BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mankind would be better off with out a god

I am not denying that, I know many people feel that way. But why? The human condition is the human condition but how does a belief in god helps that condition. Yes people are judegemental by nature but the point is does a god idea help or hender. In a world we are all born with downfalls why are we teaching our children happiness comes from anywhere but whats around us. You are not adressing the example of the 3 boys for example. 3 boys who grow up in church act good because god gave them thr plan to. The other 3 are good becuase they just want to be. No need for a god or a religion. They just want to smile and see everyone else smiling. So if all of what you say is so true that you can ignore the question "why do we need god to be happy. " Then i ask this, Why am i so happy? I never believed in god but i judge myself and do many good and bad things just because i am human. I dont lie ateal or cheat not because god says not too but because wen someone lies to me i dont like it.
Mankind would be better off with out a god

In question number one you just restated the human condition not God's. Then you went on to say that they destruct. Still that is of the human condition, Even then you go on to say that God goes on to people to judge people. All of it is the human condition! God is not a cause of it, In fact he goes on the repel it. Half of the book of James (the brother of Jesus) talks of how we shouldn't judge others. People aren't good! That's what we call the condition. Since we are all impure, We have all sinned. How do you blame your brother for you shooting someone after he left ten years ago to move to China! Then when you talk of three boys who's actions are the "only" thing that effect their life (not a God), Then would they care about their life if there is not point! God's Bible would instruct the other three boys how to live life. The Bible says the opposite you say. That if you do not work you will not eat, To not judge, To not take revenge. God only effects humanity positively. Thank you
Mankind would be better off with out a god

Please revisit the question. Youre providing any ideas why mankind is better you are just saying we are with no reasons why. 1. Places where god is not present live more closely to nature, Build less, Destruct the earth less and judge others less. 2. What about an indivuduals ability to challenge themselves. If i never knew of a god, What would make me a good person. My experiences would and my ability to admit to myself when i am being greedy or selfish. 3. I argue that if u raise 3 children to believe their actions are the only thing that affects their life and then raise a separate 3 to believe somthing else is judging there actions, I garuntee the 1st group does more good for society. Because they dont depend on a belief but rather the fact that if u hit someone u get hit back and if you dont work you dont eat. The other group will praying and judging while the 1st is understanding and providing solutions that people can understand
Mankind would be better off with out a god

The true nature around us is of much complex and is very carefully designed by a creator. God had nothing to do with the big bang. The big bang has always been a human source used to explain a creation that they want separated by God. Science doesn't always say that life started from a single organism. Since they still cannot find the "missing link" to what they call Evolution, Nor does God relate to evolution in any way. God said in Genesis that he created each animal in its kind not to change but to stay. You also said, "The laws of science are not created to explain but to ask. " Well then why do people prove them? Why do people even try to prove them if they are to ask? They are not to ask science, But to confirm science. I also get what you mean when you say that entropy in not a conclusion. It's a repeating number. So all we have to do is make it ten X then take one X away, And that's how we get are conclusion. Mankind needs a God otherwise we would be an army without a leader.
Mankind would be better off with out a god

Again, What about the belief in god, A superior being, Is more beneficial than self growth and self truth in each individual soley based on the nature surrounding us. If god is simply the spark of the big bang, Then that makes even harder to explain morality, Inteligence or even intention. Science says life started from single cell organism, So are bacteria our god in a sense? The laws of science are not created to explain but to ask, If we are in a closed system, If entropy always increases. The law of science is in repeating the results, Not the conclusion. If u can repeat something and recieve the expected result, The data is law, Why or how is not. We can ask the question what would mankind be like with out gov because the people in gov are people. We have seen situations like that in the past. God we have not. If we were never tricked into takin gold to temples to buy heaven we would have never developed into a greedy consuming sick species.
Mankind would be better off with out a god

To start, When I used the government as an example it was reassembling authority not structure or formation. And I do agree that we hear story's and are minds processes whether we believe and what we accept of that belief. We each find are own supportive reasoning for what we believe. Example: The second law of thermodynamics says that empathy increases with time, There for in a closed system like the universe having a beginning will eventually come to an end. Quantum Physics says that something outside the closed system had to have began the closed system, Which could only be a God since the big bang or any meteor are also closed systems since they weren't there in the beginning. This is my reasoning for God being a viable creator. You also asked why most questions and faiths that are God based. I used to wonder this question myself. Why so many different Gods? I believe are soul was created with the ability to know that there is something of a God or supreme being out there. Thanks.
Mankind would be better off with out a god

