BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Heaven and hell for controlling the masses

What a unique topic! I will be arguing that Heaven and Hell are not intended (by whom?) to control the masses, but rather they are consequences of actions. I don't think Pro means for this debate to be overly formal. Pro claims to believe that humans are spiritual, which I also believe. I would like to know where Pro thinks the spirit would go if the body dies? After that I would like to know who is the one meaning to control the masses with Heaven and Hell? Who invented them? The Christian view of Heaven and Hell, which I personally believe, is simple. Those who reject Christ are separated from God, this is also called "Hell" or "death." It is also referenced as "the lake of fire" perhaps figuratively. But anyone who puts their faith in Christ is united with God in heaven. This view of the afterlife wouldn't work with Pro's resolution, even if the bible was considered fiction. This is because under these definitions the worst of people can still enter heaven and the most moral of people can end up in Hell. Pro's claims appear very dependent on people having universal views on heaven and hell, which they don't and never did. Perhaps Heaven and Hell is used as motivation to do good for some, but for other people it has been motivation to commit terrorist acts. Pro's arguments are only sufficient for the kind of Hell he described, but that is not the Hell that most people believe if they believe in Hell at all. Pro believes removing heaven and hell "replace the mind." But if someone is trying to decide what is right, they use their brain just as much as anyone else. Once they decide what a moral action is, it is only then that Heaven and Hell would have any influence on them. They still have to decide whether or not to do what is right. Since most of Pro's arguments were opinion, I will wait for his response to move this debate forward.
Heaven and hell for controlling the masses

I believe in God. I also believe that God has given man a brain.Spiritually speaking, religion is beautiful. It is the gateway to peace and serenity. However, it was never limited to spirituality. It is involved in our daily lives, In my opinion, the concept of heaven and hell is used to control the masses. It is portrayed that if you do wrong, you will go to hell, and vice versa. I think it is up to the mind to decide whether to do right or wrong. If every individual revised his ethics and morals before doing wrong, rather than having the fear to end up in the fictional place called " HELL ", it would help us accomplish what religion actually wants us to; love and peace.Heaven and hell exist to replace the mind when taking a decision. It is simply used as one big brain for all followers to refer to. It limits our thinking, therefore limiting our potential and creativity.
Religion (Creationism/ID) should NOT be taught as science in public schools!

-------- FIRST -------- "I agree that religions such as Christianity and Islam should not be taught in schools as a science but science in and of itself is technically a religion because it is considered Atheism. " Science is not atheism, because science makes NO claims about God. It doesn't deny God neither does it accept God, so if you're trying to be technically correct then science is agnostic, because it just doesn't know. Moreover, I'd like to bring forth the definition of a religion (Merriam-webster): [DEFINITION- religion] 1 a: the state of a religious b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance Even Atheism can't be described as a religion, since it doesn't "worship" a "God or the supernatural". Atheism aside, science fits that definition even less. Religion requires that the person worships a God or the supernatural, science does neither! [DEFINITION- science] 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science Please note the difference, science is a SYSTEM of knowledge covering general TRUTHS. .. concerned with the physical world and its phenomena, it takes no position on the supernatural! -------- SECOND -------- "I would have to say that it is not a question of weather the schools teach religion in a religion class or in a science class because as i stated before science is a religion. " First you state that you agree that religion should not be taught as science, then you say that religion is a science, therefore you contradict your own statement that religion should not be taught as a science (which is also a religion according to you). In effect you said religion should not be taught as a religion. .. But given the previously provided definition of religion, I would like to point out for the second time that science does not fit that description. You have already agreed that religion should not be taught as science, so this implies that the only difference in opinion was the definition of science. I think that the definitions provided are sufficient in that matter.
Religion (Creationism/ID) should NOT be taught as science in public schools!

