BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Theists leave evidence and reason behind when they believe

I leave you with a thought: I believe that there is one pernicious lie that is spread by theistic religions that is believed by theists and atheists alike. If I could disabuse the World of one lie, it would be this: religion (whether right or wrong) does good. 1. Belief does not make you more generous (theists give slightly more to charity than atheists if you count the churches as charity, which I wouldn't) (BUT, remove the donations that go to church and empire-building, preaching and proselytising, atheists give slightly more to charity than theists) 2. Belief does not, contrary to instinct, make you more moral theistic states, countries or regions do not have less crime than their more atheistic neighbours So, why believe a thing that has no evidence and no benefit? The list of it's negative effects are so long that I don't have time to go into them all, but briefly: Believe one nuts thing and you're susceptible to believing more nuts things Believe in God and you tend to rule out GM (Golden Rice could save millions) because it's interfering with God's order Believe in God and you might form some pretty odd opinions about zygotes because abortion is interfering with G's order Believe in God and you might do something silly like oppose condoms (killing millions of AIDS) It's hard to believe in God and not elevate your personal morals to a dangerously untouchable and, dare I say it, fanatical level - in short, you say idiotic things like "I don't disapprove of homosexuality but God does" To name but a few... Oh, how I yearn for the day mankind grows up from imaginary friends and learns to remove the training wheels!
Theists leave evidence and reason behind when they believe

You seem to be saying why people believe whilst telling me that I may not! And... it seems that you agree with me. Anyway, I can say some things, such as: There is no evidence for a Theistic God. There are no compelling arguments for a Theistic God. And thence I can conclude that: Nobody is believing on the grounds of good evidence or good reason; therefore it is either false evidence, false reasoning or some other factor such as fear, compulsion or blind faith. But since we seem to agree, why did you take the debate on? Is the image and the name an ironic prod?
Theists leave evidence and reason behind when they believe

You can't know why people believe in what they believe and why they think it's right you are just giving your opinion.I can say, and think it's right, most people who believe in god, or act that way is because they are the ones who are scared and guilty in life, asking for mercy and forgiveness.Here is something that can also help you understand: The real reasons people believe in Godhttp://atheism.about.com...I hope this helps you understand, you can't just state what you think is right about why people don't believe.
Theists leave evidence and reason behind when they believe

It strikes me that your question would have been better addressed to the comments section, but here's your answer: What I am saying is that theists must needs be abandon evidence and good reason in order to believe through faith. I contend that theists come to belief through either: 1. Proselytising 2. Guilt and Fear 3. Personal revelation (highly suspect) And that nobody is convinced to believe by solid evidence (there is none) or good argument (there are none). The cosmological argument never made a believer of a non-believer (at least as far as Theism goes... Deism may be a different matter)
Nadya Suleman should lose custody of her children!

My opponent says I know nothing about her,when,in fact,that is false. here is a link to prove what I'm talking about. . http://news.softpedia.com... As for the plastic surgery,what sane mother has 6 kids and no job,then turns and thinks, "I want plastic surgery"? Link provided below. It doesn't matter if she had 14 before hand or not,what matters is that she had 6 at the time and . . http://www.makemeheal.com... The comments from both links provide just reason for her to lose custody. . http://www.associatedcontent.com... She is UNEMPLOYED and that can mcause her to lose custody,as well as this bit of a link . http://glosslip.com... She thinks she can get away with using them as some paycheck rather than getting off her butt and doing something for them,and MEAN it. She spoke in an interview that she expects help from her family and church,funny how you need help from those certain sources in order to have no points against you for custody. Does she even GO to church? She never talks about it,except for that one time.
Allowing Citizens To Take Part In A Jury

I believe that it does give citizens a responsibility, but I don't believe that it's fair to let a group of civilians to make a decision that determines the fate of someone else. There are probably numerous cases in which someone's life changed for the worse and was punished, all because there argument wasn't convincing enough, but were actually completely innocent. I would much rather prefer people who are educated in fields that relate to law and crime, then randomly picked people. I think it's much more safer and and reliable that way. When I say safer, I don't mean to prevent someone from getting shot or injured. I am referring to the safety of someone else's freedom. Would you rather have a group of total strangers or a group of people who have been educated with related topics, to determine your fate? What if you were sentenced to death or put to life by a group of people that most likely don't have occupations that deal with situations such as one you are in, and you were completely innocent? How would you feel? (Hypothetically speaking) Wouldn't you rather have people that deal with the kind of things the case involves to make that decision? For an example, let's say you are in the middle of town on a jog and you fall into a ditch. You soon realize your leg is broken and head is severely cut. You start yelling for help. To people approach you. One person has the occupation of a receptionist and the other person specializes in the medical field. Both of the people offer to help. They both argue over what is the right thing to do for your situation. They both claim their idea is the right one. You are only able to receive help from one person. Who are you willing to accept help from? (I do realize this situation is unrealistic in some aspects)
McCain and Obama should not be allowed on the 2008 Presidential Ballot in Texas.

