BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Each Atheist actually believes he/she is God

" You are failing to demonstrate how your elevated since of self worth fails to fit the definition of a God, mind there are two provided." Two? I see one definition of rekevance with two parts: "a)A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." Your "b" definition is simply force, manifestation, or aspect of such a being, which holds the same requirements of an omnipotent, omniscient being. " I beg to differ, my kind sir. The most commonly known and practiced religion of Christianity regards Christ as Humble and as God." And? Just because people happen to believe something, does not mean it is not a contradiction. The Bible claims your god is a Jealous God, not nearly humble enough to allow worship of other gods. It's hardly a sign of humility to demand that others worship you. :D But here is the primary contradiction in divine humility. The Bible claims "God is great." If he is also omniscient, he knows he is great. Pride is the belief that one is good or great, true or otherwise. It is impossible for him to disbelieve it if it is true and he is omniscient. "If you kill your Father, more than likely you would accept that you have committed an immoral act" That would depend on what he did first :D "All relevant philosophical views on morals will boil down to needing a foundation on The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being, which is A definition of God. Morals are based on (a) God. Unproven nonsense. I have a specifically relevant philosophical view about morality that relies on no force, effect, or manifestation of that being. Specifically, that which enhances one's life is good, that which acts against it is evil. If I kill my father, and he is innocent, I have just demonstrated to everyone that being innocent is no means to be safe from me. Thus if they wish to be safe from me they have no alternative but to eliminate me. This is obviously not beneficial to my life. Nowhere in this is any omnipotent, omniscient being, nor any force, effect, or manifestation of that being, needed. Also, even if you could demonstrate this nonsense, which you can't, keep in mind that a small minority of atheists hold the "Amoralist" position, which would mean it is not applicable to them.
Each Atheist actually believes he/she is God

First off, you are presuming that worship of myself labels me a God. This is not true" You are failing to demonstrate how your elevated since of self worth fails to fit the definition of a God, mind there are two provided. Further your argument against worship not being for a God requires quite a lot of "side stepping" it is almost universally understood that worship is to a Deity or one which replaces a Deity. "a 'Humble God' is a contradiction. That which is omnipotent and omniscient cannot be humble, such humility would be a failure of knowledge about it's vast ability :D." I beg to differ, my kind sir. The most commonly known and practiced religion of Christianity regards Christ as Humble and as God. A Humble God is not a contradiction, of course it depends on which God you speak of. A Humble Allah God may be a contradiction but a Humble Christian God is not; both omniscient. "This is nonsense. You do not become a deity by removing a deity. If I kill my father, do I become my father?" If you kill your Father, more than likely you would accept that you have committed an immoral act, but no you would not become your father. The foundation of why it is immoral is of importance, however. If you remove a Deity, you have to replace the Deity. All relevant philosophical views on morals will boil down to needing a foundation on The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being, which is A definition of God. Morals are based on (a) God. An atheist determines what his morals will be thus he has made him/herself his God. If an Atheist fails to recognize himself as God then he must accept another God; and can no longer be called an Atheist.
Each Atheist actually believes he/she is God

" In order to deny God, one must believe in a replacement." A replacement for WHAT function of God? "The only replacement is another God. The God you deny may be omni this and that but the God replacing need only be a God by the simplest of definitions." That is known as the fallacy of equivocation. You already defined God with the full omni this and that. You cannot use the same term with two definitions in the same argument, logically. "Thank you for admitting you worship yourself.....while I admit it may not be obvious; it is still true. One need not be reverent to think himself a God, perhaps he believed himself a humble God, but still a God " First off, you are presuming that worship of myself labels me a God. This is not true. "worï¿½ship (wï¿½r'shĭp) pronunciation n. 1. 1. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a SACRED object. (emphasis mine.) 2. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed." "saï¿½cred (sā'krĭd) pronunciation adj. 1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity. 2. Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha. 3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine. 4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President. 5. WORTHY OF RESPECT, VENERABLE. 6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices." It is by the fifth definition that I deem myself a sacred object- not necessarily a God. Furthermore, a "Humble God" is a contradiction. That which is omnipotent and omniscient cannot be humble, such humility would be a failure of knowledge about it's vast ability :D. " C3 You have tried to discredit morals being based on a Deity but we all know good and well that morals are based on "something". That something can be various things like a Deity, or society, or an individual. Now Society and Individuals often arrive at conclusions based on a Deity, if you remove the Deity, you become it." This is nonsense. You do not become a deity by removing a deity. If I kill my father, do I become my father? " This is like saying XXXX is a man who does not believe he exist. An oxymoron. I am suggesting that Atheism is an oxymoron. You have admitted to worshiping yourself, have you not? You claim to be an Atheist but you also claim to worship yourself." I worship myself, yes. Not in a capacity as a God, but as a "sacred object." In a thoroughally non-supernatural meaning of sacred. Just because religion has hijacked words like sacred, or exaltation, or reverence, or worship, for thousands of years, does not mean that the same concepts are not legitimate in a secular context. The noble soul hath reverence for itself.
Each Atheist actually believes he/she is God

