BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Science is based on rational thought, while belief in God is based on irrational thought.

1. The shape of our galaxy Solid objects have a tendency to become round because the force of gravity overcomes the centrifugal force acting on the overlying layer. For example, a mountain on Earth will eventually become flat because the force of gravity on the nitrogenous atmosphere is greater than the centrifugal force created by the Earth's rotation. This creates a friction between the mountain and the atmosphere which eventually results in a flat plain. This phenomenon is called erosion. If separate objects, however, have sufficient rotation and distance from one another, the centrifugal force overcomes gravity and the objects continue to separate from one another. If gravitation and centrifugal force are equal, the distance between the objects does not change and the result is an orbit. This is the case with the moon or with man-made satellites. The Milky Way is not a solid mass, but a collection of separate bodies of mass that each exert their own gravitation and centrifugal force. We have a fairly decent understanding of these forces. The phenomena of orbits and erosion can be reproduced in experimental ways and they hold up to scientific scrutiny. To postulate that that we are simply wrong about these natural forces and there is actually some supernatural force "pulling" and "pushing" on matter is simply not reasonable. 2. The big bang can't happen I would dispute your comment that if God didn't create the universe, then it must be the big-bang theory (a so-called well-proven theory according to you). This is most definitely not a well-proven theory. The scientific community acknowledges multiple theories as good candidates and that we really do not know what created the universe. The big bang theory is currently accepted as the best candidate. Also, the big bang theory is simply a regression of a known rate of change. We believe the density and temperature of the universe is changing and we believe that we know that rate of change. If the rate of change of density and temperature is constant, then theoretically at some finite point (which works out to about 14 billion years ago), there was a condition of infinite density and temperature. The big bang theory does not try to account for the hypothesis that something came out of nothing, nor does it try to account for the conditions existing prior to the big bang. If the big bang theory is wrong, chances are that whatever event or condition created the universe (assuming the universe's existence actually is finite), has a natural explanation rather than a supernatural one. The supernatural or God theory is simply another hypothesis, and it is one for which we have no evidence at all. 3. Divine intervention There is no evidence of any divine intervention. I provided a rational explanation based on evidence for the fact that the milky way is not a solid round mass. You have yet to provide any sensible evidence for the existence of God.
Science is based on rational thought, while belief in God is based on irrational thought.

Please note that I will be Devil's Advocating this debate.Pro claims that the chances of man making as complex a hypothesis as the existence of God on faith (which essentially means a guess) and being right is so low given the empirical evidence that it is just plain irrational to actually believe in God, or any other form of higher intelligence. However, he has not shown any of the "empirical evidence", even though he has 8,000 characters.Arguments for that belief in a god is rational:Rational is defined as: agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible.[1]If there is proof that God exists then believing that he exists is rational, because if there is sufficient evidence for something it would be reasonable to believe it is true; so I'll provide you with some arguments on the existence of a God.1. The shape of our galaxyObjects with high mass tend to turn into a sphere due to their high gravity. [2] Milky Way's mass is 5.8×1011 M(.)[3], so it must have enough mass to turn into a sphere. However, its shape is a barred spiral galaxy [3] and is not round, so there must be some force making it perfectly that shape. What is capable of changing the shape of something with a mss that high? An omnipotent being like a God.2. The big bang can't happenIf a God created our universe, then he must exist or else he couldn't have created it. But what about the big bang? If God didn't create the universe then it must be the big bang, which is a well-proven theory.The problem is, how did all the matter come from nowhere if God didn't create it? Many atheists like me (I am devil's advocating, as stated before) say that it is caused by quantum fluctuations, which can cause particles to come out of nowhere.We now know that vaccums are actually hives of activity with particle-antiparticle pairs being repeatedly produced out of the vacuum and almost immediately annihilating themselves into nothingness again, due to quantum fluctuations[4]. However, as the particles get annihilated at the end, hardly enough to fom a universe.If the Big Bang theory is wrong, what is something else that is pausible? Answer: God.3. Divine interventionThe universe is full of evidence that divine intervention has happened. One example is the milky-way thing that I just showed you. So if there is evidence that God exists, then it is logical and rational to believe that he/she/it does.Sources:[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]http://www.universetoday.com...[3]http://schools-wikipedia.org...[4]http://machineslikeus.com...
Science is based on rational thought, while belief in God is based on irrational thought.

