BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists

thank you. i hope you use different arguments than you did last time, and than others have used. i wish you would have gotten into the debate instead of all the formality, unless you needed to define things, in which case define it and then explain why you needed it to be defined. bottomline, please show an apparent miracle that happened to an atheist. something that probably would have been called a miracle had it happened to a theist. i defined who had the burden of proof here, as con. no need to get into all the shifting burdens, bickering about rules etc. it's a simple request etc.
Websites depicting 'homophobic' material should be censored or removed

Sadly, hun, I must deeply apologize; I feel horrible for having to do this. I simply don't have time to complete this debate or research the facts I need. I was really looking forward to seeing it through. But, tomorrow is the beginning of my new semester and I have eighty-odd Psychology pages to read, take notes on, and so on. I'm sorry for having started the debate and not having time to finish it.
Websites depicting 'homophobic' material should be censored or removed

You propose that all material that offends the LGBTQ community should be 'censored or removed', I assume you mean that they should be censored or removed by the government, and not self censorship. An important philosophy strong in American society of the past and for those supporting of Freedom is the philosophy of Liberty. For one to be free, they must be absolutely free to do whatever they please, regardless of feelings hurt, so long has no harm comes to others. This philosophy of freedom is exactly what caused our founding fathers to adopt the first amendment, making any such proposal of yours ILLEGAL under US law- unless the first amendment is stricken. You are asking for special treatment, discriminatory special treatment for your special interest group, the LGBTQ community. For the government to provide special treatment to certain groups of people is not only unfair, but it is directly opposed to the philosophies of liberty and freedom. Many things can be considered offensive, vulgar, and 'completely unneeded', I might find somebody insulting my particular profession 'offensive' or 'unneeded', everybody can find 'anything' offensive. If we go around banning anything that could possibly be 'vulgar', 'offensive' or 'unneeded' on the web free expression would disappear. There would no longer be anything worthwhile to anyone. While you may be offended by insults given to such communities, that does not mean people should not be given the right to say them. If we are to remain a free society, free expression is a must- it is absolutely authoritarian to even suggest a ban on free speech, however unpopular, unless it causes serious harm to somebody. (For example, 'fire' in a movie theater, slander, libel, and threats)
Websites depicting 'homophobic' material should be censored or removed

(( Keep in mind that I'm not a horrible person, that I do not wish to form grudges, and that this is all for fun. )) Let me, first of all, clarify what it is I am talking about. I propose that websites displaying content and/or videos that are incessantly insulting, bashing, threatening, or committing violence against the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) community should be either censored or removed. Preferably removed. As my opinion on the topic is quite clear, as well as the subject itself, I will follow up by saying that regardless of religion, the above content is considered offensive and vulgar, as well as completely unneeded. I open the topic to my gallant foe, and welcome them to present their views.
Fox News is the most unreliable News Station.

This is really quite simple, Pro does not negate my definition of reliability nor does he deny that what he has been attacking the entire debate has been the validity of the news itself of Fox News rather than the reliability of the Fox news station to deliver news. To further counter me, Pro tries to show Fox News to be evil but many evil people can be reliable in their consistent malice while many good people can be unreliable to always be benevolent. Reliability is not correlated with moral benevolence at all. Pro has yet to show how Fox News is not reliable and consistent in its bias and malice. For this reason I win since Pro had the burden of proof.
Fox News is the most unreliable News Station.

I must say that your argument was quite profound. But I believe reliability in a news form, should be accounted for its reliability. As we can both tell Fox News is no where near as accurate as other news stations such as: CNN NBC CBS If I may add in a new piece to my argument, Fox News is considered "MSNBC's conservative evil twin". http://www.nytimes.com... If you compare these 2 they both are shockingly inaccurate, and as said before. If you give out misinformed information, that information is unreliable. To back up my argument "The Science of Fox News: Why Its Viewers Are the Most Misinformed": http://www.alternet.org...
Fox News is the most unreliable News Station.

Reliability vs Validityhttp://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...Even if the actual content of Fox News is not entirely valid or objective in nature, it is most certainly reliable regardless of these faults. Reliability is linked to the consistency of something to produce similar results over time, validity is linked to the closeness of what is being told to what is probably true (closely linked to accuracy rather than reliability).Fox News is Reliable24 hours a day, 7 days a week Fox News runs its website and very much of these hours it is either airing, discovering news, producing reports based on them, carrying out interviews or doing all at once. It is consistently bias to the right-wing, Conservative views of Rupert Murdoch.
Fox News is the most unreliable News Station.

