BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"In God We Trust" on the currency is unconstitutional and should be removed.

Fair enough. But I do not agree with this Lemon Test. I don't think that is what is inherent in the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion..." does not say it cannot put God on money. It states that no law shall be made that would force people to convert to a certain religion, practice anything because of religion, or create a national religion that is affiliated with the United States. The United States could never be called a "Christian Country" officially. Putting "In God We Trust" on currency does not violate that. People are not forced to believe in God because of it. It is not stating that everyone in America believes in God or that we are a so-called Christian Nation. So I am disregarding the lemon law for my argument, thus a law having "a legitimate secular purpose" does not apply to this. I disregard it because it is not IN the Constitution. If I were constrained by the Lemon Law, it would be like a anti-abortionist arguing that abortion is unconstitutional even though Roe v. Wade was in abortion's favor. Just because the Supreme Court deems abortion legal and the Lemon Law to be applicable does not mean I cannot argue against them. So I'm going based on the Constitution only. Separation of church and state means more than a centimeter. -- Good Line. Though, separation of church and state is never expressly stated in the Constitution. But that is besides the point a little. As to the point that it tells people their beliefs are wrong, I do not believe it does that. Clearly the original intent was very Christian and tried to show the solidity of the nation under the Christian God. Obviously "heathen" is a bit of a strong word and unnecessary as well when referring to atheists and such. But when you read that coin and it says "In God We Trust", it is not violating the Constitution. You don't have to be part of that "we". It is not telling you that you must be a Christian or practice any Christian beliefs. You are certainly not forced to even recognize that the Christian God is real. You are perfectly capable of maintaining your religious (or nonreligious) beliefs. Strictly speaking, it has not violated the Constitution, no matter how much it may offend you. "In God We Trust" might offend you, but it does not violate the Constitution. You are not forced to worship God, do Christian things, or even believe in God. So this act is not prohibiting the free exercise of your religion or lack thereof. Nor is it saying that Christianity is our National religion or that everyone is Christian. Perhaps the intent was to say that then when it was introduced, but times change and certainly no one believes we are all Christians or that our government is a Christian government. "In God We Trust" is not unconstitutional. Good debate Tatarize and I'm sorry I forfeited a round there, got a bit crazy around the holidays you know. Good luck on all of your future debates.
"In God We Trust" on the currency is unconstitutional and should be removed.

Hello Tatarize, I would say that "In God We Trust" is not unconstitutional and there is absolutely no reason why it should be removed. Granted, there are people in this nation who do not believe in God. But why does that mean that "In God We Trust" can't be printed on our currency? Should we remove "Liberty" from all coins just because some people may not believe in Liberty? Obviously there is a much smaller minority not believing in liberty, but it's still a valid comparison. Also, the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion." Having "In God We Trust" on currency certainly does not establish a national religion. We are not a religious state because of that. It is not as though the United States government orders all people to be Christians, in fact, the God in that phrase does not even necessarily have to be a Christian God at all. Though its origins show that the idea came from a minister (I believe), it does not mean every person has to interpret it in the same way. I'll start off with that for now and I await your counterpoints.
Jesus is equal to God

Sadly, my opponent has forfeited. Now, I was planning most of my neg to counter what the AFF stated, mostly through definitions. It is nearly impossible to prove that the teacher over 2,000 years ago, whether you believe he is the son of God or not, is the same measure or appearance as God. Now since many religions have many different views of this let's analyze a few. Firstly, many religions believe Jesus is the son of God. Clearly, as in "The Father is greater than I. " - John 14:28, it can be seen that Jesus was put here on the Earth, as in John 3:16, to profess the word of God. Clearly if he is the Son of God, he cannot be equal to God. Many Catholics believe that the Trinity, or the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all together equal. Now, by my definition of equal, even though many Catholics believe Jesus is the human form of God, since he is human and is "showing variation in appearance," he therefore is not equal to God. This definition must be upheld due to lack of a counter-definition by my opponent. Many atheists and other religions believe Jesus wasn't even the Son of God, but he was just a teacher. Therefore, he was not equal to God. Any way you look at it, Jesus is not equal to God. I do not want to challenge anyone's views or beliefs, but according to my definition, even if you believe in the Holy Trinity, the difference of appearance and form of Jesus comparatively to God denotes that he is unequal to God.
Jesus is equal to God

