BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheists should have their own Constution and Bill of Rights.

First a quote from Atheist Alliance International: "We don't care what they say in order to get elected in this religious country. We care about what kind of judges they give us on the Supreme Court . . . I don't care what kind of verbal obeisance they pay to religion if that's what it takes to get a person in the White House who will give us church-state separationists on the Supreme Court. -- (Atheist, Edward Tabash, on Democratic Candidates) The very foundation of the Atheist movement is based on deception in order to take control of Govt' and not allow anyone with religious beliefs to hold office. It has been and will continue to be the agenda of organized Atheists to destroy the very foundation this country was built upon. Every single person without exception who framed the Constitution believed in God. They all believed that God made this nation possible and that God would bless it. The Atheist agenda wants to completely eliminate from existence any reference from religion anywhere in public and that includes your front yard. It is the agenda of organized Atheists to make the United States a Godless country. It is their agenda to eliminate the first amendment and replace religion with the govt. I, as a person who believes in god have to be sensitive to atheists because they might be offended by the sight or sound or anything pertaining to religion or God in a public forum according to current bastard rulings under the law. But an Atheist can take a picture of Jesus and sit in the middle of town square and smear dog crap all over it without impunity. There clearly is a double standard already taking place and it is just the beginning. That is why they should make their own constitution and bill of rights. WE, THE RELGIOUS PEOPLE WERE HERE FIRST. WE DONOT WANT A GODLESS COUNTRY.
Atheists should have their own Constution and Bill of Rights.

I think you're making some serious misunderstandings. The biggest one that the founders of the constitution necessarily meant 'God'. I believe strongly that they were speaking more of 'Natural Rights', which may be described as coming from God, but only simply to mean that people were born with them. Natural rights are rights you are born with, it is not a far leap to assume that 'God' gave you those rights. However, Natural rights still exist regardless of whether or not God is in the equation, the adding of God is simply a semantic decision. To suggest that atheists can not be afforded with natural rights simply because of the word 'God' in front of it is wrong. Just because somebody claimed that these rights came from God does not mean they did (Argument to Authority), so it is very possible that these rights exist outside of God. Natural rights are not contradictory to atheism. An atheist can believe in something a Christian does without being contradictory. Christians tend to believe (as per the bible) that living is a pretty good thing. Would that mean it was contradictory to support their own lives and to not commit suicide? All of the rights listed in the Constitution are secular. While some of them may pertain to Christians as well as non-Christians, they are all secular. Even natural rights are secular. The rights to Life, Liberty, and Property are separate from God, regardless of whether or not the creators believed that these rights were derived from God, or if they were simply drawing a parallel in order to show that people were born with those rights.
Atheists should have their own Constution and Bill of Rights.

Since Atheists don't believe in god they should have to make their own rights and laws and be separated from the current Constitution and Bill of Rights. Since the the Preamble to the Constitution states that all men are endowed by God to certain inalienable rights, Atheists should not be afforded these rights because they are endowed by God and for people who believe in God. You can not say that atheists can have rights that God created, they don't' believe in God therefore can't believe in any rights created by God. And furthermore they should not be able to copy any of the rights listed in our current Constitution because that would be contradictory to Atheism.
Facebook should allow the users to use the nickname.

As stated by Facebook, your main name can only be the name as your acceptable ID would show. Furthermore, only names that are shortcuts of your legal name can be used. And I think we are already agreeing with each other. If you said that Facebook currently allowed nicknames, and you have nothing against it, then logically you agree that Facebook SHOULD allow users to use nicknames right? xD I never mentioned anything about an extra slot for nickname or anything. As far as I know, your main name has to be your legal name or shortcuts of it, and I am arguing against it. If you believe that Facebook already do that, then you should agree with me xD
Facebook should allow the users to use the nickname.

My opponent has misunderstood the facebook rules. This is the page on which the rules of usernames are located: More specifically: In case you cannot read what that says I'l quote it here in text: "Nicknames can be used as a first or middle name if they're a variation of your authentic name" [1]It also says: "You can also list an additional name on your account (ex: maiden name, nickname, professional name)." [1]I do not want facebook to allow me to use nicknames because it isn't necessary because they already do. [1] https://www.facebook.com...;
Facebook should allow the users to use the nickname.

