BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Corporal Punishment of Children

Throughout history, and for pretty obvious reasons, children have been considered less than human, or not fully human, resulting in their status as owned products, unfree, unformed. Still today, the majority of parents in the world think of themselves as OWNING their children. Consequently, many millions of children have been and are often beaten (as punishment) in ways that would result in criminal charges if perpetrated against an adult. It has only been very recently that society has questioned the view that parents have a right to do what they want with their children. Today, a widely accepted modification of that view is that parents have a right to beat their children IN MODERATION. You can beat your children as long as you don't do physical damage. Much more accepted is verbal, mental and emotional abuse. But there is absolutely no basis for permitting an adult to hit a child, whether that child is a son or daughter or a complete stranger. We cannot beat people because we do not like their behavior, or think that they need to learn something. Why should that prohibition be waived when it comes to our children? It should be illegal to beat children as punishment. It is child abuse even to bring children up with the belief that they will be punished simply because someone doesn't LIKE what they do. Such brainwashing leaves children stunted, fearful, unfree. True, people must learn that they will be punished for breaking laws. But children are not generally lawbreakers, and are not punished by their parents for breaking the laws. Instead, children are punished for "talking back," accidents, mistakes, not being careful, being silly, bad grades or not doing homework or chores, and other supremely non-criminal activity. It is pretty well-established that punishment is not an effective way of instilling values or good behavior. I would guess that 90 percent of criminals were beaten as children, and maybe at least half of those severely. Even more. Many parents beat their children for behaviors that, when seen in other children, provoke no concern or anger at all. Kids need to learn that they are protected by the same laws as adults, and that there is no acceptance or sanction of someone intentionally inflicting physical pain upon them. The view that beating children is necessary or good for them is itself cruelty, and while beating a kid may end up effectively controlling the kid, such attempts at control should be illegal in all cases when used against innocent people, whether those people are adults or children.
Atheism is a belief

1. This shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of what an Atheist is. Atheism is a lack of belief in any sort of deity. One cannot claim that a lack of belief is belief the same way that in a debate, the side arguing the affirmative cannot try and penalize the negative side by claiming that it has not supported its claim. The negative position is simply providing a reason why it does not believe in the claim made by the positive side; it is not required to make a claim in the opposite respect. 2. Although I have just explained why atheists are not required to make a claim to be considered an atheist, I am going to turn around and give exceptions. There are anti-theists and strong atheists who claim that there is no God. If one makes that sort of claim, then I would agree that they must possess a belief. This example reflects the spectrum of atheism. In the middle of the spectrum, there is agnosticism. This can range all the way from agnostic atheism to agnostic theism. Once you escape the range of agnosticism, you reach ever-increasing and ever-dishonest rates of claims that either a God exists or a God does not. Trying to blanket everyone into one section of the spectrum is a dishonest and weak straw man. 3. Atheists must make pragmatic assertions. As an atheist, I live my life as if there is no God. I do not thank whatever gods may exist for my not dying while crossing the street, though I acknowledge that said gods may exist. A human will drive himself or herself mad trying to keep himself or herself completely intellectually honest all the time. In order to stay sane, humans must make pragmatic assertions according to what their position most closely represents and live their lives by it, though it does not perfectly represent their positions. In the case of agnostic atheists, we must make the pragmatic assertion that we should live our lives as if no gods exist. This being true, when pressed for scrutiny, we will show our true colors and admit that the possibility of gods existing is there. 4. Many atheists you have read about or met may be against religion. I cannot speak for all atheists on this point, but it is a common one held by atheists. Not only are you putting people into boxes by assuming that all atheists make this claim, but you are also misunderstanding their position by doing so. Claiming that religion has a negative influence on the world is not the same as making a claim on the existence of a deity. Atheism deals very strictly with the existence of a deity and no other arguments, however suggestive, made by people who happen to be atheists.
Atheism is a belief

