BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheists are Good People

I am an atheist. I kill people for fun. Sometimes on the weekends, I sit and eat cake and get fat. I do this while raping someone. I also have dead babies in my fridge that I eat. Just your everyday average atheist! :D COME ON DUDE!!!! How fvucking ignorant can you possibly be!! Being an Atheist doesn't make you a bad person. Also, in your argument, you gave many examples of Atheists committing murder. You act as if Atheists alone kill people. Remind me again who had the crusades? I'm pretty sure it wasn't Atheists. Religious people murder just as much as atheists. Back in the 90's there was a mother who had 7 kids. Ages 13-2. One day. she went upstairs and filled up a bathtub. She called her kids upstairs one by one, and drowned each one separately. And when she was convicted she kept saying "God told me to do it". I imagine it is difficult to drown a thirteen year old kid. Could you imagine. And the 2 year old? A baby! I feel like throwing up just by thinking about that. God told her to kill all of her kids? A 2 year old man! SH**. All I'm saying, is that no matter how much you argue against it, Religious people do horrible things just as much as atheists. The only difference, is that corrupted and fvucked up religious people(not all religious people are like this, I know that) use God as an excuse for their terrible crimes. Summary: There are good AND bad Religious people.Just as there are for Atheists.
Atheists are Good People

Studies say atheists, believers both do good, but for different reasonsBy Kimberly Winston| Religion News Service,May 29, 2012BERKELEY, Calif. — Atheists and others who don’t adhere to a religion often say they can be good without God. Now, three new studies appear to back them up.Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley conducted three experiments that show less religious people perform acts of generosity more from feelings of compassion than do more religious people. The findings were published in the current issue of the online journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.Their results challenge traditional thinking about what drives religious people to perform acts of kindness for others. __________________________________________________________________________________“The main take-away from the research is that there may be very different reasons why more and less religious people behave generously, when they do,” said Robb Willer, an assistant professor of sociology at Berkeley and a co-author of the studies. “Across three studies, we found compassion played a much bigger role in the way that less religious people treated others. Religious people, in contrast, tended to behave as generously as they would regardless of how compassionately they felt.” At the same time, Willer said, the view of nonreligious people as cold and amoral needs adjustment. “We find that nonreligious people do feel compassion for others, and that those feelings are strongly related to whether they choose to help others or not.”In short, this study shows how atheists are compassionate. Not in the same way as religious people, however, they are just as caring for others.Also, saying "Atheists are bad people to be around" is like saying "Brown haired people are bad to be around." Someone isn't automatically stupid, and genuinely unkind by not believing in god.CLARIFICATION: I am arguing that atheists are good people, and equal to those who believe in God. I am NOT arguing that atheism is the best religion.
Is the USA a dying superpower

Yes, but this isn't new. The US has always been a "ticking time bomb", if you will. Yes, speaking your mind becomes harder and harder every day simply because if everyone thinks one way, you're expected to think the same. If you don't think the same as everyone else, you're wrong. How is the US "fading"? We're not doing any sort of "fading" or going away. America has taken up the personification as a selfish person, for good reasons. All major countries have some sort of general personality, and it doesn't really change from that unless something amazing or catastrophic happens. Which, actually happens a lot. I don't think USA is taking the title of "fading" at all. Other countries, however, yes. USA is far from crumbling to pure corruption, though.
Is the USA a dying superpower

I agree with your argument but we cannot blindly believe in the news and what we are told we must go and see for our selves. I agree the US isn't dying but it is fading away from the global stage its losing its ferocity on a global stage our nation no longer is feared and respected the world sees the US and invaders and warmongers and by weak government I meant divided as President Lincoln said a house divided cannot stand now we are not at civil war but that saying can be used today our government cannot agree and they are doing that at the expense of the nation if we seem divided the enemy's of the USA we grow ever bolder and cause rise for larger conflict
Is the USA a dying superpower

Alright, my first Debate, let's see how this goes. First off, the USA is not as strong and unified as it was, I'll give you that, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's dying. The US is still a very strong and wealthy country, in comparison to the rest of the world. We are very fortunate to be a 1st world country, still, after the many things being and been thrown at us. Now, what about our leadership? Personally, I think we have a very good democratic system of doing the law and politics. Now, one could argue that the people investing their time into said politics are corrupted, but that's a whole 'other debate. For this debate, however, the system is thought out very well, the way it's being used is the problem. If more actually smart people could run for president and other government positions, that would be great. I like how it's not one person making ALL the decision, and that the people get a very good say in what goes on in our country, but it some respects, this isn't good. It's not a given that the people will make good decisions all the time, but it's better than a single-minded, chaotic ruler. In conclusion, is the US a dying superpower? I disagree. The USA is full of potential, and it would be quite easy to use it if we worked in unison, and made healthy compromises for those who disagreed with certain actions.
Is the USA a dying superpower

