BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheists Do Have a Holiday: April 1st (April Fools Day)

I am not going to touch on the court case issue, as it has nothing to do with whether or not April Fool's is an atheist holiday. You have provided no reason for why April Fool's day would be an atheist holiday beside your one reference to Scripture. You must establish why that Scripture should determine when an atheist has a holiday. I could provide you with a citation from Dawkins or Hitchins that says "Christians are fools." Would that make April Fool's Day a Christian holiday? You say "Christians could not take Groundhog's Day as a holiday because it has no connections to Jesus Christ." I the same way, atheists could not take April 1st as a holiday because it has no connection to atheism. Indeed the fact that you link atheism to the date through scriptures is a striking reason why April 1st would NOT be an atheist holiday. Atheist would try to distance themselves from the connection as much as possible. Once again, why would atheists be linked to a date through Christian Scripture? That makes as much sense as setting a Buddhist day of celebration based on the Koran. I have no idea what the Gregorian calendar has to do with April 1st being an atheist holiday. A digression: atheists follow the calendar because it is historical contingency that happens to be used in our society. Some new points: You may be right that atheists are fools, but that does not make April 1st the atheistic holiday. Your conclusion is essentially drawn from the following premises: April 1st is the holiday of fools. Atheists are fools (so sayeth scripture) April 1st is the holiday of atheists. However, a large number of groups are fools (nazi's, flat earth-ists, clowns, people who gamble large quantities of money). So April 1st is their holiday also. This shows that the holiday is not a day designed for atheists "to celebrate their non-faith." The holiday is not exclusively for atheists. Furthermore, as you state the atheist holiday is "to celebrate their non-faith." Yet April 1st has nothing to do with a celebration of non-faith. It is already steeped in traditions of practical jokes that have nothing to do with atheism (please do not try and make some witty jab at atheism in response). In fact, your own argument shows that the link between April 1st and atheists is not "a [celebration] of non-faith," but their apparent foolishness. Finally, what is a holiday? Merriam Webster: "Holiday" 1: holy day 2: a day on which one is exempt from work; specifically : a day marked by a general suspension of work in commemoration of an event 3:chiefly British : vacation —often used in the phrase on holiday —often used in plural 4: a period of exemption or relief Clearly an atheist could not have 1, a holy day, and April 1st isn't one anyways. April 1st does not meet the criteria of a holiday under 2, because there is still school and work on April 1st. 3 also does not apply because April 1st is not a vacation. Finally, atheists do not receive a period of exemption or relief on April 1st, so it is not a April 1st is not a holiday PERIOD, much less an atheist holiday.
Atheists Do Have a Holiday: April 1st (April Fools Day)

First, this debate was not intended to be a joke or poke fun at atheist thinking. However, if you are from the opposite point of view, it may appear to look that way in nature. There are many cases to which this has happened across the country. Honestly, searching the "Internet" for a few moments will not always uncover the treasures of knowledge in which you seek. It usually takes a little more probing. Must I find the links to issues such as: ~ the atheist family who took their school to court so that the school choir would not sing Christian Christmas songs during the Christmas program (optional participation). ~ the atheist individual who petitioned his child's school to continue schooling during Easter and Christmas break because of religios discrimination. Do I need to go on with my points, or can you "research" them yourself? "In fact I have never heard of an atheist complaining about the existence of a theist holiday." An aquintance of mine, an atheist, just complained to me (a Christian) the other day about the Christmas holiday. Stating that it should not exist based on the assumption that the holiday derives from a myth. This happens on a daily basis in regards to atheist perceptions of theist holidays. In response to your points: 1) That is the point of this debate. To have a holiday, set by the Western American calendar, that allows for atheists to celebrate their "non-faith." 2) By default, atheists must follow the Gregorian calendar. The Gregorian calendar is rooted in the Christian faith. The following link shows this to be true and explains http://en.wikipedia.org... I'm guessing you do follow the Gregorian Calendar? 3) Christians could not take Groundhog's Day as a holiday because it has no connections to Jesus Christ. However, like I said before...Consider Psalm 14:1 states, "The fool says in his heart, that there is no God." Thus, if an atheist says there is no God, then by scripture, he is a fool and April 1st is his holiday.
Atheists Do Have a Holiday: April 1st (April Fools Day)

