BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Black Lives Matter, New Black Panthers, et al are more dangerous to the USA than ISIS

I will contend first that BLM does not pose any risk to the US, and secondly that while the NBPP may pose a small risk, while Daesh (what I will refer to ISIS as) poses an existential risk that is much greater than any risk posed by any black separatist groups. I would however like to clarify a few things before we proceed to the next round.1) The definition of BLM and NBPP as Leftist organizations is simply nonsense. BLM is a grassroots, non-ideological movement, it is not left wing or right wing. While the Left is more supportive of BLM that does not make it a leftist group. Furthermore it is not a single group, it is a movement made up of different groups and individuals. I would say that the definition be changed to simply the Broad based protest movement known as "Black Lives Matter" and groups opposed to systemic racism and police violence. The New Black Panther Party is a completely different story. They are not a left wing AT ALL. They actually eschew left wing politics, socialism, and communism. They also hate capitalism, which is typical of groups in the so called "Third position", a description often used by the Far-Right and White Supremacists, which makes sense, since their goals are essentially the inverse of White Supremacists and White Supremacists and the NBPP have aligned often. NBPP has actually come into conflict with the Black Live Matter movement because the two groups have different goals and strategies which are incompatible. Furthermore the NBPP promotes violence, while BLM is opposed to violence, so debating the danger they pose to the US is very different. I would like to make this clear as to not conflate the two groups and that this is really two debates in one.2) We mist clarify that the NBPP is in no way related to the original Black Panther Party from the 1960s. The groups are not actually connected in anyway, be it historically, ideologically, or organizationally.3) Danger to the US must refer to the danger to US citizens or property, located in the US. The idea that the American "Way of life" is at risk is frankly absurd as this is a extremely subjective term, and defining danger to ones way of life is itself subjective and cannot be universally defined.4) I am going to let the definition of Black people slide for now, but that isn't happening again.
Black Lives Matter, New Black Panthers, et al are more dangerous to the USA than ISIS

Black Lives Matter (BLM), New Black Panters, and other leftist black groups and community organizers and "leaders" are more dangerous to the USA than ISIS. I am not looking for a semantic debate of what "et al" stands for. Their are many of these leftist black community organizations that are very dangerous and I attempt to prove that they are more dangerous to the USA than ISIS. Ground rules: ISIS - may be extended to radicalized muslims who are not formally in ISIS but take on a radicalized belief. BLM et al - May be extended to any leftist group catering to advancing the agenda of "black people" in the USA. Black people - More recently referred to as African Americans, historically negros as those who are served by the United Negro College Fund. Dangerous - implied or actual threats or damage directly to life, liberty, property. The scope is to be limited directly to the nature of the threat or action and not extended to a response. For example, the danger would be taking a hostage as an attack on an individual or groups liberty. Not the government response to the hostage situation of searching homes response which is the effect of reducing liberty secondary to the dangerous action. USA - This country. An attack in Paris is not an Attack in the USA. Black Brotherhood movements in Egypt are not happening in the USA. The scope of action, danger, risk must be directly limited to the USA homeland and not to US diplomacy or citizens abroad. ADDENDUM: Consider the USA to be way of life, liberty, domestic home, safety, property etc here in the USA, not limited to the actual ground or buildings but all those things here in the USA that we consider to make us the nation we are. Consider but not limited to life, work, and this we own here. ..
The true Idenity of Santa

While I myself am not a religious believer, I do deeply respect the religious convictions of Christians. Many of the intellectuals I greatly admire are Catholics or followers of other denominations of Christianity. So when you say that Santa Clause -- a clearly imaginary figure -- is in fact Jesus, you are insulting every thinking Christian on the face of Planet Earth. Santa Clause, in his modern American form, is a relatively recent creation. In fact, the American Santa was essentially an invention of Coca-Cola to help sell sugary and (at the time) cocaine-laced soft drinks to children. See http://en.wikipedia.org... Parents use Santa Clause to control the behavior of children. And yet, the parents know that Santa is not real. By making the comparison, you are saying that Church figures use Jesus Christ to control the behavior of believers, even as they (the Church figures) doubt his divinity. Though this has been the case in history (see Pope Leo X's infamous statement "It has served us well, this myth of Christ"), it certainly is not the case, by and large, and is downright insulting to the thinking faithful. Santa doesn't "only appear on December 25" -- he either doesn't appear at all because he doesn't exist (the real Santa), or he appears all year long to hock products to consumers (Santa impersonators). And December 25 is not Jesus's birthday. Anyone with any kind of education knows that Jesus's true birth date is unknown, and that early Christians adopted December 25th to coincide with a Roman pagan holiday -- so that they, the Christians, could worship openly without risking punishment from the cruel Roman lords. Maybe this was all a "joke" and I didn't get it. But even as a non-believer, I found it offensive. And if this were indeed a serious argument you were making, then it's as insulting as it is absurd.
The true Idenity of Santa

