BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will go to hell if I murdered 12 people

Does it really matter where Hell might be? "It is simply a place where sinners' souls go to suffer everlasting punishment." You have to prove that souls physically exist... which they do not. Souls do not exist of matter, so they do not physically exist, which would mean people do not have souls and then would not go to heaven or hell. Unless you can prove that souls have matter, I win this debate. You must have forgotten that you also have the burden of proof as well. More importantly, you have not tried to negate me when I said that Hell also does not physically exist. "we have not yet penetrated the earth's crust, the outer most layer, so we cannot say, with absolute certanty, that it does not exist within the earth, therefore you have yet to meet your burden of proof." Really? If nobody has penetrated Earth's crust, then that means nobody knows where hell is. Then, how would we know if it exists if nobody knows where it is? Surely if someone saw Hell, then we would know where it is... OH! But wait, Hell doesn't physically exist anyway. "I also object to your definition of real. How about simply existing." Sorry, but those two terms are not interchangeable. The statement was, "I will not go to hell when I die because hell is not real." I agree that hell exists, but it is not real. You got a better definition of real? "something does not need to be a physical entity to be real. for example logical absolutes are real, the laws of physics are real, the number 2 is real." So? Your point? Find me a definition that says Hell is real. Here's a starting point: http://www.merriam-webster.com... "I don't understand what you meant in the last part of your definition ' having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard'" It doesn't matter since Hell is not a physical entity. "but i think we can agree that if something exists, it is real." Okay, prove it. Like I said, exist & real are not the same words. How can I go to hell if I do not have a physical soul and Hell does not physically exist? Because of this, it also means that Hell is simply imaginary, and people do not go to Hell or Heaven because they just don't physically exist. When you die, you die. You don't go to Heaven, you don't go to Hell. Your brain is dead, all your thoughts and memories are gone. Thus, I will not go to hell if I murder people, because Hell does not physically exist. Unless my Opponent can prove that sinner's souls physically exist, he cannot make a case for himself.
I will go to hell if I murdered 12 people

I disagree with your definition of hell as under earths surface. It is simply a place where sinners' souls go to suffer everlasting punishment. It might be under earths surface, or it might be outside of the natural universe (like god). Also, accepting your definition, you would still need to prove that hell does not exist within earth, this would mean you need to check every-location at every depth at the same time (it might move to trick us). we have not yet penetrated the earth's crust, the outer most layer, so we cannot say, with absolute certanty, that it does not exist within the earth, therefore you have yet to meet your burden of proof. I also object to your definition of real. How about simply existing. something does not need to be a physical entity to be real. for example logical absolutes are real, the laws of physics are real, the number 2 is real. I don't understand what you meant in the last part of your definition " having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard", but i think we can agree that if something exists, it is real.
I will go to hell if I murdered 12 people

Sorry, I must have ignored your previous post. Thank you for pointing that out. Please excuse my occasional ignorance. Definitions: Hell - (Christianity) the abode of Satan and the forces of evil; where sinners suffer eternal punishment - a nether world in which the dead continue to exist - the nether realm of the devil and the demons in which the damned suffer everlasting punishment Abode - the place where one abides Nether - situated or believed to be situated beneath the earth's surface Realm - a primary marine or terrestrial bio-geographic division of the earth's surface Sin - transgression of the law of God By using these definitions, we can say that hell is a place of Satan where people who violate the law of God go to suffer eternal punishment beneath the earth's surface. By using the definition of realm, we can say that hell is a physical feature on Earth since the definition states it is a bio-geographical division of the earth's surface. Since it is physical (having material existence, perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature), then we must be able to find out where Hell is and be able to see it with our own eyes, or through other senses to know for sure that Hell does exist. Definitions: Satan - the angel who in Jewish belief is commanded by God to tempt humans to sin, to accuse the sinners, and to carry out God's punishment - the rebellious angel who in Christian belief is the adversary of God and lord of evil Angel - an attendant spirit or guardian Spirit - a supernatural being or essence Supernatural - of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil Visible - capable of being seen - capable of being discovered or perceived Perceive - to become aware of through the senses From these definitions, we can say that Satan is not visible since he is supernatural. Since he is not visible, he is not capable of being discovered or perceived. Thus, his abode, Hell, is not capable of being discovered or perceived either. Thus, it is impossible to know if Hell is real since we will never be able to discover it. However, this contradicts the statement that Hell is a physical place, since something that is physical has to be perceptible to the senses, when now we know that Hell is indeed not capable of being perceived since we can't become aware of it through the senses. Definitions: Real - existing as a physical entity and having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard Hell is not physical, so it does not exist as a physical entity, even though Hell exists in the minds of the people, it is just simply not real. If somehow I wanted to, I cannot go to Hell even if I murdered 12 people simply because Hell is not real. Good luck Pro.
I will go to hell if I murdered 12 people

