BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People are idiots if they argue against Religion.

I accept the definitions that my opponent provides for this debate. The first criterion: - someone who lacks a substantial amount of knowledge about what society at large considers factual. Not necessarily including "pop culture" facts. By this measure, I will prove that Richard Dawkins is an idiot. Not only does he lack a substantial amount of knowledge about what "society at large" considers factual, he does not know much of anything at all. First, it is evident that the category "what society at large considers factual" is a non-empty set. This is why, for example, an education system even exists. Clearly, society as a whole believes that there are facts which may be passed down from generation to generation. "George Washington was the first president of the United States" is an example of such a fact. Second, I must prove that Richard Dawkins has no knowledge about these facts. He does not know for sure whether any of them are true. There are two ways by which knowledge may be gained. One is through sense perception, and the other is through reason. But to gain knowledge through reason, the object of that knowledge must first be reached by sense perception. In other words, even if someone is familiar with axioms of logic, they can tell him nothing about the actual universe if he first does not gain accurate knowledge of the universe through sense perception. But sense perception does not yield trustworthy knowledge. http://en.wikipedia.org... "An optical illusion (also called a visual illusion) is characterized by visually perceived images that differ from objective reality." Most knowledge in the world is gained through vision, most notably through observation. If the visual sense may be tricked, then it cannot be a sure criterion of knowledge. In order for a criterion to guarantee true knowledge, that is, knowledge that is certain to reflect the objective universe, then it cannot yield false results when applied. Furthermore, almost all senses may be tricked. For example, spend a few hours in a blizzard and then come back into the room. The room feels warmer than before you went out, even though the temperature probably hasn't changed. Thus it has been demonstrated that neither reason nor sense perception can be a criterion of knowledge. Thus, regardless of how many awards or doctorates Richard Dawkins achieves, he still has no sure knowledge about anything. Hence, by my opponent's definition, he is an idiot.
People are idiots if they argue against Religion.

Thanks goes to you Inquisitor, for accepting. With a name like that i know this will be a good debate. My opponent claims that the dictionary definition is too vague. He has provided two criteria: knowledge, and understanding to designate someone as being an idiot. I must reject these criteria on two bases: 1. They are just as vague as the dictionary definition. 2. I can see through your callow attempts. You are trying to trick me into to saying that an idiot is someone who lacks "Understanding." And that Richard Dawkins is an idiot because he lacks "Understanding" for people's religious beliefs. If such a criterion were upheld it could be said that I am an idiot b/c I lack understanding for the beliefs of Nazism. If my opponent wishes to have a more specific definition of "idiot" I will propose that an idiot Is someone who falls into at least one of the following 2 categories. - someone who lacks a substantial amount of knowledge about what society at large considers factual. Not necessarily including "pop culture" facts. - someone who lacks a rudimentary understanding of the tenets of basic logic, as described by this website. http://philosophy.hku.hk... ------------------------------------ >>"This, and every other award on [D]r. Dawkins' resume, I refute thus: Awards do not guarantee anything about a person. War hawks have won Nobel Peace Prizes, poor articles are published in acclaimed journals, and so on." Yes these things are not Guarantees. Just I have no guarantee that I am not the only being that exists. There is no way for me to prove that everyone or everything else is anything more than a figment of my imagination. But … I can still expect that other people exist! The sheer vastness of all his awards would entail us to expect that he is not an idiot. "Can we expect the readership of a magazine to tell us who is intelligent and who isn't?" Yes… we can, if it is an accredited magazine. Prospect is accredited. Magazines may make mistakes from time to time but the sheer vastness of all these awards points us to one conclusion… That Richard Dawkins cannot be an idiot. The editors of the magazine are not who decided to put Dawkins on the top of the list it was Society at large. An idiot is someone who lacks substantial knowledge about what society at large considers factual. Society at large agrees that Dawkins is intelligent enough to be labeled the MOST intellectual. If Dawkins wasn't aware of what they considered factual why would they consider him to be aware? ---------------------------------------- I will now gladly point out that my opponent has only addressed the Awards and not the fact that Richard Dawkins has 8 Doctorates.
People are idiots if they argue against Religion.

