BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If you are certain that there is a god, then I am certain that you are delusional.

This debate is very simple. Regarding the first definition that my opponent posted, he said that I must prove that he has a false belief or opinion. That is simple, to be certain of an uncertain subject matter is a false opinion. If I said that I was certain of the flying spaghetti monster's existence, I am holding a false opinion because its existence is impossible to prove, and likely a myth. So you see, since there is no certainty in the matter, and most likely a myth, to be CERTAIN that the monster exists, would be a false opinion, and thus a delusion. I am saying the following, one can believe in god and not be delusional. But in their belief they must be open to the possibility that god may not exist. Since they would then be leaving other options on the table, they would be thinking more logical, and thus, would not be deluded. One cannot be CERTAIN of god's existence, and if they say that they are, then yes they are deluded about this matter. That does not mean that they have a disorder. Many people are deluded about many things, but in order to have a disorder, the individual's delusions must meet a criterion. One can either have false beliefs or true beliefs. For a belief to be true, there must be authentic evidence to prove the truism. Some things are unknown, such as the existence of god. So a simple belief or non belief cannot fall into the two main categories of true and false beliefs. This is the case because the answer is not known. However, if someone claims to be CERTAIN, without doubt, about the existence of something that cannot be proven - they have now become deluded. The title of this debate concerns somebody that is CERTAIN about god's existence, not just belief in god. According to my opponents profile, he is an agnostic. Thus, he is obviously uncertain about the existence of god, since this is the agnostic position. However, since he choose to challenge this topic, I must assume that he is CERTAIN that Yahweh of the old testament exists. I cannot prove that God do not exist, the same as I cannot prove hercules, krishna or the flying spaghetti monster do not exist. My opponent rightly pointed out that if this debate were about the existence of god, the burden would be upon him to prove it. I argue, that since the existence of god cannot be proven, it is delusional for someone to claim that they are CERTAIN of god's existence. You cannot be certain about this. So to reiterate, in reality I do not believe my opponent is delusional since he is an agnostic. However, if he claimed to be certain of god's existence, I would then believe that he is delusional regarding that matter. That does not mean that I believe this would reach a criterion to be considered a disorder.
If you are certain that there is a god, then I am certain that you are delusional.

1. I will cite a couple of sources regarding the definition of delusional. Dictionary.com defines a delusion as "a false belief or opinion". If we use this definition, it is Pro's burden to prove that I have a false belief or opinion. In this case he would have to prove that God does not exist. The same source defines delusion in psychiatry as "a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact". If we accept this definition my opponent must first prove that God does not exist, then he must prove that I am resistant to the factual evidence he provides as proof that God in fact does not exist. My opponent has done none of the above. Merriam-Webster defines delusion as "something that is falsely believed or propagated", and "a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary". If we accept this definition my opponent must provide indisputable evidence that God does not exist, and follow that up by proving that I maintain my belief in God despite this indisputable evidence. As stated above, my opponent has done no such thing. 2. My opponent claims that the question of God is simply unanswerable. He does not specify "which" question is unanswerable. Indeed his own lack of belief in God would provide bias to any answer given, and therefore his opinion cannot be considered as evidence that the question is unanswerable. He claims that my certainty of God's existence, despite Pro's lack of an answer to the "question of God", makes me by definition delusional. The definition fits no such criteria. My opponent has provided no indisputable evidence for the non-existence of God, and therefore cannot claim that my belief in God is delusional. 3. My opponent claims that it is my burden to prove the existence of God. Were the existence of God the subject of debate then indeed it would be my burden, but alas, it is not the subject of debate. The subject of debate is my belief in God being cause for proof of my being delusional. It is the burden of my opponent to prove this delusion, and in doing so, he must prove the non-existence of God. 4. My opponent claims that being delusional is not being psychotic. Delusional disorder is, by definition, a mental disorder. (http://www.webmd.com...) My opponent's belief in Santa Claus would not qualify as a delusion because he was encouraged to believe in Santa Clause by his parents, and society. This is not the definition of a delusion. His own story cites he was presented with what a five year old would consider proof of his existence, not proof of his non-existence. 5. My belief that God created man and the universe is not an implication that I do not believe in evolution. In fact, I believe in evolution from subatomic particles, in the complex beings we are today. I believe God's natural laws enabled this. Not enough room to explain.
If you are certain that there is a god, then I am certain that you are delusional.

