BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mary Deserves honor and reverence

"Reading your assertion does'nt debunked the proposition as a whole. the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel was scarcely ever seriously questioned only until the end of the eighteenth century. (long quote follows)" Your entire "counterpoint" is moot. First of all, it doesn't matter whether it was questioned in the 19th century, 18th century or 5th century. The fact remains that it is questioned now and the evidence points to "No". Thus, what someone said about the Gospel of John circa 202AD (which is bad data anyway since the piece was dated to 90AD) is irrelevant as the position TODAY is that it is highly unlikely. "Now, to re-aligned the topic, Both Old and New Testament Testify the major role of Mary as the mother of Church, Queen Mother, the new eve and the new ark of covenant. Citing those title are synonymous with honor and respect Mother of Church - As christ entrusting Her to John the apostles who belongs to the First Christian Church. Queen Mother - As Christ came from David Kingdom, we have to put her in a Davidic Tradition that only One Queen, this is the King's Mother.(see Old Testament) New Ark of Covenant - in Old testament we see what inside the Ark of Covenant old Testament New Testament (inside the womb of Mary) a)Ten Commandment Christ as a perfect Law b)Iron Rod symbol of High Priest Christ as a High Priest c)Manna as a food Christ is the living bread-food of life Again, Catholic will assert that Honor and Reverence is not a kind of Worship that is due only to God. Reading Salvation |History tell us that those title are kept and hold with respect not with worship. MARY DESERVE HONOR AND REVERENCE." First of all, this is not an argument. This is a sermon, or a lecture. An argument is when you take a thesis statement and attempt to convince your opponent of its validity by backing it up with evidence and logic. There is neither evidence nor logic in what you just put. There was no argument. I don't wish to be converted, I wish to be convinced. Secondly, you do not provide any sources. I doubt any of these are canonical and even if they are, a protestant would reject them because they are merely the opinions of the clergy based again on the Gospel of John (which I have already argued, is simply a work of art and not a word-for-word history book) You have still not shown me why Mary should be revered beyond a doubt.
Mary Deserves honor and reverence

"the Gospel of John was not written by an eyewitness, and was most likely constructed by a group of highly intelligent people." - Reading your assertion does'nt debunked the proposition as a whole. the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel was scarcely ever seriously questioned only until the end of the eighteenth century. And to address the following baseless "Theory/Hypothesis" We need to put invoke "fact" "we discover the universally admitted fact that, from the eighteenth century back to at least the third, the Apostle John was accepted without question as the author of the Fourth Gospel. In the examination of evidence therefore, we may begin with the third century, and thence proceed back to the time of the Apostles. Of still greater importance is the testimony of St. Irenï¿½us, Bishop of Lyons (d. about 202), linked immediately with the Apostolic Age as he is, through his teacher Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John. The native country of Irenaeus (Asia Minor) and the scene of his subsequent ministry (Gaul) render him a witness of the Faith in both the Eastern and the Western Church. He cites in his writings at least one hundred verses from the Fourth Gospel, often with the remark, "as John, the disciple of the Lord, says". In speaking of the composition of the Four Gospels, he says of the last: "Later John, the disciple of the Lord who rested on His breast, also wrote a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia" (Adv. Haer., III, i, n. 2). As here, so also in the other texts it is clear that by "John, the disciple of the Lord," he means none other than the Apostle John. Papias and the other ancient writers have in mind but one John, namely the Apostle and Evangelist, and not some other Presbyter John, to be distinguished from the Apostle. (See JOHN THE EVANGELIST, SAINT)." na.org Now, to re-aligned the topic, Both Old and New Testament Testify the major role of Mary as the mother of Church, Queen Mother, the new eve and the new ark of covenant. Citing those title are synonymous with honor and respect. Mother of Church - As christ entrusting Her to John the apostles who belongs to the First Christian Church. Queen Mother - As Christ came from David Kingdom, we have to put her in a Davidic Tradition that only One Queen, this is the King's Mother.(see Old Testament) New Ark of Covenant - in Old testament we see what inside the Ark of Covenant old Testament New Testament (inside the womb of Mary) a)Ten Commandment Christ as a perfect Law b)Iron Rod symbol of High Priest Christ as a High Priest c)Manna as a food Christ is the living bread-food of life Again, Catholic will assert that Honor and Reverence is not a kind of Worship that is due only to God. Reading Salvation |History tell us that those title are kept and hold with respect not with worship. MARY DESERVE HONOR AND REVERENCE.
Mary Deserves honor and reverence

