BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion and Evil

Ever since the evolution or some say creation of Humans, religion has been a source of evil itself and what has been done its name. Ignorance throughout the world has perpetuated this until today when a fanatical group called ISIS is trying to create its own evil state and extend its evil aims to many ignorant people throughout the world, including the most influential. Solution. Firstly, the divided Moslem Groups have to come together and create a modern quaran with one set of democratic principles based on equality. Once this is done all religions who still believe, in different ways, the belief in the creation instead of evolution, must form one international religion based on these principles. Next all UN Forces, fragmented throughout the world must be amalgamated and supplemented by military forces and equipment, with unlimited funds from UN contributors, and then draw up a program with a Rapid Defence Force to exterminate all such groups and people who believe in evil rather than mankind. For those believers it is the modern version of God triumphing over The Devil. In each local community of every country and state there shall be only one religious meeting place, with an agreed time table, where people of all faiths can attend and exchange ideas. There must be no segregation in any locality, nor any discrimination based on gender, ethnic origin, sexuality etc. There must be only one secular law for each state and an end to any kind of religious law, which always has some form of discrimination embodies in its rules. Religious Institutions, especially in educational schools should be abolished and this subject should be part of a much broader subject to include atheisim, discrimination and sexuality etc. It is time for the world to bring itself into the 21st century according to some religions, or to use their logic based on millions of years of evolution.
Islam vs Fools who know it all

I'm not entirely sure what Con is arguing or what the resolution is, but I'll bite.I will just rebut Cons arguments, as I can't make arguments until I know what the resolution is.1. "If a muslim bomber wanted to kill people, he wouldn't kill children and wives on the street"If someone is a suicide bomber, they definitely won't behave rationally. Additionally, suicide bombers goals are to spread terror, especially by killing civilians. A muslim bomber would do that, but so would a christian bomber. I'm not exactly sure what your point is.2. "Atheists who want whores and drunken idiots alive blow up children [in the] streets when they want to blame islam"This is a very extreme claim that you haven't supported. Athiests definitely don't want children blown up. Nothing about atheism promotes killing people, as atheism is simply a LACK of belief.3. " Learn the difference between Islam and Pagan Muslims"The term "Pagan Muslims" is an oxymoron. While paganism doesn't have a concrete definition, it still implies a polythiestic belief that diverges from believing in the "one true god". You can't have a Pagan Muslim. 4. "ISIS is being used as a mask for atheistic war crimes"The notion that ISIS is actually atheist is proposterous. Since this claim goes directly against the status qou, Con must support it, which he has not done so. This is just an unproven assertion.5. "religion is all that stands between the world and sex slavery"Please elaborate this bold assertion
Islam vs Fools who know it all

If a muslim bomber wanted to kill people, he wouldn't kill children and wives on the street. He would blow up the club. Atheists, who want whores and drunken idiots alive blow up children int eh streets when they want to blame islam. This is how the war has been propagated. Learn the difference between Islam and Pagan Muslims. And learn to notice when ISIS is being used as a mask for atheistic war crimes with the intent on blaming religion. Because religion is all that stands between the world and sex slavery. Tell me that when a completely anti-muslim action is blamed on an Islamic group that isn't exactly what the Quran says, "to learn the difference between. Pagans(non believers) who pretend to be islamic and True Muslims, - that that is NOT false propaganda against Islam. I say it is.
Roy moore is innocent.

"During the Senate race, allegations surfaced that Moore had pursued or sexually assaulted five high school girls while in his 30s. One woman stated that when she was 14, a 32-year old Moore initiated a sexual encounter with her. Another woman said that Moore sexually assaulted her when she was 16. Moore denied allegations of sexual assault, but did not deny consensual relationships with teenagers." [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org... He is not innocent, these women are honest.
Atheism is the default position

Apatheism is also called pragmatic atheism, but it's just a name. An apatheist isn't necessarily an atheist, and apatheism doesn't mean lack of belief. "The term "Apatheism" is a portmanteau 1 -- a combination of two words. They may be considered a fusing of: "Apathy" and "Theism" or "Apathy and "Atheism." " An apatheist can be an atheist, but also a theist. Apatheism doesn't mean lack of belief, so an apatheist can also be a theist. -you can believe god exists, but don't care if he does exist in reality(apatheist and theist) -you can believe god doesn't exist, but don't care if he does exist in reality(apatheist and atheist) -you can believe god exists and care if he does exist in reality(theism) -you can believe god doesn't exist and care if he does exist in reality(atheism) Thank you for debating this with me. Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org...
Atheism is the default position

