BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Religion Exist

There is a difference between religion and the people who follow it. Religion is just a fallback for people who need to find faith in something greater than themselves, whether it's faith in moral guidance, supreme beings, or certain lifestyles. Religion can indeed be seen as a necessity for those who have nothing else to fallback onto. During the Dark Ages, the reason religion spread like wildfire is because many countries were poverty ridden and sprawling with illnesses we cannot imagine having today. Everything seemed terrible, and religion was the last ounce of light that gave people a sense of hope and an urge to carry on their days. If I told you that you had the opportunity to see an afterlife filled with everything you've ever liked, and all you had to do was believe in it, would you not follow it? The problem is not with religion, but with its teachers. It is a spawn for sociopaths who seek to manipulate people into wrongdoing. But if people are cognitively aware of the world they live in, they should also have a sense of rectitude and know when to trust a book over a person who reads the book for you. But with regards to the main argument, I believe religion should exist, it just should not be a choice of absolutes ("either you follow and you go to hell, or you do and you go to heaven" scheming that people try and claim). Some times you need a little faith to do some of the most extraordinary things, even some renowned scientists were religious because they needed that extra guidance in their duties. And with regards to religions that have just absurd beliefs (sadism, etc.), I think we are both aware that they are childish in their forms and can be disregarded for this argument. There will always just be those extreme views for any situation.
Should Religion Exist

Honestly I believe that religion is a sham that some drunk moron made from a book millennial ago. Religion is the main reason for so many wars and deaths. Even the wars of today are caused by religion. Religion also caused inequality between sex and race. Woman are treated like garbage everywhere because of it. Negro people were shunned and tortured just because of their skin color. Religion is also what made half of humanity morons. Child raping Priests are debating whether it's okay to be homosexual while others are trying to learn and explore REAL THINGS. Everyone knows that we could have lived without the dark age. And worst of all, all these religious believers don't even follow the bible "correctly." Cause I don't see people killing atheists or not eating meat. Religion is only here because we have a bunch of morons too scared to find the truth only instead filling it with a measly word cause they're too stupid to try to comprehend the facts.
The statement "All genders are valid" is true.

The common trend of making up gender identities completely undermines the medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Individuals with this mental illness (do not label me as transphobic, "mental illness" holds no negative connotations) feel that their gender identity is mismatched with their corresponding sex. Nearly all transgenders of today that have the ability to do not even partake in sex reassignment surgery or get a medical diagnosis and so can not be labelled as having gender dysphoria; which again is an official medical term, not some buzz word to be thrown around.
Agnosticism should not be listed under "religion" option in Debate.org user profile

I will now rebut the arguments by Pro in the second round. RebuttalsR1. "Because it is a misleading and tells us nothing about someones particular religious beliefs. If we were able to still define our belief position then it would be fine with me. For example : agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. "This statement implies simply being agnostic isn't a belief point, which is absolutely incorrect. An agnostic believes that humans do not know whether or not god exists, or they have no knowledge of it. This is saying they are not sure whether or not god exists, which is an opinion that is just as important as saying god exists. Getting rid of this opinion, will not help DDO/the information panel. While it can be misleading, the adverse effects of this "misleading" are minimal to none. However, if we were to remove it, we would be removing a very important opinion. This option has many adverse effects. It is like censorship, silencing the many people who are truly agnostic. R2. Contradictions"If we were able to still define our belief position then it would be fine with me. For example : agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. The terms are different, the result is that one can be: An agnostic atheist(one who doesn't claim to know if there is a God or not, but doesn't believe in one)A gnostic atheist(one who does not believe in god AND professes to know that no such god does or could exist)An agnostic theist(one who doesn't claim to know if there is a god or not, but does believe in one)A gnostic theist(one who both claims to believe in AND know for a fact that there is a god)"This is where my opponent begins to contradict himself. He states that these other opinions on the existence of god, should be under the religion heading. However, these options are also not religions, but would be under a religion heading. Which means, they would also be "misleading". So why are these "misleading" options allowed to be under the religion heading, while others are not? This contradicts his earlier argument. Furthermore, I urge my opponent to look at the title he chose. He says we should remove the agnostic option from the religion option. Not that we should include others, in place of it. If we were to accept the action he proposes, there would just be no agnostic option, which is, as I said, the silencing of an opinion. Closing Statement(s)My opponent states allowing the agnostic option to stay is misleading as it is not a religion, but proposes options that are just as misleading. He proposes DDO moderators silence an opinion because it is technically incorrect. However, the adverse effects of this are many, while the adverse effects of the alternative are minimal. Allowing the agnostic option to stay, serves DDO. Getting rid of this, is the undesirable action.
Agnosticism should not be listed under "religion" option in Debate.org user profile

