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

I will assume the first answer was the guy who keeps all the little information to himself.I'm not panicking. That's sad then. You are running like a coward and you aren't even panicking.In fact, it amuses me that you can go great lengths to justify asking a question not worth defending It amuses me that you go to great lengths to justify not debating on a debate site. On a debate site it makes sense for people to go to great lengths to defend topics not worth defending in a normal arena since it is a chance to argue anything. Not debating on a debate website however makes no sense. (in case you didn't notice, I merely played along)That's your idea of playing along? Wow. You'd be as much a coward as you accuse me of being; your position isn't any better.What is my position? Come on, peasant, ask nicely if you want me to answer before I'm too bored to do otherwise.Pretty please with a cherry on top, how is the word dislike clarifying what someone else means by opposing? Does that mean not liking what atheism stands for? Does that mean disliking atheists? Does that mean not believing in atheism? Does that mean disliking the idea that atheism could be right?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

What is my position?Your initial move wasn't any better than my reply, if not worse. Pretty please with a cherry on top,That'll suffice. how is the word dislike clarifying what someone else means by opposing? Does that mean not liking what atheism stands for? Does that mean disliking atheists? Does that mean not believing in atheism? Does that mean disliking the idea that atheism could be right?It'd mean disliking atheism by its very nature, but being rather secular towards others. Well, I could explain it by analogy; what is the nature of your dislike of religion?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

Your initial move wasn't any better than my reply, if not worseThat's news to me. Why the fuck would my position be that I am not better than you? That's fucking stupid.That'll suffice.It didn't work though. You still didn't answer how you clarified anything.It'd mean disliking atheism by its very nature, but being rather secular towards others. How does not being spiritual toward others make any sense? Well, I could explain it by analogyWhy didn't you? That would have been great. Give me the analogy. what is the nature of your dislike of religion?Are you saying that changing the word oppose to dislike was supposed to mean the same dislike as mine for religion? How is that clarifying anything? My thoughts on religion don't translate to atheism. The word oppose properly conveys that she had similar views. Changing to dislike does not clarify how similar. It leaves all of those unanswered questions.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Why didn't you? That would have been great. Give me the analogy.Earlier? Because you didn't ask clearly enough. I hope you understand, I'm not putting random strings of words together. To illustrate the point, I need your opinions to draw the analogy from. (That is, if they are how I expect them to be, then I can use them.)how you clarified anythingBy changing the variable to one that is more easily understandable.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

Earlier? Because you didn't ask clearly enough.You haven't given an analogy yet. How much clearer do I have to ask? I hope you understand, I'm not putting random strings of words together.Right. Just semi random. To illustrate the point, I need your opinions to draw the analogy from.Not smart enough to have your own opinions for the analogy? Analogies don't actually have to have the exact opinions of their target audience.(That is, if they are how I expect them to be, then I can use them.)Or you could just make an analogy with the opinions you expect to hear. Sane some time.By changing the variable to one that is more easily understandable.And, like I said you didn't do that. We had the same exact questions after you "helped".
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Yes, it doesn't have to be from exact opinions of audience, unless the audience is something that probably won't understand things other way. But, as you are using a website on your own (that'd be a leap of assumptions, but quite likely), and thus also a computer and other little things, there is sufficient reason to believe that you will understand things better if I know your own motivations.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

For a guy who is claiming to only be explaining little things you sure do need a lot of information just to get started.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Come on, are you afraid of anything specific happening? Is it something ridiculous that you can not say?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

I am afraid of the world ending. I am afraid if losing body parts. I am aware that you don't answer questions and I don't have any reason to humor you.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

No one has any reason to do anything. Of course, then, we're limited to not include real life examples, as they might just be delaying the questions and wasting time. Your question is, why would anyone dislike atheism, sometimes even enough to want to deny atheists their rights. Is that indisputably correct?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

No one has any reason to do anything.False. Everyone has a reason for everything they do.Your question is, why would anyone dislike atheism, sometimes even enough to want to deny atheists their rights. Is that indisputably correct?No. My question is in what way does the person who personally opposes atheism oppose atheism. I don't need any help figuring out that it is possible to dislike atheism.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

