BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is self-delusional

I will be interested to see how you assert that atheism is anything other than self-delusional. First I would like to clarify my opponents attempt toward saying something by claiming to be neither Atheist or atheist. I believe my opponent is trying to say he is not aheistic and is not an Atheist. If this is what he is trying to say, it seems unnecessarily redundant. If he is simply trying to make fun with word-play, the humor would be easier to recognize if he would use proper grammar. So far, my opponents only attempt at making an argument has been to say my position is non-sense. That's not very nice. My position is a position of concern for people who delude themselves into thinking that God does not rule over them. Our society may appear to be concerned about caring for people who are delusional, but when it comes to caring about whether or not God rules over an individual, the inmates are running the asylum and the whole world is a mental hospital. Atheism asserts that there is no God. In so doing, the atheist deludes themselves into thinking that they have the right to exist as long as they are alive and nothing else has any objective value. The atheist's own existence then, in their own deluded thinking, has no objective value. With belief in no God who can love them, the atheist has no hope other than to prove in death that he is correct. The meaning of life then is nothing but confusion, because the atheist exists in a delusion of their own making. I'll close with that and see if my opponent can offer any kind of reasonable and rational response without resorting to simplistic statments such as "my opponents position is non-sense". As in the first round, I againt courteously offer my opponent the opportunity to win this debate against me though I again assert he cannot win against God. This is a challenge, and I hope that any atheist will honestly take this challenge as from God, and address God when he or she tries to argue agaisnt God. That is between the atheist and God. My opponent may win this debate against me, but he can't win agaisnt God. Atheism is self-delusional.
RevNge is even worse than a noob when it comes to debating

"I lost one deb8 and u can c it on my profil..."So what? Even Bluesteel and Raisor, the best debaters on the site, have lost at least three debates. So far, you're better than both of them. "It is BoP for Con 2 prove dat my parents r any of da things dat he has menshuned...." As long as they CAN be, and my opponent cannot prove otherwise, we can only assume that they are. I can do disgusting stuff and get out because I suck at debating...It's actually kind of true. I indeed, can do that disgusting action, and I can get out of here, and I have lost horribly to Diarygirl4u2c once, as well as Sadolite. Those two losses definitely show I suck at debating.230 debates=experience?Exactly, even with experience I still suck at debating. On the other hand, my opponent is less than 1% of the amount of the debates I have yet is already beating me within one of our debates: http://www.debate.org...Can you imagine how powerful he will be at 230 debates? I sure can't. "Dis is a troll deb8 cuz I'm not taking it seriusly, and I is a noob cuzI lak initi8ive and skill due 2 my apathy."You can troll me and still defeat me...incredible. Imagine if this guy was SERIOUS. Whew, I'd be beaten to a pulp round one!" There are people who have beaten me who are far from being master deb8ers, so there4, I is not a master deb8er..." What are you babbling about? There's only one guy who beat you, and even that doesn't count. Rapping skills does not equal debating skills. "9space is talkin bout my profile pic, which has noding to do wid debates...."Actually it does. If you have an intimidating enough profile picture, the guy will give up just by looking at the horrific picture. Plus, the picture symbolizes your power and glory. If Mikal had a teddy bear as his picture, ohhhh you better fear him, he's trying to get your guard down so he can snipe you off in 10 minutes easier than usual. " I even conceed."Masters always concede. They cannot learn without failure."Therefore I noob, done."No, therefore you not noob, not done. This debate is not "I will lose this debate". This debate is whether my opponent is worse than a noob or just as bad as a noob of noobs. His debate record contrasts aginst his words in this debate. He is definitely far better than a noob of noobs when it comes to debating.
RevNge is even worse than a noob when it comes to debating

Thx 9space 4 ur argument. RevNge ish nott a reel word, there4 there was a spelling error in dat sentns. Fals. I lost one deb8 and u can c it on my profil: http://www.debate.org... It is BoP for Con 2 prove dat my parents r any of da things dat he has menshuned. Dis is false. 9space can suck his own 1-inch d1ck and get dafuq out of here cuz he sucks at debating. Dere, I lose da conduct point. 9space has 230 deb8s, yet he is unable to beat many mid-tier opponents. Dat is much more dan 13, and he has more experience. Dere4, experience does not correl8 wid knowledge. Dis is a troll deb8 cuz I'm not taking it seriusly, and I is a noob cuzI lak initi8ive and skill due 2 my apathy. I would like 2 no what 9space means by mather debateeng. I see a slutty woman showing off her cleevage, and memes r not real deb8rs and do not count as real deb8ers. There are people who have beaten me who are far from being master deb8ers, so there4, I is not a master deb8er. 9space is talkin bout my profile pic, which has noding to do wid debates. All of these arguments are useless. And this Titan does not look like Jesus because he has blood smeared around his mouth from eating humans, and is about to eat the boy, who's actually perfectly normal sized and this Titan is over 10 meters tall. I rest my case. I is steel a noob, and should lose all seven points for all categories. I even conceed. Derefore, I am even worse than a noob who doesn't no how to spell, be have properly, argue well, or ushe sorces because i concede that i am the noob of noobs, and i don't even no wat i talking, so this is just a jumbled mess of words. therefore i noob. done.
RevNge is even worse than a noob when it comes to debating

