BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion is becoming a business

I will not rebut your points in this round, as that would be unfair considering that I go second. In Apologia, The main goal of religion, in the eyes of religious officials (i.e. clergy, imams, pastors) is to convert souls. While there is definitely an aspect of business to religion, because everyone needs to survive, I believe that the role of business is less important to religion than the keeping of said religion itself. 1. Think of the religious leaders who were tortured or have died for their faith (John Huss, John Wycliffe, John the Baptist, Richard Wurmbrand, etc.) . If business was equal or greater than faith, then very few would be martyred. They would recant or capitulate when faced with extreme adversity. 2. I know many pastors who don't earn enough to be a pastor full time, but continue to preach out of dedication to the ministry. My own church's pastors have taken several paycuts. 4. Sure, religions have to be profitable, or at least break even, to survive. However making money is not the all-consuming desire for many religions. Look at people like Mother Teresa and Hindu and Buddhist teachers, who live in extreme poverty. Buddhism itself is based on rejecting material wealth. 5. 'What is the primary purpose of your religion? Religion in general has many purposes, most of them dealing with forming and maintaining relationships: with God or Goddess, with gods and goddesses, with our ancestors, with the spirits of Nature, with our families and communities.'- Josh Beckett, a high-ranking Druid priest. 6. Pope Francis- 'Money has to serve, not rule'. In conclusion, just because religion can be profitable does not mean it stands on the same level as faith and conversion in the eyes of the champions of each respective faith. (I assume rebuttals in Round 2?)
Religion is becoming a business

A merely argue that the business side is equal to the spiritual side in the view of religious officials. I will now expose the subtle ways in which many religions have used religious propaganda to sell their products. 1. Holy books- The Quran, the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita and other holy books have made record sales throughout the world. If that many educational books were sold, we would have no problem in educating children. Holy books are printed in mass amounts and even now provide profit to the publishing industry. 2. Artifacts/trinkets- We all know the Christian cross has sold a lot as an accessory. Lockets depicting images or symbolic items related to religion have sold more, and have the same manufacturing cost as normal lockets, but higher price due to the religious factor. 3. Gods' statues/idols- The Statue or painting of Jesus Christ is common in every Church, and sometimes a miniature model in the believers' homes. Religion greatly increases the business of photo frames, statues and idols. Many temples have a statue or idol of their God. 4.Candles/diyas, matchsticks and oil- Hindus and Christians use candles/diyas to worship their lord. This increases consumption of oil, and boosts the wax industry. I would say it is rare to buy candles these days except for special occasions, and only religion has kept the art alive. Also, matchsticks or lighters have increased sales as they are required to burn these things. While I won't argue it causes pollution, it certainly is a great wastage of oil and other materials. 5. Fortune tellers- Some fortune tellers rely on religion to establish their credibility, as they claim that God themselves have given them word. Without religion, their business would finally be shut down and be a relief to all. 6. Festivals- Festivals such as Christmas and Eid cause a great spike in sale of many items and boost business. While people need to celebrate, it is also a business strategy to revive dead shops. 7.Turbans and mats- The Muslim community have lot of mats as they bend over the ground to worship their Lord, and sikhs wear turbans. This gives a small boost to the clothing industry. Con may argue that all/some of these things have religious meaning and are a part of tradition, but that doesn't negate the fact that a side-goal of religion was business, and that as time passes, it is becoming one of the main goals. All the workers employed in religious jobs (priests, pope, sages) need money to survive, and this is their way of earning money.
Religion is becoming a business

I accept. I would like for you to clarify the parameters of the debate. First of all, are you asserting that religion IS a business, or is in the process of BECOMING a business. (The caps are just for emphasis, I'm not mad or anything). Second of all, are you referring to universal religion (every religion), Western religion (Catholicism, Mormonism, Protestantism, etc.), or Christianity. Finally, do you mean that the business side of religion has overridden the spiritual side, i.e. Joel Osteen, televangelists , or that there is merely some aspect of business present in religious circles (Like, tithing and rent and overhead).
Macklemore is one of the greatest modern rappers.

