Datasets:

notaphoenix
/

debateorg_w_effect_for_conservative_subset

Dataset card Viewer Files Files and versions Community

Split (3)

validation · 4.87k rows

text stringlengths 1 80.7k	author stringlengths 2 25	original_text stringlengths 7 90.9k	category stringclasses 23 values	round int64 0 8	debate_id stringlengths 8 103	idx int64 4 82.5k
Hello BravesFan33, my name is zain. You're wrong dude. I strongly believe that old band are really better than the newer ones. Who first started music between them ??..Is it the old bands or the newer ones??...Without the old bands, music can't evolved, to the newer bands...Without them newer bands will only have fewer idea to make sounds,,or music..Can newer bands like Green Day, System of a Down or Anti-Flag have a great lyrics without the older bands?????..Older bands are great!!!..Without the skills of older bands newer bands can't make good lyrics... In lyrics and tunes... old bands are better than newer bands...the lyrics of older bands are meaningful...not like now...mostly they based it on tunes of the songs whether if they like it or not...wherein meaningful lyrics lead to great music,,, especially if it has the both of these( the meaningful lyrics and great tunes!!).... In experience, old bands have more experience compared to the newer bands...old bands discovers the lyrics and tunes for their music...they had a hard time making songs compared to newer bands...Now a days, most of the NEW BANDS get the lyrics of the songs of the old bands and just change the tunes of it...For short just a "revival of the songs"...Is it good??...Are they great???.... Now in experience again... And some examples of older bands.."The Jimi Hendrix Experience" was a highly influential, though short-lived, English/American rock band famous for the guitar work of frontman Jimi Hendrix on songs such as "Purple Haze", "Foxy Lady", "Fire", "Hey Joe", "Voodoo Child (Slight Return)", "All Along the Watchtower", "Little Wing" and "Spanish Castle Magic". One of the song of Jimi Hendrix was Voodoo child . . ."Voodoo Child (Slight Return)" is the last track on the third and final album by the Jimi Hendrix Experience, Electric Lady land. The song is well known for its wah-wah-soaked guitar work, with muted strings crescendoing into explosive riffs, based upon Muddy Waters' "Rollin' Stone". "Voodoo Child" was released posthumously in 1970 as the A side on a three-track single, and reached Number 1 in the UK. Unfortunately, it was catalogued as "Voodoo Chile" (Track 2095 001), and that is the title which appears on the single and is the title referred to officially. This obviously confuses it with the 15-minute jam on the album Electric Ladyland. The B-side of the single featured two of his previous hits: "Hey Joe" and "All Along the Watchtower." The lyrics goes like this : Well, I stand up next to a mountain And I chop it down with the edge of my hand Well, I stand up next to a mountain Chop it down with the edge of my hand Well, I pick up all the pieces and make an island Might even raise just a little sand 'Cause I'm a voodoo child Lord knows I'm a voodoo child I didn't mean to take you up all your sweet time I'll give it right back to you one of these days I said, I didn't mean to take you up all your sweet time I'll give it right back to you one of these days And if I don't meet you no more in this world Then I'll, I'll meet you in the next one And don't be late, don't be late 'Cause I'm a voodoo child Lord knows I'm a voodoo child I'm a voodoo child this lyrics evolved..this is one of the lyrics that the newer bands had gotten ideas for their music. . JUST REMEMBER " without old bands,,music may take very hard time to be expanded to our generation" maybe without the old bands we can't have good music or songs right now!!...Old bands are really great!!.. And take a look in your statement : "Now this is the category I'll admit that older bands are much better in. The lyrics and messages being sent in music today, at least in general...Are "kill yourself," "screw a lot of women," "kill people," "rape people," etc. . Older groups have much healthier and wittier lyrics than this." So you have admitted that old bands are better than newer bands.	zainie143	Hello BravesFan33, my name is zain. You're wrong dude. I strongly believe that old band are really better than the newer ones. Who first started music between them ??..Is it the old bands or the newer ones??...Without the old bands, music can't evolved, to the newer bands...Without them newer bands will only have fewer idea to make sounds,,or music..Can newer bands like Green Day, System of a Down or Anti-Flag have a great lyrics without the older bands?????..Older bands are great!!!..Without the skills of older bands newer bands can't make good lyrics... In lyrics and tunes... old bands are better than newer bands...the lyrics of older bands are meaningful...not like now...mostly they based it on tunes of the songs whether if they like it or not...wherein meaningful lyrics lead to great music,,, especially if it has the both of these( the meaningful lyrics and great tunes!!).... In experience, old bands have more experience compared to the newer bands...old bands discovers the lyrics and tunes for their music...they had a hard time making songs compared to newer bands...Now a days, most of the NEW BANDS get the lyrics of the songs of the old bands and just change the tunes of it...For short just a "revival of the songs"...Is it good??...Are they great???.... Now in experience again... And some examples of older bands.."The Jimi Hendrix Experience" was a highly influential, though short-lived, English/American rock band famous for the guitar work of frontman Jimi Hendrix on songs such as "Purple Haze", "Foxy Lady", "Fire", "Hey Joe", "Voodoo Child (Slight Return)", "All Along the Watchtower", "Little Wing" and "Spanish Castle Magic". One of the song of Jimi Hendrix was Voodoo child . . ."Voodoo Child (Slight Return)" is the last track on the third and final album by the Jimi Hendrix Experience, Electric Lady land. The song is well known for its wah-wah-soaked guitar work, with muted strings crescendoing into explosive riffs, based upon Muddy Waters' "Rollin' Stone". "Voodoo Child" was released posthumously in 1970 as the A side on a three-track single, and reached Number 1 in the UK. Unfortunately, it was catalogued as "Voodoo Chile" (Track 2095 001), and that is the title which appears on the single and is the title referred to officially. This obviously confuses it with the 15-minute jam on the album Electric Ladyland. The B-side of the single featured two of his previous hits: "Hey Joe" and "All Along the Watchtower." The lyrics goes like this : Well, I stand up next to a mountain And I chop it down with the edge of my hand Well, I stand up next to a mountain Chop it down with the edge of my hand Well, I pick up all the pieces and make an island Might even raise just a little sand 'Cause I'm a voodoo child Lord knows I'm a voodoo child I didn't mean to take you up all your sweet time I'll give it right back to you one of these days I said, I didn't mean to take you up all your sweet time I'll give it right back to you one of these days And if I don't meet you no more in this world Then I'll, I'll meet you in the next one And don't be late, don't be late 'Cause I'm a voodoo child Lord knows I'm a voodoo child I'm a voodoo child this lyrics evolved..this is one of the lyrics that the newer bands had gotten ideas for their music. . JUST REMEMBER " without old bands,,music may take very hard time to be expanded to our generation" maybe without the old bands we can't have good music or songs right now!!...Old bands are really great!!.. And take a look in your statement : "Now this is the category I'll admit that older bands are much better in. The lyrics and messages being sent in music today, at least in general...Are "kill yourself," "screw a lot of women," "kill people," "rape people," etc. . Older groups have much healthier and wittier lyrics than this." So you have admitted that old bands are better than newer bands.	Arts	0	Are-old-bands-really-better-than-newer-ones/1/	5,852
Hi bravesfan33. In debate, admitting any points that will not help you, it will be a BIG POINT for me. It's a chance for me to argue with you. I am just clarifying your statement: "Now this is the category I'll admit that older bands are much better in. The lyrics and messages being sent in music today, at least in general...Are "kill yourself," "screw a lot of women," "kill people," "rape people," etc. . Older groups have much healthier and wittier lyrics than this." That will help me. I just want you to know that this will be a big point for me! that you agree that "OLDER BANDS are much better than the NEWER bands" in the category for lyrics.We are talking in general here, not specific bands. In lyrics, I strongly believe that Older bands are better than the newer bands. The lyrics and/or messages sent in music today, in general, Are "kill people",screw a lot of women" as you've said. In this case, Older bands have much better lyrics compared to the old ones and also you've told me that lyrics of Older bands are healthier and wittier in writing or composing lyrics. In this point, generally,Older bands are much better compared to the newer bands.(lyrics specifically) We just don't talk to the bands of System of a Down, Green Day, Anti-flag etc. We should also consider the other newer bands. Like "BAMBOO", "Chicosci", "secondhand Serenade", " Kamikazee", "Red Jump Suit Apparatus" , "My Chemical Romance" ,"Boys Like Girls" , "orange and Lemons", " Rivermaya","Hinder", " Linkin Park" etc. We should talk now in general, not only other bands. Now I will compare the songs that was made by the old bands and the newer bands.First I will start in the newer bands. [1] Orange and Lemons is a Filipino pop rock band formed in 2003. The band name "Oranges and Lemons" was initially recommended by a former member of the group. Apparently the band was not aware at that time that the name was actually derived from a British nursery rhyme and a title of an album by the British band "XTC". So they changed it to "Orange and Lemons". With a style of retro music combined with alternative rock, the band has become few of Pinoy Rock bands that have definitive sound that separate them from the rest of pure pop and rock. The band's main musical influences range from The Beatles and The Smiths, to The Cure and The Eraserheads. With the help of this Old bands, they made a band named Orange and Lemons. One of the songs of Orange and Lemons was "Yakap sa Dilim" that was the SONG OF APO(which is an OLD BAND). They just revive the song again for them to be POPULAR or FAMOUS in the country because they can't produce songs rapidly and they will decline in becoming FAMOUS in the country. So, they used the song of APO, which is considered as an OLD BAND for them not to decline in becoming FAMOUS, to earn money. This is want I wanted you to know Mr.Bravesfan33, that OLD BANDS are better than NEWER bands, because of the song made by the APO the Orange and Lemons did not decline( revival of the songs of APO). Not only "Yakap sa Dilim" but also other song from the APO that made them POPULAR such as "Tuloy na Tuloy Pa Rin Ang Pasko". [2] Air Supply is a duo of soft rock musicians who had a succession of hits worldwide through the late 1970s and early 1980s. It consists of English guitarist and vocalist Graham Russell (born Graham Cyril Russell, 11 June 1950, Sherwood, Nottingham, England)[1] and Australian lead vocalist Russell Hitchcock (born 15 June 1949, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia). Air Supply is the most commercially successful Australian group to the present time. Air Supply is an OLD BAND, wherein their songs was also revived by other NEWER bands and not only that!, also the singers like Regine Velasquez. The song was " I don't wanna miss a thing " that was used by the singer. Not only this song but the following song was been Popular and was revived by New bands and singers as well. THE FOLLOWING SONGS are ; "Lost In Love" "All Out of Love" "Every Woman In The World" "The One That You Love" "Here I Am (Just When I Thought I Was Over You)" "Sweet Dreams" "Even The Nights Are Better" "Young Love" "Two Less Lonely People In The World" "Making Love Out Of Nothing At All" "Just As I Am" "The Power Of Love (You Are My Lady)" "Lonely Is The Night" "Without You" "Goodbye" "Someone" In this point, Most of the Newer Bands revived songs of the Older Bands for them to be Popular, and will not decline in becoming Popular.So it only means that OLD BANDS are better than the NEWER BANDS. Now lets go to Old bands like "APO", "The Beatles", "The Smiths", "Metallica", "Air Supply", "fra lippo lippi", "nexus", etc. This Old Band was very Popular, every concert of them.The seats for their concert is full!!..This only means that they were VERY POPULAR. Not only APO but also THE BEATLES, AIR SUPPLY, etc. Now a days, NEWER BANDS has only few FANS..compared to the OLD bands. My point is that the SONGS of the OLD BANDS were good compared to the NEWER BANDS. It shows that in this category OLD BANDS are better compared to the NEWER BANDS. Lets compare the lyrics again of the OLD BANDS and the NEWER BANDS. The LYRICS of the OLD BANDS were meaningful, often solemn(not shouting, giving the true meaning of it)and favorable to us. Not now, MOST of the NEW BANDS were shouting, they give the meaning of their songs by showing to the people the TUNES of it not the true content.Like HINDER, Slapshock, etc. I will also clarify the work of the OLD BANDS to our songs now. Without the old bands, music can't evolved, to the newer bands. Without them newer bands will only have fewer idea to make sounds,,or music..Can newer bands like Green Day, System of a Down or Anti-Flag have a great lyrics without the older bands?.Older bands are great!.Without the skills of older bands newer bands can't make good lyrics. And also BASKETBALL and BASEBALL is not related to this ARGUMENT. Composing songs, singing it, giving it meaning, the meaning of the songs is really different in skills of BASKETBALL and BASEBALL. I will clarify that without the ideas of the OLD BANDS in making songs, having great lyrics, tunes the NEW BANDS have a very HARD TIME making a great lyrics, tunes making songs etc. And also skills in BASKETBALL and BASEBALL has nothing to do in comparing the making of the songs, great lyrics, tunes etc. of the OLD BANDS and the NEWER BANDS. Please be serious in this DEBATE. Don't include the commentors, this debate is only for two of us, to know if which is better? the OLD BANDS or the NEWER BANDS. You should follow some form of logic/common sense when debating. Keep that in mind. This was a great debate. By the way i don't wanna hurt anyone, I am just giving my ideas.THANK YOU!	zainie143	Hi bravesfan33. In debate, admitting any points that will not help you, it will be a BIG POINT for me. It's a chance for me to argue with you. I am just clarifying your statement: "Now this is the category I'll admit that older bands are much better in. The lyrics and messages being sent in music today, at least in general...Are "kill yourself," "screw a lot of women," "kill people," "rape people," etc. . Older groups have much healthier and wittier lyrics than this." That will help me. I just want you to know that this will be a big point for me! that you agree that "OLDER BANDS are much better than the NEWER bands" in the category for lyrics.We are talking in general here, not specific bands. In lyrics, I strongly believe that Older bands are better than the newer bands. The lyrics and/or messages sent in music today, in general, Are "kill people",screw a lot of women" as you've said. In this case, Older bands have much better lyrics compared to the old ones and also you've told me that lyrics of Older bands are healthier and wittier in writing or composing lyrics. In this point, generally,Older bands are much better compared to the newer bands.(lyrics specifically) We just don't talk to the bands of System of a Down, Green Day, Anti-flag etc. We should also consider the other newer bands. Like "BAMBOO", "Chicosci", "secondhand Serenade", " Kamikazee", "Red Jump Suit Apparatus" , "My Chemical Romance" ,"Boys Like Girls" , "orange and Lemons", " Rivermaya","Hinder", " Linkin Park" etc. We should talk now in general, not only other bands. Now I will compare the songs that was made by the old bands and the newer bands.First I will start in the newer bands. [1] Orange and Lemons is a Filipino pop rock band formed in 2003. The band name "Oranges and Lemons" was initially recommended by a former member of the group. Apparently the band was not aware at that time that the name was actually derived from a British nursery rhyme and a title of an album by the British band "XTC". So they changed it to "Orange and Lemons". With a style of retro music combined with alternative rock, the band has become few of Pinoy Rock bands that have definitive sound that separate them from the rest of pure pop and rock. The band's main musical influences range from The Beatles and The Smiths, to The Cure and The Eraserheads. With the help of this Old bands, they made a band named Orange and Lemons. One of the songs of Orange and Lemons was "Yakap sa Dilim" that was the SONG OF APO(which is an OLD BAND). They just revive the song again for them to be POPULAR or FAMOUS in the country because they can't produce songs rapidly and they will decline in becoming FAMOUS in the country. So, they used the song of APO, which is considered as an OLD BAND for them not to decline in becoming FAMOUS, to earn money. This is want I wanted you to know Mr.Bravesfan33, that OLD BANDS are better than NEWER bands, because of the song made by the APO the Orange and Lemons did not decline( revival of the songs of APO). Not only "Yakap sa Dilim" but also other song from the APO that made them POPULAR such as "Tuloy na Tuloy Pa Rin Ang Pasko". [2] Air Supply is a duo of soft rock musicians who had a succession of hits worldwide through the late 1970s and early 1980s. It consists of English guitarist and vocalist Graham Russell (born Graham Cyril Russell, 11 June 1950, Sherwood, Nottingham, England)[1] and Australian lead vocalist Russell Hitchcock (born 15 June 1949, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia). Air Supply is the most commercially successful Australian group to the present time. Air Supply is an OLD BAND, wherein their songs was also revived by other NEWER bands and not only that!, also the singers like Regine Velasquez. The song was " I don't wanna miss a thing " that was used by the singer. Not only this song but the following song was been Popular and was revived by New bands and singers as well. THE FOLLOWING SONGS are ; "Lost In Love" "All Out of Love" "Every Woman In The World" "The One That You Love" "Here I Am (Just When I Thought I Was Over You)" "Sweet Dreams" "Even The Nights Are Better" "Young Love" "Two Less Lonely People In The World" "Making Love Out Of Nothing At All" "Just As I Am" "The Power Of Love (You Are My Lady)" "Lonely Is The Night" "Without You" "Goodbye" "Someone" In this point, Most of the Newer Bands revived songs of the Older Bands for them to be Popular, and will not decline in becoming Popular.So it only means that OLD BANDS are better than the NEWER BANDS. Now lets go to Old bands like "APO", "The Beatles", "The Smiths", "Metallica", "Air Supply", "fra lippo lippi", "nexus", etc. This Old Band was very Popular, every concert of them.The seats for their concert is full!!..This only means that they were VERY POPULAR. Not only APO but also THE BEATLES, AIR SUPPLY, etc. Now a days, NEWER BANDS has only few FANS..compared to the OLD bands. My point is that the SONGS of the OLD BANDS were good compared to the NEWER BANDS. It shows that in this category OLD BANDS are better compared to the NEWER BANDS. Lets compare the lyrics again of the OLD BANDS and the NEWER BANDS. The LYRICS of the OLD BANDS were meaningful, often solemn(not shouting, giving the true meaning of it)and favorable to us. Not now, MOST of the NEW BANDS were shouting, they give the meaning of their songs by showing to the people the TUNES of it not the true content.Like HINDER, Slapshock, etc. I will also clarify the work of the OLD BANDS to our songs now. Without the old bands, music can't evolved, to the newer bands. Without them newer bands will only have fewer idea to make sounds,,or music..Can newer bands like Green Day, System of a Down or Anti-Flag have a great lyrics without the older bands?.Older bands are great!.Without the skills of older bands newer bands can't make good lyrics. And also BASKETBALL and BASEBALL is not related to this ARGUMENT. Composing songs, singing it, giving it meaning, the meaning of the songs is really different in skills of BASKETBALL and BASEBALL. I will clarify that without the ideas of the OLD BANDS in making songs, having great lyrics, tunes the NEW BANDS have a very HARD TIME making a great lyrics, tunes making songs etc. And also skills in BASKETBALL and BASEBALL has nothing to do in comparing the making of the songs, great lyrics, tunes etc. of the OLD BANDS and the NEWER BANDS. Please be serious in this DEBATE. Don't include the commentors, this debate is only for two of us, to know if which is better? the OLD BANDS or the NEWER BANDS. You should follow some form of logic/common sense when debating. Keep that in mind. This was a great debate. By the way i don't wanna hurt anyone, I am just giving my ideas.THANK YOU!	Arts	1	Are-old-bands-really-better-than-newer-ones/1/	5,853
I accept this challenge and assume that since Pro has the burden of proof, he will begin first.	Udel	I accept this challenge and assume that since Pro has the burden of proof, he will begin first.	Sports	0	Are-the-NBA-finals-rigged/1/	5,981
You have 5 rounds to prove that you are a human	Gold5301	You have 5 rounds to prove that you are a human	Funny	0	Are-you-a-human/1/	6,097
-How am I not sure that someone is just programming you to do these things? -You can't prove that you can eat. -Stalin is dead. -Robots can be programmed to use computers (destroys proof 2, 4, and 8) -Robots can also be programmed to learn languages and respond to them. -Robots can have hands. Sources <URL>... <URL>...	Gold5301	-How am I not sure that someone is just programming you to do these things? -You can't prove that you can eat. -Stalin is dead. -Robots can be programmed to use computers (destroys proof 2, 4, and 8) -Robots can also be programmed to learn languages and respond to them. -Robots can have hands. Sources https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com...	Funny	1	Are-you-a-human/1/	6,098
1. You never wrote the evidence in round 2 (I can debate which means that I have a brain which proves that I am human.) 2. Robots can be debating robots in about 3 years 3. If you are going to say that it will take 3 years to make a debating robot(DR), then how am i sure that you might be a robot from the future? Source shttp://www.dailymail.co.uk...	Gold5301	1. You never wrote the evidence in round 2 (I can debate which means that I have a brain which proves that I am human.) 2. Robots can be debating robots in about 3 years 3. If you are going to say that it will take 3 years to make a debating robot(DR), then how am i sure that you might be a robot from the future? Source shttp://www.dailymail.co.uk...	Funny	2	Are-you-a-human/1/	6,099
Ok good debate i forfeit I will look forward to debating with you next time(if we ever get a chance) Good debate	Gold5301	Ok good debate i forfeit I will look forward to debating with you next time(if we ever get a chance) Good debate	Funny	3	Are-you-a-human/1/	6,100
Yes, it was fun trying to rebut your counter arguments.	Gold5301	Yes, it was fun trying to rebut your counter arguments.	Funny	4	Are-you-a-human/1/	6,101
I am a human [1] Proof 1: I can type which proves that I have hands. Proof 2: I can do stuff on DDO which proves that I have a brain. Proof 3: I can type in english which proves that I can speak a language. Proof 4: I know how to use a computer. There is no other animal besides a human who can use a computer. Proof 5: I am a pro which means that I am human. [2] Proof 6: I eat which proves that I am human. Proof 7: I am Stalin whichprove that I am human. Proof 8: I can spam which proves that I am human. Sources: <URL>... <URL>...	STALIN	I am a human [1] Proof 1: I can type which proves that I have hands. Proof 2: I can do stuff on DDO which proves that I have a brain. Proof 3: I can type in english which proves that I can speak a language. Proof 4: I know how to use a computer. There is no other animal besides a human who can use a computer. Proof 5: I am a pro which means that I am human. [2] Proof 6: I eat which proves that I am human. Proof 7: I am Stalin whichprove that I am human. Proof 8: I can spam which proves that I am human. Sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://gizmodo.com...	Funny	0	Are-you-a-human/1/	6,102
This is how I can prove that I am human. I ask Con to give me a single example of a robot who debates. If he can not do so, then I win this debate. Also, Con never replied to this argument: I can debate which means that I have a brain which proves that I am human. Sources: <URL>... <URL>...	STALIN	This is how I can prove that I am human. I ask Con to give me a single example of a robot who debates. If he can not do so, then I win this debate. Also, Con never replied to this argument: I can debate which means that I have a brain which proves that I am human. Sources: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com... https://indietorrent.org...	Funny	1	Are-you-a-human/1/	6,103
"You never wrote the evidence in round 2" Yes I did. "Robots can be debating robots in about 3 years" No they can't. I have been here 8 months as my profile says. " If you are going to say that it will take 3 years to make a debating robot(DR), then how am i sure that you might be a robot from the future?" Because it is still not possible to time travel...duh. Con has said nothing about the human brain. It is still impossible to attack a human brain to a metal machine. Therefore, it is still impossible...[1] Con has done nothing to prove that I am human. I have argued that I am human because I can debate and think. I have nerves and organs and am therefore human.[2] Con has done a good job, but I have proved that I am human.[3] Sources: <URL>... <URL>... <URL>...	STALIN	"You never wrote the evidence in round 2" Yes I did. "Robots can be debating robots in about 3 years" No they can't. I have been here 8 months as my profile says. " If you are going to say that it will take 3 years to make a debating robot(DR), then how am i sure that you might be a robot from the future?" Because it is still not possible to time travel...duh. Con has said nothing about the human brain. It is still impossible to attack a human brain to a metal machine. Therefore, it is still impossible...[1] Con has done nothing to prove that I am human. I have argued that I am human because I can debate and think. I have nerves and organs and am therefore human.[2] Con has done a good job, but I have proved that I am human.[3] Sources: https://www.humanbrainproject.eu... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.newscientist.com...	Funny	2	Are-you-a-human/1/	6,104
This was a very good debate. I thank Con for FF. I ask Con this, did he enjoy the debate?	STALIN	This was a very good debate. I thank Con for FF. I ask Con this, did he enjoy the debate?	Funny	3	Are-you-a-human/1/	6,105
Ok, VOTE FOR ME EVERYBODY!	STALIN	Ok, VOTE FOR ME EVERYBODY!	Funny	4	Are-you-a-human/1/	6,106
The Lord warned us about biting the Apple. i. Well have you? devils?	Max.Wallace	The Lord warned us about biting the Apple. i. Well have you? devils?	Philosophy	0	Are-you-biting-the-Apple/1/	6,107
I opened with an argument, and did not ask you to define it. That is the truth. You suppose yourself to be ordained with the duty to define others argument? please continue...........	Max.Wallace	I opened with an argument, and did not ask you to define it. That is the truth. You suppose yourself to be ordained with the duty to define others argument? please continue...........	Philosophy	1	Are-you-biting-the-Apple/1/	6,108
I have not spent one penny on Apple, and never will. i am not smart because of the i in Apple. Go chant at the screen fool, like the commercial from 1984. Got it, good, so do I. I lose, so what.	Max.Wallace	I have not spent one penny on Apple, and never will. i am not smart because of the i in Apple. Go chant at the screen fool, like the commercial from 1984. Got it, good, so do I. I lose, so what.	Philosophy	2	Are-you-biting-the-Apple/1/	6,109
I accept. Some basic definitions before we begin: Apple -- "a round fruit with red, yellow, or green skin and firm white flesh" ( <URL>... ). Are -- " Second person singular and plural and first and third person plural present indicative of be." ( <URL>... ) Biting - "to press down on or cut into (someone or something) with the teeth." ( <URL>... ) You -- referring to me, the person who accepted this debate The sole burden of proof to prove that I am, right now (because "are" is a present tense verb), biting "the apple" lies with PRO. If he cannot prove that, you automatically vote for CON by default. I yield back to PRO for his opening arguments.	ResponsiblyIrresponsible	I accept. Some basic definitions before we begin: Apple -- "a round fruit with red, yellow, or green skin and firm white flesh" ( http://www.merriam-webster.com... ). Are -- " Second person singular and plural and first and third person plural present indicative of be." ( http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) Biting - "to press down on or cut into (someone or something) with the teeth." ( http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) You -- referring to me, the person who accepted this debate The sole burden of proof to prove that I am, right now (because "are" is a present tense verb), biting "the apple" lies with PRO. If he cannot prove that, you automatically vote for CON by default. I yield back to PRO for his opening arguments.	Philosophy	0	Are-you-biting-the-Apple/1/	6,110
PRO will rightly note that I never once defined his "argument." Rather, I defined the terms in our resolution, and he hasn't contested my definitions, so they extend through. He has yet to provide a single affrmative argument proving that I am biting the apple, and hasn't contested that he has the burden of proof to prove as much. He claims that the Lord "warned us to not bite the apple," but provides no evidence of this, or evidence that the Lord exists. Moreover, even the Bible--which is no evidence, and should not be misconstrued as evidence because it's nothing more than a collection of stories that has been translated and re-translated over and over again, and much of which was written thousands of years--did not describe the forbidden fruit as an apple, so this also falls short of reality. With that, I urge a vote for CON, as PRO has done nothing to advance his BOP.	ResponsiblyIrresponsible	PRO will rightly note that I never once defined his "argument." Rather, I defined the terms in our resolution, and he hasn't contested my definitions, so they extend through. He has yet to provide a single affrmative argument proving that I am biting the apple, and hasn't contested that he has the burden of proof to prove as much. He claims that the Lord "warned us to not bite the apple," but provides no evidence of this, or evidence that the Lord exists. Moreover, even the Bible--which is no evidence, and should not be misconstrued as evidence because it's nothing more than a collection of stories that has been translated and re-translated over and over again, and much of which was written thousands of years--did not describe the forbidden fruit as an apple, so this also falls short of reality. With that, I urge a vote for CON, as PRO has done nothing to advance his BOP.	Philosophy	1	Are-you-biting-the-Apple/1/	6,111
So, I could start this round by pointing out that none of my arguments, definitions, or burden analysis were even touched, nor did PRO achieve his burden that he never challenged that he had. But, instead, I'd like to quote from my adversary: "I lose, so what." I accept PRO's concession. To your audience: Please vote CON, but award PRO conduct.	ResponsiblyIrresponsible	So, I could start this round by pointing out that none of my arguments, definitions, or burden analysis were even touched, nor did PRO achieve his burden that he never challenged that he had. But, instead, I'd like to quote from my adversary: "I lose, so what." I accept PRO's concession. To your audience: Please vote CON, but award PRO conduct.	Philosophy	2	Are-you-biting-the-Apple/1/	6,112
Challenge accepted! Good luck to you. My argument will maintain that there are a few (certainly not all) Zero-Tolerance Policies that are helping keep schools safe. For those that don't know, Zero-Tolerance Policies (in education) are policies in schools that does not allow administrators to make a judgement call on the circumstances by which the policy was broken. In other words: no exceptions if the policy is violated. These policies are typically in place for rules that should be adhered by all students. Zero-Tolerance Policies are usually made to prevent serious acts of violence and illicit drug use (typically weapons and drugs brought to school).(Source 1) As a volunteer for an elementary school with a Zero-Tolerance Policy, I've witnessed first hand, an 8 year-old (3rd grade) student bring an unsheathed 10" blade to school. He got caught showing it to his friends and escorted to the principals office where he admitted that he didn't want his classmates to pick on him and that he gets very upset (he never mentioned whether he would use it or not). One of the students he showed the knife to said "he told us not to tell," clearly showing the student knew it was wrong. I was one of the adults who saw the knife and had to leave a written statement and later give a verbal account of what I'd witnessed. This is not a fully functional adult brain talking about very emotional issues while carrying a potential deadly weapon. This student was suspended for a week and received counseling to ensure he understood that he shouldn't bring stuff like that to school. Granted, this is not the norm for many students; however, this young man could have hurt someone (including himself had he played during recess while the knife was still in his front pocket). If the policy is well written and clearly available for parents/students to get information about at the beginning of and throughout each year, it is a contract that is fair. No matter who you are, what you look like, or otherwise, if you break one of these policies the punishment is the same. You cannot fault the policy for being unfair or biased. Most schools have Zero-Tolerance Policies, so it should be pretty well known by parents/students that these policies are in place. Any school I went to, I was well aware that bringing a firearm or illicit drugs to school was grounds for immediate expulsion from school. While my opponent may point to minority students being more heavily penalized, I've not seen any Zero-Tolerance Policy that states minorities will be punished more often than the majority and hence it is not the policy, though it certainly could be the human error in enforcement. Other than my experience there are some interesting facts to be aware of: Since the heavy implementation of Zero-Tolerance Policies in 1994 (Source 1), youth violence has gone down per capita over the last 16 years. (Source 3). "According to the CDC"s School Associated Violent Death Study, between 1% and 2% of all homicides among school-age children happen on school grounds or on the way to and from school or during a school sponsored event. So the vast majority of students will never experience lethal violence at school." (Source 2) Violence in schools or having to do with schools is very low and it seems possible that it has to do with such rigid policies on issues that should not be taken lightly. Parents and students realize that educational facilities take these offenses very seriously and that no one should be exempt (granted human follow-through can present certain problems). I wonder if my opponent is willing to tamper with the current policies in a way that may risk the safety of students while they are at school. Now while broad policies (i.e. anything considered a weapon is grounds for immediate expulsion) in many cases are too rigid and cause problems; however, there are similar problems with laws but we still must abide by them to avoid punishment. Students need to be prepared to face serious consequences when they break serious rules. Suffice it to say, in practical terms, these Zero-Tolerance Policies should be pretty easy to follow for the average law-abiding student if they are written appropriately by the educational organization and consistently followed. Keeping weapons at home is pretty standard for most students. Secondly, do students really need to bring illicit drugs and firearms to school? Without the drugs and weapons at school, it is definitely less likely that a student lose their life and less likely that a student will be exposed to excessive violence while at their school. Violence at/around school events are remarkably low (source 2) with the policies currently as they are. Finally, while some places in the country have unjustly punished certain students; (Finger gun, razor blade for shaving, box cutting tool for work, Pop Tart "gun", etc...), it is certainly not the norm and a well written policy would help resolve these issues. My opponent may like to point to these arguments as leverage, and while some of these caused detriment to the students life, it is not an insurmountable set back. Ultimately, students should be encouraged to follow the rules and given guidance to succeed in life. In many policies there should be wiggle room for minor (and even some major) issues, but things like firearms and illicit drugs (which is illegal even outside of school policy and law enforces them with zero-tolerance) should be taken very seriously and punishment should be swift, equal to the crime, and fair. Even though not all Zero-Tolerance Policies are well-written and enforced, their are at least a couple items that should not be brought to school for any reason by any student. Sources: 1. <URL>... (schools) 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>...	WhoWouldnt	Challenge accepted! Good luck to you. My argument will maintain that there are a few (certainly not all) Zero-Tolerance Policies that are helping keep schools safe. For those that don't know, Zero-Tolerance Policies (in education) are policies in schools that does not allow administrators to make a judgement call on the circumstances by which the policy was broken. In other words: no exceptions if the policy is violated. These policies are typically in place for rules that should be adhered by all students. Zero-Tolerance Policies are usually made to prevent serious acts of violence and illicit drug use (typically weapons and drugs brought to school).(Source 1) As a volunteer for an elementary school with a Zero-Tolerance Policy, I've witnessed first hand, an 8 year-old (3rd grade) student bring an unsheathed 10" blade to school. He got caught showing it to his friends and escorted to the principals office where he admitted that he didn't want his classmates to pick on him and that he gets very upset (he never mentioned whether he would use it or not). One of the students he showed the knife to said "he told us not to tell," clearly showing the student knew it was wrong. I was one of the adults who saw the knife and had to leave a written statement and later give a verbal account of what I'd witnessed. This is not a fully functional adult brain talking about very emotional issues while carrying a potential deadly weapon. This student was suspended for a week and received counseling to ensure he understood that he shouldn't bring stuff like that to school. Granted, this is not the norm for many students; however, this young man could have hurt someone (including himself had he played during recess while the knife was still in his front pocket). If the policy is well written and clearly available for parents/students to get information about at the beginning of and throughout each year, it is a contract that is fair. No matter who you are, what you look like, or otherwise, if you break one of these policies the punishment is the same. You cannot fault the policy for being unfair or biased. Most schools have Zero-Tolerance Policies, so it should be pretty well known by parents/students that these policies are in place. Any school I went to, I was well aware that bringing a firearm or illicit drugs to school was grounds for immediate expulsion from school. While my opponent may point to minority students being more heavily penalized, I've not seen any Zero-Tolerance Policy that states minorities will be punished more often than the majority and hence it is not the policy, though it certainly could be the human error in enforcement. Other than my experience there are some interesting facts to be aware of: Since the heavy implementation of Zero-Tolerance Policies in 1994 (Source 1), youth violence has gone down per capita over the last 16 years. (Source 3). "According to the CDC"s School Associated Violent Death Study, between 1% and 2% of all homicides among school-age children happen on school grounds or on the way to and from school or during a school sponsored event. So the vast majority of students will never experience lethal violence at school." (Source 2) Violence in schools or having to do with schools is very low and it seems possible that it has to do with such rigid policies on issues that should not be taken lightly. Parents and students realize that educational facilities take these offenses very seriously and that no one should be exempt (granted human follow-through can present certain problems). I wonder if my opponent is willing to tamper with the current policies in a way that may risk the safety of students while they are at school. Now while broad policies (i.e. anything considered a weapon is grounds for immediate expulsion) in many cases are too rigid and cause problems; however, there are similar problems with laws but we still must abide by them to avoid punishment. Students need to be prepared to face serious consequences when they break serious rules. Suffice it to say, in practical terms, these Zero-Tolerance Policies should be pretty easy to follow for the average law-abiding student if they are written appropriately by the educational organization and consistently followed. Keeping weapons at home is pretty standard for most students. Secondly, do students really need to bring illicit drugs and firearms to school? Without the drugs and weapons at school, it is definitely less likely that a student lose their life and less likely that a student will be exposed to excessive violence while at their school. Violence at/around school events are remarkably low (source 2) with the policies currently as they are. Finally, while some places in the country have unjustly punished certain students; (Finger gun, razor blade for shaving, box cutting tool for work, Pop Tart "gun", etc...), it is certainly not the norm and a well written policy would help resolve these issues. My opponent may like to point to these arguments as leverage, and while some of these caused detriment to the students life, it is not an insurmountable set back. Ultimately, students should be encouraged to follow the rules and given guidance to succeed in life. In many policies there should be wiggle room for minor (and even some major) issues, but things like firearms and illicit drugs (which is illegal even outside of school policy and law enforces them with zero-tolerance) should be taken very seriously and punishment should be swift, equal to the crime, and fair. Even though not all Zero-Tolerance Policies are well-written and enforced, their are at least a couple items that should not be brought to school for any reason by any student. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... (schools) 2. http://www.cdc.gov... 3. http://www.cdc.gov...	Education	0	Are-zero-tolerance-policies-a-broken-system-in-schools/2/	6,125
When I said "would my opponent change policies at the risk of increasing potential violence and drug problems at school?" in round 1, what I would like is for vekoma123 to address if he thinks he can eliminate Zero-Tolerance Policies in a way that will not increase the violence and drug use in school and if he'd even be willing to attempt that given that schools (or any school sponsored event) only attribute 1-2% of homicides among school-age children and the violence has been slightly decreasing each year since 1994. (Source 2) Could you please respond to that? In response to the gender/race bias of punishment, I would like to express that we stay on point to the original claim made by pro which is: are the POLICIES causing more harm than good? Not, are the PEOPLE enforcing them causing more harm than good. I want to make the distinction that I would strongly oppose any favortism or bias based race, color, gender, etc. but it is not the policy that is causing this. I think it isn't the policy getting in the way, but the people. Could you imagine if we stopped everything with human error in it, we'd have to stop most, if not all, human activity. So I don't think the race/gender bias argument carries any weight to this particular debate. " Having a general discussion with the student themselves would've been more appropriate in that matter, unless there was some level of acting out." - vekoma123, Round 2 -And, where do we draw the line on this "acting out"? Is bringing a deadly weapon to school "acting out" or is pulling it out and showing it to students and telling them not to say anything about it, "acting out"? Or, is it when slashing motions with the weapon start taking place that we consider the student "acting out"? Also, Take a look at the Zero Tolerance Policy for drugs and alcohol at Lock Haven University in Pennsylvannia ( <URL>... ). Granted this is for college level students, but there were no distinctions made about which age group we are talking about. Perhaps Zero-Tolerance Policies could be better understood at the college level and students at this age have more fully developed brains to know why the policy is the way it is and what it is trying to accomplish. Couldn't this be a Zero-Tolerance Policy that is doing more good than harm? Do you have reason to believe these students are on a collision course with being repeat offenders in the justice system? Consider also, that parents have a role to play when their kids are K-12 in helping them understand and supporting a school district in keeping the schools safe, understanding and enforcing of policies included. If the parent knows about the policy and chooses to send their child to that school, then they agree with the policy. If the parent doesn't know, then is ignorance really an excuse (most contracts don't seem to think so)? For a frame of reference on these policies look at Vancouver School District's 2012-2013 Zero Tolerance for drugs. ( <URL>... ) " Of course, not all students try to kill one-another, and I do agree that weapon possession with criminal intent is a problem, but that is just on criminal intent" -vekoma123, round 2 -So you agree that there are criteria that we can make a blanket statement on (1. weapon possession, 2. criminal intent)? What if the writing of a Zero-Tolerance policy included expulsion of a person on campus with a potentially deadly weapon AND proven to have violent/criminal intent. If we accounted for the intent within the policy itself, couldn't we have a "well-written Zero-Tolerance Policy"? One that would consider the intent. As I said, a well-written Zero-Tolerance Policy could be effective. I would state also, that whether or not there was intent to distribute drugs shouldn't come into play as they are illegal for K-12 students without exception. The law will impose punishment on kids carrying drugs regardless of their location. So a Zero-Tolerance drug policy in schools is appropriate in expecting consequences with actions that are illegal. No need for a kid to bring illicit/illegal drugs (which zero-tolerance policies are usually indicating for public school districts again check out Vancouver School District's policy as they define which drugs they have Zero-Tolerance for <URL>... ) into a school. According to politifact.com, Florida arrested over 12,000 school kids. Considering the number of students in florida it breaks down to less than 0.5% (approx. 12000+ students arressted in School in Florida/2.6 million students of the Florida student population) that were arrested. Zero-Tolerance Policies don't seem to be much of a problem for the other 99.5% of the population to follow them. While I do have sympathy for the kids who are affected by it, it doesn't seem the policy is the problem. Plus, shouldn't students be responsible for their actions? (Source 3 & 4) Considering YIC (Youth-In-Custody) schools are available to students who have been imprisoned and their recidivism rates (students that re-offend or come back to the justice system) are low (approx. 20-45%) , it is possible for students to "get out" of the "prison pipeline" that Zero-Tolerance Policies may have caused. These students have plenty of opportunity to correct their mistake and a very small percent of students are actually being arrested in schools and continuing on as criminals. (Source 5) The point is, you may not be seeing the rock you're standing on for the horizon. This may be a case of not seeing the benefit and wanting to press the detriment as the only piece of evidence to this complicated puzzle. Sources: 1. <URL>... ... (schools) 2. <URL>... ... 3. <URL>... 4. <URL>... 5. <URL>... 6. <URL>... ; 7. <URL>... ;	WhoWouldnt	When I said "would my opponent change policies at the risk of increasing potential violence and drug problems at school?" in round 1, what I would like is for vekoma123 to address if he thinks he can eliminate Zero-Tolerance Policies in a way that will not increase the violence and drug use in school and if he'd even be willing to attempt that given that schools (or any school sponsored event) only attribute 1-2% of homicides among school-age children and the violence has been slightly decreasing each year since 1994. (Source 2) Could you please respond to that? In response to the gender/race bias of punishment, I would like to express that we stay on point to the original claim made by pro which is: are the POLICIES causing more harm than good? Not, are the PEOPLE enforcing them causing more harm than good. I want to make the distinction that I would strongly oppose any favortism or bias based race, color, gender, etc. but it is not the policy that is causing this. I think it isn't the policy getting in the way, but the people. Could you imagine if we stopped everything with human error in it, we'd have to stop most, if not all, human activity. So I don't think the race/gender bias argument carries any weight to this particular debate. " Having a general discussion with the student themselves would've been more appropriate in that matter, unless there was some level of acting out." - vekoma123, Round 2 -And, where do we draw the line on this "acting out"? Is bringing a deadly weapon to school "acting out" or is pulling it out and showing it to students and telling them not to say anything about it, "acting out"? Or, is it when slashing motions with the weapon start taking place that we consider the student "acting out"? Also, Take a look at the Zero Tolerance Policy for drugs and alcohol at Lock Haven University in Pennsylvannia ( http://www.lhup.edu... ). Granted this is for college level students, but there were no distinctions made about which age group we are talking about. Perhaps Zero-Tolerance Policies could be better understood at the college level and students at this age have more fully developed brains to know why the policy is the way it is and what it is trying to accomplish. Couldn't this be a Zero-Tolerance Policy that is doing more good than harm? Do you have reason to believe these students are on a collision course with being repeat offenders in the justice system? Consider also, that parents have a role to play when their kids are K-12 in helping them understand and supporting a school district in keeping the schools safe, understanding and enforcing of policies included. If the parent knows about the policy and chooses to send their child to that school, then they agree with the policy. If the parent doesn't know, then is ignorance really an excuse (most contracts don't seem to think so)? For a frame of reference on these policies look at Vancouver School District's 2012-2013 Zero Tolerance for drugs. ( http://www.vansd.org... ) " Of course, not all students try to kill one-another, and I do agree that weapon possession with criminal intent is a problem, but that is just on criminal intent" -vekoma123, round 2 -So you agree that there are criteria that we can make a blanket statement on (1. weapon possession, 2. criminal intent)? What if the writing of a Zero-Tolerance policy included expulsion of a person on campus with a potentially deadly weapon AND proven to have violent/criminal intent. If we accounted for the intent within the policy itself, couldn’t we have a “well-written Zero-Tolerance Policy”? One that would consider the intent. As I said, a well-written Zero-Tolerance Policy could be effective. I would state also, that whether or not there was intent to distribute drugs shouldn't come into play as they are illegal for K-12 students without exception. The law will impose punishment on kids carrying drugs regardless of their location. So a Zero-Tolerance drug policy in schools is appropriate in expecting consequences with actions that are illegal. No need for a kid to bring illicit/illegal drugs (which zero-tolerance policies are usually indicating for public school districts again check out Vancouver School District's policy as they define which drugs they have Zero-Tolerance for http://www.vansd.org... ) into a school. According to politifact.com, Florida arrested over 12,000 school kids. Considering the number of students in florida it breaks down to less than 0.5% (approx. 12000+ students arressted in School in Florida/2.6 million students of the Florida student population) that were arrested. Zero-Tolerance Policies don't seem to be much of a problem for the other 99.5% of the population to follow them. While I do have sympathy for the kids who are affected by it, it doesn't seem the policy is the problem. Plus, shouldn't students be responsible for their actions? (Source 3 & 4) Considering YIC (Youth-In-Custody) schools are available to students who have been imprisoned and their recidivism rates (students that re-offend or come back to the justice system) are low (approx. 20-45%) , it is possible for students to "get out" of the "prison pipeline" that Zero-Tolerance Policies may have caused. These students have plenty of opportunity to correct their mistake and a very small percent of students are actually being arrested in schools and continuing on as criminals. (Source 5) The point is, you may not be seeing the rock you're standing on for the horizon. This may be a case of not seeing the benefit and wanting to press the detriment as the only piece of evidence to this complicated puzzle. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... ... (schools) 2. http://www.cdc.gov... ... 3. http://www.politifact.com... 4. http://teaching.about.com... 5. http://jjie.org... 6. http://www.vansd.org... ; 7. http://www.lhup.edu... ;	Education	1	Are-zero-tolerance-policies-a-broken-system-in-schools/2/	6,126
