BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
near death experiences are a good reason to believe in the afterlife

here is a link to the blog i cited about ketamine. i dont know why it didn't workhttp://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com...con says i can't prove people meet dead relatives and know God. but that is not the point. the point is they do experience these things, putative as they may be, while they dont with ketamine. the burden would be on con to show examples where that they do in fact feel to have met realative on ketamine, and such, because otherwise id have to disprove a negative, show that it doesn't happen, which is not a fair burden to ask. most experiences by far with ketamine are just freaky hallucinatory occurrences. you have to cherry pick to get to something like NDEs, and even then, it doesn't measure up. pam reynolds saw instuments that she could only know of when dead. con only offers specualtion that she might have saw the equipment before or after the surgery. con ignores that in the like i provided, there are three other examples of out of body verifications. one includes a woman who read numbers from far away, one is a man who saw a baby in another room and diagnosed a broken arm was making it cry, and one was where a man entered the hospital already dead yet described the room and those who operated on him while he was under, and this experience was documented as part of a study. i am sure that all con can do is offer specualtion that somehow these people saw things before or after they died. if we take them at their word though, their events were verified. what more does con want to verify after life experiences? people die, they came back and tell us of the afterlife. im sure we could ask for more, such as God coming down to tell us those experiences happen, or that they happen to everyone. but even still, con would find the evidence lacking. we can take what we got, and the most straightforward explanation is there was an after life experience. to act as if it is just unexplainable is putting your head in the sand to what is plaintly occurring.
near death experiences are a good reason to believe in the afterlife

I will address her points presently. Ketamine As PRO notes, ketamine can offer an experience similar to so-called “near-death experiences (NDEs),” however she objects because the drug cannot provide things some claim to have experienced, such as meeting dead relatives, and knowing to have met God. Unless PRO can demonstrate that either of these things actually happens, we only have hearsay to differentiate ketamine from NDEs, which can be disregarded. Therefore, my point about a drug being able to replicate an NDE stands. I would address PRO's source directly, but it is a dead link. Pam Reynolds I find PRO's example of Ms. Reynolds interesting, but not compelling. First of all, the things she claimed, such as seeing dead relatives, is subjective, unverifiable, and therefore hearsay. Also, Gerald Woerlee, the anesthesiologist who was in the operating room at the time, suggests that what Ms. Reynolds experienced was something called “anesthesia awareness” [1][2],where the patient is aware of what is going on, despite being under general anesthesia [3]. Also, since the surgeon would have been required to give informed consent to Ms. Reynolds prior to her surgery, she would have been familiar with the procedure [1], so her ability to recall details of the room and the procedure is not inexplicable. One last point about Ms. Reynolds is that the source provided by PRO claims that her surgery was part of an NDE study, including having a sign near the ceiling that read “You Are Dead” [4]. I cannot verify this claim anywhere else. One might expect Dr. Woerlee, the anesthesiologist on duty turned NDE student, to at least mention this matter; he does not. I do not see this claim as having fulfilled its burden sufficient to warrant belief. Straight-forward-ness PRO is claiming that the belief that Ms. Reynolds consciousness left her body for a brief time is the most straight-forward explanation given the evidence. This is simply absurd. In order of this claim to be true, there must be consciousness apart from brains, as well as an afterlife; two things that have never been demonstrated. In contrast, I suggest that Ms. Reynold's experience as the result of a malfunctioning brain is a better explanation; we have ample evidence that brains malfunction [5][6][7][8][9][10]. Another possibility I suggested is that we simply have an unexplained event. In which case, PRO's explanation is unwarranted. Sources [1] . http://www.neardth.com... [2] . http://www.npr.org... [3] . http://www.aana.com... [4] . http://www.near-death.com... [5] htp://www. nlm. nih. gov. .. [6] . http://www.apa.org... [7] . http://counselingoneanother.com... [8] . http://scopeblog.stanford.edu... [9] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [10] . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
near death experiences are a good reason to believe in the afterlife

ketamine causes some similar experiences of a NDE, but that's all. it doesn't have things like meeting your relatives, or knowing yourself to have seen God.and more on the dissimilarities and similarties. "In summary, while ketamine drug trips sometimes have some parallels with near-death experience, the typical experiences of these drug users seems to be something very different from the reports of near-death experiences, without any close similarity."http://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com...;here are a number of NDE's that had information verified while being out of body, such as the experience of Pam Reynolds.....http://www.near-death.com...;we will have to agree to disagree about what is most straight forward. i say, they died, they feel they have experienced the after life. any other theory like a dying brain theory or oxygen deprivation etc, is just trying to find an alternative to the most straight forward explanation.
near death experiences are a good reason to believe in the afterlife

