BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god

RESPONSES "I won't say that this situation is impossible. This is a purely relative scenario. A friend of you explaining about you to somebody else is not going to impact your absolute nature and no property of you will be altered, but the understanding of Billy Bob about you. The way your friend explain you to Billy Bob, Billy Bob's imagination and experience with similar stories etc. will determine the way he cognizes it." You present zero reasoning for why lack of belief is impossible in one scenario and possible in another. If anything, lack of belief is less possible in daily life and more possible with intangible, far-out supernatural concepts. Whether or not I believe in a god is not going to impact me either unless I choose to live my life differently because of it. "Of-Course it is possible no to believe in something. "You can claim that you experienced a miracle and I can reject it because I do not believe in such things" Belief is personal and is irrespective of the fact and the absolute reality. It is determined by one's understanding, perception and conceptualization in the mind." This contradicts the claim you just made above that belief is irrespective of the fact and the absolute reality. "You can't believe in both the statements simultaneously. Believing in statement 1, by default, qualifies you to be a non believer of statement 2 and vice versa." You've already stated above that it's possible to not believe something, yet still haven't presented a reason why it's not possible for theological concepts. And let me make this clear: you also contradict yourself because you just stated it's possible to be a non-believer of one of the two statements. There is no reason why you cannot be a non-believer of both. "The idea of God is absolute. Lack of belief is no an intermediate between belief and non-belief it is non belief itself." Non-belief IS a lack of belief. It's the same thing. CONCLUSION My opponent's position that lack of belief in a god is impossible is arbitrary and a matter of convenience. He has failed to present any reasoning for why this must be so and contradicted himself.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god

Thanks for the post… [Billy Bob accepts that his friend may indeed have a millionaire as an ally, that I may indeed exist. But he is not convinced, because it is an extraordinary claim which is dubious at best. It is possible, but dubious. His position is one of doubt. He does not believe I exist, at least not as his friend defines me, yet he doesn't deny my existence either.] [According to you, this situation is impossible, am I correct?] I won't say that this situation is impossible. This is a purely relative scenario. A friend of you explaining about you to somebody else is not going to impact your absolute nature and no property of you will be altered, but the understanding of Billy Bob about you. The way your friend explain you to Billy Bob, Billy Bob's imagination and experience with similar stories etc. will determine the way he cognizes it. [What we disagree about is whether it is possible to not believe in something. According to you, it is only possible to believe in something and to believe it does not exist.] Of-Course it is possible no to believe in something. "You can claim that you experienced a miracle and I can reject it because I do not believe in such things" Belief is personal and is irrespective of the fact and the absolute reality. It is determined by one's understanding, perception and conceptualization in the mind. You can believe in either of the following: 1>The universe is finite 2>The universe is infinite 1>God Exists 2>God do not exist 1>The Universe was created 2>The universe is not created 1>There is life after death 2>There is no life after death You can't believe in both the statements simultaneously. Believing in statement 1, by default, qualifies you to be a non believer of statement 2 and vice versa. The idea of God is absolute. Lack of belief is no an intermediate between belief and non-belief it is non belief itself.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god

We both agree that a thing either exists or it doesn't. We have no disagreement on that point. What we disagree about is whether it is possible to not believe in something. According to you, it is only possible to believe in something and to believe it does not exist. If that is true, the Pirahï¿½ people must simply not exist. http://www.youtube.com... Now let's get back to your statement of my existence. At the present time, I either exist or I do not. Again, you have no disagreement there. But let's say a friend of mine is trying to convince their friend how incredibly cool I am. "Why Billy Bob, you wouldn't believe how mind-bogglingly awesome Yvette is! She's a millionaire!" "Why, you're right," their friend might reply. "I don't believe it at all." Billy Bob accepts that his friend may indeed have a millionaire as an ally, that I may indeed exist. But he is not convinced, because it is an extraordinary claim which is dubious at best. It is possible, but dubious. His position is one of doubt. He does not believe I exist, at least not as his friend defines me, yet he doesn't deny my existence either. According to you, this situation is impossible, am I correct?
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god

I thank Yvette for the challenge. ["There can be only two positions out of which one may be the absolute truth regarding the existence of God.] Statement 1> God Exists Statement2> God Does Not Exist." [This is what is known as a false dilemma, as absurd as claiming only two political beliefs exist--there are anarchists, communists, socialists, progressives, ignorants, apathetics, reactionaries, conservatives, fascists, etc, etc, etc. Similarly, these are not the only two things which an individual might believe about the existence of a god. A person might believe in more than one god, or in the existence of a creator(s) but not gods, or a person may lack any belief in a deity at all. ] I do not understand how my opponent could compare the existence of God, ‘an absolute idea' with the various political BELIEFS. With your permission let me rephrase and simplify the question of existence. Statement 1> Yvette Exist Statement 2> Yvette Do Not exist I would request my friend to please enumerate the other possibilities of absolute nature (not with reference to anything else) as statement 3, 4, 5 etc.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god

