BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

My job is to name one way in which the Catholic Church has contradicted itself through its doctrines (aka bible and teaching). I will name many ways just in case you consider one invalid.1. Calling priests father. The catholic church teaches that we should call their priests "father", however. .. "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Matthew 23:92. Bishop celibacy. The catholic church teaches that bishops must be married, however. .. "A bishop, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God? )" 1 Timothy 3:2-53. Masses in latinThe catholic church gives masses in latin, however. .. "in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. " 1 Corinthians 14:194. Understanding of the bibleThe catholic church teaches that only priests fully understand the bible and that no one can understand the bible without help of a priest, however. .. "By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ" Ephesians 3:45. How many gods are thereThe Catholic Church teaches that there is only on real god, however. .. "Innocent III has written: "Indeed, it is not too much to say that in view of the sublimity of their offices the priests are so many gods. " -The dignity of the priesthood by Liguori p, 36On a more moral subject, one last example.6. The portrayal of the lord as a god of war and a god of peace. EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them. ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen. Clearly these are all contradictions.
roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church". you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years. the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes. note: this does not include moral corruption, only official teaching. that means you can't use bad priest, even peodofile priests. it means you can't use the inquisistion where millions were killed by catholics. can't use the sins of past popes. it has to be actual teachings of the church, as said, councils and statements by popes. etc. impeccable v infallble, there's a difference. since we are comparing official statements, id rather not use the bible either. it's usually too open to interpretation to begin with. we are examining the church's consistency on its own anyway... and you'd think even beyond the bible, it'd have contradicted itself within two thousand years. also there's a differnce between widespread belief and doctrine. that so many believed the earth was made in six days, that the earth was flat, that man wasn't from apes etc... only shows they are human. it'd make sense at first impression. this isn't doctrine. you have to cite a quote or citation.
Fire v.s. bsh: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

I plan on debating this better than last time's debate.Resolution: In the United States, private ownership of handguns/ normal guns ought to be banned.Definitonshandguns: small type of gun used for one hand (you can argue about normal guns)private owneship: anything that is owned from a person banned: a stopped to, declineRules1. Forfeiting is a loss of conduct2. Sources have to be in the debate. If you can't, then you have to post your sources in the next round. Example: The debate is 8000 characters, and you wrote 7900 in your arguments. You need to put sources. Then, you have to post that you will put your sources in the next round, and in the next round, you will have to post your sources.3. The BoP will be shared4. No trolling5. No kritiks6. No semantics7. No source wars8. No source spams (over 20 sources a round.)9. Failing to follow my rules, you lose all points to the opposing side. (1 is an exception.)This debate is for bsh1. If anyone else accepts, they forfeit all points to me.It is 10K, 5 rounds, 1 month voting period, 2500 ELO min. to vote, and max. for almost everything. First round is for acceptance, and no new arguments in the last round. (rebuttals count as arguments, but defense does not)Let's begin!!!
Law should be wrote based on the Bible

You wrote, "I assumed you meant all of the Bible". Most Christians believe Christ saved us from judgement of the OT law. There are numerous verses that support this view, for instance, Paul wrote in Romans, "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.". There is also many instances that Jesus preached against OT law. I will use one example of this later. I don't agree that people would follow the law "in love of God". There are many people that now that know the law of God and still choose not to follow them. Forcing these people into abiding by laws would, in no way, make them love or respect God any more than they already do. You also contradict yourself in saying the Bible(prohibits people from hurting each other) and then go on to promote "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". You also say only ceremonial laws are cancelled under the NT, and that Jesus supported basic moral laws. I would assume you to believe "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is a basic moral law. Jesus did not support this, in fact, taught against it. Mathew 5:38-39 "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'[f] 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." You say society should promote morality. Simply promoting morality is not the same as legislating it. Morality can not be forced upon someone. Here is quote from a theologian, Mark Lower, "Further, Law is ordained to the common good...But some behave well in things regarding the community, who behave ill in things regarding themselves. Therefore it is not the business of the law to make men good." Since I have limited space, I can't add much more in terms of refuting your arguments, but I would like to make the point that man has no power to enforce God's law. "the eternal law is not subject to the judgment of man". St. Augustine also supports my side.
Law should be wrote based on the Bible