Someone is delusional when they are certain of something without authentic evidence to prove that certainty, or when they are persistent in their belief in the face of contrary evidence. Since the question of god is simply unanswerable, and you claim to be certain of its existence, you are by definition delusional. If one makes a claim that god exists, the burden is upon them to prove it. If I said that Michael Jordan lives in my back yard under a rock, it would be up to me to prove that he lives there. If I could not prove it with certainty but still persisted that he was there, then I am deluded. If you went out and lifted the rock and showed me that he was absolutely not there, then this strengthens the fact that I am delusional. One does not have to seek a psychiatrist to find out if they are delusional. Being delusional does not mean that one is psychotic. People can be deluded about the entire world, which disrupts daily living. These people seek therapy because they have met a criterion of psychosis which requires professional help. Others have less severe delusions which does not disrupt life in such a way that demands professional help. For instance, when I was five years old, I was certain that there was a Santa Claus. I was deluded about this, but I was not psychotic. I believed in Santa Claus because my parents told me about him, I learned about him in school, and on Christmas day the cookies and milk were gone. I was lead to believe something that was untrue, thus I was delusional about the existence of Santa. You are delusional because you claim that there is a god which cannot be proven. You also assert that god of the old testament was the creator of man and the universe. This claim strengthens my argument that you are delusional because your belief is persistent in the face of evidence to the contrary. Genetic, and archeological findings have shown that man evolved from a more primitive primate that shared ancestry with the great apes. Even if evolution was proven false, it does not by default mean that man was created by god. And even if god did create man, there is no certainty that it was god of the old testament. It could have been hercules, krishna or some other god. If god happened to exist, it is impossible for us to define what it is, or its powers. Trying to disprove evolution will not win you this debate. You have to prove with certainty that god of the old testament exists. You have now put yourself in a position to prove that he created man and the universe. These claims are impossible to prove. And since you are persistent in your belief, when there is no certainty in these matters, you are by definition delusional.
If you are certain that there is a god, then I am certain that you are delusional.

I believe in the God mentioned in the Old Testament as the Creator of the Universe, and the Creator of man. I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Moses, Ezekiel, Jesus, and Mohammad. I am not delusional. I cannot prove I am not delusional, as I have never sought the counsel of a psychiatrist that would certify this, but the burden to prove that I am delusional lies with on my opponent. I await my opponent's argument that would prove I am delusional before I present any rebuttals. Thank you.
If you are certain that there is a god, then I am certain that you are delusional.

The gods I am referring to, are those that are mentioned in the organized religions around the world. I would like to focus on Yahweh, the god of the Old Testament. Many creations are certain that their god exists. If you claim to be certain of this, then I am certain that you are delusional. I would like to debate a contender that claims that the existence of god of the Old Testament is a certainty. My contender can start the debate.
Football Is Better Than Baseball

How can you argue against America's favorite pastime? It is almost unpatriotic! 1. Baseball has been around since the 1800's. The NFL has only been around since 1920. 2. Baseball has opened our eyes with regard to how we treat each other as human beings (i.e. race, sex, etc.) Football has only shown us that their players can get away murder, literally. 3. If we look at the most historic players in each sport, hands down baseball has had more memorable players than football to date. Even someone like Barry Bonds sticks out more than almost any historic football player. 4. As for watching the game, football players only play 16 games whereas baseball players play 162, that's over 10x's as many games!! You can't tell me that you are more entertained in the shortened season of football than all 7 months of baseball!
I used to think the worst most evil hateful verses in the bible were... welp that's changed

