BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People criticizing Christians because of what they believe in.

You are a Christian based on your profile. Thus you believe in the values of Christianity such as the idea that belief in Jesus gets you into heaven. You also believe that your god is good, thus you believe that his choices are good. He is choosing to sentence me to hell because I am an atheist. Add any bells and whistles you want, in the end the net is that I do not believe in ridiculous nonsense and you think I will go to hell for it. not only that, but you think this is a good thing since you think your god is good. Putting all of this together, you think it would be good for me to be tortured, and you have the gall to whine like a little baby about being told that you are an immoral sack of dirt? Go cry into a cup of milk as I don't care that a person who thinks I deserve torture has himself a cry.
People criticizing Christians because of what they believe in.

"Most Christians believe that good people who do good deeds will earn a place in God's Kingdom" This is a flat lie. I was a Christian for 27 years and I bloody well know the faith. My opponent is basically just making things up and pretending that his faith is not the morally bankrupt thing that it is. http://www.christianpost.com... http://www.catholicvote.org... https://www.facebook.com... http://www.patheos.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... " If you are a good person and do good deeds then good things shall happen to you " Lies. *putting my Christian hat on again* You cannot buy your way into heaven with works. If you could, then the sacrifice of Jesus was pointless. He had to die for sins to be forgiven, but you need to accept that sacrifice. Look at your own arguments. YOu have flip flopped on this issue from the start and now that you can clearly see that it is morally bankrupt, you are forced to deny that one must accept the grace of god to go to heaven. I suggest my opponent come to the side he really supports which is atheism. Sure, it is scary to die, but making up stories won't change that and my opponent has clearly realized that his religion's position makes no sense and is immoral.
People criticizing Christians because of what they believe in.

My opponent basically is saying that all Atheists will to hell but it is not about being a really big believer of our Lord and savior, it is based on being a good person and doing good deeds. This has been confirmed in many churches including the Greek Orthodox Church I attend. Most Christians believe that good people who do good deeds will earn a place in God's Kingdom but in the olden days people were taught to fear God and if they do not believe then they will go to hell when in reality we must not fear him. If you are a good person and do good deeds then good things shall happen to you but some people try to deny that and say that Christianity is evil and all Christian religions believe that non-believers will go to hell. NOT TRUE. But we will never know for sure until we go ourselves but at least I have chosen to believe in God like my Family from the very beginning.
People criticizing Christians because of what they believe in.

Ad hominem in response to logic. I think the rest of the rounds will basically be busywork since I have already won. By the by, based on the logic my opponent presented in his last post, only Holocaust survivors could hate the Nazis. Christianity is a bunch of fairy tails that were useful in scaring people into building societies, but it is now a burden on society. That, however, is not the point. The point is that the doctrine requires bigotry as I clearly pointed out.
People criticizing Christians because of what they believe in.

"Yes there are Christians that say you will go to hell for this and go to hell for that but those are the strict ones. You must understand that not all Christians are like that. I am a Greek Orthodox Christian but I do not believe that everyone will go to hell. It is written that God still loves and forgives you but you must ask him for forgiveness." Read your own words. You believe that one must ask your particular version of a particular god for forgiveness for particular crimes that he finds particularly offensive or else he will roast you. It is dishonest to refuse to admit that that your beliefs necessarily mean that you believe that some people will be sent to hell and that you think it is a good thing. Every branch of Christianity would say that if I were killed in the next 5 minutes I would go to hell and deserve it while the Catholic pedophile priests get to go to heaven if they say sorry to God. Note, they need to apologize to an imaginary god to get forgiven, not to the actual victims. Your beliefs are based on a morally bankrupt ideology. Now, I doubt most Christians actually consider the fact that they think it is good for people to burn forever for not believing in an almighty wizard playing a neverending game of hide and seek, but now you have been exposed to this fact about your religion and you can no longer accept your religion without accepting you would support me being tortured. As to your link, this is just awful. I will rebut each point made, in order. Flaw that they all fall under: Even if all of the arguments given worked, they only get you to the point of having a hypothesis. You still need to prove that a god is possible and that it created anything. On the assumption that I have an angry and violent roommate, the bruise on my face is much more likely to have occurred. Without that roommate it is odd for a grown man who doesn't get in fights to have a bruise like that. Does that tell you anything about whether I actually have a roommate? No. 1) Most of the universe, and even the earth, is uninhabitable. The tiny bit we are able to live in is not designed for us, rather we evolved to survive it. This argument would be like a puddle remarking how the pothole it is in was clearly designed to fit the puddle since the puddle fit in the pothole perfectly. 2) This is simply false. There are current models about how the universe came into being from "nothing". 3) Pure argument from ignorance fallacy. The author doesn't understand how something works, so god. 4) More argument from ignorance. Additionally, that only a small number of building blocks exist actually makes sense in a naturalistic sense since it is difficult to get any made at all, so a simpler system fits reality better. 5) This one had to be a joke, it is just so bad. He knows because he knows that he knows that he knows that god exists. 6) This is almost as bad as 5. The proof is the stuff written in a book. That does not prove miracles happened any more than comic books prove Spider Man was real.
People criticizing Christians because of what they believe in.

