BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Two plus two equals five

First of all, i have to ask you to stop repeating the fact that you have a PhD all over your profile. It's on everything you write. We get it, you have a PhD, but that doesn't mean you're right. it doesn't prove anything in a argument. now, 2+2=4 is correct. 2+2=5 is not correct, see, you're ROUNDING. When you round, you're taking a number and you're looking at the closest number between a scale of 1-10. for example, you can round 29 to 30. or 23 to 20. see, if i add 23+29, does it equal 59? No. it equals 52. 2.4 + 2.4= 4.8, but that doesn't mean tht 2+2=5. When you round, you are making it easier to add by making a number either 0 or 10. but when you round, you don't get an exact number, meaning it's not correct. so no, 2+2=4. Not 5.
Two plus two equals five

2+2=4. That is correct. 2+2=5 is incorrect, because you're rounding another number to 2. for example, 2.4 is rounded to 2, and if you multiply 2.4 by 2, then you get 4.8, which is rounded to 5. now, you're wrong, because this is being rounded. 2+2 does not equal 5, 5 is simply a close number to the correct one, that's what a rounded number is. something close to the correct number, an estimate. So no, 2+2 does not equal 5. it is close to 5, but it doesn't equal 5.
student should leave school at 9th grade and work

"let not just talk about america, all over the world, there were countries that allow them to leave school at grade nine and work. " This is an invalid statement. First off, you have cited no sources or even listed what countries. Also,I could almost guarantee that those countries are VERY unsuccessful. This proves absolutely nothing. "you also argued that there will be no profession, however I don't think so, more learning doesn't mean that you are good that thing, and profession is important, and profession comes from your passion, not what you mommy says. " Despite the immaturity shown I will still rebuttal this statement. Just because you THINK something doesn't mean it's a valid argument. There needs to be documentation and sources on why you believe this, which was not provided. Professions comes from intelligent within you, not pure passion. You may however, have passion to study and want to learn in order to be successful, however they way Pro worded it I do not think he meant that. "you havent give some point but just countering my point, so i will try to accept what you say. " It is your duty to convince the voters why we should allow such acts and it is my duty to counter what you say in order to persuade them. I feel I have fulfilled my duty and wish the voters luck. Thank you for this debate.
student should leave school at 9th grade and work

let not just talk about america, all over the world, there were countries that allow them to leave school at grade nine and work.you also argued that there will be no profession, however i dont think so, more learning doesnt mean that you are good that thing, and profession is important, and profession comes from your passion, not what you mommy says. you havent give some point but just countering my point, so i will try to accept what you say.
student should leave school at 9th grade and work

The legal working age is actually 14 years old in the US [1]. The argument that Pro is presenting is invalid. Frankly, his arguments make no sense. "and also the earlier they learn, the faster they get into the situation" This is confusing. The earlier they learn the faster they get into the situation? What situation? And how can they start learning earlier? In order for students to be successful in life they must go to school and get a degree. If all students only went to school till the 9th grade we would have no real professions. No doctors,lawyers, professors, scientists, none of that. Now, students can dropout once they are 16 years of age (in Florida)[2], but if they choose not to they can go on and be successful. You are saying that there should be no colleges and that after the 9th grade students start working and they receive no further education. The absurdity is mind-blowing. America would fall apart if we did such a thing. [1] http://www.dol.gov... [2] https://www.fldoe.org...
Go Nuclear

I'm not saying nuclear energy don't damage the environment. I just say it is process of our ideal energy. And every process of evolution has dangerous side in every time. For example, alternating current is very dangerous thing first time and even Edison warn about alternating current But Today every one uses the alternating current,not use direct energy. If we carefully use nuclear energy as alternating current, there are consequently only small problem left as alternating current did. And SUN also use the nuclear energy to blame itself. and every creature in earth needs sun energy indirectly or directly, and this fact is admitted certainly by every scientist. So I think nuclear energy is one thing to conquer for ideal energy. So I support using nuclear energy.
There isn't any true atheists

There isn't any true atheists. I found an article from Answers in Genesis that states this exact fact: "Any True Atheists?" by Answers in Genesis Did you know that there are really no true atheists? So what do we do with people who call themselves atheists? Consider England's Richard Dawkins, someone we quoted last month. He's perhaps the most outspoken "atheist" in the world. Even Dawkins has admitted, however, that he isn't completely sure about his atheism. On a popular TV program, Dawkins said he doesn't know what happens to us when we die. People like Dawkins believe we have no purpose in life. They argue that when we die, we simply cease to exist and there is no afterlife. But they can't ultimately be sure about their belief. God's word clearly states that He has put the knowledge of Himself in us (Romans 1). By the Creator's design, we all know that there is a God, so there are no true atheists!
There isn't any true atheists

