BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Harry Potter should not be banned.

Greetings opponent. In the following debate, you will be arguing that the reading and viewing of the Harry Potter books and films should be banned by government legislation. I will be arguing that this should not occur. Before we begin, I will lay out the rules and the structure. If these are broken by either me or my opponent, the offender will be expected to apologise in the comments section and the voters should give the conduct points to the non-offender. However, I am sure that both my opponent and I are mature and respectable people who will have no issues in respecting these guidelines. Rules Capitalisation may be used for emphasis, but not to portray anger. The Burden of Proof lies with Pro. Spelling, punctuation and grammar can be from any form of proper English. For example, as a Welshman, I shall be arguing with British English, but you may use American English etc. Words from other languages are only acceptable if they have been integrated into the language, unless they are used in quotation, in which case the word must be explained. This helps with understanding. No use of strong or very strong language. Mild language is acceptable in context or if expressly needed for emphasis No discourteous comments towards your opponent. No personal argument is permitted, regardless of whether it is offensive or not. Any information that is not written by you must be placed in quotation marks, and the source for these quotes must be cited. Trolling is not permitted. Do not accept if you're a kritik please. Please do not forfeit a round without first explaining that you will do so in the comments section. Structure Round One- Acceptance. Accept the debate. State your position. Make any necessary definitions, and query anything in the rules or structure. The queries will most likely be addressed in the comments section. Round Two- Argument. Make your case for why you hold your opinion. DO NOT counter your opponent's argument OR try to argue against commonly held opinions. This round should therefore focus on affirmative statements. Round Three- Rebuttals. Argue against your opponent's argument from the previous round. DO NOT make new arguments. Explain fully why you believe their opinions to be incorrect. Obviously this round should focus on dissenting statements. Round Four- Defense. Here, you attempt to rebut arguments made in the rebuttal round without introducing entirely new arguments. Clarification of your original argument may be required. Round Five- Conclusions. Synthesise all of your previous rounds. Do not make new arguments, rebuttals or defences here. This is a topic I have heard much discussion about, however I have not yet come to understand any points in favour of banning these works. I therefore hope to learn something from my opponent in a constructive debate, and to potentially teach them something too. I wish the best of luck to my opponent, and hope that they have an enjoyable debate. Let the best "Muggle" win!
Athiest-one who believes in God but not knowing it.

Modern atheist make the mistake of asserting that the lack of definite evidence for God's existence prove that God does not exist, as if God must be contrained by man's limited knowledge. - Bobby Jindal believing in the idea that God does not exist is an acceptance that He/she is inferior to God. Not knowing that he was govern by Freewill that only unseen power can give. " the desire for God is written in the human heart," CCath.
Athiest-one who believes in God but not knowing it.

I can't believe it. I do not believe it.-tatarize a) Believing in something is not disbelieving in its opposite. If I do not believe in string theory that doesn't imply I disbelieve in it. b) Belief is not a choice. c)The Doctrine of Free Will is that humans have a magical ability to decide which is beyond the reach of some deity which is somehow independent of the brain. I never chose to believe -tatarize Point of Answers: you are an Athiest, you claim to be. you Choose to be. you answer all the questions. you decide that is the right answers. Questions: Did anyone force you to decide all that? "I've looked at the evidence. I've read the Koran, the Bible, the Book of Mormon. I've looked at the arguments in favor of God. I've talked with believers. I cannot help but disbelieve." My opponent is unaware that he was governed by His Freewill. Athiest choose to use his freewill. if he stops to use it. i believe He cease all. He use God's Handwriting in his mind but he is UNAWARE OF IT.
Athiest-one who believes in God but not knowing it.

My opponents strongly believe that atheist is none, but believing in something that all comes from natural law, matter from organic matter. furthermore, he argue that athiest confined itself in disbelieving in Supernatural power like God. My point of validity: a) Believing to something is unbelieving on the other point. b) Believing refers to a choice. c) Believing is deciding. d) Deciding is a process of Freewill. Now, Did some finest Scientist and even Sociologist prove that Freewill derive from natural process like natural evolution? The Fact is, none of them can give a 100% answers that these are the product of brain impulse. Atheist, by choice, they dont believe in God. Why did they Choose it? Atheist chose from the choices (to believe or not to believe)they choose using the process that they dont even know where it came from. Only Theist can answer where does freewill come., They use the method that only believers(theist) could answers the origin. So, they believe but they dont know it.
Satanism is a good thing.

