BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You do not need Religion to have morals.

Morals come from human conscience. Its known that murder is wrong and it has before the creation of the main religions of today, obviously there are murderers but things can affect there view on morals and obviously these should not be taken seriously. I am a atheist and a proud one, I do not follow religion in any way but does that mean I will just go around killing people and raping? No of course not because I know its wrong and everyone who's not damaged does either. Religion was a sort of control system for curious humans at the time it was good at controlling the populous by giving rewards for being good and pain for bad. Don't you think this is a bit selfish? How you only act good or bad because of whether you'll burn or you will live in heaven for eternity is just for gain not right or wrong. Religions like to use hell as a way of scaring people to be religious and doing good things by force. However there a good atheists everywhere, who are not presented by this hell but still do the right thing as its right or wrong by our conscience. In the end of it the way your brought up significantly affects this, if your brought up being taught that murder is right, you will fell to say so. It is our parents who tell us right or wrong and there teachings live in our conscience for us to remember. Like many people are so far indoctrinated in religion that they accept nothing less than faith or religion and not evidence as they refuse to seek the facts because of there upbringing, us humans are very reliant on our parents at a young age so what they tell us is vital for saying what is right or wrong. A quote from the bible: Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT) Even the 'morals' from religion aren't usually moral, promoting rape, murder, slavery and human sacrifice. Thank you one again for accepting and I'm interested in your argument.
The United Church of Latter Day Hedonists is the world's latest and most exciting religous cult.

"Ah, yes, I admit my argument rather falls down there! I should have phrased the title in the future tense and I, therefore, concede this point." Response: Ok, my opponent has conceded topical defeat. Thus its imperative to negate right here. "I think believe my opponent is in a small minority in not finding the activities of the Church of Latter Day Hedonists' exciting and I will prove this as follows" Response: It doesn't matter if I'm in the minority. your likings are still subjective even if 99% liked and 1% didn't. Also, at one time, the majority liked slavery, but that didn't make it right. My opponent has failed to refute my subjective point. You can drop all his ways of it being exciting; its subjective. "The next tenant of my opponent's argument was that the United Church of the Latter Day Hedonists essentially already exists in the guise of the Church of Satan. I'd never heard of the Church of Satan so I checked it out – thanks to my opponent for the for the link. I can see that there are some superficial similarities between the two religions and I expect many Satanists will convert to Hedonism once we are properly established, but there are some important differences – for example we don't believe in "destroying" people that irritate us in some way and we don't believe in magic." My Response: Since the Church of Satan does include ALL the example you gave, then my points still stand. Not all satanists believe in magic, since most modern satanists are atheist humanists. So, essentially, the Church of Satan includes all the examples you gave, thus the necessity of your Church is in question. "Of course, the most important difference between the two religions is that the United Church of Latter Day Hedonists' primary function is to provide a handsome, tax-free income for the Supreme Leader (i.e. me)." My Response: Well, that's selfish. you probably make fun of little children too. :p Lol, so anyway, that has nothing to do with anything really.
The United Church of Latter Day Hedonists is the world's latest and most exciting religous cult.

In his rebuttal, he wrote: "The Church has yet to be totally established as either a church or cult…" Ah, yes, I admit my argument rather falls down there! I should have phrased the title in the future tense and I, therefore, concede this point. He continued: "Exciting is subjective. I personally don't like this idea, and I do not find it exciting. Thus, making a statement that it IS the most exciting is making a subjective belief objective. " I think believe my opponent is in a small minority in not finding the activities of the Church of Latter Day Hedonists' exciting and I will prove this as follows: The amount raised annually by the Church of England in legacies, special events, the letting of church halls, bookstalls, fundraising and parish magazines etc. is ï¿½250 million ($497 million) . http://www.cofe.anglican.org... The amount spent annually in the UK on grub, booze, baccy, music and porn (items essential to a hedonistic lifestyle) is ï¿½81,903 billion ($162,872 billon) . http://www.statistics.gov.uk... . http://www.guardian.co.uk... . http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com... In other words, the United Church of Latter Day Hedonists' activities are 328,000 times more popular than the Church of England's. The next tenant of my opponent's argument was that the United Church of the Latter Day Hedonists essentially already exists in the guise of the Church of Satan. I'd never heard of the Church of Satan so I checked it out – thanks to my opponent for the for the link. I can see that there are some superficial similarities between the two religions and I expect many Satanists will convert to Hedonism once we are properly established, but there are some important differences – for example we don't believe in "destroying" people that irritate us in some way and we don't believe in magic. Of course, the most important difference between the two religions is that the United Church of Latter Day Hedonists' primary function is to provide a handsome, tax-free income for the Supreme Leader (i. e. me). Many thanks in advance to the voters for your generous support and if any of my fellow debaters are interested in establishing a Hedonist Church in their local area, please let me know! Just think - you could earn mega-bucks tax-free, just for helping people have some guilt-free fun!
The United Church of Latter Day Hedonists is the world's latest and most exciting religous cult.

