BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

There are three laws of logic. You are ignoring them. The Law of Excluded Middle states that the opposite of (or "dichotomy" to") belief is *not* belief. The Law of Identity states that not belief = not belief. The Law of Non-contradiction states not belief /= belief. - if you ["disbelieve"] my claim you either believe it [to be untrue or lack a belief it is true] - i am telling the truth or not, you can believe i am [telling the truth], believe i am not [telling the truth or not believe I am telling the truth] there is a difference between believing not something and not believing something. - [yes], theism can not exist without atheism, atheism can exist without theism, any theist is [a theist and possibly a vegetarian, but not an atheist, vegetarian or otherwise] - the chair in there is red, he is automaticly an atheist to green chair, and blue chair, we know its a chair but not the colour, and some come argue its green, and i can argue that he dosnt know, while green chair believer argue that the chair is green to the contrary of red chair believer You are ignoring the definition of a "theist". A theist does NOT mean "someone who believes anything". A theist is someone who holds the specific belief there is a god. Not chairs. Not colors. Not rooms with colored chairs. A god. See the definitions I provided in Round 1. We could just as easily say they are not a theist, because they're a red chair vegetarian, because a vegetarian is someone who beliefs something to be true, like a chair is red or people should only eat non-meat products. Let's not stop there, let's say they're anything at all, since people making word come out is a belief. WORDS ARE LABELS. They mean something, because we accept they have meaning. That doesn't give you the right to strip all wors of all meaning.
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

if you disbelieve my claim you dont not believe it i am telling the truth or not, you can believe i am or believe i am not if i take my hand behind my back, is it true for you to say yes your that you are showing 3 fingers behind your back is true? no, theism can not exist without atheism, atheism can not exist without theism, any theist is an atheist to the opposite possibility atheism is religion, belief is theism, disbelief is belief, disbelief is atheism, for me to disbelieve, i must believe to the contrary, i must be an atheist, to be a theist if we are some guys, and we are outside at a locked room, and we can get our hand inside the room and touch the chair bouncing around inside for whatever reason, and we all feel its a chair, and hear its a chair banging around in there, and some one says, the chair in there is red, he is automaticly an atheist to green chair, and blue chair, we know its a chair but not the colour, and some come argue its green, and i can argue that he dosnt know, while green chair believer argue that the chair is green to the contrary of red chair believer
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

Disbelief can either refer to a lack of belief, or an opposing belief. A popular example is a jar of sand. If I showed you a large jar full of sand, and stated "there is an even number of sand crystals", to deny that is NOT to accept that there is an odd number. You disbelieve there's an even number, while holding no opinion regarding whether it is even or odd. Atheism requires theism only in the sense that the concept would be meaningless with theism. However, that doesn't mean the concept *could not* apply, only that it would be useless. Let's call a belief in Crumpled Horned Snorkacts "jooism". Those who do not accept jooism are ajooists. You are an ajooist. The fact that the word is completely made up doesn't make that false. "Theist" and "atheists" are labels. They are exclusionary, specifically so that there's no one left out - there are no aatheists or aaatheists. (However, there are other words to further subdivide, such as "religious" and "not religious".)
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

theism = belief in a god. *a*theism = not belief in a god. Theism is the belief in *any* god, not all gods. People can *lack* belief. Those who lack belief in all gods are atheists. Ergo, atheism is not a "theism", it is the absence of theism. A theist who lacks a belief in something, or even some god, is still a theist since they believe in *a* god. There is no word for someone who believes in all gods, because it would be a useless word. Even just for asserted gods not even the most well educated and informed theologian is even aware of all gods, and it's impossible to be aware of all hypothetically assertable god-concepts. Presumably, some Christians believe in a unicorn heaven, but not unicorns. As per the popular poem by Shel Silverstien, it is a popular belief that unicorns existed at one time. https://answersingenesis.org... Many Christians believe that animals go to heaven (or, possibly, that unicorns had a soul). http://www.aplb.org... Ergo, those who believe both believe there is a unicorn heaven. Yet, they may also acknowledge that no unicorns exist. But I honestly have no clue why it's relevant.
The letter 'a' is required to spell the word 'apple' in the English language

