BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
official catholic church teaching is that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell

there's been plenty of saints who thought the rigorist view. augustine (or aquanism?) said he would hope an angel would appear to the good hearted ignorants. he said this because he knew it was the only way for them to be saved. then there's folks like fr. feeney. sure, he was publically opposed by church officials, but that's because he beleived the original teaching, and the new guys were close to the times of vatican ii. i could provide plenty of other saints. what people believed is indicative of what was taught. "If a rigorist Catholic would concede that non-Christians may be saved, what are we even talking about?" it's a matter of how you read it. it is possible for the noncatholic to see an angel or convert before death etc. i concede it's streching things, but that is the nature of a political statement. surely, the only way you could read those rigorist quotes as allowing the possiboity of nons to be saved, is to do loop de loops wih the teaching. except, given the weight of qutoes etc, it's much worse here. con also says that those rigorist quotes were for protestants etc were were not ignorant. he doesn't establish this with any hard evidence, first. second, they deny the plain teachings themselves, and the weight of saints who understood them to be rigorist. for an atheist, con almost sounds like a catholic. he could just argue the teachings contradict htemselves, but that there's more than one offical teaching, thus negating the proposition of the debate. but he tries to argue it as if he were catholic. just an interesting point is all. (well, con contradicts himself and later says vaticvan ii changed the position) when i said most of the quotews weren't definitive, i wasn't referring to the large bold font stuff, as i said earlier. but what could appear defintive is a political statement. the catechism is not considered an official teaching. it is just a teaching. the older catechisms say they go to limbo. limbo is a part of hell. to be considered official, it has to be the pope intnetionally binding the church on faith and morals. that is not present in those catechism teachings. i dont know how con says it can be inferred that they would be damned, and then argue that the vatican has no official teaching of damnation. it can be more than inferred, it is the only option. only unbaptaized infants have only orignal sin. tehrefore, the teaching says they go to he;ll. so, officially they are damned, so my opponent is wrong. we can just agree to disagree about the poltical nature of the vatican ii teaching. but, for catholics, the only way they could be reconciled is to say it was poltical, given the weight of the other teachings. for the rest of people, you can only judge it as politcal or not based on the totality of the situation.
official catholic church teaching is that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell

as to your vatican references, it's basically like i said, those are political statements given the times. mosto f your quotes just says other christians have got some good points to them, it doesn't say anything definitive. 'they are brothers' 'they have the holy spirit' etc. the one quote says 'salvation is open to him to him also'. taken in a political vein, this could mean an angel would appear to him before death or something like that, as is custumarily the only way to be saved. notice it says salvation is open, esse3ntially 'salvation is possible'. even a rigorist wouldn't necessarily deny this at this level of abstraction. again bottomline is you ahe to read it in a political vein, and then consider the weight of everything said about the matter. con says he sess no evidence they would be damned to hell, the infants. but the quote i provide above show exactly that. only infants die of oritinal sin alone, everyone else has other sins. baptism is the 'only way' we have to save them. i could provide plenty other quoes but that is sufficient. .
People who go in debates with the user RoyLatham should get a 15-point head start.

Verse 1 There once was a man named KingDebater, who sounded like a real Roy Hater! He presented a plan with great folly, which I shall refute with great jolly! He insisted opponents get a head start, instead of having them use their smarts! He denied the anger this would produce, insisting the anger would be countered, he deduced! Not realizing the counters could be countered, he failed. Or that the rules can be averted, despite jail! [1] Verse 2 Rhyme? He heard rhyme, I cannot deny. These are the rules that should apply! Losing every debate? That I contest. As he admitted, Roy is the best! He talks about a debate where Roy can’t rhyme . . . presuming Roy would accept and waste his time! This plan of mine . . . need not be absolute. Just two of five debates are a hoot! [2] Blues Clues is awesome, to deny that is insane! This statement itself . . . no need to explain! He complains about “stacked odds” . . . rather bizarre . . . is that not the point of the argument he’s pushed so far? To make Roy lose, so he said . . . in his round one, were we mislead? King contradicts himself, very sad . . . this might make voters very mad! To debate against rhyme, no win guarenteed. This debate is proof . . . yes indeed. ;) Verse 3 He attacks my grammar, quite unsporting, while his is in need of tremendous sorting! Than and that? They are two different words.[2] To confuse the two is quite absurb! "Clues" should be capitalized, since it is proper.[3] Those who say otherwise are grammatical paupers! Verse 4 Great justice demands that you vote CON . . . now excuse me while I go play in the lawn! Thanks for the debate! Logical-Master! Sources: [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] See CON R1. [2] "The word "concede" has 88 pure rhymes [1], whilst the word "accept" has only 15 pure rhymes [2] which means that when trying to make his arguments all snappy and clever, he's more likely to say he concedes that say he accepts the debate! " [3] Uh oh, I lose! Now, I am off to watch Blue's clues!
People who go in debates with the user RoyLatham should get a 15-point head start.