There will always be conflicting idologies and beliefs, but that does not nessicarily mean that anything that causes conflict is bad. Fighting for what you believe is worth fighting for, or else we'd all be so submissive we couldn't stand up for ourselves. Like Isral for example, it's religion (Jewish) is causing major problems. It caused problems with Hitler too, but just because the religion is there, doesn't mean that it is bad, but we are both getting off the topic of specific Satanism. Satanism is an organized religion, but it is more often practiced independently (Have you ever seen a Satanic...uh...church? That's not the word I'm looking for, but you get the point). But any organized religion causes problems, this can not be avoided, even if you don't have one, somone will dislike the fact that you don't have one. The spefic harms of Satanism are basically what you said, except for war. We haven't went to war over Satainism. But look at other religions. Jewish, Christians, Musliums- they all have had much more harm than Satanism, in much larger doses, so your arguement is benign. (Good luck, friend)
Satanism is a good thing.

You have accepted my definition, Theistic Satanism. Therefore, it is this form that our debate concerns. I am indeed saying that dogmatic, organized religion is generally detrimental to society, for the given reasons. I have explained that Satanism harms society as an organized religion. You have not demonstrated its benefits, and the burden of proof lies with you. You drop my points regarding both the harms of organized religion, and the specific harms of Satanism. Therefore, my impacts of war, terrorism, and the prevention of cooperation stand. Your only offensive point, "religion gives people something in common" is hugely outweighed. Thank you.
Satanism is a good thing.

Cults are, indeed, anti-social. If they are bad as you state, then it is probably a good thing that they (and other cults) do not commune with society. However, not every form of Satanism is a cult. I would like to point out that you are specifying on only Theistic Satanism. There are other forms of satanism that are not AS conflicting with society. You also stated that "Religious intolerance is a result of organized religion. Therefore, organized religion is the cause of said conflict" If any organized religion creates conflict, then you are saying that every religion ever created is bad. You said that you didn't say it was evil. If it isn't evil, then what's wrong with it? Our government gives us freedom of religion, and they are duty bound to protect the public. If Satanism isn't evil and it does not cause harm to society why is it a bad thing? People may be unifed through civilization, but religion gives people something in common, and just because Satanism isn't widely accepted, doesn't mean that it is bad. People are bad.
Satanism is a good thing.

1. People are naturally unified through the tendency toward civilization. Religion divides them and subdivides them. First, Christians turn against Muslims, then, it's Protestants versus Catholics and Shi'ites versus Sunnis. This creates conflict, rather than lessening it (the purpose of union). Militants use religion to justify their actions. Therefore, religion must be held accountable. 2. Theistic Satanism creates greater controversy than the average religion. I never called Satanism evil, I merely stated that other religions veiw it as such, hence, conflict. Religious intolerance is a result of organized religion. Therefore, organized religion is the cause of said conflict, and is of detriment to society. 3. I never stated that Satanism supports rape, merely that it espouses a cultish outlook. Cults are inherently anti-social. You entirely fail to adress this. Religion is the sole cause of our current relations with the Middle East. I did not specify the Iraq War. I await your defense.
Satanism is a good thing.

My opponent presented a strong arguement, however there is one major flaw in his case. Religion does unify people. Religion unites people with a common belief. Christianity unites people under the idea that we should live like Christ wants us to. In the time of Ceaser, the Catholic church was an important part of that era. It united all of Europe, however religious intolerance and murder are traits of mankind and are not commended in that religion, so killing should not be held accountable for any religion unless it directly promotes it. Secondly, who is to say what is evil? Everyone has done something evil. Satanism just supports the idea that you are your own boss. It is not all about killing people and terrorism. My opponent said, "They ultimately reduce cooperation between religious groups by increasing conflict and abrasiveness" While Theistic Satanism may be at direct odds with Christianity, what religion doesn't conflict with each other? Not many. Like I also said, religious intolerance is a trait of man, not that religion. To further support my case, let me inform you that Satanism is not all pentagrams. That is actually a misconception of the Wiccan religion, because everything bad in the world is associated with this religion. Rape, murder, death-it's not true. Also, religion is not the sole cause of the war in Iraq and I doubt that Satanism is causing us to fail. (I love you and your delicious pop tarts. Good luck and you're welcome)
Satanism is a good thing.

Satanism is basically the worshipment of Satan, believed to want to become the ruler of heaven. Satanism is just like any other religion, except the view of Christianity is that he is bad. It is important to realize that this unites people like being Jewish or a Catholic or anything else. I negate, "Resolved: Satanism is a good thing." Definitions: "Resolved: [The concept and institution of Theistic Satanism] is [of positive societal benefit]" Please note that the burden of proof lies with my opponent. 1. Organized religion does not benefit society. Organized religion relies upon set, dogmatic beliefs. These lead to holy wars and religious terrorism, leading to massive loss of life, applicable to citizens to a greater degree than other wars and acts of terrorism. They ultimately reduce cooperation between religious groups by increasing conflict and abrasiveness, leading to today's failure of U.S.-Middle East relations. Organized religion has also led to the halting of scientific progress, racist ideologies, and patriachal rule. Satanism is an organized religion, and therefore, of negative benefit to society. 2. Satanism has specific detriments. Theistic Satanism was created at direct odds with Christianity, and, in fact, any religion which espouses the concept of a Satan figure as an evil being. Therefore, the level of conflict with Judeo-Christian societies is far higher. Theistic Satanism has led to many offshoots which espouse a vengeant, hedonistic cult midset. Pro case: I have already demonstrated that organized religion, specifically Satanism, divides society, rather than uniting it. Thank you for the debate, and I await your response.
Satanism is a good thing.

