azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

You aren't good enough to act like me, nor can you be.Pretty fucking arrogant for a fucking guy who can't debate. Anybody is good enough to perform as shitty as you.I'd see such an act as an insult if it wasn't around the limits of your capabilities.Now you think your fucking behavior is insulting too. You aren't as fucking dumb as you act. Congratulations. You are absolutely right. Anyone who acts like you is insulting their opponent.Just answer what does an idiot like you mean by opposing something in a particular way.That's not even the fucking question I was avoiding. Fuck you are dumb. I gave you fucking examples already. If you want to end the fucking thing with all of your being, you oppose it. If you don't want the thing to be popular, you oppose it. If you don't think the thing is correct and you believe something else, you oppose it. The word oppose/dislike can mean many fucking things. When I ask in what particular way I am asking in what way the thing is being opposed. How fucking dumb are you?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

You're annoying. What about self-censoring your uncivilised behaviour? That way, it'd be easier to understand whether you are saying anything at all. That's not even the fucking question I was avoiding. That's the one I asked last time when we were on topic, peasant. Then you couldn't answer it and here we are. When I ask in what particular way I am asking in what way the thing is being opposed.And what ways do we have to oppose something?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

What about self-censoring your uncivilised behaviour?It is always someone else's problem with you, right? That way, it'd be easier to understand whether you are saying anything at all.When I didn't act like you, you still didn't understand, so that is obviously not true.That's the one I asked last time when we were on topic, peasant. Then you couldn't answer it and here we are.Wrong again dipshit. You asked me in what way I oppose religion do you could give us your fucked up analogy. You are too fucking dumb to even have a conversation, how the fuck do you think you can others peasants? And what ways do we have to oppose something?Are you serious, Zoolander, I just told you.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Wrong again dipshit.An idiot who can't see what's already been said before trying such attacks. I won't be explaining to you what I said last time in this thread. Read it by yourself. Are you serious, Zoolander, I just told you.You just said what it means to oppose something. I see nothing that can be called a 'way' to do it.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

An idiot who can't see what's already been said before trying such attacks.An idiot who doesn't remember what has been said before trying such attacks. I won't be explaining to you what I said last time in this thread. Read it by yourself.I just went back and read the thread. You asked me for the reasons why I oppose religion so you could make your bullshit analogy. If we read the thread we find that you don't know what is going on.You just said what it means to oppose something. I see nothing that can be called a 'way' to do it.It so sad how bad you are with words. I wonder if there is a word that you are actually familiar with. If you can't even handle the word "way" what else can't you handle?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

I just went back and read the thread. You asked me for the reasons why I oppose religion so you could make your bullshit analogy. If we read the thread we find that you don't know what is going on.Good. As a hint, last time means that I've said it after that. I don't care much about an analogy; that's unimportant. It so sad how bad you are with words. I wonder if there is a word that you are actually familiar with. If you can't even handle the word "way" what else can't you handle?My skill at using my words can not be measured by any of your puny efforts. It is your ignorance about words that annoys me here. How is anything you've said a 'way' to oppose something? Probably we'll end with some meaning on your question I can reply to.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

As a hint, last time means that I've said it after thatHere us a fucking hint for you: it didn't fucking matter what you think the situation is, you are always wrong. Listen to the people who know what is going on.don't care much about an analogy; that's unimportant.How convenient. You don't think the argument that you were going to make was important do you don't need to make it.My skill at using my words can not be measured by any of your puny efforts.Yes, non existent shills can't be measured.It is your ignorance about words that annoys me here.You don't know what the word "way" means. That makes you the ignorant one, dipshit. You have still given me zero reasons to actually care if you are being annoyed. Especially since you get the most annoyed at good arguments.How is anything you've said a 'way' to oppose something?How the fuck isn't it a way? Probably we'll end with some meaning on your question I can reply to.You don't know how to reply, so we won't no matter how good my arguments are. Evidence: this debate.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

How convenient. You don't think the argument that you were going to make was important do you don't need to make it.That was more of a recap because I know you can't read by yourself. How the fuck isn't it a way?Because, what you said were levels of opposition. I don't see how can there be a way to do so. (which leads us back to the question - How is any of it a way to oppose?)
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

That was more of a recap because I know you can't read by yourself.You don't realize that the words have to be written down in order for them to be read.Because, what you said were levels of opposition. I don't see how can there be a way to do so. (which leads us back to the question - How is any of it a way to oppose?)Ok. You don't like the word "way". That's fine. It is irrelevant though. You are admitting that there are levels of opposition, right? Hopefully you can also admit that you didn't give a level of opposition when you made your bullshit clarification in your first bullshit response. Since you didn't give a level of opposition clarification you failed regardless of your insistence that the word "way" wad used wrong.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

What does an idiot understand from this I said that you dismissed as entirely irrelevant to your question? passive oppositionYou've been accusing me of not giving you a way of some sort, and couldn't stand your question being clarified. What do you expect me to do then?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

