BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
atheism is better than theism

do you want to say that in middle ages when theocracy and theism prevails, our world was a better place to live? 1. You're confusing corellation and causation. The average northern European was 5ft7(1) in the middle age as oppose to 5ft10 now(2). In my opinion this is the best time in history to be alive due to icreases in living standards and science. As proved in my previous points most of this scientific innovation was due to theits as the majority of scientists were theists. We still have a huge amount of people in the modern world who are theists. In a 2008 poll of 35,000 American 92% stated they believed in god(3). Even the majority of Europeans still believe in god(4). but torturing the sinner is an integral part of theism 2. Theism is a belief that there is a god. On the most basic question of theism vs atheism torture has nothing to do with it. There is no logical conclusion for why believing there is a god would lead to you condoning torture, let alone it being an integral part of it. At the end of the day theism vs atheism is simply an interlectural debate on whether or not there is atleast one deity in the universe. Pro has not proved why believing in god would lead to a lack of common sense or rationaliy. Christianity is much more specifc than theism and thus does not really play a role in this debate which simply is over whether the universe was created by god or by chance. If people such as Francis Collins (who headed the project to find the human genome), John Lennox (head of mathematics at Oxford university) and Obama are all theists it cannot be an interlecutarly weak argument. Yet again pro has not proved theism to have any more externalities than atheism, or for atheism to be a stronger interlectural arguement. Neither one is better than the other. (1) http://www.sarahwoodbury.com... (2) http://wiki.answers.com... (3) http://www.icr.org... (4) http://en.wikipedia.org...
atheism is better than theism

do you want to say that in middle ages when theocracy and theism prevails, our world was a better place to live? in middle ages when science was prevented from entering into man's life and enlightening the life, superstitions choked man to live a peculiar and horrible kind of life. hundreds of thousands of women who were eminent harbalist, philosophers, were tagged witch and burned at stake. yes, communists who are atheists also did torture people in china and russia but torturing people has no relation with atheism. they torture for their personal reason and not for the sake of atheism. but torturing the sinner is an integral part of theism. we hindus also torture those who don't follow hindu laws. these torture by theists are an integral part of their belief system. thats why atheism is better than theism. atheism brings science into life which in turn enlighten life. but theism brings untested belief system that ultimately ruin life. thats why atheism is better than theism.
atheism is better than theism

theism is based on existence of an entity called god. the very existence of this entity cannot be proved either by science or by common sense. 1. I believe you are assuming atheism to be more of a negative than it actually is. Atheism vs theism answers a very simple question- Was the Universe designed or did it happen by chance? Atheists are just as strong in their convictions as theists. The idea that the universe was created randomly cannot be proved by science either. since nobody is able to prove god, therefore I seriously doubt if god really exists or not. 2. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Where's the evidence the universe was created randomly? The point is yet again that there is no evidence on either side so it is impossible to make an informed decision, which is why I'm an agnostic. which can solve man's problem. and in reality science DO SOLVE man's problems. therefore atheism might be right. 3. Unless you can claim otherwise Copernicus, Pascal, Bacon, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Kelvin and Einstein were all religious it can proved throughout history that a belief in a god has not stopped people from pursuing improvements in science. You have not addressed on a fundamental level why believing in no God will make you be more scientific. "god will solve our problem and protect us" this kind of thinking is dangerous to all members of the society. 4. You're becoming more specific than what theism actually is. It is simply the the idea that there is a god/gods. Deism is part of theism and believes that although the universe was created by god ,the creator has not effect on the universe. There are people who are dystheists or maltheists who believe that god is not wholly good. Yes some theists may believe god will come to save them but others will not and it is not appropriate to dump them all in the same category. Being a theists as oppose to an atheist will not have any relevance to how willing you are to tackle life's problems. I could say that theists will see opposition as being from god as something they have to overcome whilst atheists crumble at the "randomness" of life.
atheism is better than theism

theism is based on existance of an entity called god. the very existance of this entity cannot be proved either by science or by common sense. some may argue that if there is a complex universe, somebody might have designed it. so god exists. but when there is trouble in the world and nobody is there to protect the believers, the existance of god can be challanged by both men of science and common sense. since nobody is able to prove god, therefore i seriously doubt if god really exists or not. we should not devote our time to worship or even think of such dubious entity. "god will solve our problem and protect us" this kind of thinking is dangerous to all members of the society.so in order to protect our society from an illusory character called god, we must resort to atheism which says there is no god but science which can solve man's problem. and in reality science DO SOLVE man's problems. therefore atheism might be right.so therefore atheism is better than theism.
atheism is better than theism