Con seems to have ignored my previous post where i demonstrated that he has the burden to prove that hell is not real. While i agree that we are not justified in believing it due to lack of evidence, con's statement, "hell is not real", is a positive statement and it therefore is his burden to prove that hell is not real. if is statement had been something like 'i am not justified in believing hell is real' than he would be correct.
I will go to hell if I murdered 12 people

Thank you for accepting this argument. If I will go to hell, we need to know if hell is real. I have never seen hell, nor has anyone proven to me that it does exist. There is not any evidence that proves it does exist. How do you go to hell? Your body dies, but has anyone ever proved that you have a "spirit" or a "soul"? If your spirit or soul supposedly goes to hell while you leave your dead body behind, then I will not go to hell because there is not any evidence that proves you have a soul or spirit. Please explain to me why I will go to hell if I murdered 12 people, when there is not any evidence that shows I will.
I will go to hell if I murdered 12 people

Lets just say, I murdered 12 people.. but with my favorite aluminum bat, never got caught and went on killing at least 40 more people before I died of a heart attack. I will not go to hell when I die because hell is not real. When I refer to hell, I refer it to the place where people think they go and get punished in the afterlife, not that town in Mexico.
A Ninja could defeat a Samurai in a fight

Words in all caps are that way for emphasis. ~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~ ///Ninjas did wear light armour, while not as protective as Samurai armour it could possibly protect from a slash. This armour still allowed movement/// I think my opponent is underestimating the speed of a samurai, see [1]. While a samurai may not be as fast as a lightly armored ninja they did have a sword that is specifically designed for CUTTING METAL and fighting UNARMORED/LIGHTLY ARMORED opponents [4]. For those voters that may consider this a new argument, this weapon is referenced in my source [2]. ~ ///Samurai's did have longbows that was likely better at piercing than a blow dart it could be avoided by a Ninja since they specialized in evasion. /// Nowhere in that source does it say that a ninja could dodge an arrow, though I do admit that it is a possibility as no matter what you're shooting with hitting moving targets is difficult. In addition to having more piercing power than a blow dart, the arrows fired from a Yumi move at speeds which I would not hesitate to call exponentially faster than that of a fired blow dart. ~ ///Samurai's wore armour that could slow them down so if they were moving it wouldn't be very fast and Ninjas of course trained in these and could take any wind into effect if it wasn't too bad. And if the dart hits that would kill in a short amount of time. /// My opponent is again underestimating the speed of a samurai, and I can not believe that my opponent is still sticking to the blow dart contention. Here are the spots where a poisoned dart would need to hit a samurai to do ANYTHING at all [5]. I find it unlikely that this would happen. ~ ///Ninjas were trained for alot of their lives as well. .. /// I never disputed this, it was my contention that samurai train pretty much ONLY in DIRECT COMBAT, whereas direct combat is only a facet of the ninja's training which includes heavy emphasis on covert tactics. See my source [3]. ~ ///Which was essentially two blades tied together with a chain which was not only scary but could severly damage any [>>>EXPOSED<<<] areas especially the neck & disarm. /// Does anywhere on this soldier look particularly exposed [5]? ~ With that I conclude my arguments and strongly urge a Con vote [4] Video . http://www.youtube.com... [5] . http://i42.tinypic.com...
A Ninja could defeat a Samurai in a fight

Thanks for responding. "Being fast means nothing if you are unable to effectively kill/disable your opponent. " Ninjas did wear light armour, while not as protective as Samurai armour it could possibly protect from a slash. This armour still allowed movement source: . http://en.wikipedia.org... "If you take a closer look at my sources you will see that samurai had a variety of weapons from short to long range. Specifically a special type of longbow. " Samurai's did have longbows that was likely better at piercing than a blow dart it could be avoided by a Ninja since they specialized in evasion. Same source. "I also believe that my opponent is overestimating the accuracy of a blow-gun against a moving opponent. " Samurai's wore armour that could slow them down so if they were moving it wouldn't be very fast and Ninjas of course trained in these and could take any wind into effect if it wasn't too bad. And if the dart hits that would kill in a short amount of time. "while they may have been trained for direct combat it was not their speciality. " Ninjas were trained for alot of their lives as well. In that training they learned evasion and physical skills to help in direct fights infact alot of this training involved help in direct combat which included skills in. Sword skills,pyrotechnics&explosives and throwing weapons techniques. Blowdarts were not the Ninjas only ranged weapons they also had another ranged weapon. Which was essentially two blades tied together with a chain which was not only scary but could severly damage any exposed areas especially the neck & disarm. sources:. http://en.wikipedia.org...
A Ninja could defeat a Samurai in a fight

