BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Agnosticism over Atheism.

In his opening remarks, my opponent establish the ground on which this debate will be conducted; he expressed that it was his objective to affirm the resolution that ". .. agnosticism is a much more respectable position to have over atheism. " In this round, I will move to affirm that agnosticism is NOT the more respectable belief to hold. Before I begin my arguments, I would like to get a few obligatory definitions out of the way. Definitions: Atheism - In its most inclusive sense, atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods, deities, or the supernatural. [1] It is important to note that while all those who outright reject the existence of gods, deities, or the supernatural are atheists, not all atheists outright reject the existence of gods, deities, or the supernatural. What can be said of all atheists is that the reject the belief in deities, gods, and the supernatural; this is a very important distinction to make. Agnosticism - In a religious context, Agnosticism is the belief that claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable. [2] In his opening statement I am going to make the assumption that Pro is using respectable synonymously with the rational. Now, let the arguments commence. Contentions: The major distinction that can be made between Atheism and Agnosticism is primarily one that concerns knowledge; one school of thought holds that religious and metaphysical claims are unknowable, while the other does not necessarily hold that to be true. I would like to ask my opponent why this is the more rational and/or respectable position to hold. I would also like to ask him what evidence or arguments can be offered to support this. An atheist who is not an agnostic may look at the issue of what we can and cannot known, and assert that they believe that religious and metaphysical claims are knowable. What is interesting is that this may not necessarily mean that they believe affirmatively that gods/deities/the supernatural do not exist; it is possible for an atheist to be Gnostic, yet not hold to the belief that they know with certainty that a god does not exist. How is this position any less respectable than the position that knowledge of the supernatural and metaphysical is simply unknowable? Sources: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Agnosticism over Atheism.

I believe agnosticism is a much more respectable position to have over atheism. This debate is about everything having to do with these two beliefs, and basically which is better and more respectable. All I ask is that a knowledgeable, level headed person join this debate who is modestly educated on the beliefs of Atheism. And that they speak in english, nothing that only someone who has a degree in religion could understand. This is my first debate and I may not be as good as some but please bear with me. Thank you.
its possible that god is not possible

no evidence exist for a god lies are complicated by seperation and true is simple now as one matter=space+time if you take an apple... and cut it into tiny pieces until you cant get them smaller, and you spead this around the globe into the sea, to destroy it, you have destroyed it as much as if you did nothing to it in the first place to say, some one put time into existence.. its like i say what about the other guy that will take it away next week? the topic might sound complicated.. but really the answer is as simple as we cant say wheather god is possible or not based on no evidence or knowledge.. it remains a fairy tale, like the other guy taking away time next week
its possible that god is not possible

When I make a decision about the possibility or impossibility of God, it seems necessary to implement tests to decide which is more likely, that God exists or that God does not exist. In this particular debate, "it is possible that god is not possible", the possibility that God would not exist is impossible in my estimation because when attempting to answer the most profound and ancient questions of humankind, eliminating God from the answer leaves us with more than a paradox. It leaves us with an impossible contradiction or a philosophy not grounded in reality. For instance, let's think about origin(where we come from). Is it realistic to think that since no physical quantity can describe its own existence and that according to contemporary science, matter is not eternal but rather "caught" within the dimension of time, that it all gave birth to itself? Or does it make more sense(more possible) that whatever/whoever brought time into existence is not subject to time(no internal contradiction) and whatever/whoever brought the physical world into existence is not subject to the constraints of limited physical realities. By the way, when Stephen Hawking made the statement that gravity brought time into existence, he was making a philosophical statement and was well outside of his discipline and was told this by some of the brightest philosophical minds of our day. So, unless your debate topic is a trick, and I don't think that's your intent here, I would like to sincerely respond to your statement that "any question goes to the know position". Here's the thing, knowing is a tricky word because we don't know, for instance, what light really is. The best of the best still are unable to determine and know, beyond a shadow of doubt, what it is. However, science is able to detect, measure and manipulate light. Science will have to take a back seat to owning its origin though. Here's the thing though....it does have an origin. To deny its origin is to deny light or to place the origin of light as light itself is to be comfortable with irrational science and pure contradiction. To summarize, saying the physical brought the physical into existence and relying on pure materialism without positing an Agent not subject to the physical is irrational and will end up in contradiction as it won't relate to reality so this is impossible to me. Likewise, saying something within the dimension of time which is subject to time brought the time dimension into existence is also irrational as time would have to exist first in order for that "something" to create time which is impossible. The only rational solution is to posit an Agent of time not subject to time such as an Agent existing in an eternal state. I'm only using the origin question for now to make the argument that it's not possible that God is not possible. I'm comfortable with this but can also develop the argument with the subjects of meaning, morality and destiny as well. I really enjoy the debate topic you have created here and hope I'm making some sense in the development of my case. This is a very complex topic in my estimation.
its possible that god is not possible

