BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheists are more kind than Christians.

You claim an atheist believes this, and an atheist believes that. Your argument is lacking the realization that atheists don't believe one set thing. They are not a group, or congregation. They are individual's who DISBELIEVE Christianity. So how can you presuppose that these individuals with no corner stone of moral values are more kind than Christians? <> Is there atheist organizations to feed poor children? www.fh.org/ Are there atheist based orphanages? www.missionfinder.org/orphanages.htm www.missionfinder.org/orphanages.htm Christians (as a group) are more likely to give freely based on our belief. < >-http://parentingbeyondbelief.com... Christian communities are the most peaceful, and nice to live in. < >-http://parentingbeyondbelief.com... These quotes came from a nonreligious website, by the way. Of course, there will be variations in Christians. The variable's for those variations in atheists are scientifically ENDLESS, because there is nothing set in stone that these individuals actually believe. The very title they give themselves actually means unbeliever. Looks like as a group, we have you beat in the helping department. <> Because of that church that has been built, and the money from tithing, food pantries with food and clothes for the poor are opened. Plus, that money pays for missions across the world to help the less fortunate. By the by, Christians don't sit around thinking how they can stop the building of hospitals, and instead build churches. -www.medicalmission.com/ <> As I said before... there's no such thing as an atheist ideal. This is an individual person, not associated to any club, or sect of ideals. If you think like this, GREAT! Does this mean all other atheists do? NO. < > You have not proven in the least that atheists (as a group) are kinder people than they're Christian counterparts.
Atheists are more kind than Christians.

"An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that deed must be done instead of prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanished, war eliminated." Madalyn Murray O'Hair All of this is true. How about instead of praying for the people in bad situations you go out and help them. Studies show that praying for someone does not help them. Out of almost 200 studies contucted only two showed that prayer has a positive effect. Also, instead of helping because you think you will be punished for not, and rewarded for doing so, go and help because it's a good thing to do. The last sentence is true for both theists and atheists, but like I have already stated it's in the hope or fear of punishment or reward after death. So pretty much, atheists are more kind and helpful. Not always better people (i think so, but that is not the debate) but without a doubt more kind.
Imperialism (Strong nations Striving to Conquer Weaker Nations)

Sure, why not? I'll gladly accept the Con side in this debate against bubbatheclown, taking the position that, in the majority of instances, imperialism is net harmful. Voters should recognize that providing specific examples where it's beneficial to engage in imperialism is not sufficient if the number of instances of harm is larger. At the same time, this will not solely be a debate that should be judged by preponderance of evidence. If imperialism is shown to provide small harms to many, but big benefits to a few, that's still a worthy point to consider. As such, the evidence should be weighed based upon its impacts and number both. As my opponent has provided only a very basic definition of imperialism, I will endeavor to provide a reasonable definition that can be agreed upon by both of us, though if my opponent should find it unfair, he is welcome to express his concerns in the comments so that we may establish a more reasonable definition: "the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies." http://dictionary.reference.com... I do still agree to the definition provided in the topic of strong nations endeavoring to conquer weaker nations, which is the reality of how imperialism functions. I will be happy to include that as a part of our functional definition for this debate. With that, I leave it to Pro to establish his case.
atheism is theism

they are both beliefs, and belief is theism am I holding a rock in my hand as I type this? theist=yes atheist=no agnostic=I Don't know=true you see? the problem is, both theist and atheist dosnt know, therefore its the same position, just in opposition, so it is the position that is opposite the opposite of belief is knowledge, future and past, and the future is ahead ahead of my personal physical experience of now the opposite of disbelief, is belief, but that is the position on the claim, the balancing point between belief and disbelief is doubt, and the balancing point between atheism and theism is agnostic, and agnostic goes to what I know, which is to say, I know I don't know, therefore I don't know is true god=unicorns
atheism is theism

they are both beliefs, but opposite positions, doubt is the balancing point where as agnostic(I don't know) is the balancing point between theism and atheism as I said, belief is doubt, what is your neighbor doing right now? you don't know is true unless you know, there is no certainty beyond know, as know is certainty, and i don't know is a position of know what would make you sure i was holding a rock in my hand? hmm since i bet you are of science, what evidence could make it sufficient for you to be certain that i am holding a rock in my hand, but you still have to imagine it? i can at best believe what others tell me, if you believe i am holding a rock in my hand, i am your god, as i create your world, and you can believe i am not holding a rock in my hand to, but what is the difference? when you don't know
atheism is theism

