BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The doctrine of "sola scriptura" is nonsensical.

1.a) "You ask "why" the scriptures would contain instructions for their own assembly. You therefore concede that they do not." I merely conceded that the instructionsare not readily apparent to the casual observer, which is not affirming their absence. 1.b) "I am merely pointing out that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy." And perhaps I have reciprocated. 1.c) "In other words, one needs to look beyond scripture for guidance at some point." I agree, "The teacher appears when the student is ready" follows from the foundation. 1.d) "The doctrine of sola scriptura, if applied in the 1st century, would prompt the question: which scripture? My point is that the development of the canon was conducted extra scriptura." Yes, there is some question whether the canon is reliable as evidenced by the variety of chapters. __________________________ 2.) "Indeed, a pattern does emerge. The "orthodox" position was defined against various heretics, e.g. the Ebionites, the Marcionites, the Gnostics, and so forth. The criteria which were used to separate the orthodox from the heterodox was the apostolic tradition. In other words, the Church Fathers largely depended on the traditions passed down through succession to the various bishoprics." And yet to this day protestations based on the scriptural text are not uncommon. __________________________ 3) "You make an interesting point. The New Testament is highly apocalyptic, but it was not in the interests of developing a longstanding tradition which motivated the canonisation of orthodox texts, it was reaction to heresy." I dispute this with the contention that breaking with tradition is the heresy that canonization seeks to prevent. ___________________________ 4.a) "I'm not entirely convinced that this response makes any rational sense," Well the premise of argument No. 3 is a reach, but all's fair etc. 4.b) "... but I'm determined to give you the benefit of what little doubt remains. I'll just say that I'm not attempting to "buck tradition," I'm arguing for the existence of Tradition, with a capital T, which should be viewed as an authoritative source of Divine Revelation, alongside Scripture. This is the position of the Catholic Church, though I am not a member of that body." Evidence for Divine competition for the minds of the masses is evident in the account of the Golden Calf in relation to the Ten Commandments. The authority that speaks thru scripture cannot be defined as one source therefor, which may account for the division within the faith. Knowledge hidden in parable and in plain sight may lead to further insights in the manner of connecting the dots. Whose insights predominate is a matter of skill with presentation. "SO DARK THE CON OF MAN," is not without substance considering the events that have transpired in the name of scriptural revelation, and so it remains with the individual to decide for themselves which principles shall govern them, whether the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament or Mathew 7:2 of the New Testament, or something strung together by traditional agencies or their own recognizance.
The doctrine of "sola scriptura" is nonsensical.

1) You ask "why" the scriptures would contain instructions for their own assembly. You therefore concede that they do not. I am merely pointing out that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. In other words, one needs to look beyond scripture for guidance at some point. The doctrine of sola scriptura, if applied in the 1st century, would prompt the question: which scripture? My point is that the development of the canon was conducted extra scriptura. 2) Indeed, a pattern does emerge. The "orthodox" position was defined against various heretics, e.g. the Ebionites, the Marcionites, the Gnostics, and so forth. The criteria which were used to separate the orthodox from the heterodox was the apostolic tradition. In other words, the Church Fathers largely depended on the traditions passed down through succession to the various bishoprics. 3) You make an interesting point. The New Testament is highly apocalyptic, but it was not in the interests of developing a longstanding tradition which motivated the canonisation of orthodox texts, it was reaction to heresy. 4) I'm not entirely convinced that this response makes any rational sense, but I'm determined to give you the benefit of what little doubt remains. I'll just say that I'm not attempting to "buck tradition," I'm arguing for the existence of Tradition, with a capital T, which should be viewed as an authoritative source of Divine Revelation, alongside Scripture. This is the position of the Catholic Church, though I am not a member of that body.
The doctrine of "sola scriptura" is nonsensical.

"The doctrine of sola scripture is nonsensical, because the scriptures themselves do not contain instructions for their own assembly."And why would they? I ask myself; One might think a conspiracy is afoot to defraud a casual observer of the 'pearl of great price'."The details of the criteria, through which the "orthodox" gospels, acts, epistles, and revelation were chosen, are not listed within the bounds of the New Testament."No, but a pattern may appear after much study."The New Testament was canonised through a process of selection in which the "Early Church Fathers" rejected those texts whose theology they deemed unorthodox. The Church "discerned" which writings were to be included, via the Apostolic Tradition" Given the apocalyptic content of the New Testament I think a conspiracy to emphasise traditons over 'Magic' would have deleted more from the texts."The canonisation of the New Testament itself "demonstrates the process of living Tradition," according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Therefore, Tradition is just as important as scripture."The trauma associated with the Grinch stealing Christmass is a caution to anyone who might attempt to buck tradition based on a questionable treatise. What's good for the goose however, is good for the gander, and the rewards of study are not easily culled.
The doctrine of "sola scriptura" is nonsensical.

