BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If your an Atheist bring it on.

"But, in life TODAY we already have consequences for our actions. Let's say that I am in society (go figure, I am), and society has deemed murder as wrong. If that is the case, then to murder someone, anyone, is a crime to which I pay a consequence" Well what if its not "TODAY" what if it was back in the time of the Barbarians or the time of the Aztecs or the time of Germany back in World War II. Then who says they are wrong when they didnt deem murder as a punishment are a certain race to kill is wrong. Dont you see that dont you see that if everyman were to JUSTIFY his own actions it would be hell on earth. I mean your 21 is this what they teach you in college youare just agreeing with it none of it makse any sence. For instence i was debatimg another kid about this same topic and he said hitler was no wrong in what he did. Thats just mind blowing to me your not as bad as him but still.. any ways i feel like ever sence i have joined this debate.org i am wondering why there are basically so many Hitler supporting Nazi loving arregent stupid people there really are that are out there. Back to the subject; If your basing this all off society man socity changes all the time I think people on this website and all over the world for this madder dont want t accept that there is one rite and one wrong they want to stick up for people like Hitler in saying that he didnt do anything wrong that is the most rediculouse kind of thinking i have heard in all my life. The guy says that and then people are stupid enough to vote for him. You may think that my idea is stupid well look at his he wont admitt what Hitler did was wrong. OK seriously back to the topic you say that "and society has deemed murder as wrong." well in the past when they deemed murder as fine such as Barbarians and the Aztecs or Germany was saying it was ok to kill jews. But now its not ok to do that in our society. And i will tell you why it isnt ok to kill in society today because of the Word Of God and how he transformed nations into being more civilized it has happened so many times in Africa dont deny it and thats not the only place God has made things more civilized. But thats not what we are here to debate about. Anyways as you can see society changes all the time so why would we base it off of something that changes all the time and not something that is the same past, present, and future and that is the word of God. PLEASE DO THIS, PLEASE: If you disagree with me in anything that i said please fell free to debate back. But tell me why you belive that there is no God dont after all thats what were debating about isnt it the exsistence of God, were not debating why I am wrong about what im saying. You should be able to give me some FACTS about how he is not real just pretend tis is you opening argument you should say something like God cant be real because....
If your an Atheist bring it on.

Patriots, Interesting topic, I think this will be fun. Now, if my understanding is correct, you are asserting that an individual who does not have a belief in god, or ascribe themselves to any particular faith will then have no basis for any "moral" they might believe in. Example, if you believe in the parts of the bible that assert that homosexuality is immoral, then your moral is in some way justified. On the other hand, if you don't believe in a god, and have no holy document to base your life decisions on, then you should have no ethics because you have no basis for them. The problem with your argument is that just because you have no religious faith does not mean that you can't have any immediate positive or negative response to an incident. One can choose not to believe in a god, while still holding the principles that a christian, or jew, or muslim might hold true. In your first question, you assume that god makes all the rules, and you imply that people would/should have no morals if they do not feel their is a consequence to their actions in the afterlife. But, in life TODAY we already have consequences for our actions. Let's say that I am in society (go figure, I am), and society has deemed murder as wrong. If that is the case, then to murder someone, anyone, is a crime to which I pay a consequence. Now, someone will always have the right and ability to deny that social moral, but society will offer the highest of punishments as a result. This means that regardless of gods presense, a consequence occurs. Further, is it necessary to believe in god to know that murder is wrong? Not if there is a society that naturally responds negatively to it. In your second question, you also seems to neglect that fact that something is wrong if and only if society has deemed it so. Because society has deemed something wrong, NO MATTER WHAT the reason, then people will likely conform to that standard. Jails then, become society's way of punishing a 'criminal' they created. You are latching onto a very good point, however, in that morality and ethics are not rigid constructs. Ethics are to be debated. What is right and wrong is not written in stone, and therefore people MUST challenge their morals every once in a while. It is always a fair question, even if it comes off as ridiculous, to ask why murder is wrong. Also, what is right or wrong will change over time, as society evolves to new mindsets, new ideas, etc. Coming back to your questions, If you really believed killing every atheist in the world was ethically right, then you would justify yourself. However, you would not be justified by society's standards, and you would/should suffer the consequences by society's laws. But, if you believe in a god, and we'll assume that god is from the bible, you also believe that murder is wrong, even if it is an atheist. :-)
If your an Atheist bring it on.