"Mary's role is so central to the story that it is foreshadowed in the past and continually active and celebrated in the present and future. ("WOMAN, behold your son!"—John 19:26-27). Here we can see how much weight given by John(the beloved apostle) to Mary as the mother of Church. He recorded clearly the words of our God(Christ) to magnify that Mary is indeed has a pivotal role in our church. You might ask that how can you tell the Mary is the "WOMAN" mentioned by Christ during his cruxifiction?and how catholic relates Mary with only single word(WOMAN)into the entire book of Salvation?" First of all, scholarly consensus of Catholic Theologians is that the Gospel of John was not written by an eyewitness, and was most likely constructed by a group of highly intelligent people. As it was found in the original Greek, there are several differences in writing style and the Gospel of John is much less a narrative in the sense of true storytelling as it is a piece of art as well as philosophical teaching. Literary motifs and prose that reflect Greek literature show that the authors went to great lengths to make this a piece of literature, not a retelling of facts. The piece was also written around 90 or 100 AD, about 50 to 60 years after Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross. At this point in time, Christian communities began to include both men and women, which is why the importance of women is stressed here. This is also an explanation as to why the authors give special attention to Mary. Mary's significance is not found in any of the other three canonical gospels, so it is reasonable to assume that the writers of the Gospel of John merely wrote this in order to appeal to their congregation. Remember that in this time period, there was no organized church. "First: Old Testament: Gen.3:13-15 " I will put enmity between you(devil) and the WOMAN" correlated by john 19:26-27. Here John echoes the an important prophesy of the Old Testament.(First Prophesy Ever made). the woman prophetically foretold who would bear a child who would defeat the dreaded Dragon. Book of Revelation: Rev. 12:1 the WOMAN with a crown of twelve stars. Old and new testament correlate each how the Role of Mary was. The affirmation of Mary that gives her important role in salvation History of mankind not because Christ is her son." I don't doubt the correlation, since the authors of the Gospel of John borrowed extensively from Hebrew scripture in order to play many metaphors and symbols, which were big literary devices in Greek literature of that era. However, the book of revelations was dated to the same time and allegedly the same authors as the Gospel of John. Thus, it is obvious that the connection would be found in those two books, since they were written by the same people for the same congregation at the same time. This means that only a small group of people, the writers of John, believed that Mary was some sort of figure to be "revered" as the mother of all Christians. In that case, there's really no need to revere Mary.
Mary Deserves honor and reverence

Thanks for your acceptance. I hope your a protestant. Let me first clarify the word reverence with worship. I agree with you, worship is for God and Honor/reverence to Human. Catholic stands firmly with the following Points|: a: It is forbidden to give divine honour / worship to the angels and saints(Like Virgin Mary) for this belongs to God alone. b: We pay to the angels and saints an inferior honour, for this is due to them as the servants and special friends of God. Those points that i've mentioned is another topic(another point to debate). but first let us determine why Mary Deserves honor and reverence. Mary's role is so central to the story that it is foreshadowed in the past and continually active and celebrated in the present and future. ("WOMAN, behold your son!"—John 19:26-27). Here we can see how much weight given by John(the beloved apostle) to Mary as the mother of Church. He recorded clearly the words of our God(Christ) to magnify that Mary is indeed has a pivotal role in our church. You might ask that how can you tell the Mary is the "WOMAN" mentioned by Christ during his cruxifiction?and how catholic relates Mary with only single word(WOMAN)into the entire book of Salvation? First: Old Testament: Gen.3:13-15 " I will put enmity between you(devil) and the WOMAN" correlated by john 19:26-27. Here John echoes the an important prophesy of the Old Testament.(First Prophesy Ever made). the woman prophetically foretold who would bear a child who would defeat the dreaded Dragon. Book of Revelation: Rev. 12:1 the WOMAN with a crown of twelve stars. Old and new testament correlate each how the Role of Mary was. The affirmation of Mary that gives her important role in salvation History of mankind not because Christ is her son.
Mary Deserves honor and reverence

I believe that Mary deserves some amount of respect, but not reverence in the sense that most Catholics would see it. The reverence you are suggesting is more to the tune of worship, which I believe to be sacrilegious. The commandment is to worship God and only God, and Mary is not a part of the trinity in any scriptures. Her only mention is as the birth mother of Jesus, and in the infancy narratives of Luke and Matthew. In the book of Mark, which predates all the others, Mary is hardly mentioned at all, and has almost no significance. I have reason to believe that the infancy narratives were written much like Star Wars Episodes 1-3 were written to explain the rise and fall of Vader.
there should be cameras and bully watchers in brick and morder school

Conservativegirl doesn't think there would be a massive cost. I thought that it would be totally obvious, but I can explain it. She thinks that teachers will be wrong 90% of the time. I don't believe this, but we can work with it. So if teachers are wrong 90% of the time, then they are right 10% of the time. To get that up to 50% of the time we're gonna need 4 bully watchers to every teacher. In 2000, we had 6.2 million teachers. http://wiki.answers.com... So that would mean that we need 24.8 million bully watchers. If we pay them each $25,000 a year, which would not have any benefits, that would cost $620 billion a year, every year. And still have only 50% accuracy. Of course, if we don't believe that 90% then it would be cheaper but it would also mean that it isn't really a problem that needs to be addressed.
there should be cameras and bully watchers in brick and morder school