Free will is in regards to our beliefs. However, the Biblical law(I assumed you meant all of the Bible) prohibits people from hurting each other or encouraging others to go against God. People follow the law now because there are consequences. I think that people would follow the law more in love of God if we instituted Biblical law. There would be a sense of higher purpose to the laws and people would feel grateful to serve him. Deuteronomy and other laws in the Bible are relatively straightforward. Principles like "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" sound clear enough to me. It's true that Jesus was against revenge and was in favor of compassion for the poor and needy. However, he also advocated that people owned swords(self-defense). While ceremonial and ritual laws(like prohibition of pork) are cancelled under the new Testament, I think that Jesus still supported basic moral laws. Justice doesn't need to be vengeful: we shouldn't feel happy or satisfied because a killer has been put away. However, it should be our responsibility as society to promote morality: we are not animals, we are human beings. (I am strongly opposed to Darwinism) It's not vengeful to demand justice for those who deprive another person of their right to life. Corruption is a result of us becoming astray from the Bible. Corruption and immorality has increased rapidly since the theory of Evolution was introduced. The evil pagan Charles Darwin has turned countless people away from religion on completely unsettled science. Moral relativism and feminism did even worse harm to society. God knows our tendency to go astray and that is why he had harsh rules in the Bible. I think that restoring some of them would restore respect for the law and improve morality. Corruption is a possibility, but I would put my faith in the citizens of America to hold their leaders accountable.
Law should be wrote based on the Bible

I will say, I expected a debater with views that were a little further from my own, but for the debates sake, I'll continue. I do agree with you to the extent that, biblical principles do improve peoples lives. I also accept the quote from St, Augustine. A nation that holds themselves upright and holy will be rewarded by God. I believe that is why Israel was so prosperous in their times of higher righteousness. Now I will state my argument. God's main purpose for man was to give him free will. He expects us to do the right things without being forced to. I believe if law was based on the Bible, many people would only follow the law because there are immediate consequences here on earth. Man should follow God's words regardless of consequences on earth, be it good or bad. My next point is that the Christian faith is divided on a number of issues in the Bible. Think of the differing interpretations of the 6 page constitution. Now multiply that by 200 pages or better. The law would, in no way, be clear enough to justify its means. It appears that you would be in favor of using Mosaic Law. I believe that "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is unbiblical based on the New testament and the fulfillment of prophecy. I believe Jesus taught against this type of vengfull thinking. As is clear in our differing views on biblical law, society would be very divided. It would be similar to our current partisan separation, except that when faith is involved, people will be much less passive. I believe we would be in constant civil war. This would eventually lead to the corruption of God's word,and that is nothing neither of us want. This is a verse that I believe supports my side of the debate; "When the wicked surround the righteous, the law becomes ignored, justice is never upheld, and wrong judgment is rendered. " Hab. 1 Corruption is inevitable in government, therefore the bible will become corrupted based on its alignment with law.
Law should be wrote based on the Bible

I, too, am a Christian. I think laws should be based off of the Bible because biblical principles improve peoples' lives. I will use the quote from St. Augustine: "Two cities have been formed by 2 loves. The earthly by the love of self, and the heavenly by the love of God." If we love God and respect him, we will be rewarded. If a community upholds his laws, then that community will be blessed. Biblical law is common sense. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life" is a common-sense solution to our crime problem. Few people would commit violent crimes if that was the penalty. God knows that these harsh penalties are deterrents. That is why we should have law based off of the Bible.
Law should be wrote based on the Bible

I would like to debate a fellow Christian who believes that our laws should be wrote based on the Bible. I know there are morels that the Bible teaches that do have their place in law i.e. Don't murder and don't steal, but I want someone that believes law should reflect the Bible simply because it is God's word and we must abide by it. My opponent can start and I expect him/her to give reasons for their view. You can use plain logic, verses, studies, examples from history etc. This is my first official debate. I have no previous experience in debating, other than replying to comments on the web. My grammar may be incorrect at times and I don't want that to get in the way of the debate, so please, try not to ridicule me on my grammar, but rather, my ideas. Good luck and God bless.
is nascar a sport

