BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The BELIEF in atheist DOGMA is a MENTAL DISORDER (AKA INSANITY):

Preamble: Only a believer in atheist Dogma would be so demonic as to deny the existence of objective moral values. The atheist's position is clearly an irrational one: The atheist may as well make the claim, without evidence, that the Statue of Liberty doesn't exist because of lack of evidence, and be rightfully considered a lunatic. In reality, the belief in atheist Dogma is a mental disorder that should be treated with a good dose of competent psychological help. Because it fails as a worldview to provide the basis for objective moral values, the belief in atheist Dogma inevitably leads to corruption of moral character, which naturally leads to such horrible activities as murder, rape, racism, war, poverty, genocide, and all other sorts of man-made calamities. If they can't be helped by psychological treatment, then they should be deported. In fact, most psychologists define "insanity" as displaying behaviors and beliefs that fall outside the standard range of normalcy, and that is exactly what the belief in atheist Dogma is " a collection of beliefs and behaviors that fall outside the standard range of normalcy. Formal Argument: The belief in atheist Dogma and its concomitant behaviors qualify as insanity. P1: Psychologists and Psychiatrists define insanity as: "displaying behaviors and beliefs that fall outside the standard range of normalcy." P2: The belief in atheist Dogma and its concomitant behaviors fall outside the standard range of normalcy. Conclusion: Therefore the belief in atheist Dogma and its concomitant behaviors qualify as insanity. Bonus video included for clarity:
The BELIEF in atheist DOGMA is a MENTAL DISORDER (AKA INSANITY):

There is no such thing as an atheist, actually. My opponent wrote: The subject of the debate is the belief in atheist Dogma. All of your statements in this debate were atheist Dogma. The phrase "the belief in atheist Dogma" refers to the religion that YOU follow. All of your statements in this debate are atheist Dogma -- the belief in atheist Dogma is your own personal faith-based and unsupported religious belief. The belief in atheist Dogma refers to the religion that YOU follow. "I follow no religion" Yes, you do -- the religion you follow is the belief in atheist Dogma. "Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between valid evidence and invalid evidence. Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the meaningful and the meaningless." Those statements are both true. "you clearly believe in God," I have no beliefs, actually -- you are the only one of the two of us that harbors any beliefs or disbeliefs about God. "Even if you can observe God, you can't objectively verify it." Yes, we can. Also, without God, nobody could objectively verify anything. " There is no way of knowing if you what you observe is true." If you actually have no way of knowing whether or not what you observe is true, then you are personally unqualified to engage in any debate, including this one. Therefore I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =) "However, we don't have quite the same sense of spiritual vision." If you actually lack spiritual vision, then any and all statements that you may personally produce about God, whether positive or negative, must necessarily be unreliable. " You could be observing God." That is true. " You could also be observing a different god." There is only one God. You are a polytheist, but your polytheistic belief system is false. (Polytheism is actually a subset of the belief in atheist Dogma). "You just can't prove what it is." Yes, I can. "I would say that it is an invalid definition" Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between a valid definition and an invalid one. "He defines insanity as behavior out of the range of normalcy." I never made that statement, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part. I won this debate handily: Thanks for your time! =)
There is a possibility that Obama could be Satan.

The first thing we have to look at is the resolution. The resolution states there could be a possibility that Obama is satan. Possibility - The fact or state of being possible. [1]Possible - Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.[2]So for this to be a possible there must be a chance that it could be possible. For something to be possible it must have the chance to be true without contradicting empirical facts. The fact that satan exists is possible. There is no empirical evidence to show that he does not. Most people can only logically assume that he does not exist. This does not mean that it is true, it means that there is a high probability that he may not exist. So we can acknowledge that satan could exist, because there is no way to show that him existing is contradicting proven facts or empirical evidence. Luke 10:18 - "And He said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning falling from the heavens" [3]Note when Jesus spoke these words it was in Aramaic, which is regarded as one of the oldest versions of Hebrew. Now lighting in the Hebrew language translates to Baraq this also means to cast forth, or cast forward. [4]The next key note is heavens, or as this translates from Hebrew "High Place". High place or heavens in Hebrew translates to O Bamah. [4]when you break that down literally Baraq U Bamah in Hebrew would translate to lighting from the heavens or lighting from a high place. Also when we look at that verse it would translate toI saw Satan as Baraq U Bamah (Barack Obama)There is a possibility even if a slim one that Satan could be Barack Obama. Hide your Kids, Hide your Wives, he is going to make you dine in hell tonight. [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3] The bible[4] http://translation2.paralink.com...
Affirmative action

