BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
overall, popes have had an economic liberal bias

them having wealth is no different than some rich people having wealth. it's not necessarily always the best thing or right thing to sell all you have and give it to the poor. jesus did say, too, that it's sometimes right to spend money on things to give glory to God, instead of giving to the poor. such as when the lady was pouring purfume on Jesus's feet and he told the apostles not to stop her, even after they pointed out they could give the money to the poor. con's argument is really the facade. it's a stereotype of an argument. the main point, that popes have an economic liberal bias is true, at the very least in teaching anyways, which is all 've been saying to begin with. even without regard to whether hthey could or should give their money to hte poor. con loses this debate hands down, no matter which way you cut it.
Islam a peaceful religion

Once again you have not shown any evidence to back up your point, you can say that it is in the Quran but please tell me where it says (ie what chapter,verse) this because otherwise your argument is invalid because you will making up false statements linked with Islam. Also you previously said that Muslims are forced to follow Islam well in the Quran it says "There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned." (chapter 2 verse 256) which shows that Islam is a religion which promotes freedom as well as peace and that no one is forced to follow it. Finally I would like add that in the Quran it says : "Allah commands justice, the doing of good, and liberality to kith and kin, and He forbids all shameful deeds, and injustice and rebellion" (in chapter 16 verse 90). This verse clearly portrays the fact that Islam has peaceful teachings and this is just one of the many verses or sayings about Islam's peace. Yours King Toffee
Islam a peaceful religion

Mate, first learn about grammar before you attack Islam. Firstly, you cannot say that Allah directly equals fear as it is not true because, yes Muslims should fear Allah but for the right reason. What I mean is that we should all do good and righteous deeds in order to get rewarded by Allah and the fear that we have is the fact that Allah is capable of doing anything including sending us to hell and sending us to heaven. This fear Muslims should have of Allah is one to drive them to do good deeds in order to go to heaven, you may see so-called Islamic terrorists in the media killing many people but they are going against the teachings of Islam. In fact the word 'Islam' is an Arabic word which literally translates to as "peace" therefore you can tell instantly that if they committing non-peaceful acts they cannot being following a religion called "peace". It's logic! Good luck King Toffee PS: could you please capitalise the first a in Allah for respectable purposes
hair colour and peircings in school

does it really mater what colour our hair is or what peircings we have? its not like its ruining our education. i belive that we should be able to dye our hair what ever colour we want and have any style we want. it is what makes us unique and school is baciscally telling us that we cant be unique. its not fair, we get told off for the most stupidist things, i mean come in to school with a lighter colour of blonde hair and a cute hair stule and you get sent home ? what sthe point? thats just ruining our education not our hair colour or how many peircings we have.
There is a fundamental difference between Christianity and every other Religion

Im gonna have to give this one to con, unfortunately my ability to argue this point is not up to par. Rather embarrassing I must say, and although I remain convinced that Christianity is the one true religion of the world, debating said conviction seems to be beyond me. Sorry about the weakness of the debate, hopefully I'll find a better way to explane this in the future, but till then, thanks for the challenge. If con wouldnt mind explaining the POE perhaps on the forumns. I was always under the impression that the POE dealt with the idea that if God is omnibenevolent then how can suffering exist? Or that if there is some undeserved suffering then God cannot exist.
There is a fundamental difference between Christianity and every other Religion

Big whoop. Pro's argument couldn't be more trivial. Pick a random religion. Arbitrarily pick three things some members of that religion believe. Arbitrarily declare that all members of that religion believe those three things. Arbitrarily declare that these three beliefs make this religion stand apart from all other religions. This doesn't make Christianity stand out. It makes it the same as any other religion; you could do this with any religion at all.Please Vote Con. Notes: 1. I am forbidden by the terms of engagement from challenging step three, above. I am not challenging it. I'm merely pointing out that you make the exact same moves with any other religion. 2. I'm not going to argue it here, because that would be off topic, but he's fundamentally confused about the problem of evil. I'll happily debate the problem of evil in another thread.
There is a fundamental difference between Christianity and every other Religion

