BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
atheism=a religion, like an opposing religion

Since my opponents argument is based solely on the claim that disbelief and lack of belief are different, which does not affect my case in any way, let me define some terms with sources provided. Disbelief- mental rejection of something as untrue[1] Belief- a strong feeling that something/somebody exists or is true[2] Atheism- a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods[3] Agnostic- one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god[4] Religion- the service and worship of God or the supernatural [5] As is obvious, Atheists do not have a belief in God, which means they have a lack of belief or disbelief. Obviously if you do not believe in God, you do not worship or service him. By definition, religion is the service and worship of God. If Atheists (and Agnostics) don't do either of these two, it creates a paradox of both definitions if Atheism were to be considered a religion. These two definitions contradict each other, and in that case, it would be unthinkable to consider them the same as you are (I assume, since you have made no argument) proposing. Also, my opponent's only remark on the subject is complete and utterly false. As was made known in the legitimate definition of the word, Agnostics are unsure if a God exist. Atheists do not believe that a God exists. This is the exact opposite of what you said. Your quote, "agnostic is the lack of belief position on such claims". Reread the two definitions and now tell me which is which. Disbelief, mental rejection of something as untrue. Obviously, if you reject the belief and label it as untrue, you do not have belief! This means you have a lack of belief. This conclusion proves that both of your two claims are false, and also proves how atheism is the opposite of religion, which logically means that it is not and should not be a religion. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com... [3] https://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] https://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] https://www.merriam-webster.com...
atheism=a religion, like an opposing religion

In no way, shape or form is atheism a religion. Atheism is a lack of religion. Religion- the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods Atheism- disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods As you can see the two definitions completely contradict each other. Atheism is the exact opposite of a religion, so your argument that atheism= a religion is false.
Equality of opportunity by law shall be held to a higher degree than Equality of outcome

Since it's Pro who holds the burden of proof (BoP) in this debate, I won't bring up many things here as I am entitled to force all creativity onto Pro.I am going to explain a simple concept that will win me this debate:You can't measure equality of opportunity without ensuring equality of outcome.At first it sounds like some left-wing rhetoric that I am speaking which really holds no ground but it isn't. You can't ensure that everyone is truly having equal chance to make it in this world without measuring if they, on average, have equal outcome across the races, ages, genders and whatever other methods there are of comparing people by attributes that they can't help but have (and even ones they can help having like religion and transgender transitions).If one group is consistently doing worse than another and by all measurements appears to have equal opportunity, you then need to investigate why they are doing worse. If you can't see any signs that they have less of a rate of attempting to succeed at the said thing, you then need to force corporations and other opportunity-providers to legally meet certain quotas as clearly there is a bias they are not openly admitting to have that's holding back the chances of the said group succeeding.Let me explain what I mean here. Just because on a surface level it would appear that a Nigerian, Indian and French foreign student in USA have equal chances of getting into university or even a Nigerian-ethic US-national and the other 2 as US nationals have equal chances, you cannot say they truly have equal opportunity if the ones who choose who gets in and who doesn't get in are silently biased and the only way of knowing if that level of ensuring equality is equality of outcome vs the portion of them in the population then, while not perfect, that's the best way you can ensure equality of opportunity.Physical chance to make it is not the entire equation to actual equality in opportunity. Equality of opportunity in the mental bias in the mind of those hiring people as well as those choosing who gets promoted within organisations is only measurable by equality of outcome when you compare how many make it in that industry or corporation vs the portion of the population that group is and how many of them are showing indication to be trying to make it at the industry etc.In summary, you can only measure true equality of opportunity by actual equality of outcome relative to those trying to take advantag eof siad opportunity in each sebset that you can compare bias between. This results in it being wrong to hold equality of opportunity above equality of outcome and instead correct to hold equality of outcome as the ultimate measurement of equality (including of opportunity). The left wing is actually superior to the right-wing of this world in fairness and that's something I am sick of Conservatives denying with their bullying and calling us 'snowflakes'.
Equality of opportunity by law shall be held to a higher degree than Equality of outcome