I look forward to debating these points. There are several reasons that Religious establishments should not be allowed to dictate what's being taught in public school science classes (USA specific): 1. It goes against the first amendment of the US constitution. Legally, the US does not endorse ANY religious establishment. Some people might argue that the US is built on Christian Values. Even if this is true, the US is still ruled by a SECULAR government, thus not endorsing any religion and that was decided at the birth of this nation! 2. Religion does not provide the scientific knowledge to actually falsify any scientific theories. This is a crucial point: religious books have almost NO scientific teachings in them, if they do, then it's pure accident. Reading the Bible or the Qur'an does not give a person the qualifications or the knowledge to actually challenge scientific ideas. I want to specify that while a scientist may be Christian or Muslim, this point would apply to them if their arguments are based on their theological beliefs and not on their scientific knowledge. Or to make an analogy: A lawyer (assuming that's his/her only education) is not qualified to do brain surgery, because they have only read law books and they don't have enough expertise to perform medical operations. In the same manner, basing any arguments on the Bible or the Qur'an in an attempt to counter a scientific argument is utterly pointless. These books hold no scientific value, they only hold theological value, and theology and science are CLEARLY not related. 3. Religion offers no motivation to pursue scientific knowledge. Religion (Christianity, Islam) suggests that the answers to our lives are already given to us by a higher power (God/Allah), therefore there would not be any reasonable motivation which would make people want to look for any answers to life and our origins. 4. This point is similar to point #2: Religion is not science so it has no business in the scientific field. No theology should be taught in science class, Creation (and Intellectual Design) should be saved for Theology and Philosophy classes. .. they're simply not science!
The Flat Earth Theory is True. The Round Earth Theory is False.

It's a shame that pro has not participated in this debate. I wanted to clear up a couple things about my arguments.In my intuition argument I was bringing up the difference between being wrong and MORE wrong to show how intuition is unreliable. With the shape of the Earth, technically the planet is neither flat or round but a somewhat pear-shaped, oblate spheroid. My intuition arguments is meant to show how intuition could tell you that the earth is flat or round and how both answers can be nearly right but one is more wrong than the other. My movement of celestial objects argument is also indicative of a spherical planet because in the southern hemisphere and northern hemisphere the direction of celestial objects in the sky is essentially reversed. If the earth were flat then this would not be possible. If Pro has anything to say at all I'll finish the last round with some background on a famous flat earth experiment called the Bedford Level and I will explain why that experiment is inconclusive and should be disregarded.
Everyone who believes in God is Most Likely Delusional

Sorry, I used the wrong word, I must have been in a hurry to type it out. For good measure and a more robust debate I got the definitions from. http://dictionary.reference.com......;de ·lu·sion·al adjective1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions: Senators who think they will get agreement on a comprehensive tax bill are delusional.2. Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness: He was so delusional and paranoid that he thought everybody was conspiring against him. Good Luck! Does talking to imaginary supernatural beings constitute a delusion/ being delusional? Theists talk to God, have relationships with God and know God's opinions about various moral issues. If someone thinks they are talking to an magical being, but this is not actually happening, would they be delusional? Yes, they would. They would have a false belief that they are talking to someone, when actually they are not. Are most theists right or wrong? Most theists are wrong. Every theist has a different opinion about God, they cannot all be right. Some believe in Allah, Budah, Jesus. Some believe the Garden of Eden is in the USA, some do not. Some believe that God hates gays, some do not. Theists hold specific views about what God is right. No two theists have the exact same view. So, not all theists can be right. At most, 1 theist has the exact concept of God and the rest are wrong. Because most people are wrong about there perceptions of God, most people are delusional. SummaryIf you believe something imaginary to be real you are delusional,Every theist has a different view about what God is like,Only one view can be correct,Most views are wrong,Most theists believe something about God to be real that is actually imaginary,Most theists are delusional
Everyone who believes in God is Most Likely Delusional

