BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheists complain too much

So atheists are complaining about "In god we trust" being on the money, then they complain about crosses being on memorials, what is their excuse for wanting to deface a memorial? They say it is "offensive", because they do not believe in god. So let me get this straight, we can"t express our beliefs because it is not in line with theirs, but they are free to have their beliefs taught in school and we don"t have a right to complain about anything, then they justify this with the first amendment, yeah, the guys who want to abolish free expression of religion justify it by the first amendment. I have a question for you the atheists of America, how did you get "Christians have not right to the freedom of religion and atheism is the state religion" out of "Congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I don"t know about that, but I think that when they say "Congress shall pass NO LAW regarding the ESTABLISHMENT OF A RELIGION, or prohibiting the FREE EXERCIZE THEREOF", I think they mean that, not the opposite. So how about this "offensive" business, very simple; "The man of superior mind is placidly composed (calm and orderly), the inferior minded man is in a constant state of perturbation (aggravation; offense)"- Confucius, So there you go the atheists of America, according to Confucius, you are "INFERIOR MINDED". So what of the "in god we trust", well congress is not forcing you to go to church or have a specific religion, they are not preventing you from exercising your religion, they are just exercising theirs. Do you people even know why it says "in god we trust", it was part of the red scare in the 1950"s, communism consisted of the abolishment of religion so congress put "in god we trust" to express how they are not commies. If you do not like it, so what, that is fine, if you guys want to be like that, switch to the Chinese Yen, "In communism we trust", yeah, you atheists would love it there, its atheism and no question about it, unless, you know, you want to go to the Chinese prison from which no one ever returns.
Atheists complain too much

There is not much more that I can say, other than to restate what I have already said. I believe I have asserted to the best of my ability what I have described in my first paragraph of Round 1. >> Opposition, no, it"s straight flaming and I do not flame, I say it how it is regarless of whether they like it or not. Whether you find it justified or not, you're being very inflammatory to atheists. All I can say is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and to expect being treated with respect only when you treat others with respect. A bit off-topic here, but why are you listing Alfred Kinsey among the world's most brutal dictators? "Alfred Charles Kinsey [...] was an American biologist, professor of entomology and zoology, and sexologist who in 1947 founded the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University, now known as the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction. He is best known for writing Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), also known as the Kinsey Reports, as well as the Kinsey scale. Kinsey's research on human sexuality, foundational to the field of sexology, provoked controversy in the 1940s and 1950s. His work has influenced social and cultural values in the United States, as well as internationally." [1] And now, I will let these quotes of yours speak for themselves. >> In god we trust" was part of the red scare, and it is just as mportant now as it was then >> we have a commie running for president god damn it! >> Evolution is not science it is a pseudo- scientist used by ADOLF FREIKING HITLER to justify the Jewish holocaust!!!!!!! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Atheists complain too much

"When you receive opposition from atheists, I would suggest this is because of your inflammatory remarks against them." Opposition, no, it"s straight flaming and I do not flame, I say it how it is regarless of whether they like it or not. "Of course the government was freely exercising religion when they decided that every banknote should have a religious endorsement on them. It's a clear betrayal of the separation of church and state principle, just as we shouldn't tolerate banknotes being printed with "there is no God" or "there is no God but God" or any other religious material." There is a big difference, "there is no god" being printed on the money is just atheist bull crap, "In god we trust" was part of the red scare, and it is just as mportant now as it was then, we have a commie running for president god damn it! Here is a list of atheists; Joseph Stalin Adolf Hitler Kin Jong-un Karl Marx Vladimir Lenin Mao Dezong Pol Pot Nicolae Ceausescu Slobodan Milosevic Benito Mussolini Alfred Kinsey Than Shwe Kim Jong 2 Jeffrey Dahmer Kim Jones Suharto Tito Ante Pavelic Ho Chi Min "No, science is areligious. It's not religious or anti-religious, it is simply science. Evolution is not atheist. Science is not atheist. Charles Darwin was not atheist, he was an agnostic who believed there was a deity. I'm not atheist and I see no reason to doubt the expert opinion of every single scientist, and I don't personally know any religious person, be they part of a church or simply a follower that has any dissenting opinion against evolution. It's not incompatible with the idea that we are created by a deity or deities, it is simply scientific fact that is taught as part of science." Evolution is not science it is a pseudo- scientist used by ADOLF FREIKING HITLER to justify the Jewish holocaust!!!!!!!
Atheists complain too much