Seeing as my opponent didn't have a chance to make a case (other than his initial stance) during his first round and I did, I will simply post my appreciation for starting a debate on a very important topic. I was quite pleased with his conduct and wish him the best of luck in future debates. I look forward to seeing the results of this debate.	WhoWouldnt	Seeing as my opponent didn't have a chance to make a case (other than his initial stance) during his first round and I did, I will simply post my appreciation for starting a debate on a very important topic. I was quite pleased with his conduct and wish him the best of luck in future debates. I look forward to seeing the results of this debate.	Education	2	Are-zero-tolerance-policies-a-broken-system-in-schools/2/	6,127
Reuploaded since my last opponent was a troll account In this debate, we will be discussing whether or not zero tolerance policies in schools: Pro: are causing more harm than good. Con: are making schools more secure and safe. ... Structure: R1: Acceptance and CON's first argument R2: PRO's and CON's rebuttals and arguments R3: PRO's and CON's rebuttals and closing arguments Let's start!	vekoma123	Reuploaded since my last opponent was a troll account In this debate, we will be discussing whether or not zero tolerance policies in schools: Pro: are causing more harm than good. Con: are making schools more secure and safe. ... Structure: R1: Acceptance and CON's first argument R2: PRO's and CON's rebuttals and arguments R3: PRO's and CON's rebuttals and closing arguments Let's start!	Education	0	Are-zero-tolerance-policies-a-broken-system-in-schools/2/	6,128
I would love to thank my opponent for being apart of this debate. From the same website, I found a more clearer definition of my argument. It's similar to what my opponent said, but I will define it more specifically: 'A zero-tolerance policy in schools is a policy of punishing any infraction of a rule, regardless of accidental mistakes, ignorance, or extenuating circumstances.'[1] It's pretty straight forward that we can say that, in other words, those in school can be punished for breaking a rule, no matter what the circumstances, reasons, or present evidence are. Now let's take a look at the reason(s) why zero tolerance policies in schools exist: 'In schools, Zero Tolerance refers to the concept that certain types of disciplinary offenses will not be tolerated and automatically result in suspension or expulsion. In 1994, after horrific incidents of school violence like that which happened in Columbine, Colorado, the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 was passed, requiring all states to create laws mandating expulsion for students in possession of guns on school property. The intent of Zero Tolerance policies is to promote an atmosphere of safety, to deter other students from committing similar actions and to recognize and provide assistance to students who show signs of being capable of widespread acts of violence.'[2] I read your firsthand account regarding a student bringing a knife to school and telling those that they showed it to to not tell anyone, teachers and administration for that matter. I understand that intention didn't seem very clear, and I understand that consequences do happen, in this case a negative consequence for a potentially harmful item on hand. The problem i see with it is that taking their age into consideration, it may have been more appropriate to have counseling alone, and not a suspension. It didn't seem like they were treating the child like a criminal, which is great, but because there was no malicious intent present, this is an example of a relatively harsh consequence being given because, even though they could've been capable of being violent since they had a weapon, there were no true signs that showed that they were going to act on it. Having a general discussion with the student themselves would've been more appropriate in that matter, unless there was some level of acting out. Of course, if you bring in a weapon or drugs into a school, there will be some level of consequence. The problem is, by having these punishments being the same, there is no level of discussion or opportunity to take situations case by case to determine a reasonable punishment, which is what I will be getting into in a little bit. Minority student wise, I will agree that the policy itself doesn't call for bias on race or gender, but because of stereotypes and ways that people are raised, depending on those factors along with family and environment, it seems to come to a point where, as you said, human error in enforcement can overrun reasonable punishment just because of minority bias. If schools were not required to hold such a strict policy, there can be a level of reason involved which can take situations case by case, and not treat students like criminals, regardless of race. Great resource: ( <URL>... ). I cannot prove that all situations regarding the statistics involve these policies, but because modern discipline on such levels are based on these policies, it is likely. 'African-American students also "make up 35% of students suspended once, 44% of those suspended more than once, and 36% of students expelled. Further, more than 50% of students who were involved in school-related arrests or referred to law enforcement are Hispanic or African-American," the report found.' (Same resource) I looked at the sources you have given me, along with the next few following paragraphs, and it's quite a good resource and set of arguments for your side. Unfortunately, with homicidal statistics having some level of direct link to harsh penalties, that still doesn't cover drug possession and fights. Of course, not all students try to kill one-another, and I do agree that weapon possession with criminal intent is a problem, but that is just on criminal intent. Not all cases have involved real, harmful weapons, because there have been cases where kids have brought in or made gun-like objects, and then charged and arrested with criminal intent, which aren't proven to be there. [3] Also, I would like you to explain what you mean by 'I wonder if my opponent is willing to tamper with the current policies in a way that may risk the safety of students while they are at school.' I'm not saying that students should possess weapons or drugs in the school environment, because that is obviously inappropriate and could, and I mean 'could' harm students, teachers, and the school administration themselves, but these policies give off some level of paranoia [4] just because anyone could find one thing suspicious when it could end up being an ignorant assumption that wastes the time of students and prevent that from learning anything in school by being removed under false assumptions. Even if it's not the norm, and even if it has some level of decrease in school violence, these cases have still made criminals out of students, bad reputations for false assumptions, and even if it is apparently not insurmountable, such unreasonable consequence do happen and may continue to happen if we don't do anything about it. Again, as I agree that possession of weapons and drugs should be enforced as not appropriate and to not be brought to schools for any reason, the level of paranoia for examples of students bringing in knives or 'guns' without criminal intent is where the line needs to be drawn, especially when concerns are brought up by the student and they turn themselves in because they don't want to cause harm, and would not cause harm in the first place. [5] I await your rebuttal. Source 1: <URL>... Source 2: <URL>... Source 3: <URL>... Source 4: <URL>... Source 5: <URL>...	vekoma123	I would love to thank my opponent for being apart of this debate. From the same website, I found a more clearer definition of my argument. It's similar to what my opponent said, but I will define it more specifically: 'A zero-tolerance policy in schools is a policy of punishing any infraction of a rule, regardless of accidental mistakes, ignorance, or extenuating circumstances.'[1] It's pretty straight forward that we can say that, in other words, those in school can be punished for breaking a rule, no matter what the circumstances, reasons, or present evidence are. Now let's take a look at the reason(s) why zero tolerance policies in schools exist: 'In schools, Zero Tolerance refers to the concept that certain types of disciplinary offenses will not be tolerated and automatically result in suspension or expulsion. In 1994, after horrific incidents of school violence like that which happened in Columbine, Colorado, the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 was passed, requiring all states to create laws mandating expulsion for students in possession of guns on school property. The intent of Zero Tolerance policies is to promote an atmosphere of safety, to deter other students from committing similar actions and to recognize and provide assistance to students who show signs of being capable of widespread acts of violence.'[2] I read your firsthand account regarding a student bringing a knife to school and telling those that they showed it to to not tell anyone, teachers and administration for that matter. I understand that intention didn't seem very clear, and I understand that consequences do happen, in this case a negative consequence for a potentially harmful item on hand. The problem i see with it is that taking their age into consideration, it may have been more appropriate to have counseling alone, and not a suspension. It didn't seem like they were treating the child like a criminal, which is great, but because there was no malicious intent present, this is an example of a relatively harsh consequence being given because, even though they could've been capable of being violent since they had a weapon, there were no true signs that showed that they were going to act on it. Having a general discussion with the student themselves would've been more appropriate in that matter, unless there was some level of acting out. Of course, if you bring in a weapon or drugs into a school, there will be some level of consequence. The problem is, by having these punishments being the same, there is no level of discussion or opportunity to take situations case by case to determine a reasonable punishment, which is what I will be getting into in a little bit. Minority student wise, I will agree that the policy itself doesn't call for bias on race or gender, but because of stereotypes and ways that people are raised, depending on those factors along with family and environment, it seems to come to a point where, as you said, human error in enforcement can overrun reasonable punishment just because of minority bias. If schools were not required to hold such a strict policy, there can be a level of reason involved which can take situations case by case, and not treat students like criminals, regardless of race. Great resource: ( http://www.cnn.com... ). I cannot prove that all situations regarding the statistics involve these policies, but because modern discipline on such levels are based on these policies, it is likely. 'African-American students also "make up 35% of students suspended once, 44% of those suspended more than once, and 36% of students expelled. Further, more than 50% of students who were involved in school-related arrests or referred to law enforcement are Hispanic or African-American," the report found.' (Same resource) I looked at the sources you have given me, along with the next few following paragraphs, and it's quite a good resource and set of arguments for your side. Unfortunately, with homicidal statistics having some level of direct link to harsh penalties, that still doesn't cover drug possession and fights. Of course, not all students try to kill one-another, and I do agree that weapon possession with criminal intent is a problem, but that is just on criminal intent. Not all cases have involved real, harmful weapons, because there have been cases where kids have brought in or made gun-like objects, and then charged and arrested with criminal intent, which aren't proven to be there. [3] Also, I would like you to explain what you mean by 'I wonder if my opponent is willing to tamper with the current policies in a way that may risk the safety of students while they are at school.' I'm not saying that students should possess weapons or drugs in the school environment, because that is obviously inappropriate and could, and I mean 'could' harm students, teachers, and the school administration themselves, but these policies give off some level of paranoia [4] just because anyone could find one thing suspicious when it could end up being an ignorant assumption that wastes the time of students and prevent that from learning anything in school by being removed under false assumptions. Even if it's not the norm, and even if it has some level of decrease in school violence, these cases have still made criminals out of students, bad reputations for false assumptions, and even if it is apparently not insurmountable, such unreasonable consequence do happen and may continue to happen if we don't do anything about it. Again, as I agree that possession of weapons and drugs should be enforced as not appropriate and to not be brought to schools for any reason, the level of paranoia for examples of students bringing in knives or 'guns' without criminal intent is where the line needs to be drawn, especially when concerns are brought up by the student and they turn themselves in because they don't want to cause harm, and would not cause harm in the first place. [5] I await your rebuttal. Source 1: http://en.wikipedia.org... Source 2: http://childparenting.about.com... Source 3: http://bigstory.ap.org... Source 4: http://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com... Source 5: http://childparenting.about.com...	Education	1	Are-zero-tolerance-policies-a-broken-system-in-schools/2/	6,129
Well you definitely got me in a tight bind there. I will definitely have to agree with you on how those who enforce the policies are the ones who are practically destroying the fair and true intention of them. Unfortunately, there"s really no way of telling what that is, but there seems to be a level of harsh authority being taken with such a broad set of rules, or policies for that matter. It"s the same way of how the U.S. is practically a police state with how people are handling the Constitution, but that"s a topic for another discussion. Schools obviously aren"t playing "Big Brother", but the thing is, schools will have different policies with their own written out, detailed punishments, but unfortunately human error and judgment can influence a whole different aspect of consequences. That being said, it kinda meets a mid-point there that calls for a change in both the policies and enforcement. if teachers and administration were able to put common sense and critical thinking into how they handle situations case-by-case, which they should be doing in the first place, there may be a level of compromise to be made where abuse of such power isn"t present. "-And, where do we draw the line on this "acting out"? Is bringing a deadly weapon to school "acting out" or is pulling it out and showing it to students and telling them not to say anything about it, "acting out"? Or, is it when slashing motions with the weapon start taking place that we consider the student "acting out"?" The way I see it, and you do have a great point there, is that if violent intention and assault do occur and are present, than that would call for some level of harsh punishment. Even if they know they are in the wrong, but don"t physically act on it, then yes, some level of counseling or a group talk with the parents is necessary. Obviously college students will have better judgment than children or high schoolers would when it comes to drug and alcohol possession, but then again, yeah, college parties. The thing is though, drugs and alcohol are easily abused and pose harm no matter what. There aren"t any Hello Kitty bubble drugs or pop-tart shaped drugs that are made out to be assumed to be possessed with criminal intent, but apparently there"s no age distinctions. I mean, possessing them is one thing, and yes schools have their regulations, but using them is another. Practically a gun control debate here, but does that mean that zero tolerance policies need some level of regulation? Also, I found it interesting how the college I went to doesn"t discipline such menial "offenses" like those crazy examples, because they are able to distinguish between good and bad judgment. There is definitely some level of parental involvement with the policies themselves, I will agree with you on that. Then again, they are sending their children to a school that could potentially create some level of issues that could involve parents to step in and defend their child, which will be addressed later on in this argument. Not saying that every child is a criminal or will cause a problem, but I feel most of the upbringing of how children should be should be the responsibility of the parent to help them distinguish between right and wrong, not just the school to tell them what is and isn"t. "-So you agree that there are criteria that we can make a blanket statement on (1. weapon possession, 2. criminal intent)? What if the writing of a Zero-Tolerance policy included expulsion of a person on campus with a potentially deadly weapon AND proven to have violent/criminal intent. If we accounted for the intent within the policy itself, couldn"t we have a "well-written Zero-Tolerance Policy"? One that would consider the intent. As I said, a well-written Zero-Tolerance Policy could be effective." Bingo, now we are on the same page. Having more in-depth policies with criminal intent would make it so much more convenient and easier to handle, plus reputations would not be destroyed by teachers who think pop-tarts can pose safety hazards, and administration wouldn"t be making the educational system their slave. Of course I will agree that illegal drug possession on school ground or not is a crime, everyone is aware of that, and yes, punishment should be given because of it being an illegal crime, but I"m seeing in it that it counts for illegal narcotics and controlled substances only, and I mean only. I forgot to mention an example of how these drug policies also affect those who possess non-illegal, prescription drugs and still get in trouble just for having them within reach. ( <URL>... - 6 minutes, 43 seconds in). Also, in that video, a student was expelled because when police checked their car under suspicion, they found marijuana and a small fishing knife. Forget the marijuana, they only suspended them for carrying a small knife, in a tackle box, in their car, distant from the school itself, without criminal intent in the slightest"...for fishing! How does this get justified? With the Florida situation, even if it is a small amount, that doesn"t mean that the policies have been a problem, or rather the enforcement of them. You could say that a small percentage of people voted for one presidential candidate that didn"t win, but their votes still count. Students of course should be responsible for their actions, but what responsibility do students hold for "offenses" that, critically observed, pose absolutely no harm at all, regardless of location? I"m also seeing racial profiling being mentioned in there as well, with relevance to the Trayvon incident. Again, as much as I am willing to change my stance into having enforcement being more of an issue than the policies themselves, it still doesn"t make it okay. Oh, and interesting article here regarding that. Seems like the Obama administration is actually taking some level of authority over something that seems rather reasonable. ( <URL>... ) '"Considering YIC (Youth-In-Custody) schools are available to students who have been imprisoned and their recidivism rates (students that re-offend or come back to the justice system) are low (approx. 20-45%)' 20-45% seems rather high in one way of viewing it, but if that isn"t making a great impact, than I guess there isn"t much of a problem to address. I do agree that YIC schools are great alternatives, but do all offenses being addressed under the policies really need to call for legal action and imprisonment? Again, it"s all based on judgment and error. If the students have caused or created a serious offense that truly jeopardizes the school environment, then sure, take them away to those alternative locations. " I would like to thank my opponent for taking the time to be apart of this debate. I definitely stand corrected on differentiating the difference between the policies and the enforcement of such policies, though I do stand on my platform where there really needs to be some level of regulation of these policies, and for offenses to be taken case-by-case, and not umbrella"d under one single punishment. Hopefully we will all see changes in the near future, because this is definitely a tough topic to talk about. -Vekoma123	vekoma123	Well you definitely got me in a tight bind there. I will definitely have to agree with you on how those who enforce the policies are the ones who are practically destroying the fair and true intention of them. Unfortunately, there"s really no way of telling what that is, but there seems to be a level of harsh authority being taken with such a broad set of rules, or policies for that matter. It"s the same way of how the U.S. is practically a police state with how people are handling the Constitution, but that"s a topic for another discussion. Schools obviously aren"t playing "Big Brother", but the thing is, schools will have different policies with their own written out, detailed punishments, but unfortunately human error and judgment can influence a whole different aspect of consequences. That being said, it kinda meets a mid-point there that calls for a change in both the policies and enforcement. if teachers and administration were able to put common sense and critical thinking into how they handle situations case-by-case, which they should be doing in the first place, there may be a level of compromise to be made where abuse of such power isn"t present. "-And, where do we draw the line on this "acting out"? Is bringing a deadly weapon to school "acting out" or is pulling it out and showing it to students and telling them not to say anything about it, "acting out"? Or, is it when slashing motions with the weapon start taking place that we consider the student "acting out"?" The way I see it, and you do have a great point there, is that if violent intention and assault do occur and are present, than that would call for some level of harsh punishment. Even if they know they are in the wrong, but don"t physically act on it, then yes, some level of counseling or a group talk with the parents is necessary. Obviously college students will have better judgment than children or high schoolers would when it comes to drug and alcohol possession, but then again, yeah, college parties. The thing is though, drugs and alcohol are easily abused and pose harm no matter what. There aren"t any Hello Kitty bubble drugs or pop-tart shaped drugs that are made out to be assumed to be possessed with criminal intent, but apparently there"s no age distinctions. I mean, possessing them is one thing, and yes schools have their regulations, but using them is another. Practically a gun control debate here, but does that mean that zero tolerance policies need some level of regulation? Also, I found it interesting how the college I went to doesn"t discipline such menial "offenses" like those crazy examples, because they are able to distinguish between good and bad judgment. There is definitely some level of parental involvement with the policies themselves, I will agree with you on that. Then again, they are sending their children to a school that could potentially create some level of issues that could involve parents to step in and defend their child, which will be addressed later on in this argument. Not saying that every child is a criminal or will cause a problem, but I feel most of the upbringing of how children should be should be the responsibility of the parent to help them distinguish between right and wrong, not just the school to tell them what is and isn"t. "-So you agree that there are criteria that we can make a blanket statement on (1. weapon possession, 2. criminal intent)? What if the writing of a Zero-Tolerance policy included expulsion of a person on campus with a potentially deadly weapon AND proven to have violent/criminal intent. If we accounted for the intent within the policy itself, couldn"t we have a "well-written Zero-Tolerance Policy"? One that would consider the intent. As I said, a well-written Zero-Tolerance Policy could be effective." Bingo, now we are on the same page. Having more in-depth policies with criminal intent would make it so much more convenient and easier to handle, plus reputations would not be destroyed by teachers who think pop-tarts can pose safety hazards, and administration wouldn"t be making the educational system their slave. Of course I will agree that illegal drug possession on school ground or not is a crime, everyone is aware of that, and yes, punishment should be given because of it being an illegal crime, but I"m seeing in it that it counts for illegal narcotics and controlled substances only, and I mean only. I forgot to mention an example of how these drug policies also affect those who possess non-illegal, prescription drugs and still get in trouble just for having them within reach. ( https://www.youtube.com... - 6 minutes, 43 seconds in). Also, in that video, a student was expelled because when police checked their car under suspicion, they found marijuana and a small fishing knife. Forget the marijuana, they only suspended them for carrying a small knife, in a tackle box, in their car, distant from the school itself, without criminal intent in the slightest"...for fishing! How does this get justified? With the Florida situation, even if it is a small amount, that doesn"t mean that the policies have been a problem, or rather the enforcement of them. You could say that a small percentage of people voted for one presidential candidate that didn"t win, but their votes still count. Students of course should be responsible for their actions, but what responsibility do students hold for "offenses" that, critically observed, pose absolutely no harm at all, regardless of location? I"m also seeing racial profiling being mentioned in there as well, with relevance to the Trayvon incident. Again, as much as I am willing to change my stance into having enforcement being more of an issue than the policies themselves, it still doesn"t make it okay. Oh, and interesting article here regarding that. Seems like the Obama administration is actually taking some level of authority over something that seems rather reasonable. ( http://www.pbs.org... ) '"Considering YIC (Youth-In-Custody) schools are available to students who have been imprisoned and their recidivism rates (students that re-offend or come back to the justice system) are low (approx. 20-45%)' 20-45% seems rather high in one way of viewing it, but if that isn"t making a great impact, than I guess there isn"t much of a problem to address. I do agree that YIC schools are great alternatives, but do all offenses being addressed under the policies really need to call for legal action and imprisonment? Again, it"s all based on judgment and error. If the students have caused or created a serious offense that truly jeopardizes the school environment, then sure, take them away to those alternative locations. " I would like to thank my opponent for taking the time to be apart of this debate. I definitely stand corrected on differentiating the difference between the policies and the enforcement of such policies, though I do stand on my platform where there really needs to be some level of regulation of these policies, and for offenses to be taken case-by-case, and not umbrella"d under one single punishment. Hopefully we will all see changes in the near future, because this is definitely a tough topic to talk about. -Vekoma123	Education	2	Are-zero-tolerance-policies-a-broken-system-in-schools/2/	6,130
Art, much like Christianity is something that a person believes in versus something that is a proven fact. Its relative to an individual and solely based on ones faith and preference. I do not believe in art.	madamep85	Art, much like Christianity is something that a person believes in versus something that is a proven fact. Its relative to an individual and solely based on ones faith and preference. I do not believe in art.	Arts	0	Art-is-not-a-reality-it-is-a-concept-to-people-choose-to-believed-in./1/	6,215
i think your explanation says it best "art CAN be defined as" another definition as provided by Oxford English dictionary is art-"the expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture." First, the fact that there are multiple definitions for this one word "art" that do not necessarily correlate with each other means that its relative to the person defining it. As such it cannot have a set standard or have any one person or level of skill achieved by any one person that would universally be a considered art. Second, your definition assumes that everyone has found something beautiful. If one person in their existence has never found something beautiful, then art doesn't exist. Third, taking your definition, someone can believe something aesthetically pleasing and someone else can believe it is hideous, thus making it based on a personal opinion. much like a religion, people believe in it based on nothing but a feeling and a personal belief, no actual definitive evidence. your other point i never said art was non existent. i said art was an unproven concept and based on belief. an you hit the nail on the head by saying "it exists if only in a persons mind". i also said i didn't believe in it.	madamep85	i think your explanation says it best "art CAN be defined as" another definition as provided by Oxford English dictionary is art-"the expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture." First, the fact that there are multiple definitions for this one word "art" that do not necessarily correlate with each other means that its relative to the person defining it. As such it cannot have a set standard or have any one person or level of skill achieved by any one person that would universally be a considered art. Second, your definition assumes that everyone has found something beautiful. If one person in their existence has never found something beautiful, then art doesn't exist. Third, taking your definition, someone can believe something aesthetically pleasing and someone else can believe it is hideous, thus making it based on a personal opinion. much like a religion, people believe in it based on nothing but a feeling and a personal belief, no actual definitive evidence. your other point i never said art was non existent. i said art was an unproven concept and based on belief. an you hit the nail on the head by saying "it exists if only in a persons mind". i also said i didn't believe in it.	Arts	1	Art-is-not-a-reality-it-is-a-concept-to-people-choose-to-believed-in./1/	6,216
ok lets address your first argument: Your definition is art is based on the concept of an individuals expression being based on what is beautiful or aesthetically pleasing. my definition is a creative skill put forth in a way that can be seen. one doesn't have anything to do with another. 1. someone can express a creative skill such as painting based on my definition, but if its not aesthetically pleasing, then its not art based on your definition. in addition, if something is found to be beautiful by people, i.e. a person expressing himself by throwing paint on the floor, but there was no skill involved then it doesn't meet my definition. still proving that art has no set definition and can only exist to the person defining it, if someone doesn't define art then they don't believe in it and it is an unproven concept. 2. happiness is never brought up in either definition, that's just something that you took it mean("this picture on the wall that is someone's expression of life makes me happy, therefore this picture must be art"). Even if i grant you that your interpretation is ok, it still proves my argument which is that art is based on belief. it is a unproven concept that people choose to accept, like religion, but is not based on anything factual, and i don't believe in it. personally im happy when im well rested, does that mean rest is art? your next argument, 1. your running away with this "everything is art" and "happiness is art" idea. i already address this in my 2nd point of my last argument. but to add to it, you're assuming that everyone has known happiness. that is not a proven fact. even if it was, many people would argue that happiness doesn't equate to art, like to 2 people that defined the word for us. neither use the idea that happiness is a factor in determining what art is. 2. further, a lot of people that would meet your original definition of art, ie, someone that painted a beautiful painting, may not be happy. lots of people express themselves for example by painting aesthetically pleasing pictures because they are depressed or miserable. some can only do it when they are in that state. your last arguement 1. i think your missing my point about art. I'm saying that art exists about as must as God, Allah, or Buddha do. all are concepts that people have chosen to except as their reality despite the inability to provide proof that they exist. art has been accepted by millions of people all with their own opinion of what is and no way to tell them they are wrong. i can think a painting is a really cool painting or a dancer is very talented but that doesn't mean the picture or the dance is art. again my argument still holds true that it is an unproven concept. it is based on a persons personal opinion and if someone doesn't accept any of the definitions and chooses not to define it then they don't believe in art. that means art is not their reality. 2. and 2nd the sky isn't actually blue. its every color in a prism but the gas molecules that exist in our atmosphere only absorb blue light and scatter it in many directions. so i guess that means that im valid in denying that art is reality huh? your argument is basically about art being happiness and beauty and anyone knowing happiness knows art. then you said everyone knows happiness so that means art exists. my point, which i think you've failed to address, is that thats your opinion and you're not wrong for it. nor are the people that created either of the definitions that we used in this debate. thats why im right that art is an unproven concept. anyone can call anything art and be right by their definition murder, pictures, music, nature, stripping, whatever you want. or a person can not accept any of the definitions and not believe in it all. good debate...thanks for being my opponent	madamep85	ok lets address your first argument: Your definition is art is based on the concept of an individuals expression being based on what is beautiful or aesthetically pleasing. my definition is a creative skill put forth in a way that can be seen. one doesn't have anything to do with another. 1. someone can express a creative skill such as painting based on my definition, but if its not aesthetically pleasing, then its not art based on your definition. in addition, if something is found to be beautiful by people, i.e. a person expressing himself by throwing paint on the floor, but there was no skill involved then it doesn't meet my definition. still proving that art has no set definition and can only exist to the person defining it, if someone doesn't define art then they don't believe in it and it is an unproven concept. 2. happiness is never brought up in either definition, that's just something that you took it mean("this picture on the wall that is someone's expression of life makes me happy, therefore this picture must be art"). Even if i grant you that your interpretation is ok, it still proves my argument which is that art is based on belief. it is a unproven concept that people choose to accept, like religion, but is not based on anything factual, and i don't believe in it. personally im happy when im well rested, does that mean rest is art? your next argument, 1. your running away with this "everything is art" and "happiness is art" idea. i already address this in my 2nd point of my last argument. but to add to it, you're assuming that everyone has known happiness. that is not a proven fact. even if it was, many people would argue that happiness doesn't equate to art, like to 2 people that defined the word for us. neither use the idea that happiness is a factor in determining what art is. 2. further, a lot of people that would meet your original definition of art, ie, someone that painted a beautiful painting, may not be happy. lots of people express themselves for example by painting aesthetically pleasing pictures because they are depressed or miserable. some can only do it when they are in that state. your last arguement 1. i think your missing my point about art. I'm saying that art exists about as must as God, Allah, or Buddha do. all are concepts that people have chosen to except as their reality despite the inability to provide proof that they exist. art has been accepted by millions of people all with their own opinion of what is and no way to tell them they are wrong. i can think a painting is a really cool painting or a dancer is very talented but that doesn't mean the picture or the dance is art. again my argument still holds true that it is an unproven concept. it is based on a persons personal opinion and if someone doesn't accept any of the definitions and chooses not to define it then they don't believe in art. that means art is not their reality. 2. and 2nd the sky isn't actually blue. its every color in a prism but the gas molecules that exist in our atmosphere only absorb blue light and scatter it in many directions. so i guess that means that im valid in denying that art is reality huh? your argument is basically about art being happiness and beauty and anyone knowing happiness knows art. then you said everyone knows happiness so that means art exists. my point, which i think you've failed to address, is that thats your opinion and you're not wrong for it. nor are the people that created either of the definitions that we used in this debate. thats why im right that art is an unproven concept. anyone can call anything art and be right by their definition murder, pictures, music, nature, stripping, whatever you want. or a person can not accept any of the definitions and not believe in it all. good debate...thanks for being my opponent	Arts	2	Art-is-not-a-reality-it-is-a-concept-to-people-choose-to-believed-in./1/	6,217
Out of pure respect for my opponent, I will give him to post his argument first and last. Having said this, I think I should put down some rules for this debate: 1. We are arguing true AI, which is AI that can think fully and (at the very least) almost exactly like a human being. Definitions from Dictionary.com We will be using the listed definitions for this debate. .Artificial - "Made by human skill; produced by humans (opposed to natural)" .Intelligence - "Capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc." .Impossible - "Not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc." Good luck, and may the best debater win.	VenomousNinja	Out of pure respect for my opponent, I will give him to post his argument first and last. Having said this, I think I should put down some rules for this debate: 1. We are arguing true AI, which is AI that can think fully and (at the very least) almost exactly like a human being. Definitions from Dictionary.com We will be using the listed definitions for this debate. .Artificial - "Made by human skill; produced by humans (opposed to natural)" .Intelligence - "Capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc." .Impossible - "Not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc." Good luck, and may the best debater win.	Technology	0	Artificial-Intelligence-is-impossible/1/	6,228
Thank you for accepting, Draxxt. Now, onto your arguments: "A) AI is impossible because we cannot be certain anything truly exists" Wrong, we can be certain some things exist, such as, Debate.org, we know that exists, life, we know that exists, etc. . However, that is not relevant to this debate. So, I will make an argument that is. We are certain some AI exists, even if it is relatively simple. In fact, Debate.org has a good amount of AI in it, as it is smart enough to post our arguments for us. Now, although we are arguing 'true AI', you said anything, thus allowing me to stray from 'true AI' for a moment. "B) My opponent has given me the definition to impossible with the word exist as a defining term. I propose to you that if you were to prove existence, would surely win this debate." I know, because if I was to prove existence, I would be proving that 'true AI' is possible. "C) If you cannot prove existence, it will then be impossible to produce any notions of artificial anything." Incorrect. We are debating if it is POSSIBLE, not existing. Also, I can produce more than one notion of 'artificial anything'. Debate.org, for example, how about a Gamecube, both of those have artificial intelligence. Not 'true' AI, but they both do have AI. Now, onto my argument: 1) Deep Blue. Deep Blue was a robot who was able to match the chess skills of Garry Kasparov, who is considered to be the best human chess player in the world. Now, if a robot can match superior chess skills, then a robot can do other things like humans. Also, from my definition of 'true AI', Deep Blue would have 'true AI', as it is able to think very similarly or exactly like Kasparov, and that would fulfill the requirement of 'think fully and (at the very least) almost exactly like a human being'.	VenomousNinja	Thank you for accepting, Draxxt. Now, onto your arguments: "A) AI is impossible because we cannot be certain anything truly exists" Wrong, we can be certain some things exist, such as, Debate.org, we know that exists, life, we know that exists, etc. . However, that is not relevant to this debate. So, I will make an argument that is. We are certain some AI exists, even if it is relatively simple. In fact, Debate.org has a good amount of AI in it, as it is smart enough to post our arguments for us. Now, although we are arguing 'true AI', you said anything, thus allowing me to stray from 'true AI' for a moment. "B) My opponent has given me the definition to impossible with the word exist as a defining term. I propose to you that if you were to prove existence, would surely win this debate." I know, because if I was to prove existence, I would be proving that 'true AI' is possible. "C) If you cannot prove existence, it will then be impossible to produce any notions of artificial anything." Incorrect. We are debating if it is POSSIBLE, not existing. Also, I can produce more than one notion of 'artificial anything'. Debate.org, for example, how about a Gamecube, both of those have artificial intelligence. Not 'true' AI, but they both do have AI. Now, onto my argument: 1) Deep Blue. Deep Blue was a robot who was able to match the chess skills of Garry Kasparov, who is considered to be the best human chess player in the world. Now, if a robot can match superior chess skills, then a robot can do other things like humans. Also, from my definition of 'true AI', Deep Blue would have 'true AI', as it is able to think very similarly or exactly like Kasparov, and that would fulfill the requirement of 'think fully and (at the very least) almost exactly like a human being'.	Technology	1	Artificial-Intelligence-is-impossible/1/	6,229
"My opponent, ladies and gentleman, has not refuted a SINGLE point in this debate. He has merely said: 'I CAN prove existence.'" I have refuted every one of your points, and I never said that I could prove existence. "How? Prove it so" Debate.org - We know it exists as we are using it right now to post our debates. Life - We are living, and that is enough evidence to prove life. "It is as I made it a debatable point. You have yet to prove it so." It is not relevant because it does not relate to the resolution. "That's not intelligence, it's programming" The only way to get Artificial Intelligence is through programming. I shall now refer to the definition of intelligence: ".Intelligence - "Capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths," Debate.org has intelligence, as it can learn and can understand. In fact, right now, it understands that I am writing an argument, and in a little while it shall understand that I wish to post this argument. Debate.org has also learned my password and username, among other things. Although that may be just programming, Debate.org's programming is part of Debate.org, and should be treated as such. The gamecube, has intelligence. It can learn, although it may need help from memory cards, it has an understanding that I want to play games on it, it can reason the different types of ways I input commands through the controller, such as hitting one button or the other. "Purely man-made and not intelligent unless you're referring to the man himself." Once again, the only way to get Artificial Intelligence is through programming. "But you haven't. Please address my points or else you forfeit them to me." I know I haven't. I said that if I was, I would surly win this debate. I never said that I would prove existence, and the reason being is because this debate is weather 'true AI' is possible or impossible. "1) Those are mere programs, not AI." The only way to get AI is through programming. "2) But if it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove existence, it is also IMPOSSIBLE to prove AI." No, it isn't. I can prove AI. How about, this time around, a Radio? It has AI. It can learn which stations I like through presets that I set, it can reason that I am on FM and not AM and that is should get FM stations, and it can understand what volume I want. Of course, all of these features rely on human input, but the features still work and the radio still does its job because of it's Fake(Artificial) Smarts(Intelligence). "Can it think, feel, react to stimuli other than chess? No. It has no existence or being except to play chess." However, Deep Blue can match a human's intellect in the world of chess, so in the world of chess, Deep Blue has 'true AI'. Let's bring up my definition of 'true AI', shall we? "We are arguing true AI, which is AI that can think fully and (at the very least) almost exactly like a human being." Deep Blue can think full and almost exactly like a human being while playing chess, so it would qualify for having true AI, even though all it does is play chess.	VenomousNinja	"My opponent, ladies and gentleman, has not refuted a SINGLE point in this debate. He has merely said: 'I CAN prove existence.'" I have refuted every one of your points, and I never said that I could prove existence. "How? Prove it so" Debate.org - We know it exists as we are using it right now to post our debates. Life - We are living, and that is enough evidence to prove life. "It is as I made it a debatable point. You have yet to prove it so." It is not relevant because it does not relate to the resolution. "That's not intelligence, it's programming" The only way to get Artificial Intelligence is through programming. I shall now refer to the definition of intelligence: ".Intelligence - "Capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths," Debate.org has intelligence, as it can learn and can understand. In fact, right now, it understands that I am writing an argument, and in a little while it shall understand that I wish to post this argument. Debate.org has also learned my password and username, among other things. Although that may be just programming, Debate.org's programming is part of Debate.org, and should be treated as such. The gamecube, has intelligence. It can learn, although it may need help from memory cards, it has an understanding that I want to play games on it, it can reason the different types of ways I input commands through the controller, such as hitting one button or the other. "Purely man-made and not intelligent unless you're referring to the man himself." Once again, the only way to get Artificial Intelligence is through programming. "But you haven't. Please address my points or else you forfeit them to me." I know I haven't. I said that if I was, I would surly win this debate. I never said that I would prove existence, and the reason being is because this debate is weather 'true AI' is possible or impossible. "1) Those are mere programs, not AI." The only way to get AI is through programming. "2) But if it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove existence, it is also IMPOSSIBLE to prove AI." No, it isn't. I can prove AI. How about, this time around, a Radio? It has AI. It can learn which stations I like through presets that I set, it can reason that I am on FM and not AM and that is should get FM stations, and it can understand what volume I want. Of course, all of these features rely on human input, but the features still work and the radio still does its job because of it's Fake(Artificial) Smarts(Intelligence). "Can it think, feel, react to stimuli other than chess? No. It has no existence or being except to play chess." However, Deep Blue can match a human's intellect in the world of chess, so in the world of chess, Deep Blue has 'true AI'. Let's bring up my definition of 'true AI', shall we? "We are arguing true AI, which is AI that can think fully and (at the very least) almost exactly like a human being." Deep Blue can think full and almost exactly like a human being while playing chess, so it would qualify for having true AI, even though all it does is play chess.	Technology	2	Artificial-Intelligence-is-impossible/1/	6,230
