BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
atheism is disbelief, disbelief, is belief to the contrary of the positive theistic assertion

:: vi_spex said, "so your position is true in saying that i just looked at my dog? that is a true position for you to have?" Yes. My reasons for believing so is that my judgement of your character tells me that you are unlikely to lie. I cannot be certain of that you own a dog, but I believe that you do. :: vi_spex said, "belief is false thou, so you can agree with me that you wont stick a knife in your leg" I will not agree with you; by your logic, a belief that I *won't* stick a knife in my leg is also false, because it is a belief. :: vi_spex said, "only sensory experience is true" * "know=i dont have to imagine it" Again, an optical illusion. You have to imagine that it IS an optical illusion when you are looking at it. Your sensory experience can be FALSE as well. :: vi_spex said, "i am certain that i see an optical illusion when i see it" What does that mean? If you look at an optical illusion when you are unaware that it is, you say you always know that it is an optical illusion? I highly doubt that. Regarding the cake thing; we form our opinions from the evidence we have gathered. Obviously, tasting it is the strongest form of evidence here. However, if *everyone* I knew told me that the cake was fantastic and it was on the news as being fantastic, I would believe that the cake is fantastic because that would be enough evidence to convince me that it is true. The rest of the arguments are useless because we do not have a foundation of common definitions. I will respond to no more of this argument until the basic requirements are met.
atheism is disbelief, disbelief, is belief to the contrary of the positive theistic assertion

so your position is true in saying that i just looked at my dog? that is a true position for you to have? this is a god claim, you believe that reality is not real belief is false thou, so you can agree with me that you wont stick a knife in your leg only sensory experience is true what is your neighour doing right now? i dont know=i have to imagine it know=i dont have to imagine it do you have 5 fingers on your hand? does a scientist need to tell you when you need to pee? you need a mechanical clock on your side to infom you of this maybe belief=nothing know=something 1+1=2=absolute logic is absolute, physical experience is logic, like physical math i know i am typing these words on my keyboard and reading them on my screen, i dont have to imagine it. are you most certain of right now, what your neighbour is doing, or that you are reading these words? so if you say physical experience is false, is it then true what your neighour is doing right now? in his house, and you reading theses words are false? i am certain that i see an optical illusion when i see it belief is false, and know is true, you can believe that you know what your neighbour is doing all day long, he might be dead essentially what you are asserting is that its possible that you are reading these words, that, it isnt happening now. possibility is in the future, now is absolute, no other possibility. i know you cant read these words with your eyes closed, you cant argue with that, it is absolute a blind mans reality, is not of colours and light belief=be lie kNow=now knowledge is in the past, i have no knowledge of the future, i have to imagine the future, now is true, now is matter, i know my experience of now cause and effect is absolute, cause and effect is logic absolutes=existence lies are complicated by seperation and true is simple now as one yes you dont know from a photo, on the news all i know is true is the light on my screen, shapes colours, but its like looking into the imagination of another person, as it all goes to belief. like if you imagine the speakers are the sounds inside the head of another person, that is speakers right there, +screen+movie= it becomoes like wathing a movie inside some ones elses head when i am alone, the true size of the human population is 1 the cake thing is different, not about belief, just about opinions based on sensory experience, memory of joy is good, if you hadnt tasted any cake before you couldnt really say its bad compared to other cakes at least. you tasted the cake and to you it dosnt taste good, you are not disbelieving my claim you are merly asserting your own oppinion the cake stuff is about knowledge and sensory experience, not imagination, belief=imagination, not true and truth, not now and past can you put god in your mouth and taste god?
atheism is disbelief, disbelief, is belief to the contrary of the positive theistic assertion

