BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If atheism is correct, animals have souls

How can you measure souls? How do you know souls exist? A soul has never been proven to exist. Why must an animal have a soul in order to communicate and procreate of the others of the same species? They may just have a different way of communicating. Please support the idea that in order to be living a soul must exist. And, when you have finished doing that, then go collect your Nobel Prize for being the first person to give us evidence of souls existing. I will be sitting front row when that happens. Who is to say the universe is a big accident? The universe is the way it is because of how it ended up. If the universe was different, then something else would be here. That's not lucky for what else would be here if the universe was in a different place. Please support you soul hypothesis and go collect your prize, because no one has been able to do that
If atheism is correct, animals have souls

According to most religious texts, animals were created to sustain gods creation, which is us human beings. Now if atheism is correct, there is no god and the universe was created naturally. Wouldn't animals have souls? My platform states the following: 1. According to atheism, we are superior to other creatures because of evolution and natural selection, this means that even though animals are inferior minded, they posses a soul that can communicate with others of the same species, pro-create, and have the natural instinct of survival. 2. Does this mean that animals are aware of a creator? 3. Plants must have souls. otherwise, how can a organism with the ability to absorb nutrients create energy? Or grow? Or even exist? All organism have the ability to be self-aware of what and where they are. Does this mean that micro-organisms posses a conscience as well? 4. we are only superior to every other living organism because of complex means to communicate, an awareness of other species and there problems, and that the universe is to great to just be an accident. Another thing, few species care about the burdens of others, why do we? Why do we have these morals built in to us? If evolution is correct, wouldn't we just be cold-blooded killers with the only instinct to pro-create the species? Why do we care about our origin?
If atheism is correct, animals have souls

The definition of faith is accepting something without evidence, and I'm sure there are several things that would not be helpful to have faith in like the world blowing up, extra-terrestrials offensively invading the world, and a Hitler 2.0 rising to power and trying to dominate the world. See how good faith is? Oh, it's only good in some areas? Arguing by deductive reasoning works if you can supply a hint of evidence for your claim. If you have no evidence for something, only deductive reasoning, then you have no claim. You need to show some sort of measurable thing in order to have claim that something exists. Nothing but our communication, walking, and intelligence is the only thing that differs between humans and other animals. OTHER animals. Remember, humans are animals, too. We are the result of the earth being the way it is. If the earth was slightly off the way it is, we would not be here, but something else would be here maybe. So are they lucky, the ones who would have been here? It is unlikely no other planets having living life forms, we just have not discovered others. But even if that claim is right, and this world is the only world that can sustain life, then that means life is a rare thing, and that is actually very easy to understand because there are places on earth that can't even sustain life. I have faith in nothing, and many people do not have faith in anything and they live wonderful, happier lives. Instead of working for something that MIGHT be there, just work for a happy life. In my opinion, the meaning of life is to keep life rolling. According to many biologists, our individual purpose to living is to reproduce and keep our species alive. If you need to come up with a reason other than that, then go for it. But, at the end of the day, do you really believe it, or are you just BSing yourself to keep you happy? My goal in life is to make some sort of impact. Make tomorrow better for the people born tomorrow. That's what my goal is. Get my name in a textbook. Have people remember my name. That's what my goal in life is and that what my meaning in life is. Affecting the world is the meaning of life. Going to heaven and avoiding hell isn't a meaning of life. Even if that was the only thing we were meant to do, then what's the point in that? What's the meaning behind that? If that's the case, then repent your sins, tell Jesus you love him, jump off a cliff, and go to your heavenly mansion waiting for you. The Bible never says suicide is bad. God never touches base on that topic. He never talks about killing yourself. Go to heaven, now if you want. If you think the only reason to live is to go to heaven, then make the process here shorter. No, I don't really want anyone killing themselves because that is just stupid. I'm just wondering why you don't if your only goal is to reach the after life. How about instead of worrying about the future after life, live life now. Make it fun. Don't hurt others, give everyone a fair chance at life. Live life. Don't work on your after life.
If atheism is correct, animals have souls

