BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Biblical debate on religious traditions in christianity including catholicism

Sacred Tradition is the oral teaching of Jesus Christ handed down to his apostles, who in turn handed it down to their disciples (the early Church Fathers), and then to the next generation, and then finally to us. How do we know this? Well, for almost 400 years there was no written New Testament to fall back on. All of the apostles and disciples taught orally for the first 400 years. Yes, you might say, but didn't Paul, Peter, John, Luke, etc., write everything down in their epistles and gospels? Yes, they did, but none of it was widely available to geographically separated disciples and it wasn't part of "The Bible" until the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage put the 27 books of the New Testament together in 382 AD, 393 AD, and 397 AD. At that time, it took on the mantle of infallible scripture with the Old Testament. Interestingly, Protestants today accept this Catholic "Tradition" of these 27 books of the Bible being divinely inspired. Protestants also accept the Catholic Tradition of meeting on Sunday, rather than the Jewish custom of meeting on Saturday. 2 Thessalonians -Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. 1 Corinthians 11:1-2 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. 2 Timothy 1: 13-14 Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us. 2 Timothy 2: 1-2 So you, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. John 20: 30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of [his] disciples that are not written in this books
There is no "pink tax"

"There is simply no such thing as a "pink tax" because markets, Stores, And products don't target women and charge more, It simply wouldn't and doesn't make sense. If this were true, Many companies would be in trouble for sex-based discrimination. "I could go and create a Facebook or Google ad right now, targeted exlusively at woman. I could charge whatever I want for my product. There's no law against targeted marketing. "If its such a problem that mens razors/shampoo/etc usually cost less, Then why not just get mens razors/shampoo/etc? "Right, I suppose they could also start buying mens tampons, Or mens pantyhose, Or mens clothing too? Mens razors are meant for faces, Womans razors are meant for legs. Products are designed for their target market. This isn't a solution. "I personally think that womens products and mens products are mainly priced based on the fact of how much they cost to make plus the amount of money the company wants to make off of it, Not because of gender. "No one is claiming a mass conspiracy against woman. Prices are detemined by market forces. Market forces take gender into account though. ---[1] According to the US Department of Consumer Affairs, On average, Across these five industries, Women’s products cost 7% more than similar products for men. Specifically: 7% more for toys and accessories 4% more for children’s clothing 8% more for adult clothing 13% more for personal care products 8% more for senior/home health care productsThe result of this is that Woman have less purchasing power than men, Which is bad for the economy, And bad for woman in general. [1] https://www1. Nyc. Gov/assets/dca/downloads/pdf/partners/Study-of-Gender-Pricing-in-NYC. Pdf
There is no "pink tax"

I don't personally believe their is such thing as a "pink tax", And I don't believe in "empathize with their position". There is simply no such thing as a "pink tax" because markets, Stores, And products don't target women and charge more, It simply wouldn't and doesn't make sense. If this were true, Many companies would be in trouble for sex-based discrimination. Even so if women are paying more for products, Then what does it have to do anything with the relation to mens products? Wouldn't this simply just mean that womens products are more expensive to manufacture or make? If its such a problem that mens razors/shampoo/etc usually cost less, Then why not just get mens razors/shampoo/etc? I personally think that womens products and mens products are mainly priced based on the fact of how much they cost to make plus the amount of money the company wants to make off of it, Not because of gender.
There is no "pink tax"

My opponent "The pink tax does not exist! " ---Proceeds to list reasons why woman pay more than men--- You've done a fantastic job of explaining why products marketed specifically toward women are generally more expensive than those marketed for men. The "pink tax" is a concept used to explain this economic phenomenon. The pink tax is mostly* driven by simple economics, Not malice, As my opponent has pointed out. You seem to be under the impression that explaining why it exists makes it disappear? Just because we understand what causes it, Doesn't mean it stops existing. Women are still paying more money for products, Regardless of the reason. Simply explaining it does nothing to relieve that burden. You would have realized that if you had stopped to empathize with their position.
There is no "pink tax"