Technically. Letters do not exist. The letter "a" in "apple" is a figment of our own imagination. You can easily replace the letter "a" with an example such as "v" and still call it the same. An example of this imagination is currency, you can replace any item of currency and no real change would occur. Simply because its a mental process and is not governed by any form of physics.
Male Abortion

I'll be honest I'm going to skip the part where I give sources due to Internet issues and time constraints. I'll instead try to stick to things that don't require sources, save for this first point. Roe v Wade (1973) a court case that decided that no state could completely outlaw abortions, giving it the status of a right rather than a luxury. My point of course is that its only logical that a man have the same rights a woman has, even if they have to be bent to keep him from encroaching onto hers. ( side note Planned Parenthood v Casey made it so that women in the state of Pennsylvania had to give "informal consent" and as such doesn't really fit into this argument of this being a right for humans as a whole.) My rebuttal to your second point will be much more opinion based but will follow similar logic to my last. There is no age restriction on sex besides it being illegal for those above eighteen years of age to engage in sexual acts with those younger than eighteen years of age, and even those numbers aren't set in stone as it varies state to state and country to country. On the subject of sex being a responsibility one must simply look around at the modern world. We have pills to help prevent pregnancy, we have condoms to help prevent pregnancy, we have pills to terminate pregnancy, and if all else fails we have a procedure that is rather simple and hardly ever endangers the mother. Your argument is taking abortion out of the equation, but its a part of the "responsibility" package. Getting an abortion because you can't afford (or aren't in any shape) to raise a child is much more responsible than giving it to The State to live off of tax dollars or having it due to the taboo of getting rid of it. Sex is sex and we have many ways to prevent and end pregnancy, forcing a punishment on someone who had other options seems rather cruel to me. Yes, Sweden was looking to allow "Male abortions" up to the eighteen week mark. I however am arguing for male abortion as a whole. Simply changing the time frame to twelve or thirteen weeks is enough to counter your point. We could of course also argue that a woman could simply hide her pregnancy until the eighteen weeks are up, making her the "douchebag" in this scenario. The fact that some people would abuse this system to cause pain to others is no reason to simply drop it. Any system can be corrupted, we always find a way. The good outweighs the bad in this case. As a final note I would like to say that I too have seen images, bold text and underlined text on this site before, though I don't know how to do any of them myself. To conclude this round I'd like to reiterate my main point. Feminists seek equal rights, they fight for them every single day. This is one of the only times I've seen men have a chance to actually get a right that women have, that women claim can't be denied to them. A man deserves a choice. oh, Roe v Wade. http://www.cnn.com...
Male Abortion

Hello again, thanks once more for starting this debate and for being okay to debate with a newbie. You stated that women have the right to choose whether or not to abort a child completely on their own. There's been a famous court case which was "Planned Pregnancy Vs. Casey" this case was so important because it stated that Casey had to notify the father about the Abortion and a 24 hour waiting period was implemented so the father would have some time to argue his case, etc. This means that the woman actually doesn't have full control where to abort or not to. (Read the full case in the sources) I am also against male abortion for the following reasons: Sex is a responsibility. To have sex one must be of legal age just like drinking or driving. Nobody would want a 10 year old driving because they would go rampant destroying anything, this is because they are not responsible enough to understand actions and consequences. Just like driving you must be responsible for sex. You must be able to understand the consequences of sex such as STDs or in this care having a child. If you aren't responsible enough to use contraceptives then you"re not responsible enough to have sex and therefore should be punished the same way as underage driving or drinking. For these irresponsible people male abortions shouldn't even be thought about. It's too late to abort. Abortions are fine up to the 16-18 weeks. When this period is over which is normally more than half way through the pregnancy abortion starts getting dangerous. However pro stated that men can have "male abortions" on the 18th week. This means that after everything is agreed after the father and mother have decided that they will have the baby, the father can still opt out even when it is too late for the mother. If a douchebag does this then the mother who may be financially unstable will not be able to care for the baby and will either live in poverty or she must give her child to an orphanage; both are terrible things. Also, by chance do you know how to put images, bold text and underlined text? I"ve seen it on other debates but don"t know how. Sources: http://content.time.com... https://www.womenonweb.org... https://www.babiesonline.com... https://www.oyez.org...
Male Abortion

