BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Facebook imposes

Facebook imposes on you to reveal your true identity, are you aware of this? Article 1 of their ‘TOS' explicitly states, "You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission." A statement in ‘direct conflict' with remaining anonymous on the internet for guaranteed privacy. Article 2 states, "You will keep your contact information accurate and up-to-date.". Almost sounds like a direct order doesn't it? How do you feel about this?
Rodents

Ohhh you getting me PUMPED UP BOII I TELL YOU STRAIGHT!! THIS IS WHERE I GO HAM ON YOU AND LEAVE YOU WITH NOTHING BUT YOUR PU**Y ATTITUDE TO THE RAT YOU GET ME BOIIIII? LET'S GO OLDY FOGLEY!!!YOU ME RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW BRING YOUR BEST IN ROUND 3 BECAUSE OH BOY OH BOY WILL YOU BE SINKING LIKE THE TITANIC VERSION 2.The gangster said there was a rat and that snitches BELONG IN A DITCH, The snitch had a family to feed, would go to prison for life, TOO LONG FO' THE B****,So he stabs those backs laid bare those facts the kind that a man'd be a fool to fax,Communicating the kind of truths Soros wanna lose his cool to make sure the law retracts,Whistle blower what a weakling yeah right that is that,Weak as can be, easy option that a fact,But what hell you gonna do when you can't quite aim that gat?You can't see him in the dark, he be running fu**in' smart,Dodging every bullet b'fore you pull it like ti were a work of art,Understand the rat has talent, when you pu**y cats are gettin' fat on rodent-kill,Pounce on a mouse and raid their house but they spied you spying, that Snowden skill.The rodent can be caught, the rodent can be trapped,The rodent can be tortured, the rodent's phone be tapped,But once in a while a rodent sailing far and reading maps,Is gonna find the treasure you cats worked hard to take by tax,They scavenge on the evil, sneak paste the astute,How can anything other than a rodent remain both so ugly and cute? http://www.youtube.com...
is cloning a good idea

Exactly as a stated before, just worded differently. The new clone will be called and be treated as a "replacement". As you said before, they would be the same person but wouldn't have had the same experiences as the other son/daughter that deceased. That would make sentimental values useless so they would not need to clone him. About the paraplegic, the other clone would be used for spare parts. To get law into this, cloning is unconstitutional because clones are humans (guessing that they are American citizens), and humans are given the pursuit of happiness. How can you be happy if your whole purpose of being created was to benefit another, or " to be used for spare parts". Don't get me wrong, if there was a way to heal a paraplegic (without using anything to do with cloning) i would most likely be all for it.
is cloning a good idea

Lots of brave men and women go to iraq to either die or rank up.And many of those men and women have families. And their deaths bring grief or sadness.If we take the top soldiers and what not and clone them, we would have an upper hand in wars.Let's also say someone loses a leg or an arm during a horrible accident. They don't have to be a paraplegic for the rest of their lives, they can take a body part from one of their clones.
is cloning a good idea

Making a clone is not making an Alien. Cloning someone is not excluding them from society and making another race, its like having a child and they will not clone every single person in the world, for those against commenting that the world population will increase and their will be a demand of water and so on. World population is increasing everyday because of birth and cloning is not so different from that. World population will be at its same rate because when you clone they start out as a baby like you did and they will be treated as a baby (as a human). They will grow to be a teenager and they will not be exactly be like the person that they were clone from. Meaning: They will just physically look like you (facial and genetically) If you want that clone to look exactly like you when you where a teen then you will have to give it a similar life style that you where in. (Ex. If you where in sports, then you will have to put her in sports the same age you where. You will just repeat your life with new.) No person raises their children the same that they where raised
Christianity is more of a cult then Scientology (semi-serious troll debate)