False. Everyone has a reason for everything they do.You mean, first layer, surface reasons? Those can surely be given for anything.My question is in what way does the person who personally opposes atheism oppose atheism.You mean what about atheism would anyone dislike/oppose?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

You mean, first layer, surface reasons? Those can surely be given for anything.This proves you wrong.You mean what about atheism would anyone dislike/oppose?I can't fucking explain it any easier. Fuck off.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

This proves you wrong.Anything means absolutely anything (in other words, a universal quantifier). I considered this point redundant as you already said that you have no reason to do something. can't fucking explain it any easier.Don't worry, I probably won't be having you do philosophy. But, you are still unclear. What do you mean by 'opposing something in a particular way'? If it means what it seems to mean, then the answer is a passive opposition.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

Anything means absolutely anything (in other words, a universal quantifier). I considered this point redundant as you already said that you have no reason to do something.You can consider it whatever the fuck you want. When people do something they have a reason for doing. I am not doing something because I don't have a reason to do it.Don't worry, I probably won't be having you do philosophyThanks. Seeing as you can't understand English it would be great to not have to explain philosophy to you.But, you are still unclear. Well, guess what. I don't give a fuck. You don't give a fuck about being unclear and now I don't give a fuck.What do you mean by 'opposing something in a particular way'? Are you fucking stupid? How the fuck is that a problem for you?  If it means what it seems to mean, then the answer is a passive opposition.Nope. That wouldn't be a fucking answer. Congratulations.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

So, you want revenge of my being a bit unclear around parts? Though I'd been pretty clear with the overall purpose and don't hesitate to explain any individual part that might be especially unclear, but if you really want revenge... Go ahead, then. Have it.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

So, you want revenge of my being a bit unclear around parts?Wow. You think your shitty behavior is so bad it constitutes revenge. Dang. I am not getting revenge against you. I am reading you the way you treat me.Though I'd been pretty clear False. You have taken great pride in not being clear.and don't hesitate to explain any individual part that might be especially unclearYou have gone out of your way to avoid explaining anything.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

It seems your natural inclination to act idiotic. Okay, then, say what is the basic criteria for something to be a revenge, peasant.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

It seems your natural inclination is to get revenge on people in your first interaction with them. Why do you do that?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

How can I take revenge in the first interaction? That's absurd.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

Then we are in agreement that your behavior is absurd.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

It'd rather be that you are making absurd claims. My behaviour? Really? Do you have any idea what we're even talking about? Or are you just substantiating my claim that you are naturally too idiotic to make sense?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

It'd rather be that you are making absurd claims.I didn't make the claim that your behavior constitutes revenge, that was you.My behaviour? Really? Do you have any idea what we're even talking about?I know what I am talking about. I know what the conversation is about. But, I rarely know what you are talking about. Does that help? I know what you say, but frequently what you say goes against what you are talking about. Or are you just substantiating my claim that you are naturally too idiotic to make sense?You not understanding me is not my problem. You think I am an idiot for not being able to understand you, and you think I am an idiot for you not being able to understand me. Very interesting.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

didn't make the claim that your behavior constitutes revenge, that was you.I didn't say that. If I would have, then my last message would obviously be inconsistent, even though you might not notice it at first. Try to find where I said that my behaviour contains revenge. It was just one of your absurd claims. You think I am an idiot for not being able to understand you, and you think I am an idiot for you not being able to understand me.As strange as it might be from your brain, that's somewhat correct. But in any form, they are consistent with each other, and even complementary.  Very interesting.Oh, another of your cowardly tactics to have me answer something you didn't have the nerve to ask (or imply asking) directly. I don't defend against mindless universals.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