What I claimed was if an agnostic made the claim that God does not exist then he was not agnostic, he would be an atheist. These definitions are from Webster"s New World College Dictionary. Not my definition. The dictionary placed the capitalization in the definition. Atheism - "the belief that there is no God, the denial that God or gods exist" Agnosticism - "the doctrine of agnostics: distinguished from ATHEISM" Agnostic - "A person who believes that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause, or anything beyond material phenomena" 1 - I have not been ignoring your points. There are two meanings within the definition of atheism. The first is when a person does not believe that God exists. The second is when a person denies or rejects God"s existence. I never claimed they were the same thing. Your whole argument here shifted from is atheism a belief to who has to prove if God does or does not exist. I am not debating the existence of God. I am debating that atheism is a belief, which you have pointed out several times in your own argument. 2 " The only thing I said about an atheist who makes a claim is that they have the burden of proof for that claim. The same rule applies to a theist. An atheist does not have to claim anything to be atheist. It is their belief, and beliefs don"t need evidence. Claims need evidence. If atheism is not a belief, how does an atheist answer this very simple yes, no, or I don"t know question? Do you believe that God exists? Yes = Theist No = Atheist I don"t know = Agnostic It is as simple as that. An atheist cannot claim to KNOW that God does not exist because as you have admitted, there is no way to prove it. We aren"t debating the creation of the universe, and the question doesn"t concern the reasoning for the belief. Atheism is a belief. (Off Topic) "Richard Dawkins is an agnostic-atheist because he does not make the assertion that there is no God/are no gods." This is a cut and paste from your last post. "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God" This is a cut and paste from an article written by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins definitely made the assertion that there is no God, and he has done is several times. "The atheist view is correspondingly life-affirming and life-enhancing, while at the same time never being tainted with self-delusion, wishful thinking,"- Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. This quote is from Dawkins" own book. The "delusion" he is talking about is the belief in God. He believes that theists are delusional and obviously favors atheism. In no way is Dawkins agnostic. This is the link from the Huffington post with his article. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Atheism is a belief

I will continue to argue your points, I enjoy debating, but I need to point out something first. The original argument was whether or not atheism was a belief. This argument has moved from that point to, is there such a thing as an agnostic-atheist in the 2nd argument. You have mentioned that the two are different from each other but we are still at the point where atheism is a belief based off of a person"s belief in science or lack of evidence to prove Gods existence. 1 - People reject ideas for two reasons. 1.They know for a fact that the idea is false. 2.They believe that the idea is false. No one rejects an idea just because they reject it. There is a reason why they reject it. Since the proof for atheists is based on belief in science, (evolution and big bang are just theories) or the belief that there is not enough evidence, atheism is a belief 3 - (4th argument) Pragmatic assertions are based off of evidence or lack of evidence. You can have the atheist who makes a pragmatic assertion based off of scientific theories, which is a belief. And then there is the atheist who makes pragmatic assertions based off of lack of evidence for the existence of God, which is also a belief because no one can truly say that there is definite evidence that disproves God (or proves God). (Off topic argument) 2 - My definitions were picked from Webster"s New World College Dictionary, I made sure to cite my work at the bottom of each round. First, I haven"t made a claim to what you believe. I cannot tell anyone what they believe. That is up to each individual. What I did was give definitions to words that have been around for centuries. You gave me the definition of atheist and agnostic. Both of them match with the definitions I gave. If you are agnostic, you don"t make the claim that "I believe that God exists" or "I don"t believe that God exists" because you believe it"s impossible to tell. If you make either claim then you are no longer agnostic, you fall under theism or atheism. The "New atheist" movement is trying to change the definition of words to fit their arguments. They cannot just change the meanings of words to suit them. If people do not like being labeled by those definitions they can create a new word to call themselves. They cannot take words that have been used for centuries and decide that you want to change their meaning. "New atheists" are also attempting to claim agnostics and bring them into their inner circle. Aggressive atheists are trying to recruit any one and every one they can. This is why many have started to use the term agnostic-atheist like the two are peas in a pod (Just to be clear, I don"t believe you are an aggressive atheist). You mentioned Richard Dawkins and others and claim they are agnostic. If Dawkins truly believes that there is no way to know if God exists, why does he spend so much effort trying to disprove Gods existence? Dawkins is not agnostic he is an atheist. A true agnostic would not bother with the battle between theist and atheist because he believes that there is no way to prove either side.
Atheism is a belief