Cult as defined by google: 1) A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object. 2) A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister. (https://www.google.com...) Things that Christians do that are very cult like.... 1) Drink the blood and consume the body of their savior 2) Gather once a week early in the morning to sing songs and chants from ancient times 3) Gather in secrecy to elect a new pope and signaling that they have chosen one by emitting white smoke from a chimney (Catholics) 4) Waged holy war against other religions that rival their influence (Middle Ages with the crusades) 5) Provide exorcisms on those believed to be possessed by demons by sprinkling holy water on them and by reciting passages from the Bible 6) Hitting the dead pope with a silver hammer three times to see if hes dead (Thats actually true: http://www.omg-facts.com...) 7) Refusing contemporary medicine and trying to treat diseases through prayer (Only some condone this) 8) One branch of Christianity (Protestantism) was created because one English King wanted to have a divorce that the Catholic Church wouldnt allow. 9) Christians refuse to accept that Jesus was brown and always picture him as being very white 10) Some Christians believe that modern songs and tv shows contain satanic images meant to brainwash children into becoming worshippers of satan. 11) Self flagellation, the practice of beating the crap out of yourself to absolve you of your sins, became a christian ritual around the middle ages 12) The Bible contains a sh*tload of references to killing people for things that arent that big of a deal, such as killing teens for being disrespectful, kill those who work on the day of the Sabbath, kill girls who arent virgins when they marry
Libertarianism is better than Liberalism

Dawson, It seems you haven't done much research on what liberalism is, because it is A political ideology founded on the ideas of liberty and equality, but you defined modern liberalism, which is a bit different because it focuses more on civil liberties and over all equality of all people. Since this debate started out with "liberalism" and not "Modern Liberalism" which is not what I believe in or what I was originally lead to believe I am debating, but I will still debate this despite your already clear error. But as you said Modern liberalism focuses on taking away the rights of others in exchange for security but you never gave any examples as to how, because in reality Liberalism has only given rights to people such as giving women the same workplace opportunity as men, when in the past a woman CEO wasn't a thing. This is just one of many examples of how liberalism calls for equal opportunity for people everywhere in the nation. But now we must look at Libertarianism, and what it has done for anyone, it is a radical ideology that focuses on much much less federal government and a emphasis on states rights but if we gave all the power to states disputes would start and people will disagree, we need a larger government to maintain the idea that all people were born as equals, and when you give power to states you will you also give them the rights to discriminate, this is immoral and it takes away the Liberty of other people.
Libertarianism is better than Liberalism

Libertarianism is defined as a political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens. Allowing citizens of a state to live how they choose without the government permitting them to do so. Supports the free market and promotes liberty. Modern Liberalism would like to take away your rights in exchange for security. I like the way Jefferson puts it "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both".
Libertarianism is better than Liberalism

The reality of modern Liberalism is to side with the oppressed/Minority's and shame anyone else. Such as the BLM movement strongly supported by Barrack Obama. Black Lives Matter or BLM tear apart towns and can sometimes quite literally terrorize casual citizen. Black Lives Matter and Barrack Obama ignore the real problem, the problem isn't white on black crime but black on black crime. Ignoring the problem all to be politically correct. Just one symptom of modern liberalism.
Libertarianism is better than Liberalism

What a absolutely foolish thing to say, of course had to clarify what we are arguing about because you failed to be specific in R1. and you still have any points to make against modern liberalism, which we both now agree we are debating. I've already told you how libertarianism isn't that good in R1 and how less federal government is a bad thing because it will result in less civil liberty for all.
God cannot be morally good while giving humans free will

Copy of the same debate I did before but hopefully this time Against would stay until it is over. I am going by the basis that God does exist. I want the other side to show me how God is morally good while also giving us free will. There are inconsistencies with free will that I can mention but I did think about that it but I will narrow it down to morals to keep it simple. Wanting someone who believes God is morally good not someone who is playing devil's advocate. Arguments starts the round you start. God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. I'll leave the definition of morally good to Against since it will give them more room to give counter arguments and starting arguments. Premise:1. By God giving free will to humans It has given the power to humans to do wrong. 2. For God to be morally good It must do what is right. 3. By God giving free will to humans It is not morally good. May both of us learn something new.
Theory of Evolution was first introduced by Muslims.

1. Who started Islam?Well, that is irrelevant. But if you must know, God started it.2. Ignorance and role models (?)Being ignorant about something is not an insult. For example, I am ignorant about dark matter. And you should study English grammar. 3. Genesis, Abraham (pbuh), Islam.What has Islam to do with Biblical Genesis.4. BoP That is for voters to decide.5. Islam, Satan, Evolution, Vatican. Where is your evidence?! For people who are still interested in debate or topic -I couldn't find English translation of Al Biruni's and Tusi's works, but I am still looking for it.Anyone who wants to debate the topic, can contact me.I will only post my argument if Con posts his argument on topic. Thanks for reading.
Theory of Evolution was first introduced by Muslims.

