BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Being Atheist means being Inhuman (Atheism is Anti-Humanism)

As an opening statement, I would like to know first what is you definition of a human, and what are the standards of a human that you are stating in this debate,since you are claiming that atheists are not humans, so I would like to know what branch of the human topic you are talking about. Either ways I'm going to present my claim by saying that any person on this world can be a human, and especially the proper atheists are considered to be the best type of humans on earth, and the most valued ones. What I think is this, a person can be considered a proper human being if he knows, and builds his thoughts, on evidence, and on clever thinking, and logic. Now when you present your ideas, and tell me why specifically do you think atheists are not humans, in details, and in more specific manner, we can start the real deal.
Being Atheist means being Inhuman (Atheism is Anti-Humanism)

In the name of God, The Most Gracious & The Most Merciful.May Peace & Mercy of Almighty God be Upon All of You..!The topic under debate will be "Being Atheist means being Inhuman" or we can say that atheism is anti-humanism.Where we define An Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.First Round is of Acceptance but If Con would like to Take BOP(Burden of Proof) & build his case He can go ahead or else I would present my Views, then the debate will go on to defy each others claim, I have let lose the Limit of text to express yourself better but please be precise & use simple English to reach all readers.Rules The Pro should be an atheist, wise learned person and rational & logical thinker. Evidence can be a logical statement, Proven Facts & History. Illustrate Examples. Be Precise and to the point. Both can Establish Their Own Cases [Please Sensible] Purpose: Well the purpose of my previous, this and up coming debates is never to hurt any personal or private feelings of anyone I believe the purpose always be to learn and seek knowledge and establish Truth & the right facts and to make understanding the difference between Rational & Irrational Thoughts. And Logical & Illogical Views.
Foreign terrorists should not be given Geneva Treaty protection until they conform to it

Con forfeited the second round of debate. I cite Con for bad conduct. Con previously made no argument countering the three reasons for supporting the resolution. Con argued separately that human rights should be upheld. Sure, but how should conflicts among human rights be resolved? Ordinary citizens have a right to be protected against terrorist attacks, and uniformed soldiers are entitled to protection from terrorists who chop off heads on television. The Supreme Court decided to interpret the Geneva Treaty in such a way that terrorists who completely ignore the rules of warfare are entitled to all the protections accorded to those who obey the Treaty. This debate is about whether the Supreme Court gets to make the trade off, or whether the elected representative of the people should make the decision. If Osama is captured, all we really obliged by treaty not to subject him to any discomfort whatsoever? The resolution merely asserts the Treaty obligation should not be determined by an unelected Court that has no responsibility to balance the rights of the people being protected from terrorists. The Treaty never contemplated terrorism, so it ought not be applied at all, and certainly not by the Supreme Court.
Foreign terrorists should not be given Geneva Treaty protection until they conform to it

Well Then, How very interesting your opinion becomes. However, Due to what you have written, I do not believe that you are some Cold Heartened SOB who beats immigrants saying "It's for Ammurca" and accuses everyone who does not conform to the idea that the US should always be listened to, feared and that it has never done an injustice or was never wrong for lack of patriotism. I Just believe that your some what misinformed about the Geneva convention, what it's aims are and what it hopes to accomplish. First lets start of with your first point, witch was that there is no benefit for America to sign the Geneva convention. However, there is my friend. To get into many international organizations, you need to sign the coveted few basic bills which the the Geneva convention is apart if, even if it's just in theory, assure that you state isent a one of abusing peoples human rights. SO if the united states had not signed the Geneva convention, It would be removed from alot of international organizations such as the WTO ,UN etc. Also, a lot of international organizations would cease to assist you. Not to mention there is the matter of Image. The US, being a super power is competing for sway with other Super powers over many other countries near and far. Resigning from a basic Human Rights Bill such as the Geneva convention would vastly damage Americas Image and at a time like now, we need to vastly improve our image. As for your fact about individual groups signing the Geneva convention, im sorry to inform you but a specific organization does not sign the Geneva convention, This is an International Article that countries sign. It's not like MADD (mothers against drunk driving) or McDonalds do not sign this convention. This is a Document in which only countries sign not individuals, individual corporations or international Organizations Sign. Then there is a other whole slew of negative political implications which would lead to a worse finical situation and a have sever impact on forging relations that i don't wish ti get into right now. So finally, I believe that, YES the Geneva convention should be applied to EVERYONE because EVERYONE is a Human and the Geneva convention Calls for a basic HUMANE treatment of people, and if you want to look at yourself as moral and right and seen as that, then you apply to others rights they have failed to apply to you. Also Lets forget the politics and the "What do I gain out of it" mentality and just look at it as a basic Human right. Yes, some people may attempt to block that right, however, doing the same to them makes you no better then they are, especially when it comes down to such a bsaic human rights issue as the Geneva convention. We are all Human, some Kinder then Others, but never the less, all Human, and should all be treated as such. That will distinguish the righteous actors from the Wrong doers.
should the United States government allow concealed guns within campus (college)

