BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People have an "immortal soul" which continues after death.

Hmmmm. .. . Lets start with a few examinations of past rounds. My opponent round 1: My opponent instigates a case. Round 1: I gleefully point out that I am the contender in this debate and that my opponent is the instigator, I go on to point out that he brings up 0 evidence for his instigated case. My opponent round 2: My opponent makes no comment on these 2 statements, instead he attacks my definition of soul. Round 2: I once again point out my opponent has offered exactly 0 evidence, notice this statement, "My opponent begins his second round stating that I have offered no evidence except for Jesus. Sweet, fine by me, my opponent has so far offered 0 evidence compared to my 1 piece of evidence. Thus my opponent so far is conceding to me winning this debate. " My opponent round 3: Decides that now would be a good time to attempt to lay the burden of proof on me. He states that I have brought up 0 evidence while conceding to me that he has brought up no evidence to disprove the existence of the soul. Thus at this point in time it is impossible to vote for my opponent. He is the instigator in this debate, he has instigated this debate with no evidence, thus he has proven nothing. So now to bring up my evidence. My opponent concedes to me that Jesus existed, and concedes to me that Jesus died for three days and was resurrected. He then goes on to say that people who die still have their brain living, while completely ignoring the Jesus example. Two points, 1. The human brain can only survive for 4-6 minutes without oxygen, . http://www.memorylossonline.com..., yet people have been known to be revived after half an hour of being clinically dead. People have even snapped back to in the mortuary. 2. Jesus was dead for 3 days. .. . his brain would have been mush. How did Jesus survive? The bible explains quite clearly that everyone has a soul, that would appear to be the only reasonable explanation. The soul is the contact with the higher being, without this contact Jesus would not have been able to know what god desired. Furthermore the simple fact that my opponent concedes to the existence of a God, concedes to the existence of Jesus is evidence in itself of an immortal soul. God and Jesus taught/teach that the immortal soul goes on after our death. The fact that my opponent concedes to god means that what god says is correct. As god teaches the immortal soul, it is correct. Finally I would like to once again draw my voters attention to the fact that my opponent is the instigator in this debate and has still offered exactly 0 shreds of evidence for his case.
People have an "immortal soul" which continues after death.

1. My opponent has offered no evidence that there is an immortal soul which continues after death, but offers a definition of soul as "the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body...". Such a definition is no more than an unproved statement or opinion. 2. My opponent's statement that "a historic man dies for three days and then comes back to life" offers no further evidence for an "immortal soul" either; it is simply a statement that such a person was dead for three days and was then alive again: this not prove that such a person had an immortal soul; it simply states that their physical body was dead for a time period and was later alive. Is this an inference that there "needs" to be an immortal soul for this to have happened? No! If one believes in this historical figure, one can believe that God raised him back to life without the requirements for an "immortal soul" to exist or be required. My opponent states that someone "COULD be physically dead while still having their immortal soul", but this statement does not prove its existence; the statement simply ASSUMES such an existence without any evidence. 3. My opponent also states that "many times people die physically and then are brought back to life minutes later by doctors". Are such people really dead? Is their brain dead? No. Their brain's continued potential to function is directly associated with their life. This does not prove that there is an immortal soul. 4. My opponent states that "consciousness cannot be applied to the soul" and yet chooses to define the soul as "the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans". Such a definition is meaningless without consciousness, since humans cannot feel, think, or take action without consciousness. Therefore my opponent has failed to show any evidence that there is an immortal soul.
People have an "immortal soul" which continues after death.

My opponent begins his second round stating that I have offered no evidence except for Jesus. Sweet, fine by me, my opponent has so far offered 0 evidence compared to my 1 piece of evidence. Thus my opponent so far is conceding to me winning this debate. He goes on to accept the fact that Jesus was resurrected as the bible says but denies the idea that people have an immortal soul, another biblical idea. This is a direct contradiction in my opponents case. My opponent also argues that somehow being resurrected from the dead is in direct contradiction of having a soul. I believe my points in round 1 all centered around the idea that someone could be physically dead while still having their immortal soul. Thus when they are no longer physically dead their immortal soul still exists. I challenge my opponent to point out this obvious contradiction. Finally my opponent asks me a few questions at the end of his speech. Questions I sadly cannot answer as he is once again linking the soul with physical qualities. The soul is independent from the physical being, this has been my point throughout this entire round. The physical ideas of "heavy sleeper" "light sleeper" or even "consciousness" cannot be applied to the soul.
People have an "immortal soul" which continues after death.

