BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
never leaving hell after judgement

Secondly I would like to point out that I in no way believe in either Heaven or Hell or a God in any way, however I used to be a Christian so I do indeed know many things about the bible and Christianity. It seems apparent that my opponent is attempting to take a biblical side to this debate so I shall follow suit. There are a few things that my opponent has neglected to mention about the bible. There are actually five places that exist after you die. 1)Heaven 2)Hell 3)The pit of burning sulfur 4)The New Jerusalem 5)Purgatory (which in the bible technically does not exist but there is another place similar to it in the sense that you are waiting for judgment yet you are not able to repent while there. Time does indeed Exist in the bible, in the sense of the afterlife. Currently there are people dying every single day. According to the bible these people then proceed to the purgatory type location where they will be judged according to there sins and such. Depending on there life they will then proceed to either Heaven or Hell. According to this there are people entering Heaven and Hell every single day. Therefore they are there now. Finally there is the point the is the most important, the return of Christ. Revelations outlines the events that will unfold when Christ returns to take his people home. Part of the events that unfold is when Satan is locked into the abyss for 1000 years after which he would be released for a short time. [1] However, shortly after being released he would then be thrown into the pit of burning sulfur (the pool of fire and sulfur), along with Death and Hades, and anyone who's name is not written in the book of life. Those who's names are not written are those people that went to hell. It becomes apparent that hell no longer exist. Hell is simply a the place where sinners wait until they are transferred to the true eternal place of suffering, the pit of burning sulfur. To respond to my opponents point of "1) This place does not include time. " I must say that in a sense I have already proved this point incorrect. Not only is time apparent in Heaven and Hell but it happens to be a large importance there. Hell and Heaven only exist until God returns for his people, there after when God takes his people home there will the be seven years in which the earth goes through massive peril. After these seven years god returns again, creates the New Jerusalem and locks Satan into the abyss for 1000 years. Where after Satan returns and once again tries to take over God's reign but of course he fails. The fact that he is in there for 1000 shows that time does indeed exist. [1]. http://www.usccb.org...
never leaving hell after judgement

Firstly to respond to your questions about purgatory. There are many different parts of the bible that lead one to believe that you do not immediately proceed to hell. The main one however is Job 14:12 which states "so man lies down and does not rise; till the heavens are no more, men will not awake or be roused from their sleep. "[1] This shows how when you die and are to be sent to Hell you wait in Hades, which also translates to the grave, but can also be known as purgatory by the Catholics. I find it highly unreasonable to take Revelations simply as a vision, and to use it as a guideline as to the events that shall unfold. Revelations is not written simply as a vision but is meant to be taken as an account of the events that shall unfold. When a person dies that is to be sent to hell they wait in Hades until the day that god returns for his people, at this time during the seven years in which multiple plagues and events will unfold those people that were in Hades will then be moved into hell for the duration of those seven years, after which when the angel from heaven locks Satan into the abyss, those in Hell will proceed to the lake of fire. This is explained exactly in revelations as you can see in my source above. And since it is my job in this debate to prove that you can indeed leave hell it seems quite apparent that you can leave. For the main point that hell only exist for seven years in a sense. Yes it does indeed exist before gods return but those people that have died on earth have not yet proceeded to arrive there, as they are in Hades. Then they proceed to reside there for seven years while the anti-christ rules over the earth. Thereafter they will be thrown into the lake of fire even before Satan. Thus, they leave hell. [1]. http://tinyurl.com...
We are in the middle of a mass extinction.

R2 Rebuttals"The study reported that around 322 species have gone extinct over the last five centuries." [0]We have lost many larger animals too. [1] "It’s frightening but true: Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1]. " [2]The natural rate of extinction is about 1-5 species a year. We are now losing over 1,000 species a year. "The rapid loss of species we are seeing today is estimated by experts to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate.*" [3]There is no way around this, there is massive loss of species many times greater than natural background extinction. I don't see any contradictory evidence within the youtube. I did however find an article mentioned in the youtube that is almost contrary, but not quite. [4] Basically the article states that we are mostly losing endangered species. Yet, we are still losing the endangered species and thus we are still in the middle of a mass extinction. The mass extinction may end soon according to the article, yet it still doesn't contradict the present extinction rate. Therefore, my resolution still stands untouched by your argument. Thanks for debating.Sources1. http://www.therichest.com...2. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org...3. http://wwf.panda.org...4. http://dailycaller.com...
It is not OK to help someone if it is not in your self-interest

