BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anyone who claims God is unlikely to exist is not an atheist

Thanks ConI'm not sure what Con means in his example of A and B and how they demonstrate a belief against something qualifies as lack of belief or non-belief. i'll move on to Con's 4 premises that he presented. Con's premise fails a 3. Premise 2: atheism is the lack of belief in God's existencePremise 3: if you think that the existence of god is unlikely, you do not accept that it is true and therefore you do not believe. If you think the existence of God is unlikely, not only do you not think God is true, you actively believe it is false. This conflicts with the definition of atheism being not a disbelief or denial of God but solely a lack of beleif. One cannot prove how unlikely a negative is. In order to have an opinion as to whether a negative is unlikely is to make a leap of faith. This is why atheist say "I do not believe in God" because the lack of evidence offers no reason to believe, it doesn't offer reason to deny though. To deny something you must have a reason. I can deny the existence of pink unicorns for many reasons -- such as the high number required to maintain a population's existence would make undeniable evidence inevitable. This gives me reason to believe no pink unicorns exist on Earth. If i was stuck in my room all my life and had no access to the outside world, i could not believe they didn't exist I could only choose not to believe they did. If an atheist has reasons to believe God is unlikely then they disqualify from holding the title of atheist because he/she now holds active beliefs against God's existence. so anyone who claims God is unlikely is an anti-theist because an atheist cannot make such claims from the very definition. Con: "If you are an anti-theist you lack a believe in a god, and you are also an atheist."If you are an anti-theist you actively believe God doesn't exist. This active belief conflicts with the definition of atheism allegedly being void of disbeleif or denial. As you can see, to think something is unlikely is to believe it is unlikely. To believe something is unlikely is to hold active beliefs against that something. To hold active beliefs against that something is to disqualify you from lacking beliefs of that something, thereby, disqualifying you from being an atheist
Anyone who claims God is unlikely to exist is not an atheist

Thank you for your argument. You've made a convincing argument that claiming that god is very unlikely makes you an anti-theist. I won't disagree with you on that. However, that does not mean that people who claim that god is unlikely are not atheists. Your argument only works with the definition of atheism that "atheism is to claim non-belief". However, that is not the definition that was agreed upon in the beginning. We agreed on the definition from atheism.org: "Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods." A claim of non-belief on a certain topic is not the same as a lack of belief in that topic. If for a certain event there are two possible explanations (I'll call them A and B) which are mutually exclusive, but neither of them have any evidence, I could believe in A, I could believe in B or I could not believe in any of them. If I believe in A I don't claim a non-belief in B: I will claim that I don't believe it. I will however lack a believe in B. This shows that a certain position on a topic does not mean that you can't lack a believe: In the topic of the event in my example I have a position (I believe in A) but I still lack a believe in B. I realize that this is a very subtle difference, and it may not yet be very clear, so I'll attempt to clarify by using a deductive argument: If the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows: Premise 1: Believe is to accept that something is true. Premise 2: Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of god(s). Premise 3: If you think that the existence of god is unlikely, you don't accept that it is true and therefore you do not believe (see premise 1). Premise 4: If you don't believe in god you lack a belief in god. Conclusion: If you think god is unlikely you are an atheist. You might also claim to know that god exists, but that doesn't change any of the premises or the conclusion. You may also be called an anti-theist, but that doesn't make you any less of an atheist: If you are an anti-theist you lack a believe in a god, and you are also an atheist. To conclude: My opponent has made a very good argument that atheists who claim that god's existence is highly unlikely could be considered anti-theists. However, he has not made a convincing argument why an anti-theist cannot be an atheist. I've attempted to show why thinking that god is unlikely to exist makes you an atheist by definition, and I'm very curious how he will counter that argument. I'm eagerly awaiting your reply.
Anyone who claims God is unlikely to exist is not an atheist

I will be arguing for pro and burden of proof is on me to prove that anybody who claims that God is unlikely to exist or that God is as likely to exist as the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not an atheist, as per the mainstream definition of atheism. First round is for acceptance. Atheism: Lack of belief in the existence of Gods. This is a quote from atheism. org: "Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. " . http://atheists.org...?The
the disney movie frozen is not overrated hannah montana is

Only 500 characters. Hannah Montana is about a young girl, who lives 2 lives. She encounters many challenges, such as keeping her secret with her best friends. I am not saying it is better than frozen, however it is not overrated. It only has a 4.5/10 rating. http://www.imdb.com... It already has a low review, so it isn't possibly any worst. Because of such, Hanna Monatana is not overrated. In my other debate, I have proved Frozen is. http://www.debate.org...
Marks are the matter of past