The United States has been a super power since the end of WWII but with the combination of weak leadership and a weakening economy the enemies of the USA have taken this time to strike and have seen no resistance from the United States there enemies are slowly taking the mantle of superpower from old glory but all is not lost the USA is a sleeping giant that has so much potential we need strong leadership that can be respected and feared by the world we need our military to act when tested we need our economy to grow to the former strength that it once had because we might be dying but we are not dead
Dumbledore vs Gandalf

Firstly, I would say that the fact that Dumbledore has a "worse" party means that he must have been better to cope with this hindrance. Secondly, you say he dies to a traitor...THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG! Dumbledore perfectly plans his death so that Snape, not a traitor, becomes master of the wand, and later, Harry. This brings me on to my next point - intelligence. Dumbledore is more intelligent than Gandalf. Gandalf makes decisions on the spot and relies on his magical ability. Dumbledore superbly plans everything and was the foundation upon which Voldemort was defeated. His intelligence is unmatched - and this is matched by his courageous - he sacrifices himself for the cause... Lastly, he would win in a fight as he has greater magical spells at his disposal. A simple killing curse could flatten Gandalf in a matter of seconds. So in terms of intelligence and ability, Dumbledore is superior.
Dumbledore vs Gandalf

I am going to start by repealing some of your arguments: Firstly Gandalf has a staff, which while also being far cooler than a little wand (no innuendo intended) also acts as a walking stick, and can be used to bash orcs over the head with. Secondly although Dumbledore has a Phoenix, Gandalf has both a hobbit alongside an awesome horse Shadowfax lord of all the horses. Finally the idea the DUMBledore is a better name is ridiculous Gandalf is far superior. Now some of my own points. Gandalf has a far cooler party made up of kings and orcs rather than a boy with glasses and a ginger. Gandalf defeats balrog a creature stronger than anything Dumbledore ever fought. Gandalf increases in strength from grey to white whereas Dumbledore dies to a traitor whom he trusted. Gandalf also most importantly has a better beard. And Gamdlaf has a cool pipe with which he blows Some awesome smoke rings. https://www.google.co.uk...|8;d|Vf0ykeO65C9h-M: Your turn
Dumbledore vs Gandalf

Let me explain the points behind my argument: -Dumbledore has a wand -Dumbledore has a Phoenix -Dumbledore is widely considered the greatest wizard of his time, whereas Gandalf has other wizards just as strong as him -Gandalf didn't even really help that much, Frodo did most of the work -Dumbledore is a much cooler name I doubt you can reply sufficiently to such great points.
Dumbledore vs Gandalf

Right then.Firstly, Dumbledore has no more humility than Gandlaf has perhaps even less so. If you had actually read the books iit is difficult within the Lord of the Rings to find an example where Gandalf says anything about his own ability at all. In fact Gandalf barely recognises the fact that he is a wizard at all, and tends to avaoid questions/statements that are personally directed at his ability.Secondly,you basically ignored most of my argument and have repealled very little, only stating the Dumbledore is better in one way or another.I would also say in answer to "His [Dumbledore's] situation is a lot more complex and difficult than Gandalf" that the simplest answer is often the best. Just because Dumbledore has some complicated method for dealing with a problem that was also relatively simple (kill voldermort (which he leaves to Harry)) does not mean that he is smarter. In fact it could be argued that he should have faced Voldermort head on as he should have been able to tak him in a duel (or is Voldermort better than Dumbledore???).I would also say that YOU ARE IGNORING THE DEBATE YOU ORIGINALLY SET OUT I qoute 'I am going to debate that Dumbledore is superior to Gandalf, since he is a beast and could easily win in a fight.'You have conceded that this is clearly not true, as you have attempted to change the subject. Just beacuse he is immortal does not mean that 'death' will not effect him. You merely have to read the books and look at the great struggle he took as he battled Balrog and after he had defeated him.Gandalf is not immortal in he sense he cannot be harmed or die, it is merely the case that he is able to return from death through a great struggleof his own. (You also have no awesome images of Dumbledore whereas there is a plethera ofimages showing Gandalfs greatness)http://i1189.photobucket.com...(note if a link does not work just refresh that page)
Dumbledore vs Gandalf

OK, firstly I dont think that who's in their party is relevant to their greatness. Secondly, I would say that another characteristic of Dumbledore that is better is his humility - he never boasts about his wizarding prowess, doesn't want to claim any credit. I still disagree in that surely Dumbledore wins the intelligence category - its too much to go into now, but basically he plotted how to defeat voldemort for years and made it so it could be carried out after his death. His situation is a lot more complex and difficult than Gandalf - in which is mainly about destroying a ring. There is no particularly clever scheming undertaken by Gandalf. Yes, his physical battles were harder, but his mental ones were not. As you say, Dumbledore is mortal, and I would say this means he requires more skill and courage to succeed in his task. As Gandalf is immortal, is what he achieves really that impressive?
Omnipotence is rational

