BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
atheism is theism, and science is a religion

Information: what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things. god=/= information. You are quite ignorant. I explained why you are wrong on those points so i will not even try to do that again,because you will just again repeat your word games. "only you play with words like, science is amazing, but its not a "god". tell me what a god is then if you know" So you believe that science is a god? God is a supernatural being as i said,and science is not supernatural,let alone "being". I was not playing with words,i was just stating that science is amazing,i don't know how is that a word game?! Pro,if you have any dignity left,you will forfeit. Because you are making a fool out of yourself.
atheism is theism, and science is a religion

you can not be a lie without beliefs, as lies are information it is in the name so one overlooks it, and im not arguing that theism is atheism because it says it in the name.. that is just a way of seeing the obvious when you know what religion is god=Information the universe is imaginary, god, a world creator if believed. unless your definition of universe is personal physical experience of now, how do you know a universe is true? belief in science creates my whirl, and the world is for the whirled. facts are also god claims an "atheist" will argue from the standpoint of science, and im not claiming this as an absolute.. I said in the debates I have had I have never met an actual atheist, only theists to science only you play with words like, science is amazing, but its not a "god". tell me what a god is then if you know
atheism is theism, and science is a religion

So much wrongness in your arguments, Pro. Playing with words will get you nowhere,as i said previously. None of the things you said is true. The word "lie" does not come from "belief". I suggest you to stop playing with words and go learn about real definitions of those words. Using that game of yours i can claim anything i want. For example: rebuttal means kicking in the butt,because it contains the word "butt" in it. So you either did not study grammar, or you are desperately searching for a way to prove that atheism is belief,science is religion and other stuff like that. "but belief in science, is also theism, not atheism, therefore most people are theists thinking they are atheists where as their belief in science negates belief in god and thus they can have non belief, as they have another religion" Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. Is science a creator,is science a god? Well...i have to admit that science is pretty amazing,i love it,but it is not a god. And no one ever claimed that "science is atheism". Science is irrelevant to atheism or theism,so you fail Pro. Now stop playing word games and IF you have another way to prove your points,then do it. I already know the answer: No You will lose the debate using word games,but you don't have nothing else to lash on to,so i guess you lost the debate.
atheism is theism, and science is a religion

a part, a way, as under :) god=information, all that is false, anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now, future, imagination, the reflection of nothing while my personal physical experience of now is everything you can not disbelieve a claim without belief.. and that sentence should end any doubt you have, that disBELIEF, is not belief.. because disbelief is belief, negative position on the claim where as theism is the positive, and the balancing point is acceptance I don't know, as that is true for anyone on all god claims. belief=be lie=doubt=false I don't know=I have to imagine it=true know=physical experience of now=true belief is doubt, so as a balance of doubting a god is false, I must believe god is true the bigger point is, I don't even think they are any atheists, I have never met one, and I have had many debates about this, but belief in science, is also theism, not atheism, therefore most people are theists thinking they are atheists where as their belief in science negates belief in god and thus they can have non belief, as they have another religion am I holding a rock in my hand? you have to imagine It theist=yes atheist=no agnostic=I don't know
atheism is theism, and science is a religion

First of all,disbelief =/= belief. The prefix "dis" comes from the Latin and it means "apart" , "away" , "asunder" [1]. So "disbelief" means "apart from belief,apart from believing in a supernatural being". Pro incorrectly states that disbelief means "to believe god is false". This is not a true definition when it comes to atheism. Disbelief means "inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real (in this case god)." It doesn't mean "a belief that something is false (in this case god)". [2] So atheism is not a belief as we concluded solely on definitions. I would also love to see Pro's argument (or possibly another false definition) of why he/she thinks science is a religion. Definition for science: "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation." [3] Definition for religion: "An organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods" [4] So to conclude: 1.Belief =/= disbelief; 2.Atheism is a disbelief in a god/gods,not a belief that god is false. 3.Science is based on experimentation and evidence, while religion is based on belief and assumptions that have no evidence to back them up. So science =/= religion Pro did not do any research on the definitions. With false definitions he could make as many assumptions as he/she wants. Also,this debate is 5 rounds long. That is to long for this kind of "debate". Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com...- [1] https://www.google.rs... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4]
Breathing should be banned