With all due respect, I do not think my opponent is making the best possible arguments for their own point of view. When you receive opposition from atheists, I would suggest this is because of your inflammatory remarks against them. Of course the government was freely exercising religion when they decided that every banknote should have a religious endorsement on them. It's a clear betrayal of the separation of church and state principle, just as we shouldn't tolerate banknotes being printed with "there is no God" or "there is no God but God" or any other religious material. >> evolution was made by atheists No, science is areligious. It's not religious or anti-religious, it is simply science. Evolution is not atheist. Science is not atheist. Charles Darwin was not atheist, he was an agnostic who believed there was a deity. I'm not atheist and I see no reason to doubt the expert opinion of every single scientist, and I don't personally know any religious person, be they part of a church or simply a follower, that has any dissenting opinion against evolution. It's not incompatible with the idea that we are created by a deity or deities, it is simply scientific fact that is taught as part of science.
Atheists complain too much

I get more flaming from atheists than any other group, I never find a Buddhist saying in crazy, or Shintoists, or Jews, or Muslims, or Taoists etc, the point is, my whole argument is against the atheists that do want to defile memorials, not hear about how good the ones that don't are! As to the dollar bill, congress is not making a state religion, you are not forced to believe in god, congress is exercising their freedom of religion. As to the schools, you may be right, evolution is not part of the atheist beliefs, however, evolution was made by atheists to provide an alternative to creationism, even if it is even less thought out. I would like to post about how evolution is false, but I already did; http://www.debate.org... plus this is beside the point, the point is is that evolution ism is a break off of atheism, how many times do I find a Buddhist, Shintoist, Jew, Muslim, Confucian, etc defending evolution? Never, it is always an atheist
Atheists complain too much

I'd like to preface this debate by stating for the record that I am not an atheist, and have a belief in God. I also am of the opinion that government should be secular. >> So atheists are complaining about "In god we trust" being on the money, This is a very reasonable complaint to have, just as you may complain if the money said "In God We Don't Trust". We simply do not need references to a deity that a few religions worship, in a country where people are free to have other religious views or to have none at all. >> then they complain about crosses being on memorials, what is their excuse for wanting to deface a memorial? I think we can all agree that defacing memorials is not good. However, most memorial crosses are used for each individual person. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable in a secular society for memorials to be marked with religious symbols of the people being memorialised. >> So let me get this straight, we can"t express our beliefs because it is not in line with theirs, You can express your beliefs any time you want, just like you are now, and I am now. >> but they are free to have their beliefs taught in school and we don"t have a right to complain about anything No, atheism is the lack of belief. You have the right to complain about anything, just like you are now. >> the guys who want to abolish free expression of religion Which isn't happening. >> [Congress is] not preventing you from exercising your religion, they are just exercising theirs. They are still subject to the authority of the US Constitution, and they are elected by the people, not some people of a particular faith, but the people. In conclusion, a secular state should provide for the freedom to believe, the freedom to not believe, and the freedom to disbelieve. "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it. " ~ not actually Voltaire.
NLP is the best way of self-development.

"Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy created in the 1970s. The title refers to a stated connection between the neurological processes ("neuro"), language ("linguistic"), and behavioral patterns that have been learned through experience ("programming") and can be organized to achieve specific goals in life. According to certain neuroscientists, psychologists, and linguists, NLP is unsupported by current scientific evidence, and is accused of using incorrect and misleading terms and concepts." - Tosey, P. & Mathison, J., (2006) "Introducing Neuro-Linguistic Programming Centre for Management Learning & Development, School of Management, University of Surrey. I started study NLP about 3 years ago. Before this i srudied classical psychology. After comparing these two things, based on my own experice, i hardly believe that NLP is the best way to help and develop yourself. Let us start. P.S. It's my first debate. Please, be so kind, not too harsh.
Advertisements do more harm than good

