BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: There is no afterlife.

Ok so you have already won have you? Well let me rebuttal your case. You state that you lose your brain after death. Sure it decomposes, but that doesn't mean you have no afterlife. Think about it, the memories other s have of you when you die is a way of living after death. Also the bible states that when you die, then you will either go to heaven if you are saved, or hell if you are a nonbeliever, and as a strong believer, I believe that. However I will not base my argument off of biblical reasons if I can help it. I would also like to point out some strange appearances such as ghost. Some people say they don't exist, but I say they do. In fact I have had multiple experiences with them, so if there is no lives after death please explain what they are in essence. Also your five facts, they really don't support anything. Sure when you die your brain functions cease, but that doesn't mean you lose your brain, and I quote you, "When someone dies there is no brain." The brain functions cease, but the brain is still in the cranium, (or head for those who don't know.) And if you take the Greek mythology into account, you have Hades or Pluto in his Roman essence, Osiris in Egyptian Mythology, and in christiananity you have heaven and hell. If there was no afterlife explain these religions and beliefs.
Resolved: There is no afterlife.

As Con has already accepted my argument, I win. However, I will present my argument so that Con can know what he is accepting.1. If there is no consciousness after death, then there is no afterlife (by definition). 2. Consciousness in an emergent property of the brain.3. Hence, if there is no brain, there is no consciousness.4. When someone dies, there is no brain.5. Hence, when someone dies, there is no consciousness (3 and 4).6. Therefore, there is no afterlife (1 and 5). I suspect that Con will want to focus on 2 above.Defending 2: Organisms without brains are not conscious. Only animals have brains, and hence bacteria, archaea, plants, fungi etc. are not conscious. Of course, not all animals have brains, and hence not all animals are conscious. A coral is not conscious, and even when a brain is present in an animal, consciousness may not be. For example, an insect has a brain, but the insect may not be conscious, and if it is, the level of consciousness is low/simple. Cows have more developed brains, and are they are definitely conscious. For example, it cannot be disputed that a cow feels pain. In general, higher levels of consciousness emerge from larger and more complex brains. Humans have very large and sophisticated brains, and our level of consciousness is high compared with other animals. Similarly, lower levels of consciousness emerge from small, simple or damaged brains. We know that as the level of brain damage increases, consciousness decreases. For example, a good knock on the head might result in permanent memory loss or the loss of the ability to speak, but severe acquired brain injury can result in a persistent vegetative state, where the person is in “a wakeful unconscious state...” [1]. All of this strongly indicates, and indeed confirms (to the extent that something can be scientifically confirmed), that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.Simply, if progressive brain damage causes a corresponding progressive loss of consciousness, then no brain (i.e. brain decomposition) results in a complete and permanent loss of consciousness, and not the complete restoration of consciousness.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The amount of mental health in film and TV at an unhealthy level

Theoretically, If mental health was depicted the right way in media, It could be beneficial. However, As I have pointed out, It very rarely is. TV writers are not mental health experts. The benefits of a mental illness being depicted on TV are cancelled out by the misinformation that is spread by an inaccurate depiction. If the only information you get about mental health is through TV, Even if you know TV is not always accurate, You will still come away with a warped image of what mental illness looks like. Mentally ill people are disproportionately depicted as violent, And shows depicting suicide and depression have never been shown to actually help people suffering with depression. In summation, Not only is the amount of mental health in media unhealthy, But the way media portrays mental health is as well. Good debate.
The amount of mental health in film and TV at an unhealthy level

The question of mental health portrayal in the media being in the media is absolutely part of the question because on multiple occasions you have stated it is shown in a dangerous mannor therefore implying that should it be implemented how you see as 'right' that there would infact be no problem. Mental health in the media has made the subject less 'taboo' someone suffering from these problems are more able to come out about it and feel like there is more room to talk about because they are now more widely known problems thanks to there media coverage. If we continued what has been done in the past, Not adress the issue and move on, People would be left to figure out what is wrong on there on own. It is common knowledge that what is on tv is usually an inaccurate representation of real life, And because of that common knowlage when people watch mental health depictions they understand that it is not shown accidently but it still gives the idea and a basic representation of what it is.
The amount of mental health in film and TV at an unhealthy level

