BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is a religion

Now back to business. "However you then introduce the god concept later as "a person or thing of supreme value", but this is no longer a god by most societal definitions. In effect it seems that atheism has at this point been defined as not a religion according to societal definitions. " It was never my intention to define atheism as a religion in any other form than a strictly technical definition for societal definitions differ depending on the society defining them. "This brings me to the second point, if we now define atheism as a religion with the definition as an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group". Then I have no problem to call atheism a religion," My opponent agreed that atheism is a religion based upon one of my definitions of the word. I will continue debating the second definition I have given but it is important to note this agreement. "but it is very important that we realize that atheism now falls outside the scope of other religions, like Christianity, Islam etc. " I agree that atheism would fall outside other religions but still it WOULD be classified as a religion. "In closing, what I and my opponent have shown in this round is that religion can be defined into two groups. Group A which contains atheism, and then group B which contains all other religions. " Again I agree with this. Atheism exists outside other religions but technically still is a religion itself. "Atheism has no tenants which to adhere to, and so to say this is a supreme value is wrong. Atheism does mean non belief. However, it would be wise to rather say atheism is rational non belief, as what atheists believe is backed by rational science and thought. To consider rational thought as worship makes no sense, as it purely is rational thought and not worship of belief. This I do disagree with. All Atheist do follow the tenant of non belief. And not all follow it because of "rational thought" but simply that they don't feel like there is any type of truth in religion. For no other reason then a gut feeling. Similar to other religious followers reasoning for following there religions. Non belief however is required to be an atheist. And therefore I believe it is reasonable to view it as atheist's supreme value.
Atheism is a religion

Thank you for the invite. Firstly, I think it is important to clarify some points you made. You mentioned that belief has two meanings, and while atheism would definitely not be a religion in terms of the second definition "an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods", it could satisfy the first definition. So already atheism falls outside of the god concept, and as we know religion in today's society this is very important. However you then introduce the god concept later as "a person or thing of supreme value", but this is no longer a god by most societal definitions. In effect it seems that atheism has at this point been defined as not a religion according to societal definitions. This brings me to the second point, if we now define atheism as a religion with the definition "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group". Then I have no problem to call atheism a religion, but it is very important that we realize that atheism now falls outside the scope of other religions, like Christianity, Islam etc. There is no God, that is what atheism claims. While atheism is important to me, it is only important as long as irrational thought exists in the world regarding the god concept. If there was no religion in the world atheism would not exist, as there would be no reason to have this view. Lastly and very importantly. You assume that for an atheist there supreme value is non belief. However this is not justified in any means as it is a blanket statement. Atheism has no tenants which to adhere to, and so to say this is a supreme value is wrong. Atheism does mean non belief. However, it would be wise to rather say atheism is rational non belief, as what atheists believe is backed by rational science and thought. To consider rational thought as worship makes no sense, as it purely is rational thought and not worship of belief. In closing, what I and my opponent have shown in this round is that religion can be defined into two groups. Group A which contains atheism, and then group B which contains all other religions. Over to my opponent.
Atheism is a religion

I saw your name so I figured you would be an excellent person to debate this with. Atheism is itself a religion. Religion can be defined as "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group" as well as "an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods" The Atheist "God" would be the god of non belief. This idea of non belief is worshiped for worshiped can be defined as "extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem' The object of esteem in this circumstance is the idea of non belief. This idea does indeed fall under the category of a god by the definition " a person or thing of supreme value" And what to an atheist is the supreme value? Non belief
Whales actually talk English

There is no such thing as a "professional" animal talker, because animal talking requires no skill, because it is, plainly stated, not real. The idea that "any animal is able to summon a vocal cord" breaks all the rules of anatomy, and completely absurd. Much of animals' communication is non-verbal, and even if they do make noise, the structure of the sounds are far from human utterances[1]. Please name five examples where an animal (other than Homo sapiens sapiens) "summoned" a vocal cord -- and the necessary cerebral functions -- to talk, in real life only. Also, the idea that animals are "born already knowing English", or any human language at all, is also ludicrous (whipping out the thesaurus to look up "absurd" now). Human babies are born with the ability to _learn_ a language -- in fact, language acquisition starts from the third trimester of pregnancy[2]. However, that is not the ability to _speak_ a language, since human languages have much too complex sounds, grammar, and structure, and fetuses don't move their mouths in the womb. English is especially known to have complex grammar and pronunciation. Your very, very alleged "evidence" is also preposterous, nonsensical, and irrational. "Flapjack" and "Beached Whale" are clearly both cartoons; perhaps I should explain the existence of voice-overs and animation before I continue, but I hope you're not ridiculous enough to require such an explanation. As for Rambubu Jungli and his book, you still haven't proven to me that what he's saying and what he has written in "his third book 'The Man Beast'" that you so passionately quote from are reliable and he isn't a total croc. He is making an extremely grandiose statement; you, the supporter, must provide proof, as per onus probandi[3]. To conclude this round, I would like to quote Bender from the TV series "Futurama": "Oh wait, you're serious? Let me laugh even harder." [1: http://www.ncvs.org... (Be warned; the entire site is in Comic Sans.) "For many species, much of their communication is non-verbal. For example, apes are very intelligent, but pass along many messages to one another gesturing with their hands, arms and heads." "Most animals do make at least some sounds, but the structures they use aren't necessarily the same as humans have." "Some animals - a good example is the horse - make few voiced noises, but are extremely sensitive to human voices."] [2: http://www.sciencedaily.com...] [3: http://rationalwiki.org...]
Whales actually talk English