:: vi_spex said: "cool, but even if you concede that you dont know, you still admit you go beyond what you dont know and believe" EVERYTHING is beyond my absolute knowledge due to my flawed senses and perception, thus, I cannot absolutely know ANYTHING. I can, at best, very strongly BELIEVE that I know something. There have been many times in my life where I was *certain* about something within my "physical experience" and then learned that I was wrong. Do you have perfect sight? Perfect hearing? And so on? If not, then you cannot be 100.0% certain that what you see is correct, either, because of the possibility of misperceiving something. Have you ever been fooled by an optical illusion? In that case, "physical experience of now = FALSE" "Knowing" is the same as "believing", except that "knowing" implies a significantly greater degree of certainty, due to evidence of faith (neither of which is necessarily true). You have to BELIEVE that you KNOW something. We don't normally say that we "believe that we know", because it is built into the meaning of the word: know : Be absolutely certain or sure about something. [1] [1] Oxford Dictionary - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Now, "certain" and "sure" have the same basic meaning: sure : Completely confident that one is right. [1] Note that these words imply confidence that one is right; NOT that they are right in actuality. Believe = "I think this is true." Know = "I think this is true without a doubt." :: vi_spex said, "do you know i am wearing a hat right now?" Let's say I was shown pictures of you. Then, let's say that I meet you in person. You are wearing a hat. Surely I would then "know" that you were wearing a hat because I can see it. However, what if I was sent the picture of an imposter, and that I was looking at the imposter instead of you. Even though I am wrong in reality, I "know" that you have a hat on. :: vi_spex said, "if i say the cake tastes great, and you say i dont accept that, then i would ask why dont you accept that it dosnt taste great" I tasted the cake. I did not accept that you claim it is great. I do not hold the opposite belief from you. I know because I tasted the cake. :: vi_spex said, "for you to disbelieve my claim that yellow is the best colour, is you believing i am lying about that. unless best isnt oppinion based" Why does it matter that the matter is opinion based? It still mimics the disbelief situation. If I say to you, "I don't accept that yellow is the best color", that means I'm calling you a lair?!? I don't think so. That just means that I don't accept that AND that I don't accept the opposite of your belief, either.
atheism is disbelief, disbelief, is belief to the contrary of the positive theistic assertion

cool, but even if you concede that you dont know, you still admit you go beyond what you dont know and believe i dont have a dog but, am i lying about not having a dog? you can believe in science and christianity as long as they dont contradict to obviusly, i think belief is doubt, so to believe god is false is to doubt god is false, and as a balance i must believe god is true same with theism negating theism imaginary claims goes to future, knowledge is truth, truth can only be in the past, past is the opposite of future the neutral position is i accept i dont know, its the only true positionm therfore, as belief is based on that position, its automaticly false, imaginary doubt is the balancing point between belief and disbelief, and on the opposite side, on the true side, is the i dont know position, doubt being a false position i dont know=certain, as i know i dont know, and know is true do you know i am wearing a hat right now? if i say the cake tastes great, and you say i dont accept that, then i would ask why dont you accept that it dosnt taste great for you to disbelieve my claim that yellow is the best colour, is you believing i am lying about that. unless best isnt oppinion based
atheism is disbelief, disbelief, is belief to the contrary of the positive theistic assertion

This debate is completely useless until we can agree on some definitions. :: vi_spex said: "if you believe that i didnt just look at my dog, what is your position on my claim" I believe that you did just look at your dog because gods are common and it is very possible that you do have dog. However, I also concede that I do not know. :: vi_spex said: "you can believe in a different religion and therby can not believe, that is not disbelief, that is just religion negating religion, the key is the arguments you hear" What if the religious beliefs are not mutually exclusive? Can you not possess them both? Or reject them both? "disbelief=belief to the contrary, the negative position on an imaginary claim, the no position" I reject this definition unless you can provide some sources to back it up. You cannot simply make up new definitions as you see fit. And why can't there be a neutral position on a claim that doesn't hinge on knowledge? Rejection doesn't mean accepting the opposite. If you say, "this cake tastes great!", and I say I don't accept that, does that mean that I think it tastes horrible? Please address this example: There are three primary colors (blue, red, and yellow). You claim that yellow is the best color. So, if I disbelief that claim, what does the mean in this situation?
atheism is disbelief, disbelief, is belief to the contrary of the positive theistic assertion

if you believe that i didnt just look at my dog, what is your position on my claim answer the question, it is easily explained with an example you can believe in a different religion and therby can not believe, that is not disbelief, that is just religion negating religion, the key is the arguments you hear disbelief=belief to the contrary, the negative position on an imaginary claim, the no position
atheism is disbelief, disbelief, is belief to the contrary of the positive theistic assertion

Sure, I will accept your challenge. You do realize this will be a battle regarding a definition and semantics, right? Let's begin with the word "Disbelief", as this is the root of the misunderstanding. I'll just start with some dictionary references... Disbelief : Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. [1] Disbelief : A feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real. [2] Disbelief : The inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. [3] [1] Oxford Dictionary - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] Merriam-Webster - http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] Dictionary.com - http://dictionary.reference.com... Since we have five rounds to get through this, let's start small. Do you accept these definitions from official sources that all convey the same basic meaning? If not, please state any specific problems.
atheism is disbelief, disbelief, is belief to the contrary of the positive theistic assertion

