BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Organized Religion

I must refute your argument that religion as a whole has furthered more than hindered science. Times like the religious and, much more recent, Muslim Dark Ages, illustrate that science is the bane of religion. When religion gains a significant foothold, it abandons any tolerance for dissent that was forced upon it by compliance with a higher power, and immediately commits to a "Holy War" against science, reason, and even free speech (The latter mostly by Muslims) This can be rather graphically represented by the harsh declines illustrated in the attached image. http://commonsenseatheism.com... However I recognize your assertion that small contingents that are religiously based (Your example being Al-Qaeda) do not constitute any intrinsic fault in the religion they claim to represent the interests of. However, when a faction emerges that is significantly different from any "mainstream" or "common" religion, and has a definite political or social agenda, it invariably begins to cause problems by zealously starting to assert their faith and impose it upon others. Two good examples, in my opinion, are Creationists and Mormons. Creationists is usually used to refer to someone who believes the Biblical account of creation (This sets them apart from mainstream Catholicism since the Vatican has admitted to the fallacy of this story [http://www.cephasministry.com...]) and asserts that it should be taught with evolution as an equally valid theory, and some even hope to eliminate evolution.This is obviously a malicious attempt to hinder science for purely dogmatic reasons, and that's why I have a problem with religions gaining too much of a political foothold. Now Mormons are a whole other story, and I have a somewhat personal vendetta against them. One of the things they are best known for (No, not their magic underwear) is their vehement disapproval of homosexuality. They, in essence, nullified their religiously based tax-exemption by pumping literally millions of dollars into the campaign for Prop. 8 http://en.wikipedia.org... and yet they were not held accountable for it, because they were still a RELIGION. One of the points I'm making is that organized religion is getting special treatment and respect that it doesn't deserve, and never has. On the morality issue, we should not allow any religion to constitute an absolute morality, because they are all in some way flawed. Like the point Richard Dawkins made in the earlier round's video, a reasoned, debated, and argued morality, completely untouched by religious dogma, would serve as a much better moral absolute than any religious one. So my stance is that a secular and "evolved" form of a moral absolute would serve society much better than any religious moral base. Since this is the last round I'll be able to voice an argument, and you'll be getting the last word, I just hope you're aware that it would be futile to voice any of your rebuttals in the form of a question or query, although I'm sure you already knew to do that. Thank you for all the time you've given to this argument, and I look forward to your final argument with bated breath.
Organized Religion

Thank you so very much for not being a zealot of any specific religion (I was dreading the possibility of some young Earth creationist showing up with their myriad cherry-picked Bible quotes) I really do appreciate that. Concerning your argument that organized religion more powerfully gives a sense of an all-loving deity than any personal God could, I suppose I should concede to that point, as it is well-made. of course, I have no problem at all with people finding comfort for themselves in the belief that everything happens for a reason. What I have a problem with is the imposition of these beliefs as if they were facts, and the belief that they should be presented as an equally valid position in any scientific medium. Of course, I have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that an organized religion provides a good moral absolute. While the video that I'll include pretty much sums it up, I'll put it into text as well, just in case anyone doesn't have access to that media for whatever reason. Basically, Richard Dawkins is asked about moral absolutes, by someone I presume to be Muslim. Dawkins destroys the argument of religion providing moral absolutes by citing certain aspects of Sharia law that state both apostates and adulterers should be put to death, and that there is an actual punishment for breaking the Sabbath (I suggest you watch the video if you can, as he words it much better than I could) Also, there is of course the completely dogmatically based homophobia of the Mormon church, or the outright scam of Scientology (Although I suppose its unfair to cite Scientology, considering it is a cult, not a religion) No one organized religious belief is without its faults. In fact, statistics have shown that born-again Christians account for more than 33% of the population of the U.S. penal system, while Atheists make up less than 1% (I believe it was at roughly 0.3%) So obviously, the message of evolved morality [See: AronRa's "Evolution of Morality (1-5) on YouTube, if possible] speaks to Atheists more powerfully than the threat of eternal punishment speaks to Christians. Now that I know you're not going to try and preach the beliefs of any one religion, I can honestly say that I eagerly await your rebuttal. http://www.youtube.com...
Organized Religion

