BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is better to live as a Christian than to live as an atheist.

I will keep my argument for this round simple. One of my main points is that living an atheistic life gives you so much more freedom and appreciation of life. Losing your religion is a very powerful thing. It is like a huge weight off your shoulders. You appreciate the fact that you only live once and as atheists don't believe in the afterlife I appreciate much more how precious my time here is and that I must make the most of it as I have ultimately nothing to lose. I think it is much more fulfilling to live a life of wonder and seeking knowledge. What I mean by this is as an atheist, I am constantly wondering about the origin of the universe, why are we here, what's the meaning of life etc. I find the seeking and rational thinking of these questions is so much more interesting and fulfilling than just being told that there is a superstitious explanation for all these questions and that there is no need to research them. This is being tied down In a way and hinders self development. These are some of the reasons why I favour the atheistic view of life. Now onto the problems I see with the Christian way of life in light of the atheistic way of life. Like I said, Christianity teaches that it's ok not to question things in life because there is already a supposedly perfectly good explanation for everything. This prevents people from fully growing up as they go around blind, depending on nothing more than a fictional story, rather than arguing against such a notion. The life of a Christian is based around the idea that there is an all powerful being who is the ruler of the universe and cause of life. Yet this is a being who is supposedly judging us every minute of the day in everything we do and think of, who will determine if we are going to heaven or hell yet this is someone we cannot see, hear or feel which results in us being basically puppets. This is the essence of the master and slave relationship and I don't see how slavery is a good way of living. I could go on however I will wait for my opponents rebuttal to get more in depth.
God, whether he exists or not, is not always right.

Counterpoint 1: Con, if God was really that powerful and righteous, he could've just "enlightened" all of the Egyptians including the pharaoh instead of just sending the plagues that he KNEW would not sway the Egyptians enough to really let go of the Hebrews. (The pharaoh gave permission for the Hebrews to leave and then changed his mind) You also pointed out that God did this to "... disprove the Egyptians' idols to them" but that obviously didn't work as historical evidence shows that the Egyptians continued to worship their gods even after the time that God supposedly send the plagues even if he existed. Counterpoint 2: Alright I will admit the my comparison was slightly exaggerated. However, death, is like the zero. You can not ask someone how many zeroes goes into the number 5 because the answer could be anything, from 0 itself to infinity. This comparison is compatible to death because, after death, you could no longer punish the person's physical body because they simply wouldn't feel it, whether there is an afterlife or not. Counterpoint 3: The fact that the Christian God can beat Sobek has no proof. Even if he can that has nothing to do with it. Your argument is invalid here because the debate topic is not God would be able to beat all other pagan gods. Counterpoint 4: He wanted the Jewish faith to survive? Don't make me laugh. Of course he did! In the Jewish faith he is the centre of the world! And also, look at his way of trying to help his children, oh I'm just going to make you slaves to some random stranger for 400 years to make you believe in me? What kind of father is that? And also regarding the second chance at life for children thing, you suggested it, not me. You are basically just saying that your point was invalid by saying that my point is invalid. So if your point was invalid, why did the children have to die? Please do not avoid this question because, the children, may I state again, are INNOCENT. How can you believe in a God who supposedly killed thousands of children? Counterpoint 5: Ok the first part of your rebuttal was absolutely correct and I admit that I was wrong. However, oh, so only humans have to follow the rules God made and he doesn't? What kind of king is that? Counterpoint 6: You got me there con, I should've made the debate topic more specific. But how do you know that God is going to send Jesus to save you? That argument was based on a highly unlikely assumption and therefore invalid. Also, you yourself said that the universe works in perfect synchronisation so why are you admitting that the moon will crush into the sun and the world will end? Counterpoint 7: Con you said that almost all of my arguments were invalid because I'm arguing against the bible and Jesus but how do you know that the bible was actually telling you the truth? And also even if God sent Christians a message during the World Wars that can save them but he should've predicted that his message wouldn't have been received. I accept your point about the Christian American soldiers dying willingly but what bout their families who DIDN'T want them to die? Back to you.
God, whether he exists or not, is not always right.