I disagree with a statement bpv1 has made and I would like to get deeper into this subject with him than he had in the debate where it was made (which was with another person). I thank bpv1 for accepting my challenge and look forward to our debate. I take issue with bpv1's statement about whether atheism is a belief, namely, I quote: "There can be only two positions out of which one may be the absolute truth regarding the existence of God. Statement 1> God Exists Statement2> God Does Not Exist." This is what is known as a false dilemma, as absurd as claiming only two political beliefs exist--there are anarchists, communists, socialists, progressives, ignorants, apathetics, reactionaries, conservatives, fascists, etc, etc, etc. Similarly, these are not the only two things which an individual might believe about the existence of a god. A person might believe in more than one god, or in the existence of a creator(s) but not gods, or a person may lack any belief in a deity at all. It happens sometimes that theist dictionary writers record atheism as they see it, which has always been in the unflattering and easy-to-attack light that my opponent's statements show. I will give an example: I may have heard from all my friends that a pink floating teapot capable of changing viewers' hair color instantly is on display at the local museum. I may be skeptical, but I do not deny it's existence. I simply doubt (doubt: defined as "a status between belief and disbelief, involves uncertainty or distrust or lack of sureness of an alleged fact") whether my friends really had their hair color changed by a pink floating teapot on display at the local museum (especially when their hair remains the same color). I make no claim it does not exist. I am simply doubtful.
End Genocide in Darfur By Putting Troops on the Ground

According to your argument we should not have stepped in to save the jews in World War II. Your argument allows for genocide to occur unchecked. Also, I wouldn't cost as much as you think. Since the surge is working in Iraq we could move troops to Darfur without there being any significant pay increase. Like I said before the UN/AU force would pay for all of the charges so your cost argument is null and void. Other countries are just as weak as Sudan. All they can do is allow a little bit of land for the refugees to come to, but the refugees are still attacked by the government. China supports the Sudanese government because of the oil coming out of sudan. They would never support an end to violence because they depend of the oil trade.
End Genocide in Darfur By Putting Troops on the Ground

Darfur doesn't need the United State's Presence in their country. Just because we are a superpower, does not mean we have any obligations to help any other countries. Look at Iraq for example, we went in there thinking we had an obligation to help the people there, only to wind up hating the war not long later. Also, as cheap as you might think it is, the cost to put just a small amount of troops on the ground is enormous. You need to pay for transportation, paychecks, fuel, weaponry, food, water, and a lot of times you pay for food and water for the refugees too. That is a substantial amound of money, especially if you have to pay that amount of money every single day, 365 days a year. Another point is that there are other countries near Darfur that could easily help them, or you could pick another superpower like China to give darfur help. The U.S. shouldnt put troops down in Darfur!
End Genocide in Darfur By Putting Troops on the Ground

As the only superpower in the world the U.S. has the moral obligation to stop genocide in this world. How many people must die before we open our eyes to the situation in the world? Also, the U.S. would not need to put that many troops on the ground to make a huge impact. By sending a small but substantial amount of man power on the ground to augments the U.N./AU coalition on the ground right now we can save hundreds of thousands of lives. The U.S.'s fire power and air power would give the UN/AU forces the power they need to bring peace and stability. On the money, we are not going to ruin our economy by committing a small force to end genocide. The UN/AU will be the ones who foot the majority of the bill because we will be putting our forces in their charge.
End Genocide in Darfur By Putting Troops on the Ground

Putting troops on the ground in Darfur is not the best motion for the U.S. at this point and time. We already have our hands tied with other wars and battles, and despite how tragic the genocide in Darfur is, we just cannot end it right now. Also, you cannot say that we should wage two wars at once, due to our budget. The U.S. is already in debt, and the value of the U.S. Dollar is also falling, making it harder and harder to pay for things we believe in. THIS IS WHY PUTTING TROOPS IN DARFUR IS A BAD IDEA!
End Genocide in Darfur By Putting Troops on the Ground