Science is the formulation of theories and facts based on observable and reproducible evidence. Everything we know as individuals is learned through the scientific method whether we realize that or not. The power of science lies in its ability to recognize that not every question can be answered and that we can only postulate an answer if we have evidence to suggest one. Religious people often argue that the scientific method relies on basic assumptions such as that the laws of physics apply to everything at every place and point in time and that God (or other deity) somehow transcends these laws and lies outside of time and physical space. I would refute that argument by saying that under the principles of science, I have to admit that this case is possible (as is any), but the chances of man making as complex a hypothesis as the existence of God on faith (which essentially means a guess) and actually being right are so low given the empirical evidence that it is just plain irrational to actually believe in God, or any other form of higher intelligence. I would now invite someone to enlighten me as to why they think belief in God is in any way rational. Please keep in mind that I am distinguishing the person from the specific belief as I know many rational people who believe in God. Also keep in mind that I am choosing belief in God rather than religion itself as I believe many hypotheses that are religious in nature may very well be true. I would prefer the challenger to be someone educated, ideally in some form of theological studies.
Religious Faith Is Independent of Societal Progress

Oh, come now opponent. You don't need to treat me as an object, I would be insulted if you did. We're both people here. :) Anyways. Yes, you are arguing religious faith and religion. But my arguments still practically stand in strength due to the fact that religion in it of itself is always a personal belief if you go to the roots of it. But it spreads with other people who have the same belief and it causes reinforcement in the peoples beliefs thus causing it to become a part of society naturally. If a big part of the society believes it, its naturally gonna be part of the society. And, in conclusion, religious faith may be a system made to be personal, but it sure isn't. That is shown within the numerous factors of our society that are religiously endorsed. Because religious faith is so strong among human beings that the ideal is reinforced and made into society. I demonstrated that in the arguments above. Have a nice day, Kako. Good debate.
Religious Faith Is Independent of Societal Progress

Very well. As this is my final say I will try my best to apply the acuteness of formalities that care little of personable means. I regret not taking this approach earlier as I have made the mistake of appealing to my opponent as a person rather than an objective that needs to be superseded. Such is a failure on my part in not realizing the nature of this 'arena' and of debate itself. A far cry from both communication and understanding. Slowly I begin to doubt my actual value here. Moving on... The case I am arguing for is that "Religious Faith is Independent of Societal Progress". Had I argued that "Religion Is Independent of Societal Progress", the whole of my argument would have ended in fault as religion is in fact a part of society. Let it show that there is a distinction between Religion and Religious Faith. Religious faith alone professes a belief in God(s) or doctrine, stemming from spiritual apprehension rather than proof. [Something we've previously alluded to as "The State of Belief"] While religion is an applicable system of that belief. The inclusion of the word faith (as pointed to again within the title) places emphasis on the personal, rather than interpersonal value, of a religious aspect. Thus society, which is a structure of the interpersonal, can now be seen as independent of that aspect. What my opponent must be able to do within his final argument is either show that religious faith alone [and not religion] possesses a definitive and exclusively intrinsic means in which it interacts with any external persons, or engage in combat with the many differing semantics concerning documented definition between religion and religious faith. In a sense he must either refute the difference between mental conjecture and external application of said conjecture or refute the labels that identify them. Though not completely worthless, my previous arguments have shown that even non-faith based feelings and conclusions themselves are still restricted to one's mental person and that any external reaction to those mental faculties immediately becomes attributed to the physical person themselves and not the mental reasoning's from which they came. Please note that as the instigator, these are the stated parameters to be argued within. In conclusion let it be known the disparities between the interpersonal and the personal. One enacts influence on its surroundings while the other enacts influence purely on the intangible self, which can then be seen as independent of the community that 'self' exists in. My case rests.
Religious Faith Is Independent of Societal Progress

You are correct, I am saying human nature and society are two different things but society does branch of human nature just as religion does. And the two have always been connected in many civilizations around the world. Even in America, it is obvious. What I am saying which I am sure my opponent misunderstands -whether the blame be on me or him is irrelevant- is that yes, human nature, society and religion are offspring's of it, but that does not exclude religious faith being a part of society at all, it very much is. Whether it be a corrupt society or not, religion still is in the societies, misuse, corruption, evil, does not exclude the idea. But I shall go over the arguments of my opponent nonetheless. ---- Yes, opinions and claims are all about debates, to prove my opinion wrong. Your entire next argument here is partially true, I give it that, human nature loves authority whether being in it or ordering it is up to the person. But again, this does not prove how religion is not a part of society. Religion has made laws and bills pass. Such as Arizona's recent bill that allows people to refuse service to others based on religious beliefs. Showing religious authority is a popular thing among the people of the society. Separation of church and state is sadly irrelevant, because it isn't respected. Or enforced. I was using false diseases and fake cures as a metaphor. Fear may induce it, but faith uses that fear as an arrowhead. And like I said, this again does not prove a separation between society and religion. And just to quickly point something out off topic, if religion appeals to our fears and not our rationality, then why respect it? I make no enemy of theism, I simply see it as something society to go without. Am I an enemy of my friend Nate because I think he could do well without cigarettes? No. Your last 3 paragraphs warm my heart and I thank you, but do bear in mind, don't drift off the subject. And I agree with you fully on human nature. Thank you.
Religious Faith Is Independent of Societal Progress