First of all, Answers in Genesis is not exactly a reliable source because it (like many of the conservative Christians who run it) is notorious for quote mining. Dawkins actually said the following: "I don"t know what happens to us but I know that our consciousness is wrapped up in our brains and I know that our brains rot. " Doesn't sound like he is unsure about that, does it? He also said in an interview "Don't imagine for one second you're going to paradise. You're not. You're going to rot in the ground. " So the whole Dawkins thing has been ruled out. Also, a recent (and somewhat inconclusive) study was done showing that only about 32% of atheists believe in an afterlife. That 32% most likely believes in a non-theistic afterlife (not involving a God), which is a view that some people hold. However, there is no universe in which 32 (or anything near it, for that matter) equals 100, so your claim has even less going for it right now. Finally, the Bible is not a reliable source either because it provides no evidence or justification. Just because the Bible says something doesn't make it true. For example, Leviticus 11:6 says "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. " Now we know that hares do not do this. So much for the infallibility of the Bible. So, to think that everyone knows there's a god is absurd. What about children who die before they can be taught about Christianity? Or people who live in regions of the world where Christianity is not prevalent? Do they know about the Christian God anyway? Or myself, who was never taught anything about any God when I was a child? Did I know that God existed? The simple answer is just no. It's quite absurd to think anything else. I await my opponent's response. Thanks! Sources: . http://www.beliefnet.com... . http://www.tektonics.org... . http://guardianlv.com...
humanism is the way forward

Yes, some people do believe everybody should, those people are right in their own ways. And the people who kill for it are wrong, because most religious texts say not to kill. You still don't seem to get that your definition of humanism implies that you can have religion, as long as you tolerate other religions. You shouldn't fear enjoying yourself. You shouldn't fear doing what you want in your life. For some people it works, for both the question of sex and work. I'm not saying anyone should do as a religious text says if he or she doesn't believe it. Some people choose that way of life, not everyone has to. No, it doesn't mean that all of the bad things that happened will be reversed and I never said it did. Most Christians believe that God knows how you truly feel. If you really are sorry, He will forgive you. No, it won't make it right with the world, yes, they should be punished by secular punishment to show them how they erred. Not necessarily. Some Christians (such as myself) believe "If you don't agree with what I believe, okay, I don't care." no, not everyone is like that, but some are. I believe you left out a part of what I said, "... they just have their own reasons for why they believe in what's right and wrong.", which I thought might imply any religious text they choose to follow, I guess not. You don't seem to truly be humanistic, if you are saying religion is wrong, do this do this. Humanism is just another religion. You say it's the way forward, but it's never going to happen. Heck, you're saying you're all for it, but you can't tolerate religious people living their life the way they want to. Yes, their religious texts tell them what not to do, but so what if they use religious text to help define their morals? At least they have them. DECIDE FOR YOURSELF WHO'S RIGHT AND WRONG (BE HUMANISTIC)
humanism is the way forward