Apatheism is also known as pragmatic atheism or (critically) as practical atheism.http://en.wikipedia.org...So, really it's just another form of Atheism, which confirms that Atheism is the default position.My opponent says. "a belief demands information and motivation"So? Atheism isn't a belief. It's a lack of a belief, as agreed upon in the first round.By proving Apatheism as the default position, my opponent actually proved atheism as the default position, because Apatheism is just another form of Atheism. They both lack the belief in a god, which is what atheism is!This is sort of like comparing Christians to Baptists. All Baptists are Christians, but not all Christians are Baptists. Not all Atheists are Apatheism but all Apatheisms are Atheist.Thanks for the debate.
Atheism is the default position

I will argue that the default position is apatheism, not atheism.1) Atheism can't be considered the default positionbelief - confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proofA newborn cannot be considered an atheist. Even with your definition, atheism remains a choice. A newborn is unable to hold a belief. An atheist could be considered a person who lacks belief in God, but that person must be able to hold a belief in the first place. If a person is unable to hold any belief at all, you cannot label them based on what beliefs they lack, so a newborn cannot be considered and atheist because he is unable to hold any belief.You cannot hold a belief with no information. A child can't believe in Santa Claus before knowing who he is. Beliefs can't exist without any information. Furthermore, because belief means confidence, believing without any proof, you also need motivation. Any religious person has a motivation to trust the teaching of his religion. Sure, newborns don't have any beliefs, but that's because they have no information and no motivation. Belief needs to be understood, you can't demand belief from a baby that isn't developed enough to perceive reality.The reason why newborns lack any belief is because they cannot hold any beliefs. They are not developed enough to have a belief, so you cannot label them as atheists just because they lack a believe that is impossible to hold. They don't just lack any belief, they cannot hold any belief, which means you cannot label them based on any beliefs they lack.Newborns also lack emotions, morals, social behavior and fear, so you should also consider every newborn immoral, apathetic and even a psychopath. So why don't we treat all newborns as psychopaths? Why don't we treat them like any other immoral person? Because you can't demand moral values or emotions from newborns, just like you cannot demand belief from them. 2) Apatheism is the default positionapatheism - apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deityAlso, a common argument for apatheism is lack of motivation.Just like I said, a belief demands information and motivation. Before being able to hold a belief, you must be able to receive information and feel motivation. You said atheism is the default position because newborns lack belief. We are debating the default position, the very first position you have the minute you are born. And that position is properly described by apatheism. A newborn lacks beliefs, but more importantly, he lacks the "components" of belief, he lacks information, he lacks motivation. So, a person can only be an atheist after he can receive information and can feel motivation. Until that point, he is an apatheist.Newborns have no motivation, nor do they have any interest in beliefs, so their position is apatheism.
Atheism is the default position

This debate is open to prety much anybody I haven't blocked, yet.Voting is imposible, so don't accept if you think you will "win".First round is for acceptance only.For this debate, it must be accepted that the definition of Atheism is "The Lack of the Belief in a God".If you don't like it, don't accept the debate. Those who whine about it only encourage me to do it more.If you accept the rules and break them, I stop the debate and you lose. Not by votes. By losing your privledgeto ever debate me again.
The US two party system historically has undermined progress in congress.

Ok, historical means in the past, so I can refrence from yesterday and still be valid. Seocndly this is the best example, because how fast the world works, we can best show examples fromt today. The debate isn't about the validity of the block. The bills may have sucked afterwards, but the main reason they were blocked is because of partisanship. We aren't debating whether it was justifed. The bills blocked were blocked because of partisanship, this offput congress and therefore undermined their progress. Ok on my second point, my opponent thinks that congressmen really have your interest in mind. Secondly it's common sense that people reject others because of their party. Nobody is Tabula rosa. we all have bias. Congress has become a buisness, where it is all about dealings and being re-elected. And since he cannot refute it, it is dropped. Onto my third point Extend my second contention which he drops, because the senator won't be heard because of partisanship. he wouldn't even have a chance. A third party canidate can no longer get his opinion across, and if he cannot what is the point of congress? I don't know how long my opponent has been on ddo, but ask danielle or roylatham or kelptin or theskeptic or brian. look at almost all debates, if you started it, you have the burdon of proof. Ok, on his contention, 1. I support different opinion, I should support third party canidates, but with only two parties, you don't have that many options. you can pick a side and everything on that side comes with it. The two parties are oppressing all third-party canidates.
The US two party system historically has undermined progress in congress.