First, let me start by saying that I am not sure what we are debating. What do I have to do to win this debate? This sounds like you just wanted to poke fun at atheists, not like you had something interesting the argue about. I searched on the internet for a court case involving the lack of an "Atheist holiday," but could find no reference to an actual court case. What I did find was a myriad of internet JOKES about a case in florida like this, with the punch line of "you already have april fool's day." You say "no joke this has been brought up in many state courts nationwide." Since YOU make this claim, YOU have the burden of proof. Either present evidence for this claim (i.e., the names of some court cases we could reference), or admit that we have no reason to believe these cases exist. Now, of course "the idea of an atheist being upset/discriminated by a theist holiday" makes no sense. In fact I have never heard of an atheist complaining about the existence of a theist holiday. What they DO complain about is government endorsement of theist holidays. Of course whether this is legitimate or not isn't pertinent to the debate. As to the "April Fool's Day" Issue: 1) I have never known an atheist to celebrate or consider April Fool's Day an atheist holiday. I have seen atheists celebrate (as a joke) the autumnal equinox and 11/11 (palindrome day). If atheists do not celebrate a day, it seems silly to think that it is a holiday for them. 2) It is extremely ironic to decide "BY SCRIPTURE" that April 1st is an atheist holiday. Why would an atheist holiday be based on scripture? 3) If Christians are justified in deciding Atheists have a holiday on April 1st by Christian standards (i.e., scripture), then Atheists can do the same thing to Christians and say that Groundhog's day is a Christian holiday, because Christians believe in nonsensical and meaningless rituals. Generally the existence of a group's holiday is determined by the group itself, not internet joke.
Atheists Do Have a Holiday: April 1st (April Fools Day)

Over the past several decades, there has been more and more press that has uncovered an unrest among Atheists who feel discriminated against their beliefs because of the lack of an "Atheist Holiday" (no joke, this has been brought up in many state courts nationwide). However, based on this thinking, I am willing to debate the existence of a true atheist holiday. This holiday takes part yearly and is open for celebration. The date is April 1st, also known on the Western American calendar as April Fools Day. I must first say, and this can be continued in a later argument, that the idea of an atheist being upset/discriminated by a theist holiday makes absolutely no logical sense. The basis of their thinking is the fact that there is no real exsistence of a spiritual being or God. If this is the case, they do not (like they expect us to leave their expressions alone) to partake in any of the festivities that go along with any theist holiday (and no, no one makes you). The reason behind April Fools Day is as follows: Consider Psalm 14:1 states, "The fool says in his heart, that there is no God." Thus, if an atheist says there is no God, then by scripture, he is a fool and April 1st is his holiday.
all d people should vote

Whenever there is an election, people are encouraged to vote. However, there are also people who think that voting is just a waste of time and that nothing good will come out of it, even how many times it has been done. It"s hard to imagine if majority of the populace thinks this way, because if that happen democracy has already failed.people should vote because it is a way for every citizen to show their loyalty and concern to the country that they are serving. If one thinks that voting is unimportant, others will do to, and eventually everybody will think that it is useless.People vote because each person"s opinion matters and get counted. It is a way for citizens to voice out their hopes and dreams for their country by choosing the leaders that shares the same political and social ideals with them.The reasons why should people vote are countless, may it be as a privilege, a right, or a duty. Jst think of the people who fought for country jst for us 4 our freedom shld we forget dem
all d people should vote

Choosing "none" on the ballot is the same as not voting at all. It's simply implied with the latter. For the more severely disabled and sick, even just waiting in line or taking time out of their stressful day may be a struggle for them, and they may have to hire assistance for the trip. Not to mention, they will also have to keep up with the candidates before the election, and dealing with politics may be low on their priorities when their health is a concern. Many rural places do have transportation available to voting polls, but not all. People shouldn't have to walk long distances to vote for something they're not interested in, some may not even be physically capable of doing so. Finding the right candidate isn't about making everyone vote, it's about ensuring people are voting for the right person for the right reasons. If we forced uninformed or disinterested people to vote, the quality of our candidates would drop, not improve.
all d people should vote

its not so fare for those who dont feel that no one should win the ballot has option. to choose nun but if u think there is no transportation nd sick .etc den u forget that people get their name in the near voting place nd it even doent take much time nd old citizens , disabled people have different line so it becomes easy for them to go and vote and they dont need to wait for a long time. even transportation has become available even in rural places , nd if not able to pay for it dey can go walking , if we wont give them proper idea about it . we need to make our country more prosperous nd free from all misconceptions and old belief for that a good government is essential . only if we vote than only we will get a proper government .We need to take part in voting and choose a reliable , loyal nd honest candidate bcz it will help us in future . Our future depends upon them .its our reponsibilty to find a proper candidate nd this will happen if we all vote ..
all d people should vote

