BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Athiest Defense

I'm Surprised my opponent still held to the stance of Atheism cannot exist without Theism. I was ready to move past that, as it is not the MEAT of the debate. As I stated before that its a linguistics issue and not a theological one. I allow my opponent to take back this stance. 6 rebuttals 1. If theism happened to disappear tomorrow, everyone would be without belief in god, aka atheists. If suddenly everyone started believing in god tomorrow, everyone would have belief in god, aka theists. Both concepts that can exist independently of the other. 2. Substitute the belief of a god with some other form of fantasy. A common one is fairies. I do not believe in fairies. That does not mean there has to be someone out there who believes in them so I can justify my non-belief. 3. You don't need the existence of something to not believe in it. Someone has to have invented and mentioned gods in order for us to know what we don't believe, but we can still not believe whether there are believers or not. 4. Even if there was no theism, as in there was no belief in any God/s whatsoever, the thought of Gods would still remain as an idea. And just because there is no belief in the idea of Gods doesn't mean that there would be complete disbelief so atheism could exist even without theism. 5.There wouldn't be the word 'atheism', but the concept of a lack of god would exist (in the absence of a God). 6.A whole society could develop without religion, without making up a god of any kind to believe in; everyone in that society would be atheists and none of them would be theists. Answer. No you cant defend a position if there is no position to defend. I'm in agreement Hence my Round 1 Argument "seeing how you cannot validate or invalidate a claim that is never made and cannot debate against a position that claims it does not have a position or claim this leads me to talk to thin air" Question Would you say your position is not available to attack and examination?
The Athiest Defense

Atheism cannot exist without theism. If theism ceased to exist, then the idea of god would cease to exist. If the idea of god ceased to exist then how can one disbelieve in something they know nothing of?(rhetorical auestion). If you NEVER heard of god, the term god was never made up, the idea never presented, then you cannot disbelieve it, you don't even know what it is. People 4000 years ago didn't disbelieve in cellphones. Cus the idea of cellphones was never presented. In order to hold a disbelief, a belief MUST first be presented. Concept of god was presented....atheism is simply the result. Every action has an equal and OPPOSITE reaction. Theism is the action, atheism is the equal and opposite reaction. You can't REact if an action never took place. How can one REact to an action that never happened? (Rhetorical question). Answer: Atheism position is defended. Theists made a claim (they must prove their claim,the onus is on them)-they are the pprosecutors. Atheism disbelieves the claim made by theists-they are the defendants. The atheist defense is ...you said it, now provide proof of what you said. Until then we are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Question: How can someone defend a position if there was never an offense presented? We can't defend against nothing,something MUST exist in order for us to defend.
The Athiest Defense

So I will establish that part where I agree so that we can take that off the table left for scraps in the trash, if he would like to debate points we already agree on, that would be his choice, if not, then we can see what is left to eat. two Clarifications 1. Atheism is basically a negative position, so I am not asking my opponent to prove that God does not exist. That is far too difficult a proposition to impose upon anyone. 2. I made a mistake in Round 1 it says so that we were suppose to include our opening arguments and 1 question at the end of it. I myself forgot to do so, So I will ask it here on Round 2 and so can my opponent in his round 2. And then second question will remain as stated in Round 1 that another question should be posed on round 3. Agreements for a debate to occur a position must be brought forth Atheism is never neutral, its the opposite of theism. Agnosticism is neutral. (Yes Atheism is not neutral so it must prove itself to be true due to a positive claim made ) Disagreements My Opponent says Atheism cannot exist without Theism. My opponent without realizing it has refuted his own statement. By also saying Atheism is lack of belief if theism happened to disappear tomorrow, there would still be people without belief in a God. At that point while theism would exist as a CONCEPT, it would not exist as a practice. If not believing in a God is a natural state then Atheism is not about opposition to the CONCEPT of God, it is only non-belief IN Gods. would All atheist be erased from existence if theism didn't exist? No. Granted, No one would have created a word Atheism unless theism existed. But that's linguistics, not theology. Question. My opponent says "BOTH HOLD A POISITON" in a debate, are you putting forth a position that doesn't need to be defended or true
The Athiest Defense

First, I don't want anyone to vote for me on the basis of me being atheist, I dislike biased votes. Vote based solely on the argument. Thank you. Now, this argument is very flawed and a clear misunderstanding of 1. How debates work and 2. The atheist position. In order for any debate or argument to occur there must be a position brought forth. Then an opposing position must negate the initial position. In this case theism is the initial position and atheism is the opposition to it. Atheism cannot exist without theism. Yet theism can exist without atheism. Atheism is simply the result of theism. Theism makes the initial claim "god exists", atheism acknowledges the claim and rejects it. Both hold a position. Atheism is never neutral, its the opposite of theism. Agnosticism is neutral. For instance one will not approach someone and say "hey I don't believe in giglamoos...do you? If you do...prove they exist" and then the other person says "well first off, what's a giglamoo?" to where the first person replies "I just made it up, now let's debate". That makes no sense. The atheist will defend their position by saying "I dont believe you...therefore prove it". If the theist says "why don't you believe me?". The atheist says "BECAUSE you lack evidence ", It is now the theist job to prove it since they made the initial claim. The atheist NEVER has to disprove the theist claims....it's a logical fallacy called "Burden of proof". Thanks
The Athiest Defense