Let Pro be known I have acknowledged and accepted that both this debate and my other debate are connected and interdependent of one another so my arguments can be proven or disproven just based off this debate, or that debate. Let us begin. I argue with my opponent that religious faith and societal progress, whether it is progression or degradation, are interdependent in all societies handling religious faith no matter what religion it is. I observe that it does cause people to be satisfied primarily on their faiths views of the world and not much further, and these would not be so if said people were secular thinkers. --- First, let us see to the definition of a society word for word. Society is a mass of people living together in union, despite how well sophisticated said society is. Society consists of humans and humans have had some form of religious faiths in the magnitude of societies humans have had in the course of our existence. There is countless examples of this such as the Egyptians, the Romans and the Greeks. And they had rules, traditions, laws and holidays that were inspired by religious values and it is no different in today's society. The framework of religion demonstrates itself in current societies through similar laws, holidays, rules, and traditions even in modern society. Let us take Christianity itself in America. We have Christmas. We have Easter, both are holidays that have just become a part of the culture and society. Laws. Well we know there are plenty of religiously inspired laws. Homosexual marriage is banned in many states such as Texas, Alabama and Virginia. And the arguments for the ban you will find religiously inspired reasons. Traditions are prayer before eating a meal. Rules society has made generally was not taking God or Jesus' name in vain. There is many more reasons I could go over as to why society and religious values and dogma are interdependent, but I don't nearly have enough characters to list all of them. I argue that society has inspired and well-invited religion in all societies associated with religious faith, and that abuse on general human standards are interdependent with the faithful. And it is not separated. My case is not that I find religion and religion fundamentalism similar, my case is that I believe that society and religious dogma and ideals are interdependent to one another in any society affiliated with religion, at least for this particular debate. Thank you for having this debate, good luck. And might I say, I am admiring of your intellect.
Religious Faith Is Independent of Societal Progress

Hello, I am A Flying Toaster that somehow acquired cognitive function. Don't ask how, not even I know. But I am here to debate Kako The Tiger on an issue I wasn't expecting. He had viewed my other debate I am currently doing "Religious Faith Is Not Needed" referring to that of societies all around the globe. He had some intriguing commentary and I was surprised to see this as the argument he proposed, I thought it would have been a clone of mine. But nonetheless I accept this as well, and hope it shall indeed be a swell debate. ~Good luck, opponent!
how do you believe in those gods of religions who says they are true who has not been proved as lie

how do you believe in those gods of religions who says they are true who has not been proved as lie or wrong until they are alive and to win from others they prove others are wrong by proving and believing in temporary fake truth that they are true to win time from them through there genies. Do you believe in those gods of religions who looses when they are wrong with any temporary fake truth proven by others because temporary fake truth also gives power to win from anyone and even gods will have to believe in that truth because its temporary truth but its true. Whether truth is temporary fake or original if gods genies doesnt believes in them then there mind becomes bad and mistakes happens in there religions. So what do you believe in gods of religions who proves and believes in fake truth to change time and get time to win from others and prove they are only true which has not been proven as lie by anyone. Do you believe in that truth which becomes lie or wrong by anyone to be true. Can anyone prove they gods are true and never proven lie or wrong or never lie and cannot become lie or wrong. I will believe in that god to be true if that religion god cannot be proven as lie or wrong in any times because religion gods believers believes there gods are true and lives eternal life and goes in future from past which happens to them in the same time and so how do they manage to see future from there time when there religion god is not true and lie and wrong. What do they believe in ? do they believe in fake truth which is not proven as wrong by anyone ?
Bacon is a bad food

i did not plagiarize, as the definition of of plagiarism is: the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. i did not pass it as my own as i said most of my information would come from this website. none of my info is wrong because i used a website's information. that does not make sense. we all use information from someone else. i bet you looked at some else's research to clarify your own idea of bacon. and if you did, by your idea, you plagiarized.
Bacon is a bad food