the resolution here states that "breathing should be banned" first of all, I would like to say that the definitions my opponent provide are clearly flawed. especially in the case of "should" where he states the betterment of human lives, now do you think that the affirmative looks for the betterment of lives? Or "be" passed in international law? you could have just put that into the resolution, but you didn't. I provide the following definitions for the affirmative. Breathing: same as the negatives Should: aux.v. Past tense of shall 1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note. 2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon. 3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I. Be: a. To occupy a specified position: Banned: To prohibit, especially by official decree: The American Heritageï¿½ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ï¿½2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. against his Observation 1: He doesn't state anything here except that the affirmative must prove. against his Observation 2: You should only look towards my definitions as for his are biased towards the debate and that mines have a legitimate source against his Observation 3:"breathing should be banned" doesn't mean that i must support humanity, this observation states absolutely nothing against his Observation 4: You can't state what you need to win, this depends on the voters against his Observation 5: Yes i will prove, and that i will use logic, and reasoning therefore some arguments provided are unable to have evidence. (Ps. it's just many of these people don't know how to or are debating things that they seem to already have proved) First: Now going by my definitions, I do not have to prove that breathing is bad for humanity. But what I stand is that Humanity in general is bad. a)All life is equal simply by Life = Life b)Humans disregard Life by destruction. Where Humans are destroying life by multiple means. In some cases killing each other. Second: In the overall scale, Breathing creates CO2. "Breathing takes oxygen in and carbon dioxide out of the body." http://en.wikipedia.org... a) By breathing not only are we providing for Global Warming which is caused by CO2, but we are taking away Oxygen where deforestation and Breathing lead to an overall decrease of Oxygen in the Atmosphere, and also Increases CO2 Levels. http://www.globalchange.umich.edu... b) All Animal life including human life needs oxygen to survive, since plants provide oxygen and that people are cutting them down, Reducing oxygen levels tie into my first point in that Humans disregard life and that People are going in a self-destined mass extinction at this rate anyways. http://www.sciencemag.org... Conclusion: Being that Life is Life. Humans are on the negative side of life and that by prohibiting breathing we are saving more life than we would be losing. "It is the lesser of two evils"
Breathing should be banned

Observation 1: The pro's burden 1) The burden of proof lies on the pro - This means A. The pro must provide empirical evidence that undeniably proves the benefit of banning breathing to all. B. The pro must provide evidence saying the empirical evidence existed in conditions similar to current conditions. C. The pro must provide evidence saying that the evidence provided that illustrated the conditions are the same as the conditions of the empirical evidence are unbiased. Observation 2: My definitions Breathing: Sucking in air to your lungs then releasing the air back into the environment; taken as a whole Should: Will lead to better lives of humans on the planet Be: Passed in international legislation Banned: Will not be allowed to be done and is punishable by death if one breaths Observation 3: Remember A. The aff has to prove with evidence this will lead to a good thing for everyone and not one bad thing can come from it. Observation 4: What I have to do to win A. Provide a doubt that maybe something bad can come from this B. I can use logic and reason because I am on the con side and evidence is unnecessary C. Prove that the pro's points are untrue Observation 5: Go ahead A. I will now let you try and prove your point. B. I don't have to make any arguments of my own, all I have to do is give a doubt in the truth of yours. C. I'm not going to make any arguments. I'm not going to give an opening statement because I'm afraid you will beat my arguments with logic and then I will look bad. So all I'm going to do is set up the debate with a resolution I am fully ready to debate and give the pro an unfair burden of proof that leaves the judges no choice but to vote for the con side, even though I didn't make a single argument in the round. Observation 6: Stupid online debaters This situation is all too common when looking at the debates that are up to be taken. This type of "challenge" destroys what debate is actually meant to be. The con side debater sets up the debate on a topic that he is fully researched on, words the resolution so that you can only vote for the con side, and expects respect from the debate community. No one wants to see a challenge debate that says "i am con, prove your point" ever. Lazy debaters out there that have done this have stirred annoyance in anyone that actually wants to debate on this website for more than a good win/loss record. My case serves as a sarcastic example of how ridiculous these challenges are becoming.
Breathing should be banned

