BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All Agnostics are also Atheists

Honesty is the best policy. I will slightly revise a typo that I’ve made above. Gnosticism = knowledge. This more accurately, coherently and more honestly reflects my previous position… As I’ve said, an atheist is one who does not believe[1][2][3][4][5][6]. And agnostic is one who does not know[7][8]. But if you do not know X, you don’t believe in it. You wouldn’t know what to believe in this case. “…an atheist…is "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings"”First, my opponent has arbitrarily distinguished between disbelief and unbelief. The prefixes “dis-” and “un-” are synonymous[9][10]. They both signify ‘not’. Nothing exists to suggest that one is active and the other not. Second, my opponent has equivocated ‘deny’ and ‘disbelief’. Denial is necessarily active[11], disbelief is not[9]. Third, my opponent fails to see that there can be two types of atheists. Even his own definition states: “denies or disbelieves”. This implies the disjunctive (“or’) as used in the weak inclusive sense. Thus, the commonality to being an atheist is that one does not believe, which I have stated. My opponent, however, has actually abused far more definitions in supporting his case. “…there is the person who believes that there is no god. This person is atheist. ”In the narrow sense, this person would also be considered atheist. But as I have shown, it is much broader than this…“…there is the person who neither believes nor disbelieves in god and gods. ”Irrelevant. Either you believe or not. Knowing or (not knowing) does not interfere nor exclude one from this dichotomy. This disjoint is to be rejected due to incoherence. Thank you and I thank my opponent for his rebuttals. Sources:[1] Atheism: . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] Groiler’s Encyclopedia of Knowledge: Atheism[3] Kai Nielsen: Atheism[4] Paul Edwards: Atheism[5] Williams L. Rowe: Atheism[6] Austin Cline: Buddha and Atheism: . http://atheism.about.com... [7] Agnosticism: . http://en.wikipedia.org...[8] Groiler’s Encyclopedia of Knowledge: Agnosticism[9] Dis- prefix: . http://dictionary.reference.com...-[10] Uni prefix: . http://dictionary.reference.com...-[11] Deny: . http://dictionary.reference.com...
All Agnostics are also Atheists

I'd like to start by countering my opponent's definitions. As he stated himself, agnostic is the negation of the root "gnostic," which means belief. As he distinguished himself, there is a difference between knowledge and belief, but he then defines agnostic as "one who does not know if a god can or does exist. " This equivocates knowledge and belief, a mistake my opponent himself condemns. A sourced definition holds that an agnostic is "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). Therefore, an agnostic is one who believes the state of the existence of god is unknowable. Next, an atheist is not someone "who does not believe in a god"; rather, it is "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). The difference is that while my opponent's definition includes both disbelief and unbelief, the correct definition only concerns disbelief. Disbelief constitutes an active denial of the existence of god, while unbelief here simply means not believing in god (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). My opponent's case can be rejected as an abuse of definitions. Belief regarding religion can be classified as three disjoint events. First, there is the person who actively believes that there is a god or many gods. This person is theist (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). Second, there is the person who believes that there is no god. This person is atheist. Lastly, there is the person who neither believes nor disbelieves in god and gods. This person is agnostic. Here is a visual: . http://i52.tinypic.com... Because the characteristics agnostic and atheist are disjoint, no agnostics are atheists. The resolution is negated.
All Agnostics are also Atheists

I will argue that all agnostics are actually, in fact, atheists (and not the other way around)... My argument: There's a difference between "knowledge" and "belief". For example: I can know that a black cat has four legs. I can have this knowledge despite any other beliefs I might have. I can believe that 1) This black cat will land on his feet if scooted off the table, and 2) This black cat is bad luck because it is black. And we can have many more beliefs about the cat despite the knowledge of it we have. An agnostic is one who does not know if a god can or does exist (a = without, gnostic = belief). No one knows for certain of a god's existence (especially for the way god is defined), which makes us all agnostic. However, you can still have a belief about something, despite the knowledge (or lack thereof) that you have of it. An atheist is one who does not believe in a god (a = without, theist = god-centered belief). Now, of course, there seems to be no logical contradiction between 'belief' and 'knowledge'. Thus, it would appear that one can believe and not know that there is a god, and know yet not believe in a god. Yet, I counter that one cannot believe in something which one has no knowledge of. That is, if one does not know if there is a god, then it seems inconsistent to say that one can believe in a god. How can one be sure that there is a god to believe in? Which god is it that we should believe in yet we do not know anything about? And if it is a specific god, how can we know this much about it? The 'god's name' may be non-sequitor concerning when determining whether or not existence can actually pertain to it. It is just a name, not a tip off to an actual god...That is, one will surely fall for the fallacy of ignorance if they do not know if a god can exist yet believe that there is one. Therefore, all agnostics are atheist.
All Agnostics are also Atheists