Hi. I agree with the updated structure. This round will contain no rebuttals, per the terms of the agreed structure. Just my opening arguments.OpeningI would like to start this by stating the function of the information panel in DDO(Debate.org). The function of the information panel is to allow others on DDO, to know a user better. To know their thoughts and opinions on the world around them, allows us to understand, and humanize the people we debate with. The religion heading, is a big part of that. The religion or opinion one has, gives others a chance to know them. If we were to remove an option, that 3764[1] users on DDO have chosen as their opinion , removes the ability to further understand users on the site. I will go into details now.Placing The agnostic option is listed under religion in DDO. Agnosticism being a religion is technically incorrect. However, it is the opinion of god's existence, which is the biggest part of many religions. This means, it is just as important as picking a religion, which makes it very relevant to the religion heading. Also, the misconception that agnosticism is a religion is popular, which is why the first place many of us would look for agnosticism under the religion heading , making it the perfect placing for the agnostic option. FunctionAs said previously, the religion heading helps other users get to know you on this website.This is also the function of the information panel. The agnostic option entirely helps this. The opinion of god's existence is very important to many. Since 3764[1] users have currently listed their opinion of god as agnostic, the removal of an opinion of god, hurts the ability to know many others, and therefore, the function of the information panel. Closing StatementsThe function of the information panel is to help get to know others. The agnostic option in the religion heading, only helps this function. The removal of this option, would only hurt the information panel, which would hurt DDO, which is obviously the undesirable option. Citinghttp://www.debate.org...; (The number here is subject to change)I had wanted to make this longer and elaborate on my points, but due to the time limits and my life, I was unable to do so. I apologize for this, and will try to elaborate on my points next round. I look forward to my opponents response.
Agnosticism should not be listed under "religion" option in Debate.org user profile

Hi. Thanks for the accepting. Yeah this structure is fine except that I would like to avoid new arguments in the final round and call that final round - round 4: Rebuttals and conclusion. Glad that we agree on definitions. So my opening argument is that agnosticism is obviously not a religion. For pure agnosticism there are no shared ceremonies, rules, commandments, tenets, practices, scriptures, doctrine, prayers, traditions, rituals, rites,beliefs, stories, morals, authority, worship or anything else that defines religion. It not even a belief position. Its a simple admittance of the fact that we got no knowledge of God or Gods. Also it is important to note that It is a position on one specific claim. That's it.Now you CAN be religious AND be agnostic, but just being agnostic is not a religion. So why is this important at all ? Why not still have it under religion label ? What's the purpose of differentiating knowledge from belief? Because it is a misleading and tells us nothing about someones particular religious beliefs. If we were able to still define our belief position then it would be fine with me. For example : agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. The terms are different, the result is that one can be: An agnostic atheist(one who doesn't claim to know if there is a God or not, but doesn't believe in one)A gnostic atheist(one who does not believe in god AND professes to know that no such god does or could exist)An agnostic theist(one who doesn't claim to know if there is a god or not, but does believe in one) A gnostic theist(one who both claims to believe in AND know for a fact that there is a god) The great confusion is made because agnosticism is mistaken with being a religion. So people think that being an agnostic is religious behavior. People clarify as agnostics when asked whether they believe in God and that is not the answer. They were not asked if they know that God exists. And those categorizations as this one in title is certainly not helping to clarify this. Im gonna stop here for now. Good luck. (No need for sources since it is extension of definitions that we both agreed upon. )
Agnosticism should not be listed under "religion" option in Debate.org user profile

I accept. Since Pro has not stated a structure for this debate, I will assume the common 4 round debate structure. This is: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2:Opening Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals and Closing Arguments I have no issue with any of your definitions. If you would like change the debate structure, please inform me of it in the second round.
Agnosticism should not be listed under "religion" option in Debate.org user profile

If you dont agree with definitions put your definitions in comments and then I will tell you if im gonna accept. Definitions:Agnosticism: A” means “without” and “gnosis” means “knowledge. ” Hence, agnostic: without knowledge, but specifically without knowledge of gods. ( Agnosticism is a view of an agnostic. )Religion: 1. Belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny.2. A particular system of faith and worship. Con is going to argue that Agnosticism should be listed under "religion" option in Debate. org profileGood luck. Sources for definitions: . http://atheism.about.com...https://en.wikipedia.org...http://dictionary.reference.com...
The following arguments against the existence of God are valid.