In a World where governments seem to become ever so reliant on the concept of promoting Equality of Outcome through varying preferential policies such as Affirmative Action and Race or Gender quotas, I believe it is of our best interest to adhere to policies that encourage for the practice of Equality of Opportunity by Law. I personally would like to further stress the fact that we are morally obligated to combatting federally enforced preferential policies that result in the forced proportional representation of ethnic groups within a certain field of employment. Trudeau's attempt at creating an 'equal' work force of 50% Men and 50% women serves as one of many examples of a false ideology (One with good intentions) that subjugates those qualified for certain positions to exclusion and one which will inevitably hamper the society for which we live in. For I see no reason at all, for the prioritization of an attribute by which we have absolutely no control over. For we are created equal under the eyes of the Constitution, and be bless with equal treatment of opportunity. Of course, Affirmative Action is just one of thousands of examples used for discussing the nature of equality and equity. I encourage whoever chooses to argue against my position within a civil debate, to propose further examples that coincide with the topic of this debate.
Equality of opportunity by law shall be held to a higher degree than Equality of outcome

You will notice that nowhere in Pro's Round 2 has Pro explained how we can objectively weigh opportunities one person has against that of another. He also admits we can't get inside the head of someone hiring and definitiviely know their bias without measuring outcome but then says we can't measure outcome to determine it (wrong).Let's put it like this, it's true that a particular race, gender or any other group may coincidentally be a lot less determined to succeed at a particular field than another. They may even be less capable at that field than another group. If this is the reason there's such a huge disparity in outcome between them, if the reason that in the end so many more Ghettos are full of blacks or a particular group in a nation than others is they genuinely don't work hard enough or competently enough to deserve to get out we can only know that by first taking into account and first evaluating equality in outcome. After we do this, we then can think whether or not it's due to laziness or opportunity being unequal.You can't ever know for certain that there is equality in opportunity if you don't first consider equality in outcome as the ultimate source of information to determine it and compare the equality of input to equality of outcome for what the race achieves versus how often they try to enter a career, college or really anything at all.
Evolution is more likely than creation

That's understandable and I apologize I meant to put in 48 hours. On to the debate 1. What we have in common Evidence of evolution can be found throughout the fossil record and even in our own human anatomy today and one of the most prominent examples being that when a human fetus is in development it has a tail. As the fetus progresses the tail recedes farther into our bodies until it is only visible by x-ray. This feature is called the coccyx commonly known as the tail bone. The two images below show a human tailbone compared to that of a monkey. While our tails are pulled up into our bodies during the fetal stage a monkeys tail continues to extend. The third picture shows a human tail compared to a gorillas. Much like ours the gorillas tail also recedes into their bodies but not to the extent ours do. We share 98.8 of the same DNA as chimps and another ape called the bonobo. That' less than a 2% difference! When we look back at the fossils of early man you can literally see the steps in their development. In the fossil record early man started out hunched over much like a monkey and over millions of years they began to walk more and more erect until they became known as modern man. http://www.evolutionevidence.org... http://27.media.tumblr.com... http://www.gutenberg.org... http://www.google.com... http://news.sciencemag.org... http://www.bradshawfoundation.com... 2. Problem with creationism The bible is the driving force behind creationism and is almost entirely the only form of proof that can be used in the creation theory. There is a critical lack of physical evidence to prove the theory of creationism as well as a list of contradictions in the bible that hinder its credibility. Creationism is a theory based off of faith with little to no science backing its claims. The bible reaches back for thousands of years while fossils can be dated back to over 65million years and yet the bible claims that the earth is less than 7000 years old. Since the book is the foundation of creationism its credibility must be examined. There is a long list of contradictions and if such "evidence" were to be presented in a court of law it could not be deemed reliable. When a witness gives two different versions of what is supposed to be the same story they lose their credibility. http://infidels.org... http://bridavis.chickenfactory.net...
Evolution is more likely than creation