The law doesn't dictate what should happen? Yeah, it kinda does. The third parties can get in, all they need is 5% in statewide election. It doesn't say Democrats or Republicans. They are held to the exact same standard. Those standards are lower for those parties which have shown that they stand a chance. However, as you argue, sure. I'd have no qualms with allowing a good number of third parties on the ballot with much more lax standards. The debate isn't about that though. It isn't about disenfranchising third parties, it's about disenfranchising the first two. McCain and Obama are legally allowed on the ballot. McCain and Obama are legally placed on the ballot. McCain and Obama should be on the ballot. If you want to say we should make it easier for third parties I am absolutely behind that. I think we should switch to run off elections for most things just to give third parties a fighting chance. I am not however remotely convinced with any of this that we should deny McCain and Obama a position on the ballot. More inclusive, sure... draconianly less inclusive because you feel slighted? Hell no. Pro isn't that third parties get a shot. Pro is that McCain and Obama should be denied. Everybody IS held to the same standard. 5% and you have proved that you can compete. If a third party gets more than 5% they get added to the ballot without the other standard which effectively ask if they are legit. Third parties don't stand a chance because it is winner take all. If I vote for the Green party the Democrats are less competitive. If somebody else votes Constitution party, they Republicans are less competitive. It is in the best interests of everybody to vote for the party that stands the best chance of winning and has opinions most in line with yours. That's the problem. Not the two party system. You need runoff elections. You don't need hissy-fits saying that only the Libertarians should be on the ballot... even though the Democrats and Republicans legally get to be added because they have previously shown that they can perform in a state wide race.
McCain and Obama should not be allowed on the 2008 Presidential Ballot in Texas.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The debate isn't about how Libertarians are being screwed over just whether or not McCain and Obama should be allowed on the ballot. In part one of the debate I noted that the law was kind of silly and we could do it even without such a long advancing deadline. As much of your debate seems to suggest that the major parties think they are above the law, let's take a look at the law: So I don't forget for part two when Johnicle whines about how the law is the law: ï¿½ 181.005. QUALIFYING FOR PLACEMENT ON BALLOT BY PARTY REQUIRED TO NOMINATE BY CONVENTION. (a) To be entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the general election ballot, a political party required to make nominations by convention must file with the secretary of state, not later than the 75th day after the date of the precinct conventions held under this chapter, lists of precinct convention participants indicating that the number of participants equals at least one percent of the total number of votes received by all candidates for governor in the most recent gubernatorial general election. The lists must include each participant's residence address and voter registration number. (b) A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the ballot, without qualifying under Subsection (a), in each subsequent general election following a general election in which the party had a nominee for a statewide office who received a number of votes equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes received by all candidates for that office. Texas law says the parties get to add their names. Last time around they earned more than five percent. They get to dodge the other restrictions and have their names added. If you want the Communist party or Peace and Freedom party to add their names they need to have either made the deadline accordingly or have earned 5% last time around. The Democrats and Republicans both made 5% last time, by law their names are properly added. 1) It's kind of silly. There's little point to the deadline as you only need a week or two to prepare. 2) You honestly want to disenfranchise the parties based on this? Really? 3) There is absolutely nothing amiss with the law, legally McCain and Obama get added to the ballot.
McCain and Obama should not be allowed on the 2008 Presidential Ballot in Texas.

