BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Belief is Subjective

"My father once said to me 'to believe is to know nothing.'" Your father was wrong. "I've heard the term justified true belief used here before. If a belief is proven to be true then yes, you can call it a jusified true belief but in practice it becomes knowledge - the act of knowing, not the act of believing." So you agree that knowledge is based in belief. "Sure, in order to know something new you must first believe it (an opinon), but identification of x leads to a belief in x, proof then leads to knowledge in x which makes belief obsolete." Once again you agree that belief forms the basis for knowledge. "You seem to forget that you can know something that you did not at first believe. It happens to people all the time. They believe one thing and are proven wrong and presented with facts. I therefore do not consider knowledge to be a subset of belief. Belief can precede knowledge but not always." I have forgotten nothing. Assuming that someone is rational, they will not believe a thing until it has been proven. Once the person believes it, the person knows it. Therefore belief and knowledge occur simultaneously. Knowledge is not, however, required for belief. Children believe in Santa despite there being no good argument for his existence. Belief is a broad category, knowledge is a form of belief that you acquire due to reasoned argumentation. "To conclude, belief is subjective until it becomes what you described as a justified true belief but one does not believe something that is true because in this instance, knowledge replaces it. Knowledge can also arrive with or without belief, which further proves why belief equates to an opinion and why it should be treated as such. In the real world, a suicide bomber would not detonate his explosives if it was his opinion that he was doing what his god demands of him. He is utterly convinced and he thinks he knows that what he believes is true because he has justified it to himself. This is a sickening perversion of the human mind and mental shortcut."Given that you accepted my definition of belief, most of what you wrote here is nonsensical. I do not believe you really think belief is subjective, I think you are now arguing to avoid being wrong. You cannot know what you do not believe, but you can believe what you do not know. You must believe what you do know and you can believe what you do not know. Therefore knowledge can never exist without belief. As to the objectivity of belief, I already demonstrated this and you not only agreed with the difinitions that necessitate that conclusion, but you failed to mount any meaningful counter argument.
Belief is Subjective

My father once said to me 'to believe is to know nothing.' I've heard the term justified true belief used here before. If a belief is proven to be true then yes, you can call it a jusified true belief but in practice it becomes knowledge - the act of knowing, not the act of believing. Sure, in order to know something new you must first believe it (an opinon), but identification of x leads to a belief in x, proof then leads to knowledge in x which makes belief obsolete. You seem to forget that you can know something that you did not at first believe. It happens to people all the time. They believe one thing and are proven wrong and presented with facts. I therefore do not consider knowledge to be a subset of belief. Belief can precede knowledge but not always. To conclude, belief is subjective until it becomes what you described as a justified true belief but one does not believe something that is true because in this instance, knowledge replaces it. Knowledge can also arrive with or without belief, which further proves why belief equates to an opinion and why it should be treated as such. In the real world, a suicide bomber would not detonate his explosives if it was his opinion that he was doing what his god demands of him. He is utterly convinced and he thinks he knows that what he believes is true because he has justified it to himself. This is a sickening perversion of the human mind and mental shortcut.
Belief is Subjective

Thank you for joining this debate, V5RED. I agree with your first paragraph but in your example however; if the person vaping enjoys it, they know that they enjoy it. The enjoyment, as you say, is subjective and the knowledge that the enjoyment exists, is objective. Knowledge makes belief obsolete. I think it"s important to make this distinction because you wouldn"t say "I believe 1 + 1 = 2." If a person believes that god exists, the belief is in an objective proposition but the act of believing is confined to subjectivity because of the lack of knowledge as to whether the proposition is true or not. The belief in god may well be a false belief but you do not know that, however irrational it may be. The lack of knowledge, again, means the belief is subjective and only when it is known either way, does it change from a belief to knowledge. I agree that it might be possible to know a god exists, but my point is that even if it does, the belief in it, regardless of its accuracy, is nothing more than opinion because it"s accuracy is not known.
Belief is Subjective

Beliefs are your inner evaluations of propositions. You can believe that they are true, believe that they are false, or hold no belief about them. For example, with the proposition "I enjoy vaping", my belief is the objective evaluation of that statement as true. The subjective part is the enjoyment itself, not the belief that the enjoyment exists. If a person believes that god exists, the belief is objective. It is a false belief and not rationally justified, but it does fit into the category of objectivity because it has a truth value. As to knowing that a god exists, that depends on what you mean by know. If you mean absolute knowledge, then I am not sure anything can be known since you cannot prove that hard solipsism is not correct. If you mean know having presupposed that our senses are generally accurate, then it might be possible to know a god exists, but I do not know how one would distinguish a god from a sufficiently advanced alien species.
Athlets dont get payed too much.