The question is not whether the depiction of mental illness in media can be helpful, Rather it is whether it currently is. While there may be a beneficial way for TV to introduce people to menral health disorders, Currently most TV shows give such an inaccurate depiction that they do more harm than good. Expecting people to do more research is unrealistic as like I mentioned last time, 70% of people get all their information about mental health from TV. If mental health is portrayed in TV the creators have a duty to depict it accurately and currently most fall very short.
The amount of mental health in film and TV at an unhealthy level

Monk depicted OCD as a problem that can be dealt with, And while it benefited him didn't in some way, Sherlock the most iconic detective in fiction didn't benefit from drugs etc. They may not benefit everyone in the same way but they do show that it is something they can live with. Following your points of asylums in horror movies they are usually abandoned and/or for the criminally insane which naturally makes them hold more dangerous patients making them a better fit for airy horror films. Mental health in film is rarely depicted as violent so while it may be shown as 10 to 20 times more likely to commit a violent crime it is not seen as often to have it create any major problems with there depictions. Mental health in film and T. V. Is benifical to at the very least introduce people to these topics allowing people to research and learn more to help themselves and family if they have reasons to believe someone needs help. It can also be a good way to show where to get help
The amount of mental health in film and TV at an unhealthy level

First of all, My point was that "Monk" depicting OCD as beneficial is totally inaccurate and because a study by the National Mental Health Association found 70% of people get their information about mental health from TV and movies, This can spread misinformation. As for the theory that depiction in media destigmatizes mental illness, Misrepresentations of mentally ill people as violent can serve to further stigmatize them. According to analysis by Don Diefenbach, Professor of mass communications at UNC-Asheville, Characters "label[ed] as having a mental illness were 10 times more likely than other TV characters to commit a violent crime and between 10 to 20 times more likely to commit a violent crime than a person with mental illness would be in real life. " Finally, Nightmarish insane asylums are a common trope in horror movies, And while there are certainly some movies which depict mental health facilities accurately, There are just as many that don't.
The amount of mental health in film and TV at an unhealthy level

The T. V. Show "Monk" shows OCD is manageable and in some cases helpful at the minor end of the spectrum therefore showing that many health issues can be taken in stride. Furthermore the point made that misrepresentations of facilities should be backed up by reference or evidence as all depictions I've personally seen have been realistic portrayals unless in "comic" shows such as Gotham or Lucifer and even one in Monk that in context for the plot is run by a serial killer therefore not presented as realistic for plots sake, To further this may I recommend the centres in Sala Samobojcow. By talking about mental health issues in film we are removing the stigma in our society around these topics, This in turn encourages and allows more people to speak out about these issues and for people to accept them. Whilst doing so we are showing these things are real and affect many people in a medium that is accessible for many people and showing it in a way they understand (even if exaggerated).
The amount of mental health in film and TV at an unhealthy level

The issues with mental health's portrayal in media go far beyond the depiction of suicide in shows like "13 Reasons Why" (which as you mentioned did a poor job of complying with IASP guidelines). What can be even more damaging is misrepresentation of mental illness. For example, The T. V. Show "Monk" has a detective character who uses his OCD to solve crimes, Whereas in reality OCD is manageable at best and debilitating at worst. Even worse, Psychiatric hospitals, Which can help patients suffering from mental illness, Are rendered as nightmarish, Horrific places that will inevitably be more damaging than the mental illness itself. This can actually dissuade people suffering from mental health seeking treatment. Shows featuring depression and suicide often claim to be making a positive influence and "opening a dialogue about mental health. " However, The reality is that the people making these shows are not psychologists, And lack the tact required to not do harm.
The amount of mental health in film and TV at an unhealthy level

The amount of Mental health shown in film is not yet at an unhealthy or dangerous level. There are one or two examples where yes things go overboard, Particularly 13 Reasons Why. But one or two shows should not speak for an entire issue, That would simply be blowing things out of proportion. There are guidelines made by the world health organisation and IASP (International Association for Suicide prevention) that are more often than not met and furthering the guidelines there is usually national recommendations as well. By stating that there is a huge problem and no limitations we are giving power to a subject that is already powerful enough as it is.
God is One, not Trinity

