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

Thanks for your response alexiskay. For the purpose of the debate, I stand by my original argument. Buddhism (specifically Theraveda Buddism) is (a) atheistic [1], (b) a religion [2], and as such Buddhism is an example of atheism as a religion. You have conceded this. Informally addressing the question of “what is religion”, you cited the free dictionary definition of “a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.” I would suggest there are many western atheists who would fit that criterion as it pertains to their atheism. When Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris publically debate some Bible-thumper on the existence of God, are they not attempting to advance “a cause, principle... with zeal or conscientious devotion”? I would suggest they are. They care about their belief and are seeking to convince others that they are correct. Call it atheistic evangelism, if you will. Personally, I would equate religion with the idea of a value & belief system. Atheism does not claim a particular one, and perhaps that is at the core of your contention. But neither does Theism itself. Both atheism and theism are the foundational premise upon which a value & belief system is built. The value & belief system is what is called “religion”. All Theistic value & belief systems that I can think of fall into the category of “religion.” But on the atheistic side, Secular Humanism could be considered a religion [3] in the sense that it has an official organization, has an official crede, etc. And as I have noted and you have agreed, Theraveda Buddhism is definitely a “religion”. and is definitely built on an atheistic premise. [1]: http://www.beliefnet.com... [2]: http://answers.yahoo.com... [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Atheism is a religion.

I do agree, your point is valid. However, religion is not only motivated by believing in a supernatural being, according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com..., religion is also "4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." This may be an opinion-based statement, but I believe atheism is not something one peruses or is devoted to for the most part, it is simply a lack of a belief system based on teachings from a spiritual leader, a church (which Buddhism has), or a deity. While I agree it may be challenging or controversial to place Buddhism under the category of religion, it is only logical to not classify as atheist as one, because it is comparing apples to oranges. Thank you for your argument.
Atheism is a religion.

alexiskay, thank you for the opportunity to debate.You are opposing the contention that “Atheism is a religion” My argument will be quite short and simple. A. Merriam-Webster defines atheism as “a disbelief in the existence of deity” or “the doctrine that there is no deity.” [1] This aligns with your definition, and I would not contest it. B. Almost all modern branches Buddhism believe that “this world is not created and ruled by a God”, and “There is no almighty God in Buddhism.” [2] C. In a “world religion” poll conducted by Pew Research, over 7% of the world’s population identify themselves as “Buddhist.” It follows: Buddhism, which is by definition atheist, is a religion. [1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]: http://www.religionfacts.com... [3]: http://www.pewforum.org...
Atheism is a religion.

Atheism, by definition, is disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Religion, by definition, is an organized set of beliefs based on the existence of deities or a super-human figure. So how can atheism be considered a religion when it is the exact opposite: it is disproving the notion of religion entirely. All religions can be put under a category of believing in something intangible simply by the faith of that person. So how is it that atheism could be the only religion that doesn't fit that quota? Atheism is not simply the one end of the religious spectrum, it isn't on the spectrum. It is simply the lack of a religion.
Welfare/Redistribution is actually harmful for poor people

i think what my opponent fails to realize is that the only thing keeping the U.S from being a 3rd world country is a strong middle class which is decreasing rapidly along with corrupt politicians which is also becoming rampant. Like i said before welfare is necessary and i don't believe that it increases inflation however i don't see how you think we could go on with rising prices and a $7.00 wage is simply not possible. Do some research on countries like Nepal Bangladesh India and others who are seeing people go poorer and poorer due to rising costs of living and yet no minimum wage increase.
Welfare/Redistribution is actually harmful for poor people

While I agree with my opponent that minimum wage can be harmful where small business is concerned I don't see how we cannot raise it $7.25 an hour is simply not livable anymore not with the cost of things. We have people barely able to make ends meet that with a higher minimum wage could make bills on time Well as I said before, in the long term welfare creates inflation. So we put a higher minimum wage so that people can deal with a higher cost of living, and then it increases the cost of living itself. So it doesn't solve the problem, but creates an inflationary auto repetitive circle. however I will argue that welfare is necessary and if done away with would lead a lot of people into poverty all you have to do is look at 3rd world countries to see that.Well I would really like to know which 3rd world country your are talking about. Because many of them choose a socialist or close to socialist system (Venezuela, Iran, several African countries), and their economy is in despair. By definition, these countries have a very weak economic activity, not enough growth, and they need jobs more than unemployment benefits (whose governments cannot afford anyway). Redistribution is absolutely necessary it ensures that the top 1% do not end up with all or most of the money and that the poor and middle class get a share in it the economy can only grow if everybody is playing their part and I fear if we didn't do it we would become like India or some other 3rd world area with virtually no middle class.Well actually what is happening is that since our local and federal institutions is so much into debts (not only because of welfare I agree), that a lot of their spending is made to give money back to the bank. So basically you take money from the Middle-Class and small Businesses to give it banks (a bit like a reversed Robin Hood) . Since Obama was elected, efforts to increase welfare have been made, and the 1% have never been so rich and so close to have everything, than now. What prevents us from becoming like India and some other 3rd world countries is that we have political stability, a class of entrepreneurs that tend to be less afraid to take risks and a way of life that still allow lower middle class to live properly.
Welfare/Redistribution is actually harmful for poor people

