BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Validity of Ludwig Feuerbach's Theory of Religion

Ludwig Feuerbach's theory of religion is extremely valid. Religion is something that was passed on through word of mouth. The religious texts read, they're just written by people who are self acclaimed to be inspired by god. Does this mean I could write a book and say it's inspired by a god and it means that it's not from the human mind but actually written by god? And the contents of the book are from god? Also, if the father isn't a real guy, and is just a spirit, then how is it not created by the human mind? Things either exist physically or mentally, so since god isn't physical, he is mental. He exists in our heads and that can't be argued. Religion is a mindset that helps people have something to follow, something to feel good about. People feel that if they don't follow a religion they're bad people, because nobody has ever praised an atheist for being an atheist! But once someone finds god, they're praised by all of the others who have found god and have decided that religion isn't a mental thing but just exists somewhere. No, religion is nothing but a mindset to help those who are scared of death and the afterlife, find something to believe in and have faith in. People who follow a religion admittedly have no actual proof god exists, they're just hoping.
Neonatal male genital mutilation should be made illegal in developed nations

I am repeating this debate. If you would like to accept, leave a comment. I was dissatisfied with the debate last time, partially because my opponent forfeited a round and partially because, after a week, the vote was tied zero-zero. Nothing has changed this time (other than the voting period being extended to two weeks), so the debate will still be a five-round debate with 72 hours and 8000 characters per argument. As I have the burden of proof, my opponent may wish to simply accept during Round One, but I encourage him/her to at least provide a summary of the points that they will be arguing and some important definitions, if necessary. Basic points that I will be arguing, in order of gravity: 1. That neonatal male genital mutilation permanently removes healthy, functional tissue without consent, and it should therefore be made illegal. 2. That neonatal male genital mutilation reduces sexual pleasure in later years. 3. That neonatal male genital mutilation is a gender rights issue. 4. (smaller point) That neonatal male genital mutilation causes extreme pain to the victim. 5. (smaller point) That neonatal male genital mutilation can cause numerous complications. Unless stated to the contrary, the following terms mean as defined here: 1. Neonatal male genital mutilation (MGM): The removal, shortly after birth, of the male foreskin. 2. Neonatal female genital mutilation (FGM): The removal, shortly after birth, of the female clitoris and clitoral hood. To be clear, my position is that both male and female genital mutilaiton should be illegal until the age of 18 in developed nations for any reason other than medical necessity. My opponent will argue that MGM should remain legal to be performed shortly after birth for any reason (Medical, health, aesthetic, religious). Comment if you wish to accept.
Those with heightened racial/gender/etc. sensitivity are dangerous to society.

I typically reserve the most vitriolic of attacks on those who are most deserving. For the record, your arguments have no merit whatsoever. Your justification for murder is "hey who knows, maybe you'll murder the next Hitler." And as I said, I don't dislike you personally. I just dislike how you took this debate when you had no arguments at your disposal. If someone was arguing: "Universal Healthcare is good for America" You could respond with the same stupid argument of I'm not god, so who knows. If someone was arguing: "Smoking in public areas is bad for America" You could respond with the same stupid argument of I'm not god, so who knows. If someone was arguing: "Terrorists are bad for America" You could respond with the same stupid argument of I'm not god, so who knows. If someone was arguing: "Killing those who disagree with my points of view is bad for America" You could respond with the same stupid argument of I'm not god, so who knows. Do you see why your argument is so flawed yet?
Those with heightened racial/gender/etc. sensitivity are dangerous to society.

IF insults are how you debate then you can win this debate I don't care about it anymore, but for the record in your arguments you are talking about the individual not the society I.E. (murder is bad for the individual yes, but bad for society I don't know you could be killing the next Hitler) IF you ever want to argue without out insults then take a challenge but if this is how you debate, go trade insults with a novice. Vote for me if you want to but I'm not submitting a 3rd argument.
Those with heightened racial/gender/etc. sensitivity are dangerous to society.