Thanks for accepting. Firstly, although most of the values set by God are fair, the mistakes he make aren't just huge, they're huge God-style. Take the story with Moses for example. I'm pretty we've all grown up with stories of how people of Canaan somehow all moved to Egypt and then the pharaoh wouldn't let them go because he was being stubborn. And then guess what God did to those 'oh so terrible' children of his who worshipped other gods and didn't follow his orders? He set the plagues on his children. Yes Moses did warn the pharaoh before each of the disasters, but it was clear that the Egyptians wouldn't believe him. Imagine if the roles were reversed and the pharaoh was telling Moses about how Sobek (an Egyptian god with the body of a crocodile) or some other god will destroy every single one of the slaves from Canaan if he didn't let the Egyptians go, would Moses have believed him? No. Moses would've trusted God and ignored the pharaoh's warning. So even though God probably knew that the Egyptians will ignore the warnings and that they're supposedly his children, he set the plagues on them, which raises a second point. The bible described God as always right and knows everying that happened, is happening and will happen. If God was so powerful he would've foreseen the pharoah's stubborness and if so why couldn't he just send one, single powerful plague that shook pharaoh so much that he set the slaves free right away instead of sending all the others? He could've even changed the pharaoh's mind by force because he was so powerful but no, he just had to torture his own children until he single-handedly murdered the eldest sons of every single one of the Egyptian families, which can I remind you again, are his own flesh and blood. That was the ultimate move. The children, no matter how badly the pharoah treated the slaves and how immoral he was when he arranged for all the Hebrew baby boys to be killed, were innocent. Why did he kill the children? Even if all of them supported pharaoh's decisions, they were only children and would not have understood fully what they were doing. And then, right after God killed their children, as the Egyptians started chasing the Hebrews, God, one way or another, caused even more Egyptians to die. Chasing after the Hebrews might not have been the smartest decision after all the display of God's power but wouldn't you be angry if your children were murdered in cold blood? Does that really seem like the actions of a kind and caring father to you? To me that sounds like a guy with way too much power which he does not know how to use properly who will stop at nothing to get things his way. Thank you.
American slaves suffered more than Jews who were killed during the Holocaust

I apologize somewhat for the confrontational approach I have taken to this debate, and for the unfair insults I hurled your way. The simple fact of the matter is that we cannot determine who suffered more because they both suffered beyond the capability of any of us to understand. Suffering in my mind is something only measurable on an individual level, while suffering on a massive scale, by a religious group or race is brought on by tyranny of many, which always stems from or leads to war. Just try being a middle class, non government employee, or non union member, and try to maintain your quality of life, if you wish to understand suffering. You, as the position of Con in this debate have given yourself the position of defending what you believe, which is obviously that the Jews suffered more, while I contend that it is impossible to make any decision regarding the truth of such an idea. The fact is that a powerful, greedy, malevolent government created both situations with the help of the populace they were created by. I believe that you sir went off the path of this debate much further then I, so votes should clearly reflect that, and your grammar and spelling had issues also. As a non conformist, certainly I will never fall in line with tyranny, so hooray for me. Thank you for your debate, I hope you didn't get a belly ache.
American slaves suffered more than Jews who were killed during the Holocaust

Let me explain to you what you are. You are a non-conformist who deems it necessary to rant about his ridiculous ideals about the American society. In reality you have nothing to solve or more importantly shed light on anything worth observing or fixing. I have tried to convince you to debate like the civil person I thought I may have found, but I no realize what kind of person you are. To have the audacity to claim that I have tried to change the subject is an embarrassment in itself. I have ended every argument trying to convince you to return to the debate topic, but you decided to use this allotted time to express your ridiculous, over-rationale, and out dated political views. I have never claimed to make the decisions of the Jewish and African-American community, but what I previously stated in my preceding argument is that I wanted to explore different perspectives of human suffering and moral values of humans. This is no longer a debate, so neither of us can win or lose, contrary to your idiotic consensus. I do not want to waste my time with your ignorant ideologies.
American slaves suffered more than Jews who were killed during the Holocaust

In my stupid rat brain mind, a debate is a war of words, with the winner being the one that convinces the most readers or listeners. A debate is war, sir, not an attempt to get along with everyone, but to develop a consensus. You changed the subject, maybe because you think you are losing? It's just politics, which is a bunch of crap these days, unless you are a balloted politician that can make the slave or Jew decision, right? Who deserves the most taxpayer dollars? Fiat currency is what will be our demise, yet you stand beside the flag and espouse your knowledge as infallible? Happy retirement to you sir, taxpayer slayer!
American slaves suffered more than Jews who were killed during the Holocaust

Do you understand the point of a debate? It is to discuss various topics and persuade others to agree with you. This debate, so far, has been a debate over whether we should judge suffering or not. Please refer to the topic of this debate and ponder your argument a little bit more. The purpose of this debate was to gather different perspective of human suffering. I mistakingly thought I might find an opponent who would provide another insight on the suffering of American slaves. It is obvious both suffered greatly, but who received the most suffering? Here is a couple of links to the definition of a debate in case you have forgotten: http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
American slaves suffered more than Jews who were killed during the Holocaust

