BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

the requirements are either too vague, or too listy/dogmatic. the bible says if you confess with your mouth jesus is lord, and beleive in your heart that he was raised from the dead you will be saved. it also say if you believe in the lord you will be saved. it also has all kinds of other statements. i'm sure if you do these, that is sufficient. but what about various other scenarios, like the content of 'sinner's prayers' that dont include those things? what or where exactly is the threshhold? if you believe he existed or is God is that enough? probably not cause the bible says demons do likewise. what about a list of of common beleifs? that you rely on him generally, that he is your savior, that you are a sinner, that he is lord, tha he rose from the dead, that he was incarnated, that he is God, that he is the son of God, that you believe you are saved (plenty of christians say you must believe you are saved, or you aren't saved), substitutionary atonement v 'christus victor' etc etc. ask different christians, get a different answer, almost every time. they just have 'gut feelings' but dont have firm answers. see past debates from me on this topic, and you'll note a different answer pretty much every time. some say you have to admit you're a sinner and that he is your savior. what if you believed all the other things and not these? or what if you believe you're a sinner, and that he's a savior, but not that he's God, or a various type of atonement belief. eg, chrsitaus victor v substitutionary. some say that he is God is required, some say legal substitution is mandatory. and how do you demarcate the requirements for those who are new to the faith, and those who are really knowledgeable? it might be seen a okay for a newbie to miss a thing or two, but less understandable for the expreinced etc. does this come into play? so what's the magical formula?
Catholic teachings do not forbid gay marriage

I do agree that the Catholics have messed up many original documents and teachings of Jesus and homosexuality. The Pope and "spiritual leaders" have perverted the word of God many times. But once again I will tell you that the Vatican and many Catholic Apostolic-teaching Churches have indeed held strongly to the original Biblical doctrines. Those who follow these doctrines will be opposed to same sex marriage and premarital sex. However, homosexuality isn't the only sin taught in the original doctrine, there are many sins included in the Bible. All sin is equal in God's eyes. Be it Catholicism, Protestantism, or any branch of Christianity, they all have one thing in common. That thing is the doctrines of Jesus Christ and the law of the Old Testament. Those who truly follow Jesus will reject their sinful desires, and repent theory sins to God. A true Christian, Catholic or Protestant, will reject their sins and rely on Jesus. This would include the rejection of homosexuality. So I don't know where you come from, because all original true teachings of Christ teach that sin is sin, and needs to be condemned.
Catholic teachings do not forbid gay marriage

I would suggest to you that your reply did not necessarily constitute a debate, so much as blanket reference to an article, but I digress. THAT is not the matter at hand. Here is my very brief rebuttal and final statement: Your argument in round two was entirely based off of the press release of several Vatican officials. Anyone that knows anything about the Catholic Church knows that EVERYTHING is a long, carefully considered, drawn out process. This is partially why the Priest abuse scandal was so shocking. That said, everything in that article was a PRESS RELEASE, which is a far cry from an official teachings. The Catholic Church relies on the leadership from the Pope who reserves the right to make what is called an "Ex Cathedra" teaching, or "From the chair". This is the belief in Papal infallibility. ONLY the teachings made Ex Cathedra are considered infallible and therefore fundamental. There are only TWO of these teachings, and neither of them concern gay marriage. Pope John PaulII had expressed his desire to make Male only Ordination an Ex Cathedra statement, however Cardinal Ratzinger (who later became Poe Emeritus Benedict XVI) convinced hi not to do so. Hundreds of Catholics have SPOKEN OUT about the injustice of same sex marriage (legal same sex marriage), however in reference to the title of this debate, there is NO ACTUAL TEACHING CONCERNING ANYTHING OTHER THAN HOMOSEXUALITY. The Catechism of the Catholic Church simply condemns coitus between two individuals of the same gender. They have no teachings concerning who may or may not enter into a social contract. Some may suggest that their definition of marriage is a blanket that covers all definitions, but as we established in my Round 2 argument, the Church has said that this is not the case! I rest my final argument on these premises.
Catholic teachings do not forbid gay marriage