Thank you for your input scottlong823. However, PRO has failed to supply genuine information. PRO has plagiarized another's work , word by word, in his first argument and thus foundation. Considering the ancillary details of PRO's arguments to be not taken in account, PRO has forfeited the first round. http://www.debate.org... Look for the first comment in the YES section. It is very clear PRO has plagiarized "Gilles" work. I expect PRO to forfeit first found and seek a new foundation to his argument. Furthermore, the second round was a mere unsupported statement that did not comply with my definition of "physical exertion" in any capacity. With physical exertion being axiomatic in order for a thing to be called a "sport", his assertion must be struck down. In addition, it is proven that high temperatures (up to 170 degrees Fahrenheit in a Stock Car) in conjunction with high G-forces (3 G forces at 200 miles per hour), contribute to 5-10 pounds lost during a race, all from sweat. Asserting this would be a sport would also be supporting sitting in a Sauna as one and the same, for both cause the participants to sweat profusely and thus lose weight. http://www.cnn.com... However, this does not comply with my definition. The driver is not exerting enough physical force in order to be fit (operating car), rather the car exerts forces on the driver in order for said weight loss, which does not comply fully and adequately with the definition of a sport. In addition, PRO seems to claim that I did not assert in my statements that NASCAR was competitive. This is disproven due to my statement below in the 1st argument. "Although Nascar is definitely competitive, requires skill, and has an entertainment factor, it is not by definition "physical exertion", for it is not a form of "regular exercise" that "keeps one fit" and does not in any sense exert muscle movements on par with getting one 'fit'". Thank you. .
is nascar a sport

The definition of a sport- "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment." (from google search bar) The definition of physical exertion- "the activity of exerting your muscles in various ways to keep fit; "the doctor recommended regular exercise"; "he did some exercising"; "the physical exertion required by his work kept him fit", according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com... . Although Nascar is definitely competitive, requires skill, and has an entertainment factor, it is not by definition "physical exertion", for it is not a form of "regular exercise" that "keeps one fit" and does not in any sense exert muscle movements on par with getting one "fit". Instead of competing with physical attributes such as strength, flexibility, or agility, Nascar drivers are dependent on variables such as the type of stock car, the various virtue's of said car, and if that car breaks down during the competition. Rather than using physical tools to compete , such as strength, agility, and flexibility, Nascar drivers are using various techniques on an independent source, rather than one self. Rather than classifying NASCAR as a sport, it should be considered an activity no different than video games, since one is applying techniques and a certain skill set to an already independent source. If driving a car was physical exertion, then how could there be 253 million cars and trucks on the road in the USA each day, with over 2/3 of these very same drivers overweight/ obese? http://www.latimes.com... http://frac.org... . It is simply not possible.
During or after this debate concludes, my opponent ought to read the "Liar Game" manga

Crap. 5 minutes. Better make this quick. ======= RE: C/X | ======= 1) Alright then. What do you normally prefer? What is your favorite book/books/tv series/manga/et? 2) So then it's established you do not have a problem reading manga? Very good. 3) Thanks for responding. I think I'll save this answer 4) Liar Game disagrees with my opponent and adheres to the philosophy that everyone should be doubted. Through reading Liar Game (more importantly, reading the entire series when it is finished), my opponent own philosophy shall be expanded upon (enlightenment of this idea and the possibility that his own ideas may even evolve by one step). 5) I shall gladly do this upon my opponent providing information on what he reads/watches, though disagree that this is the only means for me to win this debate. Nevertheless, if you buy my argument (that Liar Game fits his preferences), it's an automatic win on my part regardless of what else is discussed here. ============================== Questions concerning elements of "Liar Game | ============================== 1. lol. There are so many, it's hard to list each and every one. Psychology: Cognitive Dissonance, Class, Prisoner Dilemna, human interaction mostly being scripted, Philosophy: Doubt, Ethics of Deception. Not enough time. Should've made this debate 5 rounds. :( 2. Example Idea: People should be doubted: Akiyama's defense of this assertion: http://www.onemanga.com... http://www.onemanga.com... http://www.onemanga.com... http://www.onemanga.com... http://www.onemanga.com... 3. I'd disagree that the only way to appeal to one intellectually is philosophically; even in terms of my opponent. The games played throughout the series often involve a great deal of complexity (often centered around using mathematics to win). Merely reading these battles of wits is both entertaining and excellent in terms of mental exercise. In terms of philosophy, we'll go with the above one I provided for now (especially since it's a recurring theme) since I'm out of time. If necessary, I'll mention more examples in the next round. Peace.
During or after this debate concludes, my opponent ought to read the "Liar Game" manga