Thank you for choosing my debate, and yes, I accidentally didn't put an "s" in my name. It's should be Godsconsevativegirl. I do ask for you to explain what the massive cost of having a bully watcher is, because I don't see how a bully watcher would be a massive cost. Well, the bully watcher would not be the problem, because they won't be busy doing grade work, their job will be to watch the students, as the example I used above(which did really happened), if a bully student said the B word, and then tells the teacher a lie, that the other student said the B word, and then the victim will say, I didn't say that. The teacher(from my experience) 90% of the time will go on the bully's side, But the bully watcher sees and hears that the bully student is lying, so the bully watcher can tell the teacher that the bully student is lying. Also, rules for the bully watchers will be to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth. so then, the teacher, or the bully watcher( if the teacher's to busy) can punish them. Sorry for taking a long time to respond, I was very busy with other things. I look forward to your response :)
there should be cameras and bully watchers in brick and morder school

So, while I totally have sympathy for people being bullied in school and saw my fair share back in high school, I can't see any good reason to have 'bully watchers' at school. I mean, for one, you have this massive cost of doing that. And for two, if teachers are so easily tricked by the real bullies, won't the bully patrol be more likely tricked and maybe even be part of the bullying problem? Well, there are two issues with this. Conservativegirl can go ahead and present her case.
there should be cameras and bully watchers in brick and morder school

I'm 16 years old. I think that there should be cameras in schools because I have been a victim of bullying, and I've seen others that been bully and the bully said that the victim said the B word when victim didn't and the teacher believed the bully instead of the victim and the victim got in trouble. although I'm in virtual school now, I hate the fact that is still happening to others. my solution is that there should be cameras and bully watchers. bully watchers are people who are always by the students, so if the bully tells the teacher: this person said the B word and that bully is lying, the bully watcher can tell the truth to the teacher, and then the bully will get in trouble. there should be a Female bully watcher, and a Male bully watcher, so then when they go to the rest room, bullying still can be watched and other bully situations. when a bully does something to you, you can't just tell your teacher and expect him or her to fix it, because they don't. most of the time they don't do anything about it. also, you have to make sure your not a taddle tale, which can easily happen. and what if that bully is bullying you everyday, and you" can't be a taddle tale"? so, the camera and the bully watcher can be there, so you won't be bulled no more! I don't want to put camera in the bathroom, so the bully watchers are there. and yes, if a student needs to go to the restroom, the bully watcher needs to go with her or him, because you never know what will happen in the hallways...
there should be cameras and bully watchers in brick and morder school

Conservativegirl, I'm really sorry, but you seem to think that teachers will always get the bully situation wrong, at least 90% of the time, but bully watchers somehow won't. Why won't they? If 6 million teachers are right only 10% of the time, then 6 million bully watchers would only be right another 10% of the time, for a total of 20%. Then another 6 million will get us to 30%, and another 6 million for 40% and a final 6 million for 50%. That makes a whooping 24 million bully watchers. I mean, if conservativegirl thinks that a single bully watcher is going to be effective then she should be able to show how that one bully watcher is always going to magically be at every bully scene to see everything and not miss a thing.
there should be cameras and bully watchers in brick and morder school

First of all, you don't need 4 bully watchers to see and hear what the bully is saying and doing, you need only one person to see it or hear it per room. Again, with my example that I gave above of a bully situation,you don't need 4 bully watchers to see and hear that the bully was lying to the teacher. One bully watcher can tell the teacher what the bully was doing. My idea is one bully watcher per room. Plus, I want to add, that there used to be bully watchers, but they were called room monitors and hall monitors. If it wasn't a massive cost back then, why would it be a massive cost now? They can either employ watchers or set up a volunteer program to help correct class behavior. There are always going to be volunteers in a community. There are simple answers for complex problems like bullying. If schools would just institute some common sense solutions, it will be a 100% chance that the bully will be punished. We also don't have to worry about paying them 25,000 dollars a year. I look forward for your reply. :)
The Quote Debate

This quote debate, is not my idea. It orginally was rangersfootballclub's. I recently had a "quote debate" with him and find it very enjoyable (: You vote on the person with the best quotes. You may say one each round. It is optional to say who said it, and quotes that you have made up can be used. The quotes you use, should give off your self-expression,personality, and individuality. Shall we get this started? "Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." - Hilary Cooper
George W. Bush violated Human rights, and claimed it stopped Foreign Terror attacks, which it didn't