I’m not a theist but there is clearly a strong case for the trinity in the bible. I’ll concede that there are several scriptures that point out that God is one. There are also many where God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit appear to be distinct entities. You misunderstand the common ideas about the Trinity, which is an idea that tries to preserve the idea that God is one with three different aspects to his character. Common examples for the trinity include water, which can take three forms: ice, steam and liquid water. They are all H2O but they take different forms and have different applications. Without the trinity there is an obvious contradiction in the Bible and an argument that God is not one. Here a few scriptures that highlight that there is something separate and distinct about the three versions of God: Genesis 1:26 says, “Let us make man in our image.” Ephesians 1:3 says, “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.” – John 1:1 In Matthew 3:16-17 you see all three aspects of God interacting, “16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” This is also seen in Mark 1:10-11, “10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” There is clearly a biblical case for the Trinity. That should do it for a forfeit. http://www.contenderministries.org... www.biblegateway.com
must tertiary education be free

It is a fundamental right of individuals to experience university and to have access to the knowledge it affords. University offers a huge opportunity. It is a treasure trove of knowledge to be gained and experiences to be had. University provides an opportunity that exists at no other time in an individual"s life.It is a time of personal, intellectual, and often spiritual, exploration. In secondary school and in professional life, no such opportunities exist, as they are about instruction and following orders, not about questioning norms and conventions in the same way university so often is.A state can only truly be considered legitimate when an educated electorate approves it. Without a proper education, individuals cannot be effective citizens. A university education in the modern world is essential to the development of such informed citizens. For this reason, free university is a great benefit to a citizen as an exploration for his own development on a personal level, and with his relation to society as a whole. http://www.keydegree.com....
must tertiary education be free

In today's competitive world the only way to find a decent job is if you hold a degree. It is so strenuous to find a proper work that you would find a person with a degree working at a fast food restaurant. If that is the case imagine were someone with no qualification will work. Generally, university education does offer external benefits to society. Higher education leads to a more productive workforce. *Equality. University education should be free to ensure equality of opportunity. *Increased specialisation of work. the global economy has forced countries , such as the UK to specialise in higher tech and higher value added products and services. The UK's biggest export industries include pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals, optical and surgical instruments, and nuclear technology(see: What does the UK produce ?). Therefore the is a greater need for skilled graduates who can contribute to these high-tech industries. And only tertiary education can equip you with such skills and qualities, therefore Paying tertiary education restraints some people from obtaining such skills and qualities.
must tertiary education be free

Higher education is a magnificent thing, but to say that it is a right would be comparable to something such as everyone has the right to be wealthy. I would go as far as to saying that college should cost even more and be more competitive as I would say that there has been an "inflation" in a sense when it comes to the college system. University is not the only place where people learn and innovate, and the by-product of higher education does not always equate to being a productive member of society or the workplace of their selected field(s). A vision that I have for the education system that we (as I would assume that you are a resident of The United States) as a nation could possible do would be as such; 1) Stop telling our youth that college is the way to go -Not going to college does not automatically assume laziness or being unsuccessful as is the common misconception of our society, as there are alternatives such as trade schools or apprenticeships or even the military option that I had took 2) More focus/spending on the alternatives to higher education -We need a workforce that knows how to do the jobs that are in demand. Trade schools and apprenticeships are not exactly an attractive option for the average high school student, but I firmly believe it would have a better impact on their careers than college (I cannot express in words the support I would have for you if you were advocating free trade schools and apprenticeship programs) 3) Change does not happen overnight. -Years of the pursuit of college has transformed our entire job culture, to the point that is a requirement if wanting to succeed to life and the advocacy of free education is curious concept. If the points above are met, we can see a major shift in the future of our college-is-the-only-way-centric society. Sources; None (I admit that this round I decided to be entirely opinionated and going sort of freehand)
The Christian God Does Not Exist

I've been seeing Superbowl9 debate this Ad Nauseum, and so now I want to lol.To make things fair and fun, I shall take the BoP, to prove the Christian god does not exist.Structure:1:Acceptance2:Constructive Case3:Rebuttals/ New Points4: Rebuttals/ ClosingDefinition:Christian God: A being, which transcends space and time, is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.(You may add more, but I would not advise it.)Good luck to Con ^.^
Homosexuality to Heterosexuality

