BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism requires more faith than religion (Contender: Pro)

I am starting to enjoy your responses and I thank you for them. I like that you are now starting to mix logic with metaphor and adding a little scripture to spice things up. Not bad for a declared atheist. This latest response contrasts greatly with the black and white 'building block' approach which you displayed earlier. Let us be clear. Our conversation has been 'kicked to death' many times in the past. As soon as an atheist starts to speak about God they loose the high moral ground. They wish to expound on something that they do not recognize to exist in any shape or form. I on the other hand recognize that the vast majority of my species pursue a faith filled search for the 'God thingy'. I therefore recognize that there must be a reality that underlies these tendencies. I also recognize that as an evolved primate my deliberations on these issues are going to be limited, emotional, subjective and ultimately flawed. I therefore place myself along side these poor wretches, ie in the category of constant searching. I reference religious thought as would a jungle traveller reference tiger tracks. The tiger may lead me to water but it might ultimately devour me. I rely on what I have which is not much, in truth. I must have self belief and fortitude not to follow the norm and this I believe to be faith. The fact that I ignore the considered ramblings of thousands of years of theistic doctrine is because of chance. I was born with the predisposition of the sceptic, I live in an environment that provides for free thought and ultimately I am being an atheist just as a guy would choose to grow a beard. It would be extremely doubtful that I would have the moral courage to declare my atheism under Sharia Law in Syria. You describe religious and atheistic standpoints as 'ideologies' and I think that that is the perfect word. = a system of ideas and ideals Are you aware that the a-typical Atheist dismisses all theistic deductions based on the single fact that they are deduced from deceptions. That is how I view theism. I am anti-theism in the same way that I abhor the violence in 'Game of Thrones'. When I do this I have to deal with the fact that there are marvellous wisdoms embedded within these fortresses of religious thought and not to mention the sheer sense of enjoyment that the young seem to extract from watching the thrones series. I would be a fool to subjectively appraise all these matters without constantly calibrating my personal abilities to 'call things right'. You need a faith in yourself that is without compromise to do these things and it must be kept healthy through vigilance. We can all fall into the ramblings of bigotry and fundamentalism. IMHO I look forward to your next submission.
Atheism requires more faith than religion (Contender: Pro)

I see, I see. You have quite a lot of problems with being atheist in a religious household. But share them elsewhere if you may, not this debate as it is irrelevant. But those problems are your personal problems of being atheist in a religious household, not incited by atheism itself. There is a magnitude of difference between the two. Only now I see where you're coming from - the 3 perceptions of atheism, I get why you see it like that now. But it is still not a valid point on why atheism needs faith as those paradigms are nonetheless false. Let's address those false paradigms: 1) atheists are disconnected to their loved ones - Some, maybe, but if so, this is the individual's personal matter, it has nothing to do with atheism. ATHEISTS may feel disconnected to love ones, but ATHEISM is not a person. 2) atheists have to believe other's opinions are erroneous - There is much difference between thinking someone's ideologies are false and having to believe they are false. I see if you are a husband whose wife is religious, your ideologies may contradict with hers. Again, this is an atheist's problems, atheism is irrelevant. 3) atheists have to abstain from what's tempting or alluring - Perhaps your wife is talking about heaven but you have to reject it, is that why you came up with this idea? Again, this is an atheist's problems, atheism is irrelevant. Ok, now let's get back to the debate. But before that, I am sorry to have said you are not atheist before considering where your views come from. Now, what does the UK or EU have anything to do with atheism? And pardon me, what is your point? What is your argument? "Faith is an assimilation of facts based on your own abilities to decide and being an atheist is a 'faith filled' roller coaster ride for us all." What? A sentence with no context whatsoever, no elaboration or explanation given? I can't comprehend this... Well, here's my case. Often, people say atheism is a faith position because you cannot prove God does not exist. This makes the mistake of assuming that everything that cannot be 100% proven is equally unproven, which is patently false. Atheists do not believe in God because they see no good evidence that such a deity exists. This falls short of full proof but it is fundamentally an evidence-based position. Many theists, however, believe that there is God while fully accepting that there is an absence of evidence for his existence. Indeed, Jesus said that those who believe without evidence have a purer faith than those who demanded evidence. "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed," John 20:29.
Atheism requires more faith than religion (Contender: Pro)