Apologies I had forgotten of your time restraints. I had anticipated the "missing gap" tactic to be used its almost always in the form of "wheres the half fish half man thing" Evolution is something that takes place at a snails pace over millions of years and it is driven primarily by the predators and the environment. Species adapt to gain the advantage over another and so in turn they are in an evolutionary race for survival. One smoking gun for evolution is our own fossil records. Different stages of our evolution can be found through different layers of the sediment and are carbon dated to be different ages. Meaning they were spread out over vast periods of time. Take the adrenal glands for example: These are important in a life or death situation but not so much for every day life. Thousands of years ago we were in danger of being eaten by some predator so we were pumped full adrenaline in order to react to the dangerous situation. As far as the big bang theory Im not so sure its true or not. I'm not suggesting that evolution is 100% accurate but I do believe it to be more so than creation. Cells have been shown to evolve so they can survive in extreme conditions one prime example is a virus. We can find a cure for it but then it mutates into something we were unprepared for. It is the same virus but with a new variation in its make up.
Evolution is more likely than creation

I did warn you this would happen. my schedule is incredibly hectic, but I'm here now so, let's assume I'm not for creationism, I'm just disproving evolutionism, you mentioned fossils, but have you ever noticed the fossil records have massive gaps called "missing links", and why have they never been found? If you have ever seen a giraffe,you know they have long necks, but do you know how complex that neck is? When they stand most animals would die because they can't pumps blood from their heart to their brain because of gravity and the distance. The giraffes heart is so large it can, and what about when it say, bends over. The blood would rush to its brain and its brain would literally explode. So what's it gonna do, "maybe I should evolve something to fix that problem?" It has a special valve in its neck that stoops the flow when it bends down. Can you imagine that evolving without dying out? And as for the gorilla and human, did a dog evolve from a wolf? Did a seal evolve from a fish? Looking similar and having similar DNA does not mean you evolved from them. You share the same DNA and look with your identical twin, but you aren't your twin now are you? And if the earth has been here for millions of years, how is it that our limited resources haven't run out yet? And if your a Big Bang supporter, you believe that a particle collision created life. If I smash two rocks together, do I get a city? Or if you believed overtime that one cell turned into everything, how did that feel suddenly become alive, know which organs to evolve to survive, and managed to form multicellular organisms? That's all for this round.
man loves woman out of compulsion, not out of necessity

I do agree that there is an obvious need for reproduction however for man or any animal to reproduce love isn't considered necessary and lust will do. And also about the revealing feelings part, i think the debate is about man loving woman regardless of the woman's acceptance or knowledge. I do accept that human beings are social and need others but man can have men as friends,etc. One can also argue that the feeling of needing someone is an evolutionary gimmick which makes us come together to perform a rudimentary duty. As to families with the high divorce rates, etc larger stable families are a thing of the past. They are social compulsions which many are breaking by liberal relationships such as live in relationships, etc. finally I would like to quote a great man " immature love says I love you because I need you. Mature love says I need you because I love you." - erich fromm. It was great fun debating with you, truth seeker. I may find myself compulsed to debate with you again. I rest my case. Please vote lots and fairly and impartially!
man loves woman out of compulsion, not out of necessity

while i agree, women do not need a relationship and we have evolved to do well being independent, however humanity needs relationships or otherwise, we wouldn't survive. We have not outgrown the need for reproduction. No matter what method we have, even if it's artificial insemination, women need men and men need women. These methods cost alot and not everyone can afford them. You shouldn't just consider physical aspects of it, but also the social,emotional, and societal importance of relationships. Having relationships structures our society, creates families, creates fathers, sons, mothers, daughters, helps the human race thrive in their jobs and lives. In that sense, we "need" relationships. I have fallen in love before. My affections for another person were not voluntarily and beyond my control, i can say that, but i could choose whether to reveal my feelings for them and to make the relationship work. It was an irresistible urge beyond my conscious desires and yes, i found out their image were against my wishes, but sometimes, i feel i probably somehow cannot survive alone in the world. In that sense, it's a "need."
man loves woman out of compulsion, not out of necessity