disbelief is belief to the contrary, to believe god is false where as the theist believes god is true theism=belief=i accept imagination a(theism)=dis(belief)=i accept imagination agnostic=i accept i dont know=i accept reality reality is true, and imagination is false, belief is always false, and know can only be true for me to believe god is false, I am imagining the evidence to prove to myself that what I imagine is false, its like me accepting god is false by accepting god is true, not accepting 0 by accepting 0 as both sides are information, god belief is doubt, so to believe god is false, is to doubt god is false, and as a balance I must believe god is true basicly: theism=belief disbelief=belief just answer this question.. which I bet you will skip.. am I holding a rock in my hand? you have to imagine it
atheism is theism

I accept. My opponent has the burden of proof and must show that atheism is theism in order to win this debate.For atheism and theism to be identical, they must have identical definitions. Atheism and theism do not have identical definitions:Atheism: (a) a disbelief in the existence of deity(b) the doctrine that there is no deityTheism: belief in the existence of a God or godsSources:http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...
atheism is theism

god=Creator creation and destruction only happens in the mind, destruction=turn my back creation cant exist without creator, so the creator is the creation, cause and effect it being in my mind, is me being it I am the all seeing eye pyramid capstone reflection flying at the top of a pyramid, I am god A=all that can possibly be experienced, future past and now information=separation, like i can reach infinity without ever being able to experience it in reality, at least the non ending part god is false, god is information, and information exist beyond space and time, as it is nothing, which is the opposite of something, matter, 0 and 1 because god is information, any belief is theism, as any belief, is belief in god YOU ACCEPT BY JOINING
i think donald trump is a civil righs threat to america's jewish community

The star of david tweet is defined as overt antisemitism, a term used by many prominet jewish civil rights advocates and journalists. It is when a antisemite uses subliminal jewish stereotypes to condone their closet antisemitism. Trump is advised by steven bannon who was qouted as saying, "jews are people who have no shame". I believe steven bannon's mentality along with trump's overt antisemitism, reinforces my argument regarding possible jewish civil rights abuses. alt right leader, richard spencer , has ties with trump cabinet member, steven bannon. so despite the failed march, his ties to powerful leaders remain alarmingly terrifying to the jewish community. I, nor does the fbi, maintain records of unwarranted police killings of black americans; however, media outlets, such as the guardian, has begun counting an alarming amount of deadly, unarmed police killings dubbed as ' the counted'. It doesnt, however, provide statistics of unarmed black man killed by police officers. Here is an interesting article: http://www.pbs.org... I dont have time to list indvidual jewish bomb threat since there have been so many. However, i do have a link that may help: https://www.google.com... Excuse my grammar and run on senence structure. I have ppl watching my activities becaue they think its cute to spy. I write stuff like this to get the excited
i think donald trump is a civil righs threat to america's jewish community

I, as a philosemite, see donald trump as a threat to america's jewish community. His tweets regarding jews have been vulgar and reinforce the jewish conspiracy theory of a bloodlibel cabal or cult. Which specific tweets are you referring to? The one where the "David-like Star" was used? The program Word 2016 has six-pointed stars that look fairly similar to the Star of David. Does this mean that Microsoft is anti-Semitic? His populism has influenced an armed neonazi march in whitefish, montana and a numerous string of jewish related bomb threats at synagogues and community centers nationwide. That march was cancelled and "postponed" until February (still hasn't happened). It was actually motivated by Richard Spencer, who is a known neo-Nazi. Would you care to point out the individual bomb threat cases? There have been no physical atracks against jews, but it is only a matter of time, in my opinion. Jews are not shot by police officers like the oppressed black community, or banned from travel or deported like the mexicans and muslims; however, it is only a matter of time before jews become subjects of discrimination by fed, state and city law enforcement agencies. As you stated, there have been no physical attacks against the Jewish community. Blacks aren't oppressed nor are they shot in huge numbers (which is what you seem to be). In fact, more whites and Hispanics are killed by cops every year and blacks are more often killing the cops than being killed by them. The only ones that are being deported are the immigrants who came here illegally in the first place. The travel ban was issued for a small period of time so that the government could figure out what was going on and maybe get a better vetting system than before. To be honest, Trump could have just stopped all immigration (as his presidential power allows him). Back to the argument: Jews will not become the "subjects of discrimination" by any form of government. We must not forget about the holocaust, the silence of jewish suffering during the auschwitz camps. I think donald trump is a threat to the jews, do you? I agree that there are lessons to take from the Holocaust and it was certainly a tragic time in human history. Do I think Donald Trump is going to start widespread discrimination against the Jews? Absolutely not. Good luck in the debate (by the way, this is my first debate on here). Sources:. https://office-watch.com...http://www.thestranger.com...http://www.dailywire.com...http://www.nationalreview.com...
i think donald trump is a civil righs threat to america's jewish community