I would like to start by pointing out a mistake in your terminology and interpretation of my question. FIRST, I did not say anything about homosexuality (the actual action of coitus between two people of the same gender) and same sex marriage. There is an obvious distinction. One is an institution the other an action. Next, I would also like to clarify that I did specify Catholic TEACHINGS (official, written teachings) NOT statements made by Church figures. With those two crucial distinctions in mind, let me Continue to the body of my argument. A little known and lesser cared about fact concerning the Catholic Church is that they do not recognize legal marriages as valid. Official Catholic teachings say that a couple must be married in the eyes of God in the sacrament of Matrimony in order to be "married". This is so strongly reinforced, that if an individual is married by a justice of the peace and subsequently have intimate relations, this is considered pre or extra marital sex., and is in fact considered a sin. Furthermore, If you are married legally but not within the church, you could technically get married to another person IN the Church. This leads us to a solid conclusion that the church does NOT recognize LEGAL marriages as VALID. For the sake of clarification, I will refer to legal marriage as "social contract". Moving on. If two individuals desire to enter into a social contract, this is entirely permissible within the Catholic Church according to the above reasoning. It is simply a different tax status (In America at least). The Church does NOT recognize this as a marriage, which they have defined as being between a man and a woman. To summarize: The Church forbids homosexuality, but NOT the official engagement into a social contract and subsequent change of tax and eligibility status. Members of the Church have CONDEMNED said social contract, however there is no TEACHING forbidding it. I rest my case for round 2 on these premise.
Catholic teachings do not forbid gay marriage

Are you serious? Why do you just come out with such bold bias like that? It is pretty blatantly clear that the Catholic Church does indeed condemn homosexuality and homosexual marriage. This is fundamental history and theology you are arguing against, what is your proof that the Church condones gay marriage? Because for centuries the Church has been opposed to same-sex marriage, and it still does. That doesn't mean hate gay people, because everybody is equal in sin. The new Pope has made it clear that homosexuality is indeed a sin, but can be forgiven like all other sins. So we are all equal in sin. I am not sure why you came out with such a bold bias, but the Catholic Church does condemn homosexual practice, just as it condemns all sin...
That the internet has reduced the community involvement of youth

It rose by 0.5%, thus the community involvement has INCREASED (the opposite of reduced) thus the internet can't be responsible for somethign that hasn't happened, THE OPPOSITE HAPPENED!!!!!!!!!!THE INTERNET IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT THE OPPOSITE HAPPENED!!!!!!!!!!AND EVEN IF IT HAD REDUCED! THE USE OF INTERNET, NOT INTERNET IS THE ISSUE!BUT IT DID NOT REDUCE!IT INCREASED BY 0.5%!SEXY TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That the internet has reduced the community involvement of youth

As for the argument that my opponent puts right at the end of his R3 case, it's almost exactly the same as what he said in round one, the only significant difference being that it's in bold. If you look to the first paragraph of my R2 case, you'll note that I have rebutted this already. Rather than appealing to the same thing over and over again, expecting to get different results, my opponent should either extend that case, refute my rebuttal, or drop it. As it stands the point is no more valid in bold than it was in normal type.The only other thing my opponent adds is a very (un-necessarily) long quotation from a study that proves the volunteer rate rose 0.5% from 2010-2011. This does not engage the vast majority of my argument - if anything, it seeks to reinforce my point that volunteer rates are more or less the same as they were back in 2000. 0.5% is not really a significant increase, and it has to be measured against decreases that have happened over other years in that same period. Even if they did increase, though, that would still not be evidence that technology was the cause of that increase. Therefore, my opponent has still not come back to my case.My opponent has at no point seriously challenged any of the contentions I made in R2, has failed to provide a complete argument of his own, and now it's too late.The resolution is affirmed.
That the internet has reduced the community involvement of youth

First of all, I'd like to point out that my opponent's whole R2 argument is plagiarised from the Aug 2007 edition of the Journal of Extension, a piece by Brennan, Barnett and Baugh from the University of Florida called "Youth Involvement in Community Development: Implications and Possibilities for Extension". As it so happens, the same piece is available for free online at the journal of extension website, here: http://www.joe.org.... Please note that the article is under copyright.That's why my opponent was unable to rebut my arguments. My case remains undisputed and needs to be answered by my opponent if he intends to win this debate.My opponent has provided zero references or sources. Simply giving the surname of the author of a study and the year in which it was published is not enough because it's still often ambiguous. In the actual study he cited there was a whole page full of references but he didn't bother to plagiarise them too.The article my opponent copied is irrelevant to the topic. The point it establishes, as explained in the abstract, is this:" The findings provide insights into the factors most directly shaping youth attitudes and involvement in their communities."Just because something shapes youth attitudes doesn't mean it decreases involvement. Furthermore, the internet (or any other technology) was not a factor that was included in the study, meaning that the study's authors were just as clueless as to whether the resolution is true or not at the beginning of the study as at the end.For all these reasons, I contest that my opponent has failed to attack my case, is guilt of strawmanning, and has plagiarised worse than I've ever seen. I hope for a little better argumentation in R3.
That the internet has reduced the community involvement of youth

