BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is NOT a religion

Before I continue my case, I would like to briefly explain some of the background to this argument. Nordible and I are friends and both atheists. We organised this for fun and both of us believe in the affirmative. The more you know. I would like to rebut some statements made by Nordible. He begins his case by repeating my argument, and then poses the question that this may well be a paradoxical statement. He then states "of course it is not". What is the purpose of this statement? He then goes on to comment on how Atheists are able to have their own individual beliefs, and therefore, by extension, not a religion. He gave examples of how Atheists can still believe in fairies and star signs. I have three responses to this. Firstly, religious people aren't governed solely by the doctrine of their faith, and not all doctrines must be adhered to. It is often stated that Holy texts are largely metaphors and open to interpretation, indeed, some faiths urge this. To state that religions do not allow for individual beliefs is incorrect. Secondly, religious people are just as able to believe in fairies and star sign themselves (depending on who you ask, that's exactly what they do). To state that the ability to believe in these things makes you non-religious is false. And thirdly, even if the belief in individual notions did negate the capacity for religion to exist as part of an individual's belief system, the statement would be redundant and self-contradicting as it would negate the capacity for religion itself to exist, as religion is a personal belief system, and by doing so, would mean that there is therefore nothing to be contradicted in the first place, as religion itself would not exist to be contradicted. This paradox, combined with the fact that religions do allow for individual beliefs, and that these individual beliefs do not negate the capacity for religion, further prove that, by definition, Atheism still stands a religion.
Atheism is NOT a religion

As czeekymonkey would like you to believe, to not believe is a belief in itself. Is that not an inherently paradoxical statement? of course it is not, as to be paradoxical is to hold within itself the truth. As opposed to religions, Atheists are not goverened by a strict set of rules but are instead goverened by whatever each individual chooses. Some people within this ideology may conform to aspects of the definition of religion, for example some atheists may embrace a connection to the supernatural, claiming star signs are real and fairies steal your socks. But this does not govern the entire populus of Atheism, it is a mottled but free collective of individuals, thereby defeating the notion that atheism (non-religion by definition) is not a religion.
Atheism is NOT a religion

The key word here is "belief". Nordable himself stated in his case "Atheism revolves around the belief that all religion is false". While this may be true, the definition of a religion is "a system of beliefs governing the way an individual perceives the universe around them, often linked with the notion of a superhuman or supernatural being." In the case of Atheism, this connection to a superhuman entity is the lack of belief in such a notion. However, it is important to recognise that the lack of belief in a deity or supernatural being is still a form of belief regarding a deity or supernatural being. It therefore satisfies part of the definition of a religion. Let us now examine the other section of the definition: "a system of beliefs governing the way an individual perceives the universe around them". Is Atheism a system of beliefs? Certainly. Does is propose a way to the universe? Yes, through the lack of the existence of a god, and, subsequently, tendencies towards belief in scientific propositions and ideas on the structure of our universe. Does Atheism satisfy the definition of a religion? Evidently. Therefore, from this, can it be stated that Atheism is a religion? Yes.
Atheism is NOT a religion

Atheism revolves around the belief that all religion is false and that there is no prophet, nor superhuman being in control or holding influence over the human populace. Whilst many religions believe something similar, that all other religions are incorrect, atheism believes that none are correct. Atheism defies religion in the fact that none of it's members folow the same beliefs and values. To be an atheist is to be free of religious laws, and doctrine as well as to be master of one's own self, thoughts, opinions and speech.
national socialism/communism sucks great big donkey dick and individualistic Liberty doesn't!!!!

