BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Which has worse consequences, atheism or christianity

I disagree completely, I'm afraid.Extreme dictators are not a direct result of atheism. I live in the UK. Most people are 'atheist' here; we do not even claim to be atheist most of the time, because it is so common here to not worship God that it seems pointless to talk about it. The UK has legalised gay marriage and has a lower crime rate than the USA. What does that tell you about society? A modern society does not need Christianity, or any religion, to function well. Extreme dictators are very few and far between and atheism cannot be blamed for their dispicable crimes against humanity.Your point about morals being innate is partially true. Morals are also taught to us by our society. Does that mean God must exist? Not at all. Morals are partially innate because we are social beings with large brains that need to have basic a basic concept of right and wrong to survive. You will find similar morals exhibited in other social animals; certain moneys, for example, share food with other monkeys for no other reason than the sake of sharing. [1] Some people argue that humans evolved a sense of morality and fairness in order to keep large societies running smoothly for the greater good of everyone.I do not believe in God whatsoever, but I would not let a man drown if I knew that I could save them. I have good moral character because I was raised by good, loving parents that accepted me for who I am.Your perceptions of the LGBT community are very mistaken. Please do some research.You claim: Murder, drugs, AIDS, smoking, alcoholism, rape, infidelity, shortened marriage spans, all are much larger than any other community.Murder, drugs, smoking, alcoholism, rape and infidelity are not at all higher in the LGBT community. Women raping women and men raping men is actually an extremely rare occurrence. Drugs, smoking and alcohol are consumed by all subgroups in society. Infidelity is a perposterous claim; cheating on your partner is always wrong, regardless of your sexuality -- gay people do not cheat more than heterosexuals.HIV is indeed higher in the LGBT community, but it can be tackled with safe sex practices. Also, HIV is very difficult to pass on without having unprotected intimate relations with someone who is infected. Finally, the life expectency for someone living with HIV in 2014 is exactly the same as someone living with HIV, so in the unfortunate case that someone catches HIV, it can be treated adequately.[1] - www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePgC91kcmN0
Which has worse consequences, atheism or christianity

What you can't see is that those extreme dictators is a direct result of atheism. In Christianity, the presence of God is the reason for morality. Morality cannot be explained without God. A twisted form of it, reciprocal or kin altruism can be because you are nice because a) they can return the favor or b) they are in your direct gene pool. However, it cannot explain pure altruism. If you see a man drowning, you have two options, to help save him or to not help save him. Most people would choose to help save him. But why though? He is no kinship of you, and he is highly unlikely to be able to help you later. In fact, you are in danger as you try to save him. But you would still do it. This cannot be explained without a presence of a moral law in the universe, something innate within you that urges you to save the man despite the risks. With that would also come the presence of a God. However, when you take away God, when a person's worldview is truly that of God not existing, then they would not have any trouble leaving that person to drown. They would have no problem killing if there was more economic benefit than cost. However, the reason you say that nobody would is a result of a nation that had been christian. It is rapidly leaving its christian roots, but the country has been instilled with moral codes that come from christianity and so your morality is even a product of christianity. Also, I would not reject anyone who claimed to be a Christian. i might say that their actions are contrary to that which a christian would do, and that puts their faith in doubt, but still can not condemn them as christian or non christian. That is for God to do. Finally, homosexuality hurts people, because when you get rid of the marriage that God intended and replace it with a mockery, you also remove the morals that came from the original marriage. To see this, look at LGBT communities. The moral codes are dissolved, and with them restrictions. Murder, drugs, AIDS, smoking, alcoholism, rape, infidelity, shortened marriage spans, all are much larger than any other community. It does harm people because you are slowly removing the ties to Christian morality, and with those the prohibitions to do bad things. I did not say that one cannot be loving and tolerant without Christianity. It can happen. It does happen. However, when you remove christianity, and God, and thus morality, you have given yourself license to do whatever you feel like with no consequences as long as you get away with it. Imagine a country like that. It wouldn't last very long.
Which has worse consequences, atheism or christianity