Any current paradigm not positing a God as necessary will end up with true intrinsic logical contradictions that are systemic and incompatible with contemporary science and philosophy as they attempt to answer the primary questions of life relating to origin, meaning, morality and destiny. Therefore, violating logic with integrity, which is impossible, would by default eliminate the possibility of the impossibility of God. We use logical consistency, imperical adequacy and experiential relevance to make a cumulative case on what is true. An honest implementation of these truth tests against these questions of life bring us at best to a paradox with God but to pure contradiction without one.
The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels.

I thank my opponent for starting this debate and will begin by addressing their definitions: 1) "I define the United States to mean the public as a whole and not just the government." This is rather ambiguous. Are you arguing on moral grounds (i.e. the public as a whole) that we should change, or upon policy grounds (i.e. the government)? 2) "Alternative fuels are fuels that are other substances other than the conventional fossil fuels that can be made and used as fuels; renewable energy source. Fossil fuels can be defined as a non-renewable energy source that is formed by the decomposition of organic matter under a layer of sand and silt which produce the heat and pressure that change its chemical structure over a time period of millions of years." I agree with these definitions more or less, except for the part about it taking millions of years to produce coal (1). Furthermore according to your own definition, artificial coal could be considered an alternative fuel when compared with natural coal (1). "From these definitions, the primary inference is that the American people and government should use renewable energy sources more and non-renewable energy sources less." This is less an inference and more your opinion, which I believe belongs in Round 2. --------------------------------------------------------------- I look forward to your attempt at proving the United States "should" progress away from the use of fossil fuels, though from your Round 1 arguments it would appear that you have your work cut out for you in terms of providing the necessary evidence. (1) - http://www.sciencedirect.com...
The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels.

Here I will argue for the presumption that the United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. I define the United States to mean the public as a whole and not just the government. Alternative fuels are fuels that are other substances other than the conventional fossil fuels that can be made and used as fuels; renewable energy source. Fossil fuels can be defined as a non-renewable energy source that is formed by the decomposition of organic matter under a layer of sand and silt which produce the heat and pressure that change its chemical structure over a time period of millions of years. From these definitions, the primary inference is that the American people and government should use renewable energy sources more and non-renewable energy sources less. The presumption is that the United States uses fossil fuels more than alternative fuels such as fuels made from yellow grease, a used frying oil from deep fryers. The formation of fossil fuels was done within a process of millions of years as the plant and animal organic material was covered by layers of sand and silt and forced to decompose under such pressure and heat. Today we are using such natural resources faster than it can be reproduced. The real debate will start in round 2, once there is an understanding as to whether the opponent agrees or disagrees with the above definitions and presumption.
the war in iraq

well lets start off by saying that there is a big difference between withdrawing all our troops, and starting to withdraw our troops. I also never even hinted that the Iraqi people suffer the consequences of our actions. The Shiite and Sunni have been on the verge of war for years, all the United States did was give them a little push. The Iraqi war started out as Americas war but changed over the years to a civil war. My opponent also proposes that we need to help countries form a Democratic Government. I disagree. History shows that you can not force a Democratic form of Government on a nation. Any country must choose how and when they want to form any kind of Government. Lastly my opponent states that the people of Iraq deserve a fresh start. I do agree with this, but what about the many other third world nations that need a fresh start. what about the situation in Dar fur. Is there anything that can be done about Genocide or are we to worried about bringing democracy to a Country that is not ready to receive it?
the war in iraq

