BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
An afterlife exists.

Thanks Samuel. An afterlife is a realm where consciousness survives even when the physical body has died. This obviously rules out any type of identity theories that involved continuation of the physical. Our theory of identity must be based on some further fact of consciousness and the physical (Cartesian soul), or be based on the consciousness itself. This is sometimes divided into 2 categories, Augustinian Reconstructionism and Cartesian Dualism. Reconstructionism This is the theory that when you get to the afterlife, you’re reconstructed from your physical substance to the spiritual substance. This theory has some superior qualities than dualism, like it allows for any view of the mind. The actual substance of the mind would be irrelevant. Nonetheless, it has problems. Two people can have the same psychology. If for some reason the commander of the afterlife, like God messed up and created you now, it clearly wouldn’t be you. After all, two people cannot be identical to the same person. Let’s say, I die and my psychology is reconstructed in the afterlife. But, at the same time my psychology is also reconstructed on a computer, what would’ve happened to me? Psychology doesn’t need to be unique to individuals and therefore, a psychological constructionist view of the afterlife is false. Dualism Another view is dualism. When you go to the afterlife, your nonphysical identity goes to a nonphysical place. This is the conception that your soul “floats up” to the afterlife. Since I’ve demonstrated identity doesn’t lay in facts about psychology, the question comes up how exactly does the soul preserve identity? What makes my soul and your soul different? It cannot be facts about psychology or facts about the physical. It asserts it preserves identity without explaining how. What would happen if our souls switched? Nothing about our consciousness or bodies would change, but we would be different people. There doesn’t seem there would be any difference whatsoever. There could be constant soul switchings and we’d never know. As William James said “A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all.” [2] A dualist theory of identity cannot explain identity in the first place. We cannot get to the afterlife by being reconstructed or by being “carried up”, but since an afterlife is a realm where individual's identity goes, then there cannot be an afterlife. As an individual's identity cannot go to any other realm. Now to Pro. Remember the next round is for your arguments. You don’t respond to these arguments until [1] Davidson, Donald. "Knowing One's Own Mind." Reprinted in Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective (pp. 15–38). New York and Clarendon: Oxford University Press. Originally published [2] http://www.quoteyard.com...
Death Penalty

Death Penalty - Capital Punishment - http://en.wikipedia.org... Resolved: The death penalty should be used at times as punishment for a crime. I negate the resolution. I reserve the right to make new contentions in future rounds. Contention 1: Costs Too Much [1] The government spends millions of dollars paid for by the taxpayers, just to try to get a person killed. This is, to put it simply, a waste of money. It costs much less money to keep people convicted of high felonies locked up under maximum security, and it would also create jobs in security. Contention 2: Risky People are often released from Death Row through DNA evidence that previously was unavaliable. [2] "In the U.S., as of June 2002, 108 people including 12 death row inmates, have been exonerated by use of DNA tests." This means that the death penalty has most likely killed at least one innocent person. Keeping people under maximum security would allow for the release of a person later discovered to be innocent. The death penalty, however, once delivered, cannot be repealed. That should do it for now. Good luck to my future opponent. 1. http://www.deathpenalty.org... 2. http://www.aclu.org...
The Judeo-Christian God has Poor Communication Skills

I am arguing that the Judeo-Christian God has poor communication skills. My opponent will argue that he has strong communication skills. 72 hours, 4 rounds, 8000 characters max. I hope for a good debate!Here are some acceptable definitions. I am not really too picky about definitions or anything, just no shananigans. Good Luck!Judeo-Christian God- is the God of Jewish, Christian, Muslim faiths Communication Skills- Communication is a process whereby information is enclosed in a package and is channeled and imparted by a sender to a receiver via some medium. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_skills The transfer of opinions, ideas, knowledge and/or skills through various media, such as verbal, visual and written. www.grb.uk.com/he_glossary.0.html the ability to use language (receptive) and express (expressive) information. www.chop.edu/service/22q-and-you-center/about-chromosome-
Society needs a Serial Killer like Dexter Morgan