You equate "soul" with life distinct from the body and yet offer no evidence that it is distinct other than a historic figure who died for three days and then came back to life. I assume you are referring to Jesus. The Bible doesn't say Jesus has or had an "immortal soul" but says that he was "resurrected from the dead", which contradicts such a notion. Also against there being an immortal soul is the fact that someone being knocked out being unconscious. They have no external "soul" which is conscious during this period. Also, is our "immortal soul" asleep when our body asleep? Is it a "heavy sleeper" or a "light sleeper"?
People have an "immortal soul" which continues after death.

Apparently I am for the idea that people have an immortal soul. Luckily I am the contender in this scenario. My opponent feels that people cannot have an immortal soul yet he has absolutely no evidence to back this statement up. Secondly my opponent offers the idea that, "We know they are gone which is why we are sad. They no longer have consciousness and therefore we can't communicate with them." However this in no way proves my opponents statements, let us look to the definition of soul: the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part. Obviously if the soul is distinct from physical life it has every ability to go on living outside of physical life. Want some proof? A historic man dies for three days and then comes back to life, obviously the fact that his body was dead for three days had no consequence on his soul. Another example, many times people die physically and then are brought back to life minutes later by doctors, with no impact on their soul. So yes, people do cry for lost loved ones but for the simple reason that they no longer get to interact with that person anymore, not for the reason that their soul has died. I stand open for a rebuttal.
People have an "immortal soul" which continues after death.

Mainstream Christians and those of some other religions hold that every human being has an immortal soul, which exists while the person is alive, and continues on after death. I am against the notion that an immortal soul exists within us. Sadly, we see people dying all the time, sometimes those close to us. We know they are gone which is why we are sad. They no longer have consciousness and therefore we can't communicate with them.
College campuses should allow students to carry guns for protection.

Hello, SandlasJuagas. Thank you for starting this debate. Sorry I took so long to get to you, I had stuff to work on ._. Alright so the CON's thesis is that we should not allow guns on college campuses because it would severely decrease security and increase crime rates. However, I disagree on that same standard. 1) His only warrant for his first argument is that college students that have guns for self defense will only fumble and miss with them in real situations. First of all, people that aren't accustomed to guns and aren't really big on guns wouldn't bring them in the first place, just as if a person isn't really addicted to a certain fashion style, they won't put it on display at work or school. This eliminates many of the people that would make up his situation already. Second, for the people that are trained with guns, I would say that the situation then doesn't apply. And EVEN IF it does, I believe it is still better as if we have a VTech-esque shooter, defense is better than no defense. 2) This has nothing to do with protection. I understand how you say itll be a side effect, but you did not state either in the topic nor in your case that they'll be able to KEEP the guns. For all we know, maybe theres this armory where they can visit before exiting the dorm and that theres someone that watches over it. He also didn't specify what types of bullets they were allowed; maybe they're only allowed small caliber guns? Maybe only rubber bullets? If colleges allowed guns on campus, they would most certainly have some sort of restriction to which students would be allowed to have guns. The CON never specified that this debate would focus in on all college campuses allowing all students to have guns. In any case, it's not only depressed students that have guns. In the PRO's world, other college students would also have guns and the instigator would be put down almost immediately whereas in the CON's world, well, look again to VTech. 3) Re-apply the last argument I made to his second point. There is one concept that he never seems to touch upon and that is MAD. AKA "Mutually Assured Destruction", this argument does not only apply to the prevention of nuclear war, it also applies to handguns. If you allow guns, then law-abiding citizens that are interested in getting a gun will go and get one. In this case of guns in college, only the people that are trained with them and know what they're doing and actually like guns that much will be carrying them around. However, if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will happen. Defense is better than no defense, and his only argument against it is that the people fighting back will misuse their guns. This is a conditional argument as it will not happen all the time and as my other arguments above prove, things like that aren't going to be happening.
College campuses should allow students to carry guns for protection.

