BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hitler was an Atheist

As always, dealing with a politician leads one to the difficult task of telling an expedient stance of the moment from a general worldview, especially as thoroughgoing a liar as the Chancellor was. I will demonstrate that Pros quote is of the first type. It is beyond dispute that Mr. Hitler was as racist and anti-Semitic as they come, following in a long tradition of hatred for 'Christ Killers' as noted on the front-piece of this authoritative translation [http://americannaziparty.com...] of his book. It is not as well known however, how anti Enlightenment Hitler was (By Enlightenment I mean the use of Reason, skepticism, free thought and agnosticism/ atheism in general). Hitler, like many others then and now, lazily identified Atheism and Communism and his few mentions of atheism were entirely direct attacks, notably in closing the headquarters fo the 500,000 German freethinkers Society('Deutscher Freidenkerbund' ) and covering it to a church bureau of all things! [http://select.nytimes.com...] . The chancellor of the Freethought group would have his head taken near the end of the war as well. Hitler was raised Catholic -even sang in the choir- but as the Fuhrer, mainly sought to remove religious competition to his own power. That is the true source and motivation of Pro's quote above. Mr. Hitler attempted to create a Positive Christianity, which replaced both Catholicism and Protestant churches with a 'back to basics' religion, wherein his Warrior Jesus was the spiritual founder of a unified Nazi/ Christian church, led by the Fuhrer himself. [http://atheism.about.com...]
Hitler was an Atheist

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... <here insults people who believe transubstantiation>.... "When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease."source: http://www.cs.rutgers.edu...This quote from Hitler illustrates that he is not a Christian, but rather an Atheist because he is not supportive of any type of God.
Hitler was an Atheist

As I have recently had an argument on this subject which was not resolved, I would like to place this debate that Hitler was not a Christian, but Atheist in order to get a feel for the arguments that Pro would likely use. I would like your Round 1 to be Pro's initial argument, and to have alternating argument/ counterarguments. As this subject is necessarily a Godwin's Law scenario, I feel I must reiterate that 1.) no ad hominem attacks 2.) cite ALL your sources (the last argument didn't). I welcome Pro's acceptance and first argument!
Science Should Progress Religion Instead of Religion Dictating Science

My opponent seems to entirely misunderstand the debate resolution. I am not arguing or even claiming that no religious people accept science. Rather, I am arguing that science should progress religion instead of religion dictating science. I gave an example of this in Round 1. There I said that many people still believe in Young Earth Creationism, which has empirical evidence to be untrue. The flaw that any religious people fall into is that they actually deny reality in order to justify their beliefs. Imagine if people still believed in Greek Mythology. They would think that some god in the sky creates lightning and that Atlas holds up the Earth. Both of these have been shown to be scientifically false. In this way, science progresses religion in that it may falsify beliefs and also confirm others. If people who continued to believe in Greek myths did so only for the sake of holding on to their beliefs, then they are actually trying to use their beliefs to dictate science and deny reality. Take the famous astronomer Galileo for example. In the day the Catholic Church’s belief was that the Sun revolved around the Earth due to a Bible passage saying it as so. Galileo however discovered that the Earth instead revolves around the Sun. To hold on to their own beliefs simply for the sake of it, the Catholic Church denied Galileo’s discovery and punished him. This is an example of religion dictating science. Eventually after Galileo’s findings were proven the Catholic Church accepted that the Earth revolves around the Sun. This didn’t disprove the Bible, rather science to progressed religion in that it allowed the Catholic Church to discover the true context of that Bible passage. One has to remember that if God created everything, then God’s nature can be found in what he created. To deny God’s creation is to essentially deny God. This is how science progresses religion and this is why religious people must stop denying reality for the sake of holding on to their own religious beliefs. Not that my arguments and examples have been made it can be logically concluded that my opponent has gone way off topic, even accusing me of things I never claimed and trying to argue against point I never made nor am I arguing for. To clarify once again, I am arguing that science should be used to progress religion. You are arguing that religious beliefs should take precedence over science. I am not arguing that God doesn’t exist, or that all religious people deny science, ect. ect. like it seems you think I am arguing. Thank you I await your response.
Science Should Progress Religion Instead of Religion Dictating Science

