BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is an afterlife

I would gladly tell you that I don't fear death and I didn't simply "go about looking for answers". I grew up in a Christian family, I was always skeptical until this car accident happened to me. Some people even say that they look forward to death to relive the glory they experienced when it happened to them, in fact the Born Again Christians have a very unique view on life and death. They don't even see death as a trial here on Earth, claiming that death is a "birth into His Kingdom". https://en.wikipedia.org... Thank you for your honesty, some atheists say "of course science isn't always accurate" then go to them for every answer. I see that you're different, but most Christians like me see God as the "chief scientist" of the universe. During my experience, the angel I was with described to me that Heaven is an (and I'll never forget the term he gave) "anarchic-feudal state" which means that everything you do on Earth would manifest there. I was too young to understand what this meant but he said that I would know the reason for him telling me. Now I know, the next year I was given an interest and talent in geography, history, and government. This is why I still think this was not some hallucinogen, or that the Bible is a book solely based on false stories. I think that without everything that is true, Christianity would merely be a personality cult directed towards Jesus and his "Father". Because I never want to impose any of this on others (especially people that have already made up their mind), I want to share my beliefs on science. Most of the religious deny science of any type, but I don't. The reason intellectuals were executed by the Church was because the Catholics knew that people would see the truth, the real truth. After that, the Church was divided to a more reasonable approach. Then the followers of Martin Luther said "Never again shall the Church impose salvation via wealth!". http://en.wikipedia.org... The big bang and evolution probably happened, let's face it, but it can't just happen by itself. Especially with the constant testimony of people that see God's signs (sometimes even God Himself), and these people never even use drugs or hallucinate.
There is an afterlife

Norden, it is true that the religious texts do contain sections that reflect current, past and future events, and different religions contain this, however, propheteering is an easy business, precisely why false christs are mentioned in the bible you have quoted. The trick is to give vague and predictable occurrences, which can then be interpreted by follwers as truth when a similar enough event occurs. You can quote me now as Prophet Duncan; In the coming days, great losses will be shared, the blood of just and unjust will mix on the streets and the people shall know the truth. There. That is vague enough that any violent news story matches my predictions perfectly. Many have made a living off of this job, and it is easy to predict that more false prophets will arrive, as the laws of imperfect competition state that any firm earning supernormal prophets- profits, sorry, will soon have competitors arriving into its market. These predictions do not provide any evidence of God, or an afterlife. As for the creation of the universe, I can't tell you that. No one can, at least not yet. We cannot yet travel back to a time before time, and we cannot know who or what created the elements, not yet anyway. But the role of a scientist is to find out how and why. That is why they work each day to uncover the truth. Because science is about discovery. If science could explain everything, then scientists would be out of a job. As mysteries are solved, new ones arise out of its solution. But you, as many do, fear the doubt of death, of not knowing what is to come. And thus, you create a demand for answers, as soon as they can be delivered. It is only a matter of time before some bright spark realizes that if he tells you to sacrifice a cow once a week to go to paradise, that he gets steak for dinner. This is how and why Christ (who I do believe existed, just not as a miracle worker) was able to predict the coming of other false prophets. And while I cannot explain to you the origin of the universe, I do not think it just for a religious order to declare that God did it (and they used to burn those who questioned them) and then attempt establish control over people, dictating their lives and actions, and still collecting tithes to this day from certain states (Germany). I apologize if I am overenthusiastic or emotional regarding discussions of the Catholic Church, but returning to topic, there is still no reasoning or proof other than vague predictions (send your donations in to the church of Prophet Duncan and you shall receive salvation) to support the concept of an afterlife. Awaiting your response, Duncan.
There is an afterlife

To make it short, a lot of people's experiences are strikingly similar. I basically wanted to provide more facts than my personal experience and belief, my experience is only one piece of evidence that favors my side of the argument so I'd like to share many others. I've tried nearly all the drugs, including DMT which is what people think is released when you die, but this experience was nothing similar to that. Many people are very wary of the Bible, Torah, Koran, or many other religious books and figures. But I'd like to share a few verses from the Bible (my religious book, but mind you I'm not imposing it) to show you what it says about how the world would be, right before Jesus' second coming. . http://www.sacred-texts.com... After reading all that you might be saying "there's always been wars, earthquakes, and false Christs". Historically speaking, you're right but the question is what would cause all these things to happen at an alarming rate. If you look at the news today, you can see all of these things and many different Bible, Torah, and Koran verses reflect everything that's happened, is happening, and probably will happen. As for your scientific answer toward why we have "afterlife-like experiences", I cant say I have a response because there is no one thing that directly says "God is real" or "there is an afterlife". But I have some scientific questions, who/what directly made all the elements of the periodic table? Who/what caused the big bang? (assuming it happened, I'm sure it has). Who/what took the molecules into position to make the planets of the universe? If you have an answer that has nothing to do with a creator, I would be glad to hear your opinions. Given the high sensitivity of this topic, I'd also be glad to answer any questions/comments you might have.
Round Robin Story Debate Rd. 1, Pt. 2