While communism and socialism in itself doesn't work the idea does. I'm not advocating such a system ever but if it were to ideally work that's what I'll debate on. By having everyone live equally and deluding people into certain systems from the top big bad government your able to essentially run a functional society. The biggest problem with socialism is the instinct of someone to live better. Lets remove that. Now everyone lives equally, albeit extremely poorly but as generations get used to it they'll start to not care. Everything is than equal, and living poorly is normal. That's my argument for socialism/communism.
welfare

If democrats had their way everybody that is poor would receive welfare, and that's not even considering food stamps and medicaid. If you are making low money move to a place that is cheap, like Jacksonville Florida, there you can easily pay your bills with minimum wage if you live in the right apartment. Now if it was New York the minimum wage should be accommodated to their cost of living, taking away the necessity of welfare. Why should a poor person do all that and why should the government not support them? That takes government spending, which requires taxes, which hurts the economy and economic freedom. Therefore, we should limit it to only defense of the nation. And my anti-welfare argument was just on the assumption that there would no non-profit welfare programs ran as charities, which would be highly unlikely as America is the most charitable country in the world. There are also general downsides to welfare from the state, dependency and fraud are very real downsides. Sister Connie"s House of Hope shelter for women in Chicago has a 95% success rate a record that towers over that of any of the city"s shelters. This is because Sister Connie can practice a "tough love" approach. She has random drug testing, curfews, and requires her "clients" to find solid employment. So we do not have to pay extra tax dollars on welfare. So I vote no to welfare and food stamps, given that the government would allow these non-profits to be spawned everywhere and give a guaranteed opportunity for work everywhere as well.
welfare

Having worked in a polling call center, I can tell you that the majority of Americans do not agree with you opinion. That said, your "welfare" program would NOT be "financial assistance" since it sounds like you would be FORCING them to work 40 hours a week it sounds. If it means they are working for it, it's not "welfare", or "assistance" it's them 100% DESERVING every penny they are given, so YES, you WOULD be getting rid of "welfare" completely by your idea. You response is typical of a Republican, you don't care about people or children, you just care about money. Your "safety net" is NOT a safety net at all, it's MANDATORY full time employment in some ficticious factory (which factory, doing what?) The problem you don't address is that MOST people getting financial assistance ARE working, many times FULL TIME, but their employers are UNDER paying them to the point that they NEED assistance to make ends meet. What 'dependence" are you talking about? You CANT be "dependent" on something that does NOT exist for MOST Americans. As I"ve said before, Adults WITHOUT children are NOT eligible for ANY financial assistance whatsoever! And WHAT on Earth are you talking about putting CHILDREN to work? And who the heck are you to say that parents who are financially struggling therefore don't deserve children? So because their EMPLOYERS are UNDER paying them, that's THEIR fault? Get real! There are a MILLION holes in your story, so until you can fill ALOT of those holes, your "theory" isn't feasable about your ficticious "factory" work. You seem to be uninformed about safety net programs. ONE is "Welfare" which is Financial Assistance for CHILLDREN (parents who have), TWO is Food Stamps/SNAP, which is to FEED people who's employers SO UNDER pay them, that they CANT afford to FEED themselves. THREE is "medicaid" which is NOT a "safety net" program, it's a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT, it provides them HEALTHCARE for if they are SICK!!
welfare

Okay, I accept your challenge. I do have a problem though, I am for revamping welfare in a way that it wouldn't cost the government any money, I am not for abolishing it completely. Nothing should be given away for free, doesn't matter if you have children and need food. My safety net would be a compulsory factory service for financial assistance if you're looking for a job. The work would be available nationwide, giving families the ability to stay upright while at the same time discourages dependence based on the hard work for minuscule pay. It can work around your schedule, especially if you have college work. Children would be allowed to work in non-hazardous jobs there is they so wish, teaching them independence if they have parents that shouldn't even be parents. So the result is a higher GDP, more productive population, a surplus from the welfare programs, a system that could show some children the quality of hard working independence, and an effective safety net. The products made in the factory would be sold/used based on what was made, though I would primarily hope to sell them abroad. Also welfare is not only for parents, in some states, like Connecticut, medicaid is for all adults. http://www.ct.gov...
cyber bullying is a big deal