religious(theist) people caused many problems. they waged crusades, world wars and many other wars. I have never heard an atheist wages a single war. 1. You've never heard of Stalin the atheist who invaded Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania? Or Mussolini the atheist who invaded France, East Africa, North Africa and Greece, Yugoslavia and southern Russia? What about secular countries such as the USA or France? It is also worth noting that neither WW1 or WW2 had anything to do with religion. Human nature results in the segregation of people of different beliefs and deaths of millions, not religion. so religious people are intolerant. in any civilised society, intolerance is not welcome. 2. Yet again you cannot ague that Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh or Stalin were not intolerant. As I stated in my last point "Marxism€"Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and eventual elimination of religion. Within about a year of the revolution, the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed." Whether or not you believe there is a god does not have any relevance on whether or not you are tolerant. Some theists are tolerant some atheists are not. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton ware never religious people. 3. Isaac Newton himself stated, "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily," unless you can prove he rejected the existence of God he falls in the theist camp. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schoenberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible. Galileo remained a devout Catholic throughout his life. I'd be interested in evidence to show any of these 3 as atheists.
atheism is better than theism

religious(theist) people caused many problems. they waged crusades, world wars and many other wars. i have never heard an atheist wages a single war.religious people often use combined hatred against atheists. atheists are expelled from boy scout,humiliated at school, in the US army.atheists never do this to religious people.http://www.alternet.org...religious people even harm their own sons and daughters when they turned atheist.there are many cases of disinheritence of an atheist son by his religious father you can search on internet.so religious people are intolerant. in any civilised society, intolerance is not welcome.thats why atheists are better than theists.copernicus, galileo, newton ware never religious people. in their lifetime they invent something that damages religious belief of their time and they refuse to give up their ideas. so these scientist are not religious people. they were atheist people that made our world better. thats why atheists are better than theists.
atheism is better than theism

Theism as my opponent stated is,"Belief in the existence of a god or gods", which is rather different that religion. Somebody believing that the universe is too complex and beautiful to be created by chance does not mean it changes their opinion on abortions, gay rights or circumcision. Simply put the different between a theist and an atheist is purely intellectual and plays little effect on other areas of life. Being an atheist as oppose to a theist offers no intellectuall merit. There is no evidence to support either side of the argument. Remember atheism is not agnosticism, it is no more open minded than theism. It is a belief that there is no deity but rather than there is one. It is just as intolerant and sure as theism. There is no reason to assume that atheists have any better of a scientific outlook as a theist. Most people have a natural curiosity to learn more about the world, as the more we learn the better evolved are views become. Yet again believing that the universe was created by a deity rather than being randomly created is nothing but philosophical it has no effect on social issues or willingness to try and expand human knowledge. The fact of the matter is that Copernicus, Pascal, Bacon, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Kelvin and Einstein were all religious(1), didn't seem to affect their wish to expand science. The attempts to press religious beliefs on to others varies person to person. The founding fathers of the united states of America were essentially exclusively religious(2). Though many hated the idea of religion they were all theists. They clearly attempted to press their religious beliefs more than the USSR did with atheism. "Marxism–Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and eventual elimination of religion. Within about a year of the revolution, the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed."(3) I can post a link of how theists are on the whole happier than atheists(4), but that would be of little importance as I'm sure there are many atheists which are happier than many theists so it does not define either. Simply put whilst there may be many stupid, intolerant theists that is equally applicable to atheism. Neither one is better than the other as there is no evidence to call one right and to say those who follow it are superior. (1) http://www.godandscience.org... (2) http://www.adherents.com... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
atheism is better than theism

