BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islam is a Bad Religion.

This is a silly premise for an argument, but Let's Do it. What, pray tell, makes a "bad" religion? Is it because the object of the belief? That is, Satanism and Ba'al Worship are "bad" because Satan and Ba'al are "bad"? Is it because of the actions of those who follow that belief? i.e. communism is bad because communists do bad things. Maybe it's because the things that the believers actually believe are bad, the way that someone might argue that "racism is bad because racist beliefs are bad" Or maybe it's bad because it's illogical, as in, "You believe that tacos can fly? that's a "bad" belief?" Until you define bad the debate is going to go nowhere fast. But, for the sake of playing the game, I'll bite. Islam is not a "bad" religion. I'll define badness as causing a net destruction and harm within a population. The thing that ISIS does. If a religion is "bad" it will do just that. The Heaven's Gate Cult, for example, had 39 members, including it's leaders, commit suicide. That's some destruction, but, the only ones who died were members of their group. So while I might argue that HG was harmful to the health of the membership, it wasn't really... "capital B" Bad. Now There are currently 1.8 Billion Muslims. IF 99% of them were good, you'd have 18 million bad ones. or 99.99% good equals 180,000 bad ones. That's a very small number of adherents compared to the over all number. Intelligence estimates say that around around 300,000 are at risk of being radicalized. Only 5,000 Europeans have gone to Syria to join ISIS. so we are looking at a very small number of very dangerous people. Around 2 for every 10,000 people are at risk of being brainwashed into violence.
Children should only have to wear uniform on school event(when vistors come, sports days)

Firstly, your Grammar is Poor.Against your first argument about freedom of choice towards what children wear, if they wear Mufti it is a problem of "Hmm what shall I wear today, a dress, a skirt , a Hoodie", whereas with wearing school Uniform there's no fuss, and most importantly if everyone wears the same then the chance of bullying towards clothing is nill. I do not understand your second argument.Arguing your 3rd point, Usually you wear your uniform twice, so that four days and if its clean then you just wear it another. Obviously the parent would realise if their child has worn the same uniform for a week so if a child has not given their Uniform to their parent then that's really their problem
Children should only have to wear uniform on school event(when vistors come, sports days)

I belive children should not have to wear school uniform unless it is a public event as it helps freedom of children in what the wear.Another reason is that some children have exception to not wear uniform which is fair so if children had the choice there would be fairness in what children wore.to the washing aspect if weekends come and a child has not given their uniform to their parents then the uniform would not be ready yet children going to school in no uniform in again unfairness. when which they should have to wear thir dirty uniform because they should not be allowed because it is the childs fault NOT the parents.
Children should only have to wear uniform on school event(when vistors come, sports days)

Poor grammar once again, as I cannot understand your 1st Paragraph.However, with your arguement stating "the money saved will be used to buy school lunches and new uniform for the oldest child." What a poor rebbutal. Every Child's parent has to buy school lunches, mufti or uniform. And it doesn't necessaryily have to be a NEW uniform. Freinds or family may have hand me downs so.I rest my case
Children should only have to wear uniform on school event(when vistors come, sports days)

Your 1st Paragraph is Irrelevant, however...I argued that if the uniform is clean then the child could just wear it again, making 5 days. Against your next argument, yes Uniforms are used to represent your school but is also beneficial in many other ways. Firstly, as I stated previously, it lessens the chance of bullying towards clothing worn as everyone will be wearing the same. Secondly it is cost effective and finally it can be passed down to younger siblings or friends.
Children should only have to wear uniform on school event(when vistors come, sports days)

Sorry for my grammar, I am not the top of the class like others???????? I do not understand YOUR point of 4 days when school is five days o of course their child would wear their uniform for another day??My Next point is uniform is just needed to help represent schools what else so that each student looks as tacky as the next kid in the school. I REST MY CASE
turtles are too slow

I would like now to turn this debate towards the fact that there appears to be a concerning trend in the amount of morons who like to spam DDO with their idea of comedy, yet it is consistently annoying and unfunny at the same time. I accepted this debate because I like to mock people, yet any pleasure I derived from it was defeating by the fact that I'm encouraging you. So please, please stop posting like you're eight years old.
turtles are too slow

Turtles are a way to .. giving them shoes would solve this problem.. if u truly believe that our world is completely supported by a tortoise.... and that his speed determines our lives and our movement across out universe. Then I propose finding help. As for this slow tortoise stuff, they should be forced to rush or not be allowed in street for 17 minutes to get across the street in preposterous I look forward to my opponents unrelenting wrath...
Atheists believe there is no God, so there is no way for them that Pascal's Wager can be won.