Religious people still believe in science, and to say they don't is an outrageous claim. Where does religion argue against science? Are you talking about religious people disagreeing with the theory of evolution? Evolution has not been proven as a fact, so why should people have to agree with it? Some creationists believe in a young earth, but does that belief imply that they disagree with all science? Origins and evolution are questionable issues and science still has not provided the answers, so what's the issue? Religious doctrine (the Christian bible), makes no attempt to disprove science. In all reality, there are quite a few verses in the bible that give reference to real world science. The bible provides information on weather patterns, atoms, and even radio waves. I would like to know what science you believe religious doctrine is trying to disprove. Science is not only limited to evolution and origins. Do you see my point? Can you scan through all of the information in the bible and disprove it through history or science? No you can't, and I would like for you to disprove the bible through historical accounts or through science.
Science Should Progress Religion Instead of Religion Dictating Science

Many of the time I witness religious peoples arguing against science using their own religious doctrine. I believe this position is flawed and that science, something confirmed by reality should take priority over religious beliefs. For example, some religious people believe and argue for Young Earth Creationism even though it is implausible according to Evolution. Instead of YEC advocates trying to disprove science with religious doctrine, they should use science to advance their religious beliefs and come to a higher intellectual understanding of reality, or even their own religion.
Science Should Progress Religion Instead of Religion Dictating Science

You completely avoided addressing the points I made that religion did play a role in progressing science. I he you understand that science is not confined to origins. Science involves medicine (progressed by religion). I already provided historical evidence of this. Also, I would like you to know that nearly EVERYTHING progresses science. Science can be an observation or experimentation. Religion progressed science, but not in a way you have comprehended. You need to think out side of the box and understand that some scientists work to disprove religious beliefs, therefore, religion plays a role in progressing science . I hope that makes sense. I really wish you would have used some sources or valid points in your debate. I kept my last argument short, as I made a few short statements to begin with. I do believe we are fairly close in word count. Thanks.
Abortion

Thanks for the challenge. I agree with my opponent's proposed definition of abortion. To answer Con's questions, I am in favor of the death penalty, therefore making his argument useless (as he assumed that I would be opposed to the death penalty). Regarding torturing terrorists, I am also in favor of doing so again, this makes Con's argument useless (as he figured I'd be opposed to that as well). To address Con's other points, first of all, abortion doesn't require the stopping of a beating heart because many times abortion occurs before the heart has even developed let alone started beating. Further, I don't believe in God and therefore using him to sway my moral opinion is flawed. I don't believe that abortion is wrong because I believe that only living human persons have a right to life. One becomes a person once they develp consciousness, which usually does not occur until after the 3rd trimester of pregnancy. Some more reasons why I am Pro legalized abortion: 1. The government doesn't have the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body. At its inception, the fetus is not a person but a fetus and therefore has no legal rights. As such, the woman is responsible for the fetus - it is her property - and she can do with it what she chooses. 2. Most women who make the decision to have an abortion do so because they feel that they would not be able to properly raise a child, and do not wish to bring a child into this world to be sent to an orphanage. 3. If a woman really doesn't want to have a baby, she's going to abort it one way or another. Criminalizing abortions would increase the demand for unsafe and unsanitary criminal back-alley abortions. 4. Abortion is not murder; as I've said, a fetus is not a person in any legal sense of the word. Therefore it becomes a moral issue. For those who don't believe in God, abortion is not a violation of any moral code. Further, since there is a Separation of Church and State, then the opinion of the Church about when a fetus becomes a person is really irrelevant. So, Con, f you are a theist, please Google Leviticus 26:14-30 and see how loving your God is.
Abortion

1. My first point noted that the government doesn't have a right to tell a woman what to do with her own body. Con's response was that a woman needs to accept responsibility regarding the consequences of her actions (sex). Of course this fails to exclude the realities of (1) accidents, and (2) rape. A woman might have sex and be ready for such an endeavor, but might not be ready to have a child. We need to stop equating sex with children; sex has become a part of our culture and a woman should not be punished or penalized for it. Because of all of the other points I made about the legal status of a fetus, etc., then it's appropriate to say that a woman should be able to choose not to have a baby even if she chose to have sex. Moreover, of course a woman should not be forced to accept the consequences of a situation she did not invite, i.e. rape -- especially because of all of the baggage that would come with that type of a pregnancy and birth. 2. Con said, "If you have enough money to have an abortion than you can raise a baby." That's ridiculous. An abortion costs $250 - $450, whereas you would spend far more that on doctor and hospital visits alone before the baby is even born if you decided to keep it... not to mention the EXTENSIVE costs of raising a child outside of the womb for at least 18 years. This is just a silly and absurd argument. 3. I pointed out that if we criminalized abortion, it would only increase back alley abortions. Con's response was that all abortions are unsafe and that's why we have police... WTF? Fail. 4. I pointed out the separation between Church and State in our government; in other words, we can only take into consideration legal obligations and not religious ones. So, a fetus still doesn't have any legal rights. Con didn't respond to this and instead said "No matter what it's still murder!" Unfortunately, Con is wrong. Abortion does not fit the parameters of murder either in the legal sense or the definition itself. Uh... then Con said something dumb about Leviticus. Nevertheless, he still failed to respond to my arguments regarding consciousness being the indicator for when human life begins (as it pertains to rights) nor many of my other points. Con just failed overall in this debate - including missing a round - so regardless of how you feel about abortion, your points in this debate should go to the Pro. Thank you.
Abortion