I will refute, at the very least, two of your statements, within a single point: When you asked for evidence of AI, you used the word 'always' in your plea for evidence. Not in all of them, of course, but in the ones you are debating. My Proof: "If you cannot prove existance, it will then be impossible to produce any notions of artificial anything" "AI is impossible because we cannot be certain anything truly exists" Now, onto more quotes! "I have already said it is because I have made it a debatable point." However, I said it isn't. Thus, it's your opinion against mine. "You have attempted to prove that existence is obvious ergo, you tried to prove existence." However, I never said that I could prove existance, now did I? "An illusion is something that tricks the senses. If we think we are typing a debate, but are not, that is a trick to the senses. You cannot prove existence." Thank you! You did my job for me by proving illusions! "Yes but in your case, Gamecube or Debate.org is simply programming, not AI. There is a difference between simple programming and human-like AI." However, once again, when I used the Gamecube and Debate.org examples to refute your statement, your statement included the word anything, which allows me to stray from 'true AI', as I call it. My proof of this: "If you cannot prove existence, it will then be impossible to produce any notions of artificial anything." - Your Original Statement Now, more quotes! "This is not learning. These devices are limited by their programming, they cannot learn." However, they can learn within the confines of their programming, as proved by presets and memory cards. "But again, that is not human-like intelligence it's man-made and man controlled." However, when I the statement I refuted with this example include the word 'anything'. This is your original statement, which I refuded with my radio example: "C) If you cannot prove existence, it will then be impossible to produce any notions of artificial anything." Now, although this is the original statement, here is the back-up statement you provided to refute my statement, which backs up the original statement, which I am refuting: "1) Those are mere programs, not AI." This was a statement made to refute a statement I made to refute the original statement displayed above. "But to think as a human being, you need emotion, understanding, logic, ect." Deep Blue has understanding and logic, as it needs those things in order to match the skill of Garry Kasparov, considered to be the greatest chess player in the world. Now you could simply say that Deep Blue was programmed to play against Kasparov's style of playing, however, a true chess master would able to change his style of play mid-game, and onlookers of his past games would easily be able to defeat him by playing against his style of game. "My opponent is conceding, not refuting, and simply dropping points. You can only logically vote PRO." Both of these points are false. I am refuting points, and I am not dropping points. And you can only logically vote CON. By the way, there are many things wrong with my above statement, as well as my opponents. Because my opponent gets to debate last, and he keeps stating that people can only vote PRO, people will believe him, no matter how false it is, and no matter how logically you must vote CON. My proof of this: The last thing said sticks in your memory the best as it is the most recent statement out of all, and as such you will be able to recall it the best, and as an added effect you will not be able to recall many, if any, older statements. This does, however, only apply to this debate because of the number of statements said before the last statement. It can apply to other debates, although. Now, my arguments: Scientists have created a very humun looking robot, and that robot has the possibility to do more than simply sit or walk, however, at present, it can only sit. (1) Scientists also one day think that robots will be able to make us believe that they are human. (1) References: 1) <URL>...	VenomousNinja	I will refute, at the very least, two of your statements, within a single point: When you asked for evidence of AI, you used the word 'always' in your plea for evidence. Not in all of them, of course, but in the ones you are debating. My Proof: "If you cannot prove existance, it will then be impossible to produce any notions of artificial anything" "AI is impossible because we cannot be certain anything truly exists" Now, onto more quotes! "I have already said it is because I have made it a debatable point." However, I said it isn't. Thus, it's your opinion against mine. "You have attempted to prove that existence is obvious ergo, you tried to prove existence." However, I never said that I could prove existance, now did I? "An illusion is something that tricks the senses. If we think we are typing a debate, but are not, that is a trick to the senses. You cannot prove existence." Thank you! You did my job for me by proving illusions! "Yes but in your case, Gamecube or Debate.org is simply programming, not AI. There is a difference between simple programming and human-like AI." However, once again, when I used the Gamecube and Debate.org examples to refute your statement, your statement included the word anything, which allows me to stray from 'true AI', as I call it. My proof of this: "If you cannot prove existence, it will then be impossible to produce any notions of artificial anything." - Your Original Statement Now, more quotes! "This is not learning. These devices are limited by their programming, they cannot learn." However, they can learn within the confines of their programming, as proved by presets and memory cards. "But again, that is not human-like intelligence it's man-made and man controlled." However, when I the statement I refuted with this example include the word 'anything'. This is your original statement, which I refuded with my radio example: "C) If you cannot prove existence, it will then be impossible to produce any notions of artificial anything." Now, although this is the original statement, here is the back-up statement you provided to refute my statement, which backs up the original statement, which I am refuting: "1) Those are mere programs, not AI." This was a statement made to refute a statement I made to refute the original statement displayed above. "But to think as a human being, you need emotion, understanding, logic, ect." Deep Blue has understanding and logic, as it needs those things in order to match the skill of Garry Kasparov, considered to be the greatest chess player in the world. Now you could simply say that Deep Blue was programmed to play against Kasparov's style of playing, however, a true chess master would able to change his style of play mid-game, and onlookers of his past games would easily be able to defeat him by playing against his style of game. "My opponent is conceding, not refuting, and simply dropping points. You can only logically vote PRO." Both of these points are false. I am refuting points, and I am not dropping points. And you can only logically vote CON. By the way, there are many things wrong with my above statement, as well as my opponents. Because my opponent gets to debate last, and he keeps stating that people can only vote PRO, people will believe him, no matter how false it is, and no matter how logically you must vote CON. My proof of this: The last thing said sticks in your memory the best as it is the most recent statement out of all, and as such you will be able to recall it the best, and as an added effect you will not be able to recall many, if any, older statements. This does, however, only apply to this debate because of the number of statements said before the last statement. It can apply to other debates, although. Now, my arguments: Scientists have created a very humun looking robot, and that robot has the possibility to do more than simply sit or walk, however, at present, it can only sit. (1) Scientists also one day think that robots will be able to make us believe that they are human. (1) References: 1) http://news.bbc.co.uk...	Technology	3	Artificial-Intelligence-is-impossible/1/	6,231
"Never once did the word "always" come up in my debate until now. I defy you to prove otherwise." So sorry, I meant to say 'anything'. "No. It became a debatable point therefore you either had to refute it or concede." It was not related to the resolution, however. Therefore, it did not need to be debated. "I said that since you provided evidence for things you considered existant, you tried to prove existance." However I never stated that I could prove existence, I merely attempted to. "1) I did not prove illusions, I merely said we may be illusory." And to be illusory, there must be illusions! "2) If you were to try and prove illusions, you would be conceding my point." Actually, I would be backing up my point that there are, at least, SOME things that we know to exist. "No. I said human-like. When you create 'human-like' as a rule, you automatically assume that all points consisting of AI will go by the rule of 'human-like.'" However, you still used the word 'anything', and, as I have stated before, that allows me to stray from 'true AI'. When you just say 'AI', or something similar, I will then assume that it fits into the rule of 'true AI'. However, you allowed me to stray from 'true AI' by your word choice. "Yes but humans are not limited by a certain amount of knowledge. Also, they may only learn certain things that correspond with their programming. They may not manipulate it in any way without human interaction, therefore they cannot think as a human does." Some humans are, in fact. While else would those people labeled as 'mental retards' have to live with a relative? Can they not take care of themselves by learning how the world works like a seemingly 'normal' person does? Apparently, not. There are very few cases, if any, of a 'mental retard' taking care of him or herself. Also notice that it does not have anything to do with their physical limitations, as it is called 'MENTAL retardation'. "Again, you go by the preset rules." Again, you used the word 'anything'. Let's look at the word 'anything', shall we? The first definition (from dictionary.com) says "any thing whatever; something, no matter what" The second says "a thing of any kind." The third says "in any degree; to any extent; in any way; at all" Now, upon seeing the third definition, you may think that it proves your point, however, let's look at the example of the third definition: "Does it taste anything like chocolate?" And, using the definition, we can see that this means "Does it, to any degree or extent, taste anything like chocolate?" "It has understanding of chess and nothing more." However, Deep Blue still has understanding and logic, although it may be only of chess. "Yes but try talking philosophically with he machine and it would probably produce a rebuttal along the lines of "Bishop to queen's four." This is in no way "human-like" intelligence." Now, that all depends on what one considers 'human-like' to be. I think 'human-like' intellect means it can do something intelligently. And it can, it can play chess intelligently. And, as such, Deep Blue has "human-like" intelligence by my standards. "If they are stupid. If they only go by the final demand, they haven't been paying attention. Saying "You can only logical vote XXX" Is a statement generally used to say "And this is why you should vote XXX" If they do not read the debate aside from commands, it is useless debating. We may as well spend all of our rounds saying "Vote XXX"" 1) I never said they were stupid 2) I never said they could only go by the final command, I am saying that the final post sticks in your mind the most, and therefore probably influences you the most. This does not mean that you posting "VOTE PRO VOTE PRO VOTE PRO" twenty times in your last post means they are going to vote for you. I'm just saying that, in many cases, the last one encounters is what influences them the most. In the "VOTE PRO" case, it would probably influence one to vote for me. 3) If so, why don't you just say the latter quote instead of misleading people with the former? 4) See 2). "If that were the case, every last round debater would win and that is not the case. Most logical people go by logical victors, not formal requests." Please see my above statement. "However relevant that is is beyond me. It still does not have the capacities of a true human. It cannot love, feel, philosophically debate by opinion. It can only do what is within it's limitations that make it lesser than a human." Once again, that all depends on what your definition of human is. Humans can be caring people, or they can be mass murders, or they can be limited because of some condition, or they can be a child, etc. "My opponent has made no sense this debate except to bring up a sitting robot that looks like a human. This in no way represents true AI as my opponent made the rule by. He has also dropped my existence contention and therefore, has already dropped half of the debate." I made much sense. Also, your existence contention does not represent half of the debate, and I did refute it. Look it the past arguments, you'll see.	VenomousNinja	"Never once did the word "always" come up in my debate until now. I defy you to prove otherwise." So sorry, I meant to say 'anything'. "No. It became a debatable point therefore you either had to refute it or concede." It was not related to the resolution, however. Therefore, it did not need to be debated. "I said that since you provided evidence for things you considered existant, you tried to prove existance." However I never stated that I could prove existence, I merely attempted to. "1) I did not prove illusions, I merely said we may be illusory." And to be illusory, there must be illusions! "2) If you were to try and prove illusions, you would be conceding my point." Actually, I would be backing up my point that there are, at least, SOME things that we know to exist. "No. I said human-like. When you create 'human-like' as a rule, you automatically assume that all points consisting of AI will go by the rule of 'human-like.'" However, you still used the word 'anything', and, as I have stated before, that allows me to stray from 'true AI'. When you just say 'AI', or something similar, I will then assume that it fits into the rule of 'true AI'. However, you allowed me to stray from 'true AI' by your word choice. "Yes but humans are not limited by a certain amount of knowledge. Also, they may only learn certain things that correspond with their programming. They may not manipulate it in any way without human interaction, therefore they cannot think as a human does." Some humans are, in fact. While else would those people labeled as 'mental retards' have to live with a relative? Can they not take care of themselves by learning how the world works like a seemingly 'normal' person does? Apparently, not. There are very few cases, if any, of a 'mental retard' taking care of him or herself. Also notice that it does not have anything to do with their physical limitations, as it is called 'MENTAL retardation'. "Again, you go by the preset rules." Again, you used the word 'anything'. Let's look at the word 'anything', shall we? The first definition (from dictionary.com) says "any thing whatever; something, no matter what" The second says "a thing of any kind." The third says "in any degree; to any extent; in any way; at all" Now, upon seeing the third definition, you may think that it proves your point, however, let's look at the example of the third definition: "Does it taste anything like chocolate?" And, using the definition, we can see that this means "Does it, to any degree or extent, taste anything like chocolate?" "It has understanding of chess and nothing more." However, Deep Blue still has understanding and logic, although it may be only of chess. "Yes but try talking philosophically with he machine and it would probably produce a rebuttal along the lines of "Bishop to queen's four." This is in no way "human-like" intelligence." Now, that all depends on what one considers 'human-like' to be. I think 'human-like' intellect means it can do something intelligently. And it can, it can play chess intelligently. And, as such, Deep Blue has "human-like" intelligence by my standards. "If they are stupid. If they only go by the final demand, they haven't been paying attention. Saying "You can only logical vote XXX" Is a statement generally used to say "And this is why you should vote XXX" If they do not read the debate aside from commands, it is useless debating. We may as well spend all of our rounds saying "Vote XXX"" 1) I never said they were stupid 2) I never said they could only go by the final command, I am saying that the final post sticks in your mind the most, and therefore probably influences you the most. This does not mean that you posting "VOTE PRO VOTE PRO VOTE PRO" twenty times in your last post means they are going to vote for you. I'm just saying that, in many cases, the last one encounters is what influences them the most. In the "VOTE PRO" case, it would probably influence one to vote for me. 3) If so, why don't you just say the latter quote instead of misleading people with the former? 4) See 2). "If that were the case, every last round debater would win and that is not the case. Most logical people go by logical victors, not formal requests." Please see my above statement. "However relevant that is is beyond me. It still does not have the capacities of a true human. It cannot love, feel, philosophically debate by opinion. It can only do what is within it's limitations that make it lesser than a human." Once again, that all depends on what your definition of human is. Humans can be caring people, or they can be mass murders, or they can be limited because of some condition, or they can be a child, etc. "My opponent has made no sense this debate except to bring up a sitting robot that looks like a human. This in no way represents true AI as my opponent made the rule by. He has also dropped my existence contention and therefore, has already dropped half of the debate." I made much sense. Also, your existence contention does not represent half of the debate, and I did refute it. Look it the past arguments, you'll see.	Technology	4	Artificial-Intelligence-is-impossible/1/	6,232
Hello, once again, VenemousNinja. It will be my honour to debate you again. For the following reasons, I urge this resolution be found true. I accept all definitions and terms. I would also like to add one more: Burden of Proof lies on both my opponent and myself in this debate for the sake of the hypothetical. I will make this quick for the sake of our rounds. A) AI is impossible because we cannot be certain anything truly exists. B) My opponent has given me the definition to impossible with the word exist as a defining term. I propose to you that if you were to prove existance, you would surely win this debate. C) If you cannot prove existance, it will then be impossible to produce any notions of artificial anything. For the quick-produced rapid and logical reasons above, you vote PRO. Thank you, -EG	draxxt	Hello, once again, VenemousNinja. It will be my honour to debate you again. For the following reasons, I urge this resolution be found true. I accept all definitions and terms. I would also like to add one more: Burden of Proof lies on both my opponent and myself in this debate for the sake of the hypothetical. I will make this quick for the sake of our rounds. A) AI is impossible because we cannot be certain anything truly exists. B) My opponent has given me the definition to impossible with the word exist as a defining term. I propose to you that if you were to prove existance, you would surely win this debate. C) If you cannot prove existance, it will then be impossible to produce any notions of artificial anything. For the quick-produced rapid and logical reasons above, you vote PRO. Thank you, -EG	Technology	0	Artificial-Intelligence-is-impossible/1/	6,233
Thank you. My opponent, ladies and gentleman, has not refuted a SINGLE point in this debate. He has merely said: "I CAN prove existance." If that were the case, prove it so. "Wrong, we can be certain some things exist, such as, Debate.org, we know that exists, life, we know that exists, etc. ." How? Prove it so. "However, that is not relevant to this debate. So, I will make an argument that is." It is as I made it a debatable point. You have yet to prove it so. "We are certain some AI exists, even if it is relatively simple. In fact, Debate.org has a good amount of AI in it, as it is smart enough to post our arguments for us." That's not intelligence, it's programming. Purely man-made and not intelligent unless you're refferring to the man himself. "I know, because if I was to prove existence, I would be proving that 'true AI' is possible." But you haven't. Please address my points or else you forfeit them to me. "Incorrect. We are debating if it is POSSIBLE, not existing. Also, I can produce more than one notion of 'artificial anything'. Debate.org, for example, how about a Gamecube, both of those have artificial intelligence. Not 'true' AI, but they both do have AI." 1) Those are mere programs, not AI. 2) But if it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove existance, it is also IMPOSSIBLE to prove AI. "1) Deep Blue. Deep Blue was a robot who was able to match the chess skills of Garry Kasparov, who is considered to be the best human chess player in the world. Now, if a robot can match superior chess skills, then a robot can do other things like humans. Also, from my definition of 'true AI', Deep Blue would have 'true AI', as it is able to think very similarly or exactly like Kasparov, and that would fulfill the requirement of 'think fully and (at the very least) almost exactly like a human being'." Can it think, feel, react to stimuli other than chess? No. It has no existance or being except to play chess. As you stated in your R1: "We are arguing true AI, which is AI that can think fully and (at the very least) almost exactly like a human being." We see that Deep Blue can only think on the chess portion of intellect. It can only deduce chess moves. It has no other functions. That is not true AI as you stated in R1. As you can see my opponent has offered no proof of existance and his proof of AI itself is not under the condition he set in R1. Therefore, you vote PRO. Thanks, -EG	draxxt	Thank you. My opponent, ladies and gentleman, has not refuted a SINGLE point in this debate. He has merely said: "I CAN prove existance." If that were the case, prove it so. "Wrong, we can be certain some things exist, such as, Debate.org, we know that exists, life, we know that exists, etc. ." How? Prove it so. "However, that is not relevant to this debate. So, I will make an argument that is." It is as I made it a debatable point. You have yet to prove it so. "We are certain some AI exists, even if it is relatively simple. In fact, Debate.org has a good amount of AI in it, as it is smart enough to post our arguments for us." That's not intelligence, it's programming. Purely man-made and not intelligent unless you're refferring to the man himself. "I know, because if I was to prove existence, I would be proving that 'true AI' is possible." But you haven't. Please address my points or else you forfeit them to me. "Incorrect. We are debating if it is POSSIBLE, not existing. Also, I can produce more than one notion of 'artificial anything'. Debate.org, for example, how about a Gamecube, both of those have artificial intelligence. Not 'true' AI, but they both do have AI." 1) Those are mere programs, not AI. 2) But if it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove existance, it is also IMPOSSIBLE to prove AI. "1) Deep Blue. Deep Blue was a robot who was able to match the chess skills of Garry Kasparov, who is considered to be the best human chess player in the world. Now, if a robot can match superior chess skills, then a robot can do other things like humans. Also, from my definition of 'true AI', Deep Blue would have 'true AI', as it is able to think very similarly or exactly like Kasparov, and that would fulfill the requirement of 'think fully and (at the very least) almost exactly like a human being'." Can it think, feel, react to stimuli other than chess? No. It has no existance or being except to play chess. As you stated in your R1: "We are arguing true AI, which is AI that can think fully and (at the very least) almost exactly like a human being." We see that Deep Blue can only think on the chess portion of intellect. It can only deduce chess moves. It has no other functions. That is not true AI as you stated in R1. As you can see my opponent has offered no proof of existance and his proof of AI itself is not under the condition he set in R1. Therefore, you vote PRO. Thanks, -EG	Technology	1	Artificial-Intelligence-is-impossible/1/	6,234
Good job, CON, let's keep it up! "I have refuted every one of your points, and I never said that I could prove existence." "Wrong, we can be certain some things exist, such as, Debate.org, we know that exists, life, we know that exists, etc. ." You have attempted to prove that existence is obvious ergo, you tried to prove existence. "Debate.org - We know it exists as we are using it right now to post our debates. Life - We are living, and that is enough evidence to prove life." An illusion is something that tricks the senses. If we think we are typing a debate, but are not, that is a trick to the senses. You cannot prove existence. "It is not relevant because it does not relate to the resolution." I have already said it is because I have made it a debatable point. "The only way to get Artificial Intelligence is through programming. " Yes but in your case, Gamecube or Debate.org is simply programming, not AI. There is a difference between simple programming and human-like AI. "Debate.org has intelligence, as it can learn and can understand. In fact, right now, it understands that I am writing an argument, and in a little while it shall understand that I wish to post this argument. Debate.org has also learned my password and username, among other things. Although that may be just programming, Debate.org's programming is part of Debate.org, and should be treated as such. The gamecube, has intelligence. It can learn, although it may need help from memory cards, it has an understanding that I want to play games on it, it can reason the different types of ways I input commands through the controller, such as hitting one button or the other." This is not learning. These devices are limited by their programming, they cannot learn. "I know I haven't. I said that if I was, I would surly win this debate. I never said that I would prove existence, and the reason being is because this debate is weather 'true AI' is possible or impossible." Thank you for conceding that point. "No, it isn't. I can prove AI. How about, this time around, a Radio? It has AI. It can learn which stations I like through presets that I set, it can reason that I am on FM and not AM and that is should get FM stations, and it can understand what volume I want. Of course, all of these features rely on human input, but the features still work and the radio still does its job because of it's Fake(Artificial) Smarts(Intelligence)." But again, that is not human-like intelligence it's man-made and man controlled. "Deep Blue can think full and almost exactly like a human being while playing chess, so it would qualify for having true AI, even though all it does is play chess." But to think even almost as a human being, you need emotion, understanding logic, etc. My opponent is conceding, not refuting, and simply dropping points. You can only logically vote PRO. Thanks, -EG	draxxt	Good job, CON, let's keep it up! "I have refuted every one of your points, and I never said that I could prove existence." "Wrong, we can be certain some things exist, such as, Debate.org, we know that exists, life, we know that exists, etc. ." You have attempted to prove that existence is obvious ergo, you tried to prove existence. "Debate.org - We know it exists as we are using it right now to post our debates. Life - We are living, and that is enough evidence to prove life." An illusion is something that tricks the senses. If we think we are typing a debate, but are not, that is a trick to the senses. You cannot prove existence. "It is not relevant because it does not relate to the resolution." I have already said it is because I have made it a debatable point. "The only way to get Artificial Intelligence is through programming. " Yes but in your case, Gamecube or Debate.org is simply programming, not AI. There is a difference between simple programming and human-like AI. "Debate.org has intelligence, as it can learn and can understand. In fact, right now, it understands that I am writing an argument, and in a little while it shall understand that I wish to post this argument. Debate.org has also learned my password and username, among other things. Although that may be just programming, Debate.org's programming is part of Debate.org, and should be treated as such. The gamecube, has intelligence. It can learn, although it may need help from memory cards, it has an understanding that I want to play games on it, it can reason the different types of ways I input commands through the controller, such as hitting one button or the other." This is not learning. These devices are limited by their programming, they cannot learn. "I know I haven't. I said that if I was, I would surly win this debate. I never said that I would prove existence, and the reason being is because this debate is weather 'true AI' is possible or impossible." Thank you for conceding that point. "No, it isn't. I can prove AI. How about, this time around, a Radio? It has AI. It can learn which stations I like through presets that I set, it can reason that I am on FM and not AM and that is should get FM stations, and it can understand what volume I want. Of course, all of these features rely on human input, but the features still work and the radio still does its job because of it's Fake(Artificial) Smarts(Intelligence)." But again, that is not human-like intelligence it's man-made and man controlled. "Deep Blue can think full and almost exactly like a human being while playing chess, so it would qualify for having true AI, even though all it does is play chess." But to think even almost as a human being, you need emotion, understanding logic, etc. My opponent is conceding, not refuting, and simply dropping points. You can only logically vote PRO. Thanks, -EG	Technology	2	Artificial-Intelligence-is-impossible/1/	6,235
Okay, thank you again for requesting I debate you on this topic. " When you asked for evidence of AI, you used the word 'always' in your plea for evidence. Not in all of them, of course, but in the ones you are debating." Never once did the word "always" come up in my debate until now. I defy you to prove otherwise. "However, I said it isn't. Thus, it's your opinion against mine." No. It became a debatable point therefore you either had to refute it or concede. "However, I never said that I could prove existance, now did I?" I said that since you provided evidence for things you considered existant, you tried to prove existance. "Thank you! You did my job for me by proving illusions!" 1) I did not prove illusions, I merely said we may be illusory. 2) If you were to try and prove illusions, you would be conceding my point. "However, once again, when I used the Gamecube and Debate.org examples to refute your statement, your statement included the word anything, which allows me to stray from 'true AI', as I call it." No. I said human-like. When you create "human-like" as a rule, you automatically assume that all points consisting of AI will go by the rule of "human-like." "However, they can learn within the confines of their programming, as proved by presets and memory cards." Yes but humans are not limited by a certain amount of knowledge. Also, they may only learn certain things that correspond with their programming. They may not manipulate it in any way without human interaction, therefore they cannot think as a human does. "However, when I the statement I refuted with this example include the word 'anything'." Again, you go by the preset rules. "Deep Blue has understanding and logic, as it needs those things in order to match the skill of Garry Kasparov, considered to be the greatest chess player in the world." It has understanding of chess and nothing more. "Now you could simply say that Deep Blue was programmed to play against Kasparov's style of playing, however, a true chess master would able to change his style of play mid-game, and onlookers of his past games would easily be able to defeat him by playing against his style of game." Yes but try talking philosophically witht he machine and it would probably produce a rebuttal along the lines of "Bishop to queen's four." This is in no way "human-like" intelligence. "By the way, there are many things wrong with my above statement, as well as my opponents. Because my opponent gets to debate last, and he keeps stating that people can only vote PRO, people will believe him, no matter how false it is, and no matter how logically you must vote CON." If they are stupid. If they only go by the final demand, they haven't been paying attention. Saying "You can only logical vote XXX" Is a statement generally used to say "And this is why you should vote XXX" If they do not read the debate aside from commands, it is useless debating. We may as well spend all of our rounds saying "Vote XXX" "The last thing said sticks in your memory the best as it is the most recent statement out of all, and as such you will be able to recall it the best, and as an added effect you will not be able to recall many, if any, older statements. This does, however, only apply to this debate because of the number of statements said before the last statement. It can apply to other debates, although." If that were the case, every last round debater would win and that is not the case. Most logical people go by logical victors, not formal requests. "Scientists have created a very humun looking robot, and that robot has the possibility to do more than simply sit or walk, however, at present, it can only sit. (1) Scientists also one day think that robots will be able to make us believe that they are human. (1)" However relevant that is is beyond me. It still does not have the capacities of a true human. It cannot love, feel, philosophically debate by opinion. It can only do what is within it's limitations that make it lesser than a human. My opponent has made no sense this debate except to bring up a sitting robot that looks like a human. This in no way represents true AI as my opponent made the rule by. He has also dropped my existence contention and therefore, has already dropped half of the debate. For the reason and refutation above, you vote PRO. Thanks, -EG	draxxt	Okay, thank you again for requesting I debate you on this topic. " When you asked for evidence of AI, you used the word 'always' in your plea for evidence. Not in all of them, of course, but in the ones you are debating." Never once did the word "always" come up in my debate until now. I defy you to prove otherwise. "However, I said it isn't. Thus, it's your opinion against mine." No. It became a debatable point therefore you either had to refute it or concede. "However, I never said that I could prove existance, now did I?" I said that since you provided evidence for things you considered existant, you tried to prove existance. "Thank you! You did my job for me by proving illusions!" 1) I did not prove illusions, I merely said we may be illusory. 2) If you were to try and prove illusions, you would be conceding my point. "However, once again, when I used the Gamecube and Debate.org examples to refute your statement, your statement included the word anything, which allows me to stray from 'true AI', as I call it." No. I said human-like. When you create "human-like" as a rule, you automatically assume that all points consisting of AI will go by the rule of "human-like." "However, they can learn within the confines of their programming, as proved by presets and memory cards." Yes but humans are not limited by a certain amount of knowledge. Also, they may only learn certain things that correspond with their programming. They may not manipulate it in any way without human interaction, therefore they cannot think as a human does. "However, when I the statement I refuted with this example include the word 'anything'." Again, you go by the preset rules. "Deep Blue has understanding and logic, as it needs those things in order to match the skill of Garry Kasparov, considered to be the greatest chess player in the world." It has understanding of chess and nothing more. "Now you could simply say that Deep Blue was programmed to play against Kasparov's style of playing, however, a true chess master would able to change his style of play mid-game, and onlookers of his past games would easily be able to defeat him by playing against his style of game." Yes but try talking philosophically witht he machine and it would probably produce a rebuttal along the lines of "Bishop to queen's four." This is in no way "human-like" intelligence. "By the way, there are many things wrong with my above statement, as well as my opponents. Because my opponent gets to debate last, and he keeps stating that people can only vote PRO, people will believe him, no matter how false it is, and no matter how logically you must vote CON." If they are stupid. If they only go by the final demand, they haven't been paying attention. Saying "You can only logical vote XXX" Is a statement generally used to say "And this is why you should vote XXX" If they do not read the debate aside from commands, it is useless debating. We may as well spend all of our rounds saying "Vote XXX" "The last thing said sticks in your memory the best as it is the most recent statement out of all, and as such you will be able to recall it the best, and as an added effect you will not be able to recall many, if any, older statements. This does, however, only apply to this debate because of the number of statements said before the last statement. It can apply to other debates, although." If that were the case, every last round debater would win and that is not the case. Most logical people go by logical victors, not formal requests. "Scientists have created a very humun looking robot, and that robot has the possibility to do more than simply sit or walk, however, at present, it can only sit. (1) Scientists also one day think that robots will be able to make us believe that they are human. (1)" However relevant that is is beyond me. It still does not have the capacities of a true human. It cannot love, feel, philosophically debate by opinion. It can only do what is within it's limitations that make it lesser than a human. My opponent has made no sense this debate except to bring up a sitting robot that looks like a human. This in no way represents true AI as my opponent made the rule by. He has also dropped my existence contention and therefore, has already dropped half of the debate. For the reason and refutation above, you vote PRO. Thanks, -EG	Technology	3	Artificial-Intelligence-is-impossible/1/	6,236
"It was not related to the resolution, however. Therefore, it did not need to be debated." If a point is brought up in a debate, even by semantics, you must refute it. You refused to do so, therefore you have conceded it. "However I never stated that I could prove existence, I merely attempted to." Do I need to explain this again? You TRIED to prove existance. You could not. Simply trying alone leads me and everyone who may read this debate, even yourself, to believe that you CAN prove existance. Hence, you said you could prove existance. "And to be illusory, there must be illusions!" That's obvious and irrelevant in the point you tried to make. "Actually, I would be backing up my point that there are, at least, SOME things that we know to exist." No, because you would be proving existence itself as illusory therefore, you would help my case. "However, you still used the word 'anything', and, as I have stated before, that allows me to stray from 'true AI'. When you just say 'AI', or something similar, I will then assume that it fits into the rule of 'true AI'. However, you allowed me to stray from 'true AI' by your word choice." Like I said, If a rule is set in place (I.E. that True AI is meant by Artificial Intelligence) We must apply that to each of our cases. By saying anything, according to your rule, I was saying "Anything with true AI." "Some humans are, in fact. While else would those people labeled as 'mental retards' have to live with a relative? Can they not take care of themselves by learning how the world works like a seemingly 'normal' person does? Apparently, not. There are very few cases, if any, of a 'mental retard' taking care of him or herself. Also notice that it does not have anything to do with their physical limitations, as it is called 'MENTAL retardation'." That makes no sense. Computers are limited by the human programming, limitations of the human itself that prevents it from creating true AI. Retardation is caused in two known scenarios: 1) at birth 2) at some point in their life. Ergo, This is not a man made AI reference. In this reference, though not nearly as complex, a computer programmer strays from one code. This causes the computer program to be somewhat unresponsive in areas. This does not mean that AI is achievable if there is a flaw in mankind. "Again, you used the word 'anything'. Let's look at the word 'anything', shall we? The first definition (from dictionary.com) says "any thing whatever; something, no matter what" The second says "a thing of any kind." The third says "in any degree; to any extent; in any way; at all" Now, upon seeing the third definition, you may think that it proves your point, however, let's look at the example of the third definition: "Does it taste anything like chocolate?" And, using the definition, we can see that this means "Does it, to any degree or extent, taste anything like chocolate?" Yes but, again, you set a rule. That rule is implied. I don't need to waste characters to explain true AI each time I reference, it's all limited within the preset rules. "However, Deep Blue still has understanding and logic, although it may be only of chess." Thank you for conceding that point. You say Deep Blue only has understanding of chess. I have yet to meet a human whose entire logic and reasoning is about, centered around, and rationalised by chess. This is not true AI or "Like or close to human intelligence." It is chess. "Now, that all depends on what one considers 'human-like' to be. I think 'human-like' intellect means it can do something intelligently. And it can, it can play chess intelligently. And, as such, Deep Blue has "human-like" intelligence by my standards." You set the terms. I will elaborate as I know you were thinking this as well: human-like: Having almost or exactly the characteristics of humans. Merriam-Webster: intelligence as: "the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria" Deep Blue can only react to chess. This is not applying knowledge or thinking abstractly, it is quite the opposite as it is in no way abstract or intuitive. It is chess. Merely this and nothing more. We cannot match the intelligence of a human as a whole with a computer. The human obviously wins. "If they do not read the debate aside from commands, it is useless debating. We may as well spend all of our rounds saying "Vote XXX"" 1) I never said they were stupid 2) I never said they could only go by the final command, I am saying that the final post sticks in your mind the most, and therefore probably influences you the most. This does not mean that you posting "VOTE PRO VOTE PRO VOTE PRO" twenty times in your last post means they are going to vote for you. I'm just saying that, in many cases, the last one encounters is what influences them the most. In the "VOTE PRO" case, it would probably influence one to vote for me. 3) If so, why don't you just say the latter quote instead of misleading people with the former? 4) See 2)." 1) You're right. Neither of us called them stupid and I never claimed you did. 2) You missed my point entirely. I was saying they should vote on logic, not because I say to vote for whomever I want them to. I also said they haven't been paying attention otherwise. 3) Because I am confident enough to let people know that my case is the most logical, is that a problem? 4) This one was unnecessary. "Once again, that all depends on what your definition of human is. Humans can be caring people, or they can be mass murders, or they can be limited because of some condition, or they can be a child, etc." Yes but all of those things are far more complex than the "AI" they have out today. There is no real AI and I doubt if there ever will be. A mass murderer still can reason, as can a child (Though maybe flawed). They can also do so in corresponding situations that make them human. Deep Blue, the robot you mentioned, and the Gamecube cannot reason to any corresponding situation minus deep blue and the robot (But theirs do not compare to human response and intelligence.) "I made much sense. Also, your existence contention does not represent half of the debate, and I did refute it. Look it the past arguments, you'll see." You have failed to refute ANY of my points you simply began repeating yourself over and over again then, in R4, you brought up a new point that wasn't in your original contention that still did not prove your point. I will not look at the past arguments. It is your duty to supply me with evidence that you refuted my points. "I say I have and I can back it up... but maybe you should find it because I don't A) feel like it 2) think I can 3) have any evidence to support my claims." My opponent has made no sense, conceded to half of my contentions, and applied logical that would have been accepted if not for his initial ruling. For the above reason, logic, and common human intellect, you must vote PRO. Thanks, -EG	draxxt	"It was not related to the resolution, however. Therefore, it did not need to be debated." If a point is brought up in a debate, even by semantics, you must refute it. You refused to do so, therefore you have conceded it. "However I never stated that I could prove existence, I merely attempted to." Do I need to explain this again? You TRIED to prove existance. You could not. Simply trying alone leads me and everyone who may read this debate, even yourself, to believe that you CAN prove existance. Hence, you said you could prove existance. "And to be illusory, there must be illusions!" That's obvious and irrelevant in the point you tried to make. "Actually, I would be backing up my point that there are, at least, SOME things that we know to exist." No, because you would be proving existence itself as illusory therefore, you would help my case. "However, you still used the word 'anything', and, as I have stated before, that allows me to stray from 'true AI'. When you just say 'AI', or something similar, I will then assume that it fits into the rule of 'true AI'. However, you allowed me to stray from 'true AI' by your word choice." Like I said, If a rule is set in place (I.E. that True AI is meant by Artificial Intelligence) We must apply that to each of our cases. By saying anything, according to your rule, I was saying "Anything with true AI." "Some humans are, in fact. While else would those people labeled as 'mental retards' have to live with a relative? Can they not take care of themselves by learning how the world works like a seemingly 'normal' person does? Apparently, not. There are very few cases, if any, of a 'mental retard' taking care of him or herself. Also notice that it does not have anything to do with their physical limitations, as it is called 'MENTAL retardation'." That makes no sense. Computers are limited by the human programming, limitations of the human itself that prevents it from creating true AI. Retardation is caused in two known scenarios: 1) at birth 2) at some point in their life. Ergo, This is not a man made AI reference. In this reference, though not nearly as complex, a computer programmer strays from one code. This causes the computer program to be somewhat unresponsive in areas. This does not mean that AI is achievable if there is a flaw in mankind. "Again, you used the word 'anything'. Let's look at the word 'anything', shall we? The first definition (from dictionary.com) says "any thing whatever; something, no matter what" The second says "a thing of any kind." The third says "in any degree; to any extent; in any way; at all" Now, upon seeing the third definition, you may think that it proves your point, however, let's look at the example of the third definition: "Does it taste anything like chocolate?" And, using the definition, we can see that this means "Does it, to any degree or extent, taste anything like chocolate?" Yes but, again, you set a rule. That rule is implied. I don't need to waste characters to explain true AI each time I reference, it's all limited within the preset rules. "However, Deep Blue still has understanding and logic, although it may be only of chess." Thank you for conceding that point. You say Deep Blue only has understanding of chess. I have yet to meet a human whose entire logic and reasoning is about, centered around, and rationalised by chess. This is not true AI or "Like or close to human intelligence." It is chess. "Now, that all depends on what one considers 'human-like' to be. I think 'human-like' intellect means it can do something intelligently. And it can, it can play chess intelligently. And, as such, Deep Blue has "human-like" intelligence by my standards." You set the terms. I will elaborate as I know you were thinking this as well: human-like: Having almost or exactly the characteristics of humans. Merriam-Webster: intelligence as: "the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria" Deep Blue can only react to chess. This is not applying knowledge or thinking abstractly, it is quite the opposite as it is in no way abstract or intuitive. It is chess. Merely this and nothing more. We cannot match the intelligence of a human as a whole with a computer. The human obviously wins. "If they do not read the debate aside from commands, it is useless debating. We may as well spend all of our rounds saying "Vote XXX"" 1) I never said they were stupid 2) I never said they could only go by the final command, I am saying that the final post sticks in your mind the most, and therefore probably influences you the most. This does not mean that you posting "VOTE PRO VOTE PRO VOTE PRO" twenty times in your last post means they are going to vote for you. I'm just saying that, in many cases, the last one encounters is what influences them the most. In the "VOTE PRO" case, it would probably influence one to vote for me. 3) If so, why don't you just say the latter quote instead of misleading people with the former? 4) See 2)." 1) You're right. Neither of us called them stupid and I never claimed you did. 2) You missed my point entirely. I was saying they should vote on logic, not because I say to vote for whomever I want them to. I also said they haven't been paying attention otherwise. 3) Because I am confident enough to let people know that my case is the most logical, is that a problem? 4) This one was unnecessary. "Once again, that all depends on what your definition of human is. Humans can be caring people, or they can be mass murders, or they can be limited because of some condition, or they can be a child, etc." Yes but all of those things are far more complex than the "AI" they have out today. There is no real AI and I doubt if there ever will be. A mass murderer still can reason, as can a child (Though maybe flawed). They can also do so in corresponding situations that make them human. Deep Blue, the robot you mentioned, and the Gamecube cannot reason to any corresponding situation minus deep blue and the robot (But theirs do not compare to human response and intelligence.) "I made much sense. Also, your existence contention does not represent half of the debate, and I did refute it. Look it the past arguments, you'll see." You have failed to refute ANY of my points you simply began repeating yourself over and over again then, in R4, you brought up a new point that wasn't in your original contention that still did not prove your point. I will not look at the past arguments. It is your duty to supply me with evidence that you refuted my points. "I say I have and I can back it up... but maybe you should find it because I don't A) feel like it 2) think I can 3) have any evidence to support my claims." My opponent has made no sense, conceded to half of my contentions, and applied logical that would have been accepted if not for his initial ruling. For the above reason, logic, and common human intellect, you must vote PRO. Thanks, -EG	Technology	4	Artificial-Intelligence-is-impossible/1/	6,237