I didn't say that.I acted like you. You said my behavior was a form of revenge. Therefore, you think your behavior is a form of revenge.then my last message would obviously be inconsistentI don't believe you are consistent.Try to find where I said that my behaviour contains revenge.Now that I have explained it again, I hope it sticks.It was just one of your absurd claims.You are the only one bringing up revenge. It can't be my claim.As strange as it might be from your brain, that's somewhat correct.Yep, I am still the only one giving correct statements.But in any form, they are consistent with each other, and even complementary.It wasn't too point out a contradiction, it was to point out that you are just an asshole.Oh, another of your cowardly tactics to have me answer something you didn't have the nerve to askI have no idea what you are talking about. There was nothing cowardly about that. If you want me to ask you a direct question I can though. Why are you such a fucking asshole? I don't defend against mindless universals.You don't defend anything. You can repeat this stupid sentence until your blue in the face, it still means nothing.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

What about this? Just answer the clarification of your question I asked for, and I'll answer it. Or you can continue to bore me with your absurdities. I mean, you would have won here with that, even though there wasn't a claim to argue for. You can repeat this stupid sentenceOh, you can remember I said it earlier? Surprising. Why are you such a fucking asshole?Because the level of your idiocy bores me. There was nothing cowardly about that.Read your own ignorant claims again - perhaps they might resonate with you better than the nonsense they were to me where you called me a coward.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

Just answer the clarification of your question I asked for, and I'll answer it.I will as soon as you admit you take revenge on people you don't even know.Oh, you can remember I said it earlier? Surprising.That's actually not surprising at all. I am the only one showing any kind of awareness.Because the level of your idiocy bores me.I haven't shown any idiocy and you haven't shown anything other than asshole behavior. You are lying here. Read your own ignorant claims againAre you fucking stupid too. Why the fuck would I change my opinion by reading my own stuff. This is why you are a shitty debater. You can't convince anyone if your point by having them read what THEY wrote. Fucking idiot.perhaps they might resonate with you better than the nonsense they were to me where you called me a coward.Instead of making your own fucking arguments you ask me to reread my awesome stuff. It doesn't get more cowardly than that. Go wash out your vagina and get back to me.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Are you fucking stupid too. Why the fuck would I change my opinion by reading my own stuff. This is why you are a shitty debater. You can't convince anyone if your point by having them read what THEY wrote. Fucking idiot.That'd be because I can't produce nonsense of that level, while you already have. I'd repeat it, but it is too idiotic for me to do so.  will as soon as you admit you take revenge on people you don't even know.So much for your idiotic claim that you never even implied it. I haven't shown any idiocy and you haven't shown anything other than asshole behavior. You are lying here.If mine qualifies as asshole behaviour, then that'd be due to your idiocy. But I seem to be rather unfamiliar with the term to understand its widest implications - what do you mean by 'asshole behaviour'? I don't think I could find anyone more familiar with swear terms than you.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

That'd be because I can't produce nonsense of that level, while you already have. What kind of fucking retard thinks the best way to combat nonsense is with more nonsense? You battle nonsense with reasoning. If I am spouting nonsense you would defeat that with a reasoned argument. You don't fight nonsense with nonsense.I'd repeat it, but it is too idiotic for me to do so.Is that because you are a retard and idiotic is too difficult for you to achieve? So much for your idiotic claim that you never even implied it.My claim is that anyone who claims their behavior is revenge is committing revenge on someone. That doesn't mean that I have implied that your behavior constitutes revenge. Me asking you to admit that you commit acts of revenge on people is to show that you don't actually believe I was getting revenge. My statement was actually a counter argument to your claim, but you couldn't figure that out.If mine qualifies as asshole behaviour, then that'd be due to your idiocy. Treating idiots as if they know everything about your argument before you say it is fucking stupid. If you actually thought I was an idiot you are really fucking dumb. But I seem to be rather unfamiliar with the term to understand its widest implications - what do you mean by 'asshole behaviour'?Wouldn't be the only term you are unfamiliar with. Saying incomplete thoughts then berating people for not understanding your thoughts is asshole behavior. Going off topic then berating someone for trying to get you back on topic is asshole behavior. Claiming you have a great argument, but you won't give it is major asshole behavior on a debate website. Determining what you think the other person thinks based on something they didn't say, then not telling them what it is you think they are saying is asshole behavior. Not making a claim, but using the same wording everyone else does for making a claim, then berating someone for thinking you made a claim instead of correcting the person is asshole behavior. Oh, and, pretending like there is some kind of subtle language you use that people should pick up on, then not picking up on that subtle language when other people use, but claiming you did after the fact, is huge asshole behavior. I am sure there is more, but that should do for now.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

