BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity is no more dangerous than Atheism

Here I will address my opponent's opening arguments in Round 2. I will address Pro's R3 response in R4.R1) StalinPro spends this entire contention explaining how terrible a person Stalin was. It is implied that this was a result of him being atheist, but not directly stated. Yet Pro fails to prove how Stalin killed millions because of his atheism. He could have killed millions because of his political ideologies, his cultural upbringing, hunger for power, etc. Pro has failed to prove that atheism was the sole cause of such, and therefore this argument has no impact.R1) HitlerHitler was a self-proclaimed Christian, he committed mass genocide to achieve racial purity in Europe, leaving only the master race (Aryans.) Pro implying that this was the result of his supposed atheism shows Pro’s lack of knowledge on the very topic he is arguing. Hitler didn’t even persecute Christians! He persecuted Jews, this argument has no relation to the debate at all. What makes it even more off-track is that Hitler hated atheists, he actually massacred millions for Christianity.“We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations; we have stamped it out.” [1]"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." [2]The tragic story Pro quotes has nothing to do with the topic. It does not prove the impact of the argument, that Hitler was an atheist. This argument is non-topical and null.Pro’s closing remarks add another argument. Pro claims that both Atheism and Christianity have maniacs, therefore they are no more dangerous than each other. Christianity holds more of the population and therefore has more of their share of maniacs. Pro can’t even prove that any atheist maniacs killed because of their atheism, I can. (e.g. Christian Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc.)[1] https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress.com...[2] http://www.nobeliefs.com...
Christianity is no more dangerous than Atheism

C1) Atheism Death PenaltyIn 13 countries, if you are convicted as being an atheist, you are executed. These countries include; Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen [1] Only one country in the world actually kills Christians and that is North Korea. Yet even there, most of the time it is deportment to a labor camp, not death.C2) Hate CrimesA great many people in the world openly despise and hate atheists. [3] This results in a great number of hate crimes that forces thousands of atheists to hide within their own homes.http://www.youtube.com...“On Tuesday of last week, Ananta Bijoy Das, 32, had just left his house in the northeastern Bangladeshi city of Sylhet when four masked assailants chased and then hacked the bank clerk to death with machetes. He was the third secular blogger hacked to pieces on the streets of Bangladesh this year.” [2]The main reason for this is that atheists are a minority. Christians make up 31.5% of the world’s population, the largest religion on Earth. [4] Not many people attack the majority, but they do go after the minorities; atheists. This is increased through the propaganda put out by religious leaders and the connotation the word brings. People think atheists have no moral values, they are heartless, and evil. With this kind of propaganda, it is dangerous to be an atheist.[1] http://www.reuters.com...[2] http://www.politico.com...[3] http://www.paulopes.com.br...[4] http://www.pewforum.org...
Christianity is no more dangerous than Atheism

To clarify I will be arguing that the ideology of atheism is a more dangerous position to hold than of Christianity. Atheist: One who disbelieves and denies the existence of god(s). Danger: the possibility of suffering harm or injury (physical or psychological). More: Greater than the opposition. Christianity: The monotheist religion that is based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices. (Includes all subreligions: Catholicism, Methodist, Protestant, Mormonism, etc. )
Christianity is no more dangerous than Atheism

I will waive this response to keep the debate fair, so I will sum up my side of the debate and state my concluding remarks. My opening arguments addressed the persecution of atheists across the world and how it is literally against the law to be atheist, punishable by death. My other argument addressed the hate that is put towards atheists across the world and how atheists are an extreme minority, while Christianity is the largest religion in the world. Both of these arguments are completely dropped, except for my definition of majority, which is then dropped directly afterwards. The majority of my opponent’s topics did not prove his case; that Christians are in more danger than atheists. They showed that some atheists did bad things, but none of them put Christians in harm instead atheists. Pro repeatedly went off-topic talking about insane people, maniacs, etc. which made his responses confusing and unorganized. The only step that Pro ever made towards proving his case was source-spamming me with articles, which showed isolated incidents, yet could not apply to the entire resolution as a whole. .
Christianity is no more dangerous than Atheism