I apreciate that let me rephrase so we aren't confused by semantics Would mankind be better off, As in, Govern its people better or form more effective governments with out the idea that a higher being dictates the consequence to our actions. I am proposing that with out this idea, Similar to santa clause, We a forced to look more inward and answer tougher everyday questions with in our self. Besides, Too many gov used the idea of a higher being to manipulate masses into giving them manly power becuase of an idea that only benefited said governemnets. If heaven or hail is real then yes there is a need for said being but on earth wouldnt we be more independeny, Honest and loving of nature with out seeking faiths that are god based?
Mankind would be better off with out a god

This argument has a simular basis as saying that the USA would be better off without a government or the world better off than with an supreme God who are both fair and good to us. God gave us choice and from this we have created are own human condition, So it's more fair to suggest that "Mankind would be better off without a Mankind. " If you can find a single verse in the Bible were God shows hate to mankind and tell me where you found it I will be beyond impressed. Thank you for your time.
Abortion: Legal or Not

I dictate something to be morally unjust when it has a sharp, noticeable, negative impact on society, as dictated by society. Morality is relative, what is right and wrong changes with how society's values weigh against each other. Human life is not sacred, we kill humans all the time. Warfare, Capital Punishment, Law Enforcement, Euthanasia. An unwanted fetus has no value in society's eyes. Thus, it is acceptable to abort.
Abortion: Legal or Not

When you say that it is not morally unjust, it all depends on who you are talking with. If it is all right with you I would like to pull religion in but I am unsure of your standing upon that, so I will say it for the next round. However if you think about this from the moment of conception, accidental or purposfully, there is a human lifeform within the mothers womb. So to allow the abortion is to say it is morally all right to kill another human.
Abortion: Legal or Not

There is a 500 character limit. Abortion is not morally unjust and does not disturb our society in a negative way. However, all things are harmful in excess. Abortion should be legal, but restricted so as to ensure the health and wellbeing of the mother and for what is in the best interests of society. This is currently the case. Since my opponent proposes the change, I await his argument before I proceed. Thank you.
catholic church has never contradicted itself

your argument is basically nothing, then. it seems like you took the debate just to bicker with me about the rules. i don't now what your points are, but go ahead and expand on them by any means possible. "The Pope says he follows God. He contradicts God. He contradicts himself." it will just show first that you took the debate knowing you will be using the bible and other things not allowed. and that it's a matter of interpretation if you use the bible probably anyway. also it's not the end of the world if I say don't use the bible. as I said, youd think if it was not true the catholic church, that itd have contradicted itself. even beyond limbo and "no salvation outside...". there are tons of material, writings an councils. probably a big issue with con is he is not at all knowledgeable or qualified to take the debate as he just has a laymans knowledgeability of church teaching. the only point id see you being able to bicker about is the limbo and no salvation points... but I just want to see if there's anything else out there so don't want to limit it to that. and there are some grace points that I find plausible on those anyways. all my points about widespread belief, practice etc are not cop outs. they are reasonable arguments... if you want to argue use official teaching, what matters. I could get into why its all that matters, just like how peter denied jesus three times, the apostles were sinful etc yet we still read the bible etc... but this should all go without saying. and is beyond the scope of the debate.
catholic church has never contradicted itself