Being Christmas time and only a week til I thought a Santa debate was well in order. If you aren't Christian you won't agree w/ this so go on who's debate is best not that you despise Christianity. Now I just recently (this morning) Realized who Santa actually is. I was in homebase at school today and I got a Apiffiny. Santa is.....JESUS. There were many clues that got me to this conclusion. first of all Santa only appears on December 25 Jesus's birthday. Secondly. There is no physical proof Santa exsists. If Jesus was Santa he would be able to go to every good boy and girls house in a nightt, something a mortal being couldn't do. 3rdly Christianiy is very much in the whole "good" and "evil" thing. Santa is very strick about good kids getting nice toys and naughty getting coal. Similiar to if you were a good person you went to heaven and a bad one went to hell 4thly only christians celebrate it (religiously). Jesus would go to all his good christian worshipers and reward them for there divosion. And fifthly. "Santa" named his holiday "Christ"mas I believe all this is enough proof Santa is Jesus
Atheism is a religion.

Atheism has been defined as disbelief in a god/gods.2. Theism has been defined as belief in a god/gods.3. My opponent concedes that theism is not a religion. It's a factor of religions involving dieties or gods.4. My opponent does not explain why atheism, which is simply a factor of religions such as naturalism, is a religion if theism is not. Since BOP is on my opponent for making a positive claim and he has not adequately explained why belief in dieties is not a religion and disbelief in dieties is, I think the vote automatically goes to Con. Additionally;1. Religion has been defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.2. Atheism is one belief: gods do not exist. How can one belief be a set of beliefs? To believe that atheism is a religion is simply a non sequitur. I thank my opponent for this debate. I wish him better luck on his following debates.
Atheism is a religion.

If I understand correctly, my opponent's argument is thus-1. Theism is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.2. Atheism shares similarities to Theism.3. Therefore Atheism is a religion. You are incorrectly assuming my argument is bases that atheism is a religion because it holds similarities to theism. However, my argument, as a simplified version, is as follows:1) Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.2) Atheism shares the definition of religion, although although atheists have belief that the universe was created scientifically, whist theists belief a deity was the cause of the universe.3) Thus, atheism is a religion. Your following arguments are based on misinterpeting my arguments, though for the sake of debate, I'll address them, anyway. I think the problem with this argument is that it's basic premise is flawed; Theism is not a religion. Theism consists off *all* religions that regard the cause of the universe to be a deity/deities. Theism is simply belief in one or more supreme dieties [1]. Because of this, while theism may affect your beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose, it is not a religion per se. Once again, theism consists of all religions that view the cause of the universe to be that of a deity, so yes, thiesm itself isn't a religion, but being a theist does determine your view of the universe, in that you believe a deity exists. Similarly, the belief that there is no god or supreme diety may affect your beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, it's not actually a belief per se; Again, being an atheist determines your view of the universe, in that you reject that a deity was the cause of the universe, or that a deity exists at all. atheists may have different beliefs about these topics, as my opponent, himself concedes. Of course atheists have differing opinions of how the universe was actually created, just as how theists, even from the same religious group, have differing opinions on their religion. The bulk of Con's arguments were based on misunderstanding on my arguments, though I have refuted his claims, regardless. ;)
Atheism is a religion.

If I understand correctly, my opponent's argument is thus-1. Theism is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.2. Atheism shares similarities to Theism.3. Therefore Atheism is a religion. I think the problem with this argument is that it's basic premise is flawed; Theism is not a religion. Theism is simply belief in one or more supreme dieties [1]. Because of this, while theism may affect your beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose, it is not a religion per se. Similarly, the belief that there is no god or supreme diety may affect your beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, it's not actually a belief per se; atheists may have different beliefs about these topics, as my opponent, himself concedes. For these reasons we can safely conclude that Pro's argument is invalid. The resolution falls until further notice. Thank you. ===Sources=== [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Atheism is a religion.

Thanks for accepting, OneElephant!My argument will simply be positioned as premises and a conclusion logically made based on those premises.Premise 1: The definition of religion, in this debate as reaosnably decidied by both parties, is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe."Premise 2: All atheists have decided upon a differ cause, nature, and purpose of the universe then theists have, although this may vary between atheists just as it may vary between theists.Conclusion: Thus, atheism *is* in fact a religion.Good luck to you, OneElephant.
Atheism is a religion.