Pro has made an extraordinary claim and must therefore present extraordinary evidence. So far Pro has presented no evidence whatsoever. Evidence is confirmed testimony of credible of witnesses who observed events, authenticated documents, or other forensic evidence. Opinions of bloggers and screaming moonbats, anonymous accusations, and unsupported theories are not evidence. Many theories fit limited facts. Theories involving undiscovered space aliens and wrathful deities will fit any observation of events perfectly. Therefore, any conspiracy theory must be supported by evidence of the specific conspiracy, such as confirmed testimony of those privy to the conspiracy or authenticated documents showing its existence. Pro must prove both of his two contentions. He must prove that Bush violated human rights. Do do that, he must establish a causal connection between a Bush order and an identified human rights violation. Pro has not defined human rights and does get to define it arbitrarily. Doing so would allow Pro to define a human rights violation as "deprivation of milk and/or cookies before bedtime." Moreover, human rights are frequently in conflict. There is, for example, a human right not to be killed by terrorists that must be weighed reasonably against any rights claimed for terrorists. So the sense of the resolution demands that whatever human rights violations are alleged, they must represent an unreasonable weighing of human rights by Bush reflected in an order by him. Foreign opinion of what constitutes "human rights" is not relevant, because the President swears to protect and defend the United States, not to submit to foreign opinion polls. Secondly, Pro must prove that Bush claimed that "it", i.e. human rights violations, stopped foreign terror attacks. A verified quotation from Bush stating "My violation of human rights stopped foreign terror attacks." would establish the point. A lesser starting point would be for Pro to establish that Bush claimed, for any reason, to have stopped foreign terror attacks. Bush acknowledged regularly that foreign terrorist attacks were occurring in Iraq. That was central to his premise that Iraq was part of a war against terrorism. If foreign terror attacks ceased, he would have eagerly claimed victory in the war against terrorism. That did not happen. Bush never claimed that foreign terror attacks had been stopped. What was stopped, of course, was foreign terror attacks on the scale of 9/11, or anything close to the scale of 9/11, within the United States. That is an important claim by Bush, and an accurate one. Whether or not the terrorist attacks actually stopped does not bear upon whether Bush claimed they had stopped. The resolution states that he claimed that they stopped, which is what Pro must prove. So far, Pro has presented no evidence. He bears the burden of proof and has done nothing.
The right to bear firearms is no longer beneficial to the safety of the US citizen. (2nd amendment)

Proposing the following: In the wake of the last few mass shootings in the United States, I have heard the arguements of both sides of the isle when it comes to the issue of gun control. My issue has arisen from hearing the following: The 2nd amendment to the Constitution is in severe danger. And the moment that the right of the people to own firearms is trampled or limited in any way, it would not only be an unconstitutional action but it would expose this nation to the dangers of becoming a dictatorship. That the people's right to own firearms and the ability to maintain a well regulated militia is this nations best defence against such an outcome. I maintain that this is wrong. The 2nd amendment was written in the 18th century. In the age of the musket and the cannon. While it was beneficial to the American citizen of the time to own a firearm at the times, given the nature of life at that century and indeed until the very final years of the first world war, in today's world, owning a firearm is more harmful in that it causes any individual to commit a crime much greater in a moment of anger than he could without one. That it provides no gaurantees that a people could stand up against tyranny if every man owned an assault rifle. As a veteran I know this, no weapon purchasable by a civilian can stand the might of the US military. That no matter how many bullets you shoot at a jet fighter, or a tank, or a striker, it will destroy you unscathed. And furthermore: many nations in this world can successfully claim democracy is achieved without the right to own firearms. Japan, Belgium, south Korea, turkey, Germany, and so many more nations mentionable have never needed such measures in this modern age to ensure freedom. And many revolutions have successfully dictatorship without a single shot fired by the citizen. Challenge me.
The right to bear firearms is no longer beneficial to the safety of the US citizen. (2nd amendment)

I would like to use this moment to say thank you for your "kind" name calling. 1- your point is invalid. I did not question the process by which it might be appealed or the amount of support it has. The very point of this forum is to build support and influence ideas. Therefore if there is a legal way, which there is, as you pointed out, like minded people should try to achieve this goal. 2- The law has already forbidden school shootings. The purpose of my argument is to point out that IF the thing so horrible in the minds of people like you happened, in this case, the ban of all firearms sale in the US and harsh punishments for the possession of one, given enough time the guns remaining in the hands of criminals will also be confiscated. As the nature of crime is, it is self destructive and a criminal and his gun will eventually be caught. 3- there is a difference of 0.2 in the two statistics. That's incremental. And may I add, there is no data gathered whatsoever that shows the gun murder rate per every 100,000 as there is no state in the US that has currently disallowed the possession of firearms. To any readers viewing this debate, I'd like to turn your attention to this very interesting article, listing the amount of gun deaths per country. Notice a trend among the lowest? All nations with very restrictive firearm laws. Notice anything else? 7 of the 9 lowest death rates by firearm in the world are nations that are considered to be extremely democratic.