I would now like to dispute every single point of PRO's argument. ReplicationThe drug Ketamine can be used to induce near death experiences (NDEs) [1]. ImpossibilityPRO has claimed that," the expeiencer [sic] has an out of body experience and sees things when they are dead that could only be seen out of body. .. . this is objective evidence that the near death experience is true. " I challenge her to provide verifiable evidence for this. Until she does, it remains a bald assertion. Even if we accept these assertions, it is subjective evidence, not objective. RealityPRO wrote that, "the experiencer feels that the experience was more real than our every day reality. " So what? This is an individual's subjective opinion. Straightforward? Finally, PRO has claimed that, "the most straight forward explanation is that since they did in fact die. .. . .. they actucally have seen it. " No, actually. The most straightforward explanation is that we have an unexplained event. Or, if I might suggest another straightforward explanation, it may just be how brains react to sever damage and/or oxygen deprivation. Tying it TogetherI have demonstrated PRO's claim about drugs to be false, and pointed out that her main source of "evidence" is inadmissible. I have also explained why her suggested explanation is not to be preferred. I look forward to the next round. Sources[1]. http://www.lycaeum.org...
near death experiences are a good reason to believe in the afterlife

near death experiences, exampleswww. nderf. orgno drugs have been shown to be able to replicate the experience. sometimes, the expeiencer has an out of body experience and sees things when they are dead that could only be seen out of body. .. . this is objective evidence that the near death experience is true. the experiencer feels that the experience was more real than our every day reality. the most straight forward explanation is that since they did in fact die, and feel they've seen the afterlife, that they actucally have seen it. there may be theories which go against the after life, but they dont have sufficient evidence, and are not the most straight forward explanation.
Be it resolved that youth are too narcissistic and apathetic to make a difference in the world.

OK, so the other guy didn't post an argument, so I'll just say a few things real quick. My opponent is grouping all young people into one group. Being 16 years old myself, I am around young people every day. And there are plenty of people out there who can make a difference in the world, and do make a difference. Yeah, there's always those few people who don't want to do anything, but you can't stop them. There are plenty of young people just in my school who are improving the world in so many ways. Vote.................PRO
Islam vs Christianity "Is Jesus Divine?"

My opponent has brought up some interesting points that might take a while to unpack. First, this argument is Islam vs Christianity I do not know his view on the matter in his next reply he could unpack this further. Second, if we apply his logic that people cannot remember specific events accurately years after the even took place, then we could not do history properly if at all because there are a number of accounts of the life of people whose earliest sources appear decades after their death. Pathagoras and many early Greek philosophers provide such an example https://plato.stanford.edu.... Muhammad's sources have problems too with the Hadiths http://www.islamic-awareness.org.... By the way if this guy is a Muslim then he destroys the Qur'anic argument that Jesus has mentioned Muhammad in the gospel thus destroying Islam entirely (unless he has some sort of subjective criteria to determine what is accurate in the gospels which would be interesting). I don't believe that I am misinterpreting what the gospels say. Notice that Jesus attributed himself to the Son of Man mentioned in Daniel 7:13-14. I agree that prophets in the past have the same human limitations as everyone else. If Jesus had declared to be divine when he was not then he would not only would he have been a liar but would have been committing blasphemy which also disqualifies him from being a prophet.
Islam vs Christianity "Is Jesus Divine?"

