BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It should be socially acceptable to make fun of God.

I say all religions should be immune to criticism.This would give immunity to religion but not non-religion, thereby promoting religion, which according to you would be against the constitution. If you wish to extend that immunity to non-religion, then you are essentially saying that all beliefs relating to God (whether they be a form of belief or disbelief) should be immune to criticism. In this case, you must explain why beliefs relating to God should have this special immunity while other beliefs (e.g. taste in music) do not. My argument is that it should not matter what the belief is about. A belief is nothing more than that: a belief. If it is socially acceptable to make fun of one kind of belief (e.g. music), then it should be socially acceptable to make fun of any kind of belief (e.g. God). It is, in my opinion, the same class as racism, calling someone the N- word or a chink. Many ethiticities have distinguishing religions. And many link their religion as a direct connection to their race. So mocking their religion is same asmocking their race. Many kinds of beliefs are linked to race: beliefs about God, beliefs about music, beliefs about how to treat people, beliefs about gender roles, beliefs about education, beliefs about sport etc. Literally every belief that is linked to culture or ethnicity can be linked to race, since culture and ethnicity are factors that determine race. I am from Australia, the home of Australian Rules Football (AFL). This is our distinguishing sport, and we believe it is the best sport in the world. Are you saying that it should not be socially acceptable to make fun of AFL? Would you put such criticism in the same class as racism? And what of beliefs about how to treat people, gender roles etc? Are you saying that all of these beliefs should be immune to criticism too? I certainly hope not, for if we were to adopt such an approach, the human race would surely not progress in any meaningful way; humans would be idle, because no important beliefs could be criticised. Racism is wrong because it involves the unequal treatment of different people based on their race. If there is no unequal treatment, then no moral wrong is committed. Making fun of God does not result in unequal treatment of people based on their race or their beliefs about God. Indeed, the opposite is true. Being able to make fun of God results in equal treatment of all people, because it means that any kind of belief harboured by any person can be freely criticised by anyone. So again I ask: why should beliefs about God have special immunity to criticism, while other beliefs do not?To give beliefs about God special immunity is a blatant double-standard.
It should be socially acceptable to make fun of God.

I didn't say that certain religions are immune from criticism, I say all religions should be immune to criticism. If people are allowed to mock a religion, as I stated before, it opens the door for misusing of that right. It is, in my opinion, the same class as racism, calling someone the N- word or a chink. Many ethiticities have distinguishing religions. And many link their religion as a direct connection to their race. So mocking their religion is same asmocking their race.
It should be socially acceptable to make fun of God.

Con has decided to repost his arguments from Round 1, as I suggested, but he has not offered any rebuttal to my argument. It should therefore be assumed that he accepts my argument. It is Against our constitution to mock a religion. In our first amendment it guarrants us the freedom of religion. And in truth you are not not allowing us to practice such religion, you are mocking our religious views which could influence our choices.It is not against the constitution to mock a religion. If I make fun of your taste in music, it may influence your choice in music, but you can still choose whichever music you want. The same is true for God. If I make fun of God, you may feel less sure about your beliefs, but you can still choose to believe in God if you want. In order to disallow you from practicing your religion, I would have to take the choice away from you. You have already admitted that making fun of God does not take that choice away from you. 1st Amendment: "The First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another."By allowing the mocking of God(s) it allows the favorment of a religion over others.In fact, the opposite it true. If people are not allowed to make fun of God, then certain religions are given immunity from criticism, and this favours such religions. This would also breach freedom of speech, which is also a part of the 1st Amendment. Con has failed to provide any reasonable argument as to why it should not be socially acceptable to make fun of God. He has also offered no rebuttal to my argument.
It should be socially acceptable to make fun of God.

It is Against our constitution to mock a religion. In our first amendment it guarrants us the freedom of religion. And in truth you are not not allowing us to practice such religion, you are mocking our religious views which could influence our choices. 1st Amendment: "The First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another." By allowing the mocking of God(s) it allows the favorment of a religion over others. By the way when I say you in this argument I mean those who mock god not you as in the "Pro" It is a conflict of rights and such should be decided in the courts, not on the streets and our minds.
It should be socially acceptable to make fun of God.

