BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity and Science can coexist.

It is a common misconception that because a person is religious, namely Christian, they must also deny evolution, old-earth theory, and many other scientific principles. I don't pretend to know everything about religion or science. Far from it. All I am saying is that there is nothing in the Bible, (for the purposes of this debate we will assume the Judeo-Christian God exists), that denies Evolution, neither is there anything in the Bible that specifically states that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Many parts of the Bible are written in parable and metaphor. Those parts require examination from a literary perspective. The Bible is holy, but it is also a book. Don't mistake my position for atheism. I am a Christian, I also believe in the principles of logic and science. I think they are God's tools for shaping his universe. I won't specify any burden of proof. It's my belief that in any debate, both sides must act as though they are burdened in order to sufficiently prove their point. P.S. (I'm a noob. Go easy on me, please? :))
Plastic surgery is not worth it

I do believe plastic surgery is worth it. Saying that, there a a large amount of variables that present itself when asking this question, making the answer different, relative to the person you are asking, and as well as the person getting the plastic surgery. If you where to buy a bike for a couple grand, and you don't even ride bikes, it was would not be worth it. For me, said bike would be, since I would use it frequently and would've benefit from the higher quality of the bike. Same way of thinking can be applied to the question you are asking. From person to person, a certain thing they buy is worth it or not worth it. For plastic surgery, maybe you think it is a waste of money, others might not. For people who want to improve their looks, or sexual organs and are willing to spend money on doing such things, it might be worth it. I will refute your other claims later on, for I don't want to spend all my Ammo in one argument.
Your Choice

Thank you for a speedy response. Just to clarify, I am for a mild U.S smoking ban, which allows people to only smoke inside. If this is switching the goalposts too late in the debate, then call me a full U.S smoking ban.The BoP is on both of us. I would not of had you do any arguments, only rebuttals, had the BoP been solely on me. Placing the BoP on me in the second round, after my arguments, is not a good move. It would've changed my arguments to a different format and to different points.--Rebuttal 1a--Due to only one argument being presented, there will only be one rebuttal in this round for me. However, I will try to make it lengthy to successfully satisfy the reader.In this argument, my opponent states that a smoking ban would never work due the the Alcohol Ban of the early 1900's. However, the alcohol ban was actually more of a success than you think. A full prohibition has never FULLY worked, and never will FULLY work. However, the alcohol prohibition you are comparing this to means the smoking ban might actually be a success. Allow us to look at the facts. Alcohol hospital (mental) dropped from 10.1 to just 4.7. The best estimates are that the alcohol consumption dropped 50%, which means very few, if any, drinked during the time (1). So yes, many of them DID give up alcohol. Organized crime rose not because of alcohol, but because America was in the midst/past a big WWI and the Great Depression. Of course crime is going to raise when you put those two events together. Violent crime stayed roughly the same through the ban.You state the government at the time could not have stopped bootlegging. Well, yeah, they were the past government. They didn't even have TVs yet, they were dealing with a war and a Great Depression on their hands, along with other crime. Second, times have changed. The government is smarter in those situations from the past mistakes that they made. They would be able to be significantly better, if not perfect, in upholding a ban on smoking.Next, you state that it won't work. However, I have stated that the alcohol ban worked, and therefore (now in more modern times) the government would be able to uphold the smoking ban. Even if the smoking ban does not work and a black market is open, is this really equivalent to all of the people saved? All of the birds saved? All of the mammals saved? A black market during the smoking ban would be a small consequence of saving millions. As for the "second argument," yes, they both cause deaths, but a very less number than smoking, rendering it not a fair argument to smoking, with 88,000 deaths by drinking (2). However, drinking is not very dangerous (that much, except for an overdose) on its own, but drinking and driving attributes to most of the deaths.This will end my arguments and rebuttals. I will sum up in the fourth round.(1) http://www.nytimes.com...(2) http://www.cdc.gov...
Your Choice

