BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is more reasonable and positive than Deism

"Now, the concept of gods were invented by ancient, scared and ignorant people who knew nearly nothing about the world, and gods were used to fill in the gaps in their knowledge. Why would we today impose an ancient, primitive concept onto our knowledge we have now? You might as well say fairies created the universe."Whoa whoa whoa, hold you horses. You have NO evidence, anthropological or otherwise, that suggests that the belief in a higher power was "created" by primitive individuals. Is this most likely the case? Perhaps. However, we modern humans are only able to think within our own capacity, and we have no evidence to support the fact that these ancient people were wrong. Does the fact that god may or may not have been first imagined by ancient peoples wishing to "fill in the gaps" diminish the likelihood of there actual being a god? Of course not!Now, let's distinguish that there is a difference between probablity and reasonability.Your debate topic was that Atheism is "more reasonable" than deism.Now, let's cue the definition of "reasonable," shall we?Definition: "having sound judgment; fair and sensible" [Google].Now, since we - you, even - have already established that we can't prove or disprove the existence or lack of existence of a god or anything "supernatural," for that matter, we CAN NOT accurately compare the reasonability of Atheism and Deism. Why?Simply, something being true is just as reasonable as something not being true. I don't think that believing in the existence of the supernatural is anything beyond what one would consider sound judgement. I'd even call it logical. After all, you there one to claim that ancient people interpreted the existence of god as one which "filled in the gaps" of the unexplained. Therefore, there is absolutely nothing that makes god's existence unreasonable. Let's be reminded of the debate topic: Atheism is more reasonable and positive than Deism.It is important to make the distinction that Atheism is the lack of belief, while Deism is an actual religious belief.You can't say it is more reasonable to not a have a belief in a god than it is to believe there is a god that does not intervene with humanity.Why?HUMANS ARE NOT OMNISCIENT. As it happens, however, there is more evidence that points to the existence of a god than there is evidence that contradicts god's existence. No scientific principle contradicts the presense of the supernatural, especially when it comes to Deism, the belief that science and god can coexist. However, religious texts (even if it is absolute BS) have long influenced human belief in the supernatural. When such a myriad of religious writings point to the same conclusion - the existence in a god - how can you call such beliefs unreasonable? The average religious person doesn't just wake up one day and say "gee, I can't wait to meet that friendly sky man!" There are historical forces at work that make all religions - including deism - logical and reasonable.
Atheism is more reasonable and positive than Deism

I thank you for further setting up the debate in a more orderly fashion. I will tackle the first statement that atheism is more reasonable than deism in this round. Now, the concept of gods were invented by ancient, scared and ignorant people who knew nearly nothing about the world, and gods were used to fill in the gaps in their knowledge. Why would we today impose an ancient, primitive concept onto our knowledge we have now? You might as well say fairies created the universe. If you want to say, 'a supernatural,' rather than, 'god,' because the latter is outdated then fine. The deistic god by definition is not a falsifiable claim, just like invisible unicorns or fairies that only appear when no one's looking.You can neither prove nor disprove it's existence. This doesn't mean you blindly uphold a belief in it! I would argue that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Unless you have evidence or good reason to believe in something, you should not believe it. Deism is such a broad and ambiguous belief; what from nature draws you to the conclusion that only one god did it? For all we know there could be many gods, and you couldn't prove otherwise. For all we know, these gods are magical gingerbread men. We don't know; we can't know because it's a man-made, imagined concept to begin with. You can keep adding and adding to it because it is our own creation. I would say that just because we do not know something doesn't make assuming the supernatural any viable. We don't know how the pyramids were built; there are theories, yes. Saying that gods helped build them or aliens helped without any reason is absurd. You may argue that the creation is evidence enough to suggest at least a deistic god, however, I would further argue that gods in the first place are the products of a primitive people creating mythology and fiction to explain what they didn't know. When you say god must have done it because we simply would not know otherwise, you're doing the same thing our ancestors did when they created the gods. Until we have any good reason to believe in the supernatural, don't believe in it. Atheism is a lack of belief in all gods, because gods are an ancient superstition and should be left in the past, not legitimately pondered here in the present. With each new scientific find, the need for gods dwindles. We know how earthquakes happen and we know they're not caused by the gods anymore. We may never know exactly where everything came from, but saying god created it, then packed his/her/its bags and left is not reasonable, and it's better to say, "We don't know. We may never know."
Atheism is more reasonable and positive than Deism

