BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is Directly Responsible for an Atrocity

It seems to me that Con has fundamentally misunderstood what "atheism" means. His original definition does not fully state his position on this, so I should tell him where he is goofing up in his statement of the beliefs of atheists. When you say you are an atheist, you are making a statement about God. Now that statement has a burden of proof (equal to the theist's statement "there is a God") which I do not believe that anyone can fulfil. Just because there is no evidence of God existingin the Universe, doesn't mean one can affirm a non-belief in God. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Therefore, atheism is a knowedge claim. It's not just not believing, but a leap of faith without evidence. Atheism is a positive belief statement, this cannot be denied considering how little we know about the universe. Now there are many signs that religious leaders were targeted in various Communist atrocities in the latter-half of the 20th century in Soviet lands. Ordinary people with a strong faith in religion were targeted too. This was, I believe, due to the fact they believed in a power higher than the Soviet leaders who ruled over them at that time. There are many historical documents that suggest this, even though some were destroyed by the Communists when they were losing their empire. Without militant atheism large sections of society would not have been exterminated. Atheism is responsible for many of the atrocities in the Holodomor.
Atheism is Directly Responsible for an Atrocity

The proposition up for debate is that atheism is directly responsible for any single atrocity in history.The following definitions were chosen/found/created in order to facility a clear discussion, and MUST BE adhered to. Any attempt to redefine, alter, or otherwise refuse these definitions will result in the forfeiture of the debate:Responsible - chargeable with being the cause of some action or event, usually followed by 'for', and is demonstrated to have been both a necessary and sufficient condition for that action or event's occurrence.Necessary Condition - A necessary condition for some state of affairs S is a condition that must be satisfied in order for S to obtain. (4)Sufficient Condition - A sufficient condition for some state of affairs S is a condition that, if satisfied, guarantees that S obtains. (4)Atheism - the lack of belief in the proposition that god(s) exist, (derived from 'a', meaning 'without', and theism, meaning the belief that god(s) exist), as opposed to and distinct from the positive belief that god(s) do not exist. (1) (2)Atrocity - an extremely wicked or cruel act, typically one involving physical violence or injury. (3)The burden of proof lies on pro to demonstrate that atheism, as defined, is directly responsible for any single well-known atrocity in history.In the first round Pro must agree to the terms set forth, and must chose a SINGLE well-known atrocity throughout history for which he/she believes that atheism was directly responsible for, but any arguments will not be presented until the second round.(1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.prefixsuffix.com... (3) https://www.google.com... (4) http://philosophy.wisc.edu...
Dying Languages Should Be Preserved And Used

You say this world is globalized. That is true what about Latin it has no use for having a communication. But we still use it without it. Its the science language. These languages should be preserved some people will want to use them. Do you really want a single one language. If you read 1984 the language (new speak) is simplifying it and takes away thousands of words. You might think its not what you want. Before people wanted one worldwide language but it made no sense. Languages show your culture and people like to study it. How did some of these languages die. Some yes there was no need for it. Others were forced like the native Americans. They were forced to learn English and Christianity. It was not fair and the same thing happened in Africa; This is why you see certain languages dying. This makes me mad. These languages should be lasting longer and should be preserved so the ancestors of these people can experience their culture.
Dying Languages Should Be Preserved And Used

The difference between ancient civilisation and the modern world is that we now have globalisation. The media records everything and all important information is written in English. There is no important information written in a dying language that is not also written in a flourishing one; future generations are not missing out on anything worth knowing. Ancient texts are different because we know very little about their civilisation and time as they did not have television, the internet, globalisation, etc.
Dying Languages Should Be Preserved And Used

Dying languages should be preserved. With them we can discover ancient wonders. Do you care if we found an ancient piece of Mayan treasure then be stopped not knowing it. We should try to have these languages so later we can find it out. As it says on http://mlephil.wordpress.com... The rate is alarming. We are missing out on ancient writings that could show us wonderful things. If you got to see something like it in a museum it would say unknown object.
Dying Languages Should Be Preserved And Used

Stimulus: http://www.bbc.co.uk... This isn't the first time I've heard people come to the defence of dying languages. Many people claim that languages on the brink of extinction should be used by their natives and prevented from becoming lost to time -- Gaelic, for example. I believe that dying languages should not be given any special precautions; a dying language should die if there's no practical use for it in society. You (Pro) will argue that dying languages should be preserved.
The XXII Amendment to the Constitution of the USA is unreasonable and should be repealed.

