BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why do people FEAR Death? Death should not be feared.

Pro has rebutted absolutely nothing that I have raised in Round 1. Pro has yet to prove or give one real-life example of a happy suicidal person and if they are referring to bipolar individuals, they are not suicidal while in the 'happy', manic phase. As for why fear of death is necessary, why is fear needed at all? Fundamentally, everyone fears something either due to pain or due to death. You fear ghosts because you perceive that as making you panic which you find very unpleasant, hence painful. Pain is simply an experience that is very unlike what pleasure is supposedly supposed to feel like. The difference between hot sex and disgusting or boring sex is that the former is pleasurable while the latter is painfully lacking what pleasure the hot sex has. Death is without a doubt not pleasurable. Both dying and the actual state of being dead (unless there is an afterlife of some sort) are states in which no pleasure can be physically or emotionally felt as the 'self' which could feel them is gone. Thus it should be feared because it takes away the capacity for pleasure and this is one of the two fundamental causes of fear (pain and death, pain being absence of possible pleasure). Death should be feared simply because no 'good' can ever come from it. You dying cannot help yourself and cannot help others more than it could if you were alive. The only exceptions are people whose health si so low that they're really incapable of being useful in any shape or form, as I stated earlier. Fear is there to stop you feeling pain and keep you feeling pleasure. Masochistic individuals thrive on the rush fear and adrenalin give them this is why they are somewhat a loophole in psychology as technically speaking masochism is sadism to the self and how the separation of the 'self' feeling the pain and the 'self' gaining psychological pleasure from that pain is still a major mystery to this date. Nonetheless, the core source of fear should always be pain and/or lack of pleasure. Death is absolute lack of pleasure and any capacity to feel it ever again and thus should be feared. In Round 1, I explained how it can be pleasure of others too not just your own. This is a very important factor in why loneliness is very closely linked to suicidal thoughts. People thrive in environments where they are heavily depended on and are appreciated for how well they fulfil those duties which people depend on them for.
Why do people FEAR Death? Death should not be feared.

There are Happy Suicidal people. Most of them have mood disorders and others are kept for further study. For example they could be the happiest person alive and still end up with suicidal thoughts. There are also some cases in which normal people who show no sign of depression end up killing themselves because of this. Also CON instead of giving me an answer about the emotional state that fear is irrational, and stating that people commit suicide or accept death because they don't feel wanted or needed. Although you've stated that some views of death are either selfish or selfless you have yet to tell me why it is to be feared. By the way that happy suicidal person you mentioned "Hi, i'll take that soul now."
Why do people FEAR Death? Death should not be feared.

Is it the fact that it's the unknown, or Is it that you'll miss your loved ones. Whats your purpose for staying alive with the time you have left. People don't have much purpose when time catches up to them, and "They" dread when death is approaching. I view death as a good thing. It's a release from this hateful world full of judgments and discrimination. I'm not suicidal, but if i were about to be hit by a car i wouldn't try to get out the way. Or say if a killer was holding me down threatening to shoot me in the head I'd laugh and say "go for it." Why do people fear dying. there's no point in fearing the inevitable. Every living sentient being is Born, and Every living sentient being Dies. Trying to prevent the inevitable is borderline insanity. About this debate: All opinions are open. I welcome someone who'd argue that death should be feared. Rules: No spamming comments. Opinions are open but don't disrespect anyone. Challengers may drop this debate if they wish to do so. But give a reason first.
bacterius? lol

Let's go to the evidence then. You claim a bird's nest to be evidence of nature being designed by bacteria. I find it evidence of God's design. He has made the birds so that they create those nests. Looking at the beauty of his nature and how well everything works, it all points to God being the creator. When saying bacteria created everything, you are clearly referencing evolution; thus, all I need to do to win is to provide a stellar argument agains evolution. Evolution also relies upon an alleged "big bang" to create the universe so that evolution to start. This means that one needs to provide a stellar against the the big bang in order to provide a stellar argument against evolution, in order to win this debate. Let's go back to about "13 billion" years ago. Scientists claim that a huge explosion happened, and it created the universe. Ignoring the fact that explosions destroy, not create, there is another huge hole. Where did this explosion come from? Scientists claim lightning hit a pool of chemicals. Where did the pool of chemicals come from? Where did the lightning come from? Scientists claim that a single nonorganic molecule evolved into the pool of lightning. Where did that molecule come from? Scientists claim that it popped out of nowhere. For evolution to work, there would have to be a single particle appear out of 100% nothing. However, there is a 0% chance that a particle can happen out of nowhere. This means that there has to be theistic creation. I think we're done here.
Same-Sex Marraige

