BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Life has more meaning without god

1) Existence doesn't mean life. Theism claims you continue to exist after you die. Death means the end of life, so existence after death is not part of life, since it starts when life ends. life = the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms...[1] Theism doesn't mean you will live forever, it means you will exist forever. For both theists and atheists, life is finite and has a finite purpose. Anything that happens or doesn't happen after death is not part of life, and doesn't influence in any way the meaning or purpose of life. 2) If we assume an unintentional universe where there is no supreme deity then there is no dictated purpose. Just like money doesn't have an actual value, but a fake one. Nothing has an actual value. Silver and gold are nothing more than metals and their value is fake too. Life without god would have no actual value, but even with god we would still live in a universe where nothing has an actual value. Just like a worthless piece of paper can be used to buy anything, a life without a clear purpose can still be meaningful. If there is no purpose at all, then any purpose we come up with will be meaningful and significant, because there is no ultimate purpose to compare it to. God means there is a objective purpose of life, but without it there is no strict objective purpose, so any purpose we come up with can't be less meaningful than the theist purpose, since that wouldn't exist in this scenario. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Life has more meaning without god

1 - Infinite vs finite: The theist lives in a universe with a sense of ultimate purpose which results in timeless (eternal) value. The atheist however lives in a universe where the value he gets is limited by the time he lives which results in a finite value. There is more meaning to someone with infinite purpose to his existence than that same person who has finite purpose to his existence. For example: A child (John) at school knows he will receive the reward of a chocolate bar after he finishes the year. Bob on the other hand will receive not only a chocolate bar but also a bicycle. Bob has more meaning in his life because his end vision offers more. It must be noted that this is specific to "meaning/purpose" and not "pleasure". It is quite possible that John will have more immediate gratification at school over Bob. I am only contending that even if John has more pleasure in school, he will still have less purpose. 2 - The illusion of meaning. In an unintentional universe, there is no meaning ultimately. Ex: If I were to look at a sunrise, I could assert it as beautiful. However, the sunrise is only beautiful based on my own perception. That perception is the result of chemicals in the brain responding to the scene which causes the body to feels a sense of pleasure (rather than pain). Ultimately the sunrise is not beautiful, it's neutral. It is simply my perception of it that defines it as beautiful. Ultimately, the sunrise is simply a cosmological phenomena. It has no inherent value. Only the value we impress upon it. In an unintentional universe, the same argument applies to meaning. Everything ultimately has no inherent meaning attached to it. Everything is simply a physical result of a physical result of a physical result, etc... (physical phenomena). All meaning attached to it is the creation of mans mind. The theist accepts that ultimate meaning is inherent in creation. The atheist must accept that ultimate meaning is not inherent and any meaning is simply our own perceptions . Since we are able to cognize beyond our perceptions, the atheist must accept that all meaning is an illusion he surrenders to. For example: if you place a $200 price tag on a $1 bill, it is possible that people might buy it for $200. However it's ultimate value is really $1, it is simply artificially valued at $200. In fact we do this every day. Take a real $100 bill and ask yourself what it's value really is. Ultimately, it is almost worthless being simply a piece of paper and ink However through an accepted artificial principle we all value it as $100. Therefore the theist has a more meaningful life, since the atheist must resolve himself to the fact that meaning is simply his own creation.
Life has more meaning without god

My sincere thanks to my opponent. There seems to be a lot of interest in this one and I certainly feel privileged being chosen to represent the opposition. While the end of the debate is about winning and losing, my ultimate goal here is an exchange of ideas and a constructive dialogue that will leave everyone with something new to think about.I plan on being as concise and clear as possible which can be difficult with a topic of such tremendous depth, but I would rather appear simple yet clearly understood than sophisticated and misunderstood.Any arguments referring to God would be "God in general" as you put it. To be clearer, an all knowing, ever present and all loving supreme being that intentionally created the universe. This is still relevant to Christianty, it aimply excludes the concept of the trinity from my arguments. For completeness, any atheistic argument I present would assume an unintentional universe.Once again my thanks. The floor is yours.
Life has more meaning without god

I will argue that without the belief in god, life has more meaning. It's up to my opponent if we will talk about the christian god or about god in general. I would like a serious debate, so if you want to accept, please leave a comment with your opinion on the topic. meaning = the end, purpose, or significance of something[1] Structure: Round 1: acceptance Round 2: arguments (no rebuttals) Round 3: rebuttals(no arguments) Round 4: additional arguments/rebuttals Round 5: conclusion [1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Should Extinct Animals Be Brought back to life via cloning