I would like to begin by stating that I have the utmost respect for my opponent's ability and look forward to a lively debate. I would further like to thank him for providing a most interesting topic for discussion. My opponent believes there is no "logical or moral reason for this prohibition, it should be abolished". Morality is irrelevent in this question so I will disregard this term, leaving me to refute my opponent's claim that there is no logical reason to limit the number of terms for a U.S. President. Furthermore, I will stick to arguing the merit of term limits instead of using semantics based around the word 'logical'. There are a number of benefits for restricting the number of terms to which a President can be elected. 1. A strong executive that knows how to properly wield his power and influence could manipulate his/her way to effectively become president for life. A term limit makes this impossible. 2. A long-serving executive becomes accustomed to his position and influence resulting in his being too far removed from the public will. 3. Term limits ensure a "Rotation of Office". This rotation ensures that a relatively few political elite will perpetually rule a nation. 4. Term limits gaurd the executive from "perpetual campaigning". Once elected to a second term, a president no longer needs to consider from where his next campaign contribution is coming. Conclusion: For the reasons listed above, the Twenty-second Amendment should not be repealed, nor should the concept of 'term limits' be reconsidered.
The XXII Amendment to the Constitution of the USA is unreasonable and should be repealed.

Broadly speaking, the 22nd Amendment creates a prohibition against a President serving more than two terms in Office. My contention is simple. Given that the President of the USA is an elected figure (albeit not through direct elections), there is no reasonable justification in limiting him or her to two terms in Office. Since there is no valid logical or moral reason for this prohibition, it should be abolished. Whether this involves a complete repeal of the XXII Amendment or an amendment to it is not relevant. I take no issue with the remainder of the XXII Amendment. That is not to say I condone the remainder of it. I simply wish to limit the scope of the present debate to the above.
Catholic schools teaching students homosexuality is wrong

The Catholic Church also teaches that any methods of birth control and having sex without accepting the likely possibility of pregnancy is a sin. So your argument about the Church supposedly giving preference to Heterosexual couples is pretty much negated. On the other hand, many Catholics do not follow the Church's teaching on this subject, and thus they shouldn't criticize homosexuals for engaging in similar acts. The idea of being anti-homosexual acts but not being anti-homosexual is not contradictory. Basically, a gay person is not allowed to engage in Sexual acts with another man because there is a 0% chance of offspring being produced. This falls into the same category of not using contraceptives, getting abortions, etc. it is not a sin for a gay person to acknowledge their sexuality, or to act in a 'gay' manner. It is only a sin if he/she gives in to their urges. Here is what the Chatechism of the Catholic Church says about Homosexuality: 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Catholic schools teaching students homosexuality is wrong

I'm pretty sure that I am not misinformed because how could Roman Catholics not teach that homosexuality is wrong. And the statement that you posted: There only teaching on the subject is that homosexual acts are sinful...being a homosexual is not. How does that make sense? How could 'being' homosexual be okay but homosexual acts *are* sinful? That really doesn't make any sense. Also, how are homosexual acts sinful just because they can't produce children? Most heterosexual people take part in sexual acts and most of the time, it is not to produce children. That's why brith control methods were created. So it's okay sexual acts to occur between heterosexuals but not homosexual yaks despite the fact that they are serving the and purpose? Also, I am Roman Catholic as well and the CCD school I was in was teaching this. Again, I do understand that it is not always he faith as a whole that takes part I. This hate crimes but that it is mostly due to the individual people who decide to believe this. Also, just to address the idea that the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong. I want to mention the fact that right below that, it says that a woman having her menstrual cycle is a sin. This and other "phrases" were meant to be disregarded when Jesus died on the cross. By doing this, Jesus made these ideas/beliefs invalid. I mean, who regards these ideas anymore. Just saying. And I want to remind you that I do respect your opinion and I appreciate you having this debate with me.
Catholic schools teaching students homosexuality is wrong