The claim that "People are idiots if they argue against Religion" most likely uses the term "idiot" figuratively, not intending to diagnose literally every person who speaks against religion as clinically retarded. Nevertheless, my opponent has chosen to take the statement in its strongest form, and for the sake of good sport I feel compelled to allow it. Furthermore, my opponent has correctly concluded that he wins this debate if he can show that at least one person who argues against religion is not an idiot. In my opening argument I do not wish to accomplish much for my own position. Rather, I believe that the terms used in this debate are too vague. Therefore, I will offer a simple rebuttal, followed by a request for clarification. My opponent intends to prove that Mr. Richard Dawkins is not an idiot. He provides a long list of credentials, and I cringe at the thought of having to rebut each one. Fortunately, I do not have to because my opponent has been kind enough to label one as the most important, and it is this one that I will focus on. "Now this one is important > HE WAS RANKED NUMBER 1 on PROSPECT MAGAZINE"S 2004 LIST OF THE TOP 100 PUBLIC BRITISH INTELLECTUALS, as decided by the readers, receiving twice as many votes as the runner-up. " This, and every other award on Mr. Dawkins' resume, I refute thus: Awards do not guarantee anything about a person. War hawks have won Nobel Peace Prizes, poor articles are published in acclaimed journals, and so on. Can we expect the readership of a magazine to tell us who is intelligent and who isn't? Can they vote reality into place? Who says that a person who accumulates acclaim and recognition deserves to be known as intelligent? Ah, vagueness. Instead of basing intelligence on something arbitrary and manipulable let us define it as something concrete - let us determine exactly what it means to not be an idiot. I propose two criteria: knowledge, and understanding. If my opponent finds this agreeable, I will let him set a reasonable limit. How much knowledge and how much understanding separates an idiot from normal people? This appears to me to be a more reasonable definition. It follows from the dictionary definition of "foolish or senseless". Senseless implies "lacking mental perception, appreciation, or comprehension. " So, let's discuss the intelligence of a person based on what it actually means, rather than counting how many awards a man has gotten.
All drugs should be legalized.

I want to say that I had made a counterplan that you did not bother to address. I simply said useless drugs like heroin can be the only drugs illegal. Making them legal will give people the opportunity to abuse the drug. People can commit suicide purposely overdosing on a drug. If it were to be legal, people would be aware of the strength of each drug. I agreed that most drugs should be legalized. I just said certain should not. Certain have no use in being legalized. If heroin was legalized and it were in the home of parents with children, children would think what they're doing was okay and they can easily get ahold of the drug that they were not yet educated on and abuse it. There are a lot of things we do without knowing the meaning or danger of it. Again, a kid being in a household with dangerous drugs is risky. I agree in the face of not being allowed to have something makes you want to have it more. BUt there are just some drugs that don't have to be brought into the picture. It's mostly about the children not knowing anything about it at all and just using it. If we kept at least things like heroin illegal, we can educate children on why it is.
All drugs should be legalized.

Your argument on alcohol doesn't stand up at all. When we made alcohol illegal, adulterants went up, violence went up, and abuse didn't go down at all. Making it legal again improved everything. Simply stating we have a problem with a drug doesn't support your case. I agree that alcohol abuse is a problem, and I agree that any drug abuse or overdose is a problem. I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing that making them illegal does more harm than good, which was clearly the case in 1920. Again, your statement about Trump and freedom is irrelevant (and ironic, seeing as you want to limit freedom by prohibiting some drugs). Heroin overdoses happen and will continue to happen regardless of whether the drug is legal or illegal. Heroin use was decriminalized in Portugal and ODs went down. You seem to believe that the only thing keeping people from using heroin I'd the law, but most people are aware of its extremely harmful effects and would not use it even if it was legal, as shown by Portugal. Regardless, I have stated many positive effects that would come from legalizing this drug and others. Less violent crime, better education, safer use of drugs, tax revenue, and even if more abuse took place when these drugs entered the formal economy, which I believe would not happen, the good that would come of it far outweighs the bad. The government should not be prohibiting everything that is bad or immoral, especially when that means invading people's personal lives. While we like to believe we can solve any problem with more legislation, government invasion into people's lives generally makes the problem worse. It's not nice to make fun of someone for being overweight, but if we prohibited it, that would be a violation of free speech. Drug laws are also a violation of our freedom, and we should embrace the principles of liberty this country was founded on. I'm typing this on a bus, so I apologize for potential typos.
All drugs should be legalized.