Please anyone that is judging the debates read all arguments. Anyone that says Hitler was not wrong well i dont know whats wrong with them. Hitler was wrong in the sence that he killed 6000000 jews and he didnt just kill them he tortured them by gasing them and burning some alive. When America was in the 1800 we had slaves that we whiped if they didnt work hard enough or would cut off there feet if they ran away. We have parents that abuse their children, dont feed them and do all sorts of other cruel things. But if you are an Atheist none of these things are wrong because there is no God no supreme being. Do you HONESTLY think that ABUSING your kids, or TORTURING JEWS just because you think its rite, or SLAVERY in our own country is ok. Its crazy i mean listen to yorselves how do you live in a world with that kind of thinking that there is no write or no wrong. If Atheists say that there is no rite and no wrong then we might as well get rid of all courts and prisons, heck, why not let all the prisnors go from jail so there can be more murderurs, rapists and drug dealers. Is that what Atheists belive because that would be a world of toatal hell and chaos. Everybody being able to do what they want because after all every man justifise himself. If every human being was able to do what they wanted then i could go out an kill every single Atheist in the world and nobody would be able to put in jail for it because i justijy my own actions. Thats why the exsistence of God is so imprtant it is so important its not even funny because thats what the World would be like if we didnt have a God it would be toatle and utter chaos. Every one steeling from each other and everybody murdering everybody. PLEASE ANSWER THE FALLOWING QUESTION IN YOUR DEBATE:if there is no God then would i have the rite to kill every atheist in the world because nothing is wrong. 2 If nothing is wrong why do we have jails, sould we get rid of jails sensce everyman justifies himself?
If your an Atheist bring it on.

I ignored the "disprove god" point because it was irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not atheists have ethics. I shall continue to ignore it, until scientists can prove that the resurrection of Christ actually occurred, rather than proving his ascendancy to heaven by proving that his tomb was empty. Again, I'll concede that every person justifies themselves. But to make a claim that atheists would put the world into chaos for having their own justification for their actions is absurd. Consider tribal life as the best example. Tribes in Africa tend to be small, often less than 30 people. They may have some spiritual belief, but it certainly does not come from any literature (especially nothing as poorly written as the Bible). They have communicated and relied on one another to survive. There's no "chaos" as you would put it. But the group holds certain morals and principles very sacred, and those who might choose to deny them would be immediately ousted from the society. The point to consider is that, with or without a god, society will create social morality. Also, the bible is inconsistent in its own morality. Every generation of reading the bible has supported or fostered different passages to their churchgoers. People will often search it for any semblance of justification for anything that they already have believed to be true. With such a large book written almost entirely in parable, it's very easy to justify any person's beliefs. Further, the bible is an edited text, and the Vatican had held committees to determine which passages will enter (or leave). In all, the so called "Word of God" has changed over time, and the interpretation has changed as frequently as society has. Take care patriots.
Affirmative Action

Im sorry for my first statement, I primarily wanted to talk about affirmative action in college admissions. I will also talk about its affects elsewhere. Affirmative action was a way for President Johnsen to cool things down at the hieght of the civil rights movement. He is quoted saying during his famous speech at Howard University, "But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please. You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates." His speech as a whole is the equivilant of saying, "sorry about the whole slavery thing, but its cool because now you can have all the advantages in society." This doesnt promote fairness in this country, this doesnt promote equality. My opponent claims that Affirmative action eliminates unlawful discrimination, but in the society that we live in today, thats exactly what it creates. Ill lay out a scenario for you and the voters to think about. If an African American scores a significantly higher SAT score than a white male, who should be more likley to be accepted into a college? Clearly the Afircan American because he recieved the higher score. Now consider this, a white male scores significantly higher than an Afircan American male on his SAT scores, but its in a densley white populated county, this will mean that because of the low number of African American students, the lesser qualified student will get in. To me this simply is silly. The same thing can be said with women admissions. More than ever women are qualfied for college, more so than men, but because of affirmative actions policies to maintain diversity, theres a large amount of men who get into college that are less qualified than women who were denied admission. This whole idea that Affirmative action benifits society by providing equal opportunities to people who would not normally recieve these opportunities is idiotic. Colleges should judge kids on their character, and academic ability. Otherwise we miss the whole point of equality. We shouldnt want a equally diverse society, but work towards an academically equal one. That way college admissions wont have to consider the color of ones skin, or what that individual is carrying downstairs :) I would also like to ask my oponent what is meant by institutionalized racism, and how it works in todays society? http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu... http://www.balancedpolitics.org...
Affirmative Action