Okay. So I also agree that anyone should be as to get married and that the government shouldn't have any say about who. can get married but only if a church feels comfortable doing it. However, I never said the Vatican teaches these. I meant my CCD school taught these things. I do the that they should be able to teach whatever they want if it agrees with the faith but it is a contradictory belief and I just felt that when I was taught this, that I was forced to listen to this. Every class, my teachers told me that gay people were abominations and that being gay was a sin and they were going to hell. As a person who has homosexual, lesbian and bisexual friends, this was going against what I believe in. And my mother contacted the head of the department and said how she didn't feel that was okay to force the students to listen to it and he said he would fix it. However, nothing changed and they continued to preach this. Also they promoted the anit-abortion March to a bunch of 15 year olds. I also have an opinion on that but let's not get into that. I just felt that these kids should be able to make up their minds. My way of thinking is that what if there was a kid in that room who wasn't sure if they were gay or not. And they had to hear that. They would feel that there was sketching wrong with them and that thy *couldn't* be that way because God didn't love them. It just frustrated me. That's all. And my faith doesn't teach to treat gay people good though. Were taught to hate them and recognize that what they are doing and who they are is wrong.
Catholic schools teaching students homosexuality is wrong

Before I say anything, i think I should address my views on gay marriage: As a libertarian Republican, I don't think the government should have any say in who marries whom, as long as the service is mutually consenting (meaning that churches shouldn't be forced into performing a ceremony if the feel uncomfortable with it). Catholic Schools should be allowed to teach whatever they want to the children who are attending their schools. I myself am Catholic, I acknowledge that my faith teaches that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. Despite this, I think you may have your facts wrong on what the Vatican teaches about Homosexuality. The official Church teaching is that gays do not necessarily choose their condition, and thus should be loved and respected as equal members of Christ's flock. This being said, because gays cannot produce offspring through sexual acts, homosexual ACTS are considered sinful...not the condition itself.
Catholic schools teaching students homosexuality is wrong

I feel like everyone is entitled to their opinion and it's not right to "brainwash" kids and force these ideas upon them. I was forced to go through this when preparing for my confirmation and this appalled me. There is a difference between learning about opinions only some people believe about their religion and then brainwashing the next generations. I am worried about my kids having to go through this and I'm only a teenager...let me know what you think....I just feel like kids should be able to make up *their* minds on topics like these rather than letting other people making up their minds **for** them.
Terraria IS better than minecraft!

Sorry, i guess i forgot about bows, but still comparing LOL to garys mod? they both are two COMPLETLY different games!! im doing this so i can end the argument for myself, everyone says terraria is a ripoff! Lexus i have no idea why you came to MY debate, it seems like you should be staying in the Polotics section or something? Why did you have to copy and past all that nonsense that has nothing to do with the dabate on here?? is there any way you could leave so i could have a real contender??? ALSO I SAID NO MODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NONE AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE MODDING COMMUNITY THIS IS ABOUT THE NORMAL VERSION!!!
Terraria IS better than minecraft!

Terraria is better than minecraft in a number of ways, But i would first like to point out that this is NOT ABOUT MODS NO MODS AT ALL NONE FOR MINECRAFT NONE FOR TERRARIA! anyway the first reason being that minecraft in the latest 1.8 update does not nearly have as much content as terraria and even then the content in terraria is much better and interesting. Plus minecraft only has ONE WEAPON; a sword!!! the rest are just different colors with different damage...Way to be creative Mojang! Secondly, Terraria always gets picked on because it came after minecraft, so everyone thinks its a ripoff! Its not!! There are no similarities in the game other than a few ores and that ONE of the goals is to survive, besides that terraria is better BECAUSE its 2D, its adds in LOADS of things that could not easily be modded into minecraft (Or added for that matter, because frankly I think the people at Mojang dont try hard enough!) First being the rainbow rod/flame-lash/magic missile and YO-YO'S! it would just be hard. Does anybody have any points where they think minecraft is better, because i'd love to prove you wrong! XD <3 :D
Abortion should be illegal in the United States

