BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Man will never know reality unless he's dead.

Now I shall begin my arguments. About what you said about "knowledge involves consciousness", I absolutely agree that knowing stuff needs consciousness. But in this line, "more specifically brain death, entails that the 'mind fails to survive brain death and ceases to exist'. ", I don't quite agree on because it's only the brain that died, not automatically the mind. It is possible that a SOUL in the form of mind exists and it is the one giving function to the brain. Consciousness after death is something humans cannot observe but it doesn't mean that consciousness after death is impossible since you can't prove anything. It might be that if a person dies, that is the point when the body and the soul separates and IF that's true, then the person is still conscious even after death and has a shot to know what reality is. I know that my philosophy about reality is really questionable simply because it's supposed to be that way since I believe that reality comes after death but what I'm trying to prove is the viability of my theory and also that man can never know reality as long as he is still breathing in this world and he can only have a chance to know if he's dead. The philosophies of Rene Descartes, Jean Paul Sartre and St. Thomas Aquinas are the bases of my argument. Thank you and I look forward to your next argument.
Man will never know reality unless he's dead.

Knowledge, using any of it's colloquial definitions, requires some form of active consciousness: a familiarity with someone or something, which can include facts, information, descriptions, or skills acquired through experience or education. (1) awareness of something : the state of being aware of something (1) justified true belief (2) As far as we know, knowledge involves consciousness, and death, more specifically brain death, entails that the 'mind fails to survive brain death and ceases to exist'. (3) In other words, when you die, your mind no longer exists to do any experiencing, believing, reasoning, or to have any awareness, and thus has no capability of obtaining knowledge in any sense I'm familiar with. It seems as though being alive with a functioning brain seems to be a necessary condition for having knowledge, which means that having knowledge after one is dead seems rather nonsensical.In order to demonstrate that any human could 'know reality after they died', as you claim, you would have to demonstrate that any function of the mind could exist after death. The burden of proof falls upon you to demonstrate that a mind could do anything at all after death, before you can even begin to argue that knowledge is somehow only attainable post mortem.(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org...(science)
Prostitution should not be legalized in the United States

Time to make my case, i apologize this argument is very short, as i have very little time to write this. (I've been very busy with school work) My first point is, that, people should have a right to do whatever they want to their own body. This country is not based upon authoritative values, rather it is based off of the principals of liberty and justice for all. The easiest way for me to present my argument, will be direct refutation of the Pro's case. "Legalization facilitates the transmission of HIV", yes this may be the case, but rules and regulations must be enforced. While it may be legal in Scotland to forgo the condom entirely for sex workers, this is the United States. We are in a country of regulations, and with both chambers of our legislative branch dominated by conservatives, it is guaranteed, that we will have rules and regulations in place to protect both the customers and the prostitutes. This means HIV will not spread and those that ignore this rule will be fined. "Legalization dehumanizes women", Do you know what else dehumanizes women? Telling them they do not have the right to chose what happens to their bodies. It is shameful that we live in a society in which we still have trouble allowing women to be free and independent, and nor only this, but not all prostitutes are women. There are also male prostitutes. They exist. They should not be ignored. Refusal to legalize meas that the government has the power to tell us what we can and cannot do behind closed doors. Legalization will protect women, because as an officially recognized profession, they will have rights enforced by the government. Sources: The Constitution of The United State The Declaration of Independence (United States) http://www.listland.com... http://www.businessinsider.com...
Prostitution should not be legalized in the United States

I will be arguing that prostitution, or the act of providing sexual intercourse or other related activities should not be legal in the United States. I believe that the resolution is relatively self evident, however if there are any questions in regards to clarifying the resolution please ask before accepting as I wish to avoid any arguments contingent on semantics. The negating party has the option of presenting their arguments in the first round with the understanding that they will not post in their final round or simply accepting in the first round. In order to win the affirmative must demonstrate that the harms of legalization would outweigh the benefits provided and the negative is under a similar burden of proof.
to accept god is true, is to deny god, as the opposite is also a possibility

Take "god" and replace it with whatever you've just said.If you believe I lost, then by defending the motion, you should also deny that "I lost" because you believe all possibilities are realized no matter how contradictory.A possibility X can only be equal to itself.If X exists, then its contradiction (anti-X) cannot exist.Possibilities are realized only if they are not contradictions.If a ball is a sphere, it obviously can't be a cube.
For most men this is the face of God

hi con you say "Regardless of which definitions are chosen for the other words, Pro MUST show that a majority (ie, higher than 50 percent) of male humans/humans believe that the resolution is true. " my reply this is an arts debate and not philosophy or logic and as such arts include literature we can assume that my claim has something to do with literature and it does my claim is rhetorical-a literary devise http://www.wisegeek.com... "A rhetorical statement can also use other devices such as hyperbole and anaphora to construct a more persuasive and powerful argument. Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration in order to make a point, such as a common phrase like "I"m so hungry I could eat a horse." you treating this debate as logic or philosophy You would to this rhetorical statement "I am so hungry I could eat a horse." would just say here you are eat this horse then and prove your claim-where in fact there is nothing prove so again my claim that "For most men this is the face of God" is a rhetorical you have missed the whole point of my claim being rhetorical my claim is in fact sarcasm-again another literary device - it does not have to be proved at all
For most men this is the face of God