I say the question is, who started Islam?My opponent calls anyone ignorant, that does not study his Islamic role models. My opponent called Genesis a myth, means Abraham was a myth as well. Means Islam is a myth as well, let my opponent babble on. The BoP has not been met. My opponent posted work from Islamic students, guessing about the organ of life. http://www.answering-islam.org... I say evolution originated with Satan not Islam. And Islam was started by the Vatican to control Arabs. So I refute your argument.
Theory of Evolution was first introduced by Muslims.

Reason is simple – intellectual dishonesty. If I want to read Wikipedia article on Evolution, I would visit Wikipedistan. And the topic is “before Darwin” not “before Dawkins”. If you resurrected Darwin and cited the two definitions ([1] and [2]) given by Con, Darwin would reply, “What the hell is DNA, and why did you violate my right to remain dead? ” And this debate is not about what Evolution or Natural Selection is, how Darwin formulated his theory, so [3], [4], [5], [6] are irrelevant. And you not knowing who Ibn Khaldun is, is your ignorance (I hope at least you know who Al Jabri, and Al Kharezmi are). 9th century Muslim scholar Al Jahiz {1} in his book “Kital Al-Hayavan” (The Book of Animals) wrote: {2} “All animals, in short, cannot exist without food, neither can the hunting animal escape being hunted in his turn. Every weak animal devours those weaker than itself. Strong animals cannot escape being devoured by other animals stronger than they. And in this respect, men do not differ from animals, some with respect to others, although they do not arrive at the same extremes”. Al Jahiz also was quoted by Conway Zirkle in his writings about history of Natural Selection {3}. Dr. Edip Yuksel, in his review of “Islamic Theory of Evolution – The Missing Link between Darwin and the Origin of Species” by T. O. Shanavas, he writes, “In addition to these, Muhammad al-Haytham (965-1039), who is known in the West by the name Alhazen, defends human evolution starting from minerals, plants, and animals in Kitabal Manazer, his book on optical science. Prominent leaders of Sufism such as Ibn Arabi (1165-1240) and Jaluluddin Rumi (1207-1273) also had no problem in accepting the idea of creation through evolution, an idea which was commonly held among Muslims. The Muslim Geologist al-Biruni (973-1048) in his book Kitab al-Jamahir also asserts that humans are created after long periods of evolution from simple organisms through natural selection. ” {4} You can find the list of Muslim scholar wrote about Evolution in “Pre-Darwinian Muslim Scholars’ Views on Evolution” by Dr. Muhammad Sultan Shah. {1} - . http://en.wikipedia.org... {2} , {3} - Natural Selection before the "Origin of Species", Conway Zirkle, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 84, No. 1 (Apr. 25, 1941), pp. 85 {4} - . http://19.org...
Theory of Evolution was first introduced by Muslims.

I like my opponent for offering this debate. However Muslims did not introduce Evolution. Darwin did. Example: One could say that the person who made the horse buggy, introduced the Model T instead of Henry T. Ford just becase Mr.Ford studied designs of horse buggies. Next I refute your arguement totally because Theistic Evolution is a silly oxymoron. Jews, Christian, and Christian say God created beings and the earth, which is a weak excuse to ease God out = EGO = Pride. Everyone has not heard of Ibn Khaldun I alse refute your assertion. I say Muslims are following the rest, blind leading the blind. Evolution is the gradual change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1] All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences.[2] These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[3] Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection is a process inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[4] Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection takes place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[5] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.[6] http://www.google.com...
Theory of Evolution was first introduced by Muslims.