:: vi_spex said, "i know the implication of sticking a knife in my leg, cause and effect.. also i have plenty of reasoning that confirm this.." Know=now=true implications of sticking knife in leg=future=belief=false :: vi_spex said, "i dont recognize it instantly, but when i do i am certain of it, and you are talking about something that is designed to trick the eyes, something that looks like something else within itself... hard to see, its not hard to see that these words on the screen" The point of it is that your perception can be incorrect. you likely miss something or see something wrong quite commonly, but you will never notice unless there is some reason for you to reevaluate it. Our brains are imperfect. :: vi_spex said, "you have memories of how cakes taste.. scientists do not tell you which cake is better do they.." :: and... "but what if you dont like the cake.." :: and... "it is as simple and positive negative and balance.. theism atheism and agnostic, 3 positions, thats it. you are hiding" Again, we cannot properly communicate without commonly defined words.
atheism is disbelief, disbelief, is belief to the contrary of the positive theistic assertion

i dont have a dog i know the implication of sticking a knife in my leg, cause and effect.. also i have plenty of reasoning that confirm this.. maybe you die before you stick it into your leg its a trick of the senses, like you can drik yourself drunk and be.. not so certain of your experience you can see optical illusions.. i dont recognize it instantly, but when i do i am certain of it, and you are talking about something that is designed to trick the eyes, something that looks like something else within itself... hard to see, its not hard to see that these words on the screen you have memories of how cakes taste.. scientists do not tell you which cake is better do they.. but what if you dont like the cake.. it is as simple and positive negative and balance.. theism atheism and agnostic, 3 positions, thats it. you are hiding
Schools have gotten too protective against guns.

MY EVIDENCE THAT SCHOOLS HAVE GOTTEN TOO PROTECTIVE A 7 year old student was suspended because he ate his pastry in a way that made it look like a gun--http://www.huffingtonpost.com... A 5th grader was reprimanded because they brought to school a piece of paper that was torn and folded to look like a gun; when the stuent was being reprimanded the teacher said she should call the cops and that the student could get arrested--http://news.yahoo.com... A 13 year old was suspended for drawing a gun. Here's a picture of it: And the link:http://www.cbsnews.com... A kindergarten student was talking about her Hello Kitty gun to a friend on the bus an said "I'll shoot you and you'll shoot me" and got suspended; it was a bubble gun-- http://www.huffingtonpost.com... An 8 year old got suspended for making a finger gun--http://www.huffingtonpost.com... A 12 year old got suspended for bringing a gun shaped key chain to school that he got from an amusement park--http://www.huffingtonpost.com... CONCLUSION Suspending people for gun shaped pastries, pieces of paper, drawings, and keychains shows that schools have gotten overprotective. There's a difference between taking precautions and going over the top protective.
Schools have gotten too protective against guns.

Schools have gotten more protective against guns, because, there have been multiple school shootings, in a short period of time. Many schools have became more aware of the possible gun violence that could/or may take place in their schools, if nothing is done. This is just one example of why schools are becoming more protective against guns Evidence: I will provide you with a reason, for why schools should/and have gotten more protective against guns 1st Reason: October 4, 2013: Pine Hills, Florida, A 16-year-old student was shot in the hip at Agape Christian Academy after a fight broke out at 2 pm. An innocent bystander was hit in his ankle by a stray bullet or shrapnel. The two victims were treated for non-life-threatening injuries. The suspected shooter reportedly fled in a car with several other males. He has not been caught. Explanation: victim 1: 16 year old student shot in hip victim 2: Bystander: Shot in ankle by a stray bullet Two people are injured because of the actions of others around them, these people around them were engaging in a physical altercation, which led to the shooting. These actions could have been prevented if the students were checked for weapons on an everyday basis. This is one reason why many schools are becoming more protective against guns. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org... I searched for the recent school shootings in the u.s, from years 2010-2014
The Nissan R33 and R34 should be legal in the US.

My position is that all fuel burning cars should be illegal in the U.S. Public transportation should be extended in all major cities, and in smaller and more rural areas public transportation consisting of electric buses should be implemented. In addition, all highways should be destroys and current roadways should be replaced with bike lanes and pedestrian areas for social interaction. High speed rail lines should be implemented across the U.S, and airlines should be forced to use biofuels instead of petroleum based fuel, and replace all outdated fleet with highly fuel efficient aircraft. This will solve our transportation problem. As for cars, only non-fuel burning cars should be legal, and the automobile sector should be forced to produce electric vehicles.
The Nissan R33 and R34 should be legal in the US.