are you serious? saying that only a few people have committed suicide because of cyber bullying? this has to be a joke. about 5,400 teens die each year from cyber bullies. yea its more than a few. and I find it offensive when u said that they have mental problems and personal demons. mind your own business and shut up. I've had two of my best friends die this year. and ill show u what the bully was saying online if u want. I get cyber bullied by another student and her mom. the mother wrote on my school's facebook page saying that I bully her daughter, lied and said i stabbed her daughter and that im not a virgin.( i am though) the post made parents tell their children to stay away from me. this is month 2 of having nobody talk to me. I don't have mental problems or personal demons. I didn't even deserve to get cyberbullied. all I did was date a guy that the girl liked. even the girl posted on facebook that I had sex with my boyfriend everyday in the school bathroom for the past two years. and I'm only in the 7th grade. everyone in my school read that rumor and now think I'm a skank. oh yeah, and the guy I was dating broke up with me cuz she also posted that I stabbed her. I'm not being home schooled next year because cyberbullying isn't a serious issue. I'm being home schooled because cyber bullying is a HUGE and a VERY serious issue. and if you're wondering why I didn't go to the principal, its because she she ran into his office fake crying and said that I threatened to kill her. so yea. cyber bullying ruined my life. but u think its not a problem. y don't u tell that to the 5,400 families who lost a teen last year.
net neutrality

Well, that's unfortunate. ISP's should be able to control network speed and charge accordingly. The bandwidth on the ISP's networks is limited. The only way to control access to a limited resource and balance supply and demand is to allow for the formation of free market prices. Our internet networks are a bit like the highways we drive on. The reason that some roads are extremely over-used and others are only lightly used is that the government controls the funding and construction of roads. They're a "pulblic" resource.
(GY) Worldwide dictators who violate the human rights of their citizens should NOT be assassinated

Assassination : the targeted killing of an individual for political reasons in peacetime. It can be undertaken by individual citizens, or by the agents of another state, but in either case it takes place "without any legal process." 1st Reason : Human rights are the most sacred and basic rights for humankind, and dictators also have the human rights. If you consider the citizens' human rights so important, ignoring dictators' and killing them would be a contradiction. You cannot weigh the value of the human rights because the rights are the absolute concept that is uncountable. Who decides who should be assassinated? In addition, 'killing for the sake of majority' philosophy is also used as a justification for terrorists, for example, some from the Middle East attacking the US to rid the US army of their nations for their citizens' rights. In addition, the utilitarian idea would place all the leaders in the threat of being sacrificed for their people's sake. Moreover, the new regime that assassinated former leader according to its own criteria, in this case, for the citizens -or majority or society-, has high possibility of taking the means of assassination again for the regime using the same justification, which means it is still not democratic government that protects all citizens' rights. 2nd Reason : Assassination dictators is ineffective or more harmful. Since it is usual that it is not only the dictators who control all the system that violate the citizens' rights, eradicating only them would do little to change the whole system. Furthermore, it can even worsen the situation by bringing chaos or conflicts into the society. After Sadam Hussein was executed, for instance, his supporters caused severe violence in the name of revenge. In addition, sudden disappearance of leader or national representative confuses the citizens regardless of whether they wanted it or not. 3rd Reason (would-be rebuttal) : Assassination is not the one and only way. There are alternatives that might be a bit slower in making changes, but respect the human rights and bring more stability and legitimacy for the new government; international court, economic sanction, for example. "The Special UN Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia has been able to put Slobodan Milosevic on trial, and Saddam Hussein is facing justice in Iraq. The International Criminal Court now provides a permanent forum for such action to be taken,.."(copied from somewhere..) There are also historical examples such as Magna Carta in England, which changed the undemocratic society not assassinating the leader.
words are the key to everything.

Again, I will re-iterate one of my primary points, that words are not without value. In fact they are a primary component of my day to day existence and how I navigate through and communicate with the world. However this does not make them the key to everything. Had my parents never used a word in their lives, say they're autistic to the point where they can't use words, that would in no way have made it impossible for them to procreate and as a result I would still exist in a system outside of spoken or written words. The fact that the written word is the currently accepted paradigm for communication does not mean it is the only possibility, and furthermore it is definitely not the key to everything. Everything is the key to itself, words only enable us to communicate and in the case of your grandmother leave a more powerfully lasting legacy. Simply put, words are NOT the key to everything. They are only a useful tool, albeit a tool I gladly use daily. Like any tool, they can be used in a positive, negative, or neutral way, but as I already stated, they can only be used to describe things, actions, places, emotions, thoughts, feelings and so forth that already exist. Its the simple.
words are the key to everything.