It's quite disappointing my opponent forfeited all rounds after round 2, but I thank him/her for bringing up the debate. Unknown Pathogens, the current need to preserve our existing biodiversity, keeping the current food chain balanced, and the unpractical efforts of de-extinction are all reasons why we should not bring back extinct animals. The cons of bringing back extinct animals via cloning enormously outweigh the benefits.
Should Extinct Animals Be Brought back to life via cloning

Rebuttal 1: "To solve this problem, you can bring back the wooly mammoth that we humans endangered this animal and drove it to extinction. "Firstly, I was unable to find the research you talk about so you may want to post your sources. Even if this theory that mammoth poop can reverse climate change works, it would be impossible to bring enough mammoths back to create enough dung to signifigantly reduce climate change. In my previous arguments, I also mentioned in my arguments that cloned animals don't have as long of lifespans so the they wouldn't be able to produce much dung at all, and they wouldn't live long enough to reproduce creating genetic diversity and a large enough population. Rebuttal 2: "According to mit. edu, if you bring back the tasmanian tiger along with a few other species, you can restore the biodiversity of australia's increasing amount of endangered animals. "Again we have the same issue here. The animals wouldn't have a long enough of a lifespan to reproduce in order to create a large population for biodiversity. Secondly, it's impractical to bring back extinct animals to create biodiversidy when we can preserve the current biodiversity by not letting our current species go extinct. Rebuttal 3: "Secondly, Our technology has improved. Since the last decades, our technology has improved, benefited, and helped mankind stay satisfied. This shows that it is possible to finish the research and develop the process in order to bring back animals. "This argument is irrelevant because we are not arguing if it is possible to bring back extinct animals with our current technology, we are arguing if we SHOULD bring back animals via cloning. Over to my opponent now.
Should Extinct Animals Be Brought back to life via cloning

As agreed in round 1, I will only be posting my arguments this round. Argument 1: Unknown PathogensBringing back old extinct animals could possibly enter pathogens into the environment. Retroviruses in the animal's genomes may be hidden without anyone knowing until it is too late. These animals have been out of the cycle of natural selection for hundreds and even thousands of years which means we would be completely unprepared if a disease caught us unaware. Argument 2: Current PreservationThere are currently 16,306 endangered species in the world. [1] It's much more important to preserve the current endangered species than to worry about introducing new ones because it would continue the food chain and natural section already going on. Spending millions of dollars to reintroduce an extinct species to the environment is completely illogical when hundreds of species would be going extinct at the same time. Argument 3: Keeping the Current Food Chain BalancedIntroducing a new species would completely mess up the food chain if placed in the wild. For exapmle, existing species may go extinct if a predator is brought back from extinction and put into the wild. In addition, new de-extinct animals may be invasive and crowd out other existing animals. Extinct animals went extinct for a reason: that is the whole premise of natual selection. Putting them back into the ecosystem would likely render them extinct again or else they would have never gone extinct in the first place. Argument 4: PracticalityAs said in previous arguments, why save extinct animals when there are already thousands of endangered species? Putting money to better use in ecosystem preservation or climate change research would both benefit all current species as well as humans. Cloned animals have greatly shortened lifespans [2], and usually have other health issues which means they might not reach a reproductive age. If they can't reproduce a large genetic diversity isn't achieveable. Even assuming a large enough gene pool for the animals are reached, an appropriate environment for them would be an intensely difficult and costly task. The money used could be much more pratical in other areas. [1] . http://www.endangeredearth.com...[2] . http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Should Extinct Animals Be Brought back to life via cloning