I want to start off by saying I DID explain why alcohol is a problem and why it supports my case. Alcohol is still a problem to this day which is why legalizing every drug ever would be a problem. You also said I didn't have a better solution. As being on the con side, I don't have to have a planned out solution. I just have to prove that yours won't work. But regardless, I can easily say I have a solution. Your side is just saying that all drugs should be legalized. Every single made. I don't have to say every drug should be banned, I just have to offer something different from that which is almost every drug should be legal. We both agreed that useless drugs like heroin have nothing to do. I can simply say every dangerous but also useless drug ever made could be banned and I'd be done. I have offered a better solution that useless drugs dont have to be allowed but others that do can. I mean, we have things like gun laws for a reason. We can do the same thing with things like heroin. Also really quick I mentioned Trump as an example of why we need to teach kids about freedom because Trump obviously doesn't care about that. Legalizing things like heroin even though they have no use would make no sense. Putting labels on things like heroin won't do anything because people can still accidentally overdose. If we strengthen the education on dangerous and pretty uselesss drugs, people will be more aware of how dangerous they are. I know your point was to educate people on this but I'm just saying talking about the useless drugs that wouldn't be legal.
All drugs should be legalized.

You brought up the fact that many teens are drinking alcohol, but didn't explain why this supports his case, or offer any solution. Alcohol is restricted already from anyone under the age of 21 (in the US), but teens still drink it. If anything, that point supports my case that people will use restricted drugs regardless of whether or not it is legal to do so. Simply stating that there is a problem with drug abuse does not necessarily justify the prohibition of drugs. My argument is not that there is no problem with drug addiction/abuse, but that restricting them does more harm than good. When we banned alcohol in the US in 1920, it created more problems than it solved, which is why we lifted the ban 13 years later. You mentioned that many drugs have no medicinal value and a high potential for abuse, such as heroin. I absolutely agree, but prohibiting these drugs doesn't solve any problems, it just costs more money for policing and drives the market underground. People will do heroin and overdose on it regardless of whether or not it's banned, but if we legalize it, we'll be able to put the money that would have been used on policing into rehab programs and education. Also, people would know they're actually buying pure heroin with no additives that could potentially be even more harmful. Your point that many children in drug ridden households won't be able to get a proper education on these substances, but this doesn't really support your case as the prohibition on drugs is unlikely to stop them in an environment like that. What could potentially stop them is, as you said, being educated on them. Assuming they're going to school, they should be educated on the effects of these drugs. I'm not really sure what to make of your last point about how we should be spending time educating people on things like racism and sexism instead of drug use. We would be able to put more government funds into all of those things if we didn't put so much money into organizations like the DEA. And again, the prohibition of drugs does not stop people from making, selling, and doing them, it just makes the drugs that are being marketed less safe and pure. As I said before, Portugal has one of the lowest overdose rates and they decriminalized all drugs. We can't completely end the abuse of drugs, but we can ensure than people who do use drugs are using safer drugs. LSD, which contrary to popular belief is usually relatively harmless when consumed in a safe environment, is often laced with meth and other dangerous additives. I would rather make LSD safe than ban it and still have people doing it. And I have no idea why you mentioned Trump. He's vehemently against all drugs, including marijuana.
All drugs should be legalized.