My Opponent claims small businesses "can't afford advertisements", but I never said a business had to pay for ads initially, flyers are advertisements, and can be printed relatively cheap, there are also relatively cheap web advertisements. My opponent claims that the larger Business achieves 30% more customers from advertisements than smaller businesses, but he fails to mention, the customers who decided to go to the new businesses, use to be the customers of the older business. Every business has to start somewhere, and compete against much larger companies, who have already earned and maintained a good reputation. Taking away the right to advertise your business would not give the smaller business the edge, it would only act as a speed bump to the smaller company. My opponent has made the claim that "the company's job to promote and sell their product" has no relevance to the debate, however is just as every bit as relevant as the child's role in the debate. A salesman's job is to sell the product. If a salesman tells you, "buy X-deodorant is smells like x" but than says, "it leaves a messy stain on your clothes", how many people will buy the product? To the same degree, say they just came out with a toothpaste capable of restoring tooth enamel, how any would buy the toothpaste over their current brand, let alone know it can restore enamel, unless they advertise the new product? No offense intended but my opponent seem to have the idea children are incapable of resisting advertisements, while at the same time being financially dependent enough to be the one writing the check. As I stated before, envy is a survival mechanism in all primates, advertisements only play on preexisting sentiments, thus the only problem would be a fiscal one. I have never met someone who started smoking because of a mascot, I have met someone who have started smoking because of a PSA telling them not to smoke. Children are defiant, and what they perceive as "cool" more has to do with peers, than it has to do with the media. Peers did not get the idea of what's cool from advertisements either, more or less they got the idea from watching role models do it; for example an older brother, an uncle, or someone they see on the street who looks and acts "cool". They are not fully matured until 21, and because of that they are more perceptive to envy, lust, and anger but they outgrow that, just as they outgrow crying in a store, or yelling in a movie theater. I look forward to seeing your counter argument.
Advertisements do more harm than good

My opponent says that "Advertisement is a essential tool for small businesses to get off the ground." most small businesses can not afford advertisements and even if they do, do they make a difference? A study put two advertisements in a paper for the same product with a large well known company putting it as 5% off and the not well know putting the same product at 50% off, 30 percent more people went to large business then the small one. Also my opponent stated that it's the company's job to promote and sell their product. This does not help either of our arguments. Companies manipulate there mind to sell them products that can be harmful, like cigeretes companies make funny logos like Camel and that makes kids think that it is "cool" to smoke. The brain is not fully mature until 21 years old and by then people will have seen millions of advertisements. At some point they will look at something bad for their body and think that they should do it because somehow the company made the picture appealing or the kids can connect to in some way. I look forward to your next posting.
Advertisements do more harm than good

Advertisement is a essential tool for small businesses to get off the ground, and compete with larger companies. Research on Monkeys have shown that Primates in general envy other primates as a survival mechanism, advertisements simply play on already existing sentiments, and inform the viewer of the product available. Children are most open to advertisements, because they are most open to envy and other emotions. Unlike working adults, they have not yet matured, and it's the parent's job to help them mature mentally, and emotionally, it is the company's job to promote, and sell their product. Through out this debate I will focus on how Small businesses rely on advertisements, and how advertisements are not at fault for envy.
Advertisements do more harm than good

Advertising has grown to be an industry worth many billions of dollars across the world. Almost all public space has some advertisements in sight and all forms of media, from newspapers to the Internet, are also filled with adverts. Whilst this helps companies sell their produces, and helps consumers to learn what is on offer, many believe that this huge amount of advertising can be harmful. It may make people want too much, or things that they cannot have, or it might make them feel inadequate when they don't have something. Research shows that children can be particularly open to these kinds of risk. Throughout the last 10 years levels of advertisements have raised to ridicules levels. Every ten minuets on T.V you see about four advertisements for cosmetics, fast food, and many other things. Throughout this debate I will discus how advertisements are directed towards gullible kids, stress that they can cause, and how it puts small businesses at a disadvantage.
Advertisements do more harm than good

Thank you for responding. The argument is if advertisements do more harm than good, not if adverts should go away, which they never will. Also When you say that fliers are a cheap way of advertising you are right but few people look at them. I know I speak for a lot of people when I say that if someone leaves a flier at my front door, I throw it away. Also advertising leads to many people being overwhelmed by the endless need to decide between competing demands on their attention – this is known as the tyranny of choice or choice overload. Recent research suggests that people are on average less happy than they were 30 years ago - despite being better off and having much more choice of things to spend their money on. The claims of adverts crowd in on people, raising expectations about a product and leading to inevitable disappointment after it is bought. Shoppers feel that a poor purchase is their fault for not choosing more wisely, and regret not choosing something else instead. Some people are so overwhelmed that they cannot choose at all. Plus many adverts do more than just advertising products. Some try to make people feel inferior if they don't have the product, or if they have something which the product would change. Perceptions of beauty and fashion in particular have been terribly distorted. Many young people have low-self esteem, and lead unhealthy lifestyles because they feel they should be thinner and more attractive like the models they see in adverts. This leads to serious problems like eating-disorders and self-harm.
gravity=weight+force of gravity

how do you know there is gravity? a rock laying on the ground dosnt accelerate.. it cease to accelerate on impact or when reaching maximum speed falling is down, how do you fall sideways without going down? thats just going sideways while not falling falling is down, rising is up, rain dosnt fall up, it cant, if it were to go upwards, it would be rising gravity is weight.. hmm weight attracts weight ok, if i throw a stone into the air, and as it comes down it ceases to exist slowly, where is the application or demstration of gravity, at the point the stone ceases to exist mid air? now you need a new object to demonstrate it. destruction is impossible in reality btw there is no up and down, in outer space, like if you fly close to outer space you experience no gravity application, no up and down, weightlessness. so, up and down means gravity, becase an object floating mid air, dosnt have weight, its not going down acceleration is increase in speed, when its still.. not moving.. it dosnt increase in speed, therfore if i let go of a rock, it increases in speed and gets heavier and heavier as it falls the further it falls, but it still has weight on impact.. and when its still even thou its not accelerating
gravity=weight+force of gravity