--- Presumptions Depending on the chosen definitions, I presume that we're assuming that God and His face exist. If not, please tell. --- Burden of Proof Let me remind everyone that the burden of proof within this debate rests solely on Pro, because Pro must assert something, while Con doesn't have to assert anything. If Pro fails to fulfill their burden of proof, then Con wins. --- Definitions * "most men" has two meanings: (1) the majority of male humans, or (2) the majority of humans. * "this" has numerous meanings: (1) literally the debate. org-style abbreviated link to shribd. com, (2) the cover image of the shribd. com link, (3) the title of the shribd. com link, (4) the word-for-word contents of the shribd. com link, or (5) the statements made within the shribd. com link, which would roughly mean "the human vagina". * "the face of God" has numerous meanings: (1) the literal title of the shribd. com link, (2) what most people believe the actual physical face of God to be, or (3) what most people believe represents God's purpose. I ask Pro to clarify which, if any, of these definitions is correct, and, since Pro did not set these definitions up in round 1, to show why those are the correct definitions. --- Polling Regardless of which definitions are chosen for the other words, Pro MUST show that a majority (ie, higher than 50 percent) of male humans/humans believe that the resolution is true. The only way to establish this for certain is by polling the entire world's population as to the truth of the resolution, because any smaller level of polling has statistical uncertanity. If Pro can prove that statistical uncertanity is acceptable for as rigorous a topic as this, then they may poll merely a representative sample of the population. Because I doubt Pro can do so, especially within 72 hours, and thus cannot fulfill their burden of proof, I negate this resolution.
For most men this is the face of God

Debate Summary: Pro recyles Pro's arguments nearly word-for-word from the last round, and completely fails to rebut any of my rebuttals. I will simply extend my previous rebuttals, because forcing me to do more work when Pro has not is unfair. I have rebutted Pro's claims that the resolution was (a) an arts debate, (b) rhetorical, and/or (c) sarcastic. Furthermore, even if my rebuttals fail, I have shown that it was impossible for me to have known any of this before I accepted the debate, making that part of the debate unfair and unacceptable. As such, the resolution may be taken as an assertion; no more, no less. Therefore, all of my first round arguments apply. Pro has the BOP to prove the resolution true. Pro has the burden to define all relevant items in this debate. Pro has the BOP to prove that more than 50 percent of male humans/humans believe *something* to be "the face of God". Of course, Pro has failed, raising no arguments about any ot these issues. --- RFD Summary: Conduct: Possible Con win. Pro effectively attempted to change the resolution when Pro realized it was unwinnable. If the debate *was* rhetorical, Pro offered no way to tell. Grammar: Definite Con win. Pro had many spelling errors, punctuation errors, capitalization errors, grammar errors, and unfinished sentences. Arguments: Definite Con win. Pro failed to (a) define the terms of the debate or (b) fulfill the BOP of the debate. Furthermore, Pro asserted the resolution to be (a) rhetorical, (b) hyperbolic, and/or (c) sarcastic, which Con disproved. Sources: Possible Con win. Pro had two sources, counting the opening statement; Con had three, counting one of Pro's. --- Thanks to everyone for reading this debate. Free e-cookie to those who vote! =)
Can TV have a profound effect on viewers

The title of the debate states that TV has "a profound effect on viewers", I've denied that by stating that there's no such thing as an instinct (or tendency, or urge) to replicate in our lives what we see on TV. Millions of people watch violent shows or news on TV everyday yet most of them would never physically harm another person just for the sake of it. This is an undeniable fact. If you think I'm saying what you're saying then you must have misinterpreted something I wrote.
Can TV have a profound effect on viewers

There's no scientific evidence to support what you're saying. I have no doubts about the fact that TV just like any other form of media can influence our way to think, but what you're suggesting is that we naturally have a tendency to replicate what we see on TV and that simply isn't the case. We should keep our kids from watching what we think might harm them, but we have to be rational about it and acknowledge that every mentally sane person can tell the difference between reality and fiction
Can TV have a profound effect on viewers

In nature an animal is influence by what it sees. If an animal likes something that it sees than it will be encouraged to do what it does. That's why a female takes her cub away from the pride. She wants to create a connection with her child so the child will do what she does. It's the same with people. If they see something they like on TV then it is there instinct to do that something so we need to be careful to what we expose to our kids.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument proves the existence of a Personal Creator