Thank you for taking the debate Ragnar_Rahl, I'm a fan. C1 "Huh? Where's the logic for this? I for one sure as heck don't deny logic :D. And I do not view myself as God by the above definition." In order to deny God, one must believe in a replacement. The only replacement is another God. The God you deny may be omni this and that but the God replacing need only be a God by the simplest of definitions. C2 "But Che Guevara was an atheist too... and he did not worship himself, he regarded himself as an object of contempt, much like many Christians:"I know you've come to kill me. Shoot, coward, you're only going to kill a man. - Ernesto Che Guevara (just before he was shot and murdered)" It is certainly not very reverent to speak of one's own life in terms of "only."" Thank you for admitting you worship yourself.....while I admit it may not be obvious; it is still true. One need not be reverent to think himself a God, perhaps he believed himself a humble God, but still a God C3 You have tried to discredit morals being based on a Deity but we all know good and well that morals are based on "something". That something can be various things like a Deity, or society, or an individual. Now Society and Individuals often arrive at conclusions based on a Deity, if you remove the Deity, you become it. "Of course, ultimately I need only point out the contradiction of your resolution. An atheist is one who believes that there is no God. They cannot simultaneously hold this and hold that they are God." This is like saying XXXX is a man who does not believe he exist. An oxymoron. I am suggesting that Atheism is an oxymoron. You have admitted to worshiping yourself, have you not? You claim to be an Atheist but you also claim to worship yourself. OXYMORON.
Each Atheist actually believes he/she is God

" Contention 1 Atheist only deny God because it opposes their view of them being God Atheist often deny God, but in doing so they deny logic." Huh? Where's the logic for this? I for one sure as heck don't deny logic :D. And I do not view myself as God by the above definition. " Contention 2 Atheist worship themselves This is fairly obvious" No, in fact it is not. I worship myself, no doubt about it. But Che Guevara was an atheist too... and he did not worship himself, he regarded himself as an object of contempt, much like many Christians: " I know you've come to kill me. Shoot, coward, you're only going to kill a man. - Ernesto Che Guevara (just before he was shot and murdered)" It is certainly not very reverent to speak of one's own life in terms of "only." " Contention 3 Atheist define their own morals Morals are typically defined by philosophical views usually in relation to a Deity. Atheist define morals by themselves, thus they are their own God." This is a nonsensical definition of morality, first of all. It has nothing to do with relation to a deity. Main Entry: 1morï¿½al Listen to the pronunciation of 1moral Pronunciation: \ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmï¿½r-\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom Date: 14th century 1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment e: capable of right and wrong action Where on earth does any of this have anything to do with a deity? It implies, of course, that there must be a purpose on which the standard is framed, the purpose being, in my ethical system, oneself. It does not imply any reference to an omnipotent, omniscient, creator being. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Also, though again you've been lucky in picking an atheist who partly matches your description- I do indeed base morality around a purpose of benefit to the self- This is not an accurate descriptor of all atheists. Indeed, mine is an extreme minority view. Far more common among atheists is the view of "Relativism," which, ignoring the implication of a goal in prescribing a standard, holds that "Society" (not the self) is an arbitrary determinant in the matter-whatever it says is moral, is moral. Of course, ultimately I need only point out the contradiction of your resolution. An atheist is one who believes that there is no God. They cannot simultaneously hold this and hold that they are God.
Each Atheist actually believes he/she is God

Each Atheist actually believes he/she is God. (Sorry for the 3000 character limit but I increased the rounds.) Definitions Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. God: a)A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. b)The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. Worship: The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object. Contention 1 Atheist only deny God because it opposes their view of them being God Atheist often deny God, but in doing so they deny logic. Contention 2 Atheist worship themselves This is fairly obvious Contention 3 Atheist define their own morals Morals are typically defined by philosophical views usually in relation to a Deity. Atheist define morals by themselves, thus they are their own God.
Primordial soup theory of abiogenesis is more likely to be true than (Insert competing theory here).