For the purpose of this argument i must tell you that I am jewish.* I do believe we should not have stepped in during WWII for the Jews. It was not our war, we only wanted to seek revenge on the enemy for what happened at Pearl Harbor, which included destroying the Japanese Ally of Germany. As important a topic as it is, WWII has nothing to do with Darfur and therefore this part of our argument is void. Second you are saying the UN would pay for all of the charges, which still does not support your argument. The UN is a group of countries who work to seek peace in the world, and are financed by all the countries included in the UN. The US (being the only superpower in your mind) would be paying the most to the UN, and therefore we would technically be paying the UN to pay our troops to fight. Third, If the UN had the money to do this, and if it was a big enough issue to the world, the invasion would have happened already, therefore you have no argument. P.S. CHINA IS A SUPERPOWER SO THE US CANNOT BE THE ONLY ONE.
Pascal's Wager is true.

I think you have misunderstood the purpose of this debate. You are supposed to be arguing in favor of Pascal's Wager holding truth. As I somewhat agree with your inarticulate statement of "pascals wager is paranoid non sense", I do not think it is appropriate to mention your last statement of a possible rebirth and/or afterlife. I have a slight inclination to assuming that this debate has too many rounds and you will put forth very little articulation and effort. You should take it upon yourself to either put forth effort or forfeit because this debate seems to be going nowhere. I am arguing the position of Pascal's Wager holding no truth and being 'paranoid non sense', as you would put it. Maybe some reiteration is necessary here. The three premises you need to be arguing against are; 1) What if the God (or Gods) of a different theism existed? In other words, what if you had belief or disbelief in the wrong God? 2) What if the God that does exist, is not the God which we think to exist within the Deisms and Theisms man has created? 3) There is no possible way to have a memory or waking experience of death or life after death, so understanding if you, in fact, gained or lost in a finite or infinite manner, would be impossible to comprehend in our live's waking conscious
Pascal's Wager is true.

Alright. Thank you for challenging me on this issue. If I am to proceed with arguing against Pascal's wager it is necessary for me to state that I will not be attacking the existence or non-existence of God, but the viability of Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager can be defined that it is in one's own best interest to behave as if God exists, since the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage of believing otherwise. If God does exist and you believe he existed, there will be an infinite gain for you (eternal peace - heaven). If you did not believe he existed when he actually does, there will be an infinite loss for you (eternal suffering - hell). If God does not exist and you believed he did exist, there is only a finite loss (a tangible loss only for yourself) and if you did not believe God exists when God does not exist, then there is a finite gain (a tangible gain only for yourself). Now I will be arguing against the latter claims of Pascal's Wager. The idea of there being only a finite gain or loss from disbelief is absolutely absurd on the the basis of three premises; 1) What if the God (or Gods) of a different theism existed? In other words, what if you had belief or disbelief in the wrong God? 2) What if the God that does exist, is not the God which we think to exist within the Deisms and Theisms man has created? 3) There is no possible way to have a memory or waking experience of death or life after death, so understanding if you, in fact, gained or lost in a finite or infinite manner, would be impossible to comprehend in our live's waking conscious.
Pascal's Wager is true.

if you dont place your hand on the top of your head for santa, and keep it there to honor his universally important request that you do this within the next few minutes, then santa will destroy you.. now i have tried reasoning with this fellow but he is entirely illogical, and he will surely kill you if you dont jump specifikally 10 times for him, not 9, and not 11, but 10 times.. you will especially ignite his easily invoked fury if you dont accept these words are true, and if you think you can escape the wrath of all mighty santa think again, btw santa is watching you right now, waiting..
Pascal's Wager is true.

I am looking for an opposer who fully believes that Pascal's wager holds truth and is justifiable by the reasoning of finite and infinite gain or loss depending on the existence or non-existence of God. I was hoping for an opponent who will respectfully introduce me to a different perspective and respectfully debate me until the very end. I will be arguing that there are flaws with Pascal's wager and that his ideology of God's existence is irrelevant and false. I am looking for an opponent who is both religiously and philosophically adept (who believes the contrary; Pascal's wager does hold absolute truth). I am fairly new to 'debate. org' and would like to experience what this site is like. I have been looking for serious debate for a very long time but I have yet to find any viable sources for exciting discourse. It would be much appreciated if anyone can accept my challenge and debate as aggressively, yet as rationally, as possible.
Drawing Debate

That's your very first drawing of a face??? No way! That's excellent. You should diffidently pursue a carer in art or something like that. Here's the drawing of SpongeBob. I drew it by hand with the help of a predrawn SpongeBob that was from WikiHow. All my art though. http://instagram.com... Hope you like it! Since we cannot we are out of rounds, let's talk in the comment box, okay?
"Universal Healthcare" is just a euphemism for socialism.