While i agree with my opponent that minimum wage can be harmful where small business is concerned i don't see how we cannot raise it $7.25 an hour is simply not livable anymore not with the cost of things. We have people barely able to make ends meet that with a higher minimum wage could make bills on time i also disagree about welfare welfare in it's current state has been misused welfare was intended as a temporary means to financial troubles. But instead you have people living off of it which i why i think there should be some kind of reform we need to make it so that welfare is not a lifetime endeavor. however i will argue that welfare is necessary and if done away with would lead a lot of people into poverty all you have to do is look at 3rd world countries to see that. Redistribution is absolutely necessary it ensures that the top 1% do not end up with all or most of the money and that the poor and middle class get a share in it the economy can only grow if everybody is playing their part and i fear if we didn't do it we would become like India or some other 3rd world area with virtually no middle class.
How to fix American School System

Thank you for your input. Objectively I still believe my points have some validation, But I do agree that middle school may not be the right time to have such big decisions out on preteens. Putting this strictly in high school May work. In terms of the Three R"s, It"s necessity is true. However, More advanced forms of each other the R"s whether it"s poetry, Calculus, Or creative writing should be a choice. Having a foundation in anything is essential because then you can build off this using experience. My thoughts can take improvement, And I think we"ve concluded on that this is possible if done later on in the school system. My main goal was to give students more choice to entice more growth and less hatred of school.
How to fix American School System

I also agree that the school system can be flawed and outdated, But I do not think your ideas are the way to go. Things that people teach kids early in life doesn't always stick, But the things that are interesting do, And if you have good teachers you are prone to learning more. I'll look at your points and comment on them one by one. "Early on, Beginning in Middle School, Students choose a "major. " This major will choose what types of classes that person will take through the rest of their school days. " I do not think that will work very well. Your proposal is an excellent idea. However, People's preferences do change as they get older and their tastes mature. When you invite an eleven-year-old to choose their major, You are requesting a child on the brink of puberty to decide what they want to do as an adult. Many pre-teen boys want to go into a sports career, So they may put off serious education to play baseball or soccer [football] just to discover that they can't go into the profession they selected initially. My proposal: Students should get an extra class or two focusing on solely what they want to do as an adult. That would allow you to have your choice of exciting courses with the flexibility to be able to change it. ---------- "Reading, Writing. And "Rithmatic is completely gone. English and Math are only required up to the 8th grade. To make sure that those skills aren't"t lost, Every year thereon, There will be an end of the year test purely for the sake to check retention. " Reading, Writing, And math are incredibly crucial in many different jobs. In every single job ever, You will be required to read and write some. Basic math, Such as addition, Is useful in every career I can think of, And it is helpful to have extra math knowledge so you can count change [for instance a cashier]. Writing more can also unlock secret passions. (my passion is in the medical field, Yet I love writing). My proposal: Students can choose whether to take creative writing, Academic writing, Technical writing, Or casual writing. Reading is necessary, But students have a choice in which books to read. Math is essential, But people can choose which branch of math to study. ---------- "Monetary incentives by the government should be given to trade schools to send representatives to public schools and try to bring in students like universities do because trade jobs will fit for some people. " There isn't much for me to say about this, I mainly agree. However, I think there shouldn't be monetary incentives. So many low-income communities could benefit from this, Even though they may not have the money for it. Also, People should do this because the students they're choosing deserve it, Not because they're getting money to select some students that seem decent. ----------
How to fix American School System

