BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
John 6 more consistent with Catholic interpretation

merely stating that believing in Jesus is doing the work of God, doesn't mean Jesus wasn't being literal. if you believe in him, you will do what he teaches. and we are discussing his teachings, an they seem to say something about eating his flesh etc. looking at the verse con gives establishes little to nothing. same goes for the other stuff, like thirst etc being used metaphorically elsewhere. maybe, but it doesn't say anything about it here. we just have to look at what was said and the reactions as proof. con says it is plain that Jesus was speaking symbolically, due to him leading up the conversation with symbolic sounding language. however, he could have just been leading up to a literal teaching. con argues it was plain, even after con admitted that Jesus continued in literal sounding language. how can it be clear if Jesus is doing that? Jesus when he asked the twelve if they wanted to leave to, seemed to be going along with it in the vein of 'they left cause of my teaching, will you too?" it says more that he doesn't change anything, he just asks if they will leave too. all that can be said of them not leaving, is that they have been convinced, no matter what we think of it being literal or not, or what they would think.. bottom-line is they are convinced. if Jesus meant to switch his teaching by saying "the flesh profits nothing". it doesn't looks like the apostles understood that, and it's obvious and seems to be admitted by con that the crowd didn't understand. how can we understand Jesus's words as plain in saying what con argues, if no one seems to take it that way when he, supposedly, talking plainly that way? it would make more sense that Jesus meant something else by the flesh profit nothing. maybe perhaps, you can't think of these things carnally for them to make sense. even catholics would go for that interpretation. con argues a literal interpreation destroys the flow of thought. it could be argued to strengththen his flow of thought. especially leading into the literal language. but also at the end, it's most consistent to show what everyone understood and would e more destructive of Jesus's thoughts, to act like he's plain about things no one understands him as. con says it doesn't matter than Jesus switched to a more graphic form of eat. arguably, but does it support his view more or mine, if he does do it? obviously it supports mine. it would be pointless, and in fact counter productive, to switch to a more graphic use. it's best to conclude that if he did it, he did it for a reason.
John 6 more consistent with Catholic interpretation

John 6:53 "Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."" The catholics teach that Jesus was indicating the beginning of the Lord's supper, where the catholics partake of Jesus's literal flesh and blood, even though it looks like bread and wine. Transubstantiation. support: "when we consider the language used by John, a literal interpretation"however disturbing"becomes even more obvious. In John 6:50-53 we encounter various forms of the Greek verb phago, "eating." However, after the Jews begin to express incredulity at the idea of eating Christ"s flesh, the language begins to intensify. In verse 54, John begins to use trogo instead of phago. Trogo is a decidedly more graphic term, meaning "to chew on" or to "gnaw on""as when an animal is ripping apart its prey. Then, in verse 61, it is no longer the Jewish multitudes, but the disciples themselves who are having difficulty with these radical statements of our Lord. Surely, if he were speaking symbolically, he would clear up the difficulty now among his disciples. Instead, what does Jesus do?" "...our Lord turns to the twelve. What he does not say to them is perhaps more important than what he does say. He doesn"t say, "Hey guys, I was misleading the Jewish multitudes, the disciples, and everyone else, but now I am going to tell you alone the simple truth: I was speaking symbolically." Rather, he says to them, "Will you also go away?" (v. 67). This most profound question from our Lord echoes down through the centuries, calling all followers of Christ in a similar fashion. With St. Peter, those who hear the voice of the Shepherd respond: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (v. 68)." Jesus was known to clear up difficult teachings with the apostles when he was alone with them. here, though, after the jews clearly understood him literally, and left, he just asked the apostles if they wanted to leave too. so how do you respond to that, and to the Greek uses of the word "eat"? and overall, how do you respond?
Christianity offers false hope to the weak minded.

