BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is most likely no life after death

I don't see what the birth of a 1st-century Palestinian Jew has to do with the nature of life. Besides which, we can't place history (or alleged history), which is ultimately just hearsay, above biology, which has reproducible experimental evidence, in reliability. It would be like trusting your uncle over trusting your eyes. People see ghosts and spirits for the same reason we see faces in the moon, figures in constellations and clouds: we are hardwired to perceive agents even where there are none, to ascribe human traits to inanimate objects. Hence someone indistinctly seeing a trail of smoke or a shadow or even just a vague outline in the corner of their eye will frequently jump first to suspect that it's a person of some sort. When it turns out not to be a person after all, ghosts and spirits are appealed to in order to explain the initial eerie sensation of a "presence," when in reality the psychological phenomenon is quite mundane, and perfectly natural. "We as humans after we die we lose 1half ounce of weight which is our spirit leaving our bodies" - And where is that spirit located? What is it made of? How does it interact with the rest of our bodies? Since it has mass, it must be made of atoms, molecules--what elements or particles constitute it? Why hasn't it ever been detected in hundreds of years of in-depth research? I suppose I should stop teasing you. Your claim is erroneous, and based on a single study made by a fanatical Christian named Duncan MacDougall a century ago. His results have never been reproduced, and are not accepted by modern science due to the methodological shortcomings of MacDougall's experiment: his sample size was too small, his results were contradictory, and his endeavor was biased. In fact, if you didn't seem serious, I'd think you were making a joke by referencing his ridiculous "soul-weighing" experiment, as even most modern Christians view that silliness as nothing but a source of humor. See http://www.snopes.com... and http://en.wikipedia.org... "to go to heaven or somewhere else" - And where is Heaven? If the soul has mass, it must be a physical substance, which means that Heaven is likewise located in the physical universe. Where? :) "Scientifically it is proven that there are written documents such as the Bible and scrolls which tell us that there is an afterlife" - Certainly. They also tell us that Neptune is the god of the sea. What's your point? Mythology does not outweigh biology in reliability. Generally speaking, the fact that a document is old makes it less reliable, not more reliable.
There is most likely no life after death

In response to what you propose ,if what you say is true than Jesus would never have been born as a human male. If there is no life after death then here is a question ? why do people see what they call ghosts or spirits? Aren't these just figments of our imagination? I don't think so. We as humans after we die we lose 1half ounce of weight which is our spirit leaving our bodies to go to heaven or somewhere else also known as limbo to wait for the final judgement day. Scientifically it is proven that there are written documents such as the Bible and scrolls which tell us that there is an afterlife even if there are those which do not believe this to be true. The scrolls had to be translated into english from early aramaic which is dated back to 2000 years ago.
There is most likely no life after death

My argument is simple: there isn't sufficient evidence to believe in an afterlife, so we ought not to. The idea of an afterlife dates back to antiquated notions of a "vital spark", "spirit", or similar nonmaterial substance or energy which was supposedly responsible for animating living things. Modern science has shown that life operates through complex chemical reactions, and does not need an extra vitalistic "thing" in order to function. Bacteria do not seem to need souls in order to move about; nor do venus flytraps, jellyfish, squirrels, golden retrievers, or humans. Rather, our bodies move and function through physical processes. Per this process-based view of life, the idea of an afterlife (i.e., some place for the "spirit" to go after the body it inhabits has shut down) is similarly antiquated. When a computer ceases functioning, we do not imagine that its software is spirited away to some heavenly programming paradise; we see no problem with the idea of that software simply "blooping" out of existence, so we should likewise have no problem with the idea of the mind ceasing to exist when its "hardware," the brain, stops functioning. Our lives seems, then, to be limited to how long our bodies continue functioning. It would be foolish to rely upon some imagined "bonus round" of living in some otherworld, especially when doing so causes us to forget how precious, fleeting, and beautiful the real world is. Lacking a reason to assume that we are immortal, we ought to live this life to the fullest rather than ungratefully throwing it away just because it's flawed.
There is most likely no life after death

I find that there is life after death due to the fact that it was documented in the Bible and in the scrolls of Jesus time. Also due to extensive research we as humans have found evidence showing these things. As to the garments that Jesus wore back then , yes they were authenticated by researchers and world renowned scientists, they confirmed that the garments are real and the particles are Jesus sweat and blood from that time. The soul or spark, or energy as you put it does exist but is not a tangible thing ,but something that we know exists. Here is a question for you ? If the soul does not exist then why do people have Out Of Body Experiences or why is there astral travel can you explain that scientifically ? Probably not . That just goes to show you that there is life after death . Let me ask you this mr. Everything Scientific . Is it documented that there is not life after death? Again I ask what makes you such an authority on this subject? I have also concluded that you are not very knowlegable about this topic, but I also know that what I cannot see does not mean that it does not exist . For example the soul or spark. The soul or spark is the light that burns deep within us. As to what you know you obviously do not know what I am refering to well here it is . The spark that I am talking about is the soul that makes you what or who you are . As to Heaven it is right here on earth but we cannot see it . Although we as humans cannot see it but we believe in the existance of it, which is pretty open minded if you ask me. Does that mean that it is not there if we cannot see it? No it just means that we need to open our minds up some more to these concepts.
The house believes people's privacy is threatened by current trends is Internet media