on the side note, i completely agree with what my opponent says that many of these debates are becoming illogical, and an explanation for that is because people dont know how to debate. Perhaps if we or someone proposed something that would teach people how to do a proper debate before actually debating may help. This is not a reason to vote. My opponent takes two main points against my cause, that Nature is inherently bad therefore my point one does not really apply. Well yes that on animal planet animals DO kill each other but that they kill for there survival. Where as a human.. what do we kill, yes we kill for food, but we also kill for 1) entertainment (hunting) (2) Revenge (murder). I'd like to point out that HUMANS are the only species on this planet that create deadly weapons, A fact that we cannot deny, designed specifically to KILL other human beings. Humans are the only species that KILL each other by the hundreds in the case of wars. Such as WW2 where there were millions upon millions of civilian, and military casualties.http://www.historyonthenet.com... Truly the world would be a much better place without humans, and that I am providing an why we should obligation or duty to mass extinction. Second The fact that I'm arguing against human life, you cannot take human life as reason why you should vote, in fact you should be looking at whether human life benefits the overall status of the world. And that is no. In a real world sense, think about everything the human race has done.. from what history has shown, because of the human race the condition of Earth is declining and losing its grasp on being able to support life. All because of modern technology, strip mines, global warming, and chemical agents. So please do kill yourself and me while your at it to save this world. As mark twain has stated (http://skeptically.org...) its the truth.
Breathing should be banned

Alright. The point of the case was to demonstrate the idiocy seen all too often in debate challenges on this website. You do make some logical arguments, however, most con debaters that set up a challenge like this would respond something like this: You have to take my definitions because the pro took the debate knowing these were the definitions I picked. If I wanted to debate with the other definitions, I wouldn't have posted mine. You have to vote of the fact that the pro does not prove that this will not cause anything bad to happen. He clearly drops my observations that talk about this. And all too often, the con will win. This is a ridiculous way to debate, and the point of me posting this was to send a message to debaters that post debates saying "im con, prove your point"; so that they know not to do that anymore. Not only that, I wanted to point out how ridiculous debate is becoming. Your case illustrates this completely. All too often who wins comes down to a single definition and debates go around the actual issue to argue semantics. Of course, we are all guilty of doing this because it is what debate has become. But it shouldn't be this way, the new way to debate doesn't enhance either party's knowledge on a given topic. But it looks like you actually want to debate this. . So let's go for it. For the purpose of not arguing semantics, i'll let the pro fiat international implementation so that we can argue the actual issue. So he has 2 arguments 1) Humanity bad. . 2) Breathing causes for global warming 1) Humanity bad He only justifies this with a two part argument "All life is equal/Humans disregard life by destruction". It is ignorant to believe that if it wasn't for humans, the world would be a happy peaceful place, because this is not true. Anyone who has ever even watch Animal Planet understands that our world is a crazy place that inherently destroys one another. It's a dog eat dog world out there and when the pro justifies his argument that "humans are bad" by only saying that its because they cause destruction, his argument holds no weight. We see that whether humans were alive or not, a species will cause harm to another. Causing for this mass suicide of humans is all for nothing if the same injustices are going to be committed in the world. His definition of shall is "to express obligation or duty". It's clear to see that we have no obligation or duty to kill every human on earth to stop and injustice that will happen even in the world post plan. The essence of human life outweighs any impact in todays round. To believe that if we all killed ourselves with a ban on breathing, a better world would result, is a flawed belief. The only difference is that humans are no longer in existence but the same bad stuff is happening. Evaluate the round in a real world sense. If this argument was taken up to congress they would laugh him out of the room and tell him to never come back.
the united states should join the ICC

Unfortunately, my opponent hasn't responded to any of my attacks on his case, nor has he attacked my case. This is unfortunate because it wasn't really a debate, the PRO extends all of his arguments and cleanly takes out the CON case. Hopefully we can do this again, perhaps when arguments are better articulated / refuted, but because that day is not today, and because this debate is clearly siding in the affirmative, one can only affirm. Thank you, though, I'd like to debate this another time.
People are more happy if they have higher intelligence.

