BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Life beyond death

I am not exactly sure what it is we are debating. I’m assuming it’s the existence of the soul… but “Life beyond death” was your resolution. The Soul: The soul is defined as Wikipedia as “A soul, in certain spiritual, philosophical, and psychological traditions, is the incorporeal essence of a person or living thing or object.[1] Many philosophical and spiritual systems teach that humans have souls; some attribute souls to all living things and even to inanimate objects (such as rivers); this belief is commonly called animism.[2] Soul sometimes functions as a synonym for spirit, mind or self.[3]” I’m actually very pleased with this definition because it supports what I thought in the first place. “Soul sometimes functions as a synonym for spirit, mind or self.” Being atheist I do not necessarily believe in an afterlife in Christian terms. I believe that we leave our mark on the world though, that is our afterlife. These debates will live on after we die. The books some of our fellow debaters write will live on after they die. The art some of our fellow earthlings create will live on after they die. The “Soul” is not necessarily INSIDE of us, it is who we are and what we create. Also, the definition could be seen as a clarification on your point. “The body is made up of chemical reactions.” These chemical reactions could be simplified and called a “Soul” as you can see in the Wiki definition it says a soul is the “essence of a person or living thing or object.” That could merely mean our knowledge and experiences. It doesn’t necessarily mean there is a physical thing inside of us that is holding all of our knowledge and it leaves us when we die. It merely is a metaphor for said knowledge and experience. Life Beyond Death: Life beyond death is a very easy argument to defeat, as I stated in my “Soul” argument you live on through your writings and the influences on the world you make. If you were to have children the teachings you instilled in them will make you “Live on” so to speak. If you are speaking about the Christian “Life after death” you should have been more specific. Although I will play devil’s advocate to my own beliefs if you like and continue this debate. Although I will most definitely lose because the afterlife by Christian definition is improvable and unfortunately I have burden of proof. Winning or losing doesn’t really matter it’s the discussion that matters anyhow.
Life beyond death

The human body is nothing but a set of chemical reactions. The chemical reactions powering a human life are no different from the reactions powering the life of a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. When a human being dies, the chemical reactions stop. There is no "soul" mixed in with the chemicals, just like there is no soul in a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. Why would there be an afterlife for the chemicals that make up a human body? The whole notion of your "soul" is completely imaginary. The concept of a "soul" has been invented by religion because many people have trouble facing their own mortality. It makes people feel better, but the concept is a complete fabrication. It is when you think about the chemical reactions powering your life and your brain that you realize how completely imaginary your "soul" truly is. And at that point, everything about religion comes unraveled. Now how would these chemicals that make up our body composition drift up into thee clouds and the gates of heaven? Or the gates of hell in the center of the Earth for the matter???
Life beyond death

Okay, since you seem to be such a stuck up little bitch, I will start using grammatically correct sentences. I did not think that it mattered that much, but I will. To clear things up, since you seem to be a little slow, this debate is to determine whether there is LIFE BEYOND DEATH, whether we go to a supposed HEAVEN OR HELL. I do not believe there is LIFE BEYOND DEATH, I simply believe it ends when our heart stops beating and that's it! Basically I'm trying to disprove the Christian beliefs, of God, Jesus, Heaven, Hell etc. Are we clear now? I do not accept Wiki as a source because it is all user submitted, anyone can go and change the data and information on any Wiki page, it's not that reliable. Now, although some people find it hard to believe, I feel that when we die, that's it, there is nothing left for us as a human being. After all our body is nothing more than a bunch of chemical reactions. Secondly, the bible isn't proof of anything, for no religions' bible is proof of anything for that matter. Take the Jehovah's witnesses for example, in 1870 the founder of the religion Jehovah's Witnesses, read and re-wrote the old testament bible adding and removing things where he felt it was necessary. Now, he also tried predicting the end of the world and the second coming of Jehovah stating that when Jehovah comes to earth he will only save the believers. the rest will parish, that event has been predicted many time but NEVER happened. For a prophecy to be true and accurate that must mean that our lives are pre-destined, to predict what will happen in the future, the prophet must know what events lead up to that final, foreseen event. To believe that when we die our supposed souls or bodies or ghosts etc. will rise or lower into heaven or hell where we will mingle with the lord or Satan and the others, well that's just bogus and anyone who believes in religions surrounding that belief are just poor misguided people who are looking for closure and something to believe in.
Fascist/Nazi (me) vs Klansman (opponent) rap battle

