BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wasting Time Debating the Silly Things

Okay, so I'm new to this site but there's something I've noticed that is irking me. First off, let me say that I love a good debate, even if it's simply based on a person's opinion without hard facts. So here's my problem, why are people wasting time debating silly, inconsequential things? For example, this song is sinful or that book promotes witchcraft. Or how about this movie was better than that one. Really? Just stop. There are more important, more substantial matters one can be debating. Those that want to debate whether or not the PlayStation System is superior to all the others are, in my opinion, intellectual runts. Use your brains and wits, in other words, your intelligence and debate a real issue, like abortion or gay rights.
Life after death exists

Life by definition in a biological sense doesnt explain conciousness. Do you accept this definition of life ? Becuase I think my life is more than simply reproduction,response,growth etc. I have the choice not to reproduce for example.Mainstream science assumes that the brain creates conciousness via electrical communication between nuerons in the brain. The assumption is based on the fact that if i remove parts of your brain you concious experience changes, for example if i remove your eyes you will become blind or If i hit your head really hard you may lose certain memories. However no part of the brain explains what causes the actual observer effect or how the material things in our universe such as atoms and molecules somehow form conciousness. We know the process of how they formed into more complicated lifeforms from single cells to mammals and humans etc. but one question remains: How can something as immaterial as consciousness ever arise from something as unconscious as matter? After a personal experience with the medicine ayahuasca which is from the amazon jungle Im quite convinced that the mainstream idea of our brain producing conciousness is wrong. It may seem that way because the better wiring in the brains of animals or humans the more we experience or are aware of our surroundings and ourselves. But another theory is that the brain is a reciever of conciousness and not a creator of it and that the wiring in the brain is not actually emitting conciousness but recieving it. The brain being like an electric grid does seem like a great instrument to recieve.What does it recieve , where is this conciousness?Scientists would say that theres no proof of conciousness outside of the brain so its not coming from anywhere to be recieved.However scientists look at the material reality of the universe if its not material its not real ..Quantum mechanics however has shown that the material world is an illusion all matter is really energy which has a potential reality in space/time.The actual energy is in more than one place at the same time untill their is some communication with another potential reality being another wave/particle duo when they communicate with each other a reality is formed.The greater the complexity of connections of all these potential realities into realities form the more complex our universe gets.The universe cools and planets form etc . The complexity grows , the universe is alive.
Life after death exists

Ah, I see that you are going to use the vagueness of the debate title to your advantage. Firstly, modern science does not state that our lives are illusions, and have set rules on what constitutes a living thing. 1; Organisation 2; Metabolism 3; Growth 4; Response 5; Reproduction We are alive, death is when we no longer carry out the aforementioned processes. Source, any decent biology textbook. My one is Leaving Cert. Biology. Not every species has a brain, but they continue to live. I was under the impression that you were referring to a metaphysical afterlife, rather than your simple abuse of the debate title. Your second argument only means that the rest of the universe continues to exist outside of the self, so existence of the rest of the world continues after the death of one organism, is what you meant to say, which is a pretty stupid argument. I am disappointed that you never defined the motion just so you could exploit its vagueness, it's quite the cheap trick you've got there.
Life after death exists

The burden of proof lies with me. If modern science states that our lives are an illusion as we are an illusion created by the brain , nuerochemicals that interact with each other inside the brain causing the illusion of conciousness .Then one might argue that life doesnt really exist. Therefore how can we die if we werent alive in the first place.Another way to look at it would be to say does life exist after death, well yes because when i die there are other living beings still alive on the planet and we even if our planet was destroyed by an asteroid then there would be other planets with life on them , therefore life exists after death.
Life after death exists

Your main argument has been that conciousness is still a mystery to us and exhibits dream like symptoms after death, but nowhere have you shown how this points to an afterlife. Even if Conciousness is independent of life, that still doesn't mean any kind of afterlife exists. Your argument has taken odd turns in explanation, and despite your acceptance of the burden of proof, all you've shown is that we still have a lot to learn about the brain. Your reasoning has become irrelevant because of this, and you really should have named this topic "conciousness is independent of life" in that case. In your final line, you suddenly mention the "universal mind", even though you failed to elaborate on it every time you brought it up, only acting as if you'd already listed a source for it. Your points are suited to a different topic and prove nothing in this debate. I would like to thank my opponent for their participation in this debate regardless. Duncan.
Life after death exists

