BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is the Quran a peaceful book

Pleased to have met you as well, Now, the debate. The Quran is a violent book. Here are some passages i will point out. 1)VIOLENT PASSAGES Quran (2:216) "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot. Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle. Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even "healing" the hearts of Muslims. Quran (48:29) "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for 'hard' or 'ruthless' in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as 'painful' or severe' in verse 16. Quran (61:4) Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to "battle array" meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought. Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam. from these few out of the many more violent verses, we can see that the Quran is NOT AT ALL a peaceful book. But, rather it is violent and unforgiving. I look forward to your arguments.
Is the Quran a peaceful book

Hello! I guess this will be my first Debate. :) Pleased to have made your acquaintance. I am too familiar with the rules of Debate in DDO yet, so be sure to point out any tips that might help, thanks ;). I accept you challenge.: - I will argue that the Qur'an is a Peaceful Book. - Peaceful Book in the sense that it sincerely presents the lesser of two evils, or the better of two goods. & not in the sense that it is a Pacifist Book.
Peeing is Better than Pooping

Thanks for the debate! My opponent acknowledges that I have "shot down" most of his argument. My opponent also stated that I "Have not said anything about how poop is better than pee." The resolution doesn't call for me to support that poop is better than pee. The resolution: "Peeing is better than pooping" requires you to state in affirmation. I only have to negate, and my case is thus: Neither peeing nor pooping is better than the other, because both are needed for survival. Comfortability and convienence is a luxury, but the case of mine, which is survival, far outweighs your case of luxury. And my oppenent states that there is no proven statistic that validates his case. For this reason and the ones above, I urge you to =VOTE CON=
Peeing is Better than Pooping

My opponent clearly misses the point here. This is a pee vs. poop debate. I argue that peeing is better than pooping. While my opponent has, to a certain extent, shot down most of my argument, he has not said anything about how poop is better than pee. Honestly, there really isn't much that either of us have done to support either claim. Is poop better than pee? Well, certainly not! That's why my opponent hasn't argued this. My opponent is so hell-bent on the rules of a perfectly sound argument that he has blinded himself from the truth. And the truth is... Well... you know the truth. Peeing is definitely better than pooping. There is no doubt about it. It is self-evident. Again, no one will find any survey anywhere that addresses the world's opinion on peeing vs. pooping... except for on Debate.org, of course. So, go ahead and VOTE! VOTE for peeing because you know how awesome a good pee can be. VOTE for peeing because poop is gross and smelly. VOTE for peeing because it never hurts when you eat spicy food. And, finally, VOTE for peeing because your heart tells you to. Listen to your heart... ... and not your anus.
Peeing is Better than Pooping

My main point is that if both are needed for survival, they are both equally as good. Personal preference varies from person to person, and opinion can not be a viable argument in a debate. 1. My opponent conceded to this point. 2. What is enjoyable is subject to opinion, and opinion can not be used as an argument. Seeing from point 3. you can't even give a statistical fact affirming your case, so therefore you can not "assure" anyone of anything without proof. 3. Again, opinions can not be used as evidence in a debate. 4. See no. 3 5. My opponent made his point in his original argument with this by stating peeing is socially acceptable. I have proven it is not. 6. A long poop may be inconvenient for some things, just as a long pee, but I'm sure dying from poop build-up or an infection is even more inconvenient. You have to put your body's needs first. My opponents case is based largely on opinion and most of his arguments are therefore invalid. He does not even show statistical proof to support his claims. Thusly I urge you to =VOTE FOR CON=
Peeing is Better than Pooping