I would like to issue a challenge to KRFournier on a debate regarding the Kalam Cosmological Argument as supported by William Lane Craig and whether it in fact proves the existence of a personal creator- ie, god. I will take the opposing position, ie that it lacks evidential support and thus cannot prove its conclusion. The KCA: A.Whatever begins to exist has cause B. The universe began to exit C. .'. the universe has a cause.NOTE: The creation of the universe does not simply denote what arises from a cosmic expansion, but an actual creation of its materia- energy.
The Spiritual Realm Exists

The rules are we both must use formal deductive arguments. For example, you must use premises in each paragraphthat are clearly connected and the last statement in the paragraph must form a conclusion based on those premises. Informality will be tossed out. I will argue the spiritual realm does not exist. Here is my deductive argumentation: Spiritualists claim the spiritual world is not the material world. Material things all have mass. Things that have no mass cannot interact with things that have mass. Only things that have mass can be sensed by humans and become thoughts. Therefore, the spiritual realm could not be represented in the human mind as a thought. Something that has no mass does not exist. The spiritual realm is claimed not to have mass. Therefore the spiritual realm does not exist.
The Spiritual Realm Exists

I believe my opponent has misunderstood my position. I did not intentionally imply there are no mental events. I did not explicitly claim there are no mental events. Mental events are physical events. If they were not physical, they could not interact with the physical so that we had a conscious representation of the world. I do not agree that spiritual and mental are interchangeable or categorically related in a physical way. Instead, spiritual ideas are merely composed of physical ideas and physcial abstractions of which we all sense from the physical world and extrapolate them to a fanastic and mystical one and mistakenly label it real. My opponent states: III: Ontologically subjective phenomena supervene on ontologically objective phenomena IV: Ontologically subjective exist and have no mass The implication of these premises in this arguments context violates Newton"s First Law which states: An object continues in a state of motion or rest, unless it is impelled to change that state by a force outside itself. The phenomena of supervention is what occurs when a force acts upon this object. If an object has no mass, no supervention can occur. My opponent has stated something impossible that clearly violates the laws of physics. If the light beam enters the human eye, if the mind itself were not physical, it could not receive the chain reaction the leads to and produces what we call vision. Light has mass and everything in the chain reaction up to the point we sense light in the mind has mass. If one link in the chain reaction did not have mass or was missing, then we would have no knowledge of light. We need not be able to understand that which is representing (mind, consciousness) in some exhaustive way to understand it is part of the physical world because it consistently represents the physical on a regular basis. In summary, my opponent has made interesting philosophical arguments, but still are only fantasy, because if the mental and spiritual have no mass, they cannot interact with the physical to create a representation. In order to know anything, it needs to interact with your mind. You mind will need to be touched by it directly or indirectly for that to occur. Things need to touch, to be to be touched, otherwise they miss and are unknown. That is what scientists call nonsense. I challenge my opponent to show how something with no mass can impress upon something without mass. Please describe this process, or how I've somehow confused things so it will make sense. Or can it?
Vaccinations should be voluntary

I will accept this case. Frankly you're entire argument is relatively narrow, yes we do have freedomes but we also have diseases in the world and viruses all around us everyday, most of which we don't know exsist, but scientists do, and that's where vaccinations are mandatory, because if we don't keep up on them we might as well be living in the dark ages with the black plague, burning the bodies of the sick and coughing out our lungs. Also the government really has no idea the affects of these drugs, since many factors make it impossible to be 100% accurate, such as a persons allergies, immune system, anything that can alter the effect the drug has, and of course there are things that are never seen until it acts with another chemicle, so thats why we have the Vaccination Injury Compensation Programs. Lastly the Constitution DOES NOT simply give us freedomes, that is a common mistake, the constitution was the freedome of the United States from Britian, it was the Bill of Rights and the Amendaments written AFTER the United States was freed from British rule that gave us our rights and freedomes, which never states anything about medical freedomes or vaccinations, so false, it is not in a direct violation of our rights unless they force the vaccination onto a person or persons whose established Religion says otherwise, which most don't.
guns

