BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion is insane

Thank you daSnowman1183 for your courteous response. My opponent has not proven how religion is insane with the definition of insane I had given, which, with his given definition as well, would have allowed for a better debate on the topic. As my opponent has not provided any reason for my rebuttals to be wrong or inadequate, I assume that he agrees with my ideas. And his response to my short argument has a flaw in the logic. Just because religion exists in the mind, as my opponent has it, does not make the person whose mind it is in mentally deranged. I will provide an example to better explain what it is I am saying. Religion is an idea, and so is freedom. Freedom is not insane because it only exists in the mind, and that does not make the person, who believes he/she has freedom, mentally deranged. Similarly, religion is not insane. Now to conclude this debate. My opponent has not proven why religion is insane by either definition, nor has he provided sufficient reason for my argument to be inadequate at proving why religion is NOT insane. I believe that about sums up this debate. Thank you daSnowman1183 once again for such a delightful debate.
Religion is insane

Thank you daSnowman1183 for the well thought out response. I will now respond to my opponent's arguments. I accept my opponent's definition of "insane," but would also like to point out that the definition of "insane" that I had provided in round 1 should be considered as well to best debate the topic. My opponent argues that religion is insane because it is part of the mind. He explains this by saying that many people who have seen a God or Gods have actually seen a hallucination, an experience that does does not exist out of the mind. Firstly, not all religions have a God or Gods. Buddhists believe in a "higher power," but not a God or Gods. Seeing as this topic is of religion as a concept rather than a specific religion, the argument that religion is characteristic to those that are mentally deranged because they have seen God or Gods does not work. Furthermore, my opponent cannot say that people who have seen God or Gods are actually seeing hallucinations. A person may have actually seen God or Gods, but because society does not generally accept these "sightings," what the person may have actually seen would be considered a hallucination. I would like to point out that every experience that takes place in the mind is NOT a hallucination as my opponent has said. Hallucinations take place in the mind, but that does not make memories, which are relived in the mind, hallucinations. I do not quite understand what my opponent is trying to say in response to my Russian civil war example, but I shall refute to the best of my ability. To clarify something, a government is not the "rules that people must follow in a country or state," but rather the institute that creates, enforces, and interprets the law. That aside, my opponent says that religion causes more conflicts and is thus insane. I will use my friend as an example here. He argues whenever his ideas contradict those stated, which happens most of the time because his ideas are usually the opposite of the rest of society's. He creates more conflicts, but that doesn't make him insane. Religion, though it may create a few conflicts because of a contradiction of ideas, is not insane as a result. Atheists put their faith in only knowledge and science; theists put their faith in God or Gods or a higher power and knowledge and science. And I am not challenging what is known by science. What we can study physically does not go to the extent to be able to touch on a God or Gods or a higher power, so science cannot say that a God or Gods or a higher power can exist. My opponent has not responded to my 1 maybe 2 sentence argument, so I extend my argument. I await evermore eager for my opponent's response.
Religion is insane

to clarify some I would like to just say that there are 3 definitions of insane... one that my opponent neglected to say was: of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a person who is mentally deranged. The reason why that new definition also posted from www.dictionary.com is important is that religion is all in the mind... Currently, we are debating how religion is insane or pertaining to, or characteristic of a person who is mentally deranged. Deranged would define as the following: to throw into disorder; disarrange. Because of the definitions of deranged and insane I can now continue with my argument. First, earlier I said that religion is all in the mind. The reason for this is that there is no physical evidence of an existence of a "god" or "gods". Since there is no physical evidence, religion must simply be part of the mind; and because it is part of the mind, religion is insane. Now I will explain to you how religion throws the mind into disorder or disarrange: many people believe that they have seen a "god". This is simply an hallucination. Hallucination is defined as a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual or auditory images. Because their hallucination takes place only in the mind, it proves my argument that it was only an hallucination. When my opponent brought up the Russian civil war, he spoke of government, not religion. Even though both of them are beliefs, government is the rules that people must follow in a country or state. Religion is the belief in a super natural being. So basically, religion is like your political party and since the whites vs. reds started a civil war over politics and BELIEFS, religion does the same throughout the world. When my opponent attacked my atheistic values, he failed to mention that atheists believe in knowledge and science, not faith. So by saying that saying "god" does not exist is insane, you are clearly challenging what is known by science, something that can be studied physically.
Religion is insane