~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~ ///About armour, while Samurai's did have armor that gives him an advantage however, Ninjas lack of armor made them much quicker so, a Samurai could take more punishment than a Ninja. Speed is also a big advantage. /// Being fast means nothing if you are unable to effectively kill/disable your opponent. ~ ///About weapons, a Samurai was mostly a Sword fighter. .. /// If you take a closer look at my sources you will see that samurai had a variety of weapons from short to long range. Specifically a special type of longbow. I also believe that my opponent is overestimating the accuracy of a blow-gun against a moving opponent. He should source this so-called accuracy. ~ ///Training, Samurai's did have code's of honor, long periods of training Ninjas had long periods of training as well, which was physical and mental so training wise, they are likely equal. /// My source for information about ninjas claims that a ninja's training focuses mostly on covert tactics and stealth attacks, while they may have been trained for direct combat it was not their speciality whereas a samurai would have been training in direct combat for a majority of his life. ~ I await my opponent's response.
A Ninja could defeat a Samurai in a fight

Thanks for taking the debate. About armour, while Samurai's did have armor that gives him an advantage however, Ninjas lack of armor made them much quicker so, a Samurai could take more punishment than a Ninja. Speed is also a big advantage. About weapons, a Samurai was mostly a Sword fighter. Which meant shorter range than what Ninjas had which was blow darts and black power to throw into a Samurai's eyes which meant a ninjas could stab or cut a Samurai in any exposed areas while the Samurai was blind. Blow darts were also a huge ranged weapon advantage as they were light and poisonous so if a Samurai was hit that would kill in a short amount of time. No Sources. Training, Samurai's did have code's of honor, long periods of training Ninjas had long periods of training as well, which was physical and mental so training wise, they are likely equal.
A Ninja could defeat a Samurai in a fight

Here are a few clarifications to begin: 1. ) I have no doubt that a ninja could easily kill a samurai using stealth techniques. 2. ) With that said it isn't really a fight if I am unaware of my participation. Fight - the act of fighting; any CONTEST or struggle . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... 3. ) If I were to come up behind you and snap your neck; killing you. I do not think that the interaction between us could be classified as a fight. 4. ) Therefore, it is my contention that in a fight a samurai would emerge victorious. ~ Contention 1 Armor Samurai had armor and ninja did not. This alone gives them a HUGE advantage. This armor also covered most of their entire body leaving very little exposed [1]. The ninja had few weapons that were capable of penetrating this armor and hitting a moving target on a small exposed area would prove difficult. ~ Contention 2 Training Samurai were born into their roles. They trained their entire lives for direct combat and were very good at it [1]. A ninja's main area of expertise when it came to combat was to use stealth techniques to quickly dispatch of an opponent. Their specialty was not direct combat and they had few hard-hitting weapons [2]. Almost all samurai weapons are designed with the sole purpose of violently killing your enemy [3]. ~ In conclusion I negate the resolution that a ninja could defeat a samurai in a fight and in a contest of skill the victor would in fact be the samurai a majority of the time. I look forward to my opponent's response. [1] . http://www.spike.com... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://www.samurai-weapons.net...
A Ninja could defeat a Samurai in a fight

I believe Ninjas would win out of the two as Ninjas were mercenaries who were based on stealth,assassination and more than Swords. They used multiple other weapons such as powder or peppers he blew in the enemies eyes to temporarily blind them, dagger and blowdarts while Samurai who also used other weapons were mostly sword based with armour. So while a Samurai were strong they would be much slower than the un-armoured Ninja. Whom had weapons with further reach along with a combination of weapons to distract and blind enemies. (first debate)
Resolved: Everyone under 16 should be put to death for the sake of humanity