Although you are talking specificallly about Satanism, Satanism is an organized religion. I have shown that organized religion is inherently bad. Nowhere in my case do I mention rape and molestation, these are defensive arguements irrelevant to the round. Once again, organized religion is harmful. Satanism, as an organized religion is harmful, because it creates conflict and reduces cooperation. My opponent fails to provide any real case as to why Satanism is, indeed, good. His main point is that it promotes self-preservation, which is inherent within any person. Individuals do not require religion to act in their own intersts. In fact, self-preservation is often contradictory to societal good. In regards to this, my opponent states "It's impossible to state it's benifet to society anyways". Essentially, he provides no reasons as to why Satanism is actually "good". The Proposition has he burden of proof, and he has failed to prove the resolution true, whereas I have presented its harms. I urge a Contradictory vote. Thank you for the debate, and thanks for reading.
Satanism is a good thing.

Once again, you are stating that all religions are bad, but I am talking about specifically Satanism. We have never went to war over Satanism. You must understand the teachings of Satanism and the values of it, which I know. Allow me to explain in simple terms. Satanism (generally speaking) is the theory that you are your own boss. It does not go hand-in-hand with rape, murder, and molestation, because it does not commend it. You said "Organized religion is inherantly bad, given the harms I have presented." and "It creates greater conflict than agnostic beliefs, and is therefore of net harmful effect." But you did not say how specifically Satanism creates conflict, you just stated the conflicts of all organized religions. I implore you not to generalize on all religions, like you are doing now, but to focus on specific Satanism. This is why most of your arguements to me do not deserve an answer, because they are going off the main topic of "Satanism is a good thing." That is where you are wrong. In order for it to be a good thing, it doesn't nessicarly have to be of benifet or contribution to society. All it has to do (in order to be good) is to do something positive, whether for a community or for a single individual. This provides you with a belief on how you should live your life and instills ideals and values in a person, which we all need. It's impossible to state it's benifet to society anyways, because society has different beliefs on religion. Besides, it is in the interest of self preservation, not community preservation, and actually allows you to take better care of yourself.
Satanism is a good thing.

Organized religion is inherently bad, given the harms that I have presented, and my opponent has failed to refute. And yes, anything that causes conflict is bad, because it causes mass deaths. My opponent fails to provide how this is either positive, or at the least, neutral. Satanism is an organized religion. Therefore these harms apply. Satanism, as I have said, causes problems. It creates greater conflict than agnostic beliefs, and is therefore of net harmful effect. I am stating that all organized religions are bad. You have failed to provide the benefits of Satanism to society, which it is your responsibility to do. I have shown its harms. Even if other religions are worse, Satanism is of societal detriment. Thank you
The US Was Justified in Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki

This is a team debate: me vs. Fortis and Famous. Fortis and Famous representing Pro and me representing Con Resolution: "The United States was Justified in Dropping Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Pro has BoP since they are making the claim. Pro starts arguing in R1, Pro waives R4. No new arguments in the last round (R3 for Pro and R4 for Con). So R1, Pro argues that it was justified; R2 I show why these reasons are false. Pro wins if he proves it was justified, I win if I show that these are not valid justification, thus not justified; thus, win.
Resolved: That we should drill in ANWR

1. ok first he completely drops this point that this is a distracter from the real debate needed here 2. ok, he doesn't provide said picture, and because he does not present it, we have to assume that it does not exist. perfer my argument because I use evidence 3/4. No, I'm saying that the probability of how much it will yeild is unknown, therefore we cannot assume that it would solve anything, he drops point 4 entirely 6. It doesn't matter if it is a misconception, people are against it. And besides, He didn't bring any evidence forward on where we will drill. Therefore, you cannot assume what he says is true >>>I never attempted to show that ANWR drilling would eliminate our foreign oil dependency, just that it would help reduce it. -then just bring up my point on that it is impossible to reduce dependency, those were my word, plus he shows no impact >>>Drilling in this area is not dangerous, -since he effectively drops the evidence about wildlife, by not bringing up the actual picture, vote con >>>the small area impacted would not even begin to disrupt migration patterns -if it is such a small area, then you have to assume that it cannot yeild alot of oil In conclusion, you must vote pro. My opponent drops all my points, especially the wildlife point. He never claims that it can solve for foreign dependency, or that it will yeild anything. I actually had evidence, so you must vote me up for that. I win
Resolved: That we should drill in ANWR