Religion condemns homosexuality. not all homophobic people are religious but religion encourages homophobia. In some Islamic countries homosexuality is punishable by stoning. We will never rid the world completely of bigoted people but we can start to tackle religious bigotry. Political Correctness is allowing unwanted barbaric Islamic values to creep into the western world. The west doesn't know how far it should go in respecting religion before it draws the line. In Britain there are sharia courts. Two different legal systems running parallel. If a woman is raped or is a victims of domestic violence by a man in Britain and she goes the sharia court. When the sharia court inevitably sides with the man she can not get the decision overturned by the British court. Humanism is pro justice and equality and would ensure one fair legal system for all. Clearly we both don't believe that everyone should follow religious text to the letter but the problem is that many people do believe that everybody should. A very small minority of people are even willing to go as far as to kill those who don't. Humanism would not create a perfect world but an overall more tolerant one than a world with religion. You mention fear of punishment again. Why should we fear enjoying ourselves? Why should we fear doing what we want to do in our lives? Should we in this day and age really have to wait until were married to have sex because we mite go to hell? Should we really refuse to work on a Sunday because we mite go to hell? I don't think so and I'm don't think you think so either. "Some extremists believed that repenting was all it took, just saying sorry. No, you actually have to truly be sorry, truly repent". Does repenting make everything ok? I'm all for forgiveness in general but some things are unforgiveable. If you repent for murdering somebody does the person you murdered come back to life? No. If the Catholic church repents for all the child abuse its responsible for do the abused children stop being scarred for life? No. If Al Qaeda repents for 9/11 will be 2,996 victims come back and the twin towers magically reappear? No. Repent the most horrific offences should not be good enough. "if it truly is about not caring about difference in opinion, religion wouldn't be an issue." Yes it is a issue because religion is against different opinions. Its basically says this is what god what's you to do so you must do it. Humanism Says decide for yourself how to live and be happy. "People with religion do decide for themselves what's right and wrong" Do there? Or are they indoctrinated from the moment their born to believe that they must live their life by the Bible/Quran/whatever? Humanism is the way forward. The way to phase out religious rules, bigotry and extremism is to encourage free thought and show ancient dogma for what it really is. Thank you. VOTE PRO http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
humanism is the way forward

While you might believe it's the way forward because "It's about respecting differences and opinions.", it's only perfect in theory. Yes, everyone being like "Yeah, do what you want as long as it doesn't affect my life." sounds amazing, but that's not what will happen. Some people will never act like that, and it's just human instinct. Don't say you aren't (though I'm not saying you are), because if you truly didn't care about differences in opinion, it wouldn't matter what religion everyone else has. Not everyone who is against gay rights is against it because of religion. Some people just don't find it natural or whatever. You can't completely blame religion for people being against gay rights. Right, we should decide for ourselves over what is right, but if I think, "Kill all the murderers, rapists, and anyone who's had an abortion!" and you disagree, therein lies the fact that we will more than likely argue over who's right and wrong, when in reality neither of us are but both of us are. No it doesn't mean we should follow what religious text says if it's wrong, evil, or outdated, not if you don't want to. I'm not saying we should go by religious laws because that wouldn't work either, but people choose to live by those laws and if it works for them, great, if not, they find their own way to have a fear of punishment. And no, that's not what that means. Some extremists believed that repenting was all it took, just saying sorry. No, you actually have to truly be sorry, truly repent. As for following the wrong religion, oh well, what are you going to do about it. From what I understand of humanism, it seems a lot like a religion to me. You're putting down what others believe for the sake of what you believe which seems to be a common religious move. Like I said, though, if it truly is about not caring about difference in opinion, religion wouldn't be an issue. People with religion do decide for themselves what's right and wrong, they just have their own reasons for why they believe in what's right and wrong. Yes, perhaps it is more credible, but it's still just a theory. You seem to contradict yourself. You quoted my "People should have the freedom to choose what they believe. Whether it is a god or not, it's each individuals choice of how to make oneself better" then said "Humanism is exactly that. Individual morals and choices, corrective respect for other peoples individual morals and choices." but, before, you said, "...what if a person spent there entire life following a religion to the letter and it turns out they followed the wrong one? Then what? Part of me hopes there is a hell that is reserved only for the most evil of people but for people to think they could end up there just because they didn't follow some ancient texts to the letter is nonsense." How is this a "respect for other people's individual morals and choices."?
humanism is the way forward