I'd like to start with a few definitions, if you don't mind, for the sake of clarity.Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods [Google]Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifially of a creator who does not intervene in the universe [Apple].Furthermore, this question embodies two components, which I will rebut seperately.1) Atheism is more reasonable than deism.I'm assuming you make this argument based on the fact that a majority of scienctific principles contradict almost every religious principle. However, no such principle directly contradicts the existence of an omniscient, or omnibenevolent god. Deism holds that science does not disprove a god's existence and the two could coexist. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. There is no way to decide which belief - deism, or athiesm - is more "reasonable," because there is no way to disprove the existence of god, or to prove the lack of existence of a god.2) Atheism is more positive than deism. How so? Deism is simply the belief that god does not interfere with humanity. What about that makes it less positive than Athiesm, which we can all degree has a very realistic (meaning NOT POSITIVE) take on life after death.
Nihilism is Valid

"Definitions: ... INSIGNIFICANT- Inconsequential, not worthy of note" Quite simply, insignificance is the lack of significance. It is not too small to be noteworthy. It is just not noteworthy. And from an unbiased point of view, nothing on Earth is noteworthy. In summary: I have made claims that individuals, or even life in general, are insignificant. Con has countered with questioning the Nihilist lack of bias. I responded that the goal of Nihilism was to remove bias, an apt refutation. Con then attempted to claim that I play favorites with the universe. I replied with voicing my beliefs that significance is a myth. Con's final point was that insignificance is nonexistent, which he would have realized is invalid should he have re-read the definitions provided in Round 1. He has failed to successfully address my main point, that of the insignificance of everything. I await your response.
Nihilism is Valid

From an unbiased point of view there is no such thing as significance OR INSIGNIFICANCE. Significance is that considered great enough to be noteworthy while insignificance is that considered too small to be noteworthy. Both of these, as you have said, are, "a myth, a social construct, and nonexistent in the real world from an unbiased standpoint." Thus Nihilism, which says in the grand perspective we are too small, insignificant, is not valid. Back to Pro!
Nihilism is Valid

That we are a single stage of a reaction does not make us less significant than the reaction its self. From an unbiased point of view there is no such thing as significance; nothing is significant, nothing is insignificant. All there is... is stages and reactions. The significance given to these stages and reactions is the result of our biased minds. Your mind has a bias against us as individuals and in favor of what you consider more significant. That sort of bias will not contribute to your survival, nor is it valid because it can't be said that we are insignificant from an unbiased point of view.Back to Pro now!
Nihilism is Valid

Life began billions of years ago, when a self-replicating molecule was created by a bolt of lightning. From that point forth, mutations began to occur, most of which were negative but some of which were positive, making individuals different from their predecessor. Differences were only important in how they altered reproduction. Fast forwards through billions of years of evolution. Here we are: individuals different than our predecessors. I, of course, do not speak for all Nihilists, but for me, this appears to be one many-staged chemical reaction. Why value one reaction more than another? Why value any one stage more than any other? What value does a single stage of a chemical reaction have? We may be unbiased, but our goal as rational thinkers is to try not to be. We attempt to figure out what a completely unbiased mind would think of human society, and we reason it would not bat an eye at the entirety of our species' accomplishment, let alone any particular individual.
Nihilism is Valid

This is the first debate in which I have been the instigator, so, my apologies for inclarity.Resolution:Nihilism, aka the idea that in the grand perspective, individuals are insignificant, is valid.Burden of Proof:There is no BoP in this debate. There is no proof in most philosophical questions. Whoever makes the best argument wins.Definitions:NIHILISM- defined aboveTHE GRAND PERSPECTIVE- from an unbiased point of view, on a large scaleINDIVIDUAL- A human beingINSIGNIFICANT- Inconsequential, not worthy of noteVALID- so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradictionRounds:Round 1: Acceptance and Opening StatementsRound 2: RefutationsRound 3: Counter-RefutationsRound 4: Final Defence, Refutations, and Closing StatementsOpening Statement:There is a reason we scold children for thinking the world revolves around them. this line of thinking is steeped in self-importance and narcissism. There are billions and billions of stars in our galaxy alone, and millions upon millions of galaxies. Life on Earth is nothing but a complex chemical reaction. There is no supreme being who cares for us. To quote Carl Sagan: "Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam."
Doing a job you like is more important than a job that will get you more money

"It is not how much we have, but how much we enjoy, that makes happiness."Charles Spurgeon“If you want happiness for an hour — take a nap.’ If you want happiness for a day — go fishing. If you want happiness for a year — inherit a fortune. If you want happiness for a lifetime — help someone else.” Chineese Proverb“It isn’t what you have, or who you are, or where you are, or what you are doing that makes you happy or unhappy. It is what you think about.” Dale Carnegie“Happy people plan actions, they don’t plan results.” Dennis Waitley
Arduino is better than the Raspberry Pi

