BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Reason why Christianity is Looked Down Upon...

As a Christian, it's odd for me to know that so many people deny the existence of God. I think that if Christians understood why Atheists didn't believe in God, we could convince them to believe. Therefore, I started this debate to present why I think Christianity is viewed as a non-realistic fairytale. Here are the rules 1. You must be a Christian to accept this debate. 2. You must disagree with my opinion. 3. You must present your opinion on why you think Christianity is looked down upon by Atheists. 4. There is no burden of proof, since this is an opinion debate. However, you must show the reasoning behind your opinions. Rounds: 1st Round: Acceptance and a brief overview of your opinion. 2nd Round: An in-depth analysis of your opinion (and reasoning behind your opinion) 3rd round: Rebuttals and conclusion My opinion: I think Christianity is looked down upon by Atheists because too many Christians belief in God only because of faith. Atheists are very fact and logic oriented people. Since most Christians don't have proof for the existence of God or Jesus Christ, Atheists look at the idea of Christianity as a fairytale rather than a theory with potential to be true. Good luck to my opponent!
Band WWE

I have never said that children would be wrestling grown men, I don't know where you that from my opening statement. As for the fact that some children would try to mimic what they see on TV, the fact that you point that out makes me believe that you would be one to say that violent video games lead to violent behavior. There are, in fact, some cases of those being correlated, however it has been wideslreadly known that violent video games, no matter how bloody, are not a contributing factor to child violence. In fact, it has been found that it actually helps with violent behavior, and acts as a catharsis for said violent behavior. If a child was to mimic what they saw on TV, it is only his wanting to imitate what he saw, being grown men fighting each other for a prize, he's would just happen to be fufulling his own violent tendencies, being a young man who has those sort of behaviors and self-wanting to fufill. There happens to be a thing called testosterone, which all MALE PEOPLE have, and that leads us to those sorts of things.
Band WWE

Thank you for responding. I completely agree with the fact that it is staged but I have to say that it is not OK for a child to wrestler a grown man, I also don't see where you got that from my first argument. Most kids these days role models are WWE superstars. If they see there role model doing unnecessary violence things on TV this could make the child's mind think differently. leading to trouble at school and/or home. Sorry I was late and thank you for responding!!
Zombies V. S Unicorns

I would like to go over some benefits of zombies, Other then the fact that it allows me to carry around a shotgun/katana with no one being all like "Sir, You are not permitted to cut those mannequins in half". 1. Zombies have saved lives. Zombies can be traced backed to haiti folklore, Where they were corpses animated by witchcraft. In 17th century haiti, During french occupation, Many individuals contemplated suicide. However, Out of worry that they would be converted to zombies, They continued to live their lives. Who knows? Maybe some of them made freinds and lived fuffiling lives. Maybe some of them died soon after anyway, But they got to live their life to the fullest. Thank you zombies. 2. Zombies have been used by philosphers to define what is human. In philosophy, This idea of a hypothetical creature that looks like a regular human but has no conscious experiences is known as a zombie. The concept is kind of a mind trick. Imagine a being that looks and even talks like a human. It goes through all the normal motions of a human and yet has no consciousness. And you would have no idea that it is not like you. According to philosophers like David Chalmers, P-zombies are an argument against physicalism - the school of thought that everything that makes us human is ultimately derived from our physical characteristics. It goes to shows that there is more to people then just walking empty husks. NOW BACK TO BASHING UNICORNS! 1. They star in the most toxic fandom ever (unless you count sanic) the my little pony fandom. Which is so incredibly toxic and suffocating thinking about it makes me want to physically vomit. Unicorn horns can't fix that. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to present a fandom full of so many disgusting things. Just google my little pony fandom. You'll regret it. FAST. 2. Unicorns are not healers. You make it seem that Unicorns go around touching people with their horns and healing wounds. Unfortunately, 1, You will never encounter a unicorn unless A: the emperor is going to die, Or B: You have a virgin strip. 2: A Unicorns horn only heals if you drink from it. Meaning the horn has been removed from its skull. Meaning its dead. Sure, Unicorns have a magical property when you murder them. They do not just go around healing though 3. I think you summed it up best yourself. Unicorns are a study of contradictions. Of course, When you have myths that span the world not everyone will agree with each other. But some things just don't work. Like gravy on ice cream or pineapple on pizza. Or the fact that Unicorns are both healers and killers. They can't be both. Like M&Ms and skittles, Or bacon and. . . Now I'm just hungry. And its the Unicorns fault.
Zombies V. S Unicorns

