BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheists are Deep Believers

Let me jot down some dictionary definitions for reference. Faith. 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. 3. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 4. A system of religious belief or the body of dogma of a religion: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith, the Muslim faith etc. 5. A set of principles or beliefs. Atheism 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 3. Denial that there is a God. The American Heritageï¿½ New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Copyright ï¿½ 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. [I am atheistic towards most forms of theism] [Atheism is, at minimum, a person's lack of belief in a God or Gods. It can extend to explicit denial or belief that there is no God or Gods. ] One who do not believe in God, Believes in the non existence of God. ['Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence'] Neither Atheism relies on Logical proofs or material Evidence. God by definition itself is a supreme being with infinite intelligence and the Creator of the Universe. Here our finite intelligence will undoubtly be insufficient to explain the absolute in the relative terminology we have and prove His existence. Every theist accepts the limitation of Human mind to explain the supra mind and all the language, terminologies, definitions and understanding of human mind is subjective and relative. There needs no necessity for theist to prove the existence of God. How will and Atheist empirically prove the non existence of God who by definition itself is not material? The existence or no existence of God can neither be proved nor be disproved. All the arguments, debates, discussions and study can help us strengthen our stand with some factors believed to be evidences, in our perception. This is at last a personal choice. Atheism or Theism is what one chooses to believe based on comparatively little knowledge we have, about the universe and its structure, function, interaction etc. What sounds Logical to me will be something absurd to some other person. There are Hundreds of arguments for and against the existence of God and none of them proves or disproves with evidence convincing to the other with another worldview and we take the inferring statements/ examples/ experience/ incidents/ knowledge/ logic as a support to our stand. . http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be... . http://en.wikipedia.org... With the relative use of terms and language we have, we can only strengthen our position of Debate/Discussion. Irrespective of what I choose to believe, there must exist some absolute truth which is ‘either' or ‘Or'. Not both. So I would conclude here, that Atheism is a world view just similar to any other world view and is not proved by logic, empiricism or material evidence. Atheism stands on the faith in the absence of God.
Atheists are Deep Believers

I am atheistic towards most forms of theism, so I assume I'm qualified to take this debate. Atheism is, at minimum, a person's lack of belief in a God or Gods. It can extend to explicit denial or belief that there is no God or Gods. [2] Faith, I assume in my opponent's context would be defined as 'Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence' [1] The first definition of atheism is obviously not predicated on faith, since it has no beliefs. The second is based on argumentation such as inconsistent properties of God, the argument from evil, the argument from non-belief, the argument from inconsistent revelations and so on. It is based on both logical proof and material evidence, so is not based on faith. [1] . http://www.debate.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
100 Debate Challenge 16: This house would ban junk food from schools.

Here I have a few rebuttals to be made :) Firstly, the con side claimed that "Most of a kid's time is spent at home and this is where eating habits are typically learned. If a ban of junk food is implemented in school kids will still likely bring it from home." However, every child spends time at school, where they have their social life. There"re recesses and lunch for children to play or buy lunch or snacks with their peers. If a ban of junk food is implemented at school, it means a lesser chance for children to eat junk food, for at least approximately 8 hours (8am to 4pm I assume). Of course, as the con side has mentioned, no single approach can be effective in changing diet behaviors. I agree that other measures, such as talks about correct choice of food, should also be taken. But then, at least banning junk food at school can move away the temptation of eating those unhealthy foods, and thus reduce the chance of diseases such as diabetes, heart diseases, dental problems and obesity, constipation and a poor concentration span, as I had talked about in the first round. It"s better than not banning junk foods at school. Also, the con side said that banning junk food would lead to "underground market for junk food". It seems that you are quite worried about junk food spreading around the school. But the problem is that if the school doesn't ban junk food, then the children can still buy junk food from the tuck shop. I know that underground market for junk food is not good for children, but we shouldn't use selling junk food at school to stop junk foods" underground selling. This isn't the right way to stop the issue. Another point the con side considered is that banning junk food plus the money needed for healthy foods will cost extra spending, and he suddenly jumped to an interesting conclusion that "the first logical cuts to the budget will be health and physical education classes which are paramount to teaching kids how to make healthy choices". I think banning junk food and selling healthy food won"t cause the health and physical education classes to stop teaching kids how to make healthy choices. Also, I am very sure that if any school asks the students" parent to donate some money for improving the food quality of the tuck shop or canteen, there would be a fund very quickly. After all, they want their children to eat healthy food instead of junk food. Banning junk food prevent obesity, heart diseases, dental problems, poor concentration span and many others I've mentioned in round 1. Replacing it with healthy food might need more money, but concerning about the nutrients children and hence their health, it's obviously worthy. Therefore, junk food should be banned at school.
100 Debate Challenge 16: This house would ban junk food from schools.