The doctrine of sola scripture is nonsensical, because the scriptures themselves do not contain instructions for their own assembly. The details of the criteria, through which the "orthodox" gospels, acts, epistles, and revelation were chosen, are not listed within the bounds of the New Testament. The New Testament was canonised through a process of selection in which the "Early Church Fathers" rejected those texts whose theology they deemed unorthodox. The Church "discerned" which writings were to be included, via the Apostolic Tradition. The canonisation of the New Testament itself "demonstrates the process of living Tradition," according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Therefore, Tradition is just as important as scripture.
You are sitting on a simulating machine and the whole world you see around you in not real

You talk about evidence again and again. But what actually is your evidence? That you can touch and feel plants and animals? That's your evidence? An evidence inside a simulation cannot be called absolute. And I say the world outside is diferent. I'm just revealing it to you. I am not here to give exact details of reality to you. What evidence can you give to prove that plants and animals are real? Other than touch and feel or see. It's you who touch, feel and see inside a simulation. So you cannot call it real. Whatever you see inside the machine, you can also touch, smell, feel and also taste. But that isn't evidence. And your job is not to prove the existence of plants, but to prove that you aren't in a simulated world. What ever you have talked about till now is only about the world you touch, feel, see..... But all that was programed. What is outside? you'll only know when you come out of the machine. Until then, you will continue to believe your 5 simulated senses.. Yes. and the real you wont talk about you outside the machine, because you now are fictional like MARIO. And whatever quote you mention is from the world you hear, feel and see. Again, not enough evidence. You are gathering evidence from the simulation itself. Instead of telling me characteristics of the world you see(which iis simulation), you are to prove that you aren't in a simulation.
You are sitting on a simulating machine and the whole world you see around you in not real

Actually the world you feel, touch ,see is in the machine. The world outside is different with more than 5 senses, maybe say 27 senses. So the 5 sense were given to you by the machine to sense the world. Everything is simulation. Even the bacteria. The philosopher you talked about is also a simulation and whatever he said was included in the program. So whatever evidence you give me is inside the program. You talk about this world. The whole universe is a simulation. If you come out of it, the world is entirely different out there. But you haven't for a long time and you haven't seen reality for a long time. Whatever took place throughout history was a simulation. The the information about the people who came before you was included the program. Have you seen or felt the time before u were born? NO. Because it never existed. It was just fed into the machine. And now as you move along, you affect the program and manipulate it. It is just like a video Game.........for example in the game MARIO, in mario's point of view, all his surroundings are real....but outside it's you that is controlling him. This is a bit different. You experience the video game character inside the game......You are in a game ........You are the main character controlled by the real YOU outside the machine.
You are sitting on a simulating machine and the whole world you see around you in not real

You claim that I am sitting on a simulating machine. You also claim to be a character that the machine has created. You add that an hour in reality translates to a full day in the machine. I assert that none of these things are true. It seems to me that your entire case is nothing more than a typical argumentum ad ignorantiam. It has been known for years that this type of argument holds no water. The fundamental flaw with this type of argument is easily shown. Bertrand Russell, one of the few respectable philosophers, demonstrated the flaws of this type of argument with his celestial teapot analogy.http://en.wikipedia.org...But to dismiss your argument out of hand, while philosophically justified, would not lead to much of a debate. So I will explore a bit further to demonstrate my case. Everything that truly exists manifests itself in some way, providing evidence for its existence. For the macroscopic world, these manifestations are easily observed:The keyboard I'm typing on is something I can see, feel, touch, and hear as I type.The chair that I'm sitting in is something that also makes its existence obvious through touch and sight.I could continue the list of macroscopic objects, animals, plants, et cetera and show that all of them produce clear effects on the physical world that demonstrate their existence. When it comes to microscopic objects, we also see evidence of such things:Amoebae and paramecia can be clearly observed through microscopes.Bacteria and viruses, in addition to direct observation, manifest themselves in a more conspicuous manner when they cause illness.We can go down to even smaller sizes:The existence of atoms can be clearly demonstrated through the kinetic theory of heat. They can also be shown to exist through Brownian motionSmaller still: The existence of electrons was shown by J.J. Thomson's work with cathode rays.The existence of neutrinos was shown in the Cowan-Reines experiment in 1956.In summary, everything that actually exists shows itself to exist in some way. The smaller things sometimes require some indirect evidence. But the large objects show themselves clearly and undeniably. A simulation machine, large enough to accommodate me, would certainly be large enough to show some clear proof of its existence. Yet I see nothing to indicate that I am on a simulating machine. In such a case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Any reasonable individual would be forced to conclude that no such simulating machine exists. And without the existence of the machine, you cannot be a character created by that machine. The machine you speak of is clearly fictional.
You are sitting on a simulating machine and the whole world you see around you in not real