Therefore, Con’s entire post for Round 1 should be read as “I accept”. Con may copy his text from Round 1 and paste it in for Round 2, together with rebuttals. My argument is simple. It is socially acceptable to make fun of a person’s taste in music. For example, I could say “(insert genre of music here) music is crap”, and jaws will not drop. This is despite the fact that a person’s taste in music is often based on a firm belief (i. e. that said type of music is in fact superior to other types). However, if I were to say “God is crap”, then all of a sudden jaws will drop. I argue that if it is socially acceptable to make fun of a person’s taste in music, then it should be socially acceptable to make fun of a person’s (taste in) god, because they are both preferences based on beliefs.
It should be socially acceptable to make fun of God.

I will of course be arguing against Blob, I believe that although free speech is important. It is not right to be able to mock a religion and/or leader of that religion. It is Against our constitution to mock a religion. In our first amendment it guarrants us the freedom of religion. And in truth you are not not allowing us to practice such religion, you are mocking our religious views which could influence our choices. 1st Amendment: "The First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another." By allowing the mocking of God(s) it allows the favorment of a religion over others. By the way when I say you in this argument I mean those who mock god not you as in the "Pro" It is a conflict of rights and such should be decided in the courts, not on the streets and our minds.
It should be socially acceptable to make fun of God.

I will be arguing that it should be socially acceptable to make fun of God. Con will be arguing that it should not be socially acceptable to make fun of God. DefinitionsGod: any supernatural god of any religion. Make fun of: Find humor or laugh at in a vile or insulting way. To tease, ridicule or make jokes about, generally in a pejorative manner. Socially acceptable: Worthy of being accepted by society. Note: although I will be arguing in favour of the resolution, I do not intend to make fun of God in this debate. However, I may provide examples of jokes about God, for the purpose of explaining my arguments. Please do not accept this debate if you might be offended by such examples, unless you are able to keep your feelings out of the debate itself. 4000 characters.
The Moral Refutation of Religion

So this is the end of Time. Billions in Hell, thoudands in Paradise. Damn! Satan, an evil being that does God"s will? Lol how can souls burn if they are immaterial? how can God be good if he is in favour of eternal damnation? Cant cursed souls repent? why? what happens then? SO GOD CREATED SOULS FLAMABLE" HOW THOUGHTFULL! I"M WORSE THAN SATAN, I HOLD GOD RESPONSIBLE. 70 VIRGINS FOR ETERNITY? HOW POOR! LOL SO MARY WAS A VIRGIN?_ LOL RELIGION " TERROR OF THE MIND. LOL SO MONKS DON"T NEED TO WORK? LOL DO YOU AT LEAST AGGREE THAT HAD YOU BEEN BORN IN INDIA YOU WOULD BE A HINDU? DO YOU KNOW WHAT PRIEST DO WHILE THEY HEAR YOUR CONFESSIONS? THEY WANK! SO SOME PEOPLE ARE IMPURE BY BIRTH? LOL WHY DOES THE LORD NEED PRAISE? INSECURITY? NARCISSISM? LOL CAN MOTHERS REALLY BE HAPPY IN PARADISE WHILE THEIR SONS BURN IN HELL? GOD OF MERCY, CREATOR OF HELL LOL WHY DOESN"T ALLAH SEND A PURGE OF PUNISHMENT TO ISRAEL? TOO WEAK A GOD? YOU CONFUSE GOODNESS WITH POWER, YOU HAVE NO MORALS. THE END OF THE WORLD IS IMMINENT LOL SO PARADISE IS ONLY FOR THE COWARDS" LEFT-HANDED PEOPLE BEWARE! ISLAM IS NOT FOR YOU LOL SO THE ARCHANGEL GABRIEL IS TERRIBLE? LOL mere conceit can never take the place of truth SO THERE ARE ONLY 2 SEAS LOLOLOOLOL Abraham and Moses were jews" TORTURE " FOR BARBARIANS, A FORM OF PUNISHMENT. FOR THE HOLY INQUISITION, NA AID TO INTERROGATION. I am an evil god that punishes the sins of men upon his children and grandchildren.
The Moral Refutation of Religion