I am sorry my opponent forfeited and his account is no longer active. I would have enjoyed the full extent of this debate. I also want to again point everyone that the Sudden Start Model is completely grounded in scientific data. This scientific data is all verifiable and has more validity than a "goo to you" view of the origins of life. That is not to say that there may be other natural explanations more viable. I realize this evidence will not coincide with the belief system of naturalists. I can only hope that the voters do view my debate methodology and argumentation as superior to my opponent's who withdrew from the debate. If any naturalist wishes to debate this issue with more effectiveness please open up discussions with me for a challenge.
Socialism is a good system.

I accept your challenge. First off, Scandinavian countries, although they do pay high taxes, aren't socialist, Sweden for example has a parliamentary representative democratic constitutional monarchy. In fact, only 4 current countries are actually socialist [1]. If socialism was so successful, then far more countries would've adopted the government. You say how socialism helps poor citizens find jobs, when socialism,in fact, makes the poor poorer and the rich richer because there is no ambition to break the glass ceiling [2]. No ambition could result in a "lazy" country which results in slow economic growth, so socialism does not help the economy as you stated. There are numerous disadvantages of socialism, which is the reason why so many countries have dropped the form of government and so few have it in today's time. Firstly, socialism leads to huge amounts of spending by the government. From showering funds on social benefits to welfare schemes, healthcare to education, right to food and almost every aspect of normal livelihood of people, the state would have to fund everything [2]. Also, as I stated previously, socialism gets rid of the incentive given to those who work hard. Leading to as said, slow economic growth as well as low national ambition, little to no advances across numerous topics including science and technology, an inability to obtain the upmost profit from the use of resources, labors and land [3], the lowering amount of businesses in the country because of the high taxes on businesses [2]. Further, socialism requires a huge government and a massive bureaucracy. With limited privatization and more people being in government jobs, there is greater corruption and only a small group of people sitting at the heights of power tend to get richer. Socialism aims to create socioeconomic equality but in the process ends up creating a small super elite populace comprising of people in power and a super poor populace which comprises of every citizen who does a normal job. In conclusion, socialism no incentive for hard work leads to slow country development and requires high spending by the government, creating a large national debt that may be difficult to pay off. Also, although socialism is often associated with equality, it only makes the poor poorer and the rich richer and is impossible to have complete equality with the inequalities we have with modern societies from gender to race to religion. Similarly, socialism does not create social equality, for it creates a large split between the small super elite populace and the super poor populace. The above reasons are why socialism has failed throughout the ages, is so rarely used in modern society, and will continue to be ignored by countries. https://en.wikipedia.org... http://nlcatp.org... https://www.boundless.com...
Socialism is a good system.

Socialism, while it has had it's downsides, has worked for many countries and helped countless poor, working class citizens find jobs and secure a better life. In Scandinavia, socialism and social systems are widespread. The quality of life is, according to OECD Better Life Index, higher than the average of other countries around the world by a hefty amount. In those countries, everybody is given a fair chance without majorly disrupting the class system to where everybody is the exact same, like in Communism. Overall, socialism increases the quality of life and it helps the economy according to heritage.com.
On balance, human nature is more selfish than altruistic.

I have to concede this debate. You more or less negated my argument about evolution very earlier in the debate with your arguments about parenting and finished them off completely last round. This combined with your argument about the Donner party to counter my Leningrad example (which you clarified very well last round) got rid of what was left of my opening arguments, and you had some quite strong arguments about martyrs and effects of altruism on happiness. I must say you've completely changed my opinion on this topic. I apologize you couldn't find a more prepared opponent. This has been a very enjoyable debate. Best wishes to you! :)
On balance, human nature is more selfish than altruistic.