in order to understand the benefit of atheism we must understand the similarities and dissimilarities of atheism and theism.i will discuss the following points here: 1.scientific outlook, 2. conversion, 3.type of value system1. scientific outlooktheists don't believe in science. they believe in meaningless rituals and completely ignore science. thus there life is nothing but fantasy.atheists have scientific outlook. most atheists are scientists. they made big inventions and improve our lives.so atheism is a lot better than theism.2. conversiontheists eager to convert others to their belief system. they use any methods at their disposal. often they use deception, betrayal and take undue advantage over others.atheists did not convert anybody nor use any kind of deceptive technique.so atheism is a lot better than theism.3. type of value systemtheists have unnatural abnormal value system. for example jews, muslims do circumssion. they cut the skin which nature provides us. christians use flogging. hindus worship idols, dead men, practice celibasy etc.all these things are abnormal because they have no reason.while atheists have scientific belief: belief that has a reason behind it. they don't do abnormal things. they say yes to life.so atheism is a lot better than theism.
Money can solve anything.

"Instant Spontaneous Earth Explosion" Is not scientifically possible, and therefore invalid. R#1 rules clearly state that CON must list a disaster or misfortune that "can occur in human life." According to spaceanswers.com "Contrary to science fiction, planets are stable and causing one to explode would require some chemical or nuclear process which can provide an explosive punch of energy. For example, to detonate the Earth, a ball of uranium with a diameter of some three miles at the core would be required" Source: https://www.spaceanswers.com... In the event then that Earth was in actual danger of exploding, there would be time to react and reverse the detonation process. "Black Hole" Any black hole that forms inside the solar system would be too weak to actually affect earth (). Meanwhile, the sun does not have enough mass to ever become a blackhole in its lifetime. In the event then that a blackhole were to travel across the galaxy to the solar system (nearest one is 6,000 lightyears away), a person with an unlimited supply of cash would have ample time to invest in technologies and methods that could potentially move the earth; which NASA has said is technically possible: https://www.theguardian.com... "Death" Death of your grandma in this case, is theoretically reversed by cryonic freezing and then investing literally unlimited funds into new death-reviving technologies. Science says this ice-thawing method of reversing death may one day be possible: http://abcnews.go.com... "Hidden Asteroid" Stopped by investing in obvious technological methods of dodging/destroying an asteroid. Nuclear weapons and ICBMs being one method of choice. "No Currency" Prevented by using infinite funds to buy up and establish monopolies on all forms of goods and services now. I would also argue that this example, (while technically possible) is not theoretically possible, especially when 99% of countries on earth practice capitalism. Even so, what's to stop our unlimited gazillionaire from lobbying or bribing heads of state and buying off entire governments and militaries in the first place? Note: CON is free to defend these examples or attempt new ones. CON must still prove one example.
Money can solve anything.

Money Can't Solve Everything Hi, I'll accept your debate. I will be arguing that unlimited money can't solve every disaster/misfortune. Before we start off I would like to define each term. Disaster: a sudden event, such as an accident or a natural catastrophe, that causes great damage or loss of life. Misfortune: an unfortunate condition or event. First Scenario: Instant Spontaneous Earth Explosion So, let us theoretically say that earth instantly and spontaneously explodes without warning, because you had no warning there is absolutely no way you could have prevented that with money. Second Scenario: Black Hole So, let us theoretically state that this time a black hole enters or forms inside of our solar system. Black holes have a gravitational field so intense that nothing can escape it, because of this, it is impossible for us to prevent earth from being sucked into the black hole with money or otherwise. Third Scenario: Death So, Let us say you decide to take your wife and kids on a vacation to the Bahamas with you for 3 weeks. When you return you realize your grandmother died the day after you left. Other family members tried to contact you but couldn't. So tell me how can you bring your theoretical grandmother back to life after almost 3 weeks of death? You can't. Forth Scenario: Hidden Asteroid Once again let us theoretically state something. Lets say a massive asteroid enters our solar system undetected, and is headed straight for earth. It will hit earth in 1 Hour. While you do have unlimited money, you do not have unlimited time. You can't make or build something that quickly to stop it, despite all your money. Fifth Scenario: No Currency This time let us say earth has denounced all forms of money. It becomes useless and no one accepts it. You can't buy food, water or shelter. You quickly die. Your money in no way, shape, or form can stop this. Notes: I think it is worth saying that while Pro has unlimited money, he doesn't have unlimited time or resources. This is why money can't solve everything. Closing: That is the end of my argument for this round. I look forward to Pro explaining how all of these issues can be solved with money.
Money can solve anything.