I would like to make a few comments on the above statement. 1st of all, America is a continent, not a country. Second of all, Jon Oliver is a comedian, I doubt he has a lot of knowledge of economics, sociology or any related topics. Also note that his 'review' is comedy based. Opening Statement: As for the topic that "As long as clothes are cheap, 'Americans' are blind to garment working conditions", I would strongly have to disagree with the statement. The way the economy is working right now, it is cheaper to outsource any product, thus this is done. And not just with 'cheap' products. My new Adidas shirt for about US$40, made in Vietnam. My US$400 jacket, made in China. Price doesn't matter. It's all produced as cheap as possible and no one cares. Apple products are by no means cheap, yet they came under criticism for exactly the same issue you connect to 'cheap' products. ( <URL>... ). Just as another example, the Mercedes S-Class, a vehicle starting at US$94000. Assembled in Vietnam and Thailand. ( "Mercedes-Benz Vietnam Company Overview". mercedes-benz.com.vn. Daimler AG. 2010. Archived from the original"; "Thonburi Group:Serving the Thai market for more than six decades"). Now, do you think consumers care that these expensive things are made under those conditions? They probably don't even know, nor care. Western Society is build on the premise that 'lower' people are exploited in order to make the greatest profit. Doesn't matter if the end product is cheap or not, someone was exploited on the way. Thus concluding, it does not matter if the product is cheap or not, someone worked 'sweatshop' labour for it either way, and nobody cares. This is the way society has, is and will be for the rest of its existence. Why is Jon Oliver not talking about that? About his Mercedes and his designer clothes.. Oh wait, that would make him a hypocrite.	WAM	I would like to make a few comments on the above statement. 1st of all, America is a continent, not a country. Second of all, Jon Oliver is a comedian, I doubt he has a lot of knowledge of economics, sociology or any related topics. Also note that his 'review' is comedy based. Opening Statement: As for the topic that "As long as clothes are cheap, 'Americans' are blind to garment working conditions", I would strongly have to disagree with the statement. The way the economy is working right now, it is cheaper to outsource any product, thus this is done. And not just with 'cheap' products. My new Adidas shirt for about US$40, made in Vietnam. My US$400 jacket, made in China. Price doesn't matter. It's all produced as cheap as possible and no one cares. Apple products are by no means cheap, yet they came under criticism for exactly the same issue you connect to 'cheap' products. ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk... ). Just as another example, the Mercedes S-Class, a vehicle starting at US$94000. Assembled in Vietnam and Thailand. ( "Mercedes-Benz Vietnam Company Overview". mercedes-benz.com.vn. Daimler AG. 2010. Archived from the original"; "Thonburi Group:Serving the Thai market for more than six decades"). Now, do you think consumers care that these expensive things are made under those conditions? They probably don't even know, nor care. Western Society is build on the premise that 'lower' people are exploited in order to make the greatest profit. Doesn't matter if the end product is cheap or not, someone was exploited on the way. Thus concluding, it does not matter if the product is cheap or not, someone worked 'sweatshop' labour for it either way, and nobody cares. This is the way society has, is and will be for the rest of its existence. Why is Jon Oliver not talking about that? About his Mercedes and his designer clothes.. Oh wait, that would make him a hypocrite.	Fashion	0	As-long-as-clothes-are-cheap-Americans-are-blind-to-garment-working-conditions./1/	6,278
Just as for the statement that I represent the Counter Argument, yes I do. The topic is "As long as clothes are cheap, Americans are blind to garment working conditions". If you are Pro you agree with this. Con does not. If I analyse the topic statement linguistically I get the following: 'As long as', possibly meaning 'because', concluding that 'Americans' are blind to working conditions because their clothes are cheap. Jon Oliver's report was based on this premise. However, as Con, I was debating against the 'as long as' or because, while you are debating that if clothes were expensive, Americans would care about working conditions. If the topic was 'Americans don't care about working conditions of makers of cheap clothes ' you would have been correct in your assumption that I represented the wrong side. However, the inclusion of 'as long as' makes a different statement, and thus different pro and con sides. In your above statement you agreed with me as to the evidence that I provided that even when products are expensive, Americans do not care about working conditions of any products. Your pro side however was based on the premise that they did not care about working conditions because the product is cheap. Furthermore I can switch, due to the 'As long as', the statement around and still retain the original pro and con sides, while this is not possible with statements such as 'I don't care', it is with statements like this. The solution is the following: 'If clothes were expensive, Americans would care about garment working conditions'. You would be Pro for this, I would be Con. I negated that statement in my previous round, thus rendering that you did not linguistically understand the topic you created. Also, Jon Oliver does not make those reports, they are made by journalists. He just presents them in a comical way. I normally do not think of comedy as scientific or sociological evidence, as the focus of comedy is, well, comedy, and not science or sociology.	WAM	Just as for the statement that I represent the Counter Argument, yes I do. The topic is "As long as clothes are cheap, Americans are blind to garment working conditions". If you are Pro you agree with this. Con does not. If I analyse the topic statement linguistically I get the following: 'As long as', possibly meaning 'because', concluding that 'Americans' are blind to working conditions because their clothes are cheap. Jon Oliver's report was based on this premise. However, as Con, I was debating against the 'as long as' or because, while you are debating that if clothes were expensive, Americans would care about working conditions. If the topic was 'Americans don't care about working conditions of makers of cheap clothes ' you would have been correct in your assumption that I represented the wrong side. However, the inclusion of 'as long as' makes a different statement, and thus different pro and con sides. In your above statement you agreed with me as to the evidence that I provided that even when products are expensive, Americans do not care about working conditions of any products. Your pro side however was based on the premise that they did not care about working conditions because the product is cheap. Furthermore I can switch, due to the 'As long as', the statement around and still retain the original pro and con sides, while this is not possible with statements such as 'I don't care', it is with statements like this. The solution is the following: 'If clothes were expensive, Americans would care about garment working conditions'. You would be Pro for this, I would be Con. I negated that statement in my previous round, thus rendering that you did not linguistically understand the topic you created. Also, Jon Oliver does not make those reports, they are made by journalists. He just presents them in a comical way. I normally do not think of comedy as scientific or sociological evidence, as the focus of comedy is, well, comedy, and not science or sociology.	Fashion	1	As-long-as-clothes-are-cheap-Americans-are-blind-to-garment-working-conditions./1/	6,279
As Con has proven and Pro has agreed, 'Americans' do not care about working conditions for the workers of any industry, whether the products are expensive or cheap. I would like to thank Pro for the opportunity to debate, and hope we can debate again, in a better setting next time, hopefully. But never mind, welcome to formal debating. It's just like non formal debating. The goal is the same. The technique might be a little different, but you'll get the hang of it quite quickly, especially judging by the other debates you are having. I hope this did not come across as too harsh, as a law student I just very carefully analyse the linguistic as well as the factual statement, which by the way is a very good way to win any debate, whether formal or informal. I hope you will enjoy formal debate in the future and once again would like to thank for the opportunity, kind regards, WAM	WAM	As Con has proven and Pro has agreed, 'Americans' do not care about working conditions for the workers of any industry, whether the products are expensive or cheap. I would like to thank Pro for the opportunity to debate, and hope we can debate again, in a better setting next time, hopefully. But never mind, welcome to formal debating. It's just like non formal debating. The goal is the same. The technique might be a little different, but you'll get the hang of it quite quickly, especially judging by the other debates you are having. I hope this did not come across as too harsh, as a law student I just very carefully analyse the linguistic as well as the factual statement, which by the way is a very good way to win any debate, whether formal or informal. I hope you will enjoy formal debate in the future and once again would like to thank for the opportunity, kind regards, WAM	Fashion	2	As-long-as-clothes-are-cheap-Americans-are-blind-to-garment-working-conditions./1/	6,280
Only 2% of clothes manufactured are made in America because the USA has the most burdensome and expensive labor costs in the world. Several USA brands have their manufacturing hubs in Asia and various other non-regulated regions allowing for 'cheap' labor costs and therefore cheap clothing. Several retail stores that sell 'cheap' clothes have been caught exploiting sweatshop child labor including Gap, Joe Fresh, Children's Corner, Old Navy, Walmart, etc. Also, a few of the manufacturing buildings have collapsed killing thousands of garment workers. Americans don't care where their cheap clothes come from as long as they remain cheap because cheap is more important than garment workers well-being and safety. see jon oliver's review of the fashion industry then comment <URL>...	jakscrow	Only 2% of clothes manufactured are made in America because the USA has the most burdensome and expensive labor costs in the world. Several USA brands have their manufacturing hubs in Asia and various other non-regulated regions allowing for 'cheap' labor costs and therefore cheap clothing. Several retail stores that sell 'cheap' clothes have been caught exploiting sweatshop child labor including Gap, Joe Fresh, Children's Corner, Old Navy, Walmart, etc. Also, a few of the manufacturing buildings have collapsed killing thousands of garment workers. Americans don't care where their cheap clothes come from as long as they remain cheap because cheap is more important than garment workers well-being and safety. see jon oliver's review of the fashion industry then comment https://www.youtube.com...	Fashion	0	As-long-as-clothes-are-cheap-Americans-are-blind-to-garment-working-conditions./1/	6,281
Agreed. Consumers are all hypocrites. We pretend to care about human rights when it's convenient but not when it matters. I suggest you watch Jon Oliver's Last Week Tonight segment (free on youtube). A lot of research goes into each segment along with tongue and cheek comedy, informative and funny. Do not discount research because the researchers' primary function is comedy, that's ignorant. You made my point for me, USA consumers do not care period. Didn't you take the counter argument?	jakscrow	Agreed. Consumers are all hypocrites. We pretend to care about human rights when it's convenient but not when it matters. I suggest you watch Jon Oliver's Last Week Tonight segment (free on youtube). A lot of research goes into each segment along with tongue and cheek comedy, informative and funny. Do not discount research because the researchers' primary function is comedy, that's ignorant. You made my point for me, USA consumers do not care period. Didn't you take the counter argument?	Fashion	1	As-long-as-clothes-are-cheap-Americans-are-blind-to-garment-working-conditions./1/	6,282
I'm new to formal debating and thank you for the tips. In the future, I'll take these lessons with me. Cheers!	jakscrow	I'm new to formal debating and thank you for the tips. In the future, I'll take these lessons with me. Cheers!	Fashion	2	As-long-as-clothes-are-cheap-Americans-are-blind-to-garment-working-conditions./1/	6,283
You are correct in saying that fast food companies do not have a warning label, However it is also true that it is common knowledge that fast food makes you unhealthy. The reason smokes and drinks have warnings is due to the fact they have drugs in them and are by law required to warn consumers. Fat, however is not a drug and does not need a warning. the duty of fast companies is t serve fast food (it is common knowledge that this unhealth) and consumers are eating at their own risk	turtlehunterofdoom	You are correct in saying that fast food companies do not have a warning label, However it is also true that it is common knowledge that fast food makes you unhealthy. The reason smokes and drinks have warnings is due to the fact they have drugs in them and are by law required to warn consumers. Fat, however is not a drug and does not need a warning. the duty of fast companies is t serve fast food (it is common knowledge that this unhealth) and consumers are eating at their own risk	Health	0	As-the-obesity-epidemic-grows-in-scope-so-too-does-the-blame-game./1/	6,296
Fast food tastes good and may be addictive, however the consumer always has the option to not eat it. Sugar may also be addictive but fast food is not the only way we get sugar into our bodies. My last point is that it is common knowledge that fast food is unhealthy and consumers should take this in mind when purchasing fast food and only eat in moderation as it is not addictive that way	turtlehunterofdoom	Fast food tastes good and may be addictive, however the consumer always has the option to not eat it. Sugar may also be addictive but fast food is not the only way we get sugar into our bodies. My last point is that it is common knowledge that fast food is unhealthy and consumers should take this in mind when purchasing fast food and only eat in moderation as it is not addictive that way	Health	1	As-the-obesity-epidemic-grows-in-scope-so-too-does-the-blame-game./1/	6,297
Although the fast food companies are providing the food, they do not promote it as being healthy their is and do not intend for it to be eaten regularly. McDonalds is a burger chain and hence sells burgers, people go to McDonalds to eat burgers, if people wanted salads they would go to a salad bar. It is McDonalds' job to sell burgers and not to keep their consumers healthy. Eating in moderation does not make you addicted and as McDonalds does not advertise their food as something you should eat everyday, it is not their fault that people are obese	turtlehunterofdoom	Although the fast food companies are providing the food, they do not promote it as being healthy their is and do not intend for it to be eaten regularly. McDonalds is a burger chain and hence sells burgers, people go to McDonalds to eat burgers, if people wanted salads they would go to a salad bar. It is McDonalds' job to sell burgers and not to keep their consumers healthy. Eating in moderation does not make you addicted and as McDonalds does not advertise their food as something you should eat everyday, it is not their fault that people are obese	Health	2	As-the-obesity-epidemic-grows-in-scope-so-too-does-the-blame-game./1/	6,298
I will be arguing that Atheism is illogical. I take Atheism to mean the denial of the existence of an afterlife instead of just merely the absence of belief in an afterlife. Though Atheism is often related to the denial of a deity along with the denial of an afterlife, I chose not to posit any stance upon the belief in a deity as illogical or logical. Thus, the debate will center solely around whether it is logical or illogical to deny the existence of an afterlife. I define the afterlife the continuation of consciousness after death. The debate shall have the following format: 1) Agreement 2-3) Arguments/Rebuttals 4) Summary and Rebuttals--No New Arguments	SpotlessMind	I will be arguing that Atheism is illogical. I take Atheism to mean the denial of the existence of an afterlife instead of just merely the absence of belief in an afterlife. Though Atheism is often related to the denial of a deity along with the denial of an afterlife, I chose not to posit any stance upon the belief in a deity as illogical or logical. Thus, the debate will center solely around whether it is logical or illogical to deny the existence of an afterlife. I define the afterlife the continuation of consciousness after death. The debate shall have the following format: 1) Agreement 2-3) Arguments/Rebuttals 4) Summary and Rebuttals--No New Arguments	Religion	0	Atheism-is-Illogical/4/	6,459
I thank Pro for the opportunity to debate this topic, and look forward to an interesting discussion. I have to say I find Pro's definitions very odd - mainly because in my mind it is perfectly possible to be an atheist and to believe in an afterlife. Nevertheless, since I don't believe in God or an afterlife, I am happy to accept the definition, and will be arguing that there is no such thing as life after death. May the best argument win.	diddleysquat	I thank Pro for the opportunity to debate this topic, and look forward to an interesting discussion. I have to say I find Pro's definitions very odd - mainly because in my mind it is perfectly possible to be an atheist and to believe in an afterlife. Nevertheless, since I don't believe in God or an afterlife, I am happy to accept the definition, and will be arguing that there is no such thing as life after death. May the best argument win.	Religion	0	Atheism-is-Illogical/4/	6,460
Atheism isn't illogical. Throwing a party and not turning up is illogical. I'll reserve any argument until I have someone to debate.	diddleysquat	Atheism isn't illogical. Throwing a party and not turning up is illogical. I'll reserve any argument until I have someone to debate.	Religion	1	Atheism-is-Illogical/4/	6,461
I disagree with every single thing my opponent has said in the last two rounds. Furthermore, there is no evidence to substantiate any of it.	diddleysquat	I disagree with every single thing my opponent has said in the last two rounds. Furthermore, there is no evidence to substantiate any of it.	Religion	2	Atheism-is-Illogical/4/	6,462
It is not logical to believe in something until it is proved not to exist. If this were the case, we should all believe in unicorns, fire breathing dragons and fairies at the bottom of the garden. None of these have been conclusively shown not to exist. No proof has been offered in this debate that an afterlife exists, therefore Pro's burden of proof has not been met. Furthermore, since Pro has indeed been logged on to the site on a number of occasions during this debate, I presume that his failure to enter any argument is not the result of some unforeseen circumstance preventing him from doing so; rather it is a conscious decision to waste my time. I would ask those who do not believe that Pro's case has been established, or who believe that wasting the time of other people on this site should be discouraged, to vote Con.	diddleysquat	It is not logical to believe in something until it is proved not to exist. If this were the case, we should all believe in unicorns, fire breathing dragons and fairies at the bottom of the garden. None of these have been conclusively shown not to exist. No proof has been offered in this debate that an afterlife exists, therefore Pro's burden of proof has not been met. Furthermore, since Pro has indeed been logged on to the site on a number of occasions during this debate, I presume that his failure to enter any argument is not the result of some unforeseen circumstance preventing him from doing so; rather it is a conscious decision to waste my time. I would ask those who do not believe that Pro's case has been established, or who believe that wasting the time of other people on this site should be discouraged, to vote Con.	Religion	3	Atheism-is-Illogical/4/	6,463
belief is theism, religion, belief in god belief equals god so i am arguing that atheism is a form of theism in itself, which makes atheism religion, which means that the only better position is agnostisism, as that is the only true position belief is doubt, and doubt is religion know=Physical experience=absolute certainty belief is only relevant when i dont know, so i dont know is always true in this case, which automaticly makes belief false the reason why belief equates to theism is that, anything i believe is information, and god is information santa clause is a god that demands that you are good, or there will be no reward... dosnt sound like to much of a stretch does it? lies exist, i will catch a unicorn later today out in the forest i just know it! it will be black with a gold horn, i will ride it and it will l finally take me away for infinite jadada blabbla... i dont know god, and only know is true i dont know unicorns imagination is false reality is unbelieved imaginaiton is unknown alien dosnt equal true	vi_spex	belief is theism, religion, belief in god belief equals god so i am arguing that atheism is a form of theism in itself, which makes atheism religion, which means that the only better position is agnostisism, as that is the only true position belief is doubt, and doubt is religion know=Physical experience=absolute certainty belief is only relevant when i dont know, so i dont know is always true in this case, which automaticly makes belief false the reason why belief equates to theism is that, anything i believe is information, and god is information santa clause is a god that demands that you are good, or there will be no reward... dosnt sound like to much of a stretch does it? lies exist, i will catch a unicorn later today out in the forest i just know it! it will be black with a gold horn, i will ride it and it will l finally take me away for infinite jadada blabbla... i dont know god, and only know is true i dont know unicorns imagination is false reality is unbelieved imaginaiton is unknown alien dosnt equal true	Religion	0	Atheism-is-a-more-reasonable-position-than-theism/1/	6,492
atheism, is disbelief, belief to the contrary belief IS theism, therfore atheism is theism the specifik position of atheism that your warn against, is becasue, its true, and it reveals the religiosity of science absence of belief in god=know or i dont know disbelief=belief there are only 3 possible position on any imaginary claim, belief, disbelief, or acceptance i dont know without disbelief atheism cant exist, if you believe in science, lacking evidence for a creator of everything, then science is your god if i tell you i have dragon chained up in my backyard, and you disbelieve my claim, what is your position on my claim? the reason why atheism is theism, is because they are the same, the theist imagines the evidence and says yes, and the atheist imagines the evidence, and says no, agnostic says i dont know, which is true i dont know=i have to imagine it not having belief on an imaginary claim=i know or i accept i dont know	vi_spex	atheism, is disbelief, belief to the contrary belief IS theism, therfore atheism is theism the specifik position of atheism that your warn against, is becasue, its true, and it reveals the religiosity of science absence of belief in god=know or i dont know disbelief=belief there are only 3 possible position on any imaginary claim, belief, disbelief, or acceptance i dont know without disbelief atheism cant exist, if you believe in science, lacking evidence for a creator of everything, then science is your god if i tell you i have dragon chained up in my backyard, and you disbelieve my claim, what is your position on my claim? the reason why atheism is theism, is because they are the same, the theist imagines the evidence and says yes, and the atheist imagines the evidence, and says no, agnostic says i dont know, which is true i dont know=i have to imagine it not having belief on an imaginary claim=i know or i accept i dont know	Religion	1	Atheism-is-a-more-reasonable-position-than-theism/1/	6,493
look.. its really simple if i claim i have a dragon in my backyard, you can believe me, theism, or disbelieve me, atheism, or be an agnostic and accept you dont know these are the only position when it comes to religion i have no beliefs i understand matt dillahuntys position, and its is simple, that its wrong belief in science, is theism so im claiming, you are not an atheist, you are theist, fighting another religion false exist, lies exist. evidence: you can lie you can negate the god claim with beliefs in science, religion negates religion, or i accept i dont know, only ways of not believing a claim when aware of it	vi_spex	look.. its really simple if i claim i have a dragon in my backyard, you can believe me, theism, or disbelieve me, atheism, or be an agnostic and accept you dont know these are the only position when it comes to religion i have no beliefs i understand matt dillahuntys position, and its is simple, that its wrong belief in science, is theism so im claiming, you are not an atheist, you are theist, fighting another religion false exist, lies exist. evidence: you can lie you can negate the god claim with beliefs in science, religion negates religion, or i accept i dont know, only ways of not believing a claim when aware of it	Religion	2	Atheism-is-a-more-reasonable-position-than-theism/1/	6,494
Con to open. Format no set round structure rebut or propose as you like. Athiesm Read new Atheist the belief that the proposition 'There is a God' is False'.	Feyerabend	Con to open. Format no set round structure rebut or propose as you like. Athiesm Read new Atheist the belief that the proposition 'There is a God' is False'.	Philosophy	0	Atheism-is-a-non-stance./1/	6,504
To clarify, I maintain that atheism as a position in philosophy is a non-stance a distinction without a difference. This because the evidence is the same for both sides; no new evidence can or would be sufficient to establish the case in favour of one or the other. In terms of commitment, it is not clear that the two views are even incommensurate. Christianity can be seen as the product of an ancient move toward atheism, the denial of causal powers to whimsically motivated pantheons of gods. Both Judaism and Christianity faced censure for atheism; Israel traces itself to a rejection of the Egyptian religion. New atheism as Con has pointed out appears committed to some form of metaphysical naturalism. I thank him for identifying just what it is I so hatSe about atheism in its new form. New atheism needs metaphysical naturalism this to establish a view in which science holds sway over religion or non-religion and can import religion at a theological level into the domain of science. For the new atheism henceforth Metaphysical Naturalist Atheism MNA, it is not enough that the proposition "There is a God", be regarded as unscientific and false it must be false scientifically. I leave it to Con to decide whether to proceed in this direction or to develop the dispute in another way.	Feyerabend	To clarify, I maintain that atheism as a position in philosophy is a non-stance a distinction without a difference. This because the evidence is the same for both sides; no new evidence can or would be sufficient to establish the case in favour of one or the other. In terms of commitment, it is not clear that the two views are even incommensurate. Christianity can be seen as the product of an ancient move toward atheism, the denial of causal powers to whimsically motivated pantheons of gods. Both Judaism and Christianity faced censure for atheism; Israel traces itself to a rejection of the Egyptian religion. New atheism as Con has pointed out appears committed to some form of metaphysical naturalism. I thank him for identifying just what it is I so hatSe about atheism in its new form. New atheism needs metaphysical naturalism this to establish a view in which science holds sway over religion or non-religion and can import religion at a theological level into the domain of science. For the new atheism henceforth Metaphysical Naturalist Atheism MNA, it is not enough that the proposition "There is a God", be regarded as unscientific and false it must be false scientifically. I leave it to Con to decide whether to proceed in this direction or to develop the dispute in another way.	Philosophy	1	Atheism-is-a-non-stance./1/	6,505
I will accept that it is possible that most atheists do not get into materialist metaphyics and so do not hold a materialist correspondence theory of truth. Metaphysical materialism is of little interest to me. I am a stuff monist, believing in both bricks, magnetism and numbers constants even. Con is perfectly correct in his observation that it is possible to deny the existence of 'God' without meeting the charge of being committed to the existence of something which you then deny the existence. Russell is right that at least in first order logic we are not committed to the use of 'existence' as a predicate. Indeed it is not clear that we can meaningfully use existence as a predicate; say for example that some things exist and some things don't . This is a point that I happily cede to traditional atheism. I merely question whether the stance they take is a real stance since if it is not predicative but quantitative then it neither asserts nor denies anything about anything. You can't treat existence in a non-predicative way at one moment and then borrow it back later as a predicate at a later point, without openness to the charge of fallacy. New atheism as far as I can tell is probabilistic methodological atheism although it is often argued for in a style that comes across as dyed in the wool correspondence truth theory. In countries where religion is less prevalent it is difficult to understand how real the participants take these issues to be. In countries where discotheques bands and even Mexican food to be awesome it is natural to treat all arguments as being about ultimate facts. The scientism of the Popperian variety which is ostensibly the basis of Dawkins' position is not replete with such hard facts. Contemporary Science makes essential use not only of of probabilities but orders of probaility. This makes it very difficult decide what the meaning of "God exists with a probability of 0.00001 -.000001 might mean. It certainly seems to allow the existence of God relative to some modalities or possible worlds. The content however is mysterious no answer to the question of what two minimally different possible worlds one with a God the other sans God would be like. If they would be phenomenologically identical what would the import of 'There is no God be' Why might it not be that the one with a God is less religious. Cons second point the about substantive nature of the statement 'God exists' is doxastic. Religious beliefs have consequences, people commit acts they would otherwise consider unethical in support of their beliefs. The initial problem with this stance is of course that if there is no God there is nothing for people to have beliefs about, wars over soccer matches make more sense since, at least there are National teams to support. Strictly speaking that should be an end to the matter. Swift parodies the European wars of religion as a dispute over which end of the boiled egg one should crack at breakfast. No God then no belief in God, no belief in God no doxastic cause. Dawkins does not claim that God is to blame for war he claims that belief in God is responsible for religion which is responsible for war. It is an ambiguous and controversial area in theology whether we can know God. The ineffability of the divine as it were gets in the way. Atheist religions take this reasoning to the extreme maintaining that we live in a world that is ultimately unfathomable from our own perspective in any way. Buddhism and to extent Jainism being prominent examples. It is difficult work out what Ancient Egyptian Religion believed in, its gods seems to represent aspects of reality that we recognise today motherhood, death , law, wisdom, fate. Judaeo-Christianity a transcendent but sometimes imminent God. Within these a great many variant epistemology especially persist. Arguing against religions is like arguing against a Hydra. A general scepticism about what one is taught or told and a willingness to base one actions and behaviour on well validated beliefs is a trait to be encouraged, privileged hidden and externally unverifiable facts are generally to be distrusted. A clear case is the Jewish belief that God confers land rights. I can always be argued that this is not what Jews absolutely believe that you can be a Jew without a commitment to Zionism etc. This has to be taken in a context where most nationals would maintain a right to a homeland and where the claim for an inalienable right can be freely substituted for God-given right. There are certainly atheist Jews who maintain they have the right to a homeland as a homogenous people. The causal role of beliefs is genuinely handled by counter-factual or modal logic. if a beliefs F1,F2,F3 then a would D do P,Q,R. . It is certainly the case that beliefs have consequences on the whole if someone believes there is a bomb in his house then he leaves his house. (Unless as some do, we deny the existence of beliefs, as opposed to intentional stances.) The atheist claim here is that the belief 'There is a God' leads to deviation from the actions we would otherwise commit ceteris paribus. The real question however is whether religious beliefs differ from other beliefs, Is the belief 'There is a God' more directly involved as a causes bellum than 'my country right or wrong' patriotism, honour communism belief in the right to self-preservation, social Darwinism (Darwin's son was a leading Eugenesist' for persons and nations nations, belief in the right to maximise national wealth.... Is it possible that religious beliefs good or bad have no real effect on the behaviour of religious groups. Was Martin McGuiness fighting for catholics as believers or for catholics from a sectarian view.	Feyerabend	I will accept that it is possible that most atheists do not get into materialist metaphyics and so do not hold a materialist correspondence theory of truth. Metaphysical materialism is of little interest to me. I am a stuff monist, believing in both bricks, magnetism and numbers constants even. Con is perfectly correct in his observation that it is possible to deny the existence of 'God' without meeting the charge of being committed to the existence of something which you then deny the existence. Russell is right that at least in first order logic we are not committed to the use of 'existence' as a predicate. Indeed it is not clear that we can meaningfully use existence as a predicate; say for example that some things exist and some things don't . This is a point that I happily cede to traditional atheism. I merely question whether the stance they take is a real stance since if it is not predicative but quantitative then it neither asserts nor denies anything about anything. You can't treat existence in a non-predicative way at one moment and then borrow it back later as a predicate at a later point, without openness to the charge of fallacy. New atheism as far as I can tell is probabilistic methodological atheism although it is often argued for in a style that comes across as dyed in the wool correspondence truth theory. In countries where religion is less prevalent it is difficult to understand how real the participants take these issues to be. In countries where discotheques bands and even Mexican food to be awesome it is natural to treat all arguments as being about ultimate facts. The scientism of the Popperian variety which is ostensibly the basis of Dawkins' position is not replete with such hard facts. Contemporary Science makes essential use not only of of probabilities but orders of probaility. This makes it very difficult decide what the meaning of "God exists with a probability of 0.00001 -.000001 might mean. It certainly seems to allow the existence of God relative to some modalities or possible worlds. The content however is mysterious no answer to the question of what two minimally different possible worlds one with a God the other sans God would be like. If they would be phenomenologically identical what would the import of 'There is no God be' Why might it not be that the one with a God is less religious. Cons second point the about substantive nature of the statement 'God exists' is doxastic. Religious beliefs have consequences, people commit acts they would otherwise consider unethical in support of their beliefs. The initial problem with this stance is of course that if there is no God there is nothing for people to have beliefs about, wars over soccer matches make more sense since, at least there are National teams to support. Strictly speaking that should be an end to the matter. Swift parodies the European wars of religion as a dispute over which end of the boiled egg one should crack at breakfast. No God then no belief in God, no belief in God no doxastic cause. Dawkins does not claim that God is to blame for war he claims that belief in God is responsible for religion which is responsible for war. It is an ambiguous and controversial area in theology whether we can know God. The ineffability of the divine as it were gets in the way. Atheist religions take this reasoning to the extreme maintaining that we live in a world that is ultimately unfathomable from our own perspective in any way. Buddhism and to extent Jainism being prominent examples. It is difficult work out what Ancient Egyptian Religion believed in, its gods seems to represent aspects of reality that we recognise today motherhood, death , law, wisdom, fate. Judaeo-Christianity a transcendent but sometimes imminent God. Within these a great many variant epistemology especially persist. Arguing against religions is like arguing against a Hydra. A general scepticism about what one is taught or told and a willingness to base one actions and behaviour on well validated beliefs is a trait to be encouraged, privileged hidden and externally unverifiable facts are generally to be distrusted. A clear case is the Jewish belief that God confers land rights. I can always be argued that this is not what Jews absolutely believe that you can be a Jew without a commitment to Zionism etc. This has to be taken in a context where most nationals would maintain a right to a homeland and where the claim for an inalienable right can be freely substituted for God-given right. There are certainly atheist Jews who maintain they have the right to a homeland as a homogenous people. The causal role of beliefs is genuinely handled by counter-factual or modal logic. if a beliefs F1,F2,F3 then a would D do P,Q,R. . It is certainly the case that beliefs have consequences on the whole if someone believes there is a bomb in his house then he leaves his house. (Unless as some do, we deny the existence of beliefs, as opposed to intentional stances.) The atheist claim here is that the belief 'There is a God' leads to deviation from the actions we would otherwise commit ceteris paribus. The real question however is whether religious beliefs differ from other beliefs, Is the belief 'There is a God' more directly involved as a causes bellum than 'my country right or wrong' patriotism, honour communism belief in the right to self-preservation, social Darwinism (Darwin's son was a leading Eugenesist' for persons and nations nations, belief in the right to maximise national wealth.... Is it possible that religious beliefs good or bad have no real effect on the behaviour of religious groups. Was Martin McGuiness fighting for catholics as believers or for catholics from a sectarian view.	Philosophy	2	Atheism-is-a-non-stance./1/	6,506
With regard to the previous arguments I am mystified by the line Con is taken and his inference to the necessity to simultaneously provide a refutation of each and every proof for or against 'God exists' in order to show my point to be valid. I thinks a sample survey of proofs and disproofs shows that this cannot be done.If a proof were to be given of God through reference to facts about the physical world it would indicate either a mistake in the proof, or unsoundness in the logic itself. Logic is concerned with the conservation of truth, it is not intended to be productive in the sense that it provides grounds for the extension of its domain. Logic is a means of working out tu adop the consequences of what we already know or newly discover. It is not possible or desirable that a valid logic when applied to a set A prove anything about a disjoint set B. for a logic covering a domain D=[a,b,c] it should not be possible to formulate proofs about a domain B-[f,g,h} unless the two are both proper subsets of a super-domain AB which forms the domain of predication. The proofs of logic are relative to a domain.To fall under a predicate P is to belong to a proper subset of a domain for which P holds. Materialism is not an antiquated term for physicalism. You can be a materialist without being a physicalist, but not the other way round. Basically physicalism is a refinement of materialism it posits only a material reality but allows for description of that reality in terms of immaterial predicates over immaterial objects such as causes, effects, probability, energy etc provided a supervenience relationship holds between the theoretical entities, predicates and the material elements such that any change in our material description of matter is reflected at the theoretical level. There is no general agreement about the precise definition of this supervenience relationship strictly therefore. Physicalism is a construction in progress. Semantics is a theory of meaning, theorists of meaning generally equate the content of a statement with whatever needs to be the case for its truth conditions to be met, So for example 'I am in the UK' conveys that the sate of things is such that I am in the UK. From a materialist atheist point of view the Atheist viewpoint is that talk about God is balderdash, having nothing to do with the world of science or the world at large. Proofs of God 1) Folk proofs these range from Madonna statues weeping blood, images of Jesus on digestive biscuits through, aversions of terrible calamities (you should see what happened to the next village) to angels appearing at battlefields ( A commonly held belief at the Somme), The content of these being just that something was seen felt or heard and no more. These proofs fall to the principal of simplest or most economic explanation. This being a real principle on a physicalist view. Such proofs fail because you can't ground new ontologies on a single biscuit. . Most religious 'proofs' of this kind tend fall on grounds of availability of alternative explanations. 2) Ontological Proofs seek to derive the existence of God from the concept of God much in the way as we do mathematical induction. A number has a successor so their are an infinity of numbers. 0,S(0),SS(0) being equivalent to 0,1,2 and so on. In Anselm's version that than which no greater can be conceived must exist otherwise a greater thing could be imagined that being in reality. This argument falls on number of grounds. Most importantly it lacks a rung passed which a concept must be considered as having instantiation in reality.In this case in I inability is there any differ receive between imagining something in reality. Do we imagine things as though they are note real,how can the mode of imagination have anything to with instantiation. Descartes run basically the same argument and so does Godel, No argument has yet passed muster, There are logics which support Ontological generations. But many, I think rightly, would discount their soundness on that basis alone. It is also possible that 3) First Mover, Aquinas. One of the core tenets of science is that everything has a cause It is possible to argue from this that the whole of the universe has a first cause. The theist then claims that this first cause is God and God is extra-universal, Hence there is a God. In the design view we can get further evidence of a divine plan by observing the intricacies of the universe, they have all the marks of an intelligent creator. Hence there is a God. If this argument worlds at all it leads nowhere towards to a God of faith. We can account for apparent order by noting that is part of the role of science and people in general to find order in chaos so they can make predictions about and to some extent control reality.While this argument may succeed with a physicalism it is not clear it would be readily accepted by more hard-going materialist.The content of the argument if accepted there is material causation and the universe was caused. 4) Argument from evil. This is the argument is the reverse of the the theist teleological argument the universe if it is designed shows evidence of a faulty design or evil design both of which are incompatible with a God of faith. The force of this argument is whether or not you believe in a creator, whatever formed the world created an imperfect world which contains evil. Strictly this is not against the notion of a creator God but a denial of the religious attributes that can be applied to a nominal first cause. Traditional Atheism then concerns the statements of science the ontology of science. The purely logical proofs may be seen either as an attempt to extend the ontology and face the challenge of reasoning outside of their domain, note this is not the case for unicorns or even Greek Gods, which could be a rgued for or against within the ontological categories of a biology we might even be able to bio engineer a unicorn. The resolution of such matters being obfuscated only by happenstance and the difficulties of mounting an adequate and exhaustive search. 'God' does not conceptually belong to within the realm of observables and it is difficult to see what physical facts observations follow from the statement God exists as opposed to the statement God does not exist. What establishes the supervenience of a putative God over the world of observable matter. Without such a relation the statement that God does or does not exist has no content. It asserts nothing at all about the states of affairs that do or will persist in the world. New atheists however that statements like 'God Exists' are scientifically provable. From which it follows that they have content. Ontologically this seems to be a denial of Materialism. If God could possibly exist then there can be entities which are not physical in the sense that they are not material and do not satisfy the supervenience relationship. What most puzzles me is how Dawkins and Dennett a highly regarded can even being to argue that God is possible. Con thinks this is down to a confused confutation on my part of probability and possibility. On a simple view of probability it is intuitively obvious that is if something is impossible it has a probability of 0. If something must happen, is certain certain to happen then it has a probability 1. But where do you begin assigning probality to a statement about the existence of things in an alternative domain. In summary my claim is that statements of a domain D[f1,,,,,,,fn ] and a second disjoint domain D# [g1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,gn] in a logic applied to D a state Ex( x=g] is meaningless.	Feyerabend	With regard to the previous arguments I am mystified by the line Con is taken and his inference to the necessity to simultaneously provide a refutation of each and every proof for or against 'God exists' in order to show my point to be valid. I thinks a sample survey of proofs and disproofs shows that this cannot be done.If a proof were to be given of God through reference to facts about the physical world it would indicate either a mistake in the proof, or unsoundness in the logic itself. Logic is concerned with the conservation of truth, it is not intended to be productive in the sense that it provides grounds for the extension of its domain. Logic is a means of working out tu adop the consequences of what we already know or newly discover. It is not possible or desirable that a valid logic when applied to a set A prove anything about a disjoint set B. for a logic covering a domain D=[a,b,c] it should not be possible to formulate proofs about a domain B-[f,g,h} unless the two are both proper subsets of a super-domain AB which forms the domain of predication. The proofs of logic are relative to a domain.To fall under a predicate P is to belong to a proper subset of a domain for which P holds. Materialism is not an antiquated term for physicalism. You can be a materialist without being a physicalist, but not the other way round. Basically physicalism is a refinement of materialism it posits only a material reality but allows for description of that reality in terms of immaterial predicates over immaterial objects such as causes, effects, probability, energy etc provided a supervenience relationship holds between the theoretical entities, predicates and the material elements such that any change in our material description of matter is reflected at the theoretical level. There is no general agreement about the precise definition of this supervenience relationship strictly therefore. Physicalism is a construction in progress. Semantics is a theory of meaning, theorists of meaning generally equate the content of a statement with whatever needs to be the case for its truth conditions to be met, So for example 'I am in the UK' conveys that the sate of things is such that I am in the UK. From a materialist atheist point of view the Atheist viewpoint is that talk about God is balderdash, having nothing to do with the world of science or the world at large. Proofs of God 1) Folk proofs these range from Madonna statues weeping blood, images of Jesus on digestive biscuits through, aversions of terrible calamities (you should see what happened to the next village) to angels appearing at battlefields ( A commonly held belief at the Somme), The content of these being just that something was seen felt or heard and no more. These proofs fall to the principal of simplest or most economic explanation. This being a real principle on a physicalist view. Such proofs fail because you can't ground new ontologies on a single biscuit. . Most religious 'proofs' of this kind tend fall on grounds of availability of alternative explanations. 2) Ontological Proofs seek to derive the existence of God from the concept of God much in the way as we do mathematical induction. A number has a successor so their are an infinity of numbers. 0,S(0),SS(0) being equivalent to 0,1,2 and so on. In Anselm's version that than which no greater can be conceived must exist otherwise a greater thing could be imagined that being in reality. This argument falls on number of grounds. Most importantly it lacks a rung passed which a concept must be considered as having instantiation in reality.In this case in I inability is there any differ receive between imagining something in reality. Do we imagine things as though they are note real,how can the mode of imagination have anything to with instantiation. Descartes run basically the same argument and so does Godel, No argument has yet passed muster, There are logics which support Ontological generations. But many, I think rightly, would discount their soundness on that basis alone. It is also possible that 3) First Mover, Aquinas. One of the core tenets of science is that everything has a cause It is possible to argue from this that the whole of the universe has a first cause. The theist then claims that this first cause is God and God is extra-universal, Hence there is a God. In the design view we can get further evidence of a divine plan by observing the intricacies of the universe, they have all the marks of an intelligent creator. Hence there is a God. If this argument worlds at all it leads nowhere towards to a God of faith. We can account for apparent order by noting that is part of the role of science and people in general to find order in chaos so they can make predictions about and to some extent control reality.While this argument may succeed with a physicalism it is not clear it would be readily accepted by more hard-going materialist.The content of the argument if accepted there is material causation and the universe was caused. 4) Argument from evil. This is the argument is the reverse of the the theist teleological argument the universe if it is designed shows evidence of a faulty design or evil design both of which are incompatible with a God of faith. The force of this argument is whether or not you believe in a creator, whatever formed the world created an imperfect world which contains evil. Strictly this is not against the notion of a creator God but a denial of the religious attributes that can be applied to a nominal first cause. Traditional Atheism then concerns the statements of science the ontology of science. The purely logical proofs may be seen either as an attempt to extend the ontology and face the challenge of reasoning outside of their domain, note this is not the case for unicorns or even Greek Gods, which could be a rgued for or against within the ontological categories of a biology we might even be able to bio engineer a unicorn. The resolution of such matters being obfuscated only by happenstance and the difficulties of mounting an adequate and exhaustive search. 'God' does not conceptually belong to within the realm of observables and it is difficult to see what physical facts observations follow from the statement God exists as opposed to the statement God does not exist. What establishes the supervenience of a putative God over the world of observable matter. Without such a relation the statement that God does or does not exist has no content. It asserts nothing at all about the states of affairs that do or will persist in the world. New atheists however that statements like 'God Exists' are scientifically provable. From which it follows that they have content. Ontologically this seems to be a denial of Materialism. If God could possibly exist then there can be entities which are not physical in the sense that they are not material and do not satisfy the supervenience relationship. What most puzzles me is how Dawkins and Dennett a highly regarded can even being to argue that God is possible. Con thinks this is down to a confused confutation on my part of probability and possibility. On a simple view of probability it is intuitively obvious that is if something is impossible it has a probability of 0. If something must happen, is certain certain to happen then it has a probability 1. But where do you begin assigning probality to a statement about the existence of things in an alternative domain. In summary my claim is that statements of a domain D[f1,,,,,,,fn ] and a second disjoint domain D# [g1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,gn] in a logic applied to D a state Ex( x=g] is meaningless.	Philosophy	3	Atheism-is-a-non-stance./1/	6,507
