BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Due process is more important than national security

Resolved: That Due Process should be valued over National Security.Definitions:1. Due process http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... "A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious." More specifically due process can be defined as the government not limiting any of your constitutionally guaranteed rights, i.e. 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th 6th, 8th, 13, and 14th amendments. 2.Should http://dictionary.reference.com... "must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency)" 3. National Security https://www.google.com... "Measures adopted by the government of a nation in order to assure the safety of its citizens, guard against attack, and prevent disclosure of sensitive or classified information which might threaten or embarrass said nation." I'll be taking the side that due process should not necessarily be valued over national security. Now realize that I'm not arguing Due Process isn't important, but rather it should not always be valued over National Security. Remember keep it clean and appropriate. Out of the gate either accept ourdecline my definitions (in which place present your own). Ready set go!
Recreational Drugs should be Legalized in the United States of America

I negate: Recreational drugs should not be legalized on the United States of America Recreational Drugs: An often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness Legalized: To give legal validity or sanction to Should: Moral obligation Contention 1: Life and Health of Users. Lets be realistic, the vast majority of drugs are harmful or even deadly and extremely addictive. Legalizing drugs will put more people in the temptation of trying various substances that they are likely to get addicted to, causing health problems or death. Contention 2: Criminal Activity will be Increased Many drugs cause problems in a person's judgement. This may cause drug users to commit crimes while under the influence of the drug. As if drunk driving isn't enough for the police to deal with we would now have driving under the influence of hard hallucinogenic drugs that are far more dangerous Accident rates would rise sky high and many young people would die. Also people under the influence of drugs may murder, rape or rob without meaning to do so because their judgement is effected by the drugs. That way, otherwise decent people will spend time in jail, thus ruining their lives, not to mention the victims who might die, get raped or robbed etc. All this, because of a small mistake and without even breaking the law since drugs would be legal. Contention 3: Kids and Teens Will Have Easier Access to Drugs Just like cigarettes and alcohol, kids will have access to drugs through neighbourhood kiosks, mini marts etc. The usage of such substances may cause permanent damage to a growing child or teen's brain and health in general. Contention 4: Morality My opponent and I, are Christians and our religion is firmly against the use of drugs. Despite that, my opponent proposes to make an immoral action legal and I respond that the law needs to be close to the morality not opposite to it. Contention 5: Second Hand Smoking Second hand smoking is something we are aware of as a problem from smoking cigarettes. Imagine the damage of second hand smoking from hash, marijuana, or crack… Public health would be seriously affected and the problems it would cause to non-smokers who annihilate other's smoke would be huge. "I reserve the right to make new argument in the rest of the debate's Rounds Thank you very much, back to you jmlandf Alex "liberty
The 5 Seconds Of Summer Fandom Should Stop The #HPBI Movement

Tyranny noun noun: tyranny; plural noun: tyrannies -cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control -(especially in ancient Greece) rule by one who has absolute power without legal right The members of the HBPI movement are by definition, tyrants. they use their elder knowledge of the fandom to deceive and warn off new members of the fandom. One is not displayed as a "more virtuous person" as Con stated, if they use their knowledge and skill to put down an entire group of people down and expell them from the fandom. If your comparisons of fandom to life are assumed to be true, then hpbi is committing fandom genocide. Other groups of people that doubtlessly have gained much knowledge and wisdom in their field of expertise, yet are not revered by much of society because their actions are viewed as hateful and wrong: The WBC, The KKK, The Nazi-Hitler Regime, either side of the abortion argument by the other, and Boko Haram. I am not saying that I either support or do not support any of these groups. I am simply saying that a large group of society is against them due to their hate towards a certain group of people. Hate Group A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society. If a fandom is, indeed, a sector of society, then HBPI can be defined as a hate group, because they advocate hatred and hostility towards new fans. Therefore, even though they have been in the fandom longer, and that would warrant them a little more respect than a newer fan, they forfeit that respect in the eyes of all those against hate groups and fandom genocide, for that is what the movement was created to do.
The 5 Seconds Of Summer Fandom Should Stop The #HPBI Movement

Let's analyze pro's case piece by piece so that I can rebut in a strategic manner. Having liked something more than another is analogous to having lived more than another. Life and fandom are comparable. If one has been down the road of 'life' longer than another, they are inherently elders within that fandom compared with the newer fans. If you do Karate for 40 years or only for 12 years there is a world of difference in how much respect your dedication and loyalty will receive. So, doing something longer than other has, throughout history of mankind, been a reason to revere you as more virtuous an individual. This is not a matter of discrimination it's almost like saying that all old pensioner's clubs or old people's homes are a corrupt organization for people who happen to have joined society before others did. The fact is that the elders within the community (meaning those who have been part of the fandom longer, not those who are older in real life) have more experience and knowledge than the noobs about the band and its history and even if a noob was super-smart, they haven't shown the loyalty required to earn you respect within the community.
The 5 Seconds Of Summer Fandom Should Stop The #HPBI Movement