Here's the link to an article about it, couldn't find the article I quoted. http://www.news.com.au... I haven't been a part of this site very long so I don't mind debating with someone new to it at all. I'm going to start my side of this debate with a pretty simple argument. Women have the right to choose whether or not to abort a child completely on their own. The doctor doesn't legally have to get the permission of both the mother and father to perform the procedure, meaning that it is completely up to the woman whether that child is born or not. Giving men the same choice a woman gets (albeit minus the actual termination part) is equality at it's finest. A man shouldn't be forced into a financial obligation due to a woman choosing to keep a child he doesn't want.
Male Abortion

This is a conversation certain corners of the Internet have been having recently and I noticed there weren't any debates about it on here (as far as I can tell) so I decided to open it up. Male Abortion "...the youth wing of Sweden"s Liberal Party have proposed allowing expectant fathers to "legally abort" their unborn babies right up until the 18th week of pregnancy " the cut off time for actual, physical abortions in the country." "The male abortion would be a legal decision, allowing unwilling fathers to relinquish all parental rights and responsibilities for their unborn child. The father would have no future rights to see his child, but would be relieved of all financial responsibility." Con will be arguing against "Male Abortion" on any grounds they please. Round 1 is for acceptance. I look forward to finding someone to debate this subject with.
Feminism is wrong

This is my first debate to so I'm happy that we start on a equal level. I appreciate the fact that you are not a feminist. My reason that I dislike feminism is because it is taken so seriously. For a movement that is filled with so much hate you think it would be ignored. But sadly it is not they had a meeting at the UN! The purpose of that meeting was to put censorship against people who disagree with them. They were cheered for offering this to the UN committee. I don't hate women. I'm just a guy that is afraid of what feminism is trying to do to the world. So in order to keep this debate on feminism lets argue as if I am a female hating male dominating piece of garbage okay? lets begin. Woman don't deserve equal rights they are physically and mentally weaker than man. Women throughout history have always been subservient to men why should that change? God made Eve from Adam that shows that man owns women even from the beginning of time. Women are cold and manipulative they would exploit these laws for equality for their advantage. If woman want equality they have to earn it not get it handed to them on a silver platter. (I do apologize if I appeared rude in the previous arguments)
Feminism is wrong

I am excited to be in my very first online debate and to challenge those with differing views Before I begin, just want to inform you that I am NOT a feminist. In fact, I'm not a fan of most forms of modern feminism at all. I think modern feminism has got a bit too far so I do agree with you that modern feminism is aiming to raise women up and push men down and I do think that is very wrong. But I do believe in equality. By equality I mean women AND men should have equal rights and opportunities. I don't know what you are for. Are you for male domination or equality? What is your clear reason for not liking feminism? is it because you don't want women having equal rights (misogyny) or that you think that feminists are not concerned about men? When you answer this question. The debate will officially begin! thank you!
Feminism is wrong

Feminism started as a noble cause. I admit that it was good for the world that women fought for basic freedoms. Sadly that has changed. Feminism is a ideology that puts women in a constant state of victimhood. There is no such thing as the gender wage gap. It is a myth, check the bureau of labor statistics. Woman attack men with sexist slogans such as "teach men not to rape" and #killallmen. Feminism is not about equality it is about female supremacy. Men should be able to feel safe around women without having to fear a rape charge against them. If a woman claims to be raped she can ruin the man's life. Even if she is lying there will be no repercussions for her but that man's life will still be in shambles, tell me how's that fair? I'm sure that you will claim that "those" feminist don't represent the majority but then why are they your leaders? why are the man-hating feminist the ones that are on TV? I'll tell you why because they are your leaders you want them to act like that and secretly you like the idea of female supremacy. I feel sorry for you that you are so angry at your position in life that you have to believe somebody forced you there instead of you making those life decisions.
Feminism is wrong

Thank you for your reply. But i was quite confused when you said you think it is said when society thinks it is great when a man decides to be a stay at home parent and the woman go to work. what is wrong with that? i don't think it's sad. I do not think it is wrong for men to have feminine traits, it's only wrong when they forgo their masculinity to act COMPLETELY feminine and i also do not think it is wrong for a woman to have masculine traits but it is only wrong when she rejects her femininity to become COMPLETELY masculine. Maybe in a married couple, the father is more nurturing than the mother which would make him more equipped to be the stay at home parent. And if you are one to those traditionalists for marriage where the man provides for his family, the thing is is that even if he stay at home, he IS providing for his family- just not the traditional way with finances. he provides protection and care for his children and dinner for his wife when she comes home from work. that is provision- just differently. However i do agree that women do tend to be better at this job die to the fact that the nurturing character is predominant in females and the need to protect is predominant in males (well females do have a maternal instict to protect their young too so i guess you could argue that women do have a natural instinct to protect as well) and i do agree with you that we need not a patriarchy nor a matriarchy- we need egalitarianism. it is the only way that society can function at its best. If we only think about the first wave of feminism, it was for a good cause but nowadays is when you can complain. thank you for this debate. i enjoyed it a lot VOTE CON!!!
Feminism is wrong

