BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religions in general makes more sense and are more moral than Atheism

You realize that survival of the fittest is an evolutionary principle not an atheistic one. Atheism says NOTHING about evolution, therefore "survival of the fittest" is not an atheistic moral, if atheistic morals even exist. You also claim that slavery was not the religion it was the people of the religion, but it is quite clear in Exodus, that the writer of the bible, who you claim is god, loves slavery and has certain rules you need to follow when dealing with slavery. Exodus 20 and 21. Ok so you listed the 10 commandments. Great, this speaks nothing to whether or not the commandments are moral. My problem is with commandment 10 which is the only commandment that can be violated with thought. Really think about this. You think it's moral to have a law that you can violate with your thoughts? Maybe you would like a totalitarian government. Anyway please demonstrate that anything the ten commandments or what your religion says should be regarded as moral or true.
Religions in general makes more sense and are more moral than Atheism

Let's take christianity for example, or judaism (same principle god). Today we regard slavery as immoral. It is considered immoral to own another human and beat them for punishment. But these two common religions' holy book approves of slavery and provides us with rules for ownership of humans. How do we reject this idea of slavery? Our innate moral sense which is devoid of religion or teachings from a holy book. If we used our religion in this case, we would determine that slavery is moral. Atheism has no set of morals or any moral book to turn to. Atheism is not believing in a god. You could be moral or immoral and disbelieve in god. But I want to keep this argument going so I will say given the three main religions of the world, I have no reason to think that most religions would be moral at all for some of the things they condone. Demonstrate the morality of your religions, and show how this is superior to Atheism.
Religions in general makes more sense and are more moral than Atheism

First post is agreement to rules and that you will argue. Rules: 1. No stuff about past problems of any claim. Like for example: Saying an entire religion is horrible for a small group of Extremists 2. No player to player fighting or belittling (trolling) 3. If you are going to undermine someone's source(s) then you have to provide the reasons why. 4. No internet slang or extreme dialect, nor texting language. If it is used by either side, the other side can only complain about it in the Comment section. 5. No Peer Pressure (AKA groups of Theists bashing an Atheist and vice versa) 6. If you make a claim, you need evidence to support it. Ex: {Debater 1: Atheism is stupid. {Debater 2: Why is it stupid? {Debater 1: Because it is! 7. Each side gets to choose one small thing that they think should be obvious and true. Examples: Jesus is real (of course you cannot add whether or not he is a child of god, this can be debated) The Big Bang is real (you cannot add that it is supporting just Atheism, this can be debated) 8. Have fun! No vulgar!
Prophetic Visions

"A visionary form of communication from god does not have to be proven to anybody only to the person that is receiving the prophecy. God proves his visionary work through the uses of other substance or persons as confirmations on whether what they are seeing is a divine revelation from him (this also is one way he uses to prove his existence to ppl)." Proof is universal. If it is actually "proof" that they are recieving, then that proof can be shared with others. What it actually is, is nothing. And they choose to believe it for whatever reasons and call it proof. But if it is proof, then that proof can be shared and proven to others. This can't, so it isn't proof. "Nobody can say that this was not a prophetic vision because this is between God & the receiving individual." Just playing devil's advocate here, If it is not possibe to say that it isn't, then it is not possible to say that it is. That door swings both ways. If, as you claim, only between god and the individual, then you are not privy to it and can't say it is. "Now if this was to continue happening to her throughout her whole life with all her boyfriends her Idea of it being a coincidence will start to shrink." I keep having dreams about baboon orgies, is God trying to tell me to do that? "On this argument we are not trying to prove whether there is a god or not." But it is completely relavent to the debate, if you can still call this a debate. If I say "I got a letter from Konapoopoomunga, TX" and you say "there isn't a Konapoopoomunga, TX" isn't that relative to whether or not I actually got a letter from that place?
Prophetic Visions

A visionary form of communication from god does not have to be proven to anybody only to the person that is receiving the prophecy. God proves his visionary work through the uses of other substance or persons as confirmations on whether what they are seeing is a divine revelation from him (this also is one way he uses to prove his existence to ppl). Nobody can say that this was not a prophetic vision because this is between God & the receiving individual. From that she is to determine how to interpret this vision or dream. She can determine it to be silly or believe it has a meaningful message to her. Now if this was to continue happening to her throughout her whole life with all her boyfriends her Idea of it being a coincidence will start to shrink. Psychic is out of the picture, so where are these things coming from. Intuition is a gut feeling, its unlikely it can affect you while in your sleep. As stated above a prophetic vision does not affect your normal perception. What you feel or think while awake can affect what you feel or think while sleep however that is not the case with prophetic visions. They are to show the truths of a subject matter and not everything you dream or see is a prophetic vision. You must discern the difference between dreams of self & visions from god, thats why god sends confirmations & that could also be a reason why her dream is re-occuring because its a confirmation of a hidden event that is true. Based on your knowledge & insight you determine how you go about facing the situation. The only other thing to help shed light on this subject matter would be from those individuals who have had this happen to them opposed to ones who haven't. I believe its possible for this phenomena to occur and physical/natural science cannot detest that. On this argument we are not trying to prove whether there is a god or not. Sited Sources: The Prophets dictionary (book by Paula Price) Prophets & the prophetic movement (book by Bill Hamon) Prophetic Pitfalls & Principles (book by bill Hamon). Sorry I dont have any internet linkage even thought there's lots of good information on the Internet, but you will also find opinions, misconceptions, and inaccurate information. These individuals were accredited with doctorate degrees in their field of study. I think this would be more reliable type of material to study and draw conclusions from than the internet.
Prophetic Visions

