BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Belief in God is subjective.

I make no claim whatsover on what this sense is. It is undefined at present. But for arguments sake I will pick one possibility. Purpose. Suppose we had a sense of purpose. Like sight/hearing/taste/smell and touch, people have varying degrees of this sense. Those who lack the sense completely wouln't know it. How do you explain sight to a blind person??? He can't percieve it with his working senses. You could say its obvious. Everyone else can see. But he can't so its not obvious. Well lots of people can see. They can't all be wrong or lying!!! How about scientific proof? Sunlight reflecting off objects makes them visible!!!! what's sunlight? what's visible? You can see how people can get frustrated both trying to explain and to understand. This in no way helps. all I'm saying is that without this sense a person is unable to argue with a person who has the sense. Its impossible to even define the sense to someone who lacks it.
Belief in God is subjective.

I propose the belief or disbelief in God relies on a sense of perception which not everyone possesses. Like a blind person would have to take the existance of rainbows on faith as none of his senses can confirm or deny their existance. Now I'm not saying who lacks the sense, (lol and I'm not referring to common sense here), but it does explain why people are so sure of their beliefs that no argument can convince them otherwise. I repeat....this is not a debate on the existance of god.... Its a debate on a 6th sense.
Belief in God is subjective.

I saw a comment that read "of course belief in god is subject.." All beliefs are yes. But that is a mis characterization of the topic at hand. In a way the notion of sense of perception that could be related to god makes a belief in it or not, much less "subjective" than you would think, or would be otherwise. A crucial part in coming to this idea seems to be the idea of describing a rainbow to a blind person. It would be much like a Christian describing the feeling of god to a non believer and maybe an atheist trying to tell a Christian that feeling isn't real. This theory only comes into play if the idea of changing someone's mind in that way (describing a rainbow to a blind person) is truly impossible. Maybe as science advances we can measure the neural response of someone having a transcendent moment and then artificially stimulate someone else to have the same. But without it being impossible to get rid of religion or the tendency of humans to FEEL attached to the supernatural than the theory may be found false because it is unnecessary or redundant. Science may reach a point where we can reduce these ideas of feelings down to a mathematical function, I don't know of any other way to prove or disprove it. Though I will be researching much further and hopefully we can discuss this after the debate I too am worried about our experimenters bias from curiosity, and real life difficulties with religion is causes us to overcomplicate the reason, when it is not reasonable to do so. I suppose I am arguing against this notion. By trying to argue for it, but the more questions we ask the more questions appear. I am not giving up, but I can't fool myself either, my quest is not based in reason. We must delve deeper into the history of those before us to use their theories to test the inner workings of this idea so that it can be planted firmly enough for us to begin to build it up and tear it down. My only hope is that I figure out a way to bring a new perspective.
Belief in God is subjective.

I both like and dislike the term god-sense as its very apt but promotes thiesm. Now I believe the answer can be found in how we choose a religion. Provided we are not dragged into it by our parents. Here I can only share personal experience. We base our stance on what makes the most sense. Ie if we believe god does/probably/obviously exists we choose theists. Although choose is the wrong word. What we believe, makes us a thiest. Likewise if we believe its impossible for god to exist we are atheists. Now religion is chosen by which closest mirrors our own moral compass and our need to belong/accepted. Pleasing ones parents for example plays a pivotal role In children. But beliefs change. Even our moral compass can change. Like exposure to media has made backchatting your parents acceptable where in the past it was unthinkable. On point 2. You say this idea is not reasonable.....did you mean not unreasonable. Thus there are many tangible reasons one would change in any possible direction which do not require augmentation or deterioration of this sense. I've given some thought to what that sense is as well and I believe I'm onto something. Corny as it may seem the third eye drawn in the middle of the forehead is apt. Every mind emmits a electomagnetic field. Have you ever sensed someone watching you? Notice the word sensed.... perhaps we do have a sense organ for detecting electromagnetic fields. There are confirmed cases of people suffering from Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity. it would make sense for god to have a very strong E.F. Still researching EF and somehow I think emotions come into this as the most common description I find when people define god is love. What do you think?
Belief in God is subjective.

