BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Albert Einstein wasnt atheist.

Einstein may not have labelled himself an Atheist, however, he didn't believe in a personal or monotheistic god (he did not accept the notion of the Christian god). "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."[1], "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."[2]. So you could argue that he never labelled himself as an Atheist, What point do you wish to make in doing so. You certainly can't use this semantic obscurity to advocate religion. Dukas, Helen (1981). Albert Einstein the Human Side. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 43. Calaprice, Alice (2000). The Expanded Quotable Einstein. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 21
Albert Einstein wasnt atheist.

Einstein called himself an agnostic rather than an atheist, stating: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."[12] In an interview published by the German poet George Sylvester Viereck, Einstein stated, "I am not an Atheist."[9] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." https://en.wikipedia.org...
Abortion should be illegal unless a girl was raped.

Well, to begin with I don't think someone would lie about being raped! Why would a girl lie about something like that just to have an abortion? I mean yea in some cases that is why a girl would have an abortion. And why refer to something such as stealing candy?! No one was talking about stealing candy because that is a total different story and it has nothing to do with abortion anyways. Any what kind of government sources would she be referred to?
Abortion should be illegal unless a girl was raped.

Contention 1: Creating a double standard for who may have an abortion could potentially lead to an increase in the claims of rape, and false claims at that. Girls may say they were raped to be able to get an abortion, and because of this many men may be falsely accused. Contention 2: This is comparable to saying it should be illegal to steal candy from a store unless you are hungry. If a girl is raped, there are government services she can turn to that would not result in abortion. In conclusion, having a double standard can lead to more rape claims, thus special treatment should not be made.
FEMA coffins and trains.

too late u already gave up brah, none the less I am substantiating the claims that the government is trying to kill us, by pointing out that the government murders people constantly, and has established concentration camps in the past. if we are to examine whether or not concentration camps exist in the present, or if there are plots to establish them, certainly it is reasonable to argue the past behaviour of this organization is predictive of future behaviour. too bad, so sad, you didn't bother to show up, i win.
FEMA coffins and trains.

It's easy to say that only the guilty will be executed, but without a trial, there is simply no guarantee this is the case. Take for example, the case of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki a 15 year old boy. Was he a terrorist? Yet he was slaughtered by Obama two weeks after his father. How about the hundreds of innocent men, women and children who have been slaughtered by drone attacks - people who have never been accused of any terrorist activities. Collateral damage, they are called - if the state can have this callous disregard for the life of an innocent, why would they hold your life to be any more sacred? Of course it is POSSIBLE that all of a sudden governments will stop killing their own citizens but it's not very likely. These organizations are evil. They use violence and coercion to get what they want. Not sometimes. All the time. That's how they operate. Through the initiation of violence. This is psychopathic behaviour and it is only reasonable to conclude that if they will use violence to rob you or extort you, then they will not balk at killing you if it fits their agenda. Just as governments around the world today presently killing innocent people all of the time. The government already asserts the right to kill you if you do not give them your money. If you do not pay taxes, eventually men with guns (police) will come to arrest you. If you defend yourself against this aggression - if you utilize the right to self defense, as every individual is entitled to when they are attacked without cause - these men will kill you. Thus the state ASSERTS the right to murder you in order to steal your money. If they assert this right for a cause as specious as taking your money what is to stop them from murdering you for any other not worthwhile cause? Historically the American government HAS murdered millions of people without cause, even within their own borders. Have you ever heard of the American Indian? They did nothing but live on land and they were eradicated. Genocided. The American government has also interned over a hundred thousand America citizens in concentration camps. These were the Japanese during WWII. My opponent wants you to think it is absurd that there would ever be concentration camps on American soil - yet they existed just one generation ago! What about COINTELPRO? Here American citizens were murdered for their political beliefs. Today American citizens are incarcerated for practicing free speech - Bradley Manning for example. The American government has murdered millions of people. It could easily be you next.
FEMA coffins and trains.

The examples shown about the 20th century dictators killing millions of their own people is an appeal to history, There are two types of appeal to history. The first is committed by arguments that use past cases as a guide to the future. This is the predictive appeal to history fallacy. Just because something has been the case to date, doesn"t mean that it will continue to be the case. This is not to say that we can"t use the past as a guide to the future, merely that predictions of the future based on the past need to be treated with caution. Also, Obama's authority only allows american citizens outside of the state to be executed without trial, so US citizens inside the united states are not affected and still require a trial before execution. Secondly, this only applies to citizens accused, with evidence, of supporting terrorist organizations such as Al Quaeda and the taliban, so unless you are supporting a terrorist organization, you have nothing to fear. And the first, third, and last statements are claims at best, evidence needs to be cited.
FEMA coffins and trains.