I thank my opponent for sticking it through to the last round…I will state that my opponent has shown that there are no true theists, there are no true agnostic-theists, there are no true agnostics, there are no true agnostic-atheists, and there are no atheist who know that there are no gods. Only atheists who do not believe in any god, simply because they do not know any.“Holding the existence of a deity unknowable is different from not knowing the exitence of a deity. The agnostic theist, therefore, acknowledges his or her unknowingness, while people whom someone else, such as my opponent, judges to be unknowing of the existence of god, are not agnostic theists.”Even if I am unknowing of the existence of any god, I can also acknowledge my “unknowingness”. This would make me both an agnostic-theist and not an agnostic-theist, which is a contradiction on my opponent’s part. The categories are easily blurred this way, because the distinction is arbitrary.“My opponent essentially makes the argument that if there exists the categorical existence of theists that are agnostic, then all theists are agnostic…”That is because there are no theists in the true sense.“My distinction between theists who believe they know a god exists, such as Bob Thrower, and theists who do not believe they know a god exists, such as myself.”But what does this belief rest on, if not knowledge? Thus, Bob Thrower is really agnostic. My opponent too, is also agnostic. None are theist by this sense of the definition.“…belief regarding the extent of one's knowledge is subjective to what that person believes to be the definition of knowledge. An individual is agnostic or not agnostic according to their own judgment of their knowledge regarding the existence of god…"And not the belief of their knowledge as my opponent once held?“A weak agnostic position would hold that there is not enough information as of yet to know the condition of the existence of dark matter.”But as my opponent stated above, a weak agnostic is one who doesn’t know that they don’t know – which is incoherent.“One can believe something but not believe one knows that that something.”Which is slightly incoherent. This belief rest on the knowledge about what one believes, which means that one knows something about what one doesn’t believe – which is incoherent.“While both the positive atheist and negative atheist lack a belief in the existence of god, the agnostic position regards the knowledge of the existence of god.”Which theists and atheists do not have. Both do not have the knowledge nor the belief in the existence of God.I thank my opponent for this debate. Thank you.Source: Dark Matter: http://en.wikipedia.org......Truth in Contrast to Knowlegde and Belief: http://www.av8n.com...... Atheism: http://en.wikipedia.org......Groiler’s Encyclopedia of Knowledge: AtheismKai Nielsen: AtheismPaul Edwards: AtheismWilliams L. Rowe: AtheismAustin Cline: Buddha and Atheism: http://atheism.about.com...... Agnosticism: http://en.wikipedia.org......Groiler’s Encyclopedia of Knowledge: Agnosticism
Odd even days car formula will be success full in reducing pollution in Delhi for long run

Whether or not it is a political stunt is beside the point ( though I totally agree it is most likely probably 95% sure a political stunt lol ). It is about whether the program can successfully reduce pollution for the long run, which following logic it can/will if followed. Less cars spewing smog, kicking up dust in Delhi, will reduce pollution in Delhi. For those 15 days the pollution will reduce, it has been proven as a successful formula in other cities before, so if it is extended, it stand to mind that as long as the program is in place and those cars are kept from burning fossil fuels, there will be less pollution in the air. Political agendas are separate from the science.
Odd even days car formula will be success full in reducing pollution in Delhi for long run

i do agree with some of your points but this 15 days trial is nothing more than a political stunt and i am sure that after 15 days Delhi government going to blame to central government for not supporting to this program for long time. Neither politician not public would follow and work strictly on these rules. Indians have a wrong perception of freedom in mind. They do not want to remain with their own limit. I am hopeful that Paris summit would also work properly because i still have doubt on developed countries regarding the same. Power full and developed countries do not want to reduce their own carbon emission but want to restrict developing countries.
Odd even days car formula will be success full in reducing pollution in Delhi for long run

I agree on those points but it is that attitude that, ' he's not doing it so why should I " and " it only make a little difference why put in the effort " and " I don't want to be inconvenienced " is what has gotten a planet into such a crapper in the first place. If the Indian govt can hold out caving into companies and consumers greed/need for convenience sake it can make a difference. The 15 days is because it is a trail period as each city following this program has other factors particular to each city contributing to it pollution in total. If a cost analysis reduction in pollution levels satisfies their Paris agreement commitment, it is highly likely they will either full time implement the program or they will at least do it throughout the year in order to meet their goals and then will have long term success in reducing pollution levels.
Odd even days car formula will be success full in reducing pollution in Delhi for long run