There is no pink tax. It is simply a political topic made up by the feminist movement that has no stable and real evidence. The pink tax is all chosen by the eye of the beholder. Women's products usually contain different ingredients and materials. As the Foundation of Economic Education says, "Perhaps women"s haircuts cost more than men"s because they are more complicated or require more skill on the part of the service provider. Perhaps women"s clothes cost more to dry clean because they have, On average, More embellishments or other aspects of the fabric that require more care by the dry cleaner. We might call both men"s and women"s shirts "shirts, " but that doesn"t make them the same thing for the purposes of dry cleaning them. The same goes for haircuts. " https://fee. Org/articles/is-there-really-a-pink-tax/ Women's and men's products are extremely different and unique in there own ways. Just like the shirt example, A women may have more fragile clothes that need more care than a men's shirt. Another stable piece of evidence is that some men or women are willing to pay more for something than a women or man usually would. As the Investor's Business Daily said in their article about the pink tax, "This is how markets work. As the GAO put it: 'To maximize profits, Firms use a variety of techniques to charge prices close to the highest price different consumers are willing to pay. ' Men apparently are willing to pay more for shaving gel, But not for perfume. " (there is some more information that I couldn't include but if you would like to read it here is the link https://www. Investors. Com/politics/editorials/pink-tax-gender-bias/) Women and men's products are very different and are priced upon the market of the product, And not by the sex its being sold to.
The only war worth fighting is the one against inequalities

Hi,Nice to meet you and thank you for your statement.I (Pro.) wholeheartedly support this statement with a passion. Is it not our greatest goal? The goal, that once achieved will bring enlightenment and completeness to this world?" There are more prominent wars to be fought against like for example the war against poverty. A society in which some people have millions of dollars a year to live on and others have tens of thousands "(Con.)If we digest your statement above, you describe the war on poverty; a war against those with and those without, by common definition.I counter your statement by calling upon our friendly scholars at Cambridge for the dictionary definition of 'inequality', I quote:"the unfair situation in society when some people have more opportunities, money, etc. than other people:" Cambridge.(1)In your opening statement you define the very thing you stand against, you describe inequality in its most despicable form. Your second statement."Would it be fair to fight for one thing only because we have a weakness for that particular subject over others and leave the other? Wouldn't it be fatal?" (Con.)I again call to arms our Cambridge scholars who in defining inequality impose it to no single subject matter. It is a broad sweeping statement, a definition meant to capture any and all types of inequality, or to use your words, and and all things which are deemed to be. "unequal".I put the question to you? What matter if any can supercede the war on inequality?(1) http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
The only war worth fighting is the one against inequalities

This topic can be totally be disagreed upon. There are more prominent wars to be fought against like for example the war against poverty. A society in which some people have millions of dollars a year to live on and others have tens of thousands ,which might well be unequal. But as along as people have those tens of thousands then there's going to be comparatively less poverty from a society with people who are more equal but have an annual income of $500 to live upon. Would it be fair to fight for one thing only because we have a weakness for that particular subject over others and leave the other? Wouldn't it be fatal?
love is a dream, and hate is waking up from it

Thank you for your response, vi_spex. Well, this was a boring debate. Pro makes no arguments, therefore I only have to prove the resolution wrong in the most basic sense. Looking at the sentence, "love is a dream" Dream is defined as [1] : a series of thoughts, visions, or feelings that happen during sleep : an idea or vision that is created in your imagination and that is not real : something that you have wanted very much to do, be, or have for a long time Love is defined as [2] : a feeling of strong or constant affection for a person : attraction that includes sexual desire : the strong affection felt by people who have a romantic relationship : a person you love in a romantic way As we can see, love is (clearly) different from a dream. Pro's resolution has been refuted. Conclusion: To my opponents credit, I do see how this can actually be interpreted as some kind of metaphor. This is only to my opponents credit because I have read some of his/her other debates, and in comparison, this resolution makes an overwhelming amount of sense. Sadly, Pro makes absolutely no attempts to back up this or any sort of claim, nor attempts to explain how the resolution is correct. Thus I win with the only standing argument in the debate, in which I compare "dream" and "love", proving that love is not a dream. Sources: [1] Merriam-Webster dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com... (viewed 20.05.2015) [2] Merriam-Webster dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com... (viewed 20.05.2015)
911 inside job