Ever since the Tech shooting, there has been debate over whether students should be allowed to carry guns for protection. This seems like a really bad idea. I realise that people feel a need to be protected in times off crisis, but there has got to be a better solution than to let everyone carry a gun. My major points are these: A) Guns would make a crisis more of a crisis; B) Guns would increase the frequency of violent shootings; C) Crime in general would increase. Some would argue that in a crisis it would be beneficial to have a gun so as to protect you and others around you. This would not only not be helpful, it could potentially harm innocent people who would not be harmed otherwise. Imagine if you will, a shooter comes into a classroom, raises a gun into the air and shouts that everyone is going to die. So a student with a gun simply takes out his weapon and shouts the shooter before he can do any harm. Now imagine this: A shooter comes into a room and systematically starts shouting with his well trained eye at students in the room. Before you know it a student in the classroom takes out his gun in order to defend himself. Not only does this make him a target, this also technically makes him a shooter too. He raises his gun to fire, but if he doesn't have as much training, or is under a lot of stress (which he probably is), there is a good chance that he will miss his target. This just creates more chaos, and potentially the student could shoot another student on accident. My second point is: when there is a school shooting, the shooter has to think out his plan. He has to know where he will get his gun and ammo and when he will attack. However, a student who is allowed a gun at school has a convenient to carry death machine right in his dorm. If he has had a bad week at school and hasn't got a lot of sleep and his roommate's friends come over and just tick him off so much that he can't stand it, there is a gun sitting in his drawer ready to be used. I'm not suggesting that all collage students would use this option as a first choice, but it would make it easier for those who would. Crime increasing is my final point. Crime is just way easier to commit with a gun. Even if one doesn't use a gun to harm someone, it is easier to, say, rob, damage, or rape someone if you have a gun. So yeah, let's get us some guns in colleges, because lord knows that of all people, college kids would be the most responsible with them.
College campuses should allow students to carry guns for protection.

This is going to be short because I feel that you have simply provided your differing opinion to all of my topics but have given no substantial proof of anything. To compensate I have provided my opinion for all of your points, but have included relevant, un-opinionated information as well. "There is no correlation between the drinking students and the ones that bring guns."- Oh, well okay. This is some very insightful information. I'm sure you would back it up with some tests or studies, if any tests or studies existed which would confirm your opinion. But since there's not, I'm going to continue to believe the study instead of your opinion. "I haven't heard of any incidents other than VTech where theres been a college shooting"- Well it's good to know that I'm arguing the issue with a well informed individual. Since you don't seem to know that magnitude of the problem, let me fill you in: University of Texas (1966)- 14 killed; 31 wounded Kent State University (1970)- 4 killed; 9 wounded Jackson State University (1970)- 2 killed; 12 wounded California State University (1976)- 7 killed; 2 wounded ï¿½cole Polytechnique School (1989)- 14 killed; 14 wounded Concordia University (1992)- 4 killed; 1 wounded Appalachian School of Law (2002)- 3 killed; 3 wounded Dawson College (2006)- 2 killed; 19 wounded Delaware State University (2007)- 1 killed; 1 wounded These are only a few examples. "people are doing this [bringing guns] RIGHT NOW"- By this are you saying that people already bring guns to college? If this statement is true then it looks like guns at college aren't helping. If this statement is false then it doesn't really matter. "Paintball is pretty realistic"- I guess paintball is pretty realistic. Even though in paintball you know there is no consequence for shooting someone. But you're right, killing someone is pretty much the same thing as hitting them with a plastic ball full of paint. "The setback is all it takes"- You say that rubber bullets will be enough to subdue a shooter, but I just don;t believe that this is the case. I'm thinking that even if you have ten kids with guns that fire rubber bullets, it won't be enough to match a man armed with real weapons. And again I'm going to argue that rubber bullets will do nothing more than piss of the shooter. "I will provide the line-by-line voting issues for the reader at the end of R3"- Thank goodness, I would have given the line-by-line voting issues myself, but I would be afraid that my opinion would make them biased or irrelevant. Thank God you're here to help.
There is a conflict of interest when dentists advise on tooth care.

