BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is man-made

Since I have limited space I will mainly respond to the arguments presented. The Jewish tradition of passing down information as a tradition is equivalent of many other religions that have passed stories down from parents to children. The fact that it was passed down with care and the belief in the system does not add any truth to the validity of the stories. Then I must point out there is no evidence that the miracles claimed by Jesus ever happened. Plus to loosely quote David Hume, What is more likely that the laws of nature are suspended in your favor or that you are mistaken.First Point: I did include the option for some gods may be real in my first point in round 3. Second point: I am not sure how no Muslims showing up on a map before 600AD refutes my argument. If anything it supports it. Third point: I am fine with supernatural I am saying these examples of societies with no gods are supporting evidence for my conclusion. Fourth point: The people thinking it was created has nothing to do with if it was or not created. I do think an atheist would tell the emperor of Japan he is not a god. The religion that says he is would also be made by man. I also think you are missing my point, because if the people believe in the religion is irrelevant to my point. Rebuttal of conclusion: I would just like to point out that Christians disagree on how you get saved and where you go when you die. Purgatory was only taken away in our lifetime by the previous Pope.(1) Closing statements: What would you expect from ordained religion. Well I would expect that the religion to be self-evident and not just to you the reader, but to everyone. There would be no need to spread a religion if it was ordained by a all knowing god. The fact that religions have origins and are not known to all societies without word of mouth spreading the religion is a trait of something man-made. My points show these facts that religions have origins, Christianity for example is the middle east. Native Americans never knew of Jesus until the religion spread. This fact makes religions regional in the fact they formed in different areas. The fact that some societies have no Deities in their religions further shows the contrast of my claims. Last is the fact that religions take on forms of the societies they inhabit. Look at Christianity and how it has changed from believing the earth was the center of the universe to now recognizing we are simply not. (2) From the evidence provided it is safe to conclude that since these religions show traits of being man-made that they are man-made. I wish to thank my opponent for a good debate and thank you the reader for taking time to read over it. Please leave a comment if you have suggestions or wish to discuss any of the statements.(1) https://en.wikipedia.org... (2)https://en.wikipedia.org...
God is man-made

Rebuttal: Israel made a covenant where they saw God in the OT. This covenant was repeated from generation to generation until even today. This is a generational eyewitness account handed down from father to son. The tradition has been unbroken since that time and the story have not changed over thousands of years. The love a father has for his children and the integrity and responsibility makes it unlikely that this story was a human invention. There is historic evidence for the Jesus Christ. He was God manifest in the flesh. Believers and non-believers attest to his person-hood and miracles and therefore make it unlikely it is man made stories. First point: Your options should also include that SOME gods may be real while at the same time SOME gods are not. It is not one or the other. In this case you may find SOME gods were man made and SOME has no evidence that they were ever man made. Most primitive religions include the spirit world and supernatural. That is not based on "natural phenomena" as defined by "so called science" today. Second point: Anecdotal claims are countered in that I mentioned "in recent times". Naming what Muslims told me is not the crux of the argument. You will not find a Muslim on any map before 600AD. That alters any modern claim based on region and the spreading of religion. Third point: Although Buddhist does not claim a single deity they do believe in the supernatural and afterlife. People tend to argue against a god of their preference. Humans have also been worshipped as gods. The Roman Emperors were worshipped as gods and death was the alternative belief. The God of the Bible refer to some rulers who could extinguish any life with the snap of his fingers as gods. There is also a god of this world in the Bible who is not Jesus Christ. There are different offices and natures that determine and distinguish gods. Some may have God like authority and therefore are gods. The Emperor of Japan is believed to be of divine origin. I have never heard of any atheist who has ever dared to go to Japan and tell the emperor in his face that he is a liar and does not exist. Christians died because they rejected the Emperors as gods. Fourth point: Spreading of religion do not necessarily support what you say. As pointed out, you have opposing nations who accept the same gods although they are at war with each other. If they knew the gods worshipped by their opponents were man made then it is very unlikely they would also worship them. Conclusion: I fail to see the difference between man made and man created. Drunkards go to hell whether they are gay or not. Opinions about certain aspects related to faith are not enough to claim a change of its original tenants. The main tenants of the Christian faith have always been who God is, how you get saved and where you go after you die for over 2000 years.
God is man-made

