BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
belief is theism

how are you a theist if you cant accept what you imagine as true i accept reality, as i accept what i know and know is true i dont know. is a position i know, i am certain of, a position that is true, while both theism, and atheism is imaginary, false gravity is not a belief system, i know gravity god is information theism cant exist without belief, belief is theism, you cant have a bear skin without having a dead bear, and you cant have a bear skin that dosnt come from a bear
belief is theism

You've granted a definition for theism in your debate. You have not granted a definition for belief, however. While you do say "theism=belief=i accept imagination" This is not a valid definition, but is rather the petitio principii fallacy. You simply cannot use the conclusion in question as a premise - to try to do so is akin to trying to catch yourself while falling out of the air. So, for the first round, (and later rounds if you would choose to not submit your own definition) I will use the first two definitions found at dictionary. reference. com. While theism is a type of belief, a belief in a god (or gods for that matter), to say belief is theism is invalid because other beliefs exist. For instance, I hold the belief that when I jump up, gravity will pull me back towards Earth. This belief has nothing to do with a god or gods, and therefore cannot be described as theism. Additionally it is an issue of sets versus subsets. A sombrero is a specific type of hat, just as a theism is a specific type of belief. I could say, "A sombrero is a hat. " I would not say though, that "A hat is a sombrero. " It does not follow logically. The assumption of the opposite is known as the fallacy of the converse. As it stands then, I would hold the conclusion of the Pro to be impossible upon a definitional understanding of the terms.
Atheism is a Religion

Much thanks to Pro for finally deciding to join us here in this debate. So here we have it, 5 rounds into a 5 round debate and Pro finally gives us his definition of religion: “A set of beliefs that lead to an overall belief system” Notice that Pro provides no source for this definition, nor could I find it through any Google search. As far as I can tell Pro made it up, which seems obvious by its remarkable generality. I could easily use this definition to argue that conservatism or liberalism is a religion, which I don’t think I need to explain is absurd. Pro then characterizes the belief system of an atheist as having belief in Darwinian evolution, abiogenesis, and science (as if science is a separate category). Sorry Pro, science does not = Atheism. Science = Science. No need to explain further. Pro claims that atheists must have beliefs in order to support their lack of belief. A lack of belief does not require support, but even if I grant whatever Pro means by this statement, the question is: What are these beliefs that atheists have? This is where Pro’s argument collapses. Religion is not a conclusion regarding the existence of a deity. Religion is a specific set of beliefs and practices that are tied to this conclusion. Atheism is not tied to any specific belief, which disqualifies it from being considered a religion, just as theism is not a religion. If evolution for example was a tenant of atheism, then someone who rejects evolution could not be an atheist. Yet as long as we are speaking English, atheism only concerns the question of whether a God exists. It has nothing to do with evolution, or any other belief one could list. Pro argues that to say atheists have no beliefs is intellectual suicide. No one is saying that atheists have no beliefs, the question is whether those beliefs are a tenant of atheism. By definition (including Pro’s), they are not. Pro argues that atheism is a religion promoted by the teachings of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. I have never read anything I understand to be written by any of these individuals nor have I followed anything they teach. In fact, from the little I have seen of them in debate I don’t consider any of them to be persuasive. So apparently, according to Pro I am not an atheist. I give my opponent credit for at least acknowledging some of my arguments in the last round, but he still failed to address the most important one… The fact that his own definition of atheism contradicts the claim that atheism is a belief. That combined with his own definition of religion (“A set of beliefs that…”) automatically loses the debate for him by demonstrating the resolution to be a logical contradiction, aka self-refuting. I could present far more arguments but by this point there is simply no need. To vote for Pro at this point is to either give him credit for arguments he did not make (such as my breakdown for why his definition of atheism amounts to a mere lack of belief) or to say that a self-refuting resolution has been affirmed. Clearly, that is not the case.
Atheism is a Religion