On Arduino there are many pins too. There are 14 digital pins which 6 provide PWM. PWM can bring analogue results to digital ports. Also there are some analogue pins and some other. You can see some examples about the boards here http://arduino.cc.... And again, the capability can be extended with shields. There are many shields. Some give Wi-Fi and some have built-in screens. Many are official but there are also third party shields.
Arduino is better than the Raspberry Pi

Though the arduino microcontroller has many I/O options, the raspberry pi has 8 or more (I've only ever used 8) 3V3 digital I/O pins and multiple 5V or 3V pins and two GND pins. The GPIO (General Purpose Input Output) pins can be easily transferred to a breadboard, any circuit board or any prototyping board using any 26 pin cable and a certain adapter. Also, Adafruit has a 13 tutorial overview of the Pi and numerous DIY projects posted by users the tutorials are at https://learn.adafruit.com... and the DIY projects are at https://learn.adafruit.com....
Arduino is better than the Raspberry Pi

Yes, Python is a well-known programming language, the Arduino language is fairly easy to get used to and has many great built in functionalities made for I/O. It also includes great examples of circuits and programs that go with it. You can see some here http://arduino.cc.... Arduino also has a wide variety of different products to choose from depending on your needs (cost, performance, etc,). There are also shields that can go on the Arduino. These extend the capability of your Arduino board. Arduino is also open source, meaning that any 3rd party company can make their own accessories and boards even!
Should gay marriage be legal or banned

It's ok, at least you didn't totally forfeit! Rebuttals ============== Religion is one of the biggest argument in this debate, my question is, is this how we make our laws? Think about it, there are so many religions, and we don't make our laws of the religious beliefs of those religions. Why should we treat Christianity differently? Sure, there are a lot of Christians in America, but they shouldn't have control over laws. One common thing people forget in these debates is the First Amendment, and Separation of church and State. Basically, this is what separation of church and state means [1]"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." Now, there is a part that says Congress can't make a law that prohibits a religion from following a custom. This law would not interrupt the Christian community. If it really is strictly prohibited by the Bible that 2 people of the same gender cannot marry, then no Christians would anyway. The law does not say "You must marry someone of the same gender," rather, it says: "Gays may legally marry". It doesn't prohibit the Christians from following their customs (I'm Christian, not an Atheist, so I kinda know a little bit about Christians customs), it just lets people who don't follow Christian customs to marry someone of the same gender Apparently, yes, male and male mix. So does female and female. We can't compare them to chemicals, concepts, or compounds that have a set reaction to itself. We are human, each of us are different, some people are straight, some people are gay, and some people hate everyone. There are already proven gay couples, so you can't say it's not natural. Are gays born gays? The answer is... Well, it depends. According to source [2], they can choose to be gay, or they could've been born gay. There are people who have made the decision to be gay, but there are people who are born gay and they cannot help it. Why should we limit what their genetics told them they were supposed to do? How would it disrupt public? Straight couples don't affect public (well, they do add more people to the world, but it doesn't disrupt public). Gay couples are not very different from straight couples. It's just that they are the same gender. They wouldn't hurt anyone any more than a straight couple would. =========== I thank Con for the great (half?) debate. Sources =============== [1]: http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [2]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Should gay marriage be legal or banned

Yes, we will be able to rebut on round 5 ======== Think about this for a moment, does acid react to acid? Does negative energy react to negative? The North Pole and another North Pole. It just unnatural. They will disrupt the community more then straight couples because in the bible, I states the all humans must be married to the opposite gender, anyone who defies that law has sinned. Gays are not born gay, they make decide all by themselves, so we must stop all people from making a bad decision. Again, the bible states the all humans are to be married to opposite genders, any opposed have sinned. ========= I'm sorry for the forfeits on all rounds, I should have checked in, I'm sorry this wasn't much fun for you.
Should gay marriage be legal or banned

Thanks for coming back Con! I will abide by the rules. Since my opponent has forfeited round 2 I will list the rules again. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Forfeited Round 3: Opening Statement (No Rebuttal) Round 4: Rebuttals Round 5: Conclusion (Rebuttals? Tell me next round if we can rebut in round 5) ================== Arguments ================== 1. Disruption How will legalizing gay marriages negatively impact society? They won't. Think about it, they are just 2 people of the same gender, how will they disrupt society in any different way than a straight couple? 2. Genetics Gays are born gays, they can't change that. Why would you force someone to like someone they don't, and restrict them from what they DO like?
Should gay marriage be legal or banned