Thanks for replying. My mind thinks a lot differently than most people, so things that make total sense to me tend not to others . . . :D My mindset is this: anyone can become smart by being more productive. Not with talking, sleeping, or eating. Things that challenge oneself. It forces the person to think outside the box. Once they become productive, they reach flow which enhances their abilities. Possession in greater abilities leads to higher intelligence and more opportunities. With more options, abilities, and intelligence, I believe that one can be more happy with these three things. And hobbies? I believe I may have accidentally implied hobbies are useless. Apologies. Hobbies are fine, but they aren't measured to find intelligence. You could the smartest guy in the world, but if you don't contribute anything, how can you people more happy than the people who do? I do believe that if one contributes to society, will find themselves happier that the society isn't going to collapse or other reasons. I don't mean buy just contributing by picking up trash on a sidewalk. Try using your intelligence to convince others of way they can recycle. Adding recycling bin on every corner. Installing trash cans in cars. This much more effective than just picking trash because you are not stopping someone from doing the same thing tomorrow. I've noticed two types of being happy: finite happiness and infinite happiness. Perhaps I should have said this earlier. Infinite happiness (happiness that will not change easily) is much more effective than finite happiness (happiness that is easily changed). Below average people feel finite happiness. Intelligent people feel infinite happiness. What if the below average person has enough money as an intelligent person? The below average will most likely use the money to fit their needs: finite happiness. Intelligent people, as they are in the 99th percentile, will be likely to use the money to fix problems or enhance others experiences in this world: infinite happiness. In the last round, I did mention below average people tend to do trivial things. How can they have infinite happiness for changing things so insignificant? What about followers of religion? I hear that monks like suffering to bring enlightenment. Doing so makes them happy. I do think they are happy, but smarter people are more happy. Anyone can be happy. In any different way. But the people who go above and beyond feel more happiness than others.
People are more happy if they have higher intelligence.

Thank you for joining. :) I believe people who are smarter tend to be more happy. Research says that if you are happy, you have a greater chance at being more smart.[1] Being in a pleasant mood will likely help your mental capabilities. However, there is a downside. People who are below average are frequently seen more happier than their intelligent counterparts. I believe that the less intelligent people decide using their positive energy on more trivial things. Things that are finite. Whereas knowledge is infinite, so by intelligent people using their intellect on accomplishing things that requires critical thinking, they are becoming smarter. Their happy mood may cause them to be "in the zone," or (its more official definition) flow. Flow is complete immersion in an activity.[2] While it's rather rare to achieve flow in a trivial conversation, talking about the complexities of life may cause flow occur. After you complete the task, you will likely experience either mastery or improved performance, both of with fuel your self-esteem. If you think positively about yourself, you will feel happier. Lastly, I believe that smarter people will most likely stay in college longer. A study shows that people who earned a Doctorate degree will make around $25,000 more dollars than a person who drops out after high school.[3] With more money, you will likely not have to face poverty or money issues. With that kind of stability in life, and with a job that is appropriately challenging, I believe that the smarter you are, the more happy you are. [1]http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [2]http://psychology.about.com... [3]http://education-portal.com...
People are more happy if they have higher intelligence.

One can be more happier if they are above average rather than below average. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Argument Round 3: Rebuttal Round 4: Closing statements When I say "above average," I mean intelligence wise. In the 99th percentile. Below average are people who have an IQ of <100. If you don't like IQ, then people who have to work harder than normal people for the same things in academic places.
I don't give a damn about my bad reputation

You're living in the past; it's a new generation. A girl can do what she wants to do and that's what's she wants to do. An' I don't give a damn ' bout my bad reputation Oh no not me No no no no no Not me me me me me An' I don't give a damn 'bout my bad reputation Never said I wanted to improve my station An' I'm only doin' good When I'm havin' fun An' I don't have to please no one An' I don't give a damn 'Bout my bad reputation Oh no, not me Oh no, not me
Abortion ends a human life.

Thesis: The original argument was 'does abortion kill a baby' and will continue my argument with that in mind. Abortion does not kill a baby nor a human being, it does end a human life, however it is called a fetus for a reason and that is because it is not a baby otherwise the word 'fetus' would not have to exist to be a human being is to adhere to the qualifications of one, superior mental development, power of articulate speech and upright stance, due to the absence of this it could be argued that a fetus is not a human being I would have to disagree with your definition of murder, google classifies the definition of murder as follows: 'the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.' The definition that you gave is up for interpretation as unjust refers to morales and naturally pro-life and pro-choice have different morales when it comes to abortion
Abortion ends a human life.

Round two is for arguments, round three is for rebuttals, round four is for arguments and five is for rebuttals again. It is acceptable to ask questions of your opponent during any round to challenge their position (in a friendly way of course). As you know gdirulez, we have already been discussing this in the opinions section. For the purpose of this debate, we will start our arguments from scratch so the voters can see our thought processes. Voters, you can see our conversation in the opinions section. It is called "Does Abortion Kill a Baby? " My Thesis is as follows: Abortion is the termination of the life of an innocent human being, albeit in the womb. Thus is murder. Abortion is to be defined as, "The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy" Murder is to be defined as, " The unjust killing of a human being" Human Being is to be defined as, "a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance' Good luck, gdirulez!