Pro didn’t address a single argument I made in the last round, and has made it clear that he doesn’t even understand what this debate is about. The resolution states: “Atheism is a Religion” In round 2 I provided a non-controversial definition of religion, a definition Pro has yet to even acknowledge let alone refute, which by this point in the debate is essentially a concession. The fact that the definition of religion contradicts Pro’s definition of atheism puts this debate at an end. There are no further arguments necessary by this point to negate the resolution. Yet, unlike Pro, I will at least grant my opponent the curtesy of acknowledging his points made in the last round as opposed to pretending I am the only one here. Pro begins with the absurd notion of “atheist denominations”. All pro is doing here is using a word normally used in a religious context, and applying it to atheists. This has pretty much been his tactic the entire debate. The fact that he can categorize atheists has nothing to do with whether atheism is a religion, it is because atheists are people. We categorize people in all areas of life such as politics, dating types, personality types, etc. This is not remarkable, and has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It is not clear whether Buddhism is a religion but even if it is granted religious status, the fact that there can be such thing as a non-theistic religion does not mean that all non-theistic people are religious. Pro asks “Why is it a problem if someone considers atheism a religion? How does that hurt the atheists’ claim?” Answers: It’s not a problem other than the fact that it is not English, and it doesn’t hurt atheist claims. However, it is worth noting that calling atheism a religion is often nothing more than a “tu quoque” fallacy, which is where one attempts to validate their position by asserting that the opposing position is just as weak and/or absurd. In this case “religion” is actually being used in an insulting manner, suggesting that all of the flaws of religion also apply to atheism. Atheists are quick to correct theists when invoking this logical fallacy because they are not the same thing as I have pointed out in earlier rounds. Pro would do himself a favor by reading what I had to say and respond to it. The remainder of Pros arguments ignore every point I have made by continuing to argue that because Person A is an atheist and carries out action X, X must be a part of atheism. All this takes to refute is to replace the word “atheist” in Pro’s arguments with “conservative”, “liberal”, “Cuban”, or whatever group of people you want and the non-sequitor is made even more clear… 1) [Liberals] have their own churches2) [Conservatives] have [conservative] pamphlets describing their beliefs to be handed out Etc… There is really no point in adding anything else. Pro has completely failed to put together a coherent argument explaining how any of his points affirm the resolution while ignoring every argument I have made explaining why the resolution is wrong.
Atheism is a Religion

Pro has brought up a series of points, but has yet to make any coherent argument as to why one should consider atheism to be a religion. His strategy thus far has apparently been to list various observations with the hopes that the readers will figure out on their own how any of his points affirm the resolution. Pro begins by listing the definition of atheist and agnostic. He however fails to recognize that his own definition of atheist states that an atheist is someone who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of a God. Setting aside the term “disbelieves” for a moment, the word “or” is critical in this definition because it means that either will suffice. Thus, anyone who does not hold an active belief in a God qualifies as an atheist. Believing God does not exist would certainly qualify one under that definition, but this active belief is in addition to the requirement, not a requirement on its own. Therefore, when we talk about atheists (or atheism) we are talking specifically about the lack of belief in a god, since that is the only factor that determines whether someone is an atheist. Pro then continues to use a completely semantical definition of “religiously” to make his point. I remind Pro that the debate is about whether atheism is a religion, not whether atheists act “religiously”. What is ironic about this argument is that the word “religiously” is used to equate things to religion that are not about religion, so even the most basic understanding of grammar and word usage refutes Pro’s case. A much simpler way to go about this debate is to define the word “religion”, since that is the resolution. A simple Google search reveals the following: Religion: “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods”https://www.google.com... This definition, which is absolutely consistent with what any reasonable person would interpret when reading the resolution negates the resolution. Since atheism is by Pro’s own definition not a belief, it cannot be a religion. This is why every proceeding argument Pro has made fails. He has provided many examples of atheists doing things that are similar to things religious people do, but he has yet to make a case that anything they do is tied to atheism. I as an atheist, can pray. That doesn’t make prayer a component of atheism. I as an atheist can go to church. That does tie churches to atheism. Pro has yet to make any argument tying atheism itself to religion, and I have already show how the very idea is not possible. The resolution is self contradictory.
Tax evaders should be sent to workhouses