As much as I would like to argue against my opponents points, I suppose I cannot in this round. So instead I will make my closing statements.In this entire debate, my opponent has not even attempted to argue against any of the points I had made in the second round. These points being:1) Homosexuality is natural, whether caused by God or by evolution.2) Same-sex marriages are more stable than opposite-sex marriages in the United States, and are less likely to end in divorce.3) So called "traditional" marriage, which most claim to be marriage between a man and woman, is in fact polygamy, and is illegal in the United States and many parts of the world, where as same-sex marriage is much more widely accepted, and is becoming more so every year.My opponent has instead repeatedly claimed that same-sex marriage is wrong because the Bible says so. Since the Bible cannot be proven to be entirely accurate, it is not able to be considered factual, therefore his argument violates the rules of this debate, specifically the fourth, which states that all arguments must be backed up by facts.Regardless of this, my opponent may or may not be aware of the fact that weddings may also take place in courthouses, as well as churches. Since the United States, along with many other countries, has no official religion, the Bible cannot be used as a basis to create laws. In fact, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the government from endorsing any established religion. With that said, civil marriages, which would take place outside of any religion, should be legal.I would also like to remind my opponent that the Bible is a book written by men, and men alone, and was put together by entirely different men. To imply that any Christian who doubts the truth of some parts of the Bible is not a "true" Christian is ridiculous, as neither God or Jesus wrote the Bible.Thank you
Same-Sex Marraige

my opponent claims that my argument is not based on facts. What he failed to mention is that the bible is a factual book to all true Christians. Scientist on the other hand are always changing their facts over and over and over again. Yesterday's fact can be tomorrow's opinion in the science and history world. One example is when science used to teach that pluto was a planet, now all of a sudden it is not and never has been. The bible on the other hand never changes its facts, so they are always fact at all times no matter how many years have passed, thus making it more reliable than science and history combined. And the bible is surely way more reliable than Wikipedia.org since anyone can write up false articles there. Now there is plenty of verses in the bible that prove homosexuality is wrong, and that gay marriage is something that God would never accept ever. God doesn't accept anyone who doesn't repent of their sins and homosexuality is just one of the many sins that we all have to repent from so I don't single them out. Now even if my opponent doesn't acknowledge the bible as a factual book, it doesn't mean that it is not. And there are sources that he may accept as fact that are indeed false information. I didn't bother going against the points he used in round 1 because even if his information was somehow true, it doesn't change the fact that the bible already declared homosexuality a sin and that the bible has already proven itself to us Christians who study it diligently. The world is corrupt as it is, we don't need further Moral depravity by allowing the nation to marry gays, we are provoking The wrath of the almighty to come sooner than later if we continue to stray from the right path.
Same-Sex Marraige

Rule 4) ALL arguments must be backed up by facts My opponent's argument is that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. He fails to use any proven, hard facts in his argument. Unless of course he can prove that the Bible is accurate, and that God is real. I personally believe in God, but unless he is proven real, the Bible cannot be used as a source in a serious debate. In addition, of the three points I made in the last round, my opponent has not even attempted to dispute a single one of them, so I will assume that he has conceded all three. As for my opponent's argument (assuming of course that God is real, and the Bible is accurate), didn't Jesus teach us to love one another, and that all people are equal under God? As well, did Jesus not say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone? " Clearly, all people, whether gay, straight, black, white, Christian, Jewish, or Muslim are equal under God, and should be treated as such.
Same-Sex Marraige