With regard to the previous arguments I am mystified by the line Con is taken and his inference to the necessity to simultaneously provide a refutation of each and every proof for or against 'God exists' in order to show my point to be valid. I thinks a sample survey of proofs and disproofs shows that this cannot be done.If a proof were to be given of God through reference to facts about the physical world it would indicate either a mistake in the proof, or unsoundness in the logic itself. Logic is concerned with the conservation of truth, it is not intended to be productive in the sense that it provides grounds for the extension of its domain. Logic is a means of working out tu adop the consequences of what we already know or newly discover. It is not possible or desirable that a valid logic when applied to a set A prove anything about a disjoint set B. for a logic covering a domain D=[a,b,c] it should not be possible to formulate proofs about a domain B-[f,g,h} unless the two are both proper subsets of a super-domain AB which forms the domain of predication. The proofs of logic are relative to a domain.To fall under a predicate P is to belong to a proper subset of a domain for which P holds. Materialism is not an antiquated term for physicalism. You can be a materialist without being a physicalist, but not the other way round. Basically physicalism is a refinement of materialism it posits only a material reality but allows for description of that reality in terms of immaterial predicates over immaterial objects such as causes, effects, probability, energy etc provided a supervenience relationship holds between the theoretical entities, predicates and the material elements such that any change in our material description of matter is reflected at the theoretical level. There is no general agreement about the precise definition of this supervenience relationship strictly therefore. Physicalism is a construction in progress. Semantics is a theory of meaning, theorists of meaning generally equate the content of a statement with whatever needs to be the case for its truth conditions to be met, So for example 'I am in the UK' conveys that the sate of things is such that I am in the UK. From a materialist atheist point of view the Atheist viewpoint is that talk about God is balderdash, having nothing to do with the world of science or the world at large. Proofs of God 1) Folk proofs these range from Madonna statues weeping blood, images of Jesus on digestive biscuits through, aversions of terrible calamities (you should see what happened to the next village) to angels appearing at battlefields ( A commonly held belief at the Somme), The content of these being just that something was seen felt or heard and no more. These proofs fall to the principal of simplest or most economic explanation. This being a real principle on a physicalist view. Such proofs fail because you can't ground new ontologies on a single biscuit. . Most religious 'proofs' of this kind tend fall on grounds of availability of alternative explanations. 2) Ontological Proofs seek to derive the existence of God from the concept of God much in the way as we do mathematical induction. A number has a successor so their are an infinity of numbers. 0,S(0),SS(0) being equivalent to 0,1,2 and so on. In Anselm's version that than which no greater can be conceived must exist otherwise a greater thing could be imagined that being in reality. This argument falls on number of grounds. Most importantly it lacks a rung passed which a concept must be considered as having instantiation in reality.In this case in I inability is there any differ receive between imagining something in reality. Do we imagine things as though they are note real,how can the mode of imagination have anything to with instantiation. Descartes run basically the same argument and so does Godel, No argument has yet passed muster, There are logics which support Ontological generations. But many, I think rightly, would discount their soundness on that basis alone. It is also possible that 3) First Mover, Aquinas. One of the core tenets of science is that everything has a cause It is possible to argue from this that the whole of the universe has a first cause. The theist then claims that this first cause is God and God is extra-universal, Hence there is a God. In the design view we can get further evidence of a divine plan by observing the intricacies of the universe, they have all the marks of an intelligent creator. Hence there is a God. If this argument worlds at all it leads nowhere towards to a God of faith. We can account for apparent order by noting that is part of the role of science and people in general to find order in chaos so they can make predictions about and to some extent control reality.While this argument may succeed with a physicalism it is not clear it would be readily accepted by more hard-going materialist.The content of the argument if accepted there is material causation and the universe was caused. 4) Argument from evil. This is the argument is the reverse of the the theist teleological argument the universe if it is designed shows evidence of a faulty design or evil design both of which are incompatible with a God of faith. The force of this argument is whether or not you believe in a creator, whatever formed the world created an imperfect world which contains evil. Strictly this is not against the notion of a creator God but a denial of the religious attributes that can be applied to a nominal first cause. Traditional Atheism then concerns the statements of science the ontology of science. The purely logical proofs may be seen either as an attempt to extend the ontology and face the challenge of reasoning outside of their domain, note this is not the case for unicorns or even Greek Gods, which could be a rgued for or against within the ontological categories of a biology we might even be able to bio engineer a unicorn. The resolution of such matters being obfuscated only by happenstance and the difficulties of mounting an adequate and exhaustive search. 'God' does not conceptually belong to within the realm of observables and it is difficult to see what physical facts observations follow from the statement God exists as opposed to the statement God does not exist. What establishes the supervenience of a putative God over the world of observable matter. Without such a relation the statement that God does or does not exist has no content. It asserts nothing at all about the states of affairs that do or will persist in the world. New atheists however that statements like 'God Exists' are scientifically provable. From which it follows that they have content. Ontologically this seems to be a denial of Materialism. If God could possibly exist then there can be entities which are not physical in the sense that they are not material and do not satisfy the supervenience relationship. What most puzzles me is how Dawkins and Dennett a highly regarded can even being to argue that God is possible. Con thinks this is down to a confused confutation on my part of probability and possibility. On a simple view of probability it is intuitively obvious that is if something is impossible it has a probability of 0. If something must happen, is certain certain to happen then it has a probability 1. But where do you begin assigning probality to a statement about the existence of things in an alternative domain. In summary my claim is that statements of a domain D[f1,,,,,,,fn ] and a second disjoint domain D# [g1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,gn] in a logic applied to D a state Ex( x=g] is meaningless.	Feyerabend	With regard to the previous arguments I am mystified by the line Con is taken and his inference to the necessity to simultaneously provide a refutation of each and every proof for or against 'God exists' in order to show my point to be valid. I thinks a sample survey of proofs and disproofs shows that this cannot be done.If a proof were to be given of God through reference to facts about the physical world it would indicate either a mistake in the proof, or unsoundness in the logic itself. Logic is concerned with the conservation of truth, it is not intended to be productive in the sense that it provides grounds for the extension of its domain. Logic is a means of working out tu adop the consequences of what we already know or newly discover. It is not possible or desirable that a valid logic when applied to a set A prove anything about a disjoint set B. for a logic covering a domain D=[a,b,c] it should not be possible to formulate proofs about a domain B-[f,g,h} unless the two are both proper subsets of a super-domain AB which forms the domain of predication. The proofs of logic are relative to a domain.To fall under a predicate P is to belong to a proper subset of a domain for which P holds. Materialism is not an antiquated term for physicalism. You can be a materialist without being a physicalist, but not the other way round. Basically physicalism is a refinement of materialism it posits only a material reality but allows for description of that reality in terms of immaterial predicates over immaterial objects such as causes, effects, probability, energy etc provided a supervenience relationship holds between the theoretical entities, predicates and the material elements such that any change in our material description of matter is reflected at the theoretical level. There is no general agreement about the precise definition of this supervenience relationship strictly therefore. Physicalism is a construction in progress. Semantics is a theory of meaning, theorists of meaning generally equate the content of a statement with whatever needs to be the case for its truth conditions to be met, So for example 'I am in the UK' conveys that the sate of things is such that I am in the UK. From a materialist atheist point of view the Atheist viewpoint is that talk about God is balderdash, having nothing to do with the world of science or the world at large. Proofs of God 1) Folk proofs these range from Madonna statues weeping blood, images of Jesus on digestive biscuits through, aversions of terrible calamities (you should see what happened to the next village) to angels appearing at battlefields ( A commonly held belief at the Somme), The content of these being just that something was seen felt or heard and no more. These proofs fall to the principal of simplest or most economic explanation. This being a real principle on a physicalist view. Such proofs fail because you can't ground new ontologies on a single biscuit. . Most religious 'proofs' of this kind tend fall on grounds of availability of alternative explanations. 2) Ontological Proofs seek to derive the existence of God from the concept of God much in the way as we do mathematical induction. A number has a successor so their are an infinity of numbers. 0,S(0),SS(0) being equivalent to 0,1,2 and so on. In Anselm's version that than which no greater can be conceived must exist otherwise a greater thing could be imagined that being in reality. This argument falls on number of grounds. Most importantly it lacks a rung passed which a concept must be considered as having instantiation in reality.In this case in I inability is there any differ receive between imagining something in reality. Do we imagine things as though they are note real,how can the mode of imagination have anything to with instantiation. Descartes run basically the same argument and so does Godel, No argument has yet passed muster, There are logics which support Ontological generations. But many, I think rightly, would discount their soundness on that basis alone. It is also possible that 3) First Mover, Aquinas. One of the core tenets of science is that everything has a cause It is possible to argue from this that the whole of the universe has a first cause. The theist then claims that this first cause is God and God is extra-universal, Hence there is a God. In the design view we can get further evidence of a divine plan by observing the intricacies of the universe, they have all the marks of an intelligent creator. Hence there is a God. If this argument worlds at all it leads nowhere towards to a God of faith. We can account for apparent order by noting that is part of the role of science and people in general to find order in chaos so they can make predictions about and to some extent control reality.While this argument may succeed with a physicalism it is not clear it would be readily accepted by more hard-going materialist.The content of the argument if accepted there is material causation and the universe was caused. 4) Argument from evil. This is the argument is the reverse of the the theist teleological argument the universe if it is designed shows evidence of a faulty design or evil design both of which are incompatible with a God of faith. The force of this argument is whether or not you believe in a creator, whatever formed the world created an imperfect world which contains evil. Strictly this is not against the notion of a creator God but a denial of the religious attributes that can be applied to a nominal first cause. Traditional Atheism then concerns the statements of science the ontology of science. The purely logical proofs may be seen either as an attempt to extend the ontology and face the challenge of reasoning outside of their domain, note this is not the case for unicorns or even Greek Gods, which could be a rgued for or against within the ontological categories of a biology we might even be able to bio engineer a unicorn. The resolution of such matters being obfuscated only by happenstance and the difficulties of mounting an adequate and exhaustive search. 'God' does not conceptually belong to within the realm of observables and it is difficult to see what physical facts observations follow from the statement God exists as opposed to the statement God does not exist. What establishes the supervenience of a putative God over the world of observable matter. Without such a relation the statement that God does or does not exist has no content. It asserts nothing at all about the states of affairs that do or will persist in the world. New atheists however that statements like 'God Exists' are scientifically provable. From which it follows that they have content. Ontologically this seems to be a denial of Materialism. If God could possibly exist then there can be entities which are not physical in the sense that they are not material and do not satisfy the supervenience relationship. What most puzzles me is how Dawkins and Dennett a highly regarded can even being to argue that God is possible. Con thinks this is down to a confused confutation on my part of probability and possibility. On a simple view of probability it is intuitively obvious that is if something is impossible it has a probability of 0. If something must happen, is certain certain to happen then it has a probability 1. But where do you begin assigning probality to a statement about the existence of things in an alternative domain. In summary my claim is that statements of a domain D[f1,,,,,,,fn ] and a second disjoint domain D# [g1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,gn] in a logic applied to D a state Ex( x=g] is meaningless.	Philosophy	4	Atheism-is-a-non-stance./1/	6,508
Welcome people of DDO! In this debate I will defend the view that atheism is an active stance. The difference between stance and non-stance seems to be analogous to the difference between belief and lack of belief, hence I am going to treat it as such. My opponent starts out by attempting to affirm the resolution with the following. " the belief that the proposition 'There is a God' is False'. " However this does not affirm the resolution (atheism is a non-stance) in any way. Let me demonstrate why. If I say 'rabbits exist' then this translates into Ex(Rx) => There exists an x, such that x is a rabbit. The negation of the proposition 'rabbits exist' translates into ~Ex(Rx) => It is not the case that there exists an x, such that x is a rabbit. The same applies to the existence of God: 'God exists' is true => Ex(Gx) => There exists an x, such that x is a God. 'God does not exist' is true or 'God exists' is false => ~Ex(Gx) => It is not the case that there exists an x, such that x is a God. To say, as my opponent does, that 'There is a God' is False' is equivalent to say 'God does not exist'. Hence Pro's opening statement does not affirm the resolution at all. But let me focus a little more on the resolution or more precisely let me focus on what it means to have a stance. Stance: A position or point of view \| general emotional or intellectual attitude (1) If atheism would be a non-stance, then an atheist would be, per definition, someone without an attitude towards the existence of God. But this is blatantly false and ridiculous. Neither stones nor newborns nor my table have an attitude towards the existence of God. Claiming all these things are atheists is absurd. Moreover I and most if not all other atheists do have a specific attitude towards the existence of God. No atheist and especially not the new atheists are in a neutral state of mind when dealing with theistic questions. Sure many new atheists claim to simply to lack a belief in God or as Pro puts it, have no stance, but this diametrically opposed to their expressed opinions. Let's recap. We have seen a stance to be a doxastic attitude. Many claim it is impossible to "prove a negative" and that therefore no conclusive argument against the existence of God can be made. God then is like a teapot orbiting the sun. In this case I suggest a kind of Russellian agnosticism: " As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God . On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods. "(2) (Own emphasis on the highlighted part, because Russell basically negates the resolution.) It is important to distinguish the views. If one does not think he is able to provide a conclusive argument, then he is not an atheist, he is an agnostic. We can of course attempt to redefine terms, but there is no point in redefining atheism in a way that simply replaces another already existing term. Especially since not only Russell, but also the rest of professional philosophers agree with me: " 'Atheism' means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God "(3) Sources (1) <URL>... (2) Bertrand Russell 1947, Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic? (3) <URL>...	Fkkize	Welcome people of DDO! In this debate I will defend the view that atheism is an active stance. The difference between stance and non-stance seems to be analogous to the difference between belief and lack of belief, hence I am going to treat it as such. My opponent starts out by attempting to affirm the resolution with the following. " the belief that the proposition 'There is a God' is False'. " However this does not affirm the resolution (atheism is a non-stance) in any way. Let me demonstrate why. If I say 'rabbits exist' then this translates into Ex(Rx) => There exists an x, such that x is a rabbit. The negation of the proposition 'rabbits exist' translates into ~Ex(Rx) => It is not the case that there exists an x, such that x is a rabbit. The same applies to the existence of God: 'God exists' is true => Ex(Gx) => There exists an x, such that x is a God. 'God does not exist' is true or 'God exists' is false => ~Ex(Gx) => It is not the case that there exists an x, such that x is a God. To say, as my opponent does, that 'There is a God' is False' is equivalent to say 'God does not exist'. Hence Pro's opening statement does not affirm the resolution at all. But let me focus a little more on the resolution or more precisely let me focus on what it means to have a stance. Stance: A position or point of view \| general emotional or intellectual attitude (1) If atheism would be a non-stance, then an atheist would be, per definition, someone without an attitude towards the existence of God. But this is blatantly false and ridiculous. Neither stones nor newborns nor my table have an attitude towards the existence of God. Claiming all these things are atheists is absurd. Moreover I and most if not all other atheists do have a specific attitude towards the existence of God. No atheist and especially not the new atheists are in a neutral state of mind when dealing with theistic questions. Sure many new atheists claim to simply to lack a belief in God or as Pro puts it, have no stance, but this diametrically opposed to their expressed opinions. Let's recap. We have seen a stance to be a doxastic attitude. Many claim it is impossible to "prove a negative" and that therefore no conclusive argument against the existence of God can be made. God then is like a teapot orbiting the sun. In this case I suggest a kind of Russellian agnosticism: " As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God . On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods. "(2) (Own emphasis on the highlighted part, because Russell basically negates the resolution.) It is important to distinguish the views. If one does not think he is able to provide a conclusive argument, then he is not an atheist, he is an agnostic. We can of course attempt to redefine terms, but there is no point in redefining atheism in a way that simply replaces another already existing term. Especially since not only Russell, but also the rest of professional philosophers agree with me: " ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God "(3) Sources (1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (2) Bertrand Russell 1947, Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic? (3) http://plato.stanford.edu...	Philosophy	0	Atheism-is-a-non-stance./1/	6,509
My opponent starts out by clarifying what he is arguing for. He states atheism is a non-stance, " because the evidence is the same for both sides; no new evidence can or would be sufficient to establish the case in favour of one or the other " However there are several problems with this claim. 1) Pro mentions the new atheists. If anyone of them actually believed this to be an in principle unanswerable question then any big opposition they express towards religious agendas would ultimately be unjustified. One cannot on one hand argue the question is open and noone really knows what's up, but one the other hand complain about religious atrocities. If the issue about God's existence can't be settled, so can't the issue of the divine commands of a malicious God. Perhaps the crusades are justified after all, who knows? 2) To justify this claim my opponent not only has to show every single argument for the existence of God to be unsound, he also has to show every single argument against the existence of God to be unsound. The problem of evil seems to be a good example of the latter category and I would like my opponent to demonstrate why this argument fails. 3) In my opening statement I have argued for why atheism is a stance. I can grant the question to be unanswerable, as Pro suggests, however this does not affirm the resolution at all. If anything it would mean that every atheist (and theist) is wrong. My opponent did not properly address my arguments and it seems to me that the undecidability does not prove his claim, but begs for redefining 'atheism'. I have not pointed out that new atheists are committed to metaphysical naturalism. New atheism is not even a real philosophical position, atheism is. Moreover I highly doubt most new atheists are interested enough in the philosophy behind atheism to know what metaphysical naturalism is. Anyone who read Dawkins' chapter on natural theology in The God Delusion probably recognizes the general philosophical ignorance, common among new atheists. What I have said or at least intended to say is that metaphysical naturalism is the idea that philosophy should be based on our best empirical theories. The fact that he hates metaphysical naturalism is neither a philosophical rigorous argument nor relevant to this debate. A proper metaphysical naturalist is most likely not a new atheist or at least argues in a completely different fashion then one and equating new atheism with metaphysical naturalism is a mistake. An easy to check out example of this is the youtuber Gary Edwards (1). He not only is a naturalist, he also is an atheist in the sense I advocate. The God hypothesis is scientifically inadequate regardless of one's sympathy for metaphysical naturalism. " Methodological naturalists see philosophy and science as engaged in essentially the same enterprise, pursuing similar ends and using similar methods. "(2) The opposing view would then be that philosophy and science are disjoint in their methods, which does not make the God hypothesis any less scientifically inadequate. One can accept this discontinuity of methodology and still accept this in addition to purely philosophical arguments against the existence of God. I am not sure what direction my opponent is talking about. (1) <URL>... (2) <URL>...	Fkkize	My opponent starts out by clarifying what he is arguing for. He states atheism is a non-stance, " because the evidence is the same for both sides; no new evidence can or would be sufficient to establish the case in favour of one or the other " However there are several problems with this claim. 1) Pro mentions the new atheists. If anyone of them actually believed this to be an in principle unanswerable question then any big opposition they express towards religious agendas would ultimately be unjustified. One cannot on one hand argue the question is open and noone really knows what's up, but one the other hand complain about religious atrocities. If the issue about God's existence can't be settled, so can't the issue of the divine commands of a malicious God. Perhaps the crusades are justified after all, who knows? 2) To justify this claim my opponent not only has to show every single argument for the existence of God to be unsound, he also has to show every single argument against the existence of God to be unsound. The problem of evil seems to be a good example of the latter category and I would like my opponent to demonstrate why this argument fails. 3) In my opening statement I have argued for why atheism is a stance. I can grant the question to be unanswerable, as Pro suggests, however this does not affirm the resolution at all. If anything it would mean that every atheist (and theist) is wrong. My opponent did not properly address my arguments and it seems to me that the undecidability does not prove his claim, but begs for redefining 'atheism'. I have not pointed out that new atheists are committed to metaphysical naturalism. New atheism is not even a real philosophical position, atheism is. Moreover I highly doubt most new atheists are interested enough in the philosophy behind atheism to know what metaphysical naturalism is. Anyone who read Dawkins' chapter on natural theology in The God Delusion probably recognizes the general philosophical ignorance, common among new atheists. What I have said or at least intended to say is that metaphysical naturalism is the idea that philosophy should be based on our best empirical theories. The fact that he hates metaphysical naturalism is neither a philosophical rigorous argument nor relevant to this debate. A proper metaphysical naturalist is most likely not a new atheist or at least argues in a completely different fashion then one and equating new atheism with metaphysical naturalism is a mistake. An easy to check out example of this is the youtuber Gary Edwards (1). He not only is a naturalist, he also is an atheist in the sense I advocate. The God hypothesis is scientifically inadequate regardless of one's sympathy for metaphysical naturalism. " Methodological naturalists see philosophy and science as engaged in essentially the same enterprise, pursuing similar ends and using similar methods. "(2) The opposing view would then be that philosophy and science are disjoint in their methods, which does not make the God hypothesis any less scientifically inadequate. One can accept this discontinuity of methodology and still accept this in addition to purely philosophical arguments against the existence of God. I am not sure what direction my opponent is talking about. (1) https://www.youtube.com... (2) http://plato.stanford.edu...	Philosophy	1	Atheism-is-a-non-stance./1/	6,510
Materialism is an antiquated term. I think what Pro means is either physicalism or naturalism, however, I completely fail to see the connection to the correspondence theory. A naturalist is not committed to it. I never made a connection between Russell and existence as a predicate. In fact, I never talked about predicating existence. Atheists do deny that God exists. I have written a fairly lengthy paragraph explaining why atheism is a stance and accordingly denies God's existence. My opponent proceeds by confusing probability and modality. That aside, if no current date whatsoever suggests a divine mind to be a likely explanation for any phenomena in this world, then the God hypothesis remains scientifically inadequate, which suffices for the new atheist's claim. Afterwards Pro claims " if there is no God there is nothing for people to have beliefs about ", but that is not true. I don't believe that unicorns exist. Do unicorns have to exist or me to have this belief? No, I only need to have some concept of what an unicorn or God is to hold a doxastic attitude towards any statement about them. Unfortunately the rest of his rebuttal has nothing to do with whether or not atheism is a stance and he is incorrect when he claims the nature of beliefs to be handled by modal logic. I'd like to see a citation for this. My arguments from last round have at best been implicitly touched upon and the claims I wanted my opponent to substantiate remain baseless.	Fkkize	Materialism is an antiquated term. I think what Pro means is either physicalism or naturalism, however, I completely fail to see the connection to the correspondence theory. A naturalist is not committed to it. I never made a connection between Russell and existence as a predicate. In fact, I never talked about predicating existence. Atheists do deny that God exists. I have written a fairly lengthy paragraph explaining why atheism is a stance and accordingly denies God's existence. My opponent proceeds by confusing probability and modality. That aside, if no current date whatsoever suggests a divine mind to be a likely explanation for any phenomena in this world, then the God hypothesis remains scientifically inadequate, which suffices for the new atheist's claim. Afterwards Pro claims " if there is no God there is nothing for people to have beliefs about ", but that is not true. I don't believe that unicorns exist. Do unicorns have to exist or me to have this belief? No, I only need to have some concept of what an unicorn or God is to hold a doxastic attitude towards any statement about them. Unfortunately the rest of his rebuttal has nothing to do with whether or not atheism is a stance and he is incorrect when he claims the nature of beliefs to be handled by modal logic. I'd like to see a citation for this. My arguments from last round have at best been implicitly touched upon and the claims I wanted my opponent to substantiate remain baseless.	Philosophy	2	Atheism-is-a-non-stance./1/	6,511
My opponent is puzzled as to why I would require him to refute most if not all arguments for an against the existence of God. I would like to remind him of what he said in round two: " because the evidence is the same for both sides; no new evidence can or would be sufficient to establish the case in favour of one or the other " This claim needs justification and accordingly I asked him to refute the problem of evil. That would have been justification by way of example to me. ... Materialism is indeed an antiquated term, nowhere in contemporary literature are you going to find someone describing or defending materialism. Physicalism includes a broad spectrum of differing views. As I understand it, physicalism is the view that in principle everything about the world can be described by an ideal physics. If magic could be described by certain laws, then a physicalist could even believe in magic. So no, a physicalist does not, contrary to a materialist, hold that everything is matter. Pro argues atheistic materialists reject the idea of God, since it does not conform with science. This however is an a posteriori insight and has nothing to do with his prior talk about materialism. Proofs of God 1) I agree with me regarding the falsity of such proofs. He hints at the law of parsimony, which does not refute this kind of argument by any means, it just places the onus on the side making the less simple claim. It is a general principle of metaontology not only atheistic physicalists. 3) A physicalist by no means thinks this argument is successful. Physicalists, materialists, idealists and dualists of all sorts can accept or reject the argument for various reasons, completely disconnected form these particular stances. For example the philosophy of time or eternalism to be more precise gives good reason to reject the argument. Eternalism is compatible with all the above listed stances. 4) The argument from evil is most certainly not an argument against a nominal first cause. The argument can be constructed generis paribus for a great variety of deities, as long as they are defined as allpowerfull, allknowing and allgood. Traditional atheism has been around longer than anything we would recognize as the scientific method. 'Atheism' originates from the ancient Greek word 'atheos', meaning " godless " or " without a god " (1) Whatever it is new atheists claim exactly and whether or not it is consistent has no bearing on this debate. This paragraph does not affirm "Atheism is a non-stance." by any means. (1) <URL>...	Fkkize	My opponent is puzzled as to why I would require him to refute most if not all arguments for an against the existence of God. I would like to remind him of what he said in round two: " because the evidence is the same for both sides; no new evidence can or would be sufficient to establish the case in favour of one or the other " This claim needs justification and accordingly I asked him to refute the problem of evil. That would have been justification by way of example to me. ... Materialism is indeed an antiquated term, nowhere in contemporary literature are you going to find someone describing or defending materialism. Physicalism includes a broad spectrum of differing views. As I understand it, physicalism is the view that in principle everything about the world can be described by an ideal physics. If magic could be described by certain laws, then a physicalist could even believe in magic. So no, a physicalist does not, contrary to a materialist, hold that everything is matter. Pro argues atheistic materialists reject the idea of God, since it does not conform with science. This however is an a posteriori insight and has nothing to do with his prior talk about materialism. Proofs of God 1) I agree with me regarding the falsity of such proofs. He hints at the law of parsimony, which does not refute this kind of argument by any means, it just places the onus on the side making the less simple claim. It is a general principle of metaontology not only atheistic physicalists. 3) A physicalist by no means thinks this argument is successful. Physicalists, materialists, idealists and dualists of all sorts can accept or reject the argument for various reasons, completely disconnected form these particular stances. For example the philosophy of time or eternalism to be more precise gives good reason to reject the argument. Eternalism is compatible with all the above listed stances. 4) The argument from evil is most certainly not an argument against a nominal first cause. The argument can be constructed generis paribus for a great variety of deities, as long as they are defined as allpowerfull, allknowing and allgood. Traditional atheism has been around longer than anything we would recognize as the scientific method. 'Atheism' originates from the ancient Greek word 'atheos', meaning " godless " or " without a god " (1) Whatever it is new atheists claim exactly and whether or not it is consistent has no bearing on this debate. This paragraph does not affirm "Atheism is a non-stance." by any means. (1) https://en.wiktionary.org...	Philosophy	3	Atheism-is-a-non-stance./1/	6,512
My opponent copied and pasted his rebuttal from last round, thus I extend all my points. Vote Con.	Fkkize	My opponent copied and pasted his rebuttal from last round, thus I extend all my points. Vote Con.	Philosophy	4	Atheism-is-a-non-stance./1/	6,513
Resolution: Atheism is not a religion. Rules : Debater must have typing experience. Debater must have internet access. No excuses or forfeitures. Must structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion. Must insert one witty quote per round. Rounds : (1) Acceptance + Internet High Five (2) Main Argument (3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument (4) Response to rebuttal + voting issues (one paragraph) "I once wanted to become an atheist. I gave up the idea. They have no holidays." -Henny Youngman I accept this debate which I have thusly created and challenge those of rhetorical wizardry to a verbal duel. With my hand elevated and ready for forearm pronation, I slap yours in a ritualistic manner. Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate. Let the game begin!	Wallstreetatheist	Resolution: Atheism is not a religion. Rules : Debater must have typing experience. Debater must have internet access. No excuses or forfeitures. Must structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion. Must insert one witty quote per round. Rounds : (1) Acceptance + Internet High Five (2) Main Argument (3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument (4) Response to rebuttal + voting issues (one paragraph) "I once wanted to become an atheist. I gave up the idea. They have no holidays." -Henny Youngman I accept this debate which I have thusly created and challenge those of rhetorical wizardry to a verbal duel. With my hand elevated and ready for forearm pronation, I slap yours in a ritualistic manner. Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate. Let the game begin!	Philosophy	0	Atheism-is-not-a-religion./1/	6,615
I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and I look forward to a salutary intellectual experience. :D Isn't atheism a religion? Short answer: no, obviously. But, atheists consistently hear this canard repeated ad nauseum, because many religious people seem to have difficulty understanding that people can choose to "opt out" of the whole believing-you-have-imaginary-friends thing. Simply put, the religious think everyone has a religion. To better understand this topic in depth, we must examine what exactly makes a religion a religion in the first place. The religion section of The Encyclopedia of Philosophy mentions nine qualifications for religions. The more qualifications out of the nine, the more "religious-like" the belief system is. Belief in supernatural beings (gods). Right off the bat, atheism does not fit the criteria of the most basic requirement of religion: belief in supernatural beings. A basic justification for this is the etymology of the word. Atheism comes from the Greek atheos: a- "without" and theos "a god," meaning "without god/s." [1][2] Consonantly, both positive atheism (affirming the non-existence of god/s) and negative atheism (lack of belief that god/s exist) do not have belief in supernatural beings. [3] I think this one is pretty much laid to rest, so we'll move on. A distinction between sacred and profane objects. Whereas in Catholic churches water is "holy" and the altar is the place for "sacred offerings," atheists make no distinction between arbitrary or doctrinal justification for sacred and non-sacred/profane objects. To an atheist, a large, bronze statue of Baal in a sunny park would just be seen as artwork, but to Christians and Jews, the "artwork" would be seen as profane and blasphemous. Then they would complain, start making threats of coercion and legal suits, and the issue would prolong like an open sore. Atheists are free to make their own moral judgments according to a subjective moral compass or objective moral theory to ascertain which objects are morally bad and good, but the important distinction here is that they don't arbitrarily choose objects as religiously good because they support a desert God or animal spirit. Moving on. Ritual acts focused on sacred objects. As we've established, atheists don't have a sacred object like a Pastafarian pasta strainer or a Judaic yarmulke; therefore, they do not have acts that focus on them, because the sacred objects are as non-existent as the gods they are told have "great evidence." You won't see an atheist walking a 200 mile jaunt while flagellating his back on holy day. You won't see an atheist symbolically eating the flesh and blood of another man in some sort of benign cannibalistic ritual, and there is nothing that doctrinally compels him to do so. A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods. Seeing as though atheism is the lack of belief or disbelief that god/s exist, it is reasonable to conclude that they don't believe that a moral code exists which is sanctioned by said non-existent god/s. In fact, the moral code presented in religious books resembles more the religious code of ignorant, savage, homophobic, petrified, misogynistic, sadomasochistic, sinister, callous, inane sheep herders than the inspired word of an omnibenevolent creator. The bible sanctions slavery, abortion, animal cruelty, homophobia, genocide, and many other grotesque acts that we deem woefully immoral today. That's why the moral code of atheism is not that of a particular religion, is not a singular theory, and resembles more of a constellation of ideas about moral action than a particular religion would. Despite this sanctioned moral code, atheists tend to be much more objectively moral human beings: lower crime rates, better marriages, and more accepting of people. Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods. This is a quadruple cluster of wrong. Atheism doesn't inspire any such religious feelings any more than not believing in Santa Claus would fill you with wonder. However, that does not leave the atheist without room for spiritual experience, which is another discussion. Again, atheists do not believe in god/s, nor do they have sacred objects or rituals surrounding those objects. Prayer and other forms of communication with gods. Ask yourself, "what would be the point of praying, if I strongly did not believe an imaginary being existed." Atheism is the disbelief that god/s exist, so prayer and other forms of communication with the gods is inane. Praying only further detaches one from reality, and develops numerous ad hoc justifications that it still is useful. E.g. a woman prays for god to save her husband who has been injured in a toilet-plunging accident in Guatemala; however, doctors fail to save him, and he passes away. She then says, "It was god's plan." If god is going to do his plan regardless of your prayer, then there is no point of praying... A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. Atheism is a term we really don't need, since it is the default position for all humans, and the only way to muck it up is by being conned into a religion by one's parents, associates, or one's own susceptible mind. Atheism doesn't have a world view. Anything people want to believe is fine, as long as they don't believe in gods, they're still atheists. If atheism did have a world view, then it's doing an awful job of letting people know, because atheism subsumes an incredibly vast spectrum of people. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it. No world view, so people are free to choose their own paths, purposes, and meanings. A more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view. You are completely free as an atheist to organize your life in any manner you see fit. A social group bound together by the above. As none of the above were achieved through reasoning to be applied to atheism, a social group is not bound by any of the preceding qualifications. If Atheism is a religion ... then bald is a hair color. then health is a disease. then pedestrians should be ticketed for driving their cars too far under the speed limit. then what's the opposite of religion and what would you call someone who has no religion? then bears are still Catholic, and the Pope still craps in the woods. then cremation is a fashion statement and 0 is a quantity. then absence is presence and you can never be lonely for anyone ever again because they are always with you. then does that mean Christians have 2 religions since they also don't believe in all of the other gods? then transparent is a color. then abstinence is a form of sex. then the Taliban is a Goodwill Organization then a blank DVD is a movie and a blank word document is an essay (try telling that to a teacher). then being a nonsmoker is a smoking habit. then unemployment is a career. [4] Summary Atheists don't have imaginary friends, so they don't build places to worship to appease them; they don't create objects to appease their imaginary friends, nor do they create elaborate rituals with those objects that serve absolutely no function. Atheism is not a religion, it's just an identification of people who do not have imaginary friends. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>...	Wallstreetatheist	I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and I look forward to a salutary intellectual experience. :D Isn’t atheism a religion? Short answer: no, obviously. But, atheists consistently hear this canard repeated ad nauseum, because many religious people seem to have difficulty understanding that people can choose to “opt out” of the whole believing-you-have-imaginary-friends thing. Simply put, the religious think everyone has a religion. To better understand this topic in depth, we must examine what exactly makes a religion a religion in the first place. The religion section of The Encyclopedia of Philosophy mentions nine qualifications for religions. The more qualifications out of the nine, the more “religious-like” the belief system is. Belief in supernatural beings (gods). Right off the bat, atheism does not fit the criteria of the most basic requirement of religion: belief in supernatural beings. A basic justification for this is the etymology of the word. Atheism comes from the Greek atheos: a- “without” and theos “a god,” meaning “without god/s.” [1][2] Consonantly, both positive atheism (affirming the non-existence of god/s) and negative atheism (lack of belief that god/s exist) do not have belief in supernatural beings. [3] I think this one is pretty much laid to rest, so we’ll move on. A distinction between sacred and profane objects. Whereas in Catholic churches water is “holy” and the altar is the place for “sacred offerings,” atheists make no distinction between arbitrary or doctrinal justification for sacred and non-sacred/profane objects. To an atheist, a large, bronze statue of Baal in a sunny park would just be seen as artwork, but to Christians and Jews, the “artwork” would be seen as profane and blasphemous. Then they would complain, start making threats of coercion and legal suits, and the issue would prolong like an open sore. Atheists are free to make their own moral judgments according to a subjective moral compass or objective moral theory to ascertain which objects are morally bad and good, but the important distinction here is that they don’t arbitrarily choose objects as religiously good because they support a desert God or animal spirit. Moving on. Ritual acts focused on sacred objects. As we’ve established, atheists don’t have a sacred object like a Pastafarian pasta strainer or a Judaic yarmulke; therefore, they do not have acts that focus on them, because the sacred objects are as non-existent as the gods they are told have “great evidence.” You won’t see an atheist walking a 200 mile jaunt while flagellating his back on holy day. You won’t see an atheist symbolically eating the flesh and blood of another man in some sort of benign cannibalistic ritual, and there is nothing that doctrinally compels him to do so. A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods. Seeing as though atheism is the lack of belief or disbelief that god/s exist, it is reasonable to conclude that they don’t believe that a moral code exists which is sanctioned by said non-existent god/s. In fact, the moral code presented in religious books resembles more the religious code of ignorant, savage, homophobic, petrified, misogynistic, sadomasochistic, sinister, callous, inane sheep herders than the inspired word of an omnibenevolent creator. The bible sanctions slavery, abortion, animal cruelty, homophobia, genocide, and many other grotesque acts that we deem woefully immoral today. That’s why the moral code of atheism is not that of a particular religion, is not a singular theory, and resembles more of a constellation of ideas about moral action than a particular religion would. Despite this sanctioned moral code, atheists tend to be much more objectively moral human beings: lower crime rates, better marriages, and more accepting of people. Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods. This is a quadruple cluster of wrong. Atheism doesn’t inspire any such religious feelings any more than not believing in Santa Claus would fill you with wonder. However, that does not leave the atheist without room for spiritual experience, which is another discussion. Again, atheists do not believe in god/s, nor do they have sacred objects or rituals surrounding those objects. Prayer and other forms of communication with gods. Ask yourself, “what would be the point of praying, if I strongly did not believe an imaginary being existed.” Atheism is the disbelief that god/s exist, so prayer and other forms of communication with the gods is inane. Praying only further detaches one from reality, and develops numerous ad hoc justifications that it still is useful. E.g. a woman prays for god to save her husband who has been injured in a toilet-plunging accident in Guatemala; however, doctors fail to save him, and he passes away. She then says, “It was god’s plan.” If god is going to do his plan regardless of your prayer, then there is no point of praying... A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. Atheism is a term we really don’t need, since it is the default position for all humans, and the only way to muck it up is by being conned into a religion by one’s parents, associates, or one’s own susceptible mind. Atheism doesn’t have a world view. Anything people want to believe is fine, as long as they don’t believe in gods, they’re still atheists. If atheism did have a world view, then it’s doing an awful job of letting people know, because atheism subsumes an incredibly vast spectrum of people. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it. No world view, so people are free to choose their own paths, purposes, and meanings. A more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view. You are completely free as an atheist to organize your life in any manner you see fit. A social group bound together by the above. As none of the above were achieved through reasoning to be applied to atheism, a social group is not bound by any of the preceding qualifications. If Atheism is a religion ... then bald is a hair color. then health is a disease. then pedestrians should be ticketed for driving their cars too far under the speed limit. then what's the opposite of religion and what would you call someone who has no religion? then bears are still Catholic, and the Pope still craps in the woods. then cremation is a fashion statement and 0 is a quantity. then absence is presence and you can never be lonely for anyone ever again because they are always with you. then does that mean Christians have 2 religions since they also don't believe in all of the other gods? then transparent is a color. then abstinence is a form of sex. then the Taliban is a Goodwill Organization then a blank DVD is a movie and a blank word document is an essay (try telling that to a teacher). then being a nonsmoker is a smoking habit. then unemployment is a career. [4] Summary Atheists don’t have imaginary friends, so they don’t build places to worship to appease them; they don’t create objects to appease their imaginary friends, nor do they create elaborate rituals with those objects that serve absolutely no function. Atheism is not a religion, it’s just an identification of people who do not have imaginary friends. [1] http://www.etymonline.com... [2] http://www.etymonline.com... [3] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [4] http://atheism.about.com...	Philosophy	1	Atheism-is-not-a-religion./1/	6,616