Many thanks to grape for accepting this challenge. My opponent's victim ‘mugging-off the mugger' scam is a very clever analogy. But wait! All is not what it seems. The mugger might actually be a have-a-go hero who saw the man lift the wallet out of a blind man's jacket and who has confronted him with his crime, demanded the return of the blind man's wallet but was palmed-off with a bogus wallet, thus allowing the thief to make good his escape with the real wallet before the switch has been discovered. The point is that relieving minted miscreants of their ill-gotten gains and distributing the proceeds amongst the needy is an honourable and noble cause – fans of Robin Hood would support me on this, although fans of evil King John would probably side with my opponent. Moving on to my opponent's central issue that workhouses are not the best solution to tax evasion because tax evaders might not be good workers and it would take them a long time to pay off their fine and that the fine should be raised instead. Consider a fine that many of us get on a regular basis: a parking fine. In Britain a fixed parking penalty is usually ï¿½60. It takes a person earning the average wage of ï¿½25k p.a. 7 ï¿½ hours - a full working day - to earn that amount after tax, so it is a substantial amount of money to most people. However, an indolent, parasitic aristocrat driving a Rolls-Royce which cost ï¿½250k new, and which would be worth 40% of that amount after three years, could calculate his car depreciates by ï¿½60 every 4 hours, so the fine would be of vanishingly small consequence to him. But if the ï¿½60 fine was replaced by a one day prison sentence then our moneyed motorist might think twice before blocking the traffic on Piccadilly by parking his Rolls-Royce outside the Ritz while he partakes in afternoon tea. Sadly, our prisons are already packed to the rafters with violent criminals so this alternative would not be practical. However, for the more serious white-collar crimes, such as tax evasion, the workhouse would be a self-financing deterrent to serious fraudsters, with an added gain for British industry into the bargain. Of course, many of the inmates may have never done an honest day's work in their lives and they will find it hard to adjust – but the quicker they pay off their fines, the quicker they will be released. I do, however, agree with my opponent that there needs to be a change of government in Britain and, to that end, I would urge all those eligible to do so to vote Labour at the next election. Thank you.
Tax evaders should be sent to workhouses

Tax evasion is a numbers game. Let's take the hypothetical example of a braying young aristocrat who has an unearned income of ï¿½100,000 per year, this money being accrued through an offshore trust fund that his over-privileged mummy and daddy set up for him when he was born. Now, let's say this indolent young nobleman resents paying the 28% capital gains tax due when repatriating the money back into the UK and decides to consult a corrupt tax accountant to see what measures he might take to jew Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs out of the money he would owe them. That accountant is likely to advise the slippery young gent to divide his trust fund income between 10 separate tax dodges, with each caper laundering ï¿½10,000 each. By doing this, if the taxman did stumble across one of these wheezes and the tax-dodging toff is duly prosecuted, as a punishment he would have to pay the tax on the ï¿½10,000: ï¿½2,800, plus a fine equivalent to that amount, so a total of ï¿½5,600. However, our upper-class fraudster would not be too bothered by this penalty because he would still be saving the tax due on the remaining ï¿½90,000 – that is ï¿½25,200 - and would, therefore, be ï¿½19,600 better off overall as the result of his portfolio of tax evasion schemes. Now, on an apparently unrelated issue, manufacturing companies in the West find it difficult to compete on cost with rival firms based in emerging economies such as India because these countries tolerate child labour, have no minimum wage and impose very few health and safety regulations on employers. The link to the two issues above is the workhouse [1]. We could punish tax evaders more effectively and help our manufacturing industry out at the same time by sending convicted tax evaders to secure workhouses run by manufacturing companies. These firms would pay the inmates ï¿½2.65 per day, equivalent to the average pay of a production worker in India {2}, and these wages would be forwarded directly to the government to pay off the offenders' fines. So, in return for providing rudimentary accommodation (a sleeping mat next to the machinery would be more than sufficient for these creative-accounting criminals) and basic meals (insipid gruels and stale bread would be more than these tax-fiddling felons deserve), the workhouse owners would have a workforce that they could pay the same as their third world competitors. Meanwhile, an important message would be sent to wealthy individuals who believe that they are entitled to benefit from the country's publicly-funded infrastructure without contributing to the cost of it and that message would be: "You are a dirty, cheating scumbag and if we catch you fiddling your taxes you will be dealt with like the lowlife criminal that you are." Tax evasion is not a victimless crime: if rich tax-evaders paid their dues we'd all benefit from better public services or pay lower taxes, or both, and that's why tax evaders should be sent to workhouses Thank you. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
This is so zhaod can debate

