BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God exists only in the heads of men

Now this is getting interesting. You have stated that religion and God act to comfort people. When people are in pain or suffer, they can rely on the comfort of this entity. No. Especially when they are suffering do they place their trust in this 'God'. This is clearly escapism on a mass scale. To quote Marx, "Religion is the opium of the masses". On the other side religion requires a great bit of will. For someone without a cause in life, they can be motivated by the thought of a great judge awaiting them in death. Such fear will force them to strive or do deeds of good. Religion is very beneficial tool, as it can both strike fear into the masses, and encourage them to follow a strict set of rules. Rules that eventually become known as morality. Death is another interesting topic that I could go into. But without any true knowledge beyond speculation, I won't. All I know is that in death, we're buried with our family or friends. If we wish, we can visit a shrine and reflect on what our time with them was like. Or on days of memorial, we can even sit and enjoy a nice family meal at their grave/tomb. Now we move on to morality again. What defines a good person? In the current, a good person is someone who follows the Golden Rule. Treat others as you wish to be treated. But this has not always been what a good person was considered. In the name of the God, people have been killed, villages have been burned, women have been raped and sold, and entire races have been 'purified'. In the end of the day, these people are widely considered good. Lusting for children is considered evil now, but some religious figures likely married children and teens. Sex outside of marriage is considered a sin (I agree with your stance on this matter), yet Jesus was borne from a man who wasn't even Mary's husband. I will also make an honorable mention of Justin Beiber. People also use the bible to excuse the use of slurs. To conclude: Religion is simply a tool used to control the masses and to justify people's actions. God is nothing more than a chess piece in the fantasy.
God exists only in the heads of men

First of all you make some very good points. There are very religious people that do in a way waste their lives trying to please God by waiting until marriage for...certain things and so on. Many religious people are stuck in a bubble and are not wiling to explore the world around them, consider other possibilities and accept that the world is much larger than one religion. At the same time religion helps people a lot. People with religion have a connection to their god and to other people who share their religion. They have a community of other believers (not that you can't have that outside of religion) and religion conforts them. In times of stress and fear they pray which helps them not feel alone. Also with religion you can look forward to seeing dead loved ones instead of accepting that you'll never see them again. You believe that death is not the end and that there is a nother journey waiting for you. Religion also encourages people to do good things like help other people and animals. The soul. The soul is very hard to explain. A body is a vessel or house for the soul. A soul is a being that has no beginning and no end. Souls live inside a human and expirience emotional pain but not physical pain. Most souls are good and the body's they live in do good things and are good people. Some souls are misguided and the people they live in are not bad people but are ill and do bad things. Some souls are bad and the body's they live in will do terrible things. I don't know why god lets bad things happen to good people. That's a question I'll ask him when I go to heaven. Is having your femur broken really the worse pain you can feel? Ouch it sounds painful. It's important to remember while god can control things he has given people free wil to do things as their brain and soul want. Sometimes these things are horrible. I don't know why God doesn't stop these tragedies but at the same time it's important to remember that he didn't force anyone to do anything bad. Some might even say that the devil did. The world is a scary place. There are bugs, diseases, scary animals and fires. There's pain and war. At the same time there's many good things like love. There's a reason that humans to through this in earth. Remember that all good people to to heaven after their death and expirience happiness and peace. Even though there's suffering now on earth it will all end when you die and go to heaven. If your a bad person than hull go to help and suffer. It will all come together in the end. Thanks for the debate.
God exists only in the heads of men

Thanks the debate. I will argue that God exists, not just in the heads of men but in real life. By God I mean a loving, powerful and wonderful being that has no beginning and no end. God is a being that can control and do anything and listens to everyone's prayers to him. He watches over us all and he cares for everyone no matter what their race, ethnicity or religion is. I look forward to this debate. Thanks for starting this debate.
God exists only in the heads of men

I looked over your previous argument on the topic and decided to revive it. For the purpose of this argument, I request we leave figures such as Yama and beings such as the Olympians out. This debate will revolve around the traditional interpretation of god as one being above all others. This debate will begin with an opening from both sides, rebuttals second, and finishing with our closing statements. Best of luck winning. Now I restate my side! God was created by man and is not their creator!
Evolution cannot account for irreducible complexity