Before I begin, I would like to provide definitions to clarify the debate. Equal: of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another; not showing variation in appearance, structure, or proportion [1] Jesus: ca 6 b. c. –ca a. d. 30 Jesus of Nazareth; the Son of Mary source of the Christian religion & Savior in the Christian faith [2] God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe (My opponent has not specified in what religious interpretation we should analyze "God" in or what faith's belief of God is under contention. This further complicates the debate and makes me use a generic definition for my arguments. Therefore, since my opponent is the instigator, he has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that God, which he has specified no religion background to become specified, a being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness, shows no variation in appearance to a teacher who lived from 6b. c. to 30 a. d. This burden must be valued during the round and is vital as this is quite a difficult burden to prove. Since my opponent brought no counter-definitions to the debate, we must look to mine. I await my opponent's first arguments as I assume this round was for clarifications/definitions/acceptance. I hope this is a great debate and I wish my opponent luck and thank the judges for reading. [1]. http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]. http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3]. http://www.merriam-webster.com... (I used merriam-webster in order to use an unbiased definition rather than a biased one from a religious institution. )
Human Beings have a Moral Responsibility to preserve Biodiversity on Earth

I already tried this once, but please... if you are not going to take this seriously then don't accept the debate. I actually think this topic is fairly interesting. "Biodiversity is the variation of life forms within a given ecosystem, biome, or for the entire Earth. Biodiversity is often used as a measure of the health of biological systems. The biodiversity found on Earth today consists of many millions of distinct biological species, which is the product of nearly 3.5 billion years of evolution." http://en.wikipedia.org...... Many argue that this state of variety ought to be important to us as a species, either in itself, or in relation to our survival, and as such should take precedence over other concerns. I contend that this is not the case, that the state of biological diversity on this planet need not concern us when considering the consequences of our actions and policies. I look forward to a rousing debate :)
Human Beings have a Moral Responsibility to preserve Biodiversity on Earth

The proponent of this debate [1] has staked her position on a denial of the proposition, which is to say that her proposed argument amounts to the following: "Humans do not have a moral responsibility to preserve biodiversity on earth." As the Pro side of her proposed debate, it is my task to uphold the proposition against her critical attempts to defeat it, or at least undercut it. In other words, as the Con side of the debate she has proposed, she has shouldered the burden of proving that humans do not have a moral responsibility to preserve biodiversity on earth. Although I shall not challenge the definition of 'biodiversity' that she has provided (for I find it acceptable), I certainly do challenge her use of the term 'moral' because it is contestable, whereby her entire argument is built upon a certain ethical stance. In order for her to argue that we do not have the aforementioned moral responsibility, it will require a great deal more than the force of her brute assertion. In other words, she has stated her case, but by no means has she made her case. Yet that is what she is required to do and without begging the question, [2] while I am required to prove that she has failed to. == References == 1. She is "the proponent of this debate" in the sense that she is the one who has instigated it or has proposed it. 'Proponent' is not to be confused with the Pro stance; she has taken the Con stance, which means she is challenging the proposition, while I am taking the Pro stance, which means I am defending the proposition. 2. I am using the term "begging the question" in the logical sense, which refers to the logical fallacy (Laitn 'petitio principii') of simply assuming the truth of the very thing in question (q.v. Walton, Douglas N. "The Essential Ingredients of the Fallacy of Begging the Question," in Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Hanson, Hans V. and Robert C. Pinto, eds. Penn State Press, 1995. Print. pp. 229-239.; "Begging the question." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Web.; Curtis, Gary N. "Begging the question." FallacyFiles.org. Web.)
This house will legalize the sale of organs.