1)If someone is that determind they can easily hack into accounts. 2) Google maps showing the outside of your house is a breech of privacy and an invitation to theifs as you can look at when people are not at home and also patterns. 3) Facebook until recently have had a policy to take users pictures, information etc and use them without any pre-consent. and post even when deleted can be traced anything you email/ post/ make online as soon as it is online it is a cyper space where everyone if they know can access it!
The house believes people's privacy is threatened by current trends is Internet media

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate ===PRO:=== >>With many people in today's society going online and making friends it is threatening our privacy as we have hackers, perverts and stalkers.<< ===REBUTTAL:=== There are many ways to protect your privacy whilst online. They include: 1) Only accepting people you know as friends 2) Setting your profile to private (only your friends can see it) [On some websites this is built in, such as Facebook] 3) Using a proxy server so your IP address cannot be traced, thus you cannot be tracked. Using the above methods, it is easy top avoid stalkers, hackers and perverts. ===PRO:=== >>With google maps you have no choice to show your house.<< ===REBUTTAL:=== With Google maps, you simply see the area as you would if you were walking down the street. When using Google Earth, you see it as if you were flying. In either circumstances, you have no choice but to show your home. If they were to, however, show the inside of your home, that would be complete violation of privacy. ===PRO:=== >>Also we are not warned about this on tv alot at school and internets can get hacked with wireless especially with social networking sites this is a raising issue.Especially with social networking sites.<< ===REBUTTAL:=== TV is not the only medium of media required for a message to be successfully sent. A quick search of the phrase "Social Networking" on bbc.co.uk showed hundreds of pages in regards to social networking. It would be safe to say most of them contain a safety warning. http://search.bbc.co.uk... Most newspapers have an article in regards to social networking as least once a week. It is clear there are obvious warnings in regards to social networking. I await my opponent response. I would like to thank people for reading. I reserve the right to make further arguments.
The house believes people's privacy is threatened by current trends is Internet media

===PRO:=== >>IP address can be decoded to get banking detail, names, DOB and telephone numbers and address. This is done by hackers and even though social networking sites and other online registrations may be built on false details which means all the official details everyone has I.p. (internet providers) address's which contain official details this is another breach of privacy via the internet.<< ===REBUTTAL:=== Again, this goes back to use a proxy to disguise your ISP address. It is a simple and effective way to stop such a hacking system. If they try to hack your ISP, they get that of the proxy, and do not get any information. Of course, for more official sites ,you can have your ISP encrypted [http://sovereign-rights.blogspot.com...]. Doing so will stop it being uncovered altogether. The hacking system mentioned by PRO is only for unprotected internet users. There is technology available for people who are willing to look for it.
The house believes people's privacy is threatened by current trends is Internet media

4) This week one of the top headlines that has made the news' Chinese cyberspy network smashed'. This was about an international cyberspy ring targeting politicians, diplomats and journalists that has been blown open by computer experts. Ghost-net believed to be China based infected 1,300 computers in 103 countries with a third of victims considered high value targets. One such victim is the ‘Dalai Lamas personal office' exposing sensitive information. With documents being removed without the targets knowledge and webcams triggered. If such people that have high security have their privacy invaded then a common person like one of us that has no where near as much security and knowledge about this most defiantly has their privacy threatened by the internet! IP address can be decoded to get banking detail, names, DOB and telephone numbers and address. This is done by hackers and even though social networking sites and other online registrations may be built on false details which means all the official details everyone has I.p. (internet providers) address's which contain official details this is another breach of privacy via the internet.
The house believes people's privacy is threatened by current trends is Internet media