as you said in 1.) 1. The government doesn't have the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body. At its inception, the fetus is not a person but a fetus and therefore has no legal rights. As such, the woman is responsible for the fetus - it is her property - and she can do with it what she chooses. When a woman is having sex she knows what could happen and she needs to man up to her decision. So why is killing a dog illegal they have no rights and they are not a person. My answer is because it is wrong. as said in # 2 2. Most women who make the decision to have an abortion do so because they feel that they would not be able to properly raise a child, and do not wish to bring a child into this world to be sent to an orphanage. If you have enough money to get an abortion you can raise a baby and if you don't have enough money still there is well-fare. I would rather be an orphan than never live wouldn't you? as said in #3 3. If a woman really doesn't want to have a baby, she's going to abort it one way or another. Criminalizing abortions would increase the demand for unsafe and unsanitary criminal back-alley abortions. It is already unsafe just safer and that's why we have police. as said in # 4 4. Abortion is not murder; as I've said, a fetus is not a person in any legal sense of the word. Therefore it becomes a moral issue. For those who don't believe in God, abortion is not a violation of any moral code. Further, since there is a Separation of Church and State, then the opinion of the Church about when a fetus becomes a person is really irrelevant. No matter how you put it it is still murder!!! I love that because Jesus died for our sins and your life is like that described in Leviticus 26:14-30.
The Brotherhood is a bunch of cucks.

Apologies, Con. I had accidentally pasted that instead of my real argument, which is this: Aruba, Jamaica, ooh I wanna take yaBermuda, Bahama, come on pretty mamaKey Largo, Montego,baby why don't we go,JamaicaOff the Florida Keysthere's a place called KokomoThat's where you wanna goto get away from it allBodies in the sand,tropical drink melting in your handWe'll be falling in loveto the rhythm of a steel drum bandDown in Kokomo[Chorus:]Aruba, Jamaica, ooh I wanna take you toBermuda, Bahama, come on pretty mamaKey Largo Montego,baby why don't we goOoh I wanna take you down to Kokomo,we'll get there fastand then we'll take it slowThat's where we wanna go,way down in Kokomo.Martinique, that Monserrat mystique...We'll put out to seaand we'll perfect our chemistryBy and by we'll defya little bit of gravityAfternoon delight,cocktails and moonlit nightsThat dreamy look in your eye,give me a tropical contact highWay down in Kokomo[Chorus]Port au Prince, I wanna catch a glimpse...Everybody knows a little place like KokomoNow if you wanna go to get away from it allGo down to Kokomo[Chorus]
The Brotherhood is a bunch of cucks.

Thank you, Con. Sons of Scotland, I am William Wallace. Con had this to say in Round 1:"William Wallace is 7 feet tall."Yes, I've heard. Kills men by the hundreds, and if he were here he'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse. I AM William Wallace. And I see a whole army of my countrymen here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What would you do without freedom? Will you fight?Aye, fight and you may die. Run and you'll live -- at least a while. And dying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!ALBA GU BRA!Sources:The Encyclopaedia Britannica
The Brotherhood is a bunch of cucks.