Thank you daSnowman1183 for starting this debate. I offer the following definition: insane- utterly senseless (from dictionary.com) My opponent argues that religion is insane because: 1) it creates problems 2) "the Bible speaks of lies" 3) there is no proof that God or Gods exist I will now counter my opponent's arguments 1) By "problems," I assume my opponent means conflicts such as the Kashmir Conflict. Conflicts are caused due to many things. Religion causes conflict because of an antinomy or because of multiple antinomies. Other conflicts are caused by antinomies as well (i.e. The Russian Civil War- Reds believed that a communist rule was optimal, and the Whites believed that the rule of the Czar was optimal; they had a civil war because of it). As religion isn't the actual cause of the problem, but rather a disagreement of ideas, this argument does not prove that religious insanity. 2) The Bible refers to one religion: Christianity. Calling ALL religions insane because one speaks "lies" that are specific to that religion is illogical. 3) There is also no proof that God or Gods do NOT exist. If belief that God or Gods exist is insane because there is no evidence supporting the claim, then, in turn, belief that God or Gods do not exist is also insane because there is no evidence saying that God does not exist. If my opponent argues this, then his own atheistic belief is insane. My argument: Theists believe God exists to explain what they cannot explain otherwise (i.e. existence of life). As there is no evidence confirming that theist beliefs are false, religion is not utterly senseless (which is the definition of insane if you scroll/look up a little). I patiently await my opponent's response.
Does "No Chance" mean the same thing as "No Balls"

Since we're using urban dictionary as a source (LOL):https://www. Urbandictionary. Com/define. Php? Term=you%27ve%20got%20no%20ballsThis is the version of "no balls" I was referring to above. I was very clear with my definition in my beginning round; you however, Were not and you failed to correct my definition in the second round. This definition is different from the colloquial expression "no chance".
Does "No Chance" mean the same thing as "No Balls"

I understand your viewpoint yet very respectfully disagree. Given that both terms are usually used in common conversation amgonst the youth in today's community. Therefore, I took the liberty of using "urban dictionary" to define the terms as well. Here are the definitions that I have found "No Balls": Meaning almost nothing "No Chance" : A word or expression derived from the St. Andrews vocabulary, Meaning to state that in an opinionated manner, There is absolutely no possibility of an event taking place We can see here that they are ESSENTIALLY describing the same article (one can deem them as synonyms) Although they may potentially differ by the slightest degree, The degree of similarity (in terms of the definition) is so high that they ultimately lead to the same expression, And can be used interchangeably. https://www. Urbandictionary. Com/define. Php? Term=no%20balls https://www. Urbandictionary. Com/define. Php? Term=NO%20CHANCE
Does "No Chance" mean the same thing as "No Balls"

The argument issued here is whether they two colloquial expressions mean the same thing. The argument is not whether they can be compounded together or organized into a conditional probability of co-dependence. The short answer is, They can coexist in the same logical statement and they can exist independently in separate logical statements. Either way, They have their own usage and definitional meaning and therefore they do not mean the same thing; otherwise their co-usage would be redundant and interchangeable.
Does "No Chance" mean the same thing as "No Balls"

Thank you for bringing up the topic of "probability" Have you heard of conditional probability? P(B|A) means "Event B given Event A" In other words, Event A has already happened, Now what is the chance of event B? P(B|A) is also called the "Conditional Probability" of B given A. For someone to say "No chance" they have have to have "no balls" "No chance" is conditional on "No balls". Without one, The other ceases to exist. If the 2 phrases are in fact different, Then according to your previous statement "one can have the balls do something, But there is no chance he/she will do it. " But if that is the case, Then the he/she would "do it" because he/she "has the balls to do said task" --> meaning there is a chance Simply put, If someone has the balls to do something, There lies a chance that he/she will and the only way to prove that "he or she has the balls" to do "said task" is to do "said task" meaning that there in fact is a chance that one does "said task"
More foreign languages should be taught/offered in High Schools

I understand that not every job in the world requires the person to be bilingual. My point was many students aspire to work in a high paying career, as in Law or Health. Imagine if someone that has only ever been taught Spanish comes into a hospital. If no one in the hospital knows Spanish, what happens to the person? They won't be able to get the patients personal information. At my high school, we have 2 language classes. Students (like me) that want to have a career that involves languages should be able to have a larger variety of languages to choose from. I am not content with only being able to choose between French or Spanish, and I cannot be the only person unhappy with the language program at their high school. I never said high schools should offer obscure languages that barely anyone in the world speaks. I believe languages like German, Chinese, Portuguese, and Latin should be offered at all schools. I know cost is a factor, I never said it wasn't. However, the idea of students succeeding in foreign language courses should motivate the school board to raise money for these courses. And I conclude, more practical foreign languages should be offered in ALL high schools.
More foreign languages should be taught/offered in High Schools

