BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is not a religion

Initially we must ask, what is a religion? A religion is something that people must believe, science is something that we are given evidence for until we have enough solid proof that an idea is 'true'. Personally I believe atheism is primarily a reliance on science, rather than religion. So providing these definitions are sound, the question we are really asking is "Is science a religion?" When science was still in its infancy, perhaps it was not a religion. We were given hard facts; indisputable evidence for a series of proofs and laws that we subsequently decided were true. We knew Pythagoras was right because anyone could draw a right angled triangle and prove the length of sides followed his law. So at this point in time, atheism was not a religion. Then came the dawn of quantum physics, of general relativity and of gravitational waves. Suddenly science shifted from something the masses could understand and prove - to something only a few select individuals could interpret. Then these individuals, with their access to their high-tech equipment, was able to translate the laws of nature for us and tell them to us; as science's voice. Does this not sound familiar? The priestly rituals in which a few select people claim to understand such complex issues as God's word seem awfully similar to this faith in a couple scientists. They are both issues that are not comprehensible to the masses so rely on a belief that the priest and the religion, or the scientist and the law of nature; are right. I could ask any nerd whether quantum physics was a religion and they'd probably say 'Of course not! Look at the evidence!?' But when asked to point out the evidence to me; to prove it; to understand it; they would undoubtedly fail. So in this essence, there is nothing to distinguish a belief in science from a belief in religion. Just as the nerd will trust absolutely and unfaltering that the few top scientists in the country must be right, so too does the religious person trust absolutely and unfaltering that the word of God is right. Maybe there are gravitational waves, maybe countless other weird and wonderful 'scientific' claims are true. But until they have understandable, indisputable evidence to back them up, they remain just as unfounded as religion. Science has become a faith and therefore atheism has become a religion.
Atheism is not a religion

"The only way you can be a bad atheist is to believe in god." Matt Dillahunty "You don't get to put your unreason upon the same shelf with my reason." Bill Maher Now watch some vidies that proves atheism is not a religion http://www.youtube.com... - Reasons for accepting atheism http://www.youtube.com... - Bill Maher - Idiots must stop claiming atheism is a religion http://www.youtube.com... - Atheism a religion? Prove that atheism IS a religion. dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
Atheism is not a religion

I decided to continue this debate for this round to humiliate, degrade, and dehumanize you further because you absolutely deserve it. "Atheism" is literally "a" meaning without and "theism" meaning the belief in supernatural beings." Really? According to what imbecile? You? How would you know? What grade of gnawing hourglass princess in the brain disfigurements of the you know where area excuses did you come up with that one? Um no I pay attention to the dictionary definition as well as the vidies in which you clearly didn't vidie once again as I only read your one sentence, with another that caught my eye in which will be gotten to a little later, to know that it was enough to know that your argument was a dimwitted dullard idiot box of utter lack of any reasoning, thinking, rationalizing, common sense nor logic in which your god, religion, and bible has none. Now your second sentence that caught my hand grenade weight loss program for garlic onion beer sufferer's "Also, pretty irrelevant to this debate but to refute your rant against me," Nope. Not when you flatly invent excuses form something in which you clearly know nothing about and yet you pretend that you do and you have to make up for borrowed time by inventing excuses for a subject in which you think is part of your mainstay and its all dried up. That's something you will learn in college should you ---ever--- get that far. And if you ---ever--- want a genuine friend or loved one in the world as so many here on debate.org don't have, and its a HUGE red flag, then you should never do it. And if you do it to your teachers = instant F. One more thing before I sign off to your pitter patter babble bumbling babbling baby brained reject... "Atheism is a response to a single claim, that some god exists. We don"t believe that"s true so we"re atheists. And that"s all it means." Jen Peeples And she's right. And you are wrong. Now do yourself some good. Stop inventing excuses. Examine the vides. Wash your undies.
Atheism is not a religion

"Atheism" is literally "a" meaning without and "theism" meaning the belief in supernatural beings. Clearly it"d be impossible to argue that by the standard definition, atheism is a religion. However, what I can argue is that the majority of people are currently mislabelling themselves as atheists. My argument tries to emphasise that the "atheist" today has just as much blind belief as a religious person. Personally I think this is a perfectly valid comparison to make. Also, pretty irrelevant to this debate but to refute your rant against me, I would consider myself an atheist. However the lack of evidence atheists rely on nowadays makes me uncomfortable. Atheists used to have a reason to believe they had a superior belief- they had evidence. As I"ve said before, the fact that evidence has become too complex to understand changes atheism to nothing more than an unfounded belief in science. Can you point to one difference between modern atheism and religion?! Because if there are none, unfortunately atheists have lost the moral high ground and the common atheist is mislabelling himself. The 21st century seems to be a time when atheists may have to relable themselves as theists who believe in the religion of science. I"m predominantly arguing for a label change, not a definition change! Finally to refute one of the points made in the comments, I think that atheism is no longer a belief in ideals that can be changed as the evidence stacks against us. This sad moment recognises the extinction of one of atheist"s best traits- it"s plasticity. Modern science has become something unwilling to change as its theories. Instead we increasingly try to cram bits of evidence into old broken theories. We invent "dark matter" to fill the voids of our understanding. Atheism used to be a wonderful way to question life, to constantly improve our understanding. However we have come to love our theories and our proofs so much that we have lost atheism"s fundamental blessing. We have lost the ability to mound atheism to the evidence we have. And with that, atheism has become as static as religion.
Atheism is not a religion

