BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Kill Command is Irrational

This is my opening for anyone who wants to go.There is no reason for God to give the Kill Command; to kill by proxy. No reason whatsoever.G= GodK=Kill CommandRK=Religions which have the KC as a central part of their theologyR-K=Religions that don't have as a central point of their theology God giving the KC1. R (RK or R-K) is untrue if irrational.2. RK is irrational3. Therefore RK is untrue.The Kill Command is the claim people give for killing for God. Religious texts are filled with them, and we know recent examples such as George Bush, Andrea Yates, and the 9-11 a-holes.We are aware of people in recent history claiming to kill for the Greater Good (God to some, to Stalin, Mao and Pot, it was about Power, or a warped sense of Nationalism).All of us have a distinct sense of morality (as William Lane Craig would argue), and I claim that our general sense of morality is extended to those with the general sense of morality I presume we all share: want to live in peace, raise a family, exist without extreme discomfort and threat.We know if there is someone breaking into our house, raping or killing us - and we don't like it, nor the idea of living in a society that permits it.Killing is the greatest violation one can perform against another human being. There is no person greater than us, that they have a right to kill us. We may break laws of the majority and not know it, but there would never be a reason for human being to claim "God commanded me to kill you".Particularly in the sense that they are more preferred by God, such that they would warrant a rational response in the face of the killing. That is, if a killer said "God said to kill you", you would have a right to be skeptical - for good reason.Killing, one of the biggest command NOT to do in the Ole Testament, is now, in the Abrahamic and other religions, claimed to be the one things that was important to do in that particular instance. Apparenlty, God - the Thing that could simply give everyone an anuerism, had to COMMAND 18 year old kids to kill women and children.Yet, such an important event should have more clarification than he person about to kill you saying "God told me to".I challenge anyone to defend the rationality of this command.I see no rational reason that God would act in such a way, that it makes any religion built on such an idea irrational.A God wouldn't have an irrational religion, and therefore, these religions, while possibly close to what a God might want, can't represent the God they claim to portray:A Rational GodThe Command to Kill is Irrational and against everything we, average people (without communication to God), must stand for if we have a rational and moral chance of existing. Or, some such hyperbolic statement.
France vs. Poland (any time period)

First Point: King Bolesław Poland was a larger kingdom during King Bolesław's time. http://en.wikipedia.org... Also king Boleław himself has occupied Meissen, Lusatia, and Bautzen. To add on he also had a war with the Germanic tribes. http://en.wikipedia.org... - http://en.wikipedia.org... - http://en.wikipedia.org... - http://en.wikipedia.org... Although Bolesław didn't conquer as much as Napoleon, he didn't increase the land that he had inherited. Second Point: Mongol Invasion Also the Mongolian Empire didn't swallow Poland like it did to other Asian countries. The Polish army was strong enough to stop the Mongols. http://en.wikipedia.org... Third Point: Casimir I Casimir has been a king that came back to Poland to restore the Pole's power. Emperor Henry III from Germany gave Casimir 1000 foot soldiers to help. http://en.wikipedia.org... These are my main three points of Poland winning with France.
The Death Penalty for the guilty

I will again chronically rebut all your points one by one show you why they are redundant 1) You've in your first line mentioned on whether we want criminals living in our society! the criminals who've committed grave crimes. OF COURSE WE DON'T!, that's why I have clearly stated, the law breakers deserve a punishment and that punishment is not the death penalty but it is imprisonment. So the first one is redundant as you haven't stated the punishment for the people. And I'm just saying the punishment shouldn't be the death penalty. 2) And it is highly incorrect on how you blatantly stated every family has a role to play in their children becoming a criminal. You can't generalize like that. That point can't be even considered as it is a fallacy 3) You also stated more people will learn if there was the death penalty. But let me prove you wrong here by taking the example of the states who implemented the death penalty in around 33 states I guess. Now before the implementation of the penalty, the crime rates were very high, over 12,000 registered. And after thee penalty was implemented, there was no reduction in the crime rate! so your point is not valid as the fear in most of the criminals is gone. In fact most criminals are ready to die after committing a crime than rather go to prison. So by giving him the death sentence is giving him the ticket to heave. But by giving him a life imprisonment, well that's the punishment. So having proved your points in your last argument are also redundant, I strongly stand against the death penalty. I would like to conclude saying, a second chance is a must.
The Death Penalty for the guilty

My point is do we really want criminals of the highest degree to be in the world where kids grow up if we don't stop these insane and mentally ill criminals they will shape the youth of the world so I say teach them serious crime is wrong like murder by killing the criminal scum. And maybe the family of the criminal will learn not to put another sick and mentally ill seed on the earth again and maybe more people will learn and kid's will be safe from crime and they will not be shaped to be a criminal
The Death Penalty for the guilty

