BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Catholicism is NOT real Christianity

It is true but Jesus was a Jew preaching to Jews who are expected to follow the law of Moses. However it is diffrent for Gentiles. Love- "a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. 2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend. 3. sexual passion or desire. to have love or affection for: All her pupils love her. 16. to have a profoundly tender, passionate affection for (another person). 17. to have a strong liking for; take great pleasure in: to love music. to have love or affection for another person; be in love. —Verb phrase 22. love up, to hug and cuddle: She loves him up every chance she gets. —Idioms 23. for love, a. out of affection or liking; for pleasure. b. without compensation; gratuitously: He took care of the poor for love. 24. for the love of, in consideration of; for the sake of: For the love of mercy, stop that noise. 25. in love, infused with or feeling deep affection or passion: a youth always in love. " (http://dictionary.reference.com...)As you can see love can be expressed in many different ways to them it does not include worshiping other things as not loving YHWH. How has the Roman catholic church commited blasyphemy. Just because the pope supports false doctrine that HE was TAUGHT as a child does not mean he is the anti-christ that is a innacurate and extreme claim.
Catholicism is NOT real Christianity

The catholic religon is not a cult. The ten commandments are not for Gentiles they are only for Jewish people. In hebraic tradition and the Bible support it. We do not have to follow the torah but we must follow the seven laws of Noah which are listed like this. " Prohibition of Idolatry Prohibition of Murder Prohibition of Theft Prohibition of Sexual immorality Prohibition of Blasphemy Prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive Establishment of courts of law " (http://en.wikipedia.org...) The catholic church has changed and is now bringing fourth better fruits. It is also aganist Christian law to divorce but we still do that
Catholicism is NOT real Christianity

The apocryphal books are very relevant they give diffrent teachings to the people. I am working on reading the entire bible but I have not completed the task. Please recgonize I am not catholic I am protestent but it does not make it not christianity. I don't believe in praying to the saints and think thi is false doctrine. Protestents like you and me celebrate christmas regardless of its pagen roots but it is still Christianity. Mny protestents do not read the bible either. They have discarded old testament laws but they follow the teachings of Jesus . " religion that follows Jesus Christ's teachings: the religion based on the life, teachings, and example of Jesus Christ" http://www.bing.com...;We still eat pork ad shellfish but nowhere does it say "For you may now consume pork and shellfish and voilate the kosher laws for they are no longer valid in my age"
Catholicism is NOT real Christianity

My responses to my opponents rebuttals: 1) It is true that the Catholics believe in the existence of God and Jesus. However, according to the Bible, Satan knows they exist as well: "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." (James 2:19). The difference is that Christians believe, and show their belief by obeying God's Word. Satan as well as Catholics acknowledge the existence of God, but they disobey Him. The fact that the Catholic canon contains 12 more books than Christians is irrelevant; these apocryphal books are set in the Old Testament. The validity of these extra books is for another debate. My opponent fails to quote from the "Catholic Bible" where it says to pray to dead saints as a mediator. It must be remembered that in II Timothy 2:5 it is said that the only mediator between God and man is Christ and Christ alone. 2) The Bible says nothing about democracy because the Bible is not a political essay. The Bible does, however, speak of human rights, quite extensively. Please read: http://www.gotquestions.org... The fact that democracy is not specifically mentioned (though government is spoken about quite a bit), is very different than the Bible talking about church. Obviously the Bible will speak more of church than of politics. What does it say about the church and its leader? "And he [Jesus] is the head of the body, the church..." (Colossians 1:18a) 3) Romans 3:4: "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged." It does not matter if they think they are only honoring her. If they were really Christian they would read their Bibles and see that this is idolatry. 4) It is true that the Bible never says to celebrate Christmas. It was a pagan celebration, proving my point. When the Romans were still pagans, they celebrated "Christmas", e.i., December 25. When the Romans founded the Catholic religion, they simply changed the names of characters in their old religion to "fit" with Christianity. The celebration of Christmas is due to the Catholic religion, proving that they have pagan roots. 5) How can false Christian doctrine be Christian?
Catholicism is NOT real Christianity

I is true that catholicism has many false doctrine that must be corrected but that does not mean it is not Christanity. 1.Catholics pray to dead saints and worship idols.This is because extra books are in thier canon but let me ask you this Do they still believe in and worship YHWHDo they still believe that Jesus is the messiah,son of God and God. In regards to that christanity could be considered a form of polytheism with 3 deitiesYawehJesus Holy spiritbut they are all one2. That is true but is is also not biblically nessary to have democracy and human rights either... 3. This is true but in thier minds they are only honoring her4. True but like in my previous argument it is not nessary to celebrate christimas either and they also have pagen roots do we question them.5.Like I said false doctrine but still christanityI am not saying catholic doctrine is true but it is still christanity
I am gay and you can't disagree with me...