"Initially we must ask, what is a religion?" Not in this case. Sorry teeny bopper. Did yah even look up the definitions of "atheism"? Clearly not. Atheism 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Now do you see the word "religion" stamped in among those two well defined definitions ANYWHERE? Therefore atheism is NOT a religion. Or do you like to invent definitions of your own which is what good ole christians who suckle their gym shorts with their pet piranha inside of them do all the time? Or does your imagination float on bricks like the 17 year old teeny bopper which shows you clearly are still stuck in high school? All atheism is, is EXACTLY TO-THE-LETTER what the two definitions of "atheism" are. Nothing more. Nothing less. Those definitions of what atheism are, are more than well preserved in the vidies presented. Now had yah examined the vidies which is further evidence that atheism is NOT a religion and made an attempt to counter them in which case they are irrefutable, then this debate may have continued. But nah its too much to ask the typical christian, and don"t you dare deny that you are, to actually look at some actual evidence especially when slapped in the face with it, as you completely ignore it. Thus I shall completely ignore you. You had your chance. You blew it. THE END. Bye.
Ted Nugent should die, go to jail, or at least shut up

I am not saying that that we should kill Ted Nugent, lock him up against his will, or take away his free speech.Full concession However, he does not deserve any respect if he doesn't die, go to jail or shut up. My main argument was posted in round 1.We were not arguing whether he deserves respect.In the mean time Ted Nugent apologized - sort of. His apologies are mostly addressed at the politicians he has endorsed, because he has embarrassed them by calling the president racist names. He says"I do apologize"not necessarily to the President"but on behalf of much better men than myself."Which only proves that people can change. Even if they are baby steps. http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com...Nugent wants to put Obama, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holden, Dick Durbin, Bloomberg in jail. [2] 7:24.I don't even know what this debate is about anymore. Your resolution is that we should kill him, lock him up, or take away his freedom of speech.Anyways, he made a full concession, and is not really debating, but giving a news coverage on Nugent.
Ted Nugent should die, go to jail, or at least shut up

I am not saying that that we should kill Ted Nugent, lock him up against his will, or take away his free speech. That would be lowering ourselves to the standards of Ted Nugent. However, he does not deserve any respect if he doesn't die, go to jail or shut up. My main argument was posted in round 1. Update: In the mean time Ted Nugent apologized - sort of. His apologies are mostly addressed at the politicians he has endorsed, because he has embarrassed them by calling the president racist names. He says"I do apologize"not necessarily to the President"but on behalf of much better men than myself." According to Nugent, the president, the attorney general and Hillary Clinton are criminals, and we should "chop their heads off". See [1] at 2:18. Nugent wants to put Obama, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holden, Dick Durbin, Bloomberg in jail. [2] 7:24. So by Nugent's standards, it would be totally OK to kill or jail Ted Nugent. But like I said before, we should not lower ourselves to his standards. However, I hope he will take a hint and die at his own hands (I'm sure he has a gun nearby), commit himself to jail or a mental institution, or at least shut up. [1] http://www.youtube.com... [2] http://www.youtube.com...
Ted Nugent should die, go to jail, or at least shut up

Before the 2012 election, Ted Nugent declared: "I will either be dead or in jail" if Obama is elected. Now that Obama was elected, Ted Nugent should fulfill his prophesy/promise, and turn himself in at the jail, end his life, or hang his had in shame and shut up. So far, Ted Nugent has done neither of those things. Only recently, he called the president of the United States a "subhuman mongrel" [2] (video at 6:48). Wolf Blitzer noted that the German equivalent of this phrase was used by the Nazi's to justify their genocide of Jews.[3] http://www.politifact.com...[2] http://www.youtube.com...[1] http://blogs.wsj.com...
PETA is a scam for money.