I'll be starting with my opponent's case then referring back to my own. Remember this is a historical debate. Showing examples from just like this year ain't good enough. But even if you don't believe that, his examples don't hold water. Historical examples. From like 1776-1900's His first point is "historical" examples, but he never shows you that the bills that are "blocked" shouldn't be blocked, and that the only reason they are blocked is because of party ties. Just because one party shoots down another's idea doesn't mean a good outcome wasn't achieved. Think of this debate. What my opponent is basically saying is that if only one of our sides "wins," then the whole debate was undermined. This is completely foolish. Drop this point unless he can prove more and provide analysis rather than links. His second point is a "congressional board game." This is nothing more than a hypothetical point crafted in my opponent's brain. With no evidence, impact, or real sense coming from this point, I see no need or capability to attack it. It really has no substance to refute. His third point says that a senator in favor of gay marriage wouldn't be able to pass his agenda, but if a third party or more parties were present he would be able to. He provides a hypothetical situation of why it wouldn't go through. It really holds no weight. It would go through if it was a good bill, and it wouldn't if it's a bad bill. That's the whole point of arguing the weight of your side. That's like saying if my opponent legitimately loses this round in the judge's mind, and proceeds to say that the only reason the judge voted that way is because of his own personal political agenda. Again a foolish point. Also, he gives no reason why more than two parties would make his legislation "effectively go through." Drop this point. My contentions: My opponent has burden of proof. He's aff. That's how debate works, but I'll still provide points anyway. Point 1: Promotes healthy discourse If everyone had the same political ideology how would we arrive at the best conclusion for how we should help society? If everyone had the same view and opinion, how would anything get done? Think about it. If one party simply controlled congress without any "checks and balances" that our forefathers created our government upon how would there be any restraint on the other party? The two party system allows discourse to go on between parties to arrive at the best result. Simple as that. Vote NEG.
The US two party system historically has undermined progress in congress.

ok, I will be taking the last speech, as you are the instigator and even if you are con, you still have the burdon of proof. You had the chance to have an equal amout of speeches, so I will take the last speech, I just won't provide new evidence. I affirm the resolution:The US two party system historically has undermined progress in congress. In fact not only has it historically, but it is hurting it even as we debate this topic. My main contention will be historical examples. The main way I point this out is if legislation or action has been deterred off-put by time or dropped. The teach for America bill was hindered in ohio, because of GOP leaders demanding an unfair rider to combat a democratic bill http://www.cleveland.com... A senator used his republican connections to make school board elections partisan http://www.utahpolicy.com... A state soverignty bill blocked by democrats http://www.rlc.org... And renewable energy bills fought hard by the republicans http://www.cleanenergyforhome.com... Democrats stopping unemployment insurance from rebuplican leaders http://www.associatedcontent.com... And of course, republicans hurting the progress of healthcare http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com... These examples are recent, but are a very clear window on our political system. My second contention is more of an analytic, Congress has become a board game, where the measure of one's ability to take action is measured by the support of the party, now political capital is the name of the game, and you run out of it fairly easily. Now, people are refusing Obama, because he is too democrat, so he is forced to move to the middle. My third contention is that this severly limits wiggle room for senators. Let's say that a senator is for gay marriage, but for a border fence, there is little that they can do, because they will be limited to either gay marriage, or a border fence. If congress had more than two parties, then his legislation could effectively go through. I reserve the right to extend on all points as needed. I await my opponents rebuttal
The US two party system historically has undermined progress in congress.

Hi I would like to debate this topic. When I mean by progress is that when our forefathers intended for the US to handle issues in congress, they wanted the best result for the people. Has the two party system undermined this? This is a three round debate. Since the resolution explicitly states "historically" the more the examples throughout history, the better. Please only accept if you are going to have knowledgeable intelligent arguments. Thank you. Since I am CON I will let my opponent speak first, and I expect my opponent to not speak his third round so we can have a equal number of speeches. Alright let's begin!
The Restaurant McDonald's Should Be Shut Down