Actually, you are completely wrong. Deductive reasoning is the process of reasoning from multiple premises. Eventually, with process of elimination and elimination of discrepancy's, a logical conclusion is reached.My conclusion(s), Animals have souls and minds like us, and life is meaningless without a haven after death. My premises? If atheism states there is no god, then nothing separates animals, except the obvious. If there is no god, think about the chances there were of a planet being able to sustain complex life, think about how we are the only habitable planet in the observable universe. you think that we are lucky enough to live on the ONE planet in these infinite amount of galaxy's? No, I believe that we were created by something for a purpose, and whether that be unknown to us, faith will be the only thing you take with you after death. It is better to have faith in something then nothing at all.
If atheism is correct, animals have souls

Even if the claim "life is meaningless without a heaven" is true, then there you go. Life can be meaningless. Life is meaningless without souls or heaven. A reason for a claim to be true is not evidence for that claim. Evidence is measurable in some form, s and my opponent has no evidence. My opponent is trying to say that since there is no other answer, it must be true. Again, eliminating all other possible answers is not evidence for the claim. This has turned in to a debate that seems rather subjective, but I will go with it. Life is not meaningless without an after life consequence. We ought to take everyday as consequences for the day before. Life is as meaningful as you make it because again this is a very subjective idea. But like I said, a good reason for something to be true is not evidence for the claim to be true. Arguing by eliminating other ideas is not providing a hint of evidence towards your claim. There is no evidence, just a claim for a lack of evidence for other claims. When "no other meaning to life" is said, that is a statement that automatically eliminates every other claim about the subject. My arguments stand until statistics and evidence with proper sources are given.
If atheism is correct, animals have souls

You' re constantly going off topic. Not once in this ENTIRE argument have I stated that I am religious yet you chastize me for "believing in a ancient text book written by a invisible man" or " setting my morals standards like a robot". Obviously you are an ardent atheist.However, my point over souls stems from the absence of life after death, you claim I struggle to prove my point and that you have nothing to refute. Its been in front of your damn face the entire time. Life is meaningless, because the actions we make serve only to consequence our future. The universe will remain the same. Our memories will become part of the void. Life is meaningless without a heaven, life is meaningless with a higher being then ourselves, I trust you are not to narrow minded to acknowledge that.
If atheism is correct, animals have souls

The meaning of life for one person is different from another person, and that is something most people can agree upon. However, the meaning of one's life should not be set by a being other than that being itself. I have control over my own life and I set my own goals and no one else has control our influence over how my goals are set. You can set you goals based off of ancient texts all you want, but if that's the case you might as well be a robot. I am going to live my life with my goals. I will not harm others while doing so because it is natural for me to cause little harm to others. It does not take an invisible man with an ancient book that has been lost in translation from languages that don't exist anymore for me to realize that I should be kind to someone else. If your moral standards are not set by you and only you, you have no moral standards because meals come from inside and only inside. My opponent has yet to prove his point. It is not my responsibility to disprove the claim my opponent has made because in order to disprove something, or has to be accepted as proven first. That is how language and communication works. Until my opponent establishes what he believes is irrefutable proof for his claim, supported by evidence and scientific, historical, and/or philosophical journals written by credible people in the respective fields, I have nothing to refute.
If atheism is correct, animals have souls

Really? Life's reason is you've to be happy? My point stands, you've offered nothing relative to disprove it. If science has it way, we were all created from some cataclysmic explosion in space, if religion is correct, we have a grand architect who is doing something with us. How dare I say life is meaningless without god? I dare because if what happens after death is just us joining the great black expanse of nothingness, then yes, life is meaningless.
If atheism is correct, animals have souls

I can't disprove anything that hasn't been proven. That is not how this works. You can't disprove mermaids, sea monsters, goblins, and Big Foot. And how dare you say life is meaningless without god or souls. Life would be meaningless if we were working towards heaven for a god. It is meaning less to live life for any reason other than to be happy. Why must we have incentives to live life? I am not depressed because I find life meaningless. This debate has been changed, and I will go back to the original debate or extend it to include meaning of life and the order in which proving something is done, because telling me that I cannot disprove something does not mean anything. If that's they way life is, then anyone can claim ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING they want, and it's up to others to disprove it. If the claims you are making are facts, or have even a remote chance of being true, then why have you not been rewarded properly? If you can provide even the slightest hint of evidence for any of the claims you make, you will be rewarded. I am not dismissing your claims automatically because I refuse to accept them. I am dismissing your claim because you have provided no evidence for your claim. And not having any other better answer is not evidence for the answer you give.
If atheism is correct, animals have souls