I don't know how that happened, but I will get it this time, I do apologize. ========= I think that gay marriage should be banned in all cases whatsoever, think about this for a minute. In nature, name one thing that goes together, positive and positive don't go together, acid and acid don't mix, grass dosen't breed together. Just think for a moment, gays are breaking the laws of nature and anyone who supports it should be punished. ========= Reasons 1. The only logical solution would be to ban the marriage of gays. 2. According to gay marriage ProCon.com, if a girl is raised by two fathers is at higher risk of sexual activity and teenage pregnancy. 3. Also, gays are unnatural, unmoral, and to me, unlawful. ========= Thank you and I apologize for my previous forfeit
Santa Claus exists

"I don't really see this as a debate since my opponent is hanging around not answering his/her's argument "That is what Round 2 is for."his/her's argument and not doing my rebuttals........ "Your arguments were a copy and paste from another cite. There was no need to refute it.My opponent did not state any valuable arguments and did not provide a definition for Santa Claus, so therefore, vote Pro
Santa Claus exists

My opponent does not seem to define the name. Who or what is Santa Claus? Due to this, this is a very easy and simple argument for me to pursue.Santa Claus can be:a persona drawingan objecta motivationetc..Reasons...A person. Though I will not offer any proof of this, there is an extreme likelihood that 1 in roughly 7 billion people is named Santa Claus. With that said, the secret Santa, literally, would be in existence. Any one person named Santa Claus at birth, or legally changed name, would be able to call themselves Santa Claus and be existent. My opponent did not provide a definition.A drawing.On January 1, 1881, Thomas Nast created the drawing and sketch. "Merry Old Santa Claus." By taking out the adjective "Merry Old," the drawing would be left with just "Santa Claus." Once again since my opponent did not state what Santa Claus actually is, I can infer that he would accept a drawing as a Santa Claus. And yes indeed the drawing does exist so therefore Santa Claus exists. Thomas Nast : "Merry Old Santa Claus" (January 1, 1881) [1]^^^An object.Santa Claus can also be an object. Santa Claus statue [2] ^^^A motivationSanta Claus is also a motivation for young children. "He's making a list, Checking it twice; Gonna find out who's naughty or nice. Santa Claus is coming to town" [3] This renowned song motivates young children to be "nice" throughout the year to ensure that they get gifts during Christmas. "Santa Claus is coming to town" shows that at the time of Christmas, when Santa gives out gifts, the children will be rewarded if they were good throughout the year.I am truly sorry for my opponent's inefficiency to write what the definition of Santa Claus. That is an unfortunate mistake. I hope he will post a decent argument next round. I will refute what my opponent did write next round. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.eventprophire.com... [3] http://www.azlyrics.com...
Santa Claus exists

I really looked forward to your arguments first, but whatever.(1)Religous reasonsWhy do santa claus only appears to christanity? Even so, does santa claus known or written in the bible? No, because santa claus is a make belief to the christianity when Jesus was born.(2)PopulationThere are 2 billion children in the world.(persons under age 18) But since Santa doesn't (appears) to other religons from christianity, that reduces to 15% of the total- 378 million children.At an average rate of houses, that's 91.8 million homes.Santa claus seems to go down the chimmney so he have to stop at the houses.So that has to be 822.6 VISITS PEr SECONDNow that is impossible.So on, that means santa's "Raindeers" have to carry Fat santa claus and the presents and move at 650 miles Per SECOND that's 3000 times the speed of time. AS you see, This is impossiple.Now I explained my argument and if you are gonna say MAGIC, I will not look forward to a good debate.sources http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch...
Christmas starts to early

The Christmas season gives you time to prepare for many people there is a long list of people you have to get gifts for. I personally like having things done early so I go Christmas shopping early. It's nice to have the option to go shopping early and not be confined to a certain time range. I know my mom starts Christmas shopping in the summer it gives you more time to get the best deal. Also even if you are getting ready for Christmas early it doesn't take away the specialises of the holiday because you aren't celebrating all the aspects of the holiday. Your not giving out presents and getting to see the joy on peoples faces when you give them the perfect gift that they didn't even know they wanted until the got it just then. You also aren't going around to see the Christmas lights either. There are certain time frames within the Christmas season for certain things. But when the whole family comes together after months or how ever long you where planning you Christmas there is nothing like celebrating Christmas together with friends and family. Over all there are many things that need to take time to make the holiday season really special and it's not just a day. The season brightens peoples' day with out even realizing it. The Christmas season I believe just makes the holiday even more special because you spend all these days trying to set it up when it actually happens the day is just magical