First of all I did read the comments. And yes in the rules I did put down that Fox News is an unreliable resources (to back up what I am saying). Besides that, I wont make my statement right now. Considering that I could go on and on about everything Fox News is so bad at doing. Everyone knows and hopefully has seen the studies, that Fox News notoriously has had the most misinformed viewers. I want to hear your argument so I can see what you have to say to support Fox News.
The united states should legalize the use of water boarding on suspected terrorists, for information

"it is a method of getting information without actually causing any physical harm to a person. use of water boarding could get more terrorists to give information, being alongside a lie detector, it would be an effective and efficient resource." This is the only case my opponent has posted. No sources used to prove his side. Just his supposed 'knowledge'. I have presented sources and given examples and situations. Vote according. Kk-
The united states should legalize the use of water boarding on suspected terrorists, for information

My opponent has failed to recognized that however "stupid" Phil may be, he is still now considered a suspected terrorist. And will then be subjected to the treatment of water boarding. *Rebuttal "it is a method of getting information without actually causing any physical harm to a person" Wikipedia says- As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia (rapid heart beat) and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD. In an open letter to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Human Rights Watch claimed that water boarding can cause the sort of "severe pain" prohibited by 18 USC 2340 (the implementation in the United States of the United Nations Convention Against Torture), that the psychological effects can last long after water boarding ends (another of the criteria under 18 USC 2340), and that uninterrupted water boarding can ultimately cause death. http://en.wikipedia.org... The affects of water boarding last long after the treatment is over. Also during the water boarding procedure there is are the risks as stated by wikipedia. Obviously, there is physical harm. *Back to my case- Water boarding is considered torture, which is against the 18 USC 2340. And therefore that in itself is why it should not be legalized. To restate, this treatment would be used on suspected terrorists. These people who are "suspected" of being a terrorist still have the possibility and probability to be law abiding citizens. Not only should water boarding be illegal because it is torture, now my opponent wants to use this technique on people who aren't even convicted. That is why you should vote in the CON position. Kk-
The united states should legalize the use of water boarding on suspected terrorists, for information

"Not convicted or proven terrorists" this is not true. when you suspect somebody of terrorism, even when you prove that they are terrorists, they are still suspected of such, and still fit under the topic. the use of water boarding would be against ALL suspected terrorists, convicted, proven or not proven. It makes no difference in this topic. so taxi man phil has his gun. sure, he may be in a hurry, but I don't care how stupid he is or how heavy his jacket is, you can easily tell if you have something as heavy as your 9MM gun in your jacket. On a second note, since 9-11, with the hi-jacks, no person in their right mind would even try to bring a gun onto a plane with them. the correct solution for phil would be to get frustrated at himself, put the gun in his luggage, and then walk through the metal detector. you are allowed to bring weapons in your luggage, as long as it is not in your carry-on. passengers have no access to the luggage until before and after getting on the plane, and they will alow weapons. ____________________________________________________________________________ water boarding is an effective method of recieving information. the pour water on your face which makes your brain think that you're drowning, when in reality you're not. it is a method of getting information without actually causing any physical harm to a person. use of water boarding could get more terrorists to give information, being alongside a lie detector, it would be an effective and efficient resource. X
The united states should legalize the use of water boarding on suspected terrorists, for information

Definitions- Dictionary.com Suspected- to have a slight or vague opinion of the existence of, without proof, and often upon weak evidence or no evidence; For the time being I will simply say that the use of "water boarding" would be used against suspected terrorists. Not convicted or proven terrorists, which is the way it should be. A story for example- A taxi driver named Phil purchases a flight from South West Airlines to go and see his great aunt Maria in Los Angeles. He goes to the airport, and in his rush he forgets to remove his 9mm pistol he carries in his jacket in case he is assaulted by a crazy person after driving them to their destination. Phil gets his ticket and proceeds to security. He gets to the front of the line and takes off his belt and shoes and jacket, which has his pistol in it, and then walks through the metal detectors when a high pitched beeping noise is heard and soon Phil finds himself face down with 7 TSA guards on his back. Phil is taken to prison and is considered a "suspected terrorist." And if the US legalizes water boarding then this innocent citizen is subject to that treatment. And now to X... Kk-
What big daddy is better Bouncer or Rosie

In the first Bioshock game there are two big daddies, the Bouncer (drill) and the Rosie, (gun). The purpose of this debate is to argue what big daddy is better. There are a few rules I would like to note: 1. The stats and facts are from the original Bioshock game not 2 or infinite 2. You CAN include the elite version of the Big daddy The first round is acceptance and you get to choose what big daddy you are arguing for The second round you present your argument but cannot argue the other side The third round you can bring up new points and/or argue the other side The final round you sum up why you thing you deserve the win NO NEW POINTS If one of the debaters resign then the other will automatically win. This debate is a friendly debate so attack point and don't do personal attacks.
Atheism is for ignorance.