Who cares if a darling little maggot like you wins? I told you I don't deal with scrawny little feeble sewer scum liars like you. You claim to be an atheist in your manure spread profile and yet in your saddened super cheap moldy pink undies arguments thus far (and game playing of a child I might add) you take the side of the sourpuss christ who has to supercheezit his way into bufoonery which is nothing more than a bang bang puff of smoke cigar that never went off. Yeah you are damaged goods. And I'd be willing to bet everything, just like nearly all christians I've debated here, that you have no genuine friends or loved ones. What do I mean by genuine? Those that will go way way wayyyyyyyyy out of their way to help you out in time of dire need and NEVER ask you a single question. For that I can't even pity you. But you flat out deserve it. And you did it to yourself. Its also a HUGE red flag. And you will die alone. So how's about them noodles and pastries - boy? Again. Bye.
I used to think the worst most evil hateful verses in the bible were... welp that's changed

Hey man I just want to start off to say that I am ending this fraudulent debate from a smart-alecky pathetic stooge who probably picks his nose hairs with battery acid and skunk perfume when he gets the urge to get a whine and a scowl from a fried egg that manages to beef himself up and gives himself some tears by ripping into his eyelids with sharpened giggles of a fruitfly snack from a nun"s dancing tonsils in the morning. I truly hate it when people lie. Bye.
I used to think the worst most evil hateful verses in the bible were... welp that's changed

Hey man, I just want to start off by saying that Jesus Christ loves you whether you believe in Him or not. God put it on my heart to tell you that He is just waiting for you to reach out to him in prayer. Meanwhile, I'll answer your questions about the Holy Scripture.You brought up Deuteronomy 13 and 17. Deuteronomy means "Second Law." It's a rewritten, revised, more recent edition of the law found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, etc. Let me just say that the ancient Israelites viewed God differently from how modern Christians view God. The ancient Israelites were henotheistic. Yahweh was the national god of Israel. Each of their neighbours had their own national gods, too! Yahweh had a covenant with the people of Israel. A covenant is an agreement that brings about a relationship of commitment between God and his people. The details of this agreement are found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Yahweh requires certain things of the Israelites. For one thing, Yahweh requires that the Israelites worship Yahweh alone; He doesn't want them worshipping any other gods. That's why we have verses like Deuteronomy 13:9-10 and 17:2-5. It's important to note why Yahweh doesn't want the Israelites worshipping other gods: It's not because they're false gods. It's not because they don't exist. It's because Yahweh is, by his own admission, a jealous god. Theology has changed over time. The Yahweh of the Pentateuch evolved into the God that Christians believe in today. Frankly, Christians today have many different and often conflicting notions about who God is, what God is, what God wants, what God thinks is right or wrong. Each Christian group has their own take on Scripture. But one thing you'll find all modern Christians have in common: nobody has a covenant with Yahweh in the 21st century. The Bible is a really old book. In many ways, it's the foundation of the Christian faith. But the world has changed, and moral attitudes have changed, and our understanding of god has changed. We don't worship the god of a desert tribe of savages...which is what the ancient Israelites really were. We worship the loving God of an entire cosmos, bigger than what the ancient Israelites could have imagined. So don't read the Pentateuch and worry, "Oh my goodness! Christians are going to stone me!" Nobody is getting stoned...except people who smoke reefer! Ha ha ha.In Christ,- squonk
I used to think the worst most evil hateful verses in the bible were... welp that's changed

I normally thought that Deuteronomy 13: 9-10 "9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage." Then there's Deuteronomy 17: 2-5 which basically states the same thing and absolutely 100% proves that its god is based on pure hate and evil were the most horrifying verses in the stupid pathetic bible in which the supposed god of it would never communicate in text form, the worst form of communication possible..."2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."But nah, far sicker and more devious and diseased and demented verses are these 2 verses of pure hate and evil and completely lacking spirituality of any kind. I mean yeah right, the bible really really really should be taught to children - right? 1 John 2:15 "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."John 15:19 "If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you."What a truly great way to absolutely kill murder ANY type of spirituality. But like it was ever offer offered in the bible in the first place? WRONG!!!!RULES:Prove that the god according to the bible is NOT evil and bent on hate and that he has unearthliness and otherworldliness. Prove that god was "happy" 5 times in the bible. dsjpk5 will not be allowed to participate in the voting process.
The death penalty should be abolished