Refutation of arguments; 1. Alright, if you wish to have this "much more important" debate with me, issue the challenge, and I'll be sure to accept. 2. There is also a picture of a bear walking on the pipeline near the Prudhoe Bay site. The actual area disrupted by the actual building of the rigs is small. Plants can still grow under pipelines and around the area, since the actual rigs are very small. Drilling would not remove the homes of plants or animals. Drilling areas don't cover the whole region, or even a large percentage of it. 3/4. All I meant is that the argument that it would take several years is no reason to delay the drilling. 6. The survey is not accurate because of the popular misconception about ANWR. If you showed people pictures of the actual drilling area, they would not oppose the drilling. The area is a barren coastal plain with limited vegetation. The drilling would not take place in the lush valleys and mountains that the protectionists show as evidence that ANWR drilling would destroy a national resource. I would oppose drilling in THOSE areas, but they issue is not there. My other point was that popular opinion does not necessarily influence policy. I never attempted to show that ANWR drilling would eliminate our foreign oil dependency, just that it would help reduce it. Drilling in this area is not dangerous, and the small area impacted would not even begin to disrupt migration patterns.
Resolved: That we should drill in ANWR

1. It is not a red herring, because it is pointing out the red herring of the main focus. Instead of focusing on what is needed, just explore, I'm saying that it takes the focus from a much more needed debate 2. ok, caribou are clustered around oil rigs, one species is ok with humans living there. What of the plants and other animals, they still need a home . http://apspcb.org.in... 3/4 1- he uses the red herring of renewable resources. that isn't the debate on this secific point 2- he completely drops point 3 3- even if we wait, we still cannot drill, because of other adverse effects kick point 5 6. A biparisan survey shows 53% of americans . http://usgovinfo.about.com... (sorry, I didn't realize that I didn't post the source, my bad) sub point b- a red herring, at least energy had some relation to the debate, Obamacare has noting to do with this debate onto his points 1. since he effectively drops point a, we cannot asume that it is enough to cure foreign oil dependency. Besides, it is impossible to reduce dependency on foreign oil. First america makes 11% of the worlds oil, but consumes 25% even if there was some oil in the ANWR, we cannot stop dependency, because we consume more each year . http://www.good.is... 2. ok, any drilling is still dangerous and still causes all impact I list 3. again this argument is only independent to caribou, he does not take into accout migration patterns, nesting, mating and other rituals animals take part of. 4.
Resolved: That we should drill in ANWR

Response to: 1: Well, yes, we do make things that are unnecessary, but that's a red herring itself. 2: No, there are pictures that show caribou clustered around oil rigs in Alaska--the email is going around. 3/4: The longer we wait the farther away it gets. The same thing is true about renewable energy, but that doesn't stop peoplee from trying!!! 5: Possibly, but we'd still have to drill there, so that's not really germane. 6: What majority? A majority of anti-energy anti-capitalist tree-huggers? Or a majority of Alaskans? Or a majority of scientists? Please clarify. subpoint b: How is drilling un-demcratic? Many people opposed Obamacare (a majority opposed it in fact), but did that make any difference to the socialist politicians that supported it? No. Arguments: 1: Drilling here is needed to reduce dependence on foreign oil. 2: The picture circulated abot ANWR are not from the location proposed for drilling. The drilling is proposed in a coastal plain, not in the lush mountain valleys that the pictures show. 3: Oil rigs do not disrupt animal life: caribou still wander around in Prudhoe Bay, happy as ever. 4: Why not? Why should we restrain ourselves for no good reason? Give me one good, unrefutable reason that we shouldn't?
Resolved: That we should drill in ANWR

1.It takes the focus off the real cause of the oil shortage -- our excessive consumption. 2. A wildlife refuge could be disturbed by humans, with animal lives possibly changed in the process. 3. The drilling may not yield much of anything. 4. It could take years or decades before any significant amount of oil is ready for use. 5. The reserve can be saved as a last resort decades from now when we've exhausted other supplies. 6. A majority is against drilling in the ANWR [1] -sub point a. this causes political backlash against rebuplicans -sub point b. to drill is anti-democratic I reserve the right to clarify these points as the debate goes on. I look forward to a fun and educational debate, and I await my opponents arguments
100 Debate Challenge 11:THB Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who teach creationism

My opponent drops my argument that learning competing scientific theories even if one is psuedo scientific, helps with critical thinking skills. He's failed to show any harm done by teaching creationism side by side with evolution would do. Kids should be learning things but the current school system only focuses on memorization (outside of math). If kids are just taught to accept conventional wisdom then scientific progress will halt. Don't halt scientific progress. Vote pro. Also my opponent's freedom o religion arguments suck because schools teach mythology