You will pardon any unfamiliarity I bear with the format of this site, having just joined. Having received much condemnation and contempt for atheism from my religious friends, I am curious exactly what it is that theism has on atheism. It has been called ignorant and foolish, pathetic and petty, and a host of other colorful descriptions. I wish to discuss the issue in civil debate, where someone will not fly off the handle in response to legitimate points.
Atheism is for ignorance.

I do not have any tricks. However, if someone were to champion the idea that unicorns are real, it would not be the job of the Con to prove that unicorns are not real, it would be the job of the Pro to prove that they are real. You can't march in here and tell me to disprove God's existence. That is not even the subject of the debate. Now, on the actual subject of the debate, that atheism is for ignorance: my case is simple, and I shall, since the Pro seems reluctant to make a case for why atheism is a position of ignorance, expand upon my previous point, that in the lack of evidence, among a chaotic mob of different and conflicting religions, the position that the supernatural and the occult are unnecessary in explaining the existence and functions of the universe is the most logical. (Ps. The manner in which I speak is my normal manner, and I am who I am. If others are unable to comprehend my vernacular, they should further their education to the point that they are able.)
Atheism is for ignorance.

no bro. i know your tricks, i am going to say somthing and you going to ask for proof and in this instant there is none! that is why you asked for me to go first and you didient start in round 2! sure i may be wrong but yourl have to prove me wrong AFTER you start next round:) thank you and prepare for a beat down!ps. talk so the average person can understand you, might get more points in your favour!
Atheism is for ignorance.

I am in the Con position. That means I am arguing against the stance that Atheism is a belief of ignorance. You, as being in the Pro position, are arguing for it, that atheism is based upon ignorance. Good luck to you as well. I shall open with the simple point that the sheer lack of evidence for the existence of any deity makes theist illogical. It was my intent that the proper opening argument be made by the Pro, but since it is too late for that, you shall simply have to make your case now.
God speaks against Gays, Lesbians, and Bi-Sexuals

Okay good points... If being gay, bi-sexual, or lesbian was honestly that bad why don't you take a good hard look at the ten commandments? 1.Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 2.Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing. 3.Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 4.Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 5.Honour thy father and thy mother. 6.Thou shalt not kill. 7.Thou shalt not commit adultery. 8.Thou shalt not steal. 9.Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 10.Thou shalt not covet While God is against being gay He is against these also. Since you say that me repenting but not fully giving it up is pointless, you're talking to everybody. No one can repent and follow all of the ten commandments. Everyone has put something before God at one point, even if you don't realize that you did, and probably still do. Most of us have taken the Lord's name in vain. All of us have forgotten the Sabbath for whatever reason it may be and still do. All of us have been mad at our parents one day if not many more. All of us have killed (no not necessarily murder, but it means to hate). We have all committed adultery with someone rather than their spouse(whether it was lusting or sex). Most of us have stolen something hell my friend once stole a taco and a slush before just for the fun of it. EVERYONE has lied there is no doubt about it at all and we still do. Last but not least we have all wanted something someone else has. Everyone who does these things think that since they've repented they can still do them so I ask you how is it that much different from being gay??
God speaks against Gays, Lesbians, and Bi-Sexuals