I can certainly argue that pooping is better than peeing because one is better than another. While they are both needed for survival, one might argue that they would rather do one instead of the other if he or she was given the choice. The same is true for eating and sleeping. While both sleeping and eating are required for survival, one might rather do one instead of another. Also, this is only a minor point, but some people don't defecate anymore in the traditional sense. Instead, they excrete their waste into a plastic bag or whatever. I think there are also some people that technically do not urinate. 1. I'll concede to this point. Frequency is mostly irrelevant. My point is that you can't go without peeing, but you can go without pooping for a longer period of time. This is a small advantage that peeing has over pooping. 2. My point here is that peeing is somewhat enjoyable and pooping is typically not (see below). By changing your diet, you can sometimes avoid pooping for a long period of time, which can nice. 3. OK, both pee and poop are gross, right? Maybe it is an opinion -- but it is an opinion held by most people. The voters of this argument will show this to be true. I can't be certain on the opinions of the world's population, but I can assure you that a survey would show statistical significance supporting these opinions. Namely, poop smells worse than pee (why do we have bathroom vents?) and poop is not as appealing as pee. Again, I will say that urine is sterile when it exits the body. Poop is not. That is a fact, not an opinion. This also supports the fact that pee contains fewer germs, bacteria, dirt, etc. 4. This is an opinion. Again, I'd like to see the stats on this. They would support my claim. Also, for males, peeing does not require any toilet paper. It's easier to do. Finally... if you eat something really spicy, you will not have a pleasurable pooping experience. That is a fact. 5. My point here was this... if you go into the restroom and someone has blown it up with some rank, smelly feces, you're going to be a little upset. Very few people can "blow up" a restroom with smelly pee. 6. Sometimes a long poop can be inconvenient. That was my point here. Again, if someone blows up a restroom, it is important to evacuate the restroom as quickly as possible. If you have to poop, you must endure the stench. If you have to pee, not so much... you might even be able to hold your breath the whole time. It is clear that peeing is better than pooping in many ways. My opponent has not offered any evidence against the contrary. Until then --- VOTE FOR PEE! ---
Peeing is Better than Pooping

Thanks for the debate. To be defined: Better "Something superior in quality or condition or effect." CONTENTION(S): My opponent can not say that one is better than the other. Both are needed for survival. So, in order to survive, we must do both. In this, my opponents support of the resolution is flawed and I should win my case solely based on this. REBUTTALS: 1. This is a fallicious claim. Just because something happens more often doesn't mean it's better. This is invalid. 2. I fail to see how this supports the resolution. "Urination happens reguardless of what you eat." So...what's your point? Without a point, this is invalid. 3. This is an opinion and invalid. 4. This is also an opinion and invalid. 5. Peeing is not socially acceptable. To do so could bring criminal charges of misconduct or public indecency. This is invalid. 6. Pooping takes longer. Just because pooping takes longer, it is not as good as peeing? That is a point that has no reasoning behind it, and therefore, invalid. My opponent has failed to present a single valid argument. Until then: -=VOTE CON=-
Peeing is Better than Pooping

I argue that urination (peeing) is better than defecation (pooping) for humans. 1. Urination happens more frequently. So, it must be more important. 2. Urination happens regardless of what you eat. If you eat soup, you're probably not going to poop much. 3. Urine is not as gross as poop. Pee typically smells relatively better than poop. Pee is also fairly sterile when it exits the body. Poop... not so much. 4. Urination feels better. Guys... how awesome is it to pee out in the woods? Yeah... pooping is not cool. And, if you decide to eat those hot wings or hot peppers, pooping doesn't feel so good. 5. Peeing is socially acceptable. Pooping is discouraged. 6. Pooping takes longer. Peeing is easy, quick, and maybe even fun. This argument is supposed to be entertaining. Comedy is welcomed and encouraged. :)
Solutions to Blacks and Indians

Alright, here's my proposal. Step 1: We build a giant factory, right smack down in the heart of India. So big it would be the size of Detroit. In fact, we'd actually rebuild the entire city of Detroit in India, and than build the factory over it. It would be a meat factory, to be specific. We'd dress up the factory in big red curtains like a circus, and spread rumors of "A Cow Made of Solid Gold." That should really rile up the sidewalk-sh*tters, since they worship the damn beasts. They'll all line up to take a glimpse of this unfathomable creature, but they'll never suspect that in actuality, they're all walking into meat grinders that will graze upon their flesh and bone, and will than be compacted into tiny cubes of meat. Step 2: Once we get all the Indians into little bits of meat, we'll head to Africa to plump up the Africans with the tiny cubed meat so they're ripe for slavery. Of course, they'll try to rebel, but i think even THEY are smart enough to realize eventually that bullets hit harder than sticks and rocks. Why can't we just enslave Indians AND Africans? For one, Africans have already been hit hard in the past, so they already got that working gene in them. Indians, on the other hand, never do anything productive and only eat and sh*t all day long, and stink up the world. So there wouldn't be any reason to enslave Indians aswell. Step 3: While the Africans are gone, we take their whole continent right behind their backs. Since they all aren't grouped up there absorbing sunlight with their dark skin, Africa will become less hot and will become somewhat more habitable. We'll problably leave India alone, because no one want's to clean up those roads and sidewalks. See? Everyone here benifits. The Indians become freed of they're miserable lives, Africans get some food, and we get a bunch of slaves and an entire continent by ourselfs.
Justice Requires the Recognition of Animal Rights