Here is one of many videos where PETA goes against their name. http://www.youtube.com... 1. "First of all, PETA is nonprofit, so the whole idea that it is a "scam" that you are revolving around is untrue." Well its plain and simple: people love animals. Of course they will dump their wages into PETA, they don't want to see little baby chimpanzees being slaughtered 2. "Why would they kill animals, if there was nothing to gain?" They might actually put some insurance on the animals they kill from the people's donations they may receive, and kill them. This creates the illusion that they actually considered if they got into an 'accident' and got insurance for those animals. That is a very good question, thought provoking indeed although some of it isn't even about why they do. http://www.consumerfreedom.com... Walk-in freezer? Now I wonder why PETA would need that. A senseless killing chamber, perhaps? 3. "So if it is all true, what would be the point in staging the video?" Its surprising to find that a lot of the videos that contain beating animals to death with or without a weapon were actually produced by PETA. Its to shock sensitive animal sympathizers that can't really do anything directly so they try to 'help' save animals with money alone. For those who actually go out and do something to 'save' animals PETA set up a problem, probably what the walk-in freezer is for: to dump animal carcasses and spread them in a concentrated area to create an illusion that there has been animal cruelty there. Just look at this. http://news.bestfriends.org... 4. "These conspiracy theories get really exhausting..." We are talking about PETA and their scam for money, not about life's excitement or comparing life to a novel. I must say, the last paragraph almost seems like a personal attack as an arsenal in this debate. It feels as if you are trying to make me feel bad for claiming that PETA is a scam and pushing me off the edge of the debate. Well you are mistaken, I remain a PRO for this.
PETA is a scam for money.

I thought about this one, and decided to go head and accept. This theory can easily be disproved. First of all, PETA is nonprofit, so the whole idea that it is a "scam" that you are revolving around is untrue. Why would they kill animals, if there was nothing to gain? PETA is run by people who really do want to make these reforms to such things. Could you please back that up, or specify what video you are talking about? Do you deny that the things in the video ARE how animals are treated, for it is all fact? So if it is all true, what would be the point in staging the video? These conspiracy theories get really exhausting. One person starts it by making some wild far-fetched claim, with no facts to back it, and a bunch of people childishly and readily believe them, just because it makes the world seem that much more exciting. Have you heard of Occam's razor? The simplest answer is usually right. The simplest answer happens to be that PETA is just what it appears to be, an organization of people for the ethical treatment of animals. Sorry, to break it to you. Life is not a novel, it is not always exciting. A world in which the strange answer was usually right, would be a fiction book, not the real world.
Team Debate: Judaism (Pro) vs. Christianity (Con)

Thank you to Con for a good debate, and for posting our argument when I ran into the Sabbath. Sorry to the readers for our forfeit last time. Finally, a huge thank you to my teammates, who made this debate happen: Rami, Harrytruman, Talmid, and (last but by no means least) CapAhab. You were amazing to work with. Here is our argument: https://docs.google.com... Please do not edit, by the way, because my teammate has not yet put it on 'view'. All edits will be easily reversible. Thank you to everyone for a great debate, and we hope we earned your vote!
Team Debate: Judaism (Pro) vs. Christianity (Con)

Here is our Round 4 rebuttal: https://docs.google.com...Pro's Instigator (Yavneh) was not availible to post their argument due to certain reasons.. We will be posting their Round 4 rebuttal as well at this link: https://docs.google.com...We trust that team Pro did not insert any more arguments/rebuttals after the time limit was reached.. Thanks to my team for participating and giving well thought out arguments. Cheers to the final round!
Team Debate: Judaism (Pro) vs. Christianity (Con)

Bs"D Teams: Pro: Yavneh, Rami, and anyone else who wishes to accept. Con: Whoever accepts, plus 1-4 others who they choose. The debate is defined as trying to prove that either Judaism (defined as Orthodox) or Christianity (whichever sect Con wants, or a group of sects) is more valid than the other. Teams will collaborate on a Google doc to form arguments, rebuttals, etc., and the team member who accepted will post the shared link. Round 1 is acceptance and list of team members; afterwards, each team argues at their own pace (though no new arguments are allowed in the final round). Hoping for a good debate.
The Bible Condones Slavery

I won this debate for the following reasons:1. My opponent ignored the rules in round one.2. My opponent made a general assertion without evidence.3. The debate was if the Bible condoned slavery, not if Jesus could enslave somebody. My opponent didn't even address the thing he was supposed to debate.4. My opponent typed two sentences and never used a period. He does not deserve grammar points.5. My opponent forfeited round 2. According to Exodus 21:20-21 "When a slave owner hits a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner should be punished.But if the slave gets up after a day or two, the slave owner shouldn't’t be punished because the slave is the owner’s property." This is clearly the Bible condoning slavery.
Rap Music Inflicts More Damage To Society Then Good