I would also like to note that when I stated he was making half-truths and non-truths about factual claims, I was not attacking his person. If someone says “the sun is blue,” and then you say “the sun isn’t blue, it’s actually yellow. What you’ve said is wrong. ” That’s not a personal attack. My opponent made many such factual errors and I pointed them out. I have shown that evolution can explain the creation of irreducible systems. Throughout the debate, I provided three evolutionary mechanisms that can lead to irreducibly complex systems: (1) scaffolding; (2) incremental addition; and (3) co-option. I established how these changes could be beneficial and selected for by natural selection, and I provided examples of irreducible systems that had evolved – such as the PCP degradation system. My opponent’s counterarguments to these evolutionary mechanisms lacked factual basis, and I showed as much. Even when I flatly refuted his claims, he continued to repeat that it could not be possible. I will leave it to the reader to decide whose claims were factually based and whose were not. Remember, both PRO and CON shared the burden of proof. My burden was to provide evolutionary explanations for the development of irreducibly complex systems. My opponent’s burden was to provide evidence that evolution could not create irreducibly complex systems. You should vote for who you believe did a better job of presenting arguments for their specific position. Thanks to my opponent and the readers!
Evolution cannot account for irreducible complexity

It is unfortunate that GreenTeas continues on an attack on my person. You also brings up new arguments, which, due to the rules, I am unable to refute! For conclusion, I would like to state that you have been shifting the goalposts of bacteria flagellum, you includes parts of the functions of the flagellum that were clearly not IC. This you have shown most clearly and glaringly in the previous round. For your arguments against the blood clotting system, when you found out mice didn"t support you, instead of conceding, you cited a totally new animal, the jawless fish, and expect me to refute that in this round. For your first argument, you have not refuted any of my points, you just restate yourself in different ways. For your second argument, you totally ignore your previous rounds, where you stated "a mutation may occur in part A that causes it catalyze reactions faster..." This "A" I considered to be the enzyme, and I refuted this idea. Not willing to concede, you run off in another direction and claim I have not addressed your arguments! For your third argument, I read your source. It was three pages long on my computer, maybe format. Notice that the authors always qualify their statements with "possibly," "maybe," "likely." They don"t have experimental evidence and are imposing their worldview on the study. I have shown that your arguments contradict themselves and cannot be used as a valid argument. R2:"detailed evolutionary explanations" for my arguments exist, where?
Evolution cannot account for irreducible complexity

Here I will give GreenTeas a chance to restate his accusations as found in http://www.debate.org... Irreducible complexity: The theory that if a part of an apparatus, such as a mouse trap, is removed, the whole apparatus loses its ability to perform that function. Also see for a more comprehensive explanation: http://www.idthefuture.com... Evolution: Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift that results in the formation of all living species from single celled organisms due to the increase in genetic information resulting in new genes. Specifically, GreenTeas must show how irreducible complexity is explainable by evolution I must show how irreducible complexity is inexplicable by evolution Both debaters must show their case to be within the bounds of reasonable probability. Rules 1. BoP is shared 2. No trolling/vulgarities 3. No plagiarism 4. All sources must be cited in the comments section 5. No arguments in the comment section Debate structure 1. Acceptance 2. Opening statements 3-4. Arguments and rebuttels 5. Closing statement. No more than 1.5k characters
The idea of god and the teachings of religion are superstitious and show discrimination and cruelty

