BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Dark Apologetic

A Dark Apologetic, V.2 Nihilism, Irrationality or Faith Premise One: Objective meaning, purpose and morality does not exist in the worldview of atheism. All existential and moral beliefs are opinions, not truths. No particular existential and moral belief is true over another's, all are equal in value. Premise Two: Mere intellectual affirmation in the non-existence of God is not the end of atheism. One must also purify one's mind of any existential and moral beliefs which are in and of themselves objective through self-analyzation and being mindful of one's thoughts and words. Premise Three: Throughout the process of purification, you will eventually find yourself in a world that is utterly depraved and void of substance. You will soon see more clearly what the worldview of atheism proclaims, and begin contemplating suicide. Conclusion: You are left with three options, nihilism, irrationality or faith. Either you will find yourself with a noose around your neck, living in the worldview of theism without justification or putting your trust in God. "Atheists, practice what you preach. Look within, self-analyze, be mindful of your thoughts and speech, purify yourselves of all existential and moral objectivity, become one with your rational truth and embrace suicide." - Tyler Newkirk
Religion is given too much respect

I am arguing that religion is given more respect than it deserves. It is considered rude to inquire their reasoning when it comes to their religion, however, it is not rude when inquiring about someone's political views. Both of these topics are based on belief and opinion, yet it is taboo to inquire about the reasoning behind one's religious beliefs. As the instigator, I must argue that religion is given too much respect in today's society. I await an opponent.
Religion is given too much respect

Religion Taken as a WholeBorrowing an example from Sam Harris: Religion, when taken as a unit, is about as useful a term as sports. There are sports like Thai Boxing and Badminton, which have little in common apart from breathing. The point being that taking such a broad range of belief systems, one can hardly come toward a cogent conclusion.What is a religion?The religion section of The Encyclopedia of Philosophy mentions nine qualifications for religions. The more qualifications out of the nine, the more “religious-like” the belief system is. These are: Belief in supernatural beings (gods); A distinction between sacred and profane objects; Ritual acts focused on sacred objects; A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods; Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods; Prayer and other forms of communication with gods; A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein; This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it; A more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view; A social group bound together by the above.Internal Religious DisrespectFurthermore, when taking the diverse set of religions into a mental conception, we see a set of mutually exclusive beliefs with equal conviction that the others are wrong. Islam, for example, has commands to kill unbelievers who do not pay the jizya. The point here is that the different religions, even branches and sects within those religions have dogma that calls the others wrong, false, or evil. This disrespect occurs due to dogma and convictions, which are very difficult for the feeble minded to reject. Therefore, not only is religion not given respect from the outside, but it is disrespected from groups inside the umbrella term of “religion.”External DisrespectThe rise of rationalism as an antithetical mental framework arose with the Milesian philosophers in Ancient Greece; along with it came the subsumed ideas of naturalism, science, and atheism. Although there have been groups of people throughout history that have had a lack of faith in any religion, and considered themselves largely atheist (upper-class Romans, for example), the origins of modern atheism can trace their origins back to the Enlightenment. Here is the genesis of the philosophical, moral, and logical cases against religion and religious faith. REBUTTALIn debate, it is important to use facts, evidence, and persuasiveness in your case.
Religion is given too much respect

My case (pro): Generally if you ask a person their religious views, they will (generally) tell you them without any trouble. I believe that religion should be tolerated, but not respected. I am arguing that religion should be treated as political views are treated; with respect if we deem they have earned it, and tolerance in most cases that we do not. An example would be the interpretation of Christianity's bible that homosexuality is a sin. This kind of thinking should not deserve respect, on the other hand, it would deserve a level of tolerance. To me, this belief inspires hatred. I could take action against those who preach this, but I do not; I am tolerating their behaviour. I await my opponent's response.
should the drinking age be lowered to 18