I expected a counter argument to my nonsense. You never provided one, therefore you believe that my stuff isn't nonsense. Now I just expect you to go fuck yourself.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

It means I disagree with atheists, but support their rights. Yeshua is my God, but I support the rights of those who disagree with me. Do unto others, you know?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

It made more sense to just say you didn't believe in atheism instead of saying you oppose it.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Fair enough, you are right...............................................................................
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Back in 1993, Democrats not only believed in the Constitutional guarantee of religious liberty, they defended it. This was clearly evidenced when then-President Bill Clinton signed into law a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Prominent current vocal opponents to Indiana’s RFRA were a mere 22 years ago vehement defenders of religious freedom.Although as First Lady in 1993, Hillary Clinton did not chastise her husband, Bill, for signing the federal RFRA into law, she had some sharp criticism for Pence for doing the same in Indiana.The Progressive / Left does not believe in the Freedom of Religion !
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Not all liberals are Democrats, and not all Democrats are liberal. This is why I oppose the party system. That said, liberals still do support the right to freedom of belief for all people.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Top Obama administration official and Hillary Clinton both attacked people who oppose same-sex marriage. First it was Martin R. Castro, a Chicago Democrat who said that “religious freedom” and “religious liberty” have become “code words” for intolerance, “Christian supremacy” and committing every form of identity-politics sin, and thus must yield to anti-discrimination laws.The Left are not supporters of the 1st Amendment.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

People have the right to oppose same sex marriage, but they don't have the right to force that belief on other people. Freedom of beliuef is not the rught to force your beliefs on other people. Gays have the right to get married. Many religious people are progay.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” Castro said. Now the Democrat Castro really goes off : This new emphasis on civil rights over free exercise of religion will spill over into religious schools and colleges that want to hire teachers who affirm the school’s doctrinal views, such as an inerrant Bible.Don't be mistaken the Progressive / Left will stop at nothing when comes to attacking Freedom of Religion !
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

The fact remains that atheism is protected by the First Amendment.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

In what way is it okay to "oppose same sex marriage" without forcing it on other people? Please given one example of a way people can legitimately exercise their right to oppose same sex marriage?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

I support same sex marriage, but also support same sex marriage, but also support the right of bigots to their opinions. Don't strawman me. I am saying that it is legally okay to be antigay, not it is morally okay. Legality and morality can differ. You should know this as a former law student.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Freedom of speech/expression should cover all beliefs. You don't have to practice anything to believe, or not believe in something, religious or not.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

The first amendment protects both the right to practice a religion and the right to be free of religion. The question posed is does it protect the right to practice atheism. If you are an atheist you do not practice a non-belief, you simply do not believe in a "higher being". So while the first amendment protects your right to believe, it doesnt protect your right to "practice" because as an athiest you are not practicing anything.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

This is ridiculous. Why do none of you understand that atheism is not a position it is the lack of a position! To use an analogy: If someone asked you whether or not you liked a type of chocolate bar you had never tried, you would say you lacked a position, not that you think it's bad or good but that you simply don't have a dog in this fight. That is what atheism is, atheism is simply not being a part of the religion, atheism is outside of religion entirely.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

Why do none of you understand Atheism in not a position!To barrow your analogy: If someone asked whether or not a chocolate bar was liked, one I had never tried. The response is no I do not like the candy bar. I would have tried it if I felt that it would be appealing to me. Its listed ingredients seemed unpleasant to me, or I am allergic to an ingredient.“Atheism is outside of religion entirely.”Any publicly shared belief is a Religion by basic principle. Your analogy is leading the reader to a conclusion. It is doing this by ignoring any reason why “something” may have gone untried.A basic State is a line that can enclose an area where the one lines two ends meet.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Any publicly shared belief is a Religion by basic principleBut, not by definition of religion. Is being a republican a religion?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

It is less bias to say “shared belief” then “God” as only one is describing the most well-known public similarity. Not the most common similarity all religions share together.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

It is a shared belief about worship. Atheists don't worship. Republicans don't worship. The point of the word is to help describe things. If you take everything that is remotely similar to religion the word religion means nothing.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Yes, being Republican is a form of religion. The Ideology is that a basic formation of separation can work on a described principles regardless of democracy. “Citing” would be (Mathematical Algebra’s linear equations among many) as the outcome is fixed and not based on all fact, just one fact, ignoring the rest.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

If you make no distinction between the word ideology and the word religion why do we need both words?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

Yes, shared belief is describing all religion by definition. It is a fact that defines an important part of. Not the most common similarity of many known religions, not a part that religions vote to share together. It is an important part of a religion, something a religion cannot do without or it will dissolve.The Separation of Church and States is a process of Separation that does not directly confront religion. It describes a religion and “State” as two separate entities not one. State being a line which is bent or formed in such a way that both ends of a line meet.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