However why would Americans need to communicate with the countries in poverty. We are a growing country who wants to keep prospering. Those countries would do no good to us and it is highly unlikely for anyone at a high school standard to want to learn such languages and if they did schools could not afford to offer one language class for five students. Most citizens of the USA will only visit foreign countries not live there, so to spend money on many language classes is a waste. That money could go toward bettering a students reading comprehension and other essential skills for their jobs in the future.
More foreign languages should be taught/offered in High Schools

I understand that many countries already have their students learn English starting from a young age. However, many people in other countries are not fortunate enough to learn English. If you were to go to Panama or another Central American country, many people would not speak English. They live in poverty and cannot even afford to learn basics. High school students comprehend more than adults because their brains are still growing. Many students do just take high school languages because they need credits. However, many are really interested in the language. Some students actually want to excel in the language of their choosing. If a student does not want to learn Spanish or French, most of the time they are out of luck. Many schools only offer Spanish and French. High Schools need to offer more languages like Latin, German, Russian, and Portuguese. It's just common sense that a student that knows more languages will most likely get the job they want over the person who does not know any language besides their own.
More foreign languages should be taught/offered in High Schools

Students should be able to learn more than one language in their high schools. After they graduate, businesses will consider them more highly than people that only know one language. Only offering Spanish and French in high school will not enable a student to reach their full potential of learning languages. Learning languages enables students to be able to travel around the world and communicate with the world. Without it, people could be stuck in their country forever, never being able to access the rest of the world. After learning a second language, it becomes easier to learn even more. Students should be able to learn more than just the standard French and Spanish so that they can succeed in their own lives.
God is impossible and he does not exist.

God is impossible. He does not exist. He is not reality. Allow me to explain in detail: If God created the Universe, who created God? Before the Big Bang, there was no time. Therefore, there was no time for God to have existed. Time's beginning was the instant the Big Bang occurred. Once this happened, space-time took its shape. The elements began to form and particles of atoms were born. Stars formed from the dust and gas and in time would come together to form galaxies. In one of them, we live: The Milky Way. Science is the study of "how". Many Christians argue that science cannot explain the "why". However, with enough evidence regarding the "how", you can make an inference that, with enough evidence, will likely be true. Therefore, it is reasonable to declare that God does not exist. One cannot simply create a world in six days - or seven days, depending on which version of the Bible you read. It takes millions or billions of years for a planet to be created and for life to evolve. And if God created all life in a single day, then, logically speaking, dinosaurs and humans would have coexisted. I only had a limited amount of time. I had to do some other work. Therefore, my opening argument is rather short. However, I will write more in the following rounds.
God is impossible and he does not exist.

My opponent now attempts to change the definition of God on me. By not making the definition clear early on he must accept all definitions, and he agrees my definition is accurate despite trying to impose a new one on me. My opponent hasn't disproven any form of God though. For all he knows he lives in a computer program created by God meant to simulate his entire history and every single fact he has come across. Nothing can be known for sure.
God is impossible and he does not exist.

Defining God God:1. The creator and ruler of the universe. . http://m.dictionary.com... The Big Bang is God The Big Bang is God. My opponent admits that the Big Bang created the universe. My opponent believes that The Big Bang set the laws of physics in motion. The Big Bang meets both parts of the above definition. It created the universe. It also set the laws of physics in motion. This means The Big Bang rules the universe through the laws of physics. The Big Bang meets the criteria for being God and my opponent admits it meets the criteria.
God is impossible and he does not exist.

"I just refuse to continue until I understand these 2 facts about the Big Bang. Did the Big Bang create the universe? Did the Big Bang set the laws of physics in place?" I will answer these questions for you. 1. Did the Big Bang create the Universe? Yes, the Big Bang created the Universe. There is plenty of evidence to support this. Astronomers are observing red shift, which provides evidence that the Universe is still expanding. Astronomers have also discovered "left-overs" from the Big Bang. The energies set in motion by the Big Bang are still surrounding us. 2. Did the Big Bang set the laws of physics in place? This is debatable, but I must say yes. I do not think the laws of physics were created instantly, but I do believe that they were formed in a short period of time. Now, of course, "I think" doesn't prove anything. But when you do enough research, you will find evidence that supports my claim.
God is impossible and he does not exist.