"No record His messengers in Australia and Papua New Guinea. They seem not to have made mutch of an impression lol" Yes, Hadith says that over 120,000 Messengers were sent, maybe the people were Pagan or Polytheists so they didn't like the idea of One God. "And what about our predecessors before God finally revealed Himself??" Adam was the first Human and was a Prophet, so from the first human God revealed himself. "DO HINDUS GO TO HELL? WHAT ABOUT BUDHISTS?" Only God Judges not me. "WHAT IF THE REVELATIONS WERE MADE BY THE GREAT LIAR, SATAN, HE WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE?" The revelations are by God not Satan, Satan is created God is uncreated according to Islam(Surah 114) "WHY DID GOD CREATE A WORLD IN WHICH THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF HERBIVORES ARE EATEN ALIVE AND THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF CARNIVORES DYE OF HUNGER?" Ask the Biologists "WHO CREATED THE FLY, THE MOSQUITO AND GERMS?" God created them. "JESUS SAID ONLY A VERY FEW GO TO HEAVEN." I do not know if he said that, if he did then it is True, because he was inspired by God and not God. "DO YOU BELIEVE IN YAVE AND JESUS?" The revelations are by God not Satan, Satan is created God is uncreated according to Islam(Surah 114) "WHY DID GOD CREATE A WORLD IN WHICH THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF HERBIVORES ARE EATEN ALIVE AND THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF CARNIVORES DYE OF HUNGER?" Ask the Biologists "WHO CREATED THE FLY, THE MOSQUITO AND GERMS?" God created them. "JESUS SAID ONLY A VERY FEW GO TO HEAVEN." I do not know if he said that, if he did then it is True, because he was inspired by God and not God. "DO YOU BELIEVE IN YAVE AND JESUS?" I believe in Jesus, but about Yave if he meets the description of Allah(Surah 1:114) then yes he is God.
The Moral Refutation of Religion

No record His messengers in Australia and Papua New Guinea. They seem not to have made mutch of an impression lol And what about our predecessors before God finally revealed Himself?? DO HINDUS GO TO HELL? WHAT ABOUT BUDHISTS? WHAT IF THE REVELATIONS WERE MADE BY THE GREAT LIAR, SATAN, HE WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE? And what about our predecessors before God finally revealed Himself?? WHY DID GOD CREATE A WORLD IN WHICH THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF HERBIVORES ARE EATEN ALIVE AND THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF CARNIVORES DYE OF HUNGER? WHO CREATED THE FLY, THE MOSQUITO AND GERMS? JESUS SAID ONLY A VERY FEW GO TO HEAVEN. YAVE SAID THE JEWS WERE HIS CHOSEN PEOPLE. DO YOU BELIEVE IN YAVE AND JESUS?
The Moral Refutation of Religion

As you can see Pro is trying his best, but still cannot provide a good argument. ""SO THE ARCHANGEL GABRIEL IS TERRIBLE" Its in the Koran." Where? give me the reference.. "I wish you had been born in India. Maybe you would be worshiping a cow lol" I do not wish so, and i thank my God for the blessing of being a Muslim. "And go to Hell, of course." If I had the choice i wouldn't "Why did not God reveal himself in other continents? Can"t swim? lol" 16:36 "And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying], "Worship Allah and avoid Taghut." And among them were those whom Allah guided, and among them were those upon whom error was [deservedly] decreed. So proceed through the earth and observe how was the end of the deniers." God mentions that he sent to every nation a Messenger so you are invalid.
It's time to bring back the good old fashioned freak show