I'm not gonna write much here. But my opponent is sitting on a simulating machine and I am actually a character that the machine created. I am not real. The whole world that you see is not real but a simulation. You have been in that machine too long. And hour in reality equals to a day in that machine. So if you sit in that machine for 20 hours, then in your simulated world, 20 days would have passed. But in that simulation program, a character was created who was to reveal to you that the world around you is not real. So here I am and I know this message will reach you and you shall try to prove that your world is real.But I say it isn't. So until you get out of that machine, you won't be able to come back to the real world.
Resolved: On balance, the United States federal govenment is justified in intervening in the intern

The full resolution is Resolved: On balance, the United States federal government is justified in intervening in the internal political process of another nation, in an attempt to stop human rights abuses. Before we get going let me lay out some rules. RulesNo trolling. No Forfeiture. Semantics is premitted to a reasonable exent. Try to keep swearing to a minimum.1st round is acceptance and definitions by con and Pro will start his arguments. Rounds 2: Contentions and rebuttlesRound 3: Rebuttles (pro will do Rebuttles and his conclusion)Round 4: Con Rebuttles and concludes and Pro will type No argument as agreed upon. If any other phrase or word is typed in that last round by Pro then he shall Forfeit all 7 points. DefinitionsOn balance: Taking everything into consideration; all in all. (. http://www.ahdictionary.com...)Justified: To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: justified each budgetary expense as necessary; anger that is justified by the circumstances. (. http://www.ahdictionary.com...) Intervene: To interfere, usually through force or threat of force, in the affairs of another nation. (. http://www.ahdictionary.com...)Politics: The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government. (. http://www.ahdictionary.com...) Nation: A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country. (. http://www.ahdictionary.com...)Human rights: The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are considered to be entitled, often held to include the rights to life, liberty, equality, and a fair trial, freedom from slavery and torture, and freedom of thought and expression. (. http://www.ahdictionary.com...) Abuses:An unjust or wrongful practice:a government that commits abuses against its citizens. (. http://www.ahdictionary.com...)
Resolved: On balance, the United States federal govenment is justified in intervening in the intern

Contention 1: Contention of isMy oppoenent agrees with me that I have to find an incident where the US was not justified. Conention 2: US Intervention FailsChile Let me remind you here that our topic is Resolved: On balance, the United States federal government is justified in intervening in the internal political process of another nation, in an attempt to stop human rights abuses. It doesn't matter if it is a US invasion or a CIA opperation. Secondly the US was not justified what-so-ever in intervening in Chile since all it was was a just political election. KyrgyzstanThe US military is involved in Kyrgyzstan. What more proof do you want? I have provided the links and evidense. Middle EastIt doesn't matter what you call them. I have brought up evidense and have sourced them to defend my point. We are in the Middle East not to stop Terrorism, but to simply make a profit from REMs. Do you ever wounder why they have such great minerals like REMs, 90% of the world's Opium, and crude oil yet their GDP is only $12 billion? (. http://www.globalresearch.ca...) So please extend this point across. Contention 3: United NationsMy opponent has dropped this Contention and since it was the main frame of his argument in the 1st round he has no valid argument remaining. Please Extend this across. Contention 4: SovergntyMy opponent has also dropped this argument and it is very key for this debate. Please extend this contention across. Contention 5: Civil WarMy opponent has dropped the increased crime and corruptness that has occured in Libya due to Intervention. Please extend these key points across as well as my argument about how Civil War improves a nation internally. In conclusion we can see that the US is not justified as I has proved in Contention 2.
Donald J Trump

Although I do agree with your stance on Donald Trumps economic benefits, he has no sense of humanity. A POTUS must have the ability to connect and relate to the people of The United States of America, regardless on age, race, gender or ability. The fact that Donald Trump has already caused protests, including the organisation of the woman's march further proves that Donald Trump is far too incompetent to run the largest economic country in the world. Furthermore, the POTUS must act as a role model for all citizens, regardless on whether it is apart of the job description, it is crucial that he promotes equality and kindness. Donald Trump may be a business mogul, but he will never be a fair and true President.
thbt it will find a cure for cancer