Rebuttals Con, please write more sophisticated arguments. If you are lazy, just write a line or two. Just make a point." My arguments are sophisticated. Just because they appear small or non existent doesn't mean they aren't sophisticated. We have 5 rounds. What is the rush? Big Bang I have questions about the Big Bang. I'm not good at science so please forgive me. Answer my 2 questions and then I will give my incredible arguments. I just refuse to continue until I understand these 2 facts about the Big Bang. Did the Big Bang create the universe? Did the Big Bang set the laws of physics in place? I think God created the universe and created the laws of physics, but if you're saying the Big Bang did it maybe I don't have a real argument.
God is impossible and he does not exist.

The Big Bang is was an immense burst of energy that occurred 13.798 " 0.037 billion years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org... for more information. How would God - or any being in fact - have the power to create time and space (space-time) in an instant? The Universe is complex and has a sophisticated structure, one that could not have been created by any god or any other being. The Big Bang cannot be explained in a few sentences or paragraphs. My quote of "immense burst of energy" is just the basic idea. You would require an entire book - a rather thick one - in order to explain the Big Bang intelligently and entirely. Therefore, if you do not know what the Big Bang is, please research it. Heaven and hell are eternal. How can you remain emotionally stable by remaining in a single state forever? Therefore, if God created these worlds, he must be merciless. Why would Christians worship a being whose mission it is to spread his ideas throughout the world - ideas that are controversial - and to spread Christianity everywhere? God would send people of all other faiths to hell due to their lack of belief of himself. Therefore, God would be a serious moral failure. God is not our Lord, nor is he our Father, nor is he our Creator. He is a figment of everyone's imagination and he is not part of reality. Con, please write more sophisticated arguments. If you are lazy, just write a line or two. Just make a point.
Abortion

//sorry about that I was thinking of something else. If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life. something becomes living once the sperm and eggs touch but, If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life.// So, if you are ill, and not normal, this provides grounds to kill? A man without working legs has a hard life, and therefore can be killed? //the good things about abortion is both the parents and the kid do not have to go through all the hardships of an extremely ill person. Imagine if you had to go through not even be able to talk and not now who anybody you have known for a long time is. Imagine that,Imagine that.// I'd rather have a baby alive than dead, no matter what. Abortion is the killing of a baby -- 99% of the time for illegitimate reasons. Less than one percent of abortions are for the good of the baby, mother, or due to rape and incest. THat makes over 40 million abortions a year unjustified.
Abortion

sorry about that I was thinking of something else. If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life. something becomes living once the sperm and eggs touch but, If a baby is born ill he will never live I normal life. the good things about abortion is both the parents and the kid do not have to go through all the hardships of an extremely ill person. Imagine if you had to go through not even be able to talk and not now who anybody you have known for a long time is. Imagine that,Imagine that.
Homosexual Acts are Immoral

TERMSResolved: Homosexual Acts Are ImmoralRounds:1. Acceptance only2. Opening arguments3. Clash4. Closing arguments/clash Definitions: By "homosexual acts" I refer to sexual acts between members of the same sex. Specifically, I refer to homosexual sodomy. This is not a debate about homosexual orientation. I will have the burden of proof. No semantics.The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.
Pascal's Wager

Pascal's Wager ~That it is a better to believe that God exists than not to believe, because the expected value of believing is always greater than the expected value of not believing. In essence, atheists may as well believe in case they are wrong, and if they are right, no harm done. This is an argument still used by theists today, I'm hoping one will pick up this debate and run with it, unless someone wishes to play Devil's Advocate :)
Pascal's Wager

It does not so much on rely on proving the existence of god, so much as the chance he exists is a valid reason for belief. I will just make 3 quick points as to why this stance should not be taken. 1.Pascal has to make a fundamental assumption: that the a priori probabilities of God's existence or inexistence are the same, 50-50. Well, but if the probability of winning the lotto were indeed 50%, you would be a fool not to plan your retirement on it. The reason you do not is exactly because you know that while the reward may be very high, the likelihood of actually getting it is incredibly small. 2.Faith on the basis of "I may as well" is not true faith, and as such punishable the same as non belief 3.There are countless gods to pick from. One cannot be sure they correctly choose the right god to 'believe'.