Rules - For Me: Round 1: Rules/Argument Round 2: Argument Round 3: Rebuttals/Argument Round 4: Argument Round 5: Rebuttals/Argument For Opponent: Round 1: Rebuttals Round 2: Rebuttals/Argument Round 3: Argument Round 4: Rebuttals Round 5: Rebuttals/Argument I believe the restaurant McDonald's should be shut down permanently. They put disgusting and terrible stuff in their food which can increase risk of diabetes, damage DNA, and much more damage! When you buy from McDonald's, you are deliberately paying to harm yourself and anyone else with you. Many of McDonald's food include tertiary butylhydroquinone (TBHQ). This is a chemical preservative so deadly that only 5 GRAMS of it is fatal! And, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration decided that you can put a less amount of Trans Fat then what really is inside the food! McDonald's food has lots of Trans Fat. Wondering what else McDonald's puts in their food? Here is a list: sodium phosphates; bleached wheat flour (nutrients removed); food starch-modified (likely genetically-modified); dextrose (sugar); partially hydrogenated soybean oil and cottonseed oil with mono-and diglycerides, (trans fats); Prepared in vegetable oil (Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil) (trans fats); TBHQ, tertiary butylhydroquinone, a petroleium dervived product; Dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent (a form of silicone used in cosmetics, and Silly Putty). You may think McDonald's food taste good, but next time you go there, pay attention to how their burgers look like they were sat on! What do you think about that? And, never pay attention to their commercials. They edit them so much to make their place look great! Who knew that McDonald's burgers are "washed" with ammonium hydroxide, a chemical used in fertilizers and cleaning products? Ammonium hydroxide is used in 70% of the meats worldwide, and is not listed because it is not considered an ingredient! McDonald's claims that there burgers are 100% pure beef, and they are lying! When they make burgers, about 75% of the beef is made up of other cow parts that aren't supposed to be in burgers (for example: cow #2)! Why do they do this? Because they pay less and get payed MORE! 15% of the burgers include liquid sugar, which leads to extreme obesity, monosodium glutamate, which can cause stomache aches, headaches, and sometimes fevers, and much more poison! McDonald's also puts chemicals in their food to make you HUNGRIER, so they can make MORE money! One reason they do this is because working at McDonald's is a low-paying job. Once, McDonald's even lied that their food was healthy on Huffington Post! What do you think about McDonald's now? Will you vote for me at the end? Sources: http://www.endalldisease.com... http://www.care2.com... http://www.mcspotlight.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.theblaze.com...
Which team won civil war? (pro-team cap, con- team iron man)

"Even if he failed to take down the accords, he still didn't sign it, meaning he and his team will be protecting the world without regulations. Also, he did manage to break his teammates out of the prison. His team would also be fired upon by the policemen and the army they were trying to protect in the first place. His teammates have to live the hard, undercover life and may have to fight Iron Man, Vision and War Machine again unless there is some compromise. "In a way, he wins, because now he can't be mind controlled." Bucky still can be mind-controlled. They said they were "working on it" which could take anywhere from a day to a decade. And Bucky has pretty much went into a self-induced coma. Not sure a member of the winning team would do that. "What I mean is, they had an epic battle, and Iron man lost that battle. He can make a new suit, but he still lost that fight." The question is which team won civil war. Iron Man may have lost the battle, but he won the war. Plus, Captain America and WInter Soldier both were beating him, which was unfair. And still Iron Man got both of them pretty roughed up. Winter Soldier lost his arm, I don't remember whether Iron Man cut it or was it something else. But Winter Soldier as well as Captain America lost their power. "He won, because he became the better man." A better man won't fight 2 to 1 on Iron Man, especially when his cause for revenge was so valid this time. And super strength can only do so much. Iron Man surprisingly forgot to use his wrist missiles/rockets on Captain America, that would have blowed him up bad. Probably out of pity for his former friend. Even if he had used his shield, the knockback would have decapitated him. Iron Man at least didn't let his team down. Captain America ran away for his selfish friendship while his team were in prison, albeit for a short time. Everyone had let Iron Man down, but while everyone saw Captain America stopping the fight, they didn't see that Stark didn't call for reinforcements and let Captain America go away. He certainly didn't attack him in the back, unlike Captain America and Winter Soldier's strategy, where one attacked from front while the other came from the back. Also if you say that the hydra base fight was won by team cap, then the quinjet helicarrier fight was easily won by team iron man. Majority of Captain America's team were arrested in that epic battle. "Their friendship is what I think was saved. At least now, Bucky is safe, away from harm. Which was what Cap wanted in the first place. " In the end, it can be considered he lost Bucky, after all, what is the use of Bucky in a coma? In conclusion, Team Iron Man won civil war as they acquired Captain America's shield, got his team declared as fugitives, got Bucky shutdown and allowed the Sokovia Accords to be enforced.