Electrogmagnetism was Magic science a hundred years ago, everything is considered magick untill science proves it .Not all nde experiencers died for a short period of time, in fact in many cases doctors were expecting brain damage because the people were dead for so long but they didnt have brain damage somehow "Parnia: That’s a very important question. Do these memories occur when a person is truly flatlined and had no brain activity, as science suggests? Or when they’re beginning to wake up, but are still unconscious? The point that goes against the experiences happening afterwards, or before the brain shut down, is that many people describe very specific details of what happened to them during cardiac arrest. They describe conversations people had, clothes people wore, events that went on 10 or 20 minutes into resuscitation. That is not compatible with brain activity. It may be that some people receive better-quality resuscitation, and that — though there’s no evidence to support it — they did have brain activity. Or it could indicate that human consciousness, the psyche, the soul, the self, continued to function." http://www.wired.com...I cant find the study right now but i remember reading a study which showed that people were actually more likely to have an nde the longer they were dead.The way the brain stores these memories of ndes is not known . Whether they happen after or during the dead stage is unclear. I believe the memories are formed after the person has been dead, but the memories are real from another dimension or universal mind no one really knows .But the validity of the memories has been shown to be accurate as many people have had no brain or heart activity yet have been able to remember conversations or what people were wearing during death and the details were correct.Does AI have conciousness , not yet theres no proof of that yet, but i believe once computers can tap into the quantum field they will recieve the universal mind .
Life after death exists

I already said that you cannot mix magic science in this kind of debate. You pull up all these studies, and then go on to say they're proof of the soul? As I've said before, all you've shown is that the conciousness of the human brain is unique, and difficult to explain. The brain is the most complex supercomputer known to mankind, and how it stores memories is still not fully understood, but it can offer some explanation. You see, the brain can survive without the body for a couple of seconds, and you could delay this death in a similar way to freezing the body and removing the blood. And that's only decapitation. These cases were resolved just minutes after the death of the patient, meaning the brain had not suffered oxygen loss and had no damage yet. As long as the brain is undamaged, it can survive the body dying. The way the brain stores memories could also factor into this. If the brain is resurrected, it will begin checking over its memories again, and a dream like series of memories could result from this. Just because the brain is so complex does not mean the only solution can be a soul. How would the "soul" store memories anyway? And how does this prove life after death? The issue is that conciousness, from my earlier definition, is not a necessity for life. You can create an artificial intelligence nowadays, and it has some loose form of conciousness. Does this mean it is alive? No. But it's concious. This doesn't point to any afterlife, on;y just to show how much is left to learn from science. http://science.howstuffworks.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... And as always, I'll be waiting, Duncan.
Life after death exists

That is the scientific definition of living things. It's odd that you call it "mainstream science". If you remove parts of the brain, the responses that you have change depending on what action. (damage to emotions section results in extreme emotions) Removing the eyes removes the sense of sight. It does not make the person any less alive. Hitting someone's head really hard would be fatal. You have made a lot of claims regarding science, but you have listed no sources, and explained nothing, only creating assertions with no backing. Even if your faulty evidence was to be accepted, all you have stated is that the human conscience is a complicated entity within the brain, not proved any afterlife. Burden remains on you Prop. See you next round, Duncan.
english

Being pro, I believe that music artists are good role models to young children, especially when pushing them to work towards their dreams. While there are some that may have a negative influence, there are definitely more that have a positive influence on the majority of the population. Country singers, for example, specifically a few female ones, have demonstrated that they are able to work to a position of fame all while maintaining strong values and focuses on school [1]. Seeing as I only have five minutes to write this argument, I will have to end here. Sources: [1] - . http://www.savingcountrymusic.com...
POFO debate only pleasee

Yes, but you have to see it as this, banks owe them money, but the reason are economy is in crisis is because of debt and the housing market. According to Eric Tymoigne assistant professor of economics at Fresno State, the economic growth in the last 16 years has had a lot to do with the housing market. Foreclosures are happening because of subprime loans, giving the banks liquidity is a good thing, because then the banks are more likely to work with the persons who have debt. So they get their money on time, that is how it works, you idea is very confusing to me. The dollar will go down, but it will not go down enough to bite us in the butt. Like i said before inflation is cost induced not demand. Secondly you don't even realize like I said the negative effects are far away from now. In 2009 there will be economic growth rather than slowdowns. The rebates have produced before, also the success of this act through mitigation is if the bill does what the expectations are. Everyone is expecting it to not have a big impact, so that is what is expected. Vote Aff, don't be bias, believe in thsi act, look up the facts.
POFO debate only pleasee