I think the Nissan R33 and R34 sports cars should be allowed in the US. These are great cars, and I think it would stop a lot of illegal importing of these cars since they are very popular among the car community. One of the main arguments is that they shouldn't be road legal because the engines are capable of 1000+ HP and the cops would not be able to keep up with it. This argument is not valid since other cars such as the Toyota Supra are also easily capable of 1000+ HP. There are also some cars that are sold with way high stock horsepower than the R34, such as the Dodge Challenger/Charger Hellcat, Ford Mustang Shelby GT350/500, and most Lamborghini, McLaren, Ferrari, Bugatti, etc. cars.
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

I'm sorry but you are the one who has dropped all the issues except the ozone layer. I chose to play defense and only address the points you made, which were few. These included: Pope Francis's opinion (which I destroyed you on) Science says global warming is true (which you utterly failed to mention afterward and showed no evidence for) And trying to prove the ozone hole is man made. If this is the best you can do, I suggest you drop this topic, because you do a disservice to climate change activists. Plenty have given better arguments than yours. Thank you for your time.
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

My opponent has dropped every issues except the ozone layer. I conclude that I should win on the dropped areas due to no response from my opponent. As for the ozone layers there is conclusive proof that CFCs and similar chemicals were the cause. [3][4] "There is now conclusive proof that CFCs and similar chemicals are the cause of ozone depletion in the stratosphere, since chemicals found there could come from no other source (Russell et al., 1996). The reduction and elimination of production of many ozone-depleting substances in industrialize" [3] Thanks for the debate. 3. http://www.un.org... 4. https://www.epa.gov...
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

"1. I heard they don't let just anyone become Pope." You're right. The Holy Father must be holy and very wise. But keep in mind he's the head of a Church, not a Climate Committee. " I do see his opinion as having more weight than the average person." On spiritual matters, yes; he's the Pope. On climate change, not so much. He might have an edge, but he's no expert. He IS a chemist tho. "2. I disagree, it shows I am determined to defeat as many climate change deniers as possible." I'm a climate change agnostic. I don't think pumping carbon dioxide can be good, but I seriously wonder if humans really can change the weather. I think we're overestimating our influence. "3. ???" I know. "4. That's because of ozone destroying products like hairspray being phased out." Science is all about controls and variables. While it's true products like hairspray came around when the ozone hole began to shrink, other natural events were going on that could have been the cause. In a sense, if we look back on this as an experiment to find out what hairspray products do, we know our experiement would be tainted by other natural events, (climate involves the whole Earth) given that it has more than one variable Lastly I'm a dude. Have a good day
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

"1. I have immense respect for Pope Francis. He's my role model, and I respect anything he says.With that said, he's the head of the Catholic Church, not the head of the House Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change.Pope Francis's is more than welcome to voice his opinion on this topic, but his opinion is just as good as yours and mine.2. The fact that we're having a debate on whether Climate Change is even real or not raises serious questions about its existence.4. The Antarctic Ozone Hole is shrinking." benshapiroheroResponses1. I heard they don't let just anyone become Pope. I do see his opinion as having more weight than the average person.2. I disagree, I think it shows I am determinted to defeat as many climate change deniers as possible.3. ???4. That's because of ozone destroying products like hairspray being phased out.Thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate and conducting himself/herself in a respectful manner. 2. http://www.pbs.org...
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

Thanks for accepting. By the way, I really like your profile picture. ;) Well, here we go- 1. I have immense respect for Pope Francis. He's my role model, and I respect anything he says. With that said, he's the head of the Catholic Church, not the head of the House Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change. Pope Francis's is more than welcome to voice his opinion on this topic, but his opinion is just as good as yours and mine. 2. The fact that we're having a debate on whether Climate Change is even real or not raises serious questions about its existence. 4. The Antarctic Ozone Hole is shrinking.
Time travel is impossible / time does not exist

You are not traveling forwards through time at a rate of 1 second per second, because you are currently stationary, time can not go forward or backward because it is not an actual property of the universe. You claim it has been 100% proven by human testing and seen in nature. Yet you do not post the links of this supposed proof. I will agree there has been some tests done that a simple mind could look at and conclude time exists. But I believe that due to the extremely fast speeds that light travels, it is inconclusive as to what causes them to travel at a consistent speed. Time travel is one hypothesis, but I have yet to see one credible theory explaining why time is involved in this process at all. Your argument sounds exactly like the Science Channel every time they have a show on about time travel. Very convoluted, not explaining anything. It sounds like a science fiction movie trying to explain something that is impossible. You can not prove that there is a "multiverse" and even if there was, what force governs which multiverse you are sent back into when traveling back in time. And if a multiverse was the case it would technically not be considered time travel, it would be teleporting between multiverses. Here is a study done where scientists actually found they can make particles move faster than the speed of light. http://www.scientificamerican.com... This completely shatters Einsteins theory of relativity. Please show to me valid proof that time is in fact a real property.