I will chronically rebut all your points one by one show you why they are redundant. All is the sport of debate. :) 1)Looking at the facts, by the first statement you've made saying that there will be no killers, rapists if there is the death penalty, might I bring to your notice that in countries like the Republic Of India, where the death penalty does exist, over 24,023 cases have been registered in 2012 and the number has only been increasing, hence you point is redundant. 2) I hope you do realize, in first argument in round 1, I've stated that the people who break the law deserve to go to prison, and a prison is a place where they can learn through their mistake, you've stated " rape that guys brain with a deadly electro shock ", I hope to clear your misconception that electro shock is a method of torture and we're currently talking about death penalty by hanging a person. To also correct you saying that torture is illegal. In 1948, following the horrific abuses of World War II, the General Assembly of the United Nations inserted the prohibition against torture in the landmark Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 5 states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." This ban on torture and other ill-treatment has subsequently been incorporated into the extensive network of international and regional human rights treaties. It is contained in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by 153 countries. So your point is again redundant as torture is illegal and killing someone by torturing is an offence. 3) You've referred the word cannibal and asked them to be killed. I hope you do know that this is practised in the tribal zones and its a system in the tribes and that governments do not have a say in that. And asking for them to be killed without them committing any offense is a violation of the right to life, so your point in redundant. As to ask for someone to be killed is highly condemnable. 4) Your point on the Nazis is redundant as we're talking about present world scenario, where there are laws firmly established. Nazis being hanged is after the World War 2 for the guilty to be hanged. But that was then. When there was no law and order. We are talking about present day whether is should exist even after all the laws have been laid down. 5) You also can't generalize that all the criminal who rape, do murder are doing it for "fun" as you stated. The Nazis did it because they believed the Jews were an unpure race 6) Also your last point is again highly not valid because people are not given the death penalty anyhow by committing petty crimes like theft, its usually a short imprisonment. So I hence stand by that there is no use of the death penalty, everyone deserves a second chance to live. By implementing the death penalty will be a violation of law in our part which is incorrect. The prison is the hell on earth and is worse than a death punishment. Thank you.
The Death Penalty for the guilty

Here we go if there was not death penalty there will be convict killer, rapist, pedo's every where do you want to get rape no than rape that guys brain with a deadly electro shock and all cannibals deserve to be killed one less lector I say. all those Nazi's would have been release instead of hung and shot. now tell me do you want criminals who rape, murder, molest and torture for fun in a world of today... NO THEN TELL THAT HOODED MAN TO PULL THE LEVER. and now I'm not insane for saying this now small crime like theft and thing like that death penalty would be unnecessary.
The Death Penalty for the guilty

Right, I'll be going against why there should be no death penalty for the guilty.1)Firstly, it goes agaisnt the very law of Right to protection of life, by awarding a person the death penalty, we ourselves are violating the law and a violation of law is not acceptable2) Its does not teach the guilty anything, if you look at it. The death penalty, the person just dies there is no learning and no going through pain and realizing the mistake they've made, wehreas as prison is a place where they can learn and recover. These are just 2 of my points, looking forward to go against you. :D
The Death Penalty for the guilty

Crime does not pay actually it does it pay's with your life no more criminals of the highest degree a world where are afraid to commit a crime now a perfect world that sounds great almost a paradise all we need is a social cleansing am I crazy for saying we need that of course not the crazy ones are the criminals the one's that need to be put down like a cow at a slaughter house hell people can even pay to see it would be great
Capitalism

[1] GDP: The whole GDP situation is easily refutable. The GDP is not an affect of anything. That's just every economists living legend in this world. Take a look at this article: http://www.marketwatch.com... [2] Economic Gaps: As the gaps in different Capitalist nations between the wealthy and the poor widen, bigger economic problems occur. It is argued that America is not a Capitalist nation. America is Capitalist, yet some Socialist traits linger in the midst of greedy, money-pinched "Vulture Capitalism" (instead of Venture). And in fact, America's economy is straining, and its Capitalism is going to falter along with the nation itself, below is an article explaining why: http://www.csmonitor.com... On top off that, the differences between Capitalism and SOCIALISM (not Communism) are based on ideological gratitude and the idea that everyone should be equalised, and not patronised or kept poor if they already are, below is a link to a chart differentiating Capitalism versus Socialism: http://www.economicshelp.org... In America, the rich are also getting more income than the poor, and it will continue to remain this way: http://withtheresistance.com... The list goes on as to how Socialism is better than Capitalism, but this article really nails it: http://www.pslweb.org... [3] Education / Industry: Thanks to the Socialist ways, some countries (like America), have free public education. Some also have services where the poor can benefit more from the government by being given checks. No nation has truly been Socialist, but there have been tons of Communist nations in the world. And from the view of anyone paying close attention, Socialist systems have pulled America out of economic recession. The last economic crisis in the USA was in 2008, the year Obama was elected. When Obama was elected, many Socialist ideals were put in place. Welfare, Social Security, etc. Not all of the systems worked, but after the congress, the president and the state-level government officials pushed the systems to succeed, the economy soon blossomed back into the positives. And the economy was well after that. Not only this, but the economy getting better helped to expand America's education system. Socialist ideas were put in place, where students could enroll in free public schools to receive the appropriate education of the state. Since then, America's education rate immensely improved. http://www.ed.gov... Not only did this happen, but unemployment also went up, and industry expanded. http://www.kansascity.com... And as seen before, inflation and unemployment rates were awful: http://www.economicshelp.org...
Capitalism

