BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Jehovah's Witness view on death and resurrection is false.

I find all of this unusual and exceptionally acceptable. Pro's description of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses is pretty accurate, and I would only change one point in it. the body into which the resurrected personality is placed, along with all it's memories, is not just a human body with a few improvements, it is a perfect human body as was the body which Adam was created into, and in fact as was the body that the personality and memories of God's son were placed in when the time was right, hence Jesus being called "the second Adam". This new body is one which is not subject to sickness and death, since it has not inherited Adamic Sin as we all do when conceived. That is in fact the whole reason that a new, and perfect body is needed at resurrection. Having cleared that point up I shall say no more, it makes a refreshing change to debate with someone who apparently has a fair idea what he is disagreeing with. There is a lot of confusion out there over the word "soul", and most translations translate the word "Nephesh" in a variety of way, not just as soul, but simply as life, and variations on that theme. It is no wonder there is so much confusion over what a soul actually is. Of course that is Satan's plan, in order to drag as many away from the truth as he can. Hence there is such a confusion not just of religions, but particularly within Christendom itself. However truth is truth, and there can only be one. I should add that unless otherwise stated all scriptural quotations will be from the New World Translation, and considering title of the debate any other material will come from jehovah's Witnesses publications available for checking online, and links will be provided to them for that purpose. I shall leave round one at that I think, and wait to see my opponents first round of argument. Again I thank the proposer for the respectful nature of the challenge and for his clarity and intention to do all things "Decently and by arrangement" as scripture puts it.
The Jehovah's Witness view on death and resurrection is false.

It's a topic I find very interesting for both it's metaphysical implications and for its practical implications. The meaning of the resolutionSecond, let me explain what I mean by "The Jehovah's Witness view on death and resurrection. " If I've got this wrong, MadCornishBiker can correct me or clarify in the first round, but I ask him to be as clear and unambiguous as he possibly can. Basically, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that when we die, we cease to exist. We are not immaterial souls who survive in any consicous state after physical death. We are purely physical beings animated by what they call a "life force," which in some publications is likened to electricity. But a "life force" is not the same thing as people traditionally think of as a soul. It is not a person and therefore has no personal identity. After we are dead, Jehovah remembers us perfectly and completely. At the resurrection, Jehovah uses his perfect memory of us to bring us back into existence, albeit with some improvements. Although the resurrection entails physical humans coming into existence, it is not a raising up of the same body that died. Rather, Jehovah fashions a new body which he brings to life. It is important to note that in the view of Jehovah's Witnesses, the person who rises at the resurrection is the same person as the one who died. That means that we ourselves will be raised up at the resurrection. It won't just be a replica. The burden of proofIt is my burden in this debate to show that the Jehovah's Witness view is false. I will provide arguments to that effect. Con does not have the burden to show that the Jehovah's Witness view is true, although he can do so if he wishes. Con's burden will be to show that my arguments fail to show that the Jehovah's Witness view is false. So, in other words, all Con has to do is refute my arguments. FormatRound 1: Acceptance, definitions, clarifications, rules, and well-wishes. Round 2: Opening arguments. Round 3: Rebuttals. Round 4: Conclusion. Rules1. No new arguments in the last round, although rebuttals are allowed.2. Con may rebut in round 1.3. Voters must vote on the content of the debate, not on their own views, nor on arguments they would like to have made, nor on what goes on in the comment section or discussion forums.4. Fairness and charity are expected from both debaters and all voters. No motive-mongering.5. Forfeiting the last round is a loss of the whole debate. Forfeiting just one round prior to the last round is a lost of conduct. FinallyI have made the debate 6000 characters long to encourage voting and discourage forfeiting. Good luck, MadCornishBiker. I hope for a challenging exchange.
The Jehovah's Witness view on death and resurrection is false.