Thank You for debating with me. I am an atheist, by your own definition of same, ie 'Disbelief in any deity'. You need to deepen your understanding of these matters. Take a simple example, I do not believe in dragons. I do not believe in the mythical phoenix bird. I do however have first hand experience of the actual entity 'fire'. Likewise, I do not believe in Allah, Yahweh, Thor, la di da di dee. I am an atheist. I do not dismiss the reality that people have felt and attempted to describe the mysteries of their cognitive existences on this planet among connected life forms in ways that use the variable 'God' as a means towards understanding and explanation. I am a human being. I am an advanced evolved primate that has lived for the last 58 years among my species. I have succumbed to all nuances of this state of being. I am not a logic robot and I am not a holier than thou atheist guru. If my wife goes to church on Sunday and I stay at home then we deal with this status quo as a couple. If my son is an atheist and his daughter is not baptized then my wife deals with her fears on these matters in her own private way. If my granddaughter is excluded from religion class in her Catholic School and has to watch her class friends put on their Holy Communion dresses then that is a real and actual concern for the Atheistic stand that her parents are making. If my wife wishes to be buried in a Christian Cemetery while I wish to be excluded from one then that is another real issue that a couple who have been married for 34 years must deal with. I was reared as a Catholic and to the best of my knowledge I am still one. I think they have to throw you out for this state of being to cease. I give you this information to describe to you the daily issues that confront my atheism. I do not live in a linguistically sanitized world and neither do the billions of religious people on this planet. I need to protect my atheism and I need to work on it. I need to have faith in my own convictions on these matters that are beyond our existing comprehensions. Look at simple examples of the 'faith requirement' ie the UK Referendum on the EU. The people need to put their faith in their vote. They either believe in the EU concept and the decisions of their predecessors or they believe in the current advice of some of their leaders on this matter. Most of all they will require belief in themselves if they choose to vote to go it alone as an independent UK. Faith is an assimilation of facts based on your own abilities to decide and being an atheist is a 'faith filled' roller coaster ride for us all. I look forward to your next submission.
Atheism requires more faith than religion (Contender: Pro)

Glad to debate you, Pro. But having browsed through your previous debates, I can certainly say that you are not an atheist., given you believe in some kind of deity. Perhaps the term "deist" or "pantheist" would be more fitting? A theist does not need any extreme coercion or pressure to have faith instilled. Simple indoctrination from early childhood is all that needs, for most of the theistic population. But is your point just because theists just "pretend to believe" that faith isn't associated? Or that their faith is fickle? If not, I could not find any other point in your second paragraph. About the "pretend belief", given that theists supposedly believe in "basic nonsense" as you have agreed, do you not think that would demonstrate even more so that the fuel for this blind belief is faith? On the other hand, if their faith is fickle, theists would most likely become atheist. Faith is what's needed for religion, to just believe in a deity without any empirical evidence. If they did not have strong faith, religion would crumble. In the last paragraph, you have displayed a drastically warped image of atheism. Here's your definitions: 1) atheists are disconnected to loved ones (perhaps if those loved ones are in a religion) 2) atheists have to believe other's opinions are erroneous 3) atheists have to abstain from what's tempting or alluring I would recommend you to stop announcing you are an atheist. Atheism merely rejects claims without evidence, and most undoubtedly has nothing to do with any of your 3 totally inaccurate paradigms. As your points are based on these false perceptions, they are invalid - you have stated that atheists require faith to do those things, but atheists don't do anything like that at all. For the rest of the paragraph, I am pretty sure I can speak for the audience as we do not require an in-depth elaboration about your personal beliefs and struggles. Atheism, a mere rejection of claims without evidence, requires no faith. Atheism: A: God exists. B: Any evidence? A: No. B: Then I don't believe you. You don't need faith to not believe in unicorns. You need faith to believe in unicorns. It is that simple. Pro's actual arguments are eagerly anticipated.
Atheism requires more faith than religion (Contender: Pro)

I am a devout atheist. I dismiss most aspects of theistic thought as basic nonsense. I require deep faith to do this. Let me make the point. A theist cannot possibly, really, really believe. We as life forms are not programmed to believe in the nonsensical. Yes, we have the ability to create or induce belief but this must be a conscious act by us and an intended course of self deception. I propose that the vast majority of theists are pretending they believe. Unless they have undergone extreme levels of coercion or pressure of some sort from their leaders of their societies then they are really only playing at inducing their internal faith. Do the people of North Korea, love Kim Jung, Yes they do and no they don't. If there was a successful coup , then how long would their deep felt faith last. Theism is a game played by the hapless and the unfortunate. In contrast , atheism is a 'real' life choice requiring deep levels of personal faith.Atheism is a serious undertaking in that you feel a disconnect to many of your loved ones on a fundamental question of 'life outlooks'. You have to believe that what others are saying is 'rubbish'. You have to have deep faith in your own judgement and you have to constantly find the fortitude to resist a deviation towards the 'fanciful'. Atheism is akin to being on a health diet, ie you cannot eat junk food, no matter how tempting it looks. I am a devout Atheist who works on his faith. I cannot declare that I am correct in my atheism because of the overwhelming majority of people who disagree with me. I can declare that I will remain an atheist for as long as my being allows me to and that I will work on this faith system to keep it healthy. I do not want to fall to the sickness of conversion and I build up my immune system by investigation and considering theism, in all it's absurdity of forms. I recognize my vulnerability and in a way, I pray that I will not fall into the everlasting sleep of theism because of my own complacency and lack of faith in my own assessment of things. Thanks.
Should people of the same sex be allowed to get married.