First of all thank you for the input on my profile pic I have changed it back. "Unicorns are wild beasts that do not care if you live or die either! " you see they do care if you live or die. "Unicorns are a study in contradictions. They are portrayed as both gentle and fierce, Spiritual animals, Healers and death bringers. In addition to having healing properties, The horn that sits on a unicorns brow is thought to be. A deadly weapon and the unicorn itself is depicted as so fierce it would rather die than be taken alive. Although often shown to be gentle, A unicorn will attack its natural enemy, The lion, Without provocation. And the unicorn itself is found in medieval manuscripts associated both celibacy and with desire. " Unlike Zombies. There are a few types The Generic Zombie, Walkers, Runners, And crawlers. While there are thousands of breeds of a unicorn. Unicorns are majestic and can heal. And zombies are. . . . . . . . Nasty, And kill you. "One of the things I find particularly upsetting about zombies is the idea of being trapped inside your own head, Unable to think clearly, But still conscious. Forever It's pretty much the worst thing I can think of- ugh. Just writing about it makes me shudder.
Zombies V. S Unicorns

You say that zombies do not care if you live or die. But as we discussed, Unicorns are wild beasts that do not care if you live or die either! Also, You say that zombies will inevitably win. That isn't true though. As long as their is a single person alive who believes they can survive, The zombies have already lost. Also they give people excuses to pack around shotguns, Axes, Crowbars and katanas You also say "No matter the origin the unicorn is usually thought to be a solitary creature whose very body possesses the power to heal. " but that's a lie! As we discussed, The unicorn's appearance in eastern Asia meant the death of the emperor!
Zombies V. S Unicorns

"Legends of unicorns occur all over the world throughout recorded history. From a unicorn in Persia, Described in the fourth century as having a long white horn tipped in crimson, To the german unicorn whose single horn broke into branches like a stag, To the fierce indian unicorn, Black horned and too dangerous to be taken alive. There's the kirin in japan, With a deerlike body, A single horn, And a head like a lion or wolf. And then there is the medieval European unicorn, With the beard of a goat and cloven hooves. No matter the origin the unicorn is usually thought to be a solitary creature whose very body possesses the power to heal. The legends describe it as elusive and beautiful fierce and strange. " Wile zombies eat brains and don't care if you live or die. You see my opponent here describes unicorns as monsters or creepy. When really it is not true. "One of the things about zombies that unnerves me the most is that they never stop, Never slow, And inevitably they will win. I hate That!
Zombies V. S Unicorns

BIRT that zombies are better then unicorns. A freind of mine on team ZOMBEY compiled a list on all the useful things zombies do: "Zombies are way better. Now before my fellow humans go about saying " but bruh zambies eat brains", Hear me out, Okay and then comment your thoughts. Now, Lets think of a Parallel Earth where the Apocalypse has already started. " "Zombies have always attacked humans but never animals. " "Because of them, Mother Earth has been able to regenerate over the years and hence in Games and Movies you"ll see that there is greenery all around(like in The Last of Us). Plus because of Zombies there is no constant drain of resources. " "They have made us realise our very first priority- survival, And because of this it has also brought out courage in scaredy cats, And bring out the best in everyone and we see the different sides of Humanity( or Humanities" true face). Remember, There is always one cannibalistic group who have no emotion whatsoever. " "Carbon emissions and other pollutants have considerably gone down. The air around Earth is much cleaner. " I would like to bring some of the flaws with unicorns to your attention. 1. They are perverts. According to 7th century scholar Isodore, In order to attract a unicorn, A virgin women has to strip. That is fairly disgusting. 2. They are murderers. Unicorns were invented by Pliny the elder, Who describes them as wild beasts immpossible to capture alive. So their just animals right? WRONG. In the 7th century, The scholar Isidore of Seville chimed in, Noting that the unicorn "is very strong and pierces anything it attacks. It fights with elephants and kills them by wounding them in the belly. ". According to Asia, The appearence of the unicorn means the death of the emperor So to conclude, Zombies are better then unicorns.
Zombies V. S Unicorns

"Zombies Shamble I disapprove of shambling, And they have bits falling off, You don't see a unicorn behaving that way do you? And the horn of a unicorn can cure diseases! Possibly a disease you would get from accepting a piggy back ride form a zombie! " Hi I'm Lilbisquits on Team Unicorn. My opponent will be defending Zombies and explain the reason why zombies are better. I got this Idea from A book my parents got me. Called Zombies V. S Unicorns. A lot of my references are based off of one of the authors Holly black. And this was just a fun little Idea that I had. You are totally welcome to get the book, But I would warn you there are some swears and stuff like that. But that is what makes the stories interesting. I hope my opponent has fun with this debate. I will quote things that Holly Black says in the book that I personally agree with. I hope this is an interest to you and you LIKE zombies. (I like both but I like unicorns a bit better) Have fun and don't take this way too seriously.
Religion is like extra credit.