It was extremely difficult to decipher what my opponent was trying to point out in his response. So forgive me if I misinterpret something. I am referring to Pro’s R3 response.The first thing my opponent does is correct my grammar and say that the largest religion in the world is not the majority. I did what any other person on Earth would have done; Google the definition of “majority”. I invite you all to do the samemajority: the greater numberI don’t want to spend anymore characters on this superficial topic, the biggest religion is Christianity.After this Pro goes on a rant and cites a bunch of articles showing Christians getting killed. This is not a source-war, the side that posts the most deaths does not prove how much dangerous it is. Pro must prove to us that being Christian, being a part of the biggest religion ever is more dangerous than being a part of the hated minority of atheists. Posting links to arguments does not accomplish this at all, at best it is source spamming.Directly after this there is a paragraph telling us what Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot did without incorporating why this makes Christians more in danger than atheists. These leaders did not persecute Christians, thus Christians are were not in danger any more than atheists were.After this Pro attempts to explain why criminals do crime. Which has nothing to do with the debate. Concluding that people will kill each other whether they believe or not. Pro needs to prove to us that a Christian living in the world is just as safe as an Atheist living in the world, not whether or not people commit crimes because of their religion. Conclusion:Everything Pro has said this round has been off-topic, and has done nothing to prove his side. I would like to point out that Pro has not even tried to address my arguments except dispute my definition of a “majority”, my arguments are dropped.
"Che" Guevara was an idealist of freedom

My opponent has forfeited the last few rounds, as if he has given up. I would like for the viewrs of this debate to make note of that when they cast their votes, now I will end with a few final affirmations.Ernesto "Che" Guevara was a man who has in modern times become an idol among socialists and liberals alike, however truth be told he was a cold-blooded and savage murderer. He hated those that opposed the government, and he hated individualism strongly. He was against freedoms that those who idolize him themselves hold dear, truly he was someone they would hate if they had to live under the government he supported.Mr. "Che" was no icon of justice, equality, or freedom, he was a sociopathic and tyrannical executioner.I would like to thank my opponent for the arguments he did put forth, and thank the voters for their time. I hope you consider this debate thoroughly, and make the right decision.
"Che" Guevara was an idealist of freedom

Guevara was a punisher and an executioner, absolutely. If you were against the state, you were a traitor, and you needed to die. Batista was bad, I would never say he was good, but Castro took it further. Castro put the people under an even worse state of life, so I guess technically i'd consider Batista "better". However I do not consider Batista to be good, not even in the slightest. Guevara was a violent man by nature, he would even record his executions in a diary of sorts. If I may quote his writings, "I fired a .32calibre bullet into the right hemisphere of his brain which came out through his left temple". He also made mention of the fact that the man "moaned for a few moments" before he died. Sometimes later on in state prisons, Che would climb on top of a wall and smoke a cigar while lying on his back, watching the executions take place. This does not sounds like a just man, or an icon of freedom, to me.Sometimes it takes evil to fight evil, that much is true. However we must prevent ourselves from idolizing murderers, such as Che. He may have ended a tyrant's reign, but that does not make him an idol of justice or equality. If a ravenous wolf kills another wolf who happened to be terrorizing the town, does that make the wolf a fighter for the people of the town and their sheep? It must be noted that Guevara was a killer, an executioner, and a man full of hatred. Regardless of your ideals, it would be wise not to idolize him.http://www.cubanet.org...;
"Che" Guevara was an idealist of freedom

Guevara didn't want Cuban people to be punished, he did what he thought it was good for Cuba. Do you really think Batista was better that the 60's Fidel Castro?. Of course Fidel didn't perform a good role as president but I can bet that it was better than Batista's government. Guevara itself shows his opinion about guerrilla and his usage: "Why does the guerrilla fighter fight? We must come to the inevitable conclusion that the guerrilla fighter is a social reformer, that he takes up arms responding to the angry protest of the people against their oppressors, and that he fights in order to change the social system that keeps all his unarmed brothers in ignominy and misery." So he has no intention to harm Cuban people but to help them. He represents justice because he put an end to the tyrannical regime of Batista, he wanted equality to the Cuban people: "If no coffee for everyone, no to anyone" and respect because nevertheless , he left his native country, Argentina , and put his hands on fire to free all Latin American people. http://en.wikiquote.org... https://sites.google.com...
"Che" Guevara was an idealist of freedom

