BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion must die for mankind to live

Again, I agree with all points made - yes, religion has led mankind into a state of peril that would likely never have been known without religion. Extremists in power are very dangerous, especially considering modern warfare and technology. However, as our contemporary state of advanced dangers has emerged, religion has declined. Atheists, agnostics, and non-religion in general have greater rates and numbers now than ever before (well, since the rise of religion, which occurred very early in human history). It is no surprise that mankind has advanced with great speed and strength while religion slowly declines and becomes irrelevant. I believe it is likely that religion will become a rare sight, on the outskirts of civilization, much like the practice of witchcraft - looked-down upon and unusual. However, it is undeniable that the very survival of mankind could be put at risk if there were a religious revival. But could we get through it? Yes, I believe we could. Despite the typical stubbornness of religions to refuse to accept anything besides their own teachings, it is clear that religions have benefited from exposure to science, and the methods of science - reason, rationality, and cooperation.Could religions ultimately cause the destruction of mankind? Absolutely.If there were a religious revival sometime in the near or far future, would mankind be in great danger? Quite possibly.If religion continued to decline, would we still face a danger in religious extremists? Yes, but likely not one on a worldwide scale.If religions never truly died, would mankind be doomed, as the prompt suggests? Probably not.
Religion must die for mankind to live

The odds of man inflicted catostrphic events have greatly increased since the dark ages. Religion equals power and control over a large group of people who willingly opt in because religion answers all of the really hard questions in life. Weapons of mass distruction, chemical warfare and the every day reliance the world has on technology has changed the game entirely when it comes to how we fight wars. Every religion has its extremists. The complete destruction of an entire populous can come with the push of a button. When religious extremists are put in a position of high enough power I don't trust any of them not to press their finger down in the name of their religion. They will need nothing more to justify those actions other than their God given sense of entitlement.
Religion must die for mankind to live

While my opponent makes all fair conclusions and suggestions, nothing in the arguments suggests that the presence of religion means certain death for mankind.Once again, I feel the need to emphasize that "Religion must die for mankind to live" is a very bold statement, one I feel is not easily argued. While I feel my opponent is certainly offering effective arguments to suggest that the consequences of religions and religious people could be, and have been, detrimental to the health of humankind, no argument has been made to suggest that religion will kill us all, as the prompt claims.I would agree with most of my opponent's claims - I do believe that religious people are considerably less likely to take positive action on Earth, due to their determination to abandon it in favor of an afterlife, and that they may even be fixated on the idea of world-destruction. However, religion has had its time in the sun, methinks. The Christian Dark Ages were probably the worst time in civilized history, but even they did not cause the annihilation of the human race - in fact, due to the desire of religions to expand the number of followers that they possess, they increased the population, though the rampant disease compensated, leaving general population at a low - however, I feel we can presume, should we ever experience another Dark Age, that this can be combated by the medicine that modern science has created, even if we never advance further in medicine, so even in another Dark Age, there is hope for mankind.Even at its most extreme (which it is unlikely ever to regain), religion can be survived, so, I feel, the prompt has been sufficiently contended.
Religion must die for mankind to live

In my opinion, religion enables people to shirk off the responsibility of taking care of their bodies and their planet while empowering them to do horrible things in the name of their religion/God. The outcome of such power doesn't equal anything good for the overall being of mankind. It just serves that particular people or society at the moment. Why would anyone who is truly religious be motivated to make any progress on issues that concern the well being of the planet we all live together on? Most religions claim to know how the end of our demise comes about and none of them say a whole heck of a lot about issues like global warming becoming an issue. Religions all have their own sense of Divine Right or Manifest Destiny. This sense of global entitlement in the name of religion is virtually the reason for every act of war, genocide and occurrence of unpleasant thanksgiving table conversation. The core beliefs of those involved root so deep into a person that their sense of individual humanity gets overthrown by a simple fundamental difference of opinion. The danger is real. The religious of the world are the infected zombie apocalypse population. When the infection spreads further more people will lose their lives after stopping the use of their brains and hearts.
Religion must die for mankind to live