My opponent never made it apparent that he was arguing from the stand point of “just wanting to take a break from children for several years”. His arguments suggested that he would fix the problem of crappy children by killing off the bad batch, and raising the new one in a good way. Due to this, it would seem like my opponent really presented new arguments in the last round. However, I too, will present new arguments in the final round so that we may cancel each other out. After all, it would seem I am arguing from a new position, which would require some new arguments. Summary: Both me and my opponent are basically at a stand still with our arguments. I argue that even if we did kill everyone, the new batch of kids will be just as bad, and that babies are just too adorable to kill off like that. My opponent argues that he just really wants a break, and that babies look like “potatoes that were left in the microwave too long”, and that he would “kill nine babies for a Klondike Bar”. In other words, he argues it’s worth it. My arguments: Now, my opponent argues that he’ll get a break, but let’s get real here. Not everyone like my psychopathic friend Imabench here will support killing off a bunch of children for a small break. After all, babies are going to start being born immediately afterwards and the problem will only arise again. People are going to enjoy that break so much and realize just how much better life is without children that all the Liberal (lolwut) college students (like Ima!), children haters, and people that just enjoyed the break will start petitioning and rioting to continue to kill off the babies for 5, 10, 20, 30 years! Eventually the lack of children will cause humanity to die out completely. Or People will realize that babies are just so adorable that the government (aren’t we in too much debt to fund killing off a bunch of children anyways?) is going to attempt to kill off the children, but all the people of the world will riot back, eventually destroying all government, therefore resulting in anarchy, and in return all the people of the world turning against each other, which in turn will result in nuclear war, which in turn will result in the apocalypse, which in turn will result in humanity dying out, or devolving into cockroaches to for their survival. Or The government attempts to kill of the children, the people of the world fail in fighting back, therefore putting the government into a dictatorship where we know all politicians and world leaders are terrible at their job, and in turn will become so power hungry that the world becomes their slave. Eventually the citizens will unite secretly, nuke the government, the government will nuke back, rinse and repeat apocalypse argument. Or People will still continue to secretly raise children, the government will find out, the people will rebel, rinse and repeat government rebellion/apocalypse argument. Ima, it’s far too risky and babies are far too objectively cute to do this. Thank you.
Resolved: Everyone under 16 should be put to death for the sake of humanity

Sorry it took so long ive been busy doing nothing. Lets get right into it"Even if we killed off all the children, the new batch of children that will be born will be just as bad or worse than the generation before, due to technology making their lives easier and easier."Yes but for like 10 years we would all just be living on cloud 9 and the world wouldnt suck in so many ways which is what we're aiming for. This wouldnt END all the sh*tty stuff caused by kids.... It would just give us a break from all of it. "So for the sake of it, think of all the cute babies you’ll be killing off for nothing"Ok lets be real, babies arent cute. Babies look like potatoes that were left in the microwave a little too long..."Like explained earlier, killing off the children won’t solve this problem because the fresh batch of children will be just as bad."But we'll get a ten year break from it all which is the point of the argument!"let’s remember that adults b*tch nearly just as much as children do, just look at GWL-CPA."GWL is just bitter because his crackhead daughter is a drug addict..... Though I cant blame her for taking drugs, I mean GWL IS her father and all so I understand her motives....."Anyways, politicians are the main source of all of the b*tching that goes around, so target them."I would but if I made a debate titled 'Obama should be put to death for the sake of humanity' then the NSA will be at my door and Ill end up in Guantanamo....I do find it funny though that the NSA spies on everyone in the US..... That just means that someone in the NSA has had to look at pictures of my d*ck ;D"they will continue to make annoying pop stars popular so that really doesn’t solve that problem."BUT WE'LL HAVE A BREAK FROM THEIR SH*T WHICH IS THE POINT HERE"every older generation thinks that the younger generation’s music is crap, it’s been that way since mah great great granpappy were alive"I dont think they even had music back in the 1700's.... Unless you count a man yelling at his wife as 'music' "Let’s also remember that the old Spongebob was part of the generation you want so badly to kill off."Spongebob WAS good but then this new generation came along and then f*cked it up. THEY RUINED SPONGEBOB DAMMIT!"Who gives a flying f*ck about what people wear."I am! Im tired of walking up a flight of stairs and seeing a black guy with his pants so low that his balls are bopping me in my forehead, and I bet that everyone else is too. "if you “mistake” a 15 year old or younger kid for an 18 year old then you were probably pretty desperate yourself."HEY, WOMEN DONT TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY WHEN YOUR LAST NAME IS 'BENCH' OK, THATS NOT MY FAULT"is it worth killing that innocent, adorable baby for some political gain?"Are you kidding? Id kill 9 innocent babies for a klondike bar so your argument is uselessOk look, the point of killing off everyone under 16 is so that we will have A BREAK from all the crap they cause, which is my point.