BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion is evidence of man's ignorance

This was one of the more civil yet challenging debates I have taken a part in. This is a perfect example of why I enjoy debating in the first place. As for my closing statement, I do agree that science will progress and continue to expand our understanding of the universe. However, I believe religion will do the same. I believe as a species we are in our infancy and haven't matured enough to fully comprehend what this existence really means. Once we have matured, we will come to realize the importance of not only knowledge in the mind, but also wisdom of the spirit. The main difference in our debate is probably our perception of the limits of knowledge. While you believe the universe has a threshold for knowledge to cross, I do not believe we will ever reach that point. We will forever continue to grow in intellectual knowledge as well as spiritual knowledge. There will never be a point where we will fully understand ourselves and the universe because it is forever changing and growing. Religion will continue to mature with humanity and there will be less quarrel and more unity. Although fear and hatred seem to drive the motives of religion, this is a perversion and a mask for the true intention behind it: love. Our spirits yearn for not only the growth of knowledge of what is outside of us, but for the connection to it. With love at its core, religion will prosper and drive us all toward a greater understanding not just of how the universe works, but our place within it. "Just as a candle cannot burn without fire, men cannot live without a spiritual life. " - Siddhartha Gautama Thanks for the amazing debate. I would definitely love to debate you again.
Religion is evidence of man's ignorance

First, let me thank you for engaging me in what I think was a very stimulating discussion. I especially appreciate your level of civility during the whole thing. This is my closing statement: I don't contest the fact that millions of people find solace in the arms of religion. Religion is necessary and it will remain so as along as we don't fully understand the world around us and as long as we continue punting the desire to question our deepest beliefs. One of the things that encourages me is knowing that research in the field of neuroscience is slowly unlocking the mysteries of what goes on in our minds. I am willing to bet that one day we will have in our hands the secrets to mysteries like why we believe what we believe. That I dare say is the day religion will become irrelevant. I started this debate by trying to link ignorance with religion. Whether I succeeded in doing that is of course unknowable. I still maintain this: the more knowledgeable we get, the wackier religion seems. A thousand years ago, for example, science as we know it was still in its infancy. Those were times of terrifying superstitions, human sacrifices and the assignment of supernatural explanations to almost everything. Now, we can explain earthquakes, lightning, hurricanes and other natural disasters without consulting ancient texts and tales that were woven in fear and ignorance. You speak of the answers and comfort that religion offers. Most of what you say is indisputable. How would we cope, for example, if we didn't have religion to fall back on in our moments of grief and hopelessness? A calming as that thought might sound, it still does not change the fact that religion has a visceral impact on the human psyche for the simple reason that it is the wall we hit when we don't have other explanations. I for one believe that there is something on the other side of that wall. We just have to climb over that barrier. And now I bid you leave, my friend. I am looking forward to your closing words. I hope we will get to debate again. It was a very illuminating experience.
Religion is evidence of man's ignorance

The argument I'm making is not about religion filling a void. I am saying that religion does provide answers to questions, but not the same questions as science. Ignorance is a constant. We will never know everything because it is impossible. We are ignorant regardless of science or religion. But both provide answers to certain questions. Religion isn't the opposite of science. When science grows, religion doesn't shrink. Religion gives an understanding of yourself but It is different for each person. What is true for you may not be true for me. Just because a man has lots of scientific knowledge, it does not make him less ignorant than a man with spiritual knowledge. But spirit is intangible. It can't be analyzed under a microscope. No one can give you those answers but a religion can give you a path. Who is to say that it is wrong? You mention all of the exclusive attributes of religion But not all Christians are preaching that you are going to Hell. In fact many Christians believe that you don't necessarily have to believe what they do to go to heaven. Instead they are out in the world feeding the homeless and helping others to find their way. They invite people to follow their path because it works for them and makes them happy. That is the evidence that there is something there. They understand way more about the world than someone gathering data from constellations because they live it daily. Their spirit is filled and there is no void. When you ask a priest who you are, he knows he can't give you an answer. But the priest might know himself and he will attempt to give you the same wisdom he found on his path. If you listen or don't, that is up to you. Same goes for any good religious person with real knowledge of the spiritual. I still stick to my analogy of art in the sense that no one can tell you what good art is but you. You choose to see what you want in a painting. Art can be destructive and hateful. Art can be exclusive. Do we make art to fill a void? Maybe some do. But art is abstract. It evolves and changes and some forms become popular while others fade. Some people think they know what perfect art is. Are they ignorant? But art is here to stay. Someone who calls themself an artist will tell you they have learned a lot through exploring their art. All of this applies to religion as well. And as for the Buddhist thing, if you Google top 5 religions, Buddhism pops up every time. In fact I can't find a site that doesn't acknowledge Buddhism as a religion.
Religion is evidence of man's ignorance

