BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
One Can Be Both Agnostic and Atheist

Given that there are millions of websites, you can literally find a website that says anything you want it to say. Who's to say which ones are more credible? https://www.facebook.com... http://www.nyu.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... I can however speak from personal experience. I am an Atheist. The reason I am an Atheist is because I don't have enough evidence to believe in a God. I do no claim there is no God. I can not prove there is no God. I just believe there is a God. Like you said "Atheism believes you do not believe in God" However, I don't deny God's existence. I reject the claim that there is a God, based on the lack of evidence. Your definition of Atheism is either wrong or outdated. In either case, I reject your definition.
One Can Be Both Agnostic and Atheist

Many people think an Agnostic is the same as being an Atheist. There is a difference and they are not mutually exclusive. You can, in fact, be an Agnostic Atheist. You can also be an Agnostic Theist. The opposite of Agnostic is Gnostic. You can be a Gnostic Atheist or you can be a Gnostic Theist. Agnosticism is based on what you know, while Atheism is based on what you believe. In order to be an Agnostic, you have to admit you don"t know for sure. Since nobody can prove that there is no God and not enough evidence exists that can prove that there is a God, it would be fair to say that every person who values evidence, is an Agnostic. Sure, there are people who claim they know that there is, or isn"t, a God. That would make them Gnostic. If you claim you know for sure, you"d need evidence to back that claim up. Atheism is the lack of the belief in a God. If you believe in a God, you are a Theist. If you lack the belief in a God, you are an Atheist. If you don"t believe there is a God and claim you know there isn"t a God, you are a Gnostic Atheist. If you don"t believe there is a God, but admit you don"t know for sure, you are an Agnostic Atheist. If you do believe in a God and admit you aren"t sure, you are an Agnostic Theist. If you believe there is a God and you claim you know for sure, you are a Gnostic Theist. Most Atheists are critical thinkers and rely on evidence. Without evidence, you can"t know for sure. That"s why most Atheists are also Agnostic. There are Atheists who actually do claim they know for sure that there is no God, so not all Atheists are Agnostic. Because of the social stigma associated with the word Atheist, many Atheist call themselves Agnostic.
One Can Be Both Agnostic and Atheist

Otherwise, I would not be debating you, but the source you posted. My opponent’s website defines atheism as: “An atheist is one who lacks a belief in god(s). Some atheists also believe that the existence of god(s) can be disproved logically or empirically. Some atheists concede that it may be impossible to know for sure whether a god can or does exist. Regardless, they still lack an affirmative belief in a deity. Anyone who does not affirmatively believe in god(s) is an atheist by default. In this sense, babies are born atheists. ” This differs greatly from the actual dictionary definition of atheism. Atheism: The doctrine or belief that there is no God. . http://dictionary.reference.com... “Lacks a belief,” and “a belief there is no God” have different meanings. If one lacks a belief in God, they do not deny his existence, they merely do not wish to make an assumption that God exists. Which is actually the definition of Agnosticism. The website provided by my opponent doesn’t actually say the two terms mean the same thing, it just provides false definitions of each. The website defines agnostic as: ”An agnostic is one who claims that the existence of god(s) is unknowable. Agnosticism is often described as a half-way house for those who are undecided about belief, or are waiting for more evidence before making a decision-- These positions are not bad or weak in any way, but agnosticism says nothing about a person's belief in the existence of god(s); it only addresses knowledge of that existence. Therefore a person can be an atheist and an agnostic (depending on the definition of god being used), or a theist (one who believes in god(s)) and an agnostic. ” The website did in fact get this definition correct, or atleast more correct then it did atheism. The Dictionary defines it as: Agnostic: A person who holds the belief that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Atheists deny the existence of God. Agnostics do not deny the existence of God, they simply do not believe there is evidence as to whether God exists or doesn’t. Therefore, Atheism and Agnosticism are not the same, and one cannot deny God whilst not denying God. One cannot be both Atheist and Agnostic. Thank You
Is it impossible for God to exist

Extremely sorry for not replying I'm on holiday and the wifi here isn't great but I'm here. Since we know that we don't have all the knowledge in the universe, suppose if we had 5% of that knowledge in the universe wouldn't if the 95% of the knowledge we don't know contradicts what we already know because if a claim to is not backed up by complete evidence then it's probably not true for example evolutionism but then you could say there is no evidence that God exist I would disagree (example) An inventor of a computer whatever happens inside of the computer is doesn't affect the inventor because the inventor is not limited by the computer and even if you don't know who made it you know that it didn't just appear from a random explosion or just appeared there you know that there Must have been an inventor a designer. The inventor is a figure of speech for God. And the the computer is a figure of speech for Humans or the earth. But I know that my God "The God of the bible" left enough physical evidence such as the flood and proof for that is the fossil record found all over the world also the Ark can be found on to mount Ararat in Turkey images of it and a documentary on it. I thank you for being patient if we could make another debate and I will try my best to reply to all of your comments and not miss one I love you with the Love of God and have a nice day.
Make no sense as much as possible.