Having never debated this kind of topic, and knowing that L-M is highly gifted in debating, I'm positive this will turn out to be fun. I should note that a decisive determinant of the outcome of this debate hinges on my personal preferences. I will guarantee that I will keep true to my actual preferences, and not make it intentionally difficult for my opponent by faking (like saying I hate reading). The warrant and value of this guarantee is up to you, all I can do is give my word. I won't give any argument in this round, but have it serve as a greeting round as well.
During or after this debate concludes, my opponent ought to read the "Liar Game" manga

I believe that my opponent ought to read all available chapters of the following manga during or after this debate concludes: http://www.onemanga.com... Like other debate of mine, this round shall serve to be the greeting round. My opponent can present his case upon accepting this debate or wait for me to present mine; such is inconsequential. In addition, I reserve the right to challenge any definition or interpretation of the topic should I feel it does not meet the intentions of this debate. It is advised that if my opponent has any questions that he post them in the comment section so that I may address them without wasting space during the debate rounds.
colonization of the moon would fail and not be worth it to humanity

1. Yes the moon may have earthly resources but it dose not have trees nor farmland and once again we have no idea what amount of the resources the moon has it may not be a lot. 2. Speed is effective in warfare but their is so much more to it than that strategy strength equipment a computer will never win a war it may help but single handedly no it has no human factor. 3. Terriforming the moon would coast a ton with out getting half the resources back and not sure if the grounds stable for building and it being hit by space junk all the time there's no chance 4. also only one Arabic nation has nukes and they are about to get their asses kicked by the Israeli's also just because crazy people get their hands on nukes dose not mean we should evacuate the planet it means we should go to war. 5. Oil dependency dose not cause terrorism pissed off Muslims cause terrorism look at history the Arabs were being asses before oil look at Mohammad he told people to convert infidel's to Islam at all coasts even killing them and they have been oil dose not cause terrorism.
colonization of the moon would fail and not be worth it to humanity

1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the moon was once part of Earth. Earth has resources, so the moon should have some aswell. 2. Supercomputer, being faster is everything. If you are faster you have a beter econ and military. Pro drops India arguement and doesn't refute the U.S. is low on Hegemoty. 3. Terriform the moon. 4. Pro states there is no evidense of GW, but if he was on www.futuretimeline.com, he would see the equations and there are even worse things that will happen if you continue to read into the future. 5. Pro claims Arabs would start a nuclear winter. Pro gives you a great reason there why to get off the Earth. 6. Oil dependcy causes terrorism.
colonization of the moon would fail and not be worth it to humanity

Because the Chinese are two seconds faster than us dose not make them a threat also global warming has very little evidence supporting it also famine deforestation the moon isn't really a great farming community and if you haven't noticed it has no forrest so that would be like saying lets go sailing in the desert also no country except maybe Arabic nations would go on a nuclear holocaust most of us like living and not killing our own people to kill the others. Also there is little known about the moons supply of resources so who knows if colonization would even give us anything besides a couple rocks of the resources.
colonization of the moon would fail and not be worth it to humanity

it's to late in the game so I guess I'll use a plan text THe U.S. Federal government should substantially increase exploration and or developement beyond the Earth's mesosphere by colonizing Mars. 1. the moon has several resources besides He3. It could also hold REMs that are used in the green economy in the military. without the REMs the U.S. military wouldn't function well. 2. India would start a Nuclear hollicost if it where to happen. ANy country would and there'd be no surrvivors. Chinesse Supercomputer is important it tecnically runs the country. So if China is faster than the U.S. they would be able to fight us better. 3.Global Warming, famine, deforestation are all reasons to move to the moon and even Mars in the late future acording to the www.futuretimeline.com