1. My opponent argued the wrong side; my opponent is Con and should be arguing against the legalization of the sale of organs, but is arguing for the legalization of the sale of organs. 2. My opponent plagiarized a majority of his argument word for word from: http://www.theatlantic.com... . This deserves at least a conduct point penalty. I don't have any additional arguments to add in addition to the arguments my opponent gave for my side.
Gay Marriage

Pro levies several counterarguments against my initial presentation. However, I pre-emptively responded to many of these in my initial argument. Additionally, Pro has not responded to my main argument. I thus extend that argument.The Antimiscegenation (Interracial) AnalogyOpposition to same-sex marriage is sometimes compared to opposition to interracial marriage. However, the analogy falsely assumes that there is no essential difference between race and gender. While race is irrelevant to procreation, gender most certainly isn’t. Race is irrelevant to whether or not procreation is possible, hence the state is unjustified in passing antimiscegenation legislation. However, since gender is relevant to whether or not procreation is possible, the state is justified in limiting marriages to only between members of the opposite sex. Therefore, the state has a principled reason to exclude couples from entering into marital relationships on the basis of their gender.Economic Benefits?Pro argues that same-sex couples should be married for their economic benefits. But this overlooks why the state is in the busines of granting economic benefits to couples to begin with. The very reason the state grants married couples economic benefits is because it wants to create an atmosphere that is conducive to the production and raising of its future citizens. As Adam Kolansinski writes:"When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children." [1]Same-Sex Parenting?Pro's argument here is more or less irrelevant as a counter-argument. My argument against same-sex marriage is based on procreation, not parenting. Moreover, such studies are notorious for their lack of random sampling, small sample size, and lack of control for confounding variables.__________Sources 1. http://tech.mit.edu...;
Gay Marriage

It may all be fall on what is looked upon the society we live in today. But we as human being have not right to judge upon sexual orientation. Like years before with Racial matters we are going with the Sexual orientations. It shouldn't matter if negro, if we are white if we are Mexican or what ever we are. Love is love and hate is hate. Even if our society is dependant on child bearing. Even if they are gay or what ever they can always have children. Being heterosexual is somebody who is sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex and being gay is just being attracted to someone who is of the same sex. It may be economic for the married couples so they can bring more people into this world. But with the way our economy is who is saying we should bring more people into this world. We could always adopt kids who really need good homes. The study by Stanford sociologist Michael Rosenfeld says that children who are raised by the same sex parents are children have nearly the same educational achievement as children raised by married. So there is no difference between having parents who are straight between parents of the same sex. Go!
The San Francisco 49ers will win the Super Bowl in the 2013-2014 NFL season

Now, the debate's topic is The San Francisco 49ers will win the Super Bowl in the 2013-2014 NFL (National Football League) season. I am going against this, saying they will not. Let us begin. 1. Read-Option Some of the 49ers success last season (2012-2013) was based off of the 49ers' Read-Option scheme. It baffled defenses and drove defensive coordinators crazy. However, their success with the scheme will not continue into next season. I believe (as well as others) that during the offseason teams in the NFL, and especially the NFC West, will study and analyze the Read-Option immensely. An example of this is Green Bay Packers head coach Mike McCarthy's steps that have already been down this off-season in order to extinguish the scheme's success. Coach Mike McCarthy sent some of his staff to learn from those at the Texas A&M football coaching staff about the read-option (1). On top of Green Bay's efforts it seems to be the number 1 priority for every defense in the National Football League this offseason. Ron Jaworski says, "I"ve probably spoke to 20 scouts today [at the West Virginia Pro Day workout] and what everyone is doing right now is preparing to stop this read option this whole offseason," (2). With the Read-Option no longer as affective as it was in the 2012-2013 NFL season, the 49ers will have a substantial piece of their offense taken out. With this done, the huge speed factor that the 49ers offense relies heavily upon will be greatly decreased. 2. Defensive Weaknesses On week 15 of the 2012-2013 NFL season, 49ers defensive end Justin Smith suffered a partially torn triceps tendon that had him inactive until the divisional playoff round against the Green Bay Packers. During his absence, Aldon Smith, the supposed sack master who was leading the league in sacks didn't make one sack for the rest of the season. This eliminates everyone's idea of every player on the 49ers defensive line being elite-tier players. With Justin Smith gone there was a noticeable lack of pressure generated by the 49ers defensive line which allowed the opposing teams' quarterbacks to take advantage of a mediocre 49ers secondary. It was also reported recently that Aldon Smith went through surgery for a torn labrum something that if re-injured along with the possibility of Justin Smith getting re-injured could put the 49ers in trouble (3). 1 - . http://m.nfl.com... 2 - . http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com... 3 - . http://blog.sfgate.com... Well, it's late now and I need to get to bed so I will be ending this round of mine round of the debate.
the catholic church has never contradicted itself