This is debate on Capitalism. Pro takes the idea that Capitalism is the "right way to go" or is the positive type of government. Con takes the idea that Capitalism is atrocious and is NOT the right way to go. First round is acceptance only, rules: -Do not use blog posts or biased media. -Do not use personal opinions; no first person. -Be a mature debater, do not use swear words or immature terms. -Do not attack the opponent's views.
TTT: Dumb Liberal (Pro) vs. Dumb Conservative (Con)

1Mexicins Mexicins ar good an Wite peopel ar rasist becaws tey say dat Mexicins shudint be abul tu cross teh border becaws tey arnot Wite becaws Ted Cruz isnot Wite an Cunservtvis now dis so tey dont alow Mexicins cross border ithas nuthing tu du wiht tehm crossng border withowt permishun itis racism homofobic MISOGENY racism oppreshun 2Blacks Cunservtvi ar rasist aginst Black man Herman Cain an Thomas Sowell ar Wite anyway tey ar rasist becaws Wite man is alwyas kill Black man and Black man never kill Wite Man so Cunservtvis rasist 3Founting Fahter Founting Fahters wer rasist slav owner and tey wer all Deist and Atheis becaws Jorg Washingtin an Thomas Jefferson and Binjimin Franklun ar atheis an tey ar only Founting Fahters hu exist an Thomas Jefferson talk bad about Cristinity so he want us all to be Muslim Atheis 4Jorg Boosh Jorg Boosh is evul an he drag Murica into unnessery war wiht Sadam Hussien hu was perfect angel hu gave his sitisins cookies and evryting wuz perfict under Sadam Hussien an tere wer no cimicul wepuns in Iraq because nunwer fownd he cudint hav disposed uf wepuns an he sertinly hav no cimicul wepun in 1980s so chekmate an teh ISIS hapind becaws we stay in Iraq! 5Obomuh Obomuh is holy savor hu savd economee frum BOOSH FAIL ECONMIC POLISY an today evryon uf werking age hav job becaws ofishul figyurs say unimplodment is down so Obomuh is hero an he giv peolpe heathcar FOR FREE an accownt of peolpe lose job becaws of Obomuhcar is CUNSERVTVI MISINFMATION FAUX NEWS LIAR so chekmate evul Cunservtvi chekmate!!!!!!!!!!!
TTT: Dumb Liberal (Pro) vs. Dumb Conservative (Con)

Ok this should be interesting. 1st thing is first. Abortion- the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks. "concerns such as abortion and euthanasia" Google.com In that sentence this must mean that Arnold Schwarzenegger comes back in time as a robot, and kills an innocent unborn fetus! That fetus is a living thing just like John Conner is a human being. ABORTION IS AGAINST THE LAW as well as time travel. So we could not do the killing if human born babies. 2- homosexuality. Is against law in military before Obama was president, Obama must be gay!! And being gay is against the law! Stop your nonsense of the gays and just remember that lesbians are always good to watch. 4-economics? God your stupid. 5.gun control. If we had no guns then we couldn't defend ourselves against time traveling robots that kill peoples and unborn human born babies! Vote yes fer guns! 3- environment. When environment comes into play just know that if we shoot it we hang it up on our walls, and them trash digging coins are the cause not us peeps. Take that you dumb liberal. I shall become the winner.
Asssuming a religion's God doesn't exist we have a moral imperative to discontinue that religion.

