BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheist can't have objective morals.

But I just have to say this:You say morals come from God and therefore have always been the same. Then how was it in medieval times a good moral to murder gays/jehova's/foreigners/people in general who are off from the average society? It was because it was the law then that it was acceptable. The law makes the morals. Morals can change. They will change over time. Of course not all morals, for example punching a baby will always be wrong, but morals like euthanasia and abortion will change over time. Just like abortion was acceptable and morally good back then. Anarchy is not the change of morals, it's the abandonment of those. It's always wrong to mug a person, but when you're in desperation, it's hard to stay at the borders of morals and let your family die of poverty. Whether an atheist or a christian holds you at gunpoint, it doesn't matter what your religion is. Both ways it's a bad thing and both ways it's a desperate act. You challenge me to answer the question: Why is it morally wrong to oppress a minority to benefit the society, in an atheist view? Because every person deserves to have a decent life. Not because God says so, but because you would want a decent life too. So you allow another person too. And slavery would not be an option because many people would have a bad life. That's also the reason slavery is prohibited nowadays. It might also be interesting to know that in slavery times the majority of the people who decided it was acceptable was christian. Counter arguments:1. Have you ever heard of the so called "Golden Rule"? It is basically the rule that you should treat another the way you'd like to be treated yourself. This is a rule all bases of religion and society agree it's the best (even religions with other gods). If we wouldn't apply this rule and would assume the god argument, we would only be moral because otherwise we'd burn in hell. So we would live in fear. This happened in medieval times, and that fear was exactly what the pope used to control masses of people.2. As I said, it that were the case, God would be a horrible person since many people have killed in God's name.
Atheist can't have objective morals.

Challenge accepted.I will counter your arguments first and add my own.Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations or prejudice; based on facts; unbiasedSubjective: pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individualJust so we don't have confusion over that. Now let's start. In an atheistic worldview, lying, cheating, and stealing are neither right or wrong. They are phenomena to which, if the atheist so decides, moral values can be assigned. Sure, the atheist might say that we all should want to help society function properly and it does not benefit society as a whole to lie, cheat, and steal. But, this is weak intellectual reasoning.As an atheist I agree to this and I would ask you to explain why this is a weak intellectual reasoning.Atheism offers a subjective moral system that is based on human experience and reason.Either you mean objective or you're wrong because this is the same with christians/muslims whatever religion you're part of.True morality is not merely a collection of concepts agreed upon because it helps stop the guy with the gun from taking your food. There's something more, and the bible offers us more.I assume you mean we have morals so we can practice those and go to heaven when we die. Although I disagree, that was not the point of this debate. I'd like to ask you to elaborate your statement. What does the bible offer?Now here are my arguments:#1You say can't have objective morals because morals have to come from God. But let's go back to the time of the ancient Greeks. They had Gods too, and they had objective morals. But did Zeus make those morals? No. The society did. Because they only used Gods to explain things which were in the dark for them. Why did they have objective morals then? Because they made the country a nice place to be. Sure the Gods punished people once in a while, but this was because they knew the people's morals too. This shows that people are perfectly capable of creating morals on their own.#2You're implying the bible is the only source of objective morality, although not every country has the bible as their objective morality. Islamic countries have the Quran, Jewish countries have the Tora, and besides religion, a lot of countries like Netherlands and Germany have a government not based on religion. Knowing this we could conclude there are multiple sources of objective morality. This is a problem since there can only be one objective morality.I might have more coming, but this is all for now.
Atheist can't have objective morals.

First I need to clarify that atheists can be morally good. They can even be people of integrity. But that isn't the issue. Having good morals doesn't mean you have objective morals. One atheist's good morals might only be coincidentally consistent with true objective morality where another atheist's isn't. Objective morals are those that are based outside of yourself. Subjective morals are those that depend on you, your situation, culture, and your preferences. Subjective morals change, can become contradictory, and might differ from person to person. This is the best that atheism has to offer us as a worldview. In an atheistic worldview, lying, cheating, and stealing are neither right or wrong. They are phenomena to which, if the atheist so decides, moral values can be assigned. Sure, the atheist might say that we all should want to help society function properly and it does not benefit society as a whole to lie, cheat, and steal. But, this is weak intellectual reasoning. Let me reiterate by saying that atheism offers a subjective moral system that is based on human experience, human conditions, and human reason. By its very nature, such moral evaluation is relativistic, dangerous, can change, can become self contradictory, and can lead to anarchy. True morality is not merely a collection of concepts agreed upon because it helps stop the guy with the gun from taking your food. There is something more, and the Bible offers us more. William Lane Craig: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Kim Kardashian is a disgrace to women!