Nice job, you took the Danes who were fighting on horses, still decimated your forces, and left you with nothing but shame. With the most powerful army in the world, you were still beaten back, while we can sow destruction with horses and a mask. You saying you're eternal; please, you're stuck in the past, even with those high kicks of yours, you still can't kick a**. We fight for God's law, your cause is just dark and luckily it was sunken faster than the Bismarck. Why can't you admit that your belief is s***, beaten by Brits, stop throwing fits and have a sit. Your shots are burns, I'd call them a splinter, with all your former power, you couldn't handle a Russian winter. The fires of Hell rage, with this battle brewing and ask Hitler for me, how's Satan doing? Stop repeating yourself, this isn't even a fight "big daddy"? You mean Big Brother? You can't even get your own cause right. You can have our girls, but I'd be careful with this Hitler tried it out, and he ended up with Syphilis Of course the US came late, our economy was grime, we showed up late, and still achieved "peace in our time".
Fascist/Nazi (me) vs Klansman (opponent) rap battle

Then why did we invade Denmark with no problem?It took just one invasion, and their puny little resistance was deadYou say that you ended the war with twoBut yet it took years for you to fight us, who can you fool?You Nordics make me f--king laughWe fought your countries and kicked your a**esCome to America where the KKK's well bred?Why does everywhere in America look like it's dead?Your architecture is a piece of broken down s--tOur architecture to this day is a hitEvery time a black man fights youYou end up with twoin your head and up your a--and a Fascist tends to be the lastman standing, you suckerI beat up several Klan m----rf--kersYorkshire, Copenhagen and Glasgowlook like dead haven towns right nowOur cause only last five years or so?We're not the ones being called dumb white trash, broYou were the s--t for a whileWe the s--t in the past, present and future, are you senile?That's why you're women are mostly sl-ts.Sucking on the d--ks of usAdmit you lost mother---kerCome and join big daddy, you little sucka
Fascist/Nazi (me) vs Klansman (opponent) rap battle

We go to prison sometimes, sure we do How long did your cause last? Take a decade, and divide by two. If you can't do division, it's not hard at all picture you're cutting a city in two, and then building a wall Sure, we're called "rednecks", while you are not but that would describe Mussolini well-he wasn't looking too hot A few broken teeth, and you call us a wreck? Have you taken a look at your own hero's neck? Hitler was simply mental, nothing could get inside his head, except for a Walther pistol and a hard piece of lead. As for Musso, he never really had a hope, time to put him on a leash-he must be accustomed to rope. You call that a war, you haven't got a clue Hitler couldn't win with millions of bombs, it took the US two. Come to America, where the KKK's well bred, then go to Germany, where the SS is all dead. Try as hard as you want, you rhymes will still be lame, why don't you go where you belong? I hear you got a train.
Fascist/Nazi (me) vs Klansman (opponent) rap battle

You say that us Fascists are defeated punks, sonThen how come it was your men, not us, who got raped in prison?History, time and time again, shows that you'se got ownedMussolini and Hitler werent the ones who had d**ks shoved up their a--holesYou say that Italy and Germany (referring to Dresden) are brokenThen why do Nordic countries look like slimy shack havens?With girls getting pregnant in their teensand fellas with broken-a** teethYou tried to ban the show "Seinfeld"yet they were the ones dealtyou a fatal blow with the ratingsfor 9 straight years they were the s--t"Friends" was a piece of worthless propaganda"Seinfeld" made sure they were doneYou say that us Fascists were hanged by our peepsthen how come your Klansman are a joke to your own countryIt isn't us whose getting called "rednecks"Because unlike you, we're the ones busting headsYou got slapped with a taste of the style, suckerGo and try to top that, mother---ker.
Fascist/Nazi (me) vs Klansman (opponent) rap battle

