BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humans can live without religions

Cosmic energy is sum of all energy.You say christian will say brother to christian now that's the problem one religion people will fewly say brother to other people of different religion. Buddhism is not a religion it's a philosophy of awakening ,Gautam Buddha never sayed Buddhism is religion. We all stay in these body,every master came in these earth sayed life is abundant and eternal. You said Buddha came from religion,Buddha and every one of us are born without religions. God has no religion humans created religion, Religion created limitless in mind,religions kills innocents animals in rituals that's the problems in these world. Living without religion is a road to freedom were we can enjoy more joy,happiness,love,wisdom,friends,peace.
Humans can live without religions

I had like a 5000 character argument made and then I saw the limit.Fallacies in opponent's argument- Cosmic energy is actually "cosmic microwave background," leftover thermal energy from the Big Bang The hate of radicals is totally outweighed by the love displayed by most religious people Humans with religion think like they are brother/sister too ex. "Hello, brother in Christ." Humans could not have created the universe, as we came to be after the universe was created. Buddha's opinion is not the infallible word of God Religion is what most of our laws are based on. The morality of Buddha came from religion. Without religion, who's to say that murder is wrong? Sorry for the short round. There's a 750 character limit. I look forward to next round.
Humans can live without religions

You are right brother that religion has moral code,but god has not created any religion, god is the alternate name of cosmic energy.You could clearly see with lots of religion has caused hate,jealousy,war,racism etc. Now if there is no religion only humans we can see very less hate,jealousy,racism etc. Human without religion will view all humans as human like their brother and sister. "Mind is everything,we become what we thought or think" by Gautam Buddha.Now it's clear that Gautam Buddha also living without religion because he understand human is the creator of his own universe. Humans can live without religions for example Buddhist also live without religions so it shows we too can live without religion. "WE ARE SOURCE OF COSMIC ENERGY
Humans can live without religions

Religion pretty much invented moral code. Who's to say that murder is wrong if God didn't mandate it? In a world without God, why would anything matter? We came from nothing and will return to that, so why not just kill and rape as many people as we want? Religion, regardless of whether or not it's right, keeps people in check. We are inherently self-serving creatures, and religion serves as a way to benefit everyone.If there is no religion, nothing matters and it's every man for himself. With religion, people have reasons to be civil.
Humans can live without religions

Hello everyone,I think we can live without religion,we can master our own life. There is no force in these world which can control us until we start believing it. Even who believe in religion,their belief is what making their desire reality,they thinking our religion helping us but if they look carefully their belief is what making their desire turns to reality.Law of life is law of belief "what ye believe it done unto us". I know religion teach morals,ethics but we can a learn those things with our wisdom,consciousness,with books etc. We can live without religion but we can never live without humans affection. In USA Millions of peoples living happily without religion because they understanded god has't created any religions nor any.
It is beyond a reasonable doubt that flight 77 hit the Pentagon

Flight 77- American Airlines flight 77, which departed from Washington Dulles International Airport on 9/11/01 and reportedly crashed into the Pentagon at 09:37 EDT. . http://en.wikipedia.org...Standard Debate Rules to Apply:- First round for acceptance only. - No Semantics- Last round for summaries and necessary rebuttals only. No new arguments. - No arguments or sources to be placed in the comment section. - Personal attacks should automatically result in a loss of conduct points. - All arguments should be addressed or considered a concession, unless the voters determine that there was not enough space to address all contentions as a result of argument spamming.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

We live in a world where guns mean power. The party with guns will always be dominant over the party without guns. Therefore, we can not remove the people's right to take arms, in the name of democracy. There are several, several examples from history to support this. To allow the government to be the only ones with guns, would be to forfiet all the principles of democracy...and another step foward to a centralized government. The people keep their government in check with the silent ability to riot.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