Yes, I know good person does not equal good rapper. But Macklemore is a good rapper. He flows greatly with rhymes that create not only meaningful lyrics, but catchy ones. Yes, many of his songs can be compared as "slower-paced" than other rap songs, but if you listen to Can't Hold Us and Thrift Shop especially, you can tell that he can rap pretty fast. Macklemore does not have just "4 so-so songs", he has many great songs. Over the years, he has produced: - Two studio albums (The Language of My World and The Heist) - Three EPs (Open Your Eyes, The VS. EP, and the VS. Redux) - Eight singles as lead artist (Love Song, The Town, My Oh My, Wing$, Can't Hold Us, Same Love, Thrift Shop and White Walls) - Twelve music videos (The Town, My Oh My, Irish Celebration, Wing$, Otherside, And We Danced, Victory Lap, Thrift Shop, Same Love, Can't Hold Us, White Walls, and Gold Rush) - One mix-tape (The Unplanned Mixtape) As you can see, Macklemore is very successful. He is one of the very few rappers to appear on the top charts. Did you know he's gotten the iTunes #1 song, and the Grammy awards for Best New Artist and Best Rap Album and Best Rap Song? The Heist also ended as the second most popular album out of all genres.
Macklemore is one of the greatest modern rappers.

Better person does not equal better rapper. If you dig deeper into rap you'll find that there are a lot of guys who are doing good in their community. its only most of the mainstream rap that promotes "drugs and boobies" as you said. Bottom line is Macklemore doesn't have much to show for besides maybe 4 so-so songs. Just because someone raps about "good things" doesn't mean he's a better rapper.
Macklemore is one of the greatest modern rappers.

First of all, Macklemore raps about both silly and deep things. If you're looking for a silly song, head to Thrift Shop, Castle, or White Walls. If you're looking for something deep, try Same Love, Otherside, Thin Line, and Wing$. It's obvious why the silly songs are silly, but why are the deep songs deep? -Same Love promotes marriage equality and is about gays having equal rights. -Otherside warns kids to stay away from drugs and criticizes rappers that advocate and rap about it. -Thin Line is about sadness and a struggling relationship. -Wing$ is about how becoming a material person that cares so much about how they look will hurt you later in life If you're looking for just an upbeat, dance-to song, try Can't Hold Us or And We Danced. Macklemore is a much better person than most rappers. He doesn't rap about drugs and boobs like most others do, he raps about good things. More next round.
Macklemore is one of the greatest modern rappers.

This argument all depends on what you determine "good rap" to be. To many it is the captivating beats, to others it can be the catchy yet meaningful lyrics. I am in now way stating that Macklemore is a bad rapper, but what I AM saying is that there is no way he is one of the greatest modern rappers. Heres why: Macklemore is certainly not the only rapper to talk about controversial topics, he is just the only one to get mainstream attention for it. Much of his attention should be credited to Ryan Lewis, his producer. It could be argued that the success of Macklemore should be attributed to Lewis given that Macklemore's flow isn't necessarily the greatest but the general public seems to enjoy his catchy beats. You also have to think about the rappers right now who many consider to be better than him like Kendrick Lamar, Drake, Lupe Fiasco, etc.
To get rid of cockroaches in the house