Hello! I see you're new to the site, as am I, and I'd like to get my teeth into an intellectual debate to start off with here. What you seem to have set your position up to be is that faith in a structured, traditionalist sense is on balance, a bad thing. I will oppose your position here on the following grounds: 1. That organized religion offers a comforting presence in the lives of its followers 2. That organized religion has been, and continues to be, a good moral influence on the world as a whole. I will argue this from a humanist perspective as opposed to a religious one, I will not use any specific religious evidence to back up my arguments, I will simply use real, historical evidence. For the purposes of the debate, I will argue the merits of religion in the present day and we will leave what is in the past in the past. 1. On my first point, religion offers its adherents a sense of well being. In most major world religions, we see a Deity orchestrating the universe. Whatever misfortunes befall a believer are part of God(s)'s plan. The religious inhabit a world where they are loved and cherished by a loving, supernatural being. It is based on a fundamental human need to be loved and to know that good will prevail and everything will be ok. That there is a guiding moral presence in the world and ultimately, the good WILL be rewarded and the evil WILL be punished. Whether or not there is a god is irrelevant, the belief in God affords solace in times of sadness and something to look forward to after life. I anticipate a counter argument that this can be had with a personal deity, and I do not deny this, but the great strength of organized religion is that it is well, organized. You are not alone in your beliefs, you are supported and have a community of faith around you who will celebrate an mourn with you, share festivals with you, share morals with you, ideals and more. The comforting benefits provided by organized religion are not provided by solitary worship. 2. On my second point, religion offers a moral code. This may seem simplistic, or like a rehash of my first point, but allow us to analyze that statement. Morality is subjective, atheists are conflicted on many philosophical issues, but the religious share their idea of morality. They have an objective view of right and wrong and for centuries, millennia even, this has provided the basis for human moral thought. Without the presence of a strict, uncomplicated view of good and bad, we would have no order in the world. Most religious moral codes are congruent, those of the Abrahamic faiths are virtually interchangeable, for example, and the religious moral perspective is responsible for the development of human society. Obviously not everything an organized religion declares to be moral is moral, but an organized religious moral mentality is the cornerstone of the legal system, of philosophy, and of human interaction itself. Based on these points I argue that a religious mindset is a good thing in today's world. In the following rounds I will chiefly be expanding on these points and of course giving rebuttal.
Organized Religion

My position is that all organized religion is simply a relic of the dark ages. Religion depends on blind faith rather than evidence and reasoning, as godless science does. I'm not saying you can't have a personal God, but ORGANIZED religion, wherein a rigidly held theistic belief is taught in a systematic way, including the indoctrination of the children of those who believe in their system, without giving them a real chance to choose for themselves, is accepted by a relatively large group of people. Make any argument you can for organized religion, and any religion, at that. I will show how it is unnecessary or even detrimental to modern society.
I (MostLogical) Should Commit Suicide

ThanksOne of my exciting ideas is to go on the 'Mars One mission'. Once I reach the Red planet I'll take my helmet off, become the first man to breathe Martian air, and I'll say these famous last words whilst pointing upwards: "The sky, it's, Blue". A quarter of Britons today don't believe the moon landings ever happened [1]. Between 6% and 20% of Americans and 28% of Russians surveyed believe that the manned landings were faked. I could just say what I see when I remove my helmet so those disbelievers might believe in mankinds greatest achievement, but I won't because then I'd be remembered forever as an idiot. Instead I'll be their hero - the man who throwed his life away to confirm their belief. You might think my death would prove I actually travelled to an inhospitable planet but I'm pretty sure they'd think NASA killed me. Below is a link to a picture of what looks like the first gravestone, it appears to have been neglected. http://www.alamy.com...However I have a strong feeling that a lot of people who have been called a loon will want to show the whole world that they were right about the moon landings being a hoax, and will thus build a great statue of me like the one below but on a much bigger scalehttp://www.vivaboo.com... I don't want my last word to be "hello" whilst crying for help, and definately don't want it to be 'fudge'. People who commit suicide can choose their last words either in writing or verbally, basically be remembered in the way they like. My backup idea encase I live when I take my helmet off on Mars is to try and kill myself by using an elevator. Here's a picture that gave me the idea:http://www.thedailypedia.com...There are many what not to do tips like the ones below which are a source of ideas http://www.monzy.com... Sensors are prone to malfunction, and although it is advised to treat elevators with caution an average of 26 people die in elevators each year in the U.S. In comparision there are 26 car deaths every five hours [2]. Although elevators are safer than cars, think about how much longer people spend in their car and how many more car journeys they make! The bottom line is killing myself via testing the safety of elevators will prevent someone else from dying. sources: [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2] http://gizmodo.com...
I (MostLogical) Should Commit Suicide

This debate forms the second round of the Outlaw Tournament by Wlyted. I Pro will argue why I should commit suicide while my opponent Con will argue why I shouldn't commit suicde.I seek to have a debate with a strong opponent who strongly opposes suicide. If you think you have good arguments, have completed a few debates, are 18+ and are as good or better than me at debating please accept. Although this is meant to be a humourous debate I do have good points to make, and I promise I will not make anything up about my health e.g. say I'm terminally ill, deaf and blind, in a vegetative state etcRound structureR1: Acceptance onlyR2: Arguments R3: Arguments R4: ArgumentsR5: Conclusion - no new arguments Rules:No forfeits, Burdon of proof (BoP) is shared, rebutals are allowed, no new sources in last round, and opponent must not lie about their ageGood luck Con!
I (MostLogical) Should Commit Suicide