I think we are having a very unfortunate misunderstanding right now xD I am not suggesting that there should be extra space for an extra nickname. And currently, Facebook do NOT allow users to use a nickname, unless it is a shortcut of the authentic legal name [1]. Facebook users can now be reported for using a "fake" name, and they would have to show an acceptable ID card to proof that their name on FB is their legal name. Therefore, I am arguing to support the view that Facebook should stop this real name policy, and changed back to the previous state. And because you believe that Facebook now allows users to use nickname, I think that you already agree with me on this debate xD [1]: https://www.facebook.com...
Facebook should allow the users to use the nickname.

Name vs UsernameMy opponent's position is invalid based on the fact that facebook already allows users to use their nickname [1]. Due to this fact I do not believe that Facebook should allow users to use their nicknames because it's unneccessary. There is a box where you can fill in your name however the key word is "username" [1]. Due to this fact, you are not obliged to use your real name because username =/= real name [2]. My opponent (based on their contentions) wishes that we should have a new section for nicknames. This is unnecessary since you can already do this [1]. Also, if facebook do reorganize then it will cost them money for their web design. It would cost over $500,000 however since the change isn't necessarily definite it could be much higher [3]. This may not be much in terms of the money that facebook has, but even so, this is pointless since we already have this option. $500,000 is a large amount of money that could be better spent on fairer employee wages [4]. It could also be given to charity which is a thing that Facebook takes very seriously [5]. The resolution is easily negated via the Kritik presented. Vote the negating case, vote Con! [1]https://en-gb.facebook.com... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org...;[3]http://thenextweb.com...;[4]https://www.glassdoor.co.uk...;[5]https://en-gb.facebook.com...;
Facebook should allow the users to use the nickname.

I really appreciate it. Just to make sure that we are on the same page, I would like to put some definitions: 1. Users refer to anyone who uses a Facebook account. 2. Nickname is any kind of name refer to a person, other than his legalized name. I am going to point out that there are no real benefits from forcing the users to use their real name, and therefore users should have their freedom to choose whatever kind of name they want. The main reasons for Facebook real name policy is to reduce abusive actions online. As Mark Zuckerberg stated "people are much less likely to try to act abusively towards other members of our community when they"re using their real names. "[1] and "When people use the names they are known by, their actions and words carry more weight because they are more accountable for what they say. " [2] However, the problems is not increasingly serious and it cannot be blamed on technology and anonymity, thus real name policy won't entirely or effectively solve cyberbullying. 1. Most people who cyberbully are acquaintance of the victim. 82% of the victims say that the ones who bullied them are either from their school, or a friend, or an ex-friend or ex-girlfriend/boyfriend. This proves that most of the victims know who the aggressor are, making anonymity a rather irrelevant factor in this case. Moreover, since Facebook debut in 2004, cyberbullying has not increased: in fact the percentage of teenagers who report being cyber bullied has decreased from 22% to 15% (from 2003 and 2008) [3] 2. Not only does real name policy not effectively and clearly solve cyber bullying in general, it actually puts more people at risk Many people, such as porn actors, sexual abused victims, drag kings or queens, are likely to receive harassment. Therefore, they need to use an alternative name to hide away from their acquaintance and possible hate speech. However, the real name policy has taken that right from them. There were intense emotions from about 80 members of LGBT communities who wanted their safety protected during a Facebook public panel [4] Furthermore, Facebook is requiring users to provide their IDs to prove that the name they are using is legalized. Meanwhile, Facebook has not announced any measure to protect those personal information. Social activists need some level of anonymity for their own safety, and Facebook are forcing them to hand in their personal data. An example is Kitty Stryker, a Bay Area activitst. [5] In conclusion, the benefits that real name policy brings about is questionable. It is not clear whether anonymity greatly affects cyber bullying, and there is actually evidence that suggests otherwise. Meanwhile, this policy puts many people under threat, such as LGBT, social activists, porn actors, . .. There are no clear and absolute benefits to be gained, and therefore people should have the freedom, to choose the name that they want. [1]: . http://thinkprogress.org... [2]:. http://www.bbc.com... [3]: . http://www.cnet.com... [4]: . http://money.cnn.com... [5]: . http://money.cnn.com...
Child molesters should be tortured to death.