Con, you are exactly correct in your deduction of my intentions. I will be clear, however, that I am not trying to show why Christianity should be followed above say Islam, but rather why Christianity has a right to be viewed as a separate entity from other religions.On that same note I was attempting to stay away from trivial matters like dates, stories, etc, and focus on why, doctrinally, Christianity teaches something completely different. Also, lets keep this to the worlds largest religions, I don't have intimate knowledge of the minor religions of the world and I'm sure that con could easily find small religions that contain these doctrines, however, since they are minor and have in no way gone through the same scrutiny that Christianity has over the years, they shouldn't be grouped in "religion" at all but rather be added to the long lines of cults. Simply use judgment as to what religions are "trivial" or "nontrivial."Again, I'm showing that doctrinally Christianity should be viewed seperately from other religions. I am not proving its validity, or the invalidity of other religions. I say this because your second example of a "trivial" point actually goes somewhat to the heart of the debate ("only Christians hold the three beliefs stipulated above as fundamental Christian beliefs as only Satan worshippers hold whatever beliefs they have") and I want no confusion.Without further adieu I come to my first point:Christianity is the only religion to teach total depravity.Total depravity is the utter inability of a human being to be saved. No benevolent act will ever be great enough to blot out the sin and corruption that we take on by simply breathing the air of this world. It follows from this that no "punishment" is undeserved, which removes the POE. Religions that teach children are born naturally pure (i.e. Islam) can easily be debunked via the problem of Evil. To my knoweledge Christianity is the only religion that adequately answers the fundamental question of why bad things happen to "good" people.Point two:Christianity teaches "one way or the highway:" With Christianity there is no middle ground, while this may not differentiate it from other mono or polytheistic religions, it does seperate it from new age and eastern religions. There is one way to heaven and that is through the Son. Its as simple as that.Point three:Christianity requires dependence on another for Salvation:This is related to the first point, however it is worth mentioning. Rather than have people look within or around them, it completely bases salvation off of faith. More specifically, faith in Jesus the Christ. Again, this removes Christianity from religions like budhism.These doctrinal issues are what sets apart Christianity from other religions, in that, no other religion has them. These are not superficial either, they are core to Christianity as a whole. Anyone can claim to be a Christian, however, without these beliefs they are a Christian in name only.
There is a fundamental difference between Christianity and every other Religion

Firstly, I'd like to keep this debate friendly, no attacks on "Christianity" or religion, no personal attacks, and no sarcastic/ignorant simplifications of religion. I've made this debate because I've continually noticed that there are people who believe all religion is simply the "same" and that no religion is "greater" than the others. . . while I don't think I can prove "greatness" (its pretty relative based on where you stand), I can prove they aren't "the same." By accepting this debate you agree on these three criteria as fundamental beliefs of Christianity 1) All mankind is born sinful deserving of Hell 2) There is no way for manking to redeem itself except through Jesus Christ (works mean nothing to God) 3) Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died and rose again as a sacrifice for those that have faith in Him. My points of argument will center around these core doctrines so its imperative that the idea of them being "fundamental" is not a point of contention. The first round of my opponents argument is not for rebuttal, simply for acceptance and the possible defining of terms, I feel that everyhing written is relatively common knowledge and simple to understand, however, my opponent may choose to define any words he so pleases and I will either accept or offer a counter definition. Lastly, I am taking classes right now and a have a heavy load so I'm trying to keep the debate brief, hence the three rounds. Cheers and good luck, Gr33k
should cormorant birds be slaughtered

Planning on visiting Canada for your next vacation? After you hear this, You might think twice. Doug Ford and the Ontario government (as you probably know, Ontario is a province in Canada) have passed a law that allows hunters to shoot mother, Father, And baby chick Double-Crested Cormorant birds. Why? So that sport fishermen won"t have competition (Cormorants feed on fish). "In 3 years 10, 000 birds were shot in Ontario. The Cormorant is being scapegoated for political reasons " to appease an aggressive sport hunting and fishing lobby. " (from Peaceful Parks Coalition) "Hunters can kill off an entire colony of Cormorants in a matter of minutes. A government cull of nesting Cormorants in 2003 at Presqu"ile Provincial Park saw 2 government sharpshooters kill over 1, 000 birds in one day. " (from Petition: Stop Ontario"s war on Double-Crested Cormorants) Send a message to the Canadian Government. Boycott visiting Canada. Hurt them where it counts " in the pocketbook. Punish them for such cruelty to birds. Prime Minister of Canada " Justin Trudeau Premier of Ontario " Doug Ford Please pass this on to where you may think this might have an effect. Sincerely, K. Budd " a Canadian
Writers mean more to the enjoyability of movies than directors or actors.

I believe terms are clearly defined as they are, but if any potential opponents would like to clarify in comments before we start, I'd be happy to do so. My central thesis is that a movie that has a great director and great actors but a terrible script will be hard to watch. By contrast, a movie with a great script, good actors and a terrible director OR bad actors but a good director will still overall be enjoyable to watch. None of this takes financial success into consideration (and in that debate I go with actors as being the main drivers of box office returns in the absense of other good components) so don't bother linking me the financials of a film and saying that it proves the movie was more enjoyable. Lastly, we do not count "so bad it's good" movies. A. ) those debatebly are still more driven by the writer, even if it's in a negative direction and B. ) someone like Ed Wood is hard to quantify. I thank anyone who shows interest and look forward to a spirited discussion.
People who use the Bible to argue against gay marriage are hypocrites.