Public - "WHAT IS ZARADI DOING!?!?! HE'S STARTING THREE DEBATES AT THE SAME TIME!? HE'S A MADMAN!!!"Yes, ladies and gents, now that Summer is upon us I decided to try to put my own effort into kick-starting the debate community again and do a bunch of debates! These will be open to anyone and everyone! First come first serve! If I get a forfeit I just remake it.So this debate will be as stated below:Resolved: Justice requires the recongition of animal rightsThis is an LD debate, so standard LD conventions apply (this doesn't mean standard LD cases). Standard debate conventions also apply.First round will be for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round. All that normal stuff we like to see. GL HF TO MY OPPONENT.
An increase of the Federal minimum wage would have adverse effects on employment

I shall define the resolution: Minimum wage: A wage set by State (or in this case) Federal government which states that no employer can pay below X amount of money per hour to a specific employee. Increase: 10% increase or more Adverse: Negative, decreased employment, etc. Employment: Having paid work ==> If you need further clarification or want a specific definition changed, say so in the comments ==> This debate is about the current US system ==> Note this is NOT about abolishing the minimum wage ==> NO semantics, and treat this debate seriously Good luck!
We should eat poop

This is a silly topic. We are human, and we are not like other more uncivilized animals that eat their own dung. Look at us now! We are eating things that we enjoy, such as cookies, or cake. Would you really want to eat your own dung instead of eating real food? Also, It tastes DISGUSTING. Me and my friend have done a taste test on it and trust me, it tastes TERRIBLE. It tasted like rotten meat and overcooked beans. I am looking forward to this debate.
Anarchy is Preferable to Totalitarianism

Resolution: Anarchy is Preferable to TotalitarianismPosition: PROBOP: Shared Note on BOPNormally PRO would take the full burden of proof in this debate, but since this is a tournament debate, in order to make it fair to both debaters so that potential victory is not biased, the BOP will be shared in this debate. This means that I must present arguments in favor of anarchy over totalitarianism and Lannan must present arguments in favor of totalitarianism over anarchy. TournamentThis debate is round 1 of Bsh1's Philosophy/Ethics tournament. Anyone with an Elo of 2500 or higher may vote. DefinitionsAnarchy - A society without a publicly enforced government which advocates voluntary associations and personal autonomyPerferable - More desirable, better Totalitarianism - A society in which the government holds total control over all aspects of public and private life wherever and whenever possible Rules1. No semantics2. No kritiks3. Debaters are expected to abide by standard rules of conduct such as no personal attacks, plagiarizing, etc. 72 hours to post argument. 8000 character limit.
Routine Infant Male Circumcision

"The debate will be on whether or not parents should be allowed to choose to circumcise their male infant. This is about routine procedure. " This is our basic resolution, of which I am PRO, and Lovelife is CON. At first we are simply defining the debate, and not presenting arguments. As no standard rights system was defined in R1, that is likely where the debate will focus on (who has what rights and when). Just FYI, I will likely be tying my debate with Social Pinko into this a bit.
Routine Infant Male Circumcision

The debate will be on whether or not parents should be allowed to choose to circumcise their male infant. This is about routine procedure, and not about potential threats that may devolop later. This is not a debate on whether circumcision help prevent HIV, infections, or anything else, except the immediate threat. Keep in mind this debate is about routine circumcision, and not about if an infection or such has occurred. Keep in mind this is not a debate about religion, so any religious arguments are void, as well as arguments that there should be religious exemption. If I have been unclear in defining this debate I ask the contender to take up issues either in the comments or by private message so that I can update this, and it will run smoothly without wasting too much of the debate on uncertainties. I thank whoever accepts this in advance, and hope we can all learn from this debate.
Socialism is evil