I would like to start my speech with some simple yet striking facts about cancer. The word "cancer" refers to an ever-growing family of no less than 100 different diseases that happen through abnormal cell growth. Today, 1 in 3 people will be diagnosed with cancer at some point of their lives, while, back in the early 1900s, only one in 20 people developed cancer. How is it possible, with this striking difference between numbers over a short period of time, to be under the illusion that we are making any sort of progress against the disease? As I mentioned before, cancer is a family of diseases that are very far from having constant characteristics and specifications. With every second that passes, cancer cells evolve more and more into an oblivion of deadliness that scientists cannot keep up with, let alone cure. I believe that a cure for cancer is a very general and unattainable statement. A disease of this proportions is as terrifying now as the plague was when it first showed up, except that cancer is much more brutal, and as time goes on and more of our resources get wasted on pointless and quickly rendered outdated research, the disease grows more and more brutal, claiming more lives because we're too busy chasing after the dream of a cure, rather than directing our efforts towards prevention and making patients' lives easier through managing the disease as much as possible.
thbt it will find a cure for cancer

Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen, My name is Donia I'll be your speaker for the day. we are gathered here today to discuss an important topic that has a life or death situation stuck to its name. this house believes that we will eventuality find a cure for cancer, which has only been strengthened by the undeniable fact of the success that institutions in our very country have dealt with such is the case regarding the treatment of pediatric leukemia which has reached a 98% cure rate this very day, another example is pediatric low grade glioma which has reached in this country up to 87% cure. moreover on average in all types of cancer it has reached 85% in USA.
thbt it will find a cure for cancer

I think I have made it quite clear that people are *not* surviving cancer permanently. Extensive treatments like chemotherapy or surgical intervention or both only serve to delay the effect of the disease. The three major cancers, lung, breast, and liver, have the highest rates of recurrences. It's been scientifically proven that chemotherapy, for example, can kill an entire tumor, but cannot eliminate the cancer stem cells, which usually result in recurrences. If this treatment, relied upon by millions of cancer patients, is proved to be only temporarily effective, how can you claim that we are curing anything? I don't think 98% cure rate is a correct statement; perhaps 98% delay rate would be closer to the harsh truth. Half of patients now survive cancer for at least 10 years, after which a recurrence almost certainly ensues. Cancer still causes more than one in four of all deaths. This goes to show how we're only, again, delaying, not curing. The example brought up of influenza does not in any way match up with the case of cancer. For one, influenza is not a disease that is evolving with time. Its symptoms and effects are known and treatable. If this virus were to mutate tomorrow, humans would face another horror. But it doesn't, and that's what makes it incomparable to cancer. No therapy will work on the long term for cancer, simply because the nature of the disease is unpredictable and constantly evolving. What we should be doing is to employ our resources into filtering our environment of hazards in the only effective effort we can exert to minimize infection with cancer. Perhaps with a less polluted environment the disease will be given a lesser chance of evolving. But until that happens - until we know what cancer is going to look like tomorrow and how it will be behaving - there cannot exist a definitive cure for over a 100 forms of an ever-evolving disease striking nearly all ages, races and body types. If what we've been doing for 40 years was of any positive effects, we would have seen better results than merely the delay of death and the patients living in constant panic and fear of recurrence. Thank you for tuning in, ladies and gentlemen.
thbt it will find a cure for cancer

I'm glad I managed to get you to agree with me; you see there is no denying people are surviving which is the same as being cured; the disease is being detected early (that is, treatment is working) leading to the cure of cancer, but perfection in anything does take time. 98% cure rate is impressive sorry to tell you. Back in the day influenza killed people, to this day people still do get influenza; however we have managed a cure; therefore people will get cancer and we will manage a cure. It was ridiculous what you said concerning death; whether i die after having survived cancer or die having never gotten cancer is irrelevant to the topic in hand. I guess you do not understand the purpose behind an awareness campaign that is making people aware of the problem so they can fix the problem, and i would also like to educate you that our environment whether it is ruined by us to the point of no return or not only should push us that much further to try and save what we can otherwise what is the point of life in the first place if you are just willing to throw it all away without even trying. you might have personally given up but not the rest of the human race. referring to your earlier arguments If Martin Luther King Jr. never dreamed then no equality would have reached the streets of USA today. You cannot say that chasing a dream is a futile matter because as human nature has taught us dreams are how we make history. Ladies and gentlemen I would like you to leave you with four words that has never been more true WE ARE CURING CANCER. thank you.