Let me start off by thanking my opponent for allowing me to debate him on this important subject. It is my very first debate. My opponent stated that the U.S. should have withdrawn forces from Iraq upon the discovery of its dictator, Saddam Hussein. "we should have started pulling our troops out once we found Saddam Hussain. Let the Iraqi's have their civil war" What my opponent proposes it that the Iraqi people suffer the consequences for the actions of the U.S.'s war in Iraq. I disagree with this. America should take care of the goings-on in Iraq so long as stability is introduced from the new government, not to finish half the job and get out. Saddam Hussein was a small piece of the puzzle, one piece of many that contributed to America's invasion of the country. For one, we needed to help the newly formed government form a democracy. Second, the country harbors Muslim extremists that are persistent on harming America, her allies, and their values. The people of Iraq deserve a fresh start with the help of people who brought on change.
art is technically useful

"We are talking about the typical form of arts, which is painting or sculpturing." If you had a problem with the definitions I provided you should have said so in the second round of the debate, before I provided my argument. "Yes but geometry, symmetry, construction etc are now studied in Math. Would they qualify as art. Also building a house would require usage of all 3 skills as well." Of course they are studied in math NOW, but art is the base of them. Just because it is studied in math, does not mean it is an art. "Art doesn't have a practical use, it just beautifies things." The definition of useful states - able to be used for a practical purpose or in several ways. This means that it does not HAVE to have a practical use, it can also just be used in multiple ways. We are not arguing if art is practical, only if it is useful. One such use is beautifying things, another could possibly be to bring out positive emotion in the viewer. Therefore, art is technically useful. The link talks about philosophies, but they can be expressed through writings. But what can be expressed through writings? If you're talking about philosophies than it's entirely irrelevant, the same if you are talking about emotion. "Emotion practically doesn't have a use unless its good" Once again, the definition of useful does not state that it has to be practical, it can also be used in many different ways. "and even then emotions expressed through art won't impact the watcher." Untrue, many people are affected emotionally by art, whether it be paintings, music, sculptures, etc. Just because you personally aren't affected, doesn't mean others are. Yet I don't see why paintings are still sold at ridiculous prices. They obviously see a use in them, whether it be to make a room look more pleasing, brings out a positive emotion in them, or even just to show off their wealth. These are all uses of a painting, while they may be petty to you, they are still uses, therefore art can be useful.
art is technically useful

Art - The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. We are talking about the typical form of arts, which is painting or sculpturing. ' It was painters and sculptors who allowed us greater understanding of geometry, symmetry, and construction.' Yes but geometry, symmetry, construction etc are now studied in Math. Would they qualify as art. Also building a house would require usage of all 3 skills as well. Art doesn't have a practical use, it just beautifies things. The link talks about philosophies, but they can be expressed through writings. Emotion practically doesn't have a use unless its good, and even then emotions expressed through art won't impact the watcher. Yet I don't see why paintings are still sold at ridiculous prices.
art is technically useful

Art - The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. The various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance. Useful - able to be used for a practical purpose or in several ways. "The world could very much survive without the main form of arts, which is painting or sculpturing." While it may be able to survive without these types of arts, it does not mean they are not useful. Also, we are not only talking about painting and sculpting, art encompasses many forms, such as poetry, dancing, music, and also the traditionally thought of painting and sculpting. While it may reduce the beauty of some objects and give a dull background, it is not a necessary practice. Once again, the word useful does not imply necessary, it implies being of use to someone or some thing. Personally, I know people who's lives have been impacted by music and poetry, and have made them feel better when they were feeling down. This is one such use of art. All I need to do is provide one other example of how art can be useful to win the debate. Taken from an intelligent individual, [1] "Art most certainly does have practical applications in the sense of real world physical application. It was poets and writers who throughout history captured the essences of nature and relationships which lead to our growing understanding of the human condition. It was painters and sculptors who allowed us greater understanding of geometry, symmetry, and construction. And this is only the very abridged list of what art contributes to practicality." Art has helped us understand many things in the world around us, and has helped shaped our society as a whole. As you can see, art CAN be useful. http://onlinephilosophyclub.com...
Eat to live or live to eat. I believe we should eat to live.