The reason that I started this debate was to emphasize that all fans are equal, and having liked something longer than another person does not necessarily make someone a better person or more of a "True Fan" than someone who only recently discovered the work of the artist in question. The band 5 Seconds of summer are gaining the fame that they deserve and have worked hard for, and just because one fan has liked them since 2011 and another since 2013 does not make the first fan more of a fan than the second fan. Making another "We Were Here Before This" movement a couple years from now would only be displaying the same kind of discrimination that newer members of the 5 Seconds Of Summer fandom are experiencing now. Therefore, having experienced the same kind of alienation this behavior elicits, many fans would opt out of that sort of thing. As for the "respect your elders" comment, I was not refering to the physical age of the fan, but the length of time the fan has been a fan of whatever they are a fan of, thus rendering your point moot. Your move, my most worthy opponent.
The 5 Seconds Of Summer Fandom Should Stop The #HPBI Movement

I am here to argue that the fanbase of the popular Australian band 5 Seconds Of Summer should stop the movement called Here Before Pony Invasion, also known as #HPBI. this was created by members of the fandom that have been fans for an extended period of time to identify the fand that were fans before the band became more popular. it is my opinion that all fans should be treated as equal, no matter what time that they joined the fandom. First round is for acceptance. May the best debater win.
Heaven exists, not God; science of Quad Helix rotation.

The practice of philosophy is corrupted, and has always been, especially in cases where "Quad Helix theory" is not employed. There was an argument presented to you but you have chosen, or have been forced to by 'word illness', to stand by the "Government-academic" doctrine of philosophy. The doctrine portrays that any theory outside of its law, is invalid. You and many others think, or are forced to by 'word-illness', that this law is sensible. You and others are submissive to laws, for no reason other than to negate positivity; to suppress the fluctuation of ideas outside of the realm of the academic body of knowledge, and against the academy mission. Contending the law in the face of adversity is an impossibility, so I choose to ignore it, and those who submit to it. The law makes sense, or is declared sensible, to an academic slave, but not to a human free of academia, and especially a human who theorises about freedom of word. The behaviour of academic slaves is not as sensible and formal as the laws of academia sound. They're formal when they're following the academic mission, which is leading us to a barren Earth, but not half of the time- half of the time they're stupid. Your non-argument consists of references to academic law, and lies. I have explained in the original post the Quad Helix theory. You didn't quote any specific part of the original statements, so I'll dismiss the rest of your argument as submission to academy, or your kinds signature compulsive lies. The whole original sentiment is a single idea by word, and lots of relating natures wordlessly. You've made no sense here; I'd like to see a quote and scrutiny on its premises, otherwise your argument is baseless. You've chosen, or been forced to by 'word illness', to dismiss my theory and not argue against it. This isn't a debate, it's is your 'love for academia'.
Heaven exists, not God; science of Quad Helix rotation.

Quad Helix transcends nature, it cannot be verified through a communication method, but can be verified by wisdom. It is the fundamental nature that all others are in the image of, image dei. Quad helix consists of 4 equal and opposite attributes: a central, rotation, revolution and realm. An image of Quad Helix (or realm) can be observed at the Sun and Planets in the solar system. The central Sun rotates, which causes the Planets to rotate, and revolve around the Sun. The realm is lower than the original Quad Helix realm, what I'm referring to as "Heaven", above and beyond our comprehension. The Sun and Planets realm is a fraction, and power of the Quad Helix realm, as it comes after, and is in the image of; it is lower in the hierarchy. Earth is a special planet that had manifested a Demi realm of each of the four realms in the universe, and it has evolved wise mammals, or Demi-Quad Helix. Humans may or may not transcend the Earth, and are wise of the transcended Quad Helix.
Atheism is a harmful belief