<< >> But they are human. << >> Even the worst form of evil in the world does not deserve to be tortured to death. <<>> How can you not feel compassion for someone who is so twisted- either born that way through no choice of their own, or made that way by society, again through no choice of their own- someone so confused about right and wrong, or helpless to do what is right? How can you feel no compassion for someone who was once a child like those you want to protect, and had parents that loved them, or never was fortunate enough to? For someone who was victimized until they knew nothing but to do to others what had been done to them? << >> How do you know? Maybe they can't help it, maybe their brains are wired in a way that they can't resist the compulsion to hurt children, maybe they do care and don't want to destroy that child's life but can't resist it, maybe they do feel remorse, maybe they don't knowingly do it, don't understand what they're doing, and the consequence of what they're doing. << >> You should care because no matter what he does, he is human. And even if you don't care about the child molesters, what about their friends and family who are innocent, who already have to deal of the horror of having someone they love be a child molester. Is it fair to make them go through having their loved one tortured to death? And if we say it is okay to torture to death child molesters, where does it stop? What about child murderers? What about rapist/murderers who do horrible things to adults? What about murderers? Rapists? Where do you draw the line? You might draw it at child molesters, but others might think that brutally raping and torturing someone older also deserves this punishment. No one is qualified to make these judgement calls, to decide what fate others deserve. And how will it help anything? If someone is not prevented from molesting a child by knowing it is wrong, not prevented from doing it by the fear of jail time, and of what happens to child molesters in jail, why would harsher punishment stop them? If you don't think about the consequences, harsher consequences aren't going to change anything. Child molesters probably don't think, "Well, going to jail is worth it," they just don't think about it, or can't control themselves. You want to protect children from child molesters, from having their innocence stolen away from them, but is it any better to have them live in a world where people are tortured to death? As Clarence Darrow said, "Every effort toward humanizing the world, every effort in dealing with crime and punishment has been toward charity and mercy and better conditions, and has been in the direction of showing that all men are at least partly good, and all men are partly bad, and that there isn't so much difference in men as we had been taught to believe. Every effort that will last beyond the day and the year must have its basis in charity and pity and humanity, or else it cannot live."
Child molesters should be tortured to death.

Yes, I'd do it myself. Child molesters arent worth even considering on a human level they should be treated like the worst form of evil in the world, and given no compassion what so ever in my opinion of course. They prey on innocence and destroy it for ever. They knowingly do it, and don't care how they are going to permanently destroy that child's life. Why should I care about his life or how he feels about anything.
Child molesters should be tortured to death.

I used to think the same as you did in your argument. Now I have two children. I can assure you that If I caught someone sexually abusing my children, all the amendments in the world would not save him or her from my wrath. I wouldn't even report it because he would just be set free anyway to molest more children. Who cares why they do it. I don't. I'll quote a quote, The justice system we have isn't perfect, but it's the only one we have. People are accused wrongly all the time. I might consider life in prison without parole if all the evidence is circumstantial, but being caught red handed' no f'en way. An agonizing death is the best deterrence. As far as child molesters go, not deserving to be tortured, I don't see a problem with it, they are subhuman scum.
Child molesters should be tortured to death.

First of all, I want to make it clear that I am not advocating child molestation. Hurting a child is absolutely horrible. So is torturing people to death. No one, no matter what they have done, deserves that. The eight amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and torturing people to death is undeniably cruel and unusual punishment. I see that your argument is not that it is legal, just that it should be done, but the eight amendment is there for a reason. No matter how horrible of an act someone commits, it does not, and should not, give society the right to do something equally bad. Two wrongs do not make a right. And what if the person accused of being a child molester is innocent? Children are often manipulated into accusing someone of molesting someone when it never really occurred. If child molesters were to be tortured to death, it is almost certain that innocent people would be too. We don't know why people molest children. Is it because they are evil people, or because there is something wrong with their brain that makes them unable to help it? We may someday find out that it is the latter, maybe even that it can be cured. And even if someone is guilty of being a child molester, and they did do it merely because they are an evil person who wants to hurt children, society cannot condone torturing them to death. No matter how horrible child molestation is, child molesters are still human. Can you really argue that a human being, any human being, should be tortured to death?
Should We Protect the Identity of Young Criminal Offenders Convicted with Criminal Offences