I'd like to kindly remind my opponent that this round is for rebuttals. Thanks for reading and debating! :D My opponent begins by defining atheism as, "a belief in which there is no god and/or deity" and religion as, "a specific fundamental set of beliefs AND practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects." Immediately one's intellect alerts himself to the major discrepancy between the two terms and definitions. Firstly, atheism doesn't have a "set of practices." Secondly, atheism doesn't have factions or sects that break apart the almost nonexistent fabric of atheism; atheism and atheists are unified through their lack of belief in deities. Lastly, atheism isn't a set of beliefs, it's one belief, if you consider rational doubting in the face of pitiful/nonexistent evidence a belief. "I am not entirely sure how the criteria presented by Pro are official and if it is widely accepted" The criteria I established come from a highly reputable source, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The criteria are valid, because there is obviously not one component of religion that makes it so; there is no "special sauce." Religion is composed of common elements throughout history and throughout the world. These nine most common elements identify a religion as being more or less "religious-like." This is a better qualification than a dictionary.com reference. "Philosophies based on the non-existence of deities" The first problem with even this contention's title is that it is blatantly illogical to assert that a number of philosophies comes out of absolutely nothing. Atheism is neutral and nothing, the only way to build off of atheism, is to not use atheism as a base. You could accept political dogma, religious dogma, or some other sort of belief or philosophy. The reason atheism doesn't produce philosophies is the same reason not collecting stamps doesn't produce hobby magazines. "Because someone does not believe in a god or gods does not mean they are devoid of a belief at all." Agreed, atheists' beliefs are resemble a connstellation. There is no set of beliefs atheists need follow except for the condition that they do not believe in any god or gods. They can believe in love, science, beauty, human compassion, etc.. But, that does not take root in atheism, it finds its place in the realities of human existence. "Buddhism" A non-theistic religion is still a religion. Buddhism has beliefs in dogma such as the karma principle, nirvana, and zen. It has a founder, a school of thought, and holy books. It satisfies most of the characteristics of religion according to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, therefore, is a religion. Atheism is not a sacred doctrine of Buddhism or a meaningful part of Buddhism; Buddhists just reject the notion of an omnipotent creator deity. Buddhism is a religion, atheism, by itself, is not. "Scientology" Scientologists have a set of beliefs in dianetics, thetans, alien stories, past lives, and beliefs against practices such as psychiatry. Scientology uses sacred items, Churches of Scientology, and religious ceremonies. Scientology is a religion with many crazy beliefs just like Christianity and Hinduism. "Humanism" Humanism, "is an approach in study, philosophy, world view or practice that focuses on human values and concerns, attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters." This focuses on the value of human life and what humans themselves value. The source of this philosophy is not disbelief or lack of belief in deity, but rather from the source of humanity and human endeavor. As a member of the human species, I attach a higher importance to a human than a lower animal. I want to see people thrive; I cringe at genocide; I rejoice in the highest achievements of mankind. This philosophy is essentially contrary to theology, which sees humanity through the prism of religion, whereas humanism sees humanity without any biased obstruction to truth. "Realism" Realism holds that, "reality exists independently of observers, whether in philosophy itself or in the applied arts and sciences." It's hard to tell how this is a valid attempt to assert your position that atheism is a religion. Even if one of the previous religions/philosophies had your intended effect, you would still be where you are: holding an empty sack. Objectivism is its independent philosophy, it isn't directly related to atheism. There are objectivist and subjectivist approaches to morality from those people who identify as atheists, so as you can tell, this doesn't undermine my claim or assert yours. "Buddhism has the Eight-Fold Path that describes what traits to follow to lead a good life and have acceptable moral standards" Buddhism is a religion based on the teaching of a primary man. His philosophies stemmed from his own worldview. They do not stem from atheism. Buddhist holy books are not atheist holy books, etc... Any atheist can search for his or her own meaning to life, subjectivist, objectivist, categorical imperative, etc.. it does not flow from the lack of belief in a deity, and the diverse range of ideas about morality from atheists demonstrate this fact aptly. "Sacred and profane things are both described in their respective "holy" books." You have yet to show that atheism itself has any holy books and/or things. "Atheism does not inspire religious feelings? Refer to the non-theistic religions stated above." Atheism doesn't inspire religious feelings, because it is a lack of belief in a deity and has a lack of religious iconography, literature, and everything else that would make it a religion. Atheists are however open to spiritual experience without being religious or theists. Thanks!! :D	Wallstreetatheist	I’d like to kindly remind my opponent that this round is for rebuttals. Thanks for reading and debating! :D My opponent begins by defining atheism as, “a belief in which there is no god and/or deity” and religion as, “a specific fundamental set of beliefs AND practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.” Immediately one’s intellect alerts himself to the major discrepancy between the two terms and definitions. Firstly, atheism doesn’t have a “set of practices.” Secondly, atheism doesn’t have factions or sects that break apart the almost nonexistent fabric of atheism; atheism and atheists are unified through their lack of belief in deities. Lastly, atheism isn’t a set of beliefs, it’s one belief, if you consider rational doubting in the face of pitiful/nonexistent evidence a belief. “I am not entirely sure how the criteria presented by Pro are official and if it is widely accepted” The criteria I established come from a highly reputable source, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The criteria are valid, because there is obviously not one component of religion that makes it so; there is no “special sauce.” Religion is composed of common elements throughout history and throughout the world. These nine most common elements identify a religion as being more or less “religious-like.” This is a better qualification than a dictionary.com reference. “Philosophies based on the non-existence of deities” The first problem with even this contention’s title is that it is blatantly illogical to assert that a number of philosophies comes out of absolutely nothing. Atheism is neutral and nothing, the only way to build off of atheism, is to not use atheism as a base. You could accept political dogma, religious dogma, or some other sort of belief or philosophy. The reason atheism doesn’t produce philosophies is the same reason not collecting stamps doesn’t produce hobby magazines. “Because someone does not believe in a god or gods does not mean they are devoid of a belief at all.” Agreed, atheists’ beliefs are resemble a connstellation. There is no set of beliefs atheists need follow except for the condition that they do not believe in any god or gods. They can believe in love, science, beauty, human compassion, etc.. But, that does not take root in atheism, it finds its place in the realities of human existence. “Buddhism” A non-theistic religion is still a religion. Buddhism has beliefs in dogma such as the karma principle, nirvana, and zen. It has a founder, a school of thought, and holy books. It satisfies most of the characteristics of religion according to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, therefore, is a religion. Atheism is not a sacred doctrine of Buddhism or a meaningful part of Buddhism; Buddhists just reject the notion of an omnipotent creator deity. Buddhism is a religion, atheism, by itself, is not. “Scientology” Scientologists have a set of beliefs in dianetics, thetans, alien stories, past lives, and beliefs against practices such as psychiatry. Scientology uses sacred items, Churches of Scientology, and religious ceremonies. Scientology is a religion with many crazy beliefs just like Christianity and Hinduism. “Humanism” Humanism, “is an approach in study, philosophy, world view or practice that focuses on human values and concerns, attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.” This focuses on the value of human life and what humans themselves value. The source of this philosophy is not disbelief or lack of belief in deity, but rather from the source of humanity and human endeavor. As a member of the human species, I attach a higher importance to a human than a lower animal. I want to see people thrive; I cringe at genocide; I rejoice in the highest achievements of mankind. This philosophy is essentially contrary to theology, which sees humanity through the prism of religion, whereas humanism sees humanity without any biased obstruction to truth. “Realism” Realism holds that, “reality exists independently of observers, whether in philosophy itself or in the applied arts and sciences.” It’s hard to tell how this is a valid attempt to assert your position that atheism is a religion. Even if one of the previous religions/philosophies had your intended effect, you would still be where you are: holding an empty sack. Objectivism is its independent philosophy, it isn’t directly related to atheism. There are objectivist and subjectivist approaches to morality from those people who identify as atheists, so as you can tell, this doesn’t undermine my claim or assert yours. “Buddhism has the Eight-Fold Path that describes what traits to follow to lead a good life and have acceptable moral standards” Buddhism is a religion based on the teaching of a primary man. His philosophies stemmed from his own worldview. They do not stem from atheism. Buddhist holy books are not atheist holy books, etc... Any atheist can search for his or her own meaning to life, subjectivist, objectivist, categorical imperative, etc.. it does not flow from the lack of belief in a deity, and the diverse range of ideas about morality from atheists demonstrate this fact aptly. “Sacred and profane things are both described in their respective "holy" books.” You have yet to show that atheism itself has any holy books and/or things. “Atheism does not inspire religious feelings? Refer to the non-theistic religions stated above.” Atheism doesn’t inspire religious feelings, because it is a lack of belief in a deity and has a lack of religious iconography, literature, and everything else that would make it a religion. Atheists are however open to spiritual experience without being religious or theists. Thanks!! :D	Philosophy	2	Atheism-is-not-a-religion./1/	6,617
Thanks for reading and debating! :D Witty quotes : "Man is, and always has been, a maker of gods." - John Burroughs "The world would be astonished if it knew how great a proportion of its brightest ornaments-of those most distinguished even in popular estimation for wisdom and virtue-are complete skeptics in religion." - John Stuart Mill Belief in supernatural beings "I would substitute "supernatural beings" or "deities" as a leader. Or someone with utmost power. Or someone to follow. Buddhism, Scientology, Realism, and Humanism are religions who do not believe in a supernatural being." Buddhism and Scientology are religions that fit into the context that I had lain out in round two. Realism and Humanism are philosophies that find their root in the objectivity of the universe and the realities of human existence, respectively. If my opponent chooses to assert that belief in a leader (not only gods or deities) is the first qualification of a religion, then I humbly allow him to make such a claim, and ask him, "Who is the leader of atheism?" "Therefore, their followers are atheist. Therefore they believe loosely of the atheists belief. My loose logic is that all the non-theistic religions believe in 'atheism.'" This is a direct contradiction to what my opponent had just said. He considers leaders of religions on par with deities and gods, so if the religion was comprised of atheists in the true meaning of the term, then they would not follow such a leader, because they would not believe in the leader nor find his statements to have any truth value over supernatural claims or moral teachings. Even if non-theistic religions believed in atheism, this would not make atheism a religion. Notice how none of the religions or philosophies he mentioned out of the four include the word "atheism." Buddhism and Scientology are religions for the reasons I explained in round three; however, atheism, in and of itself, is not a religion, and neither is theism, in and of itself, a religion. They are simply terms describing the relative belief or lack of belief in god/s. "Pro has admitted in the practice of sacred objects in Scientology and has called it a religion. Logic Equation: Scientology Atheism beliefs Atheism Religion" Yes, Scientology is a religion. We agree on this, because it meets the requirements of a religion. You continue the contradiction from before right here. Scientology has a leader: L. Ron Hubbard, and as you pointed out, this suffices the first qualification of a religion. Conversely, atheism has no leader, no belief in such a leader or deity or god, and has nothing that indicates atheism to be a religion flowing from that belief. Atheism lacks these rituals, sacred objects, and dogma. You have not shown the link between atheism and religion, yet. "However, if you do not agree with this. I could fit blank and raw atheism into some (if not all) of these criteria. As for this criterion, atheists believe in the idea of morals or their own morals. That alone is an 'authority' or 'deity'." You could not do so without compromising intellectual honesty or without playing semantics which are both frowned upon in debate. Atheists are free to believe in any moral code they choose whether it is shared by a variety of people or not. They are also free to be amoral, nihilist, or fatalist. It would be quite a stretch to say each atheist is his own god, as the definition of atheist means one who does not believe in a god. "God" is a belief, something of the mind. ... a "moral" or "belief". Atheists have beliefs, but they do not have beliefs in gods. They can have beliefs in moral systems, economic systems, philosophy, science, compassion, etc. They can create their own moral codes, but most people, in general, have an accepted idea of what is right and wrong. Throwing battery acid in the face of a little girl who is trying to read would generally be accepted as bad, for example, while helping an old lady who has fallen receive medical treatment would generally be considered good. People take these general principles that are instilled in our deepest human integrity and apply them, only differing slightly from person to person, unless corrupted by dogma, hatred, ignorance or other force. People also decide for themselves about charity, benevolence, and the lengths at which it is acceptable to help others while sacrificing time, money, and resources for oneself. Some mentally handicapped people are amoral, some people have such hatred and have been exposed to so much violence, propaganda, and evil that their tolerance for such atrocious acts is high, this is why genocides occur. Atheists tend to shy away from dogma propagated by the state and the supposed "holy people." Since I say "God" is a belief, or self-imposed "authority",... abstract logic here. You have not convinced me and will probably not convince any of the judges with this poultry logic that each atheist is a god unto himself. Atheists don't believe in gods, and are quick to criticize anyone who thinks he has god on his side or the divine approval of some deity or the solipsistic approval of a self-god. A distinction between sacred and profane objects. "Sacred"? ....This could be defined as "respected"....refute this. No and no, because respect is earned and it has a practical explanation behind that reason. Holy items are arbitrarily chosen as such and unquestionably and stupidly defended. Holy and profane things stem from a religion's dogma, since atheism has no such dogma, it does not differentiate between items or practices considered holy or profane. This point you have tried to make utilizes semantics and is intellectually vacuous. Ritual acts focused on sacred objects "Own morals deem ritualistic acts. Ritualistic can be defined many differant ways. Like celebrations for game night could be seen as ritualistic. Making your own signature chili could be ritualistic." More semantics. Plus, where does this ritual come from? Is it ordained from the gods of chili that atheists worship on a daily basis and make chili to appease the gods? Or does it stem from a repition of human action based on prior results and pattern formation? The latter. A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods. Morals = God Sanctioned by self already resolved. Self-gods already rebutted. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods; therefore, self-gods would not be a valid claim by an atheist nor a valid argument against this contention. Characteristically religious feelings Religious Feel is not present. I will give you this point. But religious feel is not needed for something to be religious. My opponent concedes this point. Prayer and other forms of communication with gods. Moral= God Self communication My opponent does not even directly refute this point, he just provides an equation of poor logic. He attempts to say that if an atheist is his own god (a fact we've established is logically impermissible), then talking to oneself is communication with the gods just like prayer. Sorry, not good enough. The premise has already been eviscerated: one who lacks a belief in gods would not make himself a god. Conclusion / Voting Issues I have effectively demonstrated through the nine qualifications of religions that atheism is not a one. My opponent has made a half-hearted attempt to try to assert that atheism is a religion by mentioning the red herring of non-theistic religions; he then got around to addressing atheism itself, but could not create a reasonable argument, and resorted to semantics and poor logic. Atheists are not self-gods, and atheism, in and of itself, is not a relgion in any sense of the term. Con concedes my 5th, and 7th-9th contentions. Vote Pro!	Wallstreetatheist	Thanks for reading and debating! :D Witty quotes : “Man is, and always has been, a maker of gods.” - John Burroughs “The world would be astonished if it knew how great a proportion of its brightest ornaments-of those most distinguished even in popular estimation for wisdom and virtue-are complete skeptics in religion.” - John Stuart Mill Belief in supernatural beings “I would substitute "supernatural beings" or "deities" as a leader. Or someone with utmost power. Or someone to follow. Buddhism, Scientology, Realism, and Humanism are religions who do not believe in a supernatural being.” Buddhism and Scientology are religions that fit into the context that I had lain out in round two. Realism and Humanism are philosophies that find their root in the objectivity of the universe and the realities of human existence, respectively. If my opponent chooses to assert that belief in a leader (not only gods or deities) is the first qualification of a religion, then I humbly allow him to make such a claim, and ask him, “Who is the leader of atheism?” “Therefore, their followers are atheist. Therefore they believe loosely of the atheists belief. My loose logic is that all the non-theistic religions believe in ‘atheism.’” This is a direct contradiction to what my opponent had just said. He considers leaders of religions on par with deities and gods, so if the religion was comprised of atheists in the true meaning of the term, then they would not follow such a leader, because they would not believe in the leader nor find his statements to have any truth value over supernatural claims or moral teachings. Even if non-theistic religions believed in atheism, this would not make atheism a religion. Notice how none of the religions or philosophies he mentioned out of the four include the word “atheism.” Buddhism and Scientology are religions for the reasons I explained in round three; however, atheism, in and of itself, is not a religion, and neither is theism, in and of itself, a religion. They are simply terms describing the relative belief or lack of belief in god/s. “Pro has admitted in the practice of sacred objects in Scientology and has called it a religion. Logic Equation: Scientology ≈ Atheism beliefs ≈ Atheism ≈ Religion” Yes, Scientology is a religion. We agree on this, because it meets the requirements of a religion. You continue the contradiction from before right here. Scientology has a leader: L. Ron Hubbard, and as you pointed out, this suffices the first qualification of a religion. Conversely, atheism has no leader, no belief in such a leader or deity or god, and has nothing that indicates atheism to be a religion flowing from that belief. Atheism lacks these rituals, sacred objects, and dogma. You have not shown the link between atheism and religion, yet. “However, if you do not agree with this. I could fit blank and raw atheism into some (if not all) of these criteria. As for this criterion, atheists believe in the idea of morals or their own morals. That alone is an ‘authority’ or ‘deity’.” You could not do so without compromising intellectual honesty or without playing semantics which are both frowned upon in debate. Atheists are free to believe in any moral code they choose whether it is shared by a variety of people or not. They are also free to be amoral, nihilist, or fatalist. It would be quite a stretch to say each atheist is his own god, as the definition of atheist means one who does not believe in a god. "God" is a belief, something of the mind. … a "moral" or "belief". Atheists have beliefs, but they do not have beliefs in gods. They can have beliefs in moral systems, economic systems, philosophy, science, compassion, etc. They can create their own moral codes, but most people, in general, have an accepted idea of what is right and wrong. Throwing battery acid in the face of a little girl who is trying to read would generally be accepted as bad, for example, while helping an old lady who has fallen receive medical treatment would generally be considered good. People take these general principles that are instilled in our deepest human integrity and apply them, only differing slightly from person to person, unless corrupted by dogma, hatred, ignorance or other force. People also decide for themselves about charity, benevolence, and the lengths at which it is acceptable to help others while sacrificing time, money, and resources for oneself. Some mentally handicapped people are amoral, some people have such hatred and have been exposed to so much violence, propaganda, and evil that their tolerance for such atrocious acts is high, this is why genocides occur. Atheists tend to shy away from dogma propagated by the state and the supposed “holy people.” Since I say "God" is a belief, or self-imposed "authority",... abstract logic here. You have not convinced me and will probably not convince any of the judges with this poultry logic that each atheist is a god unto himself. Atheists don’t believe in gods, and are quick to criticize anyone who thinks he has god on his side or the divine approval of some deity or the solipsistic approval of a self-god. A distinction between sacred and profane objects. "Sacred"? ….This could be defined as "respected"....refute this. No and no, because respect is earned and it has a practical explanation behind that reason. Holy items are arbitrarily chosen as such and unquestionably and stupidly defended. Holy and profane things stem from a religion’s dogma, since atheism has no such dogma, it does not differentiate between items or practices considered holy or profane. This point you have tried to make utilizes semantics and is intellectually vacuous. Ritual acts focused on sacred objects "Own morals deem ritualistic acts. Ritualistic can be defined many differant ways. Like celebrations for game night could be seen as ritualistic. Making your own signature chili could be ritualistic." More semantics. Plus, where does this ritual come from? Is it ordained from the gods of chili that atheists worship on a daily basis and make chili to appease the gods? Or does it stem from a repition of human action based on prior results and pattern formation? The latter. A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods. Morals = God Sanctioned by self already resolved. Self-gods already rebutted. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods; therefore, self-gods would not be a valid claim by an atheist nor a valid argument against this contention. Characteristically religious feelings Religious Feel is not present. I will give you this point. But religious feel is not needed for something to be religious. My opponent concedes this point. Prayer and other forms of communication with gods. Moral= God Self communication My opponent does not even directly refute this point, he just provides an equation of poor logic. He attempts to say that if an atheist is his own god (a fact we’ve established is logically impermissible), then talking to oneself is communication with the gods just like prayer. Sorry, not good enough. The premise has already been eviscerated: one who lacks a belief in gods would not make himself a god. Conclusion / Voting Issues I have effectively demonstrated through the nine qualifications of religions that atheism is not a one. My opponent has made a half-hearted attempt to try to assert that atheism is a religion by mentioning the red herring of non-theistic religions; he then got around to addressing atheism itself, but could not create a reasonable argument, and resorted to semantics and poor logic. Atheists are not self-gods, and atheism, in and of itself, is not a relgion in any sense of the term. Con concedes my 5th, and 7th-9th contentions. Vote Pro!	Philosophy	3	Atheism-is-not-a-religion./1/	6,618
I accept these terms and also return the ritualistically instigated internet high-five with enthusiasm. Just as so to be clear, definition from dictionary.com. religion ;[ri-lij-uhn] noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Also just as to be sure again with the definition from <URL>... : religion noun i-'li-j@n2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices I will now insert one witty quote. "If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul." -Isaac Asimov	iPwnuNOW	I accept these terms and also return the ritualistically instigated internet high-five with enthusiasm. Just as so to be clear, definition from dictionary.com. reï¿½liï¿½gion ;[ri-lij-uhn] noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Also just as to be sure again with the definition from http://www.merriam-webster.com... : reï¿½liï¿½gion noun \ri-ˈli-jən2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices I will now insert one witty quote. "If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul." -Isaac Asimov	Philosophy	0	Atheism-is-not-a-religion./1/	6,619
Before I forget to do so, here is a witty quote: "Men will wrangle for religion; write for it; fight for it; die for it; anything but live for it." -C.C. Colton Thank you for this topic, as I think the is an interesting topic to debate on. I look forward to a good debate. Also, I am agnostic. Just putting that out there. Main Arguments: The set Definitions for Atheism and how it Pertains to the Definition of Religion: Atheism is loosely defined as a belief in which there is no god and/or deity. Another definition of religion besides the one I posted in Round One is : a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects (dictionary.com) Atheism is a belief and there is a population that refute the existence of a god. I am not entirely sure how the criteria set by Pro are official and if it is widely accepted (Do not take this as a rebuttal). Atheism is not simply confined to absolutely NOT believing is gods and living with that one belief. I will expand on this in the next point. Philosophies based on the non-existence of Deities: Because someone does not believe in a god or gods does not mean they are devoid of a belief at all. In fact several philosophies and religions do follow a leader. Several religions do have followers loosely classified as atheists. Buddhism's followers, for example, do not believe in a god or deity. I will not dwell further in any specific religion. A list of non-theist religions: -Buddhism -Sciencetology -Humanism - Raelism [1] In these religions, no being(s) are divine in any way. Moral Values and Set Codes: In the stated religions above, there are set values and codes. Buddhism has the Eight-Fold Path that describes what traits to follow to lead a good life and have acceptable moral standards [2]. Raelism, though containing questionable morals, do indeed have morals. This religion does hold some ground and these two example beliefs do not hold one being divine. Sacred and profane things are both described in their respective "holy" books. The Religious Feel: Atheism does not inspire religious feelings? Refer to the non-theistic religions stated above. I have now classified several religions that fall under having atheistic beliefs and therefore have followers who are atheists and follows atheism's beliefs that do follow the Pro's qualifications. (Note: This is not a rebuttal, but rather a statement ascertaining my point and/or points.) Atheism: Religion or Not? Ok, now let us just theoretically dismiss the other non-theist religions and just focus on not believing a god or deity, even though Pro did not specify adding other non-theistic religions as atheism and did not specify just the belief of no god. Post Scriptum: I apologize in advance for spelling and/or grammatical errors I have made during this round as I have a lot on my hands at the moment. This is no excuse as I find this debate educational of sorts and wish Pro good luck. :D I will be awaiting your rebuttals.	iPwnuNOW	Before I forget to do so, here is a witty quote: "Men will wrangle for religion; write for it; fight for it; die for it; anything but live for it." -C.C. Colton Thank you for this topic, as I think the is an interesting topic to debate on. I look forward to a good debate. Also, I am agnostic. Just putting that out there. Main Arguments: The set Definitions for Atheism and how it Pertains to the Definition of Religion: Atheism is loosely defined as a belief in which there is no god and/or deity. Another definition of religion besides the one I posted in Round One is : a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects (dictionary.com) Atheism is a belief and there is a population that refute the existence of a god. I am not entirely sure how the criteria set by Pro are official and if it is widely accepted (Do not take this as a rebuttal). Atheism is not simply confined to absolutely NOT believing is gods and living with that one belief. I will expand on this in the next point. Philosophies based on the non-existence of Deities: Because someone does not believe in a god or gods does not mean they are devoid of a belief at all. In fact several philosophies and religions do follow a leader. Several religions do have followers loosely classified as atheists. Buddhism's followers, for example, do not believe in a god or deity. I will not dwell further in any specific religion. A list of non-theist religions: -Buddhism -Sciencetology -Humanism - Raelism [1] In these religions, no being(s) are divine in any way. Moral Values and Set Codes: In the stated religions above, there are set values and codes. Buddhism has the Eight-Fold Path that describes what traits to follow to lead a good life and have acceptable moral standards [2]. Raelism, though containing questionable morals, do indeed have morals. This religion does hold some ground and these two example beliefs do not hold one being divine. Sacred and profane things are both described in their respective "holy" books. The Religious Feel: Atheism does not inspire religious feelings? Refer to the non-theistic religions stated above. I have now classified several religions that fall under having atheistic beliefs and therefore have followers who are atheists and follows atheism's beliefs that do follow the Pro's qualifications. (Note: This is not a rebuttal, but rather a statement ascertaining my point and/or points.) Atheism: Religion or Not? Ok, now let us just theoretically dismiss the other non-theist religions and just focus on not believing a god or deity, even though Pro did not specify adding other non-theistic religions as atheism and did not specify just the belief of no god. Post Scriptum: I apologize in advance for spelling and/or grammatical errors I have made during this round as I have a lot on my hands at the moment. This is no excuse as I find this debate educational of sorts and wish Pro good luck. :D I will be awaiting your rebuttals.	Philosophy	1	Atheism-is-not-a-religion./1/	6,620
Thank for your response, Pro. Begin Contentions. Also, here's a witty quote: "You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic." - Doris Egan Pro has not posted a witty quote. However, he has provided his own excuse. He has led a hectic week. He has promised to compensate for this loss next round. And I agree with Pro's proof of his nine qualifications legitimacy. C1: "Right off the bat, atheism does not fit the criteria of the most basic requirement of religion: belief in supernatural beings" I would substitute "supernatural beings" or "deities" as a leader. Or someone with utmost power. Or someone to follow. Buddhism, Scientology, Raelism, and Humanism are religions who do not believe in a supernatural being. Therefore, their followers are atheist. Therefore they believe loosely of the atheists belief. My loose logic is that all the non-theistic religions believe in "atheism". Pro has admitted in the practice of sacred objects in Scientology and has called it a religion. Logic Equation: Scientology Atheism beliefs Atheism Religion [if !supportLineBreakNewLine] [endif] However, if you do not agree with this. I could fit blank and raw atheism into some (if not all) of these criteria. As for this criterion, atheists believe in the idea of morals or their own morals. That alone is an "authority" or "deity". "God" is a belief, something of the mind. Something some people believe. Atheists set their own morals. If you define "no beliefs" as "you make your own", then I am afraid that is decidedly wrong. Have you (Pro) defined "no morals"? Describe a situation in which some actions have no morals, for there is always an angle to which we can draw forth a "moral" or "belief". Since I say "God" is a belief, or self-imposed "authority", then this mean everyone is subject to their own way of thinking. "Morals" is therefore a "god". Self subject to self. In this logic, we all believe in a deity and/or higher authority and we, therefore, all fulfill this criterion. Please try to understand my abstract logic here. C2: "Whereas in Catholic churches water is "holy" and the altar is the place for "sacred offerings," atheists make no distinction between arbitrary or doctrinal justification for sacred and non-sacred/profane objects." "Sacred"? "Profane"? "Holy"? This could be defined as "revered", "impure", "unclean", and "respected". One's morals, or "God", justifies holy and profane things. I could easily provide examples if you refute this. C3: "Ritual acts focused on sacred objects." Own morals deem ritualistic acts. Ritualistic can be defined many differant ways. Like celebrations for game night could be seen as ritualistic. Making your own signature chili could be ritualistic. C4: A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods. Morals = God Sanctioned by self already resolved. C5: Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods. Religious Feel is not present. I will give you this point. But religious feel is not needed for something to be religious. C6: Prayer and other forms of communication with gods. Moral= God Self communication As for the last remaining points, they are subject to self thought and self reasoning atheism. Thank you for your time and I realize my arguments closely resemble Humanism, but please refer to my example equation for scientology above. \ Thank You! :D	iPwnuNOW	Thank for your response, Pro. Begin Contentions. Also, here's a witty quote: "You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic." - Doris Egan Pro has not posted a witty quote. However, he has provided his own excuse. He has led a hectic week. He has promised to compensate for this loss next round. And I agree with Pro's proof of his nine qualifications legitimacy. C1: "Right off the bat, atheism does not fit the criteria of the most basic requirement of religion: belief in supernatural beings" I would substitute "supernatural beings" or "deities" as a leader. Or someone with utmost power. Or someone to follow. Buddhism, Scientology, Raelism, and Humanism are religions who do not believe in a supernatural being. Therefore, their followers are atheist. Therefore they believe loosely of the atheists belief. My loose logic is that all the non-theistic religions believe in "atheism". Pro has admitted in the practice of sacred objects in Scientology and has called it a religion. Logic Equation: Scientology ≈ Atheism beliefs ≈ Atheism ≈ Religion [if !supportLineBreakNewLine] [endif] However, if you do not agree with this. I could fit blank and raw atheism into some (if not all) of these criteria. As for this criterion, atheists believe in the idea of morals or their own morals. That alone is an "authority" or "deity". "God" is a belief, something of the mind. Something some people believe. Atheists set their own morals. If you define "no beliefs" as "you make your own", then I am afraid that is decidedly wrong. Have you (Pro) defined "no morals"? Describe a situation in which some actions have no morals, for there is always an angle to which we can draw forth a "moral" or "belief". Since I say "God" is a belief, or self-imposed "authority", then this mean everyone is subject to their own way of thinking. "Morals" is therefore a "god". Self subject to self. In this logic, we all believe in a deity and/or higher authority and we, therefore, all fulfill this criterion. Please try to understand my abstract logic here. C2: "Whereas in Catholic churches water is “holy” and the altar is the place for “sacred offerings,” atheists make no distinction between arbitrary or doctrinal justification for sacred and non-sacred/profane objects." "Sacred"? "Profane"? "Holy"? This could be defined as "revered", "impure", "unclean", and "respected". One's morals, or "God", justifies holy and profane things. I could easily provide examples if you refute this. C3: "Ritual acts focused on sacred objects." Own morals deem ritualistic acts. Ritualistic can be defined many differant ways. Like celebrations for game night could be seen as ritualistic. Making your own signature chili could be ritualistic. C4: A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods. Morals = God Sanctioned by self already resolved. C5: Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods. Religious Feel is not present. I will give you this point. But religious feel is not needed for something to be religious. C6: Prayer and other forms of communication with gods. Moral= God Self communication As for the last remaining points, they are subject to self thought and self reasoning atheism. Thank you for your time and I realize my arguments closely resemble Humanism, but please refer to my example equation for scientology above. \ Thank You! :D	Philosophy	2	Atheism-is-not-a-religion./1/	6,621
I am going to anticipate that you are referring to the Former Soviet Union and China, with combined deaths of 60-200 million. It was not atheism that was the cause, it was Marxism. Atheism is a result of Marxism, not the cause.	ILoveCheese	I am going to anticipate that you are referring to the Former Soviet Union and China, with combined deaths of 60-200 million. It was not atheism that was the cause, it was Marxism. Atheism is a result of Marxism, not the cause.	Religion	0	Atheism-is-the-cause-of-histories-greatest-atrocities./1/	6,642
My previous post undermines your first post because it puts into question your basic premise that the cause for atrocities was Atheism when it could be more accurately be Marxism. Your inclusion of Fascist states only continue to undermine the initial error. If we wanted, we could consider any 'state' as 'atheist'. Assuredly, in practice the notion of seperation of church and state has been to err on the side of no god. Atheism does not necessarily lead to violence. Marxism, by design must lead to violence. The fact, Marxism forces people to be atheist does not mean that it is the 'atheism' that is causing the violence.	ILoveCheese	My previous post undermines your first post because it puts into question your basic premise that the cause for atrocities was Atheism when it could be more accurately be Marxism. Your inclusion of Fascist states only continue to undermine the initial error. If we wanted, we could consider any 'state' as 'atheist'. Assuredly, in practice the notion of seperation of church and state has been to err on the side of no god. Atheism does not necessarily lead to violence. Marxism, by design must lead to violence. The fact, Marxism forces people to be atheist does not mean that it is the 'atheism' that is causing the violence.	Religion	1	Atheism-is-the-cause-of-histories-greatest-atrocities./1/	6,643
"Atheism as a principal promotes individual action without regard for other people. By this idea, atheism promotes/condones violence on the fact no moral authority is in place. Also, I already responded to the Marxist point on the fact that Marxism promotes atheism. Since, Marxism promotes atheism then it promotes the idea of no greater moral being." Atheism does not necessarily mean "promotes individual action without regard for other people. ". There are many different belief systems. Some are atheistic and others are not. Religions span the deistic count from zero to several, such as: Christianity, Islam and Judeaism, Buddhism, Shinto, Hindu etc. These are organized religions. State based belief systems include Monarchies, Faith based nations, Marxism, Radical Secularism as practiced by Europeans and to a lesser extent the US in the form of representational democracies. Someone who is an atheist can be a Buddhist, moral relativist(found in radical secularlits states), utilitarian, etc. Not believing in a god does not mean one is 'against' other people nor 'out only for oneself' nor 'abstain from collective action'. One can be either an atheist or not. Either way one can commit atrocities or one may not. The atrocities were a function of Marxism, not a function of being Buddhist or Utilitarian; meaning the atrocities had no connection to whether or not the people were atheist.	ILoveCheese	"Atheism as a principal promotes individual action without regard for other people. By this idea, atheism promotes/condones violence on the fact no moral authority is in place. Also, I already responded to the Marxist point on the fact that Marxism promotes atheism. Since, Marxism promotes atheism then it promotes the idea of no greater moral being." Atheism does not necessarily mean "promotes individual action without regard for other people. ". There are many different belief systems. Some are atheistic and others are not. Religions span the deistic count from zero to several, such as: Christianity, Islam and Judeaism, Buddhism, Shinto, Hindu etc. These are organized religions. State based belief systems include Monarchies, Faith based nations, Marxism, Radical Secularism as practiced by Europeans and to a lesser extent the US in the form of representational democracies. Someone who is an atheist can be a Buddhist, moral relativist(found in radical secularlits states), utilitarian, etc. Not believing in a god does not mean one is 'against' other people nor 'out only for oneself' nor 'abstain from collective action'. One can be either an atheist or not. Either way one can commit atrocities or one may not. The atrocities were a function of Marxism, not a function of being Buddhist or Utilitarian; meaning the atrocities had no connection to whether or not the people were atheist.	Religion	2	Atheism-is-the-cause-of-histories-greatest-atrocities./1/	6,644