1: To start out, I believe that there is no good reason for same-sex marriage to be illegal that can be backed up by solid facts. Homosexuality is clearly natural, as several types of animals have been known to be homosexual. What does this tell us? That whatever was the cause of the existence of these species (evolution, God, whatever it is you believe) has somehow made it possible for them to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex as they are. 2: Contrary to what many believe (or would have others believe), same-sex marriages in the United States are slightly less likely to end in divorce than so called "traditional" marriages. In 2011, the percentage of same-sex couples who ended their marriage through divorce was roughly 1.1%. The percentage of opposite-sex marriages that ended in divorce is roughly 2%. This tells us that (at least in 2011) same-sex couples are less likely to divorce, if only slightly so. [1] 3: At the moment, same-sex marriage is legal in more parts of America than "traditional" marriage. Before you immediately write that off as a lie, let me explain something. The view of many today is that "traditional" marriage is marriage between one man and one woman. This, however, is not true. Traditionally, it was widely accepted, and even in some cultures and religions encouraged, for a man to have multiple wives, including relatives of his. This, as we know, is illegal in many parts of the world today. So therefore, same-sex marriage is much more acceptable than "traditional" marriage. Sources: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Is Evolution fact or fiction

I disagree that Micro Evolution and Macro Evolution are two sides of the same coin first lets show the definition of the two. Micro Evolution- evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period. Basically small changes in a animal Macro Evolution- major evolutionary change, especially with regard to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time. Basically one animal changing into another animal So now we know what they both mean. So now we know that Micro evolution happens for example A dog can produce a variety of dogs; like dogs with long hair, dogs with short hair, tall dogs, small dogs that's micro evolution but we've never seen an animal turn into another animal into another animal just like the Bible says Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. it's never been observed or proven so it's just a fairy tail, not true, false.
Is Evolution fact or fiction

Very true the debate isn't about that but I would really like you to give your opinion on it either in the arguments or the comments. Btw no atheist has ever answered that question. We and apes do have dna similarities but I would doubt that we shared a common ancestor because whatever that ancestor is after a while it's offspring would produce apes and humans, two different types of creatures which means that macro evolution took place and macro evolution has never been observed so it probably didn't take place, also 'if' we and apes did have common ancestors where are thier fossils and where are thier offspring's fossils and how would you know that two fossils are related if they're different. I hope you get what I mean. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I may have exaggerated it a little bit but let me rephrase that 'you can't get a horse that runs 100m in 4 seseconds' I know they make evolution impossible because it has never been observed. okay fair enough could we discuss the existence of God in another debate and if not why? https://youtu.be...;Random question" what do you think you have to lose if you accept the faith of Christianity? Some parts of the bible isn't meant to be taken literalfor example some of Daniels prophecies in the book of Daniel that prophecy needs a bit more research into the bible but, prophecies in general not supposed to be taken literally but most of the bible is supposed to.If you want knowledge on prophecies then go on YouTube and type in walks with God ministries and the video's should help.Yes the lottery is basically full of it but it was started by someone entering and someone putting the balls in the random selector it doesn't start and happen by itself just like life and the universe.Not if the brain has not been functioning for hours sometimes days is the brain hallucinating for that long, even that boy from Heaven is for real he didn't die and he saw heaven and God please explain this to me?
Is Evolution fact or fiction

