BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
An Afterlife is Impossible

I do agree to the statement: 'atheistman must prove without a doubt that there is absolutely no possibility that an afterlife can occur. ' Because an afterlife is illogical, devoid of evidence, and even breaks a few laws of the universe. These laws include: Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the law that all living things die. Since all systems eventually fall into disrepair, it is impossible for your life system in the afterlife - soul - the live forever without eventually dying. The law of science that all living things die also makes immortality through the 'soul' impossible. The Second Law of Thermodynamics would also apply to the place an afterlife would have to be located, as a place must have a location. There is also the question of - supposing the soul exists - how would it get to the place where the afterlife is located, and how would it know where to go. 'An afterlife for the most part, is believed to occur outside of the human body, in some sort of spiritual form. Because typically in an afterlife you leave your human body, the brain's consciousness has no bearing on this debate. ' How do you leave your body? We know now that consciousness, personality, and emotions are all generated in the brain. You are your brain's consciousness, so how would you experience an afterlife if brain consciousness has nothing to do with it? 'Long ago we had no evidence for an atom, as we now know atoms most definitely do exist. ' First of all, that's not true. The study of atoms is still called 'The Atomic Theory,' but I believe there is more than enough evidence for atoms. But the point is, with how far mankind has come in it's existence, if an extremely significant and important thing like the soul existed in our own bodies, we would have found it already. The human body has been recorded to lose between 7 and 21 grams at the time of death. There are quite a few scientific theories for this, such as the body's loss of fluids, waste, or air in the lungs. Or it could be from a chemical process caused by decomposition. Another explanation could be the shrinking of the body after it stops generating heat. It may even be a combination of some of those. . http://answers.yahoo.com... . http://answers.yahoo.com... . http://answers.yahoo.com...
An Afterlife is Impossible

Definition of impossible: not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc. -. http://dictionary.reference.com... What we must recognize is that atheistman must prove without a doubt that there is absolutely no possibility that an afterlife can occur. ========================= Investigating my opponents arguments. ========================= My opponent suggests that an afterlife is impossible because: 1. The brain is incapable of being conscious after death. This, unfortunately for my opponent, has no bearing on anything. An afterlife for the most part, is believed to occur outside of the human body, in some sort of spiritual form. Because typically in an afterlife you leave your human body, the brain's consciousness has no bearing on this debate. 2. There is no evidence. I will prove how this is fallacious in more ways than one. Long ago we had no evidence for an atom, as we now know atoms most definitely do exist. Obviously, just because we may not have evidence most definitely does not mean it does not exist. "There is no evidence" is refuted by itself, there is no evidence that there is no evidence. 3. A soul has never been found in a human body. Ehh, iffy. The human body has been recorded to lose between 7 and 21 grams at the time of death. . http://www.ghostweb.com... I await my opponents response.
Not allowing illegal immigrants into the United States of America

I don't 100% disagree with you either. My opinion is that the best way for the United States to address the issue of illegal immigrants is through reform of the immigration/citizenship process...I don't think a lot of people realize how difficult, costly, and time consuming it is to move to the the US. These issues are things we need to work on. I don't think " handing out citizenship" is the best way to describe the reform happening in the U.S. recently. It gives a path to citizenship (so they are allowed to go to college and pay taxes, hooray!) through background checks and lots of hard work, and require the person to have lived in the U.S. for a long time. I argue that this type of legislation allows immigration officials to focus on the people who may actually be dealing drugs. What specifically would you do to reduce illegal immigration?
SarcasticIndeed will solve the stated RationalMadman riddle.

Well, I don't know if you can prove whether or not the universe is objective. The universe is my perception, and other people are also just percieved by me. I cannot neccessarily know that they must be sentient (solipsism), so I couldn't essentially prove that the universe is something ojective. you could say it is objective within by subjective perception, but that means little. Also,where dreams occur is not "outside the universe", or at least I believe so. They are just a set of images, feelings and sounds we percieve in our sleep (provoked by my brain). And really, my subjective reality wouldn't be me. It will be something created by me, but not really "me". Just like the universe, which is created by my perception of it (at least the universe I see).
Upon admitting guilt, the death penalty is reasonable.