My Argument . .. .. that some Atheist attempt to sit on the sidelines with a passive nuetral stance in the matters of the existence of God, meaning they will try to place themself in a position where they do not have to defend themself or make a claim making their stance undefeatable, seeing how you cannot validate or invalidate a claim that is never made and cannot debate against a positon that claims it does not have a position or claim this leads me to talk to thin air. Athiest sometimes merely assert that they lack the beleif in God and conviently leave it there and rely soley on the simple phrase lack of beleif in God will automatically defeat the opposing position without them saying anything else. which makes the debate unfair since they never make a stance,claim,position to speak against. If you have a point of view in ANYTHING you have a beleif if you have a beleif then you aslo have a posive claim within your belief, you do not arrive at your VIEW for no reason, the REASON is your Position and your CONCLUSION of that reason is your Claim KNOWING THIS, I then Proceed to Take the Stance or position that If CON makes a arguement agaisnt me in this very debate, he must automatically defend his position, If he defends his position then he also has to prove his position and by doing this he can no longer take the passive nuetral stance.
The Athiest Defense

There's nothing more to elaborate. You keep making the same argument. My points stand. Not smoking cigarettes is not.the same as disbelief in.cigarettes existing.. If cigarettes NEVER existed, never heard.of....then its IMPOSSIBLE to.fisbelieve.in.cigarettes....again same argument repeated with different words. Again stated...atheist are the exact opposite of.theists,,.that's not and can never be a neutral position. Agnostics are in neutral position. Therefore we can just say...they all lack ANY belief and that would be an entirely different word. Conclusion: in order to disbelieve a belief MUST be presented. You cannot disbelieve in something you have no knowledge of. Atheist do take a position...its opposite of theists. The defense is NO evidence. If a theist can present evidence then the atheist would no longer be...atheist
The Athiest Defense

This is the final Round. SO no further New arguments. I leave with my Closing The Atheism cannot exist without Theism stance by Con to me I still believe is a linguistics issue. NOT smoking does not REQUIRE Cigarettes to exist. I used 2rounds to defend my point. Its not the main meat of the point I was originally trying to make, it was a point by Con that I simply responded to so I will move on. My Position was not that God exists, so I did not need to defend this in this debate per se, My position was that the "Lack of belief of God" stance is used by atheist for the purpose of putting them self in a position they do no have to defend. If they do not have to defend, this is by default neutral. Con says That in a debate BOTH HOLD A POSITION, if this is true then both sides must defend their position not one, yet Con tries to have only 1 side defend their position when he said he is not the one that has to defend a claim at the end of each of his rounds. This strategy by Con default essentially forces him in a neutral position, a position that that doesn't need to be defended. Since he said at the end of every round I was the one that needed to defend mine. He says he has a defense actually, which is to attack the other position. Con is fulfilling my very position from round 1 He is in the attempt to get in a situation where he does NOT have to defend himself. Con is trying to put himself in some sort of non-cognition(non-intellectual contemplation of God)but if he does this than its a slippery slope and will classify even rocks birds and cell phones to also be atheists. A more accurate Stance would be "As a person I lack belief or lacking belief in God is for sentient beings only" I enjoyed the debate with Con I did not intentionally try to misrepresent his position. 2k Characters I realized was much to short for adequate expression and rebuttals. Terms were not defined as we both should have done, and essentially both of us ended up fighting our own misconceptions.
Death Penalty in America

The source for my first argument is in parenthesis. Secondly, there are other reasons to punish besides a deterrent effect. These include removal from society, which can be accomplished through means other than the death penalty, most notably life imprisonment. This has been a reliable alternative to the death penalty. Another reason for imprisonment / punishment is rehabilitation to turn the criminal into a productive member of society. This obviously cannot be accomplished with the death penalty. A source that death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment: The Execution of Injustice 23 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 59, 133 (1989). It is moral to allocate tax dollars in a more responsible way, and to decrease crime generally. It is less moral to use those tax dollars on an expensive system that does not meet its goals. Thus, the American Death penalty system is not worthwhile. Justice is a much larger topic than what we are debating here, I cannot add a new topic in the 3rd rd
Death Penalty in America