SOOO of course older adults would like to argue that the drinking age should not be 18 and OF COURSE 18 year olds will argue the drinking age should be 18. My opponent has argued that the age should not be lowered due to the fact that 18 year olds "over drink" but if you take a look, people that are ALLOWED TO DRINK ages; 21,25,45. still have tendencies to "over drink" so then should we bring the drinking age up to 65? ANY ONE and any age is capable of over drinking. 18 year olds are usually off in college, and college is the key to all parties where of course they will drink. whether it is illegal or not, 18 year olds still drink. I believe that 18 year olds should be able to drink because it will get those "party habits" out earlier. EVERYONE gets so excited to reach age 21 because they can finally go out into the clubs and drink. A lot of of 21 year olds spend half of their year of being 21 drinking and over drinking for that matter because finally they are free. WHY not let 18 year olds at parties in college drink where its is legal and they can get rid of that "drinking freely urge" that 21 year olds have.... 18 year olds are capable of voting, renting an apartment, driving, working, fighting in the army, but we can not drink. or even have a few drinks without getting arrested? In regards to the killing of the brain cells, everyone is killing their brain cells, drinking is not a healthy sport. if you chose to drink you must face the consequences of "losing brain cells" but no one thinks that because everyone, ages 18+ drink to have fun or have a good time. IN FACT I am half Portuguese and in Portugal kids are allowed to start drinking wine at the age of 16. My family is not dumb, nor alcoholics, in fact my aunt owns her own business, my grandparents just built a new 5 room house. People that started off at a young age of drinking now do not over drink nor are they "stupid" so I am all for drinking age being 18.
It morally acceptable to experiment on animals for human purposes

Let me begin by thanking mchahine for this debate. Since my opponent has decided to abandon his original three arguments allow my rebuttals for them to extend into this round. To briefly sum up my position I argued in the first round that harming animals by experimenting on them is unethical because they can suffer. And I also pointed out that there are viable alternatives to animal experimentation, which my opponent has decided to ignore. In case you didn't read my fourth source in round number one it established that Scientists are able to grow tissue in a lab, for the purpose of experimentation, that can achieve many of the same goals as experimentation upon a conscious animal. Now, lets take a look at the new arguments my opponent has put forth. ---> Contention IV: Animals generally benefit from advances made in animal testing As I have stated in my first round animals are incapable of giving their consent to these tests. Even if animal testing could be shown to be beneficial to animals it is still unethical because it causes them to suffer. The same basic principle of fairness that we apply to humans must also apply to some extent to animals. If twenty sick people needed organ transplants it would be unethical to eviscerate one healthy person for the purpose of harvesting his organs. To this same degree it is also wrong to torture and experiment on some animals so that other animals can benefit from this. ---> Contention V: Animal testing actually helps in testing whether products are environmentally friendly. This may be true, but these tests are still unnecessary. Furthermore, I have put forward a source in my first round, which shows that there are viable alternatives to animal testing that don't involve any animals suffering in any way. If you want to see it again you can follow this link. [1] ---> Contention VI: The use of animals in cosmetic testing is appropriate. The use of animals in cosmetic testing is both unneeded and immoral. Contention VI makes the same mistakes as Contention V. Carry my arguments from that contention over to this one. ======== Conclusion ======== Throughout the course of this debate my opponent has not been able to produce any arguments that aren't riddled with logical fallacies nor has he been able to rebut any of my original arguments. Consequentially, the outcome of this debate should be clear, vote con. Best, Freeman Sources: [1] http://www.associatedcontent.com...
It morally acceptable to experiment on animals for human purposes

Contenton IV: Animals generally benefit from advances made in animal testing IVA: Animal testing has improved understanding of animals and their welfare. What is often overlooked in this debate is the subject of veterinary medicine. It is in the interests of animals themselves that experiments be done on animals to test medicines and surgical procedures for using on animals themselves, not just on humans. Animal experimentation can be in the interests of animals as well as of humans. Heart worm medication was devised from research on animals and has to day helped in saving the lives of many dogs. Animal research has also provided better understanding of cat nutrition and the reasons behind as to why cats live longer and remain healthier are better understood. Contention V: Animal testing actually helps in testing whether products are environmentally friendly. VA: No organisation can commission animal testing without being sensitive to understandable concerns about the issue in society. However, all responsible businesses have to ensure that their products are safe for their employees, customers, the wider public and the environment. New product developments have delivered many benefits to society, but they must be demonstrated to be safe. In the case of oil and chemical products, the use of animals for testing is required where there is no other way of establishing their safety. Although new testing methods have significantly reduced the number of animals used, animals are still needed for some safety testing. Contention VI: The use of animals in cosmetic testing is appropriate. VIA: The Food and Drug Administration approves of animal testing in the case of cosmetics. The FD&C Act does not specifically require the use of animals in testing cosmetics for safety, nor does the Act subject cosmetics to FDA premarket approval. However, the agency has consistently advised cosmetic manufacturers to employ whatever testing is appropriate and effective for substantiating the safety of their products. It remains the responsibility of the manufacturer to substantiate the safety of both ingredients and finished cosmetic products prior to marketing.Animal testing by manufacturers seeking to market new products may be used to establish product safety.
Presupposing the truth of Christianity, atheism is morally wrong