"RevNge sucks at spelling. Therefore, he should always lose S&G in arguments. He is also obviously not the best debater in the whole world, because people like bluesteel, bsh1, YYW, and many more are better than him on DDO alone. "I see zero spelling and grammar errors in those three sentences. "Because he thinks that he is always the best debater, he should always lose Arguments in arguments." Just because you think something doesn't mean it will happen. So far, on his profile, he has lost zero debates, contrary to what he thinks. [see: http://www.debate.org...] "He also relies on his parents for sources, which is extremely unreliable. " We can't be sure about that. They could be lawyers, scientists, or certified doctors for all we know. "...he is extremely egoistical and arrogant, and should always lose the conduct point in debates." In order to lose conduct point, you have to insult your opponent or forfeit. Simply being arrogant does not make you lose the conduct point. "...he lacks knowledge because he has only done a mere number of four debates..." That's because this is his second account. His other account has like 9 debates, so together, with 13 debates, he's actually quite experienced! "This debate is also a troll debate, and does not count as a legitimate debate. " What makes debate troll? My opponent tries bringing up serious arguments. That's not troll at all. " I will be amused with the utter blasphemy of me being anything better than the noob of noobs in debating." My opponent is not only better than the noob of noobs, he is in fact, A MASTER AT DEBATING. Below are pictures of examplar master debaters. So here are the list of known true "master debaters":-Sarah Palin-Anyone who wins versus themeslves (but note the doubt within the photo, this is not confirmed)-George Bush?-Gingrich-The most interesting man in the worldLet's just put Bluesteel and Raisor up there too, since they're definitely the top two debaters on this site.Now what are the traits of the "master debater"? We can't be exactly too sure, but we know these pictures have something in common:-The try to distract you-They have unneccessarily complex backgrounds-They all have eyes, hands, and mouths needed to debate-The words "master debater" is somewhere near them in the picture -They're all handsome/pretty (the dinosaur, I am certain, is handsome for a dinosaur) Now look at RevNge's profile picture: The massive head obviously distracts you from the house and the little guy. The background is insanely complex, with good lighting and nice clouds. The big guy has the eyes and mouth, while the little guy has the hands. "Master debater" is indeed within this picture. It is imprinted in small font in the textile of the roof, as well as the clouds. It's really small and tiny though. Finally, he looks handsome because of the holy light shining upon him. He looks like Jesus. And Jesus was hot indeed, people gone so jealous to crucify him. Thus it must be concluded that RevNge is so much better than a noob of noobs that he is a master debater!Onto you, RevNge.
RevNge is even worse than a noob when it comes to debating

Per Con's rules, I will begin. ______________ Noob - a newbie, especially a person who is new to an online community and whose online participation and interactions display a lack of skill or knowledge[12] I think that I am da betst bebater in da whol world because my spelling is obviously purfect because my parents tell me. RevNge sucks at spelling. Therefore, he should always lose S&G in arguments. He is also obviously not the best debater in the whole world, because people like bluesteel, bsh1, YYW, and many more are better than him on DDO alone. Because he thinks that he is always the best debater, he should always lose Arguments in arguments. He also relies on his parents for sources, which is extremely unreliable. Therefore, he should lose Sources in arguments as well. On top of it all, because he thinks he's the best debater, he is extremely egoistical and arrogant, and should always lose the conduct point in debates. Therefore, RevNge should lose debates and is a noob for utterly lacking in skill for all voting criteria for all debates. In addition, he lacks knowledge because he has only done a mere number of four debates, two of which are currently rap battles and not legitimate debates. This debate is also a troll debate, and does not count as a legitimate debate. Because RevNge has only done one legitimate debate regarding a genuine issue, he severely lacks knowledge in debating, and is thus a noob. Back to you, Con, and I will be amused with the utter blasphemy of me being anything better than the noob of noobs in debating. Sources: [3]. http://dictionary.reference.com...
ww2

