BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the pope is not infallible

that was one of the most convoluted arguments i've ever seen. the question is simple: is the pope infallible on faith and moral teachings or not. all that is and was non sense doesn't mean much. even if we can only determine the past, we can still look at past popes to see if they taught error or were contradictory. that gives a strong indication about whether a pope is currently infallible. if the system can go two thousand years without an contradiction, it gives strong evidence of its infallible nature. of course, i showed some contradictions.con hasn't made it clear if he thinks the pope is capable of being infallible or not. he's just on some rant about is and was and such.
the pope is not infallible

This debate is not if the Pope was not infallible prior to being pope. It is also not if the Pope will be infallible after being Pope.In actual fact this debate is very curious indeed... It is not even if the Pope could be infallible at this very moment because by the time we determine his fallibility, it will be too late to say he still is fallible.To be infallible is not to have never made error, it is to be incapable of making error at present. Since by the time the Pope makes any mistake he will then be capable of once again becoming infallible we can never truly say that he is not infallible.The Bible indeed doesn't say the Pope is infallible but does it specify that the Pope is fallible? Not at all, even if it did it would be too late as the Bible's 'is' is our 'was' now.Additionally, who is Pro to say if the Pope is or is not infallible if they too are infallible and incapable of, without being fallible and able to conclude wrong, conclude incorrectly that the Pope is not infallible?We must truly ask ourselves who is truly fallible? The answer is that by the time you have said they are infallible, the 'is' is a 'was' and you must once again determine it.Et voila.
the pope is not infallible

some points:1. at one time noncatholics were damned, now it is possible for them to be saved. at one time, infants who weren't baptized were damned, now at least informally t is possible for them to be saved. 2. there was next to no mention of infallibility or its description before around 1000AD when someone defined it, who some say is the inventor of infallibility. there are a couple quotes i find that seem to suggest at certain points the church happened to be without error but they dont expand that they think as a matter of principle the church cannot err. 3. the eastern christians have always been separate and never recognized the necessity of submission to the roman bishop. 4. the pope never headed any of the ecumentical councils in the early church, such as the first seven which is univerally recognized. some councils were started against the popes wishes. all councils only had a few members from rome and the pope was never present. some teachings were against the pope's wishes. some teachings were raised to be defined despite the fact the pope already ruled on the matter. 5. when infallibility was defined, many dissenting bishops simply left instead of voting. of those who stayed, the pope made it clear he expected them to fall to his wishes, and they were finncially dependent on the pope.
The USA's type of education is much better than Kazakhstan's

People are different. You can not find 2 completely same people, education of USA understand it. They understand that each children is individual and have area where he or she is good. Some of people good in math, some in biology or chemistry and so on and so on. So education have to adjust to each pupil. Children's mind not so strong like adult's so problems in education can hurt them in the future. The next reason why USA's edition is the best is development of the USA. Development of country depends on education. So the USA one of the most powerful country. And what about Post-Soviet countries? They are one of the most backward countries. How do you think how people with such "strong" education built so weak countries like Post Soviet?
The USA's type of education is much better than Kazakhstan's

Okay, then what about our Kazakh's schools they have large classes, the children are sitting by two, teacher gives an assignment for all students respond aloud to the class, then there is a system of training group and in the American school children sit by one, teachers give assignments individually, often in the form of tests, and for weaker students have easier one. Here believe that the main thing is not to hurt the child, do not expose him to ridicule, not to inflict psychological trauma. American scientist Harold Stevenson for more than 10 years leading the global educational research and found our system more efficient. In his study, he underlined the fact that the eastern system of education, established on the basis of the USSR
The USA's type of education is much better than Kazakhstan's

Firstly i want to say that in the USA only pupils in first several classes have a rest at home. Pupils in middle and high school do their homework at home. Your statistics can be true, but i saw TV-show about life in the USA, so in this program child did their home work in living-room, interesting fact that those children had their own rooms. So this statistic can not be indicator of parent's care in the USA. People from the USA are not aliens. In USA, parents support their children and you can not say that they have cold relationships. Our debates not about relationships, It is about differences between Kazakhstan's and the USA's education. I claim that the USA's model of education is the best.
The USA's type of education is much better than Kazakhstan's

Of course, the Soviet system of education and upbringing have drawbacks, but there also have advantages. Tthey are undeniable and recognized in the world. Statistics shows that 60% of American families have children who have by their own rooms without desks. Parents just consider them irrelevant that the child must go to school, but at home they should rest. In Kazakh families, all social skills children learn at home and at school he gets knowledge. Mostly in Kazakh's family are supporting their child, and in the second only the concentration of wealth. Here, incidentally, is the reason the traditional respect for the elderly parents and on the contrary, the cold relations between the generations in the U.S.
The USA's type of education is much better than Kazakhstan's