Unfortunately people often make outlandish statements in the forums, & then refuse to defend them in debate, Kudos. (Voters can give him the conduct point for that alone. ) (Although he left out the words "most likely" in the forum, but included them here, at least he's willing to defend the general idea) Without further ado I will begin with my opening arguments, which, for this round will only address definitions. Unfortunately the definitions that my opponent provided is inccorect & I could win by pointing out that according to his definitions the resolution doesn't make sense. The definitions that my opponent provided (from . http://www.thefreedictionary.com......, & that should have been sourced, or actually they shouldn't, as his definitions are not what the dictionary said. ) are for the word delusion a noun, not the word delusional the adjective. (I know it says delusional on top of the definitions, but that's what my opponent wrote, that was not in the dictionary. ) Never the less I'll let that go, (for now unless I need it :)), & I'll even use his source to define "delusional". (See how nice Christians are? not really. I'm agnostic of Jewish decent:p) Definitions: " Adj.1. delusional- suffering from or characterized by delusions psychoneurotic, neurotic - affected with emotional disorder Based on WordNet 3.0, Farley clipart collection. " 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc. " (1) & for good measure: "A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. [1] Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological(the result of an illness or illness process). [1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation,dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception. "(2) (1) . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...... (2) . http://en.wikipedia.org......
Music Censorship

I was mainly meaning the songs themselves. When it comes to music videos you could definitely make the argument that it's artistic. You don't censor Greek statues or Renaissance art that features nudity because it's considered art. If you want a safe for work version that's fine, But don't change or sensor a product that's already been made, Create a product from scratch that was made to be safe for work and don't leave gaps or bars in that distract you from the work itself.
Music Censorship

censoring a song is silly and for me annoying i immedialtey go loking for the uncensored version, Censorship has to exist though, One of my favrite vdeios for example is golden earring twil ight zone, In the video you see a pretty dutch women with perfect and i mean perfect tits, I don't know what it is with those dutch, Maybe its all the cheese they eat, On youtube you can find the censored version, They put a black bar over her perfect dutch boobies, How can a pair of tits be offensive considering all the mayhem in the sing? ! I don't understand why tits offend people. I like tits, And they are m uch nicer than the violence and blood shed in the rest of the video, And what do they censor the tits. . . If people are offended by dutch tits fine, Censor them ut, They can enjoy the music and the ultra violence of the rest of the video un censored https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=L0cYc3-Molo censored https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=a1sf2CzEq0w
Music Censorship

I am completely for warning labels for obscene lyrics. That's fine. However, I don't think censored music should be made. For example right now and the radio is post Malone's better now. A lot of the songs just has a lot of cuts in it because they've censored the song for Radio although a lot of songs may have profanity and vulgar imagery in it, It is what the artist intended for the song. As we're moving the way from Radio into streaming we can bypass that now by using streaming services to see the original version of the song, But clean or radio edits completely miss the original intentions. I think you should just avoid using songs with profanity if you don't want them on the radio not cut them up into little pieces. If you do that that would incentivize the artist to making songs without profanity and maybe clean up our music space. The ones who want to continue releasing original music which of their own messages the way they wanted to be said, They can use alternative like Spotify Pandora and apple music. That way every bit of music we're listening to is genuine and is what the artist means and they don't have to change the wording just to be PG.
Music Censorship

For the most part i oppose censorship, But there are limits, Putting a warning on a package of filthy lyrics so a parent can keep it away from a kid is fine, And know what, Music is so filthy now i wish their was bit of censorship, Llyrics used to have to be clever to have double meanings now its graphic degenerate and unimaginative, And i do think it does have effect on young minds and lowers our culture right into a gutter. . This is how rome fell
Music Censorship

I believe That Censoring music is wrong and goes against what the artist intended for the song, Giving you a lite-watered down version of what the song once was. For Example, Compare The Song Stan by Eminem to Its Censored Version. There are 2-3 second long gaps in the song because a verse wasn't deemed appropriate for radio. If Something isn't appropriate for radio/mainstream use. Simply don't use that song at all. Don't Infringe on the story or message of the song.
Trickle Down Economic Theory Does Not Work