You have already made the point that in the U.S. we no longer have a need to form militias to fend off foreign invaders. This is in comparison to 1788 when the Constitution was ratified. At that time the U.S. barely had an army and we were still incredibly vulnerable to invasion. So we both agree on that. You also made the point that guns are bad killing machines. I also agree with you on that count. You also made the point that the founding fathers wanted citizens to have the ability to protect themselves from tyranny at home. To quote you "Without, the 2nd amendment, the government could do anything they wanted, and their citizens could do nothing to stop them," You make it sound like the people of this country can do no wrong but we are as inherently bad and flawed as the people in government. You should read a little thing called "Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes. Just look at the death and destruction that guns cause and I don't mean a gun belonging to a corrupt member of the army or some CIA operative, I am referring to guns owned by average U.S. Citizens: -Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. -In one year, more children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. -Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence Furthermore, countries like England that have far more gun control laws suffer less gun related deaths and last time I checked their government has not fallen into a state of tyranny. p.s. This is my first debate on this site and I don't participate in many online debates so I apologize for any mistakes I may make. Also, I will gladly share my informational resources upon request.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Let us first speculate on the purpose of the founding father's addition of this to our constitution, to be part of what is known as "the bill of rights". They say, quite clearly: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State", and therein lies the true necessity of the right to bear arms to the securing of liberty to all peoples. When we hear, "gun rights", our minds jump to far-right NRA enthusiasts, who use their right to bear arms for hunting dear. The founding fathers, of course, had a completely different reason for adding this amendment to the constitution. There, of course, is the immediate answer to the question of the reason for the second amendment's necessity is personal protection from people who have the intent of harming you or you're family. While I would like to stress the importance of this, there was a more important reason that the founding fathers had: The reason we need guns is to protect ourselves from our own government. WE need to have the silent ability to riot. Having this, we keep our government in check. While it may seem far-fetched that it would ever be necessary to have guns to protect you from the government (especially for patriots), we can look back to history: 200 years ago there was a war known as the revolutionary war, which was what made "America" possible. In this war it was Great Britain vs. a bunch of colonists. The government, at the time, was Great Britain. The colonists, on the other hand, were a bunch of regular citizens. They had absolutely no organized army. All it was was a bunch of citizens who happened to own guns. The founding fathers more than anyone understood the need to have the power to rebel, and keep your own government in check. Without, the 2nd amendment, the government could do anything they wanted, and their citizens could do nothing to stop them. Do not think that our government doesn't know, either, they are very well aware of the fact that many of the citizens own guns, and what that means for them, and the limits to their power. In other words, if the government is the ONLY one to own guns, than they are the only ones with power, contrary to the concept of democracy. Another reason that the founding fathers put this in was to have citizens that could protect the nation from invaders, but this is obviously not as prominent a danger today, as we have not had war on the homeland in a long time. Now, do not get me wrong, guns are sad things…They are killing machines…in reality it would be better off if they did not exist in the first place…But since they DO exist, and since the government will have guns whether we like it or not…we might as well have guns as well. So, in conclusion, owning fire arms is very necessary to the securing of liberty to each and every individual in the US. It would be very wrong, and bureaucratic to allow our government to be the only party to own fire-arms. This is a democracy, in which the people rule.
Should be able to believe in your religion.

So are you argueing that we should have the freedom to engage in harmfull, and illegal religious activities. To be honest, denying a bunch of pagan hippies the right to sacrifice animals isnt going to destroy a nation's economy. Law and order do not come by allowing anyone to be able to use the "it's part of my religion, so i have to impail a living child on a stake every month" excuse any time they are in trouble. And lastly, why would you make an arguement on DDO if you dont think we should be worrying about it?.
Should be able to believe in your religion.

I agree that non-violent religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, ectra should not be restricted, however I believe that violent religions , and the extremist forms of peaceful religions should be prohibited. I would say that it is my business were the people down the street from me into human/animal sacrifice, for the safety of my family and pets. And, no you unfortunatly cant trust people to avoid dangerous religions, just look at the Muslim extremists who are attacking Americans, or the Jewish extremists who bombed U.S. movie theaters in a failed attempt to draw the U.S. into an unneeded war with Egypt. Look to at the Christian extremists known as Christian Identity.
Should be able to believe in your religion.