I'm not sure why there has a been a forfeiture in this 3rd round by EvolvedConsciousness, but I'd like to take a moment to clarify my quotes about Galileo, using the same source. "After several years spent as a public advocate for the Copernican theory, Galileo wrote in his famous Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina in 1615 that his theories had 'stirred up against me no small number of professors', and that these academics had agitated strongly for ecclesiastical support in their cause. This letter is also an excellent illustration of some personal aspects of Galileo. He was monumentally arrogant, belligerent and abrasive towards any who opposed him.""...and Galileo was called before the ecclesiastical court. He was condemned by the Catholic Church as 'suspected of heresy' – about the strongest charge that could be brought, since Copernicanism had never been declared heretical – and was then whipped tortured killed burned housed with a personal valet in a luxurious apartment overlooking the Vatican gardens. He spent the remainder of his life in comfort (albeit technically under house arrest), working on his final masterpiece, Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences.""Although today we view Galileo’s theories as an obvious improvement over the Aristotelian model of a geocentric solar system, it is important to reiterate that this was not provable by Galileo’s own evidence. His observations of the moons of Jupiter and the craters of the moon suggested problems with the pure geocentric model, but he certainly could not prove his case. In fact, an objection could have been made on purely scientific grounds that the heliocentric model offered insufficient improvement in explanatory power to justifiably replace the reigning paradigm.""I make no excuses for the Pope’s abuse of his position to silence a critic, but the church’s treatment of Galileo was remarkably restrained by the standards of 17th century Europe."I should also clarify in regards to the Bible "nullifying" laws or ceremonies of the Old Testament, that "nullify" is probably the wrong word. More like "fulfilled". In laws or ceremonies relating to sacrifices to be made, Christ essentially fulfilled those for His people, forevermore.
Christianity offers false hope to the weak minded.

I'll probably lose this debate, but whatever. Anyway... "Christianity offers false hope to the weak minded." Mmm. Well, that could be argued correctly, if all Christians were non-thinking, illogical people, with low IQ, I suppose. However, some of the greatest scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians in history have been Chrisitians (of various stripes), so that turns the basic argument right on its' head. The idea that ALL Christians are promoting their understanding and teachings from the Bible out of FEAR of God, or a FEAR of hell, is also antithetical to the Christian Bible. "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love." -I John 4:18 "I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me." -Proverbs 8:17 In other words, Christians who believe they are loved by God (often referred to as "saved") are not living in fear, but rather in love of God. Because of their love for their Creator, their Master, their Savior, they want to tell people of the gospel that hell does not have to be a final destination, because they themselves believe that they have been saved from it. Granted there are many people who say they are "christian", and are not, but this is for God to sort out. As humans, we are not to judge other people's hearts. "And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, "Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" -Matthew 9:11 Finally, "afraid to question its outdated teachings", which are what, exactly? The Bible is full of teachings, of which some the Bible itself nullifies in the New Testament.
Christianity offers false hope to the weak minded.

I have come to form the opinion that although christianity can be seen as having morally acceptable foundations by today's societal standards, it has bred from these foundations a following that is afraid to question its outdated teachings for fear of being cast into eternal damnation by a vengeful god. I am willing to debate the validity of christian teachings/history with anyone by staying open minded to any rebuttal and only attempting to refute my opponents opinions using logic and respect , not sarcasm and belittling.
should the United States Stanction against irans uranium expenditure

SANCTION --"a Democrat usually gets the union's endorsement" AGAINST-- In a direction or course opposite to URANINIUM-- a heavy toxic silvery-white radioactive metallic element IRAN-- a theocratic Islamic republic in the Middle East in western Asia (wordnet.world) CONTENTION ONE: the united states must priorirtize its conflict whitin different smaller sectors and a limited range SUB POINT A: the United States must prioritize As many conflicts comes with different range and has different outcomes, it is clear however; that the United States government must prioritize in an effort to promote stability within its nation. The United Sates government cannot afford to add more conflicts to its list simply for the reason that it will create instability within the nation. http://www.rieas.gr... "Stability in a country can be the result of internal or external causes which are all sociologically rooted. Whether we classify stability as political, social, or economic it undeniably contributes to a country's uninterrupted function, otherwise the country's uneven operation could lead to either political troubles, collapse of the government, or in multi-national societies it can even proceed to the country's demise." SUB POINT B: Financial disadvantages Financial problems occurs when a country takes on many problems thus colabsing due to economic infrastruture. the United States is currently under an economic infrastructure and should stabilize it before taking on any other problem. we have to look into the United States involvement with iran will enhance our economic infrastructure thus lowering stability within our economic structure. http://webserver1.pugetsound.edu... Since the exchange rate is the one price that affects all of the prices in a country (to foreign buyers) it is very important that the FX rate be stable in the short run and be able to adjust smoothly to changing economic and political conditions. Changing interest rates and economic policy will be a second independent factor influencing the exchange rate between A and B. If, for example, B's central bank raises interests rates in the short run (perhaps be reduce its inflation rate), this causes investment funds to flow into B, appreciating its currency. Thus the long term depreciation of B's currencies is interrupted by a short term appreciation. I AWAIT MY OPPONENTS POINT OF VIEW
should the United States Stanction against irans uranium expenditure