THIS IS A 1 ROUND DEBATE. The purpose of this debate is to make a case that the oxford dictionary website should change its definition of 'Omnipotence' to include the word 'infinite' to be replaced with 'unlimited'. Even though it essentially means the same thing, the latter does not imply the inherent logic "Omnipotence" needs to maintain is the practical use of being a word. Humans are now more imaginative than ever creating new paradoxes to undermine the word "Omnipotence". If we associate the logic behind "Omnipotence" to relate to the logic behind "countable infinity", then we will negate all of those paradoxes finally making it a word that 'makes sense to be a word'. Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited or very great power. Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... By changing the word 'unlimited' to 'infinite(countable)', we exactly define the word 'omnipotence'. Countable infinity is restricted to being an object. Infinity is only abstract in the first dimension to what is called uncountable infinity. It is only uncountable in the first dimension, but when moved to multiple dimensions, the concept of infinity becomes countable(simply meaning within the object). With this relation to making 'Omnipotence' an abstract object, the accepted known philosophical view of today, establishing 'Omnipotence' as the quality of having infinite(countable) power. The definition wouldn't even need the second part as the second part was to establish a 'kind of a limit'. This explanation provides a much succinct and accurate definition. I would encourage the voter who votes for me to quote Occam's Razor as an objective measuring reason.
Darwinian Evolution

*Wrappin' It Up* 1. Con agreed that Hawthorn-->Apple Maggot is evolution that we see, then Con argued that this was merely MICRO evolution, so I showed Con that speciation, as seen in Hawthorn-->Apple Maggot, is MACRO evolution, because it is evolution at the species level, but Con dropped that also, so I mentioned that he micro/macro distinction is irrelevant to the definitions of "Darwinian" and "Evolution," and wouldn't you know it. .. Con dropped that too. 2. Con COMPLETELY dropped the Chromosome 2 argument, and this was properly sourced, which affirms that Ape-->Human not only happened, but that our fused 2nd chromosome serves as: a. that "middle" that Con requested b. the "complete jump to the next stage" Con claimed would have to be there c. proof that "one species can change to a completely different species (macro evolution)" as Con put it d. a negation of Con's assertion that "early hominids did not evolve into modern humans" e. a case "with one line of descent dividing into two or more" that Con says we should be able to find f. an example of being "able to find new species forming in the wild" Con claims needs to be there g. an "example of species that link together major groups suspected to have common ancestry" that Con claims should be there. 3. Con COMPLETELY dropped the claim + source of early hominid fossils that explain our bipedal ancestry. .. our feet are simian. By the way, the Hawthorn Flies and Apple Maggot Flies didn't just change their diet; they changed how they reproduced, by changing the venue for their maggots from Hawthorn fruit to Apples. This lead to changes in gestation, reproductive age, and compatibility, which lead to the observed speciation of the Hawthorn Fly. I therefore affirm that Darwinian Evolution is a fact, because Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes, Con agrees we do see evolution in Hawthorn-->Apple maggot, foot fossils show evolution of humans from apes, and all of Con's contentions with evolution have been negated.
Darwinian Evolution

We should be able to find some cases of speciation in the fossil record, with one line of descent dividing into two or more. And we should be able to find new species forming in the wild. Furthermore, we should be able to find examples of species that link together major groups suspected to have common ancestry, like birds with reptiles and fish with amphibians. And I swear, if you say Archaeopteryx, if will go insane. The hawthorn to apple maggot however, is only MICRO evolution, and it is a change in what they eat, it does not fully change their DNA.
Darwinian Evolution

We DO see evolution. (i.e. hawthorn--->apple maggot fly). However, that is not what Darwinian evolution is. That is micro evolution, while Darwinism teaches that one species can change to a completely different species (macro evolution). That is what the first premise says with mutation. It is merely micro evolution, but it is not an entire species changing into another species. There is no "middle" animal, for lack of a better word. We do not see fish with half legs, or little stumps in the fossil records. For Darwinism to be true, there would have to be a complete jump to the next stage, which Darwinism does not support, as they say evolution is slight changes over millions, even billions of years. This proves that early hominids did not evolve into modern humans because there is no middle point.
Darwinian Evolution

Thanks Con for the debate. Con forfeited last round, but whatevs, I'll start my case and keep it brief...a brief case if you will. *Evolution Is A Fact* Darwinian Evolution by way of natural selection and descent with modification is a fact because... 1. genetic characteristics that allow an organism to live long enough to reproduce are more likely to be passed on than genetic characteristics that don't allow an organism to live long enough to reproduce. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... 2. speciation has been directly observed in hawthorn-->apple maggot fly http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 3. human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes, which is definitive evidence that humans descended from apes. http://genome.cshlp.org... 4. early hominid fossils explain our bipedal-ism and ancestry http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Therefore I affirm. Con?
Darwinian Evolution