No doubt Idea is good but does not seem to be perfect to reduce the pollution level. This idea is better to reduce the traffic level and make Delhi Jam free. Because there are lots of exemptions provided by Government so ultimately after some time when public passion will come down they will try to utilize these loop holes more and more. On very first day it help to reduce 10% level and after 8 pm pollution level was several times of routine levels. So what ever it will reduce in day time, it will become more worse in evening so everything would be null and void. And the way government advertising it look like just matter of 15 days. After 15 days no need of such rules. So in my point of view this formula is made in hurry and more politically motivated rather than benefit of Public.
Odd even days car formula will be success full in reducing pollution in Delhi for long run

I agree that there is other factors involved in causing the pollution. The pollution is fed also by construction dust, ash from crop waste burned in nearby farming areas and sand from the Thar desert. But Delhi has an estimated 7.5 MILLION registered vehicles, including many that run on highly polluting diesel. That is equivalent to about 19.64 pounds of carbon PER CAR. A tree can only absorb 48 pounds of carbon A YEAR. And even though there are exceptions it applies to government/civil service vehicles, women ( better if it was for pregnant women or women transporting children only ), sick people, and motorcycles. All reasonable exemptions and would be even better if at least the government/civil service vehicles and motorcycles bought in the city were either electric or ran on biofules only. Though it will HELP decline the pollution it is not a means to an end but along with other programs that the government will be putting in place such as plans to shut down one of the oldest and least-efficient power plants, a temporary ban on the sale of large diesel vehicles, a stiff toll for pollution-spewing trucks entering the Indian capital, the Supreme Court earlier this month also banned trucks from entering the city if they are over 10 years old, PLUS taxis have to switch to compressed natural gas by March 31, all TOGETHER will reduce pollution in Delhi for the long run. May be not to WHO standard of 20 but with an average PM2.5 levels for New Delhi at well over 297, 15 times the minimum standard, its a start and you got to start some where. Japan, Paris, Bejing, and other cities have implemented such measures now and in the past to combat city smog/pollution to success. The problem was that once the pollution cleared it was back to business as usual and inevitably the pollution came back so critics ( gasoline companies and those media/scientists backed by them ) used that as a negative, not following the logic that where there is burning there is smoke aka burning fossil fuels = pollution A step further and even better would be to convert ALL the cars to electricity or biofuels, especially biofuels that are made from used cooking oil as India and many countries are greatly fond of fried food and with their warm climate biofuels are easy to maintain as cold weather freezes biofuels and cost extra to heat to be made usable. America could become a leading energy exporter if we converted all the used cooking oil we produce everyday into biofuel, instead of us depending of foreign oil and paying others to import, especially since it is a proven fact that oil levels are dwindling and will eventually all dry up.
The line "One nation, under God" should be kept in the pledge of allegiance.

My opponent has freely opted not to oppose my first argument, so it remains untouched. My opponent either agrees on my point or has no adequate counter to it. My opponent attempted to nullify my argument about the first amendment, but slipped up and contributed to the argument remaining on my side of the debate. In my opponent's exact words, "Everyone and anyone can say what they please, although sometimes there will be consequences." This statement both contradicts itself and goes on to cement the point my first amendment and school arguments were getting at. Saying that 'sometimes there will be consequences' goes to show that not everyone can say freely what the please, and also brings up my point of church and state -- which also remains untouched, mind you. There should never have to be consequences for abstaining from saying something that harbors religious bias. In a daring act of insensitivity to cultures where the term God is not the preferable term, my opponent has told people to "suck it up and deal with it." Which goes forth to fuel my argument that the pledge has cemented itself so far into American society that the concept of changing two words warrants a harsh response. This also gives undertones of my opponent supporting religious conformity, which I've already talked about being not allowed in the Constitution. From here, my opponent can only either support unconstitutional behavior, or drop that segment of their argument. The only non refuting argument that my opponent brought up was their discussion of the words 'One nation'. I find this highly irrelevant to the argument, deeming the point null and void. While it is true that the words "one nation" are in the title of this debate, my opponent, along with anyone else who has read the debate so far, should be able to see that this debate is in the 'Religious' category, and the only discussion up until that point was about "under God". This means that my opponent has failed at adequately refuting my arguments and is now scrambling for some way to deem approval. All of my points remain standing, and I have refuted the only Pro argument my opponent has made. For these reasons, I continually urge a massive Con/Neg voter turnout.
The line "One nation, under God" should be kept in the pledge of allegiance.