Greetings. First allow me to state that I am strongly anti-religious. I'm an atheist, and, yes, I enjoy Bill Maher's anti-religious rants also.However, I feel the need to argue the point that it is not quite necessary for religion to die for the survival of mankind. I feel that society would be a far better place, and yes, it's possible that some consequence of religion could bring total destruction down upon us.However, your claim is that mankind cannot survive while religions do also, and I find that is a strong assumption. If you feel able to argue that, I look forward to a good debate. However, if you feel that you have used language that too strongly expresses your point, and you, like me, believe that religions are harmful, but their deaths are not quite necessary for the survival of mankind, then I feel you have no choice but to forfeit the debate.That being said, thank you for your statement, and I look forward to your response.
Religion must die for mankind to live

"The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world could actually come to an end. The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having in key decisions made by religious people. By irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn a lot about it. Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith, and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction. Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing, Lord! I'll do whatever you want me to do!" Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas. And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't. How can I be so sure? Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting it dead wrong. This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers. If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let's remember what the real problem was that we learned how to precipitate mass death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it. That's it. Grow up or die." - Bill Maher
Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential election

First off I am sorry for the pro con mix up I have a slight case of dyslexia I am sorry for that. Now back to business there were 4 elections in which this happened actually times (. http://www.infoplease.com...) and it may be rare but it will still happen and it is unavoidable so switch to where this will not happen again. Also I would like to state that this is what the people want electoral college to be abolished almost 75% want to switch to direct popular! !! !(. http://elections.firedoglake.com...) Give the people what they want its time for a change! !! !
Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential election

You say that the electoral college gives hardly any say to the little states but with direct popular vote the little states would have very little say. California has a population of 37,253,956 (http://quickfacts.census.gov...) with Wyoming having 563,626 (http://quickfacts.census.gov...) So then all of the candidates would be fighting for the 37 million instead of that half a million. Where with the electoral college, the votes will be more equal. From my calculations the electoral college is 18 times different amount of votes and direct popular vote is 66 times different amount of votes. With electoral college the votes in smaller states are still important unlike with direct popular vote. So this proves your first rebuttal wrong. Bush vs Gore was one time out of 200 elections. A.K.A it means it is VERY rare. For these reasons i urge you to vote con. Even my opponent said to!
Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential election

First you say that it will give smaller states a say in presidential elections, firstly electoral college gives hardly any say to the little states the electoral votes in those states are very little and candidates skip over those to go to states with the most electoral votes such as California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, New Jersey, and North Carolina(. http://thisnation.com...) and in order to be elected president you only have to win those states which goes against one person one vote and against the deceleration of independence "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal" all me are equal and should get 1 vote per 1 person not depending on electors. You talked about recounts… we have computers to do that for us and is a recount worth it if we find out we would have had a president wrongfully elected. You also stated fraud what about the year 2000 Gore against Bush. How would you also explain faithless leaders that go against the peoples will of who should vote.
Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential election

First off his evidence didn't support what he said. He said 75% of the people in America want the electoral college trashed. However, he evidence didn't say how many people where surveyed. It could have been 100people for all we know. We also don't know if the people polled where educated on the electoral college. So I believe the evidence is invalid. His other evidence didn't prove that there where four recounts. So that is also invalid. My points where: 1. The Electoral College protects small states influence within the presidential elections. 2. there is a far greater concern in direct popular vote is the problem of inevitable recounts 3. Direct popular vote is flawed in many ways 4. The Electoral College creates a reasonable, moderate majority. The electoral college protects all the states so they will not get "drowned out" in elections. It also has few recounts. Where in direct popular vote it is inevitable. Direct popular vote is flawed. The electoral college creates a reasonable, moderate majority.
Splitting of the USA