===Extend my Arguments=== ===Extend my Refutation=== ===Burden of Proof=== My opponent assumes the burden of proof. He has not fulfilled this because he has not refuted my contention. ===Clarification of Rules=== My opponent asks me to abide by his rules as he is the instigator. I would be happy to oblige, except for the fact that no rules were stated. I cannot abide to unwritten rules and do not have to. I took the safer route of refutation in round one so that I wouldn't drop his argument. ===Refutation of his 2nd Contention=== Sanctions are a piece of legislation called resolutions (you can look to the Wikipedia page I provided earlier for this). Resolutions do not involve money or troops. Thus, this point does not stand. I will still address his subpoints 1.) The military does not need to be used in sanctions. Also, if we had more troops, wouldn't that put people to work. So, this point does not stand. But, if it does, then turn it against con because it would increase employment. 2.) He has not proved that sanctioning Iran is a new problem. Thus, his economic stability point does not stand. ===Summary of Debate=== -My opponent assumes the burden of proof, which remains unfulfilled. -A brief summary of refutation on my opponent's case C 1)-He says the U.S. must prioritize. However, he has not proved that sanctions against Iran is not a priority -He says the U.S. cannot take on new problems. He has not proven sanctioning Iran is a new problem -Both of the above points must stand for his contention to stand. Neither do. Thus, this cannot be looked to C 2)-He says sanctioning would require troops. It would not, sanctions are resolutions in legislation. -Even if troops were required, turn this against con. More employment, helping the economy -My opponent provides no warrants. His contentions, especially the first, are not linked to resolution -My opponent did not refute my case. Thus, it still stands =Weighing of Impacts= -Because my opponent has no impacts because his points do not stand, contradiction has no impacts +My impact was clearly established and not challenged. It was increased diplomatic leverage with Iran. This outweighs the con's impacts ===Sample Ballot=== Conduct - Pro - My opponent used ad hominem attacks in the second round. Spelling/Grammar- Pro - My opponent has many spelling and capitalization errors. He even made a spelling error in the title Convincing Arguments- Pro - My point was not refuted. Both of his were Reliable Sources- Pro - Neither of his sources mentioned sanctions at all. Mine were linked directly to sanctions. Normally, I do not want to ask for your vote on every issue. However, with this debate, it happens that I win all of the voting issues. Thank you and happy holidays.
should the United States Stanction against irans uranium expenditure

My opponent's case I would like to tackle the fact that I was not supposed to further my argument in the last round but to counter and ask questions on some of the vague topics you left out. I do thank you for further explaining your contention however; I would like to tackle the fact that within my one contention, I provided two sub points to fully explain my contention. I provided very relevant source in both of my Sub points that does not explain the meaning of sanction but does tackle the effects of sanction in both direct and indirect ways. This is not a Lincoln Douglas debate and I would like to remind my opponent that he accepted my debate and therefore should abide by my rules. My Case Contention Two: The sanction of troops in Iran could cause a decrease the employment rate thereby decreasing the standard way of living within the citizens of the united states. Sub point One: decrease employment>>> with the amount of money spent to increase the military power within the United States, we find that many of our citizens are loosing there jobs. like I mentioned earlier in my first speech, the United states must prioritize in an effort to decrease our economic infrastructure thereby increasing the united state economic stability within and outside the nation. If the United states spent more money on the military, we find that the same situation that happened during Ancient Rome will happen to us. we have to see that the united states simply cannot afford to spend more money on other things that does not help the employment rate. Sub point Two: decreased standard way of living>>> like I mentioned earlier in my first sub point, the decreased economic stability within the United states, we find that our citizens will often change the way they live in an effort to get use to the situation. IN CONCLUTION>>> the united states cannot afford to sanction troops in Iran for the reasons of 1) Priority and 2) society
should the United States Stanction against irans uranium expenditure