I would like to start this off by saying welcome to Debate.org but your time here is going to be hard because as you think I am easy to beat, I am actually quite very hard to dismiss. Now if you were a professional animal talker you would realise that any animal is able to summon a vocal cord on whenever they want. Now I have a masters degree in whales and I have figured out that after the fifth cell in the brain reacts to the calcium build up in the body, the vocal cord is summoned and they are able to talk certain languages like English and German. Now also, all of the evidence that I have provided is actually very very reliable. "The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack" is in fact actually based on a true story and if you have done your research or have your masters degree in whales you will realise that Flapjack is actually based off a flapper jacker, a limited edition whale which is only born once in a million years and these flapper jacker whales actually have the mind of a 10 year old baby. Now secondly I will provide evidence of the beached whale talking with a Kiwi accent. . Rambubu Jungli is a very reliable person as well. This quote that I stated before came right from his third book "The Man Beast". Also you may ask, why English and German? Well because I have completed my masters degree in whales I am able to answer this in simple terms. Without going too far into detail the brain cells and formed in a certain way that they are born already knowing English and acquire German from the certain German sailors that yell out at whales.
Whales actually talk English

The proposition that whales can talk English is, at best, absurd. First of all, whales do not possess a vocal cord or a complex mouth to articulate English (or human) sounds enough to speak a language, much less utter different words, so whatever you propose is inplausible. Every piece of "evidence" you have provided is unreliable. "The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack" is a kids' cartoon show. Going by your logic, every sort of animal that has been shown to talk in any cartoon, and by extension, any children's book, should be able to talk. However, we don't see sponges and starfish talking (Starfish do not have a mouth in which to produce sounds from in the first place.) like in "Spongebob Squarepants". You have not provided a link to the video, so I cannot say anything about it, and neither can you. Rambabu Jungli's claims are unreliable and not backed up; he cannot prove for sure that he can receive information from the birds he "talks" to, and he can send back information to said birds. This has been a good, easy warm-up for the rest of my time on Debate.org. Thank you for the easy topic to disprove and dismiss.
Whales actually talk English

I am debating whether whales can actually talk English or not. I am for this movement because I believe that they talk English very clearly and I have multiple points that can prove you all wrong. My three points begin with the cartoon "The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack", this TV series is about a talking whale and this fairly provides enough information that whales can talk. My second point is a video of a beached whale and he seems to have attained a strong Kiwi accent, this video has been posted on YouTube and it also clearly shows that whales are able to talk. My third point is the man 'Rambabu Jungli', he is able to talk to animals and a quote from his third book "The Man Beast" says that "I met this whale and he spoke to me in proper English, he said, 'How ya goin bro' I replied with my normal conversation and then continued around the world on my voyage of the seven seas to become a man beast". With these three points provided I have shown video footage of a whale talking and a book source of a whale talking English.
Clash of Clans or Boom Beach

First off, Pro failed to respond to my point about how having more choices is better. Rebuttals"Ranking does not always mean that it is the best game for everyone. "What the argument presented meant that since they are both ranked so high, it means many people play both, and thus you can't get rid of one or the other. (It was a comparison of money earned, not subjective ranking) Also this directly contradicts your stance since Clash of Clans is at the top of the chart." Boom Beach does not really attract me that much."It's the choice argument again. This appeals you, but it may not to others. "Clash has had major updates between 2014 and 2105." I think this is a point away from my opponent's conduct for using means of research that can't be proven, such as time traveling. "Although building time is very long in Clash, Boom Beach only has one builder. What can you do with one builder? Barely anything. Clash you can upgrade multiple things at a time which is more convenient. "Refuted this."Plus Clash came out first and then Boom Beach came in."ENIAC came before the iPhone... which came out first is irrelevant. I think my opponent fails to understand that my stance is one is not and can not objectively be proven as better than the other. Rather, have both exist since they are competitors of the same market, neither one superior or inferior.It's "Clash of Clans or Boom Beach" against "Clash of Clans and Boom Beach"Back to you Pro!
Clash of Clans or Boom Beach