Thank you. "In the animal kingdon, a vast amount of males take time out of their lives to put forth the effort in both defending and supplying their offspring. .. "My source refers to the biological causes of human behavior. You talk about various examples throughout the animal kingdom, but these are mostly irrelevant. Different reproductive strategies exist for different animals, and the natural human male strategy appears to be to impregnate as many females as possible. I have conceded that modern parents will contribute to help their children. This seems to be because the aforementioned strategy is no longer acceptable or feasible in our society, and parents therefore work together to help raise their children. The biological, and therefore natural, reproductive actions seem to be more reflective of human nature than our modern structure. "I wished to show you an example using the Donner party to draw sticks over who would be sacrificed in order to be eaten for the good of all. .. "I believe these scenarios prove my point. Imagine if you were placed in a situation like this: a random person would be killed in order to help the others to live. Each person, of course, prays that they are not the one chosen. This is a perfectly natural response, of course, but it is certainly selfish. If people were fundamentally altruistic in situations as these, you would see people volunteering to give up their lives for the common good. Most people would enter into an agreement such as this on the idea that it was unlikely they would be picked. "Martyrs throughout history show us the implications of altruism on a society. "I have to concede this point. Everyone must strive towards altruism, and martyrs are a perfect example of those who go above and beyond for their cause. I notice you've not mentioned my rebuttals to your "altruism's effect on happiness" argument. Are you conceding them or did you just forget? Thank you again. :)
On balance, human nature is more selfish than altruistic.

Thanks for your understanding and your great arguments!"Humans have a race only have survived due to their reproductive habits...[which] instead places the priority of life on the child."This is certainly true about the mothers, but you forget about the male population. The mother spends so much of her time and energy so that the child may live, sometimes even giving her life. And this is certainly altruistic, but what about the evolutionary role of males? The biological role of any male animal is to mate with as many females as possible and then leave the female to support the offspring. [1] This is quite obviously not altruistic.Obviously, societal perceptions of reproduction and parenting are not like this--we have (in most cases) a system in which both parents contribute altruistically for the good of the child. But is this human nature? You make an evolutionary rather than societal argument about altruism in parenting, so I have responded in kind."The population takes a conscious decision to fairly divide the supply of nutrients by rationing them to everyone."They do initially. However, as time goes on, supplies dwindle and it becomes clear that there will not be relief for several more months, there is inevitably fighting over rations. What happens in a situation where rations are so low that if they were to be doled out equally, everyone would starve? In a situation such as this, there will always be fighting and even killing over rations."This is minimal considering the circumstances..."An excellent point. But is inaction really proof of altruism? Most families would simply stay in their apartments trying to stay warm. Many would starve and some did not have the strength to go out for food. You may be correct, but you have not proven that this was a result of altruism."The number of people involved compared to the number of people outraged and seeking justice are quite low..."I have to concede this point."...altruism holds the 'highest' form of happiness..."This is also likely true. However, this seems to me to be more of a societal impulse than one resulting from nature. Of course all people should strive for altruism and compassion, but this directly contradicts the evolutionary law of self-preservation. Thus I am inclined to infer that this is a happiness derived from the fulfillment of social values rather than human nature itself.Again I apologize for my rather short arguments. Hopefully as the weekend approaches I can elaborate a bit more. You've made some great arguments and I look forward to your responses!Sources1. http://public.wsu.edu...
On balance, human nature is more selfish than altruistic.

Sorry I took so long, I was really busy with homework and stuff. Humans, like all other animals, have evolved with a strong sense of self-preservation. [1] It's what keeps us alive. Self-preservation, of course, leads us to do things that are less than altruistic, often sacrificing the needs of others for the sake of ourselves. It's a biological need, and, while society and social expectations have restricted this, we still see its hand quite a bit in our daily lives and throughout history. The recent price hikes of Daraprim and the EpiPen are excellent examples of this--people ignoring the needs of others less fortunate than them to benefit themselves. They obviously are not any more respected by society for it, so why do they do it? It benefits nobody but themselves, and hurts millions of people. These actions are the very definition of selfishness, and what else can explain their actions if not human nature? A more potent example is the siege of Leningrad. The Nazis' Operation Barbarossa surrounded the city of Leningrad(now St. Petersburg) that lasted over two years. German soldiers cut off all supply lines to the city in early September of 1941. The cold Russian winter was fast approaching and food rations soon had to be cut to 250 grams of bread per day for workers and half of that for others. In the first six months of 1942, there were over 1,200 murders for ration cards and over 2,000 cases of cannabalism. [2][3] Human nature is often revealed in the mass breakdown of social structure as seen in Leningrad. I apologize for these rather short opening remarks. I don't have much time left, but I will expand upon them in later rounds. Thank you and eagerly awaiting your responses! Sources1. . http://public.wsu.edu...2. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...3. . https://en.wikipedia.org...