The argument is rather straightforward, I will be interested to see how my opponent responds. If the Christian view is true, then the following propositions are also true: 1. Justice requires as a minimum measure, giving to each his due. (1) 2. God, as the Creator and supreme Good is due worship. (2) 2. Atheism denies God his due worship. (3) From this perspective, atheism would be morally wrong insofar as it denies God what He is due (love and worship) which would go against the virtue of justice. Atheism can also be considered morally wrong on the Christian view form another perspective, since the following propositions also hold true: 1. Faith in God is necessary for Salvation. 2. Atheism excludes faith in God. 3. Atheism leads people away from Salvation. (4) The fact that atheists may not be saved due to their lack of faith is in itself a moral evil, all the more so if they are successful in convincing others of their position and therefore putting even more souls in danger of eternal damnation. Sources (1) http://www.biblegateway.com... (2) http://www.biblegateway.com... (3) http://www.biblegateway.com... (4) http://www.biblegateway.com...
Presupposing the truth of Christianity, atheism is morally wrong

Continuing a controversy started in the opinion page, Morgan2252 and I have agreed to debate two different aspects of the opinion that it is morally wrong to be an atheist, this first one that given the truth of Christianity it is morally wrong to be an atheist, and later on perhaps another one debating the presupposition of the existence of God.As agreed, we have four rounds, first for acceptance and fourth for closing statements.
Presupposing the truth of Christianity, atheism is morally wrong

This is disappointing. I had thought I was quite clear in our exchanges previous to setting up this debate, at least as clear as the prompt is. "Presupposing the truth of Christianity, atheism is morally wrong".My opponent and I had something of a disagreement on the opinion page on my opinion that atheism is immoral. In our exchanges in setting up this debate I mentioned I thought it best to divide the statement into three different debates in order to cover the issue appropriately, and offered her to chose which ones she disagreed with to debate, they were as follows:1. Presupposing the truth Christianity, atheism is morally wrong2. Presupposing the existence of God, Christ is the son of God and founded the Catholic Church3. God existsMy opponent said chose to argue 1 and 3 and now insists on using arguments appropriate to the one she left out. I gather she actually agrees my logic is correct in saying that given the truth of Christianity atheism is a moral evil and look forward to holding the debate she seems to be keen on (the truth value of the Christian faith) in the future. As it is I cannot see any alternative to considering the resolution stands.
Presupposing the truth of Christianity, atheism is morally wrong

My opponent has chosen to ignore my argument altogether to make the case that it isn’t related to the topic. As I said before, if Christianity is not true or reliable, then atheism isn’t immoral.My opponent said:“If the Christian view is true, then the following propositions are also true:1. Justice requires as a minimum measure, giving to each his due. (1)2. God, as the Creator and supreme Good is due worship. (2)2. Atheism denies God his due worship. (3)”Yet, if the Christian view is untrue, as I explained in my last argument, then those other propositions were not true. Arguments extended. “1. Faith in God is necessary for Salvation.2. Atheism excludes faith in God.3. Atheism leads people away from Salvation. (4)”Once again, if this so called “salvation” does not exist, or if it is a complete lie, then atheism cannot be morally wrong because it demonstrates the truth.“The debate we have before us is on whether or not atheism is morally wrong presupposing the truth of the Christian claims.”And yet, the reason atheists don’t think that they are morally wrong is that they believe that Christianity is false. I am taking the “con” side of this debate because I don’t agree that we should simply assume atheism is wrong because Christianity is true.My points still stand and my opponent is yet to refute my arguments in the last round.
Presupposing the truth of Christianity, atheism is morally wrong

Con's entire case is based upon ignoring the premise. I agree that, if it were true that God did not exist it would not be true that atheism is a moral evil. That is a debate we have agreed to hold in the future, but it is not the debate we have today. The debate we have before us is on whether or not atheism is morally wrong presupposing the truth of the Christian claims.The arguments set forth by my opponent are interesting, and I am tempted to answer to them, but it would be distracting to the actual debate. Were we to hold a debate on the reliability of the Sacred Scriptures or on the truth of Christianity, this would be entirely appropriate. As it is, my original statements still stand and I await a pertinent answer.
Gay Marriage

Yes! I am very sorry for not providing sorces- all my facts came from cnn.com. And just to make it clear, I that statistic discussing absent father and absent mother homes was specifically relating to homes with two mothers or two fathers. CNN conducted a study. I am very sorry that I did not make that clear. I would love to hear your opinion when discussing the other nontraditional types of marriages such as the three that I listed. Don't you think that people would push for these other types of marriages? I know that they do not seem common, but many years ago, gay marriage was not common at a time either.
Gay Marriage

