BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Theism vs. Atheism

You make a lot of points about the deficiencies of religion. I'd like to point out that religion is not the actual topic being discussed. Theism is not a religion, it is a single view, concerning a single matter. I have never been a member of any religious organization, and was an atheist until my late teens, so I'm certainly not advocating any religion. I am espousing the belief that God (as defined above) exists. You say that religion is an institution of social control, and you're right. God is not. God has, at various times, been used by religions to achieve certain ends, but so have famines, floods, and plagues. Religions sit on a huge foundation of doctrine. It talks about God, but uses him simply as a figurehead before going on to issue various decrees. No rational theist would believe that God has a keen and vested interest in homosexuality and contraception. You mention that religions were a means of explaining the natural world during pre-modern history, when no scientific explanation was available. This is true. We now know that plagues come from bacteria, not an angry God, among other things. Regardless, in my definition of God, I did not say I'd be defending everything that's been said about him. I am merely arguing that "A conscious , non-human entity, who's complexity exceeds that of any human by many orders of magnitude, and has some relation with the planet Earth." Your argument also suggests to me that you believe science has solved all worldly mysteries. It hasn't. Why are you conscious? How is it that electrical shocks in your brain magically bring forth an awareness of the external world. There is no scientific reason to suggest we ought to have consciousness. Our bodies would operate just the same without it. If you really think science has solved this question, I'd be delighted to know how. Your mention of the "invisible man in the sky" is completely fallacious. The argument I've put forward states that the universe, as a whole, has a consciousness many times greater than the consciousness of any organism. I hate to bring up this sort of argumentation, but while I have brought up reasons that God exists, you haven't brought up a single reason that he doesn't. Your argument seems to rest on the claim that "there is simply no evidence". Well, I've provided some evidence, where's yours? And finally, what evidence do you have that all the people you interact with, myself included, have consciousness? I look forward to your reply.
Theism vs. Atheism

There is no God. Whatever merit religion may have as an instrument of social control or moral conditioning it is clearly a fable; a story which may have an important message but never actually happened. Religions originated hundreds or thousands of years ago when humans were incapable of understanding the way the world really worked. Ultimately an individual who is concerned with truth - as all of us are - must rest their understanding of the universe on the preponderance of evidence and on that front the advantage is clearly in favour of atheism. There is simply no evidence what-so-ever that God exists. No one has seen him or touched him. Crazy people, mostly Republicans, claim to talk to him but they are seldom very credible. Of course there are things you cannot see and touch that exist (oxygen, for example) but that at least can be interacted with. You can cover a flame in a cup and watch it suffocate. There is nothing wrong with believing in God. Religion can teach powerful moral lessons and motivate people to do good. Churches themselves are voluntary - no one, save perhaps for children, is forced to attend. Many churches do great acts of charity. But it is simply not true to say there is a God. There is simply no evidence or facts supporting this viewpoint. It is illogical, irrational and untrue to maintain that there is some invisible man in the sky watching over us. The scientific viewpoint - which is necessarily atheistic, since there is no way to verify through replication or experimentation the claims of believers - is necessarily more rooted in the search for truth than that of mystics. Ultimately the argument for a deity rests on one thing, and one thing alone. Belief. You can say what you will about the merits of this approach, but simply accepting unquestioningly the dictates of authority is the polar opposite of the search for truth. If one is to be concerned with knowledge and truth then we throw off the foolish superstitutions of our past and embrace a modern understanding of the world. This means necessarily and in an iconoclastic fashion abandoning religion, or modern attempts by new ageists to sneak God in via spirituality and other such bunk. These are clearly attempts to recycle mankind's cherished beliefs. Again there is nothing wrong with this approach, but as a serious inquiry into knowledge and truth is clearly inferior to atheism.
Christianity is probably the one true religion.