The state, unlike other organizations in society, obtains revenue through coercion. It threatens people with violence in order to get revenue from them. This is immoral. It is wrong to threaten people with violence to get their money. The state does this not once in a while, but constantly. It's blatant disregard for morality in this area implies a blatant disregard for morality in other areas. There have been countless examples in the 20th century of governments murdering massive amounts of their own people. One has to look only at Nazi Germany, at Russia under the Soviet Union, at the Khmer Rouge's barbaric drive to the country side, at the civil war in the Congo in the 90's or at Maoist china to see examples where the governments of one's own country murdered millions of their own people. It is clear then that historically governments have murdered millions of their own people. So why then could this not happen in America? Just recently, Barack Obama has declared the authority to execute American citizens without a trial. This sort of dictatorial power states outright that the government of the United States of America can, and will, and is currently murdering it's own citizens via unmanned predator drones. If Barack Obama is willing to do this publicy, what then is he doing secretly? The government is evil. It uses violence and the threat of violence to get it's way - just like a serial killer. In the two decade, the American government has murdered over a million Iraqis. If they will murder a million innocent Iraqis, who is to say they won't murder a million innocent Americans? The state is evil. It uses violence, it initiates aggression constantly against innocent people. It is reasonable to conclude there is a good chance that the American government will murder millions of it's own citizens.
FEMA coffins and trains.

Many conspiracy theorists who believe in the NWO/Illuminati/Police State type conspiracies believe that the government is stock-piling plastic burial vaults in order to place large amounts of bodies in what is suppose to be the mass killing of millions of citizens via biological weapons, or some other more violent means. I would like to challenge anyone willing to debate me on this subject. I do not beleive the government will kill us.
Humanism > Feminism

Good day, reader! As you can see, this debate is about how Humanism is a better and overall more morally just ideology then Feminism. I make this claim considering myself as a humanist and someone who particularly doesn't like the modern-day feminist actions or some of their ideals. I constantly find myself while arguing with them to say this or something along these lines: "So, you think that men need to be taught not to rape? How about, not teach ANYONE to rape? Both genders can rape. All races can rape. All sexual orientations can rape. It's not that defined in males. Don't you think it would be a better alternative to explain why rape is morally unjust to EVERYONE? So everyone can then understand that?" Because that's how I honestly think about it. Humanism is an ideology I think that is more fitting, but also because in Humanism, skeptical inquiry and criticism are beyond welcome. Feminism seems to just let a lot fly as long as it goes under the banner of feminism. Just this morning I saw a debate that said "Men accused of rape should be castrated." Not even proven to have raped, just ACCUSED. That's just making whoever is accused guilty until proven innocent and, need I mention that is a harsh punishment? I feel its sad I have to show why this is wrong, but while we're at it lets make the death penalty for people ACCUSED of murder. Moving on. I won't go in deep, but that is my general claim. Humanism is a better ideology to possess then Feminism because it has an open mind, it is open to free criticism, in Feminism most people I've seen who oppose the movement are instantly labeled misogynists, and it covers the philosophies and issues of all races, genders and sexual orientations out there. It tries to say that humanity is equal, and we need to put aside our differences and realize that all of us individually have our own prejudices for whoever we are. And instead of placing the blame on others, we need to place the blame on ourselves and be responsible, striving to teach and educate on why in the vast and strange reality we live in, we at least need to accept each other. Life is one big team effort. Thank you for reading, and good luck.
Humanism > Feminism