Ideally, every citizen would be familiar with the candidates, would take a liking to one available on the ballot, and turn out for voting. By making voting mandatory, we're only ensuring the last part to be true. People *should* be aware of the candidates, but that doesn't mean they are, and having misinformed or careless people vote is much worse than not having them vote at all. They will just skew the results of those that voted willingly because they were passionate about the issues. Some people don't vote because none of the candidates eligible to win the election are people they are willing to support, whether for religious or personal reasons. We would be forcing those that don't agree with the majority to go against their principles and beliefs, in exchange for a vote that will be chosen with resentment. For the disabled, sick, and those without transportation, they may be reprimanded for something out of their control.
all d people should vote

if people wont vote their will be imbalance in the democracy . All the people have the right to vote and they should use the right given to them . People should be made aware of the candidates if we wont tell them then they wont get to know abt it ever we shld help our country to become an socialized place . If we wont our country to be at the top we need to bring all of them together .Bring unity among people. voting shld be made compulsary so ppl get to know abt it
all d people should vote

Having the majority of people involved in elections would be ideal. People need to be inspired to learn about the issues and support someone who they trust in making positive changes. I think this can best be done by eliminating and reprimanding the many corrupt officials that make people distrust the government, and then for the public to commend candidates for their education and experience in public affairs, rather than their charisma and money to promote themselves. None of this can be achieved by making voting compulsory, but by making it appealing and fixing the social problem that lies at its core.
Resolved, that trans fat be made illegal in all consumer foods.

"Yes, while "consumer foods containing trans fat is a billion dollar industry," there are many alternatives that would even IMPROVE the economy." There is no way possible that it will improve the economy because taking trans fat out of the picture will make it more expensive for certain companies to produce their goods and make them "taste good". Why do you think they place trans fat in their food in the first place? You think they take pleasure in clogging the nation's arteries? Which leads me onto my next point. "There would be ZERO benefit in illegally obtaining these trans fats" There are scandals every month on certain food producing companies, have you heard of the one with cow meat last week? Well, these companies could obtain these fats and put it in their food without telling the people. It is a billion dollar industry for a reason. People will buy the product more if it contains trans fat regardless of whether they know it or not. I'd rather have these foods be legal and never consume them (it's not like I have a choice, my mom would never buy anything outside of trader joe's :P), than to be eating foods that contain trans fat without knowing it! Making it illegal is a bit too harsh. No doubt it is a problem in America but you can't just ban it!
Resolved, that trans fat be made illegal in all consumer foods.

Yes, while "consumer foods containing trans fat is a billion dollar industry," there are many alternatives that would even IMPROVE the economy. With more health officials warning the public about the negative effects of trans fats on the body (Coronary heart disease, prostate cancer, type 2 diabetes, obesity, liver dysfunction, and even infertility -- New England Journal of Medicine), many people would choose, like myself, not to put themselves in harm's way and remove junk food from their diets completely or severely. One alternative, put in place by the J.M. Smucker Company, yielded zero grams of trans fat per 1 tablespoon serving. "Nature makes it very easy for us to obtain trans fat and making it ILLEGAL would only influence criminals to attain it illegally and selling it at higher prices." While this is true of hallucinogens and other drugs, there are no "trans fat blunts" passed around a circle of unruly teenagers, nor do people inject, inhale, burn, or in any way absorb it to receive a bout of pleasure or strange hallucinations. There would be ZERO benefit in illegally obtaining these trans fats, as alternatives are right around the corner. "Banning unsaturated fat would cause too much commotion among the people..." First of all, I would like to clarify something: TRANS fats are a TYPE of unsaturated fat. I am not proposing to ban ALL unsaturated fats, just the ones containing trans-isomer fatty acids (partially hydrogenated, hydrogenated - the bad stuff!). Now, as for the "commotion" it would cause, I highly doubt there would be any negative commotion. This is because the people who eat at fast food restaurants are hardly even aware that what they're eating (two ladies have sued McDonald's because "it made them fat."), and those who DO know what's in the food will be that much happier, knowing that the food is that much healthier because of the proposed ban. "Banning unsaturated fat... will not prevent the country from consuming foods that contain unsaturated fat." OK, again I clarify that I am not proposing to ban unsaturated fat, but trans fat. I disagree wholeheartedly with this ludicrous statement. Banning trans fat in the United States, I believe, WILL "prevent the country from consuming foods that contain unsaturated fat," because there will be no trans fat for them to "consume."
Resolved, that trans fat be made illegal in all consumer foods.