You said: "Really? Imagine you have to pay a toll for EVERY single road. And imagine this continues beyond paying for the construction of the road, but for the profit of the contractor." It's not that ludicrous of an idea. We pay into private companies' profits EVERY time we get gas, don't we? If all roads were privatized, I imagine some kind of yearly pass would become available, and it wouldn't be insanely expensive. I certainly don't think riots would erupt. You said: "Imagine all of the parents who have no standards for their children" All of them? I'm finding it hard to imagine any couple who would choose to bring a child into the world and have no standards for him or her. I don't claim that those parents wouldn't exist, but I think they would be a similar percentage (probably less) than those citizens currently without health insurance. Hence the analogy. I'm not trying to make the argument that expanding the current system in order to insure every American is a bad idea. I'm simply trying to make the argument that nationalizing health care is ALSO not a bad idea. Of course, if we were to implement it, private health insurance would still exist, just like private schools exist despite public education. Personally, I agree that we don't need nationalized health care, and we should simply make every effort to insure those who cannot reasonably insure themselves, but it was fun to advocate theoretically for a nationalized system!
"Universal Healthcare" is just a euphemism for socialism.

Really? Imagine you have to pay a toll for EVERY single road. And imagine this continues beyond paying for the construction of the road, but for the profit of the contractor. Riots would erupt. Imagine all of the parents who have no standards for their children - the number of children who drop out of school (or never attend in the first place) would skyrocket as they become drug dealers or work at the local fast food joint for the rest of their lives, all because they did not have the benefits of an education. Obviously, there are a great number of individuals who are unhealthy due to uncontrollable circumstances. They deserve to have healthcare, and many of them are rejected by insurance companies. So we expand Medicare/aid. That's called a tweak, not universal healthcare. So, I'd like to redefine socialism for this particular topic if I may. It is the use of public funds to solve a problem for which there is a free market solution and few consequences associated with aforesaid solution. We already have insurance companies in place, and they contribute heaps to the gross national product. There is absolutely no reason to exchange the problems that come with insurance companies for the enormous wait times for medical care, the inevitable trudging through the bureaucracy and inefficiency of government, and the monumental tax increases. Every American deserves healthcare, and most have it. In order to cover the rest, we expand programs that are already in place.
"Universal Healthcare" is just a euphemism for socialism.

I don't accept the idea that if schools and roads were privatized, the U.S. would devolve into chaos. If public schools and public roads were abolished, the taxes associated with those services would also disappear, and individuals would have that money to spend on private education, and to pay tolls to drive on private roads. I believe that the rates of children not going to school would be very similar to the rates of individuals who don't have health insurance. The majority of Americans would be able to afford private school (which would become cheaper if all schools were private,) and thus send their children to school. So if, in our thought experiment, schools were to become privatized, I think you could make the exact same argument you're making now advocating against the nationalization of the school system. That being said, you seem to think that the public school system is a good thing, because without it, a certain number of children would be uneducated, and that would be a bad thing. I propose that a national health care system is a good thing, because without it, a certain number of citizens are chronically unhealthy, and that is a bad thing. I also don't accept your assumption that the people most benefited from public health care would be those that have made bad decisions. Not everyone who gets treated for health problems has those problems because of bad choices they've made. We can't simply focus on things like smoking or drinking. One final thing I'd like to mention is that if you put yourself under the veil of ignorance, I believe that nationalized health care is the most beneficial solution to whatever person you turn out to be that you'll be able to come up with.
"Universal Healthcare" is just a euphemism for socialism.

Thanks for responding! I agree that there is no such thing as a purely capitalist society, and if there was the US would be far from it. The reason we have public funding for things such as roads and schools is that those are necessary elements of the nation's infrastructure. If we had a society without public schools, many children would not go and we would have chaos due to an overwhelming amount of uneducated people. Roads, too, are an example of something our society needs to function. Universal healthcare is not, however. The vast majority of Americans have healthcare, either through private companies or Medicare/Medicaid. And the vast majority of the some 15% who don't are completely able to afford it. And the system certainly needs to be changed for those few but unfortunate individuals who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to be able to afford a private policy. Either through the expansion of Medicaid or, if absolutely necessary, more regulations on insurance companies, something should be done. Something, however, does not include an overhaul of our current system, because our current system rewards a healthy lifestyle. And yes, my title was very exaggerated. I do not believe that universal healthcare would lead to a Marxist society, I simply believe that there is a free-market solution to the issue.