time. They won't have many times for rest. Last, we lose our culture. Due to learning English, we might lose our culture. If we keep learning the western culture (English, which is also western) we might lose our own traditions and cultures so that is why I believe that we don't have to learn English.
English is necessary

Ok let's start off the last speech by saying the Con DROPS ALL MY POINTS- This is the biggest voter in the round. This means that the con drops my case- basically you have to vote pro, because i prove that english is necessary for buiness and to live in a country that speaks english. Vote pro Also, she basically kicks out of half her contentions, extend accross basically all my attacks l-b-l ok on her first point- one this is a new argument you cannot weigh it, two This is the same as her other contention it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RESOLUTION, She basically says that we need math and science and chemistry- ok I'll conceed, but it doesn't mean english isn't necessary too >>>>When it was the period of Japanese Colonial, Japanese people forced Koreans to learn Japanese, and forced to teach their traditions. Thus, our language and traditions disappeared. - Ok one since the con doesn't claim spillover- She can't claim post-fiat means no one invades anyone again or insists culure, 2 NO LINK- you can claim it destroys cultures-doesn't mean it isn't necessary, 3 No impact >>>> Translators instead -Just extend across all attacks- she doesn't answer any of my arguments. You vote pro because 1. the con doesn't answer a single one of my points 2. Every contention the con provides has no link 3. The con doesn't answer anything in my case 4.
English is necessary

Now, as the last round of the debate, I would like to organize my opinion. 1.English is not the all Math is important using math you can predict strategies and where to place your team mates so you would win the competitive sport easier. Even if you were swimming it could help on your swimming for example if you were a novice swimmer you would need to know your own skill and how long you can swim, tread water, and how many meters you can do. Science is needed in many industries, and having a good knowledge of chemistry is essential for many jobs. Not just in industry jobs actually, but chemistry is also important in commerce, teaching and lecturing, science journalism and even in some law related jobs like patent agents. Today we live in the age of chemistry-based technology, and future demands will increase the expertise needed in many areas of chemical, biotechnological and pharmaceutical industries. In conclusion, English is not the all. 2. Damages our culture When it was the period of Japanese Colonial, Japanese people forced Koreans to learn Japanese, and forced to teach their traditions. Thus, our language and traditions disappeared. 3. Translators instead Nowadays there are translation tools such as Babelfish. This tools translates any information on the Internet into your languages. We also have Universal Translator 103. You simply speak into the UT-103 and it repeats back to you in your language of your choice. Even though we didn't learn English, we can translate with this translator. Which means that even though we didn't learn English, we can understand due to the translators and dictionaries. These are the reasons why I believe that English is not neccessary for us.
English is necessary

Thanks to my opponent for a quick response I'll just do a line-by-line of my case and my opponents case First on my case, my opponent completely ignores my framework for the round, on a whole society needs the English language, This pretty makes my opponents case attacks moot at this point, because all her examples are on an individual level. The first and second contention say that foreign and domestic workings require one to know English >>>>we can't always say that USA is prominenet country of world economy -It's pretty much common sense that the world's superpower has some sort of say in the global market >>>>should we MUST GO TO ENGLISH SPEAKING COUTNRY? - considering you need many imports that are unique to English-speaking countries, I would say yes Now onto my opponents case >>>>True. However, we don't need to learn English if we don't want to -necessary- noun-Inevitably resulting from or produced by the nature of things, so that the contrary is impossible- For a country to be economically and diplomatically stable, It is necessary that that country to work with English-speaking states >>>>I mean that we have other languages to learn more than English -this doesn't answer any of my attacks >>>>Why is it? We can translate the words to our own language and we can still understand them -Because the English language is necessary for you to translate something from English >>>>In Korea, about 90% of kids go to academey according to the news. We don't go there for free. We have to pay for it and parents' money problems increase. - no answer to spillover impacts, and no internal link, and no link argument I await my opponents response
Giagantus Dinkus VS. Maximus Ballicus

obviously it is a hypothetical war. I see the idea of killing children has not phased you. no i would not be a tyrant and murder children simply because of a name. Gigantus Dinkus and Maximus Ballicus are characters I made as soon as I saw this argument. You tried to make an argument based off fake characters with funny names. Based off that I picked the one who has the cooler name. Gigantus Dinkus is a giant dink, screwing people over. Maximus Ballicus has a name that sounds less likely to be an SUV. (by the way if you take any SUV or Truck and put the word anal in front, the results will most likely be funny. Like Explorer, Navigator, Ram, ect.) Why even set up an argument with a hypothetical war with fictional people. You see, Chewbacca was a Wookie. It does not make sense. This is just a trap. oh I wasn't supposed to pick a side. What? are you trying to put yourself on some kind of moral high ground? Maybe people criticized your apathetic stance on murdering children. Well I made a choice, and I'm sticking with Maximus Ballicus. You made the argument, and failed to show just who these people are, So they are who i say they are. I need no citations. Giagantus Dinkus murders children and Maximus Ballicus is a good man trying to stop a child killer. Of course I would side with Maximus Ballicus. You sir, may not think killing children is a big deal, but I do. By the way Milkus Breastius was a saint who fed the starving and Greenia Liberalia was a celibate nun. Neither were tyrants. Check and Mate.
The authorities have the right, and they should, shoot if it is necessary as a mean of self defense.

If you accept this debate, you will be arguing that the police should NOT be allowed to shoot people to kill, even as a mean of self defense. The first round will be of acceptance only. You may simply re-state the topic you will be arguing, and confirm that you are willing to debate the topic. The second round will be your introduction, and your first valid argument. No rebuttal because there is nothing to rebuttal. The third and final round will be your rebuttal and the closing statement. Please do not make another argument. If you have any interests in participating then please comment. Here are the over-all rules of the debate: 1) You may only say that the opponents scenarios are invalid if you have valid proof and citation to back it up. 2) Since this is a topic concerning race, only valid and non-stereotypical arguments may be made in regards to race. 3) Religion is not to be used as one of the points. Thanks, and I hope I can have a very smooth yet powerful debate with someone on this ver serious topic.