I find it odd that my opponent chooses not to present arguments for God not being created by man. Instead rebuts my arguments. First point: It is true the presence of gods does not conclude they were man-made though the options are simple. Either all gods are real, some gods are real, or no gods are real. Since I am going with more of the null hypothesis that no gods are real until proven to exist. I assume the variety of gods shows the creativity of humans when creating them. Also, showing that most primitive religion worship was of the Sun and other natural occurring phenomena, this also shows the creating of Gods by these cultures furthering my point. Second point: I am more pointing to the relation from language being reginal to how religion is reginal. Since language is a known human creation the similarities from culture show. Now the Muslim example may be true for some though not all. I again point to my map provided for reginal religions as it shows that they are reginal. (1)(2) I would also like to point out that it is an anecdotal fallacy to say because you find some Muslims that say they doubt their religion that the maps made from surveys and statistics are false. Third point: The point of this was that the societies do not have Gods. Buddhist are a major world religion and there is no God/Gods found in it. If the society is spiritual or believes in supernatural is not the point I was making. Fourth point: My original point was if something was true then it would not change over time and conform to societies. To rebut the points made by my opponent. Other people accepting and spreading a religion does support reginal. If it was not reginal then there would be no need for the religion to spread it would already be accepted everywhere. We can trace religions to origins of areas where they started. See my video (2) for examples of the major world ones. Conclusion: Now I also have not said that people believed gods where man made. I said man created gods. The worshiping people that passed religions on and accepted their enemy’s religions believed in gods. I am saying from history the religion spread much like language spreads and most primitive religions are nature worship. This shows religions have the traits of something created and not ordained. Last Christianity, only for the past 200 years or so went against slavery. (3) The LGBT community has only been accepted in the last 50 years or so. So I challenge the 2000+ years without change claim.(4) While this is single example I believe it to be relevant. I can remember growing up and being told Gay people will go to Hell by my church. Now many churches have changed their view. (1) http://brilliantmaps.com... (2) http://www.businessinsider.com... (3) https://en.wikipedia.org...(4) https://en.wikipedia.org...;
God is man-made

Rebuttal: First point: The presence of gods in different cultures does not automatically make them man made. You still have to prove these gods were in fact man made. Second point: It is recorded in Ezekiel that God was angry with the Israelites because they baked cakes to "the Queen of Heaven". Although they were Jewish, born in Israel, they were not orthodox believers and followed a different religion. Today many Atheists argue that if you were born in a Muslim country that you will be Muslim etc. It sounds very probable but only in recent History. In ancient times the Kaaba contained thousands of different gods that were worship. They also forget that you are either a Muslim or a dead rejecter of Islam. If Muslim countries did not kill those who reject Islam or made them outcasts then it is more probable that people would NOT necessarily become Muslims. I have heard many Muslims say they doubt their religion and do not even accept all the beliefs. They are Muslims because they are FORCED to be not because they are BORNED into Islam. The present situation was much different in ancient times and disproves the regional claim. Third point: I read the article but the article also states: "The Pirah" have also been cited as a counterexample to the common claim that religious beliefs are human universals. But there"s a problem with these arguments, and Everett himself highlights it: in his many articles and interviews about the Pirah", he reports that the Pirah" world is chock-full of spirits, including sky spirits, forest spirits, and evil spirits. Although they object to the Christian God they certainly do not reject the supernatural." (1) Fourth point: The Babylonians worshipped Nimrod, Tammuz and Semiramis also known as the "Queen of Heaven". "Queen of Heaven was a title given to a number of ancient sky goddesses worshipped throughout the ancient Mediterranean and Near East during ancient times." (2) The evolution noticed in some religions only proves that there was evolution. It does not prove that the ORIGINAL belief system was also man made. Again, the common thread found would indicate that ALL religions are not regional. The acceptance of different countries that had histories of opposing each other but worshipping the gods in similar fashion would indicate they believed the gods were not man made. It is hard to believe that you would accept your enemies gods if you knew they were inventions. Conclusion: Pro has to yet prove all the gods are in fact man made. ALL Religions are not based on region. The Pirah" do not reject the supernatural and therefore is not a very good example. Christianity has a 2000+ history. Orthodox Christianity did not change. I mention this to point out that Pro"s statement is more correct that SOME religions evolve and change. According to Pro"s conclusion that would be evidence that Christianity is the true religion. In all cases probable conclusions was given by Pro but also sufficient doubt pointed out to question the validity of the conclusions. 1. https://www.ibcsr.org... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org...
God is man-made