You need to be realistic about how the world works. There is no such thing as a 100% neutral unbiased system. Today, people are using connections and favours to obtain entry-level positions, senior positions and so on. The rich white kid who has a father in politics can get ahead so much and so fast in life not because of much effort on his part but because of the lottery of birth. In a world like this, we need to be more empathetic towards the plight of those less fortunate. Without AA, the world you will be creating is a world of elitism and self-entitlement where the rich get richer, and if you're not born rich you might as well not have any dreams because the way up is virtually impossible to climb. Your point about education behind an equaliser is extremely weak when I have clearly said that some people have access to better education. You just dismiss this by saying "They can always switch schools." Even IF AA is racism, it is something we should be willing to have. Thank you
Affirmative action

The scenario I used was just an example But, if a white person and a person of a minority are of the same skill set and yes while it may not be used in those circumstance that wasn't the point we need the best people on the job possible and here is the thing if they're equally matched then you hire the one who you think better for a job not based off of skin color that is racist like I've said in a previous statement if you hire somebody because they're black or another minority you're using their skin color as a deciding factor and your also being racist to the white person because you not hiring him based off of his color that racist and that's why people want AA in the first place was discrimination also they can move school locally for better education. not that Blacks need to work harder but that's ok if you want to take my statement and twist it. Let me finish saying this Let us not judge a person by the color of his skin but the content of his character.-Dr. King thank you
Affirmative action

You scenario of a black vs white guy applying for a job is faulty In that scenario, of COURSE the main reason to select a candidate is based on merit. Just like how people didn't just vote for Obama because he's black. They voted for him because he was the best guy at the time. What I am saying is that AA should (and has been) applied in instances where the candidates are EQUALLY good or shows EQUAL potential on paper. Based on what I understand, AA is rarely used in instances where you absolutely need the best neurosurgeon or the best physicist. In these instances, colour is not a metric to be considered. However, in instances where we have a list of shortlisted people who all pretty much have the same credentials and the same potential, we need to increase the number of minorities that we hire. Education is an equalizer. Education alone is not going to solve anything when whites have access to better schools. What youre saying is "Black ppl just need to work harder."
Affirmative action

While some people grow up in not so great conditions in America there is something I like to call the great equalizer education. If they perform well enough they're able to receive scholarships for that. and since they are minority they're eligible for something called diversity scholarships which whites are not. Dr. Ben Carson was placed in terrible living conditions as you mentioned and perhaps didn't go to the best schools as a child however, he took advantage of the education that was given to he went to yale and became a world renowned Brain surgeon No this does not develop empathy but a sense of entitlement because of race. I will finish with this if a black man and a white compete for a job and the white has more credentials and skills than the black man than of course any employer including myself would hire the White .NOT based on race but skill and experience and credentials to hire someone b\just because their black is reverse racism.
Affirmative action

I agree with Affirmative Action (AA). It is NOT because we need to reconcile our mistakes in the past. The reason we need AA is because we have to be realistic that the current world and communities are biased against minority races and religions. Majority of Blacks in America live in poorer communities and lack opportunities to good education and jobs, NOT because they are incapable but because the current scenarios and systems in place make it extremely hard for them to reach a decent standard of living. As opposed to this, if you happen to be white and born in a middle/rich income family, your path in life is so much easier because you already have the connections and resources. AA is important for us to be able to reach out towards talent that otherwise would be almost impossible to be discovered. Secondly, AA is important for us to be able to develop empathy and the awareness that the community is rarely homogeneous. Instead it is made up of different colours and ethnicity. TQ :)
Affirmative action

I am against Affirmative action and believe it is reverse racism and discriminatory They claim this is for the wrongs against minorities like slavery however that happened over 100 years ago. Which we had nothing to do with. wasn't Dr King a famous civil rights and minority leader who said judge not a person by color but instead by character . please keep your debate post under 2,000 words for convenience not only for us but for the readers as well Thank you.
To end Discrimination by converting marriages to civil unions