~=~= Definition ~=~=Society: the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. Serial Killer: someone who murders more than three victims one at a time, in a relatively short interval. Needed: require something because it is essential or very important. Dexter Morgan: a character from the Tv series "Dexter" played by Michael C. Hall. Side Info & Note: Dexter Morgan is a serial killer like no other, he kills those that have killed and to his belief deserve to be dead. I will also like to tell the opponent he/she may deny these definitions and put forward his/her own. ~=~= Pro & Con ~=~=Pro: Chosen by me I will protect my case by trying to persuade the opponent and audience that a serial killer like Dexter Morgan is needed in our society. Con: Will be chosen by who ever may accept this debate. He/she will protect their case trying to persuade me and the audience that a serial killer like Dexter Morgan nor any type of serial killer is needed in our society. ~=~= Rules ~=~=1. Round one will be for acceptance, we will move forward from there. 2. Please refrain from making insulting comments that may hurt the feelings of the opponent or someone in the audience. 3. All forms of resources can be used such as; videos and links. Please make video sources under five minutes.4. If you accept this debate please make sure that you will be able to finish it, otherwise do not accept.5. Have fun and be creative. I love to learn and debating makes it fun, therefore I conclude good luck and let the debate begin. Side note: If the opponent wants to put forward a rule of his/her own he/she may do so.
Atheism verse agnostic

Thanks to my opponent firstly we must establish definitions Theist- one who believes in the existence of a god or gods http://www.thefreedictionary.com...... gnostic- Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge http://www.thefreedictionary.com...... a(prefix)- no, absence of, without, lack of, not http://wordinfo.info...... So, when it comes to belief in god, we have this dichotomy: theist as defined: one who believes in the existence of a god or gods and atheist- not one who believes in god. This is basic, either you contain the positive attribute of belief or The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...... or you do not. So, in terms of belief there are theists and atheists. When it comes to knowledge there are agnostics and there are gnostics. If, you really want to throw in the word agnostic to the theological question of belief, one must then decide are you agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. Agnostic atheist meaning one who lacks belief in god, but also lacks the knowledge or agnostic theist one who possesses the positive attribute of belief in god, while lacking knowledge. Perhaps my opponent is confusing agnostic with weak and strong atheism. weak atheism- a person who does not hold the positive position that there is no god, but lacks the belief in god. strong atheism- a person who does hold the position that there is no god, therefore has no belief in god. In conclusion, when asked if this was about belief in god, my opponent clearly said yes. Yet, his entire position being of the root word gnostic has to do with knowledge not belief. So, the position is non-sequitur. Even if the person says they don't know if they believe in god, that does not mean the person does not meet one of the definitions. In this case, that person should be atheist, as they clearly don't place trust or confidence in the existence of god. Which is what by definition belief in god is, and by definition since they are not one who places trust or confidence in the existence of god, they do not believe. This makes said person atheist. One of only 2 possible positions when it comes to belief.
Atheism verse agnostic

Resolved: The agnostic approach is superior to the atheistic approach. atheism: The position that there are no deities. How can one know with certainty that god doesn't exist. There are big debates and arguments on the existence of god, there are philosophy professors who believe in god. How can one claim to Know with certainty that there is no god. To take a definite position on such an important and unclear matter is in my opinion foolhardy. Even if you have arguments against god. There are counter arguments and great geniuses who devote their life to debating this. This has been going on for thousands of years. How can it be clear that there is no god. The agnostic approach is therefore more appropriate for such a matter. It is the approach of open mindedness and objectivity.
The United States should continue to violate US law and international law at Guantanamo Bay.