As stated above, my argument is that it should be the responsibility of college administrations to determine whether or not guns ought to be allowed on campuses and to what extent they should be prohibited. No one else has any right to intervene in that regard. C1: Property Ownership The college is the user and owner of the campus, and as the owner of the property the college has the right to establish what consenting parties may and may not do. This includes either permitting or forbidding the possession of firearms. If someone else intervenes and orders the college to use the property in such a certain way, than that is a violation of their property rights. People who do not use the campus, did not use resources in acquiring it, and are in no way connected to the business of the college cannot justifiably force them to adopt a certain policy. The college will set it's policies on gun use in accordance to what it feels is best, which will probably involve strict restrictions. The force of the law is not necessarily when the same decision can be made (or not made as the case may be) through voluntary action. CA1. Mental Growth and Stability It is immoral to impose rules on people on the basis that they might do something wrong. A person can always do something wrong until he is shackled up and kept in a cage. Attempts to draw arbitrary boundaries based on subjective risk assessment are unacceptable: it is still the use of force to restrain the freedom of a person who as done nothing wrong. It is also interesting to note that Con says that college students are untrustworthy and suggests we place our trust in the hands of the state. The United States government has a record on war crimes that would be difficult to match with irresponsible gun ownership [1], and this is to discount the slaughter of innocents that is perversely accepted as morally valid in war. Drunken gun accidents can be prevented by the voluntary establishment of weapons restrictions by colleges. The law is not necessary. If colleges do not make these restrictions than the risks are accepted by everyone involved and there is no need or moral justification to restrict the freedom of people to put themselves in risky situations. CA2. Safety Once again, the law is not necessary to bring this about and voluntary action is morally preferable. Colleges have private rules and private security, they do not need to be unilaterally forced by the violence of the state to make safer policies. Conclusion: Con's argument is based on bare assertionism and the assumption that violence is always the solution to violence. Colleges are run by responsible people and they do not need to be coerced into making safer policies. Con just assumes that the solution to every problem is to expand the power of the government and restrict the freedom of individuals. This approach is morally unacceptable when a problem can be dealt with through free and voluntary action. Sources: [1] http://www.commondreams.org...
should the United States government allow concealed guns within campus (college)

i would like to start by combining round two and three together as well as round four and five for a total of three rounds. ===Argument=== when it comes to the issue of concealed weapons whitin college campus, it is quite clear that the United states "States government" simply cannot afford to take any chances. This issue deals whit the safety of students in the United States. -Contention One- "mental growth and stability. when it comes to college students, it is clear that they simply cannot be trusted. history has showed us continually that these student who are supposed to be in the most stable environment are actually not simply due there reckless behaviors. we must also look to many statistics such as that of the oldmtree which stated: " Death: 1,700 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die each year from alcohol-related unintentional injuries, including motor vehicle crashes. ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Injury: 599,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 are unintentionally injured under the influence of alcohol. ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Assault: More than 696,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 are assaulted by another student who has been drinking. ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Academic Problems: About 25 percent of college students report academic consequences of their drinking . ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Drunk Driving: 2.1 million students between the ages of 18 and 24 drove under the influence of alcohol last year . ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Vandalism: About 11 percent of college student drinkers report that they have damaged property while under the influence of alcohol. (. http://www.oldelmtree.com...) Contention two--safety of students and faculties. perhaps the most bizarre claim when it comes to the topic of concealed guns within college is that it allows students to protect themselves, however; according to a feb 27th 2011 nytimes article "we are proving them with a potential to start a campus shooting". with this been said we must also look into the fact that the United States federal government as well as state government has an obligation to protect the citizens and when it comes to this issue, it seems like the only reasonable decision is to decline te ownership of concealed guns within school grounds. finally we must look at the alternatives, history has made it self clear, we simply can not post a sticker that says "Gun free zone". we must look at the fact that we must also place stricter laws to back this decisions up.
Led Zeppelin.....The Greatest Band Ever