The more we save in banks, the more the bank owes us. When you use debt to pay off debt, all you get is a new debt. People paying off their personal debt may be great for them, but its not for the economy. The credit card company doesnt comtribute liquid assets. Its actually the exact opposite. The entire credit industry is entirely based upon fake money that will always be reborrowed. So putting more money into an untangible dollar wont have any effect on the dollar's value. if we can agree that a weakening dollar is the problem, than we can see obviously that entrusting the american people to stimulate its value, when we agree that the most likely action they will take is to save or pay off debt, is not the answer.
POFO debate only pleasee

Tax rebates have worked actually, and here is why, about three things are going to be spent on. Won they spend the check, which will stimulate. Two they save it which gives banks more liquidity and with more liquidity they can work with the individuals that may foreclose on their house, that way the money is not lossed. Or three they pay off debt, paying off debt isn't bad, because then they have money available to spend. So it will mitigate, tax rebates always focus on the spending not even realizing the other options of the money. As far as your china analogy, we have plenty of money to help the U.S. out. Onto your next point or last point, how is this one sided as you said just asking.
POFO debate only pleasee

1st, i tihnk you mean Public Forum Debate? Anyhow: i only have one contention Tax Breaks with no government control never have and never will stop economic slowdowns. The biggest problem with the US economy in its state is our relience upon producing nations: We get the raw materials, sell them to China and get them shipped back at a lower rate. Sounds like a good deal? Actually, it makes us a third world country (so to speak). By not producing anything, we trade is opposite currency. When you dont use the dollar in international markets, you lose its value. Thats when the Yen, Yuan, and Euro are all coming close to double their compared value with the dollar as of 10 years ago. All the ESA does is put more money into the hands of the people that will be spending that money on foreign produced products, thus FURTHER weakening the value of the dollar. To stimulate the economy, the govt needs to take that money and put it towards subsidies for bussiness that would, on a regular basis, produce materials. That way we become self reliant and use our currency rather than foreign currency. Gotta love ridiculously onesided PF topics though
POFO debate only pleasee

Resolved: That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns over the next year. Definitions: Successfully- Achieving the desired effect Mitigate- decrease Year- 2009 Contention 1: Money into economy Whereas the Economic Stimulus Act is giving roughly $106 billion dollars to citizens that qualify, spending will increase within the nation. When this occurs companies are able to profit in turn mitigating the current recession. The recession is caused by citizens who're incapable due to debt (for the most part) from purchasing goods. As companies suffer due to loss in profit due to lack of buying, the economy suffers. Contention 2: Federal Reserve A)Money and Rates: The Federal Reserve had injected $24 billion into the U.S. banking system and lowered the federal funds rate below the usual target rate of 5.25% to help stabilize the economy, August 9, 2007. Since then, the rates of the Federal funds rate have been reduced to its current level of 4.25%. Basically this means in addition to the economic stimulus alone, the Fed. Reserve is working with the banks of the U.S. to help lower the amount that banks are charged when they make an overnight loan to one another. This helps the economy by taking less money away from the banks, allowing it to fuel the economy, and at the same time giving direct funding to the economy in banks. This helps mitigate the economic recession. B)Foreign and Central Banks Through actions between the Federal Reserve and foreign central banks such as the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Swiss National Bank, the Federal Reserve was able to alleviate some funding pressures by making greater liquidity (ability or ease to convert assets into cash) available. Lines were established between the ECB and the Federal Reserve to swap currency, which funds non-U.S. institutions that would usually go to the interbank market as opposed to the U.S. Through liquidity provided from the ECB's short-term funding of about $500 billion, markets have been able to recover on an international level. Essentially U.S is working with foreign banks to circulate money, helping to raise the value. Pressures on the economy are being alleviated through the liquidity of the Federal Reserve. Also, through the ECB's funding in the interbank, some markets are able to recover. Contention 3: Hirer wages Higher wages are an easy way to increase economic activity in the sense that it increases the amount people are able to spend on U.S markets. Now it's easy to say that there are no guarantees that the money will be spent on personal ventures, but the fact of the matter is that many Americans are in over their heads in debt, and this hurts companies when these citizens aren't able to pay. This increased wage can easily help to pay back loans, and debts acquired through the years and this directly influences the economy. This may look like a costly method, but it is effective and will essentially benefit companies in general, and perhaps save this nation from facing a great economic recession.
Animals Can be Consumed by Humans