On Terrorism... "I am not saying we should not use intelligence to protect ourselves from LEGITMATE threats, I am saying that we should not engage in acts that our own country and the rest of the world has described as torture." I said that last round. I do think the US should use legitimate, accepted forms of interrogation in order to gain intelligence to be able to protect ourselves against threats that actually are threats. However, as I stated before, the US should not continue to use the same forms of interrogation that the Geneva Convention and our own laws have outlawed, i.e., torture. As I said before, which you did not address, the failure to comply with international law and the obvious use of loopholes in our law causes us to look illegitimate in our fight to promote democracy abroad. We are trying to stop terrorism by doing this, you would agree. Our fight against terrorism is hindered because we lose things like soft power (global influence) because we look hypocritical. We will never be able to foster a global fight against terrorism, which is better than us fighting it alone. On the Geneva Convention... The practices at Guantanamo Bay violate the Geneva convention. The Geneva Convention outlaws types of torture that are commited at Guantanamo Bay. ["The Secretary seems unaware of the requirements of international humanitarian law," said Jamie Fellner, director of Human Rights Watchï¿½s U.S. Program. "As a party to the Geneva Conventions, the United States is required to treat every detained combatant humanely, including unlawful combatants. The United States may not pick and choose among them to decide who is entitled to decent treatment." The United States is a party to the Geneva Conventions, the laws governing the treatment of persons captured during armed conflict. Every captured fighter is entitled to humane treatment, understood at a minimum to include basic shelter, clothing, food and medical attention. In addition, no detainee – even if suspected of war crimes such as the murder of civilians – may be subjected to torture, corporal punishment, or humiliating or degrading treatment. If captured fighters are tried for crimes, the trials must satisfy certain basic fair trial guarantees.] [ ] = http://www.hrw.org... Three British prisoners, now known in the media as the "Tipton Three," were released in 2004 without charge. The three have disclosed ongoing torture, sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution being committed by U.S. forces at Guantanamo Bay. The prisoners have released a 115-page report detailing these accusations. Gitmo is a monstrous failure of justice, because the MILITARY acts as interrogators, prosecutors and defense counsel, judges, and when death sentences are imposed, as executioners. The trials are held in private. None of the guarantees of a fair trial are observed; and the gaurantees of a fair trial are mandatory in our law and in the law of the Geneva Convention.
The United States should continue to violate US law and international law at Guantanamo Bay.

In order to secure National Security, and to continue the war on terror it is necessary for the United States to continue torture at Guantanamo Bay to secure it's interests in a global cold war. The world has come to a stage far past moral constraints, and to eliminate the extraction of information from Guantanamo Bay would be a sever damper on the United States International Interests. The World is in a state of anarchy as far as National Governments proceed, to eliminate the extraction of information at Guantanamo Bay would be a very poor international policy. It would only serve to aid terrorists, our enemies, and any infractions and insurgencies. In this cast it is necessary to "fight fire with fire". The Geneva Accords specifically outlaw certain types of torture, which agreeably can be eliminated from Guantanamo Bay but certain, unrestricted, forms of torture must still be used to secure our international interests. The Convention outlined those who are to be exempt from torture as: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria." However Those tortured at Guantanamo Bay do not meet those criteria, because they were captured during war, and as their religion often dictates: "will never surrender" The fact that Guantanamo Bay does not violate the Geneva Convention negates your attempt to use the accords as a reason to stop torture at Guantanamo Bay. It is necessary for our Great Country to resort to sometimes unenviable means to protect our country. As an American Citizen, and Political Realist, I vehemently oppose your proposition and will argue to support our countries methods of protecting itself.
The United States should continue to violate US law and international law at Guantanamo Bay.

Guantanamo Bay serves as a legal loophole for holding detainees of the "War on Terror." The prison is deliberately used to surpass law because it is not located in the US, and the prisoners there are not US citizens. The US holds these detainees without fair trial - only a "military tribunal" which is not legit - it consists of a panel of military officers deciding on a prisoner's status with no legal representation. The US circumvents this by calling them "enemy combatants." The prisoners should be tried fairly - this is a core principle of democracy in the US - we look like hypocrites when we try to promote democracy abroad but then do things like this back home. Furthermore, torture occurs at Guantanamo Bay. The US is not supposed to condone torture, and we claim that we do not torture; however, there is OVERWHELMING evidence that torture occurs at Guantanamo Bay. I am not saying we should not use intelligence to protect ourselves from LEGITMATE threats, I am saying that we should not engage in acts that our own country and the rest of the world has described as torture. "Gitmo" is in violation of international law specifically through the Geneva Convention, which is more just because it sees through the legal loopholes that Guantanamo slips through in American law. The illegal/immoral actions that occur at Guantanamo Bay should be stopped. If this is not possible, then the prison should be shut down to make it stop. The world will forever see us as illegitimate as long as we fail to follow international law and deliberately find loopholes in our own.
A Bill to Ban the use of Drone Attacks in Pakistan