Oh you guys took our girls, then, well I hope they didn't tarry, cause once America's was through with you, they had no one left to marry. Come on, bro, you don't even know how to diss, come to Dresden if you want to know what burning is You're movement is so dead, its developing patina and Churchill's granddaughter didn't give you head-she doesn't live in Argentina. You cowards couldn't stay, to fight one more day, after your mighty a**-whooping got underway Oh, yeah--congrats on winning battles, you did just fine what, you conquered Frace? Better get in line. Despite your whole army, you ended up with nothing, and the way you salute, its as if your compensatin' for something And of course we're protestant, you'll just have to cope while we're fighting for God, you're just sucking the Pope Our cause will never die, fade or rot, while you're great legacy ended with one gunshot Did you succeed? Well, let's look at the reviews, I don't see many Nazis around, but plenty of Jews, You sure burned bright, but not very long, and the Allies dropped you faster than the atomic bomb. Face it: you can't beat us we have more history and fervor So why don't you just stop whining and run to your Fuhrer
Fascist/Nazi (me) vs Klansman (opponent) rap battle

Why the f--k are the Klan's breaths so smellyBecause all you do is talk bulls--t. See?You hatin cause we Fascists ruled half of EuropeWe kick anyone's a-- who tries to battle usOne time some Dane tried to threaten me with deathI blasted his sorry white a-- back to CopenhagenI'm the eptiome of high-errrrrlearning, bro, I blast your --- back to YorkshireLondon Mob Squad, motha---kaNeville Chamberlain's in the house, suckaRoman Catholics in the house, motha---kaAnglicans in the house, you little suckerWith your wack a-- Lutheran/Jewish religionThe Fascists in the house starting s--tOne time your white girl was boredShe came to big pappa and gave me some sex, you f--king Nords (Nords as in Nordic)Keep popping that Nordic KKK s--tAnd I'm gonna you three hitsin your a--, you ---king liarsand blast you right back to HerefordshireYou lame --- ZionistTalk some more s--t and I'm fill your mouth with p**sI got a style so hard it'll roll you down a hillit's so hard I scared relatives of Churchillthat wimpy a-- paganhatin because his granddaughter gave me head
Fascist/Nazi (me) vs Klansman (opponent) rap battle

You're goin' to pick this fight with us and expect to advance? Stop dreaming brother, you guys couldn't even beat France If you preach control, power, and hate against the Jew, then how come communists keep doing it better than you? We both commit hate crimes, really quite incredible feats the only difference is, we don't get our bodies dragged through the streets You give nice speeches, sure, but we're America's bane, for all the leaders you've had, you can't find one who's sane You're all are bigots, but always pretend to be clean, so we're cowards? At least we f****** say what we mean. You're greatest leader aspired to be ruler of this world and yet was at a loss to track down a little girl. We'll destroy anyone who crosses us, black white or brown we used to be on horseback and still take their a** down I see you up there, hanging from that steeple, why you up there, oh yeah, you were killed by your people. Join the fascists? Naw, I'll pass, why would I join a movement whose own country banned its a**? You Nazis used to be great and it's a shame you have no powers 'cause these rhymes are so dirty you'll be needing those showers.
Fascist/Nazi (me) vs Klansman (opponent) rap battle

I'm the [explitive]in' Fascist GI'll go Hitler on you if you [explicit] with meWimpy Klansmen, hatin' cause I stole your white girlsI'm il Duce who can rule the worldWith my tomboy G in the mixAnd my autistic homie start some [explitive]Imperialist bastards, thinkin you're big cause you conquered other lands[explicit] around with me, you'll get a kick up your [not explitive, but a bad word never the less]A tomboy can steal your girl[explicit] your little purity of white womanhood worldThinking that you can kick my [explicit]But why is it that you have to wear a mask?Cause you a bunch of cowards, [explicit]in' pieces of [explicit]I got a style as hard as "Seinfeld"[explicit] around with me and I'll go Fascist and give you some Hell
Mathematical Realism (PRO) vs. Mathematical Anti-Realism (CON)