Yes there are Christians that say you will go to hell for this and go to hell for that but those are the strict ones. You must understand that not all Christians are like that. I am a Greek Orthodox Christian but I do not believe that everyone will go to hell. It is written that God still loves and forgives you but you must ask him for forgiveness. My religion is beautiful because it gives us a glimpse of another point of view on how the Earth formed. Here is a website tat shows interesting scientific reason why God exists: http://www.everystudent.com...
People criticizing Christians because of what they believe in.

It looks like my opponent is not able to counter my criticism of Christians without whining. Too bad, you brought it on yourself by your beliefs. Maybe my opponent does not understand Christianity, but I do on account of being a Christian for longer than my opponent has been alive and having studied it deeply. If my opponent can get over its feelings and try to counter my argument that Christians essentially approve of torturing me, then maybe we can have a discussion.
Religions are conceptual nonsense.

Pro is attempting to distract from the actual topic of the debate. Questions about god's existence or my spiritual experiences are red herrings. The question that matters is, "Can a reasonable person have spiritual experiences and conclude that some form of religion represents reality? " Absolutely yes! Many things in the universe are not well understood, are hard to replicate, or have evidence about which many people disagree. Some hypotheses will be proven wrong, but the phenomenon itself and hypotheses about them can't be called nonsense or fantasy. Religion should not be called nonsense or fantasy either.
Religions are conceptual nonsense.

If you've seen god, show me god. You cannot. As the god of your vision, was a product of your imagination. Generated from within and not, existing without. Pro asserts that. Religious information, evolved from an archaic misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the human condition. This information has subsequently been elaborated and then passed on from generation to generation. Con's proof of god/deities. Relies on visions/hallucinations, talking with spirits and meditation. Pro would suggest that all of these phenomena are perfect examples and therefore explanations, of fantastic, abstract, nonsensical concepts. If god exists, show me god.
Religions are conceptual nonsense.

Pro claims Mohammad was irrational in not utilizing modern medicine to evaluate visions. Lack of information is not irrationality. "We are cold. Therefore we pray to the sun," is a mischaracterization of the argument. If I see something, it exists. I have seen God, therefore God exists. The premises might not be true, but the argument is valid. It isn't nonsense. Rational people disagree about how convincing evidence is. You might not be convinced by a vision, but if you believe a rational person could be convinced, please vote con. Valid arguments with supporting evidence are not nonsense or fantasy.
Religions are conceptual nonsense.

If Mohammad consulted a doctor today. Tests would establish the cause of his hallucinations. Medical knowledge was limited in Mohammad's time. The efferent response to sensory information, especially information induced by hallucinatory stimuli. Is nonetheless conceptual and more likely to be irrational and nonsensical. Until proved. I think it's fair to regard hypotheses, as fantasy. Though I would suggest that mathematical hypotheses are founded on previously attested information. Whereas religious hypotheses are founded on illogical assumptions. Illogical assumptions can be generated as responses to sensory information. We are cold. Therefore we must pray to the god of the sun.
Religions are conceptual nonsense.

Suppose you"re Mohammed, and you see a vision. You've never hallucinated before, and you"re not dehydrated. You might rationally conclude your vision was real. You might be wrong, but you"re not fantasizing or spouting nonsense. You"re reasoning based on experience. It is not nonsensical for a person to take sensory information and conclude its real. It"s not fantasy to hypothesize about your experience and call it religion. Many mathematicians think the Riemann Hypothesis is true. If they're wrong, was their research fantasy? If their research isn"t understood by people without experience in theoretical mathematics, is it nonsense?
Religions are conceptual nonsense.