Pro forfeits that Osama Bin Laden did take credit for 9/11 in the months after 9/11 once he realized he was just out of reach of the US military's reach Pro forfeits that airplanes did in fact fly into the Pentagon and the twin towers on 9/11 Pro forfeits that pieces of airplanes were found all over at both the Pentagon crash site and the site of the twin towers Pro forfeits that steel didnt have to be melted in order to lose their strength and result in a structural collapse Pro forfeits that those who did hijack the flights were indeed on the planes and flew them into their targets on 9/11 Pro forfeits that the terrorists in question did receive flight training within the US and were indeed linked to Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden Pro forfeits that personal effects of the hijackers did indicate they planned to turn airplanes into missiles and fly them into targets on 9/11 Pro forfeits that Al-Qaeda did have an elaborate history of attacking US targets and embassies long before 9/11 even occurred Pro forfeits that WTC 7 could very plausibly collapse after receiving heavy damage from the twin towers collapsing despite not being hit by an airplane or by suffering from an extensive fire Pro forfeits that its possible for the buildings to fall at near free-fall speed since the amount of resistance needed to halt such a massive part of the tower from falling down would be tremendous Pro forfeits that the amount of thermite that would be needed to bring down the twin towers is equal to about half the worlds supply of thermite Pro forfeits that a massive impact combined with intense fires is enough to sufficiently weaken steel to the point where it could no longer support the weight above it. Pro forfeits that an inside job would mean that those behind the inside job must have paid off the CIA, FBI, local fire departments, NY Port Authority, local police, Air traffic controllers, American Airline pilots, families of those who died in 9/11, etc to stay silent about the inside job Pro fails to suggest a single time who or what could be behind such an intricate plot who had the unobtainable amount of resources to orchestrate such a cover up. Pro forfeits that the amount of men and man hours needed to plant explosives all over the twin towers to trigger a collapse would be too massive to not be detected or discovered. Pro has drastically failed to meet his burden of proof that 9/11 was an inside job and has only demonstrated why he and so many other 9/11 truthers are massively retarded conspiracy theorists who cannot accept reality for what it truly is.
911 inside job

Once again Con has totally ignored my source and has pulled out debunking911.com which claims the only evidence I have to prove thermite existed is a photo , one which I didn't even claim as evidence for the thermite theory. Whether Con thinks its possible or impossible to plant thermite in the buildings is irrelevant as the scientific evidence proves its there, how it got there is another question. The proof of thermite is Iron rich microspheres with chemical signature of thermite found in wtc dust. http://www.journalof911studies.com... Steel beams found by fema corroded by thermite. http://911research.wtc7.net... High tech nanothermite found in all WTC dust samples. http://www.benthamscience.com... 2. Im an idiot for asking why steel engines vaporised into thin air ? 3. Osama denies being involved in 911 http://911blogger.com... " I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States." 4. http://news.bbc.co.uk... 5. The point was to show that building damage doesnt prove a building will collapse at freefall acceleration 6. Wrong ever heard of the Conservation of Momentum .... For the building to collapse at free fall speed indicates there was no resistance ( 0 N ) .... only which could be allowed if all columns and support beams were removed during the 'collapse' heres an example disproving your theory. http://www.youtube.com... 7. Why did i see a great big fireball and even if there was jet fuel it wouldn't be able to produce the temperatures high enough to melt steel. 8. RJ lee report found vaporised lead and molten molybdenum which require temperatures hotter than the surface of the sun . http://911research.wtc7.net... Once again con has resorted to bullying tactics to calling me retarded and an idiot showing he has no argument left.
911 inside job

'evidence of thermite' http://www.debunking911.com...The so called 'evidence' of thermite at 9/11 consists entirely of what conspiracy theorists think they see based on photos of the towers after the have collapsed.... The truth is that there is no actual evidence that thermite was used since the claim that thermite ws used is based entirely on how some idiots interpret photos of 9/11.... And more importantly, the amount of thermite that would needed to be used to bring down the twin towers AND keep parts of it burning for 6 weeks after would require tons and tons of thermite to the point where its impossible that anybody could have smuggled so much thermite into the twin towers without being caught. 'Evidence of explosives'This claim again relies on the alleged existence of thermite at 9/11, which means that once again, there is no actual evidence that explosives were present/used on the twin towers"Ill supply the source this time because i naively though you would've already know about this information"Heres a hint retard, when you give sources for your claims, try to make sure they actually do support your claims..... I thought you wouldve known to do that but I naively thought you werent so retarded.'2. Where is the rest of the plane , where are the engines'They blew up you idiot, do you not know how explosions work?'3. Do you speak arabic no becaue he didnt claim responsibility that was mistranslated.'he literally said he himself entrusted the 19 hijackers with the attackshttp://abcnews.go.com...'4. phone calls to the father of one of the hijackers from the 'dead terrorist' confirming he is alive and well for example'Youre source doesnt even work, and if you could actually find a source not from the same truther website, that'd be greaaaaat'5. building 6 which did not collapse at free fall acceleration through the path of resistance.'Building 6 was only 7 stories tall whereas Building 7 was 50 stories tall, building 6 was much smaller then building 7 and naturally took less damage since it was a smaller target.... Also it was small enough so that any real damage it suffered would not cause a collapse due to the weight of floors above it, hence why building 7 collapsed when building 6 didnt. "doesnt explain how the building collapsed at free fall acceleration"There isnt any structure known to man that could stop or slow down a 30 story building that is falling to the ground.... Buildings are constructed only to support and transfer the weight above it down, not to stop a collapse mid fall....."The jet fuel was burnt in the initial explosion"It wasnt. "nor does the jet fuel explain how it could cause temperatures observed hotter than the surface of the sun."Because the temperatures werent hotter then the sun==================================================================================Once again, Pro completely fails to name a culprit who was behind the 9/11 attacks, and like so many other idiot truthers before him, simply lists descrepencies in official 9/11 reports and concludes that there must have been an inside plot rather then think 'hey, maybe the government was wrong about something'Extend all dropped arguments.
911 inside job