I am sorry for my bad quoting and source use. :[ "excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. " This is according to the eighth amendment "nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted. " The sad thing is that we are not a shame of what is done. We even have slogans to in courage people that this the right thing to do. "We kill people to show people that killing people is wrong. " First of all, the slogan misses an important point. The death penalty does not punish people for killing, but for murder. Killing is justified when it is done in self-defense. Killing means to cause death. Murder, on the other hand, is defined as, "the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another". "Kill," "murder," and "execute" are not interchangeable terms. What differences dose this give our government to do the same. As to my opponent and his list of links that having a bad life is and excuse for a crime. I don't see how being deaf, losing your house or even having a family member die has to do with anything to do with the death penalty. All those famous people with hearing disabilities is just one more thing to make them stand out yes they have help by showing that even with a conditions that they have it is possible. So why not give those on death row one more chance? Why cant they show the youth that it is possible. Programs are needed in the facilities. I think that it is important to listen to what the prisoners have to say. If they think that death row is what is best that it should be given but if they have reasons to why they thing that they should live then they should the right to speak. As we have all been given the freedom of speech in this country. lol. .. philosphical im gland you got your laugh out of this debate, your funny! Thanks for the debate sorry I didn't do as good as I could have. Maybe next time ill get you!
The create monster in the ground exist

First i would like to welcome my debater With all respect if you think that's a troll debate why did you accept it Now to your challenges 1)All objects that have mass or energy attracts each other the bigger the object the stronger the force of attraction (gravity) According to the law of causality everything must be caused by something and since everything have an attraction force Then it must be caused by something independent but within the body There's 2 things that could exist within but independent of the body 1)Minds 2) Spirits Minds interacted with through the brain but independent of the brain but minds require a conscious being So the mind cannot be the cause of such attraction because the mind end with consciousness and consciousness end with death And also there're unconscious object that contain such attraction ex: (earth , sun,etc) so it cant be a mind Then it must be a spirit therefore by definition the spirit of the (cmg) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Are the 80s superior to the 2000s entertainment wise

Where is the evidence saying that there were more live concerts. that whole argument put into place i your second round is all opinion based. Also some amazing actors dawned in the 2000s, Robert Downey Jr, Chris Pratt, Morgan Freeman, Leonardo DiCaprio, etc. You say all of entertainment is iPhone games but i stated earlier that movies, youtube, and video games made a boom. iPhones have taken the world by storm making everything possible in the palm of your hand it deserves credit.
Are the 80s superior to the 2000s entertainment wise

Even though you have youtube, Iphone and social media, the 1980's were more of a time of live performances and clubs. These activities brought many people together for parties and a good time but sadly aren't happening as much as they originally were in the 80s. Nowadays entertainment revolves around the internet and smart phones but the quality of the entertainment has plummeted with people wasting time playing mindless games with micro-transactions. In the 80s you would go to a concert and have a good time. Not to mention that you claimed that the 2000s had the top grossing albums of all times, but you forgot to do your research and it turns out that most of the albums from the 80s are in the top of the top. When you also claim that some of the movies are top grossing movies you forget to look into inflation. The 80s had some of the most memorial actors in all of history including Robert De Nero and Harrison Ford in their prime.
Are the 80s superior to the 2000s entertainment wise

I would have to disagree. In the entertainment spectrum there were many good movies released such as, all the top grossing movies such as the avengers series, harry potter, hunger games, etc. Also the gaming scene had a major boom in the 2000s. It also should be mentioned that the 2000s created the iPhone and social media. Youtube also became one of the most powerful entertainment networks. It is also note to mention that pop music made a major boom and the top grossing albums came from the 2000s.
Are the 80s superior to the 2000s entertainment wise

The 80's are superior to the 2000s entertainment wise because the 80s were a gold mine compared to the newer latest trends in entertainment. The 80's was a renaissance for movies and music some examples being Ferris Bueller's day off, Austin Powers franchise, the boom or rock and roll music, and bands like Queen and Guns N' Roses. The 80s are clearly a superior choice of a generation of entertainment compared to the 2000s.
terrorism of non muslims