My job is very easy, all I have to do is to show that the idea of evolution was present in Islamic world before Darwin, and it was acknowledged by Western thinkers. Ibn Khaldun (1332 - 1406 AD) [1] - Everyone have heard about Ibn Khaldun, he is great scholar and historian and one of the founding fathers of modern sociology, economics, and histiography. He wrote in his book Al-Muqaddimah (The Introduction) :"One should then look at the world of creation. It started out from the minerals and progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner, to plants and animals. The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants. The last stage of plants, such as palms and vines, is connected with the first stage of animals, such as snails and shellfish which have only the power of touch. The word "connection" with regard to these created things means that the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the next group. " [2]Then he goes to say : "The animal world then widens, its species become numerous, and, in a gradual process of creation, it finally leads to man, who is able to think and to reflect. The higher stage of man is reached from the world of the monkeys, in which both sagacity and perception are found, but which has not reached the stage of actual reflection and thinking. At this point we come to the first stage of man after (the world of monkeys). This is as far as our (physical) observation extends. " [2]Now, there are other (many) Muslim scholars who acknowledged the evolution, I will talk about them in next rounds, but I will touch on Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (1201 - 1274) [3] who first time used word "takamul" meaning perfection, regarding evolution of species. More info at [4] and [5]. In west, this theory was known as Mohammedan Theory of Evolution From Lower Forms (West still was ignorant enough to call Muslims Mohammedans). John William Draper (1811-1882 AD) [6] in his book History of Conflict between Religion and Science, he wrote : "Theological authorities (Church authorities*) were therefore constrained to look with disfavor on any attempt to carry back the origin of the earth to an epoch indefinitely remote, and on the Mohammedan theory of the evolution of man from lower forms, or his gradual development to his present condition in the long lapse of time. " Reason was Church believed Earth (or Adam pbuh) was created 5,000 years before Jesus pbuh, and Adam pbuh was created perfect, so if they were to endorse evolution then they have to contradict age of Earth and perfect creation. Thank you for reading, I will post list of Muslim scholars who endorsed the evolution before Darwin and their reasons, in next rounds. [1] - . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] - . https://drive.google.com... page:137-138[3] - . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] - . http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] - . http://www.azer.com...[6] - . http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] - . https://drive.google.com... page:188 (page 212 in pdf document)*My note
Theory of Evolution was first introduced by Muslims.

How the Vatican created Islam - Red Ice Creations http://www.redicecreations.com... http://www.google.com... I refute my opponent's attempt to credit away from Darwin and glorify Islam. Example: A designer may get ideas from reading work done by others, however the prize/copyright/credit goes to the guy who's name is on the bottom of the book, or design. Even if the master's servant actually came up with and idea without the master's money or employment the servant could do nothing. And the credit goes to the employer/master/owner not, the guy who thought and never acted, or did not have the ability to act on their own. Again my opponent did not meet any BoP. Darwin may have read their work because of the subject was of interest to him, after he was already working on his own thesis/theory. It is very common to seek out and exchange material from other when theorizing a unproven subject. Next I again refute any religion embracing evolution. That is just dumb. All religions claim that God did it. Yes religion teaches poof their you are! The problem is that nothing is evolving now. Monkey stay monkeys they do not even turn into apes. Also Islam has no place in science at all. You can not mix the two. So what if a few religious men of Islam went to school, and learned from others (Who may have gotten ideas from non Muslims.) and had a theory, wrote a paper but never, followed through, like Darwin did!
United States' Foreign Intervention-October Beginners' Tournament Round 1

Premise 1-United States Should Care About Others: Nationalistic ideas are outdated. All 7 billion or so humans, regardless of where they"re from, are for the most part quite similar to each other, with no significant difference in DNA. (1) However, today and for centuries before, artificial borders and made up cultures have separated people. It may be noteworthy, however, that the United States has perhaps been the best attempt of creating a truly global nation, seeing as it has a blend of many cultures and ethnicities. Severe human right abuses that occur around the world would be next to impossible to find in the US or in other rich countries. This is primarily due to stable governments and living in a generally free society. In fact, if something serious was found the government would crack down on it. If it"s accepted that the US cares about its own citizen"s basic rights, then it would only make sense to care about others" (not necessarily to the same degree, however), seeing as an American person"s life, health, or freedom is not in it of itself worth more than another country's" person, then it would make sense why a government that cares about freedom and liberty would want to care about others. Premise 2-United States Can Make a Difference, Like No Other Country: This is hard to deny. No other country has had as much influence in recent times as the United States. Two of the most notable things they have are the world"s largest GDP (nominal) in the world and the world"s most powerful military. (2, 3) This means they can, if needed, fund large international operations and have a strong enough military to use force if necessary. This would be useful in overthrowing regimes featuring human right abuses. Argument 1-The US Would be Interested in and Has the Means to Make a Difference Follows from the first 2 premises. Argument 2-The US is a Member of the UN: One of the UN"s job is to protect human rights. (4) The US is a member of the UN and therefore should feel the need to follow suit in protecting people against human right abuses. Argument 3-Net Save This more goes with moral justification. If the US can intervene effectively to overthrow a government that violates its people"s rights and then in turn saves generations from the same thing, they will have saved more people than could have realistically died in a war operated properly. 1-http://www.telegraph.co.uk... 2-https://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal) 3-http://www.globalfirepower.com... 4-http://www.ohchr.org...