Your argument, from what I can deduce so far, is that in the absence of evidence or a clear understanding of the world around us religion is the best filler. In other words, what you are saying is that nature abhors a vacuum and religion is that bridge between ignorance and fact. So far you have not presented any convincing evidence that religion does not thrive on ignorance. Granted, you have praised religion for the good it does and acknowledged that religion is not perfect. And you have, admirably I have to admit, pointed out the fact that there are no clear answers when it comes to the issue of our spiritual selves. How do you define ignorance? Would you agree that it has a lot to do with not knowing "stuff"? Would you agree that ignorance is bliss and that is precisely the role that religion provides? Religion, and here of course am arguing as a westerner as you pointed out, does not seek to to answer any of life's deeper questions, am sorry to say. What religion does is provide a stopping point for any debate. In the three Abrahamic religions ( I can't comment much on the others) , the very thought of questioning or showing any intellectual curiosity that goes beyond God as the first and the last point of reference may get you excommunicated and ostracized. Religion hates dissent. Religion hates mavericks. Religion prefers blind acceptance. That is an indisputable fact. Religion demands that you hold on to your beliefs, contradictory evidence be damned. Ultimately religion is an opinion. Previously you mentioned that most religions preach love. That is true but only partly. Most religions preach unconditional love but only for those who share your beliefs. Most religions as currently practiced encourage love outside the "tribe" only as a means to proselytize. I am not saying that religion is all bad or all good and I'm sure we can agree on that. All am saying is religion is backward looking, uncompromising, it despises evidence, and encourages conformity. Lastly, I do agree that we are more than a collection of cells. However, religion should be the last place to look if we want to know who we really are because if you asked religion to give you that answer, you will hear something like this: God works in mysterious ways. I for one refuse to accept that answer. As far as Buddhism being a religion, a cursory Google search confirms my earlier assertion that indeed it is NOT in as much as it does not recognize any deities.
Bible is fictious and fake.

My opponent has not made any arguments yet: He has not explained why anything in the bible could not have happened. Nor has he explained why it's fake. So I'll just ramble a bit: How did people live so long? Well pro hasn't explained why a person could not live 1000's of years, but if he does: 1 of the popular answers given is the following: Following the flood the earth changed dramatically. Including changes in the climate, composition of the atmosphere, hydrologic cycle, geologic features, cosmic radiation reaching the earth, ozone concentration, ultra violet light, background radiation, genetics, diet, and a host of other subtle and/or profound chemical and physiological changes. These changes caused a rapid decline of the longevity of humanity. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus writes the following about this subject: "Now when Noah had lived three hundred and fifty years after the Flood, and that all that time happily, he died, having lived the number of nine hundred and fifty years. But let no one, upon comparing the lives of the ancients with our lives, and with the few years which we now live, think that what we have said of them is false; or make the shortness of our lives at present an argument, that neither did they attain to so long a duration of life, for those ancients were beloved of God, and [lately] made by God himself; and because their food was then fitter for the prolongation of life, might well live so great a number of years: and besides, God afforded them a longer time of life on account of their virtue, and the good use they made of it in astronomical and geometrical discoveries, which would not have afforded the time of foretelling [the periods of the stars] unless they had lived six hundred years; for the great year is completed in that interval. "Now I have for witnesses to what I have said, all those that have written Antiquities, both among the Greeks and barbarians; for even Manetho, who wrote the Egyptian History, and Berosus, who collected the Chaldean Monuments, and Mochus, and Hestieus, and, besides these, Hieronymus the Egyptian . . besides these, Ephorus and Nicolaus relate that the ancients lived a thousand years." (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 3) Following the flood lifespan began shrinking, the rate of post flood lifespan decreased at a rate close to the exponential (natural) decay rate. See more at http://www.answersingenesis.org... Some answer that in those days they were more careful with health. Or had secrets that we don't have. Some answer God made a miracle - how original. Some answer that earth was perfect & man messed up the world with pollution. Then global warming started.. - & Yes I did just make that up. Another answer is that the world was spinnig/moving near the speed of light, thus they aged slower. Today the earth has slowed down. I'm out of space, so I'll turn it over to pro, to make some arguments.
Bible is fictious and fake.