I look forward to how it will play out. Arguments: NBA players are paid an average of 5.15 million dollars in salary (1) to do something that they already love to do, and, if they really cared about the sport, would happily do for free. While the President of the United States gets paid 400,000 dollars (2) to do the most difficult, important, and stressful job on the planet. So to put that in perspective; someone who would happily do their job for free is getting paid 5.15 million dollars a year, while arguably the most important man on earth is getting paid 1/13th of that. Conclusion: I look forward to my opponent’s response, thank you! Citations: 1: . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 2: . http://en.wikipedia.org...
A God can not be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient

Pro commits the genetic fallacy again, saying we only believe raping a baby is wrong because evolution programmed us this way. Maybe he only believes in atheism for similar reasons. Maybe it was his upbringing, or he was brainwashed by biased websites, or a woman left him so he abandoned God. What if turning to atheism is part of human evolution? Will that show it"s a false belief because we are wired to stop believing in God? Pro is saying that raping a baby isn"t really wrong, its just a matter of opinion. If you disagree with him, vote Con. Pro claims out understanding of God has changed as we became more intelligent. He uses the example of Zeus, but that religion didn't change Zeus' name or concept, it simply died out. He uses the example of lightning, but the Jews and Christians have never believed in a nature God. Further, even today Christians still credit God with sending the rain so where is the change? So William Lane Craig isn't intelligent when he gives scientific evidence for God? Pro didn't give any proof that God commits awful crimes, so I dismiss that as his opinion. And whose law would God be breaking anyway? Pro's? Pro could not show that his ignorance concerning God's reasons for allowing suffering proves there is no reason, so his argument from evil fails. And to call something evil presupposes a standard of right and wrong already exists by which to judge it, set by whom? Nature is blind. Without God there is no crime - a male white shark doesn't rape a female shark, it just forces itself on her for sex. A lion doesn't murder a zebra, it just kills it. No morality exists in the animal kingdom. So if we are evolved animals, no such morality would exist for us either. In nature, crap just happens. This is a world without God. If you believe that somethings really are wrong, regardless of who or how many say differently, there is a God who made this law.
A God can not be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient

The Con says that belief in God is not out of desperation as people have many reasons for believing in god. This is not true, and the best way to demonstrate this is by showing how belief in god has changed as our knowledge has changed. So first we gave Gods names and personalities and we used them as explanations for things that we don't know. How the world was created, how rain and thunder are made (eg Zues). As we discover more about the world and more logical explanations come into light we have to abandon these stories and change our idea of god. Believing in God is like saying that we don't know the answers, so we'll explain things entirely illogically instead. Truth is, it doesn't make sense. The only decent argument the Con is using is that we don't know what God's reason is, therefore one exists and God does too. I find this an overwhelmingly feeble argument. It's basically giving in to the fact that there is no explanation. If there is no reason we could think of, then it logically follows that there is no reason at all. I would invite con to familiarise himself with what 'omnipotent' means. I define it, as by the oxford english dictionary, as having unlimited power. So I'm glad that con has brought up yet another impossible contradiction with the idea of a omnibenevolent and, omnipotent. He is all able but also all loving. Surely if he is all loving, he is not all able as that would mean that he can commit awful crimes. So by the definition of a God within this argument, he can not exist.
A God can not be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient

Pro claims the idea of God comes from human desperation. This is a clear case of the genetic fallacy " the idea that you can prove a belief is false by invalidating how people came to believe it. This is like saying, "oh, you only believe atheism because you got hurt so you lost your faith," " Don't you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? I would not have thought you would be a party to such a sexist practice." There are numerous reasons for wearing a wedding ring and it would be wrong to assume doing was is an effort to promote sexism, similarly, people have numerous reasons for believing in God, and it would be wrong to assume we all believed it out of desperation. But even if we did that doesn"t prove God doesn"t exist, anymore the guy is wrong for believing Mars exists just because he heard hearsay about it. Pro claims if God has reasons for allowing suffering, we would know them. So gravity didn"t exist until we knew about it? We didn"t always know what caused earthquakes but our ignorance of it didn"t prove earthquakes were without cause. Maybe we will one day know God"s reasons for suffering. Omnipotent just means "all-powerful," having all power, but having power, does not prove one can literally do anything. No Christian believes God can sin. No matter how much power is in a battery, even limitless power, its still a battery, it can"t fly without wings. God can"t do the logically impossible such as FORCE a person to FREELY be good. You can"t have free will and force people to obey. But as for a round square etc, might not be impossible for God after all. I used to think it was impossible to be in two places at the same time, but science now shows particles can be in more than one place simultaneously Who knows what scientist will learn in a thousand years? More on morality next round.
A God can not be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient

I'm glad that this debate has attracted interest. I wish to first state my basic argument, then address the flaws in my opposition's. Evil. There is no denying that it is in abundance. Thousands of innocent people being blown limb from limb in conflicts they didn't start; millions still starving in hot, poor countries; people from illness reduced to quivering wrecks of humanity, desperate for death; crimes. The scariest thing about atrocities that we've committed to each other is this: imagine the worst crime you can possibly think of. That crime has been done ten times over. Evil is so prominent in our lives that we naturally want to balance out its existence with the notion of an abundance of good. We do what humans are very good at doing, we make up. This is where "heaven", God and all divine ideas have come from. Human desperation. But, if we are being honest with ourselves, can such a someone exist? How can a god see all of the blood freezing acts that go on under his watch and not do anything to stop them? If he were truly omni benevolent and truly omnipotent there would be no reason for him to not. Don"t tell me that there is an ulterior motive to having a six year old die of leukaemia before they've even had a chance at life- that would be truly senseless. Don"t tell me that without the concept of evil good could not exist. Why not? If god were really omnipotent he could do anything, he could have just happiness. He could make us aware that all we had was happiness. This leads me on to my second point, a God cannot be truly omnipotent. Could God make a round square, or a circular diamond? Could God make a stick twice as long as itself? These logical contradictions make the nature of possibility always have impossible concepts. What my opposition said about evil is wrong, all evil is subjective. Knowing not to rape a baby is our natural programming not wanting us to harm our children and become extinct. It is not some divine absolute.
A God can not be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient

If I see a child suffering, I don't conclude that his father doesn't exist, or that he isn't loving, or that he isn't able to provide. It could be, that this father has a very valid reason why he has not stepped in to end the child's suffering. One would have to get those reasons first before drawing any conclusions about the character of the father towards the child. God may very well have justifiable reasons for allowing suffering; and if we are not privy to those reasons, this is still no reason to think he doesn't exist. Fact is, I have experienced God in my life (his audible voice, visions, dreams, and miracles). Many others can testify to what they have experienced with God. We believe in him because he is a very real presence in our lives. As for evil, if there is no God, evil and good, right and wrong, do not really exist. What Pro calls evil is merely socially unfashionable, but that does nothing to show that its wrong. When its just one man's opinion versus another, morality becomes just a subjective feeling. But right and wrong, good and bad, do exist. If you KNOW for sure that raping a two year old baby is WRONG, not just your opinion, but its WRONG even outside of your opinion, then there must be some universal lawgiver who determines right from wrong. Even if you, or your neighbor don't think its wrong, its still wrong. Objective morality is that which remains right or wrong even when people don't agree with it. Its a truth that isn't decided by majority vote. So the fact that Pro speaks of evil in the world shows there must be a God.
A God can not be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient

This is a problem that I have spent a long time considering. I have come to the conclusion that it is not possible to say that there is a God who is all loving, all knowing and all able because of the existence of evil. This is often referred to as the rock of atheism and it has founded my entire attitude toward religion, mainly that attitude is that it is not something I can believe. I look forward to someone who can challenge this statement, and who will debate it openly with me without taking offence in my beliefs. I have limited the word count (2,000) because I want a brief and focused but conceptual debate.
Christ The Messiah died for the sins of everyone? NO HE DID NOT!

1. AcceptanceI accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I look forward to an interesting discussion.2. Burden of ProofMy opponent has asserted that Jesus Christ did not die for the sins of all, but that He instead died only for the sins of the Israelites. Along with this assertion comes the burden of proof which my opponent will be responsible for carrying in this debate. If my opponent wishes to win this debate, she must bring forward some sort of justification for her claim that Jesus died specifically for the sins of the Israelites as opposed to dying for the sins of all.3. Biblical EvidenceI will await my opponent's initial arguments before presenting Biblical evidence in support of my position.
Christ The Messiah died for the sins of everyone? NO HE DID NOT!