===PRO:=== >>Proof : http://www.dailymail.co.uk...... this shows how Spy database are monitoring your every move on Facebook and MySpace!<< ===REBUTTAL:==== This is not a system, in my opponents words that "post even when deleted can be traced anything you email/ post/ make online as soon as it is online it is a cyper space where everyone if they know can access it!". This system is used by the government, and is kept by them. It is in no way available by typing the desired information into Google. Also, the information is available by visiting someone's Facebook/ Myspace page unless you have it on private mode, which makes it safe from hackers. ===PRO:=== >>http://www.xyhd.tv...... - All Your FaceBook Photos Are Belong to US: New Facebook TOS<< ===REBUTTAL:=== 1) Facebook is privately owned. You are using their space. When you upload a picture, you are putting it on their servers, so they technically own it, unless you pay for the space. 2) It is part of the TOS, therefore, you have pre consented to it. ===PRO:=== >>They have regular updates on Google map and you can see all aspects of the house hence if there are windows it wouldnt be hard to see... you can see the back doors everything. Google maps do this without prior permission. However Google Earth does a live streaming of everything happening.<< ===REBUTTAL:=== 1) A) Google maps and Google earth show a 2D image from satellites. It does not show doors or windows. B) The street view merely shows what you would see if you walked down the street. You do not need permission to walk down a street and look at someone's house. 2) Google Earth does not do a live stream, nor does Google maps. It shows still images taken. ===PRO:=== >>Poxy servers is only what a minority of the population know the rests privacy are threatened by current trends in the internet media. As they are not aware of this and not informed by any of the media.<< ===REBUTTAL:=== Proxy servers were an example of how to combat hackers. It could easily be made more available and had more attention brought to it.
The house believes people's privacy is threatened by current trends is Internet media

1) Proof : http://www.dailymail.co.uk... this shows how Spy database are monitoring your every move on Facebook and MySpace! 2) http://www.xyhd.tv... - All Your FaceBook Photos Are Belong to US: New Facebook TOS 3) They have regular updates on Google map and you can see all aspects of the house hence if there are windows it wouldnt be hard to see... you can see the back doors everything. Google maps do this without prior permission. However Google Earth does a live streaming of everything happening. 4) Poxy servers is only what a minority of the population know the rests privacy are threatened by current trends in the internet media. As they are not aware of this and not informed by any of the media.
The house believes people's privacy is threatened by current trends is Internet media

===PRO:=== >>If someone is that determind they can easily hack into accounts.<< ===REBUTTAL:=== If you are to use a proxy, as aforementioned, it is extremely difficult, fi not impossible, to hack someone's computer. Proxy.org [http://proxy.org...] explains a proxy: "acts as an intermediary, routing communications between your computer and the Internet. A proxy specializing in anonymous surfing, however, uses its own IP address in place of yours in every outgoing request." It is also possible to hide behind several proxies. The ability to disguise yourself is available. ===PRO:=== >>Google maps showing the outside of your house is a breech of privacy and an invitation to theifs as you can look at when people are not at home and also patterns.<< ===REBUTTAL:=== 1) Google maps does not run a live stream of your home. Therefore, thieves cannot see patterns. 2) Anyone walking by your home can see the outside of it. I don't see why this is a problme for Google maps ===PRO:=== >>Facebook until recently have had a policy to take users pictures, information etc and use them without any pre-consent. and post even when deleted can be traced anything you email/ post/ make online as soon as it is online it is a cyper space where everyone if they know can access it!<< ===REBUTTAL:=== PRO has no source to prove this claim, therefore it has been pulled out of thin air, and holds no weight in this debate.
The concept of sex and the concept of gender are the same.

First, If we may find some common ground. Here are some facts, These aren't arguments, These are indisputable facts. There are two biological sexes/genders, Male and female. Both of these genders have pairs of chromosomes that make them this way. Females with two X chromosomes and males with one X and one Y chromosome. There are some cases in which a baby is born with some male and female genitalia. This is known as intersex. In more cases than not, However, An intersex child has some identifying characteristics that would make them, "a female with testicles" or "a male with a vagina" instead of a straight cross between a man and a woman. You can get "sex reassignment surgery" and HRT (hormone replacement therapy) to superficially make the change to the opposite gender, However this doesn't change your chromosomes or your genetic makeup. If you are a transgender woman (A man who thinks he's a woman) who has experienced surgery and HRT, All of your cells still say you are a male, With the exception of his sperm cells. If you are a transgender man (A woman who think's she's a man) the same thing remains true. Last thing, Any studies have shown that the attempted suicide rates in transgender people pre-surgery sits at around 40%. The same studies show that post-surgery, The rates are ALMOST PRECISELY THE SAME. This is the main reason that I think that gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria is a mental illness and should be treated as such. THe surgery isn't the cure, Because suicide rates remain the same. You might say, "it's society's fault, Because they discriminate against trans people, " and to that I respond, The only comparable rate of attempted suicide in HUMAN HISTORY is that of Jews under German-Austrian rule during WWII. I can 100% assure you that transgender people in today's society don't have it worse than Jews in WWII. I appreciate any time you spend to argue with me, Because I'm open to having my mind changed.
Joshua's invasion of Jericho was anti-Jewish