(caps for me) 1. Just because someone ...NOT "SOMEONE". MANY SCHOLARS. thought that those verses were contradiction does not make it so. http://www.philvaz.com...... This we page goes into detail of why many contradictions are wrong and explains the top 170 or so of them. WHAT DOES IT SAY IN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW? 2. I do know that crimes have different levels of punishment. However, you are implying something simply horrible. Are you claiming that it is okay to do these minor crimes since they have little punishments. A law is a law, no matter the punishment. By the logic you are implying, it's okay to murder if it outweighs the punishment. Drugs are a strong example. A law says no, people think they are above it, so they do drugs. That logic can be put with any crime. MORALITY WAS YOUR SUBJECT, NOT LAW. DRUGS ARE A POOR EXAMPLE. SEX IS THE MOST COMMON EXAMPLE. CRUEL BEHAVIOR, THE NEXT MOST. I DID NOT, IN ANY WAY, IMPLY THAT MURDER IS FINE RE: PUNISHMENT. I STATED, THAT DRUGS ARE A POOR EXAMPLE FOR A DISCUSSION OF MORALITY SINCE MOST DRUG MISUSE CAN BE HANDLED WITH PROPER FOOD-INTAKE. I STATED THAT THERE ARE BETTER EXAMPLES FOR A DISCUSSION OF MORALITY. 3. Does morality weaken with age? I am going to reason yes since it is well known that escalation occurs in addiction and crime all the time. You don't start doing heroine on your very first day ( I'm guessing most people don't that is). You start off with something weaker and go up. Most rapists didnt just do it one day out of the blue. Same with murders, and gang members. I would say that as long as atheists don't have a set line to them saying that it can't be crossed, they can go as far as they want and feel no self persecution. This is a dangerous thing when your only line between good and bad is a fake line you drew yourself. PLEASE, CHECK YOUR FACTS. THERE IS A REASON WHY CAR INSURANCE IS HIGHER FOR YOUNGER PEOPLE. YOUNGER PEOPLE MISBEHAVE MORE AND THEN, A BUNCH OF THEM DIE OFF - EVERY YEAR. ONLY THOSE WITH STRONGER IMPULSE-RESISTANCE AND THE WISDOM OF AGE ARE GRACED WITH LOWER INSURANCE RATES AND CONTINUING LIFE. 4. Not sure what you meant about the bible studying question. Detail it for me in the comments please if you would like. "State the nature of your study of the bible." THIS SENTENCE IS TELLING YOU TO STATE HOW, WHEN, WHERE AND WHY YOU STUDIED THE BIBLE. WAS IT IN THE NATURE OF JUST-READING-IT-ON-YOUR-OWN OR IN THE NATURE OF SEMINARY OR AFTER-CHURCH STUDY?
Atheism is a harmful belief

Thank you for your post. 1. Just because someone thought that those verses were contradiction does not make it so. http://www.philvaz.com... This we page goes into detail of why many contradictions are wrong and explains the top 170 or so of them. 2. I do know that crimes have different levels of punishment. However, you are implying something simply horrible. Are you claiming that it is okay to do these minor crimes since they have little punishments. A law is a law, no matter the punishment. By the logic you are implying, it's okay to murder if it outweighs the punishment. Drugs are a strong example. A law says no, people think they are above it, so they do drugs. That logic can be put with any crime. 3. Does morality weaken with age? I am going to reason yes since it is well known that escalation occurs in addiction and crime all the time. You don't start doing heroine on your very first day ( I'm guessing most people don't that is). You start off with something weaker and go up. Most rapists didnt just do it one day out of the blue. Same with murders, and gang members. I would say that as long as atheists don't have a set line to them saying that it can't be crossed, they can go as far as they want and feel no self persecution. This is a dangerous thing when your only line between good and bad is a fake line you drew yourself. 4. Not sure what you meant about the bible studying question. Detail it for me in the comments please if you would like.
Atheism is a harmful belief

http://ukiahcommunityblog.wordpress.com... and the lovely art to show you how MANY contradictions. "However, there are many things that are against the law that people do, like drugs and DUI. what makes them weak examples? Shouldn't all laws be on the same level, or are some lower than others since say it is?" Are you not aware that some crimes have different punishments than others? Out of all the crimes you could have chosen to use as examples of morality, you chose ones that have to do with hunger ( people are told to wait too long to eat ALL throughout our society. the body doesn't care. it gets hungry. suppressed hunger surfaces and humans put things, other than food on the inside...HARDLY immoral ) You could have used theft or cruelty-to-the-point-of-murder or, the classic subject for morality - sex. Seriously, using drugs and alcohol as examples for morality are EXTREMELY weak choices and many drugs are prescribed by doctors. You gave no proof of your claim that morality weakens with age. State the nature of your study of the bible.
Atheism is a harmful belief

I don't quite understand your statement of it being a poor example. Theft and murder will have harsh punishment. However, there are many things that are against the law that people do, like drugs and DUI. what makes them weak examples? Shouldn't all laws be on the same level, or are some lower than others since say it is? Also, many people claim that the Bible is filled with contradictions because they find one thing confusing and never study into it. You can provide contradictions, and I will love to answer them since I do study on them.
Atheism is a harmful belief