It's sad to see a perfectly good debate topic wasted on someone of such profound unsurpassed stupidity. And just as depressing to have to expend time and energy responding to such insipid arguments. But be that as it may, since the person I originally challenged declined to accept, it appears I have no choice but to respond to the person who took my challenge. (Please don't take this personally. I have nothing against you per say, just the garbage you post) The summation of Con's argument is: "what a society believes to be good for it is not necessarily good for it." "WE CAN NOT KNOW IF SOMETHING IS DANGEROUS TO SOCIETY OR NOT." and "So unless my opponent can prove that he is omniscient he can not uphold his own resolution" (with spelling corrected) and as an example he cited Prohibition. It annoys me to have to respond to an argument that collapses on its own lack of merits. If we accept the argument made by Con, we do not know if racism is bad for society. The KKK, who knows? Slavery, ehh, maybe good, maybe bad. Murder, larceny, rape, pillaging, torture on American citizens, who knows? Maybe good for society, certainly we can't be sure that it's dangerous to society because, after all, no one's omniscient. Are terrorists dangerous to American society? How bout the National Debt? How about massive rates of unemployment? Dangerous to society? I don't know. I'm not omniscient. How can I possibly argue these things are dangerous to society. I simply cannot know for sure. There are many things we cannot know for sure. Just because I believe arsenic is dangerous to my health, well, I can't know for sure can I? Onto my arguments, they have not been addressed. Any of them. Those with heightened racial sensitivity are oppressive to society, endanger free speech, obstruct the resolution of racial tension, and jeopardize the spirit of humor. Therefore they are dangerous to society.
Those with heightened racial/gender/etc. sensitivity are dangerous to society.

To start things out I would like to submit the following definitions. Danger: liability or exposure to harm or injury; risk; peril. Society: a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members: American society. Let it stand for this debate that as the Pro did not set a society in which we are discussing we should assume we are speaking about the world society. So for someone to be dangerous to society they must cause harm to the society as a whole. I would like to submit the following observation that what a society believes to be good for it is not necessarily good for it. An example of this would be Prohibition. We believed that banning alcohol would be good for our society, but it obviously wasn't. Therefore my sole contention is as follows WE CAN NOT KNOW IF SOMETHING IS DANGEOUS TO SOCIETY OR NOT. One might say that something is dangerous to the current mindset of a society but one can not say that something is dangerous to society because they don't know what will accualy be a good thing or a bad thing.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

The Aborigines were treated unfairly and with disrespect and we cant ignore this fact. Australia Day is the time when we celebrate how much we love our country but it also needs to recognise the Aborigines who were here before uWe should make Australia Day on a date that symbolises not just the white Australians, but the Indigenous, Torres Strait Islanders and every Australian who calls this country home. By changing the date it will aspire Australia to become a better country than what it already is by including and welcoming everyone. Our history is in the past, We need to recognises what happened to create a better Australia, an Australia where we are inclusive of all people, the people of this land and others that have joined to create this beautiful country and call it their home". That"s Australia Day.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

I don't now what you celebrate Australia day for but i believe it has a meaning. It's one ay a year to show how much we love our country. As i said before the indigenous Australians were not kicked out in fact they have many good privileges such as education, housing, clean food and water etc. Without all of these resources i don't know if the Aboriginals would even be here in our world
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

"British Invasion Day" are not just words, it is our history. The fact is, that when the first fleet arrived, the British didn"t acknowledge the Indigenous people and decided to take over their land. They displaced and forced the Aborigines out of THEIR land, they disrespected the Aborigines and didn't take the time to understand THEIR culture and traditions. The Europeans just claimed THEIR land as their own as soon as they arrived. As well as this, White settlement brought new illness and diseases to Australia that killed many Indigenous people and affected the number of Aboriginal births. All these factors resulted in reducing the Indigenous population from 30,000 in 1835 to between 3000-5000 in 1850. Even though the Europeans developed Australia it could have been done in a way that included the original owners of Australia, not how it was done by ignoring them. The Director of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research at the University of Sydney, Professor Jakelin Troy states "There are languages gone, people gone, there are cultural histories, knowledges that are gone as a result of 1788.". Although Australia a great country and we should be proud to live here we need to be honest about our past and be respectful of the Indigenous people. Changing the date and recognising the Aboriginals will show respect and will be the best thing we could do to make a Australia the best country it can be. Give the day a meaning, that we are ALL proud and we ALL want to celebrate instead of some people mourning while others are enjoying a day off work.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

'British Invasion Day' are just words. You call it invasion day but without the first fleet you wouldn't be here with your family, feeling safe, getting a good education. Aborigines didn't get kicked out of their country they are still living here, they get looked after and the government look out for them and their wellbeing as well. We celebrate Australia day to celebrate our country and appreciate what we have in our lives.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

