BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does religion need a solid foundation or does faith alone work? (Con means faith alone acceptable)

First I would like to ignore atheism since it isn't really a "religion" since religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Sorry I brought this up halfway into the debate, I forgot to bring it up in the second round. I believe our debate is starting to intertwine itself. We are both saying (Christianity specifically) Christ made the foundation. You are saying the foundation is on faith, but what I am talking about is we believe in what he and other prophets said. I believe we are both looking at opposite sides of the argument and need to bring them together to find the truth. I will stick mainly to Christianity for my first point. First, faith is your own, your faith is what you believe in, and we need to stop switching between faith and belief (likely my fault). First, yes Christianity is based on faith, we have a foundation, and evidence to support this before the time of Christ. When Moses led his people (the Jews) out of Egypt, the Red Sea supposedly parted until they traversed its bed saving them from an Egyptian army. We may be thinking of different meanings for foundation, but we can use that as a foundation saying God delivered these people, even though there is no proof. Yes Christianity is based on faith in God, but we have the foundation set by prophets and the Christ. We may have different ideas on what the foundation on a religion is, and therefore the argument may be slightly skewed, not enough for a major effect most likely though. When I say foundation, I mean something to base it off of. The Jews in the time of Abraham had the story of creation passed on orally giving them a "stone" to believe in. Yes people would have believed in God without the creation story being passed on, but without any basis, what gives the people a reason to believe in it? Yes religion is built on faith, but all major religions have a physical person or event that gives people a reason to believe. ------------- Again I apologize for forgetting about defining religion earlier. I felt like you restated your points from earlier and didn't hear much new. We should see much of our debate come together in the last round. Side note- I think the combination of faith and physical things make the religion, not just one or the other. Is there any religion people just thought of, doesn't every religion have some person or event that founded or provided a basis for it?
Does religion need a solid foundation or does faith alone work? (Con means faith alone acceptable)

Having said that, I do have a few concerns about his latest response. I will address them now:An Objective FoundationMy friend described that a "foundation" doesn't require evidence, but "something to back it up. " In a debate, business, and science, you back things up with evidence. When you back up an initial premise [foundation], you provide evidence to support it. For example, let's take the question of God's existence: Initial premise: God existence Backup evidence #1: Kalam Cosmological Argument Backup evidence #2: The Moral Argument Backup evidence #3: The Fine-Tuning of the Universe Backup evidence #4: The Ontological ArgumentAtheismWith that being said, my friend then swerved directly into a logical fallacy that undercuts the credibility of their ENTIRE argument: atheism has a "foundation or core. " The problem, as I see it, my opponent would have to provide evidence that atheism is true. Afterall, my opponent explicitly stated that a foundation needs "something to back it up, for example, Christ or science. " But science nor the Bible back up atheism. This, therefore, leads me back to my original question: For a worldview, that has been around longer than Christianity, how do justify your statement that "without a solid foundation, your beliefs will fail"? ChristianityI was at first confused about what your argument was. I like that you expanded my case, but the one thing you didn't do was refute it. I find this a quite interesting dodge. In fact, all of your examples actually SUPPORT my claims. Let us see why: In many ways, my opponent repeats the argument Casper Risby makes: you cannot solely base Christian Doctrine on faith alone. However, both my opponent and Risby have misunderstood the word "faith". For anyone that's not Christian, Jesus demonstrates two types of faith: (1) natural faith and; (2) spiritual faith. "Natural Faith comes by natural birth and relies on our physical senses. Spiritual Faith comes from God (Eph 2:8) and relies on Him. " [1] I'm referring to the latter. Afterall, no one can prove that God exists. One example my friend provides is that "someone would likely still find faith in a higher form. .. it is because of people coming together and seeing a foundation, the rock of their religion. .. " This quote actually supports my claim that Christianity is based on faith; namely, because all arguments for the God are subjective. ConclusionI feel that my opponent hasn't refuted either of my contentions. With that being said, all three questions still stand and have not been refuted. References1. . http://jesusonline.com...;I'll be intrigued by your response.
Does religion need a solid foundation or does faith alone work? (Con means faith alone acceptable)