1 - I made the initial claim that lack of belief is a belief. There is belief in a positive and belief in a negative. The belief that God exists is the positive and belief that God does not exist is the negative. Because I made that claim, it was up to me to prove my claim. I never made the assumption that atheist needed to defend why they believe there is no God or gods. My intention was to debate whether or not atheism is a belief. Anyone who accepted this debate has the responsibility of having to provide evidence that my claim is wrong because they would be making their own claim. To be clear, I wholeheartedly agree with you atheist do not need to explain their belief or why they believe it. 2 - I know that each atheist is different from the next. I am against the idea of using a part to judge the whole. What I am arguing is that all atheists believe that God does not exist. That is their truth based on what they believe. The atheist who lives his life and doesn't argue whether or not God exists still believes that God does not exist, just as the atheist who lives his life trying to disprove Gods existence. They are very different in their behavior but ultimately they both possess the belief that God does not exist. 3 - Agnostic and atheism do not mix just as agnostic and theism do not mix. Agnostic " "A person who believes that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause, or anything beyond material phenomena"* Agnosticism " "the doctrine of agnostics: distinguished from ATHEISM"* Atheist " "a person that believes that there is no God"* Atheism " "the belief that there is no God, the denial that God or gods exist"* A true atheist believes with conviction that there is no God or gods. An agnostic doesn"t bother with the question of whether or not God exists because they believe that the answer is unreachable. An agnostic can live his life never acknowledging God but that does not make them an atheist. If an agnostic makes the claim that God does not exist then he or she would be considered atheist. Let"s look at it this way. Statement 1 " "I don"t think it is possible to tell if God is real." Statement 2 " "I don"t believe that God exists" If you look at this statement you can see that they don"t fit together. How can you make an assumption on the existence of God if you truly believe that it"s not possible to prove? You are a theist, agnostic, or atheist. The three do not mix. 4 - I do apologize for any misconceptions with my original argument. I do not believe that all atheists are the same, and I don"t have any issues with people who do not believe. I truly believe that a person"s beliefs are their own and as long as it doesn't affect others around them there is no explanation required. On that note I do hope that everyone can find God, but I would never try to force that on anyone. *Definitions from Websters New World College Dictionary.
is xinngan show the greatest youtuber ever

No, the Youtube channel named "xinngan" is most certainly not the best YouTuber. As of this time, I can see no YouTuber being the best, but for such terrible content, there is a reason why there are currently 14 people subscribed to the pathetic channel. Example:Video title: Why we should all be stonersNow why is this channel promoting usage of recreational drugs? Marijuana?Honestly this shouldn't be a debate, just a simple question, quite absurd and laughable for a debate! Why debate when it is obvious enough the channel is stupid and terrible?
is xinngan show the greatest youtuber ever

there is no reason we shouldn't be weed smokers, my reasoning in that video are solid. i am a very multi talented man, i do a wide range of stuff.an example of this talent can be shown when i made a video on how to get lad within 5 minutes ,with very positive reviews from customers looking for advice. i also am a talented musician and i use my expert skill in music to make fun of other peoples music and not only other peoples music but them personally this one i made fun of a tansgender this one i prised someone for being fat and woke i am very entertainig with my out there views like women should stay in the kitchen transgenders are gay aliens all that without giving a tuss
legalization of marijuana

You ask, “What is the problem with smoking a plant that makes you happy?” If our sole criteria is happiness, there may be no problem. For that matter, Oxycontin and MDMA are better drugs if you want a quick euphoric high. But to determine whether as a matter of public policy we want to remove all legal barriers to the use of a substance, there are other criteria that come into play. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment recently did a comprehensive overview of Colorado marijuana use by adolescent and young adults. [1] According to this study, early marijuana used can have a long term impact on the ability to learn. The study also concluded that marijuana use might trigger underlying psychological problems. [2] While your anecdotal evidence that you personally know people who have smoked for years without any problem carries some weight, it cannot counter the evidence that comes from long-term, scientific study. I also don’t find persuasive your argument that “if you don’t have self-control” don’t do drugs. A person who lacks self-control isn’t going to be able to abstain from using drug use if there are no controls whatsoever stopping that person. Mind you, if we are talking limited legalization (which we are not here), then the medical marijuana laws do provide some barriers to the uncontrolled use of marijuana via the requirement to obtain a prescription and the legal duties placed on people dispensing medical marijuana. I also wouldn’t necessarily oppose “decriminalizing” as opposed to legalizing marijuana. Since marijuana has been legalized in marijuana, Colorado has seen increasing trends of poison center calls, hospitalizations, and emergency department visits related to marijuana in Colorado. This date is preliminary, but a three-fold increase in the hospitalization rates for children with possible marijuana exposures is a statistically significant fact. [3] You point out that there are worse drugs. But we actually do have a tremendous series of programs dedicated to the use and abuse of other drugs such as cocaine and heroin. We have programs set up throughout the United States to deal with alcohol abuse. We have strict controls on the prescription of opiates and other pain killers. No one is giving a “pass” to other drugs. The question is whether the complete legalization of marijuana for use by anyone for any purpose serves society’s interests. I would suggest not. Certainly, there is no support whatsoever for legalizing marijuana use by teens. The vast majority of public support focuses on the use of marijuana for medical purposes, which is different than the unlimited legalization you support. Don’t get me wrong. Marijuana can be used safely. It can be of great benefit when used to treat a variety of ailments. But it can also be abused. We need laws in place that will address and minimize the potential for abuse. [1] http://kdvr.com... [2] http://kdvr.com... [3] https://drive.google.com...
legalization of marijuana