Since my opponent forfeited his round, I would like to just extend all of the arguments I made in round one. Points to note: The burden of proof belongs to the side that initiates a claim and my opponent's claim was that he was gay and that I couldn't disagree with him. My opponent has provided no evidence to suggest that he is gay nor has he provided any evidence on how I cannot disagree with him. For that reasons and the other reasons brought up in my case, I would advise that you vote for my case. Thank you.
I am gay and you can't disagree with me...

Not part of my argument (as it is admittedly a formality): To those debates which I have on hold, I apologize or putting this debate over those in terms of priority, but this debate seems to be so simple, that it will hardly consume my time. Anyway, onto my opponent's case. Now, my opponent argues that he is gay and that gay people exist. I would like to inform the audience that the second part of that statement is an example of red herring as gay people existing has nothing to do with the topic at hand; the topic concerns whether or not my opponent is gay and as well as whether or not anyone can disagree. I will address this with three contentions: First, my opponent's claim about being gay is not credible as he provides no evidence for this. Keep in mind, ladies and gentleman, that the burden of proof always belongs to the one who initiates the topic; it is my opponent's job to prove that he is gay. Since he has given us no evidence to suggest that he is gay, we can dismiss his claim that he is. Second, my opponent argues that I cannot disagree with him, but you must note that he has provided no evidence concerning how I am unable to disagree with him on the subject. There are no rules on this website that suggest that I am not allowed to disagree with my opponent on a subject, much less disagree with whether or not he is gay. One must also note that disagreeing can constitute to a matter of opinion Thus, by simply stating "I disagree that my opponent is gay", the topic is negated. Third, my opponent adds that he meant to have the topic concern whether or not I could prove that he wasn't gay (in the comment section). First, I would advise that you (the audience) dismiss everything stated in the comments section as it is not part of the actual argument AND resolution (just in case my opponent decides to mention it in the next round). Unless some higher power edits the topic, I do not have to address this alternate resolution and you must dismiss it. Second, to pacify my opponent, it is possible to prove that he isn't gay. Allow me to elucidate: If he were to provide me with his personal information, I could meet him and verify whether or not he is gay. I could also hire a psychologist to confirm whether or not he merely has a mental disorder that is deluding him into believing that he is gay. I now stand ready for my opponent's rebuttal.
Capitalism is a Desirable Economic System

Seeing as my opponent failed to defend capitalism as per the rules in round 1, then I shall start the show I suppose. Goodluck to him! C1: Imperialism and Coercive First, the British who eventually colonize huge portions of land in Africa, North and South America, Australia, and India amongst others did so due to the original search for a Northwest passage to trade with the Chinese. Unfortunately, the US felt repressed and demanded separation (doing so via war) Canada also separated, along with the rest. Yet the lesson is still there; capitalism during that time incentive to the British to ignore it's own people it had under it's control to exploit resources, labour, and countries not under it's control. It was the main argument against slavery; that a young economy needed them. C2: Market Instability Second, the instability of the economy in the business cycles. At most, under Bill Clinton the economic growth was sustained for a period of 10 years, the longest in Capitalistic history, then comes the bust. The issue with this is that the business cycles are unpredictable and unstable, at one moment everyone is making money, the next only the rich actually are able to be sustained. This is caused by the industries not knowing how much supply is actually needed in an inflationary period, resulting in too much resources being produced essentially becoming worthless. This is permanent in a capitalistic economy, due to the means of production being private. C3: Property This issue causes even more problems in the economy; a person may own something regardless if he needs it or not, which is a form of tyranny it seems. In other words, the property is yours, and the way of accumulating it does not matter, nor does your usage of it also matter, thus the person owning property retains the right to refuse someone to that property, causing inequality, and a faulty unproductive region of the economy. Another example of this is patients. They allow the person with a patent to destroy anyone else who comes up with a similar product, or improve upon the previous product due to the protection of it to one person. This hampers economic growth, as innovation is staunched as a result. Thus your idea and his idea are in conflict, who should get the profit for the idea when both are equal? C4:Exploitative Slavery, poverty, and starvation is all from a result of capitalism I'm intrigued to see what my opponent has to say about all of this, let's see how he will recover :) Over to my opponent.
Capitalism is a Desirable Economic System

