BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Devient.Genie Is Unnecessary

:)Once again, you were rejected. I was not one single bit offended. I know your goals for this debate; to offend your opponent and to make people agree with you on religion. You don't know what's best for the world. You were not offended by the "poison of religion". There is no such thing as "poison of religion" or "religion poison". Allow me to clarify the word "poison":1. A substance that causes injury, illness or death, especially by chemical means.2. Something destructive or fatal.3. Chemistry & Physics A substance that inhibits another substance or a reaction: a catalyst poison. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...; "Freedom of speech was granted to those who say things that others dont like to hear. If you dont want to be offended, quit supporting religion, the single most destructive and divisive invention in the history of mankind. " I don't need to "quit supporting religion" if I don't want to be offended. It's not me that should quit suporting religion, but you should stop attacking religion and get on in life. What is your problem? Why do you think you know what's best and we don't? I know, you're older, but that doesn't make you any "smarter". Younger people can be just as smart or even smarter. A smart person would know that. Another thing, you fail too much logic, which is why you always get rejected. "It doesn't matter what I say, you will be offended" Rejected again! I am fine, thank you very much, now stop trying to get me offended, because you achieve nothing. "Haha, in you face! You're offended! " Are you serious? If you're the one who's offended, then would you care? You need to grow up! You're 41 now and you're that immature? It's time you thought about others' feelings, Devient. Genie. "Stop lying to children. " You do not care about children. Don't use that as an excuse. "Stop denying equal rights to children born with biological differences in sexuality or any other denial of equal treatment of humans. " You don't seem to care about us at all. All you do is say that so you can attack and attack so you can say that! And all the things you've pointed out, you just use them as an excuse for attacking religion! You should know that you can do all those demands by yourself and you're non-religious friends! You don't have to tell everyone to do it. You're not the king of the world, and besides, all humans are equal, so you're not the boss. Stop thinking that you know everything that's good for the world and not us. We have our rights, and we keep them. These are beliefs, so how are you 100% sure that they're all fake and science is always real? You don't know at all, you believe. Remember, scientists are normal people like all of us. They're are not "Mr Right"s. it's not like their hypothesis is not always correct, Just like when Galvani thought that there was animal electricity, that was not real.
Devient.Genie Is Unnecessary

Im glad your offended. I am offended by the poison of religion that teaches children they are under the watchful eye of a god who drown his own children. Freedom of speech was granted to those who say things that others dont like to hear. If you dont want to be offended, quit supporting religion, the single most destructive and divisive invention in the history of mankind. It doesnt matter what I say, you will be offended, tell her what I mean Daniel: There is no polite way to tell someone they have dedicated their life to a folly--Daniel Dennett :) I have said it before and I will say it again, I will stop attacking religion when religion agrees to my terms: 1) Stop lying to children 2) Stop denying equal rights to children born with biological differences in sexuality or any other denial of equal treatment of humans 3) Stop disempowering women. Misogyny is as common in all religions, as sand is to all beaches 4) Get the (f)(u)(c)(k) out of our schools with your creationist nonsense 5) Get over your separation anxiety between church and state 6) Stop impeding the advancement of stem cell research because of your childish belief there is a soul in a 4 day old blastocyst 7) Pay taxes on your corrupt poison factories that you call churches, synagogues and mosques 8) Give up your circus events with your book. Meaning get your stupid book of filth out of court rooms and quit having our elected representatives swearing on that vile trash as well 9) Admit you dont need religion to have morals. If you dont know right from wrong, you lack empathy, Not religion 10) Admit its more important for mankind to grow up instead of being born again. Until all 10 demands are met, I would suggest religious leaders get comfortable in their dresses and any government elected officials that attempt to proliferate the agenda of a cult, all remain seated until ride comes to a complete stop.
Devient.Genie Is Unnecessary

