BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Church did NOT need to be reformed.

It would be perhaps beneficial at this point to introduce a definition of the word "reform." My opponent seems to think that this is a synonym with "reconstitute" or "reshape." His primary critique appears to be that the Reformers somehow changed the essential nature of the Church.However, this is an inaacurate understanding of the word "reform." According to dictionary.com (based on the Random House Dictionary) the noun reform means "the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt,unsatisfactory, etc." [A]Under this definition, addressing the abuses of clerical authority and the abuses of indulgences by the Catholic Church prior the the Council of Trent indeed represents reform.My opponent writes "The Council of Trent was not a reformation." He also writes "The PEOPLE needed to be reformed NOT the Church." However, according to the Catholic Encycolopedia found at newadvent.org, that although the primary goal of Trent was to address the Protestant question, "a further object was the execution of a thorough reform of the inner life of the Church by removing the numerous abuses that had developed in it." Furthermore, it is noted that "The commission of reform, appointed in July, 1536, drew up a report as the basis for the correction of the abuses in ecclesiastical life" [B]In addition, my opponent's distinction between the People and the Church is artificial and not supported by Catholic doctrine. According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, found in The Complete and Updated Catechism of the Catholic Church, the people are the Church. "The word 'Church' means 'convocation.' It designates the assembly of those whom God's word 'convokes,' i.e., gathers together to form the People of God." [C] Now, in case my opponent wishes to challenge this document, it is important to note that it is approved and commissioned by Pope John Paul XXIII. He writes "The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine. [...] I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion." If my opponent insists on this distinction between the People and the Church, he does so in opposition to Pope John Paul XXIII and the official doctrine of the Church.My opponent continues on to refute the protestant reformation. He is free to do so, but at this point it is not relevant to the debate. The Pope of the era, the assembled cardinals and bishops at the Council of Trent, the Protestant Reformers, as well as Catholic Reformers like Erasmus, all recognized the need for reform in the Church. My opponent must either acknowledge that Pope Paul III and the Council of Trent was wrong, or he must conceed that reform was needed.[A] http://dictionary.reference.com...;[B] http://www.newadvent.org...;[C] Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 223: Paragraph 777
The Church did NOT need to be reformed.

My opponent says: "Pope Paul III called for the Council of Trent, which initiated the counter-reformation or Catholic Reformation. This Catholic Reformation was necessitated by many of the same abuses cited by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the other Protestant Reformers." The Council of Trent wan not a reformation, the Council of Trent was opened because it defined the Teachings of the Catholic Church and answered the heresies of the Protestants. " The Catholics at the time recognized it, specifically Pope Paul III. In addition, because the council addressed the selling of indulgences as well as other clerical abuses, and condemned them, the Protestant Reformers were in fact NOT wrong." The PEOPLE needed to be reformed NOT the Church ! The only thing that made the reformation wrong was that Luther changed the Teachings of the Catholic Church. If the pope agreed with Luther he would have not condemned him. "Luther's primary critique against the selling of indulgences, and Calvin's primary critique against the abuse of Clerical Authority were both seen as valid critiques by the Council of Trent." That may have been ONE of there goals but how I understand it, they changed several teachings of the Catholic Church which was indeed WRONG ! The reformation should have only condemned the bad priests and bishops but not the Church which the bible calls the "Pillar and Ground of the Truth" (1 Tim.3:15) The Church could not have gone into apostasy because if this was so Jesus was wrong when he said "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it(the church" Conclusion The Reformation's goal should have been to discipline the clergy but instead it condemned the teachings of the Church. The Church could not have been in error for we know that Christ is with his church and it is the "Pillar and Ground of the Truth". The purpose of the Council of Trent was to condemn the heresies that were brought up from the Protestant "Reformation". The Church was in no need of a reformation, the people in the church (the sinners) were.
The Church did NOT need to be reformed.

My opponent claims that there was no need for a reformation in the Catholic Church during the time of the Protestant Reformation (16th and 17th centuries primarily).However, in this claim he stands against Pope Paul III, who was the Pontificate of the Holy Catholic Church from from 1534 to his death in 1549. [A] Pope Paul III called for the Council of Trent, which initiated the counter-reformation or Catholic Reformation. This Catholic Reformation was necessitated by many of the same abuses cited by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the other Protestant Reformers. [B] In fact, one article from Boise State University says "Trenth [sic] would be about reforming Catholicism" [C]We can see by the facts presented previosly that the Medieval Church did in fact need to be reformed. The Catholic's at the time recognized it, specifically Pope Paul III. In addition, because the council addressed the selling of induldgences as well as other clerical abuses, and condemned them, the Protestant Reformers were in fact NOT wrong. Luther's primary critique against the selling of induldgences, and Calvin's primary critique against the abuse of Clerical Authority were both seen as valid critiques by the Council of Trent.Thank you.[A] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[B] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[C] http://www.boisestate.edu...;
The Church did NOT need to be reformed.