I hereby challenge BadtotheBone to a debate on capitalism. Round Breakdown for me:Round 1) rulesRound 2) arguments/rebuttalsRound 3) arguments/rebuttalsRound 4) conclusionRound Breakdown for my Opponent:Round 1) acceptance and arguments Round 2) arguments/rebuttalsRound 3) conclusionRound 4) rhetorical statement Standard DDO ethics/rules apply:no semantics, no trolling, ff = loss, no circumventing character limitsviolation of these rules results in a loss. Now I assume BOP due to capitalism being heavily imposed in the world todayOpponent state your case!
Halo vs Killzone

Okay, my first argument will be about the ratings of each game, then Pro will have to defend these ratings, or support it with something else, that isn't based off of opinion.Ratings for each Halo game[1] Halo: Combat Evolved: 9.7/10 [2] Halo 2: 9.8/10[3] Halo 3: 9.5/10[4] Halo Reach: 9.5/10[5] Halo Wars: 8.4/10[6] Halo 4: 9.8/10As you can see, all but Halo Wars (which isn't even a 1st person shooter, it's a strategy game) have higher than or a 9.5/10 in ratings.Ratings for Killzone[7] Killzone: 7.5/10[8] Killzone 2: 9.4/10[9] Killzone 3: 8.5/10[10] Killzone Shadow Fall: 8/10As you can see, NONE of these games are even higher than a 9.5/10, and the only game each of these beat, is Halo Wars......The critics seem to like Halo better.Cites:[1]- https://www.google.com...[2]- https://www.google.com...[3]- https://www.google.com...[4]- https://www.google.com...[5]- https://www.google.com...[6]- https://www.google.com...[7]- https://www.google.com...[8]- https://www.google.com...[9]- https://www.google.com...[10]- https://www.google.com...
Ice hockey is better than Hockey

"Human intelligence is a reflection of the intelligence that produces everything. In knowing, we are simply extending the intelligence that comes to and constitutes us. We mimic the mind of God, so to speak. Or better, we continue and extend it."-Huston Smith"When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than any talent for abstract, positive thinking." -Albert Einstein"A lot of good arguments are spoiled by some fool who knows what he is talking about." -Miguel de Unamuno
Religious views should not be taught at a young age.

If all adults taught their children religious values, positive values such as social stability and lessening of conflict can occur, uniting the human race and leading to focus in many aspects of life. A good example is present in Patrick Fagan's article (http://www.heritage.org...) which states, "The strength of the family unit is intertwined with the practice of religion. Churchgoers are more likely to be married [and] less likely to be divorced" (Fagan Why Religion Matters: The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability). Through his quote it is evident that teaching religious values to children and other human beings, social stability occurs which can lead to less overall conflict and negative influences being present throughout the world. Without a doubt it is clear that if all adults made their children abide to religious values, immense improvement can occur within the human race.
Religious views should not be taught at a young age.

As one who grew up in a conservative home with a family heavily following the Christian faith, I believe it was a disservice of them to indoctrinate me and my younger brother at such a juvenile age like so many others. People instill beliefs into children who don't think to question their parents because they're to trusting and afraid of what might happen when they die, like so many are. What you learn as a child is incredibly influential, which is why tyrannical men like Hitler indoctrinated children into a certain lifestyle, so that they could carry that with them from a young age. It is why child soldiers exist in third world countries and why they have existed. Not that I'm correlating the evil nature of these actions with religious practices, but the basic concept is the same; to instill from a young age the thoughts of faith and religious belief. What I would propose would be a restriction on religious indoctrination of children and teachings of religious mentor-ship till they at an age to learn from themselves. (Perhaps 15 and above) Parents could instill moral values without the need for interjecting religious views and schools could help in that regard. once reaching the preferable age, the child would then be given every source and tool at their disposal to choose what belief and moral code rightfully suits them, be it religious, atheist, or something completely new. Any counter reply is more than welcomed, all I ask is for things to remain civil and for all to have an open mind to both pros and cons of the debate as it rises forth.
Single Sex Schools Are Better for Education.