I sincerely apologize if my argument didn't make much sense. I have a habit of turning ideas into long-winded walls of text so I will explain it more reasonably here. My comparison of racism to sexism is based on the notion that we don't really know what a problem is until it becomes a problem. We live our lives without worrying about what ills other people are exposed to until it starts to affect us directly or indirectly. It doesn't matter if Feminists are correct or incorrect in their assumptions of their being unequal to men, what matters is that they felt the need to speak up about it so that society will possibly open their eyes to a potential problem. If they didn't, society would be non-the-wiser about a potential problem. This applies for ALL problems, not just sexism. All of the problems feminist's claim to have are directed towards men because it is men that they blame for the source of the problems. If the problem is to be addressed, then it is men who must realize what's going on and to work with women on fixing the problem. So it is, in essence, the humanitarian action that you would want. Even if men are not the true source of women's problems, it's just a technical issue as it still raises awareness of women's rights and the expectations placed upon them. All publicity is good publicity sort of thing. I do agree with you that humanity should focus on solving our problems as quickly as possible without placing blame or pointing fingers. The blame game is one that I deeply despise since it solves nothing and only creates conflict. However, women who talk about the social issues they face are often told to stop complaining or stop blaming men for all their problems and most of the time, that isn't a fair thing to say. If they don't speak up, no one will know. As easy as it is to say we should deal with social issues as an equal society, we must first become an equal society. It isn't impossible either, it will just take these types of movements to slowly change our global society into a better one. What you want will happen eventually, maybe on a smaller scale, but it will, we just have to keep encouraging people to speak up and be heard so the hidden problems can surface now, rather than later. I thank my opponent for this interesting debate. Hopefully I was able to show how Feminism (at it's heart) at least leads to their definition of Humanism, if it is not already apart of it.
Humanism > Feminism

I'm rather confused by what you are saying here, but I will only assume you are talking about how I speak of feminism. Are you telling me that is what you think about Feminism in that paragraph? No, no, we were talking about the wages of men and women, and all I was saying is that I think its better to confront the wage gap of everyone as equals instead of just women. Since Feminism just focuses only on one and blames males for pretty bad things if you think about it. Patriarchy, misogyny, and responsible in general for a lot of things. Mind you, this isn't what Feminism says it does, but really, the source of their problems they all generally agree is the fault of men. Humanism puts the fault onto typical human nature. Because it pretty much is that if you go to the natural roots, we as a species are at fault for the prejudices we've made on others. What Feminism fails to realize is that even their own gender criticizes it. Does that not say anything of Feminism and the comparison you are trying to make it to racism? Now, I do dearly apologize and I am going to willingly accept this will come to the detriment of my score, but it is late and there is only five hours left to post this. I must be getting to bed soon. So I will just comment on what I found most interesting skimming through, which was your last paragraph. "As nice as it would be for equality to be a clear and obvious term, it just isn't. Humans don't think that way, we would rather live our lives peacefully and blissfully ignorant of what's going on around us, as long as everything seems hunky-dory. We even invented a word for it, Normal. As long as everything is Normal, there isn't any problems, as soon as we realize there is a problem within our normality, we do whatever we can to fix that problem so we can go back to our previous state. It's up to those who feel victimized and hurt by normal to speak out against it, otherwise, everything just seems... Normal." I have had this even told me by some members of my family. That my ideal of humanity just isn't realistic. That it isn't compatible with modern-day standards. But you know what, you know how they say history is doomed to repeat itself? I believe it is also blessed to repeat itself. Another renaissance-type era would benefit the human species greatly. The advancements in not only technology but philosophy was great. And it may seem hopeless now, but I personally believe that if I keep my beliefs, if I have faith that humanity can one day learn that we must join together as a team, not playing a large blame game between the groups of people. I tire of hearing those that say "Oh, this group of people is responsible for the faults of society." I tire of hearing the blame putting on others and not within ourselves. To instead perhaps strive to solve, not to blame. To better, not to degrade. I may be ambitious in my goals but I do honestly believe these things. That humanity can be better. And humanity can persevere. Goodnight, and I acknowledge this argument is on a wing and a prayer and it may not make sense. I hope it does though.
Pokemon is a useless game.

Here's some stupid things I thought of. Before you pp (Pro pokemon) and aap (anti anti pokemon) say that I never watched Pokemon, and I don't know what I am missing, I'll let you know I have watched it, and found this to be stupid. 1. Pokemon can only say there own names. This is stupid because if you can say your name, you could say other things. Also, they make a whole language out of their names? Fox! Fox Mccloud! cloud!! Mccloud! (Fox Mccloud Pokemonese: That is stupidly retarded!!!!!) 2. Pikachu is clasified as a mouse pokemon. Mice do not exist in the series, so how could Pikachu be a mouse pokemon? 3. How do you shrink Pokemon into those little balls? If you shrank Onyx (last I checked he was the bigest, at 25 feet) into a tennisball and expect it to live? Once inside, how does it eat, drink, breath, and go to the bathroom... 4. A "trainer" walks by and sees a pokemon. He calls out one of hes pokemon, Kicks the Pokemon's butt, and then the Pokemon is loyal to him?? Yeah right! 5. Everything is about Pokemon in their world. They are on signs, pop culture, and even more popular than the real world, and noone ever gets annoyed? 6. Many say Pokemon teaches not to fight, but it is just like cockfighing. Only, unlike of cockfighting, the Pokemon are shooting fire, and tearing eachother apart. If a pokemon :nuke: s another Pokemon, It doesn't die? 7. There are no difference's in Pokemon gender, it is just he and he, or it and it. That means they have to be gay to reproduce. :eek: 8. Evolution takes thousands of years for anything to happen, not 2 seconds. It doesn't even happen in a flashy light thing, and some need a rock to evolve? 9. Team rocket. They lose every time, and it has gotten soooo annoying. I wish they would just win and get it over with. In real life they would've taken Pikachu by now That's about all a can think of right now.
Pokemon is a useless game.