The notion of only representing one sexes issues to create equality is ludicrous.Masculism has pretty much died but the growth of men civil rights groups such as MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) have increased.These civil rights groups have pretty much just turned into finger-pointers mostly at the opposite civil rights activists.I agree with an interesting point that you brought up about the sexes mimicking the other sex.I think its sad when society thinks its great that a man would rather be a stay at home parent and the mother working. I'm not saying there should be gender roles frankly that is ridiculous. These activists need to stop viewing each other as enemies.Both civil rights claim they are fighting for the same thing right?So why are they bashing each other?We need equalism not feminism nor masculism.It is almost a shame that this debate has instead turned into a discussion board.But I enjoyed it and thank you.
Feminism is wrong

It's good to see you do not hate feminism because you are a misogynist. But there is one tiny thing in feminism that in itself is not wrong: Men and women having equal rights and oppertunities. The only thing is that the men's side of it is often ignored. But the fact that over the centuries women have been treated as nothing more than objects and property of men to be disposed of at any time gives them a reason to feel victimized. It is easier for men to be against feminism because over the years society has favored, respected and raised them to idols while women were crushed down, oppressed, disrespected and treated as nothing more than baby machines. Feminism would be looked at as much more positive if they would focus more on men's problems but i think the thing people forget its that sometimes when they reject feminism, the embrace masculism. and i think masculism is just as hypocritical ad feminism, some masculists want to put women down and raise men up once more and what makes that anymore right than vice versa? masculists want women to give up their jobs and be the traditional housewife and bear and take care of their children but get angry when custody goes to the mother if they divorce and go on a rant about it. How is any of this right? The reason i am not a feminist is because even when the feminist movement first started women were encouraged to be like men and dress like men which i don't think is right. women should not have to give up their feminimity to have careers. But other than that, so long as feminists are fighting for men's rights just as much as women's rights and are not rejecting their feminimity to and be masculine, i have no problem with feminism
Marijuana Should Be Legalized

As I stated in my last argument, no, 5 billion isn't much compared to other programs, but it's still a waste of money. Taxpayers like you and I are paying to keep mostly peaceful people incarcerated over marijuana charges. The point is, instead of losing five billion on prohibiting marijuana, why not make money off of it by distributing and taxing it. If we just stopped wasting this money, we could put it towards something better for the country and paying off our debt to china. Prohibiting the use of marijuana does nothing to help the country. To buy marijuana, all you have to do is have money. If the government were to legalize its use, then a citizen would have to be 21 to buy it from a distributer, meaning it would be harder for teenagers to get it. That's why teenagers like it so much, because it's easily available. If the government wanted to lower its use, the they should provide educational programs that tell the truth about marijuana rather than D.A.R.E. cops, like they do for alcohol. In summary, the government is taking the wrong path in the use of marijuana and by making it illegal, its made even more available to youth. There was one point I left out from previous arguments and thats the religious aspects of its use. Just like the Christian and Judaism religion who drink wine on certain events, there are other religions that rely on the use of marijuana. Hindus, Rastafarian's, and Buddhist use marijuana in their religion. It is true that there should be limits to the first amendment's religious freedom; such as religious sacrifices. But marijuana does not harm society and therefore, because of religious reasons, should be legal. Otherwise, its a denial of a persons first amendment rights. I would never be for driving while high. It's always better to be on absolutely nothing behind the wheel than to have drugs in you system. But, over 11,000 people die in car crashes over something that is legal to consume, which is alcohol. I'm not saying that it should be made legal just because alcohol is legal, its simply a fact. And many people who are high know not to get behind the wheel anyway. Thank you very much for debating with me on this issue. http://www.usconstitution.net...