I agree I did miss word my thesis, I should have phrased my argument as "if wealth redistribution via taxes is immoral, What makes exploited labor any better" but I'd prefer to attack your second argument because I doubt we will find any agreement with the first one. I don't believe capitalism gives any incentive for inventors to create new technology or ground braking discoveries, Yet I believe the competitive nature of capitalism incentivizes bad practices and poor worker treatment. Companies find any way possible to use scummy tactics if it will grow profits, Housing companies buy out their own properties to drive demand up leaving people homeless and others unable to leave ghettos, Private prisons find any reason to keep prisoners under their custody, Companies like Wilmar use child workers etc. The only way companies hold back from using more blatant tactics is because the government won't allow more outrageous violations like slavery etc. But if these companies were left to their own devices they would go to those extremes. Also college should be free because schooling (college included) is an equalizer making sure everyone has equal opportunities, If college costs (like it does now) people who are well off will have a massive advantage over lower class people, This is also why schooling districts are harmful.
Socialism is evil

So in response I will address your last point. You’re absolutely right when you say we need to focus on which economic model will produce the most success. Now on the topic of redistribution of wealth, Going off the definition given by businessdictionary. Com(http://www. Businessdictionary. Com/definition/redistribution-of-wealth. Html)“Central tenet of most modern economies whereby a nation's wealth is channeled, From those who have more to those below a certain income level, Through taxes that pay for welfare benefits. ” The example you gave is not an example of redistribution of wealth. So let’s say you agree to work for $10per hour, (ph) mean while the company is making $20ph. You are selling a service your time, Skills, Knowledge. You have agreed to sell your services for a price, Your customer will use your services to benefit them in the most efficient way possible. If I sell you a semi-truck, Then you use it haul goods for people that pay you a profit. Is that redistribution of wealth or are you allocating resources that you paid for to make more money for yourself. That’s gaining wealth, Not forced redistribution. Now one thing I would like to point out about my last post, Is I failed to present socialism as a complete economic system. That being said let's focus on your final point or which system most efficiently will allocate resources to build the strongest economy possibile. The definition of socialism as stated by Merriam Webster is “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods” (https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/socialism)Can you name a socialized country in history that has worked? While many socialist point to the nordic countries, These are not examples of socialism, But welfare states. The biggest knock on socialism as proven by history, It cannot account for human nature and provide proper incentives. Capitalism is based on incentive and bringing value to the community. Mark J. Perry in his article Why Socialism Failed https://fee. Org/articles/why-socialism-failed/ talks about the importantce of incentives. If all resources and or businesses are owned by the people (government) what incentive do inventors have to create new technology or products. The whole point of capitalism is efficiency as measured by profit and loss. In other words you know the value of your labor based on the market price or supply and demand of good or service. In a socialist country you are paid based on the work you put into the community. Who decides the value of your labor? In capitalism the market decides your value. In socialism you would have to basically create a false market. That is why in actual socialist countries you see a lack of resources and a failure to create more of the goods that are needed. I honestly can’t think of a socialist country that thrived throughout history and had any kind of longevity with prosperity.
Socialism is evil

From what I can see you believe wealth redistribution is immoral, My counter would be (assuming your a capitalist) capitalism also redistributes wealth, It's just less obvious in it's practices. Lets start with labor, Let's say you make $108 AUD a day, And on average your place of work made $2700 AUD worth of goods daily, I'll be generous and estimate only half of that is profit so that's $1350 AUD worth of goods in a day, Now let's say there are three of you working each day, So dividing the three with 1350 then you would individually have made $450 AUD worth of goods but only get 24 percent of those earnings while the rest goes to whoever owns the means of production, This amount of wealth redistribution pales in comparison to any amounts of taxation that would come from a socialist country and, Unlike in socialism, It concentrates most of the wealth to the people who are already very well off. There are also much less obvious forms of wealth redistribution like immigration. Economists agree immigration is redistributing wealth from low skilled workers to the majority (not to say I'm anti-immigration I'm very much for it). Https://www. Politico. Com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216. So in conclusion, My argument would be if socialism is evil for wealth redistribution, Capitalism is as well, The conversation should be which one is more pragmatic and effective. Also I just wanted to mention when you said communism means more government control, Most communists don't want a centralized government, You were conflating communism with Stalinism/Maoism, While technically they are types of communism, You probably won't find any communists arguing for Stalinism.