Pro claims to see multiple problems with my logic, but perhaps only as a rhetorical smokescreen to throw up a desperate mask over the reality that I have completely obliterated a number of his central arguments, and demolished his credibility as a leader.1. Current GOVERNMENT (not just military) spending is only at R x .228. This leaves at present R x .772 for the rest of the economy. By my opponent's own admission, his plan leaves only R x .7 left for the rest of the economy. This is clearly worse, and will damage the economy. No matter how he wants to present it, the numbers are against him.2. Most people are just not going to do that. It is a better idea to tax everyone, and give back to everyone later than it is to save a small percent which some will squander and others won't, and then punish the financially irresponsible with poverty and starvation. That is like punishing people who speed with death, the consequences don't fit the crime.3. Wrong. Russia, China, and a number of other interests have invested tremendous resources into trying to create their own Silicon Valley. They haven't entirely succeeded, [1] and Pro wouldn't even have a remote chance of succeeding since he's wasting all of his tax dollars on the weapons of 20th century warfare, not 21st.4. Pro doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. If he were put in charge of a country, it would look somewhere between Amish country and the Great Depression within about a year.5. No one accepts one way trade deals. No imports? No exports.6. Pro is clearly also delusional. I've already answered all of the points he raised here in earlier rounds, so I will not bore the reader. Instead, I will simply reiterate that this individual probably needs mental counseling, and express my hope that he will get the care he so desperately needs.7. A vote for Pro is a vote for a nightmare bizzaro world.Thank you for reading, and I hope you've enjoyed this episode of Adventures in Dystopian Tyranny.Vote Con!1) http://www.latitudenews.com...
Splitting of the USA

Before I go any further, I want to reiterate a position stated in the previous round, which was “Pro lists off a flurry of fantasy policies that he would enact, all of which would either be catastrophic to Southern society, or could be accomplished by means far less drastic than a complete political overhaul and secession from the Union.” Although I may not have elaborated on some of his points, I submit to the reader that this in no way constitutes agreement with those items. As my opponent correctly expects, I may still end up writing at length about any or all of his policy ideas in later rounds if I so choose. Radical Monarchist, not Conservative Republican Pro has blatantly admitted that he wishes to have the powers of a king. Strangely, he at the same time claims to have conservative-republican views. Republicans, by definition, favor republics, not monarchies. If he does not believe in representative self-governance by the people and for the people, then he cannot be described as “conservative.” He is instead a Monarchist. Meanwhile, he has done nothing to counter my argument that despotic rule on average tends to yield a less free, less prosperous, and more corrupt state of affairs for a nation than representative democratic government does. He has not shown any legitimate rationale for how his proposed Dixie would be an exception to this well established trend. Broken Economy The Department of Defense budget for 2010 was 4.7% of US GDP [1]. The entire budget: welfare and entitlements, defense, everything all totaled up still only amounted to 22.8% of GDP in 2012. [2] Therefore, if Pro were to get his wish of 30% military spending, then taxes and/or debt would necessarily have to rise. Either would have a detrimental impact on economic growth. On the other hand, if pro does not keep military spending at such a high level, then the free, powerful, and now hostile North poses an imminent threat to the gloomy dictatorship of the South. Pro is caught in an unwinnable scenario. Pro has repeated an obviously incoherent argument with reference to trade, and demonstrated that he does not understand how international treaties work, and on many counts has demonstrated that he is unfit to govern. Vote Con. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org...2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Splitting of the USA

1. How I take power is irrelevant. Regardless, I would have the power equivalent to that of a king, yet I would continue to practice my conservative-republican and Christian views. Just as the president is a democrat, I, as king/commander, would be republican. As far as personal freedom goes, little would change except the high chance of non-gay Americans would get more freedom because I would, as my party suggests, support deregulation. 2. I see no problem with a North Korean style immigration/ border control policy. Since I would cut welfare, people would have to get jobs, no matter how undesirable. Immigrants should not be taking these jobs. 3. As far as seperation of church and state goes, it will not be a problem for this region. Many of the states in Dixie are on the top ten list for most protestant. Furthermore, many of the states in Dixie do not have many nonreligious people. Furthermore, people would not be required to adopt Christianity, nor, as I previously stated, would religious officials also be political officials. This would not be a theocracy. However, the governmnet would recognize Christmas as the day Jesus was born. Things like manger scenes would be allowed. Thus, few social problems would be caused by my plan except that city halls can put out manger scenes without fear of lawsuits. http://www.gallup.com... Plenty of countries have national religions and turn out fine. 4. As far as gays go, women can do the gay guys jobs easily. This would open up job opportunities, create new demand for these jobs, and reduces the population of Dixie. The last point will reduce the overpopulation problem. 5. Items 12 and 13 are not contradictory. I will have free trade but I will not sponsor trade agreements. Thus, we will have plenty of trade while also giving incentive for self dependency. 6. A strong military is necessary to keep a nation sovereign. These are the only items that you mentioned, the rest go unconflicted unless you mention them later. Thank you, Commander of Dixie
Splitting of the USA