Your evidence to back up statements must be biblical, not man made thoughts! Where in the Bible does it state Christ died for the sins of the entire world? This is a false teaching in all churches around the world. Christ did not die for sins of the world; HE died for the sins of the Israelites. Show me the exact verses that state HE died for the sins of the world. Show me your evidence from the bible, because that teaching is false doctrine.
know=paradise

-sigh- why did I accept this... Definitions:know Full Definition of KNOW transitive verb 1 a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : discernb (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of 2 a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain ofb : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write> 3 archaic : to have sexual intercourse with intransitive verb 1 : to have knowledge 2 : to be or become cognizant —sometimes used interjectionally with you especially as a filler in informal speech Life a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead bodyb : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beingsc : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction 2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individualb : one or more aspects of the process of living <sex life of the frog> 3 : biography 1 4 : spiritual existence transcending physical death 5 a : the period from birth to deathb : a specific phase of earthly existence <adult life>c : the period from an event until death <a judge appointed for life>d : a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of a convict's life 6 : a way or manner of living 7 : livelihood 8 : a vital or living being; specifically : person <many lives were lost in the disaster> 9 : an animating and shaping force or principle 10 : spirit, animation <saw no life in her dancing> 11 : the form or pattern of something existing in reality <painted from life> 12 : the period of duration, usefulness, or popularity of something <the expected life of the batteries> 13 : the period of existence (as of a subatomic particle) — compare half-life 14 : a property (as resilience or elasticity) of an inanimate substance or object resembling the animate quality of a living being 15 : living beings (as of a particular kind or environment) <forest life> 16 a : human activitiesb : animate activity and movement <stirrings of life>c : the activities of a given sphere, area, or time <the political life of the country> 17 : one providing interest and vigor <life of the party> 18 : an opportunity for continued viability <gave the patient a new life> 19 capitalized Christian Science : god 1b 20 : something resembling animate life <a grant saved the project's life>(source: http://www.merriam-webster.com...)As we can see, there is in fact no similarity in meaning between life and know. Life is living things, know is knowledge. These are not synonyms in any way.
"Go Diego Go" is better then "Dora the Explorer"

You cease to bring up any further points because you're aware of how ultimately wrong you are. I turn my attention to compare and contrast the primary antagonists of both series: Swiper the Fox, and the Bobo Brothers. The Bobo Brothers, aside from being nothing more than cheap imitations of Swiper in a lazy attempt to directly ape the structure of Dora's format, lack Swiper's intimidation and screen presence. Swiper, like any great pop villain, commands immense power whenever on screen; Dora borrows the English pantomime tradition of encouraging viewers to interact directly with Swiper as a villain, and it here is an inventive way to get viewers to identify with Dora as a hero, but also personally fear the consequences of Swiper as a villain (again - stolen and re-purposed in Go, Diego, Go later for diminishing returns). And let's not even get started on that character design - Swiper's outfit is iconic; true pop art gold. His exaggerated, weasel-like proportions. His Iconic bandana and gloves. What are the Bobo Brothers? Just a couple f*cking monkeys? Gtfo of here, they're a f*cking joke. Their motivations as villains don't even make sense.
"Go Diego Go" is better then "Dora the Explorer"

Listen: there's a reason that "Go, Diego, Go!" lasted five measly seasons before cancellation, while "Dora the Explorer" lived a full eight, and continues to shine in the albeit less-inspired "Dora and Friends" show (a deliberate attempt to compete with/ape the success of Disney's McStuffins, which was the first show in Dora's run to beat it in the preschool television ratings after its landmark run. (1) "Diego", which could never compete with "Dora" for the Nielsens, only brought Dora on for as many episodes as they did to get a shot of her popularity. "Dora the Explorer" received FIVE Daytime Emmy nominations for Outstanding Children's Animated Program, the third highest number of nominations a show has received in history (behind only "Arthur" and "The Animaniacs", each of which is visionary in its own right), and though it may have never won (just call Dora the Leonardo DiCaprio of Children's Daytime Emmys), it DID receive the arguable FAR more prestigious Peabody Award in 2003, as well as two from the NAACP for the show's representation of minority characters in children's television. What medals does "Go, Diego, Go!", a deliberate and sexist knock off (as if little boys wouldn't enjoy "Dora", simply because she was a girl and wasn't action-oriented enough!), have to its name? NONE, I tell you, NONE. And for a REASON. This is my conclusion, I rest my case. (1) http://adage.com...