As I said in my intro, I was just stating something little as I was not sure the structure you wanted to follow. "You did not state what each round was for so I'm not sure if I should just accept the challenge on the first round or post an argument. So I will go ahead and post a little something. " This should have told you that I was not going to be breaking anything down. .. I just wanted to state something to get this thing rolling (again, because you gave no specification on structure). As I have said, it will be VERY hard to debate religion if we do not use the basis for that religion. .. which is the whole point for that religion. The fact you don't want to use it and then go on to exclude other huge aspects of Catholicism ("in this debate, I am not counting the issues of limbo, or no salvation outside the catholic church". ) tells me you are trying to defend your position by taking out the basis for any argument to be made. "you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years. " I gave you a contradiction but you were clever enough beforehand to make me unable to back it up without breaking the rules. My big question to you would be, are you seeking truth or just trying to do anything to protect what you believe? John Paul II contradicted the fact that only Catholics can be saved (NOTE: I AM NOT USING THIS AS AN ARGUMENT AS IT IS NOT ALLOWED). You basically say, "the Catholic church has not contradicted itself so I challenge someone to say otherwise. .. but you can't use this certain contradiction against me. " That defeats the WHOLE purpose of the debate. Again, I'm not using this as an argument against you. .. I'm just pointing this out to show you why you can't pick and choose things like that in a debate. I give you an argument that shows contradiction and then you say, "back it up. " And then basically tell me if I do back it up, I'd be breaking the rules. How is that any good for a debate? I thought one who held to the bible was one who seeks truth? Yet it seems you try to run from it and mold it into whatever you want it to be. I am diverting from the topic, I apologize. But I feel those were very valid points to make. I have stated my argument: The Pope says he follows God. He contradicts God. He contradicts himself. That is what I hold to and all I will say since if I try and back it up I will forfeit. Seeing how Pro is not allowing me to expound on this makes it clear he is only out to win and his goal is not to come to a reasonable conclusion through rational debate.
catholic church has never contradicted itself

your main problem is you just presented vague challenges with no specificity. your argument basically boils down to "he contradicts God. he contradicts himself" props for he contradicts himself, the point of the debate. but how? and you say contradicts God, but how? if you are using the bible, you are violating the rules. it's almost surely a matter of interpretation too if you are saying he contradicts it, as ive seen nothing blatant contradicting the bible. but of course it'd help if you acutally went into specifics.
catholic church has never contradicted itself

I will accept the challenge. You did not state what each round was for so I'm not sure if I should just accept the challenge on the first round or post an argument. So I will go ahead and post a little something. Now, I want to point out that you said you would rather not use the bible so I will not use the bible persay, but you must realize that the religious book of a religion that is being debated on is a HUGE factor. I will start with this: The Pope says he follows God. He contradicts God. He contradicts himself. That is the biggest contradiction that the Pope could have. Again, you would rather not use the religious book that this religion is based on so this will be a very difficult debate for both sides...especially with the argument I just presented. Also, I have used a source that is infallible. If you do not recognize God as infallible then please tell me (though if you did not then I'm not sure what we are debating about).
catholic church has never contradicted itself

in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church". you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years. the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes. note: -this does not include moral corruption, only official teaching. that means you can't use bad priest, even peodofile priests. it means you can't use the inquisistion where millions were killed by catholics. can't use the sins of past popes. it has to be actual teachings of the church, as said, councils and statements by popes. etc. impeccable v infallble, there's a difference. -since we are comparing official statements, id rather not use the bible either. it's usually too open to interpretation to begin with. we are examining the church's consistency on its own anyway... and you'd think even beyond the bible, it'd have contradicted itself within two thousand years. -also there's a differnce between widespread belief and doctrine. that so many believed the earth was made in six days, that the earth was flat, that man wasn't from apes etc... only shows they are human. it'd make sense at first impression. this isn't doctrine. you have to cite a quote or citation. -there's a difference between practice and doctrine too... preistly celibacy is practice, reading the mass in latin is a practice... etc
there should be more gun control

Well, First, thank you for giving me SOME credit. I understand what you are saying, but look at these charts, if you will. [IMG]http://i1299.photobucket.com...[/IMG] [IMG]http://i1299.photobucket.com...[/IMG] [IMG]http://i1299.photobucket.com...[/IMG] Now, also remember that we are in a job crisis right now, and that would kill the gun industry, even if it is just assault rifled getting banned, it will make some of the pansies (i am not insulting you or anyone directly, i am just making this less...boring) who have never shot, held, or maybe even seen a gun that wasn't on their TV or their laptop, think that they could do more, because violence with handguns is up, and get rid of them. That would kill the gun industry and make hundreds of thousands, or even millions of jobs go away.
there should be more gun control