I, as a philosemite, see donald trump as a threat to america's jewish community. His tweets regarding jews have been vulgar and reinforce the jewish conspiracy theory of a bloodlibel cabal or cult. His populism has influenced an armed neonazi march in whitefish, montana and a numerous string of jewish related bomb threats at synagogues and community centers nationwide. There have been no physical atracks against jews, but it is only a matter of time, in my opinion. Jews are not shot by police officers like the oppressed black community, or banned from travel or deported like the mexicans and muslims; however, it is only a matter of time before jews become subjects of discrimination by fed, state and city law enforcement agencies. We must not forget about the holocaust, the silence of jewish suffering during the auschwitz camps. I think donald trump is a threat to the jews, do you?
i think donald trump is a civil righs threat to america's jewish community

In the article it stated that the Jewish Republican Coalition "couldn't be happier with the results". I understand that they are the minority in this situation but don't you believe that if Trump showed any anti-Semitism they would be happy with that? Even if they detected over anti-Semitism, don't you think they would have decried him as well?I am not going to argue on one specific police case regarding that. I do want to point out that Mr. Garner did not cooperate with the cops. I am not trying to justify the cop's actions, as they were extremely bad but he would not have had to do anything except put handcuffs on if Garner had cooperated. Also, the Trump adminstration is still looking into the case and will hopefully have it soon resolved. I had heard that he had received a raise and I agree that shouldn't have happened. Again, I am not saying that his actions are justifiable. That's going a bit far saying that Richard Spencer and Donald Trump have the same ideology. To say Spencer and Bannon having the same ideology is even stretching it. Spencer is a neo-Nazi, Bannon is alt-right, and Donald Trump is a Republican (not in the traditional sense though). Jared Kushner is indeed a Jew who is a part of Trump's administration. I would like to point out that Jared Kushner is also the husband of Ivanka Trump. If Trump was an anti-Semite, why would he let his daughter marry a Jew? His net worth is only around $200 million. Surely Trump, if he was an anti-Semite, could have found another rich suitor instead of Kushner? But no, he let his own daughter pick who she wanted to marry. Not only that, but he respects Jared because they are both buisnessmen. He believe Jared can get the job done in the best way. That's the great thing about Trump: it doesn't matter if you are black, Latino, white, Jewish, Christian, or any other race/creed. It just matters if you can do a satisfactory job in his cabinet. At the moment, Trump believes Bannon is able to do a well enough job to stay.I don't believe Trump is anti-Semitic in any way. Sources:http://www.nydailynews.com...http://www.hollywoodtake.com...
i think donald trump is a civil righs threat to america's jewish community

Here is an article regarding stephen bannon :: https://www.google.com... Thank you for pointing out the statistical fatal police encounters. I i subjectively think however that there are a disproportionate amont of unarmed black fatalities. The policr officer, who killed unarmed eric garner, for example, received a significant raise even though his deskjob was defined as a demotion Was he rewarded for his behavior ? Loretta lynch ,shortly before being replaced, annouced a new investigation into the killing of eric garner...This new investigation ,however ,may be scrapped due to the appointment of jeff sessions. Richard spencer, donald trump and steve bannon all have the same ideology, which i define as antisemitic. Jared kushner,a jew, is part of trunps cabinet;however, steven bannon is trumps main adviser. Excuse sentence structure
All drugs should be legalised, change my mind.