When they get another chance in life, they would be eager to do something good with their life. If this was true, then why are there repeat youth offenders? This is a baseless assumption. They are the perfect candidates for rehabilitation. Every youth is subjugated to rehabilitation. Clearly, it isn’t working. The problem is stigma and prejudice. They already know crime does not pay much. What society may teach them is: in their situation, avoiding crime pays even less. This may lead them back to the criminal world. Once again, kids are already returning to the criminal world for various reasons. We need to try something different. I have already mentioned in R2, it is an assumption to assume that we are stigmatizing these kids. I am certain that this will make it very difficult for them to get a job. This is incorrect. At age 18, your criminal record is wiped clean unless you have committed murder. If the brutal “civilized” world refuses to entertain them, what alternative do they have except to go back to the world of crime? Yet communities actively participate and support the rehabilitation of adult criminals, yet they wouldn’t for a child? And following your assumption that these kids aren’t repeat offenders, why fear them? We are not encouraging people to stigmatize, ostracize, and prejudice these kids, but the public has a right to know and a right to safety. These kids are not habitual offenders. Incorrect, some kids are. They deserve a chance. We are giving them a chance, we aren’t denying them rehabilitation or anything. So what about public safety? I would suggest we should be careful about our neighbors Yet safety is always easier to accomplish if you have knowledge. This way you don’t treat everybody walking up the street as a criminal, everything is easier if you have knowledge. My opponent thinks that we should humiliate the young convicts all over the media. I have never said that we should purposely humiliate them, yet the mere fact that they are on the news will be a major deterrent. The conventional methods aren’t working. It may still be possible in the unlikely event that everyone around them is extremely positive and supportive. Yet these people are! Rehabilitation with the support of family and friends will always be more successful. How can someone support and help someone when they don’t know who they are! Most people do not give a benefit of doubt to “convicted felon living next door. ” My opponent has said that these kids aren’t repeat offenders, thus, what will the public have to worry about? As I have already said, rehabilitation is still possible and my opponent has failed to negate this point. My opponents entire case revolves around a stigma, yet a stigma is not what we are putting on these kids. We aren’t assuming every child is a repeat offender, because they aren’t, yet some are and the public has a right to know and a right to safety. My opponent hasn’t fulfilled his BOP, he hasn’t even provided any arguments.
Should We Protect the Identity of Young Criminal Offenders Convicted with Criminal Offences

I accept the changes made by my opponent. C1: PUBLIC SAFETYThis principle is the same principle as if you are a patient diagnosed with HIV. You are required by law to tell your sexual partners that you have HIV for their safety. This is the same principle. If someone is coming into your neighbourhood that has a been a repeat offender, wouldn't you like to know who they are? My opponent may argue for a right to privacy, but the right to safety of the public far outweighs the right to privacy of that child. We don't know if these kids will be repeat offenders. Wouldn't you like to know if there is a convicted felon living next door? My opponent may argue that this would mean that we are applying a stigma to these kids, yet that is not what we are doing. I recognize the fact that not every child will be a repeat offender, yet there are kids who are. The fact that people will know about what you did will also act as a deterrent. C2: DETERRENCEThe fact that everyone will know what crime you committed, this will act as a major deterrent for crime. Kids are scared of being humiliated, laughed at, teased, etc. etc. Now imagine a child being humiliated on a nation wide scale. The idea is of course terrifying for kids and acts as a strong deterrent for kids who are about to commit crimes. It also severs to show others the penalty and the consequences of being in a gang, committing crimes, theft etc. C3: REHABILITATION IS STILL POSSIBLE EVEN WITH PUBLIC KNOWLEDGERehabilitation is still possible even if the public knows about the crimes that these youth commit. If the community supports the rehabilitation of a certain youth, it can even make the rehabilitation even more effective. Anything anyone tries will generally be more successful if the proper support and the proper encouragement is given. The support of an entire community might make rehabilitation for these kids possible.
Should We Protect the Identity of Young Criminal Offenders Convicted with Criminal Offences

My opponent has left many rules of the debate unclear. In this round I shall try to clear them up. I shall do my best to be fair.1. At present the resolution is in form of query rather than statement. The resolution should be read as:We Should Protect the Identity of Young Criminal Offenders Convicted with Criminal Offences. Ishallannoyyo will argue that we should not protect the identity of young criminal offenders (YCO) and I shall argue that their identities should be protected.2. Burden of Proof is shared. Both the debaters must prove theire cases to win the debate. By default, this debate would be a tie.3. First round is for acceptance. Arguments can be presented in Round 2 & 3. No new arguments will be presented in Round 4. I sincerely hope that this framework will allow us to have a serious and informative debate. Waiting for opening arguments from ishallannoyyo.