The laws of logic apply to everything, but circumstances alter cases and what is logical in one set of circumstances is illogical in another. It is the argumentation that is less than applicable,to the situation and the title of this debate, not the logic itself, which applies in the sort of circumstance the examples describe though they bear no relation to the circumstances involved in the Jehovah's Witness view of death and resurrection. Scripture tells us that on death we exist only in the memory of God, in the same way that our deceased loved ones live in our memories, only God's knowledge of us is far more detailed than that of any human. Hence he can replace our complete set of memories and personality in our new perfect bodies, the same way that he placed the memories and personality of his son in Jesus on baptism Because the body that the personality and memories are placed in becomes the person because it is our memories and personality which makes us, us, not the flesh we inhabit. In fact it is not nonsense to suggest that the "us" that we are today is not the "us" that we will be tomorrow, because as Pro has already admitted we change continually as our experiences shape us. He admitted that in his statement that two identical versions would soon cease to be identical as they were shaped by what happened to and around them. Sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. If the identical copies change and become different the n so do we all. That is why God's judgment on us all will only be made on the "us" we are at the time of judgement, not before. Our pasts will not be held against us provided we have turned our backs on them. There are many currently in line for salvation now who would not have been if their judgement had happened before they learned the error of their ways, and doubtless some who are in line for it now who will not be if they move away from the true path. I am going to say little more now because I fell it has all been said, but as a brief summary, Pro has already said that two identical copies would soon become different because of circumstance surrounding them, and by that same token we all change every day, every minute sometimes, however small the changes are, and as the scots say "mony a mickle maks a muckle" Many a little makes a lot. In that case I respectfully suggest that his own argumentation has disproven his own case. Again I thank my opponent for this opportunity, and, like him, would enjoy another debate on any bible based subject at some time in the future. However I do restrict myself to bible based subjects since to my mind they are the only ones worthy of the effort.
I call BS on Christianity

I call BS on your Christian faith, whatever you got I call BS. The idea is that I can credibly critique and provide sources that dismiss the reason you believe or even what you believe. Rules: One, you have to be stand up kind of person and not cowardly accept this challenge and then claim you are not really a Christian".do so and you forfeit. Two: This is a formal debate and not a debate aimed at making others feel good by pussyfooting around. While convincing the audience may be important to some, fact"s quote and citations will be your friend. Three: It will be "Pros"" responsibility to redirect voters from voting anything other than neutral on conduct. YES, the acceptance of the debate means you NO_ONE votes other than neutral on conduct. I used this rule recently and Christians seem to believe rules only exist for non-believers. What do I mean? I mean to say that the bible is an evil book that instructs believers to commit acts of violence against non-believers and therefore Christians are void in regards to politically correct conduct to begin with and have no right to accept a vote because I all BS on their faith. Fourth: Punch for punch, I am to address your beliefs and I will do so with politically correct conduct until your conduct warrants otherwise".and I do not care if you are just politically incorrect because the bible told you it was okay. In fact, I do not really care what votes I do or do not get, my goal isn"t to be judged by the majority that hasn"t enough understanding to judge a formal debate (myself included), my goal is only to make one think and to learn something new. The question is, are you up to it"as I get bored easily when Christian claiming not to be Christian accept these challenges and derail the entire debate.
Obligation precludes sincerity, or in being sincere one must ignore obligation.

I'm sorry my sons have been sick this past week. I would like to continue this debate but I don't know how to postpone it. So I guess I just forfeit. Good points all around. Your assumption that I would need to personally prove all obligatory actions to be insincere was off, though. Point of logos, I would only need argue the logical inconsistencies between the two terms. Regardless, I would love to debate this some other time with you if you would again accept the challenge.
Obligation precludes sincerity, or in being sincere one must ignore obligation.

As I understand this, my opponent is claiming that one cannot be sincere when performing an obligation, and nor can one perform a sincere act if it is an obligation. For starters, definitions:Sincere: "having or showing true feelings that are expressed in an honest way"[1]Obligation: "something by which a person is bound or obliged to do certain things, and which arises out of a sense of duty or results from custom, law, etc."[2]In order to meet his resolution, my opponent would have to somehow show that nobody, ever in the grand scale of things, acted out of both obligation and sincerity. This is impossible, because he cannot truly know what every person's actions meant to that person.However, one can think of many examples where one could conceivably feel both. Let's take an opera singer, for example. An opera singer might have a contract that obligates them to go on tour and sing and whatever. In being bound to that action however, that opera singer could also sincerely want to sing, obligation notwithstanding. In fact, that opera singer is probably in that situation of obligation because of his sincerity in regards to singing. Of course, one could raise the point that the singer may feel sincere, but he also feels the pressure of obligation upon him. This may very well be true, however, my opponent needs to prove that 'Obligation precludes sincerity', in other words, with obligation present, no sincerity may be present. Obviously, given the above example and logic, he cannot do this. Thanks for reading.Sources:[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Obligation precludes sincerity, or in being sincere one must ignore obligation.