I'm sorry that I'm going to keep this short. I had a storm blow over, which messed up my wifi, because my router is outside. So, I have to use my phone.First, I never said there wasn't a God. My opponent mentioned that there is more than likely an afterlife, which I said he must prove. He used that as a rebuttal for my argument that he only lived once.I'm never once said that my opponent was worthless, that was a fulty accusation.My opponent said that if he committed suicide, that it's going to be a spectacular death, and it was going to be something that stayed with the world forever.I argued that taking off your helment in space would be a stupid move. If you heard about an astronaut that did that, wouldn't you think "what the hell?" I would. What is so spectacular about that?I also argued that he is unable to be a test dummy for an elevator. For 1. He would not be allowed because he's a human, it would unethical, and for 2. We have crash dummies for that.In conclusion:I personally believe there is always a way to better your situation. I asked my opponent what some of this favorite things are in life, and argued that if he did kill himself, he would be unable to experience those things if he was dead.Suicide is a very serious issue, and the way my opponent argued was kind of sad, it's almost as if he is encouraging suicide, and making your suicide a memorable one, and wow/shocker one.Again, thanks for this debate.
I (MostLogical) Should Commit Suicide

Wow, what can I say? My opponent doesn't seem to have any idea how to make someone feel worth something. Con tells me there is no God, and no afterlife i.e. no meaning to life despite the fact I hope there is. It is lucky I'm not actually feeling suicidal! She expects me to simply accept the opinion of one man as the truth despite him taking drugs which have side effects, and just forget the numerous people who have seen "something" whilst clinically dead. According to my opponent I must also prove God exists and if I can't do that (no-one can) then I should accept He doesn't exist. Con gave me a series of questions to answer honestly, which I did do. I believe this was simply to tell me that I couldn't taste, smell, listen, do, or see things if I killed myself however all these things do not mean much to me e.g. missing my next meal, thinking about all of the same type of food or drink I like which I won't get to have, they would not convince anyone to live another day if they are extremely unhappy with their life. When I said "no-one can eat or smell fish forever" to show how insignificant personal enjoyments are compared to killing myself to prevent someone else dying, she says "false" and explains I can work at a fish factory. So not only does she try to tell me there is nothing more to life than what I do already, she doesn't listen. Con thinks I should think about the pain I'd cause others but if she can't tell me how my life is valuable it is unreasonable to ask me to value others. No-one would be negatively affected by my death anyway, and it would prevent someone looking after me in a vegetative state when I'm older. Throughout the debate it was as though she was trying to make me feel worthless. The debate was about whether I should commit suicide but she turned it into whether I can commit suicide, almost daring me to through wanting to know if I meet the basic requirements for an astronaut. Also when I said "I was born at the wrong time at a time when all women want is to be feminists", it should be obvious that I don't believe I'll find someone who loves me. Instead of giving me encouragement or positive advice she responded both times by telling me I'm wrong, making me feel I have offended her. My opponents task was to convince me that I should not commit suicide however she did a terrible job of that, and seemed to focus on trying to make me feel worthless. Vote Pro ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To anyone reading this who is thinking about killing their self, take advice from people who genuinely enjoy life; not from people whose aim in life is to feel better than others and who think personal enjoyments mean a lot. If you have read this far you are looking for a reason to live because life is worth living. Don't think about death when you have not started to live, or when you have many years to live. Live each day like its your last taking every opportunity because no-one knows when they will die.
Weird Music Contest

I got sick and tired of arguing about serious stuff lets have fun. I've been meaning to expand my music taste. Post a song by a band most people have never heard of explaining what genre they are and providing a link to there song on you-tube. Whoever posts the weirdest music wins (by vote of course.) Here's my first pick Voodoo Mon Amour by Diablo Swing Orchestra Genre: a mix of swing revival, progressive metal, and in some cases symphonic metal (although its a lot less prominent on this song)
Waste not, want not: it's time to initiate the international trade in human flesh