Hello vi_spex and thank you for starting this debate. I accept and look forward to an engaging discussion. I have some confusion about what this debate is about. Are you arguing that terrorism is moral if you are being forced to do it (if you don't do it the terrorist will murder you)? Are you talking about committing terrorist acts or supporting terrorists? Are you advocating for a ban of Islam? Could you clear this topic up a little? It does seem like a very interesting debate topic. In terms of definitions I will assume we are using the conventional meaning of terrorism, morality, and Islam. Terrorism (Merriam Webster dictionary): "the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion." Moral (Merriam Webster): "conforming to a standard of right behavior." Islam (same source): "the religious faith of Muslims including belief in Allah as the sole deity and in Muhammad as his prophet." I will be arguing that terrorism is NOT moral even if one is being threatened to do it. If you wish I can argue that Islam should not be banned. Sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
terrorism of non muslims

I am going to post my responses to your quotes. "no extreme and no generalization... one can predict the last muslim from the first, easily" As I mentioned before there are around 1.6 billion muslims and the religion is not monolithic. As previously mentioned the Quran (the most important muslim book) has many quotes that encourage good moral behavior. Statistics show the majority of muslims are not extremists. "islam is pure hatred.. thats all, where ever it goes, it is" Obviously wrong because of my aforementioned arguments. ". its in the koran that muslims should lie to disbeliever for islam.." I can easily turn this assertion to help my case. Let"s assume the terrorist believes in an extremist, radical version of Islam. Let"s assume you don"t believe in Islam. Then wouldn't this mean the terrorist will lie to you about sparing your life? In order words even if you comply with committing terrorism the terrorist is still going to kill you afterwards. "moron, read round 1" I did read round 1 and it was VERY unclear to what you were saying. That was why I wanted you to clarify. Additionally, don"t throw stones from a glass house. Also you need to improve your spelling because it can be hard to read what you are writing. I should win the points for conduct. "you are a terrorist, read round 1" I am not a terrorist and you are being immature. "confidence, you had confidence.. are you a muslim?" No, I am not a muslim. My Case: My opponent has not responded to any of my arguments. Voters can extend all my arguments from the previous round because they are left completely unanswered. Instead of using logic or facts my opponent has used wild generalizations, fear mongering, and even personal attacks. Moreover, my opponent"s lack of clarity makes it hard to even understand what he/she is trying to argue. I urge a strong vote for CON. Thank you for reading.
terrorism of non muslims

no extreme and no generalization... one can predict the last muslim from the first, easily islam is pure hatred.. thats all, where ever it goes, it is the "radical" muslim will stab your wifes genitles, the "non radical" will laugh in the corner or do nothing.. welcome your insanity laws exist to limit religion.. the muslims we see doing good in society today are all because of the law.. as a direct opposition to the laws of islam, and as the chains on a god of monsters its funny, your terrorism is as predictable as a muslim.. i have to exlpain the same obvius points every time i speak with people like you, welcoming your extinction with open arms 1.. its in the koran that muslims should lie to disbeliever for islam.. 2. moron, read round 1 3. you are a terrorist, read round 1 confidence, you had confidence.. are you a muslim?
terrorism of non muslims

there is not much to discuss, my argument is simply true.. so undefeatable yes, muslims are moral no matter what they do.. becuase allah is the spirit of terrror.. death fear, the threat of pain or death by islam, as their laws or punishment, essentially altering human nature or morality.. and people dont care, they let the victims of islam rule, be honor killed and not have a chance to leave islam islam is red glowing racism and terrorism.. the most pure form of hatred against humanity that can possibly exist.. it can not be imagined to be worse so you would let yourself be tortured and killed, instead of doing the terror, honorable.. but not necessary according to morality or survival, as the lack of existence of survival negates pain and death.. and thus morality bit fast explanation but simple
The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas

Hello Heineken. Thanks for accepting this debate. Christmas Day is a holiday under federal law in the United States. On Christmas Day, federal government employees are forced to take a day off to celebrate this religious festival, and they are paid to do so. Each year, Christmas Day costs US tax-payers around half a billion dollars (1). Thus, every tax payer, irrespective of her private religious beliefs, is being forced to subsidize this Christian festival. No other religion is celebrated in this way, of course. Christmas Day is the only compulsory religious festival in the US calendar. The US government has tried, and failed, to excuse this appalling unfairness with the following argument (2), which I’ll paraphrase here: Christmas is a Christian festival, but Non-Christians can join in the activities, so Forcing them to subsidize a Christian festival is a legitimate government activity. The government designates the following Christmas activities as appropriate “even for” non-Christian Americans: Decorating houses and yards with lights Putting up “Christmas” trees Giving gifts Sending greeting cards If the aim is inclusiveness, why not have a government-sponsored solstice celebration on December 19? All those activities for non-Christians would still apply. Then, six days later, anyone who wants to can celebrate the birth of Jesus privately. But why would anyone want to? Not even Christians are pretending that Jesus was actually born on December 25 (3). The winter solstice celebration was hijacked hundreds of years ago. It needs to be returned to the people. However. This idea about winter solstice is just my own suggestion to improve the lives of millions of Americans. There are many other options. Government interference in the “Christmas” festival could be cancelled with no replacement holiday, for example, or the New Year celebrations could be lengthened. The important thing is that the government does not force non-Christians to observe a Christian religious day (by not being allowed to work), and does not force any American to subsidize a Christian religious festival (by using taxes to pay federal employees for the day of observance). The US Department of State claims that religious freedom is a “core objective of U.S. foreign policy” (4). Maybe start at home. The government needs to stop pushing Christmas onto its citizens. 1. http://www.washingtontimes.com... 2. http://www.usa.gov... 3. http://www.christiananswers.net... 4. http://www.state.gov...
The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas

Pro established that the Government shall observe “NO public holiday,” provide “no public funds for Christmas trees,” and grant “no official acknowledgement of the day.”Pro wrote an additional paragraph about holiday observance in the southern hemisphere, but he immediately withdrew the argument. Pro established a burden without cause. We still do not know “why” the Government should remove itself from Holiday observance. Therefore, I will turn it over to Pro. Hopefully we will see a case presented in round two.
The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas

NO public holiday, no public funds for Christmas trees, no official acknowledgement of the day.Actually, I want to go further and say that here, in the southern hemisphere, Christmas should be actively discouraged. It's summer! We should just be lazing around with cocktails! Instead, I came back into the city today and the traffic is horrible and everyone looks stressed. However, since this site is in the northern hemisphere, I'll just go with the resolution as it is.
The Christian God is malevolent.

Round two rebuttals."7. RealityFinally, in contrast to Pro"s fictional statements about the Bible, let me quote what the Bible actually says:Matthew 7:12, "Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets."Matthew 22:39, "Love your neighbor as yourself."This is as far from malevolent as one can possibly get." PeiliFirst, Matthew 7:12 is more or less the golden rule. The history of the golden rule is here. [11]While the golden rule is a great start, it has one large weakness. Forcing your preferences on others. Let's say person A loves Pizza and Person B hates pizza. Person A may give pizza to person B. Since, person A would like others to give pizza to him or her, this fits within the golden rule also known as Matthew 7:12. Of course, person B hates pizza and is annoyed. The same is true of many other preferences. This becomes especially annoying or even harmful with surprise gifts. Impact: There is no doubt the golden rule is a boon and helps to improve God's character. Nevertheless it isn't perfect and can be expanded upon and improved. I thank my opponent for continuing the debate. 11. http://www.wisegeek.org...
the recent Percy Jackson movie butchered the book

Mess up: botch; make a mess of, destroy or ruin [1] My opponent has no way of proving that the movie destroyed the book. If the book originally written and bound by the author were to have been destroyed, then there would be no way of publishing it. And, as previously argued, it is impossible for a movie to destroy a book. Because I am posting my arguments on debate.org, a website created for debating, it is a fact that I am, indeed, "debating for real." [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
the recent Percy Jackson movie butchered the book

Because my opponent has not provided his own definitions, I will input my own. ==DEFINITIONS== Butchered: a brutal indiscriminate murderer [1] Movie: a form of entertainment that enacts a story by sound and a sequence of images giving the illusion of continuous movement [2] ==ARGUMENT== A movie cannot, physically, murder a book. In order to do as such, a movie must be: * Capable of wielding tools or weapons * Capable of judgment and thought Both are contained by human-beings, which are capable of butchering. It is impossible for a movie to hold objects or think, as movies may only be shown on a movie screen, television screen, or a computer monitor. Furthermore, because a screen or television does not have arms to move or the necessary requirements to be able to butcher something, the book would be left unharmed. I conclude my first argument, and wish my opponent good luck. ==SOURCES== [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...