In order to state that any vision is a work of god, one must first prove 1) that there is a god and 2) that said god communicated with said individual. So before you can say this person is a prophet and that they were inspired by god that their partner was cheating on them, which is not really rare ya know, you have to show that there was, in fact, more then just a coincedence of the dream and reality. If you have any evidence, like quotes from theologists, could you please link them so they can actually be considered? Please and thank you. Forgive the short post, I'm on my ipod touch, and so typing takes awhile.
Prophetic Visions

Since you are taking PRO, we can assume that you are supporting the "YES" to these questions. I, as CON, am supporting "NO." First off, what the heck is a prophet? "an authoritative person who divines the future. Someone who speaks by divine inspiration; someone who is an interpreter of the will of God" (1) Or we could take a less religious view that a prophet is one whom can accurately tell the future by some power, other then luck. This definition would seem a little more likely, since there was no mention of god in the original post. "What would you call that?" I would call it poor rationalizing. And likely just a coincedence. Just because two similar events happen hear the same time, does not mean that they are truly related. For example, "An alternative, tongue-in-cheek, yet statistically valid theory shows an inverse relationship between the population of swashbuckling pirates and global temperatures. Specifically, that a decrease in the pirate population has caused a rapid increase in global temperatures." (2) Unless one can scientifically show that there is a link between two events, no logical conclusion can be made. "Does she have the ability to be a prophet?" Umm, no. "Basically do you believe if ppl are given the ability to have prophetic visions?" That one is a no as well. (1) http://www.google.com...= (2) http://www.randomstew.com...
Prophetic Visions

This has been an ongoing concern & question!! There are many ppl seeking the what's, why's, and how's. Will we be able to come up with an agreement or solution to this strange phenomena? Argument today based off this following scenario: A woman by the name of karen has been in a serious relationship with a male and she keeps having re-occurring dreams about him hanging around naked women. The dream could be false & a fear she is having that "this guy is playing around" but what if it is Actually true. What would you call that? Does she have the ability to be a prophet? Basically do you believe if ppl are given the ability to have prophetic visions?
Western Culture Is Morally Superior

You know, I apologize for my missing argument. I was on vacation into Idaho to help my Cousin move and did not have time to formulate my arguments. If you would like, I would like to continue this debate in the comments to compensate for our missing time and arguments (1 each) if that is alright with you. Falling in love is not unique, See Alaadin. And the ideas of Socialism and Feminism are very subjectively Western. The Masaai of Africa had gender Equality, And so did the Tamil of India in a sense. Socialism itself or the idea of taxing the Rich can also be traced back to Feudal society in many different countries. They migrate for a better life, Mostly they do not abandon their culture. Europe is flooded with Immigrants due to war. Nobody wants to move to China or the Middle East due to familiarity with ones own conditions. A good nation as your friend stated is not uniquely a Western Ideal, See Singapore and Tokyo. Western culture especially Medieval originated Caste ideas with Serfs and Kings. Your argument for Christianity is non unique, May I remind you that things as the Crusades have happened. No culture is perfect or superior. If you are saying that Western culture is best at this time, Then it is in your world of judgement very unfair. You have not given even a thought to the other cultures, Saying that Western culture does this therefore Eastern ones are worse. You have not stated anything that Non-Western Cultures really believe in other than Indian caste. Even in that example, The ideas of class growth have been recently fostered in India after Nationalist movements have swept the nation. Based on their own traditions and culture. I would disagree, The Japanese culture is based on Honor while the Buddhist is based off of self discovery. Focus on the individual in Western culture focuses on Pleasing one's self. And affirming the beliefs. And the Idea that we understand "The Evils, " That is also not true with the rise of Superhero movies we have shown our tendencies for "Easy Evil. " Things to label as bad. You have not answered my points, And my 3 points still stand. You basically had a Rant, That did add to your arguments but not in a way to refute much of anything on my end. Thank you for your time and I hope to amend my absence.
Western Culture Is Morally Superior