My opponent has brought up an extremely unorthodox idea that would surely benefit the world, however, his only mistake was to take a less direct approach. Personally, I would not mind donating my corpse to such an insightful adventure, but on particularly different conditions. I request my opponent to maintain his stance on "Trading flesh for agriculture", instead of "Trading flesh in general". Such an outlook would introduce a lot of complications anyway, bringing us to the dark ages of corspes sold to evil doctors in their efforts to perfect monsters of Frankenstien.As I pointed out, my opponent made a mistake. It actually happens to be similar to Bill Gate's mistake of introducing tablet PCs at the wrong place and time. In short, my opponent's idea was unorthodox, but not enough as to be revolutionary. I'll try to illustrate this point.Would it not be better to grind human meat to the consistency of paste, add artificial flavours to it (safe flavors, mind you) , pack it into tin cans and sell it back to the corpse's family? However, if the family happens to be vegetarian, no one should force them into buying it. But I believe, it would still be an incentive for the dying man- to agree to be ground to pulp- and be useful to his family even after death.My opponent also failed to make sense when he put forth his proposition to feed such valuable meat to tuna instead. Now, I'm sure that the numbers of edible fish worldwide have drastically plummeted, and those links he provides are testament to it. However, I fail to see how feeding human flesh to tuna would make any difference- unless human flesh acts as an aphrodisiac and leads to increase in the amount of coitus in fish. I'm also quite certain that no scientist in his right mind has yet researched whether the amount of food avaliable to tuna is plummeting as well, therefore my opponent raised quite a moot point.In addition to this, I propose the corpses of loners, bankers and chartered accountants to be ground and distributed freely to charities around the world. This would promote their image- as a whole- of being useful at least after death.I have more points, obviously, but I wait for my opponent to put forth his justifications first.
Waste not, want not: it's time to initiate the international trade in human flesh

There are 7 billion people on this planet and around 57 million of them die each year (1). With the average weight of a human adult being 70.25kg / 154lb, that means about 4.1 million metric tons / 4.4 million imperial tons of valuable flesh is going to waste annually (2). Meanwhile, fertile land on which to grow enough crops or rear enough livestock to feed the world's rapidly growing population is in increasingly short supply, and over-fishing has seriously depleted stocks of edible fish worldwide (3,4). The solution to this problem is obvious: grind the corpses of deceased old folk up to use as fertilizer on unproductive land; while the better quality dead bodies of younger people (who perhaps died in accidents or in natural disasters) can be butchered and used to feed carnivorous fish such as tuna. Today I am calling on governments around the world to support the good people at Eggleston's Ethical Enterprises who are pioneering the trade in human flesh in order to provide an abundance of cheap food for everyone, with ultimate goal of consigning famine to the history books (while making a modest profit at the same time). However, I do recognise that there are bound to be some religious people that will object to this noble and environmentally-friendly endeavour. To help allay any reservations the pious and the devout might have I should like to make I clear that it will still be possible to mark the passing of loved ones with funeral services. Mourners will not notice any difference in the proceedings at cremations but as the coffin of the deceased goes through the curtains, instead of the body being incinerated, it will be loaded into a waiting truck parked discretely round the back. Similarly, at burials, coffins will be emptied of their contents prior to being lowered into the ground and the cadavers will be collected later once the mourners have departed. Naturally, the undertakers will get a nice little kickback to 'cover their expenses'. So, since I can't think of any other objection anyone could possibly have, I duly affirm that it's time to initiate the international trade in human flesh. Thank you. (1) http://hypertextbook.com... (2) http://www.worldometers.info... (3) http://www.guardian.co.uk... (4) http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Senior citizens over a certain age should not be able to drive

This debate hinges on whether drivers over age 75 are substantially less safe than younger drivers, and so much so that forbidding driving is appropriate. Pro seems to have drawn his conclusion from observing a grand total of one bad driver. Statistics on traffic accidents are available for the United States from the U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov... The most recent are for 2008. The accident rate is the number of accidents per 100,000 licensed drivers. For example, 16 year old drivers have an accident rate of 25 accidents per 100 drivers. The higher the rate, the worse. A rate of zero would be no accidents. By age group, the accident rates are: Ages 16-19 accident rate is 21 Ages 20-24 accident rate is 15 Ages 25-34 accident rate is 10 Ages 35-44 accident rate is 8 Ages 45-54 accident rate is 7 Ages 55-64 accident rate is 5 Ages 65-74 accident rate is 4 Over age 75 accident rate is 4 Another way to express it is that young drivers average one accident per 5 drivers, while the oldest have one accident per 20 drivers. The oldest drivers are the safest. Fatal accidents are much rarer, so rates are given per 100,000 drivers. The most dangerous are again the youngest, 43-44 for the two youngest groups. It declines to about 20 for ages 35-74 and rises to 30 for 75+. If any group ought to be banned or checked monthly, clearly it is those under 25, who have by far the worst safety record. If the safety record of the young drivers is acceptable, then over 75 must clearly be acceptable. Now get off my lawn, ya whippersnapper! In other words, the resolution is negated.