Che Guevara may have had the support of a large portion of the people, but that was only because they trusted that what would replace Batista's regime would be better. However they were betrayed, and a new regime that was even worse was put in place. Regardless of his extreme hatred for homosexuals, there was no justification for his executions of those against the state, he was a murderer plain and simple. Che was a 'Marxist' revolutionary, and he staunchly opposed freedom. He opposed religious freedom and free speech, he supported repression of new music, he had gays imprisoned, and he opposed free elections. As a matter of fact, he even was opposed to proper legal process. How exactly is he a representation of justice, equality, or respect? He was an individual who saw things in black and white, either you were for the revolution, or you were an enemy and you needed to be punished. Ernesto Guevara was no hero, he was no icon of freedom, he was a killer, and an executioner who served a totalitarian dictator. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.latinpost.com... http://www.therealcuba.com...
"Che" Guevara was an idealist of freedom

Everyone that wants to topple a government, must do it with two main factors: people's support and with the force, he didn't have an army, he had a guerrilla, in which people can enlist if they wanted to. Although he hadn't have a lot of "soldiers", he had a lot of Cuban people that followed him that wanted to lay down Batista and that was the key factor. To be sincere, in those times there were many homophobic ideas; a lot more than now a days; you can't blame some that had been taught that homosexuality is far from common understanding at that time. He, in fact, wasn't communist, he was a socialist but when Guevara finally won the revolution and Fidel Castro reached the power, "Che" wanted Cuba to keep the revolution going to turn it into a socialist nation but that interferes with Castro's plans so he sent Guevara to Bolivia with just a pinch of soldiers were he was murdered. Summarising, Ernesto Guevara didn't want the Cuban people to be treated like commoners but by citizens under a socialist nation. http://www.thefamouspeople.com... http://biography.yourdictionary.com...
"Che" Guevara was an idealist of freedom

Mr. "Che" Guevara was a man fighting for horrendous ideals, and a true killer. He may have fought against a bad government, but what replaced it was no better, if not worse. He executed and hated enemies of the state, along with, as a matter of fact, gays. He has been fashioned into a popular 'icon' among those who hate the establishment, when the truth is that he was against the freedom modern communists at least partially support. http://www.slate.com... http://www.history.com... http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org...
Whataburger will not contradict themself

1. Only things that Whataburger writes in this round during the Pro's speech time can be used against Whataburger. Comments are excluded. 2. Whataburger refers to the user on Debate.org, not the Texas-based restaurant or any other entity. 3. Anything written in round one is off the flow and cannot be used against me. 4. Meaning and definitions are contextually defined. Semantics hold no sway. 5. Con cannot urge a vote based on what they perceive to be a contradiction, they must actually prove that Whataburger made a contradiction. All questions should be asked in the comments prior to accepting. If you find yourself in a difficult position because you failed to do that, that is your own fault. I will not cover for you. And remember to brush your teeth you bunch of slobs.
Whataburger will not contradict themself

pro esponds no to being asked if he's an entity in round 2 Entity 1. something that has a real existence; thing: 2. being or existence, especially when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained: 3. essential nature: http://dictionary.reference.com... Here is how we determine the definition of a word according to Pro from round 3. Con must show a contradiction through the given language of the Pro in a contextually defined sense. We can see from context it meets either definition 1 or 2. Here is the contradiction Round 2 "I'm Whataburger" This implies existence which means pro contradicted himself from when he said he wasn't an entity'. I'm is a contraction of I am am being the most relevant part of the contraction is defined in as "1st person singular present indicative of be" http://dictionary.reference.com... a contradiction from non entity. Not to mention in rnd 2 he refers to the rules as singular a priori in 3 plural a prioris
Whataburger will not contradict themself

I'm not going to do more work than I need to here. The rules are a priori and Con is grasping for straws. 1. My name is Whataburger, not What's burger. Even if this argument was legitimate it isn't directed at me. 2. The rules are a priori. 3. The terms of use only have the word 'human' listed once, and it isn't listed in the way Con says it is. I am not a human. 4. If you are unfamiliar with what a Kritik is or how it operates in debate, then you can ignore this argument. Con doesn't make the argument properly anyway. There isn't an alternative to the K, there are no standards, and even if the K was legitimate Con links into it at the point he joins the debate. You either don't consider this on your flow or it's turn. 5. My name isn't What's burger or what a burger, it's Whataburger. 6. I don't have a penis and I've never even been to Texas. *** I never contradict myself. Vote Pro. Also the rules.
Whataburger will not contradict themself