Ineffective- One researcher has written "Our findings suggest that no single approach, such as just having access to fresh fruits and veggies, might be effective in changing the way people eat. We really need to look at numerous ways of changing diet behaviors. There are likely more effective ways to influence what people eat.”[1] Most of a kid's time is spent at home and this is where eating habits are typically learned. If a ban of junk food is implemented in school kids will still likely bring it from home. [2] Another problem with banning junk food is the underground market for junk food that will open up in schools. I remember kids in school making a fortune selling skittles out of their back packs. This is money that could go into school vending machines to help with education. Reduced Funding- With a ban in junk food schools will have to spend a lot more money to provide alternate healthy foods for kids.[3] On top of that a lot of schools have vending machines which pull in money for discretionary spending. [4] With all this spending cut and now the schools providing more healthy food the first logical cuts to the budget will be health and physical education classes which are paramount to teaching kids how to make healthy choices. [5][6] conclusion- A ban on junk foods not only does very little to prevent obesity but in fact could be harmful to a kid's chances of leading a healthy lifestyle. Vote con sources [1] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... [2] http://www.nytimes.com... [3] http://scienceblogs.com... [4] http://www.nber.org... [5] http://www.education.nh.gov... [6] http://www.veanea.org...
100 Debate Challenge 16: This house would ban junk food from schools.

Challenge accepted :) First of all, let me define the word "junk food". Junk foods are defined as "prepackaged snack foods high in calories but low in nutritional value" in the The American Heritage Medical Dictionary (2007) or "any food low in essential nutrients and high in salt"eg, potato chips/crisps, pretzels, refined carbohydrates"eg, candy, soft drinks, or saturated fats"eg, cake, chocolates" in the McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine (2002). Junk foods should definitely be banned from schools, and I have three arguements. Firstly, junk food is very unhealthy. As mentioned in the definition, junk food has high calories, salt, refined carbohydrates and saturated fats. These will lead to diseases such as diabetes, heart diseases, dental problems and obesity. Some of the junk foods even contain artificial flavor and chemicals, which are not good to human's health, not to mention the children's health since they are growing and developing their body. There are also some researches claiming that eating junk foods shorten our life span by 5-10 years. Secondly, junk food doesn't have enough nutrients for children to absorb. According to the definitions, junk food is "low in nuitrients value" or "low in essential nutrients". Junk food doesn't provide enough nutrients for the children. For instance, junk foods are lack of nutrients required for the brain development, leading to a poor concentration span and become more sleepy. Junk foods are also lack of fibre, which cause constipation. Last but not least, junk food is addictive. Many people claimed that they only eat junk foods when they feel stressful or when they are busy. And many of them said they would stop eating them. But the fact is that junk food is addictive. There are researches showing that wheat and sugar have an effect on our brain and is very similar to drug addiction. (Check http://www.kriskris.com... out!) It is very hard to control ourselves and stop eating junk foods, not to mention children, who can hardly control themselves. Due to the above reasons, schools should definitely ban junk foods. In addition, I would suggest the schools to replace junk foods by heathly snacks, such as fruits, yogurts, salads and healthy drinks, such as tea or fresh juice :D
100 Debate Challenge 16: This house would ban junk food from schools.

My points still stands, and my opponent can't post in the final round or it's a full forfeit. I've shown proof that healthy food is more expensive and backed it up with citations. I've shown proof kids learn their eating habits from home and that schools play almost no factor in developing eating habits. I've shown funding for other health programs will probably be cut. The obvious rationale is that they're already spending this money on health, why would they cut the arts or math or anything else?
100 Debate Challenge 16: This house would ban junk food from schools.