Now, I will mirror my opponent's superficial points--and push them against his own stance. I hope you are entertained.---Opponent: A man marrying a man is not the same as a man marrying a dog.Mirror: A man marrying a woman is not the same as a man marrying a man. Opponent: The man that wants to marry a dog is SICK. Its a disease. The dog cant say yes or no, Its not capable. Two men however are.Mirror: The man who wants to marry another man is SICK. It's a disease. A man can't be vaginally penetrated. A woman can, however, when with a man. Opponent: Stating that marrying a dog, and a man marrying another man, is the same, is insane. The dog is an animal and the men are humans. Putting the two side-by-side as the same thing is like saying that a woman and a football is the same just because.Mirror: Stating that a man marrying a man is the same as man marrying a woman--is insane! The man is of one gender, and the woman is of another! Putting the two side-by-side is the same thing is like saying that a woman and a football is the same just because.(And as an aside, I will note that the opponent states (almost poetically): It would not be changing the definition of marriage, it would be changing the definition of freedom.Oh, then how come he is so interested in restricting men's freedom to marry dogs?---I have clearly depicted the contradiction between my opponent's support of gay marriage and his opposition of man-to-dog marriage. His shallow arguments can be just as easily used to counter gay marriage. Clearly, the points he has made are hypocritical.Again, gay marriage is a slippery slope that leads to the destruction of the institution of marriage. By allowing gay marriage, we are enabling society to redefine marriage into oblivion... into meaninglessness. ---Based on the arguments posed, I think this is a clear vote for Con. Please refrain from using your own personal opinions when judging this debate, because it's unfair to the debaters.Thank you.
Should people of the same sex be allowed to get married.

What you're saying is a argument that people use when they cant think of good one. A man marrying a man is not the same as a man marrying a dog. The man that wants to marry a dog is SICK. Its a disease. The dog cant say yes or no, Its not capable. Two men however are. And when it comes to polygamists I just see a problem with a man marrying multiple women. I think most people do. Stating that marrying a dog, and a man marrying another man, is the same, is insane. The dog is an animal and the men are humans. Putting the two side-by-side as the same thing is like saying that a woman and a football is the same just because. It would not be changing the definition of marriage, it would be changing the definition of freedom. And even tho I live in Norway I look at the u.s. a a nation of freedom. But comparing dogs and gay people is not a argument, its making yourself look stupid
Should people of the same sex be allowed to get married.

In the US, you can't receive government-provided disability funding if you don't have a disability. That isn't discrimination against the non-disabled; rather, it just happens to be a privilege for those who meet the criteria. Could we provide money to non-disabled people, as well--or could we expand the definition of "disabled" to include more people? Sure. But we don't, because we consider the privilege of receiving this kind of government funding to be exclusive. In the same way, marriage is an exclusive legal bond between a man and a woman--and we can keep expanding the definition until it becomes meaningless and EVERYONE gets the benefits of marriage, but that becomes extremely counter-intuitive.Apparently, the opponent is interested in changing the definition of marriage. Please humor me by answering this: Are you okay with the legalization of polygamous marriage? Are you okay with marriage to animals? Are you okay with marriage to inanimate objects, like chairs? Are you okay with marriage to hockey teams? You may say, "Of course a person shouldn't be able to marry a dog! A dog can't consent, and it's a non-human!" But when you say this, you are using the same logic as someone who says, "Of course you shouldn't be able to marry! You're of the same gender!" If you answer "no" to any of the above questions, explain why YOUR change in definition is superior to the polygamist or the guy who wants to marry his dog or chair!And if you say "yes" to all of these questions, then you are okay with the constant redefinition of marriage until it becomes all-inclusive. This is the slippery slope to utter meaningless. Surely, an all-inclusive marriage system would enable anyone to receive marriage-related benefits and abolish the institution of marriage as we know it. ---Opponent: The thought of two people that's [sic] not allowed to get married just because they are the same sex sickens me. We cannot judge policy based on whether or not it "sickens" my opponent.Opponent: Just because some people are religious or some people think it's disgusting doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to get married.It is ironic that the opponent mentions "disgust" as an irrational reason to oppose gay marriage, because he uses it as a justification for his support of gay marriage. Anyway, plenty of people oppose gay marriage for reasons other than religion and simple disgust. ---Thank you.
It's bad when Children sexually experimenting on each other.