I intended this debate to be Realism (more specificly Platonism) vs Nominalism, but later I decided it to be more general, and broad. 1. Rules (1) - No arguments in first round, but Con should give some defintions, and explanations (also can give some examples).(2) - Con doesn't have to argue for whole anti-realism, (s)he can choose a specific form of anti-realism, and argue for it.(3) - Sources must be cited for any quotation.(4) - No youtube (or other) videos.(5) - Images can be included (width:height=2:1). 2. Some Definitions, Explanations, and ExamplesMathematical Realism holds that mathematical entities exist independent of (human) mind, it includes numbers, formulaes, geometric shapes, and etc.For example, when we ask a question, if there exists whole number between 3 and 5, and if answer is yes, that means existence of whole numbers is assumed, and if answer is no, that means 4 is not whole number.Basically, mathematical realism says, mathematical truths are discovered, not invented.There are generally, two views of mathematical realism - platonism and empiricism.Mathematical platonism is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Mathematical objects are independent of intelligent agents and their language, thought, and practices.Empiricism denies that mathematics can be known a priori. Mathematical facts is discovered by empirical research, just like facts in any of the other sciences. (Rationalists have some good arguments against it) ----------------------------------------------------------------
Mathematical Realism (PRO) vs. Mathematical Anti-Realism (CON)

Okay, so my opponent completely dropped my rebuttals to their arguments. I understand that they have a headache, but I'm writing this with a headache too.The Epistemological ArgumentMy opponent makes four objections to this argument, which I will address individually.1. Well, the human mind is derived from the electric interactions of neurons, so arguably it is physical. But even if it weren't, that wouldn't imply that it can acquire information about any non-physical entities. There could easily be multiple types of non-physical entities, and numbers could be a completely different type than the human mind. In order for this objection to hold, you would have to prove that numbers and the mind are the same type of entity, and even then you would have to prove that being the same type of entity grants us the ability to learn about other such entities. This would only be possible by providing an example, and no such examples exist.2. This isn't really relevant to the argument. Our ability to know about the spatio-temporal with certainty is completely unrelated to our ability to know about the abstract, which is what this argument is focused on.3. This is irrelevant for the same reasons I just mentioned.4. Physics does not necessarily say that we can gain knowledge of all things that are beyond spacetime. And even then, most theories in physics describing higher dimensions classify them as alternate timelines and universes, so anything within them would still be physical. [1]The Non-Uniqueness ArgumentMy opponent has two objections to this argument.1. That's not really feasible for any description of number theory. The more that we work with our understanding of math, the more we find ways that our descriptions of it are woefully inaccurate. That does not mean, however, that they fail utterly at describing anything. It just means that their applications have limits. This occurs outside of math as well, e.g. Newton's laws don't describe fast-moving particles but engineers still use them for everyday math because they work well enough at that level. Likewise, Peano works well enough for the purposes of this debate, and is the best working model of number theory for natural numbers at the moment. [2]2. Yes, a sequence does stand out because of its structure. That's why there are an infinite number of potential sequences of natural numbers. Arithmetic is about a particular sequence of objects if you accept Mathematical Platonism. Because the natural numbers are a sequence of numbers, and according to MP, those are all objects.Summary:Vote for me because:1. My opponent dropped my rebuttals to his arguments.2. My opponent's rebuttals missed the point and/or were insufficient.SOURCES:[1]http://www.sciencedirect.com...[2] http://www.staff.science.uu.nl...;
Mathematical Realism (PRO) vs. Mathematical Anti-Realism (CON)