Kusfraba, I agree with your opening argument, however your topic sentence is a bit too harsh. Making such things as trans fat illegal would bring down the economy. Consumer foods containing trans fat is a billion dollar industry. Also, nature makes it very easy for us to obtain trans fat and making it ILLEGAL would only influence criminals to attain it illegally and selling it at higher prices. There are better ways to go about decreasing this obesity problem in the United States. Banning unsaturated fat would cause too much commotion among the people and it will not prevent the country from consuming foods that contain unsaturated fat.
Resolved, that trans fat be made illegal in all consumer foods.

America holds the worldwide record for most obese population. The general public consumes copious amounts of fast food daily, fast food with little or no nutritional value that is laden with cancer-causing carcinogens. Here's a fun fact: the number one cause of death in this country is heart disease. Heart disease that is caused when these large, bulky Americans chow down on that delicious McDonald's burger filled with cholesterol. The junk food served at these fast food giants will never be heart healthy, but we should do whatever possible to help the hearts of average Americans by replacing the oils used for healthier ones. The questions I'm asking are: Should we help save lives? Should we halt the usage of trans fats in our society? I think the answer to those questions are "yea, big time."
RESOLVED: Scripture Alone Is Sufficient To Determine Faith & Morals

At the time of the writing of 2 Timothy 14-17, there existed only 39 books in the old testament." My opponent is simply wrong about his above statement. The 39 books of the old testament were not the only books at the time of the writing of 2 Timothy 3:14-17 Because 2 Timothy was not the first NT Writing, the other NT writing were in existence at the time of this writing. This verse includes all scripture, including the scripture Paul was writing at that moment. The proof that scripture is sufficient for ones faith is in verse 17. 2 Timothy 3:17 KJV 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. With the scriptures the man of god is perfect (not sinless, but complete) unto ALL good works. He does not need any thing else to be complete, and furnished in all good works. He does not need the papacy or traditions. The scriptures are sufficient to all good works. As far as his supposed and perceived "atrocities" are concerned, these do not discount the scriptures as sufficient for faith and morals, they only present perceived problems with the conclusion, they do not satisfy to negate the proposition. At best it provides is an undesirable conclusion to a position, but not proof that the position is wrong. I suggest that the cases that he has set forth are only perceived problems and not actual problems, but is not the issue at all, therefore do not need to be disproved as it relates to this debate. Besides, by accepting scripture, specifically the 39 books of the Old Testament, as part of what should be used to determine faith and morals my opponent must accept these consequences as I do in these same issues. If he denys that he does, then he must deny the scriptures have any role in determining faith and morals. But he cannot do that as he as already accepted scripture as part of the determining factor. "Faith and morals must be made for a combination of the Bible, reason, church traditions and personal experience, each give a different weight and measurement but rounded to give a firm moral standing ground.." Besides, if you argue that reason, church traditions and personal experience must determine as well as the bible, then he must strengthen his case for genocide and killing the innocent. Obviously no church tradition, or reason, or personal experience of the Catholic church prevented them form the Inquisition. If you include those the case for atrocities only gets stronger. This is fair game, because he admitted accepting the bible as well as introducing the traditions of the church. I look forward to the rest of this debate. To My Honorable Opponent:
The Old Testament of the Bible: A Depressing Paradigm PART II

I have not read the thread you are referring to, neither am I Catholic - in fact I have been an atheist for over 3 years! You have not offered up a topic of debate in the form of a question or statement, but I will do the best I can to challenge your statements. Remember that Christians believe that Jesus himself stated that the Old Testament is literal truth, but times have changed and the morals presented in the Old Testament no longer apply to the world Jesus wants to create. Remember, without the Old Testament there is no knowledge of Yahweh, no forebears to the Jewish faith. Jesus himself, in fact, was a Jew!