Many thanks to Con for proposing this topic. Against Con's claims, I will argue that affirmative actions policies should not be categorically abolished from "law everywhere" because affirmative action policies can provide a pragmatic and legitimate solution to the problems posed by particular forms of institutional racism. To get the discussion started, I will provide a working definition of affirmative action and a brief opening statement. The Legal Information Institute defines affirmative action as the following: "A set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination between applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future." [1] There are three things that must be taken into account in discussing affirmative action: intent, context, and effect. By definition, affirmative action refers to a set of policies that, in intent and effect, must "eliminate unlawful discrimination." As such, Con's claim that affirmative action "violates peoples right to equal opportunity" is, by definition, a misunderstanding of affirmative action. Within a context of a unlawful discrimination, if there exists a set of laws that can eliminate the unlawful discrimination, why should those laws be abolished? Affirmative action is a pragmatic solution to the problem of institutionalized racism, and is therefore legitimate in particular circumstances. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Atheism is more appropriate than agnosticism

You can't practice believing that you think something which doesn't exist was my generaL point with abstinence.(You can't practice a negative.) So basically by your thinking, something not existing is a better hyptohesis than something actually existing(God). This would conclude that we don't exist is a better idea than we do.(That is my guess.) You say that you believe the hypothesis that you are actually sitting in front of your laptop. This would conclude that you exist. This would also conclude that while you think us not existing is a good hyptohesis, you also think that you do exist. Therefore you are possibly god. Therefore God exists and he is you.
Atheism is more appropriate than agnosticism

"Athiesm has probably been around since when? I mean a collective form, not some random guy sitting in his little hut is 1000BC wondering when Jesus is going to get here." First, I never talked about atheism as a 'collective form' but as an hypothesis. Second, why is this what you are saying an argument. "Also, can you practivce absitnence? How can you practice something that you don't do, right?" What does practicing something has to do with it? And again, agnostics and atheists both don't practice a religion (if they don't have to) please try to give counterarguments to my arguments or at least tell me which of my (imlicit) premises are wrong.
Atheism is more appropriate than agnosticism

So you've read I am America(And So Can You!). Well "let me hit you with some knowledge"(White Goodman, Dodgeball), he also said that new ideas are bad and that Catholics are the only right religion. Athiesm has probably been around since when? I mean a collective form, not some random guy sitting in his little hut is 1000BC wondering when Jesus is going to get here. Also, can you practivce absitnence? How can you practice something that you don't do, right?
Atheism is more appropriate than agnosticism

"Religion and God is in no way scientific." I did not claim that Religion is scientific. I claimed that the existence of God is a hypothesis. That I am sitting in front of my laptop is also a hypothesis (which I highly believe in) It has nothing to do with science, but about beliefs and knowledge. My argument is intended at agnostics not at religious people. I think that Stephen Colbert is right saying "Agnostics are atheists without balls"... they are too afraid to follow the their argument to the end. Which is atheism is a epistemically superior to agnosticism.
Atheism is more appropriate than agnosticism

Agnosticism comes from greek gnosis meaning knowledge and 'a' meaning no therefore meaning no knowledge. Now given that we have a possiblity to know about the world but that all our knowledge is fallible, that means that we can only have degrees of belief in our believes. We believe highly in good theories about the world and have low degrees of belief in bad theories. Although all statements that we now believe are wrong could in the future turn out to be true, we have a low degree in belief in them. Newton's theory has been superseded by Einstein's therefore we have a low degree of belief in this theory. A low degree of belief (or prior probability to use a term from bayesian epistemology) means that we have a high degree of belief in its falsity. The belief in God is a very bad theory. Therefore we are justified in having a low degree of belief in it. Therefore we can assume that God does not exist. Therefore atheism is a better hypothesis than agnosticism, that claims that we have no way of knowing about God (or that our prior probability of God's existence is 0.5.
Walter White (Pro) Vs Rick Grimes (Con)

This guy is trying to rap but his sht is really weak All my lines are off the top of my head, and now your feeling the heat Rick grimes is just another btch azz popo When he let herschel and lauri die, the only thing we could think of is you mad bro? Naw look he's mad right now wishin he could see that dead btch so bad right now I spit the truth and let that sht ring loud and true It only takes a few seconds for me to metaphorically cook and smoke you Your actually think your wife wanted you back Rick? The second she thought you were dead she blew your best friends Dik Sure mine slept with her boss but do you think that sht actually phases me? I got millions in my bank account, I make 100 times your salary. Talk about your pistol btch, I have got my loyal glock Ill put a cap in your knee, bend you over and make you snort crack off my cok I am the king of drugs, I am the definition of insanity. Your just so weak azz cop that could not save his own family. I died for my family to live rick, that is what real men do I guess that makes me jesus, so consider this bible school He is about to cry now Missing his dead wife so bad he wants to kill himself so bad right now I am the epitome of the word father rick, lean back and take a lesson I hope you took a few notes, and learned something from this session I am Heisenberg, I am a God so when I say this is over it is done Lets all remember of the moral of the story, this btch let his family die because he is just washed up bum
Walter White (Pro) Vs Rick Grimes (Con)