The only payoff from God that anybody gets is death for our sins. That is the only payoff we have earned, and we can't earn anything better. There is no way for anybody to win in Pascal's Wager. You either have eternal life now and heaven is your home or you have eternal death and you lose your soul and everything is lost in the fire of Hell. You are fooling yourself if you think that you or anybody else can win anything in a Wager concerning God.
Atheists believe there is no God, so there is no way for them that Pascal's Wager can be won.

LMGIG Argument is flawed by claiming that because an atheist lacks a belief in God that there isn't a God to pay atheists off But this doesn't have do be the case, Just because atheists don't believe in God it doesn't mean God doesn't exist, the same applies to a theist, just because a theist believes God exists it doesn't mean God has to exist, God may or may not exist but His existence is not dependant on our belief system. Therefore even if an atheist denies that God exists simply because he see's no reason to accept such belief, it doesn't mean he can not win Pascal's wager, Moreover an atheist who sincerely believes God does not exist has every chance of being exempt from sin, which is the qualification to enter the kingdom of God. It is those who have experienced God and hold strong beliefs in Gods existence who are most likely to lose the wager, because once they have such experience and then reject God their sin remains. Thus an atheist has more chance of winning the wager
Atheists believe there is no God, so there is no way for them that Pascal's Wager can be won.

The wager cannot be won by an atheist because an atheist believes there is no God to pay off on the wager. Pascal's Wager requires the belief that God is there of that He may be there. Atheists believe there is no God. Atheists cannot play the wager and remain atheists, and they can't win the wager according to their own beliefs as they deny that God is there with no possibility that He is there. I don't know what you are talking about in your arguments, how am I supposed to respond to something that seems incoherent? The debate is not about sin or who is exempt from sin, and it is not about throwing stones. The topic of the debate is Atheists believe there is no God, so it is not possible for them to win in Pascal's Wager. Sin and throwing stones has nothing to do with it. I really don't know what you were trying to say, I could not make sense out of it.
Atheists believe there is no God, so there is no way for them that Pascal's Wager can be won.

Notice my opponent did not attack the biblical quote I provided as a rebuttal to Atheists who can not win Pascal wager, This argument is dropped The quote makes a reference to those who are spiritually blind and indicates they are exempt from sin simply because they are unable to notice that God exists, An atheist may deny God exists simply because he does not see good enough reason to believe in Him and therefore lacks a belief in God, but this dis-belief is honest not dis-honest, so therefore he has no sin for dis-believing or rejecting the idea of God. It is those who have experienced God in their lives who are subject to losing the wager because they have seen by way of experience somehow that God exists, then if they choose to reject God they are subject to losing the wager. John 9 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. KJV The above quote exempts true atheists from sin if God exists.
Atheists believe there is no God, so there is no way for them that Pascal's Wager can be won.

Atheism says there is no God. Where are the atheists now, all the ones who have so boldly stated on DDO that there is no God? Pascal's Wager implies God is or may be there so it is best to live your life in respect of the possibility that He is there and you don't want Him to be angry with you. Atheism asserts that there is no God, so there is no way possible an ahteist can win in Pascal's Wager, and there is no reason for an atheist to even take Pascal's Wager seriously as any kind of guidance of advice on how to conduct their lives. I didn't know this debate would become nothing but repeated attempts by my opponent to change the meaning of atheist. Do atheists no longer understand the roots of words and their meanings? "Pathy" means "feelings" . "Apathy" means "no feelings" "Theos" means "God" "Atheos" meanst "no God" "Atheist" is a person who says there is no God. For an atheist, there is nobody to pay off in Pascal's Wager and no reason to bet.
Atheists believe there is no God, so there is no way for them that Pascal's Wager can be won.

I gladly accept the debate and shall proceed to negate the arguments put forward by LMGIG, My opponent insists on using the definition of the word "athiest" from the Merriam webster dictionanary, In such the word atheist is defined as a disbelief in God and A critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Even using this highly contreversal definiton, I still believe LMGIG has a very weak case against atheists who can not win Pascals wager. and I shall proceed to show you why. Pascasls wager in short is as follows. Believe in this case the Christian God and you gain eternal life in heaven, dis-believe in God and you lose the oppurtunity to gain a place in heaven. Blaise Pascal could be wrong, God may exist and yet still reward atheists although they have not believed in him, John 9 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. KJV Character limiit
Atheists believe there is no God, so there is no way for them that Pascal's Wager can be won.