First of all; I accept this challenge, but I want to make it clear to you that you were NOT the one to win the MFK Championship Game Tournament - it was I. I remember the game like it was tomorrow: we had Kitz on the left-bank, tossing up hard-knocks to be able to throw off the enemy boundary lines; Grehg was sippin' on Tonic, right-side flank and moving up south to block for any incoming directives. I remember pitching the square, the hitter smacked it in the face, crumbling the square in dexagons. At this point, I'm freakin' out - no one in the history of MFK actually has been able to pull that off unless it was with a cyber-shooter or a gorplank from the 1981 Robin William's Film "Catch, Boy". The dexagons scattered; the dirt on the field turned to mud at this point - the Smack-a-Roo Doubloon Monster had pulled the lever and made it over-time; ultimately allowing the enemy Swamps to best our Elite Knights on the left flank. We had to fall-back, plan some type of defense to fend them off until the clock struck 7/11/24 - Gregh was still out on the field, sippin' on that dank Tonic and he had made it apparent that he was an enemy Creach-Roar. At this point, I don't know what to think. We have Gregh as an enemy spy, Kitz had been shot multiple times in the chest from an AR-7 Fan-Dam and we had several Gundams dropping themselves into the zero zone right next to the Battle Cruiser. I couldn't trust anyone - I took out my gun and began to time travel shoot my way to the next dimension. This dimension was what would win me the game - the referee almost counted me absent, but I got back in time. The dimension was that of non-traitorous activity. Gregh was still Gregh and Kitz was, well, he was still dead, but we had no traitors. I started to load up the Sphere of Orion inside of the ship's Placent-a-meter and revved the engines to show I was ready for a fight. The enemy Swamps backed off for a second, but they wouldn't get away that easily - I turned the Championship Ship around and began firing BlackHawk weaponry off the side of the aircraft - of course, we still had the Vodka and streamers in there from last night's party, but it was okay. The Swamps were allergic to alcohol. They began to swell up, unable to breathe. I lowered the aircraft, got out, and began to look down at them with beady eyes. I said one word, "Orwellian" and shot all of them in the face. I took their knee-caps and won the Championship with the prize being the Champion Ship. Our score: 7.004 as an additive of Aegis Their Score: Negative Blanks We silenced the team and I brought us to victory. You were not there, you had lied about that - I was the one who won the Moon Fart Kill Deluxe Championship Game Tournament and, for your information, it's the /Deluxe/ championship.
God's existence - it is reasonable to conclude a supernatural cause of existence

i thank con for explaining how string and loop theory relate to our current models. it still looks like there was nothing and then something. and soemthing from something else makes more sense. so i reiterate all my points. and leave you with some analogies i didn't argue before, perhaps we could speak metaphorically to make more progress beyond what we've already covered. three analogies... if you see a magician who waves his wand and makes cats turn into dogs, you could argue a natural explanation is possible, and perhaps even argue that it is preferable, given most times magic tricks have explanations. but, the most direct observation is that violations of natural laws have occurred, and / or things outside of nature. at what point can we say given there's no explanation that there is magic that occurred, by definition supernatural? also consider a couple of examples. one is the universe as a balloon, and the other as the earth as the extent of what we know. if there was a balloon of helium, the people inside it might say 'helium and this balloon is all we know, therefore, the balloon created itself'. others would say 'the balloon could have come from a nonhelium and non balloon place. it looks like the balloon was 'blown up' from somewhere else' which, we all know is in fact the truth of the matter. or, what if someone said 'the earth is all we know. everything comes and happens here. to say there is something else a 'universe' of sorts, is by definition illogical.' which of course, we all know is false. so, we can conclude that to argue against me in this matter is what is limited argument, cause it limits the possibilities of where we came from.
Same sex marriage should be allowed