Alcohol addiction Yes, alcohol is legal and yes there are limits. But that doesn't mean there are still problems with alcohol use and that's what could happen if all drugs are permitted. Approximately 14 million adults in the US have an alcohol consumption addiction. There's also underage drinking problems that aren't addressed. 7.7 million between the age of 12-20 consume alcohol. There's an age limit for a reason. Look at the drinking consumption that's ruined 1 and 13 of every adult in the US! I'm not saying every single drug shouldn't be allowed. But there are some drugs that no one should use that are used anyway. Like heroine. I know you addressed that if more people were given the chance to learn about drug use that we could help. But kids who are in homes with parents that have addictions won't learn that. Or even if they don't live with them. Since alcohol is legal and adults drink it in their home, some kids are tempted to try it. Do you realize the same thing could happen with drugs? Especially with drugs that have no use whatsoever even for medical reasons. Another point is even if the rate for the danger of some drugs goes down, some people will overdose by accident on things like heroine. Drugs being legalized can also raise the bar for dangerous. If people are able to produce their own drugs, who knows what could happen. If it's that easy to get away which it, then anything could happen. I know that some people won't be able to get the education on drug use but if a child were to consume a drug, the responsibility is all in the hands of the parents so the child wouldn't go to jail, by the age of 18, they should be aware of drug use and it's consequences. I'm 13 and already aware of them. But if I were in a household with drug use, maybe I wouldn't. Another thing is quality over quantity. We aren't teaching our kids about race and religion and gender and human rights in general. If we can't teach people about simple hguman rights, maybe we should just die from drug overdoses. People won't be even focused on giving the education to cover drug use because we should be focusing on keeping the lives of kids safe from things like racism and sexism and anti Semitic stuff. No one is going to care about drug use if we all start back where we were because of our president.
The United States, at it's founding, was a Christian-led state

Thank you for your argument. It was very well written and your sources are good. However, I would like to point out that the founding of the independent colonies under Christian rule is irrelevant to the unity of those colonies under the constitution. The Establishment Clause of the first Amendment, makes it clear that the United States does not declare a state religion nor meddle with the affairs of religion. As James Madison the author of the First Amendment put it "There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion". Even further, the Supreme Court Case, "Everson V. Board of Education, which challenged the establishment of a State religion, Justice Hugo Black said of the Issue, "The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
The United States, at it's founding, was a Christian-led state

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROBLEMS ? If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting. It is expected that both parties act in good faith, eg no semantics, no cheap shots. Also, this is my first debate on here, so if my methods aren't typical of what is done on this site, I apologize in advance Opening Argument: The United States is NOT a Christian State. While it is true that many fo the first groups to arrive were religious, most of Founding Fathers were not and therefore, the very structure of our government is based not in Christian values, but rather, Secular ones. For example, Thomas Jefferson, who drafted our Declaration of Independance, said, "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom Also, James Madison was quoted with, "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison The undeniable fact that our founding fathers were firmly against the establishment of a state religion points to the plain truth: We live in a secular country.
Call of Duty is a good game on PC

Okay, I see your Point. but i have done some research and it turns out that Reaction time is mostly needed for competitive plays, and you wont need to be a Computer Ninja to this game, and yes the enemies do circle around the cover, but its not always like that you know, There are some Covers which your enemies cant circle around, and besides if they do circle around they would attack the NPCs, and yes you do get some damage, but theres a sprint button incase you need to escape them, and also the damage you took wont mean much since you basically heal fast, so that completely nullifies the disadvantage. Also i for one, dont think its really hard to aim and shoot, all i have to do is move my mouse to where the enemy is at and then bam, i shoot them multiple times. I think you need time to adjust to FPS games in general, since almost all of them are like that. You cant just base an opinion already since your havent played more than a few FPS games. and if the camera did move like GTA SA, then it would defeat the whole purpose of FPS games, since they need you to point and shoot. and the gameplay of strike force heroes is more enjoyable for you yeah. COD isnt only for Hard/Intense competitive players you know, Take the time to know the games since it takes dedication and effort to learn, learn slowly and maybe, just maybe you might change your mind :)?
Call of Duty is a good game on PC

What you basically say is I should improve my reaction time. But frankly speaking, I don't think I will take the job of becoming a computer ninja for such a boring game. As for cover, the enemy often circles around it and then starts shooting you, or you are stuck there infinitely as 5-6 enemies pepper your wall and it becomes impossible to get out without getting some damage. Have you played Strike Force Heroes? While it is a basic game and not all flashy like COD, the gameplay is much, much better. COD maps are very complicated as well. Our partners in COD can't aim for nothing and are useless. And of course the enemy somehow knows that we are the player and will aim only for us. The COD partners don't even work as collateral damage. Lastly, instead of our camera moving along with our movements like in GTA SA, in COD we have to move the camera individually which is hard work. I am moving towards the right to the enemies' base, why would I be looking to the left? I think COD is only for hard gamers, and those who want an entertaining, a moderately challenging time should play other games.