The world is getting hotter, outbreaks and pandemics have happened in the last few years, decreasing amount of water. Here today, we are still plagued with many problems around here, but let's focus on something we are discussing today. The argument of bringing extinct animals back to life. Hi my name is Jonathan Do, and I strongly believe that a select few animals should be brought back to life through the scientifically-proven process of cloning for the purpose of curing a few current problems around the world. One of the few problems would be global warming and enviromental crisis. Before I go on to my topics, I would like to refute some of my opponents arguments as well as supporting my teams. Global warming, some see it as a natural process, some think it is not real, but many others believes that it is a threat to earth. According to skeptical science .com, winner of the Eureka prize in the advancement of climate change knowledge, If the earth continues to heat up, ice caps will melt, due to the heat, wars will break out for disputes over water, food, and necessary needs in order to survive. To solve this problem, you can bring back the wooly mammoth that we humans endangered this animal and drove it to extinction. The reason for bringing it back is because that it's waste, can be used to lower the earth's temperature. According to Korea's Sooam Biotech Research and Russia's North Eastern Federal university, the mammoths poop would would bury carbon rich soil and after a few layers, it will successfully remove many carbon particles in the atmosphere. The impact of this will be a less warm earth, ice caps stay the same, and environments will be saved. Then goes to the issues of environmental crises. When the tasmanian tiger went "extinct" , it has triggered a environmental crises in australia. According to mit.edu, if you bring back the tasmanian tiger along with a few other species, you can restore the biodiversity of australia's increasing amount of endangered animals. The impact of this is that the biodiversity problem of australia will be solved. and the world will have one more species that has been given justice to. In the end, I believe that prop has won this argument due sheer weight of benefits versus the lesser load of consequences. Secondly, Our technology has improved. Since the last decades, our technology has improved, benefited, and helped mankind stay satisfied. This shows that it is possible to finish the research and develop the process in order to bring back animals. Thanks Vote For My Side
Increase the Minimum Wage

P1) About 60% of the officially poor don't work, so the only thing raising the minimum wage does for them is to make it harder for them to get a job if they ever decide they want one. Workers must bring at least as much value to the firm as they are paid or the firm will fail and all jobs will be lost. These days people who are making minimum wage clearly do not care to put their all into a job. They are lazy yet content with being lazy so they should not be permitted to make more money for sheer laziness. P2) It is estimated that less than 15% of the total increase in wages resulting from an increase in the minimum will go to people below the poverty line and less than a third of those receiving the minimum wage are families below the poverty line. Most minimum wage workers are from above median income families. So, most of the people benefiting from the minimum wage are not the intended targets of the "anti-poverty" aspect of raising the minimum wage. It's a lose lose situation. C) The government should not increase minimum wage. P1 & P2) www.forbes.com
Increase the Minimum Wage

P1) Raising the minimum wage will hurt small businesses who cannot afford to pay employees the increased wage. Since business will not be able to pay the increased wage they will be forced to cut employee hours or cut the number of employees they have all together. When this happens the unemployment rate will rise putting more people out of work and making it difficult to properly run a business. In some cases these businesses may even shut down due to lost profits therefore really effecting out economy. P2) What should be done is keep minimum wage at its present rate and lower the costs of living, groceries and any other material item needed to survive. By raising minimum wage it will prove the value of the American dollar is on the decline and one day it won't even be worth anything. We'll all be working for peanuts and potatoes just to feed ourselves and our families. If minimum wage increases then there is no doubt the cost of living will increase with it. More money at work = more money to be spent on the market and the government knows this. C) Save the value of the American dollar and millions of peoples jobs and do not increase minimum wage
Increase the Minimum Wage

P1) Raising minimum wage does not only effect those who are working at the minimum wages allowable, it also effects those who are not working as well and that is the point I was trying to make. Most people working today are above the minimum wage line and make $10.00 or more per hour and those who are not should consider taking up two jobs or find one job that does pay above minimum wage if they find that they are stuggling so badly; there's plenty of jobs out there,people are just not taking the time to look hard enough, once again attributing to laziness. People are happy being lazy and therefore are happy making minimum wage. P2) Try limiting your "consumer spending" to the absolute necessities. If you make 300$ a week and your bills are paid and you have 50$ left over and you see a pair of shoes that you've been wanting, its best to save that 50$ than impulsively buying something you don't really need, put gas in your car instead or save it for future bus fare. There's no struggling when there's compromise. If your struggling to make ends meat then clearly something needs to be changed as the routine your on now is not working. Millions of people who make minimum wage or less are entitled to state provided benefits that help them out with their bills or living costs but it is only for the bare essentials and not to turn it into a dependency. C) The government should not increase minimum wage
Increase the Minimum Wage