Con argues that there'd be people who would be inclined to give Roy the 15-points no matter what if the rule were to be implemented, but in that case the votes would be votebombs and would be either reported or countered to make the debate fair again.Rhyme? Am I hearing that right? Rhyme? That's ridiculous and too unfair on poor old Roy. Do you want him to lose every debate he ever has from whenever this absurd law passes on?Making poor old Roy to do his debates in Rhyme will make him lose in every one. Consider this scenario:Resolution: Don't use rhymes! (First one to use a rhyme loses)KingDebater (Pro) v. RoyLatham (Con)7622 points 0 points- Round 1 ---KingDebaterFirst round is for acceptance.--RoyLathamHey KingDebater, I'll post my arguments later! I accept this debate and consider you my best mate.- Round 2 ---KingDebaterRoyLatham used two rhymes in round 1! I win!--RoyLathamUh oh, I lose! Now, I am off to watch Blue's clues!(Most people on DDO hate the version of Blue's clues he's watching so they'll vote against him anyway)Do you understand? Roy wouldn't stand a chance! His win ratio might even become negative! Do you really want that to happen to poor old Roy?Also, the odds are really stacked against him in a debate where he has to rhyme all his arguments. The word "concede" has 88 pure rhymes [1], whilst the word "accept" has only 15 pure rhymes [2] which means that when trying to make his arguments all snappy and clever, he's more likely to say he concedes that say he accepts the debate! RoyLatham would lose a phenomenal amount of debates and that wouldn't be fair or good because a) it would mean a free win for anyone who enters a debate with him and b) he'd forget what it's like to win a debate.Spelling/grammar error made by Con: "Dr. Seus" instead of "Dr. Seuss".Another spelling/grammar error made by Con: not putting a full stop at the end of that sentence.Thank you. Sources[1] http://wikirhymer.com...[2] http://wikirhymer.com...
People who go in debates with the user RoyLatham should get a 15-point head start.

Greetings members of DebateDotOrg(DDO). My name is Logical-Master and I represent the CON position in today's debate. Today, I will prove that people who go into the debate with the user RoyLatham should NOT get a 15 point head start. Without further ado, let us proceed.The instigator's arguments are quite persuasive. As he points out, Mr. Latham has 211 wins at the time of writing and has only lost 13 debates. The evidence is strong and can't be contested. Clearly, a rival debater needs some sort of leverage when up against the great and almighty RoyLatham. Otherwise, the man is practically unbeatable.Where the instigator and I disagree is what sort of leverage this should be. Whereas the instigator argues that opponents should get a 15 point head start, it is my position that this leverage is neither interesting nor strong enough a remedy to serve the interest of DDO. As can be seen by a wider number of Mr. Latham's debates, 15 points is but twig standing in the way of a hurricane! Not to mention there might be those who'd be inclined to give Mr. Latham 15 points regardless simply due to this new rule.Rather, instead of giving people an automatic 15 point head-start, it should be required that in addition to debating in each of his debates, that Mr. Latham do so in rhyme. Dr. Seus if you will. The first rounds of this debate are a good example and what that might look like.[1] Ths attached video also details such debate.[2] Additional points would be encouraged were Roy to actually videos and sing out his debates.It is my contention that were Roy forced to debate in this manner (for at least 2 out of every 5 debates), his debates would become more interestnig, would be easier to read and we'd see each of the benefits the instigator talks about come to fruition. In short, my plan is better.And that's all for now:Sources:[1]http://www.debate.org...[2]http://www.youtube.com...
People who go in debates with the user RoyLatham should get a 15-point head start.