The fact that you're trying to claim that atheism is worse than Christianity due to a couple of extreme dictators holds no ground. By saying this, you are claiming that you yourself are only a nice person because of the Bible -- without Christianity, you would feel no wrong in murdering somebody? I hope not. I think we can agree that there are many crazed and psychotic atheists as well as Christians (and people from every faith). You may claim that anybody who commits atrocious crimes are "not Christian", but that's unfair, because I cannot claim that bad atheists are "not atheist". You have the ability to claim that no 'true' Christian is bad because you reject anyone who commits a crime -- the same cannot be said for atheism, making the links between the two null and void.You claim that you are saddened about homosexuality because the Bible says it's wrong. Do you not realise that this is a fundamental flaw in the progress of humanity, and you as a moral person? You understand that it does not harm anybody, and yet you are obliged to feel disgusted by it because you are told to.I am a tolerant and loving person without Christianity. I have nobody telling me what to believe and I have the ability to think for myself and make my own decisions in every situation. I do not fear 'hell' -- I know it does not exist. At any rate, I know I have done nothing wrong by being gay.
Which has worse consequences, atheism or christianity

Hitler can not be identified as a christian. That was a speech to the masses, where all he did was lie to them. Here are some more of his quotes: ""The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew." - 11th-12th July, 1941, and ""Christianity is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have undergone, and it's the Jew who, thanks to this diabolic invention, has thrown him back 15 centuries." Neither sound like something that a christian would ever say. As to Stalin, here is a quote from him: "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...all this talk about God is sheer nonsense" Moscow 1940. Mao Ze Dong? He killed Christians for being christian and tried to eradicate it. I understand that atheism is not new, I was taking about modern atheism, which did start around the time of Darwin. Also, the first human society would have had a religion because they would have known about the God that created them. Also, christians that are intolerant against gays have no biblical support. We are called to love our neighbors, and thus we should love everyone. We are disgusted by it because it is against the laws of God, and saddened because it will lead them to Hell. Not because it is a worse sin than any other sin, but because any practicing homosexual is clearly not a Christian, as he is consistently defying the commands of God with full knowledge and no repentance. Also, have you heard Richard Dawkins? He is not tolerant or loving.
Which has worse consequences, atheism or christianity

Refuting your points:Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot did not identify as atheist [1]. Hitler even referred to himself as Christian: "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 [1] Christianity has indeed been around for a long time, but you are wrong in believing that atheism is something new. There are thousands of religions in the world and many religions that are predate Christianity (Ancient Rome, Ancient Egypt, Babylonians etc.) -- atheism is the oldest mindset in human history, considering the first human society would inevitably have no religion until someone decided to create it.Christianity promotes intolerance and gets in the way of progress. Christians are forced to believe the Bible is accurate; they are not permitted to use their own minds to come to conclusions on issues such as homosexuality. A logical atheist has the ability to realise that homosexuality does not affect anybody; being disgusted by something is not a viable reason to hate it, and nor is it acceptable to blame your prejudices on a book. "God said it's wrong, so it is wrong" must be the most ignorant mentality anyone could have. I am only discriminated against by religious people. Atheists are amongst the most tolerant, loving and forward-thinking people I have ever met. [1] - http://atheism.about.com...
Which has worse consequences, atheism or christianity

My first argument is this: look at the facts. Yes, Christians have perpatrated many horrors, like the crusades and the Salem Witch Trials and the Inquisition. But all together, these do not add up to around more than a couple 100,000 people at most. Lets be generous and say even a couple million deaths have been committed by the actions of Christians, and thus Christianity. Now, for the other side, look at 3 figures. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Ze Dong. These were all atheist and vehemently anti-christian. Together, they murdered around 100 million people. And that is not even counting all the smaller atheistic dictators. Pol Pot, for instance, killed a larger part of his country than Mao, and Mao killed 70 million. Even more interesting then those is this: Christianity has been around for 2 millenium, while atheism has only been popular for the last 2 hundred or so years. It kinda shows that atheism has worse consequences than Christianity.
NASA should receive more funding

In a time where the US government budget is unbalanced, NASA is one of the many programs they can reduce funding towards. However, some of America's greatest achievements are a result of this program: CAT scans, cordless tools, LEDs, and memory foam are just four examples (1). The moon landing, one of the hallmarks of American achievement, was because of Nasa. With an increased budget, NASA could do more with exploring Mars as well as other life supporting bodies such as Titan. (1) http://www.design-laorosa.com...
Too much blame is placed on the media