Thanks for accepting the argument. What you provide against the argument are cases where it appears that no self-interest is involved when you help someone. 1. Isn't it the case that many parents beat their kids (i.e. they come home drunk and angry) or do other things that are against to the well-being of the child? The point is that you assume that being a parent should be something good for the child. We may wish it so, but being a parent does not mean that you are a good parent. 2. 911 - Isn't it their Job to help people? They may feel proud and good about themselves for doing something nice, but it all just might be a days job. I don't think that helping someone necessarily means caring for him as a person 3. A person can raise an animal only to make it his meal one day. 4. Someone might help a homeless person but does he always do it because of "good will", perhaps he just had some loose change that he wanted to get rid of. What I am trying to say is that we can not separate an action from its intent if we are to classify it as good or bad. If we don't do that then all actions can be looked at retrospectively in more than one way. For example: If we look at the action "Helping a lost child" then say it's OK and not to someone's self-interest, then we assume that there wasn't a self-interest to begin with, thus essentially affirming our own implicit thought about the action. In another respect we can not say for certain that an action is OK, or good without looking at its consequences. For example "Helping a lost child", the child was lost but returning it back to a lunatic father does not mean that we really helped the child. It may have been lost because it run away from something. My argument is this that if intent and consequences are necessary to classify an action as OK, good or moral, then I argue that a good action has an intent for the desired consequences. I add to that that a rational human being can not possibly desire negative for himself. Therefore a rational human being can not will something bad to happen to him through his actions. It is your self-interest not to will something bad to happen to you through your actions. if An action is defined by its content, its intent and its consequences. The content is the circumstances that the action takes place. A rational person wills what is the best outcome for his action. A rational person can not will something that is bad for him. An "OK" action is to will something good to happen to you as a consequence of that action. When good comes to you through your actions is to your self-interest. Therefore, I reach the conclusion that: a rational person can only will what is good for him, which is his self-interest
It is not OK to help someone if it is not in your self-interest

If the statement is true, no parents should ever help their children unless they get a signed statement from the child, guaranteeing, that the child will pay them back. Sometimes, it is VERY easy to help someone when you have nothing to gain. Just calling 911, when you know that someone is getting beaten, is one way. We could use the stance of "karma" but that would be "self interest" but, the more important point is, who is the person who "decides" if something is ok or not? Further points: 1. if you help a lost child at the mall by standing there and calling security you gain nothing but you darned well should do it, especially if no one else is doing it 2. I help animals. They - never- return the favor. I clean cages, clip nails and feed ferals. I gain nothing from all that. 3. Some people helped me when I was homeless. Many of them got nothing in return ( some did ). Those who just gave me a ride and did not hurt me or do anything else might have been going for "karma" or just "doing god's work" but I did not pay them or find them to thank them or blow them. They were just good people. I find that the most important point in this is the assumption that someone has to "OK" nice deeds. That part is drivel. The promise of karma is a motivator for good deeds. Some may argue that what goes around does not come around. Most of those people are young or demanding perfection without checking the balance. Religious teachings, often, seek to motivate good behavior but they do it with a carrot on a stick and do not have to deliver the "prize" in any way
Communism vs. Capitalism

I agree with you in that the present definiton of Communism has some flaws, but those are just organizational problems and can be worked out. The government will not be prejudiced against people and take away their amenities. A I said before, people will not be paid the same, they will get the same oppurtunities as everyone else, whatever their background. This is what Communism is about. Capitalism is not doing very well right now, with the debt crises in Europe and, to an extent, in the United States. This happened because the banks got too greedy and began lending people too much money, money which they could not repay, sinking the whole country into debt. In a communist society, this wouldn't happen because the banks would be regulated by the government, who would not have let this happen. In a capitalist scoiety, though you say it is a free market, in fact the top slots in all industries are taken and will not allow a newcomer into the field anmore. There is only limited oppurtunity in a capitalist society. I await your argument.
Communism vs. Capitalism