P1: I'm not talking about the unemployed I'm talking about low wage workers. That includes people in poverty who DO work, for minimum wage. "More working-age adults picked up low-wage jobs in the slowly improving economy but still struggled to pay living expenses. " (http://www.nydailynews.com... ) According to the cost of living calculator provided by the Economic Progress institute, a single person with no children would have to make $11.93 to cover the cost of living. Monthly costs including housing, food, transportation, medical, etc. total $1,662.00 ( http://www.economicprogressri.org...) and that's in states in the U.S. where the cost of living isn't as high as someplace like New York City. If you have a child, then you have to throw in child care expenses, you have to raise the amount you would spend on food and medical. In NYC minimum wage ranges from $7.25 (federal) and $8.00 (state). That's roughly $4 lower than the amount needed for a single person with no children. P2: Consumer spending makes up 70% of the economy. By increasing the minimum wage, you would have more workers making more money. The more money a person makes, the more they have to spend. If they have extra money to spend, more money gets pumped back into the economy. (http://www.cnn.com...) C: The government should increase the minimum wage.
Should schools teach other languages other than Spanish? (Clear Spring)

I do not believe schools should teach other languages than Spanish because it is the second most spoken language in the world. If students want to learn another language then learn it in there free time. Yes, it is good for students to learn more than one language. However, that is not the most important thing for students to learn. Though it may 'get very annoying,' it is still a important thing for students to learn. Almost as important as learning English. However, while Spanish is the second most spoken language in the world, English is the third, falling behind Chinese and Spanish. In this debate I only went to one source: 1). http://www.infoplease.com...
All professional swimmers are categorised as homosexuals

Hello again Simcha, I would like to begin my rebuttal by defending my case. For starters, my opponent never addressed my contention as a whole, but since I figured I may as well, I will defend my sub contentions. To defend the attack on my second sub-contention, I would like to propose a concept that my opponent has failed to address: syllogisms. For example, the statement "P=Q" infers that "Q=P" is true as a general principle. If you let the variable P represent "professional swimmers" and Q represent "homosexuals", then you get the syllogism that professional swimmers are homosexuals AND that homosexuals are professional swimmers. Through explanation of the syllogism, you can see that the resolution does not address the possible "dysfunction" of the syllogism and therefore, my sub-contention must stand. On addressing the general attack on that my "swimmers" not being "professional" enough since "no one knows them". I would like to state that my opponent offers no definition for what constitutes "fame" and by what degree of popularity his swimmers are in comparison to my own. He offered one single piece of evidence to back this claim, a poll. Upon inspection of his evidence, I realised that only 1 person voted in the entire poll, and for some reason... I have the odd suspicion that the single vote was made by my opponent himself. Of course I have no proof, other than the fact that the poll states my three swimmers by name, and ONLY these three swimmers. Because of this, I would like the voters to not only disregard the piece of evidence, but see it as "self-created", degrading the opponents "case" as a whole. Since I would like to leave no loose ends, I propose Olympic Swimmer Mark Andrew Spitz, 7 Gold medalist, father and husband (ergo, not a homosexual). I would also like to nominate Matt Biondi, an Olympic Swimmer inducted in the International Swimming Hall of Fame. More importantly, he is a father and husband and therefore, not a homosexual. To address the "fame" around these two candidates to my cause, I would like to point out that one was a 7 Gold medalist (one below Phelps) and the other is in the Hall of Fame indicating that "someone" knows them. I have successfully defended both my sub-contentions, my single contention and my evidence. I should point out that my opponent believes that by listing swimmers he is proving a case, which any debater should know, is complete folly. I should also point out that fabricating evidence in order to better your case is unprofessional and is akin to throwing punches "below the belt" so to speak, but I digress. I have successfully negated the resolution with the mere mention of many straight swimmers that perform on a professional level and by mentioning several homosexuals that are not swimmers. The resolution is negated, the opponents case (which is virtually non-existent) sunk, and my case still stands tall. I rest my case and Good Night! (P.S. I am not sure what a "Licker" is.....)
All professional swimmers are categorised as homosexuals

Hey there Gahere you licker. I have returned to prove you wrong. Sub Contention 2 Returned: I never did state that all homosexuals are swimmers but all professional swimmers are in fact homosexuals. I would also like to say that all of the swimmers that you stated were straight and are not professional because no one knows them and therefore they do not count in this category. I would also like to state two more professional swimmers that are homosexual. 1. Ian Thorpe 2. Luke Harris Evidence: Here is evidence in a straw poll showing that no one knows the swimmers you stated. http://strawpoll.me...