The theme for this round is: RedemptionVoting Criteria Posted Below1. Conduct is only reserved for members who choose not to either adhere to the rules imposed by the debater, forfeits, trolls and harangues his opponent, and so forth. Note that this story tournament may include twists or not, depending on the whims of the debaters.2. Spelling and grammar should only be rewarded to another opponent if one side displays noticeably poor spelling and grammar (in other words a conspicuous difference).3. Arguments-There is a subjective nature as to who made the better arguments, but both debaters AND voters should beware that this is essentially where one decides on who did the better job in crafting the story--in creating a literary world, imbuing his characters with basic or complicated humanity, geared the story forward, and even entertained the audience. (Note that the latter is contingent on the type of the debate; voters should list whatever factors that colored their perceptions of the debate sides of the stories).4. Sources-This is where one actually decides on who exhibited the better craftsmanship and writing skills--in other words--the best prose, wording, command of the language and flourish. This skill is not all to be confused with storytelling; surely a member can tell good stories but that does not at all correlate with his writing skills or the maturity of such a skill.
Eating animals is immoral and wrong in 1st world countries

Pro has failed refute my primary concern, Where I stated that there would have to be a choice of what to do with the animals not eaten, Which provides evidence it is a solid point. He also said: " trillions of animal lives we would save. . . " which provides one point, And then directly contradicted himself saying: "1. 5 billion pounds of crops that we would otherwise feed to livestock". My opponent believes that by not killing the livestock that we planned on killing, It will somehow reduce the fact that they still need to eat to survive. The only thing that might be saved is gas, Which is used when transporting living livestock as well as prepared to eat food. A rough estimate would mean that saving all livestock from being eaten would be 35 million gallons of gas saved. But that would quickly be counteracted by the amount of gas used to move around massive populations of animals and massive amounts of extra food and water to the cattle. Next, My opponent asked me " - So if hypothetically there was an alien species that had the same moral values as us, Was intelligent, And had sentience, You would justify slaughtering them just because their a different species than us? " I wouldn't justify slaughtering them because of multiple reasons I have previously stated. One, If they were spacefairing, It would be basically a different, Screwed up version of cannibalism because they would be the same basic intelligence as us. Another reason is, If they are not spacefairing or are getting around to our version of the 1800s-2000s, It would be similar to hunting wild animals, Because they haven't been *domesticated for hundreds of years for the sole purpose of eating and using* Lastly, If we managed to communicate with them, And they had the same moral values as us, They would probably immediately be considered equals by everyone who was not racist. So, It wouldn't be moral to eat an alien species such as you described, But it is to eat the species bred for eating on earth. "So would you be fine with the genocide of mentally unstable people because their not intelligent? Or for that matter lower IQ individuals? " Again, Cannibalism. Also again, We didn't breed mentally unstable people to be eaten. "You forget however that this debate is about whether or not it's ok to eat them or not, Not if its ok to use them to make eggs, Milk, Or wool. " Your point here confuses me. In the sentence of mine that you quoted, I made no mention of milk, Eggs, Or wool, While I did finish my point by bringing it back to why it was humane to eat meat in first world countries by saying that there would be massive waste and loss of resources if America was suddenly 100% vegetarian. So in the end, Your debate is falling apart. You have stepped around my points, Provided questions that I have already answered, And altogether have failed to refute my points with reasonable evidence. The last round is yours, See if you can provide any new reasons why eating animals in first world countries is inhumane, Because it is truly not.
Eating animals is immoral and wrong in 1st world countries