" 50% of bacon is monounsaturated and a large part of those is Alec acid" Alec acid isn't actually a thing. Its called oleic acid. Either this is a horrible mistype, or you where attempting to avoid plagiarizing as this is a direct quote from the website you sourced. "Meat tends to be very nutritious and bacon is no exception. A typical 100g portion of cooked bacon contains (5): " Another direct quote violating the plagiarizing rule. "Now that we know saturated fat, cholesterol and normal amounts of sodium are usually nothing to worry about, this leaves us with the nitrates. Apparently, some studies conducted by some scientists a long time ago linked nitrates with cancer. However, these studies have since been refuted (9). Nitrates aren"t some artificial compounds unique to bacon. Our bodies are loaded with them and the biggest dietary source is vegetables. " This is another direct plagiarizing of the website you sourced. Listen I just found three violations of the No plagiarizing rule that I stated in the opening round. By accepting this debate you accepted that rule. You violated that rule and (as the first round clearly says), that results in an automatic seven point loss. I read the article and you basically just copy pasted the whole thing. Sorry buddy, but no matter how strong you argument is you violated the rules and so lose.
Bacon is a bad food

most of my information will come from here:http://authoritynutrition.com... Rebuttals: "Bacon is 68% fat and contains 30 mg of cholesterol (for the average strip)." yes. but 50% of bacon is monounsaturated and a large part of those is Alec acid. This is the same fatty acid that olive oil is praised for and generally considered "heart-healthy" (1). "It has been linked to increasing chances of heart disease and heart failure as well as high blood pressure. It has 190 mg of sodium." as said before, the 50% is good, and good for heart health. also, There are several studies showing that bacon is linked to cancer and heart disease, but all of them are so-called epidemiological studies, which can not prove causation. "If this wasn't enough, its even banned from certain religions. There are several religions that ban the eating of pork and bacon is of coarse pork. That should be a good sign that despite its delicious taste, it is a bad food." I don't think a religions opinion of food should have anything to do with the facts. opening arguments: 1: Meat tends to be very nutritious and bacon is no exception. A typical 100g portion of cooked bacon contains (5): 37 grams of high quality animal protein. Lots of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6 and B12. 89% of the RDA for Selenium. 53% of the RDA for Phosphorus. Decent amounts of the minerals iron, magnesium, zinc and potassium. 2: Now that we know saturated fat, cholesterol and normal amounts of sodium are usually nothing to worry about, this leaves us with the nitrates. Apparently, some studies conducted by some scientists a long time ago linked nitrates with cancer. However, these studies have since been refuted. Nitrates aren"t some artificial compounds unique to bacon. Our bodies are loaded with them and the biggest dietary source is vegetables. Even our saliva contains massive amounts of them. These are compounds that are natural parts of human bodily processes. There is some concern that during high heat cooking, the nitrates can form compounds called nitrosamines, which are known carcinogens. However, vitamin c is now frequently added to the curing process, which effectively reduces the nitrosamine content. The harmful effects of nitrosamines are outweighed by potential benefits, but dietary nitrates may also be converted to Nitric Oxide, associated with improved immune function and cardiovascular health.
Bacon is a bad food

Bacon is a bad food. I would like to clarify at the beginning I am talking about real bacon, not fake bacon, or turkey bacon or any other variations. Simply real pig bacon. Bacon is 68% fat and contains 30 mg of cholesterol (for the average strip). It has been linked to increasing chances of heart disease and heart failure as well as high blood pressure. It has 190 mg of sodium. It has also been linked to lower sperm counts in men. Overall the consumption of bacon has proven damaging to our bodies and thus is a bad food. If this wasn't enough, its even banned from certain religions. There are several religions that ban the eating of pork and bacon is of coarse pork. That should be a good sign that despite its delicious taste, it is a bad food.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should mine asteroids.

This debate shall be over wheather or not the US federal government should mine asteroids. RulesFirst Round is acceptance and definitions. Second Round is for Contentions, no rebuttles. Third Round is for Rebuttles. Forth Round is for Rebuttles and Conclusions. (No new arguments)No semanticsShould- Used to express obligation or duty (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...)Mine- a pit or tunnel from which minerals (such as coal, gold, diamonds, etc. ) are taken (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...)Asteroids- any of the small rocky celestial bodies found especially between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Percy Jackson films are better than the books

Yes, Kieran, but I love picturing it. You haven't actually read the books. If you had, you would realise, -Annabeth's hair is actually brown. -The quest wasn't to FIND the PEARLS, it was to GET to the UNDERWORLD. There are loads of mistakes in the films; you should watch the CinemaSins version of Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief. And also: What happened to the title? It was originally just Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief, what's all that about the Olympians? It's four syllables longer than needed. The God Ares played a major part in the books, yet in the films he was barely shown. What happened to the Double Stuf Oreos, huh?