So since the con side just listed out 3 points, I will try to keep my arguments short. Firstly, the con side claimed that "a junk food ban is ineffective because kids learn their eating habits at home". But is it true that all eating habits are learnt at home? Won't you want to try some food you haven't eaten before in the school tuck school / canteen? Kids doesn't only learn their eating habits at home, but also at school with their friends. Therefore, you argument is incorrect. Secondly, the con side said that "underground junk food economy shows that a banning is ineffective". You are concerned with the kids eating junk food from other resources, but as I've mentioned in Round 2, the problem is that if the school doesn't ban junk food, then the children can still buy junk food from the tuck shop / canteen. Underground junk food is not good for children obviously, but it doesn't mean that banning junk food is ineffective. At least children will be unable to buy junk food and buy healthy snacks instead. Also, the con side thinks underground junk food economy will emerges because some junk foods are much cheaper than healthy snacks. However, eating healthy food is cheaper than eating junk food according to a new USDA study. (referring to http://www.globalpost.com...) Furthermore, the con side said "Health and fitness will t budget cuts to offset this other health program". But as I've said, healthy food is actually cheaper that junk food. For example, an orange in Hong Kong is approximately hkd3, while a bag of Lays Barbecue-Sauces Chip is hkd6.5. In fact, selling healthy snacks instead of junk food might save money for the canteen and health program. Lastly, let me sum up my arguments. Schools should ban junk foods, because they are unhealthy and lead to various disease, they don't have enough nutrients for children, and they are addictive. Eating junk food brings a lot of disadvantages, and therefore, junk food should definitely be banned at schools. Thank you :) Plz vote PRO!!! :D (sorry I failed to make it short :p but it's an enjoyable debate afterall)
Great Truth Claim of Baha'u'llah (Baha'i Order)

How can someone claim to be god , but be making an atheistic claim. That's like me claiming I exist, but claiming I don't exist? I never heard of a sound proposition entailing it's negation. " P1) God doesn"t existP2) He is godP3) I am godP4) This NOT a dualityC) Since P2 and P3 are a duality because "He" and "I" are dual realities, it must follow that "God" is a literary device. "What? The conclusion would actually be that he and I don't exist, because he and I are god and god doesn't exist. All A's are B and all B's are C, A doesn't exist, so neither B nor C exist. "The correct construction of this sentence should be that because a community has been established around Baha"u"llah, and since Baha"u"llah makes straightforward provable claims, this establishment is a proof of the truth of his claim. "Ok, once again pro claims, because people believe it, it's true. Baha'u'llah is god. This statement is either true or false by law of excluded middle. Group X believe it to be true, Group why believes it to be false. It can't be both, so it is one or the other, but neither has been established. In the way in which pro uses god to mean no less than some vague device, in that case literally everything is god and not god, it's incoherent.
Great Truth Claim of Baha'u'llah (Baha'i Order)

Here I present my concluding statement. I have set up a logical argument in three parts that (1) Baha"u"llah makes an atheistic claim which cannot be rejected by logic or reason. (2) Since a community is formed around this claimant, (3) it is proof that the claim (which does not violate logic and reason) is true. Your final object was that you reject the claim of Baha"u"llah because you cannot agree that in fact he made an atheistic claim. You go further and say this incoherent thinking on my part. You set up an equation as follows: P1) I am god P2) God does not exist C) I don't exist There many examples in language where literary devices are used to convey a powerful meaning without that device being literal itself. You are using the word in a literal sense above, which leads to an incoherent conclusion that "I don"t exist". As soon as you eliminate the false assumption that the word "God" is literal, the argument become a truth statement. So this is how the true argument is formed: P1) God doesn"t exist P2) He is god P3) I am god P4) This NOT a duality C) Since P2 and P3 are a duality because "He" and "I" are dual realities, it must follow that "God" is a literary device. Here are some examples of literary devices found at http://literary-devices.com... Literary devices include Allegory, Allusion, Amplification, Analogy, Anecdote, Anthropomorphism, Antithesis, Archetype, Authorial Intrusion, Circumlocution, Inversion, Irony, Juxtaposition, Metaphor, Motif, Oxymoron, Paradox, Symbol. The purpose of this exchange is not to determine which of these Baha"u"llah had in mind, but to propose that this is much more likely than a reference to a god for whom there is no proof to exist. Your conclude my stating that: "The fact that he claimed something and some people believe him does not establish the truth of his claim." The correct construction of this sentence should be that because a community has been established around Baha"u"llah, and since Baha"u"llah makes straightforward provable claims, this establishment is a proof of the truth of his claim. The same can be said of other logically sound, and established truth, such as tree are plants, gravity pulls matter toward it, and "hot" is a higher temperature than "cold", as a few examples.
Great Truth Claim of Baha'u'llah (Baha'i Order)