"NOTE - If the RCC contradicts the Bible then that is enough for contradiction of the RCC because they base their doctrine from the Word of God." you could make the argument. but the problem is it's clear from my opening statement I am loking for papal and counciliar statements. and getting into what the bible means is too open to interptretation to mean much. but i will continue to humor your points. simon's name was simon... until Jesus changed it to Peter. peter means rock, this is well established. there may be some interplays for which Rock Jesus was referring to when he said "on this rock", but in any case this is semantics and squabbling over very little in substance. as far as contradictions are concerend. not to mention so many protestants who say the rock was peter's confession of faith, not peter himself or Jesus per se. as for the ten commandments point, the catholic church just groups them differently... don't think they "took one out", the bible has a list and catholics and protestestants group them differently. as for mary being queen of heaven... that's not contradictory to anytyhing. it may have took root out of pagan deity ideas but that dont mean she's not queen of heaven. it's also not unbliblical to think she is. and it's not even an official teaching of the church... just a pius notion by many catholics. you can say that the bioble says mary was a sinner, but that doesnt mean its true. by your logic given "all hae sinned", jesus must have sinned too. you are being too literal here. you can insist the bible says he had brothers but that doesn't mean that it has to maen it the way we understand it. you can't get around that the bible uses the same word for both brother and copuisin./ at least give them the benefit of the doubt and use a better arguemnt. that goes for all your points, they are all very weak. the catholic church didn't say that the things the apostles wrote was wrong, they are just pointing out that generaly the only biblical command Jesus gave, was to teach. the bible itself says to follow the bible aAND tradition. plus the encyclopeida isn't an authoritative papal document per measuring infalliblity, as far as Jesus actually requesting John to write.
the catholic church has never contradicted itself

for the first argument. yes Jesus is the main rock, no one would disagree. but even Jesus named Simon... Cephas, Peter, Rock. current popes agree with Peter in all this stuff. this is mostly semantics, poorly applied anticatholic arguments probably from a anticatholic website or something. bad judgment to use such a weak argument. most of your other arguments are arguments that the catholic church is wrong... not that it ie popes specifically contradicted itself. but i will address them anyways. mary could be immaculately conceived and still require a savior, like someone stopping you from falling into mud, instead of pulling you out of mud, still a savior. "all have sinned" is too generic to be taken so literally. even Jesus didn't sin so we know it's not applicable there. your point is too obscure per the Jesus, mother, siblings stuff. "brothers" in the bible often means simpy7 cousins, so it doesnt mean he had brothers etc... and no one has ever allaged Mary wasnt Jesus's mom, and if you are, you are far away unorthodox here. Jesus did not say Tradition was wrong... he said making tradition over doctrines of God is wrong. You haen't show how they've done that. also, the bible says to hold fast to what is taught, both in the bible and from tradition. in the end much of the bible needs an interpreter, and if it is truely God church, that settles the interpretation debate. as to the evolution stuff (actual contradictions are being alleged, which i give props for, instead of jsut disagreements over interpretations etc).. This seems more so linguistic confusion then anything else. Pius XII rejected evolutionary theory which attempts to usurp God's role as Creator. He did not reject an evolutionary theory which recognizes the hand of a Creator. From Humani Generis, paragraph 36: Quote For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
the 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.