My opponent closes by simply quoting a large portion of the Council of Trent. This is nice, but it doesn't change anything. While it is true that Trent is arguing that the holiness of the institutional Church is distinct from the holiness of the people of the Church, that does not mean that the institutional Church and the people of the Church are different. Furthermore, a reform in the Church does not necessitate a restructuring of the organizational Church or a wholesale replacement of Church teaching. My opponent seems to think that in order for reform to happen, that this would need to occur. He seems to think that any change in the church's teaching or organization would reflect that the Gates of Hell had somehow prevailed against the Church. This ignores the historical fact that the Church that St. Peter lead was structurally different than the Church that Pope Benedict leads. This ignores the historical fact that doctrines have developed over time and changed (The immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary were not taught explicitly until the middle ages, the satisfaction theory of atonement was not taught until Anselm and replaced Christus Victor). The simple fact is that the Church has changed in both structure and teaching. .. does my opponent really seek to argue that it hasn't? Finally, the definition of Church was not introduced until I introduced it. In a debate, if a word's definition is in question the first definition from a reliable source stands unless challenged. It was not challenged by my opponent using a reputable source, and therefore my definition stands. The people are the Church, and the people needed reform. This is clear by the fact that not only were several Catholic Reformers (Namely Erasmus), Proto-Reformers (John Huss), and Protestant Reformers all identified serious papal and clerical abuses. This is further bolstered by the fact that Pope Paul III and the Bishops who convened the Council of Trent not only did so to address the need for reform, but implemented several reform movements. Thank you.
the catholic church officially teaches that nonbaptized infants go to hell

The first evidence I produce in refuting the opening argument is the etymology of 'Teach': "docent, docible, docile - Docent comes from Latin docere, "to teach"; docible is "capable of learning" and docile first meant "teachable." One may agree that the Church officially 'instructs' students in unquestionable precepts thus rendering the student instructed and logically unteachable ; that is to say 'undocile'. The second evidence is the substantiation of the metaphorical nature in the Bible and in the allegorical description of Hell by the 'burning' discomfort of being visited by the nature of how we treat others. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... https://www.biblegateway.com... http://biblehub.com... http://biblehub.com... http://biblehub.com...
the catholic church officially teaches that nonbaptized infants go to hell

Pro won a debate in which she defended a position of embellishment in the Bible. Perhaps some in the audience can agree that baptism and circumcision are metaphors that have been adopted as being physical requirements. In this example physical baptism and circumcision are embellishments. If there is a higher reason for incarnation in the sense of giving us the opportunity to circumcise ourselves from certain influences, then yes, babies and children and adults even who have not been baptized by the water(a metaphor) and circumcised (another metaphor) 'remain' in a state of 'hell'. http://www.debate.org...
the catholic church officially teaches that nonbaptized infants go to hell

the only teachings that might say otherwise, are fallible, nonauthoritative statements. the church might currently unoffically teach the issue is open to speculation, but officially they have already made a decision. remember to be authoritative, it has to be the pope, intentionally, teaching, the church, on faith and morals. private letters, presentations to limited audiences etc, theological commissions, do not count. just some examples: Council of Florence Session 11 (Bull Cantate Domino): "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time..." Council of Florence Session 6 "..the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."
We should allow illegal immigrants to stay

This is not real debate this is a website. So let's debate like that not. You can bring little sources or you can be smart and know your facts like in a real debate. Blacks and Hispanics or more likely to kill whites. There's less white on white again look it up everyone reading this. Just dont take the fbi source seriously. The fbi works with the government so it's obviously gonna lie. I mean look at your profile picture it's anime obviously you were never in a real debate. Debates are not won with logic. Or I'd win every time.
We should allow illegal immigrants to stay

Excuse me the white race is dying out. That is not true about 83% of whites killing each other. It's about 17% but please spit out more fake facts. When we let this illegals in they are overpopulating us and will ripe us out. The birth rate of whites is lower than Mexicans and others like Africans. So please don't tell me that it's because 17% of whites kill other whites. They shouldn't be let in PEROID. They take our jobs the jobs you listed used to be white hard working American jobs. So please say something real!
We should allow illegal immigrants to stay