" --True, but what what I was saying was that even though employment is a very positive force, it is not sufficient to prove that trickle down theory works. " It certainly is. " --I am not arguing for the removal of businesses. I am simply arguing that increasing the wealth of those businesses beyond its normal bounds (allowing them to "flourish")" This assumes some "normal bounds" that have not been established. Letting them increase their wealth has nothing to do with yourself increasing their wealth. "does not yield additional benefits. Essentially that their profits do not "trickle down" to the rest of society." Without profits, they ARE all removed. If their existence has benefits, so does their profits, ipso facto. " --Then you didn't read what I said very carefully. People have been alive long before anything remotely resembling a business existed." For half as long on average. "f the theory was thought to work, then steps were successful in implementing it(the wealthy did indeed get wealthier as per the statistics already provided)" You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either trickle down only has to work partway (the businesses existing at all) or it has to work ALL THE WAY and has to be implemented ALL THE WAY to find it out. "t does not matter that the 'test' was not controlled " This is a profound rejection of the scientific method. :because it does not matter why the desired results were not achieved, only that that were not acheived. There is not qualifying statement in the definition of "work", it does not say "to produce a desired effect or result when not interferred with", it says quite plainly "to produce a desired effect or result". So gravity doesn't work, because rockets do. :--Are you kidding? "the top marginal individual income tax rate fell from 70% to 28%" http://en.wikipedia.org...... There are other taxes than the top marginal individual income tax rate. Like, for example, business taxes. Which MIGHT be more relevant :P. :--Would you care to share where this is shown to be true? Take one look at your computer. Now go back to before whenever you think "trickle down" was. The computers then available for a comparable price would not have enabled you to entertain yourself in this manner. Other technologies have similarly improved. :I have already provided statistics to the contrary. No, you've provided irrelevant statistics to this point.
Trickle Down Economic Theory Does Not Work

" --This debate is not over the effectiveness of employment" Employment is the mechanism by which business operates. The effectiveness of business is very relevant to whether it is effective to permit business to flourish. "This is negated as an overall trend by the simple fact that in order to live, these laborers must spend the wealth gained by their labor to aquire the necessities of life." This supposed negation is negated by the fact that if they must do it in order to live, then those necessities of life are not available if they do not take the offer-- the offer is the only thing keeping them alive. Clearly removing the only thing keeping you alive is not good for you. "The amount of money left for personal non-essential spending is tiny or non-existant." This is mere assertion without any theoretical backing. And not relevant due to the above. "The trickle down theory posits a net increase in the wealth of the lower classes as a result of the wealthy having more" Having necessaries is an increase over not having them, which you just declared is an increase that occurs. "-I urge the audience to ignore the abstract arguments of my opponent " There is nothing of value to be found in economics but the abstract. " in favor of the concrete argument I am about to present. No matter how well a theory may work on paper, the ultimate test is its implementation. As you are about to see, this test has already been done for us." As a matter of fact, no such test has ever occurred-- no nation has ever permitted its businesses to flourish without interference, there has never been laissez-faire. No valid (controlled) test ever can exist in economics. However, the closest thing to it, the semicapitalist nations, have since their implementation of semi-capitalism (since the Industrial Revolution), roughly doubled their lifespan, and provided large numbers of common laborers with televisions, computers. Both a benefit in necessaries and nonessentials. It's not controlled, but neither is anything you have on offer. "The trickle down theory was put to use on a large scale by the Reagan Administration in the United States in the 80's. " The Reagan Administration pressured the Federal Reserve to subsidize businesses that could not flourish, and eventually raised taxes on those that did. It was no paragon of the trickle down definition that you accepted. In any case, when dealing with flawed data, the least fallacious stuff is looking at the course of centuries, not decades-- bigger sample to compete with the massive, insurmountable sampling error. And THAT data, again, tells us--- about 70 years lifespan to about 35 in the era previous to whatever halfassed semblance of an implementation of "trickle down" theory has occurred. "There was no increase in the wealth of the lower classes." Wealth is not dollars. Wealth is materials. Though this is not necessary to my argument, material wealth for the lower classes has increased since then-- technological advancement, other things equal, is an increase in wealth. Who does most of the technological advancement? Typically flourishing rich people.