I had never said Devient.Genie didn't need to exist. I just said that his actions based on religions are unnecessary. Devient.Genie is the one that should learn. I do not hate anyone. I know what he means, but he's saying it in an offensive way that causes everyone to be cheesed off with his immature, ignorant and aggressive behaviour. We're all just trying to help, so if he'd be pleased to listen to us PROPERLY, he will realise that he should take action in a more non-aggressive way and try not to offend anyone. Everyone (except him) knows that the way he says things show that he doesn't really want to help. I know he's only trying to inform people, but he shouldn't do it like he does now, because nobody will listen. He has his own beliefs and others have their own beliefs. If somebody comes up and calls science "nonsense" and attack Atheism and their beliefs, how would you feel, Devient.Genie? How would you react? The way you react about others' beliefs are all violence. It seems to me that you would react aggressively when others attack Atheism and science. Keep your cool. Please listen to me. Just keep your cool. Count quietly if necessary, but just calm down. It's not the end of the world. You shouldn't care about what others believe. Just worry about what you believe and live a peaceful life on this site. We're not going to force you to go, but your actions are simply unnecessary. Try to find a more non-aggressive way to take action than what you do now. Don't say that you do this because of brainwashed people. We are not brainwashed. You haven't learnt respect, so you really haven't learned anything. That is called brainwashed. You should take debates seriously.Listen to us. Attacking religions is not the key to solving this. The only way to solve this is to wait until people prove religion wrong. Until then, just mind about your own stuff. It's not the end of the world that people think differently to you. As I said, if everyone thinks the same way, people would still think that the Earth is flat and that's just complete nonsense. Yes, saying that Devient.Genie doesn't need to exist means that some random person out there doesn't need to exist, but they feel like they do. I have never said that Devient.Genie didn't need to exist. I only said that his actions on religion and beliefs are unnecessary. "Why wasn't Jesus necessary? I mean, it's like saying that I don't need to exist, but I feel that I DO need to exist. And it's like saying that some random person out there doesn't need to exist." Those words were said by me. Devient.Genie was trying to reject me by by pointing that out, but he hasn't clearly understood what I was trying to say in THIS debate. "This debate is about how you should stop attacking religion and start acting like a true 41 year old." THAT was what I meant by "Devient.Genie Is Unnecessary".Now, it is my opponent's turn to defend his case.
Devient.Genie Is Unnecessary

I accept. However, I want to point out an argument you used SweetBreeze in your previous debate " why wasn't jesus necessary? I mean, it's like saying that I don't need to exist, but I feel that I DO need to exist. And it's like saying that some random person out there doesn't need to exist" So why isn't DevientGenie necessary? I mean, it's like saying that I don't need to exist, but I feel that I DO need to exist. And it's like saying that some random person out there doesn't need to exist :)
Cats are More Awesome Than Dogs

Sure, dogs may greet you at the door with a wagging tail and a big slobbery kiss but they don't know any better. Cats on the other hand do not emanate that wet smell that dogs do when wet, nor do they chew or slobber all over the furniture. Cats are also more of the lap pet since dogs come in a variety of sizes. And while some of the larger breeds may enjoy cuddling no one really wants the circulation in their legs to be cut off by a 100+ lb. dog, and plus, a larger dog trying to lay in one's lap is not all that comfortable either. Some cats can easily hunt down mice for you... and while they may bring it to you as a show of "look what I did." Dogs tend to bring home larger animals such as squirrels, bunnies and what ever else their jaw might find. Dogs also dig up holes in one's yard and garden, and scratch up wooden floors with their sharp claws. While cats tend to prefer a nice perch (like a sofa) to rest and watch the rest of the household. Cats are able to make this purring sound to let their owner know they appreciate and are doing a wonderful job of caressing them, where dogs do not create any such sounds besides barking in the middle of the night, or while chasing after a vehicle that just zoomed by. So that is why I think cats are a finer pet for the household than a dog might be.
Cats are More Awesome Than Dogs

It is important to note that I love cats, however out of the decision between the two dogs are unquestionably superior. Some points of contention. Lets start with the very first thing KMS said, "Sure, dogs may greet you at the door with a wagging tail and a big slobbery kiss but they don't know any better. " EXACTLY! This is the perfect point to show exactly why dogs are superior. Because they love you without knowing better, dogs give people that goofy unadulterated affection we crave deep down. During the day we meet PLENTY of icy aloof and arrogant people, why would we want to come home to a pet who is the same? We wouldn't, we would rather a sweet sloppy kiss from our knee-high friends on 4 legs. She said:"Dogs also dig up holes in one's yard and garden, and scratch up wooden floors with their sharp claws. " *I accept this as a fact, dogs can cause some damage (especially if they are big) however this isn't unique to dogs, cats also destroy stuff. Cats DESTROY furniture with razor sharp claws, everything from your pillows, to your drapes all the way to your couch, nothing is sacred to cats and these are things that cost a lot of money, not just a hole in your back yard. She said: "cats on the other hand do not emanate that wet smell that dogs do" *This is point of showing that cats are cleaner than dogs. .. yet I ask you, what is easier to take care of a dog who goes for walks thus letting you get fresh air and exercise, or the tons of kitty litter that gets strewn across the floor all around your litter box? She Said: "Some cats can easily hunt down mice for you. .. and while they may bring it to you as a show of 'look what I did. '" *Cats tend to bring you lifeless animals in, anything from lizards (for those people in the southwest US like myself) to birds, to rodents and anything else they can get their paws on and we all know that cats are cruel in how they hunt these animals, I am not saying that mice aren't vermin, they can be, however cats regularly kill so many birds that they have a huge impact on bird population. As a matter of fact University of Wisconsin's Dr. Stanley Temple estimates that rural cats kill 39 million birds every year in Wisconsin alone! (. http://www.umd.umich.edu...) People who believe in conservation and wildlife (people who like bird song) probably don't like everyone having cats. .. Dogs don't have any issues like this. Dogs also serve incredibly useful tasks for people, everything from guarding the home from strangers, to herding sheep, cows, and horses. Dogs also help people in very serious tasks such as police work, and sniffing out drugs and tracking people who need finding, dogs even guide the blind. What do cats do other than get mice and kill millions of innocent birdies? (nothin) As for the calming nature of purrs, well that is certainly true, everyone likes purring kitties, but everyone also loves it when you scratch puppies on their stomachs and their back legs kick wildly (you know that is too cute).
Whites are inherently racist