so we should allow assault rifles, we should allow people to be massacered, because a very small minority of people want to go boar hunting? you guys or these people are seriously a very small fraction of a fraction of percent. the right to safety of the majority trumps that right. the last three or four major shootings in the country involved assault rifles, as even this pro guns advocate admits... http://www.youtube.com... per "home invasion". no one says we should ban all guns so we can rule that out per the owner. there might be some very small percentage of percentage scenarios where a homeowner is waiting for a gun, while he's invaded. but, by far, if you want a gun, you can get a gun, just go about it lawfully and follow the rules. homeowners are not withotu protection. i'm not sure what your point is about video games. it's true that usually the "liberals" are the ones who cry about that stuff, but at this point in political debate it's the NRA that blames video games, cause they don't want to admit that we should have mroe gun control. so if you're arguing video games aren't that bad, you're actually taking one of the few weak points the NRA currently is using, and pointing the blame at people themselves, as it should be. which only means all the mroe we should have more gun control. and at the end of the day, even if we do or don't do this or that regulation, say we don't ban assault rifles... that doesn't mean we shoudln't engage in more gun control. so my primary thesis, contention, remains. if you agre with background checks, and mentally ill... and probably would agree about criminals not having guns... the only point we dispute is assault rifles. i was hoping to debate soemone who wants no gun control. i realize that is an extreme position, one would usualy only whack jobs would take... so i'm content debating you.
there should be more gun control

Alright, lets face it. Shootings are terrible, and happen too often, but that does not have anything to do with assault rifles. Anyone who says that nobody hunts with an assault rifle is wrong. Every year, there are groups of people that i know, including myself, who go boar hunting. Boar are fast, and you hunt them out of a ranger, which is, quite simply, the ATV version of a golf cart. It takes several shots to hit a boar, and nothing less than an assault rifle will take one down. A .223 or .308 caliper round is fired from the gun, a bushmaster AR-15, at the boar. It is near impossible to go hunting with a long, bolt action rifle for boar. Also, the video "Home Invasion", by coiledsnake.com, makes a slightly exaggerated point on gun control in the future. Imagine the hologram as a screen, and that man as YOU. Now think about the fact that there is a black market. If someone is PLANNING a home invasion, they are most likely going to buy a firearm, may it be a Glock 18 machine pistol, Semi automatic Beretta handgun, or a .308 AR-15, from the black market. Imagine yourself in that frantic position, attempting to get your weapon, which the government is sealing from you, while an armed person is going through your house, stealing your valuables, and they will not think twice about killing you. Some people think the media is brainwashing people into killing others, and while it desensitizes us to some things, such as murder, it does not cause people to kill others. Video games such as call of duty do not endorse mindless killing, but doing what needs to be done to protect yourself and everyone you know, and may not know. The reason you hear about killers always playing games such as Call of Duty and Halo is not because those games told them to go out and kill people, it is because they have a sick obsession with murder, and a bleak outlook on the world. Maybe a small background check and a mental health test should be in place for buying certain firearms, but they should not be eliminated altogether.
there should be more gun control

i'm not sure what you're getting at with the last post. we shouldn't be concerned with jobs created by the gun industry. we should just do what's right, and whatever follows, follows. most people don't say to ban hand guns, either. even if there's a spike, that's just the life of allowing the right ot a gun. handguns are as basic as they come. if there's a spike, it means something's wrong with society, not that we have to ban all guns etc. necessarily
Adopting children

There are people who can't have kids of their own and they still have the desire of having children. Their soultion can be adoption. The biological parents are normally aware and they talk with the person who wishes to adopt. The biological parents are usually always happy when their children are adopted because they are put with a family who wants them on their own and they will have a home and their necessity are given to the children. Every child deserves the chance at a forever home and this (adoption) is their chance.
Adopting children

1. Parents can capable to safe their children dont have guarentee to will get good adoption from the parents who will neglect and any harrasment will happen when children dont obey the rules from the parents in the place of the house of orphan they will have get good food and care. a place who can accept is goverment who can facility to the orphan to get quality education 2. Children dont have right is like really children in the home They will dont have get right to use money when the parents have died and they will neglect again
Adopting children

A person who would want to adopt will have to get checked to see if they can provide the child with its need. So a child would not be adopted to someone who is not capable of taking care of it unless they get adoption assistance from the government. Around the world there are an estimated 153 million of orphans who have lost one parent. There are 17,900,000 orphand who have lost both parents and are living in orphanages or on the streets and lack the care and attention required for healthy development. These children are at risk for disease, malnutrition, and death. This was found on Childinfo Approximately 140,000 children are adopted by families in the United States each year. Approximately 7 million Americans are adopted persons. As many as 100 million Americans have adoption in their immediate family (adopting, placing, adopted). Over 90% of adopted children ages 5 and older have positive feelings about their adoption. ~ Istandforlife.org