I must say that you are a well debater. Thank you for opening my eyes in seeing that it isn't Kim but the Cali law or her mother. http://www.yahoo.com... I know, it is just a general website, but I did recieve most of my info there as well as my mother, father (works in news) and several other family members. Also, People and InTouch helped :).
Kim Kardashian is a disgrace to women!

Okay, here it goes: Kim Kardashian is just plain trash. She was married for 72 days to Kris Humphries and then divorced him. They had a HUGE wedding for the occasion, who else agrees with me that the money spent on the wedding, could have been spent on a desperate animal/human shelter? She is currently dating Kanye West. She never officially divorced Kris though!! Also, Kim is now pregnant, meaning that since Kris and her are technically dating, the child is Kris's (law in California)! Also, her mother is trash! Their mother basically walks all over those girls and exposes them to te public all the time! Kim is an awful influence on girls of all ages and her show(s) should be taken off the air.
The New Deal is what got the U.S. out of the great Depression

It does not offend me that you brought up unrelated topics but they are, very, strict around here. The gov of the USA employed LOADS of people to make bullets, guns and tanks. THAT employment solved the unemployment of the Great Depression. This is pretty old news which is why I am so sure of my answers. Personally, I see that a load of people shoved off to the suburbs after WW2, spent dough, worked, raised the people that refused to have women not-work, refused to subjugate people of color, set off to find them selves and then, made the huge mistake of having children as the oil people started to ruin every thing. So, 1920's rich people ruined every thing. 1930's People were STARVING. 1940's A stupid mustache did stupid things. Our richies spent a lot of dough to kill off that mustache. 1950's A load of folks slid on a load of promises and had loads of children who (1960's) grew up to change every thing but for got to remove the oil guys and were to lazy to do the math that would have told them to NOT have so many children. It really hit the tip in the 1970's. I, and parts of my generation, saw this and have been trying to hang on, with all claws, to make us not go straight into the Matrix, surrounded by filth. Frankly, not using petroleum and natural gas and not having children are the biggest deals of them all. (OOOH! Did I just go on a personal rant? I apologize!)
The New Deal is what got the U.S. out of the great Depression

I state, again, that spending for WW2 is what got the USA to better financial footing and "out" of the Great Depression, not the "New Deal". "Sorry about the last round- wasn't sure whether I should continue on , but I will still prove why the New Deal was not effective in getting the. U.S. out of its economic pit. And since I kind of screwed up the debate format, it wouldn't make much sense to follow it anymore." Yes. You did. "Social Security- The notion of Social Security has been flawed from the start- a ridiculous business choice that would have failed utterly had it lacked the coercion of Government to back it up. Imagine an Ad for Social Security- Pay in your whole life, get money out, maybe (if you are lucky to live long enough)! Apart from the inverse incentive to individuals to not save money because "government's got your back" and the immorality of forcing people to invest in something they may or may not want (some people just don't live as long) it is simply unsustainable." This has nothing to do with your, original, question and is worthy of a separate debate. "Morale- One thing I will give FDR credit for is morale his programs inspired. Government was finally getting off its arse and doing something, the day has been saved! Now I'm not disputing FDRs leadership skills as he was undoubtedly the most qualified man to lead us through WWII. I am disputing the notion that government has to do something, that force must be used, every time something goes wrong." This has nothing to do with your, original, question and is worthy of a separate debate. " Where would all the poor people be if government couldn't support them? Most likely they would be in mutual aid societies which were prominent before the New Deal. In fact, about 30% of Americans belonged to them before the New Deal, and they were more efficient at helping out the poor than our current programs, selectively choosing those who needed help most " This has nothing to do with your, original, question and is worthy of a separate debate. "Raisin Advisory Comittee- Not really a serious argument, but typical of the routine inefficiency of government- In California there is a board that takes up to 50% of a farmer's raisin crop and holds it in a pool to be sold overseas at artificially low prices less then the cost of production in most cases (2). This was established during the New Deal, as it so happens, and still exists, along with many other detrimental and unnecessary programs established during the Great Depression." This has nothing to do with your, original, question and is worthy of a separate debate.
Vote for Hilary! YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!