I disagree that you should be able to follow any religion that you want, and the law agrees with me. For instance, the snake handling churches of the Appalachia have been heavily restricted due to it's danger to itself and others. There are many other religions that should be outlawed due to an apparent scam, or danger to the practicers, nonpracticers, or animals. For instance, the ancient religion of the aztecs that requires the sacrifice of live humans.
Will Smith (as his health stands at the moment of this posting) could defeat a 170 lb. Gray Wolf

Could my opponent please post the source of the anecdote? I will start off this round by saying that there have only been a few recorded instances of a wolf being 170 pounds or over. This is to clarify that Will Smith could easily out weigh a gray wolf. Therefore, the author's idea of the wolf outweighing Smith is a rarity. Secondly, my opponent speaks of the greater casualties from dog attacks coming from "attack dogs" of equal or lesser size than a gray wolf. Notice that my opponent used "attack dogs" and not regular dogs. Definition of ATTACK DOG: [1] 1: a dog trained to attack on command or on sight 2: a person noted for harsh, personal, and usually public verbal attacks against others My opponent confidently stated that there have been "...many examples of humans being attacked and killed by attack dogs...." He is correct. But wolves and attack dogs are completely different. Attack dogs, as the definition says, are trained specifically for the purpose of attacking and, if need be, killing. Dogs are domesticated animals and are used to humans. Wolves, on the other hand, are not as familiar with being around humans and rarely do interact with humans. Unfamiliarity causes fear. [2] Think of yourself in a new job, or for a better example, a dog in the vet's office. The dog is going to show curiosity, fear, and maybe some skittishness. In my opponents anecdote, he shows that the author of the story ESCAPED the wolf and lived to become an "orphan man." Why did the wolf not kill this man? The wolf could have easily chased and struck down this man just as it did to his warrior father. The answer is simple. The wolf did not want to engage in a chase. As my opponent has stated in his argument, he refers to Will Smith as possessing "incredible agility" and "...charisma...." (Next round) [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://ezinearticles.com...
Will Smith (as his health stands at the moment of this posting) could defeat a 170 lb. Gray Wolf

I should clarify that the framework of the debate is such that acting legend Will Smith is pitted in mortal combat against a wolf. This is not a manner of "would such a situation arise in the first place". That being said, I will set out to prove that even such a prime example of the human species would fare dismally against a gray wolf. Even though, as my opponent pointed out, there exist few precedents for the Wolf v. Human encounter, there are many examples of humans being attacked and killed by attack dogs of the same (or lesser) size as the theoretical wolf (http://www.cdc.gov...)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org...) (http://www.youtube.com...). I will lend my opponent that Will Smith is a man possessed of incredible agility and good looks (and let's not forget his unbelievable acting talent (http://www.youtube.com...) or his mastery of the sonic arts (http://www.youtube.com...)), but given the depressingly low survival rates of the average man against a full fledged canine assault, I would think that even such a paragon as Mr.Smith would be hard-pressed to defeat the much more savage wolf. To support this case I will offer a personal anecdote: "Tripier men live by the axe and die by the fang" spoke my father threw thin, unsmiling lips "Today you become a man". As tradition dictated, I was given a small silver axe, and left to lie in wait in the woodlands of the Appalaichian foothills with my father, the eldest and mightiest warrior of my tribe. As soon as I saw the grey lightning, I knew a man would die that day. The beast tore into my father and seized his heart in it's yellowed fangs. I ran through the white ash forest, my face of mask of tears and snot. "Run, fool!" my father had bellowed in his last breaths "The gray shadow cannot be defeated. This is the lesson you must learn to become a man". I came out of those woods an orphan. An orphan man.
Will Smith (as his health stands at the moment of this posting) could defeat a 170 lb. Gray Wolf

I accept my opponent's challenge. I wish him luck in our debate! I am taking the side that says that Will Smith could defeat a gray wolf in his current health. I am assuming that he encountered a male wolf in Yellowstone National Park since no place or gender was specified. I am also assuming that it is a 1v1 encounter and that no other wolves are going to be present. In this first round I will be showing the average health and abilities of a gray wolf. (I would have added the health and abilities of Will Smith as well but I ran out of characters!) Gray wolf: Wolves are very strong for their size, possessing sufficient strength to turn over a frozen horse or moose carcass. They are also capable of running at speeds of 34–38 miles per hour, and can continue running for more than 20 minutes, though not necessarily at top speed. Adult wolves are normally 41–63 in. in length. North American wolves have been weighed at 79-130 lbs. on average. Their sense of smell is relatively weak when compared to that of some hunting dog breeds. Their hearing is sharp enough to register the fall of leaves in the autumn period. Their eyesight is not as powerful as that of dogs, though their night vision is excellent. When hunting, wolves will attempt to conceal themselves as they approach their prey. If the targeted animal stands its ground, the wolves either ignore it, or try to intimidate it into running. With larger animals the chase is prolonged in order to wear the selected prey out. Wolves usually give up chases up to 1.3 miles. Wolves almost never attack humans. In North America, no human has ever been killed by a healthy gray wolf. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.defenders.org... [3] http://kids.nationalgeographic.com... [4] http://www.nwf.org...
Will Smith (as his health stands at the moment of this posting) could defeat a 170 lb. Gray Wolf