According to the British Library "Exhibitions of live human curiosities had appeared in travelling fairs, circuses and taverns in England since the 1600s. These included so-called giants, dwarves, fat people, the very thin, conjoined twins and even people from exotic climes. Freak shows were a particularly popular form of entertainment during the Victorian period, when people from all classes flocked to gawp at these unusual examples of human life." [1] My research has also revealed that those lucky thrill-seekers in Victorian London could choose from such exhibits as: * Harvey's Midges, "The smallest People in the World" * Lalloo, the Indian boy with two bodies, * Ms. C Heenan, multiple winner of the prize for being America's fattest woman * Chang, the Great Chinese Giant * A heavily tattooed Greek man belonging to a certain G.A. Farini, Esq. * Babil, the Giant Amazon Queen * An unnamed "freak of nature" purported to be the possible "link between man and ourang-outang" * A real, live mermaid belonging to a Mr. Harry Philips * Krao, a little girl discovered in Laos who is described as "a perfect specimen of the step between man and monkey". * Chang and Eng, the original and best Siamese Twins * S. Watson's American Museum of Living Curiosities featuring "Africans"; "A living Mystery"; "Australians"; "The Stoutest Lady in the World"; "A Snake-Charmer"; a "North American Indian" plus a two-headed woman a man with no legs and no arms and the woman with "the finest head-hair in the world". [2] That sounds like good, wholesome fun for all the family, don't you think? I propose we bring back the good old freak shows but update them with contemporary exhibits such as: * Jock McOcksucker and his Horde of Kilt-Wearing, Caber-Tossing, Whisky-Swilling, Haggis-Chomping Savages from Scotland * Hans Schwanzfresser, Germany's Gayest Man * Mr / Miss Lei "I Love you long time" Mi, the Thai transsexual * Hebrew Hugh, the World's Most Avid Money-Grabber * Farmer Palmer and his Hilarious Herd of Human Heifers * Bionic Ben, The Half-Human, Half-Plastic Spastic These freak shows will bring much-needed affordable entertainment to the masses and also provide valuable employment opportunities for savages, gays, ladyboys, Jews and cripples and I duly commend this proposal to the House. Thank you. [1] http://www.bl.uk... [2] http://www.bl.uk...
Abortion

A fetus, is not a baby, especially at the early stages, the brain has yet to develop, so how are you taking away a life when it never existed in the first place? By your definition. It should be illegal to ejaculate anywhere besides a vagina because you are taking away the life from a baby. What if your mom swallowed you instead? Would you be alive today? Also as a source myself, the one true God creator of all http://www.mayoclinic.org...
The ratio from Men to Women has to be 10% men and 90% women for true equality.

Okay well, I accepted this argument for a challenge.(I definitely believe in equality of both genders) So let's start. What I am arguing that for equality to work, men and women have to be uneven, with men being at 10% and women 90%. In my arguments I will be talking about firstly, how in order create equality among all genders we need to make everyone agree. Equality doesn't happen if the majority of people are against it, for African Americans, gay marriage, even currently transgender, there has always prejudice and oppression but this has helped achieve our goal of equality faster than ever. My second argument in the next round will be about in order for men to fully appreciate what the woman has gone through, we need to establish what we have been through. I am not saying that equality would need such a bias for the entire time, but instead just for a short period so that people actually understand that this issue of women's equality isn't a myth. Lots of people believe that women equality has been a joke and full of feminists who are just against women. To truly understand the delicacy of the situation we need to empathise with others. Finally, my last argument is going to be about a change in power. We have been dominated with men rule for so long. For example the amount of man leaders to female is so different. Men and women are completely different in some ways, and so therefore by putting women in power while 10% of men don't have a leadership role, maybe we will be able to see different ways our world can world. It is a fact that women and men work differently. Women are known to think things through while men are more in the present. This quality in men is very desirable and great to have in some cases, but maybe in setting a time where women are allowed to take high leadership roles, we will be able to witness her taking some action for different issues, thinking them in a new perspective to a man. Women also prioritise different things to men. For example, having the work industry and political sphere with 90% women instead of 90% men which is currently is, this would mean that we may be able to change different issues such as sanity tools for poor women as a charity rather than funding in sports. We would be able to distribute the money of the government in a different. So overall, these are my arguments. I am not arguing that 90% women in rights but in the workforce because it is not specified in the topic.
The ratio from Men to Women has to be 10% men and 90% women for true equality.