Hi! (Bill Clinton's experience doesn't count!) What 35 years of political experience does she have? (explain) And Being a first lady does not qualify you to be a president! A first lady has no official duties, But often participates in humanitarian and charitable events. And is in charge of all social and ceremonial events in the white house. If we want to elect a party planner then she would be the right person for the job! There is also a STRICT TABOO that a first lady has to follow! If she wins the election, do you think Bill will respect that this is not his job anymore? In the condition that are country is in we need someone that will be strong and able to handle foreign affairs. If at all possible to bring peace to any situation but... can she defend our country if need be by choosing to go to war? But we also need to think about other countries that don't respect women and their opinions. Do you think there going to respect her opinions? And I do know what her views are! I simply don't agree with them!! For example this is just one of her views. She wants to add more regulations to the right to own guns, but do you think that the gangs and bad people are going to abide by the rules? I don't think so!! Taking our rights away will not stop those that choose to not obey the laws, it only stops law abiding citizens from protecting themselves and property. It is our constitutional right to bear arms. Just because you make something illegal doesn't mean people won't use them! She also wants to raise taxes, which doesn't help the lower and middle class citizens. The national health care system that she desires to put into place that assures everyone health insurance is in my opinion a bad idea. Have you been to Canada to see there hospitals? I'll give you something to compare to go to one of our older veteran hospitals and that is the standard care for all individuals. Private or semiprivate is out of the question unless you are a high ranking government official. Checked with some of their citizens to see if it works for them? Canadians cannot choose a doctor for themselves and they have a long wait for non-emergency surgery's.
Vote for Hilary! YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!

even though this debate is about Hillary, who do you want to win? just wondering. Anyway, Hillary Clinton would make a good president because she is a strong candidate who has plenty of experience in politics which i believe should be the base for every candidates campaign. She has over 35 years of experience (as if you haven't heard) in politics, and has been the first lady. And i obliviously want her to win because i agree with what she stands for and, her views/plans on the "Issues" a lot of people i know don't really know anything about her, but just don't like her, granted i live in Illinois, but i'd guess you don't know much about her views either. so i hope i've answered your question, but just to recap, she has experience to offer this country, and i think she would make a good president because she has the right ideas of what needs to be done in America. oh and hi
Drugs should be illegal

All illegal drugs are addictive and too many kids are using illegal drugs. It is a huge problem in America. In all the countries where drugs have been legalized, Drug use has gone up. Organized crime has gone up in these countries too, As have the street dealers. Legalizing drugs in America will not stop street gangs or the Mexican drug cartels. People's social lives deteriorate. They feel alienated from the rest of society. They are shunned by their friends or family. They can become dependent. May resort to crime in order to get their hands on the drug. Get in trouble with the law, And end up in jail. Then this becomes a permanent thing on their job application. They won't be hired. They will live a terrible life, And they will suffer.
Drugs should be illegal

Everything can be used & abused, Having drugs legal and (regulated) would heavily decrease the amount of use and people 'abusing' it, Your argument being addiction would mean that cigarettes should very much be illegal but it isn't it's treated as a choice you do and accept the consequences even tho it has no practical value other than being addictive and very unhealthy. I can tell you that no drug will make you suffer or 'mentally ill' etc, Because that is outside factors 'not' from the drug but the consequences it has for using it by law and social standards, Why do people use drugs in the first place well for the same reason most people use legal drugs like coffee or pills we value the state of consciousness it brings.
God is not real.

I've reactivated the debate, now that my distinguished opponent, Nur-Ab-Sal is finished with his debate. I've got a couple of simple rules, though I doubt they're very necessary: 1. No trolling 2. No overt insults (keep any contempt for the opponent's side limited to covert insinuations) 3. For the voters, in the event of a forfeiture by either party, no default votes (and no 'votebombing') That much said, I'd like to welcome and wish well my opponent, and hope that this debate is enjoyable to both parties, and the audience.
Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16