Well, round 5, and Con has yet again (for the 3rd time now!) completely ignored the evidence I gave for the Resurrection of Jesus. Notice that his only "evidence" against my claims were his attacks on the Bible, his claim that all religions are the same, or that there are millions of contradictory religions. Well that's great, how does that refute the evidence I gave? It doesn't.I made it very clear that you don't have the believe in the Bible to get to the Resurrection. Notice how most of my evidence I gave wasn't even from the Bible, it was from sources outside of the Bible.He didn't address the arguments I gave for the crucifixion of Jesus.He didn't address the arguments I gave that proved that the disciples had experiences, which convinced them that Jesus appeared to them. Virtually every NT critical scholar agrees that the disciples had experiences, they may have been wrong, but the fact of the experiences are agreed upon by the majority of skeptical scholars, which yet again he did not address, he simply ignored it.He didn't address the arguments I gave for the empty tomb.Con was under the impression that "anything in the Bible can be dismissed, because they just have an agenda". Which doesn't even begin to address the evidence I provided.So at the end of the day, I gave my evidence, I responded to the main objections of my opponent towards Christianity, but he didn't do the same thing back.If this were a public debate, Con would be declared the loser for not giving refutations to my claims and going off topic over and over again. And the arguments presented just demonstrate that this man has absolutely no clue what he is objecting to.If you're going to object to something, at least understand what it is you're objecting to.Simply attacking straw man arguments just demonstrate that you can't attack our actual position.So in conclusion, Jesus Christ is risen and he is Lord.He now sits at the right hand of God the Father as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.I bear witness that Jesus Christ is Yahweh to the glory of God the Father. And I bear witness that Jesus Christ died for my sins and left the tomb empty. This confession saves you.Any other confession only damns your soul to Hell.I have established my case, Christianity is the ONLY true religion, proof of this: Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
Christianity is probably the one true religion.

rebuttal of "resurrection of jesus" lol you havent left me in a bind at all. if the bible is not inspired and not reliable then jesus didnt raise from the dead. you said and i quote: "If the Bible is not inspired, nor reliable, then you CAN still get the Resurrection, and Jesus IS raised from the dead." this last part is completely untrue and without premise in your argument. can be a resurrection doesnt imply is a resurrection. the bible could be false like every other religion. jesus could be a guy whos life was exaggerated like the other 99.9 percent of other religions that have to be made up because they all contradict each other. in science scientists suspend judgement until they have sufficient evidence. And only when one thing is by far more plausible and probable then all other possibilities they sometimes believe in that possibility. but often there are possibilities that are unknown that would be even more likely. but there are thousands that contradict yours without any more evidence backing it up. little to none. no first hand accounts even. and after all nothing was written about jesus until 40-70 years after he died by so few historians and i could use the same argument for Buddha. if Buddhas work is inspired then Christians will continue to suffer in multiple more lives if Buddhas work isnt inspired but reliable you will suffer more lives as animals if it is not reliable and not inspired then you can still suffer multiple lives being multiple animals so you are going to suffer the lives of animals. ha! same thing and doesnt make christianity any more likely. you have a flawed premise your premise and conclusion was ""If the Bible is not inspired, nor reliable, then you CAN still get the Resurrection, and Jesus IS raised from the dead." how is jesus positively,absolutely, no doubt, sure enough raised from the death just because he could be? and if the bible is unreliable what are the cances that the most ridiculous claim in it is "reliable". unreliable must mean false unless your leaving out something in your argument. if the resurrection of jesus is false which is a huge possibility then he didnt raise from the dead. that was the dumbest argument i have ever seen in my life. you said if the bible is not inspired and not reliable it COULD be true. but it can be false as you said and youd think god would have the power to teach everybody right from wrong instead of far less than .1 percent of humans today by far considering all who have lived. false because thats what you must be talking about when you say it isnt reliable. if its false which is the only unreliable way it could be then the Resurrection didnt happen. are you a kid? i am running out of time and your completely irrational cant refute anything i said and im out of time and sure nothing you said beyond that was important. if so ill respond to it in the next round.
Christianity is probably the one true religion.

As the con i will be arguing that Christianity is is just as likely to be true as other religions are which would make it an arbitrary decision as no reason or system is used to choose a religion. i think its emotional because our emotions or conscience is congruent with what we have been told which is to say that the conscience or emotions consist of vague reminiscences of precepts heard in early youth. people think that using the conscience or emotions is logical but as they consist of what you have been told regardless of whether its true or not or even likely there is no logical reason to use them or it. so my argument is that religion is just as likely as other religions.
Are athletes paid too much

I will first rebut. .. 1. "A teacher needs to work 27 yrs and a little more to make a 1/4 of the athletes make" It is evident that Pro has not read my argument from Round 3. Teachers are not in risk of having their careers cut off everyday. Teachers do not have to work 27 years in order to become a teacher. But athletes need to start training at a very early age. Some of the very best athletes are said to have started playing their sports about the same time as they started to walk. 2. "When athlete die kids that decided America's future aren't giving that large amount of money" I have no idea what Pro's trying to say here. .. 3. " Anybody can put a ball through a whole but can Kobe or Lebron save a guy's life with surgery but a surgeon can put a ball through" Horrendous grammar. Anyway, not everyone can put a ball through at the high level as professional athletes do. Also, anyone can technically hold a knife and perform a 'surgery. ' Some of the athletes have given hopes for young children. Some athletes actually travel across the country to grant a wish of a dying child. Surgeons may be able to perform some intricate surgery, but they rarely give hope to children as athletes do. I have defended every points I have made and presented numerous points for Pro to rebut. However, Pro failed to provide a strong refutation nor arguments to substantiate his position.
Are athletes paid too much