Turli hasharotlarga qarshi emaklay, samolyot yoki qornini yoki har qanday boshqa hashoratlar bo'lib qiladi hasharotlar ustidan hasharotlar, nazorat qilish qanday tanlash tavakkal va miqdor eng bo'lsin uchun siz Jidda qarshi hasharot kompaniyasi ustida ish olib bormoqda yo'llar uchastkalar bor bu usullar muhimbu unga bir tabiiy dushman emas ekanligini hisobga olgan holda, bir elementi bo'lishi va uni butunlay yo'q qilish sizga hasharotlar mavjud bo'lib mumkin hasharotlar, tabiiy dushmani tayanadi 1. biologik nazorat qilish, har qanday zarar bizga va bu usul fermer ta'qib qilinadiuni ta'minlash emas, balki esa, hasharotlar, barcha turdagi qutilish imkoniga ega kimyoviy bir qator foydalanish tayanadi 2. kimyoviy nazorat, jismoniy shaxslarga har qanday zarar va Sog'liqni saqlash vazirligi tomonidan vakolatli uchunVa barcha zarur echimlar qutilish uchun topish hasharot fan mutaxassislar va oliy darajadagi hasharotlar va murabbiylar uchun turli nazorat usullari uzoq tajribaga ega mutaxassis bir guruh Jiddada anti-hasharot kompaniyasi qabulJiddada Anti-hasharot kompaniyasiMakkada Anti-hasharot kompaniyasiQarshi kurash hasharotlar Toif kompaniyasiQarshi kurash hasharotlar Medina kompaniyasi
To get rid of cockroaches in the house

There are lots of ways you are working on anti-insect company in Jeddah to combat various insects, whether crawling, aircraft or mice or any other insects rely choose how to control insects on insects, who is doing the place and the quantity is the most important of these methods1. biological control, which relies on the natural enemy of the insects, which can be an element and place the place you are in the insects to destroy it completely, taking into account that this is not a natural enemy to him any damages us and that method to be followed in the farms2. chemical control, which relies on the use of a range of chemicals that have the ability to get rid of all kinds of insects, while ensuring it is not to cause any harm to individuals and authorized by the Ministry of HealthAnd adopt anti-insect company in Jeddah on a group of specialists in insect science and technicians who have a long experience in the various control methods for insects and coaches at the highest level to find all the necessary solutions to get rid ofAnti-insect company in JeddahAnti-insect company in MakkahCombating insects Taif CompanyCombating insects Medina Company
"Salvation ONLY in the Catholic Church?"

The reason I didn't defend my claims is because most of them were hardly even attacked, and even for the ones that were, the attack came in a roundabout way that hardly addressed it at all, so I figured my arguments must have been too strong for you to deal with. The problem that I see is that my opponent didn't address my arguments, he just threw out verses he liked and didn't even show how they addressed the ones I provided. My opponent for some reason claims that faith alone is enough, but the verses I provided disagree (cf. Mark 16:16, John 6:54), and seeing as his verse doesn't even say that faith alone is enough, I think my interpretation is preferable. I honestly don't care if my opponent wants to listen to what the early Church Fathers said or not, but they haven't been addressed in any way, and as he said this debate was a continuation of the first one, in which he failed to prove sola scriptura, I feel fully justified in showing how the tradition of extra ecclesiam nulla salus was present in the Church since the earliest times by means of quotes from the early Church Fathers. John 14:6'Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. 'It's the perogative of Jesus how he desires to give grace. He decided to use the Sacraments. The Sacraments are administered by the Church. The Church is the body of Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:27). It is not the Church that saves you, but Christ operating through the Church. John 3:16'For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. 'So. .. all you have to do is believe? Even if you don't do penance (cf. Luke 13:5), aren't baptized (cf. Mark 16:16), and don't eat the flesh of Jesus (cf. John 6:54)? Jesus instituted the Sacraments for a reason. You have to believe, but you have to do more than just say 'I believe' or something. Done arguing about salvation. I don't know why my opponent keeps getting so hung up on this person near death in the desert, but I already quoted Bishop Kallistos Ware (he's an Orthodox Catholic, but the theological concept is pretty much the same) addressing this issue. Pope John Paul the Great never said the quote that you're attributing to him, as far as I can tell. Additionally, since neither source nor context has been provided, it ought to be disregarded.
"Salvation ONLY in the Catholic Church?"