Hold up, you say I don't know the meaning of fear? Your arrogance makes you sound ike a five year old queer. Dear, Walter the assalter, at least wife wanted me back so shut your trap. Yours f*cked her boss, I'll toss you away like trash and you'll feel the back lash of the crash Bi*ch. I save lives, you seek to lie, cry and make people die. I could kill you in an now. Don't be so fuc*in stupid to ask how. I'll shove my pistol up your a$$ and shoot you and steal your loot. I didn't knw it was that easy to kill the root of a show. Especially after your wife probably blew her boss and you can even ask good ol' Jack Frost.
Walter White (Pro) Vs Rick Grimes (Con)

This fukin cop probably thinks he is really niceI am going to take him to my lab and cook him, you can call him my blue iceI am your daddy btch, So i am just going to pretend your name is finnI am going to slap your azz so hard you are going to be seeing your dead wife againEvery time you see carl hurt you always shed a tearWell when this battle is over you are going to know the meaning of the word fearI am going to break you down chemically because it is my professionTake a back seat btch because now class in sessionThe teachers at the front of the room so it is time to listen upThat time shane boned your wife, she moaned like a little slutNow she’s dead and that sht is all in the pastBut now matter how much you want Rick, time aint never going to turn back. They call me a meth head but you talk to the deadThis isn’t the xfiles btch, your dead wife cant give you headYou killed 100 zombies that are fukin stupid and slowI buried the king of cartel in the back of an old country roadWhen your comparing me and you, its really not closeIm fukin Heisenberg btch and I smoked your wifes ashes like they were dopeAfter I smoked them a bit, I baked them into my methI passed them to pinkman and he took a shot of her nextAfter she passed through his system, he took one more small hitThen he went to the toilet, and sht her out like a brickNow she is lost and forever goneYou wont see her again, even if you smoke on that bongThis Cop is dead and washed upI am going make him my btch, just like shane did to his little slutIt is time for me to end this battle hereI am going to feed this btch to the walkers, then sit back and drink a beer
Walter White (Pro) Vs Rick Grimes (Con)

This is goanna be funYo, Yo, Walter White cooks meth, he's not above the rest. He's scum, a bum, a kingpin of jail, won't make bail, he failed. He died, no one cried. Rick kills walkers, Walter's just a talker. Rick saved lives, Walter accepts bribes selling drugs, looking like a diseased slug. He is a supplier, a liar with his pants on fire and in diar need of a shrink he is a freak geek.
It can not be scientifically proven that a particular individual possesses conciousness.

==--Rebuttals/Closing Argument "My opponent is relying on an assumption, not a logical proof. " My opponent is correct; however I am not relying on my assumptions, but rather my opponent's. In my opponents first round, he states, "Although we each individually know we are self-aware/posses consciousness. .. " In this statement, he assumes that self-awareness exists and that an individual knows whether or not he/she is self-aware. Instead of challenging these assumptions, I am accepting them. By accepting them, it creates a set of qualifications which I am using as my proof: - I experience "being" (or existence) => I am self-aware (or I posses consciousness) This statement can be then translated into various persons: - (You/He/She/They) experience "being" => (You/He/She/They) (is/are) self-aware (or posses consciousness) This simple logic flow then only needs one last component, experience. Based upon the assumptions my opponent provided and I accepted, a person only need to experience "being" or "existence" to be considered self-aware. To prove a person to be self-aware through empirical study, a researcher must simply select candidates at random for a blind study where participants are asked whether or not they experience being. If that question proves to be difficult, additional questions or tests may be added to aid the individual in making their determination. Based upon the simple logic flow and the empirical study, it could be scientifically proven that an individual does in fact posses consciousness or is self-aware.
It can not be scientifically proven that a particular individual possesses conciousness.

My opponent is relying on an assumption, not a logical proof. One can assume that some person posesses concsciousness but that has nothing to with proving that one posesses consciousness. It is impossible to know that an organism (or individual) has an internal experience, or a sense of being. It is outside of empirical study. In other words, it does not follow: I have an experience of "being". I am human. All humans have an experience of "being".