I will first rebut the assertion made by Pro. 1. "Fire fighter save lives and save peoples live all you do is thrown a ball through a hoop" Fire fighters do save lives. However, they do not put in thousands of dollars and spend the majority of their childhood training to be fire fighters like athletes do. Fire fighters only occasionally have to jump into the burning fire while athletes have to play, often dangerous and exhausting sport nearly every day. Seeing that Pro has not rebutted any of my arguments, I will now proceed to presenting my arguments. 1. Risk Professional athletes are in risk nearly every day. With the size and talent of contemporary athletes and the extremely rapid pace of game, athletes risk losing their careers every time they play. Despite the years of effort and contribution into their careers, some athletes have their careers ended in an injury. Because of the lack of education, it is difficult for these athletes to find new jobs. I await Pro's arguments and rebuttals.
Are athletes paid too much

Please do not instigate a debate if you are not going to put an effort to engage in it. Since Pro failed to present any of his arguments, I will move on to mine. 1. Dedication The time, effort and money spent by athletes is stupendous. Professional athletes train for decades, resisting temptations and sacrificing time and money that could have been spent on something more enjoyable. 2. They deserve it Professional athletes are best players of a certain sports. As the fittest humans to play the sport, they should be awarded. Even nature herself awards the strongest and the fittest species. I await Pro's rebuttals and arguments and hope that Pro will show some effort into this debate he has created.
"I believe God doesn't exist" is not Atheism

I will argue that your assertion that one cannot qualify as an Atheist if you take the position that God does not exist is erroneous, as there is no universally accepted definition, classification and/or consensus of Atheism, either from a legal or an academic standpoint. Atheism in a broad sense is simply someone who disbelieves in and/or opposes the existence of supernatural entities. In its broadest sense, the term Atheism has been attributed to opposers/rejecters of supernaturalism in general, such as transcendental ideologies, spirituality etc. The classification and/or definition of Atheism has been the subject of debate and philosophy since its general recognition in the 18th century, during this time many ideas and sub-categories have been proposed and discussed. Non of these have remained in prominence to this day, so one must look at the general/popular idea of Atheism which exists today for at least an ambiguous definition. For this one must explore the Atheist culture which has formed and propagated around the lectures, books, and interviews by the most recognised, popular, credible and respected Atheists that are accessible via the internet. Namely, Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, and Sam Harris, and in a different sense, certain songs by Tim Minchin. It is clear by the work of these individuals that the most generally accepted view of Atheism is the strident opposition and rejection of the Abrahamic religions. Most people who fall within this culture consider themselves Atheists, and their reason for being so is the lack of empirical evidence and/or logic in the arguments/claims of Abrahamic theists. In conclusion, I would argue that the premise of your argument is groundless given the ambiguity surrounding the term Atheism.
"I believe God doesn't exist" is not Atheism

I would like to assert that the statement, "I believe that God does not exist", is simply not an Atheistic statement. Definition from the Oxford Dictionary: Atheism [Noun] : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. If anyone is willing to debate this, please use Round #1 for acceptance only. I shall present my argument in Round #2 and the structure of the rest of the debate shall be undefined. This debate should be held in a friendly spirit.
The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered

In my opinion, the voting age would be better off staying the same. From the amount of young people already neglecting their right to vote, to potential of misuse of the vote, it is worthless and/or potentially disruptive to the voting system. Even though 16 year old kids do have several rights, voting is important, and therefore 16 year olds must be taught some responsibilities before they have the right to vote. Therefore, the voting age should remain at 18, and I think most people agree that lowering the voting age would be a risk that isn't worth it to take. Thank you for the debate 1davey29.
The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered

_____________________________________________________________________ In 2012, only 51% of citizens 18-29 years old, let me repeat that, 18 THROUGH 29 years old, voted in the election. If so many 18-29 year old citizens already ignore their right to vote, what difference would it be to give 16-17 year old citizens the same right? "My argument is that if you can learn to drive and be given the responsibility of a car, why can't you vote for a president? " - 1davey29 Just because 16 year old people have the right to do some things, doesn't mean that they have the right to do everything. If all 16 year olds, for example, had the right to drink alcohol or serve on a jury, or even start their own families, let's face it: for most 16 year olds, it would be a disaster. However, if those rights were staggered to different age levels, they would become more mature and have more of a sense of responsibility. Some choices are just more complex then others, and in that case they must be given at a later level, so they get used to responsibility on a smaller scale before making big decisions. "If 16-year-olds cannot vote, our president, who represents our country, will not accurately represent the people's opinion. " - 1davey29 It is incorrect to say that people vote according to their age, as many grandchildren and children vote according to their grandparent's and parent's views. The government does things that affect people of all age groups, but that doesn't mean, for example, a 12 year old should have the right to vote because new school policies affect them. Should toddlers have the right to vote because the government affects them too? No, because most parents can be trusted to make the best decision for the children. Young people are also a lot more likely to misuse their vote, and use it in a foolish way. The youth would be more likely to vote for the president according to the celebrities that support the candidate, and not the candidate's actual views. While this is not true for all youth, you can be sure that there will be many young people abusing their vote. _____________________________________________________________________ Once again, I would like to thank my opponent for the debate. Source(s): . http://idebate.org...
The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered

The voting age limit should be lowered from 18 (17 in some states) to 16 at most. My argument is that if you can learn to drive and be given the responsibility of a car, why can't you vote for a president? many people are sophisticated enough to vote even under the age of 16! Format for debate: Round 1: Opening statements Round 2: Rebuttal Round 3: Final statement
Pick your own debate!

Kleptin, thank you for this opportunity to debate you! Topic 1: Society Government should require and enforce race-based affirmative action among equal candidates [see subsection of Myth 10, Source 1] in private businesses. I would be CON. Topic 2: Politics In the War Between the States (more commonly known as the American Civil War), should we assume a moral high ground to exist, on balance, the Confederacy had more of a moral high ground than the Union. I would be PRO. Topic 3: Technology On balance, video games (electronic game that involves interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device) have had a positive impact on society. I would be PRO. Topic 4: Education Precalculus classes should be compulsory (required to be taken) in all American high schools. I would be CON. 1. http://www.understandingprejudice.org... Pick one.
Pick your own debate!

1. Submit at least 4 resolutions of at least 3 different categories (see the forum for categories). Include your position for each resolution. 2. In R2, I will respond with my choice. If I am PRO, I will respond with only my choice. My opponent will then use his R2 to acknowledge my choice and invite me to begin. Debating will begin with me in R3 and end with my opponent in R5. If I am CON, I will respond with only my choice and invite my opponent to begin. Debating will begin with my opponent in R2 and will end in R5. My opponent will not post in his last round and will instead thank the audience and myself for the debate. BEGIN!
Pick your own debate!

As the proponent, I will begin by clarifying on the resolution and a few terms. Resolved: "Precalculus classes should be compulsory in American Public highschools. We live in a culture that is obsessed with individual liberty. The adolescent age is when developing individuals seem to display the greatest amount of resentment towards anything that is established without their consent. It is only after a significant amount of maturity that we become aware of things such as responsibility, practicality, and foresight. Highschool students often resent the classes that the Board of Education forces them to take, citing impracticality or other factors. However, there are many reasons for enforcing compulsory classes that go above and beyond the actual material. I will be touching on the academic importance of encorcing compulsory Precalculus classes in Public high schools as well as other ways in which this enforcement is important both to the teens taking the class and to society in general. I believe my opponent has specific reasons why he believes Precalculus should not be made compulsory. I will allow him to make his points before I develop mine. Thank you.
consumers should be notified usage of GMOS in fast food chains such as McDonalds

It is our right to know what we are consuming. The fact that in 80% of foods contain GMOs and there is no labeling is wrong. When a food contains allergens such as gluten or dairy it is labeled. That is simply how it is. These foods are labeled because some people choose not to eat them due to dietary needs or life style. There are non-GMO foods that are labeled but at a higher price and less quantity. Simply a label explaining to the public what GMOs are and that they are is enough. According to http://www.webmd.com..., GMOs have had negative effects on peoples livers, kidneys and heart. People who consume GMOs can be at a greater risk of cancer. People should be aware of the placement of GMOs.
consumers should be notified usage of GMOS in fast food chains such as McDonalds

You continue to claim that GMOs are unsafe ("deadly" even) and therefore should be labeled. First you cited NonGMOProject.org, an anti-GMO org that has no scientific credibility. Now you are citing PubMed, which is a search engine. Saying "according to PubMed..." is like saying "according to Google..." It means nothing. GMOs have been on the market for about 20 years. There has not been even one case of harm. Not even one. Every reputable scientific org in the world agrees on this. That's why the AAAS does not support GMO labeling: http://www.aaas.org...Again, you can avoid GMOs by purchasing certified non-GMO. This might not be convenient for you, but it's the price you pay for refusing to accept facts.