WHY must the two parties support the law when it helps them but ditch it as soon as it gets in their way. THE WHOLE REASON that we are in this fight (Libertarians, and other 3rd parties) is to cut awful laws LIKE this. But since this isn't a debate about our personal liberties, let me explain why we need to support this law and remove McCain and Obama from the ticket. ========== 1) There is no doubt that the two parties missed the deadline (I won't waist your time here). 2) SEVERAL Third Parties have missed the deadline just like the situation in Texas. HERE is where the debate is. Why is it, that the Libertarians have been kicked off the ballot in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and Maine. All of these situations are even JUST LIKE Texas and in some cases, even worse. 3) Maine From: Shane Cory, Barr's Deputy Campaign Manager Quote: "In Maine, a contractor for the Libertarian Party was in the process of turning in signatures and we've been told that the Secretary of State actually sent a letter to town clerks instructing them not to accept the petitions during what historically has been a grace period beyond the early deadline." --> Wow, we turn in during a grace period and the Democrats and Republicans turn it in even PAST that. We get screwed and the Reps. and Dems. are allowed to be on the ballot. Because of these injustices, they should NOT let them on the ballot. 4) Pennsylvania In Penn., the signatures were turned in but then the McCain campaign sued us. The decision is being decided right now. 5) West Virginia -Same Source as 3 -Quote: We are asking the West Virginia Secretary of State to count and accept the 23,000 signatures that we turned in several days past the early deadline of August 1st - nearly a month before the Republicans and Democrats would even officially nominate their candidates. ========== In the end, third parties weren't allowed on the ballot, why should the Republicans and Democrats be allowed on? Whether or not the reasons for the deadline are necessary, they are still the law. And if they have forced the 3rds to comply to it, they should force the others to. Anything else would be double standard tyranny. I anxiously await your response.
McCain and Obama should not be allowed on the 2008 Presidential Ballot in Texas.

Ballot deadlines are established in order to make sure the state can print proper ballots and so that they don't have to change anything after a certain point. With modern technology printing ballots is no longer a major issue. They could do all the needed work in about a week. Yeah, the law says 60 days. But, there's no real point to the law within the last 30 days or so. And although it would be rather entertaining to see Bob Barr win the state of Texas by being the only person on the ballot and kick the general election results solidly to Obama. It doesn't serve any worthwhile purpose and only serves to effectively disenfranchise the parties. This is one of the reasons we have real people in positions of authority, so they can step in when the law doesn't flipping work.
McCain and Obama should not be allowed on the 2008 Presidential Ballot in Texas.

Ladies and Gentleman, I come to you with blatant ignorance of the law. Let me explain to you: The deadline for candidates to get their name on the ballot in Texas was August 26th @ 5:00 p.m. BOTH the Republicans and Democrats MISSED this deadline by not turning in the papers on time. By ANY interpretation of the law, they should not be allowed to be on the ballot, however, the Secretary of State in Texas seems to be poised to ignore this, and allow them on the ballot anyway. ============================================ This is absolute tyranny. While Republicans and Democrats slip by the law, independents are having the law turned against them to make it nearly impossible to gain access to all 50 states. The media seems to be either ignoring it or turning against the third parties who are currently demanding EQUALITY (as they should). Just because the majority didn't get the paper work filled out and turned in on time doesn't mean that you let them by. It's a double standard for the Dems and Reps and against all third parties. ============================================ Today, not only do I want people to learn about this situation, but I want as many people as possible to learn about the deceptive power of the current 2 party system. Please, get the word out of these unjust actions. Thanks and good luck to my opponent.
Atheists have as much faith as Theists

* Faith in ScienceAs I've said before, Science is not the same as God. To theists, God is a cause, he is responsible for everything. If you ask a theists, "Who created the Earth?", he will answer "God did", but I doubt there is an atheist saying "Science created the Earth". Because science is not a cause, it is simple a method for us to reach the truth. A method could be right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate. That's why we are skeptical about it.On the other hand, I don't believe that the theists are skeptical about God. Pro said "there are many who question God's decisions or the accuracy and reliability of the Bible". It maybe true, but in the end, no one questions the existence of God. To them, he must exist and affect us a lot.* Atheism as a ReligionBy definition, in order to be a religion it need "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" (http://dictionary.reference.com...). Therefore, atheism is not a religion.Atheists don't try to "spread their faith". The problem is human is a species that likes arguing. We need to argue with the ones who disagree with us, to prove that we are right and to persuade them that they are wrong. So it may look like we are trying to "convert" them. But it is not true. Just because some atheists look like they are "preaching", it doesn't mean that atheism is a religion.ConclusionAs I have stated in Round 3, by disproving "Science as a God" and "Atheism as a Religion", I am both refuting Pro's arguments and strengthen mine at the same time. Therefore, my resolution is right: "Atheists don't have as much faith as Theists".I would like to thank Pro for this debate. It's my pleasure to debate with you and I also hope that we can do it again in the future.
Atheists have as much faith as Theists