I don't agree with most of the things my Con has said. It is just not right for children as old as 6 years old to experiment anything related to sex whatsoever. Do you think that a child with 6 years old knows has the total conscious of what he is doing and why he is doing it? It's just not right at all. Children with that age are to live their childhood, play around with their friends but never to have any sort of sexual relationship with any girl or boy. Due to the fact that the child didn't develop his conscious enough to know the consequences of his act he might regret of the sexual relationship he had with 6 years old forever and be ashamed of it. I will agree with you in one thing though, the fact that sex is seen as a taboo is extremely ridiculous. Sex is a natural and normal thing that should be taught and talked to children with no taboos.
It's bad when Children sexually experimenting on each other.

Personally i don't see the problem with children sexually experiment on each other. I think most children would do it if they were not hold back by grown ups. When i was young and probably many others here can relate to my story, i had some sexual desires and i experimented with a girl at the same age as me. I was probably about 6 years old. I felt really bad at that time, because i felt there was something wrong with me because grown ups made me believe that me having sexual desires was not normal and sex was some taboo that i should not be exposed to . Now when i have grown up, i can reflect on my experience and i know that there was nothing wrong with me. Most kids go through something similar. I don't think it is healthy for kids to go through this. I also think painting sex as some kind of taboo to our kids makes those kids grow up always feeling in some way that sex is something to be ashamed of. They start calling each other sluts for having to much sex, telling each other sex should only be to procreate, make fun of people for having some kinky sex. in other words, i think a lot of our social problems come because we aren't honest to kids about sex, we hide it and talk around it. We confuse them and often they stay confused and ashamed.
The Titanic was Switched with the Olympic

J. Bruce Ismay and Thomas AndrewsJust thought I would add one more argument, J. Bruce Ismay (managing director of the White Star Line) and Thomas Andrews (Titanic's and Olympic's architect) both travelled first-class aboard the Titanic. If any conspiracy would take place, why were they travelling aboard a ship they know would sink? This is esppecially critical in the case of Andrews as he died aboard the Titanic rather than get into a lifeboat. Ismay did get into a lifeboat, but that does not change the fact that he should have not been travelling on the ship if he knew it would sink.
The Titanic was Switched with the Olympic

My CaseThe Differences between the Two ShipsRobin Gardiner originally created this conspiracy when he wrote about it and has since then published more recent books on the issue, the latest being published in 2010 titled The Great Titanic Conspiracy. In order for Gardiner to be correct, the ships would have to be switched when they were together at the Harland and Wolff dock in Belfast, Ireland. In order for the conspiracy to be carried out, the two ships would have to be virtually identical so no one would mistaken them when they went back to work on Monday (as they had weekend off when the switch took place). However, there are certain holes here that I will address, as the two ships did have differences. I. A-Deck PromenadesOne key difference between the two ships was their A-deck promenades (the deck below the boat deck). On the forward half of the Titanic's A-deck promenade the windows were enclosed while the Olympic never had her A-deck promenade windows enclosed during her entire existence. Anyone would be able to make out this distinct difference as I will show you with pictures. Here is the Olympic: Then we have the Titanic: Because of the windows on the A-deck promenade being different between the Olympic and the Titanic, a switch would be impossible unless the small crew which carried out the switch enclosed the Olympic's forward A-deck promenade windows and then enlarged Titanic's. That is not the only difference. II. Upgrades on B-deckThe Olympic's B-deck, reserved for first-class passengers, was not really popular so the White Star Line (the company that owned Titanic and Olympic) decided to add upgrades while the Titanic was under construction. These were mainly extra suites, but one major exception was the Cafe Parisien, a resturant for the first-class passengers that was meant to look like a sidewalk cafe in Paris. The Olympic did not receive a Cafe Parisien or any other upgrades of her own until after the sinking. Once again I will show pictures. Olympic's B-deck: Titanic's B-deck (the Cafe Parisien): In addition to the changes stated in Gardiner's book (swtiching the nameplates, etc. ), the small crew that carried out the operation would need to change the A-deck windows on both ships and then eliminate any upgrades on Titanic's B-deck while adding upgrades to the Olympic. This is impossible to do over a weekend. If anyone wants to know any other differences between the two ships, it is easy to look up the plans for each deck online. ConclusionThere is no way this conspiracy could be carried out as there are too many vast differences between the two ships.