So, I will start. I, commander of Dixie, would be beneficial to the current southern states of America. We will assume that there is a peace treaty between the rest of America and Dixie as I have previously stated. The items that I would support/change/adopt are the following: 1. 30%-40% military spending. A strong military is necessary to keep the nation. 2. Cutting all welfare except for disability. I would only have six weeks of unemployment benefits provided. Wounded warriors and people born with disability would get full benefits. No food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, or anything of the sort. 3. Overall simplification of education-Teach students what the vast majority will need for life and make education more about logic, reasoning, and creating classes that would teach students for a future occupation(like trade school). 4. Adoption of FairTax-23% sales tax, no other taxes. A check would be sent to each family at the beginning of each month to cancel out taxes paid on life's necessities like food. 5. Very little to no gun control-Most people should have a gun on their hip to protect themselves. This is not a requirement but I would push for more lax gun control. Guns restriction would lie only with minors and violent criminals. 6. Law enforcement funding would be cut, primarily because of the lack of gun control making it easier for people to defend themselves. 7. Immigration-strong border control, similar to that of North Korea. No one comes in illegally and lives. Social Issues 8. No gays allowed-no marriage, or PDA between gays. This will be punishable by deportation. 9. No abortion-baby killing is bad. 10. National religion would be protestant Christianity. Religious officials would not be politicians if you are scared of that. Mostly this would just be to ensure that things like Christmas Carols can be sung and the government can use the Bible for defense against certain bills that would be immoral. 11. National Language-English Foreign Policy 12. Free Trade but benefits will be instituted to push for self dependency. 13. No economic trade agreements 14. No UN for us. Other: 15. Our flag will be the Rebel flag with an "In God We Trust" written on it. 16. No segregation or slavery just to be clear. These are the issues. Tell me which you disagree with. Defend your opinions. Any additional things you want to know bring that up in your turn and I will get to it when I respond.
Splitting of the USA

I believe that everything from GA to Texas should break away including Oklahoma and everything up to Kentucky. This would be called Dixie. I believe that I should be the Commander of Dixie. My opponent may choose which topics he would like to discuss. (We will assume that a peace treaty between Dixie and the Yankees is in effect. War betweeen the nations is not an issue that I would like to be included.) Any issue, but war between the nations, will be considered.
Who should be the rightful guardian of Julius Benedict Banana? Pro: Pikapoleon Con: SEABUNNY

I am trying to write this quickly so that I can get Julius out of your care, and away from your dust covered book shelf as quickly as possible. And that person who shall not be named, also cared for Julius, and was concerned for his health in your care, (if you can call it that) and was trying to take him to safety, you just slow him down in life. To by straight forward, you're an unwanted burden. you were his parent, but you lost that right when you RIPPED HIS HEAD OFF!!!! I still can't get over that. not to mention, that Julius is scarred for life. Child abuse is the number one reason that parents lose custody of their children, and now you can add your name to the list. Child neglect can also be a reason to lose custody, and if you don't call LEAVING YOUR CHILD STRANDED ON A SHELF neglect, then I don't know what is. if you were a loving parent, you would know what's best for him, and let him go. it is in the best interest of the child.
Who should be the rightful guardian of Julius Benedict Banana? Pro: Pikapoleon Con: SEABUNNY

Oh, I didn't rip his head off. Some other person who will not be named here grabbed onto Julius, then turned and ran, ripping off his torso. How can that be my fault? Also, to note, why were you writing fast in this debate? I thought you CARED. At least I'm a caring parent, and that's what Julius deserves.