"They can decorate a house pretty well"? I hardly think that has anything to do with this debate. I'd like to say that four, one sentence paragraphs is hardly a strong argument. How does your sense of style and interior design reflect upon your sexual orientation? I know many people who are straight and still have lovely homes. I do, however see your point on the religious part. I am not at all religious, but I know that many people are. They have a right to religious freedom to believe what they want. I know that for Christians, the bible is against homosexuality. And those people don't have to approve of homosexuality. They don't have to preform it, the priests don't have to preform the marriage. But just because some people don't approve, it's not fair to stop others from loving who they want to love. I have a family friend with a girl friend, they have been dating over ten years because it was not legal in their state to marry. I was lucky to attend their marriage when it was finally allowed and it was beautiful to see them saying their vows. Equally as beautiful as the heterosexual marriages I have attended. Nicer than some, even. So sure, if you do not believe in it, you should not be forced to participate, but don't take away the right of others to participate in something that is a part of them. Homosexuals can't stop being themselves any more than you can stop being you.
Same sex marriage should be allowed

Greetings. I am Stephen the "Con" of the debate. My Personal Opinion On Same Sex Marriage: I personally do not believe that same sex marriage should be legalized because it is wrong in my opinion. Same Sex Marriage In The Holy Bible: In the Bible, Leviticus 18:22 says: "'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." Don't Get Me Wrong: I've known many homosexual people, and they can decorate a house pretty well. Even though I do not support same sex marriage, I don't mind associating myself with a same sex couple.
Same sex marriage should be allowed

Same sex marriage is defined as marriage between partners of the same sex. A boy and a boy or a girl and a girl. Recently, a law was passed that same sex marriage is legal in all fifty states. Yet, there are still plays where it is not allowed. I believe that same sex marriage is just like opposite sex marriage. Why should it matter if it's boy and boy, boy and girl, or girl and girl? It's still marriage. It shouldn't be any different. Law passing same sex marriage: http://www.ncsl.org...
Abortion should be illegal.

Abortion should be illegal because it kills a life. How do we know if something is alive? We can tell because it's breathing, so it's functioning. True you could say a plant is functions, but a fetus has the possibility of growing up into a child or a adult. It could have a job, wife, and kids. Your still ending a life. A fetus is just a human being in it's first organic stage, think about it this way if your mother had a abortion when you were still in her stomach you wouldn't be here typing or looking at this screen. You would be dead, so having a abortion would just kill possibility for a human being. The harm could be to the rape victim, but that is why we have therapist. A life shouldn't end because one person doesn't want to have a baby.
Abortion should be illegal.

My argument is that abortion should be illegal. Why it would be murder: It's still alive when it's in it's mother stomach, it has the possibility of growing up to a child or a adult. Your still destroying a life if you do abortion, it's not like it's a rock or anything, it is a human being in it's first organic stage. Let it grow and then it would have a personality, we convict people of murder for killing people why should this be allowed? Why the fetus is still alive: How do we tell something is alive? Is it by personality? No it's by being able to function, a fetus is functioning by breathing( also many other things). So in that way it's alive. My point is your destroying life and the possibility of it growing up and doing something positive for humanity.
There is a clearly defined boundary between "natural" and "artificial", Round Two!

I am pleased to see that we can see eye-to-eye in this situation. However, there was no time when I said that natural and artificial cannot be defined. I acknowledge that they can be defined, and I presented definitions of each concept from the Oxford Dictionary. My argument is that there is no clear boundary between the two words, and that their definitions overlap even though they also mutually contradict. As I have previously shown, the terms especially overlap in areas such as natural things humans do, or things that happen in nature yet are created by animals in much the way that we craft "artificial" things; both of which, mind you, are crafted from natural materials. I do not in any way deny the presence or practicality of these words, but I simply expose their weakness and vague quality. I hope that you understand my stance on this, and if you can give me clear defintions then by god I'll take them. You have the floor.
There is a clearly defined boundary between "natural" and "artificial", Round Two!

I'm glad that we can find agreement in my arguments surrounding the idea that the words natural and artificial are definable concepts that we can use as tools to communicate ideas and expressions. Seeing as the debate we are having currently is about definitions, and as we both agreed, definitions are practical tools, therefore you cannot then begin to say 'I do not believe that natural and artificial can be defined.'It is clearly defined. We all agree to the meanings of the words and that the meanings of words can change. No one here is suggesting that these words possess some kind of divine inspiration that surpasses everything. Words change definitions throughout time depending on the people and culture using them. The words 'clearly' 'defined' and 'boundary' are all things we can understand within context. I illustrated an example of this context in the last round as finding a pair of pliers in the middle of the woods. If you find some pliers in the woods, then you know with little doubt that a human who bought them or made them has been in the area previously.The air around me can be thought of as an extension of myself. My skin is a bridge not a barrier. Yet it is a barrier. It can be thought of as either depending on the context. Light can be a wave or a particle depending on the context. A pair of pliers can be thought of as natural or artificial depending on the context. There are boundaries in life, but they are all arbitrary. Does that mean there are no boundaries? No, I just said that there are boundaries. The boundaries are arbitrary, but there are boundaries. The word artifical isn't a statement about ultimate reality. Its a tool that we humans use to communicate and express things to other humans. Can you see how these things have clear definitions and boundaries? It depends on what you want to communicate to me.
There is a clearly defined boundary between "natural" and "artificial", Round Two!