Obviously con did not read what i posted before proof being 'Evidence of thermite' http://911research.wtc7.net... 'Evidence of explosives' http://www.benthamscience.com... Not sure how much more proof you need. Ill supply the source this time because i naively though you would've already know about this information 1. ' No hard evidence' you have provided nothing but hearsay 2. Where is the rest of the plane , where are the engines 3. Do you speak arabic no becaue he didnt claim responsibility that was mistranslated. 4. No .....that is not actually based on that but actually phone calls to the father of one of the hijackers from the 'dead terrorist' confirming he is alive and well for example http://911research.wtc7.net... 5.Exactly no one is denying that it was heavily damaged although not nearly as damaged as the rest of the buildings like building 6 which did not collapse at free fall acceleration through the path of resistance. If the building fell due to the damaged corner then it would fall over not straight down, this is why NIST had to claim the building fell due to one failure of a column without any hard evidence. The website you provided me written by unqualified nerds who arent even engineers or physicists doesnt explain how the building collapsed at free fall acceleration which can only happen with the use of explosives nor does it explain why there were several tonnes of molten steel below wtc7 ! nor does it explain why evidence of explosives were found... Meanwhile thousands of highly qualified architects and engineers have wrote peer reviewed scientific articles debunking websites such as 911debunking.com ,popular mechanics,history channel and most importantly NIST . Why cant the debunkers address these papers or contest them? because they cant . Popular mechanics debunked. http://www.ae911truth.org... Nist Debunked. http://www.ae911truth.org... 5. Molten steel, Evidence of explosives, Evidence of Thermite. 6. The jet fuel was burnt in the initial explosion when the plane hit the building nor does the jet fuel explain how it could cause temperatures observed hotter than the surface of the sun.
911 inside job

Like most 9/11 truther retards, Pro has presented no actual evidence of an inside job and instead has simply listed a couple descrepencies from the official story of what happened that day, and jumped to the pathetically stupid conclusion that there must have been an inside job....Let us now tear into pro's 'arguments' " No footage of hijackers, No hard evidence linking hijackers to 911"http://govinfo.library.unt.edu...They trained in Florida, were seen taking over the planes by witnesses on board the planes, actually spoke to ATC saying they took some planes, and their personal effects showed they had plotted the act."No evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon"http://rense.com...http://www.popularmechanics.com...There literally was plane wreckage dotted all over the impact site at the Pentagon which indicates it was struck by a plane"No hard evidence Osama Bin Laden was behind 911"http://abcnews.go.com...He took credit for plotting and carrying out the attack, he was CLEARLY behind it"Some of the 911 hijackers still alive etc"Thats based on the retarded theory that there are other people alive in the Middle East who have the same names as the alleged hijackers..... Newsflash retard, there are a TON of people in the MIddle East who have the same names as those of the hijackers.... Names arent like email addresses where everyone's is different"WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives"http://www.debunking911.com...It was heavily damaged as a result of the towers collapsing and the fire it sustained and the massive weight of the tower itself"The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives"Unless you provide evidence then I have the liberty of calling your entire argument bullsh*t and moving on"High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed"None of those were also struck by a plane, or were even close to as large as the twin towers, or had fires constantly being fed by jet fuel.....=====================================================================================Pro provides absolutely no sources to back up any of his retarded claims that 9/11 was an inside job and fails to even mention who carried out the inside job, only insisting that there is one when evidence and basic reasoning suggests that there isnt.