Thank you, likewise. Note: When I speak of "God" I mean in a hypothetical sense. I would like to start off by reiterating and explaining the title in more depth. I believe that Religion is a basis for unfairness, discrimination, and is allegedly led by who I believe to be an unjust, cruel superstitious figure who cannot boast for a shred of evidence to back up his existence. The Bible, for example, holds many elements of a discriminative and immoral nature. (Please correct me if there is a problem with my referencing, I may be slightly paraphrasing) E.g. 1: Luke 14 :26-27 26, "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27, And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple". What a horrible, selfish statement from god. That even if our family (parents) have created us and shown us a huge amount of love, we must reject them for a man in the sky who if exists, we cannot see, hear or feel; who conclusively allows the world to undergo such hardship; who allows for death on a great scale; who doesn't answer peoples prayers who need it the most etc. Yet it's okay because he is "god". If there is a god then he better start acting like one instead of demonstrating such an abuse of power. E.g 2: Leviticus 20:13 "If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." This shows immorality on a great scale. From this I deduce that if a man sleeps with another man I assume he will be sent to hell as otherwise this would be a contradiction of god's own words and he would be rewarding the man. I understood it as god is the supposed creator with a plan for us all; who owns us and can do what he wants with us, in a literal sense. If this is true then why did he make homosexuality exist in the world? So that he had some people to pick on? I don't understand that a homosexual man can be condemned to hell for sleeping with a man yet a priest can rape a little boy and still be sent straight to heaven. Putting the hypothetical talk behind, there is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of a god. There's a good quote that "Religion is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance". Evolution is a FACT, which disproves the Bible version of creation. Myths such as Noah's ark are logically impossible. Once people thought gods made it rain, threw down lightning, made the crops grow etc. We factually know that this is nonsense. Many Christians believe that the Earth is 10,000 years old but we know this to be just not true. Bible says that the Earth does not move and that it is the Sun which moves but yet again Science has PROVEN otherwise. The list goes on... but that is all I wanted to say for this round. I look forward to hearing your response
users under 18 using Facebook

No need to apologize, I hope you get everything you need completed. I will re-iterate and show some of my key points and hope you can see my point of view. A Facebook account is a gateway to the whole Internet. It's impossible to isolate yourself or your account from the rest of the world (internet), links and simple click on ads are everywhere. If you think your sibling , child, friend, cousin, etc... is too young to explore the Internet unless supervised or cannot be trusted to remain within the Facebook environment, then a Facebook account is a very bad idea. Beware of friends of friends or sexual predators. Often times it's not your friends that are the problem, it's friends of friends. When you accept a friend request, make sure you check out their page and their list of friends. (If you are friends with someone, you need to be careful with your page too!) And in my opinion Facebook addicted students are not among popular students who take part in sports and in other Highschool or College and or University events. Facebook users love the site because they can run their social lives through it, and because they can present themselves to the world in the way they wish to be seen (fakebook). This huge attraction has it's dark sides. While a user can say anything they like about themselves, others can say anything they don't like about them. Cyberbullying is a problem no one knows how to fix. Children have always dealt with feuds and social isolation (you can fight a bully in person, how do you on the web?), but now those can happen publicly and indelibly. It's hard enough for teens to deal with this, it's really too cruel to expose younger ones too. Bullying only affects a few we all think, but everyone is affected by Facebook essential disregard for human emotions. The constant need to manage one's image, and the underlying sense of social competition the site creates. Last week I sat on a train next to a woman on the cell phone who spent almost 30minutes complaining to her mom about how dumb her friends' boastful updates and online conversations made her feel. Big "revelation people" people don't confess sadness and loneliness on Facebook, as they do to real friends, and that can make a teenager and all of us unhappier as we assume that other people's lives are more successful and fun than our own. Image and become to the realization that what goes on Facebook can be there forever and passed along to the world to ridicule you endlessly. Pictures or statements that look cool to your peer group today could be horribly compromising in the future. It's ridiculous to expect young children to be making sophisticated judgments about the effects of what they release online. And that's even before we get to the pedophile issue, which I will not discuss. Children might want this,but they're not ready for it. They need protection. Thanks for the Debate!! Cheers to the future to all!!!! Goodluck!
users under 18 using Facebook