Well, this will be my first debate on this site, and I just felt having a religious debate to kick it off.I would prefer Con to be someone who takes this debate serious (i.e not forfeting the debate).Also, whoever accepts this feel free to give me suggestions and comments on how I am doing, if you so wish. First round will be for acceptance, obviously. And I don't feel as if any words need to be defined, but Con may do so if he/she wishes, as long as the respective definitions are reasonably true.
Challenge debate, Please read carefully! Everything good has an evil side and every evil has a good

1. Extended, assumptions are for entertainment value. Appreciation caused by empathy, not "happiness". gratefulness that the kid didn't die and/or that it wasn't your kid getting stabbed, and if it did die benefiting nature are valid. Doctor may get paid by the hour but work hours are decided through the amount of patients. I.E one more high risk patient on the average day/week/month will get them at least one more hour of work 2. Listening, I am not sure we have an actual scenario here... I could believe my friend is talking about something interesting or not. When I think of this I think my friend is wining about their boyfriend for an hour OR we are talking about a shared hobby, both are not really productive use of time. Additionally Bonding with this person, as listening creates, also means intensifying a relationship. As a relationship that is intensified requires more effort and thus energy to keep up. Upkeep of a relationship is not only exhausting but time consuming and expensive. 3. Yes it may take clean water away from other sources rather then a thirsty child but it still takes it away (clean being a key word). Other arguments extended 4. speculation adds entertainment value, this is not a super serious debate. I mean, I am attempting to defend killing babies here. Other then speculation I added the momentary value that the victims get as well as anyone else indirectly associated with the accident. I extend the prison argument. Free food, shelter, among other things is a positive effect and if you will assume that you dislike hurting people, I assume you will turn yourself in (the good guy). Other then that mowing people down will insure you don't continue to drive (at least that vehicle) and hurt more people. Will get the others sympathy from their loved ones (no matter what condition they are in) and cause empathy in others. Also blood spatter is good for the neighborhood grass. 5. Mindfulness is said to cause grief and high sensitivity (http://www.theguardian.com...) It is also unproductive and can throw off your sense of passing time. 6. Picketing a funeral positives: - getting the intended thought provocation in at least one person. Picketing a funeral is pretty bad, it would be done with disregard for respect and ethics causing people to believe the picketers is an @sshole but also provoking thought in others that the deceased did something wrong. - brings attention to the issue of 'picketing funerals' both from media and the funeral goers. - the picketers gets fresh air, and exercise - the picketers gets to unleash some pent up anger and stress towards the dead
Challenge debate, Please read carefully! Everything good has an evil side and every evil has a good

1. You can't assumed that a blinded baby would make other mothers happy. Maybe they would be mostly sad and horrified to see an injured baby.I don't think emergency room doctors get paid per patient. They're usually on some kind of salary and get paid the same no matter how many patients present during their shifts.The baby may never grow up and drive, and may never access scholarships etc. Those are not inevitable consequences of being blinded. They are not inherent to the act.2. Listening carefully to a FRIEND. Many people actually like their friends and would find listening to them pleasant and interesting.3. Drinking water does not actually take away an equivalent volume of water away from a thirsty child. That's just not true.4. You need to prove that there is good INHERENT in the action. For example, I may have fun, or more likely, I will dislike injuring people. Having fun is not an inevitable consequence of the action, nor is getting media attention or enjoying it, or getting taken care of in prison, or any of your other suggested consequences.5. Being mindful. For example, if in the ocean swimming, being aware of the pleasant feeling of the water on your skin.6. Picketing a funeral. For example, holding up a sign saying "[That person] was an @sshole and I hope he burns in hell". Let's assume that the person doing the picketing dislikes holding up signs, upsetting people, or getting media attention.
Challenge debate, Please read carefully! Everything good has an evil side and every evil has a good

1. stabbing a baby in the eye will blind or kill the baby depending on the implement used. The positive side of this is that moms may appreciate that their own child is not dead or blinded. Doctors will also be paid because of this incident and if the baby dies then the environment will consume the babies organic matter. If the baby is blinded forever it is possible they will still get to drive (just one eye) and get to park in the handicap parking space, something ever driver would appreciate. Other handicap services will also be available such as scholarships, grants, government money, and special treatment. 2. listening carefully to a friend The negative side to this is mainly the time wasted when you could be doing something else, also a lot of the time listening to a friend can get boring and annoying. They also may think of you when they want to complain and whine the next time. 3. Drinking a glass of water the negative side: It makes you have to pee, an inconvenience at best. It also may mean you have to get up and pause what you are doing to get that glass of water, also inconvenient. Drinking cold water can give you stomach cramps, drinking water on a empty stomach will also make you feel sick. If none of these are true in the situation then you also have this: for every glass of water you drink there is that much less water that is safe to drink in the world. You could have taken that water from a thirsty child. Shame! 4. Driving your car on the sidewalk and hitting strangers. The positive side: You may have fun doing this depending on your views of excitement. If you get caught you will get media attention, something that you may enjoy. You also get to go to prison where you get free meals, shelter, and in general, taken care of. The people hit will be: a) dead, a cause for nature to enjoy their body, others to appreciate their own life and loved ones, b) disabled - where they get the special treatment, possible parking spot & disability money. c) minor hurt- bragging rights at least. All victims or their family will also get money from the lawsuit. At very least doctors will be paid for their time working on your victims , possibly specialists.
Challenge debate, Please read carefully! Everything good has an evil side and every evil has a good