So are you saying that you think God will turn away someone who truely loves Him with all their heart but is gay? People don't choose to be gay it just happens. No one just wakes up in the morning and says "I think I'll be gay for the rest of my life." You have to grow up with it, you have to feel it. Why do you think the little awkward girly boy you sat behind in second grade is hitting on every guy you know? Even though someone is gay it doesn't give you the right to look down on them for it. They are who they are. I always encourage my girlfriends to come to church on Sunday and Wednesday, to bible study and mass. I love them enough to try and save them. I'm almost positive everyone has to have done something gay once in their lives whether you were drunker than a circus monkey on New Years or you did it out of pure will, whether it was an action or just a thought. Everyone has it in them to be gay. You think God doesn't know those things? You think you can hide it? He knows and unless you can remember really clearly what you did and repent for it then by what you're saying you'll end up in hell. As I have stated earlier I understand that God looks down on it but that doesn't necessarily mean He will condemn you to hell. Also I know it isn't okay and one day I will come to realize that today is just not that day. I understand that you are trying to help me, but I just can't change in half a heartbeat and not feel sexually attracted to women anymore. It's not that simple, it's a long drawn out process that I know will deteriorate over time just not soon.
God speaks against Gays, Lesbians, and Bi-Sexuals

Okay for one thing STOP STALKING ME!!!! Any ways… I know the bible does look down on me being bi-sexual but sooner or later I will change. I'm sure I won't be like this forever and when I do change I will try to get right with God. For now I'm living and loving. Kay? Also how am I supposed to know if it's hypocritical?
Jesus died for the sins of humanity

Since the pro is forfeiting his round,I will buttress my points by making use of two biblical verses to back up my claim that jesus died not for the sins of humanity. 1.Ezekiel 18:20 New International Version (NIV) 20 The one who sins is the one who will die.The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. 2.Deuteronomy 24:16 "7"8 Parallel Verses New International Version Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin. These two verses further proves that no man shall die for the sins of another but every man shall die for his sins hence,JESUS DIED NOT FOR THE SINS OF MANKIND
we are and should be both a democracy and a republic

As I said, Just because we have elements of both doesn't mean we are both! We are much closer to a Republic than both, And we have many more Republic ideologies than Democratic. We elect people to lawmake for us ex. Include: House of Reps Senate PRESIDENT Justices in Supreme Court Electoral College Seriously, Just because I am informed on a subject doesn't make me a "far right nut. " I'm actually closer to moderate liberal Lol
we are and should be both a democracy and a republic

The United States Is NOT both a Republic and a Democracy. It has elements of both, But it's not both. First, You must understand the difference between a Republic, Democracy, Oligarchy, And Fascism. Republic; electing other's. Democracy; people control all lawmaking. Oligarchy/Aristocracy; a small council governs. Fascism; Total control from government and party. We are closest to a republic, Because we elect other's to represent us. We are a republic, Period
we are and should be both a democracy and a republic

iT IS the supreme in folly to argue over whether we are a reoublic or a dmocracy, We are both period. People who say we are a reublic are arguing for an aristocracy of the rich and oligarchy. . Few people argue for pure deomcracy that would be a form of communisstic fascism their are limis from the bill of rights we elect repriestatives and we have referendums but there is a huge democratic increment, It is flawed voter supression is a thing voter fraud is basically a myth put out by those who hate democracy to stop it. . .
doctors versus natural medicine

Natural medicine is namely one thing... placebo. The idea that doctors should advocate or encourage something which shows no signs of actually having an impact on the health of their patients is absurd. Medicine has become a remarkable force for good in the world, extending lives, fixing problem, alleviating pain and saving lives. Certainly there was once a time in history when natural medicine was successful though not because it had any benefit, but rather it did nothing. At the time, conventional medicine included ideas like leeches and bleeding which did harm. With conventional medicine doing harm and natural medicine doing nothing, there might have been an argument. There no longer is such an argument to make. I am the first to admit we need a bit more scientific rigor in medicine, but it has long since started demonstratively helping people. Alternative medicine is, at best, a placebo. Certainly used in conjunction with conventional medicine it isn't going to hurt. You can take some sage and some antibiotics when you are suffering from a potentially lethal infection. However, nobody should forget what is really doing the work in that situation. Similarly you can take your medicine and pray or take your medicine and cast a voodoo spell. However, the worst case scenario is that a person could opt to forgo the actually helpful conventional medicine and allow an easily cured problem to progress to a point where it is no longer easily cured. You make it sound as if conventional doctors are simply jealous and should advocate alternative medicine for the benefit of their patients. However, I believe this is not incumbent upon them to do for the benefit of their patients because it will not benefit their patients. There are very few herbal and traditional medications which showed any actual benefit in medicine. Willow bark for example is the origin of aspirin. Aspirin is traditional medicine now strictly because it showed some tangible benefits. The only reason "alternative medicine" is still "alternative" and not simply "medicine" is because it doesn't do anything. If it did do something we'd use it. Doctors should not advocate ineffective flim-flam pretending to be medicine.