"As to the first point, it has been demonstrably shown that the death penalty has no rates of crimes that have death penalty consequences." 1. What is your source? "Death penalty offences are inherently irrational acts, so to assume that people who commit these crimes are applying a rational analasys to their actions is basically flawed." According to that argument, punishment for any crime is uneccesary for that reason. So it is as if my opponent is arguing for anarchy. Crime will certainly flourish without punishment. "However, it has been shown that it is acturally cheaper to incarcerate someone for life that to try to utilize the death penalty." 1. Once again, what is your source. 2. I was also making a point about the MORALITY of tax dollars going to inprisoning murderers for life. One topic I would like to debate is Justice! Yes, what did happen to justice!
Death Penalty in America

Thank you for accepting my challenge. If I am correct, you are making 2 points: the first being that the death penalty is a deterrent, and secondly that is more fiscally responsible to use the death penalty. As to the first point, it has been demonstrably shown that the death penalty has no affect on rates of crimes that have death penalty consequences (Capital Punishment and the Judicial Process. 3rd ed. Coyne, Randall, c2006). Not only do statistics bear this theory out, but so does logic. Death penalty offenses are inherently irrational acts, so to assume that people who commit these crimes are applying a rational analysis of their actions is basically flawed. Secondly, you posit that the death penalty is in some way cheaper. However, it was been shown that it is actually cheaper to incarcerate someone for life than to try to utilize the death penalty. This is in large part due to things such as pretrial motions and appeals. Finally, taxes should go to more effective deterrents.
Death Penalty in America

Reasons for the Death Penalty: 1. One merit of the Death Penalty is that it discourages people to murder other people if death is the consequence. If people know they would die if they killed someone, then they are less likely to kill someone than if they know that they would got to jail when they kill someone. The Death Penalty is, an incentive to save lives. 2. Why should people's taxes go to feeding, and housing murderers? Most people who say that murderers shouldn't be executed, are in effect saying that we should spend taxes on feeding murderers for the rest of their lives. There are a few problems with that. Among them are: 1. The immorality of feeding, clothing and housing murderers for the rest of their lives. 2. Unfairness to tax payers, who would rather their money be spent on roads education, etc. than the immoral support of murderers.
The zygote is a child with rights.

Pro has not provided any scientifical evidence of their claims whatsoever. Therefore, I have nothing to refute. I provided my evidence in my most recent argument. And Pro has not proven his/her points. They make claims but provide no evidence. -- My Used Sources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.lemauricien.com... Another important source: http://www.svss-uspda.ch... Thank you for debating this topic with me. I must admit, however, that your lack of sources and scientifical evidence was a disappointment. But all-in-all, it was an interesting discussion. Goodluck Pro.
The zygote is a child with rights.

(B1) "I a not saying that genetics is the only determing factor in humanity. I am saying that is the starting point. Other factors include heartbeat, brainwaves, and so on." (B2) "All I am asserting is that the zygotic stage is the beginning of individual humanity. You were once a zygote. That's when your life began." (B3) "When do YOU believe that individual human life begins." _________________ B1 - Except, Pro, genetics has nothing to do with whether or not something is human. Yes, it is a factor of humanity, but it is not a determining factor. Otherwise, we would say all animals are humans, too. Which would seem rather foolish, would it not? B2 - Also, it is not the starting point either. You have provided zero evidence for your claims, and therefore are failing at making a good argument for your case. I do hope you have better proof/evidence than just your B3 - I believe that a human life begins at the start of brain waves; the same thing that determines when a human dies. Brain waves make the brain process, and therefore allows the now-called child to think, have consciousness, feel, etc.. And I ask Pro not to bring up the oh-so-popular argument "no, death happens when the heart stops". If death happened when the heart stopped, there would be no such thing as resuscitation. The heart is what helps make the brain function. Which is the reason that, before brain waves cease, there is indeed a chance to save the person even if their heart stops beating. Hence, CPR/resuscitation. Conclusions: This following paper was written quite a while back but still, holds very important and noteworthy points: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... "This paper suggests that medically the term a 'human being' should be defined by the presence of an active human brain. The brain is the only unique and irreplaceable organ in the human body, as the orchestrator of all organ systems and the seat of personality. Thus, the presence or absence of brain life truly defines the presence or absence of human life in the medical sense. When viewed in this way, human life may be seen as a continuous spectrum between the onset of brain life in utero (eight weeks gestation), until the occurrence of brain death." Side note: brain life does not mean brainwaves. The 'brain life' they are referring to is the electrical signals flowing through the brain, not brain waves. ---- "A fetus' brain only starts to emit electrical signals at 12 weeks, and the EGGs recorded are comparable to that of a sea slug according to the eminent neuroscience researcher Micheal Gazzaniga in his book, 'The ethical brain'. A fetus only develops its cerebral cortex, the part of the brain which regulates thought and consciousness at 24 weeks, well after the limit for abortions. Before 24 weeks, its brain only emits electrical signals, not brain waves which indicate thought." Source: http://www.lemauricien.com... It would also be appreciated if Pro could refer back and answer to A3. I am very curious as to what they have to say. Looking forward to your response, Pro.
The zygote is a child with rights.