As you should know, RoyLatham is quite a good debater. He's nearly as good as me!RoyLatham is quite a good debater, his only flaw being that he barely ever loses. He only has 13 loses and 211 wins at time of writing [1].He may get a few more losses if all of his opponents now get a 15-point head start. Here are some of his recent debates he may've lost if his opponent were given a 15-point head start:http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...Roy losing more would be good because:* More people would be able to brag about beating him* He'd learn to cope with loss in debate* Debates would be a bit more fairer.Thank you.Sources[1] http://www.debate.org...
Is Education Necessary for Human Development

The question is "Is Education Necessary for Human Development" These are definitions of education according to Dictionary. com, 1.The act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life. 2.the act or process of imparting or acquiring particular knowledge or skills, as for a profession. 3.a degree, level, or kind of schooling:a university education. 4.the result produced by instruction, training, or study:to show one's education. 5.the science or art of teaching; pedagogics. For the definition of human development, I assume you are referring to the development of humans biologically. Education is not necessary because there are other means for human development. Expanding population, globalization, government guidance, and natural selection. Our human form can develop over the course of many years dueto genetics and education does not have to be involved.
Evolution is Non-Scientific

Darwin once said (The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83), "If numerous species... have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution." What does the fossil record support? The Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History (January 1979, Volume 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23) said, "Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." Zoologist Harold Coffin stated (Liberty, September/October 1975, p.12): If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found ; but they have not been found and scientist's admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best." Sufficient fossils have been found to draw a sound conclusion. Notice what Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter King said, (New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p.129) "There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified in museums around the world." Think about the scientific method. Do those who believe in and teach evolution really follow the scientific method?
Do We Need Feminism? YES We Do

Firstly we need a clarification on if radical Feminism comes under your term of Feminism, as you have proposed a contradiction to yourself, as you claim to believe for this debate feminism is believing in gender equality yet you ask if it is "Men-hating". This would be impossible to have a con for due to the contradiction, as you require me to argue the term "Feminist" under your definition. Next clarification is I need to know your main points for the feminist movement, such as " Gender pay gap" or there being a "rape culture" within the school environment, clarify these points please to create a case to argue against and I shall debate.
Legalizing Drugs

As you can see my opponent is probably a Bible-thumping moron that brings shame to Conservatives alike. Trust me, I am far from Democrat. Wanting legalization of drugs is not something just attuned to Democrats. Conclusion:Since my opponent did not end his Round with any argument, I will just extend my own. All drugs deserve to be legalized. Under Constitutional law, and Libertarian principle, a crime only occurs if it violates the liberties of someone other than the "criminal". Evidently, if an individual decides to drive while under the influence, and later causes an accident, then the crime will be more potent due to the injection of drugs beforehand.
Legalizing Drugs

Contention 1: "The bible says we are not to inflict badly harm on our selves. "My opponent foolishly states that the Bible is justification enough for the creation of a set of laws. In the United States, which I premuse is the premise of this debate, laws are made based upon rational thought and the Constitution. To even utter that the Bible is justified in being used as reasoning as to why a law should or should not be passed is completely absurd. My opponent fails to state any sections or verses from the Bible that condemn this type of behavior, so I shall take it that there are none.Contention 2: "Your waking with your kids on a Sunday morning at the outside mall. You pass a high kid laying on the ground he's not mean or anything he's just chill. What do you think your kids are thinking." I will ignore this poor excuse of a complete sentence, and just focus on the argument itself. Firstly, the scenario or argument for drug legalization is not relied on whether kids see it or not. It is the parents choice and fault if their kids happen to get involved in these kinds of activities, or at least to be introduced to something of this sort.Second, smoking drugs or doing any type of drug in public is not legal, so this argument does not stand. Drinking alcohol is even illegal in many states.Contention 3: "Then you pass a women on math. Your kids see her might have bad dreams." I don't know what kind of children you have or what kind of child you embody, but I am more than sure that if kids see a couple of women doing mathematics, they won't have bad dreams. They may have bad dreams about your spelling though. Contention 4:"The hospitals will not be able to handle the drug overdoses. The military won't be able to handle all the extra illegal drugs."This is probably the only good argument that my opponent has made, and let me debunk it.Observe the amount of deaths from overdoses, and their trends. Photos are from [1]As it can be seen, the amount of deaths from the most popular "killer drugs" is quite low. I am more than sure that the 5,686 hospitals in the United States, with their 914,513 beds could take care of these people. [2]Contention 5: "There will be more deaths because of high drivers. And peoples family members will be killed because of someone's self centered choice to drive under the spell of drugs."Here is a picture that accurately shows how many drug related accidents occur per year. As my opponent can see, the numbers are very low. A slight increase is not a substantial reason for alarm.Lastly, individuals already take drugs, and many lives have been ruined because of the injection of a victimless substance. It is more than safe to state that people who take drugs illegally, are going to take it in the future, regardless of its legality. To state that banning drugs will make less people take drugs is wrong, and this has not been backed up by my opponent. Sources:[1]http://www.drugabuse.gov...[2]http://www.aha.org...
Legalizing Drugs