If Will Smith (as his health stands at the moment of this posting), were to encounter a hungry 170 lb. wolf, he would be unable to defeat it unarmed. A Gray Wolf of that size already outweighs Mr.Smith, and is endowed with a much greater stamina, savagery, and strength than the A-list celebrity. Furthermore, a wolf is a creature optimized by the pressures of natural selection to fullfil the needs of a prerdatory niche- it is weaponized with both claws and fangs. Will Smith has naught but his charisma, dazzling smile, and admittedly diverse and emotionally complex acting range.
Riddle Debate

1. 1 foot but, in theory due to nature if you dig a hole up and try to refill it with the same dirt it won"t be enough. 2. A black man. get it? Cause the presidents black :) 3. Nothing 4.You wouldn"t need to build it, because the other 8 men already built it :) 5. the bed 6. Balance 7. A murderer 8. Just one word
Riddle Debate

It appears my opponent has forfeited the debate. 1. None, it's a hole there is no dirt in it.2. The President or Obama are acceptable answers3. Nothing4. None the wall is already built.5. A bed6. Balance7. Maid 2, there is no mail on Sunday.8. Just one word. As per rules my opponent had to get at least 6/8 correct to win the debate, but has 0/8 correct so that means I win the debate.
Riddle Debate

1. How much dirt is in a hole that is 1 foot by 1 foot by 1 foot?2. In this neighborhood there are tons of houses. There's a green house, blue house, orange house, etc... The Red man lives in the red hosue, the yellow man lives in the yellow house, the purple man lives in the purple house. Who lives in the White House?3. If you are poor then you have a lot of me, if you're rich then you have none of me. If you eat me then you die. What am I?4. It takes 8 men 20 minutes to build a wall, how long does it take 5 men to build the same wall?5. I have a head, body, one foot but four legs. I live in your house and you see me everyday. What am I?6. A natural state, I'm sought by all. Go without me, and you shall fall. You do me when you spend, and use me when you eat to no end.What am I?7. The FBI comes to you for help to solve a murder. In a Mansion a man is murdered in cold blood in his bedroom. During the murder the chief was in the kitchen, the nurse was in her room sleeping, maid 1 was vaccuming the hallway, and the other maid was getting the mail. Now tell me, who on this great Sunday would commit this murder.8. Spell out just one word with all of the following letters. djruewtsoon
Star Fleet would destroy the Empire

I will start out this debate with my opening arguement from te last time I debated this."The United Federation of planets would defeat the Empire mainly because of torpedoes. In Voyager endgame it shows a new torpedo that the Federation will eventually use: transphasic torpedoes. There are two main things about transphasic torpedoes. First off they are easily created by modifying a photon torpedo; even Voyager could do it in a few hours with their limited resources. Second of all the way they work; 1. a transphasic torpedo is launched. 2. the torpedo phases out of sync with space time so nothing can stop it except for a beam of energy at the phase variance of the torpedo. 3. It reaches its target and detonates. In the 26th century the Federation has Chroniton torpedoes which can only be stopped with shields at a certain frequency and Quantum Singularity torpedoes which from context suggest when detonated they create a quantum singularity better known as a black hole. I have repeatedly read that star wars shields aren't frequency based nor are their turbolasers, which means the Empire cannot defend against them. It has also been shown that for pretty much every Empire vessel hitting it's reactor core will blow it up so the Torpedoes don't even have to be as powerful. Also in the 26th century the Federation has gone far beyond the travel capabilities of the Empire; they can now fold space allowing them to travel anywhere instantaneously, at this point they are exploring other galaxies something the Empire can't do. I contend that since the Empire has no way of defending against torpedoes and no speed advantage they will lose despite superior numbers and greater energy discharges."