I will be arguing that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in America. The first half of this response will focus on pointing out the flaws in Con's assertion. 1) "Illegal immigrants are blood sucking from America". Grammatical mistakes aside, this statement is a metaphor (I hope) and its meaning is null without rigorous explanation. 2) "They are on welfare". If the illegal immigrants you are concerned with are primarily Hispanic, then this statement is null and void of argument. According to statisticbrain.com, only 15.7% of all Americans on welfare are Hispanic or Latin@ in origin. Even if every single one of these people was an illegal immigrant (which I'm sure is a gross overestimation), then the ratio of Illegals on Welfare to Citizens on Welfare would be 3 : 17, or nearly six times more Legal American citizens than illegal americans. 3) "They steal jobs". Or, they go out and get jobs while the white American citizen feels too entitled to work such terrible jobs. Jobs like construction and janitorial services and waste management are, in fact, terrible jobs! But immigrants are willing to work those terrible jobs, which is why they receive them. 4) "They kill our white race". According to statistics released by the FBI, 83% of homicides of white victims, were committed by white offenders. In fact, the percentage of white victims killed by Hispanic or other criminals is less that 3%! This statement is flat out wrong. Now I will argue why I feel illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the US. 1) The US was founded by illegal immigrants. No one ever asked the Native American people for permission to live in North America, and in fact European settlers were responsible for a mass genocide of Native Americans. According to David Stannard, American historian and Professor of American Studies at the University of Hawaii, the European Settlers were responsible for the deaths of over 100 million Native Americans. We are all illegal immigrants. 2) "Liberty and Justice for All" does not mean "Liberty and Justice for native-born American citizens". 3) American culture will be positively influenced by the mixing of immigrant culture and what we have now. 4) Like I said before, immigrants are willing to work in jobs that entitled American citizens will not. 5) Let me list for you the names of some American immigrants: Wyclef Jean, Albert Einstein, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Aldous Huxley, Bruce Willis, and Bob Marley, to name a few.
Is the EU on the verge of collaspe

Greece is in the sh*ter because they can't control their spending. Don't blame EU because Greece needed to borrow money in the first place just because they cant pay back the interest due to their incompetence. They will likely be kicked out for their own actions not, the EU's. Look there are 28 countries in the EU. Austria is not a big enough of a country to create a Domino Affect. If we were talking Germany or UK leaving then, I might agree with your stance. Russia is a country that is dependent on 1 good, Oil. Their attacks on Ukraine don't promote the termination of the EU. If anything it promotes the unification of these countries in a time of need. Russia is just a mob country with Putin at the top, and aren't big enough to hold a threat to the rest of the Europe.
Is the EU on the verge of collaspe

Well i can have several valid reasons why i think the EU gonna collapse. 1: It was EU fault that Greece is gonna leave the Eurozone, borrowing money from the EU owing back the bailout plus with interest will probably leave them with no money, so Greece has no choice to leave the EU. 2: Only 2 days Austria launch a petition to leave the EU, arguing that the country can survive economically better outside the European Union. Link Here http://rt.com... 3: Even though everyone is united to stand up against Russian Aggression in the Ukrainian Eastern Section of the Country, these Anti Russian sanctions on companies such as gas, oil, and other resources isn't gonna help curtain countries that will be effected by the un called for Sanctions. I can keep on with valid reason but i don't want to keep the list long.
Is the EU on the verge of collaspe

The European Union is not in any shape close to collapsing at this current time period. Greece's antics of wanting to borrow more money have been obviously denied and are on the verge of getting kicked out if they continue with their policies of bankrupting the entire country. This is actually a move toward appreciating the value of the euro with countries like Greece out of the way from depreciating the value. The media is in part to blame for riling up the general public over the idea that other countries will soon follow because Germany isn't going to bail out Greece again, and with that said, consumer confidence in the euro won't fall as a result. The European Union also has 5 candidate countries wanting to gain entry which may not seem like a lot but, certainly raises confidence. I would also like to state that I dont think that the EU is currently at risk but, I am certainly not talking in terms of long run future years.
Mujeres Latinas Son Las M"s Hermosas Del Mundo