Weight is not gravity, weight can be measured and gravity cannot.You say that without gravity, an object is weightless and this is because if there is no gravity, the acceleration due to gravity is 0 and thus mass*acceleration (due to gravity) will always equal 0.There is no such thing as up or down in physics.Gravity does not = up+down it in fact = nothing because it has no value or units whatsoever and is a mystical 'thing' or 'power' that drives the acceleration due to it.There is absolutely no difference between the stone being on your hand or the ground in the physics sense. The stone is countered by an equal and opposite force (whether it be from your hand or the ground) and this resists its fall further in that direction (falling through the ground is rather hard to do unless you have teleportation or atom-splitting powers of some kind).You say if you throw a stone in the air it must reach a state of 0 gravity. This is totally false, as long as it is on earth the acceleration due to gravity will always be 9.81 ms^-2 unless you are really high in the sky. What you are referring to is the balance of forces equally 0 since they all counter each other in any direction on any plane equally.Please learn physics before making a debate such as this, it may help you win.
gravity=weight+force of gravity

weight is gravity.. an object dosnt fall if there is no gravity.. then its weightless gravity=up+down if you fly close to outer space, you might experience weightlessness no up and down, no application of force of gravity so you have no weight yet there is no acceleration and the rock has weight in my hand.. and what is the difference between the stone being in my hand or on the ground.. dosnt accelerate the movement of my arm is not gravity.. gravity applies to my arm because i have weight show me an example of gravity, without weight, you cant, because the force of gravity dosnt apply to an object that has no weight if you throw a stone into the air, the stone must reach a point of 0 gravity application for it to come back down reality is reality.. not not reality
gravity=weight+force of gravity

A rock in your hand does indeed have weight and gravity cannot be measured because it doesn't exist and is an illusion but the acceleration due to the supposed thing called 'gravity' can be and is measured.An object accelerates no matter what because there is no up in the universe. your hand is attached to your body and you are using your weight to use minimal upward acceleration (w=mg) so the massive mass(m) advantage you have over the rock means you easily can resist its weight because your m makes up for its g (the g is not gravity itself but acceleration due to it). So both are having equal force up and down.Weight DOES NOT mean gravity. Weight can be measured and has units, gravity can't and is used to justify acceleration to the core of objects (such as Earth) that otherwise could not be explained.Reality is not necessarily real because only things within reality are real and reality is not in itself.
gravity=weight+force of gravity

a rock in my hand has weight, the problem with your equation is that basically everything else then the object you are measuring isnt gravity.. so if i hold a stone in my hand, according to your equation, it has no weight, its not accelerating an object only accelerates if its up, up is the cause of down when gravity applies, unlike in outer space use examples of the real please i cant make any sense of what you present.. and i am not pro weight means gravity, because an object dosnt go down if there is no down, so an object going down goes through up to go down kind of, and down means weight, an object that dosnt go down isnt effected by gravity which means it has no weight. im saying the stone in my hand, dosnt accelerate when its still in my hand, yet it has weight lets not bring god into it and illusions.. clearly reality is real i have considered magnetism, but i am not metal, and i stay on the ground
gravity=weight+force of gravity

Weight does not accelerate because weight is acceleration multiplied by mass. Acceleration doesn't accelerate but the object that has weight does accelerate.Weight does not mean gravity. Gravity is actually not real and is an illusion, the only reality of it is as an acceleration (on earth of 9.81ms^-2) not as a force. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com... Perhaps you are confused when you say that the stone is your hand is not moving because this disproves nothing. It merely means that the strength of the force coming back up from your hand is equal and opposite to it. http://www.physicsclassroom.com... Gravity doesn't even exist, this is a fundamental thing you don't understand. Gravity is like magnetism or God, it is something some people use to explain what is a gap in our current observation of the physical universe. One day maybe we will find out what pulls things to each other and does to proportional to mass but until then, it will remain as the mystical thing we call 'gravity'.