Germany was punished harshly for its actions in World War I, and the Treaty of Versailles, the official document that ended that war and settled debts and disagreements between the combatants, laid a heavy burden on that nation. When Adolf Hitler came to power soon after WWI ended, he wished to rectify some of what Germany perceived to be an unjust degree of punishment laid out in the Treaty of Versailles. He also had a stated goal of uniting all German speakers in Europe under a single flag. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, hoping to avoid another devastating war, approached Hitler with a policy of appeasement, giving in to what seemed to be a limited and reasonable set of demands in hopes of preventing further conflict. Unfortunately, this plan seemingly backfired, and it arguably opened the door for Hitler's army to march through in an effort to take control of Europe, kicking off World War II.
Free-market anarchy would benefit the natural environment.

The basic principle of the freemarket is that if the masses want a product or a service they will get it no matter who tries and stops them. if this is what free market is, then it would have both good side and bad side. it can both enrich and pollute environment in the process of serving the needs for the masses.therefore it cannot be resolved that free market would benefit the environ or harm it because evidence exists for both side.for example: the Brazilian government leases huge areas of forest to logging companies, who then cut it all down and move on (destruction of environment).The major protectors of the rain forest are charities and private companies like the rain forest alliance. The rain forest alliance has currently bought 100 million acres of rain forest with donations that it receives from corporate donors. The rainforest alliance has signed contracts to ensure that this land will be protected as long as the company exists(benefit to environment). now both these companies are product of free market. they are following the principle of free market.therefore it would be right to say that wheather free market benefit the environment or not depends on the kind of need of the mass it is fulfilling.need of the mass will direct if free market will enrich the environment or destroy it.for example: in the above example if mass need the wooden product, more companies will cut forests but if the mass needs tree, then company like the rain forest alliance will cultivate trees to protect forest.so decided that it is the need of the mass which will direct the free market behaviour towards environment.
Free-market anarchy would benefit the natural environment.

Are you inferring that legal systems can only originate from governments?, are you in fact not aware of merchant law, or private courts? Both these things are only to do with private systems. Merchant law was made in the middle ages by merchants who were interested in creating a universal law that international merchants had to abide by. You also falsely claim that the freemarket only destroys. The freemarket unlike government is not interested in violence or destruction for the simple reason that neither violence nor destruction is profitable, you will find that private companies much rather prefer to solve disputes between them in the courts, rather than through violence. If you are instead claiming that the private companies only destroy, then you would also be wrong, currently private companies that aim to protect the environment do a far better job than government. A prime example of this is the current situation in Brazil, currently the Brazilian government leases huge areas of forest to logging companies, who then cut it all down and move on. The major protectors of the rain forest are charities and private companies like the rain forest alliance. The rain forest alliance has currently bought 100 million acres of rain forest with donations that it receives from corporate donors. The rainforest alliance has signed contracts to ensure that this land will be protected as long as the company exists. I must also add that the way you portray the freemarket as something that can only pollute indicated that you do not properly understand the freemarket. The basic principle of the freemarket is that if the masses want a product or a service they will get it no matter who tries and stops them. A great example of this principle is the drug wars in the USA, no matter how much money the government invests into trying and stopping the drug problem, people continue to find and use drugs. Even though the US government is investing billions of dollars into stopping the drugs, they cant even keep the drugs out of their own prisons. You say that the freemarket can only pollute the environment, yet i would say that government is the most major polluter of the environment. The largest oil spill in history, the gulf oil spill, was purposely made by a government in a war. Currently major governments protect the companies that are based in their nations and allow them to pollute without fear of having to pay compensation to people in low lying areas. The people who live in regions like Bangladesh and are at risk of having their towns flooded can take no legal action against any of the major Co2 producers. Law and order existed before government, law and order will exist after government. Government monopolizes the enforcement of law, and of course monopolies always provide a bad product.
Free-market anarchy would benefit the natural environment.

according to you,"If the ocean was to be divided up and be owned by many different people, pollution whilst, would be allowed to be dumped on one persons lot of ocean, could be sued if the pollution they dumped drifted onto someone elses lot of ocean." for example, if, say rubbish, dumped in my lot of ocean drifted in your lot of ocean, then you can sue me for damages. but my friend, this suit is only possible because of your legal system of your country and not because of freemarket system. free market system has nothing to do with legal system. free market can only pollute environment and therefore is not safe for environment.
Free-market anarchy would benefit the natural environment.