If someone chose to believe in a particular god only for the purpose of not taking any risks, I really doubt that he would be serious about his beliefs. It's like a prime minister saying what the public wants to hear instead of actually doing it. Here's another example: Imagine that there is a football club, and the only reason you joined it was to be with a girl that you liked. If the manager found that was the sole reason for your joining then you wouldn't last very long. Now imagine that there were an infinite number of clubs, and that you didn't know which one the girl was in. If you choose wrong, game over. If you choose correctly, still game over. To conclude, I believe that Pascal's wager is riskier than being an atheist in more ways than one.
Religion is like extra credit.

But that is the thing. You aren't pretending. When you do extra credit for math, and you pretend to do it, it is still wrong. You are doing the work and putting the effort. Just saying you believe in a religion doesn't mean you are in the religion. Just like just saying you did the extra credit, doesn't mean you did it or get it right.(Its two in the morning and I haven't slept so sorry if this doesn't make any sense once so ever.)
Religion is like extra credit.

I believe the term my friend is looking for is "Pascal's wager, if you don't believe in god then you are taking a risk.". Imagine you were an almighty god, and you were looking over a person. That person would then "believe" in another god only so he wouldn't go to hell. Not only is he insulting you, the true god by "believing" only to get out of going to hell, but he's also believing in another god which means he will go to hell anyway. There are two problems here: with Pascal's wager you are not seriously believing in god, and how can you be sure that the god you choose to not take a risk with is the true god? If I was a god, then I would be less insulted by an honest atheist than by someone pretending to believe in me.
Social Justice Warriors are the enemy of Rationalism and Academia.

Well the issue with the BLM movement is quite handily highlighted. Their methods are nonsensical and baseless; making demands that are totally counter-intuitive to combatting racism and which are really thinly veiled grasps at power [1], being taught by teachers who will readily hinder free speech and demand the obstruction of the rights of others to further their own goals [2], and lastly their mob mentality and rallies which are merely a way for them to enforce their demands [3]. Now as a contrast, I give you three organizations which actually attempt to combat racism through valid and sensible means, none of which involve SJWs; CAERS - Canadian Anti-Racism Education and Research Society: http://www.stopracism.ca... ARC - Anti-Racist Canada: http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.ca... IMADR - International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism: http://imadr.org... So with that done, I'm almost certain I've covered all of my points to your argument sufficiently. Can we both agree that no matter how noble the cause, SJWs will poison it, and that this extends to Academia and Rationalism? [1]:http://www.breitbart.com... [2]:http://heavy.com... [3]:http://youtu.be...
Social Justice Warriors are the enemy of Rationalism and Academia.

1&3 I can see. However, as far as the BLM movement can you expand upon that and definitively show that the cause of the movement; ending systemic racism and mass incarceration is a flawed cause. I don't necessarily agree with the methodology they're using but the goal if not twisted, is a noble one. I'm sure you can point out some ignorant and racist people in that movement, and probably some foolish decisions BLM has made; but, the heart of the movement and the original pure intentions to end racism I see as legitimate. Sort of like the 1% movement. On one hand it's a bunch of whiny college students. On the other hand, they point out the indisputable evidence that the average American worker has not financially benefited from a growing economy since the 1970's.
Social Justice Warriors are the enemy of Rationalism and Academia.

Alright so if it's okay with you, I'll provide three examples of social justice mishandling and further eroding rational thought and academia, and we'll begin with your refutations in earnest. First off, I take issue with the FCKH8 campaign, whose series of videos utilize young girls swearing as a means to try and convince people of the logic of their arguments, along with incorrect or misleading statistics to support their cause. This rings especially true when they use biased and stereotypical characterizations to try and justify striking down negative stereotypes. Here is one of their videos; http://youtu.be... And here is TL;DR, debunking their statistics and showing how flawed their arguments are; http://youtu.be... Secondly, I take issue with the Blacklivesmatter protestors on University campuses in the U.S. Their goals are highly self-oriented and they masquerade with the fa"ade of altruism as their main statement. I cite the following article about Jonathan Butler as an example, because Butler is a rich and well-off black man complaining about racism on University campuses. The article also expands on the other ways the protestors are affecting academia in a negative manner; http://www.dailywire.com... And thirdly, I offer up the example of this article from the Guardian in which a radical feminist makes a valid case against no platforming people at Universities. While the previous article was very right-wing, the Guardian is very clearly pro-social justice and it also adores first world feminism. Thus, while the authour's ideology does not align with mine, she does show why no-platforming is a bad idea. The reason why social justice warriors and feminists are so eager to no-platform people, (and this is a direct result of social justice) is because unless we allow people with outrageous fringe opinions to be heard, their opinions are considered more seriously because of the perceived taboo, and the poor ideas are not able to be seen as such because they are not presented for criticism. The article in question; http://www.theguardian.com... So I believe I've given a good base upon which to build. These are just a few causes I disagree with, particularly because I don't believe that they are going about it the right way, and because in each example, these SJWs are creating problems where none exist.
Social Justice Warriors are the enemy of Rationalism and Academia.