I am not sure if taking "a side" atheist/theist will help us. But perhaps further defining some notions about this idea would. Speaking to "sides" I see them being the pro: 1. The existence of a tangible or intangible mechanism or function that determines or obfuscates, to possibly infinite different degrees, your ability to believe or not to believe. This why I felt using "eyes opened" in both instances was key to the idea. I don't think it would make sense to say some have it and some do not. But in everyone having this perceptual sense, it than dictates your level of belief or disbelief. The opposing side con: 2. This idea is not reasonable to believe. Proposing the idea that this perception could exist not as a function of intelligent design but is misinterpreted by humans to lead them to a belief in god makes our task an even larger one. I cannot at this time refute why this perception couldn't be misconstrued, so I must consider the possibility part of the theory. An issue is tying the idea of morality or other senses being augmented by society or experiences and our "god sense" being augmented the same way. I don't think we would have any reason to believe that this sense would operate in anyway related to how we develop our own moral compass and how or why where it points tends to change, even slightly. I propose of this sensitivity to religion were to be augmented in any way, it could only be a deterioration of the "sense" (a persons ability to "feel the sun on your skin".) I want to know how you propose the god sense fits into conversion from one religion to another, from one religion to atheism or vice versa, and people finding religion suddenly (or slowly I suppose) from a position of apathy. The opposite movement from a position of being extremely religious or extremely non religious to general apathy towards the subject by a deterioration of the sense much like eye sight as we age. Only this does not seem to correlate directly with aging
Belief in God is subjective.

Lol running out of room. Making too many statements for anyone to follow the concept as a whole. In fact the whole point system is detrimental to the point of theology. To be honest I've looked at hundreds of debates and seen nothing new. Just copy and paste google facts and parroting of views. Not interested. I accept and start debates in the hopes of finding people like you. That being said I still would love resolution. So please, if you have questions even of your own beliefs express them. Perhaps together we can find answers. If points do mean anything to you I concede and we can discuss the rest In comments. As for the possibilty that our reality is all fake, be we brains in a jar or simulations within simulations, as far as we are concerned the question still stands. So lets call a orange a orange. Its difficult to argue from both thiest and athiest perspectives so I will pick one but do not think I'm picking sides. Either could and should apply until proven otherwise. I dnt want this to decend into a pro/con god debate. I'm gonna suggest perception of God as the feeling of sunlight on a blind mans skin. Its not improbable that God is beyond our understanding. We feel his presense to differing degrees depending on how sensitive our skin is but also external events affect it. Ie clouds, wind, seasons etc The sun can warm us if we cold but also burn us. So good or evil would depend on our experiences. We give God caracteristics. Limited to our understanding. We borrow or follow those around us. But things alter our views. Nobody changes from athiest to thiest or hindu to christian without external cause. Something we read or hear. Thus God may exist because we can sense him. But the subjective god we create in our head may not. Make sense?
The Sky is Blue

The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. blue skyAs light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is affected by the air. However, much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you.
The Sky is Blue

What the science said and proved it, is the sky is blue! if you think it is not blue or you see it different might be some problem with your eyes, because if you stand with a group of people and say that what color i see sky is not blue, they may laugh, on the basis of reality people think. Rebuttals: If you only see the sky different, is not the way to judge overall that sky is not blue, because by only your perception the science reality does not change, and it can't be other color than blue!
Marijuana legalization

Almost everything my opponent said about Holland/ The Netherlands is non-sense, however even if EVERYTHING he said was true, that still would not constitute a reason to keep it illegal. If you would recall, I spent a lot of time making the point that it's not really about if weed is bad for you and that there is a lot of legal substances a lot more harmful than weed. He seems to have not read them. My opponent made a point about addiction. Well only about 6% of marijuana users are addicted, however 13.7% of alcohol users become dependent. I guess I'll concede point one, however that is not a good reason to keep weed illegal. Points two and three, are subjective. I and my friends who smoke are at the top of our classes and experience no loss of will. -Holland/Netherlands Lets look at the actual happenings: Crime reduction Shutting down of black markets Drastically reduced HIV Also the rise in cancer in the Netherlands is due to population growth and demographic ageing, not weed Now it is true there is a rise in poverty, but it has zero things to do with weed. I suggest reading the extensive study in my link. -Clarification on cells You have misunderstood my point. My point on neurogenesis, is that weed can stimulate neuron growth, however it can also kill cancer cells. The two are unrelated do not contradict. In conclusion- CON has offered no good reason against legalization. The best he's got is ,hey it's bad for you kinda, but also good for you sometimes. As I stressed and stressed in my first round, there are many legal substances that cause more harm than weed, and CON has offered no reconciliation of weeds illegal status with the more harmful substances legal status. http://www.iamexpat.nl... http://www.thedailychronic.net... http://www.roa.nl...
Marijuana legalization