According to the CIA, "just over 20 civilians are known to have died in drone attacks since January 2009, in a 15-month period that witnessed more than 70 drone attacks that killed 400 suspected terrorists." Another article from the Washington Post mentioned that "a drone fired a missile at a building, which killed a top al-Qaeda leader and nine other suspected terrorists. The article also mentions no one else was hurt or killed in the town of 5,000 people." This shows that these drones are becoming more and more accurate. These drones are helpful. According to General James Cartwright, "these drones can fly low. Their ability to get lower to the ground enables them to see the target more clearly, so their shots are more accurate." The other plus is that we are not risking the lives of young soldiers. On top the 400 suspected terrorists killed, a recent ABC news article published in 2011, "describes a CIA drone that successfully killed three top al- Qaeda leaders." So as we can see these drones are not only beneficial by saving soldiers but they have helped us target terrorists.
A Bill to Ban the use of Drone Attacks in Pakistan

We have come to a time where we can drive places in luxurious automobiles, access millions of information at the click of a button, and we can also fly across the globe within hours. We have accomplished all of this with man behind the wheel, but who would have ever thought that it was possible to control an automobile or an aircraft without man behind the wheel. Today we have developed a technology which can do exactly this, and this technology is known as an unmanned aerial vehicle or UAV. The CIA has recently begun to use these UAVs on our war on terror. I am in strong negation of this bill. Firstly, Civilian casualties will always exist in war. According to a 2001 study by the Red Cross, "the civilian-to-soldier death ratio in wars fought since the mid-20th century has been 10:1, meaning ten civilian deaths for every soldier death." Also the lowest civilian-to-soldier ratio, according to Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School, "was in 2007, when Israel achieved a ratio of 1:30." . A recent article by the Washington Post published in April 2010 stated, "the CIA has refined its techniques and made technological improvements that are reducing civilian deaths. The CIA is able to do this by using new smaller missiles and advanced surveillance techniques, which minimizes these civilian casualties."
Tobacco should be banned

I don't think you understand the point of my argument.Tobacco is a legal product. In order to ban it, you need to find a basis to remove that legality. So far, you have offered only a few opinions on why this legality should be removed:1) Tobacco is bad for you2) Second-hand smoke is bad for bystandersTo which I responded with:1) Just because something is bad for you, doesn't mean it should be banned. Sugar is a great example of this.2) There is no scientific evidence linking second-hand smoke with adverse health effects to nonsmokers.To win this debate, Pro was supposed to provide enough valid reasons as to why the legal status of tobacco should be removed. Two reasons with scanty logic at best is simply not enough justification to ban tobacco. Keep in mind, Pro, that this debate is whether or not tobacco SHOULD be banned, not whether or not it COULD be banned. Of course, the government can ban whatever it wants to. But should they? Absolutely not.To answer your question in the last round, economic ownership applies to property rights. Earlier in this debate, you said that smoking on private property would be fine with you except for the problem of second-hand smoke. I demonstrated that second-hand smoke was not a problem, thus, it should be completely fine to smoke on private property, like you said earlier in this debate. The argument about economic ownership was simply a follow up to that.To summarize this debate:I have provided enough justification to demonstrate why tobacco should remain legal. I have made arguments stating that the government should not be allowed to decide what you choose to put inside of your bodies, which Pro never responded to. I have dismissed the myths about second-hand smoke and demonstrated that there is, in fact, zero scientific evidence supporting the idea that second-hand smoke is actually harmful to non-smokers, which Pro never responded to.Pro has resorted to using the same two arguments this entire debate, and I have thoroughly refuted both of these. Thus, there is no reasonable justification to ban tobacco.
Tobacco should be banned

Show me the Constitutional amendment that says a ban on the sale of cigarettes is unconstitutional. It's not the first, since free speech doesn't cover odors. It's not the fourth, since we wouldn't have to break into homes to stop the sale of tobacco. It's not the 21st, that is about alcohol. Despite popular belief, there is no verse in the Constitution that straight-out says "You may do whatever you want." Many things have been around for dozens, if not hundreds, of years, but are now illegal or discouraged to sell because of recent science. For example, lead-based gasoline, lead crystal glass, and asbestos. A ban on the sale of tobacco would put an end to this needless, deadly, and highly-addictive ritual. When people smoke, they don't gain anything, other than a satisfaction of an addiction that wouldn't even exist if they haven't tried it in the first place. Kill it at the source. There will be no new smokers if there is no place for them to get cigarettes. People who are already hooked can be weaned by therapy, or by using of the many cigarette alternatives, such as Nicorette or E-Cigarettes.