O.K now I understand, this is a hypothetical what if communism was employed by a non-hunger thirsty person. In theory this would work, but there are theory's against it. If everyone was paid the same it would create laziness. If everything is given to you why work as hard, just do the minimum. That's one reason. Also when the government runs anything it rarely works well. I can think of no governmental agency that works efficiently. So in that perspective that is a down fall of communism. Also many economists believe communism restricts an economy because of the laziness. So having a terrible eco0nomy will come no matter who is in control. Once again capitalism means freedom, personal choice, and economic wealth. This is been proven in the U.S. The U.S. has the best economy in the world, and probably will for a long time. A communist might say its luck, but its not our economic philosophy gives you personal freedom. So its either you choose what you want to make, and where and when to make it, and who you are competing with, or the government owns you. Also capitalism has brought you free trade, and everything you own (if you live in a capitalist country ). You will get better quality things because the people who bring it to you have decided they are interested in it so they work to be the best. They also need to be the best because they need to compete. So its simple, capitalism rocks. Also in most communist countries you don't get internet or phone. why? because their government is afraid that they will look up capitalism. You said that in communism that the government owns you house. That is terrible,if they decide to hate you all they need to do is take take everything you own. And the more I think about it the less i see it possible to run communism o be run without a tyranny. So in fact if the government has that much power anyway it would easily slip into an oligarchy or a tyranny really fast. Many people think we need communism to make a balance of supply and demand. this is absurd. In theory of capitalism the government stays out of the way except in extreme cases such as a monopoly. So if you look at it capitalism will balance itself on its own because if i have 10 pounds of sugar but the people want eleven, I just raise the price and people will slow their buying of my product until the supply gets bigger and prices get cheaper. So here is my last statement of Americans, why fix something that isn't broke? And when it does break it heals later anyway, communism can't heal. if it goes down all you can do is try to stabilize.
Communism vs. Capitalism

I agree that it did not work in North Korea and the Soviet Union, but I say that that was because of the people in charge, not the system itself. I agree, Communism has some flaws, but we are not talking about everyone, whatever their job, getting paid equally. We are talking about nobody being upper class and nobody lower class, because everything will be government-run. When the people in charge actually put real Communism in place, unlike the dictatorships in North Korea and the USSR, Communism works wonderfully. The best example is the shetl system in Israel, in which everyone has jobs, get their education paid for by the society, and then contribute to in in return, and everything is shared. The failures in USSR and NK were due to power-hungry people. This debate is about which system would be better if implemented properly, rather than used to take gain power. I await your argument.
Communism vs. Capitalism

Capitalism at its heart is about freedom to do what you want, as long as it's justifiable. Communism sounds easy, but doesn't work. North Korea is communist, and their all starving to death, and are 8 inches shorter to their brothers to thee south. doctors say its because of mal nutrition. because the government does everything including rations. The USSR was also and they were a third world country other than their military. Also capitalism rewards for hard work, aka if i work my @## of then I will get paid more, if I'm in Korea i will get just as much for being lazy. example cashiers get paid as much as doctors who are saving peoples lives. In capitalistic society You choose what you make and when you sell it. Unlike in communism where the government chooses everything, and decreases competition which is vital. Competition makes an economy work. It makes you make your goods better and cheaper then your neighbors, so basically making higher quality goods.
Communism vs. Capitalism

The premise is that Communism is not a bad form of Government. Pro will be backing communism Con will be backing capitalism First round - Description of both forms of Government. Second Round - Arguments for both forms of government. Third Round - Rebuttal Round. Communism is the practice in which all things are owned by the government, and as such all people are equal and should have equal possessions. It was envisioned by Karl Marx and adopted by the Bolsheviks in Russia after the Russian Revolution of 1917. Communism focuse on the establishment of a classless society. Communism was gradually phased out after the collapes of the USSR, and today the only "communist" (though only in name) nations are North Korea and Cuba. I am challenging innomen to this debate. If he chooses to decline it, I will leave it open.
Communism vs. Capitalism

THE POINT OF COMMUNISM IS SO EVERYONE GETS PAID THE SAME! DUH! O.K. you say it's organizational problems. Well this is a fallacy. Here's why: When you have a strong government, it will usually end up in a situation with a power hungry representative takes control. So you saying if it was employed perfectly without a dictator is impossible. As I have said before, I believe in free markets. Communism states that the government owns you, tells yo what to do, and when and were to sell it. These restrictions are what brought these countries to their knees in the cold war, their bad economy, not their dictators. Capitalism isn't doing bad either. You never proved this with an example, So I will show you why it's not. Even in a recession America (capitalist) still has the strongest economy, by 4 trillion dollars ahead china who isn't technically in a recession. Oh and BTW Europe is socialist! How is there less opportunity in capitalism? I have researched this, communism doesn't mean opportunity, freedom, or anything else good. It means fairness, but as I said before, you need competition to make an effective economy. And your wrong, big corporations have to let the lit ones survive (unless they want to buy it). You imply monopolies. Even in a capitalist society we have regulations to make it possible for the small to rise up. I have sated this before. In communism you aren't rewarded as much for your work. So if you work hard, advertise well, and practice your rights correctly, then you will be able to have endless opportunities which you just don't have in communism. Since you have not said anything against all my other points effectively, my arguments still stand.
Unconditional love can never exist on this earth, excluding God's unconditional love