Thank you for your final point, I appreciate your time. First of all, a marking criterion can come in different formats, and I don"t disagree with you on this, however, the criteria for a specific course still outlines the key ideas taught, thus my argument still stands. In relation to the "other possible variants" (of criteria), typically a teacher will use the criteria which best suits the class. Accuracy IS "relative". It is relative to the marking criteria, and is still important nonetheless. You used a pupil who hacked an e-record book to change their marks as an example of exploitation I assume. If this is the case, how often do pupils actually commit this crime these days? Very rarely, therefore I believe your argument is irrelevant. If, however, you used the example to show a pupil"s creative skills, then I propose this: If a bank robber robs a bank in a creative way, shall we let them go for free, due to their creativity? You stated that through your personal experience, you were "punished" by your teacher, may I suggest that this is just a minority report, and that this situation is not at all as common as you believe it to be. As all teachers are required to follow the criteria that relates to the course. You also stated that "marks are a reason for hate", however, an academic source (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) strongly argues that students who are exposed to violence are linked to poor academic outcomes due to sleep disturbance, stress, and other negative effects, and not the other way around, as you are falsely suggesting. Also, "hate" is not the outcome of receiving a simple grade, don"t be na"ve. On success, good marks DO represent success in the course taught, as well as the field of work that the course is related to due to the knowledge required being similar to that which is taught. I did not say that good marks lead to success in life, don"t make bogus claims. Examiners also spend multiple weeks/months marking assessments, not hours, which is another false claim. On the point that you made about parents "blackmailing" their children: first, the example you gave was an example of an incentive, and not blackmail. The definition of an incentive is: "A thing that motivates or encourages"" Again, another false claim by the proposition. In conclusion, all of my points are still standing, and the points that the proposition made, besides the false claims, have been dismissed due to them not meeting a sufficient standard. Thank you again for the debate, I enjoyed this and gained a lot of knowledge on the topic. Good luck in the future.
Marks are the matter of past

It's a real pleasure for me to have such a powerful opponent. However, I'm not going to give up! Now I will defend my point of view. Well. .. You have mentioned that marks exist "to ensure that the student has actually learned what they were taught. " WHAT THEY WERE TAUGHT means a sole information. For instance, 2+2=4. However, Thom Yorke believes that 2+2=5. Picture that he's able to prove his point of view in a creative way. Naturally, each and every person knows that 2+2 does not equal 5. But! Shall we punish Thom with a low mark or shall we reward him for his creativity. That is the question. (As you might have noticed the theme is even more topical than it seems. It embraces the issue what school is all about. Is it all about information? Or there's something else. Something more important that can't be expressed in numbers and letters. ) Now let's move to the next point. As for CONTRADICTION and SELFISHNESS, I find it hard to argue because both points of view could be right considering some external conditions which sometimes do not depend on a student. I believe that it's possible for a student to get a teacher's feedback, analyse mistakes and do revision without any mark (NB! mark - not assessment) though I find it hard to deny that assessments of all kinds facilitate teacher's work and help with data analysing. All the same, marks have some sufficient downsides. For instance, I believe that sometimes it is marks that bother students the most. Not knowledge. Many people are convinced that assessment is a core aim of the learning process which in my opinion is nonsense. Besides, marks are not quite good at encouraging students to develop themselves. On the contrary, they're able to discourage some students. For instance, if I got a bad mark several times though I'd worked and tried hard I would either consider myself stupid or believe that all my efforts were in vain. And I would give up, as a result. Moreover, I find it important to mention that a mark is not only an instrument of assessment but also an instrument of punishment. I remember some of my classmates got 2 (an extremely low mark in my country) simply because they behaved badly. Once I got 2 at my literature class. Our home assignment was to read chapters number let-me-say 3, 9, 17 of "The Master and Margarita. " I found the task absolutely irrelevant, because as a rule I read chapter #1 then #2 #3 and so on and so forth. .. And when I was asked to retell chapter #17 I said that I hadn't read it yet. And my teacher gave me a BIG FAT 2. You can't even imagine how much satisfaction was on her face at that moment. I couldn't help laughing though I was upset a bit. On that note, I would like to cease the argument. At least, for today.
Marks are the matter of past