1. What's burger states that he is not homosexual in one of the rounds and a define what's burger as Gay, so I win. 2. I googled Whataburger and it is a Texas based restaraunt so my opponent by claiming to be Whataburger is claiming to be a Texas based restearaunt, so he contradicted himself there. 3. My opponent is a human, so according to the site bylaws requiring only humans to hold an account, his participation in this event while claiming to not be human is a contradiction in itself 4. A Kritik is an argument that challenges a certain underlying premise in the debate. If my opponent doesn't offer rebuttals for my Kritik than by default he loses. My Kritik is this. Contest debates degrade from the quality of the site because they're a way to game the ELO system and they get in the way of intellectual discussions. 5. My opponents name is a question yet it doesn't have a question mark. 6. My opponent has a small penis but is from Texas.
Whataburger will not contradict themself

Framework is an a priori issues that can't be changed at the will of the Con halfway through the debate. None of Con's definitions matter and are not grounds to vote for him. Con must show a contradiction through the given language of the Pro in a contextually defined sense. Anything else does not warrant a vote for Con. If he even attempts to do this he forfeits the Conduct voter at minimum. --- 1. It can be. Macro and Micro nutrients are complicated things. 2. Maybe. I'm pretty sure I exist, but one can never be absolutely sure. 3. No. 4. In a cup with a little bit of cream.
Best Political Jokes!

I shall be launching the quips for the right wing. 1. What do you call a basement full of liberals? A whine cellar. 2. How many democrats does it take to change a light bulb? 5! Al Gore to insure it is a CFL, an EPA agent in case the bulb breaks and a mercury cleanup is necessary, a person to bail out the home owner, an ACORN member to ensure that the right person changed the bulb, and a member of the media to celebrate the change. 3. What do you get if you give a liberal a penny for his thoughts? Change.
we suld outlaw three pronged forks

NO the macs need freind ship not a thrid wheel. also pronged forks not peganant you idiat. i swear sum people need to die off just like the THREE PRONGED FORKS. america is not free there are high taxes to pay for public transport ans free lunch at school. I tink you need to go back to econ class. also three pronged forks need to be outlawed. the end.
The numbers in the Fibonacci Sequence play a role in nature.

You say that the petals of flowers in nature are in CONSECUTIVE fibonacci numbers. I say that in order for they to be in actual consecutive fibonacci numbers, there had to have been human intelligence that interceded to put them into that order. When you say consecutive, that means it happens naturally. But there is human intercession that puts the certain flowers in their respective spot on the fibonacci sequence. Therefore, the fibonacci sequence doesn't play a role in nature, because nature doesn't decide to follow the fibonacci sequence. Rather, we see the numbers of petals on some flowers, and realize that it happens to fit into a number sequence. It happens to be pure coincidence because one does not rely on the other to exist. Even without the fibonacci sequence, the number of petals on flowers would still be the same. So nature may fit into the fibonacci sequence in certain areas, but the fibonacci sequence certainly doesn't play a role in nature.
These Arguments Against the God of Christianity Are Valid - 1E.

*NOTE* - The "1E" notation is for searching/browsing purposes. I hope to have more of these debates. The resolution is simple and brief: I am here to argue that the God of the Bible and thus the teaching of Christianity does not exist, i.e. has no solid evidence for it's existence. Common attributes given to this God is omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence , omnipresence, and many others. These 4 "omni-attributes", however, is what I will be focusing upon. =====Arguments===== For this debate I will be utilizing two popular arguments: the Argument from Evil and the Argument from Non-Belief. 1. Argument from Evil If an all-loving God exists, then why does evil and suffering exist in the world? Christians commonly use free will as an excuse for the evil in the world. But then, the burden is placed on my opponent to show why God would prefer us having free will rather than us not having free will, or having free will with moral perfection. Secondly, the Christian has to somehow account for natural disasters that cause millions of deaths, tons of parasites that feed on humans, and of course bacteria and viruses. While some bacterias and viruses are human-made or proliferated, it's foolish to say every virus and bacteria does. So what of the virus that kills an infant in 4 months? 2. Argument from Non-Belief I will paste the syllogism that Theodore Drange[1] formulated, based on J.L. Schellenberg's original formation of this argument: 1. If God exists, God: 1. wants all humans to believe God exists before they die; 2. can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die; 3. does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and 4. always acts in accordance with what it most wants. 2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die (from 1). 3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die. 4. Therefore, God does not exist (from 2 and 3). =====Conclusion===== With both my arguments laid out, I await my opponent's rebuttal. ---References--- 1. http://www.infidels.org...