" But livestock is a resource. If everyone were to turn from livestock and instead focus on plant life, The livestock present would be wasted greatly. " - This is true however this is a small price to pay for the trillions of animal lives we would save by not eating meat. This isn't even including the amount of resources we would save if just America went vegetarian. For just one day America would save 100 billion gallons of water, 1. 5 billion pounds of crops that we would otherwise feed to livestock, 70 million gallons of gas, 33 tons of antibiotics, 1. 2 million tons of co2, And 3 million acres of land. This is just America going vegetarian for one day, Imagine how many resources the world would save if countries like Canada or the UK went vegetarian. The 1. 5 billion pounds of crops can essentially be used to stop world hunger, The reduction in co2 emissions would reduce global warming, And the 33 tons of antibiotics can instead be used to help the sick in the world. " Because that is cannibalism. But cows aren't humans. " - So if hypothetically there was an alien species that had the same moral values as us, Was intelligent, And had sentience, You would justify slaughtering them just because their a different species than us? " But they do not have the levels of intelligence of cavemen, The earliest men. Animals on farms do not have the capacity to use tools. " - So would you be fine with the genocide of mentally unstable people because their not intelligent? Or for that matter lower IQ individuals? " Much less humane than eating them because their remains would be wasted anyways. First world countries can support vegetarians, But not a 100% ratio plus animals. " - You forget however that this debate is about whether or not it's ok to eat them or not, Not if its ok to use them to make eggs, Milk, Or wool. To conclude, America simply going vegetarian would save our planet billions of useful resource such as water, Gas, And food, And is overall the more ethical option as animals have sentience and have a right to life just like humans have a right to life. SOURCES, Https://drjoelkahn. Com. . . . https://sentientmedia. Org. . .
Eating animals is immoral and wrong in 1st world countries

" It makes it a luxury. We get the ability to choose individually whether we want to eat meat or not. " - Just because we have a luxury to eat something doesn't make it right. In first world countries we have the luxury of being able to waste food and water, But does that make it moral to waste resources? " One is a god-worshiping side, And the other is a science believing side. I do not know my opponent's side, So I will present my argument for both. " - I am not religious so I am going to ignore my opponents god worshiping side. " The only way I would object to eating animals is if they proved sentience or at least sapience. " - Actually animals have proven to be sentient on various studies conducted through out the years. SOURCES, Https://www. Voiceless. Org. Au/hot-topics/animal-sentience https://www. Barnsanctuary. Org/animal-welfare/farm-animals-sentient/ " If the animals providing meat are not abused, Kept free range, And given basic luxuries, Then eating them is a basic luxury. " - Ok so than would you be fine with breeding and eating humans if you give them, Free range, And basic luxuries? Surely you wouldn't suggest that.
Eating animals is immoral and wrong in 1st world countries

Eating animals isn't a necessity, But it is a luxury we should be grateful for. My opponent's argument is that if you live in a first world country such as the US, With an established irrigation system and a livestock economy currently worth billions, You should avoid eating meat because it is immoral. This is wrong on many accounts, As it is perfectly moral to eat meat, Even if you are in a first world country and have other options. Having an established irrigation system does not make eating meat unnecessary. It makes it a luxury. We get the ability to choose individually whether we want to eat meat or not. There are two sides to a kind of argument like this. One is a god-worshipping side, And the other is a science believing side. I do not know my opponent's side, So I will present my argument for both. On the worshipping side, It is fairly simple. God gave us fire, Which was able to be used for cooking meat and making it safe to eat. He gave us the means to prosper and gave animals the ability to be domesticated. If he didn't want animals to be eaten, He would have made animals cuter, Smarter, And harder to eat. On the science side, It is even more obvious. Humans bred the animals we consume specifically for one purpose, To safely and healthily be consumed. We have required animals to survive up until the last 3 centuries or so. For America it has been within the last century. Animals such as cows, Pigs, And chicken are made to be eaten or feed humans in another way. Cows came from bigger, Hairier cows. Pigs came from wild boars, Etc. The only way I would object to eating animals is if they proved sentience or at least sapience. Pigs may be smart, But they do not use tools or have an established language. The animals that do use tools in first world countries are generally left alone or are hard to eat. Apes aren't eaten much, Crows are hardly touched. There is also the case of wild animals. While humans have bred many animals to be eaten, Wild animals have not been bred in such a way. Wild animals have a degree of freedom that should give them exemption from being eaten in first world countries. But, Wild animals do not count for all the meat we eat. I have never eaten a wild animal on purpose, But I have meat whenever I want. The ability to choose whether to eat meat or not is a great luxury. You don't need to if you don't want to, But you shouldn't be forced to avoid it since some people believe it is wrong. It is not immoral to eat domesticated and bred meat anywhere, Much less third world countries where you need to in order to survive. If the animals providing meat are not abused, Kept free range, And given basic luxuries, Then eating them is a basic luxury. So, In first world countries, It is completely justified and moral to eat meat. The animals are not sentient and have been bred to be eaten. If they are domestic and free range, As well as humanely killed and slaughtered, It is perfectly fine to eat them.
Pascals wager