This will be an open debate as to the equality of society given the ratio of men to women. For this debate I will take con, or against the subject listed above. This will be an argumentative debate, so it is up to the voters, and only the voters to decide who won or lost. I and the person who I am debating cannot say he/she has won because of a mistake in logic or proof. With all that out of the way, I hope that I can get someone to debate! Round 1 Is just stating position, with all other rounds providing evidence and arguing.
The ratio from Men to Women has to be 10% men and 90% women for true equality.

Okay for guys: Picture this. Lets say you wake up one morning. It is sunny, and you can hear chirping in the distance. But it's not your usual day, sleeping next to your girlfriend. The girlfriend who wakes you up at 6am to go for a run or the girlfriend who uses the bathroom for 3 hours. Instead, you are sleeping next to 9 girls. You have 9 girls to choose from and they all love you to bits, because lets face it, we don't have much choice if the ratio is 9:1 so you literally have girls begging for you. Not sure how many guys would love this situation but I'm guessing a lot. For girls: Picture this. Lets say you wake up one morning. It is sunny an you can hear chirping in the distance. But it's not your usual day. Instead guess who runs the world? (like Beyonce would say). You guessed it! GIRLS! So instead of having to go to your male dominated work place, instead of having to please the boys at school, you can be at ease. Because guess what there is no more feminist talks, there are no more glass ceilings of trying to make your mark on this male dominated society (there are statistics on the glass ceiling business), because (lets be honest) no guy wants to fight with any girl especially if our periods are all on sync. So overall ladies and gentlemen, you can obviously see that both these scenarios benefit us all :) Face the facts, it would be a utopia
The ratio from Men to Women has to be 10% men and 90% women for true equality.

Well in that case. .. By 1998, that proportion tripled to 60% I'm going to start off by defining natural selection. It is where the fitter organism with favourable characteristics live and pass their characteristics to their offspring whereas the other variation of species slowly dies out to an inferior number or nothing. In 1900, men outnumbered women in the U. S. : 38.8 million versus 37.2 million, a ratio of 95.9 women for every 100 men while now (1999) the situation has reversed: there are 139.5 million women versus 133.4 million men, a ratio of 95.5 males per every 100 women. That being said, we can see how the number of women has increased to men, and can assume that women will continue to grow from this trend while men will probably stay a constant. Rather than DECREASE through "culling" of men, their number just wont increase. Over time women will have such a large population this ratio of 1:9 will be achieved. Us humans, can't argue with the process of natural selection because its basically evolution as it creates the better organism to live while the other variation of species (men) dwindle in numbers. The limiting factor will probably about 10% of males, because females still need men to reproduce but seen as though most men love sex so much, it should be a problem is every male has sex with 9 girls (actually would probably be preferable from most males. ) Similarly in the work force as I was talking about earlier, women have gone from 19% of nation held jobs in Australia in 1900's to tripling to a 60%. This number will continue to increase while men's number won't and eventually reach the limiting factor of 9:1.
The ratio from Men to Women has to be 10% men and 90% women for true equality.

While I am sure the points that you made are completely logical, I do think that you do not realize the topic at hand. The topic is not talking about the specific number of men to women in a given industry, It is talking about the population of each type across the whole planet, hence the broadened term. So, the way it is phrased, is that there needs to be 9 women for every 1 man, as that is what the ratio states, across the whole planet. This means that the population would be reduced by 7/18 of the current, making women more common than men across the world. That means the that Men would be a minority group, and that women would in fact be the majority. Now, in a culture that was run by women, assuming history repeats itself, would make men considered "Inferior" by number. http://www.world-nuclear.org... http://topics.nytimes.com...