>I know that my opponent may not be aware of this but it is still true: not responding to the points of the other debater means that my opponent has forfeited talent, a vision for where they want, communication with the audience, and globalization all to me. >My opponent brings up versatility. I agree with him that this is essential in any musician, but I must say that he was very late in announcing it. My opponent says that the Beatles stayed along one track. I agree with him, but I think it was the right thing for them to do. They played in an age where their music was new and did not want to alter their path as long as it stayed successful. I don't believe that the assertion about the Beatles not being versatile because they did not branch out much is very fair. I give my opponent that Led Zeppelin certainly evolved but they did not change once they found their niche. As soon as they began playing the songs that we know them for today, they never really went back. >My opponent mentions a slight contradiction I made in my chemistry case. To correct it, I simply meant that you cannot make a definitive measure of chemistry because one simply is not always there to witness this. If a band can play with feeling together, then I think it IMPLIES that they have more chemistry. This is not always true, however. I disagree with my opponent's assertion about the Beatles live. They always felt what they were playing and the audience got into what they were playing using this as a sort of metaphorical bridge. This is how they sold a billion albums. >While "Bring It On Home" was not completely a cover, parts of it definitely were. My opponent cannot and does not deny this. This does not discount the plagiarism allegations. Plagiarism is defined: Plagiarism: the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work Led Zeppelin was plagiarizing because they did not say at any point that "part of this was by Sonny Boy Williamson, not us", the audience had no notice. This is why I quote my opponent. I do not ever use his words without enclosing them with quotes. I will proceed to quote my opponent (notice that I specify who) right now: "Bring It On Home" had its royalties given to Williamson "in due time. " Williamson was not accused of plagiarism, he noted that the song was not his.
Led Zeppelin.....The Greatest Band Ever

Led Zeppelin is hands down the best band to ever grace us with their presence on this earth. Jimmy Page is arguably the best guitarist ever. The late Bonzo was and still is the greatest drummer of all time. Plant was the first true metal vocalist with his distictive high pitch. And last but not least, JPJ, the most underrated musician of the modern era; great composer and played many different instruments. But a band cannot have success with just very talented members, it needs chemistry, consistency, a vision of where they want to take music; and Zeppelin and just that.
Existence of a God

R.1 Perfection One of my opponent"s main argument is that since perfection does not exist, god does not exist because his actions are not perfect. However, in defense 1-7 for Mulla Sadra, I have shown this is not the case. Since the state of "x" is singular, there is nothing to compare it to, therefore state of "x" is perfection. Even if we have a scale, the highest intensity of existence and perfection exists, therefore this is actually a favor for my argument. This simply brings down my opponent"s first point. R.2 Morality My opponent then argues how god is immoral because he knows the immoral things. To which I reply it is a fallacious claim. First of all, my opponent has not shown how lust and envy is immoral. We cannot use immorality defined by the Bible and even if we did, it would be irrelevant. I could go much deeper in regards to how morality does not exist, therefore it cannot be applied. However to give a brief description, nihilism is the default position. There is really nothing inherently right or wrong. R.3 Subjective views of religion and Christianity My opponent takes literal and objective views of the Bible to dictate the authority of this argument. This is unfair because religious views are subjective. We could take the main points of the Bible however Christianity is the following of Jesus Christ. As far as Christians are concerned even if you do not interpret the Bible literally, you can still be saved via Jesus. Using every definition of the Bible is unfair, because an individual can have different views of that Bible yet still follow Christ therefore being Christian. Also, since religious views are subjective my opponent cannot take one view that is biased towards his side and use it against me. R.4 Free will This is also part of R.3. My opponent claims that "According to Christians, personal beings have free will." What? How is this in any way fair or relevant? You cannot take other people"s views that are not even stated in the Bible and use against me as I stated before. However, if the being knows everything it knows to avoid it"s choices. On top of that, it is up to the being to take the decision even if it right or wrong, which proves that god has free will. If right or wrong does not exist, then whatever god does that may harm humans is up to god, thus proving he has free will.
Existence of a God