In other words Kazakhstan's education we can call USSR's. When USSR existed, people said that USSR's education is the best. But it is a controversial topic. I claim that education of the USA is the best. Because in the USA, people learn only that subjects which will help them in their future occupation. I studied in Kazakhstani school with USSR's type of education. For example in my school, teachers of physics or chemistry teached us, like we are future workers of nuclear stations. So, I will never use this knowledge in my life and after 10 years I will forget it. It was useless time. It is better to learn subjects which you will use in your future job deeply, than learn subjects which you will never use in your life.
Coke Cola is better then pepsi

Coca-Cola has sponsored a lot of U. S. Companies. You know what else they sponsored? Nazis! [1] Coca-Cola GMBH bottled a German version of their softdrink for the oppressive regime. Pepsi sponsored a cancer research hospital that specializes in children. [2]There is nothing left to be said. My opponent never attacked my arguments. He simply defended his soft-drink by listing a few sponsors. Looks like you forgot one. .. "Das Deutsche Reich und Coca-Cola! "(Yea. .. it's a Hitler reference. ) . http://xroads.virginia.edu...; [1] . http://www.stjuderuns.org...; [2]
Coke Cola is better then pepsi

im not sure if my oponent has seen the new coke cola can but it is red and white and has a picture of a poler bear on the front of the can and that simble represents the (W.W.F) witch stands for (World Wildlife Fund).Coca cola will be donateing 2 million dollers to presurve and save there naturial habatat .here are some other stuff that coca cola represents .Long history of sponsorships The Coca-Cola Company is proud to have a long history of sponsoring major events, organizations and projects around the world. Among our most well known sponsorships are American Idol, Apple iTunes, BET Network, NASCAR, NBA, NCAA, and the Olympic Games. Get to know more about some of the most popular Coca-Cola sponsorships: American Idol: Coca-Cola has been an official sponsor for all ten seasons of American Idol®, the number one-rated television phenomenon now airing Wednesdays and Thursdays on FOX...BET Network: Coca-Cola partnered with one of Black Entertainment Television's (BET) most popular properties -- 106 Park -- to bring the program to life... NASCAR: Coca-Cola has been involved with stock car racing for more than 50 years and has been the official sparkling beverage of NASCAR since 1998. Its long-term partnership with NASCAR runs through the 2017 season... NBA: Sprite, the world's leading lemon-lime sparkling beverage, has been the Official Soft Drink of the National Basketball Association, (NBA) in the U.S. since 1994... NCAA: Coca-Cola is an Official NCAA Corporate Champion, the Official Fan Refreshment of the NCAA and partner with the NCAA in a 13-year association... Olympic Games: The Coca-Cola Company is proud to be the longest continuous corporate partner of the Olympic Games... As you can see my oponent has clearly missed alot of coca cola's sponsers .My oponent also stated that coca cola is more expensive this may be true. how ever it is the great taste thet keeps the coke lovers coming back for more .that is all i have to say good luck in the voteing
Coke Cola is better then pepsi

Well, I generally stick to religion and social issues, but I like soda. So, I'm going to debate the merit of Pepsi-Cola.Pepsi™ was invented in 1896, just ten years after Coca Cola™. My opponent declared a superior product based on longevity. Quite obviously, both companies can boast more than a century of experience.[1]What Coca-Cola™ doesn't wish to share, is the ruthless price-gouging during the great depression. A 6 oz. bottle of Coca-Cola™ sold for a nickel.[2] The generous Pepsi™ brand sold 12oz for the same price. Hence the jingle:[1] "Pepsi-Cola hits the spot / Twelve full ounces, that's a lot / Twice as much for a nickel, too / Pepsi-Cola is the drink for you."During the onset of the war, the company president (Walter Mack) noted that the advertising campaign for soda-pop was racist, targeting largely white families. He initiated an all-black sales force to ensure the public knew:"Pepsi™ is for everyone."[1]In 1975, Pepsi™ introduces the Pepsi™ challenge. An independent blind-taste study was done between Coca Cola™ and Pepsi™. The results heavily favored the Pepsi™ brand. Indeed, the product was simply better.[1,2]Pepsi™ has garnered a national following, claiming sponsorship over the NFL, NHL, MLB and even the National Soccer league. While Coca-Cola™ presents itself as the "national" brand, Pepsi™ is the true American soda-pop. The soda can design says it all......Red,White and Blue.[1,2,3]Over to you Pro...., http://en.wikipedia.org... [1]http://www.sirpepsi.com... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]
Superman is the best superhero ever!