Let's start with a basic class in biology. About every 28 days, the woman's ovary releases at least one egg that contains 23 chromosomes. A sperm containing also 23 chromosomes attaches to the egg. The sperm penetrates the egg and the male and female pronuclei exchange information. About 24 hours after the sperm penetrates the egg, the male and female pronuclei fuse to form a new genetically unique organism. This is when a chemical called early pregnancy factor can be detected by sensitive blood tests that confirm that pregancy begins at fertilization. From fertilization to death the human organism is genetically the same. This is lso a Biblical fact. Job 3:3 says that Job was a male child at conception which is fertilization. As a former zygote, I oppose abortion, and ulipristal acetate which prevents the baby from implanting. Contraception is something that works to prevent the zygote from being created. This is not just eligion, this is scientific fact. An atheist can be prolife. Christopher Hitchens might be who I'm thinking of. I don't hate the mother, I just want equality for all humans.
Stop accepting debates with the title 'How do Atheists rationally know truth from fiction?'

Newcomers to Debate.org, DO NOT accept ANY debate with the title 'How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?'. The guy who has been posting them, ViceRegent, is a middle-aged bigoted ignoramus with the brain capacity of a lemur, and he has been spamming this same debate for months. DON'T ACCEPT THESE KINDS OF DEBATES. REPORT HIM FOR SPAM.
Stop accepting debates with the title 'How do Atheists rationally know truth from fiction?'

My opponent's counter argument is simply the word "yes" which is vague and could be interpreted in many different ways. Since my opponent failed to specify, I will assume that yes means that he agrees with me. If he agrees with me at this point then my opponent recognizes that he was wrong before and that I have won the debate. On a side note, notice how I have a profile picture and my opponent doesn't. This means I probably take this a bit more seriously is all. Just saying... (aka: bonus points for me).
Stop accepting debates with the title 'How do Atheists rationally know truth from fiction?'

I will argue against my opponent telling newcomers what to do. If a newcomer wishes to debate this middle aged monkey man then let them. My opponent failed to state what the structure for the rounds. In fairness I will leave this round to announce that I am accepting the debate and rounds 2 and 3 for arguments and rebuttals. ...On second thought, f*ck that. My opponent failed to specify rules so I will argue in any way I can to win this debate including the first round. My opponent mentioned that these debates are spam, but failed to specify what he meant by SPAM. Definition of SPAM: 1. irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of recipients. 2. a canned meat product made mainly from ham. Since the opponent is on the internet I would assume the first definition, however he wrote it all in caps. If you look at an image of SPAM in the meat form you will see it has all capital letters: https://upload.wikimedia.org... Are we reporting him because he ate SPAM? For liking SPAM? Putting a picture of SPAM on the internet? If that was the case then he would be spamming spam. :D (Notice the pun, I shall be awarded style points for good conduct at the end when the audience casts their votes. That pun was really witty.) Either way my opponent was not specific when talking about SPAM. My opponent has also made the assumption that the guy posting his debates has the brain capacity of a lemur, yet gives no sources to back up his claim. Here is a picture of a lemur: http://news.nationalgeographic.com... Here is a video of children petting a lemur: I also looked up "lemur eating spam" on the almighty Google and could find no links relating the two. Coincidence? I think not. Thank you opponent for taking the time to start this debate. I look forward to a well thought out counter argument.
Schools should have the right to search students lockers

You can't not specify something then alter the definition. You literally even opened up stating arguments against that, so it will be affirmed in the case of unreasonable searches. Such as for no reason other than to search with no valid proof. If you note pros rebuttal he states if the *sources* are being misused by the student they have every right to seize the property. I concur, but this is a debate about unwarranted searches. He concedes the debate at this point because he is affirming what i am arguing. The school has the right to search lockers in cases of non reasonable suspicion, but if they have due cause to search it, it would work the same as a search warrant. I refer you to his first round " For the next argument, I would like you to find a supreme court case that upheld the fact that schools cannot search a student locker, please let me know. " " Because lockers are school property, they do not fall under a students 4th amendment rights. This would be completely different if were talking about searching a backpack. " " Because lockers are school property, they do not fall under a students 4th amendment rights. This would be completely different if were talking about searching a backpack. " We can cleary see that he was referring to reasons other than those that would justify a search. A reasonable cause violates the students right to the property, as any case in real life does. Searching without cause is a vioaliton of their constitutional rights. His entire round was about affirming that a locker can be searched at any time, then he alters and moves the goals posts.