You know, I wanted a rebuttal, Because I wanted to know whether there was any assailable point, Or whether I have said something unfair or changed definitions, And if you still have misgivings where they are. I left you a few places where you could take advantage of my speech, But does this mean that I have won you over? Since I suggested that I wanted an example of a higher moral standard than what western society holds, I really did hope that you would pick one and show me something about another culture that I don't already know. I mean, The world is wide. I also don't know much about Eastern society. If Christianity is a Western affair, But it is born in the East, Why did it leave there, Or has it? Why is there no equivocal culture if indeed as I suggest Christianity is the high point of morality, And therefore the reason why Western society is the best? Strangely enough I have no evidence otherwise, So I have to continue to conclude that Western society is best. Thank you for joining me for the debate.
Western Culture Is Morally Superior

My argument is that all forms of Culture have their own merits and none are superior to any other. Culture is basically different from fact, It's more a way of life. And there is no "right" or "wrong. " Here are my main 3 points. 1. Western Culture itself is not consistent. 2. Culture is not black and white, And current cultural environments allow for mixing. 3. Culture being about tradition cannot be judged with right and wrong in any case. Western culture is based on a fleeting set of ideals, They shift between Nihilism, Existentialism and Chivalrous. Which shows not only is Culture fluid, But disproves your point of consistency. The Silk Road is a great example of the shift of cultural Ideals, Ideas of Buddhism and Hinduism spread far and wide. And the Islamic Golden Age not only shifted things like Numerics into the West, But also the Ideas of Alaadin and One in a Thousand Nights. Your first point is very unspecified, Oriental culture is based on the ideas of Justice, Inner Peace and Wisdom. And many other forms of Culture, Indian Sub-continent, Middle Eastern and African to name a few still have similar customs and values at least ones that are consistent. Citation. You really don't prove why. Christianity? Well, That's easily fallible in consistency because of all of the sects. If not, Then what? Your 3rd statement is oxymoronic. It "Recognizes good and evil" and "there is not always a good answer? " You can't have it both ways! If you are saying moderation, Then the whole model of good and evil is not specific to Western culture. Thank you for this! Hope you have a good debate.
Western Culture Is Morally Superior

I argue that the morals of the Greco-Roman/Judaeo-christian culture known as "Western Culture" is morally superior to all other mainstream cultures of today. My starting arguments will be developed in the next round but here are some of the points I will cover: 1. Western Culture is based on concrete ideas 2. Western Culture has a historical, Immutable basis for morals, Which also includes conclusive justice despite incomplete human justice. 3. Western Culture is merciful and just because it acknowledges the presence of good and evil and it recognizes that there is not always a good answer, And that people must choose what or who they are to be. Con has free reign over how he/she wants to counter. Thanks, And lets have a good argument!
Victor Frankenstein should be held responsible for all of the deaths in the book.

I don't actually have to prove victor is innocent or the monster guilty in this topic i must simply show that someone in the book didn't die because of victor, VICTORS MOTHER didnt die because of the monster she died of scarlet fever when he was young. We cannot hold him responsible for this death, VICTORS GRANDFATHER also died of a disease before he was born. We cannot hold him responsible for these deaths. Walden lost members of his crew before victor even entered the book, He is also not responsible for these deaths.
Employment after prison

In this debate, me and my opponent shall argue on why those who have been convicted of a crime, and released from prison, deserve a fair chance of employment like everyone else. Basically, removing any possible rights of allowing the individual from getting a chance for a job. I am Pro, arguing for this, and my opponent shall do the opposite.Rules:No forfeits, unless both sides forfeit the same amount of rounds; then it is fair game.No foul language of any kind, both sides must respect each other.No Trolls please!If you use a source, post its link in a "Source Category".Any rules broken is an automatic disqualification for the individual who broke the rulesStructure:Round 1: Acceptance and any questions for clarification (Please post in the comment section). Round 2: Opening Argument (Please Keep it Short) for both Pro and Con, except Con can Rebuttal this round if they choose.Round 3: Both sides RebuttalRound 4: Pro Rebuttals and states his or her Conclusion and can Rebuttal if they choose to do so, while Con will just have to state his or her Conclusion only.Any breakage of the structure is either a penalty or automatic disqualification. Depends on how serious the breaking of the structure was. Definitions:Employment: The condition of having paid workPrison: A building in which people are legally held as a punishment for crimes they have committed or while awaiting trial. Any questions or clarification for this debate can be asked in the comment section.Good luck to whoever accepts! Also, I am doing this debate for an argumentive paper in my school and need view points from the opposing side. So, thanks for whoever accepts.
Employment after prison