No acceptance, lets just go. Legalizing would make America's drug problem spiral out of control. Marijuana should not be legalized because there is already a weed drug problem in the US. Who is to say that said person would not pick up a bat and beat someone to death due to their impaired mental state? Marijuana impairs judgement on all levels. Marijuana is known to kill brain cells, smoking weed is a disturbing trend. Young people need to keep their minds sharp. There are far too many students flunking out of school these days, marijuana might be to blame. The quality of medical marijuana cannot be controlled for uniform strength and purity, because marijuana is not massed produced. With the production being so underground, there is no way to regulate anything that goes into the production of marijuana. Marijuana is mostly made by people who run small grow operations, or by criminals in other countries who smuggle it here. What ever you have to say about weed, weed can still be a drug that will lead you to using others like cocaine or heroin. It will also lead to addiction and it will kill your body internally and externally. Let's say that a previous drug addict is injured and required medical marijuana. That means that they could go back to that drug. Marijuana can harm you. Using marijuana can causes tachycardia or they can experience disorientation. Marijuana smoke has many cancer causing substances in it. Smoking it can damage your lungs. People who use marijuana for long periods of time can have brain damage and it can affect a person's memory. Marijuana also causes people to overeat which can make them obese. It is a natural substance, but in the big picture of things, so is tobacco. As natural as it is, it an unnatural substance in the human body. Adding on the issue is the way the substance in ingested. Lungs were not made to inhale smoke, so I would have to think that marijuana is not healthy.
Temporariness-Alas! Thy name is democracy

You have not rebutted any of my arguments but posted your own opinions. With so much of crimes against fellow humans on the basis of race, religion and many such pseudo social values any society cannot be considered as civilized. What we see now in democracies is not solidarity but some kind of tolerance for survival. Any system or country which spends sizable budget on military while the civil society lacks the basic necessities cannot be called an ideal form of governance. The gun culture even in schools is a pointer to the rotten social situation. The temporary mind set of the so called leaders and the people alike is certainly the basic cause for the problems that the societies face in today's world
Temporariness-Alas! Thy name is democracy

When I saw this argument I was intrigued. When you described Democracy as "temporariness", you reeled me in. However, after I read you argument I have come to the conclusion that I completely disagree.Democracy is solidarity. Solidarity is defined as "unity or agreement of feeling or action, especially among individuals with a common interest; mutual support within a group: factory workers voiced solidarity with the striking students." Democracy is the only governmental system that is by, for, and of the people. You are mistaken on what defines a democracy, and since you pointed out the United States, I will use them as an example.This government and this system you decry is not based on the politicians in DC. IT never was. The United States of America is here because the people of the United States have placed the faith in themselves and each other to choose who will be their leaders. We have climbed mountains, risen to the occasion, and changed the world all on this fundamental belief. The society I live in is civilized. You have said that the people are uneducated, and that they need enlightenment for a democratic society to function. The people of this nation have been able to progress without needing your narrow definition of the right "values". Integrity is great, but integrity in what? You mention humanism, but what do you define as humanism?I think the one unifying characteristic of our society is the ability to believe in themselves or ourselves. They believed in their children, so they decided to tax themselves to create a school system so their children could go places and do things they could never fathom. In California, we decided to build a college system, to enlighten our children, so they could grasp the future. We decided to create a Social Security system because we believed that our seniors deserved a life that was not defined by poverty and endless misery. I know that you will rebut with an endless tirade of my nation's maladies, especially President Trump. However, what you see as a sign of impending doom, I see a rebirth. I see a rebirth of America underway. A rebirth where introspection and reflect discover the true values that have allowed this society to become what it is today.I await your response.-theITdude
Temporariness-Alas! Thy name is democracy

