BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There's no where to go after Nietzsche

"Nietzsche's first step is to accept what he knows. Atheism for him goes without saying and is "constructive and radical". Nietzsche's supreme vocation, so he says, is to provoke a kind of crisis and a final decision about the problem of atheism. The world continues on its course at random and there is nothing final about it."- Camus "The Rebel" (p. 66-67) Possible Existence of BiasPro points out that Camus' living situations may have made him biased against Nietzsche. While clearly possible, I don't see any reason to accept this unless Pro gives us reason to do so. Besides, Camus wasn't unfavorable to Nietzsche. In The Rebel he wrote: "There is freedom for man without God, as Nietzsche imagined him; in other words, for the solitary man. There is freedom at midday when the wheel of the world stops spinning and man consents to things as they are." (p. 78)[1]Will to Power or Will to MeaningNietzsche conceived of the struggle (or will) to power as the main driving force behind human motivation. While this may be true to an extent, Nietzsche's analysis fell flat when Camus introduced the framework of Absurdism. On Absurdism, it wasn't the will to dominate or to be the best that necessarily motivates us all, but instead the search and the need for transcendental meaning. We instinctively crave it and evidence of this can be found in such dominating institutions as religion, State, and personal philosophy. And from this alternative conception of human motivation, Camus provided a better answer to the problem of alienation, overcoming and rebelling as opposed to living only by one's personal preferences.Eternal Return or Integrous Acceptance and Rebellion A concept for which Nietzsche is almost as known for as for his death of God pronouncement is his writing on the concept of eternal return. Eternal return posits the universe as being entirely cyclic and in a specific sense, that we will relive our lives over and over exactly as we have in this life. Nietzsche didn't conceive of eternal return as the actual state of the universe, but used it as a thought experiment in favor of fatalistic acceptance. One can clearly see this train of thought in Camus' use of the Greek mythical hero Sisyphus. Sisyphus was punished by the Gods by being forced to roll a heavy boulder up a hill only to have it roll back down when he got to the top for all eternity. Camus argues that this is the embodiment of the Absurd man. His task metaphorically describes living in the Absurd world and his acceptance of his situation (as opposed to seeking shelter in transcendentalist illusion) is exactly what Absurdism prescribes in the face of Absurd existence. Nietzsche argued for acceptance and love of one's fate. Camus drew on this but added that it's not so much as loving one's fate as living in spite of it and conquering it through acceptance.===Sources===[1] http://www.studyplace.org...;
There's no where to go after Nietzsche

I am very well versed on Nietzsche, and am aware to some extent of the philosophical extensions of his "God is dead" proclamation. I do agree that it is used very much out of context today. I think if you take just The Gay Science's proclamation of "God is dead", you end where you are saying other philosophers pick up, but I think he extrapolated some himself in Zarathrusta and Beyond Good and Evil - "BGE - Aphorism 55: There is a great ladder of religious cruelty, and, of its many rungs, three are the most important. People used to make human sacrifices to their god, perhaps even sacrificing those they loved the best . .. Then, during the moral epoch of humanity, people sacrificed the strongest instincts they had, their 'nature,' to their god; the joy of this particular festival shines in the cruel eyes of the ascetic, that enthusiastic piece of 'anti-nature. ' Finally: what was left to be sacrificed? In the end, didn't people have to sacrifice all comfort and hope, everything holy or healing, any faith in hidden harmony or a future filled with justice and bliss? Didn't people have to sacrifice God himself and worship rocks, stupidity, gravity, fate, or nothingness out of sheer cruelty to themselves? To sacrifice God for nothingness " that paradoxical mystery of the final cruelty has been reserved for the race that is now approaching: by now we all know something about this. " I have read "Resistance, Rebellion, and Death" and, while I agreed on his death penalty argument (though, I'm still torn on the actual subject, but have been leaning anti-capital punishment solely for that reason), I wasn't thrilled by the rest of the book. Indeed, I will have to read his "The Stranger" (actually, a lot of his work seems very interesting), but I find it difficult to believe that a Frenchman facing Nazi Germany can properly expound Nietzsche. I'm sure he saw Nazi Germany as the evil that can be caused by extrapolations of Nietzsche's work and would be difficult to not let that experience spill into his objective philosophy. From my current limited understanding of the rest of his work, he doesn't attack Nietzsche directly. . he acknowledges and then applies how it plays out in the real world and says. .. . how can this be good? Is this an accurate analysis? Regardless of that, I didn't want so much a successor to "God is Dead", but to "Will to Power" (which I understand Camus proposed a Will to Happiness? .. . please explain) and to "Eternal Return" as stated in R1. .. I certainly don't find Absurdism to be a response to either of these in the way I currently understand Absurdism. If so, can you please explain? So, I request to either explain Camus' response to "Will to Power" and "Eternal Return" or nominate someone else. That being said, I appreciate your time and hopefully I will get to read "The Stranger" and others soon as it does appear quite interesting.
There's no where to go after Nietzsche