Before posting my first argument, I like to please reaffirm to keep the opening argument short, like you will see in this round; and that my opponent may Rebuttal with my argument in this round. To begin my argument, of why employment after prison is needed, I like to show a statistic on the types of crimes criminals did to end up in jail. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (1), 48.4% of criminals in prison are related to drug offenses. Examples including using an illegal drug, or overdosing in drugs. That is nearly half of the prisoners in prison within the United States. My opponent may be asking "How does this apply to letting them have a job"? To answer that assumed question, I like to respond with a term known as "Recidivism". Learned within my Criminal Justice class, and from National Institute of Justice (2), recidivism is: "It refers to a person's relapse into criminal behavior, often after the person receives sanctions or undergoes intervention for a previous crime". How common is this? According to journalist Caitlin Dickson (3), she said: "404,638 state prisoners from 30 states who were released in 2005. It found that 67.8 percent of them were re-arrested within three years of their release and 76.6 percent were re-arrested within five years. Of the latter group, more than a third were re-arrested in the first six months after leaving prison, and more than half were arrested by the end of the first year". That is a lot, and those numbers are easily increasing year after year. Why do they do this? The number one reason, according to Caitlin Dickson, is because of the criminals having nothing to do in life, or can't make into this world. Why should they just be thrown back, pay for their comfort environment, when we could help them in getting a job? How? The simple answer is to get rid of a majority of jobs with "The Box" that state the individual has been convicted of a crime. With this method, higher employment, second chances, and economic increase will occur; and has been proven to work. According to the article "How Second Chances Are Helping States Reduce Their Crime Rates" (4), it states that with this event, more people got second chances and have a job and the prison populations reduced. If there are many benefits to this idea, why should it not be used? It is not being asked on big jobs, but more so simple jobs; so the criminal can get back on track from his or her life. And with that, I'll end my opening argument and can't wait for my opponent to argue. Sources:1. . https://www.bop.gov......2. . http://www.nij.gov......3. . http://www.thedailybeast.com......4. . http://nationswell.com......
US flag shirt ban

In your first paragraph you talk about fights and riots almost happening and how there was "racial tension." I do not see how this is the American student's fault. He is simply wearing a shirt that he is proud of. Who are the Mexicans to say anything about that. And it's the Mexicans starting fights with their "gangs", not the Americans. The students who were the shirt on previous occasions did absolutely nothing wrong. The Mexicans are the ones who should be punish or disciplined. Since, after all, they are the ones starting all the trouble. I do not understand why we, Americans, should be obligated to listen to foreigners. They came to this country, they are the ones celebrating a Mexican based holiday in America, they are the ones disrupting the school. They should listen to us, not the other way around. If anything they should not be able to wear shirts with the Mexican flag, not us. But they are allowed to wear a Mexican flag t-shirt because that it their first amendment right. How is it that a student cannot wear a shirt with an American flag on a selected day when right outside the school there is a flag flying outside along with flags in every room. Your conclusion is, in my opinion, completely wrong. How absurd it it to hear of banning American Flag t-shirts, IN AMERICA!!? It is downright disgusting. Not only that, but it without a doubt violates the first amendment. The school board along with the three judges who made the court decision have impeded the First Amendment. Just because someone doesn't like the message someone is saying does not mean you are allowed to take their rights away. The students simply were an American Flag shirt because they re proud of where they live. They did not start any fights or riots. Once again, it was the Mexicans. Simply, this was a very bad decision.
US flag shirt ban

Introduction It's clear from the 1st round and some if the comments in the 2nd round that con is arguing against the actions taken by the school mentioned in the article he linked to. Context The school's decision needs context. Live Oak High School, had a lot of racial tension between students of Hispanic origin and other races within the school. This particular school was having a problem with gangs. The previous Cinko De Mayo, a riot almost broke out over the display of an American flag. This is the context that must be understood, to understand the principal's actions. School administrators have an obligation to keep students safe. It doesn't matter how PC a decision is. They need to keep the students safe. Now the principal sees a group of kids walking down the hall on Cinco De Mayo, wearing shirts with the American flag on them. The principal has a decision. Does he protect these kids freedom of expression by remaining silent? If he does this, he knows it could cause a riot and more then just the kids involved in inciting the riot could get hurt. Or, does the principal take immediate action to prevent uncontrollable violence? Freedom of expression Freedom of expression isn't protected in cases that are likely to result in a riot. We can see from the context of the situation, that allowing the kids to wear American flag shirts on that day could possibly result in a riot. In Supreme Court case Brandenburg vs Ohio, it was determined that freedom of speech wasn't protected in cases likely to lead to a riot. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... Conclusion As you can see, the principal had a moral obligation to ban American Flags on that day. You can also see that the kids freedom of expression(speech), wasn't violated.