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited a crucial round. I have nothing to rebut; however, I will leave with a few final statements. My opponent's first argument is based on confusion regarding a definition. My opponent's second argument is based on two separate false assumptions. Her third argument is based on a false assumption regarding God's nature. Her fourth argument is based on the emotional definition of sensitive, rather than the perceptive one. Her final argument is also invalid, as she assigned God properties that were not aforementioned. So, all of my opponent's arguments were invalid.
The following arguments against the existence of God are valid.

"Thank you for clearing up my confusion" No problem. I thank my opponent for posting her arguments. OMNIPOTENCE "Then He could not be defined as good." I never defined God as omnibenevolent. Perhaps my opponent has confused omnibenevolence with omnipotence. OMNIPRESENCE "He would answer all prayers at once instead of listening to one prayer at a time." My opponent makes the false assumption that God would be compelled to answer prayers in the first place (he would not be compelled, as he is incoercible) and that God listens to prayers "one at a time". OMNISCIENT My opponent makes the false assumption that God would want to restrict free will by preventing rebellion. OMNICONSCIOUS You used the wrong definition of sensitive. Sensitive in this context means "having perception". http://dictionary.reference.com... INCOERCIBLE My opponent makes the false assumption that God would be compelled to do good. There are no grounds for this assumption. God has neither committed suicide, been gay, or been transvestite... and even if he had, that would not make him dominated. CONCLUSION My opponent's arguments are based on false premises. Thank you, and I will now turn it over to PRO.
The following arguments against the existence of God are valid.

I am sorry for my stupidity. I was going to erase what I typed and post my real argument, but I pressed the wrong button, unfortunately. "omnipotent-able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible" God is supposed to be good and do all the right things for this world. So far He has not stopped world hunger, drug use, prostitution, disease, war, bad weather, etc. Perhaps He is lazy? Then He could not be defined as good. "omnipresent-being present everywhere" God cannot possibly be present everywhere because He would answer all prayers at once instead of listening to one prayer at a time. The Virgin Mary's mother had to pray many times before she became pregnant with Mary. "omniscient-knowing everything that can be known" If God knew everything then wouldn't he have prevented Lucifer from turning evil and leading an army against Him? "omniconscious-fully aware of and sensitive to everything" sensitive-having sense of feeling; possessing or exhibiting the capacity of receiving impressions from external objects; as, a sensitive soul. (dictionary.com) Is that the sensitive you mean to use? There is another sensitive that means that ones feelings are hurt easily. "incoercible-not able to be controlled, dominated, or compelled" Could commiting suicide or being gay or being a transvestite count as being dominated? He is compelled to answer prayers because He knows that is the right thing to do (He is supposed to be a good God, right?) I have nothing for being controlled. Thank you for clearing up my confusion even though you did not prevent the keyboard from being confused. My name is Farah with an H. I forgot to press that button when coming up with my username.
The following arguments against the existence of God are valid.

Answering Questions, Comments, Concerns: "can you please tell me if I'm supposed to defend the definition of God or go against it[?]" "My opponent will present 1-5 separate arguments against the aforementioned God's existence, and they will be discussed in rounds 2-4." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "I will not partake in any kind of a debate where I have to say that there is some kind of a 'God' anywhere!" The resolution is "The following arguments against the existence of God are valid." You are PRO, so you are arguing against the existence of God. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "If I say that all of those things are true because of what the Holy Bible tells us (us as in Christians) you're going to tell me that I am wrong because...I seriously cannot read!" Actually, I'd say that you'd be making an invalid argument for the wrong side. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "So I cannot contradict you by saying that there is no such thing as any kind of a deity?" No, you can not. That would be circular reasoning. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Because my opponent has not presented any arguments against the existence of God, perhaps because of confusion, but I will try to be fair and allow my opponent to present her arguments in round 2 instead of round 1. We will then discuss them in rounds 3 and 4. Faraecho, if you still have questions, rather than using an argument to ask them, just message me. You have 72 hours to respond, so there is no rush.
The following arguments against the existence of God are valid.