I honestly think that Clash is better because:1. Ranking does not always mean that it is the best game for everyone. 2. Boom Beach does not really attract me that much. The updates in Boom Beach are not much while as Clash has had major updates between 2014 and 2105. 3. Although building time is very long in Clash, Boom Beach only has one builder. What can you do with one builder? Barely anything. Clash you can upgrade multiple things at a time which is more convenient. 4. Plus Clash came out first and then Boom Beach came in.
Clash of Clans or Boom Beach

Since this debate is "Clash of Clans or Boom Beach," as Con, I will be advocating for Clash of Clans and Boom Beach.My first argument and rebuttal is about the choices. Having more choices is better since the apps can cater towards a user's preference. You personally prefer this one aspect, but you don't say why it's better in every aspect. I personally like the more modern take, and I believe that we, as consumers should choose. As evidenced by the Itunes, highest grossing chart, they are both in the top 10, showing how people like the choice and its a "good" enough app that people spend their money on it.http://appshopper.com...Back to you Pro!
Science has shown or is about to show that we don't need God as an explanation

I want to debate whether or not science has shown or is on the verge of showing that God isn't needed to explain the universe or that God doesn't exist. In other words, does science show God to be less plausible? Note, this is not a debate about Christianity per se or any other religion. It is a debate about God in general versus science and the discoveries of modern science. BOP is on pro to show that science has shown this, although this is not a matter of definitive proof. Also. this is not a debate over whether God does exist or the merits of the arguments for God's existence itself, only whether science can show the arguments to be flawed. First round make your argument, then we go from there. Thanks
Almost irrefutably, Asexuality exists

Suprisingas it may seem, Asexuals can experience high libido. They can have erections and orgasm from masturbation. They just don't want to do with other humans, Or don't fantasize about other humans. https://www. Omicsonline. Org/open-access/asexuality-dysfunction-or-sexual-orientation-2161-038X-1000185. Php? Aid=76817
Almost irrefutably, Asexuality exists

minus conduct points to con. I said no arguments in round 1. Numerous surveys were conducted interviewing asexuals. About 1% of the population are asexuals. Asexuality is actually now accepted as a sexual orientation in the scientific community. https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Asexuality#cite_note-Helm-2These people truly truly don't want sex. Some have even had sex, Been married for years, And at the end after 40 years still say that sex was nasty. Is it a mental illnesss? Is something wrong with their brain? I don't know. But asexuality does exist. https://www. Huffingtonpost. Com/entry/electrified-and-numb_us_58d018ace4b0e0d348b34624
serbia started th ewar

you know what ... i agree with you... u so good at debating. i give OR DO I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! na i do OR DO I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE DIE serbia DIE DIE DIE
serbia started th ewar

bro sebria are good. Ha got eyyyy, they started the war im with u my man. Mporgan doesnt even folow sebria he is only woth tem bc he likes alexander,. Trolollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollollol
Feminism is ruining video games

Well with the increase of organizations like gamer gate... https://en.wikipedia.org... It is evident that groups like these are influencing the production of the games that we play. There isn't any statistics I can pull up, but we can infer this since the topic of women's depiction in video games has been a hot topic for quite some time. As far as Dragon Age is concerned I will admit I have never played it, but you proved my point by referring to it. Dragon Age is a new intellectual property, with its own lore to create. Now if they want a strong women influence then that is fine, and it is viable. Sure in the Medevil times plenty of women were just as strong as their superiors, so it fits, its not an easy pander option. Its credible But in my example with an established game like Mortal Kombat they just decided to change the story drastically in favour of a female antagonist being the main hero. Now, my issue is not that a women can't be a hero, save the world, etc. But there has to be a viability within the context of the narrative, its what makes something credible. In the Motal Kombat world full of demons and ninjas, the youngest female character has to save the world. The question I ask is why? I know its up to the developers of the game but was it needed for the story, or was it just for the sake of pandering to feminist women who always want a perfect female dominated story? With already established male hero's there were plenty of options to satisfy the fans, and make the game a credible story. As far as the Metal Gear Solid issue ok yes I said her body, not clothing. Still why the controversy over that character? That characters attitude and personality is well represented with what she is wearing, it really isn't any more obscene than Dead or Alive characters. Even in real life women dress like her all the time, rip off pants, tube tops. Female wrestlers wear that type of garment, so why is it even an issue? Its only an issue because feminist women are insecure, and that personal emotion bring the value down of the game. Imagine if every game had to politically pander to a certain group, then stories won't be interesting, and lose the creativity and imagination that games are know for. Mainly what I am saying is that feminist feel entitled to point out characters that they deem inappropriate, but the majority of gamers, and even society, don't agree with their values. The opinions of the least common denominator takes precedence over the majority of fans of the medium.