(Sorry, I accidentally posted twice as you can see) I do agree that it is morbid to raise those animals in those conditions. But we might as well be doing them a favor to put them out of their misery. When you said 'raised and killed just to be eaten', This is just a form of sustaining ourselves and the reason why the animals were bred in the first place. Yes, It is horrible that chickens and other livestock are forced to grow up in restricted spaces. But this is the supplier's fault for the poor environment; some people simply do not care. I must remind you that there are farmers who do raise free ranged chickens, To ensure their health and the health of their customers. As for hormones and drugs, Most of the products are illegal and that there are products that are hormone-free. With these points, Meat can be eaten without it's dark background. Of course there will be people who will do it dishonestly and harm their animals, But just don't buy from them. Only purchase items labelled 'no added hormones' or 'free-range' or 'grass fed'. To conclude, There are simple ways to avoid being responsible for 'the way they're treated alive'-you just have to be careful.
Animals Can be Consumed by Humans

(First debate on this website ayuda me por favor) Eating animals may seem like a morbid activity from a vegetarian's point of view, But it is natural in human nature. To begin with, Meat contains a large amount of raw protein and nutrients that is beneficial to human health. Vitamins A, B and D are commonly found in meats, Which promotes eye vision, Bones, Teeth and helps the nervous system. Other advantages of this food source include healthier blood cells, Nerves, Lean muscle mass and sustaining levels of iron. What is so bad about improving one's well-being? They call it slaughter, Cruelty and savagery towards living creatures; it is actually called normal, Natural, Delicious and perfectly healthy.
Animals Can be Consumed by Humans

Let me start by saying that I eat meat, So I'm not exactly the perfect person for this debate. That being said, I do believe that being a vegetarian is a good moral decision and that many of the things we do to animals are indeed "slaughter, Cruelty, And savagery. " When you say that eating meat is natural, I assume that you're thinking about killing a chicken or a dear in the wild. That is absolutely not what is really going on in developed countries. These animals are being born, Raised, And killed just to be eaten. Chickens are being raised in cages that aren't large enough for them to turn around. The first and only time they ever come out of that cage they are killed, Cooked, And eaten. Not to mention the hormones and drugs that the animals are injected with throughout their lives. So from my point of view, Eating animals isn't the issue, The way that they're treated while they're alive is.
President Obama Should Get a Second Term

EducationThe Obama administration has implemented the Race to the Top program, which rewards individual states for making tough reforms such as raising standards, helping teachers improve, and turning around failing schools. So far, the rewards have been promising. Since 2010, the administration has awarded Race to the Top grants to 11 states and the District of Columbia—helping 13.6 million students and 980,000 teachers in 25,000 schools. [1] Other states can see the effects and adopt the same policies to their schools as well.Also, Obama has championed an increase in Pell Grants, and a program has been implemented that allows students to get loans from the federal government, and pay them back gradually at a maximum rate of 10% of income after the students finish college and get a job. This is not a ponzi scheme, this program is an smart investment. [2]Here are some accomplishments of the Obama administration thus far: Obama has overhauled the food safety system Advanced women's rights in the work place Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) in our military Stopped defending DOMA in court. Passed the Hate Crimes bill. Appointed two pro-choice women to the Supreme Court. Expanded access to medical care and provided subsidies for people who can't afford it. Expanded the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Fixed the preexisting conditions travesty [and rescissions] in health insurance. Invested in clean energy. Overhauled the credit card industry, making it much more consumer-friendly. While Dodd-Frank bill was weak in many respects, it was still an extremely worthwhile start at re-regulating the financial sector. He created a Elizabeth Warren's dream agency: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He's done a lot for veterans He got help for people whose health was injured during the clean-up after the 9/11 attacks. Health Care Reform that increases coverage to over 32 million people, while reducing the deficit [3] [4]Also, when you consider ALL OF THESE ACCOMPLISHMENTS (not all of them), then consider that Obama also prevented a second depression, and helped the economy restart (albeit slowly -- but we were at -9% GDP/ annually; now we are around +2%/ annually, and will rise over time). VOTE CONTRA ------- PRO Sources:[1] http://www.barackobama.com...[2] Clinton, Bill. Back To Work: Why We Need Smart Government For A Strong Economy. 2011. Print[3] http://www.michigandaily.com...[4] http://www.whitehouse.gov...
Call Of Duty Ghosts Sucks

The topic is as follows: "Call Of Duty Ghosts Sucks" My opponent gives the following reasons for his claim: 1. It's boring. 2. There is no multiplayer 3. Everyone says it sucks. 4. It was only 20 dollars but came out 60 dollars. My responses: 1. Boring is subjective 2. There is a myltiplayer -http://www.ign.com... 3. Appeal to majority -http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. Source not given