Money can solve anything. CON must prove at least one example of a disaster (or misfortune) that can occur in human life that cannot be prevented or overturned -in theory- by a person with an unlimited supply of money. CON is free to make arguments in round #1 and round #2 but must not make any new arguments in the final round (only rebuttals). It is to CON's benefit to list as many different examples as possible.
why should big brother be banned

Good morning Mrs church and housemates, Big Brother is a reality television series produced by Southern Star and shown on Network Ten. In each series, which lasts for around three months, a number of people (normally fewer than fifteen at any one time) live together full-time in the "Big Brother House", isolated from the outside world but under the continuous gaze of television cameras. Well now that is over, Why should this tv show be banned of Australian television because of the following reasons; Doesn't set the right morals for children Because it is a waste of space Prime Minister wants it banned because of previous action in the house
Abortion should be illegal

Thank you for arranging it. I think abortion should be legal because if an embryo was killed it wouldn't feel pain unless it was in the third trimester of pregnancy and it is illegal in the third trimester. Secondly an embryo's brain hasn't developed enough to make decisions so it can't decide whether it wants to be killed or not. Thirdly an average chicken is smarter than unborn babies since newly born chicks can keep track of numbers up to five and they have basic understanding of physics which is proved when showed two pictures was shown to chicks and they were interested more in the one that obeyed the laws of physics. Chicks could also understand that an objects gone out of sight still exists while it takes an year for a baby after it's born to grasp that. So should we not eat chicken eggs since that technically counts as chicken abortion. Now to rebuttals : You said that since an embryo has human DNA it makes it human. Well guess what we share 50% of our DNA with bananas and 98% with apes so does that make them human, no it doesn't. You also said that an embryo is an individual. It isn't because it depends on the the woman's body for oxygen and it is attached to the woman's body. An embryo needs a woman. One of your other arguments said it shouldn't be left between woman and doctor. Well I think it should because it is the woman's body and she has control over it so she should decide what happens to it(which is also why the government can't stop the woman from drinking alcohol when she is pregnant) I am looking forward to the rest of the debate. Good luck.
The United States Should End the War on Drugs

Thank you for proposing this debate. I accept the definition of the War On Drugs. However, I would like to clarify that my position is not simply that the status quo ought to remain the same. I will contend that in order for the War on Drugs to truly succeed, it will be necessary to make several changes in strategic strategy that have not materialized within the current system. I will prove this point by providing examples of countries which have employed specific prohibitive policies, as well as the measurable effects and consequences of specific US policies in the present and throughout history. I will also demonstrate the effectiveness of prohibition by measuring the subjective and objective (including both positive and negative) effects of legal and illegal drugs compared to their respective popularity. I will demonstrate that a strong prohibitionist stand against the sale and consumption of psychoactive substances is a practical and effective means of increasing social stability and public health.
The United States Should End the War on Drugs

Many thanks in advance to whomever accepts this debate. == Clarifications == The War on Drugs is a campaign of prohibition intended to both define and reduce the illegal drug trade. This initiative includes a set of drug policies of the United States that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of illegal psychoactive drugs. As PRO, I will explain why the WOD is unnecessary, immoral, useless and potentially harmful. By accepting this debate, my opponent accepts the description of the WOD, and will argue in favor of its continuation by the U. S. government. They can use R1 to either make their opening case (and have an extra round of arguments), or simply state what they intend to discuss in future rounds and allow me to make the opening argument in R2.
God is real and created the universe

My opponent defines God as the force that created the universe. This is extremely one sided in the sense that there must have been a force to create something. However they personifies said force. They believe it has a will. My opponent uses the argument that it is common sense to believe that God created everything. How ever there is something more sensible called science. We have to see the fact presented before us. There was a force that created us by chance and has no will of its own. My opponent also makes close ended statements without any evidence at all to further their arguments. The only reason that this may make sense is my opponents argument against the accidental birth of the universe and the complexity behind it. It is very simple that it is only complex to us. For example trees find it hard to walk. Humanity isn't here to find answers for everything. What seems complex to us is simple to other life. We honestly have little information about the world and much less so to form an opinion like my opponents. To whomever may read this I thank you for your time and patience this was a pretty long debate. Connor Gresak