This is not a hard debate; I just want to hear thoughts from other people. So, The American Public School System is outdated and hurts every student that goes through it. What you are taught usually doesn"t stick because you are forced to learn it despite whether you need it or not, And the environment caused by the fellow lowlifes and depressed/derogative teachers makes it a struggle to go through or live through for 12 years. Here"s my proposed solution (there will be flaws that I will ignore purely for the sake that this is a discussion, So feel free to point them out): -Early on, Beginning in Middle School, Students choose a "major. " This major will choose what types of classes that person will take through the rest of their school days. -Reading, Writing. And "Rithmatic is completely gone. English and Math are only required up to the 8th grade. To make sure that those skills aren"t lost, Every year there on, There will be an end of the year test purely for the sake to check retention. -Monetary incentives by the government should be given to trade schools to send representatives to public schools and try to bring in students like universities do because trade jobs will fit for some people. These three things alone will also deal with the environment issue because many of the lousy teachers we have will lose their jobs because they can swap over to a major based system, And students will feel better in school because they"re learning what they want.
Atlantis :D

I will be defending the proposition that Atlantis is not real. Contention 1. The size and geographic location of Atlantis Plato describes Atlantis as being larger than Libya and Asia combined. He also describes Atlantis as being in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Many people may be saying, "so what? I mean isn't the Atlantic Ocean large enough to fit both?" The answer to that question is no. In Plato's time, Libya was basically the Northern coast of Africa stretching from Morocco to current day Libya. Asia was about the size of North America. You add these two landmasses together, and some, Atlantis will not fit into the Atlantic Ocean. Period. It is just to large. (1) Let's say you take some other translations, that the Island was, in fact, the size of the Spanish peninsula. Now you have to imagine that one day, it would be possible for the Iberian peninsula to sink below the waves. Geographically this is illogical to think. (1) Occam's Razor holds the simplest answer is, most often, the correct one. In this case, the simplest answer is that Atlantis never existed, until proven otherwise. Contention 2. Plato was making a philosophical point The story of Atlantis is well known. A technologically advanced society collapsed because of divine retribution (I won't argue the existence of Poseidon because that is kind of unfair). Perhaps, the entire point of the story was to make a point about what would happen to Athens. Once again, this is a much more logical explanation then a massive landmass, which has not been found, existing in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Contention 3. The destruction date is illogical Plato wrote that Atlantis was destroyed in 9600 BCE. Modern science and history has shown that human civilization has only existed since 5000 BCE. If we were to hold that Atlantis existed, our entire conception of history has to be rewritten. The earliest city found dates to 8000 BCE and it is much more primitive than what Plato writes about. Plato talks about domesticated cattle, the earliest evidence of domesticated cattle is from 6000 BCE. Plato speaks of advanced architecture, the earliest evidence of more sophisticated buildings is 5000 BCE. It is more logical to think either 1) Atlantis did not exist and/or 2) Atlantis served to make a philosophical point. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Repeal The 17th Amendment

Legislatures Represent Themselves not the People? To a certain extent, that is what they are supposed to do. For example, if half your people believe that Obamacare will bring in death panels, I highly recommend that you represent your own opinions on this one. In the last round, I showed that the people are extremely uninformed about politics and it is vital that legislatures take their own informed opinions into account when making law. Popularly elected Legislatures do partially represent the people. For example in 2010, when people were angry at Obama, tea party candidates were elected who have fought for tax cuts and spending cuts. Some may argue that they represent their constituents a little too well. Corruption in the Senate I agree there was a lot of corruption back them. However that was a very different time and bribery was very common everywhere. Today, we live in a very different nation and world. Parliamentary governments have their prime ministers selected from their legislatures and this is similar to how Senators were selected from state legislatures. So why don't we see this widespread corruption in those governments? Senate and State Power My opponent argues that Senators elected from State Legislatures would not respect state power more. It is argued that states don't actually oppose increased federal power. In some cases that might be true, but in others that is not true. Many states opposed the fact that Obamacare could force states in increase their Medicare enrollment. When this was brought to the Supreme Court, that part of Obamacare was struck down, and now only some states have expanded medicare (2). Our history is littered with conflicts between the states and the federal government over federal power. That was part of the reason we fought the Civil War. Since Senators are elected from state legislators, there is more encouragement for them to respect state power because they could be voted out if they don't. This follows logically. This is part of the checks and balances of the government. Different parts of the governments are often accountable to others. The Executive appoints Supreme Court Justices, State Legislatures appoint Senators. Less Direct Representation of People My opponent argued that the senate less directly represented the people because they were selected from State Legislatures. However, this is an advantage because as stated before, state legislature members are a lot more informed than the people they represent. For example, a group of random college freshmen took a basic civics exam. Their average grade was 50.4%. That is grade F. 60% of American youth don't even know that the republican part is more conservative than the democrats (1). We need at least one house that is selected by a groups that is somewhat politically knowledgeable. These groups are state legislatures. I know my state representative and she is very intelligent. She would make a better choice than the average voter. We need Senators who are selected by knowledgeable people, and can respect state power. This is what the amendment took away. 1: http://www.cbsnews.com... 2: http://www.csmonitor.com...
Repeal The 17th Amendment