Christians and Muslims can agree on the existence of Jesus as a historical figure but they disagree on who he is and his significance in the salvation of mankind. We will now focus on his divinity. I believe that there are only two options and these two options are devastating to Islam. First option is Jesus is divine and the second option is Jesus is not divine. If Jesus is divine, then the assertion that Jesus is only a prophet is false. If Jesus is not divine, then he is a liar or a lunatic and cannot be a prophet. The question Muslims will ask in response to this is, "Where did Jesus say I am God, worship me?". While there are no verses in either the Bible or the Qur'an that say those exact words, there are a number of places where divinity is claimed by Jesus all over the gospels. The Qur'an says that "the people of the gospel" (Christians) should judge by what Allah has revealed (Surah 5:47). This being established by the Qur'an itself, there are lots of examples to point to but I will point out what I use the most in discussions on this subject. At Jesus's trial, he was asked, "Art thou the Christ the Son of the blessed?" He answered saying, "I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:61-62). You may be thinking that the fact he called himself the son of man that it proves he is not divine. My response to this is that he quoted Daniel 7:13-14, "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." In this debate, I will point out many more examples from both the Old Testament and the New Testament. I conclude by pointing out why this is important John 8:24 says, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."
People need to stop hating Scientology.

“All religion is heresy.” Heresy is opinion or doctrine at odds with established orthodoxy.[1] What established orthodoxy is all religion at odds with? I'm not sure how to respond to this. The only conclusion I can come to is that my opponent does not understand the word “heresy.”I would like to see why "Mohammad could not have been an eye-witness to anything before 500 A.D." Mohammed was born in 570.[3] 500 was 70 years before he was born. He could not be an eye-witness to things before he was born. “As I stated several times before: All religion is equal.” My opponent has not backed this up with anything other than blanket statements and cliches. -He said the Bible is based on speculation, but does not elaborate what was speculated, and explain why it is speculation. -He caricatures several well-known religions, as if that were evidence of anything other than his own disdain. -He says, “No scientific truth of the Bible,Torah, or Quran exist.” This ignores the historical significance of such documents, which include political, military, cultural, and architectural items that have been verified through archeology. [4] The debate was “People need to stop hating Scientology.” I have provided evidence that there are people with good reason to dislike it on the grounds that it is less credible than other religions. Even if belief in anything supernatural is rejected or assumed unknown, L. Ron Hubbard's claim to have had first hand knowledge of a past life 75 million years ago is less credible than books which contain first hand accounts taken from people's natural lives. L. Ron Hubbard's is a very incredible story, to use the true meaning of the word. To put it more simply, my opponent does not seem to understand why a sentence starting with, “I remember when I was a boy...” would be more credible than “I remember when I was in the Jurassic Period...” “I speak of society in general, not just the religions listed.” Irrelevant. Society in general contains many people who are part of the religions stated above. My opponent does not understand why people would hate lies that they feel may harm them, a reason some atheists cite as to why they crusade against all religion. [2] My opponent has supplied no clear grounds that people need to stop hating Scientology. As far as most people who read this debate will be concerned, they can continue hating whatever they want. To further contradict his own point: “As I stated several times before: All religion is equal...I do not mean to offend anyone. Except for the Christians. They deserve it.” 1 http://dictionary.reference.com... 2 http://en.wikipedia.org... 3 http://en.wikipedia.org... 4 http://en.wikipedia.org...
People need to stop hating Scientology.

I'll just jump right in. You said: "RandomName, FYI, you can set the character limit when you create a debate. You left it at 8k, I used just over 6k." Yes I understand that. I do not mind, it's just I have never been in such a lengthy debate. http://www.youtube.com... You said: "While I think my opponent could easily have come up with a link to a South Park or dated Anonymous video to clarify the mockery he speaks of, he did not." I could not find a video of the South Park incident that I felt was up to my standards and I could not locate the Anonymous video. I have included the South park video but it is of poor quality. You said: "These truths are claimed truths. Not all claims are truth. On the other hand, a truth is a truth whether you believe it or not, and true claims have been made." I apologise but this is truly confusing. You said: "This debate is "People need to stop hating Scientology." Which people are not specified, but later my opponent mentioned Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and professed to know something about their religions as well, so I explained why those people would have reasons to hate Scientology." I speak of society in general, not just the religions listed. You said: "Scientology claims knowledge was lost for 75 million years, and was not passed down through conventional means, but later revealed through hypnotic "auditing," to determine what happened in a past life. I think this is not a method of preserving history that most people would see as reliable, as the information Hubbard brought forth was unprecedented and unverified by other 75 million year old sources, as we have no know 75 million year old witnesses." Why is this not as believable as any religion? You said: "Demonstrate that information gained from hypnotic auditing of past lives is as verifiable as a source of truth, as information in a book that has been written and past down by people in their natural lives." Just because it is in a book does not make it true. I would like to restate my position that all religions are equally unbelievable. Each has their way and one should not be singled out like Scientology has. You said: "They see it as heresy, or at the least, a harmful lie inconsistent with the truth they know. They are doing what they think is right by protecting their fellow man from perceived harm." All religion is heresy. You said: "Islam's prophecies brought forth new data about established doctrine that was contradictory to the old data. Either the Quran is correct, or the Bible is correct, not both. It is more believable that the Bible is correct since the new information contradicts prior eye-witness accounts of the Bible, and Mohammed could not have been an eye-witness to anything before 500 A.D." I would like to see why "Mohammad could not have been an eye-witness to anything before 500 A.D." As I stated several times before: All religion is equal.
People need to stop hating Scientology.