This is a rematch to a previous debate that I did with Atheism_Debater. I was really disappointed with the vote of the previous debate. The same exact rules apply to both debaters. Rules: 1. No direct or insulting profanity 2. Forefeit eqauls loss of conduct, (Unless my opponent notifies me) and not an automatic loss. 3. Votes must be fair and have a proper RFD 4. Trolling eqauls an automatic loss (E.g Completely irrelevant argument, insults, etc...)Additional info: My arguments will be exactly the same ones from the previous debate, if my opponent wishes to expand his arguments, he may do so. Semantics: Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Arguments, if my opponent wishes, he may add a rebuttal Round 3: Rebuttal, if my opponent wishes, he may expand his arguments Round 4: Rebuttals and closing statements. Please no new arguments. You may however, use a new argument as a rebuttal Definitions: God: The Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe You will be arguing god as an all powerful and supreme being that is commonly worshiped by people. No specific religious origin, however if you would like you can argue from christianity you may do so. In the end though, it all comes down to a philosophical argument. Additional Info: Please let me know if you cannot follow any of these rules, and we can work something out. A late argument in the comments is accepted with no loss of conduct as long as my opponent notifies me.
Education discourages creativity

Education in general (standard schooling in middle school, later elementary school, and general high school standard curriculum classes) discourages creativity by placing a black and white, right and wrong system where it is based on mechanistic conceptions (determined by physical processes alone). In this system, only academic achievement is measured because one's achievement academically is how intelligence is measured. This system ignores the fact that intelligence is not just academics, that intelligence is diverse, dynamic, and distinct. As a result in this ignorance, creativity is excluded and also ignored. Schooling digs for a particular commodity that is valued in society, specifically for work. Knowing how to write well and calculate math are the main focuses, rather than engaging the students' curiosity and creativity and using that to progress the learning. (Check out Ken Robinson on youtube)
Education discourages creativity

None of my opponent's claims regarded the debate topic. I wasn't saying education was unimportant or unnecessary for success. I was saying that children are educated out of creativity. Students are trained to abide by a rubric for every assignment and to know that making mistakes is bad. The problem with being afraid to be wrong is that one can never create anything original and creative. We are taught what is correct and what is not. For example, the tale called The Tortoise and the Hair presents a lesson where slow and steady wins the race. No one has ever really questioned the morals validity. Why? Because it is such an easy concept to understand, that everyone agrees with it. It is obvious that it is true in that story, but in an actual race like that, it is the Hair's arrogance that lost him the race. Since teachers never really consider anything outside of what they teach, or allowed their students to try and see another moral to the story without the fear of being wrong, the children's' creativity isn't put to much use. Because of the increase in state testing, teachers and schools have redirected their focus on teaching the standards for the state test and what is right and wrong according to that test. This leaves very little margin for questioning and opportunities for students' creativity. Intelligence is diverse, dynamic, and distinct, yet school manipulates students' thinking so narrowly (with rubrics and expectations) that any work or idea outside of the common answer, is automatically considered wrong. Then teachers stigmatize the 'mistake' and take points off. If you're not prepared to be wrong, you'll never come up with anything original. If schools and teachers didn't stigmatize mistakes so much, students wouldn't be so afraid of synthesizing.
Education discourages creativity

Education " cause and effect A good education lays the path for a better quality of life. There have been many studies done, both formal and informal, that show the effects of education or lack thereof in a person"s life. As a nation we realize the importance of an education for all children, which is why we have a public school system to offer every child an educational opportunity, regardless of their background, parent"s income or any other factors. Research has shown that beginning a child"s education early and well is extremely important because "a child that gets off to a good start in reading rarely stumbles. Those children who fall behind tend to stay behind for the rest of their academic lives."1 Not only does a lack of education hurt us for the rest of our academic lives but our lives in other ways too. Education allows us to discover ourselves, our environment and our world; and to make educated choices about our future. Educated men and women have the skills, information and self-confidence to make better parents, workers and citizens. People that are educated tend to have better paying jobs, be more law abiding, healthier and educate their own children better. Understanding the long term effects education has, not only with an individual but with our nation and generations to come is extremely important in helping us put the proper emphasize needed on education. Aristotle, a famous Greek philosopher, once said, "Those who educate children well are more to be honored than they who produce them; for these only gave them life, those the art of living well." I agree with Aristotle that the education one receives defines the difference in how "well" they live.
Education discourages creativity

I am arguing that education discourages creativity.Education is defined as "the knowledge, skill, and understanding that you get from attending a school, college, or university"Discourage is defined as "to make (something) less likely to happen"Creativity is defined as "the ability to make new things or think of new ideas"http://www.merriam-webster.com...Grade schools (including middle school) mainly focus on English and math, which limits the knowledge children can gain from the arts, like music or dance. Yes, there are classes for those activities, but the schools focus less intensely on them, assuming that the children aren't going to value it or continue a carrior in it as an adult. It might be unlikely that a kid's going to become a famous artist, but it is unfair for the children (the future of this society) to discredit such topics that promote creativity.