My opponent drops all of my arguments and then gives a list of people that he says could beat superman. No logical justification nor source, so don't consider it. Moreover he admits "Well we were both wrong" I wasn't wrong, superman is a boring@ss peice of sh! t who's too much of a pvssy to fight anyone half his power because he's a llittle b! tch. But my opponent admits he's wrong so I win.
Superman is the best superhero ever!

Well we were both wrong! Superman can be defeated by these different superheroes and supervillians! He is considered the strongest and most powerful superhero of all- but some of the others are actually capable of defeating him. For example: Good Guys- Batman (with kryptonite) Captain Marvel Green Lantern Flash (can outrun him anyway) Martian Manhunter Dr. Fate Orion Bad Guys- Doomsday (actually killed him) Lex Luthor (with kryptonite) Metallo Brainiac Darkseid General Zod Bizarro Parasite Mr. Mxyzptlk Lobo Sinestro
Superman is the best superhero ever!

My opponent doesnt dispute my definition, so that's the one we'll be using to weigh the round. I agree with my opponents argument, but that's why superman sucks. I remember watching a superman movie, and the guy got a bullet shot right through his eye, and the bullet ended up crushed. Like seriously, what the fvck? That's lame. Newsflash to all superman fans: If your hero has ultra powers and can only be hurt by some kind of rock lightyears away hes a f@g. That's like God coming down and having an epic and heroic battle against an anthill. Sweeeeeet. (That was sarcasm for those of you with IQ's too low to detect it). I am not alone in my sentiment. In fact, Super Hero commentator Anthony Burch feels the same way[1]. Let's look at some of what he's written: “It almost goes without saying, but if your hero cannot possibly be killed in any instance which does not somehow involve an incredibly rare space-rock, then you’ve got one boring-@ss hero. It’s sort of like watching Neo fight all the agent Smiths in The Matrix Reloaded: we know our hero can’t possibly die, and he doesn’t act like he’s in any danger whatsoever, so the entire fight is a foregone conclusion and the audience becomes bored out of their skulls. I mean, yeah – we obviously go into most superhero stories more or less positive that the hero won’t die, but they still entertain us because the hero doesn’t know that. Spidey is always scared, even if only a little, that one of the Green Goblin’s pumpkin bombs will be the end of him; Daredevil is fully aware that a well-placed projectile from Bullseye could kill him. As a result, these characters act with restraint and forethought; since Superman knows nothing bad can happen to him no matter what, he acts with no such subtlety. He flies headlong into every conflict, fists thrust forward, because he knows he’s in no immediate danger. Thus, we know he’s in no immediate danger, and we get bored out of our fvcking skulls.”I contend that batman is the best superhero. Here we have a sexy, brilliant, crime fighting billionaire with a sick@ss car, and no mythical super powers just his own two fists and whatever technology he comes up with. Sounds like a clash A bad@ss to me. 1. http://www.bamkapow.com...
is all star cheerleading a sport

all star cheerleading is a competitive sport that takes a lot of practice and hard work to win at the competitions. People may think that it is not a sport but it is.... all star cheerleaders have to be in great shape to pull off there routine and remember the whole thing exactly.... the competition is judged by levels and is judged by stunts, pyramids, formations, spacing ,gymnastics running and standing, also by motions and sharpness of them, it is judged by creativity and difficulty of the routine.
is all star cheerleading a sport

first of all there is a critera to cheerleading and i explained that is my previous argument second swimming is not cheerleading and you cannot dictate what is harder than another without playing both of those aspects.... cheerleaders have to to weight training and they lift girls in extremely hard stunts they have to take gymnastics every week and they have to tumble stunt cheer lift and dance in al one routine within there level... second of all no American idol is not a sport... third of all not all sports are in the olympics ........ like football, baseball, and soccer.... so you are to tell me that sports that are all over espn and talk about on live tv shows are not sports.. cheerleading is also on espn like the big florida competition... a cheerleading national competion is like a superbowl for football and the olympics for ice skating, gymnastics and others.... there are alot of sports that do not participate in the olympics and are consider sports by millions of people. do you consider that everything that is not in the olympics is not a sport.... just because cheerleading is not in the olympics does not mean that it is not a sport as to the other sports that are not there...
is all star cheerleading a sport

first of all thank you for debating with me . You failed to answer my question is American idol a sport. And My arguement about swimming has a lot to do with this resolution. swimming seems to me harder than cheerleading. but it isn't a sport a sport has criteria. Since, you have not specified that criteria, here we go. It has to be a part of the olympics, the olympics is the first sport outlet, or one of them. Is cheerleading in the olympics. No, so it is not a sport.
is all star cheerleading a sport