I took this position against my better judgement, but I would rather subject myself to the judgement of myself then another. Your argument is what exactly? What I read in your argument, and connected to your profile, is that you feel that the slaves descendants, which are the only remnant of slavery that exist, are better off then the gas chambered Jews? I think they are pretty much equal. Are you just furthering the division status quo?
American slaves suffered more than Jews who were killed during the Holocaust

It was estimated that 5-6 million Jews lost their lives during the Holocaust. Many Jewish victims were never aware of their impending death. They were malnourished, beaten daily, and tortured. During these monstrous acts, Nazis soldiers knew that would have to kill these prisoners eventually, but still continued to torture them. There was never a beacon of hope, and no point in wishful thinking for the Jewish victims. Many families were forced to depart from their loved ones, not knowing if they would ever have a chance to reconnect with their family. The only thing the Jewish victims were able to achieve was their ability to live, but without their loved ones.
Mitt Romney's calling his own sons liars in the debate last night

I'm not sure what your contention is here, but it seems like Romney just provided one of his "zingers." I don't think he called his sons liars, so much as outlined a teenage stereotype. It seemed like a pretty innocent quip that a lot of parents of teenagers can relate to. It was probably a prepared retort that was meant to reduce Obama's credibility by comparing him to a teenager. I think he delivered it decently (better than you would expect from him), which is why you're not hearing about it.
There is no God and Heaven is not real

https://m.youtube.com... <---- this video states my basic view points on Christian/Catholic theism. However, I will get more detail on each topic mentioned proving my thesis that there is no God and no Heaven. In this debate, I am not pressuring you to join my atheist side and belief of evolution; just be more open to accept science and be less dependant on your source of "faith." br>SUBJECTS MENTIONEDBible- DISCRIMINATION (Very common in our world's past) "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man. She must be silent" - 1 Timothy 2:12What I find interesting about this form of discrimination is that sexism was especially popular in the old ages, like in the time the bible was written, which could just be a source of what these people wanted us to obey this "advice." The bible cons homosexuality, but again how could the "man" who created something that was scientifically proven to be genetically passed be against this. Ex:"Do not lie with a man as a man lies with a women; that is detestable" Leviticus 18:22The bible also supports slavery and being a follower of "God" and the bible, does that mean you support slavery? This would make sense in the bible, because when it was written- there used to be slavery. I am unsure when this was added to the bible, but it does give people a "reason" to justify their acts of slavery. GOD IN THE BIBLEGod has broken his commandment of murder several times. I do not feel obligated to give you quotes due to the fact that this is mentioned a lot in the bible. BIBLE= SOURCE TO JUSTIFY ACTIONSThe bible makes sense due to the fact that is was written by rape supporting, murderous men. Obviously, people aren't usually like this, but keep in mind- the bible was written in a bad time. EVOLUTION This topic means a lot. There is numerous evidence to support evolution. There are artifacts and old skeletons of homo erectus, etc. I don't see how you still believe in creationism due to the fact that evolution will never stop. Who decides the end of evolution? Overall, I do not believe there is a heaven or a God.
World Football aka soccer is the best sport I prefer to debate someone who loves American football

This debate is a mess Anyway I said I prefer that the con be someone who loves American football I didn't say you have too, I just provided arguments against American football but to be honest these arguements can be used on virtually every sport You can argue on behalf of any sport being better then soccer aslong as you provide a sound argument and the sport being actually sport (wwe and esports aren't real sports) wwe is more of a scripted live theatre and esports is basically exciting mind training
World Football aka soccer is the best sport I prefer to debate someone who loves American football

The resolution simply stated that 'world football aka soccer is the best sport ever.' You also stated 'I prefer' to debate etc etc. This misled me into thinking that I would only have to debate that soccer is not the best sport ever. The 'prefer' did not imply that I would 'have' to take the position of American football. Maybe you could have said 'You will be taking the position in this debate of American football being better than soccer.' This was an unclear resolution.
World Football aka soccer is the best sport I prefer to debate someone who loves American football

Esports isn't a sport, A sport 1. an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. "team sports such as baseball and soccer" synonyms:(competitive) game(s), physical recreation, physical activity, physical exercise, athletics; pastime "we did a lot of sports" This makes e sports not an actual sport
Abolishing the Death Penalty