I waited to respond to give my opponent some extra time from a busy weekend, and including myself, it's a lot of work and writing papers etc... Back to the topic at hand. I haven't really touched on personal information as a another deterrent. When people first create a new Facebook account, and it asks you for all of your personal information such as your address, phone number, and email, people don't usually think before submitting in the information. This is dangerous for kids and an easy way for a person to stalk you because they now know a lot about you, and how to contact you. Of course you can hide your profile and limit the access to certain people, but its not really the same once you submit the information. Even though Facebook has an age restriction, people on the internet lie about their age and decide to make an account anyways. Sometimes kid's parents know what's best and when they tell their kids that Facebook is not a safe networking site to be on, people go right ahead and make it anyways and sneak around on it hoping not to get caught. It is also dangerous because other people can see it. Kids also add random people that might stalk them so there is the danger of being stalked by a stranger. Kids can get cyber bullied online by their friends from school or a stranger. There is the risk that anyone can see your profile and all you picture and do something with those pictures of you. I think that the age you should have Facebook is at age 18 and on, because I think you are old enough to know all the dangers of online accounts. There are way more examples I can give, but these are a few that are the most important. My little cousin says he cannot focus on homework and other school activities that are done on the computer and get's sidetracked onto Facebook and doesn't get work done. Another way to try and prevent many issues is to have facebook verify with parents its under-age use .Facebook is harmful for children of all ages.They are unaware of its dangers and can easily become prey. Also, children might unwillingly or unknowingly disclose information about their lives and this could result in physical harassment.Parents try to protect their children from explicit contents and on facebook that is impossible.I am aware that children are exposed to all sorts of inappropriate behavior on a daily basis, both through media and Internet. Unfortunately, that cannot be controlled, but their access to facebook can.Many children already have accounts, some even with parental permission.I believe that if children must have accounts it should be with maximum parental supervision.I am not a parent, but I have used Internet since I was six and have been a facebook user since the age of 13. I have had unpleasant experiences with many social networks and chat rooms(surely you must think those aren't places for children, but I was curious, as any child is) I must say the idea of facebook is fantastic, but facebook itself is often abused
users under 18 using Facebook

Thanks for your response. My opponent cited a study which a Doctor Underwood stated that the activities posted in FB are for everyone to see and therefore a bad thing. Not really, since anyone can edit their privacy settings. Facebook, like other social netwoking sites have upsides and downsides. Users may receive positive or negative feedback from others. But does that mean that we should totally ban them to teens? Again, no. I stated that FB can be used for educational purposes, my opponent refuting that statement by saying we have other references like the library is irrelevant. My opponent believes that FB made people more physically distant and gives people a false sense on getting better socially and makes people more closed minded. Since my no sources and accurate references were cited here and it's a he-says-she-says, let me start by introducing the study of the Pew Internet & American Life Project, where they stated that social networking sites helped 60 million people on major life issues via contacting friends and experts online. (http://socialnetworking.procon.org...) Also, according to the National School Board Association, 59% of students use social networking sites for educational purposes. This highly supersedes my opponent's assumption that teens only use social networking sites for negative stuffs. (http://socialnetworking.procon.org...) Bottomline, my opponent just repeated her argument which I already previously refuted. Again, just because FB may harm its users does not mean we should affect the majority. Sorry for it being short, really busy IRL. No time to write.
users under 18 using Facebook

Thanks for responding. I think you are missing the obvious point before my conclussion. You say it is used by yourself to communicate with family because a trip to see them would be too costly and not practical. That is true and understandable. We have skype and e-mail for that. But let me not go off track. Facebook studies are still underway and we will know the truth eventually. Some studies I have found show some serious side effects for teens. An article I read by Dr. Marion Underwood (leading the study of digital teen communication) she says that "Facebook communication are lacking, the structure of Facebook has the potential to provide great social satisfaction but also painful social rejection," "Facebook allows users to customize an online profile with information about relationships, activities, likes and dislikes, and numerous photographs, all of which are visible and available for comments posted by others for all to see. Comments can be positive but also negative. Also Facebook can also be used for intentional, public bullying," she said. "Facebook users can post negative remarks on others' walls or make hurtful comments about others' pictures that can be viewed by all of that person's friends." What I'm trying to get at is that teen years are fragile time in the growth cycle of life. You say you use Facebook for news and updates, reference and educational purposes. That is called a computer or library, and TV to most of us. I believe Facebook has actually made people more distant physically because it hurts a your ability to communicate effectively in person and relate. Isn't it a whole hell of a lot easier to stand up for a cause by joing a group than stating your point of view on a website for your friends and family to see. Social networking sites give people a false sense of being intimate, confident and independent. It has also made people less rounded or equipped with the qualities to use our ability to filter our influences. In such a controlled environment people don't have the experiences that really help you form a sound opinion and communicate effectively. If someone offends you with their comment (no matter if it's true are not) you can easily ignore it and move on to the next one. Social Networking sites have made people more closed minded. I would not completely ban the youth from Facebook but make the user meet or fit to more stringent criteria. Thanks and good luck! Next round is the second to last TKO!!