Whereas, to be obliged is to forgo the privilege of sincerity, and, Whereas, an obligatory action is one performed under the pretense of the obligation and, Whereas, sincerity is the freedom from all pretense and, Whereas, a sincere act must be a desired act regardless of the pretense and, Whereas, it isn't the act asked by obligation that affects the sincerity, rather, it is the idea of obligatory action, the same act for under the same circumstances without the phrase obligatory would make the act sincere so, Therefore, any action performed under obligation is one performed insincerely.
Gay marraige is absurd

Since your opening arguments were weak I will take the liberty of setting the guidelines for this debate 1- Gay marriage will be defined in the loosest terms of marriage, that being "an intimate or close union" which is a definition of marriage. 2- Absurd will be any of these definitions http://www.merriam-webster.com... To state that a male and a male or a female and a female maintaining intimate or close union is absurd is completely illogical, the simple fact that the idea exists denies it the ability to meet any definition of the word absurd, and although I do not understand the morals of gay marriage, to say it is absurd would be untrue, and I am willing to admit that gays have all the right to be gay.
Every man should have makeup

1) This is SUPER ridiculous. MEN SHOULD NOT, EVER wear makeup! Makeup were designed SPECIFICALLY for women, not for men. I bet all the men would disagree on this. Would you go out in public, putting on lipstick in front of the women and painting your eyelashes? HECK NO! 2) Why would people put on make that are JUST DESIGNED FOR WOMEN? Surely they have something... coocoo in their brains!
Affirmative action is contrary to the public good

My opponent's argument also assumes that minorities are incapable of advancing themselves without government assistance, be it in education or public service. His claim is that this is because "almost all minorities are poor", which is a gross exaggeration that could be considered racist/bigot in another context. I don't like to use words like that, because I feel that they convey the wrong message, so I will stick with a more accurate description and say that they oversimplify the situation and thus encourage simplistic approaches like affirmative action. Furthermore, what about minorities that are wealthy? Do Michael Jordan's children deserve extra boosts in life? How about Barack Obama's daughters? How about the other numerous politicians who are either black or Latino? I am partly being facetious, but it is meant to show the ridiculousness of arbitrarily awarding merit for a factor which has no merit when it comes to the task at hand. Prove that adding unqualified minorities is beneficial to society, which means you need to show how their minority status makes up for their lack of other qualifications. Note, I would not consider hiring a couple extra local black police officers who were border-line unqualified to work in a police department in a heavily black city to be an example of affirmative action. This would be more like hiring one job applicant over another because they have something extra that gives them an edge in doing their job. In this case, the possibility that they could have a greater rapport with the people in the area would possibly give them an edge. However, this is the kind of decision that would probably be made without affirmative action, employers want a more effective workforce, and if they feel adding people of another race will enhance their workplace then they will do it on their own. Affirmative action is too arbitrary, too clumsy, and too anti-merit to make any serious argument that it enhances the public good. I would like to thank my opponent for taking the time to debate this topic with me. I hope that he puts forth a cogent argument against my position in the final round, rather than forfeiting it like he did in the second round. Judging by his argument in the first round, I was looking forward to a spirited debate with a quality opponent. Regardless, I feel that there is enough information here for the voters to make a well-informed decision on a topic which although controversial, is rarely discussed on a rational and reasoned level, due to the highly political nature of its content.
Affirmative action is contrary to the public good

Affirmative action in its present form in the United States is a well-meaning but misguided attempt to advance the public good. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is a very apt portrayal of this topic. Definitions: Affirmative Action: The system whereby preference is given towards certain groups which historically have been targets of discrimination and therefore action should be taken to rectify these mistakes by giving preferences towards these groups. Public Good: That which benefits society as whole. In this context the primary concern is the calculus of determining which approach serves the public good more. Contrary: Goes against or is counter-productive in this case. Affirmative action does not serve the public good because the benefits it provides are outweighed by the negatives. Our government is meant to serve the public good. That was the purpose behind merit-based systems of hiring for government work, to ensure a more competent workforce and to lessen the role of subjectivity in hiring decisions, which makes it easier to discriminate against others. This is usually done via the administration of testing that is done under controlled conditions that is deemed to be pertinent to the job being applied for. This serves the public good on both fronts, providing more qualified applicants and ensuring that groups that may be viewed negatively have an opportunity to make the case that they should be hired for the job. Affirmative action provides a boost to discriminated groups at the expense of merit, so the only way it can be correct is if a society values anti-discrimination to be more valuable than a well-qualified workforce. Affirmative action must demonstrate that the public good is served better than the alternative, which is the absence of affirmative action. Add up the positives of affirmative action and subtract the negatives, if the result is more negative than positive then affirmative action is contrary to the public good; because the alternative is its absence i.e. nothing. Zero is greater in value than a negative number, so therefore affirmative action's presence is worse than its absence with regards to the public good.
SOLVE! THAT! RIDDLE!!!!!! pt.2