Myself and many others I knew were born into Christianity, so in a large part of my experience, that isn't the case. Though undoubtedly a lot of people looking for "redemption" were attracted to it. I also saw a lot of people who were changed by it who were not attracted to it, but were convinced to go along by some friend or family member or love interest. Overall, the religion consisted of passing down these "good" (or, one might more accurately call them docile / harmless) beliefs and behaviours. Besides, if I observe good people in Christianity because it attracts and retains good people, then where's the part where it makes them worse? When people rag on Christianity, they usually cite quasi-political events from hundreds of years ago, plus that old bastard Phelps' litter of hate preachers. Obviously modern Christianity does some harm--for example, I believed gay people were wrong to follow through on their gay desires, and I said hurtful things about gayness because of this, which probably made some gay people feel bad. But this is minor in the grand scheme of things. In meeting thousands of people in churches, I encountered a lot of boring and slightly annoying people--maybe a few self-righteous people--but among dedicated Christians I encountered a very low number of vulgar, violent, miserable, angry, dishonest, cheating, lying, hateful or malicious people. In contrast, I encounter this kind of thing among random people quite a bit more often. Anyway. Not really a real debate, but I encourage readers to base opinions on a large sample of interactions with actual dedicated religious people and not on news reports about them, which pretty much only report on Christians when they try to ban gay marriage. Assuming there is no god, we don't have a moral imperative to do anything anyway. Zing.
Asssuming a religion's God doesn't exist we have a moral imperative to discontinue that religion.

"I will say that my experience with Christians (I was one for a long time; I am now non-religious) suggests that almost all their lives are much improved by it, and the only negative effects I ever witnessed personally were... well, I suppose believing some incorrect facts, and trying to promote some traditional views of marriage. And making each other feel guilty for swearing or looking at nudity. But overall I witnessed about ten times more positive results in those people's lives than I ever saw harm, and I got a pretty large sample size over several decades." RWzeroThe problem is this might just be correlation and not causation. Reverse causality comes to mind. Religion people acting better might mean religion promotes goodness, but the opposite might be true, naturally good people are attracted to religion. I will argue the latter. That naturally good people are attracted to religion. That they desire to do good, and therefore look to religion for guidance in how to perform moral deeds.
Asssuming a religion's God doesn't exist we have a moral imperative to discontinue that religion.

To be honest, I accepted on the premise that I'd be arguing against the proposition: "We should discontinue any religion whose God does not exist," assuming that the lack of that god's existence gave the reason for the discontinuation. I didn't think it was about the idea that religion does more harm than good. So maybe I should just forfeit this one. I'm not that interested in defending religion as a "force for good." I will say that my experience with Christians (I was one for a long time; I am now non-religious) suggests that almost all their lives are much improved by it, and the only negative effects I ever witnessed personally were... well, I suppose believing some incorrect facts, and trying to promote some traditional views of marriage. And making each other feel guilty for swearing or looking at nudity. But overall I witnessed about ten times more positive results in those people's lives than I ever saw harm, and I got a pretty large sample size over several decades. Sorry to disappoint.
Asssuming a religion's God doesn't exist we have a moral imperative to discontinue that religion.

Your title doesn't match the body of your text. The title says, "Assuming a religion's God doesn't exist, we [should discontinue it]," which means that we should discontinue any religion if it turns out that its god doesn't exist--for the very reason that its god doesn't exist. The body says that we should discontinue the particular major religions in the link, for the reason that they are inimical to human happiness, assuming for the mere sake of the argument that their gods don't exist. Which is it? Assuming that your argument is about discontinuing religion in general, on the basis that all religion causes harm, my initial response would be: the value of the link you provided is tenuous. No meaningful connection can be drawn between Christianity and the Holocaust, or the KKK and Christianity--in the sense that these things would not have happened in the absence of religion. Furthermore, how do the atrocities you've listed compare to those committed by nation states for non-religious reasons? If you count the dead and the wounded, for example, you'll find that (excluding the Holocaust) most of these just aren't that significant. Discounted here is the great psychological benefit that millions of people derive from religion, as well as the extensive philanthropic work that is done by religions, especially Christianity (which I have good personal knowledge of). In order to demonstrate that we should discontinue all major religions on a "harm" basis, you would have to weigh the benefits against the harm, and for the harm, you have to argue that it would not have happened without religion. That's not an easy argument to make, considering what we've seen throughout history. The Crusades were territorial conflicts, and in the absence of religion these would just have been nameless wars, similar to many others waged in Europe throughout those times. Granted, I would prefer to discontinue some religions before others (I'll not name them), but strictly interpreted, I don't see a lot of support for the main premise.
Asssuming a religion's God doesn't exist we have a moral imperative to discontinue that religion.

I don't mind the religions who Gods do exist. These are religions who worship the sun and moon for example. [0] You can scientifically prove these Gods exist. The idea that science hasn't scientifically proven some Gods is bull manure. Yet, the major religions claim that an immaterial God exists that grants miracles. To top it off there is religious doctrine. Considering all the immoral deeds committed in the name of these religions and assuming that none of these religion's Gods exist, I think we have the moral imperative to discontinue these religions. [1] Thanks in advance for reading and accepting the debate. 0. http://www.dictionary.com... 1. http://www.thetoptens.com...