Don't worry about not replying. < > I highly doubt that simply viewing something can cause an addiction. Let's say someone was exposed to it constantly in real life, then perhaps they would develop an addiction, but people are not so weak that they let the media damage their mental health. <> You would explain to them what was going on, but you would tell them that it is wrong and disgusting to watch or be in those movies. > You're sort of contradicting yourself. You're saying it bad to look at certain things, but you're also saying that it's not good to not look at them. Firstly, you would not be separated form the world simply by not viewing 'harmful' things, especially at a young age. Also, this is not exactly what I said. I said if parents had a big problem with a child viewing a certain thing, they should try to stop them viewing it. << Weather on purpose or not by being a variable in these obviously unstable peoples minds they caused them to make the decision to be skinny.>> Because they allow themselves to become manipulated. They can choose to think 'Oh she is too thin, that is not nice'. However, they don't. They choose to think 'Wow, she's really pretty, I want to be like her.' The bottom line is that we are all responsible for our own actions. We choose whether or not to do something. Perhaps the media does try to influence us, but we don't have to obey to them. It is not fair on the media that people keep blaming their own mistakes on them.
Too much blame is placed on the media

Sorry for not responding the first time it was disrespectful a whole boat load of stuff hit me at once including multiple relatives being in the hospital and this is the first time in a long time I've been able to log on. Any way let's jump in. First of all just because its okayed in the bill of rights doesn't make it any less harmful. The fact that anyone can have a gun is harmful but thats okayed in the bill of rights. And no matter how you cut it you can't control what your kids can or can't look at 24/7. And you admitted it your self some of the stuff on tv is inappropriate and being exposed to stuff like that to early can cause mental problems like sex addictions and being addicted to adult videos. Also you say you would explain anything a child sees to them. Well how would go around explaining an adult rated video to the that they accidentally saw? And if we do like you said and tried to all harmful images from getting through they would end up in a mental bubble unconnected to the outside world. As for the anorexic girls you talked about you proved my point: (People blame the media for girls turning anorexic as it shows images of thin women. Everyone has an opinion. If they want to portray those thin women as normal, healthy women, that is fine as it is their choice. People act as if they have no control over their own minds; those girls turn anorexic because they allow themselves to believe that's how they need to look.) Weather on purpose or not by being a variable in these obviously unstable peoples minds they caused them to make the decision to be skinny.
Too much blame is placed on the media

These days too much blame is placed on the media. When a girl is anorexic, people say "it's the pressure of the media." When someone steals something, people say "You can't blame them, with everything they see on TV." This is wrong. The media have a right to show what they want; its the freedom of speech. We don't have to watch it or agree with it. People blame the media for girls turning anorexic as it shows images of thin women. Everyone has an opinion. If they want to portray those thin women as normal, healthy women, that is fine as it is their choice. People act as if they have no control over their own minds; those girls turn anorexic because they allow themselves to believe that's how they need to look. How can people allow themselves to become manipulated, and then complain? People place blame on the media because they cannot stand to blame themselves. Parents send hundreds of complaint letters to the media when their children see something 'inappropriate' such as a sexual reference or a swear word. The fact is that children will hear about things like that, whether they like it or not, and it should be their responsibility to explain it to them, so that they understand what it is all about, and make the right choices.
Too much blame is placed on the media

Debater2008 says that she highly doubts that simply viewing something can cause an addiction. Let's say someone was exposed to it constantly in real life, then perhaps they would develop an addiction, but people are not so weak that they let the media damage their mental health. But that is the point in most cases you are subjected to these harmful images on a daily base's. Which just like you said your self perhaps they could develop an addiction. And thats not even the half of it. In america we even had to make laws keeping actions like smoking out of cartoons because tobacco companies came up with the smart idea to put their products in the actual cartoon instead of just the commercials and statistically speaking tobacco sales more than doubled as this generation grew up. And thats just one example. ( Also adult video addicts get hooked with just one viewing if they didn't they wouldn't go to the second. But I didn't want to start a whole paragraph on it.) (Because they allow themselves to become manipulated. They can choose to think 'Oh she is too thin, that is not nice'. However, they don't. They choose to think 'Wow, she's really pretty, I want to be like her.') In these cases it is rarely if ever that simple. In an emotionally scarred person who just wants to fit in will go for the easiest course of action try and become like the most popular people in the world those on tv. and again I want to mention the fact that people whose minds are not in the best of places might chose the easiest thing to understand they are popular so I'll be them. And may I remind you that over half of the earths population suffer from some mental disease ranging from ADHD to Bipolar disorder and not even half of those are ever diagnosed which makes it easier for the arms of the inferiority complex made by the media to take hold of people.
Darwinism is the most Reasonable Theory for Life on Earth

