BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Scientism is a reliigon

Alright I will spend most of this round defining what I mean since it"s a new concept to most people. Scientism (alternately the term scienceism could be used) is the religious belief that preaches that the universe came into existence on its own and that life arose from non-life. This cannot be tested by the scientific method and so is not science but rather religion. Primordial soup is one example of scientism. This is not something that has been empirically tested but rather is a religious belief but is taught as fact by the adherents of the religions. Here is some of their key doctrine: It uses science of the gaps to explain things the scientific method cannot. It is probably the only religion that is allowed and in fact mandated to proselytize in schools. Some examples of adherents of the religion are Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye. While it is closely related to the religion of atheism, not all atheists are scientismists. They try to convert others to their religious worldview. In terms of how they are a religion Dictionary. com defines religion thusly 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc. : to enter religion. 5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. Scientism meets all of these. 1. They believe the almighty Big Bang caused the universe even though they can"t prove it but rather take it on faith. 2. They believe that life can arise from non-life despite a lack of scientific support. 3. They usually go by scientist but they have usurped the term from legitimate scientists and not everyone who adheres to the religion even works in the field of science. 4. Again usually they go by scientist, however for the sake of this debate I will refer to them as scientismist. 5. They proselytize in schools and debate other religions. See the video of Bill Nye proselytizing this religion and condemning other religions. He wants parents to only teach their kids his religion. That shows how oppressive they can be. (It"s a shame too since there was a time where Bill Nye did seem interesting in the scientific method) . http://www.youtube.com... Now Scientism does take bits and pieces of evidence and starts to use the scientific method (that"s why they can fool people into thinking it"s real science) but to fill in the holes they make a leap of faith and use science of the gaps to explain what they can"t using real science.
People Can Only Be Theists Or Atheists

My opponent does not grasp disbelief it is the exact opposite of belief. If you don't have trust or confidence it is quite clear that you disbelieve it. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Refusal or reluctance to believe. Now we know that a means not a theist or one who disbelieves in god. Which is the same exact thing. The problem with part 3 is they are saying they don't know if there is a god, not they don't know what they believe, we all know what we believe and it is intellectually lazy and dishonest to say I don't. That is avoiding the question, I don't care if you know when I asked what you believe. If I ask you if you believe in aliens it is simply yes or no. You don't believe in unicorns for the same reason, lack of evidence. It is just special pleading to be an agnostic and also a blatant misrepresentation of atheism. This set of questions is not hard for anyone; Do you believe in unicorns? yes or no Do you believe in marinicons? yes or no Do you believe in bigfoot? yes or no Now why is it acceptable to circle the or in the question do you believe in god yes or no? Thats right it is not and it is special pleading as when we judge existence we use best available evidence. Without evidence we withhold belief or dishbelieve. It is really simple there are 2 choices in a question of belief and knowledge is completely different.
People Can Only Be Theists Or Atheists

I appreciate Pro's arguments greatly.Pro presents a syllogism to attempt to prove his point. However, I must show this syllogism to be irrelevant to the resolution. A syllogism must contain a major premise, a minor premise, a conclusion, and three terms.This syllogism contains the following terms:A - TheistB - The response 'Yes.' to the question 'do you believe in God?'C - The response 'I don't know.'So, all theist respond yes. If Person A responds 'I don't know', then Person A is not a theist.That is correct, and there is no problem with the logic. However, all this proves is that Person A is not a theist. Pro still has the burden of proof to show that 'all non-theists are atheists'.Pro attempts to do this by citing About.com. I will quote the first line from this reference:"There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism."Because Pro's reference throws doubt to the definition of the word 'atheism', where can we look? The simplest answer is to look to the dictionary. Dictionaries decide on the definitions of words by examining how each word is used most commonly in both verbal and written language.[1] One such dictionary, Cambridge Dictionary Online, also defines atheist similar to the Merriam Webster definition I gave earlier:Atheist: someone who believes that God does not exist. [2]As the dictionary defines a word as it is most commonly used, then I reassert the definition of atheist as someone who believes that God does not exist.As for Pro's source about the prefix a-, I will also quote a relevant line from that same reference:"You can find more detail or precision for each prefix in any good dictionary. The origins of words are extremely complicated. You should use this list as a guide only, to help you understand possible meanings."I re-assert that somebody who doesn't have an opinion as to the existence of God does not fit the definition of a theist, nor an atheist, considering that they neither believe, nor disbelieve.[1]http://www.cambridge.org...[2]http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
People Can Only Be Theists Or Atheists