Con wants Pro to give an ancient law prohibiting the actions of Joshua. Here you go Con- The Code of Hammurabi: Law #15 If anyone take a male or female slave of the court, or a male or female slave of a freed man, outside the city gates, he shall be put to death. Joshua disenfranchised the court in Jericho and the freemen of Jericho of their property, namely slaves. The Code of Hammurabi says that Joshua should be put to death for this act. Law #22 If anyone is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death. Joshua stole the property and the lives of all Jericho except for the life of Rahab and her family. The Code of Hammurabi says that Joshua if caught is to be put to death. Law #196 If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye. If one break a man's bone, they shall break his bone. If one destroy the eye of a freeman or break the bone of a freeman he shall pay one mana of silver. If one destroy the eye of a man's slave or break a bone of a man's slave he shall pay one-half his price. The Code of Hammurabi say that it is time for Joshua to pay. Now for the real issue: Joshua could not claim to be God because the tribe of Judah was to strong and to intelligent for Joshua to get away with such a claim. Most of the adults of the tribe of Judah had firsthand knowledge of Moses, therefore Joshua could not even claim to be in direct contact with God. Only Moses could claim that. So how was Joshua going to solve the problem of persuading the tribe of Judah to commit the atrocities of Jericho? Joshua would claim that the Angel of the LORD told him to do it. Is it possible that the Angel of the LORD told Joshua to commit genocide? Pro's answer is YES. Yes the Angel of the LORD is all about genocide. That is the reason why the Angel of the LORD has his/her/its being. The Angel of the LORD did command Joshua to commit genocide within the ancient walls of Jericho. Now why would the Angel of the LORD want to kill every living being in Jericho? Because Our Lord and Savior was coming from within the very gates of Jericho. The Angel of the LORD is the sworn enemy of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The Angel of the LORD will stop at nothing to murder Jesus of Nazareth. And short of that the Angel of the LORD would kill everyone else.
Joshua's invasion of Jericho was anti-Jewish

Right of Redemption Jericho was one of the oldest cities on earth by the time of Joshua. It was a great city before Abram was born. Since it was not a possession of Abram's before Joshua there can be no Right of Redemption. This leaves only one way for Joshua to argue that he had the right to destroy Jericho. It was to argue that God had commanded him to do what he did. There were no broken treaties. There was no prior ownership. Joshua had won no legal court order. So Joshua's only argument must be that God commanded him to destroy the city of Jericho. The problem with the 'God told me to do it' argument is that the command must follow strict moral guidelines. If the action(s) of the person(s) don't follow the strict moral guidelines then the argument that 'God commanded' fails. Take a look at the moral dilemma- The moral argument is that Jericho was destroyed because the people of Jericho were wicked. And yet Joshua does not kill Rahab the harlot. Not only was Rahab a harlot but she was a traitor. This person Rahab was morally bankrupted if ever a person was. And yet Joshua accepted Rahab into the nation of ancient Israel. Therefore Joshua did not destroy the city of Jericho because of moral corruption. Take a look at the military dilemma- The military argument is that Joshua could not allow Jericho to be in the rear of his army and Joshua did not have the time and/or manpower to pacify Jericho. Let me ask you a series of questions here audience- Didn't the Children of Israel just come from spending forty years in the wilderness? And before that didn't the Children of Israel just come from spending several hundred years in the land of Egypt? And before they entered Egypt weren't their numbers around seventy, (that is literally 70 people)? There was never any hurry. God never gets in a hurry. It is impossible for God to get in a hurry because God already knows everything and is already prepared for everything. God is not in a hurry. God is never in a hurry. God didn't get in a hurry just because Joshua was in a hurry. Joshua was short on time and manpower. God is never short on time or manpower. Joshua was only going to command the army of Israel for a few years- BUT GOD IS "I AM THAT I AM" The great I AM has all the time. There are two reasons why God did not command Joshua to utterly destroy the city of Jericho- 1 Joshua's actions violated the 10 Commandments 2 There was no need to hurry
Joshua's invasion of Jericho was anti-Jewish

The Pro position, (mine) is that Joshua, being an Ephriaimite destroyed Jericho unilaterally. As always my main source is the Bible. But this time I reserve the right to use history as well. Con is welcome to use any source and good luck. Opening: Joshua was one of the greatest generals of all time. As such he understood the threat of a Jericho left behind his army. Joshua lacked the time and the manpower to pacify. Therefore Joshua made the hard decision to utterly destroy Jericho. It was a cold calculated act devoid of mercy. But was it justified? Pro says Joshua did not have the right: 1 He did not have the legal right 2 He did not have the religious right 3 He did not have the moral right 4 He did not have the military right 5 He did not have the political right 6 He did not even have the right of redemption