Thank you for this opportunity to debate with you. I disagree with the motion that "marks are the matter of the past" due to three reasons, these are: Accurate, success and opportunity. Before I unpack my first argument, I would like to rebut the prop"s first argument. The proposition wildly stated that "assessments are highly subjective, and depend solely on [the] teacher"s opinion". First of all, assessments do not rely solely on a teacher"s opinion, and believe it or not, it mainly relies on the content that was taught throughout the course (shocking, isn"t it!). It is not a personality test, it is an assessment on what the key points were in the course. This is to ensure that the student has actually learned what they were taught. The prop also said that contradicting a teacher means that there is a chance at receiving a lower grade. This statement does not have any factual background, and instead is a wild claim. It could be argued that a student who debates in a healthy manner could receive a higher grade due to their level of participation, therefore your claim is false. Finally, marks are not selfish, as the proposition said. There is nothing wrong with healthy competition within the classroom between students, and if students were truly selfish about receiving the highest grade, why do they bother to attend group study sessions? According to an academic journal (Chiriac, 2014), there is strong scientific evidence that group work has many benefits to learning. As well as flow-on effects, such as leadership training, group work allows students to boost their learning ability, therefore achieving a greater grade in the assessments. It could be argued that this is the opposite of selfishness, as it proves that students that work together, actually achieve higher outcomes in assessments, therefore your statement is incorrect. Now I will unpack my first argument which is accurate representation of how much content and key principles a student has learned from the course. William (2013) states that if students truly learned what a lecturer has taught them, there would be no need for assessments, as they would have sufficient knowledge, but this statement is obviously false. The author argues that assessments are required in order to analyse what a student has learned, as well as what the student needs to revise in the future. If an assessment does not have marks of any sort, how is a student to know what they understand, and what they don"t? How can a lecturer give feedback and assist a student"s learning throughout a course? It"s simple, they cannot. Exam results determine how much a student has learned in the course. I am not claiming that marks determine a student"s character, but instead, what a student has taken in from what was taught. For the reasons mentioned, I beg you to support my motion. References William, D. (2013). Assessment: The bridge between teaching and learning. Retrieved December 6 from http://www.ncte.org... Chiriac, E. (2014). Group work as an incentive for learning " students" experiences of group work. Retrieved December 6 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Marks are the matter of past

Educational systems of many countries are extremely conservative. Time flies but the main principles of education stand still. However, some countries are rejecting home assignments and even marks. Personally I stick to the opinion that marks are the matter of the past. To begin with all the assessments are highly subjective and depend solely on teacher's opinion. And as our mark depends on a teacher's opinion, all we do is trying to meet teacher's expectations. We tell the things that are right according to our teacher. We're afraid to contradict a teacher, because there's a chance to get a lower mark. Without any doubts that kills courage and critical thinking. Another reason is that marks make pupils compete rather than cooperate. In the chase of a better mark we are thinking solely of ourselves completely forgetting about the others. And sometimes even we do some mean things to the others to get a better mark. Marks make us selfish. Of course I should mention that at universities (at least in my country) assessment depends on attendance which I believe is completely unfair because I think that knowledge is the first and foremost assessment criterion. And unfortunately that criterion is often omitted. In conclusion I want to say that the mark is just a natural number (or a letter - whatever). How could it be possible to assess all the knowledge and experience with the only one natural number when there are so many irrational things in the world?
Blues Clues- "Steve was so much better than Joe"

Sorry, I've been away! Ok. Round 3. This is Steve, does he look like he wants to be here? http://www.youtube.com... This isn't even the worst, but I'm kinda in a hurry so I can't search too hard. Now, this is Joe. Doesn't he look happier? There have been rumors that Steve went to Jail, which have been proven false. The truth? He was tired of the show and went on to be in an alternative rock band, The Dustmites. Hey, that's pretty cool. Kudos to him, that's probably more his niche. Not being on a kiddy show.
Blues Clues- "Steve was so much better than Joe"

Now... I know I'm gonna get a lot of crap for saying this... but I actually think Joe was much better than Steve. Like most little kids in the 90s an early 2000s, I'll admit, I was a Steve fan. But after watching the show with my little cousin the other day... I have to say that Joe has a much better personality. He actually looks like he wants to be there (regardless of if he really does or not, cause we all know actors would only be on a show like that for the moola). Steve... on the other hand, looked like he was just dying to get outta there and smoke some weed. I call this topic "Steve was so much better than Joe" only because that's what everyone seems to say. But I take the position of con. Steve can go smoke all the weed he wants.
Communism is as fair as religion.