That doesn't mean that I have implied that your behavior constitutes revenge. My statement was actually a counter argument to your claim, but you couldn't figure that out.If you mean what you say, then I can easily figure things out. Else you are a spineless coward not worth much consideration. What kind of fucking retard thinks the best way to combat nonsense is with more nonsense? You battle nonsense with reasoning. If I am spouting nonsense you would defeat that with a reasoned argument. You don't fight nonsense with nonsense.But you are too much of an idiot to guess that you've been annoying me with the same nonsense. Say, how would I be a coward to not panic against your terrible attempt of an 'attack'? Even here, of course, where you attempted the same thing again, and would have annoyed me the same way had I gone with your terrible attempts again. Treating idiots as if they know everything about your argument before you say it is fucking stupid. If you actually thought I was an idiot you are really fucking dumb.Saying incomplete thoughts then berating people for not understanding your thoughts is asshole behavior. Going off topic then berating someone for trying to get you back on topic is asshole behavior. Claiming you have a great argument, but you won't give it is major asshole behavior on a debate website. Determining what you think the other person thinks based on something they didn't say, then not telling them what it is you think they are saying is asshole behavior. Not making a claim, but using the same wording everyone else does for making a claim, then berating someone for thinking you made a claim instead of correcting the person is asshole behavior. Oh, and, pretending like there is some kind of subtle language you use that people should pick up on, then not picking up on that subtle language when other people use, but claiming you did after the fact, is huge asshole behavior. I am sure there is more, but that should do for now.The only case where I would 'berate' someone is when what they are asking is already answered by me. If anything has been unclear, or missing, then I explain that. You, on the other hand, ask only the things I've already said, except for some mistaken alignment of heavens.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

If you mean what you say, then I can easily figure things out No, if I mean what I say you would know it is a counter argument. You admitted you didn't know it was a counter argument, so you can't figure things out.Else you are a spineless coward not worth much consideration.Either you can figure things out, or I am spineless? Where did you learn logic? you are too much of an idiot to guess that you've been annoying me with the same nonsenseWhy the fuck should I care if you are annoyed? If you couldn't answer my statement the first time, why wouldn't I keep repeating it? Say, how would I be a coward to not panic against your terrible attempt of an 'attack'? You aren't panicked, but you are acting cowardly. Do you not realize how sad it is to be cowardly without panic? Even here, of course, where you attempted the same thing again, and would have annoyed me the same way had I gone with your terrible attempts again.You mean in the thing you quoted where I gave you an incredibly well reasoned argument that you couldn't handle at all? The only case where I would 'berate' someone is when what they are asking is already answered by meWell, if that's what you were trying for you failed.If anything has been unclear, or missing, then I explain that. Well, if that's what you were trying for you failed.You, on the other hand, ask only the things I've already said, except for some mistaken alignment of heavens.You never say anything. So untrue.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

Why can't you produce an actual counter argument if my claim is so absurd?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Because you are mainly talking nonsense, and that bores me. I won't be surprised if the reason you hate religions would be that their founders were smarter than you. What is going on now is just off topic and full of your nonsense till you answer what I asked.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

It is because you are an incredibly shitty debater. Any other answer you give us bullshit.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Then I'd be an 'incredibly shitty debater' on such high levels of nonsense. And that'd probably be your optimal state. Fine by me. In fact, that follows pretty directly from what I said, even though I'm stating it again for you. (And in case I didn't explicitly say it, you probably would have thought you've found another opportunity to bore me by nonsense.)
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

I acted like you. You said my behavior was a form of revenge. Therefore, you think your behavior is a form of revenge.You aren't good enough to act like me, nor can you be. I'd see such an act as an insult if it wasn't around the limits of your capabilities.Just answer what does an idiot like you mean by opposing something in a particular way.