We don't have souls? Do I really need evidence? If us humans are intelligent enough to recognize the possibilities of our origin, we are intelligent enough to create explanations to the our origin. Without a god, or at least some place to go to after death, our lives are meaningless and that's utterly depressing. Our lives, completely pointless, but anyway, I cannot prove we have souls, but you cannot disprove that we have souls.
Each of the Ten Commandments is either unnecessary or incomplete.

≈THE PROPOSITION≈ The full proposition that I will be defending is as follows: "Each of the Ten Commandments (as listed in the King James' Version of the Bible) is either unnecessary or incomplete for morally governing the lives of everyone." If my opponent can convince the audience that just one of the Ten Commandments is complete and necessary for every moral person to follow throughout each of their lives, he/she wins. ≈DEFINITIONS≈ Unnecessary: not needed. Incomplete: lacking something necessary or important. Morally: for the betterment or sustainment of well-being. Everyone: every person who exists. ≈THE TEN COMMANDMENTS≈ 1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. 3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain. 4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. 5. Honour thy father and thy mother. 6. Thou shalt not kill. 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 8. Thou shalt not steal. 9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is thy neighbor's. ≈THE DEBATE STRUCTURE≈ Round one is reserved for acceptance only. For round two, I will present my cases against each of the commandments, and then we'll naturally take it from there. The structure is fairly loose on this one. I thank my future opponent and the viewers for making this debate possible, and am looking forward to it.
The draft should be implemented in times of war.

Now onto arguments. .. Fist of all I would like to point out that Rebi did not say 1 word about all of the arguments that I made in the first round. The only close thing he said was that it is in a person's opinion if we should honor a person's happiness or put the country first. Of course everyone should try to help the country but they should not be forced to dedicate there lives to something that they don't even want. Also h only real argument is that the draft is sometimes needed to protect the country. However, we haven't had the draft since World War II and not once has a war occurred in which we ran out of men. Also if we ever don't have enough troops, we should give incentives for joining the army, instead of just drafting people into it forcefully. Rebi may have good intentions, to protect the nation, but his ways of reaching those intentions are immoral and unjust. Also the U. S. is the most military advanced nation, and the global leader, we really don't have anything to fear from other nations, they aren't going to be able to break down our defenses.
The draft should be implemented in times of war.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-Declaration of Independence This is from the document that our nation and government are established on. If we can't follow these basic guidelines, to protect life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then we know that we are not America anymore. Now let's look at the draft policy, which may I remind you is instated by the government and therefore should be required to follow these basic guidelines. The draft, forces young men to join the army. The most obvious flaw this has is the fact that it is a forceful act. liberty-freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions-from dictionary.com The draft, controls young men, interferes with their lives, obligates them to join the army, and puts them in hampering conditions because they must readjust to life when they return, if they return. life-the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual-from dictionary.com When people are drafted, they do not get to pick where they go, and are therefore put on the front lines of battle where they will most surely be shot down and killed. When the government is putting young men into almost certain death situations, that is obviously taking away our right to life. pursuit-an effort to secure or attain-from dictionary.com happiness-the quality or state of being happy-from dictionary.com So pursuit of happiness is an effort to secure a state of being happy. So if these people are forcefully put into the army, that will not be their pursuit of happiness. If these people want to join the army they will never have been drafted in the first place. This is obviously restricting them from being happy. Being in intense heats, constantly in the outdoors, being shot at, scared of torture, dehydrated, and in constant fear for your life, is likely not many peoples idea of happiness. As we can plainly see, the draft is an obvious violation of the rules that our country is governed by. If we can't even follow these rules anymore then we should not even call ourselves America. Thank you, strongly urge a con vote in this debate. I now open the floor to my opponent.
A day for teens to live outside by their choice