Death is truly the most primal fear we can have as living creatures. It is the single most "valuable" thing we possess, it is arguably the only thing we know; however, if you accept the premise that killing another human being is wrong, if we can avoid killing someone, or in this case executing them without incurring a comparable or greater moral cost we should. Edward Fesser made his argument on one premise: Humans are rational creatures. To an extent this is true, rationality is a trait, while not unique in humans, that plays a large role in society, but we are not wholly rational beings. Rationality helps us make decisions but is not the sole factor or even the dominant one in many circumstances. Death has likely been the penalty for murder for a large part of human history but murders still happen. The murder rate has been declining since the early/mid 1990's. http://www.fbi.gov... What is interesting is if you look at the murder rate per state, regionally etc: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... You cannot accurately guess which states have a higher rate of murder. (My grievance is with the states that have the death penalty and have not executed anyone, that is not clearly explained or differentiated because that would be interesting to examine by itself). They sort the lists in a myriad of ways but in theory the states with the most executions should have the lower murder rates but this does not appear to be the case. Mind you, statistics regarding the effectiveness of execution pose several problems: 1) We're not wholly rational, if we were there would be no murders if execution was the penalty. 2) Correlation doesn't prove causation. 3) Vast oversimplification of the phenomenon. a) There are far more variables than we lend credence to but many of them are probably cultural and on rare occasion biological. b) Falling murder rates. Both sides of this debate have provided numbers and I would not make my decision based off of them. My primary concern is that a true test of whether or not the death penalty works would involve having two of the exact same state occupied by the same people, one with the death penalty and one without but we do not have that luxury. Instead of attempting to navigate an ocean of variables we could change one. Regarding cost, I would like to point out that the death penalty in Kansas would cost them more. Mind you, to ascertain whether or not it is in fact more expensive would be to examine the criteria for a resident in a maximum security prison, and to figure out how many people convicted of murder would remain there for the full sentence. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... Discounting that we have executed even one innocent person is abhorrent. We could risk executing no innocent people by simply removing the death penalty, rather than attempting to feed a "sense of justice" which we seem to confuse with blood lust. Personal experience speaking: I've been there, friend dead, and what was on my mind was not justice.
Abolishing the Death Penalty

This is going to be kind of sloppy. The death penalty should be abolished. For this, I will be loosely working with Peter Singer's interpretation of utilitarianism, in which equal consideration of interests plays a large role. A vastly simplified example is this: Suppose you have two men, one is in severe pain while the other is in moderate pain but you only have two pills. Equal consideration of interests would demand that we give the two pills to the man in severe pain if only because he requires more to be in pain that is comparable to the man in moderate pain. Equal treatment is not necessarily the same treatment. Morality in the most general of senses exists to promote mankind's flourishing and within this general framework justice's role would be to redress behaviors and acts that run counter to the purpose of morality. Rights are not lost or even surrendered. Killing another human being is wrong; save for in the circumstance where immediate, potentially lethal means are necessary to prevent death or grievous injury. Theories of natural rights, such as those discussed by Locke propose that murderer's lose their right to life. I disagree on the grounds that rights, which appear to be found on utilitarian principle, can only ever be in question if the cost preserving a right results in a more grievous violation of rights. The idea of crime incurring debt that can only be repaid with life is frighteningly similar to the concept of ownership. As a nation, we have killed innocent men and women. Without the death penalty this miscarriage of justice would be wholly avoidable. The cost of executions is phenomenal compared to imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In 2012 the National Academy of Sciences found that studies regarding the effectiveness of the death penalty in reducing murder rates could not be used to inform decisions. There is no viable numerical evidence supporting either side.
1 is equal to .99999999...

===Rebuttal=== I did not say that 1=.999I said 1=.99999999... with the 9's going on forever.===Proof===1. x=.99999999... 2. 10x=9.99999999...3. 10x-x=9.99999999...-.99999999... 4. 9x=95. x=16. 1=.99999999...===Explanation of Proof=== 1. This establishes a variable x equal to .99999999...2. Multiplying both sides by 103. Because x=.99999999... I can subtract one side by x and the other by .99999999... and have a valid equation 4. 10x-x=9x and 9.99999999...-.99999999...=95. Dividing both sides by 96. They both equal x and therefore equal each other============================================Vote Pro
1 is equal to .99999999...

1 is not equal to .999 Now in math you round up, but that doesn't mean its equal. EX: 1+1+1= 3 .999+.999+.999=2.997; wee short of 3. Now lets say this 45/N(this will be 1) that is 45(pieces of a cookie) Now lets say .999 is the same as 1, that should give us the right answer,right? 45/.999 that gives 45.045; a little difference.