Nietzche is certainly an interesting figure and left a formidable legacy to be overcome. For this debate I'm going to posit Albert Camus and his philosophy as the philosophical successor and culmination of Nietzsche's thought. The Development of Alienation and it's ResponsesNietzsche is perhaps most famous for his pronouncement that God is dead. What Nietzsche meant was not that God was some mortal who had literally been murdered or died, but that the concept of God was becoming less and less necessary as a grounding for our understanding of the world and for things like ethics, meaning, and knowledge. Nietzsche saw that this had left a growing gap in society wherein people now had to look elsewhere for the answers to life's problems. While this doctrine has huge implications for the future of society and philosophy, Nietzsche's solution to the problem was necessarily incomplete (as is generally the case with path breakers i. e. , Aristotle's logic and cosmology). Nietzsche's 'God is dead' pronouncement had lasting effects on the development of philosophy and had a direct causal influence on the formation of schools of thought which attempted to solve the problem of dealing with human alienation and whether secular values could be supplanted in religion's place. Existentialism and absurdism are among the most known of the proposed solutions with Albert Camus being the founder of the latter. The basic point in Absurdism is emphasis on what is termed the Absurd, the conflict between man's search for meaning in the universe and the apparent lack of any such thing. Camus argued that when man is confronted with the Absurd, they are presented with three options. One may commit suicide to escape the conflict, place faith in some religious or transcendental realm (a la Kierkegaard), or one can accept the existence of the Absurd and live in spite of it in freedom and integrity. Camus endorsed the last of these options, holding the first to be mere cowardice and the second to be simply a "philosophical suicide" as a figurative version of the first. The reason why Camus' doctrine succeeds Nietzsche's is that Nietzsche's solution to the problem was mistaken and because Nietzsche mistook the order of operations. On the solution, Nietzsche's was merely in the Ubermensch as embodying one's values and living "in this world". The reason why Camus' solution succeeds his is that the value on which the Absurd man lives are integrity in the face of the Absurd as opposed to one's mere subjective inclinations. On the order of events, Nietzsche posits what could be called the Absurd as being the outcome of rejecting religion whereas Camus showed that it was in fact that Absurd that brought about religion in the first place.
There's no where to go after Nietzsche

I'm going to posit that Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophical stances on Will to Power and Eternal Return are the culmination of philosophical thought and that once accepted, there has been no more search for grand scale outlook on life and existence. I say this in more of a way in that I want someone to prove me wrong. I'll be happy to accept that someone else has come along and blown these two theories out of the water. But as far as I know, no one has. That isn't to say that everything Nietzsche said was the end all - be all... just that in the way he destroyed Kant and Schopenhauer (and pretty much every philosopher who came before him), no one has destroyed him. Most likely this person would come after Nietzsche, and would have to be someone who talked about the same subjects in a different, better way... I've read enough Russell (especially 'The Problems of Philosophy', and that's not it- though it does refute Descartes, Hume and Kant quite well), so that's not it... so who has come along and directly attacked Nietzsche? Do you just become a pragmatist after that? Is that the only solution/direction to go? Additionally, it's not enough to say he went crazy at the end of his life, and thus that's the culmination of his theory and thus it is flawed. While true he said 'the strength of a mind can be weighed by how much truth it can endure', his mind clearly could not endure the truth it confronted itself with (or he just had VD). So, with that... can anyone tell me where to go after Nietzsche?
Donald Trump

I personally believe that Donald Trump has done more harm than good for this country, his right wing, racist agenda has turned Americans on each other. His sexist comments and remarks have me worried that he is not the best person to be in a position in which he has substantial power. He lost the popular vote by almost 3 million and might have only won because of Russia's interference with the election. If Russia did in fact influence the election, they could have power over Trump and be able to influence him and subsequently this country He has disrupted the global peace and disrupted Americas connection to the world, putting us the citizens in potential danger. He has been shrouded in controversy and 65% of the population does not like him or does not support him and his politics.
science vs creationism

very well i will accept your for forfeit much respect to you and your time religion can not be proven as well as fairies ,bigfoot ,and the loch ness monster cannot be proven to be real /nor myth neither can yaweh or god if you will be proven to be fact or fiction it is determined on a leap of faith in which i accept leaps of faith faith meaning -strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
science vs creationism

nice to meet you wally you this does not explain as to why you are a christian . BUDDHISM- first i would just like to state that you can take buddhism as a religion for they devote thereselves to practices and not much into religion yes im saying you can practice buddhism without belief of the god of the bible (YAHWEH) islam- the muslims see jesus as a prophet or a messenger and not jesus as the actual son of god atheism - is atheism sane? hmm well if you are christian and believe in the teachings of the bible explain how sane it is for people to stone there children to death for disobeying there parents (DEUTERONOMY 21: 18-21) and if im correct jesus had long hair ? or was know of having long hair explain for me ( 1 corinthians 11:14 esv) and please explain how this is (sane) in the christian sense.... "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword: their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open (Hosea 13:16 ) and you question atheism as being sane ? now i must ask do you believe christianity as a fact or a leap of faith?
science vs creationism