Welcome to DDO. Thank you for the debate and good luck. I accept the definitions. Access to abortion has improved the lives of women in the U.S. For one thing, it has lessened the health risks faced by women getting abortions. Before the Roe decision, many women seeking abortions had to visit unregulated and often unprofessional illegal practitioners. "The most important benefit [of Roe], of course, has been the end of an era that supported the proliferation of 'back alley butchers' who were motivated by money alone and performed unsafe, medically incompetent abortions that left many women dead or injured," states the Web site of the abortion services provider Planned Parenthood. (1) Access to abortion also improves women's opportunities. Women who become pregnant at a young age, are often constrained in what they can accomplish because they are forced to raise children. That cuts down on their educational and career choices. Access to abortion allows women to better plan their lives. When women cannot get abortions they have unwanted children, whom they often neglect or mistreat. "Although most women welcome pregnancy, childbirth and the responsibilities of raising a child at some period in their lives, few events can more dramatically constrain a woman's opportunities than an unplanned child," states the Naral Pro-Choice America Web site. Naral adds that "restrictive abortion laws narrowly circumscribed women's role in society and hindered women from defining their paths through life in the most basic of ways." (2) What happens when a woman is raped? Or a young girl becomes pregnant through incest? What if the fetus is deformed and unlikely to survive anyway? What is the mother's health is at risk? Also, what if the mother's life is at risk? Abortion should absolutely be legal in cases like these. In conclusion, women have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not have rights. Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of its own, the woman's decision to have an abortion takes precedence over the interests of the fetus. The specific right of a woman to make the decision to terminate her own pregnancy is generally classified as a privacy right implicit in the 9th and 14th Amendments, but there are other constitutional reasons why a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy. The 4th Amendment, for example, specifies that citizens have "the right to be secure in their persons"; the 13th specifies that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude ... shall exist in the United States." Even if the privacy right cited in Roe v. Wade were dismissed, there are numerous other constitutional arguments that imply a woman's right to make decisions about her own reproductive process. At this point, I will turn the debate over to my opponent. Good luck.
Abortion should be illegal in the United States

Medical abortion first became legal in the United States in 1973 under the Roe v. Wade supreme court ruling. In this debate, I wish to show that this ruling should be overturned, as abortion goes against the Constitution. I will prove this using logic and clear facts. I will start by defining my terms. There are many kinds of abortion, but in this debate I will specifically address the type of abortion legalized in Roe v.Wade. That is, abortion before the point of viability. I also wish to include chemical abortion, or abortion induced by the 'Morning After' pill. Viability: the point when a fetus can survive outside the womb, albeit with medical aid. Fetus: an unborn human embryo. Person: a human being. Now that I have defined the major terms in this debate, I shall allow my opponent the benefit of stating his argument first.
Free Will does not exist.

Hello again i think i just finished a debate with you. I try to demnstroate why free will exisits. Human beings have concinous which allows us to think therfore we can think about how we act and what we do. A common conception is our thoughts being just a bunch of eletrical signals and chemical reactions. This is clearly not true because has there ever been or does it make sense reasonbly that science will ever make a case where they combine a bunch of chemicals and eletrical signals together and create self awarness. If this does not make sense there must be something more to thought than this. I agree that there are things that affect how we think in our enviornmet. Also people saying our situatiom forces us to act a certian way does not prove we dont have free will, because it is possible to coherse a free indiviual to do something under the right circumnstances. That does not mean without cohersion they could not act freely. Further more there are countless examples of people willingly acting in a way that is determiental to themselves such as to protect those who they love. It is free will that allows them to act in such a way.
Free Will does not exist.

Happy to think with you today. Format: R1: State your opinion R2: Rebut Opponent's Position (Address Rebuttal if you'd like) R3: Address Rebuttals and Conclude. As this is a topic that evidence is lacking in to some extent, I feel 3 rounds of 10k characters is more than sufficient. Most of the arguments on my side are deductive, and I have no evidence for anything outside my deductions. From the materials I've studied thus far, I cannot convince myself that Free Will exists in the current state of the universe, and the current knowledge we have of it. No matter what you do, your Genetics, your Physical Condition, your Brain function, past, emotional state, mental state, and the physics of the universe we can see seem to always lead to every decision we make. Given the correct measuring tools, processing power, and information on a specific subject I believe it is possible to 100% accurately predict every decision the person will make on any topic. Currently, the technology to do this does not exist. What that means for my view of the world is that we currently feel the illusion of "free will," but only because no one can yet determine what we will do. No one exists that has the power to calculate this. It seems to me that in the future someone will develop this technology. If this technology is developed, will we ever be free again? No matter. For now, what I'd like to ask is that someone debate with me on the topic as it is in current day. If all of our actions COULD be determined with the proper tools, can we be said to have free will now? I say we do not, although we can currently enjoy the illusion, that does not mean we are currently Free.
Stalin was not a Dictator

I am clearly Pro to this arguement that Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili was not a dictator rather he was a democracticly elected man elected by the Bolshevik Party over Trotsky. The notion that he was a murderer who killed everyone because he was paranoid is nothing more then propaganda orginiated from Nazi Germany which somehow has become widely accepted.[Rounds] R1 - AcceptenceR2 - Opening ArgumentsR3 - Counter ArgumentsR4 - Final Statements/Conclusions