I see your last debate about pascals wager did not go as intended. I was interested in the topic until I read your opponents opinions. So I would like to converse this topic with you. I will argue for pascals wager being theoretically acceptable. I read (and wish you would like to still hold your position against/con of the debate) that you think pascals wager is false or non-sensible. I hope you still wish to debate from your past position. The way I understand pascals wager is if a believer of an existing God is proven to be true then that believer will be rewarded entry into heaven (eternal happiness) but if the believer held his faith in a non-existing God then he has lost nothing. However if a non-believer comes before an existing God then he has lost everything (hell) but if that non-believer was correct about Gods non-existence then he has gained nothing. If you could please repost your 3 premises from your last attempt with your acceptance of this debate. I wanted to answer those 3 questions in this debate but I can't quite remember them as well as I doubt my own fumbling memory lol. I do not wish for this debate to develope into an argument. So I ask for your respect and no name calling. please be polite and if I am out of line then please pull me up on it and I will apologise. Although I think we would be able to handle this conflict of opinion like adults (but then again it does involve religion lol religion is generally a recipe for war) oh, it may be some time before I reply. I tend to be quite slack at replying but I am genuinely intrigued indeed.
School hours should be shorter and less classes

School years are extended based on three basic models: "stretching the traditional 180 days of school across the whole calendar year by lengthening spring and winter breaks and shortening the one in the summer. "adding 20 to 30 actual days of instruction to the 180-day calendar. "dividing students and staff into groups, typically four, and rotating three through at a time, with one on vacation, throughout the calendar year. At the heart of the debate is nothing less than the ability of America's workforce to compete globally. The U.S. remains in the top dozen or so countries in all tested subjects. But even where U.S. student scores have improved, many other nations have improved much faster, leaving American students far behind peers in Asia and Europe. Still, data are far from clear that more hours behind a desk can help. A Center for Public Education review found that students in India and China " countries Duncan has pointed to as giving children more classroom time than the U.S. " don't actually spend more time in school than American kids, when disparate data are converted to apples-to-apples comparisons. The center, an initiative of the National School Boards Association, found 42 U.S. states require more than 800 instructional hours a year for their youngest students, and that's more than India does. Opponents of extended school point out that states such as Minnesota and Massachusetts steadily shine on standardized achievement tests while preserving their summer break with a post-Labor Day school start. Site- http://bigstory.ap.org...
School hours should be shorter and less classes

We should have longer school and more classes because students need to be able to get a lot of information each year. Also if the school days are longer and you have a lot of snow days chances are your school won't extend school in the middle of the summer. That's how it is in my school. Also more classes means more credits for college if your in high school. I'm in middle school and I already have some high school credits since I'm taking an extra class of math.
Lust is not a sin in The Bible but Advocated

In my last round my opponent continued to insult me. This is very unprofessional. Before I get to a point that should automatically stop anyone from voting for him, I will refute what he calls his "arguments".First, he says that the Bible is not condemning lasciviousness. WHAT!?! Mark 7:21-23 says the following 21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." Galatians 5:19 says "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousnesss" Ephesians 4:19 says "Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." I Peter 4:3 - "For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries" These are just a few examples. Lasciviousness=Lust. You say that I have no choice but to accept the Greek over the English. Actually, I do. I trust that God has lead the men of God in writing and translating the meanings of Books of the Bible. No matter what you say you do not have the originals. All the copies we have do contain error. There is no doctrinal error, but there is scribal error in the copies we have. I pointed out his few original arguments. Now let's make a little comparison. First, when you as a voter reads this, go up to my opponents Round 2 and read from the line "All from Matthew..." to the lines he calls the "The True 10 Commandments". So, voters, do not look at what seems impressive, don't look at the outside appearance. Instead, look at and vote for the person who is defending the truth of God's Word. I again thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate. It was, as I thought and said in Round 1, "interesting".