"Do you mean each individual person says "This is right and this is wrong. " or a government saying what's right and wrong. " Humanism is about human beings both individually and collectively. Its about respecting differences and opinions. Of course the government will have to enforce some laws in a democratic way. Something that in many Islamic countries doesn't happen. An emphasis on human life and human rights should bring us all to the conclusion that certain offences are universally wrong (murder, rape, torture, etc). Religion is often used to justify the most horrific of crimes. Humanism is 100% in on the side of gay rights because it is about human nature and recognises that part of some peoples nature is that they are gay. Although being gay isn't a choice like some religious people believe it is, even if it was a choice it would still be ok because Humanism is pro choice. Abortion is one thing that divides Humanists. On one hand Humanism is pro choice and on the other hand it is also pro life. This is an area where we as individuals have to decide for ourselves whether its right or wrong and accept that whatever side of the argument we take others have the right to take the opposite side. Another issue like this is capital punishment. Capital punishment could be deemed as going against the pro life believe or it could be argued that the right to life should be forfeited if someone has deliberately taken the life of another human being. Humanism also stands for justice. Either way I believe we must decide for ourselves on these issues rather be told what's the correct opinion by religion. You mention "fear of punishment". There are certain part of religious text that we know to be wrong, evil or outdated. Does that mean we must follow them anyway? If the religious rules were enforced by god to the letter would anybody at all get into heaven? You could say that its ok as long as you repent your sins before you die. Id say in that case why have the commandments in the first place? That's like saying you can break any laws you want. As long as you apologise in court you wont be sent to prison. Besides that, what if a person spent there entire life following a religion to the letter and it turns out they followed the wrong one? Then what? Part of me hopes there is a hell that is reserved only for the most evil of people but for people to think they could end up there just because they didn't follow some ancient texts to the letter is nonsense. "Religion has no real place in education, but by that logic, neither does evolution since they are both theories" The difference is though, evolution is a credible scientific theory with evidence. Religion is not. "People should have the freedom to choose what they believe. Whether it is a god or not, it's each individuals choice of how to make oneself better" Humanism is exactly that. Individual morals and choices, corrective respect for other peoples individual morals and choices.
humanism is the way forward

It's true that no one person knows absolutely for sure, but some people like to believe that it's there and it is a comforting thought. Humanism seems like anarchy. I mean, people deciding for themselves what's right and wrong? Do you mean each individual person says "This is right and this is wrong." or a government saying what's right and wrong. Individual people saying right and wrong will end in complete chaos. We already have that problem, in case you haven't noticed (abortion, gay rights, etc.). Without some fear of punishment, some people (specifically the ones believing in commandments or other spiritual rules) will have no sense of right and wrong. Religion has no real place in education, but by that logic, neither does evolution since they are both theories. Both should be taught in school but more as theories rather than "This is the definite truth and believing otherwise is wrong." People should have the freedom to choose what they believe. Whether it is a god or not, it's each individuals choice of how to make oneself better.
humanism is the way forward

Humanism is the way forward. We live in the 21st century. An age of science and technology. Yet the majority of the worlds population still believe in superstition and supernatural beings. Many people worldwide base their morals and behaviour on these superstitions along with old story books which they believe to be somehow divine. Although books such as the Quran or the Bible were quite clearly written by men many centuries ago millions of people believe them to be either the literal or inspired word of god. Groups such as ISIS or Al Qaeda only exist because of people taking the most extreme versus of these story books literally. Humanism has no set rules. No dogma or commandments. Humanism encourages people to think for themselves. We as human beings should be able to decided for ourselves what's right and what's wrong and realise that what's right in one situation may be wrong in another. The lack of any god in humanism means that its focus is 100% on humanity, the one and only life we know for sure that we have and the world we live in. I don't know or care whether god exists or not but I do know that not one single person on this earth knows who or what god is or even if he/she/it exists and anybody who claims to know is either a fool or a liar (or both) By taking religion out of education and better teaching of science and evolution, By not encouraging young children to get involved in religious groups or activists we can slowly but surely phase religion out of existence. It will take a few generations but as science finds the answers to more and more questions superstitious believes should eventually disappear. A humanist world would be a world where we put our fellow human beings first instead of god or commandments. A world where we wouldn't be dictated to by myths and scripture. A world with modern morals but no supernatural nonsense. A humanist world is the world we need today https://humanism.org.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://americanhumanist.org...
scientifically inexplicable things occur that are apparently supernatural, but not to atheists

Well you see you are trying to get me argue things I don't believe. Again I am arguing that seemingly miracles or supernatural events occur to everyone, not any one group of people because groups of people are human constructs to which the natural world is not responsive to. To argue why any one medical case suddenly yielded an amazing turn around because the subject was religious is laughable. Medical 'miracles' occur due to adept medical skills, there is no greater power deciding who shall live an who shall die haha, how dramatic.
scientifically inexplicable things occur that are apparently supernatural, but not to atheists

you haven't met the burden of showing comparable things happening to atheists, that I have shown happening to those connected to something faith related. all you have shown are some things in general that are inexplicable. I see your point, inexplicable things occur, and could be said the same here, doesn't mean "miracles" per se. but if I don't see things happening to athestis etc that I do w those related to faith, it's not far to conclude something more exists here. I appreciate that you are not trying to tell me to show me, or are bickering with me about the rules. like most who take this debate. you are doing as I expected in that you are saying probability things just occur, there are possibliy alternative explanations etc.