This is going to be a reasonably simple academic debate. Four rounds, except this first one is for acceptance, 8000 chars per round, 72 hours to post each round. I am pro, my opponent will be con."The Internet" shall be defined to include the world wide web and the content served on it."Community Involvement" shall be defined to be the degree of connectedness between the subject and their proximate neighbourhood (as opposed to, say, the "community of world of warcraft players")."Youth" shall be any person between the ages of 12 and 20 that has access to the internet.Thank you and good luck!
rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother

the rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother at least later in the pregnancy... sometiems infant's rights should trump. a mother assumed the risk of pregnancy, and then, she assumed the risk of carrying the child for many months. to be clear, i'm focusing on later in pregnancy. but there and earlier, an argument could be made that earlier in the pregnancy she forfeits her right to not be pregnant by assuming that risk. much like... if you cause an accident, and the victim's body is somehow temporarily attachedk to your body, hypothetically speaking... a reasonable person would say the tortfeasor must at least wait a few months until they can be separated. that analogy could be extended to later in pregnancy, and then topped off with the fact that she didn't bother to terminate when it was more debatable whether it's a person or not. (if it's debatable, who should decide? the governmnet? why not the mother who is more proximite?) when it was morally grayer. later in the pregnancy though, it's not debatable about personhood. if there's no significant health or life or very very significant emotional problems, aborting the infant in the womb is no different than aborting it when it is born. the only difference, that the mother is hindered, is trumped by the risks she assumed, and that leaves nothing to justify abortion later in the pregnancy if an exception doesn't apply.
rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother

OK, I will address each point in order. The rights of the mother should NEVER be trumped by the unborn child. As I said in my previous argument, the mother has MORE rights than the unborn child because she is DESERVING of them. She is a living, breathing, human being. No matter WHAT, her rights are respected before, any perceived rights of a growing baby. (I truly don't think anything I'm saying is morally correct, but I want this victory) Also, you mention that the mother assumed the risk, so what? How many times have you bitten off more than you can chew, and quit because it was better for you, and maybe for the other person (if one was involved). We are human, unless you are some radical, you would know that we make mistakes, and a lot of them. In ANY case, the mother should be in full control of herself, if she wants to kill her unborn child, LET HER, it's not any of our business, let her live with herself, but it's her RIGHT! So this 'sometimes' stuff is junk, the "rights" of a NONEXISTENT baby should NEVER, NEVER, EVER trump the rights of the mother. Second, health exceptions should NOT apply but to help the mother, not in favor of the baby. The mother can WANT to have the baby, but be to ill to safely have it, so she aborts. This only applies to help the mother. Lastly, no "exceptions" come into play, and truthfully I hate abortion, but if I even thought an immediate abortion was ok, then hell yes, I would be cool with an abortion a week before the due date, it's this morally twisted mothers call!! She has COMPLETE control over her life. Morally grayer? Morals are pretty much sturdy, your logic may fudge it a little, but in your heart, you pretty much know how you stand. In conclusion, the right to abort WHENEVER is solely the right of the mother. The mother is the one who is living. NOT the BABY!!! The rights f the baby should NEVER trump the rights of the mother for the previously stated reasons!
rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother

first, i said that the rights of the mother should 'sometimes' be trumped by the baby. you didn't make any point of addressing that. second, i said that health exceptions could apply for the mother. you merely argue that health exceptions should apply despite what i said. you do go on to say mother shouldnt have to forfeith things that matter to her. im not sure if this is about when the exceptions are in play, or at any point in the pregnancy. would you be okay with an abortion a week prior to due date if it was just for the whims of the mother? and you didn't address the points 1. mother assumed the risk of pregnancy 2. mother assumed the prenancy after the fact cause she didn't abort earlir when it was legally and morally grayer
rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother

Challenge accepted. In real life I am Pro-Life, but for the sake of it, I will debate you. OK, you say that the rights of the infant should trump that of the mother's, but the mother is an established human being, who is probably going to live for a while longer, and if she believes that having the child would harm her, then she should be able to not have it. In essence, a bird in the hand is worth two in the tree. So even if this baby was Einstein, the mother is already alive, and should not have to forfeit her freedom, salary, reputation, etc. to a baby who is not even born yet.
The Existence of Aliens

There has been no proof for aliens to exist because our current technology is not good enough but in turn, we must ask ourselves, "If everything is here (in the universe) for a purpose, what purpose do aliens serve in our universe?" There has been no proof yet about aliens existing. If it is an extraterrestrial life, what proof do we have that it exists? It is a matter of our imagination and aliens, for now, only live in our imagination.
The Existence of Aliens