The human brain is a very clever organic computer. Not only, can it store and retrieve information. It can also generate appropriate sensations to accompany specific information. Divine experiences are merely, self generated physiological responses to specific situations. Some people are more susceptible to this behaviour than others. I would suggest that Pro and Con are at opposite ends of this spectrum. How we behave as individuals, is largely dependant on how we're programmed/conditioned in our formative years. Though some people will always remain vulnerable to the power of suggestion. Divine experiences, spirituality, visions. Self generated, conceptual nonsense.
Religions are conceptual nonsense.

Religion is not the result of imagination. it comes from experiences with the divine. Whether it is visions of God, speaking with spirits, or reaching enlightenment through meditation; religious experience is almost universally shared among humanity. It is reality that people experience the divine. People struggle to understand divine experiences and put them in context, leading to religion. Different religions exist, just as different theories try to explain the same phenomenon. Some of those theories will be proven wrong, but that does not mean the theories are remote from reality. Religions, based on experience, are not fantastic concepts.
Religions are conceptual nonsense.

Hi McDavid. Long ago. When mankind first started to consciously think and not rely on instinct. They sought to rationalise the universe, their environment and their existence within. At first. The only option was imagination/concept. And they conceived notions of intangible deities, that existed outside of their knowledge and sensory capabilities. Over time. The power of the human brain (organic computer) increased. Knowledge and understanding grew. But the older deistic information was still passed on/programmed into subsequent generations. Scientific discovery. As since proffered logical and sensible answers to the human condition. But the old concepts still persist.
Religions are conceptual nonsense.

Definitions. CONCEPT. An abstract idea. ABSTRACT. Existing in thought. Consider something theoretically. NONSENSE. Spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense. FANTASTIC. Imaginative or fanciful. Remote from reality. Pro will argue that: Religions are fantastic concepts. Born of a time when humans were ignorant of their environment and of their position in the universe. Rules: 5 open rounds. Use your own brain power. No referencing other peoples work/theories. A maximum of 100 words per round.
Should homework exist

"i am a mostly b's student that never does any homework. if i had no homework, ever, then i would be one of the top in the school..."This statement doesn't make any sense. You say that you never do homework. You then say if you never had homework, you would be one of the top in your class. Is this because you never turn in homework? If you could potentially be one of the top students in your entire school on something you understand easily and completely, you could be the top. This point just shows how much you lack in effort in doing the best you can."there are many who simply are already busy with extracurricular activities and would do off much better if homework never existed."The average American student spends less than an hour on homework. Let's say the average gets out of school at 4 with extra-curricular activities. The bus ride home takes about (and I'm being generous) an hour. The student could do their homework here, but I'll be nice and say the road's too bumpy to focus. That puts the student at 5. Let's say it takes an hour to eat dinner and do some chores, putting the students at 6 or 6:30. The rest is free time, with bedtime about 9. That's two and a half hours, with exaggerations on many of these times. What student can honestly say that the 30-45 minutes they spend on homework (again, an exaggeration) is "too much"? Furthermore, research has found that students don't really feel as though they have too much homework and simply stretch how they really feel; their parents feel the same way. (1)___The main crux of your argument is that homework hinders students. This has been proven time and again that homework does help students if there isn't too much. (2) And, as I mentioned before, most don't really feel as though their homework level is too much- these are simply exaggerations. If you actually put forth some effort, I'm sure you could be the top in your class. But I'm sure the people who are at the top of your class actually do the homework, which speaks to its success rate. I look forward to your response.1. http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com...2. http://today.duke.edu...
The Federal Reserve Caused the Great Depression

You daid you wanted to debate this. I have taken away the stances. Full Resolution: The Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression by causing the stock market to crash. In other words, the stock market itself did not cause the Great Depression, but was tanked by actions precipitated by the Federal Reserve. Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is an automatic loss and all seven points for voting should be given to the other person. 3. No semantics.
The Federal Reserve Caused the Great Depression

