BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is only one true religion.

I never thought this debate would resort to a semi-colon however as you persist, I will refute. Definition of a semi-colon: (http://oxforddictionaries.com...) a punctuation mark (;) indicating a pause, typically between two main clauses, that is more pronounced than that indicated by a comma. Absolutely nothing to do with what you state a semi-colon to be, "The semi-colon means that either, and not necessarily both apply" in relation to the sixth definition. I will assume you just made this up as you gave sources for your previous definitions yet you gave no source for this one. Attempting to make a case that Atheism must be a religion because it is an option under "religion" on this website is a very weak argument. Again, it's not my fault that Debate.org doesn't have a "Are you an atheist" option as well as a "Religion" option. Although again, that in itself would be highly unnecessary. I have shown multiple times that by definition, Atheism cannot be a religion. Referring this back to the debate topic, there is not necessarily only one true religion as there could very well be no true religion i.e Atheism. Thank you for the debate, it has certainly been an interesting one.
There is only one true religion.

Again, Atheism is indeed something one believes in and follows devotedly but it cannot fit into the sixth definition as that definition is "something one believes in and follows devotedly; A POINT OR MATTER OF ETHICS OR CONSCIENCE: to make a religion of fighting prejudice." Atheism is in no way a point or matter of ethics or conscience so it cannot fit into the definition. There is a reason why the second part of the definition is there. It's the difference between Atheism and religion. My original point still stands. Yes, although it is not much of your business or isn't related to the debate I do have "Atheism" under religion on this site. All I can say to this is that it's not my fault that Debate.org doesn't have a "Are you an atheist" option as well as a "Religion" option. Although that of course in itself would be highly unnecessary. Come on, that is an attempt at a really cheap shot.
There is only one true religion.

Unfortunately this debate has forcefully turned into a debate on whether atheism is a religion or not. This of course could have been easily avoided if my opponent stated such terms in their opening round. However I will refute my opponents points nonetheless. My opponent states that atheism fits into definitions 1, 2, 3 and 6. Let's take a closer look at this. "1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." Atheism is indeed a set of beliefs (or lack of belief) in this case. However it does not deal with the cause, nature or purpose of the universe. It only goes against the religious ideas of the cause, nature or purpose of the universe. Remember there is a big difference between Atheism and Science. Atheism does NOT consider a superhuman agency and most certainly does not involve devotional or ritual observances. Also atheism does not contain a moral code on how humans should behave. Therefore atheism cannot possibly fit into this definition. "2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion." Again atheism is not fundamental set of beliefs in respect to the origin of the universe. It does not make claims about how the universe started, it merely refutes religious theories on the subject. Also atheism holds no practices agreed upon by a number of persons. Again atheism cannot not fit into this definition. "3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions." It could be argued that atheists adhere to a set of beliefs in the sense of non belief however again, there is NO particular set of practices involved with Atheism at all. It is all independent in this respect. You see, even one word in the definition can discount the notion that Atheism is a religion. Without analysis atheism can easily, but wrongly be associated with these definitions. Lastly, "6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice." Atheism absolutely does not follow a point of ethics or conscience, it is all independent in respect to these values. There is no atheistic law that states how a person must act, feel etc. Therefore atheism cannot fit into this definition. I have refuted the notion of atheism being a religion through the definitions in which you have proposed. Taking this into account my original point still stands that there is not necessarily only one true religion because there easily could be no true religion if we are to conclude that atheism cannot be a religion, which, by definition, it can't (as I have just shown).
There is only one true religion.

I am not sure what "catch me out" is. It is not a phrase familiar to me. There was no trickery intended in the debate title and I am sorry to hear that my opponent feels there was. Cleary my opponent has a definition of religion that does not include Atheism, which is curious since he lists "Atheist" as his religion in his profile on this very site. I was referring to the common dictionary definition of the word, which is what people generally assume one means by a word unless otherwise noted. re"li"gion [ri-lij-uhn] noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. 7. religions, Archaic. religious rites: painted priests performing religions deep into the night. 8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow. [1] Clearly Atheism can fit into the first, second, third, and/or sixth definition. Source 1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
There is only one true religion.