Definition of Useless - "of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose" Pokemon games, referring to any of the Pokemon games, are not useless because they are wildly popular games in which many people of all ages have instantaneously become hooked and spent hours upon hours fulfilling their call to "catch 'em all" and defeat all the gym leaders and finally the Elite Four, in addition to some group of evil people bent on doing some kind of a$$hole move. Other Reasons Pokemon is Not Useless: 1. Can be sold for money, therefore making the economy spin round and round. 2. Can be thrown at people, therefore making them weapons. 3. You can play multiplayer with your friends, therefore making pokemon a social game. 4. Fuels conversation for every nerd on this planet, alowing further socialization. 5. Gives bragging rights for those who have caught Legendary Pokemon, or have done other notable things. 6. Sets up websites upon websites of Pokemon fans, fueling Pokemon discussion, creating even further socialization among people. 7. Allows debate topics such as this to exist, where I can accept this debate so I can get an easy noob-snipe in. 8. You can hit them with a hammer to just let your anger out. As you can see, Pokemon games can be used for a plethora of things, therefore making them "not useless." Anyways, your argument contradicts itself. You claim that nobody likes Pokemon (which could be an argument, if not a very unsupported argument for Pokemon's uselessness, but then claim that noobs with no life like Pokemon, therefore giving Pokemon a use.) Let's face it, you lost this debate before it even began with your own opening argument. NOW WHO IS THE NOOB NOW! HA! Good day sir. (1)http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Foolishness in the bible that no god would ever put into effect thus proving that god is false

If one takes away the insults (which I don"t mind), the baseless assumptions, the "psychological evaluations" that is not required by the debate and actually count only the things applicable it amounts to one or two sentences at most. A lot of smoke and no fire. Backwards cannot state what the reliable method is God is supposed to use to transmit what He wants to say. Actually he alluded to speaking to someone but oral transmission was also shown to be unreliable by him using the "telephone game". So written texts, according to him, are also unreliable and yet he criticizes God for not using a reliable method. According to him just about every method is unreliable but expect God to use a "reliable" method. Now the dictionary defines that as hypocrisy, not me. He fails to make sense of his argument because he cannot identify THE reliable method he alludes must exist. He failed to debunk the scriptures quoted to prove his assertion that the Bible was changed so we cannot know its meaning anymore. He failed to answer the question: In the absence of God who is responsible for the ongoing suffering of children. He has not shown how the Bible can be a reliable source to quote to substantiate his position while his basic premise is it is unreliable. Numb nuts claimed to know the purpose why the KJV was made, but in fact he did not. The preface specifies why it was done. My opponent denies that bestiality exists although the law courts sentence people to jail for engaging in it. My opponent does not understand that some babies get born without genitalia and that that qualifies them as eunuchs. According to him it is impossible. My opponent blames God for the failure of man (Judges example) which is just plain illogical. My opponent somehow thinks that an original is needed for the Bible when it is not. An exact copy is just as good as the original. My opponent fail to show that the uncorrupted text could not have been handed down through the ages. My opponent failed to provide scientific proof for love when he claimed science has proof. My opponent claimed I cannot read when I stated he thought it was sick to ask someone to love him more than others. This in spite the fact that he based his insult on what the person said. My opponent says I lost already although the debate is not finished yet. Is he a prophet now? Does he have supernatural insight into the future? He lied saying he did not read anything I wrote in the previous round but then rebut what was mentioned about a supreme being. I hope you did not spent to much time on this ingenious debate of yours that you advertised in the comments section of another debate on this site. Frankly, I do not think my opponent will finish this debate, although I humbly admit I can be wrong in saying that. He did say we are done in the last round but being the liar he is, who knows.