I'm going to stump this mexican dish with an attitude. Same rules as last time. I present the riddle, he gets one shot to get it right. If he does, he wins and gets all da points. If he doesn't, I win and I get all the points.The riddle is this: A murderer is condemned to death. He has to choose between three rooms. The first is full of raging fires, the second is full of assassins with loaded guns, and the third is full of lions that haven't eaten in 3 years. Which room is safest for him?
Directors should give New Actors more of a Chance

I believe that acting should be more open to the general public. So instead of picking actors that have a big name already, Directors should give the new actors a chance by opening auditions up to the public before picking actors that are already celebrities. This way there will be more chances for new, Fledgling actors to get their career started instead of being "Boy 2" all the time. This allows young actors to get a big name early on before their 30-40 years of age and can't act in the teens section. I know that their are lots of talented young actors out there but there are at least 3 times as more young actors that you've never heard of. Tell me what you
Directors should give New Actors more of a Chance

I feel like the actors with big names for themselves don't get that recognition just to get that recognition. The consumers want the best level of entertainment possible. If the directors started hiring people with no experience, We'd have some pretty shitty movies. The actors with huge names for themselves have those names because of their immense skill and how convincing their performances are. You have to ask yourselves, Do you care more about the young actors/actresses, Or the quality of the entertainment you'll be consuming?
The submission of the United States to an International Criminal Court abuses intrinsicality

Thanks for the debate and for the topic - I'm debating this too. The main misunderstanding my opponent makes is that. .. he doesn't understand what we are debating about. To make it clear: we are NOT debating "The U. S. ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity". Instead, we are debating the topic created by my opponent which reads "The submission of the United States to an International Criminal Court abuses intrinsicality". The reason I will use for why submission violates intrinsicality is the same that his friend used: "Should the United States submit to an International Criminal Court, the intrinsicality of its citizens would be limited. Those who, for example, join the United States army in hope of helping their country would possibly be prosecuted for patriotism. These citizens are then at risk for the simple tasks of doing their jobs. " My opponent's reason why submission does not abuse intrinsicality is that "no crime that breaks already defined [international] law can be justified". That's fine. I agree that crimes against humanity are not justified. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. We are not debating whether crimes against humanity are justified – that's a given. Instead, we are debating whether prosecution violates intrinsicality, which it does. I'm not sure it's possible to prove that submission does not violate intrinsicality, to be honest. Since submitting to international organizations is, by definition, intrinsicality. While intrinsicality might be outweighed by other concerns, such as international law as my opponent pointed out, that does not mean that the abuse did not take place.
I will not break a rule.

I'll accept the defense of the list of words, but I did not break Foundation Rule #4. The video that I posted was obviously what Rule #1 of the same round was referring to. As it was part of the rule I made, Foundation Rule #4. Notice that there are no rules directly above this argument. "6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit." My Mothers Pimp did not post any rules, and therefore, forfeits this debate. I win. Plain and simple. Regardless of the arguments, a forfeit results in my instant victory. 1. Everybody can watch Video #1. 2. Everybody can watch Video #2. 3. Everybody can watch Video #3. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
I will not break a rule.

My Mothers Pimp just broke a rule. My Round 1 Rule #1 specifically states that each rule must include all of the phrases in a different method. However, all of his rules use the same method. They all use a list. More specifically, they all include the words through the clause, "provided that all of the following words or phrases appear in the debate: Barack Obama, George Bush, Karl Marx, suicide, Congress, Rush Limbaugh, cheese, Pikachu, Kleptin, Alexander the Great, bowling ball, Campbell's chicken noodle soup, flying spaghetti monster, chess, Falcon Punch, Judel Foir, methane gas." Therefore, Rules 2 and 3 of Round 2 are null and void, and my opponent loses this debate. 1. My Mothers Pimp is so awesome that he can watch the following video: http://www.youtube.com... 2. If My Mothers Pimp does not use all of his rules in Round 3 to restrict himself and only himself, then he loses this debate immediately, because he can beat Chuck Norris. 3. In My Mothers Pimp's language, the symbol "9" translates to the number that ordinary people would think of as 9,000, because he is so skilled that all of his numbers are a thousand times greater than they appear.