Okay, I apologize, I definitely misunderstood the resolution when I took this debate; however, that will only change my argument. I will go back to the topic of the man killing the woman's family. I did not contradict myself, her love could remain the same; however if he went to jail they probably would not stay together. You really cannot tell another human being that their love would change because of a circumstance. The woman could have also hated her family and not cared, it is up to the loving person whether of not their love changes, and it is POSSIBLE in that circumstance that it would not change. And the possibility is all i need. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ As well, I will present some of my own loves that are unconditional: My love for faith is unconditional My love for honesty is unconditional My love for Music is unconditional My love for writing is unconditional My love for worship and praise is unconditional The list goes on and on. ________________________________________________________________________________________ Aside from myself, how about a mother and her newborn baby? Mothers love their babies unconditionally, since the babies cannot really do anything, the love is unconditional. ________________________________________________________________________________________ What my opponent is trying to do, is telling us what we can and cannot love, and how that MUST change in the occurrence of his circumstance, but that is up to the individual. All in all, the only argument that my opponent has presented is that if a man killed the woman's family, her love for him would change. Which is not true, most likely it would, but it is possible that it would not. With that argument negated, and some of my own unconditional loves presented, I await the next round.
Unconditional love can never exist on this earth, excluding God's unconditional love

Since my opponent did not present a definition of "unconditional" I have found one that i believe suits the topic well. Unconditional: not limited by conditions; absolute. To go into more detail, I think what he is referring to is love that is strong, and does not change based on changing circumstances that might occur, and the love still stands through different conditions. Please be sure to let me know if you disagree with that. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Going on, my opponent's proof is that if John killed Mary's family then she would not love him anymore, I have a couple contentions to that. 1. Some woman would still love the man, they would most likely leave the man, however that does not necessarily change her love for him. 2. How is this relevant? This is a rare case in which could possibly effect ones feelings for another. But what if he didn't kill her family? She would still love him. _______________________________________________________________________________________ A couple could live their entire life without something like his example happening, therefore due to his only current argument unconditional love is possible. ________________________________________________________________________________________ Next, animals, this is not restricted to dogs however it is the animal I will be focusing on. Say a man, lives by himself with no family or real friends, but he has a dog. The man treats this dog very well and they spend a lot of time together, dog's are very loyal and love their master unconditionally. Especially given the scenario, I think that dog would love the man unconditionally. ________________________________________________________________________________________ It is going to require some pretty good evidence to convince me and the readers that this unconditional love could not possibly exist.
Unconditional love can never exist on this earth, excluding God's unconditional love

Unconditional love can never exist on this earth, excluding God's unconditional love. I am pretty much saying that besides God's love, no one can even ever love another person unconditionally on this earth. Two people may love each other very much, but I am certain there are conditions where that love cannot exist or last. For example, let's say Mary and John are madly in love with each other. If John goes to Mary's house and kills her whole family, I can guarantee that Mary would not love John anymore. There is always a condition that exceeds love for one another. Hence, unconditional love can never exist on earth.
Should Donald Trump receive a small loan of 1 million dollars

My opponent forfeited, I'll briefly make my main argument and hope they return in the next round.Donald Trump already recieved a small loan of a million dollars from his father, he started off in Brooklyn, then he moved to Manhattan. This has already happened, and now his net worth is 4 billion. He was able to take that small loan of a million dollars, and multiply it by 4,000. Based on the past we have clear evidence that Trump is a good handler of money.
I am very small

I AM TINY VERY VERY VERY VFC08HYNFQEYA"F"NWA"UUDFYWAF8G8QWVJDRIU WHJNBF0IOQIHKLRFWQD0UW QRF WFW EW 'FF0UY 8ERTYIUGUERIDEDDIHIUCFJJWRQH V XCDEY9P8 RTYUEVF8UYHDWJDC c