People want God and want to believe in it even though there is no evidence for it, it's called faith. The middle east part was referring to the illegality of homosexuality, as it is illegal in some middle eastern countries, and yet there are still homosexuals there. If it is impossible to prove something imaginary then don't bring up imaginary things and act like they for sure exist then. You did not rebutt anything else I wrote about, probably because you have no argument. All you say is I disagree, without ever showing any evidence or even making an argument, and I do not know where this unearned sense of superiority came from but you should probably cut that out.
Homosexuality to Heterosexuality

'"Want is based on what is available" well not really' - Con's argument. I disagree. Con's example " I can want a dinosaur even though there are none left alive", is false because you have seen a picture or there is some other type of knowledge present. The rest of that paragraph wasn't major and it's not worthwhile responding to it. "Now let's refer back to your original post, which is poorly organized and quite hard to follow because I guess you are just too cool to write in paragraphs like the rest of the world" - Con's argument. You couldn't follow the original, then why did you accept the debate? Con's example "If you were right in this then in places where homosexuality was illegal, there would be no homosexuality," is irrelevant! It's a mix and match here, but scanning through the rest of the paragraph to try and find a part that correlates to this statement. "However this is not the case, and people in certain middle eastern countries..." How does this relate to the prior statement? I'm lost for words, but I imagine this is Con's 'technique'. "Last little point you mention the long lost woman, but you have no proof of this." It's impossible to prove something imaginary, Con.
Homosexuality to Heterosexuality

"Want is based on what is available" well not really. I can want a dinosaur even though there are none left alive. If there was a homosexual man and he was the last man alive and the rest of the world was female he would still be attracted to men. He might engage in sex with those women in order to preserve the human race but that does not mean he enjoyed it or that he is in fact heterosexual. Ok well whether or not it is nurture is irrelevant to the fact that once you become one or the other then you can't just switch. If this was true then it would also be true that every heterosexual man can also be a homosexual. Now let's refer back to your original post, which is poorly organized and quite hard to follow because I guess you are just too cool to write in paragraphs like the rest of the world. If you were right in this then in places where homosexuality was illegal, there would be no homosexuality. However this is not the case, and people in certain middle eastern countries engage in the activity knowing that they could be thrown off a building or stoned to death for committing the acts. What part of human nature would but a voluntary "want" ahead of your own life and well being. Last little point you mention the long lost woman, but you have no proof of this.
Homosexuality to Heterosexuality

His argument: A (pure-)homosexual cannot force an erection for a female! My argument: "I beg to differ". 1. A (pure-)homosexual cannot force an erection for a female! 2. cannot force an erection for a female! 3. A human cannot be attracted to that which it doesn't feel attraction for. In theory, an erection is, a step ahead. You can't, force, an erection to come naturally, for what you're not attracted to, but carefully, you may, metaphorically, tune it. Con, thinks, but cannot confirm, that a purely homosexual male cannot become heterosexual. I disagree... A purely homosexual man, wants, male on male sexual intercourse, or a, type of, life, with a male; want, is determined by what's available! Scenario: What's available is a bunch of males and a bunch of females; and you don't want the females; you want the males. Want, is a choice, between one or the other - the females are definitely an option. You're not attracted to females, in the same way as you're not attracted to eating a certain food; either because of nature, or nurture. I argue, homosexuality is nurture, and refer Con to the original post to contest what I've said instead of inanely voicing an opinion that relevance to victory of this argument (I almost fell asleep).
Homosexuality to Heterosexuality

While I am not a homosexual, I can relate to this argument just like everyone else, because we do not choose what turns us on. There is no switch that activates your hormones, and you can't spawn an erection at your will. Some people are attracted to men, and women just do not turn them on, just like how some straight guys like boobs more than butts. They did not choose that, it just happens and no matter how hard they try they cannot change what turns them on. Another example is pedophiles, who suffer from a mental disorder (pedophilia), they did not choose to like children and they often are depressed (1) because they can't stand the fact that they are attracted to children. If they were able to change then they would but they cannot. In conclusion, you cannot choose who or what you are attracted to, so homosexuals cannot just become heterosexual. By the way while I agree that women are more attractive than men, that opinion is completely subjective so to say why be gay if you can have a woman is unnecessary. 1. (http://www.vice.com...)