As a quick note, I have seen my opponent debate in the past, and I after observing my opponent's other debates, I consider it an honor to debate him. ” Thanks it has been a privilege to debate you as well. Pro says “I would have to applaud my opponent for pointing out that I made a major flaw in my wording. Using the words I did, I have made my burden of proof a lot bigger than I intended it to be. ” The burden of proof is very large and as I said last round near impossible to fill. Pro does argue that “The bible teaches to be charitable and to give to the less fortunate, but many conservatives that are Christians are concerned about themselves. ” This may be true, however does not fill the burden required in this debate. Pro admits that there was a flaw in his wording and that the burden is not filled. As such the resolution is negated. Pro says “I wish to debate him (being me) again soon under better circumstances. Thank you” Anytime, thanks for the debate.
People who use the Bible to argue against gay marriage are hypocrites.

As a quick note, I have seen my opponent debate in the past, and I after observing my opponent's other debates, I consider it an honor to debate him. I would have to applaud my opponent for pointing out that I made a major flaw in my wording. Using the words I did, I have made my burden of proof a lot bigger than I intended it to be. I believe however that there are many Christians who use the bible as an argument against gay marriage are hypocrites, as many tend to ignore the bible when it comes to the parts that go against what they morally believe and what they find to be in their best interest. An example of this is that a large portion of conservatives in America are Christians and a large portion are in favor of the free market and usually do not want to pay taxes on welfare or school lunch programs. However, a lesson that is often taught all across Christianity, not just couple denominations either, is that the poor get in to heaven before the rich do. The bible teaches to be charitable and to give to the less fortunate, but many conservatives that are Christians are concerned about themselves. I understand there was a huge flaw in my wording, and I encourage the voters to vote fairly and not biased. Trying to fix it now would be an unfair advantage, and I will not attempt to do so. Again, it has been an honor to debate such an opponent, and I wish to debate him again soon under better circumstances. Thank you
People who use the Bible to argue against gay marriage are hypocrites.

Rebuttal: 1: Definitions Hypocrite: “a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.” (1) In this case we are talking about “People who use the Bible to argue against gay marriage.” This makes Pro’s burden of proof incredible large as he has required of himself to show that every person that uses the bible to argue against gay marriage “pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.” I agree that there are many hypocrites that claim many different faiths, or belief systems, but to fill a burden showing that all who use the bible to argue against gay marriage are "pretending" to believe and are therefore hypocrites would be very difficult, if not impossible to do. 2: Summary of Pros argument and my responses. Pro says “I believe that the people of America who use the Bible as a reason to argue against gay marriage are hypocrites and liars. I strongly believe they are lying about the bible.” A statement of belief hardly constitutes filling a burden of proof. Thanks for sharing your belief though… Pro says “Often times people use the Bible in America as justification to not allow homosexuals to be married. Some go as far to say that homosexuals should be killed. However, many Americans seem to be hypocrites because of their reasoning for this.” Pro seems to be abandoning the certainty of his resolve. The resolve says “People who use the Bible to argue against gay marriage are hypocrites” yet pro here says “many Americans seem to be hypocrites.” Pro then provides examples of other things that “the bible also forbids.” For example, haircuts, multiple fabrics, divorce, tattoos, etc. He then says “regardless of all these laws, Christians are not protesting Red Lobsters, clothing stores, tattoo parlors, divorce courts and lawyers, football, or barbecue joints. It seems as though Christians are only Christians when it suits their interests.” The following link is a Christian site that argues against the practice of divorce. (2) Likewise here is a Christian site that argues against the practice of tattoos. (3) As the links show, there are plenty of people who sincerely believe in the bible and are against such practices. 3: Conclusion Pro’s burden of proof is likely impossible to fill. His argument’s do not reflect the certainty of his resolve using words like “seem” or “many” as opposed to “people who.” He has not provided any logical reason to conclude that, those using the Bible to argue against the practice of gay marriage to be “pretending” to believe as is required to be a hypocrite by definition. As such, the resolve is negated. Sources: (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) http://www.jesus-is-savior.com... (3) http://bibleresources.org...
People who use the Bible to argue against gay marriage are hypocrites.