Invasion Day, A day of mourning an "anniversary of the White man's seizure of our country" is what Australia Day means to the Aboriginal people of our land. The 26th of January 1788 was not the time when The first Fleet entered Australia, it was when they invaded Australia. It is the day when we celebrate the time when Europeans took and destroyed the Aboriginals land, culture and traditions. Celebrating Australia Day on the 26th is cruel, disrespectful and insensitive to Indigenous Australians. Adam Thompson who is a Community Education Worker at the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre states that Australia Day is "... a day of mourning because it does symbolise the invasion of our land" While most non- indigenous Australians are 'celebrating' Australia Day with a day off work, going to the beach, having a barbeque; the Aboriginal people are protesting about the day the Europeans took away their freedom. Since most Australians are not really concerned about whether the date is in the 26th, let"s change it for the people that do care.
Teenage boys talking to young girls should not be considered bizarre

You give the example of a guy alone with you at night running at you, and with the type of clothing you describe. However, this example is a false analogy because there are many things irregular with HOW the man in this example is doing things, which include him coming quickly, him having drooping pants, and him doing it at night when the two of you are alone. In my example, my mistake has a supposed irregularity with WHO he is doing it with, yet the activity in and out of itself is entirely normal and the children having a relation with someone older is not necessarily a bad thing if you consider parents, older brothers and cousins, and teachers. The problem lies with the teenage boy being a stranger. However, the problem with this is that you do not know what kind of person he is, and you do not know why he would go through the trouble of starting a conversation. However, if he IS a trustable person, and people knew, and if he had no problem with starting a conversation and he isn't going out of his way, and if he is only talking to children has an extra supplement to his social life, why shouldn't he talk to children? I did not advocate PREFERRING to hang out with children, I said preferring SOMETIMES, which means it must depend on the type of mood he is in. Lastly, you claim people have the right to be suspicious even if there is nothing wrong with what the teenager is doing, however, this argument is flawed. In the examples I gave in my first argument, I was getting bad TREATMENT because of my choice of companion, not an awareness of the possibility that I was a pedophile and extra precautions being taken when they did not know me well enough to make a solid judgement.
Teenage boys talking to young girls should not be considered bizarre

Thank you for having me for this debate.I thought about what you said for a while. I have an autistic brother and he does many of the same things. He often talks with younger girls and they usually have a blast if they're playing or something. But it's still my opinion that it should be seen as strange, or, as you put it, bizarre.Think about it this way: You're walking down the street around dark. You're completely alone, except you see this large guy with drooping pants, backwards cap, lotta bling, and a weird symbol on his shirt, and he's coming straight for you moving kinda fast. What's your first thought? That he's gonna ask for the time? No; your first thought is, "This guy's gonna kill/rob/maim me." And you'd be right to do so... a little stereotyping in a situation like this is not a bad thing. You're perfectly justified in thinking that, four times out of five, this guy doesn't want to have a friendly chat.You're that one in five. You're the large dude on the street who really just wants to know the time. It is abnormal to see a person who's, say, 16 or older talking to little girls when there's the option of talking to friends or family of the same age or older around. It's reasonable to think that it's somebody who has some weird thing for children. Four times out of five, this is the case. Four times out of five, adults only talk to children for extended periods of time for some deeper purpose. Now, I'm not saying like anybody who has talked to kids is a pedophile or whatever. But preferring to hang out with them when there are peers you could talk to is abnormal.So, I'm not saying that you should feel bad or whatever for hanging out with young girls. That's your mental state, and that's how you socialize at all, so more power to you. But it's perfectly reasonable for "normal" people to think that's questionable because, four times out of five, it is. If you're gonna be that big guy on the street late at night, you gotta understand that people won't think you're trying to get the time.
Teenage boys talking to young girls should not be considered bizarre