The definition of Atheist is limited to the Meriman Webster definition. "A" meaning no, and "theist" meaning believer in God, and Atheist is one who believes there is no God and Meriman Webster Dictionary clearly supports this definition. Since Pascal's Wager implies God is there or may be there to pay off on wagering that He is or may be there, you cannot play Pascal's Wager as an atheist, as an atheist believes there is nobody to pay off the bet and therefore nothing to be won by playing Pascal's Wager. Give a bit of a sample argument in the comments before I allow you to accept this challenge. I don't want another battle over definitions. Plain English only please, if you need a dictionary to define "won", you are not qualified for this debate.
Atheists believe there is no God, so there is no way for them that Pascal's Wager can be won.

LMGIG Has severly misconstrued the debate topic and that is if an atheist is able to enter the kingdom of God, simply because he is an atheist, I gave reason that shows an atheist, who is somebody who simply lacks a belief in God is able to be exempt from sin simply because he see's no good reason or evidence to believe God exists. I do not have to defend why a rapist or a killer can not win the wager. I only have to defend why an atheist can win the wager, and I have done this by showing that those who can not see God and find no genuine reason to believe in God in all sincerity, then he has no sin in this regard, because he simply does not see that God exists. But those who claim to have seen the light and claim to have experienced God are subject to lose the wager if they live thier lives not according to Gods way. The resolution has been negated and furthermore my arguements dropped.
Atheists believe there is no God, so there is no way for them that Pascal's Wager can be won.

Vote Placed by YamaVonKarma 2 days ago LifeMeansGodIsGood medv4380 Tied Agreed with before the debate: - - 0 points Agreed with after the debate: - - 0 points Made more convincing arguments: - - 3 points Total points awarded: 3 1 Reasons for voting decision: "If an atheist places a chip against God, the atheist is saying God is there to place a chip against and is no longer an atheist " Con (LifeMeansGodIsGood) won with this statement. Bizzare logic like my opponent's is tiring for me to try to understand, but I think muddled through enough to see he is trying to prove that an athesit is exempt from sin. So I guess he is saying that no matter how many whorish women an atheist vistis, no matter how many virtuous women an atheist rapes, no matter how many people an atheist kills (and some atheists do things like this, if one atheist is exempt from sin, then all must be), the atheist goes to heaven free from sin? Comeon, give me a break.
Atheists believe there is no God, so there is no way for them that Pascal's Wager can be won.

If God exists then the reward for the wager is eternal life in the kingdom of heaven, It is not necessary for an atheist to even be conscious of the wager or even of God to win the reward, If God exists then an atheist is able to enter the kingdom of heaven, simply by default, this is because an athiest is exmept from sin if he has not seen any evidence to believe in God, it is the believers who are most likely to lose the wager, because they claim to know God exists and this makes them subject to sin if they then reject God in their lives. an atheist on the other hand does not claim to know God, see God or have evidence for God, thus he is emempt from being guilty of rejecting God and therefore has no sin. Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. John 9 41 KJV Jesus is refering to blindness to those who had no means of knowing God therefore they are without sin. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
Debate.org is superfluous if not detrimental, in the face of modern blogging technology.

"If a blog were made that was subject to such rules and moderation, wouldn't it just be another debate.org? Wouldn't THAT be superfluous?" Not really. It's a matter of timing and flexibility. Timing. Those blogs exist now and existed before debate.org. Flexibility. With the proliferation of blogs, one can find one suited to their specific needs moderated or at least observed by people knowledgeable in the desired topic. In this instance, as with the proliferation of open source software, more is better. Choice is handy. Besides forums and blogs are generally personally owned, where as debate.org is corporate.
Debate.org is superfluous if not detrimental, in the face of modern blogging technology.