500? I will give this a shot. I ask my worthy opponent to define what he means by communist. Next, what does he mean by "believe in themselves." I believe in myself in the sense that I believe that I exist. I also believe in my abilities, for example I believe in my ability to make a piece of toast. Or is he stating that communists only believe themselves to exist? CHRIST RULES implies you know God's will. Therefore, you are an anti christ?
Why God does exist

The burden of proof is on my opponent for this debate. I will merely refute his arguments. My opponent starts out with the fine tuning argument for God's existence. This argument basically states that the Universe is so perfect that it requires a creator. The fact is that the Earth isn't perfect for life; life is perfect for the Earth. Life naturally evolved to the conditions of the Earth. This doesn't require a God. It even seems as if two billion planets in our galaxy could be suitable for life(1).Even a fraction variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life impossible. We could actually be 5% closer and 15% farther away and still be able to live. This is a significant amount, considering the distance between the Earth and the Sun.Now lets look at our water.The information provided about water is nice, but it doesn't prove a God. The processes described can all be explained naturally.Now the human brain. Looking at the brain would support the argument that there is no God. Pointing out all the things that it does would point to the brain being the source of life and consciousness, not a God.But what about our DNA?If God designed DNA, then he did a very messy job. For example, mutations and diseases occur in DNA. This would seem to indicate that God wrote the code for diseases like diabetes(2).Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.You actually can, right here on Earth! The "precise information" of DNA can be explained naturally. The fact is, DNA is extremely flawed and an intelligent designer would have done a very poor job if he designed our DNA.Conclusion: Pro did not fulfill his burden of proof. The arguments given can all be explained naturally through evolution and other processes. The argument presented is ultimately flawed, as the Universe is too imperfect to have been created by an intelligent designer.Thanks to Pro for this debate.Sources: 1. http://www.theguardian.com...2.http://www.examiner.com...
Size Is Relative, and This Statement, if True, Has Huge Meaning.

By mentioning neutrinos you are implying there is an absolute smallest possible size for an object before it becomes nothing. Or perhaps it's the smallest known unit that our current level of technology can pick up? And you do have a good point. Particles smaller than an atom could not create a universe that looked like ours. It would have to be a drastically different universe, but it could still exist. And what I said about us being the speck, that is not a contradiction of what I've been saying at all. What if the smaller universe was a speck inside our universe, and we in turn were a speck inside someone else's universe? Some scientists have already suggested that our universe is inside a larger universe.
Size Is Relative, and This Statement, if True, Has Huge Meaning.

Yes. If the water was "shrunken" then yes things could go on getting smaller and there would be no limit. For this to work though atoms would have to get smaller and behave in the same way relative to size. which, in the world we know is impossible. You did mention smaller than atom particles but again I return to the fact that these would not create the same substance (such as water) or at least that can behave in the same way relative to it's size. furthermore, if (assuming) that these smaller than atomic particles could make up a universe, there would only be one size exactly that could exist. If you follow. 1000 grains of sugar make up a sugar cube of a certain size, if I wanted a sugar cube 1/10 of the size with the same number of grains I would use grains 1/10 of the size. Obviously with grains of sugar I could make various sizes. but translating that example into neutrino (I have been informed by google that this is the smallest particle that has a rest mass) there is only one size that can be made. Also doesn't your point about our universe being the speck contradict what you originally argued? If you were right then there would be no said "speck" would there? sorry If I have miss-interpreted what you were getting at.
Size Is Relative, and This Statement, if True, Has Huge Meaning.

First, I was not referring to layers of worlds. I was referring to layers of entire universes, an entire universe being a speck of dust or something inside another universe. Such a concept was used in Men in Black, I believe it was. You mentioned a boat on water analogy. Indeed, a shrunken boat would not have the same effect on normal sized water as a normal sized boat would on normal sized water. However, what if the shrunken boat was moving on shrunken water? Let's just say you, who were normal sized, rode the normal sized boat on normal sized water at 30 mph. Then, you somehow shrunk yourself and rode in the shrunken boat on the shrunken water at 3 mph. From your perspective, both experiences would seem identical. As what you were saying about atoms, there are units of matter smaller than protons, neutrons, and electrons. What if there were units of matter smaller still? What if these units of matter got so small that you had the building blocks for a universe where a galaxy was the size of an atom? And also, you've forgotten to address the possibility of a universe where ours is the speck.