When I said a "foundation" is needed for faith I didn't mean physical evidence like God speaking, I meant something to back it up, for example Christ or science. I will rebuttal both systems of belief here and establish new points in the third round. Atheism- In the last fifteen hundred years or so science has really taken off. We have gone from simply listening to smart people to objectively proving things. First, Atheism does have a foundation or core. While they have no evidence that there is physically not a God, things every religion believes(not every religion has the same creation theory) science has proved there was a beginning of time or life, and whether or not God or a animal spirits or whoever else did this, that proof alone is good enough for some people to believe there is no God. Remember I said the reasons don't have to be correct or even completely reasonable, they just need to provide people with a foothold. I apologize for getting on science so much, but what every religion and science wants to find is the truth. Christianity hasn't had to mold it's beliefs to support evolution, why? Because the Bible like many other books doesn't refute many scientific claims, people just take them too literally saying in the case of Christianity, the world was made in six, twenty four hour days, and the point is people have seen the foundation their own way, even if it isn't how it was meant to be seen. People can make a foundation based on what they believe and see. If you have a child and never expose them to religion, will they ever know. Someone would likely still find a faith in a higher form, but would this many people have almost the exact same beliefs for thousands of years. It is because of people coming together and seeing the foundation, the rock of their religion, that they have lasted so long. Even muslims have the foundation of their beliefs centered around the teachings of Muhammad, he made the foundation. Again I say the foundation of beliefs doesn't have to be scientific research, just something for people to believe in. You see all these polytheistic religions like the Roman gods, and people will believe in them for a long time, but eventually like countries, cracks develop, and people see the truth. If a religion is built on random events that you believe are triggered by mad gods, and science proves it is electron cloud formation, what will you think. No that doesn't disprove the gods theory, but that foothold is enough to get people to stop believing, why? Because your doubts set a foundation for these people to see the error in their faith.
Does religion need a solid foundation or does faith alone work? (Con means faith alone acceptable)

I hope we can reach a conclusion by the end of this discussion. Having said that, I have some concerns about what they said. I will address them here:An Objective FoundationMy friend seems to be under the mistaken assumption that every worldview and religion held without sufficient evidence will ultimately fail. I see two major problems with this assertion: (1) Atheism, (2) Christianity. AtheismAtheism, at its core, doesn't have a foundation. In fact, many atheists have conceded and stated that it's merely impossible to prove that; examples include Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. With this being said, atheism has been around since sixth or fifth century BCE and it still hasn't died out. [1] So my question to you is: For a worldview, that has been around longer than Christianity, how do justify your statement that "without a solid foundation, your beliefs will fail"? ChristianityChristianity, at its core, is based on faith; it is also referred to as "Core Faith". And while yes, the evidence for the existence of God is good, it's subjective. For instance, let us take your first example: Jesus Christ was a real person. There is physical evidence for the life of Jesus, his miracles, mission, death and even his resurrection. We add up all these pieces of evidence together (along with prophecy, etc. ) to draw a conclusion. Our conclusion is a logical inference from the evidence. We call this inference 'faith'. Since we weren’t there for these events, we don’t have absolute physical “proof”. We would need a time machine. But looking at the evidence and using our logic, we believe (i. e. faith). This is where the problem lies. My friend explicitly stated that "If you base something solely on faith it will surely fail. .. " However, Christianity has been around since 1st century AD and it has not failed yet. And as I've shown, Christianity is based on faith. [2]References1. . https://en.wikipedia.org...;2. . http://www.bbc.co.uk...;I'll be intrigued by your response.
Does religion need a solid foundation or does faith alone work? (Con means faith alone acceptable)

No matter what say Christ was savior and lord or not, there is solid evidence that Jesus Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth was real. It is written he said to one of his followers, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Whether you believe the Christ and the passion of the Christ are real, even this man who founded Christianity knew his Church needed a solid foundation which he built on Simon/Peter. Through your studies in school you learn of so many religions, and many of them, like languages, have died out almost entirely. You hear of these pagan (may gods) religions, and they last for a while, then they almost completely die out. The point is whether you believe a religion's foundation is true or not, any major religion has a foundation that has a person or animal behind it. If you base something solely on faith it will surely fail, A house divided will fall, and if a religion has no should I say overseer to clear up discrepancies, sides will form and the religion will form factions(not like Christianities denomination, no matter what you think Catholics do not hate other denominations, and these sides aren't warring against each other, it is like democrats and liberals, they are looking towards similar goals, but they argue over small things.) Yes it is good to have faith, no doubt, but think, people used to have no foundation on the belief the earth wasn't flat, so they assumed it was flat, and until we had a foundation that our planet is a sphere, most people said it was flat. The point is without a solid foundation, your beliefs will fail, maybe not yourself, but how many people will believe your lies unless you provide a foundation (fake or not.)
it isnt logical to believe the following