I respect Pro for not responding too much, but I am somewhat disappointed that he does not defend his claims that the "Catholic church is the only way for salvation" The Bible verses Pro give I did not ignore, but I used another Bible verses to proof my claims. I am not a Catholic, how come I would listen to the "Church father's writings"? Agreed, don't mind the "salvation can be lost". Pro, I challenge you to defend on why salvation is only in the church? My stand verses are John 14:6 - Jesus is the ONLY Way to the Father, not a church. John 3:16 - Believe in Jesus to attain eternal life, not a church. Works are not part of the requirement of salvation, but faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), works will follow after faith, but not "forcing" yourself to do good works - works are the fruit of our faith (James) Committing a sin is bad, but as a Christian, we won't lose salvation, for God will not remember our sins anymore (Hebrews 10:17) If a person feels the need of God, and is in near death, and he's in the desert, how will he be saved if he needs to be a Catholic? The Catholic church has some counterfeits, claiming that they can save even without knowing Jesus "Don't go to God for forgiveness of sins, come to me." - Pope John Paul II "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." - 1 John 1:9
"Salvation ONLY in the Catholic Church?"

I'm done with this 'salvation can be lost', because to be honest, it has nothing to do with the resolution and I don't feel like arguing about it still.When it comes to topical things, my opponent has failed to address the arguments I raised originally. He has not responded to the early Church Fathers. He has not responded to my verses on Confession, Communion, Baptism, or Extreme Unction.The only thing he has provided are two verses that don't respond to my argument. Sure, we're saved by believing in Jesus, but under what circumstances? Not just any old circumstances, as Mark 16:16 shows.Since I feel my topical arguments have gone mainly unaddressed, extend them all.
"Salvation ONLY in the Catholic Church?"

Pro had provided me that salvation can be lost. I will tackle about it later, but I have to point out that Pro failed in defending his stand that salvation can be attained through the Catholic church. A lot of atheist had come to know Christ and be Christians. Salvation can be lost if faith is lost, but Con's stand is that, "failing to do good works means losing salvation". No wonder, he try to post verses that shows us that, we'll lose salvation by failing (committing sins) To all people here, I do not encourage you to commit sin, but the point here is, we are not yet strong to face temptations. That's why Christ gives us power, "But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ"s power may rest on me." - 2 Cor. 12:9 Salvation can be lost by losing faith, not my failure to do good works " It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace." - Hebrews 6:4-6 Failure to do good works but have faith: " Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." - Hebrews 10:17 Now, Pro, what is your stand that salvation can be attained through the Catholic Church? Through Baptism? Baptism is the proclamation that you are a Christian, but the verses that proofs that faith alone is in John 3:16, John 14:6. No church ever needed. "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6
"Salvation ONLY in the Catholic Church?"

The matter of invincible ignorance is one that I myself do not fully understand, so I shall not comment on it further lest I say something heretical.Salvation can certainly be lost, and to believe otherwise is to subscribe to the heresy often found among Calvinists known as 'Perserverence of the Saints'.I'll start with 1 John 1:7, which I just conjured out of nowhere.'But if we walk in the light, as he also is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.'While my opponent would say that you merely need faith, you must also 'walk' (action) in the light, lest you not be cleansed from all sin. I'll quote Mark 13:13'And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake. But he that shall endure unto the end, he shall be saved.'To claim that one cannot lose salvation would render this and the other verses I provided moronic. Why mention that someone must endure to the end if it's impossible for them not to? This clearly implies the possibility of loss of salvation should one fail to endure to the end; that is, should they sin.I also provided verses on God rendering to each according to his works, which were ignored.The verses my opponent quotes argue against him if one is to read Matthew 7:21 'Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.'Who is one who says Lord, Lord? One who believes that Jesus is Lord, believes in God, and has faith. Yet, not every one with faith shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of the Father shall.My opponent keeps asserting that faith = salvation, in defiance of all the evidence I've provided to the contrary and even though Ephesians 2:8-9 does not say faith means salvation.I also wonder how an atheist could have faith in Jesus.ConclusionMy opponent has failed to respond to Mark 16:16 or John 6:55, which are more topical than this dispute on whether or not one can lose salvation.
"Salvation ONLY in the Catholic Church?"