If my opponent feels that Atheism is a "religion" then they should have stated that in the opening round instead of trying to catch me out. This was unfair as my opponent showed me no way of knowing this. However I, like most people don't see atheism as a religion. It is quite the opposite of religion. Religion definition: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. Atheism definition: The theory or belief that God does not exist. Great comparison between the two. Atheism cannot possibly go under the category of religion as it would contradict what religion actually is. Taking this into account, my original point still stands that there is not necessarily only one true religion because there easily could be no true religion if we are to conclude that atheism cannot be a religion, which, by definition, it can't.
There is only one true religion.

As there have been thousands of different religions, belief systems, Gods etc since the the dawn of man we come to only two real possibilities. 1.That one religion is true. 2. That no religion is true. 2 is another possibility as well as 1. You cannot prove or disprove this possibility so it is not valid to say that only one religion CAN be true when for all we know, they could all could be false.
The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

By abolishing the Death Penality, these criminal would have to suffer in prison. By being given the death penalty, the criminal does not suffer, only their family does. Although ending these criminals life would be better for the safety of innocent humans, the criminals basically have the easy way out. The only suffering that the Death Penalty causes is simply the pinch of the needle, due to the "Lethal Injection", and the wait while being on deathrow is all the criminal has to deal with, suffering wise. By abolishing the Death Penalty, the criminal does not get to "pay time for the crime" he/she took part in. I feel that these criminals should be subjected to life in prison with no parolle, therefore they suffer in there and have no chance of getting out to live freely as if they were innocent. In addition, if these criminals lived the rest of their lives in prison, it would ensure that they could commit no more crimes against innocent people. Also, perhaps a "criminal" was wrongly convicted and is sentenced to the Death Penalty, now because of the legal system and a misfortunate case- this poor, innocent person is being executed and their family has to suffer while the actual criminal lives his/her life freely. This Death Penalty can also be thought to be against "Pro-Life" views and beliefs since it is ending a person's life, very similar to an abortion (1). Religiously speaking, the Death Penalty goes against one of the Ten Commandments, since the Sixth Commandment states "Thou Shall Not Kill". Although this "killing" is ultimately politicly correct since the person committed a crime, it is not religiously correct according to the Sixth Commandment (2). Not only does the Death Penalty go against the Sixth Commandment, but it goes against God by the Law deciding when this person is to die. In the past 36 years, since the Death Penalty was brought back in 1976, over one-thousand people were executed, and over three-thousand convicts in thirty-six different countries are awaiting their execution (3). The Death Penalty does not help the suffering family of the victim's family, especially the long, anticipated wait of deathrow (4). In addition, the cost for all these executions are far more costly than keeping them in jail (4). Although the thought of death and the Death Penalty may be scary to some, crime rates have not decreased due to this horrible "punishment" (5). In my opinion, the death penalty is an absurb and unreasonable punishment for the horrifying crimes these criminals perform. Therefore the Death Penalty should be abolished. I am completely against the Death Penalty and Pro-Suffering for these criminals by living the rest of their lives in jail. 1- http://usliberals.about.com... 2- http://www.christianhomesite.com... 3- http://articles.cnn.com... 4- https://death.rdsecure.org... 5- http://www.antideathpenalty.org...
The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