Hello,My name is Wally, and I'm a Christian.Reasons why I believe:1. If we assume that Buddhism is right, then we would have to take this into consideration that a monk from Myanmar who died shouldn't have spoken to Jesus in hell, rather he was a devout Buddhist and worshiped Buddha. He is now a hardworking servant of Jesus preaching Christianity in a predominantly Buddhist society.2. If we assume that Islam is true, then we would have to take this into consideration that Muslims would have witnessed Allah and His Messenger Muhammad, but this is false; they see Jesus instead.3. If we assume Atheism is sane or correct, then we have to take this into consideration that why were these Atheists seeing Jesus and being tormented in hell in their temporal deaths.Conclusion: If a near-death experience is predetermined by imagination (seeing things beforehand), people from different religions would not see Jesus, rather they would see their prophets. Since this is R1, I shall await Pro's response, and show why God exists.
The user known as 'philosphical' is the same person as the user known as 'GhostWriter.'

Vi, Lwerd, Askbob, I commend you for your outstanding research. You are all indeed right. However to be fair, GhostWriter in fact at first started out as my mother who created the account, but soon got bored and stopped using it. And the PoeJoe comment was from my mother as well, on one of the few times she does use her account. The evidence against me is too overwhelming to continue to refute. I did use my mothers DDO profile to vote on debates, and to participate in mafia games. I am also the ex user known as foshizzle, and part of the CWO, and affiliated with none other than joshander. I am a slimy selfish scumball. But it is the internet after all, so I'm not too worried. Thanks for the fun time everyone on DDO. However, I still should tell you that my cell phone actually is sprint, and connected to sprint only, and that the cricket wireless really is its own seperate ISP. Please make a DDOF article about me and put me among your historical DDO criminals. I enjoy the attention. I'm actually pretty surprised the mod or anyone else didn't catch on to this the whole six months it's been going on. With that, all I have to say is, "I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!"
The user known as 'philosphical' is the same person as the user known as 'GhostWriter.'

Philosphical has been a pillar of morality for this entire community. He has never been shy about correcting other people, or putting his foot down in the face of injustice. He has sworn that he would NEVER (!) do something like make another account on DDO, V-bomb, or pretend to be someone he is not. Obviously a man of his stature would not be so hypocritical and condescending to those liars and cheats whom many now consider his peers. However, philosphical has indeed been accused of some harsh matters which he says he will defend against any accusation. I am here to help him prove to the world that he is indeed telling the truth by giving him the opportunity to lay out his defense in a clear and organized fashion. So, without further adieu, if my opponent accepts this debate then I will begin discussion in Round 2. For clarity: Philosphical: http://www.debate.org... GhostWriter: http://www.debate.org...
Atheist are better people than those who are religous (genraly)

Yes, communism is the only government that was influenced strictly by atheism. However, it doesn't really help your argument that atheists are better people when the only strictly atheistic government turned out to be the one that has committed some of the most vicious atrocities in the history of humanity. So, because religion has been the cause of some wars, it is bad? What about the other causes, are they bad? Wars have been fought over land and natural resources, are these things bad? No, not by themselves. It is only when people have an unhealthy covetousness towards these things that they become bad. In the same way, when people use religion to start war, that is a misuse of that religion. What gives you the ability to judge whether religious people "really believe"? I know many religious people who have great belief in the tenets of their faith. Your statement is a blanket judgemental statement that, to be quite frank, has no grounding. In the same vein, what gives you the right to say that atheists have better moral values than theists? This is, once again, dependent on the person. The average atheist walking in America has better values than the Al-Quaeda suicide bomber killing women and children. However, the average religious person has better values than a Fidel Castro of Joseph Stalin. However, almost universally among religions is the belief in the "common law", that is, a belief against murder and theft, to name a few. As I've said before, and a statement which you have not refuted, would not the world be a better place if people followed the last 6 of the 10 Commandments--which are part of orthodox Christian canon? Does a faith that teaches "love your enemies" and "live at peace with one another" and "thou shalt not murder" one whose followers are, inherently, less moral than a person who does not believe in these tenets? I would argue that, on a basic level, the average religious person and the average atheist would agree almost 100% on most issues. A saying that "atheism is usually associated with higher education" is completely wrong. Consider this; Harvard, Yale, Princeton and numerous other colleges were started as religious training institutions. Some of the most intelligent and influential people in the world, such as Issac Newton or Einstein, a self-proclaimed agnostic (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I know multiple Christians who have doctorates, are teachers, or went to prestigious universities. To say that being religious people do not appreciate higher education is a ridiculous statement to make. As for atheists being more open minded, well, my friend, you have been twisting facts this whole argument to make your case. You have called, or implied, that religious people are violent warmongers and are ignorant. An open minded person would realize and accept the basic facts, not try to spin them, and not make such judgements about a huge segment of the world's population.
Atheist are better people than those who are religous (genraly)