"Because of these things the potential for a conflict of interest is negated very clearly." "So, you admit that a conflict of interest exists to be negated. Then we agree." "POTENTIAL for a conflict of interest is negated very clearly." POTENTIAL. If you cannot be bothered to read the debate than perhaps you should not waste everyone's time with you circular logic and lack of factual information. The above error by my opponent is a good summary of the entire debate. I have no further points to make as my opponent will simply ignore them - or draw fantasical and far feched illogical conclusions. A careful study of the debate reveals his blatent refusal to acknowledge any facts whatsoever. The only thing remaining that I can possibly say is that for someone so rabid to point out minor mis-spellings and grammatical errors my opponent makes quite a few himself.
There is a conflict of interest when dentists advise on tooth care.

In a free market economy professionals must compete against other professionals for business. If my car breaks down I take it to a mechanic and expect him or her to repair my vehicle. I do not expect that aspect of the vehicle break again for some time. If it does I behave as any consumer would and spread the word that said mechanic is a poor choice for auto repair. If I have an issue with my teeth I go to the dentist. I have a regular dentist that I have chosen to stasy with because he is "good". All the work this dentist has done to my teeth has been of a satisfactory quality. If it were of a sub-standard quality not only would I have stopeed going to this dentist - I would tell everyone I know what a poor dentist he is. According to your idea the dentist is giving shoddy service because he stands to profit when I come back for further tooth maintenace that could have been avoided if he had done the job right. In reality if the dentist in concern practices this business model primarily he will lose the patients he has, as well as potential patients (word of mouth). Professionals stand to make far more money and increase their business by performing quality work and building a good reputation - this will encourage customer loyalty and attract new business by word of mouth. Teeth are biological. Without constant maintenance they will fall out long before we die. Cars are mechanical contraptions. No matter how well built they require constant maintenance to prolong their lifespan - and a skilled hand to fix when they inevitably break down. Professionals have no shortage of "work". Bodies decay, machines will break down, computer networks need upgrading (forever, as new technology is introduced), therapists will always have new patients as individuals experience inevitable trauma in their lives etc.... Any professional that is concerned with maximizing profite will do their job to the best of their ability in order to retain customers and acquire new ones - thus growing their business.
There is a conflict of interest when dentists advise on tooth care.

ATTENTION: -=This debate is intended for aphistis from StudentDoctor.net I would politely ask no one else to accept this for at least a month, thank you.=- While obviously an expert in a given subject is more likely to be qualified to speak on issues relating to that subject, there still exists a clear conflict of interest when those experts fiscally profit off of situations that could arise from faulty or missing advise on that subject. Dentists being a clear example. That this conflict of interest is exploited in some cases, if not most, is virtually assured and virtually undetectable. The preference would be independently funded and run research, but this is rare if it even exists. The ADA for example is hardly an independent source since they literally sell an advertising seal for toothpaste. If that approved toothpaste were then to fail over time, increased profits would result, resulting in a particularly vicious loop that would eventually result in significant tooth repair and removal expense. Thus there is a strong motivation to exploit this conflict of interest, coupled with a weak deterrence, since the people we would ask, dental experts, about whether or not this was the case, are the very ones with most reason to lie or divert blame for profit, fiscal and otherwise. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms

No, my response was indeed relevant. My very first acceptance post stated that I will take the side of schools deciding for themselves (via the free market). I'm sorry that your copy/paste response was not tailored for my counter-argument. Also, you don't seem to understand the fundamentals behind a free-market education system, which is what private schools are. If parents think a school and its rules are terrible, they don't send their kids there. The school administration can write the guidebook, but if the parents don't approve, the school will not get any students. The topic of this debate was not whether or not school uniforms have benefits for the students or not. It was if private schools should have their students wear uniforms. It's a question of what is good for the school. A school without any students isn't not a good school. The free market is the only deciding factor in this question. Many private schools do implement uniforms, and many do not.