Saying that laws are not enough of a moral standard, and then, using drugs and alcohol as your example, is, in my opinion, a weak choice. Theft and murder are better examples. Your paragraph seems to state that morals weaken with age. You'd need proof to make that claim. It does not seem likely that you will find it since naughty people tend to die off while they are young and, only those who make an effort live long enough to age. ~ limited knowledge of something that cannot be known, is nonsense. Moreover, since the bible is LOADED with contradictions, stating that the bible is reliable is nonsense
Atheism is a harmful belief

Thank you for your reply. 1. In your reply, you stated how morals are hardwired into humans. I do agree with this, since humans seem to react to moral situations similarly. However, I believe that this morality is very basic and can be burned over time. You claim that laws also set a moral standard, however, this usually isn't so. Most people are ok with going against one part of the law. Look at how easy it is to get drugs. Or beer back when it was illegal. Atheists can claim that their inborn morality can hold them for life, but many times they end up relying on their limited knowledge of an aspect it is impossible to know about. This is where religion is good since it has knowledge you can rely on.
Atheism is a harmful belief

Charles Murray makes the point, in his book, "Human Accomplishment" that, there, really, was a time when the well-fed part of Europe surpassed, even China, with it's mental work but that that time is long gone and that the African American is the next, upper, piece of the Evolutionary Ladder. You might state that it is racist but, if the racial negatives are used improperly and in an unwarranted fashion, that is negative racism. If all the "racism" is actual facts and positive, it isn't racism. It is researched facts. Research facts find PLENTY wrong with us crackers. We have PLENTY of diabetes, skin cancer and alcoholism, enough to shut up and never brag about being white EVER. More importantly, eugenics aside, it might not be a bad idea if we ALL had fewer children and made some sort of effort to weed out things like my copious varicose veins (THANKS mom, grandma, great grandma (etc) ) One study never shows the whole picture. Consider how studies are done. One question is arranged so that the data will not get muddy (as much as possible) and then, the funding is arranged for ONLY that question. If you want more money, you need a new question. So, bringing up one study is not good evidence. Moreover, so many studies have been done about the brain that, college and graduate-level courses are available that make the study that you are touting, laughable. Morality is hard-wired in humans and "lower" vertebrates. ...old news...VERY old news. Here is a new book on that old subject: Touching a Nerve: The Self as Brain Patricia S. Churchland and a course that you can buy: Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking Skills & Optimizing Brain Fitness (Set) www.thegreatcourses.com Atheists do have a set of morals, aside from what is hardwired. Those are called "laws".
Atheism is a harmful belief

I will keep it quick. 1. Evolution is racist- I claim that evolution is mostly an atheistic idea since it usually held by most atheists. Evolution is racist in several ways. Charles Darwin's book's full name was The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. "Favored races" is a dangerous. It is known that Charles Darwin himself considered Caucasians above Asians and Africans. This can be shown even in modern times. . http://m.washingtontimes.com...-/ This is an article in the last few months talking about a white man knocking out a black man, claiming that the black man hadn't experienced the "blessing of evolution". 2. It affects morality- I put a link down in the comments already talking about this. Basically, a study showed that everyone considers atheists less moral than religious people. Even atheists rated atheism lower than religion. This is odd since most people will be biased toward their group. If atheists will rate themselves lower, that may be because. .. 3. Atheism has no set morals- a big problem I have seen from atheists is that they look at people who do bad stuff for Christianity and says that's the religion. In reality, you must look at the actual religion, like in the Bible. Christianity is the most loving belief in existence when you learn the actual religion. Atheists don't have this. You can't say atheism is moral, since all atheists think they are moral. They draw their own lines to not cross. This has been misused many times. For one example, several years ago there was a major court case that happened. A man took a drunk, passed out girl home with him and had intercourse with her. He was charged with rape (obviously). At which point, many people claimed that the man was in the good. For a large number of people, it is moral to have sex with a passed out girl. To them, crossing that line is fine.
Atheism is a harmful belief

My mother was raised in a very Catholic family. If she had stayed religious, she would have been VERY poor and done NOTHING but pump out too many children to feed. As a result of defying the church, she finished college. She did not teach us to be atheists but she did not prefer to discuss the bible, ever. I decided to defy her ideas and read the bible myself, in secret...just me and god. The bible was so stupid that I came to atheism all by myself. Later, I tried to find what ever it is that ever one loves about religion and had myself baptized and got very serious about religion. I, really, did try. The promises are big and pretty.
Atheism is a harmful belief

I will like this debate to be taken only by an atheist, no devil advocates. The debate is simple, is atheism good, helpful, or ethical to have. I believe that religion helps more that atheism. You can either argue that atheism is best for an individual, or as a nation, I don't mind. THE ONLY CATCH: to accept the debate, you must provide the name of someone who has been helped by atheism. Someone whose life was going bad, he turned atheist, and he did a turnaround in his life. This may seem odd, but please don't skip this.