===My Opponents=== > My opponent gives on contention in which he stated "Sanctions give the United States leverage when negotiating with Iran" however; this is a rather vague statement as he does not effectively explained what he meant by this. Further more, we must see that the use of one contention does not fully explain my opponents thoughts concerning this topic. >>My opponent provided us with only one source that gives little to no information on this topic >>> My opponent did not have good organization skills and in an effort to increase the size of his speech, countered my points in ROUND ONE instead of giving his full speech. this shows that he has absolutely no clue on the topic and should not have agreed to debate. OVERALL: My opponent gave vague description of the topic and little to no comprehension towards the topic at hand THANK YOU
The Bible Does NOT say that Jesus is Almighty God in the flesh.

I have read Pro's story and have found many points that I am eager to discuss. I certainly hope that we will both learn something and that those watching the debate will do so with open minds, and hopefully, their faith will be strengthened. Since first round is for acceptance I will wait for Pro to post an opening argument. I ask the Lord's blessing on both of us, as well those watching the debate!
"Religion is the opium of the people"(Karl Marx)

I agree with Con in the definition of religion and in its importance in our lives, but I mentioned about bad influence of some people. Let's clarify the definition of opium. It's an euphoria-causing narcotic that makes people addictive to it. Karl Marx compared religion to opium for clear purpose. He wanted to show us that religion has a great power over people. Although religion is hope, faith and belief in sacred for people, it also causes conflicts between different religious, controls people and kill individuals. First of all, people who are very addictive to religion and don't accept other religions are more likely to create conflicts. We can see this from the example of never-ending struggle between Shiites and Sunnies in the Middle East. Even if those types of Muslims are related to one religion Islam, they still have conflicts, because of exuberant involvement into religion and in-depth concern on the differences. Also the war in the former of Yugoslavia in 1990s, when 3 major religious groups have been clashed for gaining stronger power in the region. In this case, religious authorities showed their irresponsibility and used ordinary religious people in the war. Secondly, "non-traditional" religious organizations use state in order to control people. For example, in the Russian Federation the state and the church have close relationships. In my point of view, some "non-traditional" organizations need allies in the government to reinforce own rules in people's minds and the state need support from those religious authorities in order to suppress their enemies in the government system. Also we see the growing number of different sects. There are a lot of people's stories when person was invited in "religious" organization in oder to forget about daily problems and became addict, but after all those "drug-dealers"(sectarian authorities) want only money from people's pockets and nothing more. Finally, how I've mentioned before about killing individual features in people. "The Warfare Hypothesis" has been existed for centuries. There are a lot of stories, when religion has rejected scientists' inventions. The most popular example, it's Galileo and his heliocentric theory. When he firstly introduced his theory, the church was mostly against of his thoughts. He was forced to make a re-statement of his own words, that Earth is actually moving around Sun. "Opium" effect is obviously visible in the way of controlling people.
"Religion is the opium of the people"(Karl Marx)

I understand the reasoning of Pro, but I do not accept this view. I believe that religion is the backbone to the human race irregardless of religion where religion is defined as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs" [1]. It is in this context that all religions are placed, but with different sets of belief systems. Rather than religion being the "opium" of the people, religion is the key trait a person can withhold in order to understand themselves and others and that there is no way religion can be used to have a negative impact as mentioned by Pro. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
The existence of God is more probable than not.

Same terms from contradiction's debate:: Resolved: It is more probable that God exists than not existing. Rounds:1. Acceptance only2. Opening arguments3. Clash4. Closing arguments/clashRules:1. No ad hominen2. No forfeiting. 3. Be respectful. 4. No plagarism. For the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. This definition primarily concerns general revelation, and hence special doctrines such as the incarnation and Trinity are not relevant to this debate. "Probable" will be defined as being more likely than not.The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.Good luck! :-)