Wow, that's a lot of words. I'll just do my best. You said: "I would like a real life example of what you mean by "horrid treatment." Are you referring to mockery, or something more serious?" I speak of intense mockery. But there is no way to know what will happen. You said: "All the religions you cited claim to be founded upon ancient, spiritual truths that were written down in ancient times, and are claimed to be consistent throughout history." What truths? The bible is based on speculation. No scientific truth of the Bible,Torah, or Quran exist. You said: "Scientology has a similar, but much more severe lack of credibility over even Islam to those who believe the former religions, since L. Ron Hubbard prophesied previously unheard of things in the mid-1900's, with no connection to a previous written claim to truth." What's with the "severe lack of credibility over even Islam" thing? You said: "Even if one views those more ancient religions with the highest skepticism, at the very least, they go back farther toward a connection with original truth than Scientology. All three of the religions you compared it to have a literary claim on history going back more than a millennium, while Scientology's first prophet only started writing a few decades ago." Christianity had a beginning too. You said: "Scientology leads people away from God and to eternal death according to those religions." There is no god in Scientology. Why is a god needed to have a religion? As I stated before, There is no reason to hate Scientology more than any other religion.
People need to stop hating Scientology.

Could you please explain to me why scientologists deserve such horrid treatment? As I stated before, you can say equal things about any religion. And I'm about to. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scientology summed up: There was an alien battle in outer space and the spirits of the aliens entered certain human's bodies. The presence of these alien spirits is measured by things called Thetan Meters. To clear you soul of evil you must pay $250 an hour to be hypnotized. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Christianity summed up: A big wizard lives in the sky and sent his baby down to earth to die because everyone was mean to each other. If you don't say he is real he will throw lightning bolts at you and you live with a goat man underground in a house made of fire forever. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judaism summed up: Still waiting for god to send his kid down here. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Islam summed up: Basically the same as Christianity but god has no son. And no booze or weed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I do not believe in these things and this is just and over-exaggeration to prove my point. I do not mean to offend anyone. Except for the Christians. They deserve it.
People need to stop hating Scientology.

On to the arguing! I, personally, am tired of people going out of their way to discredit Scientology. Scientology is no more of a silly idea than Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. This is what people believe and they can easily say equal things about any religion. I am not trying to say anyone's beliefs are wrong but I am saying you (not you in particular, just people in general) need to stop saying others beliefs are incorrect.
The best way for the Jacksonville Jaguars to improve is for Florida to legalize weed

I'll grant you the conduct point for my my opening statement, since I won't need it to kick your @ss. 1. Anyway when you legalize something any reason it will find its way into the wrong hands, just like guns, pornagraphic magazines, and brass knuckles. 2. Legalizing weed doesn't improve player performance in any way/shape/form the Seahawks got much improved linebackers[1] while the broncos acquired Peyton manning[2] if their were no changes made to the teams and one team in each division were tested the results would be much more balanced towards no improvement. 3. Free agents [ 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] This is just preposterous seeing as how Florida has no state income tax, they actually have an advantage over 41 other states in signing free agents in every sport. Sources: [1] http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com... [2] http://www.usatoday.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.usatoday.com... [5] http://www.accountingweb.com... [6] http://articles.latimes.com... [7] http://www.foxnews.com... [8] http://www.bankrate.com... [9] http://www.forbes.com... [10] http://www.thesportjournal.org...