According to Con, " "Killing someone" and "murdering someone" is different. " But murder is "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought" (1). The keyword in that definition is KILLING. Kill means "to deprive of life : cause the death of" (2). Therefore, both mean to END the life of something and/or someone. According to Con, "choosing not to use the death penalty is immoral", but I think Con is forgetting the moral behind the Death Penalty- hence the word DEATH. Death means "choosing not to use the death penalty is immoral" (3). Like i stated in Round 1, "Religiously speaking, the Death Penalty goes against one of the Ten Commandments, since the Sixth Commandment states 'Thou Shall Not Kil'." C2: Bargaining Chip When Con was reading the article of his second source, he obviously missed the part that says: "However, according to the Innocence Project, 22 of the first 265 DNA exonerees pled guilty to crimes they didn't commit" (4). Therefore, this means that even INNOCENT people commit to these crimes. So how are we saving an innocent life? C3: Accuracy "...Shouldn't DNA testing ensure that only the guilty are being convicted and sentenced to death? This is not the case because most murders do not involve the exchange of bodily materials containing DNA evidence...Wrongful convictions will continue to occur as long as our criminal justice system utilizes human actors" (5). "The performance of pre-trial DNA testing is not always a reliable source of forensic information. If evidence is contaminated at the scene of the crime, if the police are not skilled in the collection of such evidence, if the police lab that performs the testing is unqualified to render reliable results, or if the state's expert is incompetent or dishonest, then evidence presented under the veil of scientific certainty becomes the very source of misinformation leading to mistake" (5). C4: Popularity Con Says-> "Funny how it only decreased by a few percentage poitns." I say-> First, its POINTS not POITNS. Second, although it only decreased a few- the point of my argument against the popularity is simple- the support decreased. There must be a reason for the decrease and obviously "it is quite hilarious that my opponent" is ignoring this. ==== C1: Life in Prison Con Says-> Once again, future decisions may change the fact about wheter or not a inmate stays in jail for life actually. I say-> It's WHETHER not WHETER. But "it is quite hilarious that my opponent is trying to predict future" about WHETHER an inmate will stay in jail for life. With the way technology advances, I don't doubt the legal system and the security in prisons. My opinion did NOT change due to Con's argument. To me- the Death Penalty is ultimately WRONG for a numerous amount of reasons, which I stated in the First Round. 1- http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2- http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3- http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4- http://www.thecrimereport.org...; 5- http://deathpenalty.procon.org...
The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

C1: Deterrence Killing someone is wrong- politiclly, legally, morally, and religiously. By the law, if someone kills another- we put them in jail. By Religion, if someone kills another- they're going to hell. Killing is WRONG. So giving someone the death penalty is WRONG. Therefore, TWO WRONGS do NOT make a right. C2: Bargaining Chip Con tries to argue that the Death Penalty can be used as a bargaining chip and it can ultimately get convicts to admit their guilt, on a website I found; "Therefore, the data used to analyze plea bargaining rates is often old and unrepresentative" (1). Also, that "The most comprehensive studies have found no connection between the death penalty and the frequency of pleas" (1). Therefore, the Death Penalty has NO recently recorded effect on pleaing guilt. C3- Accuracy "The era of DNA testing has not ushered in a fool-proof criminal justice system. It is not true that the problems of wrongful convictions are in the past and will not happen anymore because technology can now precisely determine guilt. Nor is it true that the death penalty can proceed unchecked under the assumption that all the inmates on death row have had ample opportunity for DNA testing. DNA exonerations represent only 12% of the total list of 116 cases. In 88% of the cases, attorneys and courts had to rely on other forms of evidence" (2). This quote simply states that the Supreme Court does not use DNA that much for conviction. If DNA is barely used, the chance of executing an innocent, is still there and high. Also, "Good DNA material is available in only one in five felony cases: often there is not enough DNA for a sample, or it is old or contaminated" (2). C4: Popularity Yes, according to the statistics I provided, majority does support the Death Penalty. But it is also dramatically decreasing and is currently at a all time low. The fact that it decreased that much, obviously proves something that Con is missing. C1: Life in Prison. "The death penalty costs more, delivers less, and puts innocent lives at risk. Life without parole provides swift, severe, and certain punishment. It provides justice to survivors of murder victims and allows more resources to be invested into solving other murders and preventing violence. Sentencing people to die in prison is the sensible alternative for public safety and murder victims' families" (3). 1- http://www.deathpenalty.org... 2- http://deathpenalty.procon.org... 3- http://deathpenalty.procon.org...
The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