Here are my stances on the big issues: "Abortion Con "Affirmative Action Und "Animal Rights Und "Barack Obama Pro "Border Fence Und "Capitalism Und "Civil Unions Con "Death Penalty Con "Drug Legalization Con "Electoral College Con "Environmental Protection Pro "Estate Tax Pro "European Union Pro "Euthanasia Con "Federal Reserve N/O "Flat Tax Und "Free Trade Und "Gay Marriage Con "Global Warming Exists Pro "Globalization Pro "Gold Standard N/O "Gun Rights Con "Homeschooling Con "Internet Censorship Und "Iran-Iraq War N/O "Labor Union Con "Legalized Prostitution Con "Medicaid & Medicare Und "Medical Marijuana Und "Military Intervention N/O "Minimum Wage Pro "National Health Care Und "National Retail Sales Tax N/O "Occupy Movement N/O "Progressive Tax Pro "Racial Profiling Con "Redistribution Und "Smoking Ban Pro "Social Programs Pro "Social Security Pro "Socialism Und "Stimulus Spending N/O "Term Limits Und "Torture Pro "United Nations Pro "War in Afghanistan N/O "War on Terror N/O "Welfare Pro If you want, Feel free to ask me any questions about these stances :).
Rap Battle

You are not the master I'm the champ, so what you after the title for?You're to scared to fight a war and are as hardcore as Barney the DinosaurI'm not the "Robin" to this caped crusadrer, I'm like Batman stompin' himRockin' him and boxin' him like Sugar Shane "Robin"sonMy opponent is broker than broke acting like he has piles of doePro has Dr. Seuss rhymes so it's no wonder he has a childish flowI have grown man raps, how do you think he can stop me?I will Undertaker chokeslam him, then Tombstone pile drive him through the concrete!When the cops talk about his crew they don't give discriptions of thugsThey say they have too much Estrogen and need prescriptions for drugsHe claims that there is a Navy fleet that defends this dudeBut all he did was name off a thing they would never doOh and Pro, your disgusting crush's private area is dryer than a dessert tooI just thought you should know since she neglected to have sex with youI lace up my leather boots for battle, he laces up his tennis shoesSo if he comes with that racket my hatchet will leave his head removedYou are nothing but a coward AKA yellow, the color of lemon juiceSo after you get beat by me, you'll go your mom to caress the wounds
Rap Battle

It has been fun! Now it's time to finish this. .. I am a surgeon at that hospital. I am on full time, dissecting your wack image. Pounding you so hard. .. .. You are crying before this battle is even finished. Nope, that was not my mom, I did not want to send you into severe depression That was an actual bunny. .. oops. .. .you need a psychological evaluation Don't need a spurt. I am Galactus, eating you and the planet alive Strive to win this? Oxygen to the brain is what you are deprived I am not a god, but a reality. To me you are nothing but pest I bankrupted your words, they are now just valueless I'm was the honor student, you were cheating off of my test papers I'm the reason you are here. You're the Robin to my Caped Crusader. You are beast? HA! You all can call me the beast master. And I'm about to put down Fido and raise him like a banner. I am Shang Tsung, sucka, and you should have been a good boy and stayed seated The reason you don't have a soul is because you already been defeated. You're not Bison, but Dan, because your "fireballs" has no type of reach. You are a leech, my defense is a navy fleet, and the only option you have is to retreat.
Rap Battle