I accept, and saw a definition for neither "Darwinian" nor "Evolution," so I shall supply my own. Darwinian - relating to Darwinism. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Darwinism - the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection and decent with modification advanced by Charles Darwin. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Evolution - the process by which animals, plants, fungi, protista, archaea, and bacteria have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Should Atheists celebrate Christmas

My whole argument is based on the fact that this was celebrated before the apparent birth of Christ eliminating the probability that Jesus existed and also indicating that it is not only Christian that celebrate this season, therefore defying their claim to Christmas, and I believe that Christmas is more in the line of tradition rather than faith, its about the joy of giving to loved ones a form of human feelings that no god can dictate as free will. Most other religions also follow teachings of the bible - Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, (infact the bible follows their beliefs as these are older religions) so why is our lord (I refer to myself as I was raised Christian) any better. The reason is the whole commercialization of this holiday has been taken over if you look at Halloween and St. Valentines day these are all used as marketing ploys, and yes tradition, greed, and materialism has taken over and we are where we are, so yes I believe Atheists can and will celebrate Christmas (As it has nothing to do with Christ) just like Summer Holidays or Easter Holidays (I'm from the UK it is the equivalent of Spring Break, and for whatever reason it is still known as this) I thank you for engaging in this topic and look forward to your argument
Should Atheists celebrate Christmas

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. In the holy Roman Catholic Church Calendar, Advent, which is the season of the birth of Christ, falls on the winter season. Yes, you are right that the Romans adopted this practice of the Winter Solstice. Although, from Advent, came Christmas, which is now a Christian holiday. Winter solstice evolved from just the end of the month of december, to the tradition of the Pagans, to the practices of today. It is very recently understood that Christmas really is not a "Christian" holiday, because of the lack of christian beliefs that were integrated in the Christmas season. Yes, there is a bit of hatred among each other because of the Romans eradicating the Pagans beliefs. But I will say that Christmas is not just about the Nativity, it is the joyful anticipation of gifts to come. Obviously the gifts given to us are Jesus, and the love of God. No, Atheists should not celebrate this holiday. If they do not believe in the Christian faith, well, why would they? It's like a Roman Catholic celebrating Hanukkah for no apparent reason! I happily await your coming argument. Sources -The Holy Roman Catholic Catechism.
Should Atheists celebrate Christmas

Firstly Paganism has nothing to do with Christianity, infact it makes more sense, they believe that Nature and everything around us is God so they don't believe in Christ. Secondly if you believe that Christmas is a Christian holiday then you must be against atheists celebrating that. However Christianity has nothing to do with Christmas, Christian celebrate the Nativity, the so called date of birth of Jesus, no where in the bible does it state that Christ was even born in winter. Long before the story of Christ Romans, Gothics and Celts celebrated the end of December as a Winter Soltice, the pagans started the tradition of holly and mistletoe and also decorating a tree and giving gifts. The main reason it fell on December the 25th as Romans celebrated this date as the sun has completed its cycle and renewed, it basically hits its lowest axis at noon and begins to rise back up until its highest point in Spring and then back down until December 25th and so on, and so forth. The Romans adopted the Christian belief to eradicate the Paganist beliefs. My point is that there is enough evidence against this date being the birth of Christ and even strongly supports an Atheists argument.
Communism is Fascistic in Principle

I accept. I do not believe it is true that "Communism demands and indeed requires the implementation of either martial law or dictatorship". I will also question the accuracy of statements regarding the "despotic history" of "Communism", which should help to make it clear that the proposition is false. I will also clarify that I am arguing from the perpective of a libertarian socialist - an 'anarcho-communist'.
Communism is Fascistic in Principle

The issue of Communism is a divisive one, with a growing number of defenders and sympathizers. One of the most common arguments from that camp is to say that Communism, despite its despotic history, is a free system if implemented "correctly". So here is my contention: by it's very tenants, Communism demands and indeed requires the implementation of either martial law or dictatorship. To accept the Con position, my opponent must support the opposite position. Important Terms: Communism: My opponent may choose their favorite form, but it must be commonly accepted as Communism, and generally stick to its definition. Fascism: My use of this word describes not so much the 20th century movement but as a general police state or a tyrannical leader. Principle: The phrase "in principle" means innate or inherent, inseparable from the theory. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening Arguments. Rebuttals to a minimum, please. Round 3 : Rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals/ Closing Statements Good luck to my opponent, and I anticipate an informative and enjoyable debate.