Con states that the Bible says the existence of aliens is false, but she provided no reference. I don't believe the Bible says any such thing, so Con needs to demonstrate that the Bible claims what she says it does.Let me go into more detail now about what I mean by "probablistic resources." Let's say there's a lottery with a 1 in a million chance of winning. And let's say only one ticket is sold. What is the probability that the one ticket will match the winning lottery numbers? Well, the odds are 1 in a million.But if you increase the number of tickets, you increase the odds of one of those tickets having the winning numbers. If you sold a billion tickets, it would practically be guaranteed that at least one of the tickets would have the winning numbers.So "probablistic resources" are basically chances for something to occur. The lottery tickets are the probablistic resources for getting a winning ticket. The higher the probablistic resources (i.e. the more lottery tickets), the higher the chance of getting a winner. The more chances there are for something to happen, the more probable it is to happen. Even prima facie low odds can be overcome with sufficiently large probablistic resources.The universe is estimated to have 3e26 stars in the galaxy. That is an unimaginably large number. Assuming conservatively that there's 1 planet per star, and no moons, that's 3e26 chances for life to emerge in the universe.But that's a very conservative number. After all, it's not as if each planet only gets one chance. The universe is 13.82 billion years old.[2] Let's cut off the first two billion years and assume there were no planets before that time. Still, that's 11.82 billion years that planets have been around. If we assume, conservatively, one chance at life every year, that's 3e26 times 11.82 chances at life. And if we assume chemistry is happening, not just in one place on a planet, but all over the planet, that raises the probablistic resources to a mind-blowing level.So it would appear that there are enough probablistic resources in the universe to produce life no matter how unlikely life is prima facie.But that is assuming nature is all on is own. However, if nature is not all on its own, then there's an even greater chance of life emerging. If there is a God known to be capable of producing life, and if this God produced life on earth for the sake of its own glory, and if this God had a passion for his glory, we should expect this God would want to produce life in more than one place in the universe. With the ability and the motive, there is at least some positive probability that God would produce life somewhere else in the universe.So it is highly likely that there are aliens elsewhere in the universe.NOTES1. http://www.physics.org...2. http://www.slate.com...
Pop Tarts > Toaster Strudel

My opponent has forfeited for the reasons that he "Has only enough material left for one round." Just a pointer for Daysuit; a good debator uses his material throughout each of the set amount of rounds, spreading out his material evenly to support his argument. Missing a round implies to one's opponent that he has given up, conceded the debate. I am not criticizing you, just helping you out for future reference. Back to the argument. I'd like to compare the two products, minus the qualities of flavor, health, and texture. Pop Tarts first broke out into the world in the early 1960's, as a Kelloggs' product. Their profits and ratings soared, with the first frosted Pop Tarts released in 1967, and the mascot of Milton The Toaster brought to the marketing world in 1971. Over time, Pop Tarts gained a reputation as being part of a daily breakfast, and Pop Tarts became a common household name. Pop Tarts have served a great deal for the benefit of America, but also outside countries as well; in 2001, the United States Military was supplied with 2.4 million Pop Tarts, for their long tenure in the United States War in Afghanistan. Now let's look at Toaster Strudels as their own product; Pillsbury's toaster strudels were first released just a few years ago, in the middle of the hype of many other new products released by Pillsbury. Toaster Strudels have yet to earn the reputation that Pop-Tarts have, lacking a slogan, mascot (other than the Pillsbury doughboy, who serves as the primary mascot for nearly all of Pillsbury's products), and charitable acts. If you hear about 2.4 million Toaster Strudels being dropped in Iraq, let me know. Toaster Strudels are also imitation products; they are most known for resembling strudel (obviously) and Pop Tarts. Real strudel is a delcious, mouthwatering Austrian pastry, stuffed with ingredients such as apples, soft cheese, sour cherries, spinach, and sauerkraut. Toaster strudel lacks these extravagant fillings, with the majority of Toaster Strudel's fillings being those of the "fruit" variety. Those that are not fruity filling are typical flavors such as Brown Sugar Cinnamon, Chocolate Fudge and French Toast. Toaster Strudels compared to real strudel is like trying to compare Sunny D to 100% Orange Juice. Pillsbury clearly got the idea and initiative for Toaster Strudels from Pop Tarts, with the same rectangular shape and failed attempt at topping the style and texture. Pop Tarts are an original, and they are their own product; anything released after them is nothing but an apery, a replica, a travesty; a phony. Pop Tarts > Toaster Strudel.
Pop Tarts > Toaster Strudel

It all boils down to texture. Do you like your morning breakfast treat to be hard and crumbly with slate concrete like frosting covering fruity inerts as flat and bland as the cardboard they are packaged in? Or do you like flaky crispy soft pastries with creamy smooth icing and soft flavorful fruit filling? Plus how many times have you run into a broken pop tart, rendering it un-toastable, I have.