Hmm, that was interesting." But I am working on taking this to the level, because given that in the P1-5 it is established that God is a manmade concept, it must follow that anyone that claims to be God is making an atheistic claim, and as a consequence, is make a truth statement. Given that it is a true statement, anyone else that believes in his truth statement has "ESTABLISHED" ("proof of establishement") his truth on earth and among mankind."I agree that god(S) are a manmade concept, but it does not follow that they are making an atheistic claim.They are a making theistic claim, but merely referring to themselves. I don't know what it means to claim X, but entail the negation of X. That would literaly be saying:P1) I am godP2) God does not existand what's C?C) I don't existIt's completely incoherent. "This is a good point. But it is only necessary for one person to believe in him to sustain his atheistic truth statement. and 0.11% of the population is a lot more than that."No.I think X is true and X is true are two different propositions.I don't know what else to say since you have not offered any reason to accept his claims.The fact that he claimed something and some people believe him does not establish the truth of his claim.
Great Truth Claim of Baha'u'llah (Baha'i Order)

Would love someone to debate, preferable BladeRunner, but I already messaged him and if he wishes he will accept my challenge. Unfortunately, in my previous debate, I did not express myself very clearly because he made some assumption of what I meant that were incorrect. Here I have attempted to correct some of his misconceptions: P1. There is no proof that god exists. P2. Description of God that He is supernatural are all made-up and imaginary. P3. Bahaullah claims that reference to god was always a reference to him, not to some imaginary being. In other words, the people that made up the god story were thinking of an ideal that didn"t really exist, a supernatural ideal. He claims to be That Ideal who people dreamed of and made supernatural stories about. P4. Proof exists that Baha'u'llah existed. P5. Many people conceive Baha'u'llah as the Ideal longed for by all religions and poets and fiction authors and philosophers. C. Baha'u'llah's claims is true (at least for those who believe him) insofar as there is evidence that he, a natural being, existed, while there is a lack of evidence that god, a supernatural being, exists. Who else has made such a claim anyway?
Homescooling

What's up? Anyways, let me tell you why opinion is no a good sources for your claims. Let's say that you met a black person and he, or she was mean to you. Due to this experience, you conclude that all black people are mean. However, is this true? The answer is simple: no. From this scenario, that's why opinions are not good for a source. And, also, all the websites that I provided were major facts that could be proven by data. Also, when you said, " to persuade me to change my mind is to hear it from the people, whom homeschooling has affected negatively" I would like to say that is almost impossible. To do this, we would need every single homeschooler to take a survey explaining if they like being homeschooled or not. Now, you might be wondering why everybody, not just one person. It is because if we only do one person, is that good enough of a source? No. That one person doesn't necessarily represent all the people being homeschool. Not everybody may think like the one person. Each person may think differently. Also, I would like to say something when you said: "You say debates are about facts." Indeed, yes, I did say that. Now, why did I say that? For example, Perpahps you said that you believe in God, and I didn't You can't just say God is real because you BELIEVE that He is real. That is not correct, and it also called a tautology. To make me want to believe Him, I would need relevant FACTS for you to support your details. Due to these scenarios I've supported, all my claims and arguments still are SOLID. So I would finally like to say that thank you, Pro, for giving this opportunity. I enjoyed it a lot, and I hope you did, too. But not only that, I learned so many things and it was really exciting. Hope you have a great day. Sincerely, Jason
Homescooling

Well, Jason, I still disagree with you. You say debates are about facts. But I don' t think that the links provided by you may be seen as facts. Because the information they contain may also be considered subjective. So why do I have to trust it? They give only the info, and don't differ much from what I did. The only thing that can persuade me to change my mind is to hear it from the people,whom homeschooling has affected negatively. The only proof that I have is the shared experience of people who went through homeschooling, and they would never turn to traditional pedadogy. I already see what your response will look like, but I provided you all the arguments that I could. Best wishes, Anastasia