I negate: The United Church of Latter Day Hedonists is the world's latest and most exciting religious cult. Reasons for topical negation: A) The Church has yet to be totally established as either a church or cult, thus the resolve cannot be affirmed, since it uses the word "is" not "will". B) Exciting is subjective. I personally don't like this idea, and I do not find it exciting. Thus, making a statement that it IS the most exciting is making a subjective belief objective. Contentions: I. My opponents cult is the same as the Church of Satan. www.churchofsatan.com Essentially, what my opponent plans on doing has already been done. What's the point of making a new church when virtually the same thing has been created. They believe in self-serving pleasure, sex, drinking, etc. Thus, the necessity of my opponents cult is in question.
The United Church of Latter Day Hedonists is the world's latest and most exciting religous cult.

I have seen that there is good money to be made out of religion these days, especially if you run your own church. http://www.philcooke.com... Actually, I could do with a new yacht, and I've always fancied a private jet, so I have decided to use the good offices of debate.org to argue the viability of establishing the United Church of Latter Day Hedonists with me as the Supreme Leader. The basis of my religion will be praising Humanity by indulging in gratuitous pleasures as a tribute to mankind's exploitation of Earth's bountiful gifts. Church services will include the following activities: * Feasting * Drinking * Smoking * Dancing * Unmitigated, unbridled and uninhibited communal sex sessions In addition, there will be special Church outings. I envisage: * Track day events where members of the congregation can drive some of the world's fastest and most exotic cars. * Trips by private jet to Amsterdam, Bangkok, Jamaica, Rio de Janeiro, Las Vegas, Monte Carlo and other exciting destinations. * Weekend cruises on a private yacht (my current boat is probably not big enough, but I should soon be able to upgrade it using donations made to the Church). This all this sounds a lot more appealing than hymns, Bible studies and tea dances, wouldn't you agree?
God exists.

The resolution is that God exists. Pro will be arguing that God exists, while Con will be arguing that Pro has not established that God exists. By accepting this debate, Pro agrees that they have the burden of proof to establish that it is objectively more likely than not that God exists. The rules for assessing this are the standard rules of logic, including the rules of deductive and inductive inference. For example, a deductive argument must be deductively valid and have premises that we have sufficient reason to believe are true, and an inductive argument must establish that the conclusion is the best or only explanation for the evidence cited in the premises. God for the purposes of this debate shall be defined, by default, as an omnipotent, omniscient, all good person. I take this definition from the first paragraph of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "Concepts of God." [1] If Pro wants to use a definition other than this default definition, they should ask for me to approve it in the comments section before accepting the debate. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu...
You cannot prove the existence of God.

Reminder: this is probably going to be my first serious argument on the subject of God's existence, if I construe any logical fallacies or misrepresent something, forgive me as I am new to this topic. prove: establish the validity of something, as by an example, explanation or experiment existence: The state of being, existing, or occurring; empirical reality; the substance of the physical universe God: the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe I will warm us up with some simple arguments, then we can narrow our way down. CON can choose to attack these arguments, or make his own. --- Argument #1 --- You cannot define or imagine a thing into existence. Our existence precedes our essence, just as how God must exist in order to be necessary and sufficient. --- Argument #2 --- The problem of evil: why do good things happen to bad people yet bad things happen to good people? --- Argument #3 --- There is no Designer, as there is also no reason for intelligent design. The principles of self-organization and evolution provide complete explanations for apparent design. --- Argument #4 --- Personal experiences do not necessitate cause. We cannot assume that everything imagined in personal experiences (which include dreams, hallucinations etc) actually exists in reality. Such experiences cannot be repeated, tested or publicly verified. Mystical and other personal experiences can be explained by other causes, as there is no one suspect. --- Argument #5 --- Which religion is the "right" one? Since the Gods of various religions differ widely in their characteristics, only one of these religions, or none, can be right about God. --- Argument #6 --- Since God is invisible, and the universe would hypothetically be no different than if he did not exist, it is simpler to assume he does not exist (see Occam's Razor). Forgive me the long-winded speech.
gum balls should be one color