I would start off by thanking my opponent for actually presenting an argument in the opening round. Now my argument is simple: Premise 1: A theist must answer yes to the question do you believe in god. Premise 2: I don't know is not a yes to the question. conclusion- An answer of I don't know means not a theist. Now lets loo at the prefix "A" http://www.englishclub.com... Now the irony here is it even uses atheism as its example. See we have the set of all yes's. Anything outside that set such as a no or I don't know don't fit in that set. Atheism is what is not in the set. To ask the question differently, you could say: Are you a theist? Any response but yes means no. http://atheism.about.com... This further details it but is not necessary.
People Can Only Be Theists Or Atheists

I will attempt to show that people can be neither theist nor atheist. It is to be understood that theists believe in theism and atheists believe in atheism. Definitions Theism - belief in the existence of a god or gods[1]Atheism - a disbelief in the existence of deity[2]Belief - a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing[3]Disbelief - mental rejection of something as untrue[4]With the definitions out of the way, we can safely identify 3 subsets of individuals. I am not arguing that this list is comprehensive, but it is sufficient for me to show that more than the two subsets of theist and atheist exist.1 - Person A believes in God, therefore Person A calls himself a theist.2 - Person B thinks that the concept of God is untrue. Person B calls himself an atheist. 3 - Person C doesn't think that God is true, but doesn't think that God is untrue. Person C has no opinion, and calls himself an agnostic. Therefore, we can see that as a person is capable of not having an opinion on a subject, that the subset of agnostics fulfills the burden of proof. [1]. http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...;[3]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4]http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
2016 Presidential Race

"Said about women, "You have to treat "em like S**t" I'm sorry, but anyone who is good with women knows exactly what this means. This is a scientific fact of biology that allowed our species to survive. http://www.wealthylovelife.com... * Pro: "We know that Trump is a racist, a misogynist" And a performer. He has black, female executives and more women in executive positions than men. Actions Pro. Actions. http://dailycaller.com... http://www.al.com... "narcissist" It's a pretty common trait. Hillary is a sociopath, which is an actually dangerous trait. * Pro: "Muslim Ghazala Khan" This is plantation politics. If they weren't minorities the dems couldn't care less. http://www.breitbart.com... * "she "wasn"t allowed to have anything to say" Not very misoginystic in real life eh? * Pro: "that his opponent should be imprisoned" She should be. She commited treason (a life sentence felony)against the U.S. and got 4 Americans killed in Benghazi, not to mention Waco, Libya, or Egypt. * "Called Mexican immigrants rapists" He pointed out rape stats on illegal immigrants which were facts. http://www.constitutionparty.com... * "How many Americans would want to wake up knowing that the day ahead of you is unsure because of the lunatic that is running for president has won?" Sally Perdue posted on facebook to not believe it was suicide if she died. Why? Hillary's kronies threatened her with death. http://www.debate.org...
2016 Presidential Race

We know that Trump is a racist, a misogynist, an authoritarian, and a narcissist, but we have lost track of the many, many specific things he has said and done that disqualify him from the office he seeks. Compared his "sacrifices" as a businessman with those of parents whose son was killed in war Suggested that Gold Star mother and Muslim Ghazala Khan remained silent because she "wasn"t allowed to have anything to say" Said he"s "starting to agree" that his opponent should be imprisoned Said about women, "You have to treat "em like S**t" Called Mexican immigrants rapists Let's all face up with reality. While we may be digging up things from Hillary's past, Trump's present conduct and show of character is what we ought to judge. Is this what we really want. When he first started this conduct, everyone thought that he would eventually change. Of course he's not going to change. This is the reality. Trump is who he portrays himself to be. He really is unfit to be president. How many Americans would want to wake up knowing that the day ahead of you is unsure because of the lunatic that is running for president has won?
2016 Presidential Race