You are arguing for something else than you were saying....I agree with eating to live well because that means to me live to eat but we are arguing about eat to live vs. live to eat. There is a difference between eat to live and eat to live well. Eat to to live, as I mentioned before is for me eating for survival but eat to live well is to eat for a healthy life! So does live to eat! You live to eat means that life is here to eat and enjoy it in a HEALTHY AND BALANCED WAY! Being fat and eat,eat is for me kind of eat to live, because I imagine that that's their excuse for eating so much. Well , eat to live well is different than that because they can't say that they live a good and healthy life. So they can't say that they live to eat or eat to live well. That's why I am for LIVE TO EAT rather than EAT TO LIVE.
Eat to live or live to eat. I believe we should eat to live.

When I think of eat to live, I think of eating to live well, not eating to just stay alive. To really live well is to enjoy life and all it has to offer. It seems that more recently in America living to eat has turned into eating whatever, whenever, no matter the consequences. Therefore I would have to stand by my theory of eat to live well. I believe that eating well helps us to do all of the fun physical activities we do on a regular basis. It appears we are arguing the same argument from different cultural perspectives. I have seen the devastating affects that the live to eat, and eat, and eat attitude has created and it is not very healthy or safe. This has swayed my attitude and outlook on what eat to live and live to eat actually looks like on a culture. Eat to live well, enjoy life for as long as possible, and bring your friends and family closer together. Don't just eat to stay alive, and don't stay alive to just eat.
Eat to live or live to eat. I believe we should eat to live.

I think you confuse some things here.....eat to live means in my opinion that you just eat food to survive (eat to live). Live to eat means to enjoy food to be healthy and enjoyful with food...and what you are kinda mentioning all the time is to live for fat food, for eating yourself full....and beyond that some people have genetic diseases that cause adipositas. Live to eat in my opinion doesn't mean what you say, to eat and eat and eat, it means what you said: eat amazing food with family and friends.
Eat to live or live to eat. I believe we should eat to live.

It would be a beautiful world if LIVE TO EAT really meant to sit down with family and friends to enjoy good quality, healthy foods, however, it has been brought to my attention that most people that live to eat are not reasonable about it and put themselves and others at great risk in order to maintain an unhealthy live to eat lifestyle. Many Americans have picked up some very unhealthy eating habits, but it is not just Americans, it is spreading across the globe at an alarming rate. I say eat to live a happy healthy life. You can still eat amazing food with family and friends, just be responsible and eat in moderation.
Eat to live or live to eat. I believe we should eat to live.

Dear Deadea, I understand what you mean but LIVE TO EAT doesn't mean the typical American non-stop fat food eating.....it means the love of good food, the cooking of food that brings people together to the table to have fun....to live for the good food you make and not eating the crap out of every single restaurant you see... Watch some professional cooks who say that they live for that what they do and aren't fat.
Eat to live or live to eat. I believe we should eat to live.

Working in health care I've seen how food can negatively affect the lives of people. To much of anything can be bad, moderation is important in all aspects of life. It is okay to enjoy food when you are eating, but eating to live a happy healthy life is very important for not just your health, but for the health of those around you. To many times I have seen patients come in that exceed the weight limit of our hospital stretchers. In most of these cases they are not able to get into the stretcher without help, and are not able to reposition themselves without the help of family, friends, or a health care professional. This puts everyone involved in their care at risk for injury. Making eating to live that much more important.