Ladies and Gentleman, for the first round I will merely use a premise/syllogistic argument, then move to in the following rounds my contentions. Premise 1: According to History, the greatest evils have resulted in the most loss of life. 2: Atheism has caused the greatest amount of death in history. 3: Therefore, Atheism has caused the greatest evils/atrocities in history. Affirmative and Negative Burden: Prove or disprove this syllogism in the following rounds. I thank whoever decides to debate this.	RedEye	Ladies and Gentleman, for the first round I will merely use a premise/syllogistic argument, then move to in the following rounds my contentions. Premise 1: According to History, the greatest evils have resulted in the most loss of life. 2: Atheism has caused the greatest amount of death in history. 3: Therefore, Atheism has caused the greatest evils/atrocities in history. Affirmative and Negative Burden: Prove or disprove this syllogism in the following rounds. I thank whoever decides to debate this.	Religion	0	Atheism-is-the-cause-of-histories-greatest-atrocities./1/	6,645
Thank you for accepting. Rebuttal and Case: ok, my opponent has already claimed that warrants for my case, he has agreed with the following: 1)Soviet Union: 140 million deaths 2)China: 100 million deaths 3)Sub-Communist Nations: 50 million deaths 4)Nazi Germany: 15 million deaths 5)Sub-atheist totalitarian regimes: 5 million deaths Total: 310 million deaths For these reasons I affirm. =============================================================================== My opponent has not undermined the burden, so thats the burden for the round. I have proved the burden, therefore you can affirm right here. =============================================================================== However, he makes his own case, away from the burden, so for the sake of a 3 round debate, I'll refute his case. This is the premise of his case: "It was not atheism that was the cause, it was Marxism. Atheism is a result of Marxism, not the cause." I will respond in numerically. 1) Atheism is the belief in no god, therefore higher judgment on a nation is null and void. Any action can be done because morality does not exist. There is no greater responsibility for ones actions. Therefore, atheism is a root cause. 2) He claims that Marxism is the cause. First off, this can only be applied to Communist Nations, this excludes totalitarian regimes. However, according to Marx: "Religion is the opiate of the masses." Atheism is a prime doctrine of Marxism. Linking with #1, you can infer that atheism is a cause of the deaths. 3)By claiming that Marxism is the root, then he is automatically saying that atheism is the cause as well. Syllogism: 1) Atheism is a prime doctrine of Marxism; the government doesn't have a moral authoritative being on top of them 2) Marxism has caused more then 200 million deaths (There is no moral law against killing, because of assertion of #1) 3) Therefore Atheism is the root a cause of the deaths =============================================================================== Thank you ladies and gentleman.	RedEye	Thank you for accepting. Rebuttal and Case: ok, my opponent has already claimed that warrants for my case, he has agreed with the following: 1)Soviet Union: 140 million deaths 2)China: 100 million deaths 3)Sub-Communist Nations: 50 million deaths 4)Nazi Germany: 15 million deaths 5)Sub-atheist totalitarian regimes: 5 million deaths Total: 310 million deaths For these reasons I affirm. =============================================================================== My opponent has not undermined the burden, so thats the burden for the round. I have proved the burden, therefore you can affirm right here. =============================================================================== However, he makes his own case, away from the burden, so for the sake of a 3 round debate, I'll refute his case. This is the premise of his case: "It was not atheism that was the cause, it was Marxism. Atheism is a result of Marxism, not the cause." I will respond in numerically. 1) Atheism is the belief in no god, therefore higher judgment on a nation is null and void. Any action can be done because morality does not exist. There is no greater responsibility for ones actions. Therefore, atheism is a root cause. 2) He claims that Marxism is the cause. First off, this can only be applied to Communist Nations, this excludes totalitarian regimes. However, according to Marx: "Religion is the opiate of the masses." Atheism is a prime doctrine of Marxism. Linking with #1, you can infer that atheism is a cause of the deaths. 3)By claiming that Marxism is the root, then he is automatically saying that atheism is the cause as well. Syllogism: 1) Atheism is a prime doctrine of Marxism; the government doesn't have a moral authoritative being on top of them 2) Marxism has caused more then 200 million deaths (There is no moral law against killing, because of assertion of #1) 3) Therefore Atheism is the root a cause of the deaths =============================================================================== Thank you ladies and gentleman.	Religion	1	Atheism-is-the-cause-of-histories-greatest-atrocities./1/	6,646
I'll attack my opponents case then move to defend my own. "If we wanted, we could consider any 'state' as 'atheist'. Assuredly, in practice the notion of separation of church and state has been to err on the side of no god." My Response: This is true and not true. Take the US for example. We have separation of church and state, yet our basic principles are from Judeo-Christian roots. I'm not talking about the state literally, I'm talking about the basic principles in that form of government. "Atheism does not necessarily lead to violence. Marxism, by design must lead to violence. The fact, Marxism forces people to be atheist does not mean that it is the 'atheism' that is causing the violence." My Response: Atheism as a principal promotes individual action without regard for other people. By this idea, atheism promotes/condones violence on the fact no moral authority is in place. Also, I already responded to the Marxist point on the fact that Marxism promotes atheism. Since, Marxism promotes atheism then it promotes the idea of no greater moral being. =============================================================================== My opponent has failed to attack, my 3 attack points plus my supporting syllogism. So you can extend this. I urge you to affirm.	RedEye	I'll attack my opponents case then move to defend my own. "If we wanted, we could consider any 'state' as 'atheist'. Assuredly, in practice the notion of separation of church and state has been to err on the side of no god." My Response: This is true and not true. Take the US for example. We have separation of church and state, yet our basic principles are from Judeo-Christian roots. I'm not talking about the state literally, I'm talking about the basic principles in that form of government. "Atheism does not necessarily lead to violence. Marxism, by design must lead to violence. The fact, Marxism forces people to be atheist does not mean that it is the 'atheism' that is causing the violence." My Response: Atheism as a principal promotes individual action without regard for other people. By this idea, atheism promotes/condones violence on the fact no moral authority is in place. Also, I already responded to the Marxist point on the fact that Marxism promotes atheism. Since, Marxism promotes atheism then it promotes the idea of no greater moral being. =============================================================================== My opponent has failed to attack, my 3 attack points plus my supporting syllogism. So you can extend this. I urge you to affirm.	Religion	2	Atheism-is-the-cause-of-histories-greatest-atrocities./1/	6,647
I accept your challenge. I am assuming that anything regarding both topics is up for debate, as you simply said Atheism Vs. Theism. I would also just try to make sure we both are on the same page here. I am not supporting Young Earth Creationism. I also strongly believe in Evolution and God's involvement therein. You may use these as arguments, but know I will probably ignore them as I will likely agree. Make no mistake, I am strongly religious, but I do not believe the Earth's creation happened over night. Stopping there, I hope for a good debate :)	LostintheEcho1498	I accept your challenge. I am assuming that anything regarding both topics is up for debate, as you simply said Atheism Vs. Theism. I would also just try to make sure we both are on the same page here. I am not supporting Young Earth Creationism. I also strongly believe in Evolution and God's involvement therein. You may use these as arguments, but know I will probably ignore them as I will likely agree. Make no mistake, I am strongly religious, but I do not believe the Earth's creation happened over night. Stopping there, I hope for a good debate :)	Religion	0	Atheism-pro-vs-Theism-con/1/	6,671
I would like to apologize to my opponent who has continued on in my absence. I ask voters to give all points to Pro and realize the rudeness of my silence. I hope you can forgive, as I have been busy with other things on my mind. Lastly, I give my hat to Pro who did make a argument, even in my absence, and again, I apologize.	LostintheEcho1498	I would like to apologize to my opponent who has continued on in my absence. I ask voters to give all points to Pro and realize the rudeness of my silence. I hope you can forgive, as I have been busy with other things on my mind. Lastly, I give my hat to Pro who did make a argument, even in my absence, and again, I apologize.	Religion	3	Atheism-pro-vs-Theism-con/1/	6,672
The belief system of atheists is contrary to the teachings of science. Atheist beliefs are in contradiction with the nature of science, more specifically: 1) The empirical nature of the physical world. 2) Inductive reasoning. 3) Not seeking an absolute truth. Thank you for considering the debate.	SenorSwanky	The belief system of atheists is contrary to the teachings of science. Atheist beliefs are in contradiction with the nature of science, more specifically: 1) The empirical nature of the physical world. 2) Inductive reasoning. 3) Not seeking an absolute truth. Thank you for considering the debate.	Philosophy	0	Atheist-beliefs-are-incongruous-with-the-tenets-of-science./1/	6,760
My opponent starts Round 1 with a straw man logical fallacy. My opponent offers a close but not truly accurate version of the argument, twisting the idea by exaggerating its scope. Besides, there is no one ideology to which all atheists adhere. I have listed three specific tenets of science where atheists are in contradiction. The debate is regarding those three tenets. 1) The empirical nature of the physical world. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) lists several universal constants such as Newtonian constant of gravitation, Planck's constant, and the speed of light. <URL>... The fundamental forces of physics are measurable. <URL>... Empirical tools like math and physics would only be used if those tools are appropriate to the physical world they are describing. Mathematical formulas express the laws of nature. Atheist believe the universe came into existance by random chance. Science would need a different set of tools to explain chance occurrences, thereby contradicting the atheist belief. 2) Inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is bottom up approach. Based upon observed instances, we form a judgment about the unobserved. Darwin used inductive reasoning to come up with the theory of evolution. <URL>... Inductive reasoning is used in science. <URL>... Through inductive reasoning, many scientists offer a proof of God. <URL>... However, atheists only accept deductive, "show me" reasoning, contradicting another tenet of science. 3) Not seeking an absolute truth. The scientific method questions our basic beliefs and assumptions about the way the world is. Science works because no fact or belief is ever taken as being final. "Science does not purvey absolute truth, science is a mechanism. It"s a way of trying to improve your knowledge of nature, it"s a system for testing your thoughts against the universe and seeing whether they match." ~ Isaac Asimov <URL>... Atheism's explicit denial of the existence of God is an absolute truth. However, the existence of God is unknowable. The atheist belief is in contradiction to science. I have demonstrated that atheist believes are incongruous with three basic tenets of science.	SenorSwanky	My opponent starts Round 1 with a straw man logical fallacy. My opponent offers a close but not truly accurate version of the argument, twisting the idea by exaggerating its scope. Besides, there is no one ideology to which all atheists adhere. I have listed three specific tenets of science where atheists are in contradiction. The debate is regarding those three tenets. 1) The empirical nature of the physical world. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) lists several universal constants such as Newtonian constant of gravitation, Planck's constant, and the speed of light. http://physics.nist.gov... The fundamental forces of physics are measurable. http://www.nobelprize.org... Empirical tools like math and physics would only be used if those tools are appropriate to the physical world they are describing. Mathematical formulas express the laws of nature. Atheist believe the universe came into existance by random chance. Science would need a different set of tools to explain chance occurrences, thereby contradicting the atheist belief. 2) Inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is bottom up approach. Based upon observed instances, we form a judgment about the unobserved. Darwin used inductive reasoning to come up with the theory of evolution. http://www.nsf.gov... Inductive reasoning is used in science. http://en.wikipedia.org... Through inductive reasoning, many scientists offer a proof of God. http://www.simpletoremember.com... However, atheists only accept deductive, "show me" reasoning, contradicting another tenet of science. 3) Not seeking an absolute truth. The scientific method questions our basic beliefs and assumptions about the way the world is. Science works because no fact or belief is ever taken as being final. "Science does not purvey absolute truth, science is a mechanism. It"s a way of trying to improve your knowledge of nature, it"s a system for testing your thoughts against the universe and seeing whether they match." ~ Isaac Asimov http://www.brainpickings.org... Atheism's explicit denial of the existence of God is an absolute truth. However, the existence of God is unknowable. The atheist belief is in contradiction to science. I have demonstrated that atheist believes are incongruous with three basic tenets of science.	Philosophy	1	Atheist-beliefs-are-incongruous-with-the-tenets-of-science./1/	6,761
I pointed out three broad tenets where atheist beliefs are contradictory to scientific thought. My opponent, employing a straw man tactic, tried to narrow and divert the argument simply to evolution. My opponent did not attempt to address the points brought up in Round 1. But to address the evolution claim, there are different creation stories: 1) We were created by God. 2) Evolution. 3) Another as yet unknown reason such as aliens. An atheist could believe 2) or 3). You can find atheists that reject evolution. Thank you.	SenorSwanky	I pointed out three broad tenets where atheist beliefs are contradictory to scientific thought. My opponent, employing a straw man tactic, tried to narrow and divert the argument simply to evolution. My opponent did not attempt to address the points brought up in Round 1. But to address the evolution claim, there are different creation stories: 1) We were created by God. 2) Evolution. 3) Another as yet unknown reason such as aliens. An atheist could believe 2) or 3). You can find atheists that reject evolution. Thank you.	Philosophy	2	Atheist-beliefs-are-incongruous-with-the-tenets-of-science./1/	6,762
Hi, I've always wanted to debate this, but I've never had much time until now. So, the contention is, "Atheists are not logically and reasonably justified in their disbelief of a Christian God". Lets get a few definitions out of the way. Atheism: The disbelief or non-belief in a God or Gods.(1) Christian God: Specifically the God as presented in the KJV bible. Pro must show how the belief in God is reasonable and logically justifiable enough for Atheists to believe that God exists. Con must show how these justifications are either unreasonable or illogical. Rules: 1. No swearing, ad hominem attacks or name calling. 2. Pro can post his argument in the first round, but cannot post an argument in the last round and can only respond to arguments already presented. 3. If Pro has any problems with the above, he or she must resolve it in the comments section with Con before accepting the debate. Source: 1. <URL>...	tkubok	Hi, I've always wanted to debate this, but I've never had much time until now. So, the contention is, "Atheists are not logically and reasonably justified in their disbelief of a Christian God". Lets get a few definitions out of the way. Atheism: The disbelief or non-belief in a God or Gods.(1) Christian God: Specifically the God as presented in the KJV bible. Pro must show how the belief in God is reasonable and logically justifiable enough for Atheists to believe that God exists. Con must show how these justifications are either unreasonable or illogical. Rules: 1. No swearing, ad hominem attacks or name calling. 2. Pro can post his argument in the first round, but cannot post an argument in the last round and can only respond to arguments already presented. 3. If Pro has any problems with the above, he or she must resolve it in the comments section with Con before accepting the debate. Source: 1. http://dictionary.reference.com...	Religion	0	Atheists-are-not-logically-and-reasonably-justified-in-their-disbelief-of-a-Christian-God/1/	6,817
I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. " In order for a universe to be created where there was nothing, there must have been a Being who created it, since something cannot be produced by nothing." Yes. There was a point at which the current state of the universe did not exist, and then it did. However, my opponent is wrong in claiming that there was nothing before the universe. Scientists believe that a singularity existed before the current state of the universe.(1) This would open up the possibility that this singularity had existed for an eternity and therefore does not require a cause. It was not merely "Nothing" as we know it, that existed before our current state of the universe. " As created beings, we are contingent upon that which created us. God is a Necessary Being, the First Cause of everything. " We cannot conclude by this that the creator was necessarily God. A universe-creating factory or invisible magical unicorns or anything else that we would not consider God-like could have been the necessary creating force. In fact, calling it a "being" is presumptuous. " Moral relativism is a self-defeating belief, for in order to be true it must also be false(if there is no truth, as relativism claims, once might follow up by asking, is that a true statement?) " Moral relativism has to do with moral standards, and not truth claims in and of themselves, such as Logical truth claims. Pro is not discussing relativism in general. One can believe in Moral relativism and still believe in truth claims as long as those claims are not based on morality. " Yet how can we know, instinctually, what is right from wrong unless there is a Moral Law Giver?" Quite simple. All social creatures have a basic understanding that killing within their group is wrong.(2) It comes from the simple realization that a group cannot exist if its members freely kill each other. The fact that this instinctual knowledge of right and wrong exists in some animals but not in others, is more evidence that this is something that is derived from common sense and nature, and not from a moral law giver. When we outline the method, step by step, as to how these morals could evolve, it becomes quite simple. 1. I don't want to die. 2. Being in a group is more beneficial. 3. I have no need to kill anyone in my group. 4. Therefore lets make this a rule. " And who would be qualified to give a Moral Law for all humanity to follow other than a Being who created that race of beings?" First of all, the existence of a moral law does not tell us anything about where it came from. We cannot conclude that because a moral law exists, that therefore it must have come from God. Secondly, the existence of a different set of moral standards disproves this argument. Almost everyone today will say, with generally high certainty, that slavery is morally wrong. Yet, there is no doubt that in the past, people have believed that there was nothing morally wrong with owning people as property, I.e. Slaves. This is true in a lesser degree in the examples Pro stated. The farther back we go, the less the constraints as to who you are allowed to kill, even who you are allowed to rape, go. "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. "-Numbers 31:14-18 Most people today would say that rape under any circumstance was wrong. Yet clearly Moses did not think so. This shows how moral standards have varied largely with time and contradicts Pros argument. " 1. There are things which are obviously wrong (e.g. rape and murder). 2. There must be an objective moral truth, or there would be no reason to keep your word, or to do good at all. 3. Therefore, only a Being who created us can create a Moral Law for all humankind to follow. " I have shown above that the first premise has failed in the light of previous moral standards. The third point fails for the fact that we cannot know the source of this moral law, and cannot conclude if it came from God. I will quickly address the second premise. There is a reason to keep your word or to do good. The more we do good to others, the more likely they will do good to us, and it helps us keep a social norm that benefits us all. We see this in other animals, such as when Monkeys groom each other. Why bother grooming another monkey? So that they will groom you in return. "Paintings need a painter, buildings need a builder. The universe is much more vast and complex than a simple painting or even a building, so if a painter or builder is a given when viewing a painting or building, so is it a given that an intelligent being must have created this universe. " Wrong. Let me systematically show why this argument fails. First off, we do not create, we manipulate. Humans do not "Make" a painting in the same way that this God "Made" the universe. We take existing matter, and manipulate it into paintings and buildings. To claim that the creation of this universe ex nihilo can be concluded from the existence of manipulators manipulating pre-existing matter is a non-sequitur. Secondly, We know that paintings and buildings were made, a posteriori. We have examples of painters and builders. We have knowledge that Painters and builders make paintings and buildings all the time and no examples of paintings and buildings occurring in nature. The problem exists when we compare two things, a painting and a rock, and try to consider which has a designer, and which occurred naturally. It is completely reasonable to assume that a rock was not designed, and was a product of nature. Yet, if we draw out the argument that Pro is making to its logical conclusion, then the rock must have been designed and must be no different than the painting. The very fact that we are justified in recognizing the rock as being a product of nature, shows how this argument fails. Thirdly, the conclusion is self-refuting. This God is supposedly more complex than the universe, yet does not require a creator. So by Pros own admission, something that is complex can exist without requiring a creator. "The world and universe we live in has been incredibly fine-tuned for our survival. " No, not the universe. 99.<PHONE>% of the universe is hostile to life. Humans cannot live in the sun, or out in space. We cannot easily live on other planets. Yes, this planet is suited for life, but not the universe in general. This single planet that occupies less than .<PHONE>% of the entire universe Is fine tuned for life, yet Pro has us think that therefore the entire universe, hostile to life, must also be fine tuned for life as well. This is a non-sequitur. "In order for our kind to survive, it must be in the "Goldilocks Zone" of its galaxy, in other words the perfect spot where the planet would not be too hot or too cold. " The "Goldilocks zone" for Earth is 120,000,000 kilometres wide, enough to fit 10,000 earths side by side. Furthermore, we have already found a planet other than earth that is in the "Goldilocks zone".(3) So the tuning isn't too fine after all. "Plus, the world has to have a habitable atmosphere " The habitable atmosphere came after life arose. Before life, the atmosphere was hostile, and oxygen was scarce(4). In other words, Life came before a habitable atmosphere, not after. " the galaxy around it can't be too hostile" Except that extinction-level evets have occurred frequenty(5). Clearly there is no justification for atheists to believe in God. Source: 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>... 4. <URL>... 5. <URL>...	tkubok	I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. “ In order for a universe to be created where there was nothing, there must have been a Being who created it, since something cannot be produced by nothing.” Yes. There was a point at which the current state of the universe did not exist, and then it did. However, my opponent is wrong in claiming that there was nothing before the universe. Scientists believe that a singularity existed before the current state of the universe.(1) This would open up the possibility that this singularity had existed for an eternity and therefore does not require a cause. It was not merely “Nothing” as we know it, that existed before our current state of the universe. “ As created beings, we are contingent upon that which created us. God is a Necessary Being, the First Cause of everything. “ We cannot conclude by this that the creator was necessarily God. A universe-creating factory or invisible magical unicorns or anything else that we would not consider God-like could have been the necessary creating force. In fact, calling it a “being” is presumptuous. “ Moral relativism is a self-defeating belief, for in order to be true it must also be false(if there is no truth, as relativism claims, once might follow up by asking, is that a true statement?) “ Moral relativism has to do with moral standards, and not truth claims in and of themselves, such as Logical truth claims. Pro is not discussing relativism in general. One can believe in Moral relativism and still believe in truth claims as long as those claims are not based on morality. “ Yet how can we know, instinctually, what is right from wrong unless there is a Moral Law Giver?” Quite simple. All social creatures have a basic understanding that killing within their group is wrong.(2) It comes from the simple realization that a group cannot exist if its members freely kill each other. The fact that this instinctual knowledge of right and wrong exists in some animals but not in others, is more evidence that this is something that is derived from common sense and nature, and not from a moral law giver. When we outline the method, step by step, as to how these morals could evolve, it becomes quite simple. 1. I don't want to die. 2. Being in a group is more beneficial. 3. I have no need to kill anyone in my group. 4. Therefore lets make this a rule. “ And who would be qualified to give a Moral Law for all humanity to follow other than a Being who created that race of beings?” First of all, the existence of a moral law does not tell us anything about where it came from. We cannot conclude that because a moral law exists, that therefore it must have come from God. Secondly, the existence of a different set of moral standards disproves this argument. Almost everyone today will say, with generally high certainty, that slavery is morally wrong. Yet, there is no doubt that in the past, people have believed that there was nothing morally wrong with owning people as property, I.e. Slaves. This is true in a lesser degree in the examples Pro stated. The farther back we go, the less the constraints as to who you are allowed to kill, even who you are allowed to rape, go. “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. “-Numbers 31:14-18 Most people today would say that rape under any circumstance was wrong. Yet clearly Moses did not think so. This shows how moral standards have varied largely with time and contradicts Pros argument. “ 1. There are things which are obviously wrong (e.g. rape and murder). 2. There must be an objective moral truth, or there would be no reason to keep your word, or to do good at all. 3. Therefore, only a Being who created us can create a Moral Law for all humankind to follow. “ I have shown above that the first premise has failed in the light of previous moral standards. The third point fails for the fact that we cannot know the source of this moral law, and cannot conclude if it came from God. I will quickly address the second premise. There is a reason to keep your word or to do good. The more we do good to others, the more likely they will do good to us, and it helps us keep a social norm that benefits us all. We see this in other animals, such as when Monkeys groom each other. Why bother grooming another monkey? So that they will groom you in return. “Paintings need a painter, buildings need a builder. The universe is much more vast and complex than a simple painting or even a building, so if a painter or builder is a given when viewing a painting or building, so is it a given that an intelligent being must have created this universe. “ Wrong. Let me systematically show why this argument fails. First off, we do not create, we manipulate. Humans do not “Make” a painting in the same way that this God “Made” the universe. We take existing matter, and manipulate it into paintings and buildings. To claim that the creation of this universe ex nihilo can be concluded from the existence of manipulators manipulating pre-existing matter is a non-sequitur. Secondly, We know that paintings and buildings were made, a posteriori. We have examples of painters and builders. We have knowledge that Painters and builders make paintings and buildings all the time and no examples of paintings and buildings occurring in nature. The problem exists when we compare two things, a painting and a rock, and try to consider which has a designer, and which occurred naturally. It is completely reasonable to assume that a rock was not designed, and was a product of nature. Yet, if we draw out the argument that Pro is making to its logical conclusion, then the rock must have been designed and must be no different than the painting. The very fact that we are justified in recognizing the rock as being a product of nature, shows how this argument fails. Thirdly, the conclusion is self-refuting. This God is supposedly more complex than the universe, yet does not require a creator. So by Pros own admission, something that is complex can exist without requiring a creator. “The world and universe we live in has been incredibly fine-tuned for our survival. “ No, not the universe. 99.99999999999% of the universe is hostile to life. Humans cannot live in the sun, or out in space. We cannot easily live on other planets. Yes, this planet is suited for life, but not the universe in general. This single planet that occupies less than .00000000001% of the entire universe Is fine tuned for life, yet Pro has us think that therefore the entire universe, hostile to life, must also be fine tuned for life as well. This is a non-sequitur. “In order for our kind to survive, it must be in the "Goldilocks Zone" of its galaxy, in other words the perfect spot where the planet would not be too hot or too cold. “ The “Goldilocks zone” for Earth is 120,000,000 kilometres wide, enough to fit 10,000 earths side by side. Furthermore, we have already found a planet other than earth that is in the “Goldilocks zone”.(3) So the tuning isn’t too fine after all. “Plus, the world has to have a habitable atmosphere “ The habitable atmosphere came after life arose. Before life, the atmosphere was hostile, and oxygen was scarce(4). In other words, Life came before a habitable atmosphere, not after. " the galaxy around it can't be too hostile" Except that extinction-level evets have occurred frequenty(5). Clearly there is no justification for atheists to believe in God. Source: 1. http://ssscott.tripod.com... 2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 3. http://news.cnet.com... 4. http://www.ux1.eiu.edu... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...	Religion	1	Atheists-are-not-logically-and-reasonably-justified-in-their-disbelief-of-a-Christian-God/1/	6,818
"But I would ask him to prove that there was a singularity that has always existed and expanded into the universe, otherwise we can simply dismiss it as an ad hoc explanation to avoid having to believe in a God who created the universe." Pro has attempted to use Science to support his claim that the universe had a beginning. Expansion does not "prove" that the universe is not static either, and it is a BELIEF based on deduction that the universe has been expanding SINCE it was packed in a single point, I.e. A singularity. In other words, the same deduction that leads us to the belief that the universe had a beginning, is also the same deduction that leads us to believe that the universe was a singularity, and that singularity was the beginning of the Big Bang. Pro has attempted to dismiss the very argument he used to support his premise that the universe had a beginning. "There must have been Someone behind it, otherwise a static singularity that has always existed would have no reason to undergo a big bang and create a universe." Yes, there could have been a catalyst. It might have been an increase in energy build-up that started infinitesimally small. It might be an infinite regression of universes that are created, then destroyed by way of big crunch, then created again. There are many possibilities. None of these require intelligence or sentience, and they all only require nature, something which we know exists. So I ask Pro, what makes God the preferable possibility? "However, we have much evidence to suggest a God, not the least of which are all the people who believe in some kind of Deity." People used to believe in Unicorns and Faeries and Leprechauns. People believe in contradictory Gods and deities. This is not evidence of anything, anymore than belief in unicorns is evidence that Unicorns exist. "There are many religious texts claiming to be the words of God." What makes these religious texts more reliable than texts that talk of Faeries and Lepricons? Furthermore, the "Words" of these Gods contradict each other in these many religious texts. So, if the message is false, then the source is questionable at best. "If there is a God who created our universe and wants to be a part of it, then certainly He would have spoken to us and given us religious texts so that we can know Him and know what He wants of His creation." Based on what Evidence does Pro claim that this God would want to be a part of his creation? "The books of the Bible were written by over 40 authors from all different walks of life, yet they spoke in complete unity." First off, there are contradictions in both the Old and New testament. Secondly, they were not from all walks of life, modern scholars agree that the Torah was written around 600 BC, from oral traditions and compiled together in 400 BC.(1) The Jewish kingdom of Judah had already existed as well as the Jews who were already well versed in their own history and mythology. In other words, they were from the same walk of life, I.e. Jewish. Furthermore, we can reasonable assume the same thing happened to the Torah as it did with the New Testament, which excluded texts that were against the canonical gospels and branded them as apocrypha or heretical. Thirdly, the Hindu Vedas were also a result of many authors after oral traditions, compiling the vedas together into one book, speaking in complete unity. "Plus we have several Old Testament books that gave prophecies that were fulfilled by the events recorded in the New Testament." Muslims claim the Quran has fulfilled prophecies as well(2). Furthermore, the prophecies provide three problems. Firstly, Prophecies being fulfilled does not tell us whether the claim of the source of the prophecy is true. If I am a time-traveller, I can make prophecies that will undoubtedly come true. Secondly, failed prophecies of the New Testament exist, such as the prophecy that the messiah will have the bloodline of King David, which Jesus did not. Many more are the reasons why Jews reject Jesus as their Messiah. Thirdly, we have no contemporary accounts for the life of Jesus outside the bible, at all, nor do we have direct eyewitness accounts. Much like how you cannot prove the Quran is historically accurate by using the Quran itself, you cannot use the bible to prove the bible is true. "people know that murder is simply wrong, and that is why they don't murder." Today, we know that murder is simply wrong because our morals have evolved. Just like we know today that a soldier who rapes a woman whose country he invaded is simply wrong. Yet, 4000 years ago, people thought this was not wrong, but acceptable. It took a long time to understand that this was wrong, but it does not change the fact that we used to think it was right. "But people all the time put their lives in danger to help friends in need, or even complete strangers." This is seen in nature as well. Vervet monkeys will make noise, alerting predators to its location to let other monkeys to escape(3). "Humans are higher than animals and have the ability to make moral decisions and act upon free will." Except that we are clearly the product of our society. Our higher morals that we have today were non-existent 2000, 3000, 5000 years ago. What happened, is that our morals evolved. This is in contrast to your claim that God gave us all the same moral law, and completely in sync with the stance that our morals are learned, that morality is dependant on the natural mental construct. The natural explanation suffices here. " If you have a better explanation, please share." Argument from ignorance. Because you cannot come up with a better explanation, you're going to stick with yours. Logical fallacy. "nothing has ever amounted to a complete difference." Again, the same could be said of animals. However, nature explains this, as we see with increased brain capacity, that morals also increase. It has to do with benefit. Animals understand this, because they are capable, mentally, to. Bacteria do not. "They were not acting on "herd mentality" but on a much deeper morality that said that all men are created equal" In other words, Morality evolved. I would like to ask Pro, what prevented people 2000 years ago from accessing this deeper morality? "They were kept as slaves, not for the purposes of raping." First off, even the male children were to be slaughtered, no matter how young. There is no reason to kill the young male children if they were to be enslaved. Secondly, no. Dueteronomy 21:10 will explain this better: When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Clearly Moses was speaking of forced marriage and rape. " Was someone not justified in calling a painting a painting, or a building a building, even if they were new concepts?" Depends. As Arthur Clarke puts it, Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. " God is a Necessary Being." Only if Theism is correct and we assume that the universe has to be created by God. If this premise is true, then the conclusion that a God exists does not matter, therefore this argument is also self-refuting due to the fact that the premise is assuming what the argument is trying to prove. Lets assume God exists, therefore God exists. "I did not mean to indicate that the universe was also" You kinda did. You said earth AND the universe was fine-tuned. "merely that certain aspects of it are there to help us survive" None of this requires a God and is statistically inevitable. Source: 1. Blenkinsopp, Joseph The Pentateuch: An introduction to the first five books of the Bible 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>...	tkubok	“But I would ask him to prove that there was a singularity that has always existed and expanded into the universe, otherwise we can simply dismiss it as an ad hoc explanation to avoid having to believe in a God who created the universe.” Pro has attempted to use Science to support his claim that the universe had a beginning. Expansion does not “prove” that the universe is not static either, and it is a BELIEF based on deduction that the universe has been expanding SINCE it was packed in a single point, I.e. A singularity. In other words, the same deduction that leads us to the belief that the universe had a beginning, is also the same deduction that leads us to believe that the universe was a singularity, and that singularity was the beginning of the Big Bang. Pro has attempted to dismiss the very argument he used to support his premise that the universe had a beginning. “There must have been Someone behind it, otherwise a static singularity that has always existed would have no reason to undergo a big bang and create a universe.” Yes, there could have been a catalyst. It might have been an increase in energy build-up that started infinitesimally small. It might be an infinite regression of universes that are created, then destroyed by way of big crunch, then created again. There are many possibilities. None of these require intelligence or sentience, and they all only require nature, something which we know exists. So I ask Pro, what makes God the preferable possibility? “However, we have much evidence to suggest a God, not the least of which are all the people who believe in some kind of Deity.” People used to believe in Unicorns and Faeries and Leprechauns. People believe in contradictory Gods and deities. This is not evidence of anything, anymore than belief in unicorns is evidence that Unicorns exist. “There are many religious texts claiming to be the words of God.” What makes these religious texts more reliable than texts that talk of Faeries and Lepricons? Furthermore, the “Words” of these Gods contradict each other in these many religious texts. So, if the message is false, then the source is questionable at best. “If there is a God who created our universe and wants to be a part of it, then certainly He would have spoken to us and given us religious texts so that we can know Him and know what He wants of His creation.” Based on what Evidence does Pro claim that this God would want to be a part of his creation? “The books of the Bible were written by over 40 authors from all different walks of life, yet they spoke in complete unity.” First off, there are contradictions in both the Old and New testament. Secondly, they were not from all walks of life, modern scholars agree that the Torah was written around 600 BC, from oral traditions and compiled together in 400 BC.(1) The Jewish kingdom of Judah had already existed as well as the Jews who were already well versed in their own history and mythology. In other words, they were from the same walk of life, I.e. Jewish. Furthermore, we can reasonable assume the same thing happened to the Torah as it did with the New Testament, which excluded texts that were against the canonical gospels and branded them as apocrypha or heretical. Thirdly, the Hindu Vedas were also a result of many authors after oral traditions, compiling the vedas together into one book, speaking in complete unity. “Plus we have several Old Testament books that gave prophecies that were fulfilled by the events recorded in the New Testament.” Muslims claim the Quran has fulfilled prophecies as well(2). Furthermore, the prophecies provide three problems. Firstly, Prophecies being fulfilled does not tell us whether the claim of the source of the prophecy is true. If I am a time-traveller, I can make prophecies that will undoubtedly come true. Secondly, failed prophecies of the New Testament exist, such as the prophecy that the messiah will have the bloodline of King David, which Jesus did not. Many more are the reasons why Jews reject Jesus as their Messiah. Thirdly, we have no contemporary accounts for the life of Jesus outside the bible, at all, nor do we have direct eyewitness accounts. Much like how you cannot prove the Quran is historically accurate by using the Quran itself, you cannot use the bible to prove the bible is true. “people know that murder is simply wrong, and that is why they don't murder.” Today, we know that murder is simply wrong because our morals have evolved. Just like we know today that a soldier who rapes a woman whose country he invaded is simply wrong. Yet, 4000 years ago, people thought this was not wrong, but acceptable. It took a long time to understand that this was wrong, but it does not change the fact that we used to think it was right. “But people all the time put their lives in danger to help friends in need, or even complete strangers.” This is seen in nature as well. Vervet monkeys will make noise, alerting predators to its location to let other monkeys to escape(3). “Humans are higher than animals and have the ability to make moral decisions and act upon free will.” Except that we are clearly the product of our society. Our higher morals that we have today were non-existent 2000, 3000, 5000 years ago. What happened, is that our morals evolved. This is in contrast to your claim that God gave us all the same moral law, and completely in sync with the stance that our morals are learned, that morality is dependant on the natural mental construct. The natural explanation suffices here. “ If you have a better explanation, please share.” Argument from ignorance. Because you cannot come up with a better explanation, you're going to stick with yours. Logical fallacy. “nothing has ever amounted to a complete difference.” Again, the same could be said of animals. However, nature explains this, as we see with increased brain capacity, that morals also increase. It has to do with benefit. Animals understand this, because they are capable, mentally, to. Bacteria do not. “They were not acting on "herd mentality" but on a much deeper morality that said that all men are created equal” In other words, Morality evolved. I would like to ask Pro, what prevented people 2000 years ago from accessing this deeper morality? “They were kept as slaves, not for the purposes of raping.” First off, even the male children were to be slaughtered, no matter how young. There is no reason to kill the young male children if they were to be enslaved. Secondly, no. Dueteronomy 21:10 will explain this better: When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Clearly Moses was speaking of forced marriage and rape. “ Was someone not justified in calling a painting a painting, or a building a building, even if they were new concepts?” Depends. As Arthur Clarke puts it, Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. “ God is a Necessary Being.” Only if Theism is correct and we assume that the universe has to be created by God. If this premise is true, then the conclusion that a God exists does not matter, therefore this argument is also self-refuting due to the fact that the premise is assuming what the argument is trying to prove. Lets assume God exists, therefore God exists. “I did not mean to indicate that the universe was also” You kinda did. You said earth AND the universe was fine-tuned. “merely that certain aspects of it are there to help us survive” None of this requires a God and is statistically inevitable. Source: 1. Blenkinsopp, Joseph The Pentateuch: An introduction to the first five books of the Bible 2. http://www.alislam.org... 3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...	Religion	2	Atheists-are-not-logically-and-reasonably-justified-in-their-disbelief-of-a-Christian-God/1/	6,819