so are you saying that you would be here if someone did not operate the word that brought you into this existence? you would have emotionally and thoughtfully brought yourself into this life right? get real my friend. you sound like an over studied scientist using words that someone wrote in a book. the written word has inspired the greatest in the world to be who they are. what words did you study in school to become who you are? suppose a loved one dies. would you rather have a fading emotional thought, or would you rather have a photographed word tattooed onto paper? i had the type of grandmother that wrote a letter to her grandkids before they were even born. my letter said, "dear grandson, if i should go to sleep before i see you again then just know that i am supportive of whatever you decide to do in this life. always be honest and full of integrity. do whatever it takes to succeed and you will succeed." those written words are above emotional because they cause emotions and thoughts. simple thinkers say one thing but truly do not comprehend. we are battling with written words my friend. what emotions will you call on now? your emotional talk is the language of the unbelief that you hold in your heart. why deny the truth. the written word has created this entire system outside of nature. the written word says...i will teach you children...i will inspire champions and winners...emotions will be with me and are a result of my creativity.
words are the key to everything.

You're inverting the natural order of existence. First came the action, then the word for it. Without a name the action still exists. Without words life would go on. It would be different to be certain, but not necessarily in a bad way. Consider the proposition that all ideas could be conveyed wordlessly through action or image. also consider that math is not word based, but symbol based. the words just simplify it so that it can be understood in a non-direct sense. However, as in my first argument I concede words have power. But they are not the most significant part of reality. and I thought you said we wouldn't drag God into this... but you did. Your words there didn't really hold the power did they? Without man and the written and existing word based communication system, the world would and does still exist. There are not words for everything, nevertheless everything continues to be. that's the main thrust of the debate as I see it in our topic of debate. I counter that everything is the key to words. The more there is the more words there are to describe it all, if there was nothing there would be no words. To re-iterate, no words does not equal the absence of everything. the absence of everything does equal the absence of words.
words are the key to everything.

well i still think about what i said earlier. everything you decide to do is word based. a thought or emotion is also a word. the bible says,"in the beginning was the word, and the word was with GOD, and the word was GOD." if i think about what i want to be in life then it is done by arranging words that i know and comprehend into a system that i can execute with my life. emotion is a word. if i want to be a teacher, i would read, study, and examine the words that teachers read, studied and executed to become a teacher. look around yourself. see if you can look at something that is not tied to a word. go downtown or uptown. look at all the city buildings with names on them. whats your name? you spoke of mental capacities. that all begins with words also. our country is fighting because of executed words right now. the country we live in was built on a couple pieces of parchment. your father used words to meet your mother. face it my friend, if there are no words then there are no visions. words invoke and provoke us to think of more words to debate with. is it odd that we debate right now with the very thing that you take lightly. can me and you debate without words? there are many different types of expressions of word. if you do not act a word, how can you produce the power that comes from action. no word equals no action. a tree is known by its fruit. people have killed themselves over a few words. also people have lived a better life because of the words they decided to act on. words are life. if you do not believe that then how do you suppose you act. every move you make in the earth tells a story. the written word is the greatest teacher that man has ever had. it is durable, and in the correct form it does not change. words are everything. show me anything in the earth that does not begin with a word, and i will give you another word that justifies my comment. words are everything.
words are the key to everything.

Before words can have power over us, we have to be able to conceptualize them. this means our own thoughts and emotions have a greater power over us than any written words ever could. Words are just a symbolic projection of an internal state of mind. I don't agree with certain things because I already have inside me an opposing idea. Likewise, when I do agree it is because I have an internal connection to the idea presented. Therefore, words, particularly written words, aren't the most powerful thing in life. our basic nature is. This doesn't mean words are powerless, just that they are not the most fundamental part of life. or as my dog would say. woof woof woof woof woof bark woof. which translates roughly to: These aren't words. They're emotional and physiological expulsions.