The bible says we are not to inflict badly harm on our selves. You can not deny that drugs are very bad for you even though weed really isn't by its self. But it will wreck people if we allow drugs to be legal.1.) Just picture this in your mind. Your waking with your kids on a Sunday morning at the outside mall. You pass a high kid laying on the ground he's not mean or anything he's just chill. What do you think your kids are thinking. Then you pass a women on math. Your kids see her might have bad dreams. And kids know that stuff is bad so if they see that you think it's fine what do you think they will think now. If they have respect for you they will follow you and might just become drug addicts. 2.) The hospitals will not be able to handle the drug overdoses. The military won't be able to handle all the extra illegal drugs. There will be more deaths because of high drivers. And peoples family members will be killed because of someone's self centered choice to drive under the spell of drugs.
Legalizing Drugs

No rules are present, so I shall assume that the debate shall be rather informal. I will write my main argument in Round 2, and I shall write my conclusion as well as my rebuttals in Round 3. Summary:The intake of drugs is rationally a victimless act. For an individual to have control over their body, as any sentient being should, the should be allowed to injest any chemical or drug that best fits their desire.
Legalizing Drugs

I am against drug legalization. I think it would be the down fall of this great nation under God. The bible states that we are not to put body harming things into are body's. You say the only bad thing legalization will do is put out officers into more danger. But it will also brim up the problem of more immigrants coming and going with drugs. It will do so much harm to people. Because people that do not believe in God and who do not hold there self's accountable to him do so to the government( if they are law abiding citizens) but if the government then says its legal they will do it. Because there accountability will fall though.
PC is the best console

The reason I brought up the performance of the hardware is because this is a huge factor in your gaming experience. Playing games at 4K and 120fps at maximum graphics, along side graphical mods make games so much more enjoyable, not just for the graphical appeal - but for their smooth frame rate as well. When I mentioned that PC has better exclusives, I concede this is in fact subjective - but I was more basing this off of reviews of the game. Although a game like Half Life might be disliked by some, most can agree it is a good game. So although my claim was subjective it does hold some basis. Here is a brief list of games which are exclusive to PC and are among the most popular in the world: - StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void - Sims - League of Legends - Dota 2 - Heroes of the Storm - XCOM 2 - World of WarCraft - The Total War series Here is a list of exclusives from just the last few years: https://docs.google.com... My point of the exclusives is that PC has an incredibly larger library of games to play, and just because they are more numerous - doesn't mean they are lower in quality! In fact they are the most played games on the planet (League, DOTA, etc). Furthermore, my opponent did not acknowledge emulators. He mentioned Zelda: Breath of the Wild as a game unavailable to PC players, when in fact it is not. Most games that are console 'classics' are available on PC as well. I disagree with my opponent about PCs being less flexible, I can concede that consoles are easier to setup and move, but that doesn't make them less flexible. I also concede on the pricing - I exaggerated: consoles are cheaper, but only by a small amount (in upfront costs). I still believe that PCs are the better deal, a breakdown of the prices can be seen here: https://www.fool.com...
PC is the best console

Hello readers! I will be taking the con side for this debate. My argument against the pro side is that PC being being the best console is nothing more than a subjective opinion. The pro side has failed to realize this, everything he said is irrelevant to the title of the debate and what the debate is about. The pro has claimed that the PC "master race" is superior in hardware specs. Well, that should be quite obvious as PCs can be updated, the title of the debate should have been "PC has better hardware and specs and performance than gaming consoles". However, it is not. The pro has mentioned that PC has more, and has better exclusives than the gaming consoles. However, he fails to realize that argument is again a subjective opinion which is not right, nor wrong. Not everyone is going to like Crysis and so on. I would wager most people like me would rather play Zelda Breath Of The Wild, or Mario Odyssey, or how about Kingdom Hearts 3 for the PS4, and Xbox one once it releases? I don't even know any other PC exclusives when you consider the thousands of exclusives on all other game platforms. Play station has many great exclusives, so does Xbox and of course Nintendo. I do not currently have the stats on me, but I am almost positive Nintendo might have more exclusives than any other platform considering all their consoles they have ever had and how much more popular Nintendo was to PC in the early days of gaming. PC being more flexible is again irrelevant and does not make it the "better" console. It just makes it the more "flexible" console, and actually I would disagree and say consoles are more flexible, and you can pack them places. Pro would seriously have to show graphs and statistics, many different graphs in fact but at the end of the day, it's your money, your taste, and what you feel is the BETTER platform for you.