Bad things are happening in the society, when you give the freedom to do those bad things, it will lead the majority to do those bad things more. only thing will happen is that the bad will be legalized. Then doing bad will be normal & common. Just because an act do commonly or normally, doesn't mean it's a good or moral act. If you legalize this, 99% of people will use drugs even without considering where you are. Drugs are addicting. So if you have no rules to control you means that even though you are a non drug person, You might have an opportunity to test it for once in your life time. If you test it once, you will want it more and more. Why do we have so many laws to prevent murders and bad things? If legalizing bad things stop the bad thing, then why we are not legalizing murders kidnapping as well as rape? If you legalize the things like drugs & murder, people won't afraid to do those as there are no laws to guide the human behavior which is the soul purpose of having law. Human's internal and external behavior is guiding by the law. If you don't have law means there is nothing to guide your behavior. Then people can behave whatever they like. I am making a point that people are doing things according to emotions most of the times. So law & the government should guide them from bad. Even the pro: agree that drugs are bad. According to him, drug companies will stop producing drugs when you have demand. It wont happen. They will spread various kind of drugs among people which is easier as people can openly use those drugs. Also I don't clear that what will happen to the drugs like marijuana. In his second speech pro: already accept the use of marijuana which we proved also harmful. So the drugs which has the demand also harmful. So Pro: helps to the people to kill themselves. I mean even they stop new kind of drug producing, what will happen to the existing drugs? People will use those easily and get killed. Just because you stop producing new varieties, doesn't mean all the drugs are not producing. As you have demand, companies will produce more. Also when the demand goes high, prices will increase on other drugs. There are nothing like less & more harmful. Harmful means harmful despite the capacity. "do you seriously think that the government understand peoples personal lives better than the people themselves?"- That's why we have a government. People play with emotions. If you are a motivated American, Emotionally they will say we should attack on North Korea. But government is the one who do what best by considering the situation. That's why we believe paternalism. That's why we are electing a government. Otherwise people will do anything they like. Internet drugs - We cant think that internet drugs will be lower as no limitations means people will do drugs openly. Don't think about money. Do you want to see your 8 year old boy get drugs when you come out? There are things in the society you can't minimize by legalizing
All drugs should be legalised, change my mind.

Your response to my 1st, 2nd and 4rth arguments are misleading. I did never claim that drugs are harmless. Drugs are, just as you say, extremely dangerous. But if they are legal, then we can regulate the market in such a way that the buyer is actually aware of the scientific danger of the drug. If he then values the high over the dangers, then no, there is no victim. If someone values the high over the negatives of a drug, is that "someone" really a victim? No of course not, most of the people doing drugs are capable of handling their lives. Your 2nd response is claiming that with the legalization, more cheap and more harmful drugs will be created. The answer to that is just no. There would not be a demand for a new and cheap drugs if it were legal. Because the price for the current drugs on the market are so low (thanks to competition) that the company wont spend extra money for researching, and inventing a new drug. Because they wont make money from it, again, because there is no demand for it. You need to understand that if the current drugs have a high price, then the demand for a new, cheap and potentially more dangerous drug will go up. This is not rocket science, this is simple economics. "Just because the prices are lower or higher doesn't give you an idea whether it is good or bad" Well no, but I know that if the demand for specifically cheap drugs is high, then the companies will be selling cheap drugs. Cheap drugs mean that the companies wont do a lot of research of the drug. Which mean that it could kill instantly. This is not just me speculating, this is happening, and it is called internet drugs. "because people cant understand everything regarding their lives and they give their power to government to decide what's best" This is terrifying that people actually believe this. You have your way to live your life, I have my way, but the correct and the only way, it does not exist, and to say that the government get to decide what people can, and can not do with their lives is terrifying. You said that "people cant understand everything about their lives", do you seriously think that the government understand peoples personal lives better than the people themselves? "no limitations means many people will come & taste it as there are nothing to stop them" Well, would anyone reading this start doing drugs just because they are legal? The amount of money and of legal energy being given to prosecute hundreds of thousands of americans who are caught with a few ounces of marijuana in their jeans simply makes no sense. It is an outrage, an imposition on basic civil liberties and on the reasonable expenditure of social energy. Just think about the $51 billion each year that the US spend just to make it a bit harder for the drug dealers. Think about the money that we could have earned if it just were legal, taxed and regulated. Just think about the deaths caused by internet drugs, these "investments" are the reason for their deaths.