I'm confused. Your question about the mushroom was:"if you pick up a mushroom and eat it, does it matter what you think is going to happen if the mushroom is poisonous?"Why do you think I'm changing the scenerio? Surely I would know if I ate a mushroom after picking it up and eating it. No-one can be 100% sure there will be a nut inside without opening the shell. It is logical for a woman to believe there will be either a bad nut or a good nut inside based on experience, and it's logical for a man to believe there is a high probability of there being a nut inside. His belief will tell him what is a good or bad nut based on his circumstances. It is natural to consider possibilities based on expectations.Drinking battery acid is not good for you. I know this not from learning by trial and error but by just following warnings given by other people and paying particular attention to those I can trust most. Okay so if you don't believe in anything because you only choose to know things, how can you make decisions? If you don't think about about the probability of what is inside, there would be no reason to open the nutshell to find out what is inside. If you are curious you must want to find something and will believe there is a chance of finding it. Belief = necessary to achieve a high goalIt is thus logical to have a beliefTherefore it is logical to believe things such as "there is a good nut, or a bad nut in the nutshell before opening it"
it isnt logical to believe the following

you are setting up a different scenario where you know you ate a mushroom, you dont know wheather or not the nut inside the nutshell which we can just grant that you know there is a nut in it somehow but you dont know if its a good or bad nut inside it, so it it logical to believe either before you open it? so your point of view determine that drinking battery acid when you try to survive keeps you healthy? know is everything, belief only applies when i dont know so by default i know things the opposite is possible so any belief is illogical, as it could be false, therfore is not true, and illogical is not real
it isnt logical to believe the following

Once you have eaten a mushroom it is still worth asking yourself whether it might be poisonous because you can still bring swallowed food up again to the mouth by thinking about it i.e. regurgitate. Also, you may want to warn others if you have doubts, so it is worth thinking about even after swallowing a strange mushroom.There are circumstances where it is logical to eat an apple you would normally consider to be "bad" e.g. when eating solely to survive. Good and bad are subjective terms - determined by your point of view.I sincerely doubt you have no beliefs. Nobody knows everything. Do you know if there is an afterlife or not? Belief = logical. When a woman believes/thinks 'if I can't, someone else can' to achieve a high goal, she can't know if someone else can do what she can't unlike a man who knows that someone else can do what he can. Believing something when you don't know might not be necessary for you, but I don't think you can prove belief is unnecessary (illogical) for everyone.And no, I don't know if you are wearing a hat at this time. Maybe you can tell me what this proves
it isnt logical to believe the following

good reasoning, dosnt "determine" that it is good reasoning, its the apple that is healthy, that makes it logical to eat, not thoughts making the apple healthy your thoughts dosnt matter to the effect of you eating the mushroom, as in you can not alter the mushroom into healthy for eksample or change the effect of eating it by thought, the poisonous mushroom is the cause of the effect not your thoughts belief=achieve a false goal belief is illogical, not knowledge, but false i have no beliefs do you know that i am wearing a hat right as you read this?
it isnt logical to believe the following

My opponent asks "does thought determine what is actually logical? if you pick up a mushroom and eat it, does it matter what you think is going to happen if the mushroom is poisonous?" logical = good reasoning = selfish + selfless e.g. stay alive and well = happinessJoy/happiness = high goal I think we agree on those but correct me if I'm wrong. It does matter if you think a mushroom is poisonous even after you have eaten it because you can then warn someone else to avoid eating the same type of mushroom, or mushrooms in that area1st arguementBelief = means to achieve a goalIt is logical for a hetrosexual man to believe/think 'if I can, someone else can' or think he has ability because he can only be happy by making someone else happy since two people can't be happy for the exact same reason at the same time.It is illogical for a hetrosexual woman to believe/think 'if I can, someone else can' or think she lacks ability because this will not make her feel special/happy, so it is logical for her to have an emotional goal i.e. believe/think something else e.g. 'if I can't, someone else can'. There are two ways of thinking, they are 'this way or that way' and 'this way and that way'. Either way of thinking can be logical.You believe "it is not logical for someone to believe there is a good or bad nut in the nutshell before opening it". However when a woman's life depends on this belief it is logical for her to believe this, as it would help her to learn by trial and error, and live = high goal.Since the nut has grown somewhere else I do not know whether or not it just looks the same on the outside as a nut I've seen before. Therefore I might believe "there is a high probability of there being a nut inside" instead of assuming there definately is. I wouldn't want to waste vital energy unless there was a good enough chance.Either of these ways of thinking can be logical.2nd argumentIt is logical to believe "there is a good nut, or a bad nut in the nutshell before opening it" because good + bad are subjective qualities. A person must decide for their self whether a nut is good or bad before they see, smell, touch or taste it.
it isnt logical to believe the following

logic is not logical and not illogical, right is logical, right is reason reason is the opposite of logic, logic is true poison=unhealthy(logic) logical=dont eat poisonous things to stay healthy=right there is no logic in fantasy, i cant die in a dream as i can only die if i am alive Theres is only 1 true positive emotion, its joy but i agree mental emotion is an effect of thinking mostly does thought determine what is actually logical? if you pick up a mushroom and eat it, does it matter what you think is going to happen if the mushroom is poisonous? there is either a good or bad nut inside the nutshell, there is no other option, why is it more logical to believe one over the other?
it isnt logical to believe the following