Definition of FAKE : one that is not what it purports to be:: a worthless imitation passed off as genuine: impostor, charlatanc : a simulated movement in a sports contest (as a pretended kick, pass, or jump or a quick movement in one direction before going in another) designed to deceive an opponentd : a device or apparatus used by a magician to achieve the illusion of magic in a trick(1)My opponent does not explain how the bible is fake.My opponent does not even explain how anything in the bible is factious.He simply lists some phrases.Thus my opponent has yet to make an argument.Thus there is nothing to respond to yet. (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
200th Debate: Drunk Driving Should Be Legal

Acceptance: I accept Wylteds Debate, and will be arguing the Drunk Driving should not be made Legal.I will be using a website to hold my sources: http://tny.cz...The reason being that I tend to use multiple sources, and will sometimes turn a 9,000 character argument into 12,000 characters. So bear that in mind. They will of course still be categorized so as to be easily found.
200th Debate: Drunk Driving Should Be Legal

The stuff written below this was written like a month ago and I'm no longer sure what it says, but whatever. This debate should only be accepted by Unitomic and I'm sure I tweaked it so only he can accept, if I'm mistaken please do not accept. Any suggestions or critique of the debate is welcome. Rules1. The debate will be in reference to American laws of my opponent is American. If my opponent is not American than the debate will be with the more general assumption of a "just society".2. First round is for acceptance. Edit: I know that self driving cars will soon be on the market, but I won't be arguing anything stupid, like they should be mandated or something like that. Edit 2: A recent study confirms that most people are opposed to drunk driving. . http://www.debate.org... --------- 1. First round is for acceptance 2. No Ks 3.
Evolution is false.

I extend all my arguments from round 2 which Pro didn't challenge. The only new argument I can find from Pro in round 3 is this:"Why do we find ancient dead animals whose skeletons are somewhat different but significantly close in dna and structure to animals of the current age?"No specific example was given for me to refute, so I'll just provide these general responses from wikipedia (1): Oftentimes, this argument involves confusing different taxonomic categories with individual species. For instance, it is often said that there were coelacanths millions of years ago, and coelacanths today. What this neglects to mention is that "Coelacanth" is the informal name of an entire order of fish, Coelacanthiformes, not just a specific species. The current genus and the two species within it, for instance, are not known in the "millions of years ago" fossil record. The modern species may well be similar sorts of creatures to those that lived millions of years ago, but the are clearly not the same unchanged species (or even the same genus).Evolution does not predict any one rate at which major changes will happen to a given lineage, and in fact it strongly suggests that the rate of change will vary widely with different species in different environments.Charles Darwin coined the phrase "living fossil" and suggested that species would have evolved slowly in the absence of competition.Not all differences between species, such as coloration, behavior, or songs, will appear in the fossil record.Evolution is continuous, and external appearance of an organism is no metric of it. Just because crocodilians today strongly resemble crocodilians of 50 million years ago does not mean that they could have interbred. It is possible that two species far removed from each other could evolve to become externally similar, if not identical. This happens particularly often with insects, and is called convergent evolution. (1) http://evolutionwiki.org...'t_seem_to_evolve_for_millions_of_years
Evolution is false.

Gravity is nothing more than a scientific theory, just like Evolution; gravity's theory has a huge mass of evidence pointing towards the legitimacy of the theory, or does it? Evolution is not the most likely possibility for how we currently are. Not the origin nor the process. Now if you or another darwinist, like many others before you have done, wish to argued evolution, If you do wish to know the truth, simply ignore all the evidence that the current theory of evolution has accumulated is false. Where did these fossils come from? God put them here for no reason. Why do we find ancient dead animals whose skeletons are somewhat different but significantly close in dna and structure to animals of the current age? I dont know. To challenge, or question this is just ridiculous. Surely this midpoint of Creationism and science is something that you could agree upon? Something much more likely than the tales of evolution or any other Holy scripture (other than the bible) is not likely. Even the title says that evolution is false. wtf case closed. Smashing babies against rocks will make you happy.
Evolution is false.

An a opportunity it is. Evolution is NOT a fact. It is a theory that has been all but proven WRONG, and most scientists KNOW it. Evolution is a philosophical theory, NOT scientific fact. It has been demonstrated that the biological mechanism allegedly responsible for evolution - chance mutation - does not increase genetic information, as molecules-to-man evolution would require. Rather, mutations result in a loss of information. This evidence from genetics provides perhaps the most devastating scientific argument to date against evolutionary theory. Read - Dr. Lee Spetner - "Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution" (1998) Phillip E. Johnson - "Darwin on Trial" (1991) Two books written by a born-again Christian and a Creationist, two groups of people who provide very little basis to any argument they make. There is no common ancestor between mankind and apes. It is a fairy tale. Modern genetics does not support the theory, and neither does the fossil record. Sorry - but evolution is not real.
The east is west and the west is east.