The thing is people don't really believe in these things. They attempt to convince themeselves that they beleive it and they follow all the little rules. I'll give you communism though. But what about the other forms of goverment? Almost no others are influnced by atheism, and don't tell me that comunism is the only bad one. I will not atempt to disect religion and attempt to prove it false at this point, but it is bad. It does start wars. However the argument is not about wether religion is good or not it's about atheists have better values than theists. Most likley yes because atheism is usually associated with higher education which greatly decreases crime rates in people. Atheist are also usually more open minded than those who stubornly follow a religion. My argument is cut short because I have to leave and will be gone for the next day or so. Good argument, thank you for participating :)
Atheist are better people than those who are religous (genraly)

Even if you are still allowed to practice a religion in a communist country, it is a state-sponsored and censored religion and other religions are persecuted, such as non-state Christian fellowships in China. In addition, the communist leaders, who order the atrocities, are avowed athiests. Aside from the fact that the list you gave is factually innacurate and misleading, what you have done is nothing more than what I did in my last argument: naming exceptions to the rule. There are atheistic nuts and there are religious nuts. And when you ask whether I have ever heard of an athieist doing something bad, what are you implying? Do you mean to suggest that atheits are capable of human perfection? I doubt it. History has shown, time and time again, that people of every stripe and belief are capable of doing wrong. As an example of an atheistic wrong, consider the French Revolution. It was, generally, an atheistic and deistic movement, religiously speaking, and athiests were prominent in the egging of the executions. As an example of a Christian wrong, consider the Puritan witch hunts. These examples show how regular people, when given power or given over to paranoia, can react in a violent, wrong fashion. However, even though religious people are capable of doign wrong, consider what they believe. Christians, believe in these scriptures: Romans 12:18,"If it is possible,as far as it depends upon you, live at peace with everyone" and "Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44). Are people who believe in these words generally worse people than athiests?
Atheist are better people than those who are religous (genraly)

A very good point. Communism does not allow religion in the government, what you are explaining is Marxism, regular communism is just separation of church and state to an extreme. You are still allowed to practice a religion. If you are going to name names then yes Stalin and other Communists have committed atrocities. But let us not forget Hitler (Catholic) how murdered millions of Jews alone in the name of his religion. Most wars (I think almost all are) founded in religion. The war in Iraq is religious, less so the US involvement, but the original civil war and war in the surrounding area is founded in religion. Same with Ireland, the government will tell you it is a dispute between Conservatives and Liberals, but rather Catholics and Protestants. (Just saying for some reason right now I'm operating in slow motion) I can't argue that average religous people are evil, because they aren't. But have you ever heard of an average athiest doing something bad? And don't tell me that's because there aren't enough of them, there are more atheists than Muslims and Jews in the US.
Atheist are better people than those who are religous (genraly)

At the beginning of the debate, I'm willing to concede that there are many people who have done horrendous acts in the name of a religious faith. However, there are also avowed atheists who have committed atrocities on par, and worse, in both scope and violence. For example, communism is atheistic. There is no religion in communist countries, all religions are oppressed. So, I ask you, which countries have been guilty of some of the most flagrant violations of human rights? The communist countries. The gulag was in the USSR and the killing fields of Cambodia were run by the Khmer Rouge--a communist regime. To make the argument that religion promotes violence simply ignores the simple fact that atheists have just as much capability of violence--and have committed very violent, dangerous acts on people. This leads to my next point. The average religious person is not a nut. The average religious person does believe that there is a moral code to live by. How much better would the world be if everyone followed the Ten Commandment's doctrine on how to treat your fellow men: Honor your father and mother, do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not covet. A religion whose followers believe, and practice these simple tenants, as most Christians do, is not inherently violent. This is just one example of many that I could go into. However, the point is that there the religious nuts are the exception, not the rule.