I'd like to begin by thanking Con for his arguments, abiding by the rules and being civil throughout. This has been a very interesting and extremely enjoyable debate. Just to clarify, this final round is for final rebuttals and closing statements. Rebuttals Faith in Science I believe that, like Atheists, Theists believe that they also have facts and evidence to support their faith in God. Rather than believing that only science is responsible for everything, they believe that God is in control and uses science to enact this control. Therefore, like Atheists, Theists have faith in (what they believe as) facts and evidence that tie together both science and their faith in God. While you claim that Theists are not so skeptical about God, there are many who question God's decisions or the accuracy and reliability of the Bible. While, in many cases, they are supported by facts, they can also be considered as "theories" so still can be skeptical about them. Atheism as a Religion I consider atheist "preaching", while not delivering a sermon in the literal sense, is still equivalent to Theist preaching in the fact that they are spreading the word about their "faith". And just to clarify, my argument about "Death" was merely to draw another comparison between the Theist faith and Atheist faith. Closing Statement To conclude, I believe that Atheists have as much faith as Theists because they, like all humans, have faith in others, they have faith based on facts, like Theists believe they do also and because Atheism has become a sort of "religion" by way of making science a form of "God". I'd like to thank Con again for his arguments; I was hard-pressed to find replies to some of them! !
Atheists have as much faith as Theists

Following the framework in Round 1, now I will present my rebuttals:1) Faith in PeopleI agree with this point and it has no conflict against my own arguments: When the matters are not related to God/religion, atheists and theists are basically the same.2) Faith in SciencePro's argument is "Science is equivalent to God" and atheists have faith in science as a supreme being just like theists have faith in God. But I disagree.Do atheists treat science as a whole and believe in anything that has a label "Science" on it? Of course not, we treat each matter as an individual and only believe it if there is enough evidence.We believe that the Sun will rise tomorrow because it is proven that the Earth rotate on its axis with a rotation period is roughly a day.We believe that the Earth moves through the space because it is a fact, we can observe it.We believe in the laws of physics because there are countless experiments proving that they are right.The theories that are not proven will remain as theories and people are doubtful about them.The ones that are proven wrong or outdated will be replaced with more accurate ones.In short, atheists do not "have faith in science", they are "skeptical about them". Do theists do the same with their God?3) Atheism as a ReligionAs I have proven that Science is not equivalent to God.Preaching, by definition, is "delivering a sermon" (http://dictionary.reference.com...). So atheists do not preach.I don't really understand why "death" has anything to do with "Atheism is a Religion".In Pro's conclusion in Round 2, he wrote: "While they do not have faith in a supreme being, they do have faith in others, like all humans, they have faith in science and treat it as a sort of religion."I have refuted both "Science as a God" and "Atheism as a Religion" so it has became "While they do not have faith in a supreme being, they do have faith in others, like all humans", which is basically my own argument.In his rebuttal, Pro also agree with everything I said except he pointed out that "Science is something like God". Again, I have shown above that it is not true. So my argument stands.
Atheists have as much faith as Theists

I mostly agreed with what he had to say, so my rebuttal will be quite short. Atheists lack the belief in God A fair point, but I believe that, instead of focusing on God literally, you have science. As said in my argument, science is that which you have faith in; you have faith in the laws of physics that govern the entire universe. While it may not be a religious belief it is a belief none the less and you have faith in what has been proven by science.
Atheists have as much faith as Theists

Thank you for presenting your arguments.Following the framework in Round 1, now I will present my arguments and I will refute yours in Round 3.I accept the definition that faith is belief, trust, confidence in general, and I would like to divide "faith" into "reasonable ones" (something you believe because it is reasonable) and "unreasonable ones" (something you believe even if it is unreasonable)."Reasonable ones"If something is reasonable, generally people will believe in it no matter whether they are atheists or theists.Therefore, in this category, atheists and theists are basically the same."Unreasonable ones"I will divide this category into two sub-categories: related to God/religion and unrelated.When it is unrelated to God/religion, again, atheists and theists are basically the same.When it is, though, theists have at least one unreasonable belief that atheists lack: the belief in God. The belief in God is an unreasonable belief because there are absolutely no evidence proving that God exists.In conclusion:- Atheists are as likely to have faith as theists when it comes to reasonable matters.- Atheists are as likely to have faith as theists when it comes to unreasonable matters not related to God or religion.- Theists have at least one unreasonable belief that atheists lack.Therefore, atheists don't have as much faith as theists.