Let me clear a few things up. "Darwinism, concept of evolution developed in the mid-19th cent. by Charles Robert Darwin. Darwin's meticulously documented observations led him to question the then current belief in special creation of each species. After years of studying and correlating the voluminous notes he had made as naturalist on H.M.S. Beagle, he was prompted by the submission (1858) of an almost identical theory by A. R. Wallace to present his evidence for the descent of all life from a common ancestral origin; his monumental Origin of Species was published in 1859. Darwin observed (as had Malthus) that although all organisms tend to reproduce in a geometrically increasing ratio, the numbers of a given species remain more or less constant. From this he deduced that there is a continuing struggle for existence, for survival. He pointed out the existence of variations"differences among members of the same species"and suggested that the variations that prove helpful to a plant or an animal in its struggle for existence better enable it to survive and reproduce. These favorable variations are thus transmitted to the offspring of the survivors and spread to the entire species over successive generations. This process he called the principle of natural selection (the expression "survival of the fittest" was later coined by Herbert Spencer). In the same way, sexual selection (factors influencing the choice of mates among animals) also plays a part. In developing his theory that the origin and diversification of species results from gradual accumulation of individual modifications, Darwin was greatly influenced by Sir Charles Lyell's treatment of the doctrine of uniformitarianism. Darwin's evidence for evolution rested on the data of comparative anatomy, especially the study of homologous structures in different species and of rudimentary (vestigial) organs; of the recapitulation of past racial history in individual embryonic development; of geographical distribution, extensively documented by Wallace; of the immense variety in forms of plants and animals (to the degree that often one species is not distinct from another); and, to a lesser degree, of paleontology. As originally formulated, Darwinism did not distinguish between acquired characteristics, which are not transmissible by heredity, and genetic variations, which are inheritable. Modern knowledge of heredity"especially the concept of mutation, which provides an explanation of how variations may arise"(has supplemented and modified the theory, but in its basic outline Darwinism is now universally accepted by scientists)."
Darwinism is the most Reasonable Theory for Life on Earth

"Dar"win"ism /G2;d"rwəG6;nizəm/ noun 1. The theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin." We should all have learned about natural selection a long time ago. Almost every species of animals has something that could be related to it but completely different. Butterflies for example, have similar patterns in their wings. But over time you can look at one species that bred with another species, and produced something in between that carries both the parents traits. Because of that now the butterfly could be smarter, or more adapted because it has a wider range of knowledge.
Illiteracy is good and countries should pursue Illiteracy instead of literacy

Oral communication is still important and isn't going anywhere. But in order to keep records we must have literacy. There is also creativity in the ways that people type about things in the style of font, in the use of exclamation points, that would be lost if we only used oral communication. Technology and knowledge would be lost forever whenever people got bored with it and stopped talking about it. Civilization would eventually collapse.
Illiteracy is good and countries should pursue Illiteracy instead of literacy

Okay this is going to be difficult but i believe this can be argued. Looking forward to the challenge. Here goes! Yes countries should implement policies against literacy. In todays world not only is it possible to communicate with a global audience with only your voice, it is beneficial. Text based communication transmits much less information than a human voice and face. Emotion, timing, emphasis and other subtle details such as irony are easily lost by using text. The nuances that are biologically ingrained in the psyche of humanity are being swept aside for convenience, much to the detriment of society. By promoting illiteracy a government is promoting face-to-face communication, something that is becoming exceedingly rare with the advent of social networking. With technology such as Video chat, text based communication is no longer necessary and actually quite obsolete.