You should scram fast or get prepared for the backlashPro does envision hospital patients, the gowns make it easy to see a*s cracksThis douche talks about Fatalitys when he tries to battle meBut I wasn't hallucinating, me and your mom sexed like "bunnys" and called it "Animality"This guy would probably cry asking for a growth spurtIt's like I'm a ginger and he's Shang Tsung, his fatality don't workI could go Street Fighter because I'm like Bison with fistsOr go Mortal Kombat like Lui Kang and give you bicycle kicksNow you're deffenseless like those children in HaitiIf this was a bet, you would have gave up the bills and just paid meIn school I was as popular and poppin' pills in the EightiesYou was that dude gettin emotionally killed by the ladiesYour skill is non existent like God or the pot you got to piss inSaying you're good, with rhymes like that, proves you're a walking contradictionDog It's your mom I'm pimpin', but you in denial stop the b*tchin'Attempting to test a beast like me, on your part was an odd decision
Rap Battle

Ah...nice! Now its my turn You try to study me like hierglyphs from an ancient civilization, Because I am like godzilla, bringing devastation to the nation. No time to be wastin, quit with the copy-and-pastin' All I see is another potential hospital patient. I am single.....but please do not give me any sorrow. Why? Because currently have your girlfriend on borrow. That was not my mom, that LSD has you hallucinating That was.........oh Lord! I wish my memory was fading! Yeah I am Goro, and I justed ended you in a fatality Leave you with a last breath, the only thing you will see Is me, shattering your perception that I failed like King Leonidas And you will bow before me and call me your highness I did not diss you at first, did not want you to go home to your mamma Then she will call me...yeah you understand, this will begin the drama That's right, Darth Vader in this game and "I am your father." What's that sound? The sound of your career dying, partner.
Rap Battle

In this game you remain unseen like a Saudi woman when her veil is tightIf getting through this rap is your #1 mission, then it's safe to say you failed at lifeI had your mother in a full neslon and like McDonalds she was lovin' itThe only thing left in "critical condition" though, was her snatch when I was done with itPro's rap skills are on par with a paraplegic giving an arm barThere's only one way to describe where Pro's career is going...Not farThis guy only knows matches when he's leaving a match litAnd has as much skills as Flava Flav rappin' while taking a crack hitI'll have his girlfriend make me Chicken Digiorno while filming a pornoHe just got dissed worse than Taylor Swift at the Award ShowThe raps I spit will split his spine and rip through his torsoHe jerks off so much, he has strong "four arms" they call him GoroThis man pretends that he's deep like the Earth's coreBut forgot to diss his opponent, like he's never seen 8 mile beforeYou're lucky I accepted this and I'll give you a chance to bust thatBut you should quit like Jay-Z, only I hope you don't come back
Rap Battle

Ah, thank you Rational Thinker for accepting. Let us both do well. Ahem…….. Rearranging molecules, turning the negative to ambition Getting through this rap will be my number one mission People assault me, they can see resiliency in the face of brutal opposition Then when it's my turn I will leave them in critical condition Even with my eyes close I can still see through the bull crap Motivation is the path that will help me get through this rap With my speed of light, centuries feel more like mere seconds And I reckon if anyone comes to me, I will surely beckon Unloading the rap lines, hitting the target, one hundred percent accuracy My flow is smooth like a river, it all really comes naturally People come to me to make them more skilled and lyrical But their skills is very bad, I am not working miracles