I would believe the phenomenon which has never been proven wrong.Again I disagree go with the fact that saying the Bible is a better way of saying how we got here why we are here and why are things the way they are for example why are there so many laws in the universe and how did they get there? For example The laws of Gravity, law of vibration, Law of Cause and Effect, Law of action ectSomeone must have implemented them by someone they don't get there by themselves.Btw look up law of vibration, Law of Cause and Effect, Law of action and tell me how are law's like these possible without "someone" Even God implementing them?The fact that soo many animals have DNA similarities with humans proves that we have a common designer not a common ancestor and also what "change" in an ape turns it into a human also the small changes that you see in creatures is getting genetics from their parents how can the genetics from your parents turn you into another creature? To me it's absurd!Macro Evolution teaches that one animal can turn into another animal and that's what you're defending and now you're saying that we didn't descend from them we just have a common ancestor, you're contradicting yourself. You can't get a 20 ft person there are limits on everything for example they've been trying to inbred the fastest horses so that they can get a faster horse the fastest they've ever got was 43.97 mph but you can't get a horse to go as fast as the speed of light because there are limits in in your genes there is a certain point it can't go beyond hense why Macro evolution is a bit silly to me.Why won't you discuss the existence of God and how do you know that charcoal is 20,000 years old remember if someone makes a claim and can't back it up it's probably not true. How do you know how old is the universe?The canyons can be formed by a flood a year long global flood can just like it says in the Bible in Genesis 7.God isn't compatible with evolution because the Bible says when God created something it says and it was so it doesn't say that it evolved why would God make the animals evolve into humans when he just make us separate just like it says in the Bible in Genesis 1-2 Nothing appears by chance even the universe, if God's the creator of it explains a lot of things that evolution tries to explain and gets wrong it's a more logical approach and the fact that people that had near death experiences and claim to have seen for example God heaven ect and didn't know anything about it until they died for me it's just logical.
Is Evolution fact or fiction

If it's lazy sorry but you don't have to see it exists you can see an advert saying it's coming out or know someone who's seen it, also going back to a point earlier when I said nobody's observed or proven it so in conclusion to that I say it again Macro Evolution has never happened. But with hair it's a different it just grows nothing else changes "It's difficult to directly see macro evolution because it takes lots of years to occur. In a sense is like your hair growing, in a short time you can't tell it has been getting longer, but in a long period you will see it has grown a lot". Just because it's not scientific text doesn't mean it' not a fact for example they use to teach that everything revolves around the earth but later to be proven wrong. And you kinda admitted it that the bible is true. when you see a fossil in the ground the only thing you could prove is that it died you can't prove it was a male or female you especially can't prove it had any children let alone any children different to it's own kind just like the Bible says. Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And how would you know that animal is evolving just by looking at the fossil. Fossil reply Again don't know how you'd be able to tell that an animal is evolving just by looking at it and you could the Observing different fossils and calling it evolution btw do you know how fossils are formed? Bacteria and other microscopic organisms (reply) I think that it's more of Micro evolution because it's making small changes for example if freshwater fishes were put into a salt water they would adapt to the changes just like the bacteria but they don't change into a new species like Macro evolution teaches which again never happens. DNA (reply) If apes or monkeys were our ancestors then were are the fossils of apes evolving into humans and why ain't apes evolving into humans right now. Pure logic (reply) The only thing that changes from generation to generation is the characteristics of the individual for example if my father is tall I would probably inherit those genes same thing with animals if the parent had a certain characteristics then the child would probably inherit it not turn into another animal. I think approximately 6,000 years ago God created the heavens and the universe 4400 years ago there was a flood that killed everyone in the world but 8 people that's why we have the fossils and all of these canyons for example The Grand Canyon and I know that there is a God that created everything and again I think it's silly to think that everything got here by chance. P's If the bible is correct how can evolution be true because both are contrary to one another.
There is not enough evidence to support mutation as a primary mechanism that drove evolution.

Evolution happened. What I am contesting here is one of its primary purported mechanisms, mutation. The intention of this debate is for Con to provide peer-reviewed studies supporting mutation as a major force that drove evolution. Specifically what I am looking for is a demonstration that mutation is able to create significant novel biological structures that allow for macro evolution to take place. I will be reading the studies and evaluating what was discovered/concluded. Con should understand the content of the studies well enough to defend its explanatory power in regards to the topic of this debate. The full text of the papers must be available. For the sake of my being able to respond within the time frame, and to allow us to have a thorough discourse on each article, Con can provide a max of three studies. I am aware that there are vasts amounts of info out there on this topic, so choose wisely. To further specify what I am looking for: something larger scale/a more complex development than a difference in the color of butterfly wings. For example the creation of a new structure that progresses the development of eyes in a species that previously had none. I welcome and appreciate anyone who will accept the role of Con.