Frankly, my point has nothing to do with practicality. For all practical and everyday purposes, natural and artificial are perfectly good words for concepts that you can, if you look hard enough and forget the practical aspect, find fault and weakness in. This is what I have done with my arguments. I agree whole heartedly with the usefulness of terms such as wave, particle, natural and artificial. I however do not think that they are clear enough to have a solid boundary, and my argument is no more than that. I urge you to explain with more clarity the exact difference between those two concepts which I find to be entangled and vaguely defined, or concede.
There is a clearly defined boundary between "natural" and "artificial", Round Two!

Your basic argument seems to be that the terms are vague therefore we should just throw them both away, but hold on. Let's say I was walking through the woods and I happened to stumble upon a pair of pliers. Among all the things in the forest, it would be the pliers that stand out as obviously different. There has to be terms that highlight these obvious distinctions that we all make or else we wouldn't be able to define or communicate anything at all.I think it would be beneficial to delve into quantum mechanics a bit to help illustrate my argument. As many of us have learned, light was once thought to be a wave because of the double slit experiment. (If you are not familiar then just search Youtube for a video.) This was well and good until scientists tried to find evidence of what light was waving. A wave cannot exist unless it is waving particles with mass. The problem at the time was that there was absolutely no evidence of what was then called the luminiferous aether. (basically an omnipresent ocean that only light could make waves in) Because there was absolutely no evidence for it, quantum mechanics - the idea that light had properties of waves and particles - was conceived. Essentially the most fundamental particles in all the universe have a weird quirkiness to them. Sometimes they act as particles, and sometimes they act as waves. It just depends on what they happen to be doing at the time.Even though the objective state of all quantum waves and particles is unknown, they cannot logically be defined as being both waves and particles at the same time. They can only be defined as either waves or particles which depends on how they happen to be observed at any given time. This debate is about definitions, and the only reason we have definitions is to aid in our communication about things that go on in this grand universe. Words like natural or artificial and their definitions are not infinite terms or divinely inspired. They are tools we humans have made. Like a wrench or pliers they are only useful in certain circumstances. And in the circumstance of clearly defining a boundary, we can be sure that they do their job well.
There is a clearly defined boundary between "natural" and "artificial", Round Two!

Thank you for responding. By the looks of your first argument, I expect this will be a worthwhile debate. As you have said, natural and artificial must be mutually exclusive. And yet, it is impossible to separate "human-made" and "from nature" to a point where they often will overlap. As I explained in my previous argument, humans are both human-made and from nature. The distinction is vague at best. But what does "from nature" mean? What is nature? If that question were to be solved, it would likely make it easier to understand what natural means, and hence its separation from artificial. According to Oxford, nature is "The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.", which I consider to be self-contradictory in that humans are animals as any other animal is, and human creations are always natural resources made into certain forms via human processing, and hence no less natural than anything else.
There is a clearly defined boundary between "natural" and "artificial", Round Two!

Here is my argument. The word artificial as defined in the Merriam Webster Dictionary is as follows: . http://www.merriam-webster.com... "not natural or real : made, produced, or done to seem like something naturalnot happening or existing naturally : created or caused by people"The word natural as defined by the same dictionary is as follows: . http://www.merriam-webster.com... "existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from naturenot having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial"Clearly there is a defined difference between the terms. Language is basically our way of communicating practical boundaries, and it's important for practical intents and purposes to refer to things made by humans as different to things not made by humans. I can say, "everything is natural. " But that's not really saying anything at all. There's nothing to compare it with. The only way I can walk is if I have a room to walk through. The only way I can communicate is if you are listening. The only way I can understand natural is if there is an artificial. Otherwise it becomes meaningless. Even the dictionary recognizes this by saying basically that artificial is not natural and natural is not artificial. There is a clearly defined boundary between natural and artificial because everyone who speaks English defines it as such.