What is the problem with smoking a plant that makes you happy? I know people who have smoked for years, and they do not have "social impairment" they go to work and school and they work their hardest. If you don't have self control then obviously you should not smoke or do drugs. You shouldn't even drink alcohol. Alcohol is a drug, marijuana is a drug I am not hiding that. You're going with the fact its addicting, ok. But if you're going to say that smoking weed can lead to an addiction then maybe you should think of this. Addiction can be to anything, not just drugs or alcohol...People get addicted to food, tattoos, sex, phones, working out. There are many forms of addiction, and no matter how good it may seem or how bad it may seem, its still an addiction to something, at least with being addicted to smoking marijuana it makes you happy. And coming from a teenagers stand point, this world is pretty shitty, and if you want to call it being "addicted" to it because it makes you feel good, then by all means go with that. But when you want to say it causes a "disorder" that's where you're wrong. Something can only be bad for a person when they abuse it. It has been known that marijuana is the safest known drug, and I do not get why people are so afraid of it. I think that if people look at things from all perspectives and not be so rapid to judge then maybe we could have some new view on this topic. I feel like you made some good points I will say that, but only 9% of cannabis users become addicted, and my guess is its people who have been sheltered their whole life and are being shown something that makes them feel different. Pot is not dangerous, what's dangerous is the other drugs that no one seems to care about, everyone wants to make a huge deal about pot heads, but no one wants to make a difference on the people who are shooting up or snorting the drugs that actually kill people.
legalization of marijuana

I believe that marijuana should be legal for the benefits it will bring to our towns, county's, cities, and states. Look at Colorado, they received $53 million in tax revenue, and that is increasing I might add. They have a 28% tax rate for marijuana, can you imagine the money we could bring in for our states? The things we could fix with that money, it could go towards education and our schools, fixing up our roadways and improving the failing infrastructure in our states. I live in a small town and we don't have a lot of things, what we have is back roads that ruin our cars, we have schools that barely have money for things we need. We have businesses failing because the economy is going down the toilet. With the amount of people that are growing, smoking, and using marijuana right now, there is no reason marijuana should not be legalized. If people are so afraid of it, lets look at the statistics. In the United States the annual leading cause of death, is tobacco, with 435,000 deaths per year. Poor diet and physical inactivity is next with 365,000 deaths per year. Alcohol kills 85,00 people per year...alcohol impairs your ability to do pretty much anything/everything. Suicide and homicide combined kill on average 50,930 people per year. Marijuana...0, Marijuana has never killed anyone, it has been studied and stated that there is no connection between marijuana and lung cancer. I am not trying to force people to smoke marijuana, I am not saying that everyone should believe in what I believe in, but what I am asking is for you to look at it from my perspective, and about the other 78% that agrees with me. Marijuana is a plant...people have been smoking it for years, decades, even centuries. We should legalize marijuana which has been found to be the safest drug, with no deaths, no effects, no harm, and start putting the hammer down on the drugs that are destroying our cities, my generation, your children, friends, even our country. There are drugs out there that are killing people, 17,000 people I might add, and we are more focused on taking people to jail for smoking a joint. Let's flip a switch, look at it from another perspective, and see the benefits it could bring to our economy, see that we should start putting our fist down on the drugs that are actually killing people, and realize that this plant, this plant that grew in nature, and was used by mankind for many reasons, along with healing and pain relieve, and see that we are literally locking up people for smoking a plant is kind of ridiculous. It should be legal, it will allow us to focus on the things in our country that really need to be focused on. Again, under no circumstance am I trying to persuade anyone to smoke marijuana, my only hope here is for people to see this and for them to look at it from a different perspective. Thank you for reading this, and to put it bluntly, lets legalize Marijuana!