First off, I will tell you why I find this topic to be of importance. I have Asperger's Syndrome, and now as a teen, like many other "aspies" I got along better sometimes with children of a younger age, either of a slight age difference or more, even though I was not less mature than most boys my age, in fact, far from it. Because of my maturity, and my skills at understanding people like a psychologist, I was able to gain insight into those children, and develop a tolerance for them. I also was attracted to the hedonistic yet unselfish, sincerity and surprising breed of down-to-earth simplicity of children, while wanting to be a protector and mentor to them. However, I realized something. Society did not view my intentions as innocent. Everywhere I got dirty looks and words and my own brother called me a child stalker, while my mother treated the matter as one of shame and embarrassment. My father did not even let me talk to my 9-year old COUSIN when I was 14, even though the girl's parents had no opposition to it. There are a multitude of reasons for this. The media reports shocking stories of child kidnapping and child molestation every day, and puts viewers under its spell of fear and anxiety, causing them to obey every command out of fear that their children will be raped, which has become the number 1 taboo in American society. However, this is exaggerated. First off, the accused pedophiles or "pedophiles" fall under 3 categories: Very aggressive, criminal troublemakers who do it for the thrill, people with subconscious issues, and those who have about the same motivations and attitude toward children as a schoolteacher. The former two categories consist of real pedophiles, whose intentions are to harm children, or even teens. But the latter is not an issue because the end result is not going to be an unhealthy friendship or even molestation, but simply a mentor/mentee relationship. The teenager involved knows that the children is inexperienced and less knowledgeable, and they know that they are the superior, and they know about higher thinking, such as the debate we're having right now. But why not have fun being silly if you know its good fun, and its only to aid the child and give you a sense of accomplishment, knowing you can reach down despite the fact that you know what lies above? And why not teach someone if you are a good person, even if society has no way of knowing because they can't read your thoughts. What needs to happen is preventing the end result, not the initial step, because only later down the road does the initial step become corrupted. Lastly, I want to say that teens themselves can in some cases be mature enough to be the mentor. An example is me, because I grew up in a conservative family. For me, there was never any alcohol, smoking, drugs, gambling, any THOUGHTS about premarital sex, skipping school, not telling the teacher when someone is being bullied, etc. Even at age 14.
the golden rule in application is unclear

Once again, Burden of Proof is on you to show that the Golden Rule is in fact unclear in application. It is not on me to show that it is clear. The arguments that you have provided do not affirm the resolution. Your main method of argument has been questioning. This is Shifting the Burden of Proof. You are the claimant. You have BoP, unless we agree otherwise. Not only that, but you are also giving no real rebuttal against my explanation. You simply call it "inadequete". Once again, Burden of Proof rests on you. You must give the audience a strong case for the affirmation of the resolution. You have not done that here. Rather, you have made this a debate where you make a claim and then ask me to refute it. That is not how debate works.
the golden rule in application is unclear

"Physical intervention is only one way in which someone can intervene. For example, simply talking Bob is intervention, as John would be providing Bob with reasons not to do cocaine, but is still intervening that is still only one way of intervening. he could not intervene at all based on what i've argued before. or he could intervene a lot, based on what i've argued before. your view could be viewed at best as a 'compromise', but it stll doesnt give clarity that it is the best approach, unless you yourself 'as you'd have them do unto you' would prefer a compromised approach against you. the lack of knowing what it best is what constitutes 'unclear' in this debate. even if it was the best view to you personally, it doesn't give clarity to everyone else who might not share your views and doesn't know how to respond.
the golden rule in application is unclear

You've given no argument as to how my response is inadequete. In what way is it "inadequete"? "your whole response seems to revolve around how you seem to think you answered the hypo". How else is my response supposed to work?" he could intervene cause he views cocaine as wrong, or could not cause the guy doing it views it as non debateably okay."His physical intervention is not the problem. Physical intervention is only one way in which someone can intervene. For example, simply talking Bob is intervention, as John would be providing Bob with reasons not to do cocaine, but is still intervening. So, you've given no reasoning or argument as to how this makes the GR unclear in application. " there is no clear answer to the question about what he should do given both scenarios have things he'd do or not do or have done to him were he doing cocaine and such." I don't see how this is relevant. You have not explained what you mean by "unclear" and "clear". I can only go based off of the arguments you have provided. Perhaps you can provide a more adequete argument as to the GR's lack of clear application. You've simply asked "well, what should he do?". This is not an argument by any definition. It is a question. Asking a question is not positing your Burden of Proof.
the golden rule in application is unclear

you tried answering the hypothetical but there was no reason your answer was superior. he could intervene cause he views cocaine as wrong, or could not cause the guy doing it views it as non debateably okay. there is no clear answer to the question about what he should do given both scenarios have things he'd do or not do or have done to him were he doing cocaine and such. your whole response seems to revolve around how you seem to think you answered the hypo, so i guess i'm just responding that you didn't adequately respond.