Often times people use the Bible in America as justification to not allow homosexuals to be married. Some go as far to say that homosexuals should be killed. However, many Americans seem to be hypocrites because of their reasoning for this. Why? Because, they are protesting against homosexual marriage because the Lord's displeasure with homosexuality is made clear twice. However, the Bible mentions 8 different times that the lord is displeased with the consumption of shellfish. Leviticus 11:10 bans it. Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says the same thing as well. The bible also forbidden wearing clothes of multiple fabrics as shown in Leviticus 19:19. The bible also shows a displeasure towards round bowl haircuts as displayed in Leviticus 19:27. Leviticus 11:8 forbids the eating and touching the flesh of the swine (pork, American Football). Leviticus speaks out against tattoos, or any marking on one's own body in 19:28. Mark 10:11-12 forbids divorce, for after marriage you are no longer two people, but one, and you cannot separate what the lord has joined together. Remarrying is found right after that, for remarrying is committing adultery according to the bible. Many Christians try to defend all these arguments, whether it be context of the quote, or the time of the quote (Old Testament). However, all laws except for the sacrificial laws are still laws of the land according to Jesus himself as quoted in the bible as saying "not a tittle of the law shall pass away before heaven and earth do". Jesus came to enforce the laws, not change the laws. He did not come in peace, but instead came with a desire to enforce the laws. "Do not think I have come to bring peace, but the sword". Either he came to kill, or he came to enforce. But regardless of all these laws, Christians are not protesting Red Lobsters, clothing stores, tattoo parlors, divorce courts and lawyers, football, or barbecue joints. It seems as though Christians are only Christians when it suits their interests. When it comes to things they enjoy, it seems very convenient that they can enjoy it regardless of what the bible says. And when it comes to things they are morally against, the bible conveniently has a quote to support their arguments.
tablets vs textbooks

Textbooks are better than tablets because textbooks are traditional. Why should we learn through tablets if we've been using textbooks all this time now? A tablet is just a distraction for a student and it takes away from the learning process. A tablet can have technical difficulties and break or shut down, and then what do you do? A textbook is always there to read from and I don't see why we can't just continue to update textbooks rather than bringing excessive technology into classrooms.
Christianity should be Extinct

Let me just say that everyone has their beliefs and I respect your opinions. The Bible was the first book ever printed so that is proof that something was going on. By the way all religions are against murder and violent acts, it is the people that are being inhuman but there are no reasons to blame the religion. I am a Greek Orthodox Christian and I believe in God and Jesus and I do not know if they are real or not but that is why I have faith. Basically you are saying that it should be extinct which means destroying the Churches which means destroying the communities which means breaking the hearts of believers and making them feel worthless. Destroying a religion and breaking the hearts of others is a cruel thing to do and that is the last thing the world needs, the world will still be a cruel place without Christianity so there really is no point.
Christianity should be Extinct

I would argue that when there is a majority (which Christianity is in America) that while either intentional or not, they have influence in everything. Attacks on homosexuals, Planned Parenthood, the KKK, and using the bible to protect slavery in the South. Just a few of the examples of people using Jesus's name to do horrible things. If Christianity had stayed to itself as a self contained entity, then by all means freedom of religion. Now I'm not saying anyone should takes steps to abolish any religion, people have the right to live how they would like to. My point is that Christians have controlled the nation since its start and now that they are finally losing ground with expelling mandatory prayer from schools, gay marriage, and the extreme regulations on stem cell research they're starting to say they are being a prosecuted in a country where they are the majority. Christianity as a whole has regressed humanity back centuries and separation of church & state should widen more.
Christianity should be Extinct

Overall I do think that was a good point that taking away Christianity would destroy communities that have developed around the religion. But the bible being the first book to be printed is irrelevant. When looking at the history of Christianity I see some good things, such as: charity work, community unity, and giving individual hope. If Christianity had stayed as individual belief that some people could choose to believe without influence then there would be no issues. But in America Christians have their fingers in every aspect of society today. Any political figures are afraid to say publicly they do not believe in God. The supreme court had to rule to keep mandatory prayer out of schools. The only reason homosexual marriage was illegal for so long was Christians imposing their personal beliefs on the laws of the country. My point being that Separation of Church and State has not been at all upheld in America because of Christianity's influence. It has held us back as a nation
The current law limiting truck drivers to 60 or 70 Hours on duty per week should be repealed.

The law should not be repealed for the simple fact that overworked people get tired behind the wheel. If you're tired behind the wheel your judgment and reaction times may be compromised, if your judgment and reaction times are compromised you're more prone to cause automobile collusions. Worse yet an overworked-tired driver may fall asleep behind the wheel all together vastly increasing their chances for collusions. The law will help prevent automobile collusions therefore should not be repealed.