True, when you are in a guy x guy marriage, you can not reproduce yourself but many services have been made that still allows you to have a child of your own, such as adoption. In a woman x woman marriage, there are the same or similar services. As for children that do live in homosexual homes have emotional problems, it is most likely because they are always told it is wrong, as wilpin pointed out in their comment. About 44% of mother-only homes being in poverty, I would like to ask you to share where you have learn this information, because I'm having a theory that perhaps the percent comes from homes that the father had died or abandoned. If I could also get the source for the information about 30% of children growing up in no mother's homes. If you would do this, I could address the facts at a better angle.
Gay Marriage

Hi! I first of all do not want to offend anyone with this debate. But, unfortunately gay marriage is wrong for a few reasons. First of all, we must look at the scientifical facts and not just emotional level. Animals were made to reproduce. This reproduction process happens between a man and a women- it is not physically possible for it to happen between the same sex. Therefore, same sex marriage is not what God, evolution, mother nature, or whatever you believe in intended for life to be made of. Same sex marriage may also lead to individuals hoping to involve themselves in other nontraditional type marriages such as bestial (animal), incestual (between family members), and polygamous (having multiple wives or husbands). Gay marriage has proven that children living in homosexual homes may have emotional problems. About 44% of mother-only homes are living in poverty. Also, homes without a mother have shown that 30% of the children grow up to have psychological problems. These problems may vary from violence outbursts, temper tantrums, and drug overdoses. These are my main points. I do not want to offend anyone, I am just stating my personal views on the topic.
Gay Marriage

You seem to have lots of faith that CNN is not lying to you, yet they might be so. For media or any source, in the end, gives us only what they think we need to know, and excludes the rest. The question that arises in my mind, is how does CNN know when it is a gay marriage home or not? They do not, or at least I hope so, go up to them, asking if they are married, and the number of homes it would take to get the correct numbers would be many and not all of those homes will tell if they are married or not. So goes for the physiological percentage, which I do not understand why you would put that there. I had acknowledged that the fact could be true, but I have also stated why I think this is. Also, you said the researches do many statistical documentation, yet how do you know this? Or, if they told you, how do you know it is true? I do realize that those types of sexual behaviors are occurring, I didn't say they were not, but those marriages carry with them different factors to consider, thus will change my opinion upon them. Gay marriage shouldn't be consider marriage? The definition of marriage has changed varying from the states or area. True, the definition has started out being only the union of a man and woman, but as time has passed places of changed that to be something more like, "the union of two spouses", or something along those lines. Marriage is not about laws and what is thought right or wrong, it is about the union of two people who love each other, and two males or two females can love each other just as well as a male and female can.
Gay Marriage

Yes, CNN is the media, yet it still conducts experiments, not in media form. I know it may be confusing but CNN is also a networking company that gathers information for documentation. According the research, the issue regarding woman making less than men does play a role in those numbers, but when all different types of women only homes (other types other than gay marriage), there was still a significant difference in the homes that had two gay mothers. And, many kids are bullied. It is the same issue- there was a significant difference in the physcological factor in gay homes. The researches do many statistical documentation- it is a very long process. And then, they look for the differences. Regarding these other types of marriages, I hope that you realize that these types of sexual behaviors are occuring today. There is a whole pattern of different sexual activity. These other types of marriages are following the same exact pattern as gay marriage has. They start out small, then slowly work to become bigger and bigger. I would also like to touch on the topic that gay marriage should not even be considered marriage. The definition of marriage is the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman as partners in a relationship. This clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman. How do you justify that?
Gay Marriage

It's okay, and thank you for clarifying that, I just wanted to make sure, but CNN is the media, and you can not trust anything right away that comes from the media. As for the fact that 44% of mother-only homes live in poverty can be linked back to the fact that women make less money in men, for doing the same jobs, and in some branches of jobs, women get less offers or find it harder to get the jobs than men, so it is not surprising that those homes are in poverty. As for homes without mother have 30% of their children growing up to have psychological problems, I'm referring back to myself when I said that they are probably having these problems because they are (maybe) bullied, and as I said, are told that it is wrong, but I have no valid argument against the fact. About the other three marriage's I am not supporting of them, but I have never really looked into it much. So, I would have to say that I don't think people should push for these marriages, in the U.S. that it. Outside, I have no power and I don't fully know how certain things are thought of. And, many years ago, gay marriage was although less common, still a thing. It has only recently become a big thing, but it has been around since about 1970.