I have no evidence nor reasoning to rebuttal my opponent's first argument. The 1st amendment of the US constitution states "or abridging the freedom of speech." The government is protecting our right to speech as citizens of the United States through stating this line. Everyone and anyone can say what they please, although sometimes there will be consequences. In my opponent's 3rd argument he states: "While there is no mandatory pledge in any schools." I fail to understand how the third argument is improved through that line. It is showing there is no mandatory pledge, so the argument flows over to my side. Before the pledge is started the announcer says, "We/I INVITE you to stand and say the pledge of allegiance." As stated before, students are not forced to say the pledge. An article written by the staff from Constitutioncenter.org demonstrates this as well. "In 1943, the Court changed its course in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, where the majority said that "the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits public schools from forcing students to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance,"(Paragraph 9). It may be frowned upon but if it is against your beliefs it is against your beliefs and everyone else can suck it up and deal with it. "One nation, under God." I want the audience to think about that line for a moment. 'One nation.' I fail to understand why this line should be removed. It is providing unity to our country. It shows that even through all the terrible things in our world we remain one. We are inseperable. It gives our country power and strength. The pledge would just say, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Not only does the pledge not make sense, it is just is not the same without the one line of unity. For these reasons, I urge for a strong pro voter turnout.
The line "One nation, under God" should be kept in the pledge of allegiance.

--- The source being used for my first argument is Forward Progressives author Allen Clifton: . https://forwardprogressives.com... . https://forwardprogressives.com... I will preface this by saying that I hold no political bias in this debate, and that I am merely using Mr. Clifton's writing so that our debate may share a coherent timeline of the pledge of allegiance. My first argument will be based on the history of the pledge of allegiance. Many reasons that people, typically conservatives, believe that the line "one nation, under God" should be kept is the history that the line and the pledge itself has to do with United States' cultural ties. I will be denouncing these claims as factually misguided. 116 years after the American Revolution, the pledge was created. An additional 62 years later, the line "under god" was finally added. It was not added for religious matters, no, it was added in fear of the growing communist threat around the world. Nowadays, there is no threat of the United States turning communist, and thus no reason to keep this religious line within the the pledge. For my second argument, I am going to be talking about the constitutional flaws, and the separation of church and state. Stated in the first amendment of the constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " This is stating that nothing done by anyone, especially the US government, should have the right to have god be the only reference in the pledge. Separation of Church and State, which is in the same vain, is almost always respected by liberals and conservatives alike, so I see no reason as to why the line in question is allowed to stay in. Finally, I will be talking about schools and their usage of the pledge. While there is no mandatory pledge in any schools, there are still issues that need to be worked out. In general, abstaining from saying the pledge is frowned upon for a stigmatic reason. The Ninth Circuit court ruled that schools were allowed to say modified versions - which is good. The only issue however, is that this ruling only applies to nine states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Nine is not enough, and it is rather ridiculous that such liberties are not already guaranteed in all 50 states. For these three reasons, I heavily urge for a strong Con/Neg voter turnout.
everyone is gonna die!!!

Double, it seems that you mistook what this debate is about. I saw your other debate and thought it an interesting topic, I felt like giving it a try, especially considering that your former opponent forfeited, so I challenged you to debate the topic "everyone is gonna die" (it was previously "We are all Going to Die!"), not "humanity is going to destroy itself" as you say. My exact words were "I think this'll (that everyone is gonna die) be interesting to debate so I decided to challenge her to it." Your former opponent was arguing that because humanity is going to destroy itself were all going to die. The self-destruction was his reasoning for why were all gonna die. My reasoning is that death is a natural part of life, so everyone will eventually die. Two different approaches to the same topic. Its not that I misunderstood your first rebuttal, it is that your rebuttal was untopical and irrelevant. I never made the arguments you were attacking, so your attacks were irrelevant. Your points were also untopical; because it did not disprove that, every human will eventually die. I do understand your bicentennial man point. You are saying that eventually everyone will live forever (yay science!). However, this thinking is fundamentally flawed for two reasons, firstly it lacks any real scientific basis, and secondly death is a natural part of life. Human lifespan may increase to 150 or even 200 years, but eventually every life MUST come to an end. Death is a natural part of life; every story has an ending, every journey an end. A human lifespan will never be infinite, no matter the technological advance. My opponent never attacked my case, nor did she rehab her own. Because of this, my case stands, and hers has fallen. I urge you to vote PRO not only because of this, but because every life WILL come to an end, everyone WILL die. My opponent has not shown how that is untrue, so it too stands. I have shown logically why everyone is gonna die, I have provided evidence, my opponent has done neither to refute me, nor to back her case. Those are the reasons why you should vote pro, and why I urge you to do so. Thank you