Hello there! So unless you've been living under a rock for the past several years, you should be aware to some extent of the effect that Social Justice Warriors have had on the developed world. There have been numerous examples of media campaigns and blogs that decry the inherent evil of society and prey on the good will of people. Specifically, I would like to cite the examples of the University of Missouri and the events that took place there in 2015, as well as the series of public figures such as Anita Sarkeesian, Laci Greene, and Steve Shives along with their assorted videos on the subject. For the sake of clarity, I define Social Justice Warriors as individuals who using their popularity and influence, attempt to impose their own political agendas on the society around them by using perceived "oppressions" and inequalities in status between various groups of people. Furthermore, I would argue that since what they are doing is inherently deceptive and misleading, it is infecting rational thought and is leading to a decline in academic progress. As seen in the University of Missouri, Social Justice Warriors overwhelmed professors and students who disagreed in order to get their way. I am aware that there are a surprising amount of people who find Social Justice to be a real and necessary cause, which is why I'm interested to see who accepts. It is of course important to note that many areas of this site would not function in a system constructed by an SJW. They would also shut down people who made cogent and well-cited arguments that conflict with their narrative. But, I get ahead of myself. Please, accept the challenge!
The USFG should fully fund drug treatment and HIV prevention, including syringe exchange programs.

Inherency: A) I do not refute the accuracy of his evidence, nor did I ever. Also, my opponent said's my own evidence said's that NEP's don't work. Well please point it out to me, because as far as I know that's untrue. Also, look at the resolution. "....PREVENTION....". I do not get rid of harms, I tackle a part of it and save lives, compared to the Neg doing nothing. B) The point of this debate is to lift the federal ban so state and federal government can fund. Until then its illegal, so no funds can be set up yet. 1 step a a time Con. Harms: A) No, you don't lose because you don't offer a CP. You lose because you agree to my harms, then not having a CP. Because in the Neg world your content letting the lives the Aff can save, die. Solvency: A) When they come to get clean needles, they will be encouraged to get into a detox program. Yes, that won't "stop" drug ue, but as the Rez said's, I'm only "preventing". Voters: My opponent agrees with the harms, but offers no CP. Even if proven that my case is 100% efficient, Ido at least more than the Neg. Thats the biggest voter in the round. He came up with good arguments, but when he ban lifts my case still stands to PREVENT IDU and drug use.
The USFG should fully fund drug treatment and HIV prevention, including syringe exchange programs.

Inherency: A. The USFG refuses to fund needle exchange programs because of misguided moralization, despite their proven effectiveness. What I'm saying is people have the mistaken belief that giving out clean needles encourages dug use. Which is why the USFG has not funded these programs. The USFG are letting a deadly disease/epidemic (HIV-AIDS) because they see it as encouraging something that is immoral in their eyes and also illegal. But scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that such programs do not encourage drug use--it actually saves lives by reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS. B. The federal ban cripples the ability of local groups to provides NEPS. What that point is saying is tha there is a federal ban on using federal dollars for needle exchange,limiting how much we can help, forcing us to rely on private charities that are unstable. Every major Democratic president has gone on record supporting elimination of the Federal ban. Yet it is still in place. We should take a page from Washington D.C which is committed to spending a million dollars in local money to support and expand needle exchange Harms: A. Blood borne transmission has a cascading effect--spreads throughout the population. What that point is saying is that not only is aids being spread through drug use but through sex, birth, breast-feeding,etc. We need to work at reducing it now before innocent people die. Solvency: A. USFG should expand exchange programs, end the federal ban, increase treatment and education--this will reduce drug use while solving the harms. Wht that point is saying is if we do the things I am proposing, the HIV/AIDS epidemic will be dramatically reduced and so will drug use. Were killing two birds with one stone. B. Exchange programs are effective, evidence shows no downsides. There is no evidence of such programs encouraging drug use. there is evidence of these programs reducing drug use. C. It is unethical to allow drug users to die when we can prevent it--should combine exchanges with drug use reduction and treatment efforts. Pretty much as a government its there moral obligation to help there people. "A society is based on its weakest people". We can help, we can save people, children,etc. So why not?? So I ask you as voters to put aside your biases and pre-notions, to consider the facts, and weight the issues. Thank you.