No, a shared belief describes all ideologies, not all religion.You didn't address anything I wrote. Did you want me to address what you wrote?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Well, James Madison said: Religious bondage shackles the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."Thomas Jefferson said: "We discover, in the gospels, a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication."James Madison also said: "The purpose of the separation of church and state is to keep, forever from these shores, the ceaseless strife that has soaked the sands of Europe in blood for centuries."John Adams wrote: "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief that the history of mankind has produced, the CROSS. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"John Adams also said: "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."Why would these founding fathers NOT consider atheism in freedom of religion??
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

Why would the Founding fathers “Not” consider atheism in the Freedom of religion?A direct simple answer is Atheism describes a public denial and abolish without representation. It can only legally be seen as a claim of independence from religious lean.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Means the First change made on the United States Basic Principle of Separation. The First Amendment cannot be interpreted only abused or defended. It is describing and admitting basic principles behind the formation of free Religions in a society.The basic Constitutional meaning in the First Amendment is all religion is built on the public sharing of belief. The First part of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” Is a legal disclaimer as congress is a house of representation, of the people, for the people, by States held by the union of representation before the Executive office and Supreme Court.No, The First Amendment does not provide protection to any religion. It is a Declaration of Independence for the United States Constitution. Atheism is protected directly under the United States Constitution. All religions are by theory protected under the United States Constitution by right to representation or self-representation.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

The Supreme Court has subsequently rules freedom of religion a right under the First Amendment, however. It has also included atheism as a religion in its rulings.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

The Use of Supreme Court ruling is proving the point. The First Amendment is the First change to the basic principle of Separation. A Supreme Court Ruling is a United States Constitutional application of protection by separation, not a First Amendment protecting Atheism. Atheism is not protected by the First Amendment it is granted separation to be accepted as a religion, as prescribed by the First Change made on the United States Constitution.To properly understand my position the argument made we would need to examine how many Atheist receive tax except status? Where in the First Amendment is such status even offered? It is not. Understand?You make a great point but is it stopping short of the goal?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

The facts of the matter are that the judiciary has explicitly identified religions as a Constitutional right and atheism as a religion, which establishes a Constitutional right to practice atheism. Whether that right is treated with appropriate equity is immaterial to the question at hand, as it concerns a de facto rather than de jur reality. You are operating upon a further misconception that because a right is not expressly identified in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that it is therefore not protected under their purview. This is inconsistent with US jurisprudence and practice, which has enumerated further rights as following from the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Through the transitive property, it is the First amendment which protects the right to practice atheism because the pertinent legal opinions were advanced from application of the clauses contained within the First Amendment. Atheists may also register their organizations as religious and qualify for tax exemption, so the answer to quantity would be however many apply for it. I do not understand your angle there at all. Nor do I have any idea what you think "the goal" is.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

It is a Basic Right which includes religion to establish proof of lack of Representation under Order of Law.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

Addressing the issue of: “as you believe the United States Constitution should be interpreted today.” All Constitutions are not the same, be clear hold com, understand the importance of basic idea and precedent.Legal Counsel interprets Law and United States Constitution. Interpretations are a practice not fact. They use fact. Counsel is licensed by State for the privilege to do so, make interpretations. The admittance made in this commitment to the law is that they become bias and cannot preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution. This happens because they are trying to achieve justice on behalf of a single party or entity and do not represent the United States Constitution as a client. This can make them hated but in no way excludes the form the United States Constitutional Separation.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

How i wish this debate was created by NOWASAINT....Y'all would have been banned by now
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

As this is an open debate, information can be placed willingly as common knowledge, providing an opportunity for a common defense for all who take part in debate from harsh criticisms, which may appear here before us all. The declaration of Independence provides a clear path of separation which in the end could call for the alteration or complete abolishment of Religious House of representation. The name Church is not a limitation as for in a “United State”, these are words to express private religious house of representation in general. Any destructive means expressed as a witness, here, is believe to only be following after a basic complete course of judicial separation. Or the known, expressed witness account of past actions.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

As an idevigaual defending the U. S. Constitution.Kaufman Vs. McCaughtry(Great Point!) is using a prisoner held in a penitentiary, the United States Constitutional argument is lost upon conviction. All self-evident truth is shown that the convicted are part of a Separation process. All rights are dispensed by Miranda. Precedent, gathering of any kind is a privilege in any confined space this includes Jail or prison, as by United States Constitution, incarceration is part of an ongoing basic practice in a Separation process. Which can be carried out from the state of detentions to the complete extreme of regulated death. However Atheism has no rights, it makes only a public limited claim of understanding. (It is saying, I do not know, and may not want to know) An Atheist is a person who may only have a set of private beliefs that might be directed public. It is only the principles within the United States Constitution which describe distribution of human rights. The distribution is described in two basic ways, by the use of separation, first: a person is being singled out, second: the separation is by group, created as a Union.