A forfeit. The main points in my argument reiterated: - Single-sex schools do not prepare students for the real world - Distraction is inevitable not matter what environment the students are in. - Bothe boys and girls define themselves by their interests. - Not everything that is done in schools is meant to 'show-off' - Girls and boys must learn to work with one another. - Single-sex school are segregated environments. - Stereotyping is increased in single-sex schools. - The teacher determines the success of the student not the gender makeup of the classroom. And, a few online sources I used for my statements above: (1) http://classroom.synonym.com... (2) http://www.singlesexschools.org... (3) http://www.greatschools.org... (4) http://www.pressherald.com... (5) http://www.washingtonpost.com... (6) http://www.sciencemag.org... (7) http://www.nytimes.com... (8) http://www.ferris.edu... Book Sources: (1) 'What Great Teacher Do Differently' by Todd Whitaker (2) 'The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto Thank you MassRebut for this debate. It was quite fun.
Single Sex Schools Are Better for Education.

Thanks you Dragonrule029 for accepting. This side believes that single sex schools are better for education and the overall experience of a student throughout school. Single-sex schools are schools that only admit those of one specific gender. Go to any parent, including your own and ask them, what is it that they want for their child when he or she grows up. Most parents will say that they want to raise successful and good and learned human beings. The one place other than home which helps you become a better human is your school, college or university. Children go to school for one reason and that is to learn stuff. Not to win, not to lose, not to make friends but to learn which should also be the government's main objective for their youth because they will be the ones leading and making decisions for the country later on in life. My first line of argument is about attention and different of mindsets with the other gender present in the school. Just like physics, opposite sides attract each other, the same is the case for human beings. The presence of both genders are counter productive to what the students want to become later in life. Single sex schools are more conducive to learning. Boys and girls are an unwelcome distraction to each other and sometimes at schools both genders pit against each other and boys and girls have the wrong incentive for success. Both genders attract each other and do not think clearly and every action of the student is because he wants to impress or show off to someone he likes in the school. With wrong motives, the students will be going down the wrong path and ultimately and inevitably the wrong destination which if every student follows, will destroy your nations youth and education sector. Boys and girls distract each other as their emotional and sexual sides develop. Both genders do not compete for what they want or what believe but they rather defend what guys or girls think of them. Girls define themselves by their interests, they define themselves by what the boys think of them or what other girls think boys think of them. So, basically their judgement, self thinking skills and beliefs are blockaded because of something the other gender believes and so this side firmly believes co-educational schools will lead to the development of a backward society which is very harmful if a country wants to stay in the race with other progressive and developing nations. And another issue which does not make co-ed schools a suitable place for learning is that teachers often favor their own gender in schools and it is a true fact as some of you may have experienced. With their gender present, teachers feel like a vital part of the class and a welcome member who has the same interests at heart and in their minds. Teachers teaching the opposite gender usually are bitter and are often both teachers and students of opposite genders do not understand and learn from each other but there are exceptions. Our job is to provide the best learning environment for our children and to make them better and learned and more sensible people as they grow up
Diversity is Bad

In poorer countries, farming is still done by hand, and sunscreen is not heard of, thus these differences can help significantly in the developing world. If humanity was one race, then it would be harder to survive as we were supposed to survive, knocking over the base of human biology and causing the human race to be crushed by all of the natural material that animals take for granted. Humans are meant to be well adaptable; having a single race would not help us adapt to different climates. They would help us to die in different climates. Diversity came naturally, and all of nature is to be taken for granted, no matter what, because it made us us.
Diversity is Bad

While darkened skin may have been useful when farming was done by hand, and sunscreen had not been invented, in the modern age it doesn't help significantly to have minute evolutionary differences. People have never had the problem of distinguishing between other members of their ethnic group, only other ethnic groups, and that is because of the differences between them. These differences are signified by things like eye color and skin color. If humanity was simply one ethnicity, one race, it would be able to cooperate more- or at the very least fight over more ideological issues instead of playing race politics against one another. Therefore human racial diversity is bad.
Diversity is Bad

May I point out that everyone is an individual, and between individuals I feel no racism. You can't stop the effects of within-lifetime evolution (darkened skin for example) because it will help - in this case - to prevent Sun rays from damaging your skin. It is true that there are traits people seem to like, for example blue eyes, But the development of the visual cortex and retina cause these changes; they don't affect our perception, and they subtly enhance our ability to distinguish one another, so why not keep it? But as for black - white skin, what I have to say is that different skin colour can be used to distinguish between ethnics and races, and the racism is to do with ethnicity, not skin colour.