Hmm. Apparently, PRO has chosen to neglect (and perhaps concede) the majority of her examples.About the Supreme Court...all of the Justices are carefully chosen. You can expect possibly the most fair trial in the US from the Supreme Court.==Rebuttals==I shall procede to rebut and defend my points. C1: DeterrenceNo sources? Oh well...You have to keep in mind that I never said that the Death Penalty stops all murderers, but rather it helps to save lives by deterring some murderers. I think we all can agree that trading one useless life for 74 innocent lives is an amazing trade. The fact that we are saving lives makes it so that the Death Penalty is not "a wrong".A right and a wrong cancel out.C2: Bargaining ChipOnce again, I never said that the bargaining chip could be used for all situations. Who'd believe a death penalty threat when they are looking for the person who stole some candy? However, it severe situations, the guilty party can be put under enough pressure to confess or reveal information. Some informations outweighs no information.Quite frankly, I don't think the standards for punishment include "fitting ALL cases" like my opponent is trying to say.C3: AccuracyMy opponent still continues to request almost impossible standards for punishment. Since nearly all punishments that are being given out have been given to some innocent person, is it justified to abolish the entire criminal justice system? Of course not, due to the fact that the benefits outweigh the costs.There is probably around 4-5 people who have been executed innocent [1]. About 1,195 people have been executed guilty. My evidence from before stated that 74 lives are saved for every execution [2]. That is about 88,430 that have been saved [3]. Is my opponent trying to trade the lives of possibly 5 people for nearly 90,000?C4: PopularityOne can expect, from past data, the support for the death penalty will remain as the majority. Sure, support might be at the lowest point, but it is still the majority.My opponent concedes-Majority support it-Majority think that the Death Penalty needs to be used more often-Majority think that the daeth penalty is being applied fairyly-Majority think that the Death Penalty is morally acceptable-Majority choose the death penalty over life in prison.==Refutations==C1: Life in PrisonEveryone fears death. Death keeps criminals off the streets. My opponent has yet to provide an argument to as why we should prefer life in prison over the death penalty.And furthermore, you are sacrificing countless lives who have barely done anything. Putting murderers in jail = Killing Criminals.And finally, you still have ignored one of my points. Who is going to say that these murderers will have a harsh time living in jail? If anything, murderers will gain respect and fear from other inmates.Sources:[1] https://www.google.com...[2] bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Press/DeathPenalty/DeathPenalty(ChronicleofHigherEd).pdf[3] https://www.google.com...
The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

Just for the record, I did NOT ignore Con's "arguments", I just wished he had different reasonings than the SAME one he claims in this same debate regardless of the person he is against. Con says-> "the Supreme Court is not made up of 'strangers', but rather we all know them." I say-> Con is speaking for everyone and that is something that should NOT be done, because Con does not know EVERYONE in America, let alone if they know the members of the supreme court. Since Con felt I "ignored" his first arguments, I will go back and address each and EVERY one. C1: Deterrence Con says-> "The Death Penalty serves as a determent to criminals." I say-> the Death Penalty can be a wrong message to send to children. The famous quote is; "Two wrongs don't make a right". Although Con does acknowledge the fact that the Death Penalty will stop this ONE criminal from committing more murders, he fails to look at other aspects. Just because this ONE murderer is put on Death Row and faces the Death Penalty, does not stop all murderers. Also, it does NOT justify what the criminal did. C2: Bargaining Chip Con Says-> "Without a doubt, the death penalty allows prosecutors to get information quicker." I say-> This is not the case for ALL of these murderers. Although Con cites that in SOME examples, these criminals choose to speak out. Just because this happens in SOME cases- this does not happen for ALL cases. C3: Accuracy Con say-> "the death penalty has nearly a 99.6% rate of accuracy." I say-> That percentage is still NOT enough for me. Although the chance is small, mistakes happen and that .4 is still not guaranteed. "Since 1973, 138 people have been released from death rows throught the country due to evidence of their wrongful conviction. In this same time period, more than 1,200 people have been executed" (1). C4: Popularity Con says-> "In 2011, 61% supported the DP while only 35% was agaisnt it." I say-> On that SAME website, I found that "Sixty-one percent of Americans approve of using the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, down from 64% last year. This is the lowest level of support since 1972" (2). Apparently Con forgot to put that part in. It is apparent that the support is obviously decreased if the support rate is at the lowest it has been at since 1972. Maybe more people are realizing this is wrong. Also on that website, it says "Twenty-five percent say the death penalty is used too often, the highest such percentage yet that Gallup has measured" (2). C1: Con says-> "We see that there is going to be an accumulation of murderers - which make prisons far more dangerous then they are now." I say-> Jails are made for CRIMINALS, for people that we need off the streets. They should have to live in horrible conditions. Maybe they'll learn a lesson. For most of them, they have never even committed a murder before. Only 8.4% have been previously convicted of homicide (3). 1- http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org... 2- http://www.gallup.com... 3- http://www.clarkprosecutor.org...