Now, I will commense my own arguments. Human beings like the aspect of choice and free will, so limiting the colors of something they wish to purchase with money they themselves possess will upset them and may result in the decreased in sales of gum balls and the riddance of gum ball machines from restaurants, something many people consider a nostalgic novelty. Also, color influences a person's emotions and health depending on the person. If you limit the colors, many people may be negatively impacted by it. But if everyone is given a choice as to what color they can have, they will all be able to find a color that pleases them. . http://www.examiner.com... Now I will attack my opponent's argument. My opponent states that with only one color of gumball no kids would whine about what color they received, but the opposite is true. If there was only one color, a child's desire for a certain color of gumball couldn't possibly be fulfilled and the child would incessantly be displeased and upset over gumballs.
IVF Debate

Although natural pregnancy hold many risks, In Vitro Fertilization holds so many more. Because IVF is a difficult process, that happens outside of the woman"s body, ownership of the embryos gets complicated. If a couple decides to split up after the eggs have been fertilized, the question is who gets to keep them? It was the woman"s egg, but the man"s sperm fertilized it, so they belong to both parties. If an egg was fertilized and the woman decided not to go through with IVF, the male could have issues with his sperm not being used. Or if the couple split up before the placement of the embryo, both would want custody of the fertilized egg. As a conclusion, not only are the ethical and legal issues from IVF, but the mother and fetus both are at risk of medical issues. The implantation of the eggs can cause different issues for the mother itself. If the pregnancy is successful, there are also high chances that there will be multiple births. Multiple births then leads to problems with the children and the mother. Because of these risks, and more, it seems as though if a couple is infertile and unable to have a child, it would be best not to go through with the procedure of IFV. (http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org... )
IVF Debate

The reality with using In Vitro Fertilization to conceive a child is that there will be risk factors and you are not guaranteed a perfect pregnancy. Even with conceiving a child naturally, there are no guarantees. One of the risk factors of In Vitro Fertilization is multiple pregnancies. However, according to the New York Daily News, fewer triplets, quadruplets and higher multiple sets of babies are being born from In Vitro Fertilization in the United States due to more restrictive guidelines. Doctors are no longer implanting multiple embryos in a woman who is trying to become pregnant therefore decreasing, if not eliminating, the chance of multiple births. (http://www.nydailynews.com...) Also previously stated, Blastocyst Culture and Transfer also reduce the risk of multiple births. Clinicians will grow the embryos in a nutrient rich media for five days instead of the conventional three. This will allow them to select the healthiest, promising embryos for implantation that way fewer will need to be implanted and it will decrease the risk of having multiple births. (http://www.resolve.org...) While In Vitro Fertilization has had multiple risks that go along with the procedure, the advances in new technology has fairly decreased the amount of risk factors along with coming up with solutions to the problems thus making In Vitro Fertilization the safe and the right procedure for those who are unable to conceive a child the natural way.
IVF Debate

As previously stated, multiple births is one of the most common risks of IVF. According to a One at a Time article, 24% of IFV procedures, cause multiple births, this is because IFV involves transferring 2 or 3 embryos into the womb. According to the HFEA guidance, the number of embryos implanted should not be over 2 for women under 40, and no more than 3 for women over 40, however there are times doctors will implant more, to increase the likely hood of the woman getting pregnant. If two separate embryos are implanted, the mother can become pregnant with twins (non-identical). Plus the chance of a single embryo dividing is also higher after IVF, resulting in identical twins. This makes it possible to become pregnant with twins from one egg, or triplets or quadruplets by 2 implanted eggs. Data from the UK (2005) shows that almost 46% of IVF patients using fresh eggs were multiple births. (http://www.oneatatime.org.uk... )
IVF Debate