Introduction: My opponent proposes that my converted marriages to civil unions, it would be possible to end discrimination. I propose that this would not end or reduce discrimination. I will also argue that converting all marriages to civil unions is not a wise idea for other reasons. Converting all marriages to civil unions would not end discrimination. I assume my opponent is referring to discrimination against gays and lesbians and not discrimination in general. In any case, I fail to see a connection between the use of the term marriage and this type of discrimination. My opponent is no doubt thinking of the line of reasoning which defines a marriage as the civil union of one man and one woman, thereby preventing homosexual marriages. It is this line of reasoning, and not simply the word marriage, that is flawed. If a marriage is to be defined as a religious rite that joins one man and one woman, this would also mean that an atheist man and an atheist woman could not be "married." The issue at hand is not the use of the term "marriage" but the fact that people are artificially defining it to enforce their standards. It is true that the state has no right not to allow homosexual "marriage" but the solution to this is to adopt a more broad definition of marriage. The use of the term "civil union" simply counters one artificial definition with another. What is more important than the strict definition of a term is what is meant by it. Gays and lesbians should be allowed to be "married." The use of the word "marriage" is not the barrier that needs to be overcome. Discrimination against gays and lesbians is not the result of phony definitions of legal terms. It is the result of some combination of close-minded bigotry, moral deficiency, ignorance, and often pure stupidity. Hatred toward those who are different or do not conform is a common symptom of moral and intellectual weakness that is all to common in America today. Changing the word "marriage" to "civil union" will not stop this problem. The correct course of action is to universally allow state-recognized marriages to all individuals under a broader definition of marriage. I do not have a counter-proposal to end discrimination, but I suspect it's roots are cultural and cannot easily be corrected. In any case, my opponent's proposal of converting all marriages to civil unions is ill-advised and will not achieve the desired goal. I am sorry if my argument is jumbled or disorganized. I do not feel well today but I did not want to put off writing my response to long to avoid missing the deadline.
SET A BED thats debates bacwards.

I've obtained 2 quotes from companies that deal with this race track thing you talk about. The 1st company named scratch and dint smash repairs , quoted. listen mate were a vehicle car repairs shop. The 2nd place was Seahorse race track engineering. And they said they will build it for 72.8 million . I also obtained the price of a license to allow Gambling , and that's directly from the gaming commission board based in Las Vegas , Mexico 90210. And that's 1 mirron* dollars , that's correct a mirron*. P.E.T.A The animal rights group. Will not allow this to happen. As 95% of seahorses are badly effected after racing . And when i surveyed 100 seahorses. Only 5% race casually. I also found 33% of people would consider going there for a holiday. But only if the middle of the ocean resort and race track , Was nowhere near the water. No 1 In their right mind would build this to make money .and I tested different size lumps of concrete. And , concrete don't float.
SET A BED thats debates bacwards.

My opponent has repeatedly stated that middle-of-the-sea seahorse racetracks would cost more than what is reasonable, but that is wrong. They would be inflatable and movable which would cause them to cost much less, and they would produce am estimated net income of 30 million US dollars per year through admission fees and gamberling. According to a survey I conducted myself, nearly 50% of people would consider going to one of these tracks for a vacation. Gamberling is the point you have stressed the most, (by the way, Las Vegas is in Nevada, not Mexico.) and I would like to say this: seahorse racetracks aren't all about gambling. There would be regulations as to how much one could gamble, and the majority of people will not gamble too irresponsibly.[1] The point of gambling is for fun, and any fun thing can become bad if you use it too much. I would also like to see where you got your 5% casualty rate, because that is just plain wrong. Various safety precautions would be taken.
SET A BED thats debates bacwards.

My opponent's states that 4 middle of the sea, State of the art, Seahorse race tracks , will provide around 70 jobs , with a net income close to 30 million. Combined yearly , I would like to see how they come up with these " over inflated " figures " and what do you mean by middle of the sea ? When I 1st read your topic I thought how would a track not just float away. But for some Strange reason , I really like your idea of track distances being spot on. GAMBLING. I see you spell it gamberling. This should be noted to any 1 who votes. On the gambling part of it . I believe you underestimate the governing body side of things, as I underestimated 1000 characters per rnd . it's not just place bets and win. There is much more 2 it. And with so many ways people can gamble, they don't need more. I'm also concerned for the safety of the seahorses. As many would be Vote pro. So I can win
SET A BED thats debates bacwards.