Firstly I would like to say that my original topic was that environments would be better protected from destruction then they are now. I never said that they would be completely safe from destruction, only safer than they are now. All through private laws and private systems people have the right to compensation when their property is damaged. for example if a factory down the road from me is pumping out harmful smoke that is drifting into my garden and killing my plants, i will have the right to compensation from that factory. They are therefore punished by having to pay me money for polluting my land. In this situation the free market has punished the factory for producing smoke that damages my property. In the world today pollution has been made very easy to happen. The first and perhaps greatest instance of this is the use and approval of international waters in todays world. These international waters are parts of oceans that are either not under the control of any single nation, or are controlled conjointly by multiple nations, this raises the issue of jurisdiction. Not one single nation has authority or power to prevent pollution or clean it up in any of those oceans. If the ocean was to be divided up and be owned by many different people, pollution whilst, would be allowed to be dumped on one persons lot of ocean, could be sued if the pollution they dumped drifted onto someone elses lot of ocean. The oceans especially if were owned privatly as would happen in a freemarket anarchy would be safer from pollution.
Free-market anarchy would benefit the natural environment.

first i want to define the following:pollution: The contamination of air, water, or soil by substances that are harmful to living organisms.destruction: a cause of ruin.safe: Free from danger or injury; unhurtsource:http://www.thefreedictionary.com...provided these definations we can redefine our issue thus: free market anarchy would free the natural environment from contamination by substances that are harmful to living organisms.well i do not agree because private corporations use greenhouse gases(ghg) to create weapon of mass destruction called global warming which destroys all environment.america is the emitter of most ghg and it did not sign the kyoto protocall which is aimed to reduce ghg. so environments are not safe from pollution.
Gay Marriage

Unfortunately I have never had an adequate debate on this topic before so I will try one last time. Full Resolution: Gay Marriage should be legalized everywhereI will arguing that gay marriage should not be legal everywhere. No semantics and please try not to forfeit a round.For clarity I will provide several definitions: same-sex marriage-the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriagelegalized-to give legal validity or sanction toSTRUCTURE:1st Round- Acceptance2nd Round- Cases3rd Round- Rebuttal4th Round- Conclusion/SummaryI await my opponent's response!http://www.merriam-webster.com......
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

There are way too many senseless killings in the USA because of guns. We do not live in the wild west anymore, There is no wild posse riding into town against one sheriff, There are no scalping Indians, We have modern police enforcement, SWAT, State Police, Local police, ATF, FBI, US Marshalls, WE DO NOT NEED GUNS. They just end up in the hands of criminals, Mentally ill who go on to mow down half a school, Or some lone wolf terrorist who decides to machine down a night club, Mall, Movie theater, Or the disgruntled fired employee who returns and goes postal at work. Get rid of the guns and the shooting will go down. I am going to present irrefutable evidence that shows that guns are bad and the second amendment needs to be abolished to stop the gun violence in the country of the gun!
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

I believe in concealed-carry in public, And the right to protect myself against intruders and a tyrannical government. NOTE: You do not have to change my mind to win the debate. Voters choose the winner on a 7 point system, And who they think made the best arguments, Regardless of whether my mind was changed or not. NOTE: DO NOT ACCEPT THIS DEBATE IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE OFFLINE FREQUENTLY. I WANT COMMITTED DEBATERS ONLY. NO FORFEITS.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

Guns do kill people, And that's all they do, The only people who should have guns are law enforcement people who have to deal with these deranged lunatics who want to follow a 300 year old expired parchment called the Constitution. I could debate this until I'm blue in the face about how stupid it is to have guns but the trailer park rednecks will never change, So I say go ahead keep killing yourselves but when you hurt innocent lives than I say we start handing out life sentences to people who own guns. Your bipolar son decides to take your gun to school because he is being bullied, We execute him, And we jail you for life. Enough is enough with this senseless gun violence. Only paranoid people think they need a gun. Owning a gun has to be the stupidest thing you could do to your family. Some child will get their hands on it and shoot someone, Or it will be stolen and used by criminals, And you just helped them out by giving them your gun. I'm not going to keep going on and on about how having a gun is stupid, Stupid people you can't teach. So I will provide my resources about how stupid it is to own a gun https://nationalpost. Com/news/world/actually-guns-do-kill-people-according-to-a-new-study https://www. Rollingstone. Com/politics/politics-features/evil-doesnt-kill-people-guns-kill-people-126759/ https://www. Huffingtonpost. Com/entry/its-time-to-retire-the-guns-don't-kill-people-people_us_59e0f6d4e4b09e31db975887