okay then let's begin. Federalism is an important word we be using this debate. "A proper respect for state functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate State governments, & a continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States & their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways." now that that is done we can look at the arguments my first argument is Corruption and deadlock. Senate.gov. "Intimidation & bribery marked some of the states' selection of senators. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 & 1906. In addition, forty-five deadlocks occurred in twenty states between 1891 & 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating senators. In 1899, problems in electing a senator in Delaware were so acute that the state legislature did not send a senator to Washington for four years" if the state legislatures are in deadlock then the states get no representation in congress, also if senators are getting in office by bribery how is that going to increase Federalism? well it's just not. my second argument is Returning To Faulty System. "These were not minor problems. When a politician votes to reduce his own power, you know things are bad. But that"s what state lawmakers did. First, they begged Congress to propose a direct-election amendment, then they established de facto direct election systems in some states, & finally they began an application campaign for an Article V amendments convention." we would be returning to a system that the state legislatures themselves voted out, they knew things were bad and wanted to change them so that's what they did, and we would be returning To this faulty system. and my last argument is Limits Voter's voice right now the people vote in the senators if the 17th amendment was repealed then the state legislatures would be the ones to choose the senators this would limit voter's voice not something we want to do. so if you want more Federalism then the status quo is the best place to be. dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Federalism http://tenthamendmentcenter.com... http://www.senate.gov...
College Players Payment

College players play the sport that they have invested time in because it was a dream and/or goal to play. Players like Andrew Luck, Odell Beckhom , Jayson Tatum and Ivan Rabb are a few examples. When Odell was in collage he was not thinking "hey I should be getting paid", he was thinking about what to do to get better. Players who are not as fortunate in there raw talent, work ethic or determination still play the game because they like it. If a player doesn't like practice hours he has a choice not to show up but knowing he could be cut from a team. As best said by Mia Hamm "somewhere behind the athlete you've become the hours of practice and the coaches who have pushed you is a little girl who fell in love with the game and never looked back...play for her".
College Players Payment

Hello Declanaitor thank you for starting the Debate with me, In the case of college football players they need to play college football at a high level to even be considered at the draft. College players do get paid to play college football but in a different form through a scholarship to learn and live on the campus without paying the college. The college football/ school pays for the kids cost of going to school so in a way he is paid for what he puts out on the field. But we are forgetting something very important, the debate is on College Players Payment which means the colleges have to then pay every sport a salary. The University of Texas would have to pay for Football, basketball, baseball, volleyball, track and field, and every sport they offer. This brings up a major problem if college football players get paid Y amount and track and field players get paid X amount, is that un-fair? Lets face it colleges like Duke make there money from basketball so would their basketball players get paid more? if so then by how much? There is no feasible way to make all the players getting the same amount of money. Then players will make their choice of where to go because of how much they would pay him/her. Because if there would be a flat rate of X amount would a division 2 be able to pay the same flat rate? There would be no way to make the system to where it would be fair by all parties. As far as the players who skipped college bowl games I assume your talking about Leonard Fournette and Christian McCaffrey? NFL scouts dislike players skipping their bowl games for several reasons. I don't think I have to tell you the obvious ones. But I will tell you some people may not have thought about NFl coaches' relationships with college coaches. This makes for players having a tougher chance of NFL scouts getting to know them. When the two players did not compete in their bowl games it didn't take long for NFL scouts to dislike this choice. http://www.nbcsports.com... As far as Skal Labissiere I want to ask if you were a scout for the NBA would you want to take a high school player projected first as he was or a 2nd round college basketball player? If Nerlens Noel tore his ACL in high school he would have been forgotten by the NBA even if he was a top player. Basically what I'm trying to say is scouts for professional teams would rather put their money a proven college player than a proven high school player. Injury is something a player can't control unless he doesn't play the game.