'Whites have oppressed minority races for as long as they have existed.' this is certainly true, however, i do not believe that whites are born to be racist, they are raised to be racist. The entire western culture is one of racism. However, not all whites accept societies attempt to make them racist. I will use myself as an example:, I am white, I was born and raised in the UK with a reasonable amount of racism around (mostly in the older generations). Yet I am not at all racist, I advocate for open borders, I support the black lives matter movement, I support the reform of all police. I am the opposite of racist and yet you label me as one just because I am white. You are yourself making a racist argument, that all Whites are inherently racist, that's a racist statement. I myself have many friends so I know how the younger people of today behave in terms of racism, the friends I have who are white, 1 is racist towards Muslims, the other 50+ actually shun that person for being a racist, we have many friends of eastern European or African descent who we treat with the utmost and equal respect as everyone else. Your argument is an incorrect stereotype.
Whites are inherently racist

Whites have oppressed minority races for as long as they have existed. In today's time with the slaughter of innocent young men by racist police forces, we can see that such racism has not gone away. White people have not been able to respond for their crimes against humanity and are thus racist. It is born and bred into every child and this supposed "social justice" that we were promised is a farce done out of guilt. Whites do not feel for what we go through. They must pay reparations for generations of oppression and mindless racist slaughter, or else.
more guns mean more homicide, more gun control leads to less homicide

The coorelatio is consistent, if I fond that feeding people dog poor led to them being sick, and the more dog poop they ate the sicker they got, I would have a case to say that eating dog poop maes you sick. Acedemia doesn't apply here, facts are facts and the higher gu ownership there is the less crime there is, this is why Switzerland obligates its citizens to own guns, and they have 52 homicides annualy total. Now let's assume a hypothetical scenario, let';s say guns are illegal. So what? Feon are al;ready banned from owning guns, so banning guns for everyone won't really affect them much, they wre already violating the law. So now not only do yu have a criminal population which is just as armed as before, and a civilian population which is now unarmed, but you also have created a new black market for guns. This is supposed to reduce crime how? Criminals are just as armed as before, so crime shouldn't chnge much. And if you honestly believe that ilegalising guns will do anything but increase crime, go see what happened when we banned alcohaul, crime went up and the black market became a ooming buisness.
more guns mean more homicide, more gun control leads to less homicide

I guess I can just skip con's rant about whether gun control is a good idea. the only thing being debated are the two points in the title. so con's one graph that he found somewhere on the internet beats the scientific consensus? I cited literature reviews, anyone can do their own especially if you do a journal database search at a library or university. if your position were true, youd be able to find support for your position academically. as it sits, you have almost nothing. another point against con, as previously noted, you have to compare developed countries against each other.... con includes a ton of rogue countries. if you aren't comparing apples to apples what's the point? as to cons other graph, it's an outlier. just because guns increased and homicide decreased doesn't mean the two aren't linked. correlation doesn't prove causation. ive got a ton of evidence that the two are linked however and bottomline, con has nothing.
more guns mean more homicide, more gun control leads to less homicide

It is stupid to think that disarming innocent people will somehow protect innocent people, it is already illegal for felons to own guns, so whatever felons do have guns are doing so illegally, and a gun ban won’t affect them very much. So felons are just as armed as before, except maybe more because when you ban something you create a whole new market for it, while law abiding citizens are disarmed. This is supposed to reduce crime how? Liberals would point to Brittan having fewer homicides than we do, about 4 times less proportional to their population. But correlation is not causation, just because I can find a place where guns are illegal that has a lower crime rate than one where they are legal doesn’t prove anything because hat nation where guns are illegal might otherwise have a lower crime rate. You are also picking up the nation with the highest crime rate of those nations where guns are legal and comparing it to the nation with the lowest crime rate of those nations where guns are illegal. You have to compare very nation where guns are legal to those where they are illegal, and compare times with higher gun ownership to those with less gun ownership in the same nation. Which gives you the following statistics,
more guns mean more homicide, more gun control leads to less homicide