I move to abolish the death penalty for it is inhumane. Inherently, killing is wrong. How can we right a wrong by doing wrong? We can never. Lifetime imprisonment is already enough to disrupt any stream of crimes to an extent. Another reason would be financial cost. It takes millions to try a death penalty case and is worth no time. Lastly, the judicial system is potentially at fault. Not all convicts are guilty and some death row inmates are accused falsely. It is better to fix our system of catching than the system for punishments. Statistics will be advanced in the next round. Thanks!
The death penalty should be abolished

We live in a world where there are certain moral absolutes that have to be enforced. One of these absolutes is the sacredness of human life. Anyone that takes human lives or gravely threatens its existence, therefore, should be dealt the harshest punishment we can conceive of death. Moral values do not exist on their own, they have to be promoted and supported by society at large. In modern and civilized societies the supporters of capital death have decreased in number. Critics view the death penalty as barbaric. However, this unrealistic and romantic view ignores the basic human nature. The most common argument my opponents may pose may be that the death penalty is apparently inhumane but aren"t the crimes of torture, rape, treason, kidnapping, murder inhumane?
Video games and/or simulations are an efficient form of training and education.

I would love to write the argument, but I sorry I don't think I can. I am my church right now and yesterday. The only technology I can use is my friend's i pod. I am truly sorry, I can't debate against you this round. Adding to the situation I am in I am also doing the 30 hour famine. I am exausted and barely able to write this. Again truly sorry.
Video games and/or simulations are an efficient form of training and education.

The Pro did not give any definition so I shall provide it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Simulation- The act or process of pretending. http://dictionary.reference.com...+ Video game- Any of various games played using a microcomputer with a keyboard and often joysticks to manipulate changes or respond to the action or questions on the screen. http://dictionary.reference.com... Efficient- Performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort. http://dictionary.reference.com... Training- The education, instruction, or discipline of a person or thing http://dictionary.reference.com... Education- The act or process of imparting or acquiring particular knowledge or skills, as for a profession. http://dictionary.reference.com... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will state that the traditional way of teaching is better than Video games and simulation in the second round.
Video games and/or simulations are an efficient form of training and education.

Rebuttals Where are the resources? "(1) People learn better through active experience than passive listening; and (2) people learn better through interacting with one another than working alone." *The traditional ways of teaching does involve passive listening and active experience like any online video games or simulations. Traditional way of teaching and learning is effective already because it is still being use all over the world. Why Traditional Method are Greater *People used traditional methods for long period of time and they are still using the methods today. *Methods are listening to the teachers, working on activities with people, and experiencing the information. *I take Spanish at my school and the teacher helps me very well. I don't believe that you are going to have that type of help or attention given to you online. For example try this website: http://lhh.tutor.com... This website is known to help people with their homework, but every time I try it I waste my precious time and receive a headache. * Traditional methods involve face to face attention, while on the computer simulation or teaching program you don't know who you are talking to. *As a middle school student I know the best and effective way that kids learn which is by keep on practicing. Through working on homework after listening to your teachers tell you what to do. There are 2 ways students learn which are by listening to the information and seeing pictures with words. http://wiki.answers.com... Military uses video games, but they are not truly affective. * The traditional ways are the ways where they fight and shoot guns at targets. * A video game can't prepare a soldier or a fighter pilot for battle because the virtual world isn't as harsh or dangerous as a real war. When the soldier shoots a real gun and the fighter pilot flies a fighter jet than they are prepared to fight in a war. Conclusion Nothing beats the traditional way, because the traditional methods are so good they are still being used today. The traditional methods give you face to face time with the teacher unlike online video simulation. Video game isn't real, so it can never prepare you for something new or different. In traditional way you learn to adapt when you need to. Video games and online simulations are nothing compared to the traditional ways of learning. Traditional methods have been effective for a long time and aren’t going anywhere. We experience traditional methods first hand when we were students and we know how effective they are. Traditional methods are in no doubt the better teaching way than videogames and online simulations.