You could easily stipulate on the blog that the only replies that will pass moderation are those which conform to some level of logical rigor. Besides, the debate.org voting system ends up being little more then a polling system anyway, and often times the question being asked by the poll isn't even related to the so called topic of the debate. Many times people respond with their vote to the question of who is more attractive, or what did they already agree with. I've proved this in previous debates. I think the overall flavor of the blog can encourage logical debate, well more than this page can. Not a lot of trolling of Richard Dawkins page, or the physics blogs.
Debate.org is superfluous if not detrimental, in the face of modern blogging technology.

Modern blogs have every function to be found in debate.org. Modern Blogs have much greater flexibility with regard to formatting and character limit. Modern blogs allow for much greater voting flexibility allowing for a much clearer picture of consensus. Modern blogs reach a much larger audience. Debate.org has already shown itself to be capable of censorship thus negating any sort of third party non partial peer review type advantage. Modern blogs have multiple backup options. Modern blogs increase in features almost daily, where as I'm still waiting on debate.org to be updated.
Abortion: A Secular Debate

Rebuttal:Pro is asserting that because I have the position that abortion of a fetus is immoral, I must also want to ban abortion.I have a couple of responses to this:1. It was agreed at the beginning of the second round of this debate, by Pro's request, that the legality of abortion would not be addressed in discussion during this debate. Also, by Pro's request, it was agreed that the focus of this debate be on the morality of abortion.I have honoured Pro's requests and have since left legality out of my arguments, focusing instead on my reasoning for believing that it is immoral for a woman to have an abortion.Any discussion about banning or regulating abortion is based in the legality of this issue, and for Pro to bring legality back into the discussion after we had agreed not to discuss it is bad form. 2. Believing that something is immoral and believing that it should be legally restricted or banned are two different things. For example, I may believe that it is immoral to publicly voice a negative opinion about homosexuality, but I accept that freedom of expression is necessary for our society and therefore don't think that publicly voicing a negative opinion about homosexuality should be banned.Pro states: "A fetus cannot even mentally function outside of involuntary muscle movement and bodily functions."Where are your sources to back up this claim? I provided a sourced description of a fetus and what it is capable of doing in my 3rd round argument that clearly proves this claim to be false.Conclusion:My position in this debate has been that it is immoral for a woman to have an abortion, and that the abortion of a fetus is murder.My main point for the immorality of abortion was that a fetus is a live human being and deserves equal rights to life as the mother.It was agreed that an abortion can be defined as "deliberately killing a fetus", and that murder can be defined as "deliberately killing a person". I went on to argue that a fetus can be defined as a human being, and therefore a person.Please read through the previous rounds to see specific arguments. Thank you for your participation, and I hope to see votes for Con! I would like to thank my opponent for participating in this debate! All the best!
Abortion: A Secular Debate

I. Con's Arguments."This is absolutely not a pro choice versus anti-choice argument. As I mentioned in my previous argument, I am not contesting whether it is a woman's right to have an abortion. The focus of this debate is whether or not it is morally right for her to have an abortion."Wrong. You are denying a woman's/child's right to not carry a fetus in her womb."My opponent continues to offer his circular argument: a fetus is not a human being. He still has not addressed my question, which was why he thinks that this is the case. He also has not addressed my most recent arguments for the opposing position."A fetus cannot even mentally function outside of involuntary muscle movement and bodily functions."Also, death is absolutely not a stage of human life. It is the termination of human life. It is understood that we do not continue to live after we die. Unless my opponent is arguing that life continues after we die."I am not disagreeing with con. I was saying that if you say that being a fetus is a stage in human life, then death is also a stage of human life. Obviously, I do not agree that a fetus, or death is a stage of human life. For the record, I do not believe in an afterlife. Hence the "Secular Date" name.Con says this, referring to me saying that con is disrespecting rape victims: "Pro is putting words in my mouth here. I have not once claimed that a mother should be forced to keep her baby. I have not even claimed that a mother should be forced to carry the baby to term. I am simply arguing that it is morally wrong for her to have an abortion".If you actually believe that abortion is immoral, then you would like to outlaw it. If you were to outlaw it, you would be denying women's/children's rights. That was my point."It is unfortunate that Pro is making these far-reaching assumptions. As I already mentioned, my position in this debate is not that abortion should be banned, but that having an abortion is morally wrong."It is illogical for someone not wanting to outlaw something that is immoral. This is not a "far-reaching" assumption. This is an educated guess.II. Arguments.Extend.III. Conclusion.That everyone for reading and participating in this debate. I would also like to thank my opponent for his participating and responses. VOTE PRO.No need for sources here :)