Okay. So I cannot contradict you by saying that there is no such thing as any kind of a deity? Fine. I will warn you that it will take me awhile to post arguments if you want me to use good grammar skills because I can't figure out why my keyboard is a something-or-other. Okay I'm confused. My vocabulary isn't that good. I can contradict you by saying that there is no 'God' of any kind? D*mnit! I cannot read! No! I give up! I surrender! I will not partake in any kind of a debate where I have to say that there is some kind of a 'God' anywhere! I'll try anyway. Do you mind if I type down my thinks? (Dr. Seuss vocabulary counts, too!) Well you're not here to say no. If I say that all of those things are true because of what the Holy Bible tells us (us as in Christians) you're going to tell me that I am wrong because...I seriously cannot read! Please don't get mad at me but can you please tell me if I'm supposed to defend the definition of God or go against it. Once I know I will post a much better argument. Thank you.
The following arguments against the existence of God are valid.

I do hope that my opponent accepts this debate. God is defined as a incoercible, omniconscious, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient creator of the universe. omnipotent- able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible omnipresent- being present everywhere omniscient- knowing everything that can be known omniconscious- fully aware of and sensitive to everything incoercible- not able to be controlled, dominated, or compelled My opponent will present 1-5 separate arguments against the aforementioned God's existence, and they will be discussed in rounds 2-4. Existence- the state or fact of existing http://dictionary.reference.com... Valid- so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Should you get the death penalty for poaching

Hi, I don't think poachers should get the death penalty for killing animals in extinction. Your main argument seems to be that poaching is awful because it drives animals to extinction. I don't disagree with you on that matter. However, since extinction is your main concern, you should know that the main cause of animal extinction is climate change. Climate change disrupts the usual cycle of animal and reduces the birth rate of some migratory birds. Climate change is, according to scientists, going to bring the 6th mass extinction event. Since you ask for the death penalty against poachers, what penalty should everyone get from polluting the planet?
Should you get the death penalty for poaching

I think that the death penalty should be put into action for poaching due to the enormous amount of loss imposing on the animal kingdom. Many people would kill rhinos for it's horns, or kill an elephant for it's ivory, but those people are butt holes, considering that they have driven many animals to extinction, including The Amur Leopard, which it's numbers are possibly as low as sixty, yet poachers still hunt them down, and that is worth the death penalty
Banning guns is a bad idea

Thanks for your input. I respect and understand what you have to say and you even beat me on some argument some I strongly disagree with. 1 even though people may not find their guns in the middle of the night in some cases they do. Some people choose to keep their gun besides or underneath their bed or in a safe locked up in a closet. Guns save lives.com has over a thousand stories of times people have defended them selves with guns. I recommend checking out that web site and clicking on browse stories. You'll be amazed at how many there are. 2 the one about the brick I understand that a gun can kill more people than a brick or knife but can't gas and matches should we ban them. 3 I understand the machine gun point as well. I think before getting an automatic gun you should go through at least one back round check and it probably would be a good idea to check everyone the person loves with. A law obeying citizen should be able to own one as long as it's not a threat to anyone else. 4 about the CN shooting at the party I understand s your point but keep in mind that if that person really wanted a gun he would be able to get one no matter what. Meth is illegal but people who want one can still get it right? So if that guy really wanted a gun he could get them no matter what the laws are. 5 I understand your point about the alligators and coyotes but there are plenty of times people defend them selves from animals (guns save lives.com) an alligator from what I know can't make good turns so it would be possible to get one that way. My uncle lives in MN and is a cop. When he hikes he brings a gun in case of moose and bear as well as bear spray. He's been a cop for years and is a nice trustable guy so Shouldn't he be able to have one. 6about the riots. It windows be possible there found be a disaster like that but it's also possible the person could shoot the shooter right away. 7 I understand your logic but according to I think it was home office.com and an FBI site and multiple other sites England saw a dramatic increase in crime after they banned guns. They have more murderes than any other places in Europe and babe a higher homicide rate than the us. Chicago and dc are city's with strict gun control and they have many murderes compared to other places with conceal carry laws. I understand that more gun equals more gun crime but clearly more guns does not equal more crime and less guns does not equal more crime over all. In that case chicago and dc should be the safer than other cities but because of their guns laws they have very high crime rates. 8 maybe having a gun is impractical in some cases but in many where the racist who rape you in an ally or the their who breaks into your house doesn't have a gun it's best to have one. Thank you for debating with me.