My opponent and I both value saving lives. Whoever saves more lives wins this debate.---Contention One: Alternative PlanSubpoint A. Deaths in the United StatesMy opponent states that "Guns ... are they main cause of deaths in the United States of America."However, heart disease accounts for 616,067 deaths annually in the United States, according to the CDC [1], and according to Zipes and Wellens, sudden cardiac arrest accounts for 300,000-400,000 of those deaths [2]. Sudden cardiac arrest is not always predictable, except for those who know themselves to be at high risk.In contrast, all firearm deaths account for 32,163 deaths annually, according to GunPolicy.org [3].Subpoint B. Political CapitalSeeing as heart disease kills more people than and still has much of the unpredictability and negative consequences of firearms, it would be better to spend political, economic, and human capital to attempt to end or reduce heart disease and sudden cardiac arrest.This is because persuading Congress to legislate this totalitarian action and to persuade the American people to hand over 270,000,000-310,000,000 guns [3] would require serious political capital that would probably destroy a politician's (or multiple politicians') political career(s), especially if it failed.This political capital could be much more easily spent persuading Congress to spend more money on heart disease research and the American people to accept a very, very mild income tax increase.Subpoint C. Economic and Human CapitalFurther, melting down all guns would either require (a) buying back all guns from their owners, at a cost of about $150,000,000,000 [4], or $9 billion more than is spent on education at the federal level annually [5], which is a lot of money, or (b) militarily seizing all guns, which would require a lot of military activity, usage of government guns and ammunition, and probably the deaths of gun fanatics before their guns were seized. Because we know that many, many people are survivalists or paranoid about a totalitarian government takeover, and this would seems exactly like that. How would they respond? With guns and bullets, leading to their deaths and the deaths of soldiers.In contrast, nobody is vehemently anti-cardiac-research (I think), and doesn't come with a $150,000,000,000 price tag.--Summary:Melting all guns will lead to further loss of human life OR to massive economic cost, while researching to end cardiac disease will lead to less loss of human life and save money.---References:[1] http://www.statisticbrain.com...[2] http://circ.ahajournals.org...[3] http://www.gunpolicy.org...[4] http://www.getrichslowly.org...[5] http://febp.newamerica.net...;
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

Thanks for continuing this debate. I must apologise...I have only minutes until the deadline expires. I am afraid, therefore, I will not have time to post an argument that his contribution deserves. Suffice to say that, my opponent made a number of valid objections to the current technology, which I accept. Nonetheless, I would reiterate that 30 years should be sufficient time to develop alternative fuel-powered cars - even if it is simply more efficient versions of hybrid petrol (gasoline) / electric vehicles with batteries that store energy that would otherwise be wasted as heat during braking. Thank you.
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

1. I do believe that my logic about "You see the problem is that the fuels need land and transportation and finally conversion, when these factors are included there is no reduction of CO2. " stands valid, my opponent although has yet to answer this point (Please don't make that a voting issue, since there are still more rounds to go, therefore, the last speeches count when considering the conceded points) below is the evidence link. GENERIC EVIDENCE "Biofuel demand pushes crop production into environmentally fragile areas, collapsing CO2 sinks and accelerating global warming" . http://ecoworldly.com... "Ethanol production increases air pollution" . http://redorbit.com... ml The paper by Crutzen at al is frequently cited as evidence against the use of biofuels as an effective means of mitigating global climate change, HOWEVER, Crutchen's methodology is flawed, when land use is considered there is no reduction in GHG emissions . http://www.dft.gov.uk... Yes we have a come a long way, however, because the policy, plan, resolution, what ever one wants to call it, calls for all vehicles sold in the USA must work from alternative fuels by 2040, after it no other car may be sold, thus if we wait till 2040 our commuting would be cut, since no other car would be allowed to sell. Secondly, although you are not predicting directly, you are implying a prediction that by 2040 we will have biofuels that work great, that is incorrect; Menand 2005, (he is the author I use to answer your prediction) what we find is that our predictions are no different than the prediction made by experts, furthermore, the more information you have, the more you are likely to be wrong, finally monkeys throwing darts are more accurate then the people who predict, therefore I urge voters not believe that we will find some miracle by 2040. 2. Ok, perhaps not nuclear cars, but the hydrogen example I have brought up, which was conceded weights heavily against the Pro. Imagine a world where we will be at a constant threat of having terrorists use our hydrogen powered cars to cause 2nd 9/11. Also please note that my opponent has agreed that he has to defend all fuels, so as long as I prove one bad alternative fuel I ought to win, since it is Con's job to prove the Pro's resolution wrong. Again the resolution asks for "alternative fuels" word "fuels" being the multiple therefore Pro has to defend all fuels, I didn't make up this resolution, the national committee did for the PF debate. "HYDROGEN VEHICLES WILL BE USED AS MASSIVE BOMBS BY TERRORISTS" . http://www.chem-bioleng.northwestern.edu... "Biofuels production leads to the exclusion of small-scale farmers" . http://www.iied.org... 3. Ask yourself a question, are we ready by 2040? Certainly there are no guarantees? Finally, if the alternative fuels are so sweet, why not mandate by 2030? 4. My forth point is conceded therefore I win that the government has no reason to mandate, and because my job is to prove something about the resolution is wrong, I ought to win.