First point: To start on this I would like to point out that Historically there have been many Gods. I could go through and name them though I think it is more practical to assume you have heard of Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, and many others. Each of these had many gods and all separate religions. Over time people have forgotten about these gods and replaced them with others such as the Christian God. So, I submit my first evidence that man-made thousands of Gods. Why would anyone say with so many examples that man just didn’t make one more? (1) Second point: Continuing the trend Humans when creating societal things seems to be regional. Example would be language. When you look at a globe you can section it by language. From there you can see societies and languages depending on where they are located. (2) Religion is no different in this fact. When comparing religion on the globe we can see it is regional in nature much like language another human construct. This is further evidence that religion is not preordained, but rather created by man. (3)(4)Third point: Furthermore, I would like to also present the facts that some societies have been discovered without religious systems. Piraha is an example of this. (5) This further supports the claim that all gods are man-made, as examples of societies without gods show they are not innate in our species. Not to mention that a major world religion also has no gods in it. Fourth point:Last argument is that religions evolve. What I mean by this is that they change over time often forming to what societies are doing. Example of this would be the Greek religion when it changed and was adopted by the Romans. The Romans made the religion distinct forming a new version. Another example would be how Asherah was a Goddess and wife of Yahweh, though now removed from the religions left to worship Yahweh. (6) Conclusion:Religions form and we have theories on why humans form these much like languages. There are many examples of societies creating different religions why would any be true over another. Religions exhibit traits that are common to human creations and thus are more likely created. Then religions change over time when if a religion was true its truths would not change with societies. (1) . https://en.wikipedia.org... (2) . http://www.mapsofworld.com... (3) . http://brilliantmaps.com... (4) . http://www.businessinsider.com... (5) . https://www.ibcsr.org... (6) Patai, Raphael (1967). The Hebrew Goddess.
A Strictly Atheistic World View Can Not Account For Morality.

.. . I love this sort of debate, ie. what are morals and why do we have them sort of thing "Because in an Atheistic world view there is no God to judge such acts. The only thing that can judge Hitler in an Atheistic world are other people, but what if every single person on the planet became a Nazi. " First If everyone was a Nazi there would be no problem with Nazism because they wouldn't have a WW2 Repeat due to the fact that everyone would agree. .. . Second the people/self being the judge is what I am arguing. The Ultimate judge is humanity. The concept of the Other best applies here. When we look at another acting, we judge them. When we look at ourselves acting the same way, we remember that judgment. We don't have to actually see someone else, but imagine that there is that Other judging us. Also if we look to the roots of morality we don't find God, but humanity. Why is it immoral to kill? Because if it was allowed then people would freely kill us. If we look at what we would think had we seen the event happen, or been the recipient, we will agree that the event is bad. From All this we can take morality to really be a golden rule of sorts. Judge ourselves as we would judge others. Do to others as we would have done to ourselves. Neither of these concepts require God, in fact they function just as well with a God as without. "How can Atheism account for morality? And what will you base you morality off of, if not God? " I have already sort of answered this but I will do it again for sake of order and clarity. Atheism accounts for morality via Humanity. The roots of our morals exist in an atheist society, they were created not by God but by human conscience and need for order and safety. I don't want to retype the explanation of the Other(which was admittedly pretty bad) but that is a general concept of how atheism can account for and provide a base for morality. The golden rule is another base for morality. Morals Exist for human safety primarily. Why is it immoral to kill? because we don't want to be killed. God is not the source of Morals, and therefore an atheistic world view can account for morals just as well as a theistic world view can.
A Strictly Atheistic World View Can Not Account For Morality.

Thank you, to whoever accepts this challenge, I look forward to this debate. Now, to start off, I will go over some definitions. Morality: [conformity to the rules of right conduct] Evil: [morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked] Right: [in accordance with what is good, proper, or just] Atheist: [a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.] Theist: [the belief in one God (in this debate I am referring to the Christian God) as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation] http://dictionary.reference.com... To begin with, what makes something wrong or right? The law of a specific nation? Yourself? This question was simple when we were kids, for instance if John hit Sue then John was wrong and then gets in trouble. But as we get older this topic becomes more complicated. For instance, who said it was wrong for John to hit Sue? Who said it was wrong for someone to steal, cheat, lie, murder, torture, rape? The point is, in some cultures its acceptable and even encouraged to do these things. Just look at Hitler, Stalin or any other evil dictator/government. Anyone can read about the trattorias acts that have been accurately recorded through out history. But here's the thing, all these men committed terrible acts without believing that they themselves were 'wrong.' For example, Hitler murdered 10 million people for ethnic cleansing reasons, and through out his entire life as ruler over Germany, never once thought he was doing an immoral act. In fact, he believed he was doing just the opposite, Hitler thought, that through killing 10 million people he was "glorifying the Father Land" and doing the world a huge favor. Plus, Hitler not only was evil himself, but he had a whole nation behind him. Millions swore true allegiance to him, and his ideas. Now, given the above paragraph, it is impossible to say that Hitler's actions were immoral under an Atheistic world view. Why? Because in an Atheistic world view there is no God to judge such acts. The only thing that can judge Hitler in an Atheistic world are other people, but what if every single person on the planet became a Nazi. So there must be an ultimate judge, or over seer, in order for Hitler's actions to be held accountable. So, if one wants to debate that morality is defined by the law of a specific nation, or ones ability to justify there own actions, then the voters and my oppenent should be able to see clearly that an Atheistic world view can not account for morality. Please answer the following questions in your next argument. How can Atheism account for morality? And what will you base you morality off of, if not God?
Prostitution should be legalized in brothels