Voting Age Should not be LoweredThere are three main reasons why voting age should not be lowered, these are: 16 and 17 year olds are not mature enough, they do not yet have enough experience or are as aware of the world around them and the way it will effect their lives and that 16 and 17 year olds and their lack of understanding on the responsibility of casting a voteFirstly, are 16 and 17 year olds mature enough to handle a vote? No, they are not. If they are not yet considered mature enough to be in the army, protecting and making decisions for their country, they are definitely not mature enough to decide the future of themselves and others. Most 16 and 17 year olds do not pay taxes, so therefore none of their money will go towards the way their government is running the country. If 18 year olds are not yet mature enough to walk into a pub how can they be mature enough to decide the future of an entire country. As well as this your brain is still not fully developed until you turn 30.16 and 17 year olds have not got enough experience of the world to vote. They will not have had a long term job or the responsibility of running their own lives but the proposition would hand the way the country is run to a 16 year old? If you would not trust an average 16 year old with your life why would you give them our country. We do not have 16 or17 year old politicians so why have voters that age? They will both do the same, decide the future of the country.Could a 16 or 17 year old handle the responsibility of voting? You are only allowed to be part of a jury when you are 18 and older, making the decision that could change someone's life forever. This shows they could not handle the responsibility of deciding the future of millions of the other people in their country. So no, they could not handle this responsibility.So as I have shown 16 and year olds should not get a vote, if you disagree please accept my challenge!
If you commit suicide will you go to Heaven or Hell

The topic: "If you commit suicide will you go to Heaven or Hell[?]" First of all, my opponent's post doesn't really have anything to do with the topic. My opponent's argument basically just says that because of one contrived, ridiculous example in which someone decided to burn herself because Sita did it, Hinduism propagates suicide and is therefore invalid. The post is irrelevant, but I'd like to take the time to point out that this argument is incredibly absurd. My opponent is assuming that suicide is, no matter what, completely unethical. My opponent believes that this one, small, miniscule point invalidates the entire religion of Hinduism, because suicide leads to chaos and corruption. How? After reading all that, I don't think there's any way of knowing. Secondly, and onto the topic of the debate, my opponent is quite clearly a proponent of Christianity. This is evidenced by his quotations from Christian scriptures. Heaven and Hell are very much parts of Christian faith–eventually, you'll go to one of them. Therefore, if you are a being, and you exist in this universe, both of which you must be to commit suicide, you will go to Heaven, or you will go to Hell. Thus, the answer to the question "If you commit suicide will you go to Heaven or Hell[?]" is "yes." Thirdly, assuming my opponent is not a Christian–since Heaven and Hell aren't really defined here, nor, as far as I know, are they explicitly defined as specific, tangible places, anything can be interpreted as Heaven or Hell. Therefore, anything that happens to anyone can be interpreted as a Heaven or as a Hell; thus, if someone commits suicide, he will to go Heaven or Hell. Fourth, assuming my opponent is a Christian–my opponent believes that suicide is grounds for invalidation of a religion. Clearly, according to him, suicide is something truly horrible, something that would cause "chaos and corruption," and is presumably then an act that is blasphemous against God. Blasphemy against God is grounds for condemnation to Hell. Therefore, suicide = blasphemy = condemnation to Hell —> someone went to Hell = someone went to Heaven or to Hell.
cherries.. nature

Well, this is clearly a spam debate, but for fun, I will try to rebut it. Pro's position is that cherries can't be the result of religion. I disagree. Cherries don't have to be the result of religion, but out of religion can come cherries. I know this because when I was little, I went to a church with my family that had ornamental cherry trees. These trees were planted by a group of kids working on their Confirmation (you have to do community service hours), and therefore were the result of religion. Sorry that there are no sources to back this up, other than my statement. Oh, and since you didn't define "cherries", we can assume that ornamental cherries count.
Atheists should have their own Constution and Bill of Rights.

Your second round seems to move into a non sequitor incoherent rant, for the most part. I will still respond to some of your comments, however random they seem to be. As for your first quote, I have a few objections. 1. The views expressed by the AAI are not necessarily the views of all Atheists. Your policy suggests stripping essential liberties away from ALL Atheists. 2. To me it sounds as if the quote is in strong support of an official who is secular and who will push secular policy. I agree with the fact that our government should be secular but I do not believe that this secular person can be anybody. There is no talk of not allowing anybody with religion belief to hold office, but rather push for people who will keep their office secular (as required). I disagree that the "Atheist agenda" supports the removal of all religion in the nation, and have several objections to this as well. Firstly, there is no "Atheist agenda". We do not all think alike, we are not all the same person. Secondly, you have only shown evidence that Atheists would like religion eliminated from public government. I agree with this, religion being imposed on the non religious by the government is tyrannical. I have seen no evidence (and I certainly dont support) religion to be removed from private practice. Could you please show exactly where all atheists support the removal of religion from private individuals? Atheists you speak of want to support the first amendment and the ideals of liberty supported by our founders, be it liberty for the religious or liberty for the non religious. HOWEVER- your entire second round was mostly irrelevant to the argument at hand. How does this all tie in with the idea that Atheists should not be afforded the same rights as Christians under the Bill of Rights?