"Invicibly Ignorant" is when a person cannot escape his/her "unbelief" against Christianity, therefore, his/her non-beliefs or (when a Christian), his/her sin/s are excluded? In conclusion, I almost agree with you, BUT First point: Salvation through faith As a former Catholic, I was thought to do good works for me to save. In my recent argument with some Catholics, I was thought that faith alone can save but MUST be accompanied by works, actually I agree. But something I disagree is this: Salvation can be lose if we sin I believe that faith should have works, but failing to do so, or to sin does not remove salvation. Let me give you a formula: Salvation+Nothing = Faith (Ephesians 2:8-9) WHICH RESULTS to works (James) I did not remove works in Christian life. I had pointed it out on my "b)" statement. Before I proceed to my next point, do you believe that breaking one commandment means to break all of it? "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it" James 2:10 Matthew 10:22 talks about faith and works. God knows that we are weak, that's why we need GRACE. In the end, God will not look for your works, but for Jesus in you, or else: "Many will say to me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?" Then I will tell them plainly, "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!"" Matthew 7:22-23 Last point: "Thus, a person should be Catholic to obtain salvation." Let us go back to Ephesians 2:8-9. To have faith IN JESUS means salvation. An atheist does not need to be a Catholic for him/her to be saved. Conclusion: Salvation is faith in Jesus alone. God WILL transform your heart to work for Him, and never to burden yourself with works. Even when you don't watch porn, said foul words, and did all charity. In the end, God will look at your faith, not works. Or else, He will say, "I will never knew you, depart from Me, EVILDOERS!" Jesus GUARANTEES salvation, and works will give you rewards. A church can NEVER be a way for salvation
"Salvation ONLY in the Catholic Church?"

"Yeah, I used myself as a source. Problem?" From your argument, you have many source and all of those are from the net. It is normal to sometimes "use yourself" as your source. I sometimes use my own logic in debates, rather than searching in the net. Anyway, where will I start? I just want to ask about your point number two, what do you mean about "invicibly ignorant"? I have to skip your point two first, so that, I may understand your side. Anyway, we have five rounds for now ;) Point 1: a) Faith Alone "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith"and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" 9 not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9 My only stand for now. It is clearly indicated that it is NOT BY WORKS, as seen. It is BY grace THROUGH faith. To conclude, Faith = Salvation b) Good works Now, one question: Where do good works (including Christian practices like Baptism) comes in? Answer: True Faith. True faith bears fruit, which is works (See James) But, how about if you have that "faith", yet, you sinned, are you heading for hell again? Answer: No "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit." - 1 Peter 3:18 NIV You are ensured that by faith, you will go to heaven. Christ died ONCE for sins. c) IF traditions like what the Catholic church teaches is needed for salvation: Given the situation: An atheist was walking in the desert, almost dying, when he realized that He wants Jesus to be with him, that he may go to heaven (He was "miraculously" transformed). IF you need to perform traditions and IF you need the Catholic church for salvation, how will this atheist be saved? No phone, no nearby church, no water to baptize even himself, no priest, no contact to priest, and he is near to death. Poor atheist, then, he can't go to heaven. But wait, that's not the case. Salvation is FAITH ALONE. In reality, he has the chance. Example is the man hanging on the cross with Jesus. He did NO works of charity or even Christian practices, for he was hanged. But when he PLACED HIS FAITH in Jesus, what did Jesus said? "Amen I tell you, today, you will be with Me in Paradise" Charity, tradition, church required for salvation? No. I can't point out point three, for the website you gave me does not open for some reason, unfortunately. D) Conclusion Relationship with Christ FIRST before Christian practices