first of all thank you for debating with me . yes there are a set of rules you have to follow for all star cheerleading format. you have to follow the rules by your level and if you break a rule, step off the mat, drop a cheerleader out of the air, and if you bobble in a stunt you will loose points in your total score. if you break a rule of difficulty you will automatically get a 15 point deduction and have the chance of being disqualified. If your routine is not within your level you will be disqualified. There is also a difference between all star cheerleading and high school cheerleading...... for all star you practice one routine and perfect it and you compete. in high school cheerleading you have games you have to cheer at and that is not a sport you are just cheering on your school like the croud tring to pump them on.... for all star you have to execute your routine and land it perfectly... or you will loose to your competion. and your argument about swimming has nothing to do with cheerleading in any aspect ...... "here is why Cheerleading is not a sport." "Swimming is not a sport. Swimming is a way to keep from drowning. That's just common sense!" swimming is not cheerleading and its totally different so i dont see how that pertains to this in anyway shape or form.
is all star cheerleading a sport

Before the debate begins answer, my questions. Is American Idol a sport? Does Cheerleading have a set of rules? Or customs? Here is what a sport is according to George Carlin, because you have not set a standard, here is why Cheerleading is not a sport. "Swimming is not a sport. Swimming is a way to keep from drowning. That's just common sense!" Would you say a sport is any thing competitive?
It is possible to disprove a negative

My opponent asserts that he is absolutely certain that a Invisible pink unicorn does not exist. He makes some blatant assumptions that he cannot be really certain of. Firstly, my opponent has to assume that the laws of logic that we perceive, such as the law of non-contradiction is an actual law, not just perceived. He has no proof of this. He could try inductive reasoning. Yet, that would fail as my opponent has no way of knowing induction is true. While I may agree that the law of non-contradiction shows something likely does not exist, it does not absolutely prove anything. Both his examples can be shown to have possible falsehoods about them. He thinks a invisible pink unicorn does not exist because it is contradictory, yet what if there was a unicorn that simultaneously lives in 2 universes. One of which she is pink, the other of which she is invisible. The same could be said of a circle square. What if in one universe the object was a square yet in another universe it exists as a circle. I ask my opponent some simple questions: Prove that the law of non-contradiction really exists. Prove that induction really exists. Prove that a unicorn could not exist simultaneously in 2 universes with 2 different features. Prove that a circle could not be a square in parallel universes.
It is possible to disprove a negative

I look forward to a challenge from you. I wish you the best of luck. For purpose of this debate, the Burden of Proof rests entirely upon me. All what izbo10 needs to do is refute my case. All I need to do is prove that it is possible to prove a negative statement is false.1) The Law of non-contradiction can falsify a negativeTo say something does not exist can be proved with a contradictory statement. A contradiction is 2 or more proposals that are logically incompatible [1]. 1) Any being with contradictory properties cannot exist.2) Being X has contradictory properties.3) Therefore, being X cannot exist. To prove this point, let us use the example of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It is impossible for the Invisible Pink Unicorn to exist, because it is impossible to be both invisible and pink at the same time. Furthermore, it is impossible to be invisible and be a unicorn. Hence, we can plug in the Invisible Pink Unicorn for premise 2, and the syllogism will work. I do not need complete knowledge of the universe to be able to prove to you that the IPU does not exist. We know that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist because she has contradictory properties. Secondly, let us take an example of a square circle. A square is, by definition, a shape with 4 equal sides and four equal right angles. [2] However, a circle is, by definition, a shape without any sides or angles. Hence, a cirlce looks like this: It is impossible to be both a square and a circle at the same time. Hence, we can say, "There are no square circles. " +| CONCLUSION |With the evidence I have given above, I have proved beyond reasonable doubt and with absolute certainty that it is possible to prove a negative statement is false. Example, "There are no square circles", and "There are no Invisible Pink Unicorns. " ______________________________________________________________________________________________________[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...(geometry)
It is possible to disprove a negative

Thank you, izbo10, for agreeing to this debate. Resolution It is possible to disprove a negative The opponents of the debate, and what positions they will argue. I am affirmative, meaning that it will be my burden to prove that it is possible to prove a negative. The scope of the debate. To test if proving a negative is false is possible. The length of the debate, in number of rounds. There will be 4 rounds. First round is acceptance only. The maximum length of each statement. 8000 Characters The time limit between statements. 72 hours (3 days). The starting date of the debate. As soon as possible. Burden of Proof The burden of proof is only on me. ____________________________ Voters, please read this debate before voting, do not vote based on your biased opinion. By a negative statement, I am referring to any statement that contains negative words (not, can't, don't etc). An example of a negative statement is "God does NOT exist" or "There is NO Invisible Pink Unocorn." Good luck. :-)