It cannot be good because even though they wont have to deal with their parents bringing them down, they will have the freedom to do as they couldn't at home. Being a troubled teen they will look in the wrong places for answers and will not turn down an adventure that could lead them into trouble because there is no supervision over them. When the day comes to go back home there will be a riot of rebels refusing to go back home. Its dangerous.
A day for teens to live outside by their choice

Sure, they can do bad things when they're outside, especially when facing family issues. But either way it can't produce good implications right? Instead of having to stay at home to tolerate it, I'm sure these teens would find some way of alleviating this bad feeling within them. If they turn to drugs and all, they're just creating more problems themselves. But frankly, it depends on the upbringing of the teen.
A day for teens to live outside by their choice

Some kids have very controlling or strict parents and a lot of the time these kids are unable to take it. However they can't simply leave home and live outside for a few days as they do not have the money or guts to do it. If teens leave home for a few days just to get a breather, they end up getting reprimanded harshly by their parents. So why not give a day where kids are allowed to leave home for a few days, with their parents giving them sufficient money and clothes etc so that they can take a breather from home? Of course this is optional so kids who love their family don't have to do this. This allows teens to maintain good emotional health instead of having to hold in all their emotions and having to deal with overly strict parents. They can get a few days of freedom to slightly alleviate how they feel. Suicide? They're a means for people to escape their problems. If teens are facing problems at home and theres nobody that can help them because personally I dont think that counsellors make a very big difference, what will they turn to?
are school boys distracted by girls

First I would like to address the part about you saying a boy is distracted with texting the girl,although both boys and girls get distracted with texting it is not necessarily because of the opposite sex most of the time its actually just because it's their friends everybody likes talking to their friends don't they? Next is when you say the boy is not working because he's busy thinking of what to say to her,Guys (Unless they're lazy)Do the work then share the experience with her. NER for #3
are school boys distracted by girls

i think that a boy is distracted by girls all the time u see boys texting girls during class. also after school they stay inside to text them. they also think of what to say to them other than think for work so they never get work done. then when the boy breaks up with the girl or the guy breaks up with her they become depressed. so over all i say that boys 13-18 are always distracted by girls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Choose :P

My opponent's argument is basically saying it is immoral for the victim to kill their abuser simply because in order to find meaning in life, you must confront death and suffering. For the victim to kill their abuser it 1) deprives them of their own confrontation with death and 2) deprives the abuser of their ability to suffer. My opponent claims that he does not "advocate that we advance suffering, but let the suffering in the world flow naturally and avoid trying to minimize it". But, my opponent is advocating this. First, nowhere does he show that domestic abuse is natural suffering nor do they attempt to define what natural suffering is. Then they fail to answer the question of what causes suffering? My opponent's entire case rests upon that question. If the answer is something other than the natural world then, they are advocating the advancement of suffering because, it is immoral to not have suffering and if suffering is not natural then, some being outside of the universe must have caused the suffering. As the German Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer puts it (rather rendered by Stanford) "as individuals, we are the unfortunate products of our own epistemological making, and that within the world of appearances that we structure, we are fated to fight with other individuals, and to want more than we can ever have. On Schopenhauer's view, the world of daily life is essentially violent and frustrating; it is a world that, as long as our consciousness remains at that level where the principle of sufficient reason applies in its fourfold root, will never resolve itself into a condition of greater tranquillity. " (1) In the end, the root cause of suffering is man. Since man causes suffering, then, the only way suffering comes into the world is through man. Since, according to my opponent, suffering is moral and suffering comes through man, then, my opponent is an advocate of advancing suffering through man. Now by advocating human suffering my opponent is being immoral. Since we have established human nature is suffering, then my opponent's entire case is turned, because if everyone experiences suffering constantly, then it is illogical to think you can experience more suffering because " daily life "is suffering" (1). Therefore, minimizing your suffering or completely getting rid of suffering is the path to human transcendence. In order for the abuse victim to minimize her own suffering they have to kill their abuser, which, as established, is moral because it would be self-defense, which as established, is moral. Source 1. . http://plato.stanford.edu...