I have argued on various fronts about reasons prostitution should be legal. Health impact I have covered how it lower rape which affects people for the rest lives. I have shown how it lowers the spread of STDs which doesn't just affect those who use prostitutes but helps to make us all safer, and healthier as well as lowering the healthcare and financial burden the diseases cause. Legal aspect I have shown it is not a fair law in that it is legal to pay for sex if it's filmed. As well as showing the analogies between prostitution, massages, and trophy wives. I have shown that it has a long history of being an accepted profession, as well as the ineffectiveness of criminalizing it. Legalizing it would generate revenue and lower taxes on the rest of us. Moral aspect The government has no right to regulate a person's freedom when it comes to selling sex that deals with mutually consenting adults. Freedom is the ability to make make decisions that others don't agree with. We are free to do any number of things to other consenting adults that are immoral. (Gluttony and sloth) I have further shown that it is used by successful people who don't want to invest the time in relationships, breaking the stereotype that only "losers" go to prostitutes. In closing prostitution would be have a positive impact on the lives of the majority of the people in the areas it's decriminalized. The benefits extend well beyond the people engaged in prostitution both in the lower cases of rape/STDs and the lower of taxes. These facts are not even in question. The only real point of contention is if it is moral, and this is hotly debated, but comes down to freedom. Either you support freedom allowing someone to do something you don't agree with morally, or you don't support freedom and prevent people from doing what they do not see it as morally wrong. Personally I would rather stand on the side of freedom.
Prostitution should be legalized in brothels

Extension of rules. Yeah, a bunch of news articles are great sources. Murder is going to happen even if it's illegal. Lets legalize it to solve the problem. Great logic. Trophy wives argument is weak and they don't get paid for sex. They get marital income. It's not a transaction. “These Russian girls are floating around, looking for a rich gentleman looking to get married and take care of them,” said David Shapiro, "Take care of them". It's their entire life. Not just for sex. Logically fallacious leap.I think husbandry is much older than prostitution. Maybe farming. Ya know, the basic necessities of life kind of things. And profession? profession: "a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation" (https://www.merriam-webster.com...) It's more of a service than a profession.
Prostitution should be legalized in brothels

Having dyslexia can make it difficult sometimes for me if I don't focus on the words, and they look at a glance to be another word. You knew that I meant condom but I did make a mistake. Prostitution has been said to be the oldest profession in the world, and yet it's an illegal profession. And it's a profession men and women are getting into every year. http://www.nytimes.com... Even today women from other countries come to the us to become trophy wives. How is a trophy wife who trades sex for money any different than a prostitution who does the same? No one sees this as illegal though. http://www.thedailybeast.com... Prostitution provides an outlet for those who don't have time or a desire to have relationships. http://www.salon.com... Prostitution is going to happen even if it's illegal, but if it's legal we can tax it, as well as helping the economy. https://www.mrc.org...
Prostitution should be legalized in brothels

Extension of the rules established in round one. Pro now states "Condemns do exist, and have existed in many forms over the years, they cover the genital during sex to prevent transmission of fluids. From a company in Germany as proof of their existence." Condemns? The definition of Condemns, "express complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure: "fair-minded people declined to condemn her on mere suspicion" synonyms: censure · criticize · denounce · revile · blame · chastise · berate · [more] sentence (someone) to a particular punishment, especially death: "the rebels had been condemned to death" · [more] synonyms: sentence · convict · find guilty · damned · doomed · lost · [more] officially declare (something, especially a building) to be unfit for use: "the pool has been condemned as a health hazard" synonyms: declare unfit · declare unsafe" I extend the challenge for Pro to prove the existence of "Condomns".