Backwards debating. The first round is nothing but I have 2 explain. Rd 2 only arguments on the "other" persons debate. Why they are wrong. Example. I say My opponent argues that old people should be put down , he states that when their 65 they should be shoot. I think his wrong because 65 is still young, so on so on Rd 3 make your case, on the other persons Rd 2 arguments. For example you will now make your case on putting old people down. And I will make my case on what your rd 2 arguments were. Rd 4 acceptance and best wishes . And tell your opponent why you idolize them. No racist , or rude topics
Animal Testing

"Do you think that death will cause pain to a fish and its family that is even remotely close to the impact of the death of the average person? Even supposing that a fish would go through the same experiences of pain and grievance, which is impossible to prove at best, humans are much more social and productive creatures. Think about it this way: can you name one other animal that cares AT ALL for the well-being of another species or the environment, except for humans?" We only have knowledge about what humans can emotionally and physically experience BECAUSE WE ARE HUMANS. Think about the mutual relationships between animal species. They are are beneficial to each other, and, of course, that relationship is valued because of the benefits. Animals value their environment because it provides the habitat and resources they need to survive. Isn't it the same with humans? We care about the environment and other animals species because they either directly or indirectly benefit us. If the environment is impaired, that could mean harmful repercussions. If the food chain is disrupted, consequential extinction and overpopulation of species ensues. The following is information found from a reputable source. ________________________ Nobody benefits from animal testing when they take medicines. Drugs originate not from such tests but from clinical observation, serendipity and rational drug design. Animal testing became mandatory following the thalidomide tragedy, but it has failed to prevent further disasters. Vioxx, which was used to treat arthritis and acute pain, is the biggest drug catastrophe in history. According to David Graham, associate director of the US Food and Drug Administration's Office of Drug Safety, an estimated 88,000 to 139,000 Americans alone had heart attacks or strokes as a result of taking Vioxx, as many as 55,000 of them fatal. Smaller drug disasters are commonplace, killing many thousands every year. New human-based tests could prevent many of these deaths. Microdose studies of volunteers reveal drug metabolism in the human body with accuracy. Yet regulators require animal studies, not microdose studies. We would all be safer without animal tests, which correctly predict drug side effects only between 5 and 25 per cent of the time, according to studies published in the scientific literature. Action must be taken now to prevent another Vioxx. -------- http://www.newscientist.com... __________________________ "Of course toxicology testing that assumes that all drugs safe for animals are safe for humans is dangerous. But incidents such as the Thalidomide tragedy would not have been PREVENTED by not testing the drugs on animals." Many more lives would have been saved if humans were initially tested on, instead of animals, before the product was released. We should not assume that medical products that have one effect on animals will have the same effect on humans or vice versa. That is why animals testing is not only futile but detrimental to humans.
Animal Testing

"...humans purely have the instinctual predilection to protect members of their own kind, as do fish have the predilection to protect members of their own kind." -So you are saying that in this scenario the morally correct thing to do would be to sacrifice the human life? What are your moral standards, exactly? Do you think that death will cause pain to a fish and its family that is even remotely close to the impact of the death of the average person? Even supposing that a fish would go through the same experiences of pain and grievance, which is impossible to prove at best, humans are much more social and productive creatures. Think about it this way: can you name one other animal that cares AT ALL for the well-being of another species or the environment, except for humans? (and of course, when an animal like a dog is dependent on and/or trained to help their owners) "It is fraudulent and dangerous to apply data from one species to another." -Of course toxicology testing that assumes that all drugs safe for animals are safe for humans is dangerous. But incidents such as the Thalidomide tragedy would not have been PREVENTED by not testing the drugs on animals. All these examples you site don't show how animal testing is necessarily harmful, it just shows why we may need better methods of testing drugs that pass safety tests in animals. I cannot site specific examples, but I am sure that many, many substances have been shown to be toxic in animals and have therefore been prevented from mass distribution. Animal testing can give two results: one, the substance is shown to be safe in which case it may or may not be safe in humans; and two, the substance is shown to be harmful. The point of animal testing is mainly to separate out the latter, so we can investigate why they were harmful and prevent the substance from reaching the public if it is determined that the harmful effects would also develop in humans. Animal testing, like any other kind of testing, even human, does not give a definite answer as to the actual effects of the product in use. For example, a certain drug may only prove to be toxic in people who smoke, or drink, or some other condition, because no two people are exactly the same. That is why we use animal research not to predict EXACTLY what will go on when the substance is administered to the actual consumers, but to investigate effects that may show up. Life, even disregarding the minute differences between species, is such a complex thing on the whole that even the most advanced computers and lab work cannot tell us how the individual molecules of a drug will affect the individual molecules of our cells.