Embryos are frozen in order to be used in future transfers while retaining much of their potential to achieve pregnancy. Previously, the results from freezing an embryo after In Vitro Fertilization were very low due to the formation of crystals in the interior of the embryo often leading to its structure being damaged and resulting in a very poor prognosis. There is however, a new technique in which the embryos are prepared with high concentrations of protective substances that make the liquid medium prevent the formation of intracellular ice. The survival rate is over 90% in which the embryo keeps intact and their chances for correct implantation increase. This helps avoid multiple births at a time because for the embryo"s not used at the time, they can be frozen and used another time. Having frozen embryos means that you have a good chance of becoming pregnant in the future with minimal effort. Another advantage is that if the fresh IVF cycle does not end in pregnancy, you may schedule another treatment right away by thawing one of the extra embryos. (http://www.institutobernabeu.com...) If you choose not to freeze your embryos, you may donate the embryos to other mothers who are unable to conceive. The embryos are assigned to embryos that are most compatible with the blood type in order to ensure that it is a most compatible fit. The act of helping other couples achieve their desired pregnancy is an emotional benefit and provides a valuable destination for the embryos that would have remained cryopreserved. (http://www.institutobernabeu.com...)
IVF Debate

There are a few options for couples to choose between what they want with the extra embryos. The first is to freeze them. The couple can save them for when they are ready to have another child, or they can be frozen indefinitely. The mother of the octuplets, couldn"t dispose any of the embryos, which is why she wanted all 8 implanted. That decision is not only rare because it is illegal, but also because it is unhealthy and unsafe. However if you freeze the leftovers, the couple can decide to become pregnant again. Another option is donating to other infertile couples. Although this decision if difficult to make, because of the unknown of how and where their child will grow up, it is an extremely humble and generous thing to do for other couples who cannot get pregnant. A different choice, would be to donate the embryos to medical research. According to the CNN article, couples find donating to research gives the embryos a status somewhere between born children and clumps of cells. These couples can help medical and scientific advancements in research. The last option would be to thaw the embryos without donating them, which would let the embryos die, before advancing to another stage of life. (http://www.cnn.com...)
IVF Debate

While many believe that the advances in technology may create ethical dilemmas during In Vitro Fertilization such as choosing the characteristics of the child, there are multiple benefits to genetically screening the embryo before fertilization. One example of genetic screening is Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis where microscopic evaluation of early-stage (3-day) embryos identify those with the best development characteristics in order to ensure the embryo will develop correctly and safely however will not have anything to do with the physical characteristics of the embryo. There are many other advantages to PGD, one being that there are fewer pregnancy terminations. It allows parents to avoid transmission of genetic diseases as well as increasing the survival rates of embryos. (http://abingtonreproductive.com...) Comparative Genomic Hybridization is another example of genetic screening. This new screening technique examines the 5-day blastocyst (nutrient-rich embryo), allowing analysis of all 23 pairs of chromosomes in order to identify those with abnormalities thought to be responsible for implantation failure and to avoid the embryos that have a higher risk of failed implantation. (http://www.resolve.org...)
IVF Debate

Even if some of the medical risks of the woman were dismissed, there are still ethical issues that play a large factor on the controversy of the procedure. The main ethical issue of IVF is the death rate of the fetuses. Because only about 25% of the babies actually have a successful birth (according to ESHR"s data) the religious argument, is at whatever stage the embryo doesn't survive, is considered murder, if a scientific/ medical mistake. Even if the baby survives, and is healthy through and after birth, many religions believe that a baby should be conserved naturally, so they are against one fertilized in a laboratory. When choosing the healthiest embryo to implant, that also means that others will not be used, and if they are not being used because they are 'unhealthy' the couple will likely decide to let those embryos thaw out, without the intention of donating, or saving them for another time. This would be the equivalent to killing them. Another potential issue would be custody arguments. If the couple was able to have a successful birth, and later split up, normal custody disagreements and courts would apply. However, if an egg was fertilized and the woman decided not to go through with IVF, the male could have issues with his sperm not being used. Or if the couple split up before the placement of the embryo, both would want custody of the fertilized egg. (https://ispub.com... / http://www.legalnewsarchive.com... )