welcome to the debate, seeker of truth. I accept your definition of love however let me redefine necessity and also compulsion necessity- an indispensable thing or person. here it implies that man loves woman because without that he can't survive. compulsion-an irresistible urge to behave against or differently from one's conscious wishes. now to come to the point of biological compulsion. very few animals display long term fruitful relationships with the opposite sex as humans do and this is a good thing because in our evolutionary past we were bipedals and since the mother couldn't make the baby ride on her back, she had to hold it In her arms. thus she needed a male to protect her from the predators and thus began amorous love. it was an absolute necessity in THOSE days. however when we are so well developed in this age of modernity where as I am sure all civilisation will agree when the woman can take care of herself, the concept of man loving woman no longer becomes a necessity but is a rudimentary compulsion borne out of our violent biological past. now let me bring up a new topic of discussion. I am sure many of the readers of this debate or even you truth seeker must have had a crush or fallen in love. now the question is did you CHOOSE to fall in love with the person? did you CONSCIOUSLY fall in love or was it a sudden event beyond your control that just happened? was it not an irresistible urge DIFFERENT from your conscious wishes so much so that even when you try to concentrate his/her image would appear AGAINST your wishes? referring to my definition of compulsion, I think it's quite clear that love is compulsion not necessity. source of biological point is scientific American magazine.
man loves woman out of compulsion, not out of necessity

I will begin by defining terms: Love - acceptance,appreciation, selfless giving for the benefit of the other person Now as for necessity, i think it's a need based on the desire to feel a close connection with another human being. I think for some people, this would be a need rather than a want. Your right, just because a man and a woman get together and have kids, doesn't mean there is love, however in most cases, love exists. Healthy relationships have commitments which will enable both to raise kids. Thus it is not just a social and biological impulse. Some couples don't want offspring and are still in love.
Special Theory of Relativity, specifically "time dilation" is a sham.

Actually I found a source that will explain the concept for me to anyone who is interested in how time dilation actually works: http://science.howstuffworks.com... It also goes into some detail on the two moving objects. However I would ask that my points that contradict my opponents reasons on why time dilation is a sham be extended. This means that my opponent has not upheld his burden of proving that time dilation is a sham as he has no points to support such premise. Thank you.
Special Theory of Relativity, specifically "time dilation" is a sham.

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for making this debate. It is not very often that this site puts forward a scientific topic. I am going to begin by stating that if you are going to require me to actually explain how time dilation works I am not opposed to doing so, it will just take me a while to reacquaint myself with said concept. Until the time when you require such from me though, I will content myself with simply debunking your point of view. So here goes: The idea of time dilation is rather simple, as ones speed increases time relative to an observer at any speed less than status quo slows. This point can be proven using the train and the track method, which does not require the gods eye observer at all. Scenario in chronological order: 1. A circular train track is built. 2. A train is placed on said track. 3. A man stands at starting point "a" holding a stop watch. 4. A man boards the train at starting point "a" holding an identical stop watch. 5. Both men start their stop watches. 6. The train then accelerates around the track until it gets back to point "a", at which point it stops. 7. The man in the train jumps out and compares his stop watch to the man who was standing next to tracks. This will reveal that the man who was on the train's stopwatch will actually be running slightly behind. This model requires no third, god's eye, and has been empirically proven. An even more drastic example can be seen when astronauts fly into space. Upon their return clocks on board ship will be behind those on earth. I now stand open for my opponents rebuttal.
Special Theory of Relativity, specifically "time dilation" is a sham.

Hello, I am writing a paper on the theory of relativity and am currently researching time dilation. I am having a hard time understanding the time dilation concept and thought that a debate might help my understanding. I hope you have a base understanding of the Train and Track concept before responding. My point of view: The Train and Track concept always uses a third eye view to explain the situation. If an event occurs on the train, it appears to occur at a different time to an observer on the track. (Due to the fact that light has a finite speed) This is often explained using synchronised clocks as vantage points for the event that occurred on the moving train. My argument: The clocks are compared by a third persons 'gods eye' view. An observer who can see the Trains clock, and the tracks clock at the same instant. However, this in itself is a paradox of the time dilation explanation. If one were to move the clocks back together to compare, the act of moving the clocks back together would essentially bring them back to synchronization. So an event that occurred on the moving train that appeared to occur at a different time to the observer on the track did in-fact occur at the same time.