more homicides correlated to more guns owed. here is a quote indicating that's what a literature review confirms, followed by a site with literature review conclusions. aside from a shoddy study or two or so, you can't find generalize consensus that find different conclusions. Hemenway and coauthor Lisa M. Hepburn reviewed research from peer-reviewed journals and found that the evidence from studies of U.S. cities, states and regions "is quite consistent " where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates." this is true when you compare developed nations v developed nations. you can't compare undeveloped. and you also have to have variable control of things like poverty v homicide and guns v homicide R03; http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... http://www.amjmed.com... http://www.vox.com... http://thinkprogress.org... http://www.motherjones.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://heinonline.org... http://tewksburylab.org... states with more gun control have less deaths than states with less gun control. following are some studies that indicate as much, including some literature reviews conclusing as much. you cant find literature review consensus finding different conclusions aside from a few shoddy studies. http://www.politifact.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://m.epirev.oxfordjournals.org... http://archinte.jamanetwork.com...
druken shood be good en world me ladeeh

--- Worldwide Drunkenness is Bad Pro is basically asserting that the entire world should be drunk (at least once and simultaneously). This would cause: 1: Alcholics to break abstinence and re-become alcoholics, damaging their lives. 2: Pregnant women to increase the liklihood of (a) a complication in her pregnancy, (b) a birth defect, and (c) Fetal Alcoholism Syndrome. 3: Drivers to crash, including soccer moms, freighter truck drivers, cruise ship captains, passenger plane pilots, passenger train conductors, and nuclear sub captains. 4: Greater amounts of liver disease. 5: Emergency room operators to be unable to operate and people (who will be spilling into emergency rooms after the aforementioned) to suffer and/or die. In addition, I don't recommend allowing a bear to f*** you, or anyone else, up the a**, or anywhere else. Bears are dangerous, especially if you are drunk, and even more if both you and the bear are drunk. --- RFD Summary: Conduct: Clear Con vote. Pro cursed, Con did not. Furthermore, 1 round debates are terrible. Grammar: Clear Con vote. Fer Crissake, LOEK aht eet! Arguments: Clear Con vote. Pro had no arguments and had the BOP, while Con raised 5 points against world drunkenness. Sources: No vote. None used.
druken shood be good en world me ladeeh

Ehh ladeehs eets batts. I want ta talk to ya aboot me ole tradeecion of drenkin good el ber. Na whn i get hungrey i go n' get me some ars am ih right? meh irus sausage hangs down to meh knees n' who dont likea good fackin? onley ting that makee a good ol fackin better tis some goud el ber. me mayo be sprayin out me sausag n da ber is so goud i weesh upun a stur a bear woud fack me up da bum? pleese explain why drunk is no good en da hole worl? rooles: 1. fack oof con 2. noo bein a wee prick
cause and effect is logic

thats it man, a first cause cant be caused, therfore its impossible, it defeats itself 1=1, never 0 a cause that didnt cause anything, isnt a cause, therfore any cause is caused by another cause, you see? all things are causal anything this is created or constructed is a machines, nature comes first, nature is not a machine, supernaure also comes after nature, as an extension of nature, like super man physical experience=absolute math=absolute=not belief you havnt adressed any of my examples of cause and effect
cause and effect is logic

I will address your points one point at a time.You stated: "a first cause cant be caused when a cause is something that causes.. is another way of putting it"Exactly my point. A first cause can't be caused. You stated: its a first cause that is self defeating. That doesn't follow from the above. You actually proved my point. You stated: its simple really. The proof is, that a cause is a cause, not not a cause. the claim that there is a first cause is where you are in trouble :) This is illogical. But I'll try anyways. Your argument is like this:Premise A: A cause is a cause.Premise B: A cause is not not a cause.Conclusion: Therefore first cause can't existDo I need to explain why this is a non sequitur? You stated: no uncaused causes can exist, thats the equevelant of being punched in the head out of nothing This is inproper explanation. I didn't claim that nothing is caused. Almost all things are caused. But you can't use an example in this form, because the example doesn't cover all possible scenarios. Your argument is similar to this: No women exist, because there are no women in a men's washroom. You stated: i have no presuppositions Yes you did. Your presuppostion was "nature is not created" (See argument from round 3). And again, my argument is valid regardless if you believe in naturalism or believe in God. You stated: know=physical experience That's not true. We know that number 5 is greater than number 4. Don't get me started! :-) You stated: there is no your and my logic, cause and effect is logicOh I see. I guess I lost the debate here. Here is effectively what you're trying to saying: Cause and effect is logic therefore cause and effect is logic!I rest my case your honor!
cause and effect is logic

a first cause cant be caused when a cause is something that causes.. is another way of putting it its a first cause that is self defeating. its simple really the proof is, that a cause is a cause, not not a cause. the claim that there is a first cause is where you are in trouble :) no uncaused causes can exist, thats the equevelant of being punched in the head out of nothing i have no presuppositions know=physical experience there is no your and my logic, cause and effect is logic