Temporariness-Alas! Thy name is Democracy Democracy is hailed as a great political system to govern people in nations on the basis of peoples" choices. Democracy was defined as a system that is by the people, of the people and for the people by Mr. Abraham Lincoln of USA. People elect their representatives, in a democracy, for a limited period of 4-5 years. We find that in the present set up, only people with bad antecedents get elected as representatives. Those who can allure commoners with their oratorical skills are able to garner peoples" support. False promises galore in all elections! Enticing the masses by all sorts of allurements goes well with the electorates of lower strata of society which usually decides the outcome of the elections. Electoral polity can deliver the goods only when the society is civilised and elite. Elitism will be a far cry in countries where poverty is rampant. People who go hungry and shelter less are taken for a ride. Their predicament is well utilised (misused) to garner support by the misguided and corrupt politicians. Representatives, who feel that they can wield power only for a limited period of 4-5 years and that their job is not permanent, develop a temporary mindset. Therefore they try all their tricks to make use of the opportunity to grab whatever they can during their tenure. In the present scenario this misuse cannot be avoided. At least the elected representatives are being paid for their work. But, in the party based electoral process, the ordinary party workers are not having any normal means of earning. Naturally they are forced to indulge in corrupt practices to earn their livelihood and in the process they misuse the machinery by using their clout with the bigger politicians or elected representatives to amass wealth. MLAs and MPs have to meet the demands of the party workers who have worked for their success in the Hastings. The temporary mindset of MLAs and MPs and the party workers is the main reason for their dishonest behaviour. Some kind of permanency has to be brought in so that they will behave more decently. Education of the people on moral values is the urgent need of the hour to change the present undesirable antipeople scenario in the democratic political system. Only a civilised society can elect its right representatives in a democracy. Society plagued by pseudo social values such as casteism, communalism and religious fundamentalism, language chauvinism, capitalism and communism will not and cannot be a civilised society. The crux of the problem seen in the society lies in the pseudo social values that dictate the very functioning of the society. As long as the true human values such as humanism, honesty and integrity are neglected the society will remain an uncivilised one and therefore the malady will continue.
Nevada May Be Legalizing Gay Marriage

"It's sounds to me that you are implying that gay couples are accepting of the niche society has carved for them. Perhaps some couples want otherwise. It is evident that not all couples want this in the first place. There are certain people who want the world to acknowledge the fact that they're Christian, or Catholic, or Lutheran, or whatever." --> They can acknowledge they are without a religious ceremony. Besides, if they aren't allowed to have a marriage under that religion, why should the government step in and force the religion to? Secondly, everyone would be in this "niche" as you called it. Religions can provide little ceremonies, but legally it's all the same if everyone goes through the same system. "So, you see, a traditional marriage a is more deserving of the gay community. A traditional ceremony allows the individuals to be recognized as a person AND a spiritual being. I'm not sure of your sexuality, but this is a much more intimate way of being connected to another person. There are people who really want this, not an assembly-line, standardized civil union. They want a ceremony that recognizes their religion AND themselves, not one or the other." -->Where is the authority for the government to step in and intervene in the morals and practices of a religion? I'm an Atheist, but I feel the government shouldn't touch religion. What's next, the government forcing churches to only accept certain versions of a deity? It's a slippery slope that the government shouldn't be put on. My opponent is under the perception I am discriminating against homosexuals as I am setting them aside, but I am setting everyone aside. Religion is a ceremony which is recognising a union under God, and the government shouldn't mandate that. Besides, if they really want a religious marriage,then they should make their own religion.
Nevada May Be Legalizing Gay Marriage

It's sounds to me that you are implying that gay couples are accepting of the niche society has carved for them. Perhaps some couples want otherwise. It is evident that not all couples want this in the first place. There are certain people who want the world to acknowledge the fact that they're Christian, or Catholic, or Lutheran, or whatever. Allow me to show you: http://www.youtube.com... So, you see, a traditional marriage a is more deserving of the gay community. A traditional ceremony allows the individuals to be recognized as a person AND a spiritual being. I'm not sure of your sexuality, but this is a much more intimate way of being connected to another person. There are people who really want this, not an assembly-line, standardized civil union. They want a ceremony that recognizes their religion AND themselves, not one or the other. I have no further comments for my opponent.