" If the universe were eternal, it would be static and unmoving. " Again, this is a conclusion based on deductive reasoning. Pro cannot discount the possibility that it has only recently begun to expand, and that the universe used to be static, 5, 10 billion years ago. No one can. The universe having a beginning is derived from deductive reasoning from the evidence of an expanding universe, the same deductive reasoning that leads us to believe that the universe, in its beginning, was a singularity. Again, Pro is using evidence to both reject and accept the conclusion made by scientists. " If there was a singularity at the very beginning of time which resulted in the big bang, it would have no reason to explode and create the universe." Again, argument from ignorance. Because Pro cannot think of a reason, therefore he is claiming that the belief that a God must have moved it. Again, logical fallacy. " Additionaly, there could have been no energy build-up that started infinitesimally small unless there was an outside force acting on it or the singularity, itself, had a beginning." Let us ask Pro, how does he know this? No one is claiming that it did, since this is just one of many possibilities. However, Pro has made the claim that this cannot happen. Therefore, I ask Pro to give his evidences or reason behind this claim. "But one more cannot be added to an infinite number. Hence, one can never reach an infinite number." Pros argument breaks down with the fact that Pro himself accepts a God that has a quality that pertains to its existence as being eternal, infinite. Let us ask Pro, why eternity can apply to God but not to the universe? "Yes, people have believed in contradictory gods, but the fact that people have always been searching for God or gods shows that there is reason to do so." The fact that people have found contradictory Gods, shows what, exactly? Pro has us believe that the search for God gives us reason to believe that God exists, but wants us to ignore the conclusion of that search. Unreasonable at best. "One of them could be correct and all the others wrong." I cannot comment on this until Pro comments on the Quran, as I can easily show how the standards applied to the bible can also be applied to the Quran, thus preventing us from discerning which is correct. " If He creates beings, don't you think He would love them as if they were His own children?" How does Pro know that God created this universe with the intent of creating us as well? This is an unproven premise that, for example, Deists reject. Therefore this argument fails. "Christians don't claim that the numerous translations and copies are error-free, only that the original texts were inerrant. " Unfortunately this claim cannot be confirmed. What we know as fact, however, allows us to doubt the texts, as none of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, at least 30 years after Jesus died, with many early church fathers being excommunicated or banished due to their support of books that contradicted the 4 Gospels. In light of these facts, it is still unreasonable for Atheists to believe that the bible is in any way accurate. "Not all scholars agree that the Torah was written that early. " Daniel, the protagonist for the Book of Daniel, is accepted by Christian scholars to have existed around 6 th century BCE. Both Deut 31:26 and Josh 24:26 talks of a book of law, which does not make it a historical account, and 1 Sam 10:25 speaks of Samuel writing down the rights and duties of a king, not any historicity. So, we know it was compiled after 500 BC allowing for them to add or delete any inconsistencies, none of the examples you provided talk of the actual writing of the historical accounts, and they all, even if they did talk of the historicity of the Jews, confirm that they were written by Jews. Therefore my objection stands. "Time travelers cannot be used as evidence of fulfilled prophecies, especially since there is no proof time travel will ever be possible." Exactly. There is no evidence that prophecies are necessarily revealed by God, just like there is no evidence that time travellers are not the source of the prophecy.. You do not have any evidence as to the source of the prophecy and therefore cannot claim the source to be God. "Jesus came through the bloodline of King David" The genealogy is through Joseph. Jesus was not Joseph's son therefore he cannot be of King Davids bloodline. Clearly an unfulfilled prophecy. "We do have eyewitness accounts of Jesus, such as Josephus (a Jewish historian) and Pliny the Younger." Only to the existence of a man named Jesus, not the events in his life. Josephus only talks about the existence of Jesus and Pliny talks only of Christians. Nor is Josephus or Pliny, both born after Jesus died, eyewitnesses to anything. No one is saying that Jesus never existed or that Christians never existed. But none of this is confirmation as to the events of the bible itself. "What better way to prove the President lives in the White House than to look in the White House?" And if the president just happened to be away? If you saw a janitor living there, and called him the president, would your claim be valid? How would you be able to prove that the president was actually living there and not just visiting? The reason why we cannot simply use a single book to corroborate itself, has to do with confirming that the evidence is valid, and not simply asserting that the evidence is valid. Can we look at a Spiderman comic and conclude that Spiderman must have existed? According to Pro's criterion, yes, we could use the Comic book to prove the claims within the comic is true. Yet, clearly, this is not the case. The only way to confirm that the claim is true, is to use outside sources, because its a given that internal sources will confirm itself to be true. "The Gospels were eyewitness accounts of Jesus' ministry by people who either knew him or were acquainted with people who knew him." Its not an eyewitness account, its hearsay. All of the gospels are anonymous, we have no signed copies. They were all written well after Jesus died. So, we have little to no idea who the authors are, they are not eyewitnesses and are only reporting hearsay, and they were all written after Jesus died. Hearsay evidence would not hold up in a court of law(1), let alone 30 year old hearsay evidence, therefore it is unreasonable for Atheists to accept. "Moses gave us the Law which had many things in it that were sinful, including a number of sexual sins. Even if some accepted it back then it was still wrong." I am talking about the things that were acceptable, not sinful. One thing that was acceptable was the rape and forceful marriage of any woman from a town your army conquered, and this wasn;t just accepted by "Some", it was accepted by the vast majority. Again, in light of this fact, my opponents argument fails, and once again, the natural explanation suffices. "Even if morals are simply "evolutionary" and not directly granted by God, you have shown no reason that God didn't simply direct the evolutionary process and use evolution to deliver our morality. " This is still just an argument from ignorance(2). There is no evidence or reason that God didnt direct evolution. Therefore, God did direct evolution. "There wasn't anything preventing people 2,000 years ago from accessing this morality and many did." God and Moses seemed unable to, as Deut 21:10 is Moses specifically allowing the forceful marriage and rape of women, a law which Moses claims God has passed down. Clearly many, many more did not. So, is God and Moses, immoral? Furthermore, let us ask Pro to name these moral giants. So, who, 2000 years ago, rejected the moral standard that Raping captives of war was wrong? Source: 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>...	tkubok	“ If the universe were eternal, it would be static and unmoving. ” Again, this is a conclusion based on deductive reasoning. Pro cannot discount the possibility that it has only recently begun to expand, and that the universe used to be static, 5, 10 billion years ago. No one can. The universe having a beginning is derived from deductive reasoning from the evidence of an expanding universe, the same deductive reasoning that leads us to believe that the universe, in its beginning, was a singularity. Again, Pro is using evidence to both reject and accept the conclusion made by scientists. “ If there was a singularity at the very beginning of time which resulted in the big bang, it would have no reason to explode and create the universe.” Again, argument from ignorance. Because Pro cannot think of a reason, therefore he is claiming that the belief that a God must have moved it. Again, logical fallacy. “ Additionaly, there could have been no energy build-up that started infinitesimally small unless there was an outside force acting on it or the singularity, itself, had a beginning." Let us ask Pro, how does he know this? No one is claiming that it did, since this is just one of many possibilities. However, Pro has made the claim that this cannot happen. Therefore, I ask Pro to give his evidences or reason behind this claim. “But one more cannot be added to an infinite number. Hence, one can never reach an infinite number.” Pros argument breaks down with the fact that Pro himself accepts a God that has a quality that pertains to its existence as being eternal, infinite. Let us ask Pro, why eternity can apply to God but not to the universe? “Yes, people have believed in contradictory gods, but the fact that people have always been searching for God or gods shows that there is reason to do so.” The fact that people have found contradictory Gods, shows what, exactly? Pro has us believe that the search for God gives us reason to believe that God exists, but wants us to ignore the conclusion of that search. Unreasonable at best. “One of them could be correct and all the others wrong.” I cannot comment on this until Pro comments on the Quran, as I can easily show how the standards applied to the bible can also be applied to the Quran, thus preventing us from discerning which is correct. “ If He creates beings, don't you think He would love them as if they were His own children?” How does Pro know that God created this universe with the intent of creating us as well? This is an unproven premise that, for example, Deists reject. Therefore this argument fails. “Christians don't claim that the numerous translations and copies are error-free, only that the original texts were inerrant. ” Unfortunately this claim cannot be confirmed. What we know as fact, however, allows us to doubt the texts, as none of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, at least 30 years after Jesus died, with many early church fathers being excommunicated or banished due to their support of books that contradicted the 4 Gospels. In light of these facts, it is still unreasonable for Atheists to believe that the bible is in any way accurate. “Not all scholars agree that the Torah was written that early. ” Daniel, the protagonist for the Book of Daniel, is accepted by Christian scholars to have existed around 6 th century BCE. Both Deut 31:26 and Josh 24:26 talks of a book of law, which does not make it a historical account, and 1 Sam 10:25 speaks of Samuel writing down the rights and duties of a king, not any historicity. So, we know it was compiled after 500 BC allowing for them to add or delete any inconsistencies, none of the examples you provided talk of the actual writing of the historical accounts, and they all, even if they did talk of the historicity of the Jews, confirm that they were written by Jews. Therefore my objection stands. “Time travelers cannot be used as evidence of fulfilled prophecies, especially since there is no proof time travel will ever be possible.” Exactly. There is no evidence that prophecies are necessarily revealed by God, just like there is no evidence that time travellers are not the source of the prophecy.. You do not have any evidence as to the source of the prophecy and therefore cannot claim the source to be God. “Jesus came through the bloodline of King David” The genealogy is through Joseph. Jesus was not Joseph's son therefore he cannot be of King Davids bloodline. Clearly an unfulfilled prophecy. “We do have eyewitness accounts of Jesus, such as Josephus (a Jewish historian) and Pliny the Younger.” Only to the existence of a man named Jesus, not the events in his life. Josephus only talks about the existence of Jesus and Pliny talks only of Christians. Nor is Josephus or Pliny, both born after Jesus died, eyewitnesses to anything. No one is saying that Jesus never existed or that Christians never existed. But none of this is confirmation as to the events of the bible itself. “What better way to prove the President lives in the White House than to look in the White House?” And if the president just happened to be away? If you saw a janitor living there, and called him the president, would your claim be valid? How would you be able to prove that the president was actually living there and not just visiting? The reason why we cannot simply use a single book to corroborate itself, has to do with confirming that the evidence is valid, and not simply asserting that the evidence is valid. Can we look at a Spiderman comic and conclude that Spiderman must have existed? According to Pro's criterion, yes, we could use the Comic book to prove the claims within the comic is true. Yet, clearly, this is not the case. The only way to confirm that the claim is true, is to use outside sources, because its a given that internal sources will confirm itself to be true. “The Gospels were eyewitness accounts of Jesus' ministry by people who either knew him or were acquainted with people who knew him.” Its not an eyewitness account, its hearsay. All of the gospels are anonymous, we have no signed copies. They were all written well after Jesus died. So, we have little to no idea who the authors are, they are not eyewitnesses and are only reporting hearsay, and they were all written after Jesus died. Hearsay evidence would not hold up in a court of law(1), let alone 30 year old hearsay evidence, therefore it is unreasonable for Atheists to accept. “Moses gave us the Law which had many things in it that were sinful, including a number of sexual sins. Even if some accepted it back then it was still wrong.” I am talking about the things that were acceptable, not sinful. One thing that was acceptable was the rape and forceful marriage of any woman from a town your army conquered, and this wasn;t just accepted by “Some”, it was accepted by the vast majority. Again, in light of this fact, my opponents argument fails, and once again, the natural explanation suffices. “Even if morals are simply "evolutionary" and not directly granted by God, you have shown no reason that God didn't simply direct the evolutionary process and use evolution to deliver our morality. ” This is still just an argument from ignorance(2). There is no evidence or reason that God didnt direct evolution. Therefore, God did direct evolution. “There wasn't anything preventing people 2,000 years ago from accessing this morality and many did.” God and Moses seemed unable to, as Deut 21:10 is Moses specifically allowing the forceful marriage and rape of women, a law which Moses claims God has passed down. Clearly many, many more did not. So, is God and Moses, immoral? Furthermore, let us ask Pro to name these moral giants. So, who, 2000 years ago, rejected the moral standard that Raping captives of war was wrong? Source: 1. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...	Religion	3	Atheists-are-not-logically-and-reasonably-justified-in-their-disbelief-of-a-Christian-God/1/	6,820
" The evidence that Muhammad possessed a truly supernatural gift of prophecy is lacking." My opponent has failed to actually read the website I provided which state the prophecies of the Quran. The website that I provided, talks specifically of Prophecies within the Quran regarding, for example, air traffic, or pollution(1). Since Pro has failed to address this and instead addressed an argument I did not make, therefore the objection against prophecies is valid. " Con has not offered any proof to show that there was, indeed, a singularity at the beginning of the universe" Con does not need to show proof, since Con is not claiming this to be true. However, the very possibility of a singularity, makes it unreasonable to accept a creator explanation unless Pro can show a reason why God would be more likely than all other possibilities. Pro has refused to answer my question regarding how he knows this to be impossible, and since he has not produced any arguments that show that God creating this universe must necessarily be more likely than all other possibilities, it is therefore unreasonable for Atheists. " I am stating that a Creator who created the universe is a much more reasonable explanation than a natural accident creating the universe" The reasoning behind this statement can be quoted by a previous argument that Pro has made: If there was a singularity at the very beginning of time which resulted in the big bang, it would have no reason to explode Again, the reasoning behind Pros argument is that since he cannot find a reason why, therefore his belief of a God is more likely. This is the very definition of an argument from ignorance.(2) "First, we know the universe had a beginning so it is not eternal." Again, Pro has ignored the fact that we do not know what came before the beginning of the universe, that would make the universe in some form or another, eternal. Without knowledge of this, we cannot claim that the beginning of this universe necessarily precludes it from being eternal. " Due to the law of causality, we know that nothing cannot produce something." The possibility of an eternal universe, and the inability of Pro to show that all other possibilities other than God is unreasonable without relying on a logical fallacy, dismisses this argument. " Where once the universe did not exist, a universe could not come into existence unless an outside Intelligence causes it to." Pro has, yet again, failed to address my previous argument. How does Pro know that the universe must have been created by an intelligence? All of pro's previous arguments failed with the fact that contradictory Gods and deities exist, and Pro cannot disprove them all, nor has his attempts at proving the Christian God, worked. Prophecies have failed, since the Quran has prophecies as well. The argument that the bible was written by many authors, has failed, since the book was compiled well after the first Jewish kingdom at the latest, and therefore subject to interpolation, exclusion of Apocryphal or contradictory texts much like the New testament. Also, since the Old testament is both accepted by Jews and Christians, this presents a contradiction of beliefs, as Jews do not accept Jesus as their Messiah. " a) there is more to life than what we see and feel around us" This, if true, does not necessarily point to a God. Pro has not made the connection, it is a non-sequitor to connect "There is something more to life" to "Therefore a God must exist". " b) there are good reasons for accepting belief in a supernatural Being" What are those good reasons? So far, Pro has stated several, which have all failed due to the fact that they apply to multiple religions and cannot be attributed to a single one, such as Prophecy, or rely on a logical fallacy such as a non-sequitor. "The world has been fine-tuned for our survival, and the universe around us (while much of it is hostile to human life)" This entire universe has been created by God, and therefore, the fact that only this solar system, consisting of less than .000000001% of the entire universe, is the only place that is not hostile to human life, is both counter-intuitive and a non-sequitor. Pro has failed to address this problem. Pro has also failed to address that the Fine tuning of this world is not actually fine-tuned at all, since we have already observed another planet in the Goldilocks zone. "The Gospels were, indeed, written by eyewitnesses" Again, all 4 gospels were of unknown authorship. It is only by church tradition that the authorship has been attributed to these 4.(3) The fact that both Matthew and Luke borrow so heavily from Mark, despite Pros claims that they were an eyewitness, shows that they would not have been an eyewitness, as there is no reason why an eyewitness to Jesus' life would have to borrow so heavily from another eyewitness. Since Mark was not an eyewitness himself, this makes his gospel, hearsay. The Gospel of John is, by many modern scholars, irreconcilable with the synoptic gospels. "Just because those particular accounts were not historical doesn't mean they weren't historically relevant." I agree, however, Pros argument used those as an example of how the written Torah had been compiled. Since none of the examples that Pro provided, were regarding the Torah, this essentially makes Pros argument of bringing up examples from the Old Testament to show that the writings were instantly added as canon, false, as they were not books that were added to canon. "However, being the legal son of Joseph, Jesus had a claim to David's throne." We are talking about the Bloodline of King David. This is exactly why many Christians tried to argue that Mary was also the descendant of King David. This is because, anything else would contradict the prophecies of 2 Sam 7:11 and 1 Chron 17:11 that King Davids seed would be the one to rule. A legally adopted son is not the seed, the bloodline of David. Therefore this argument fails. This is only compounded by the fact that both Luke and Matthew claim two different genealogies of Joseph, which is where we get our understanding that Joseph is the direct descendant of King David. " They are not considered inspired because they have some teachings that contradict Scripture." The fact that those early church fathers who supported different, heretical texts were excommunicated and exiled from the church, tells us of the unreliability of the New testament and its compilation. The fact that a group of men, chose, and subsequently voted on what would be considered the word of God and what would not, gives us reason to doubt the very voracity and accuracy of the new testament. So far, Pros arguments have failed. Pro has conceded his teleological arguments, granting my objections to be valid. Pro has been unable to address how he knows that the universe cannot be eternal, and instead relying on an argument of ignorance. The problem that encompasses Pros argument, can be summed up by a single quotation from pro: If you have a better explanation, please share. This is the problem. Con does not need to show that a better explanation exists. What is required, is for Pro to show why his explanation is necessarily better. Pro has the burden of Proof, not Con. This is true with the principle of causality, and this was also true with Pros argument of Morality, where Pro stated that even if Morality was naturally explained, this would still not prove that it came from God. Since Pro has the burden of proof to show why it is God, and not ask why it shouldn't be God or whether I have a better explanation other than God, I believe Pro has failed in his requirements regarding these arguments to show that Atheists are not reasonably and logically justified in disbelieving a God. I believe these cover all of the three initial arguments presented by Pro. Vote Con. Source: 1. <URL>... ... 2. <URL>... ... 3. <URL>...	tkubok	“ The evidence that Muhammad possessed a truly supernatural gift of prophecy is lacking.” My opponent has failed to actually read the website I provided which state the prophecies of the Quran. The website that I provided, talks specifically of Prophecies within the Quran regarding, for example, air traffic, or pollution(1). Since Pro has failed to address this and instead addressed an argument I did not make, therefore the objection against prophecies is valid. “ Con has not offered any proof to show that there was, indeed, a singularity at the beginning of the universe” Con does not need to show proof, since Con is not claiming this to be true. However, the very possibility of a singularity, makes it unreasonable to accept a creator explanation unless Pro can show a reason why God would be more likely than all other possibilities. Pro has refused to answer my question regarding how he knows this to be impossible, and since he has not produced any arguments that show that God creating this universe must necessarily be more likely than all other possibilities, it is therefore unreasonable for Atheists. “ I am stating that a Creator who created the universe is a much more reasonable explanation than a natural accident creating the universe” The reasoning behind this statement can be quoted by a previous argument that Pro has made: If there was a singularity at the very beginning of time which resulted in the big bang, it would have no reason to explode Again, the reasoning behind Pros argument is that since he cannot find a reason why, therefore his belief of a God is more likely. This is the very definition of an argument from ignorance.(2) “First, we know the universe had a beginning so it is not eternal.” Again, Pro has ignored the fact that we do not know what came before the beginning of the universe, that would make the universe in some form or another, eternal. Without knowledge of this, we cannot claim that the beginning of this universe necessarily precludes it from being eternal. “ Due to the law of causality, we know that nothing cannot produce something.” The possibility of an eternal universe, and the inability of Pro to show that all other possibilities other than God is unreasonable without relying on a logical fallacy, dismisses this argument. “ Where once the universe did not exist, a universe could not come into existence unless an outside Intelligence causes it to.” Pro has, yet again, failed to address my previous argument. How does Pro know that the universe must have been created by an intelligence? All of pro's previous arguments failed with the fact that contradictory Gods and deities exist, and Pro cannot disprove them all, nor has his attempts at proving the Christian God, worked. Prophecies have failed, since the Quran has prophecies as well. The argument that the bible was written by many authors, has failed, since the book was compiled well after the first Jewish kingdom at the latest, and therefore subject to interpolation, exclusion of Apocryphal or contradictory texts much like the New testament. Also, since the Old testament is both accepted by Jews and Christians, this presents a contradiction of beliefs, as Jews do not accept Jesus as their Messiah. “ a) there is more to life than what we see and feel around us” This, if true, does not necessarily point to a God. Pro has not made the connection, it is a non-sequitor to connect “There is something more to life” to “Therefore a God must exist”. “ b) there are good reasons for accepting belief in a supernatural Being” What are those good reasons? So far, Pro has stated several, which have all failed due to the fact that they apply to multiple religions and cannot be attributed to a single one, such as Prophecy, or rely on a logical fallacy such as a non-sequitor. “The world has been fine-tuned for our survival, and the universe around us (while much of it is hostile to human life)” This entire universe has been created by God, and therefore, the fact that only this solar system, consisting of less than .000000001% of the entire universe, is the only place that is not hostile to human life, is both counter-intuitive and a non-sequitor. Pro has failed to address this problem. Pro has also failed to address that the Fine tuning of this world is not actually fine-tuned at all, since we have already observed another planet in the Goldilocks zone. “The Gospels were, indeed, written by eyewitnesses” Again, all 4 gospels were of unknown authorship. It is only by church tradition that the authorship has been attributed to these 4.(3) The fact that both Matthew and Luke borrow so heavily from Mark, despite Pros claims that they were an eyewitness, shows that they would not have been an eyewitness, as there is no reason why an eyewitness to Jesus' life would have to borrow so heavily from another eyewitness. Since Mark was not an eyewitness himself, this makes his gospel, hearsay. The Gospel of John is, by many modern scholars, irreconcilable with the synoptic gospels. “Just because those particular accounts were not historical doesn't mean they weren't historically relevant.” I agree, however, Pros argument used those as an example of how the written Torah had been compiled. Since none of the examples that Pro provided, were regarding the Torah, this essentially makes Pros argument of bringing up examples from the Old Testament to show that the writings were instantly added as canon, false, as they were not books that were added to canon. “However, being the legal son of Joseph, Jesus had a claim to David's throne.” We are talking about the Bloodline of King David. This is exactly why many Christians tried to argue that Mary was also the descendant of King David. This is because, anything else would contradict the prophecies of 2 Sam 7:11 and 1 Chron 17:11 that King Davids seed would be the one to rule. A legally adopted son is not the seed, the bloodline of David. Therefore this argument fails. This is only compounded by the fact that both Luke and Matthew claim two different genealogies of Joseph, which is where we get our understanding that Joseph is the direct descendant of King David. “ They are not considered inspired because they have some teachings that contradict Scripture.” The fact that those early church fathers who supported different, heretical texts were excommunicated and exiled from the church, tells us of the unreliability of the New testament and its compilation. The fact that a group of men, chose, and subsequently voted on what would be considered the word of God and what would not, gives us reason to doubt the very voracity and accuracy of the new testament. So far, Pros arguments have failed. Pro has conceded his teleological arguments, granting my objections to be valid. Pro has been unable to address how he knows that the universe cannot be eternal, and instead relying on an argument of ignorance. The problem that encompasses Pros argument, can be summed up by a single quotation from pro: If you have a better explanation, please share. This is the problem. Con does not need to show that a better explanation exists. What is required, is for Pro to show why his explanation is necessarily better. Pro has the burden of Proof, not Con. This is true with the principle of causality, and this was also true with Pros argument of Morality, where Pro stated that even if Morality was naturally explained, this would still not prove that it came from God. Since Pro has the burden of proof to show why it is God, and not ask why it shouldn't be God or whether I have a better explanation other than God, I believe Pro has failed in his requirements regarding these arguments to show that Atheists are not reasonably and logically justified in disbelieving a God. I believe these cover all of the three initial arguments presented by Pro. Vote Con. Source: 1. http://www.alislam.org... ... 2. http://www.fallacyfiles.org... ... 3. http://www.twopaths.com...	Religion	4	Atheists-are-not-logically-and-reasonably-justified-in-their-disbelief-of-a-Christian-God/1/	6,821
The definition of Atheist is limited to the Meriman Webster definition. "A" meaning no, and "theist" meaning believer in God, and Atheist is one who believes there is no God and Meriman Webster Dictionary clearly supports this definition. Since Pascal's Wager implies God is there or may be there to pay off on wagering that He is or may be there, you cannot play Pascal's Wager as an atheist, as an atheist believes there is nobody to pay off the bet and therefore nothing to be won by playing Pascal's Wager. Give a bit of a sample argument in the comments before I allow you to accept this challenge. I don't want another battle over definitions. Plain English only please, if you need a dictionary to define "won", you are not qualified for this debate.	LifeMeansGodIsGood	The definition of Atheist is limited to the Meriman Webster definition. "A" meaning no, and "theist" meaning believer in God, and Atheist is one who believes there is no God and Meriman Webster Dictionary clearly supports this definition. Since Pascal's Wager implies God is there or may be there to pay off on wagering that He is or may be there, you cannot play Pascal's Wager as an atheist, as an atheist believes there is nobody to pay off the bet and therefore nothing to be won by playing Pascal's Wager. Give a bit of a sample argument in the comments before I allow you to accept this challenge. I don't want another battle over definitions. Plain English only please, if you need a dictionary to define "won", you are not qualified for this debate.	Philosophy	0	Atheists-believe-there-is-no-God-so-there-is-no-way-for-them-that-Pascals-Wager-can-be-won./1/	6,822
Atheism says there is no God. Where are the atheists now, all the ones who have so boldly stated on DDO that there is no God? Pascal's Wager implies God is or may be there so it is best to live your life in respect of the possibility that He is there and you don't want Him to be angry with you. Atheism asserts that there is no God, so there is no way possible an ahteist can win in Pascal's Wager, and there is no reason for an atheist to even take Pascal's Wager seriously as any kind of guidance of advice on how to conduct their lives. I didn't know this debate would become nothing but repeated attempts by my opponent to change the meaning of atheist. Do atheists no longer understand the roots of words and their meanings? "Pathy" means "feelings" . "Apathy" means "no feelings" "Theos" means "God" "Atheos" meanst "no God" "Atheist" is a person who says there is no God. For an atheist, there is nobody to pay off in Pascal's Wager and no reason to bet.	LifeMeansGodIsGood	Atheism says there is no God. Where are the atheists now, all the ones who have so boldly stated on DDO that there is no God? Pascal's Wager implies God is or may be there so it is best to live your life in respect of the possibility that He is there and you don't want Him to be angry with you. Atheism asserts that there is no God, so there is no way possible an ahteist can win in Pascal's Wager, and there is no reason for an atheist to even take Pascal's Wager seriously as any kind of guidance of advice on how to conduct their lives. I didn't know this debate would become nothing but repeated attempts by my opponent to change the meaning of atheist. Do atheists no longer understand the roots of words and their meanings? "Pathy" means "feelings" . "Apathy" means "no feelings" "Theos" means "God" "Atheos" meanst "no God" "Atheist" is a person who says there is no God. For an atheist, there is nobody to pay off in Pascal's Wager and no reason to bet.	Philosophy	1	Atheists-believe-there-is-no-God-so-there-is-no-way-for-them-that-Pascals-Wager-can-be-won./1/	6,823
The wager cannot be won by an atheist because an atheist believes there is no God to pay off on the wager. Pascal's Wager requires the belief that God is there of that He may be there. Atheists believe there is no God. Atheists cannot play the wager and remain atheists, and they can't win the wager according to their own beliefs as they deny that God is there with no possibility that He is there. I don't know what you are talking about in your arguments, how am I supposed to respond to something that seems incoherent? The debate is not about sin or who is exempt from sin, and it is not about throwing stones. The topic of the debate is Atheists believe there is no God, so it is not possible for them to win in Pascal's Wager. Sin and throwing stones has nothing to do with it. I really don't know what you were trying to say, I could not make sense out of it.	LifeMeansGodIsGood	The wager cannot be won by an atheist because an atheist believes there is no God to pay off on the wager. Pascal's Wager requires the belief that God is there of that He may be there. Atheists believe there is no God. Atheists cannot play the wager and remain atheists, and they can't win the wager according to their own beliefs as they deny that God is there with no possibility that He is there. I don't know what you are talking about in your arguments, how am I supposed to respond to something that seems incoherent? The debate is not about sin or who is exempt from sin, and it is not about throwing stones. The topic of the debate is Atheists believe there is no God, so it is not possible for them to win in Pascal's Wager. Sin and throwing stones has nothing to do with it. I really don't know what you were trying to say, I could not make sense out of it.	Philosophy	2	Atheists-believe-there-is-no-God-so-there-is-no-way-for-them-that-Pascals-Wager-can-be-won./1/	6,824
The only payoff from God that anybody gets is death for our sins. That is the only payoff we have earned, and we can't earn anything better. There is no way for anybody to win in Pascal's Wager. You either have eternal life now and heaven is your home or you have eternal death and you lose your soul and everything is lost in the fire of Hell. You are fooling yourself if you think that you or anybody else can win anything in a Wager concerning God.	LifeMeansGodIsGood	The only payoff from God that anybody gets is death for our sins. That is the only payoff we have earned, and we can't earn anything better. There is no way for anybody to win in Pascal's Wager. You either have eternal life now and heaven is your home or you have eternal death and you lose your soul and everything is lost in the fire of Hell. You are fooling yourself if you think that you or anybody else can win anything in a Wager concerning God.	Philosophy	3	Atheists-believe-there-is-no-God-so-there-is-no-way-for-them-that-Pascals-Wager-can-be-won./1/	6,825
Vote Placed by YamaVonKarma 2 days ago LifeMeansGodIsGood medv4380 Tied Agreed with before the debate: - - 0 points Agreed with after the debate: - - 0 points Made more convincing arguments: - - 3 points Total points awarded: 3 1 Reasons for voting decision: "If an atheist places a chip against God, the atheist is saying God is there to place a chip against and is no longer an atheist " Con (LifeMeansGodIsGood) won with this statement. Bizzare logic like my opponent's is tiring for me to try to understand, but I think muddled through enough to see he is trying to prove that an athesit is exempt from sin. So I guess he is saying that no matter how many whorish women an atheist vistis, no matter how many virtuous women an atheist rapes, no matter how many people an atheist kills (and some atheists do things like this, if one atheist is exempt from sin, then all must be), the atheist goes to heaven free from sin? Comeon, give me a break.	LifeMeansGodIsGood	Vote Placed by YamaVonKarma 2 days ago LifeMeansGodIsGood medv4380 Tied Agreed with before the debate: - - 0 points Agreed with after the debate: - - 0 points Made more convincing arguments: - - 3 points Total points awarded: 3 1 Reasons for voting decision: "If an atheist places a chip against God, the atheist is saying God is there to place a chip against and is no longer an atheist " Con (LifeMeansGodIsGood) won with this statement. Bizzare logic like my opponent's is tiring for me to try to understand, but I think muddled through enough to see he is trying to prove that an athesit is exempt from sin. So I guess he is saying that no matter how many whorish women an atheist vistis, no matter how many virtuous women an atheist rapes, no matter how many people an atheist kills (and some atheists do things like this, if one atheist is exempt from sin, then all must be), the atheist goes to heaven free from sin? Comeon, give me a break.	Philosophy	4	Atheists-believe-there-is-no-God-so-there-is-no-way-for-them-that-Pascals-Wager-can-be-won./1/	6,826
I gladly accept the debate and shall proceed to negate the arguments put forward by LMGIG, My opponent insists on using the definition of the word "athiest" from the Merriam webster dictionanary, In such the word atheist is defined as a disbelief in God and A critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God. <URL>... Even using this highly contreversal definiton, I still believe LMGIG has a very weak case against atheists who can not win Pascals wager. and I shall proceed to show you why. Pascasls wager in short is as follows. Believe in this case the Christian God and you gain eternal life in heaven, dis-believe in God and you lose the oppurtunity to gain a place in heaven. Blaise Pascal could be wrong, God may exist and yet still reward atheists although they have not believed in him, John 9 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. KJV Character limiit	johnlubba	I gladly accept the debate and shall proceed to negate the arguments put forward by LMGIG, My opponent insists on using the definition of the word "athiest" from the Merriam webster dictionanary, In such the word atheist is defined as a disbelief in God and A critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Even using this highly contreversal definiton, I still believe LMGIG has a very weak case against atheists who can not win Pascals wager. and I shall proceed to show you why. Pascasls wager in short is as follows. Believe in this case the Christian God and you gain eternal life in heaven, dis-believe in God and you lose the oppurtunity to gain a place in heaven. Blaise Pascal could be wrong, God may exist and yet still reward atheists although they have not believed in him, John 9 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. KJV Character limiit	Philosophy	0	Atheists-believe-there-is-no-God-so-there-is-no-way-for-them-that-Pascals-Wager-can-be-won./1/	6,827
Notice my opponent did not attack the biblical quote I provided as a rebuttal to Atheists who can not win Pascal wager, This argument is dropped The quote makes a reference to those who are spiritually blind and indicates they are exempt from sin simply because they are unable to notice that God exists, An atheist may deny God exists simply because he does not see good enough reason to believe in Him and therefore lacks a belief in God, but this dis-belief is honest not dis-honest, so therefore he has no sin for dis-believing or rejecting the idea of God. It is those who have experienced God in their lives who are subject to losing the wager because they have seen by way of experience somehow that God exists, then if they choose to reject God they are subject to losing the wager. John 9 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. KJV The above quote exempts true atheists from sin if God exists.	johnlubba	Notice my opponent did not attack the biblical quote I provided as a rebuttal to Atheists who can not win Pascal wager, This argument is dropped The quote makes a reference to those who are spiritually blind and indicates they are exempt from sin simply because they are unable to notice that God exists, An atheist may deny God exists simply because he does not see good enough reason to believe in Him and therefore lacks a belief in God, but this dis-belief is honest not dis-honest, so therefore he has no sin for dis-believing or rejecting the idea of God. It is those who have experienced God in their lives who are subject to losing the wager because they have seen by way of experience somehow that God exists, then if they choose to reject God they are subject to losing the wager. John 9 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. KJV The above quote exempts true atheists from sin if God exists.	Philosophy	1	Atheists-believe-there-is-no-God-so-there-is-no-way-for-them-that-Pascals-Wager-can-be-won./1/	6,828
LMGIG Argument is flawed by claiming that because an atheist lacks a belief in God that there isn't a God to pay atheists off But this doesn't have do be the case, Just because atheists don't believe in God it doesn't mean God doesn't exist, the same applies to a theist, just because a theist believes God exists it doesn't mean God has to exist, God may or may not exist but His existence is not dependant on our belief system. Therefore even if an atheist denies that God exists simply because he see's no reason to accept such belief, it doesn't mean he can not win Pascal's wager, Moreover an atheist who sincerely believes God does not exist has every chance of being exempt from sin, which is the qualification to enter the kingdom of God. It is those who have experienced God and hold strong beliefs in Gods existence who are most likely to lose the wager, because once they have such experience and then reject God their sin remains. Thus an atheist has more chance of winning the wager	johnlubba	LMGIG Argument is flawed by claiming that because an atheist lacks a belief in God that there isn't a God to pay atheists off But this doesn't have do be the case, Just because atheists don't believe in God it doesn't mean God doesn't exist, the same applies to a theist, just because a theist believes God exists it doesn't mean God has to exist, God may or may not exist but His existence is not dependant on our belief system. Therefore even if an atheist denies that God exists simply because he see's no reason to accept such belief, it doesn't mean he can not win Pascal's wager, Moreover an atheist who sincerely believes God does not exist has every chance of being exempt from sin, which is the qualification to enter the kingdom of God. It is those who have experienced God and hold strong beliefs in Gods existence who are most likely to lose the wager, because once they have such experience and then reject God their sin remains. Thus an atheist has more chance of winning the wager	Philosophy	2	Atheists-believe-there-is-no-God-so-there-is-no-way-for-them-that-Pascals-Wager-can-be-won./1/	6,829
If God exists then the reward for the wager is eternal life in the kingdom of heaven, It is not necessary for an atheist to even be conscious of the wager or even of God to win the reward, If God exists then an atheist is able to enter the kingdom of heaven, simply by default, this is because an athiest is exmept from sin if he has not seen any evidence to believe in God, it is the believers who are most likely to lose the wager, because they claim to know God exists and this makes them subject to sin if they then reject God in their lives. an atheist on the other hand does not claim to know God, see God or have evidence for God, thus he is emempt from being guilty of rejecting God and therefore has no sin. Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. John 9 41 KJV Jesus is refering to blindness to those who had no means of knowing God therefore they are without sin. <URL>...	johnlubba	If God exists then the reward for the wager is eternal life in the kingdom of heaven, It is not necessary for an atheist to even be conscious of the wager or even of God to win the reward, If God exists then an atheist is able to enter the kingdom of heaven, simply by default, this is because an athiest is exmept from sin if he has not seen any evidence to believe in God, it is the believers who are most likely to lose the wager, because they claim to know God exists and this makes them subject to sin if they then reject God in their lives. an atheist on the other hand does not claim to know God, see God or have evidence for God, thus he is emempt from being guilty of rejecting God and therefore has no sin. Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. John 9 41 KJV Jesus is refering to blindness to those who had no means of knowing God therefore they are without sin. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...	Philosophy	3	Atheists-believe-there-is-no-God-so-there-is-no-way-for-them-that-Pascals-Wager-can-be-won./1/	6,830
LMGIG Has severly misconstrued the debate topic and that is if an atheist is able to enter the kingdom of God, simply because he is an atheist, I gave reason that shows an atheist, who is somebody who simply lacks a belief in God is able to be exempt from sin simply because he see's no good reason or evidence to believe God exists. I do not have to defend why a rapist or a killer can not win the wager. I only have to defend why an atheist can win the wager, and I have done this by showing that those who can not see God and find no genuine reason to believe in God in all sincerity, then he has no sin in this regard, because he simply does not see that God exists. But those who claim to have seen the light and claim to have experienced God are subject to lose the wager if they live thier lives not according to Gods way. The resolution has been negated and furthermore my arguements dropped. Vote Con	johnlubba	LMGIG Has severly misconstrued the debate topic and that is if an atheist is able to enter the kingdom of God, simply because he is an atheist, I gave reason that shows an atheist, who is somebody who simply lacks a belief in God is able to be exempt from sin simply because he see's no good reason or evidence to believe God exists. I do not have to defend why a rapist or a killer can not win the wager. I only have to defend why an atheist can win the wager, and I have done this by showing that those who can not see God and find no genuine reason to believe in God in all sincerity, then he has no sin in this regard, because he simply does not see that God exists. But those who claim to have seen the light and claim to have experienced God are subject to lose the wager if they live thier lives not according to Gods way. The resolution has been negated and furthermore my arguements dropped. Vote Con	Philosophy	4	Atheists-believe-there-is-no-God-so-there-is-no-way-for-them-that-Pascals-Wager-can-be-won./1/	6,831
Hello i'm surprised you wasted your time and put all of that stuff down because it is obvious you didn't check your sources 1. Atheists have no morals that is false as some atheist may have no morals but i am an atheist and i have morals, like not being mean to people or killing animals and just because they don't believe a higher power will punish them doesn't mean they cant have morals. Also i don't eat babies so that is off now 2. Evolution is false it is here hat i think you did not review your sources the atheistic worldview is based primarily on evolution as an alternative for a recent creation. That is wrong my world view is not based primarily based on evolution nor is any of my atheist friends and even if i did it would not be for an alternative for a recent creation. Evolution is a theory that states that the universe came from nowhere. No it isn't it is a theory that states living things can change over time to better fit their environment and live longer. nothing turned into the solar system through random chance. though it was chance it did not come from nothing it came from a large celestial body called a nebula which came from a star which exploded and eventually the gases that were left condensed due to gravity Then, the Earth formed and life spontaneously appeared out of rocks. Nope it is stated life came from water anyways and not spontaneously Then, the rock-monster turned into plants and animals i don't even understand this rock-monster turned into plants and animals more of the fact the rock monster as i have never heard of the rock monster theory then whales came out of the ocean and became cows i doubt that whales just came out of the ocean monkeys turned into people, again through random chance. Nope Monkeys are less related to a human than a chimp and humans did not come from monkeys. The orgigin was handy man (Homo Habilis ) 100% of the instances caught on telescope are lies made up by the NASA as a part of a cover-up. A cover up of what and what source did you get this from Also, peanut butter. If evolution is true, then life should be able to spontaneously form in peanut butter. Peanut butter is made from a peanut once a peanut is picked off a peanut plant it is no longer alive only alive things can evolve. also it takes if thousands of years to evolve Belief in atheism will destroy us all! Well atheism hasn't started as many wars as any other religion	ebob1234	Hello i'm surprised you wasted your time and put all of that stuff down because it is obvious you didn't check your sources 1. Atheists have no morals that is false as some atheist may have no morals but i am an atheist and i have morals, like not being mean to people or killing animals and just because they don't believe a higher power will punish them doesn't mean they cant have morals. Also i don't eat babies so that is off now 2. Evolution is false it is here hat i think you did not review your sources the atheistic worldview is based primarily on evolution as an alternative for a recent creation. That is wrong my world view is not based primarily based on evolution nor is any of my atheist friends and even if i did it would not be for an alternative for a recent creation. Evolution is a theory that states that the universe came from nowhere. No it isn't it is a theory that states living things can change over time to better fit their environment and live longer. nothing turned into the solar system through random chance. though it was chance it did not come from nothing it came from a large celestial body called a nebula which came from a star which exploded and eventually the gases that were left condensed due to gravity Then, the Earth formed and life spontaneously appeared out of rocks. Nope it is stated life came from water anyways and not spontaneously Then, the rock-monster turned into plants and animals i don't even understand this rock-monster turned into plants and animals more of the fact the rock monster as i have never heard of the rock monster theory then whales came out of the ocean and became cows i doubt that whales just came out of the ocean monkeys turned into people, again through random chance. Nope Monkeys are less related to a human than a chimp and humans did not come from monkeys. The orgigin was handy man (Homo Habilis ) 100% of the instances caught on telescope are lies made up by the NASA as a part of a cover-up. A cover up of what and what source did you get this from Also, peanut butter. If evolution is true, then life should be able to spontaneously form in peanut butter. Peanut butter is made from a peanut once a peanut is picked off a peanut plant it is no longer alive only alive things can evolve. also it takes if thousands of years to evolve Belief in atheism will destroy us all! Well atheism hasn't started as many wars as any other religion	Religion	0	Athiesm-is-false/1/	6,876
My opponent has provided no evidence atheism is evil and only keeps supplying stuff on evolution which the title states Athiesm( spelled atheism wrong) is false. Atheism is not the belief of evolution it is the belief of no god so stop supplying things with evolution Josef Stalin even started the cold war The cold war was not a real war as there was no fighting between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and many other dictators were atheist All power hungry leaders Most atheist aren't dictator's with supreme control over people and power hungry	ebob1234	My opponent has provided no evidence atheism is evil and only keeps supplying stuff on evolution which the title states Athiesm( spelled atheism wrong) is false. Atheism is not the belief of evolution it is the belief of no god so stop supplying things with evolution Josef Stalin even started the cold war The cold war was not a real war as there was no fighting between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and many other dictators were atheist All power hungry leaders Most atheist aren't dictator's with supreme control over people and power hungry	Religion	1	Athiesm-is-false/1/	6,877