Hello and thanks to who ever accepts this debate. I believe we can all agree that once in our life we've heard people talk about the harm that Rap has in youth, and society as a whole and that no benefits nor good rise from Rap. I am here today to prove to those people that they are greatly mistaken. ---- Definitions ----Rap Music: a style of popular music, developed by disc jockeys and urban blacks in the late 1970's, in which an insistent, recurring beat pattern provides the background and counterpoint for rapid, slangy, and often boastful rhyming patter glibly intoned by a vocalist or vocalists.Damage: harm caused to something in such a way as to impair itsvalue, usefulness, or normal function.Good: to be desired or approved of.Society: the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. Side note: The opponent may decline my definitions and put forward his own.---- Pro & Con ----Con: I will chose con for this debate, I believe rap music does not inflict more damage to society then good. Rather the opposite I believe rap music makes a good impact on society.Pro: Will be chosen by the opponent, he/she will debate that rap music does inflict more damage to society then good. ---- Rules ----1. First round will be for acceptance. 2. Please in no way try to offend any gender, race, or sexual orientation. I realize this is a very risky debate, but I believe that the opponent will be mature about it just like I am.3. Have fun and good luck.Side note: If the opponent wants to decline any of these rules he/she may and he/she may put forwards some of his/her own rules.
Which came first. The chicken or the egg.

Ok. You've got a 77million year old egg in a nest. So obviously there was a 77 million and 1 year old egg layer kicking about somewhere. And ok. You've got dinosaurs forming bird like nests and laying eggs. Darla Zalenitsky says it all. There was a dinosaur, it then formed a nest and then it laid an egg. Dinosaur first..........Then the egg. Riddle solved! .......... Nice one Darla.
Which came first. The chicken or the egg.

OutlineI. IntroductionII. EggsIII. Sources I. Introduction"Which came first? The egg or the chicken?" is a funny riddle meant to stump the mind. Many believe it is something that can never be solved because, to create an egg, you must have a chicken, but to create a chicken, you must have an egg. Science, however, has found the answer to this riddle once and for all! It was the egg that came first.II. EggsThe first beings we refer to as chickens likely came into existence around 7,000 BC (S1). However, scientists have found that egg-laying organisms existed far before the existence of chickens. Scientists came upon a rare, fossilized dinosaur nest with eggs along a shoreside. It was theorized (likely through carbon dating) that the eggs existed for over 77 million years ago. The eggs were preserved likely by being stuck in mud, undisturbed for so long."But interpreted literally, the answer to the riddle is clear. Dinosaurs were forming bird-like nests and laying bird-like eggs long before birds (including chickens) evolved from dinosaurs," claims Darla Zelenitsky, a paleontologist of the University of Calgary in Alberta (S2).III. SourcesS1) http://quatr.us...S2) http://www.livescience.com...
Which came first. The chicken or the egg.

Alrighty. I will defend the side of the egg coming first.I will post my main argument next round. Good luck, pro. By the way, might I suggest a sort of format for the debate?Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Main Argument Round 3: Extra points for the argument/ RebuttalsRound 4: More Rebuttals (no new information)Round 5: Even more rebuttals, and a conclusion (no new information) Good luck and may the odds be ever in your favor...
Which came first. The chicken or the egg.

(Pssst, pro, you don't have to regard yourself in the third person. You can just say "I am convinced that the chicken came first," instead of "Pro is convinced the chicken came first.")To summarize my argument, because there have been discoveries that there were prehistoric eggs laid by dinosaurs that were conceived millions of years before the chicken, I can confidently come to the conclusion that it was in fact the egg that came before the chicken.And thus concludes this debate.
Which came first. The chicken or the egg.

A debate is a debate. The riddle is probably unsolvable. Con. Only proffers Darla's theory. But Darla's theory states that a dinosaur built a nest and then laid an egg. Clearly implying that the egg layer came first. At the outset. Pro hoped that Con would choose the opposite position. But Pro has successfully convinced himself that the chicken is the winner. Let's see what the voters have to say.
Which came first. The chicken or the egg.

Apologies. But I'm not much of a formalist when it comes to debating. Though I would regard my previous round as almost pure rebuttal. Don't let's get dragged down into debating the semantics of debating. Was there a god egg? ........ Perhaps immaculately conceived. That gave rise to all egg laying species. Or were the first eggs formed in the "Big Bang" I suppose it depends on whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist. Me. I try not to be a labelist. Though I might consider myself a realist. Realistically. I might suggest a creation event succeeded by an evolutionary period. But hey! That's another debate. Once upon a time. In the fermenting broth of organic inception, there were single cell organisms. To reproduce they just split themslves into two. Move evolution forward a year or two million and these single cell organisms, eventually decided that rather than going through the upheaval of splitting into two. They would instead, create a small package of matter and information inside themselves, which they would emit, to grow independently into a new single cell organism. etc. etc. The very first egg like event. Pro asserts that. Eggs cannot just be. They have to be produced by an egg layer in succession to a conceptual event.