Hello, all. I will be arguing that every single member of "The Brotherhood" of Debate.org is, in fact, a cuckold. My opponent naturally will be arguing against this notion. But first, some definitions:The Brotherhood - a group of edgy white dudes who frequent this website and gave themselves a deceptively cool name. Members are known to have no social life and to use "free speech" as an excuse to be an asshat to everybody.Cuck - a man who has a pathetically small penis, so he allows his female partner to seek pleasure from other men. The cuck is usually present during these acts of defilement, watching and being aroused vicariously.Anyone can accept, but I encourage the "members" of The Brotherhood to do so.
Genghis khan would defeat any other medieval army

Right so just feeling like a friendly debate: Genghis khans forces (lets say 3 tumans or 30,000 men) would defeat any other medieval army of same size and experience. His rigid chain of command, dread in/after battle, the inconceivable archery skills of the mongol hordes (not to mention the most agile heavy cavalry), and general bad-assery all would contribute to the absolute and total destruction of the opposing force, be they Richard the lion heart's crusaders, William the conquerer, Robert the bruce, Saladin e.t.c... Con will argue that the opposing force (faction/country is their choice, must be medieval period) of same size (30,000 men, mixed cavalry/missile/infantry up to them) have a chance and will defeat Genghis Khan in a pitched battle on an open plain. I will use examples from battles Genghis himself took part in and/or his ancestors/generals. Con can use whatever sources he/she may as long as they relevant to the forces he/she chooses. "A man's greatest work is to break his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all the things that have been theirs, to hear the weeping of those who cherished them."-Genghis
The Use of Animals within Scientific Research

The use of technology does not think like a human. I understand the advancement of technology and volunteered cadavers, but what about studies that involves the specimen to be alive? In psychology, many case studies involve the naturalistic studying of animals, others they are being tested on so they can be compared to the human body and mind. Technology cannot provide that kind of information for us. I do not necessarily believe in the potential harming such as the testing of make up on animals, but research for the mind and behavior should not be ruled out with the rest of the potentially harmful studies.
The Use of Animals within Scientific Research

Before the publication of "On Fabric of the Human Body" by Andreas Versalius, people were dissecting animals in hopes understanding the human anatomy. It was not until Versalius had published his book that the world understood the functions and positions of organs within the human body. In comparison to animals, many areas were positioned differently than the human body. Animals also have alternate functions to certain organs due to their diets and their habits of walk, mating, etc. Currently, the use of animals in research is unnecessary due to technology and the use of volunteered cadavers. The use of animals at this point would not be beneficial for research of the human body in hopes of helping our race.
The Use of Animals within Scientific Research

How does them not having a choice means they are not helping us?That doesn't correlate whatsoever. Synthetic materials aren't the real thing and how sure are we that it will act exactly the same for a live person? There are now ethical guidelines to make sure animals aren't in horrible habits. We can't stop every horrible research, but the effort is there and I see that, but as the time we are in now, they are used to benefit the human race.
The Use of Animals within Scientific Research

Animals are not necessarily helping us because they have no choice to participate in the testings. Again, we are in an period of time where we have improved our technology and our lab work to create synthetic materials that could be used to test chemicals on. What also poses the issues of animal use if the way that they are being treated, and whether or not their living conditions are inhumane. Many animals that are being tested are placed in conditions that are unhealthy and will harm them, whether or not the testing itself is physically or mentally harmful.
The Use of Animals within Scientific Research

Sure, we used animals in the past to understand the human body and to further our knowledge, but nowadays, they should not be used. We have other methods to researching. What about the animals that are being harmed? Should we then continue to use animals even though they are being harmed, for the benefit for ourselves? If we use chimpanzees to see ourselves in a third person point of view, then what is the point of naturalistic observation of humans?
The Use of Animals within Scientific Research

though they are not anatomically the same, they are anatomically similar. The use of humans in research in unethical. so how would you continue the research. we are 96% similar to chimpanzees, therefore their behavior and their thought process is the same except for high functioning analysis (http://news.nationalgeographic.com...). How does the observation of these species not benefit the human race? we are basically looking at our uncivilized selves from a third person point of view. for psychology, there is a purpose because of this genetic similarly. We are then able to study and learn deeper about the mind and why are the way we are. I never adovated for harm of animals, but USE of them.
The Use of Animals within Scientific Research

The comparison between animals and humans are not anatomically the same. How does the brain and the function of the brain of animal even compare to that of a humans? In psychology, what is the purpose of studying when it is not to benefit for human progress and evolution? The use of observational research of humans and case studies will provide you with the same needed results. Observing animals in research does not help the benefits of a human due to the different characteristics and environment. Harming of animals in testing is unnecessary, but using animals in a non harmful way for research is not reliable because of how different they are. Humans may have evolved from apes, but there are differences in the overall makeup of the specimen.