My opponent believes it is illogical for someone to believe there is either a good or bad nut in the nutshell before opening it. I think he is right to some degree as it can be illogical, however I will atempt to challenge his view and try to prove it can be logical to think this. There are two forms of logic, they are emotional and logical (or masculine and feminine) What is logic? I believe it is a way of thinking to get to a particular goalIt is logical when the goal achieved is high, and illogical when the goal achieved is lowWomen achieve their high goal by following their feelings - this is logical for them but illogical for men. This means they think 'it is this way OR that way' The opposite of emotion is basically thinking - it is logical for men to do this to achieve their high goal. This means they think 'it is this way AND that way' or in other words it is logical for men to think they can DO anything. Although it would be illogical for me to think there is either a good or bad nut inside a closed nutshell (because I have a masculine goal) it is logical for a woman to think 'a good/bad nut is inside simply because other nutshells contain nuts' I eagerly await your argument. d:-)
Free trade should be a norm

I am mainly looking to explore the economic implications of this topic, but political arguments are equally valid. First, some definitions:"Free trade" is the practice of encouraging mutually beneficial international commerce, by lowering barriers to trade (such as tariffs, anti-competitive subsidies, or other barriers). "A norm" is a generally, but not universally, acknowledged and accepted practice. Note: We are not debating that there should be no subsidies or tariffs, just that they should be the exception, not the norm. These definitions are negotiable.
Abortion take off a unborn human freedom right to live.

instead of avoid please explain more to us about a human lifecycles first? not all state set that abortions must be in the first 24 weeks. fetuses cannot feel pain at 24 weeks will be another topic, this topic is about Do"Abortion take off a unborn human freedom right to live". agreed? now Contender don't get confessed by the term "pain as human right" , vs "take off a unborn human freedom right to live" critical point from contender *******Since fetuses cannot decide whether they want to be born or not, it is up to the parents (and mostly the mother) to decide. Since fetuses are not able to choose, they are not free to choose. Having an abortion is a moral decision, and so is not having an abortion. For example, it would be, in my opinion, more moral to abort a fetus with severe birth defects that will experience mostly pain in a very short life, than forcing a fetus to live a tortured short life. ------------------------------------------- Contender pointed out and agreed fetuses will born into human, but their life is depend on parents, do being a parents mean they have the right to take away a life? Contender claim that because fetuses are not able to choose therefore their life is a opinion. which is totally no logic. ------------------------------------ all human developed from fetus. all human share the same human right to live.
Abortion take off a unborn human freedom right to live.

Most states allow abortions up to 24 weeks. When I say "fetus" I mean the first 24 weeks of a pregnancy. 24 weeks is a reasonable cut-off, because fetuses cannot yet feel pain at 24 weeks [1]:"The neural circuitry for pain in fetuses is immature. More importantly, the developmental processes necessary for the mindful experience of pain are not yet developed. An absence of pain in the fetus does not resolve the question of whether abortion is morally acceptable or should be legal. Nevertheless, proposals to inform women seeking abortions of the potential for pain in fetuses are not supported by evidence. Legal or clinical mandates for interventions to prevent such pain are scientifically unsound and may expose women to inappropriate interventions, risks, and distress. Avoiding a discussion of fetal pain with women requesting abortions is not misguided paternalism21 but a sound policy based on good evidence that fetuses cannot experience pain."Besides not being able to feel pain, the nervous system/brain is not enough developed for a fetus to have awareness. So fetuses have no personality, and therefore are not persons. So fetuses do not have the same rights as people.PRO: "it just sounds more appealing when you are about to murder is you call it something else?"It is mostly anti-abortionists who play the semantics game. Murder is unlawful killing of a person, but abortion is not unlawful, and fetuses of 24 weeks or younger are not people.Since fetuses cannot decide whether they want to be born or not, it is up to the parents (and mostly the mother) to decide. Since fetuses are not able to choose, they are not free to choose. Having an abortion is a moral decision, and so is not having an abortion. For example, it would be, in my opinion, more moral to abort a fetus with severe birth defects that will experience mostly pain in a very short life, than forcing a fetus to live a tortured short life. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...