I would like to test a theory I have found in a text on Wicca. Wiccans believe that nothing is inherently evil or inherently good. That all "good" brings a bit of "evil" and that all "evil" brings a little "good". An example in the book is that a devastating flood will bring nutrient rich soil for plants to grow. I would like my opponent to come up with the most evil things and/or the most good things that can happen (on earth). Multiple statements or "events" in each argument preferred. It will be my job to find the opposite, good side or bad side, of my opponents topics. Points, I hope, will be given to you if you stump me and I cannot refute, or to me if I can find good answers to each of your "events". This has a short argument time and conduct points may be taken for forfeitures. special rule * If you make ridiculous scenarios than I get to do the same* Examples: EXAMPLE OF OPPONENT TOPIC: * DEATH IS EVIL BECAUSE YOU LOOSE SOMEONE YOU LOVE* * SAVING A HURT BIRD FROM DEATH IS GOOD* EXAMPLE OF MY REFUTE: *DEATH IS ALSO GOOD BECAUSE IT ADDS NUTRENTS TO THE SOIL AND HELPS YOU LEARN EMPATHY WILE VALUING YOUR OWN LIFE AND THE LIVING AROUND YOU* * SAVING A HURT BIRD MEANS STARVING THE WORMS AND OTHER DECOMPOSING FORCES*
Freedom of Speech Does Not Give the Right to be hateful towards others

You say that any speech that either offends,threatens, or insults a group of people is considered hate speech and should not be permitted.Insult / Offend: although people of course don't like being offended or insulted there should never be a law to censor any form of speech regardless of how offensive it may be, if people's feelings are hurt so be it their feelings are not protected by the constitution.Threat: threatening speech is legally defined to only be a threat if the user has both the capacity and intent. For example if I simply said "I'm going to kick you in the face!" it is not a threat but if I say it while staying above you with my leg raised it is legally a threat. The fact of the matter is as the sjw culture begins to spread it is only the speech that begins to offended people and makes people feel uncomfortable that is being dubbed "hate speech" and is being relentlessly attack on social media and college campuses across the country. It is because of this outrage culture that I encourage people to be as outrageous as possible.
Freedom of Speech Does Not Give the Right to be hateful towards others

In recent months this topic in the media has blown up do to, mainly, Donald Trump and his many "hateful" statements. Now in your opinion, you believe that the First Amendment allows people to use Freedom of Speech to spew hateful or rude statements to one another. The First Amendment, pertaining to freedom of speech, states "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech". This meaning the government cannot sensor what we say ALTHOUGH, we as American citizens are not protected by the Constitution to use "Hate Speech". Hate Speech being "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits." (Dictionary.com) This speech is not and SHOULD NOT be allowed. These are covered up by "Political Correctness" giving people respect and not offending someone. While some people say "political correctness is ruining this society", is it really? It, in method, stops the use of hate speech which is not protected in the Constitution and is basically illegal. In conclusion to the opening arguments, the use of hateful/rude comments are not protected by the first amendment in the United States Constitution. I look forward to hearing your response and will respond to it in a quick and timely matter. Good luck and again I look forward to your response.
Freedom of Speech Does Not Give the Right to be hateful towards others

Regarding if a insult is defamation: A defamatory statement is a false statement of fact that exposes a person to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, causes him to be shunned, or injures him in his business or trade. Statements that are merely offensive are not defamatory (e.g., a statement that Bill smells badly would not be sufficient (and would likely be an opinion anyway). Courts generally examine the full context of a statement's publication when making this determination. Defamation is not a crime, but it is a "tort" (a civil wrong, rather than a criminal wrong). A person who has been defamed can sue the person who did the defaming. Thusly defamation is not illegal. Regarding a threat: The civil harassment laws say "harassment" is: Unlawful violence, like assault or battery or stalking, OR. A credible threat of violence, AND. The violence or threats seriously scare, annoy, or harass someone and there is no valid reason for it. Now I agree that someone saying the will kick you in the face may "scar, annoy or harass" you it does not mean the threat is "credible" unless the person has once again both the intent and capacity to do so. In closing: All forms of speech are protected by the constitution regardless of how offensive it may be unless that speech creates a clear and present danger to anyone or group of people.