This will be my conclusion. The Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression by keeping the interest rates the same. When the economy started to recover in the early 20s, they placed a low interest rate in place, but kept it there even after the recovery had completed and a boom was taking place. When they had to raise interest rates to counter the high inflation, some investors got out of the stock market because they saw the lower rates of net return effect that a big increase in the interest rate would bring. Then more and mre people got out of the stock market, and, crash. The Federal Reserve failed to ease the crash by not only keeping the interest rates at the same high level, but then decreasing the money supply. This made the crash even worse as people did not want to re-invest in the stock market and turn it around. The decrease in the money supply made an already money strapped economy worse. Also, they allowed banks to fail, and made bank reserves lower, and even decreased liquidity. All of the attributes to the Great Depression, such as the stock market crash, bank failures, inflation, the decrease in the money supply, and the incorrect interest rates can all be attributed to the Federal Reserve's actions. So, these many things were the causes of the Great Depression, but since they were all caused by the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve is to blame for the Great Depression. The Federal Reserve also failed to slow the crash, making the recession a full depression (so point III is relevant) I will eagerly await my opponent's conclusion. I know my opponent forfeited, but I am going to allow him to post his argument for Round 4 here, and skip the conclusion.
The Federal Reserve Caused the Great Depression

I'll adress my opponent's questions before addressing her constructive.To My Opponent:1.) No, I beleive there were too many causes for the Depression to claim that the Federal Reserve was the sole or main cause, which is what I'm arguing in the round.2.) Cool, looking forward to it.I. How Did the Federal Reserve Cause the DepressionThe first three paragraphs are on the good times during the roaring '20s, so I'll skip them.Fourth Paragraph: "To try to counteract this inflation, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates. This caused fewer loans to be given out and less money to be flowed into the economy." This is one of the key sentences in my opponent's first contention, as it deals with the flow of money into the economy, which is my opponent's key argument in the debate. However, even in this key quote, we can see that the Federal Reserve is not the sole cause of the Great Depression. Were it not for infaltion caused by a naturally helathy economy when people buy large amounts of consumer items, then the amount of money pumped into the economy by the Federal Reserve wouldn't have been a problem. This actually contributes to the key point I'm trying to make throughout my argument, because seeing as there were both inflation and Federal Reserve problems in the beginning, you cannot call the Federal REserve the cause for the Great Depression."savvy investors saw this, and got out of the market. This weakened the market. The other investors saw the slowdown in the growth, and immediately paniced, and withdrew all their money as fast as they could."This quote also showed that the amount of money being pumped into the economy by the Fed (which I will use as the abbreviation for the Federal Reserve) was not the sole problem. Aside from from money being pumped in, you also had a stock market scare which made investers flee, which caused failures in the stock market.savvy investors saw this, and got out of the market. This weakened the market. The other investors saw the slowdown in the growth, and immediately paniced, and withdrew all their money as fast as they could.II) What the Federal Reserve do Wrong?This entire paragraph focuses around what the Federal Reserve did wrong in during the 20s and 30s. However, I'm not arguing that the Fed didn't do anything wrong, I'm stating that even though the Fed used wrong procedures, and helped contribute to the Great Depression, my stance on the argument is that it's not the sole reason, and the multiple reasons behind the Great Depression mean you can't limit the reason to the Fed. So this contention, although it's not wrong, does not make an impact on the negation of the resolution.III) The Federal Reserve Failed to Help the Great DepressionThe resolution does not state "The Federal Reserve did not help the Great Depression", we are arguing over what caused it. Because of this, an argument makiing a point about what happened after the Great Depression had already taken place does not make an impact on the resolution. Because it does not deal with what the resolution is stating, you must disregaurd this contention.
The war in Afghanistan can be won

"[S]imply obliterating an entire country and killing both the enemies and innocent civilians would not restore it to the peace that it once had, but rather completely eliminate life in the region, which is not restoring any type of peace to any place." Yes, it would. It would restore the peace that existed billions of years ago, in a time in which only bacteria lived. It was a very peaceful time. No humans died. "This is incorrect in the sense that freedom is having the CHOICE to live or to die. Freedom is not having no word in your imminent death by nuclear forces." Okay, death is not the freedom of choice, but the freedom from suffering. But still, it is freedom. "[B]y killing so many innocent people, our war in Afghanistan could never be considered a victory." There's absolutely no requirement for a victory to be moral. "[Y]ou cannot win a war if so many innocents die in the process." And why not? "It may seem like that, however once you consider that when other nations realize that we are a threat to their people's well being, they will declare embargo's on us, which would put America in an even deeper economic hole than we are currently in." The debate's resolution is "The war in Afghanistan can be won," not "The war in Afghanistan can be won without putting America into an economic hole." In conclusion, nukes would restore absolute peace and absolute freedom from suffering to Afghanistan and punish the criminals, the original intended goal of the war.