The list of Bill Clinton sexual assault, rape, and adulterous behavior is a mile long. Hillary didn't care because she's a sociopath, and in the end it and purgery got Bill impeached. http://www.debate.org... * With Waco, TX, Linda Tripp was stunned by the contrast between Vince Foster's heartfelt emotion at the Waco tragedy and what she observed from Mrs. Clinton. "Her reaction, on the other hand, was heartless," Tripp said, adding, "I can only tell you what I saw." Vince Foster was found shot to death soon after questioning the Clinton's motives. Then Hillary commanded a reluctant Janet Reno to act. Reno, on the other hand, was not enthusiastic about launching the assault. "Give me a reason not to do this," she is said to have begged aides. http://www.debate.org... * With North Korea, this administration sent massive shows of military force off the shores of North Korea. http://www.bloomberg.com... * With Libya this administration attacked Libya unprovoked with massive military force. It is the biggest failure of this administration. We ousted an ally out of power reaking chaos in the region. And let's not even get into ousting Mobarak from Egypt. This administrstion attacked our allies unprovoked. http://foreignpolicy.com... *Trump is by far "the lesser of 2 evils". Hillary's America trailer (Video) http://youtu.be...
2016 Presidential Race

The 2016 Presidential race is a unique race. In this race, two "Evils" have been chosen by their nominating parties. The American Society has been left to choose the "Lesser of two Evils" for the race. This is what sources have to say: " According to Siegfried, many people would prefer not to take part in the upcoming election as they like neither Donald Trump, nor Hillary Clinton." The 2016 offerings of both major parties are so flawed, so authoritarian, so inclined to disregard the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and expand executive power, that even "pretzel logic" will not allow me to rationalize a choice between them. So what do you say to those antagonizing over the decision. Vote for the "Lesser of two Evils"-Hillary Clinton, Our Next President of the United States.
Travel Is The Very Essence of Life

Thank you for your response. I believe that the travel industry (particularly global) is a trillion dollar industry. However, this makes no difference to the individual because you do not have to pay trillions of dollars to engage in travel itself. How do you know for certain that absolutely "no progress has been made" in developing a cheaper airline fuel? On the contrary, I know for certain that cheaper airline fuel has definitely been developed and is still being developed (consider the rapid and continuous advancement in research technology in this day and age). The likelihood of the cheaper airline fuel being released into the market commercially might be slim, because businesses are profit driven. Your Youtube videos have an insignificant amount of views, which goes to show that it's content does not even appeal to the average Youtube viewer (like myself for instance). I myself watched both the videos and the content comes across as amateurish and shallow in thought. As such, I cannot accept this as valid justification for your point of view. The majority of your argument revolves around travel via air, with examples of you traveling within the United States of America itself. Although I have yet to travel within the USA (as I currently reside in Singapore), I have traveled to: China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Turkey, India, New Zealand, Australia, England, Cambodia, Vietnam, Hong Kong and Macau. It is very difficult to deny the fact that reading about the places/"watching movies and stuff" about them is nothing compared to the real experience itself. Travel by car, is at best a matter of convenience. Domestic travel can be done by a variety of ways: foot/bus/train/boat/horseback etc. This statement "If travel was really the essence of life, then all poor people would be dead, having no essence of life. Poor people are alive, so travel can't be the essence of life. People can function without it." defies the concept of logic. The topic of discussion is about travel being the essence of life, not how travel is critical to the survival of humankind (for instance). You are definitely right when you say that people can function without travel. (Please refer to this link for an example of someone who I may consider as having never traveled: https://www.thesun.co.uk...) You are right about the cost of travel. But it is important to note that how much you have to ultimately pay depends largely on your choice of activities and accommodation. Please review the definition of travel here: http://www.dictionary.com.... Once you have done so, you will realize that a journey from home to your place of work is indeed considered as travel. As for the experience of traveling to work, it varies between individuals. You may hate your current job, which might be a reason for feeling that the journey "doesn't give you life, it sucks your life away". Finally to address your closing paragraph, I have to remind you that travel is not constrained to backpacking in the Appalachians or lounging around in a country club. The options are endless and I strongly urge you to consider the multitude of travel options.
Travel Is The Very Essence of Life

Your statement "Travel is too expensive for poor people" requires more detail. It would be good if you define "travel", "too expensive" and "poor people" because these three components of your statement have very subjective meanings. Every individual has his/her own definition of travel. I for one, may define travel as one of the following: getting to work via the public transport, going for a holiday in specially catered vacation facilities (e.g. those with Club Med), going backpacking in the wilderness of the Appalachian mountains. I hope the above provides some points to aid in our debate.
the catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity

I appreciate your points, and as someone who is not a catholic, I have used the articifical v open to life points many times against them. condoms don't seems to be any worse based on their own philosophy. an in fact are worse cause they often admit NFP is more effective birth control, as a way to get people to use it.... yet if it's more effective, youd think it'd be worse to use NFP. but this is based on per se philosophy, not a literal contradiction. an obvious contradiction is A is not B. A is B. what's being talked about here is interpretation. etc I don't think i'd claim that they contradicted themselves though. even the catechism openly talks about NFP versus contraception. they wouldn't make such a obvious contradiction if it were in fact a contradiction.
the catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity

A couple of responses are in order. 1. A contradiction is a philosophical claim. Contradictions involve the nature of statements juxtaposed together, which necessarily involves some philosophical valuation. Philosophies--such as NFP and Catholic reproductive ethics--can, in fact, contradict each other. 2. NFP is indeed not fool-proof. However, for Catholics, it is just as good as birth control, as Kreeft himself admits: "[NFP] is much more reliable than the 'rhythm method,' as reliable as 'the pill,'* and has none of the pill's side effects. .. " (250). Moreover, that it is not fool-proof does not mean it is "open to life"; if that's true, then condoms and the pill are both "open to life" since they are not universally perfect means of contraception. That it is "artificial" is not a meaningful standard, since the overriding claim against contraceptives from the Catholic end is that sex should be open to life, so even if you're using "natural" means of contraception, you're still not being open to life. In fact, you are in some senses violating your body even more, since you are using its natural functions against it. 3. I mean, there's no grand document at the Vatican saying "NFP is the way to go," but Catholic doctrine on sexual morality is universal, and since NFP--in the mind of the Church--is the only viable contraceptive solution, it therefore still counts as legitimate Church teaching. The contradiction therefore is still a meaningful one based on the standards set up in the first round. I urge a vote in the CON. *Note: this is utterly false.
the catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity

NFPlanning is not full proof. so it is technically open to life. or at least not deliberately closed to life, through artificial means. this seems mostly like a philosophical argument than a real contradiction. also i'm not sure NFP is taught by the pope etc. but i do know there's a significant number of even catholics who express the concerns of being open to life, as said by con. this point is very weak. i agree that the burden to show a win for con should be low, as all that needs shown is one contradiction. but if you could find another one, a stronger one, that would be better.
the catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity

n this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church". you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years. the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes. note: -this does not include moral corruption, only official teaching. that means you can't use bad priest, even peodofile priests. it means you can't use the inquisistion where millions were killed by catholics. can't use the sins of past popes. it has to be actual teachings of the church, as said, councils and statements by popes. etc. impeccable v infallble, there's a difference. -since we are comparing official statements, id rather not use the bible either. it's usually too open to interpretation to begin with. we are examining the church's consistency on its own anyway... and you'd think even beyond the bible, it'd have contradicted itself within two thousand years. -also there's a differnce between widespread belief and doctrine. that so many believed the earth was made in six days, that the earth was flat, that man wasn't from apes etc... only shows they are human. it'd make sense at first impression. this isn't doctrine. you have to cite a quote or citation. -there's a difference between practice and doctrine too... preistly celibacy is practice, reading the mass in latin is a practice... etc also try not to be vague. so many claims of contradiction online are superficial. for example, "papal bull regarding jews", without getting into what exactly is contradicting what etc. if possible, find the quote or citation for what you are referring to.
India should be a permanent UN Security Council Member

I agree with what you outlined that in the effect that it would solve a lot of the problems that the UNSC face but the one thing i will remind people is that until Iran, Ukraine, and Syria are solved nothing positive can be built on firm standing. The problem with Russia is there are also as in much trouble as Iran is for their role in the Ukraine civil war. They also are in trouble for their support of Syria and they action they took to stop the US and the west from taking chemical weapons away from the government. So those issues have to be resolved and India has to continue to show the will and resolve in trying to find an equal society more like what the US has since no civilization will be truly 100 percent equal in all things. Once this things get started then you can see India being granted membership as a permanent member of the UNSC or atleast the process to begin to move that way.