Sorry I have to cut my argument short, still having headache.1. The Epistemological ArgumentI may agree with the first and second premise, but there is no way premise three can be proved. Firstly, human mind is not something physical, therefore for human mind it is possible somehow to acquire information about abstract objects. Secondly our knowledge about space-time is empirical, and we don't have external objective way of verifying the truthness (or correctness) of our senses about space-time (it is what we see, and what we see is not always true). Thirdly, our knowledge of space-time comes from physics, and physics uses mathematics as its basis, and we cannot judge the primary based on tertiary. And lastly, what we call space-time is just three spatial and one temporal dimensions. And according to physics we can acquire knowledge of things which are beyond that.2. Non-Uniqueness and PeanoFirstly, Peano axioms doesn't tell everything about natural numbers. Secondly, what makes a sequence to stand out is its structure. And arithmetic is not about some particular sequence of objects.
Mathematical Realism (PRO) vs. Mathematical Anti-Realism (CON)

Since my opponent did not state which view they will be defending, I will present several versions of both Realism and Anti-Realism, and we can select the ones we desire. DEFINITIONS:Mathematical Realism - Subdivided:Mathematical Platonism - there exists abstract mathematical objects, and our theories simply describe themPsychologism - our theories are true decriptions of mental objectsMathematical Physicalism - our theories are true descriptions of non-mental physical objectsMathematical Anti-Realism - Subdivided:Conventionalism - mathematical sentences are analytically true; i. e. true by definition of the words in themGame Formalism - mathematics is the result of a game of symbol manipulationMathematical Formalism - mathematics gives us truths about what holds in formal systemsDeductivism - mathematics gives us truths of theorems as resultant from axiomsFictionalism - mathematics describes the properties of ideas that simply fail to refer to existent conceptsI shall argue for a sort of combined conventionalism and fictionalism, which I will state as:"mathematical statements are descriptive of the properties of mathematical ideas by definition, but fail to refer to existent concepts"I await which view of Realism my opponent will choose and their opening argument. SOURCES:[1] . http://www.calstatela.edu...;
Nothing is nonexistent, and something is existent

Consider 'ghost influences' does not prove 'ghost is.' Nothing influences people not because nothing exists but because people chiefly think nothing exists, i.e., It is possible nonexistent influences something. How nothing make the difference life and death? We cannot place a table in nothing which has no space like a floor. When lives walk, There are ground and air, etc., in front of them. Nothing we note is something because nothing that can be told of is not an unvarying nothing. However, we cannot refute that nothing is nothing.
Nothing is nonexistent, and something is existent

Nothing is existent. You claim nothing is nonexistent, but every single day nothing influences the lives of millions of people. Saying nothing is nonexistent is saying our lives are being influenced by something that doesn't exist. Nothing can make the difference between life and death and being able to place a table in your living room or not. If a doctor can do nothing to keep you alive, nothing has quite some influence on how long your life is going to last. Or if you want to place a table in your living room, nothing needs to be in that place, or you can't put the table there. Same goes for your couch, TV, closets and even your house. Even you, when you walk, need nothing to be in front of you. This obviously also applies to animals. A hyena can't run somewhere where something else is, say a tree or another hyena. So nothing influences your life, your interior design and the life of everyone and everything moving on this planet. It is impossible for something not to exist and influence all life on this earth. Therefore it must exist.
The Hawthorne cop was justified in shooting the dog in the video

Hmm... A stick, a stick oh where could a police officer find a sti- oh wait. His baton. That's a stick. And the suspect in question, Leon Rosby, was outside his own house when they arrested him. Oh, by the way, Officer Salmon has a history of brutality (http://www.examiner.com...) in the past. The action, at least for me, is quite simple. Even my slender frame could pull out my baton, block the dog's first bite, and then grab the back of the dog's neck. Officer Salmon is responsible for his actions for refusing to consider and alternative to shooting. Awaiting your response, Duncan.
The Hawthorne cop was justified in shooting the dog in the video

What alternatives did the cop have? Not all cops are authorised to carry non-lethal means about them. The cop can't just conveniently pick up a stick with a dog actively trying to attack him. You think it would be unlikely, that's your opinion but I don't share it. I seriously doubt he would go back into custody a second time of his own will, and it is his fault because he didn't properly secure the dog. The cop had no time to ask the owner to put him away properly, he would have already been bit. The cop reacted in the only way he knew how, and there is nothing wrong with that.