What's a direction? The Pro's entire argument is dependant on what exactly East and West is. I used the 2nd round for clarification, now I need to refute the entire premise. Argument:The resolution states "The east is west and the west is east". What does this mean? Treating these like Left and Right (which it isn't), Left is Right, Right is left. What? If a store is to my right, that's not my left. To say Right = Left, therefore the store is left, so Right is indeed Left, that's circular reasoning. You're assuming Right = Left to be true while tryont to prove that to be true. Just because I can go ALL the way around Earth to get to a location, that doesn't mean I'm going West. I'm going East, and that's the direction I'm going. My opponent's argument makes no sense, and isn't convincing. It's common sense that one way is that way, not the other.
The east is west and the west is east.

I like your rebuttal. I shall answer your questions. FIRST The east is a direction, as is west. But as you stated, because of the way sphere's work, what is east of me is also west of me. That means that the direction that is east of me, is also west of me. ALSO, something can be between you and me, so while it is nearer to me by the east, it is nearer to you by the west. Therefore, what is west to you could east to me. Therefore i could say what is west (unto you) is east (unto me) speaking as a heading or place instead of a direction. East and west are most commonly directions, but could be defined as headings or places. I can say, therefore, that east is west and west is east. But i did mean this whole debate mainly for fun.
The east is west and the west is east.

Huh? Let's examine Pro's argument to try to understand his reasoning.Rebuttal:"To the east of me right now is Jerusalem, but if i go far enough west, i will eventually reach Jerusalem."Of course. That's how spheres work. You go far enough one way, you end up back where you started."The east, while still being to my east, is also to my west, and likewise, the west, while being to my west is also to my east."There is no "my east" or "your east". North, South, East, and West is a physical direction. East/West isn't like Left/Right. Pro is confusing the two. North, South, East, and West are determined by the North and South poles of Earth. Left and Right are, well, left and right.It's a bit difficult to explain, though. But East and West is not the same as Left and Right. You can face East, but you're not facing Left.My opponent continues to, purposely, confound the directions. Here a thought: What's East? What's West?I'll simply end my rebuttal with this: What's East? What's West? What's North? What's South? I don't fully understand my opponent's argument, partially because he's using a definition dependant argument.
The east is west and the west is east.

To the east of me right now is Jerusalem, but if i go far enough west, i will eventually reach Jerusalem. The east, while still being to my east, is also to my west, and likewise, the west, while being to my west is also to my east. Thus, the east, my east, is to the west and thus is west. The west, my west, is also the east of me and is thus east. The east is west, and the west is east.
Universal Grammar is a valid

Universal grammar (UG) "[a concept] in linguistics, usually credited to Noam Chomsky, proposing that the ability to learn grammar is hard-wired into the brain." [1]Valid: Well-grounded or justifiable [2]If/when discussing the criteria for a valid "scientific theory," we will be referring to those listed on this page: http://atheism.about.com... I will be arguing that UG theory is invalid (i.e., not well-grounded or justifiable), and my opponent will argue that it is valid. The full burden of proof is on my opponent. ---The first round is for acceptance, as well as discussion of definitions and rules. Thank you.---[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
it is better to find love,than to complete your life long dream

I believe that falling in love is more important than dreams. It is far more important to contain some one else's heart rather then look forward to something difficult, and with low probability of achieving their goal I would first like to say that most of the times, when a person follows their dreams; they don't always stay consistent with them. They may be content with them for the time being, but usually their interests change and deteriate. When a person falls in love with some one, if it is true love, then they will stay with that person for all of eternity. They will always be there for that person, through any trial. They will always be there to hold them, to comfort them, and to listen to their every problem or difficulty. Their dreams also aren't always achievable. But it is possible for anybody to fall in love. There is some one out there for every one. Some one out there just like them, that would love them with all their heart and soul. Dreams aren't always accomplishable, like it or not. And a lot of time people lose interest with those dreams. Falling in love is far more important than achieving a small, unnecessary goal. People need to look forward in life, and a soul mate better helps you achieve this than a goal.
gun rights

Yeah, I know what I said was interesting, that's why I said it. Also, it's not alright with me to get back on track. I am on track, MY TRACK. Yo momma's so fat, she got her own zip code. Yo momma's so ugly, even Rosie O'donald wouldn't have sex with her. Yo momma's so stupid, she couldn't graduate Sunday School. What do you think about that, you limp-wristed liberal commie weasel?! Now I'm ready to answer your bush-league questions. As far as the current gun laws go, they are way too restrictive. I pay my taxes, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO DRIVE A TANK AROUND! Is that "specific" enough for you as to my position of this topic? As far as giving up my gun rights, well... you can go straight to hell. I don't care what people say, when the aliens invade, I want to be able to blow their faces off. Oh, I almost forgot to tell you, me and your mother are going to a spa resort this weekend, so we left $20.00 on the kitchen table for pizza. As always, you're a fat, ugly cow.