Ok, el m"s bello tipo de mujer es una obediant e independiente. En sus t"rminos, dir"a que las mujeres son m"s atractivas cuando est"n delgada y tiene un buen cuerpo. Muchas latinas tienen esas caracter"sticas. Pero "cu"l es el prop"sito de tener una hermosa Latina si es feo en el interior?
Mujeres Latinas Son Las M"s Hermosas Del Mundo

Acabas de decir que "eso no queria decir que son las unicas mujeres hermosas." Sin embargo, tu no dijo cual tipo de mujer son las mas hermosa, asi hay que creer que estoy correcto. De todos modos, he leido que las mujeres latinas son las mas divertidas en la cama! Por favor, votan para mi!
Mujeres Latinas Son Las M"s Hermosas Del Mundo

Hice este debate para mejorar mi espa"ol. Por favor, correja todos mis errores. Creo que mujeres latinas son la m"s hermosas del mundo. 1. Tienen los culos mejores y m"s grandes. Es obviamente. 2. Sus caras son muy lindas tamb"en. Espero que este debate sea una diversi"n.
Mujeres Latinas Son Las M"s Hermosas Del Mundo

Haces una argumentacion muy interesante; pero, no tengo una problema aqui ;) No solo que las mujeres latinas tienes bellos cuerpos, pero el mayor de ellas son catolicas. Asi, son muy fieles y religiosas tambien! Muchas gracias por este debate contigo. Otra ves, espero que todo votan para mi!
macroevolution of humans has stopped for the foreseeable future

"con just goes on to revert to insisting that the least attractive and fattest and such wont be as likely to breed. please see my arguments above for response."I would really like to see a source showing how they do further their genes in an equal level of good-looking people. You can see how people tend to prefer good-looking people instead of fat people[1].What i described is called Sexual Selection[2],and it happens to other animals too,and it plays a big role in natural selection."micro evolution doesn't per se lead to maco evolution."It actually does[3]:"Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.""as was said which con hasn't adequately rebutted, we change the environment to us, we aren't forced to adapt physically to the environment."There are limits in what we can do changing the environment,and evolution doesn't force us to change,natural selection just happens and your life is too tiny to see any of it happening,but if we can observe microevolution that means macroevolution is happening too."if nothing major changes like space exploration or a huge natural disaster (but probably even with those), in a million years the human species will still be essentially the same. that indicates that macro evolution has for the most part stopped."I don't think you have evidence to backup that claim. As i already said,macroevolution and microevolution are essentially the same,so unless something really big happened i don't think we would be able to stop it."indeed, there are species out there that have not evolved for millions of years, like many species of turtles, because they are so well adapted to the environment. those species it is fair to say have stopped evolving for the foreseeable future as well."I have to disagree with that. You have not provided examples of those turtles you claim to not be evolving anymore so i will give you one example of one species that evolved alone. The Galápagos tortoises are giant compared to other tortoises or turtles. They evolved even while being isolated in an area without a lot of risks[4]."Restricted gene flow between isolated islands then resulted in the independent evolution of the populations into the divergent forms observed in the modern subspecies."They also have longer necks[5] than other turtles because of sexual selection[6]."When mature males meet in the mating season they will face each other in a ritualised dominance display, rise up on their legs and stretch up their necks with their mouths gaping open. Occasionally, head-biting occurs, but usually the shorter tortoise will back off, conceding mating rights to the victor"[1]:http://psychcentral.com...[2]:http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]:http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]:http://en.wikipedia.org...[5]:http://www.factzoo.com...[6]:http://en.wikipedia.org...
macroevolution of humans has stopped for the foreseeable future

con just goes on to revert to insisting that the least attractive and fattest and such wont be as likely to breed. please see my arguments above for response. micro evolution doesn't per se lead to maco evolution. that there is a minute fraction who wont breed has always been the case, but they still pump out fat ugly and stupid people. and when they don't breed it might cause a ripple effect on a larger scale, but it would be inaccurate to call that macro evolution. macro is where body parts and physiology changes, and perhaps starting into or completely changing species, speciation. as was said which con hasn't adequately rebutted, we change the environment to us, we aren't forced to adapt physically to the environment. and, the weakest among us for the most part breed successfullly, thus preventing any significant evolution. if nothing major changes like space exploration or a huge natural disaster (but probably even with those), in a million years the human species will still be essentially the same. that indicates that macro evolution has for the most part stopped. indeed, there are species out there that have not evolved for millions of years, like many species of turtles, because they are so well adapted to the environment. those species it is fair to say have stopped evolving for the foreseeable future as well.