I am wondering whether or not Pro supports total prohibition on smoking or whatever, but, I will point out that such a ban is simply not feasible. Also, Pro is taking the affirmative stance, so he has the BoP. Thank you. ----------------------Argument 1Such a thing was tried before. That is, Alcohol Prohibition. Of course, people like their smokes and beer. They didn't give up alcohol. Instead what happened is that organized crime rose, to meet demand. Now, the government at the time could not stamp out the gangs that was bootlegging. What could it have done then? But why am I telling you this? So what? I'll tell you simply, it won't work! Much like the 1920's, there will be a Black Market for smokes. Why would this be different? --------------------------Now, I DO have one more argument, but it is more of a rebuttal, a counterexample of sorts. So, I hope Pro allows me to rebut that he would allow other dangerous items to be bought openly like beer or, say fatty food. These cause deaths. But I digress. I will rebut to the full of my abilities next round.
Your Choice

I challenge NightOfTheLivingCats to this debate, as we (unfortunately) did not get to debate it last time. He/She may choose any of the BIG ISSUES that we disagree on. I am PRO, so she/he must choose a BIG issue I am pro on.Some ground rules:Structure:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ARGUMENTS ONLYRound 3: REBUTTALS ONLYRound 4: POLISHING UP ONLY (no new arguments and/or rebuttals allowed.)Rules:Plagiarism not allowedForfeiture not allowedSwearing not allowedSpamming not allowedTrolling not allowedBreaking structure of debate is not allowed.Personal attacks are not allowed.Violating ANY one of these rules results in a full loss of ALL seven points.By accepting, these points will go unargued, and you agree to everything above. Good luck to the opposition, I look forward to a good debate.
Your Choice

In conclusion, I would like to show that every single one of my round two (arguments) points were dropped. Only my rebuttals (round 3) were argued. This means my opponent concedes that if a smoking ban occurs:-Cancer rates will drop significantly-Deaths will drop significantly-Dangerous house fires will drop significantly-Risks of second hand smoke will drop significantly-Infants will be safer, as well as children and elderly-Workplaces will be safer, roads will be safer, and people would be safer overall-Animal testing will be (slightly) reduced-Decrease wildlife deaths-Decrease money spent on litter-Decrease contamination throughout U. S-Decrease pet consumption-SIGNIFICANTLY decrease litter-Water and plants would be saferSo in conclusion, my opponent concedes to all of my arguments. Therefore, I have met my BoP. Thank you for reading, and thanks to my opponent for the debate.
Your Choice

Thank you for a speedy response. Just to clarify, I am for a mild U.S smoking ban, which allows people to only smoke inside.Thought so, thanks for clearing it up.In this argument, my opponent states that a smoking ban would never work due the the Alcohol Ban of the early 1900's. However, the alcohol ban was actually more of a success than you think. What ever benefits that gave from the Ban did not outweigh the costs. Alcohol hospital (mental) dropped from 10.1 to just 4.7. The best estimates are that the alcohol consumption dropped 50%, which means very few, if any, drinked during the time (1). So yes, many of them DID give up alcohol. Organized crime rose not because of alcohol, but because America was in the midst/past a big WWI and the Great Depression.There was also that market of alcohol. We will not argue Prohibition here, only how it relates to the debate. The Ban DID drop it, but, again, at a cost. Of course crime is going to raise when you put those two events together. Violent crime stayed roughly the same through the ban.Relevance?You state the government at the time could not have stopped bootlegging. Well, yeah, they were the past government. They didn't even have TVs yet, they were dealing with a war and a Great Depression on their hands, along with other crime. Second, times have changed.The government is smarter in those situations from the past mistakes that they made. They would be able to be significantly better, if not perfect, in upholding a ban on smoking. Oh. Well, this is a assertion. Here is a link[1] that states that bootlegging cigarettes is (kinda) commonNext, you state that it won't work. However, I have stated that the alcohol ban worked, and therefore (now in more modern times) the government would be able to uphold the smoking ban.See above. Even if the smoking ban does not work and a black market is open, is this really equivalent to all of the people saved? All of the birds saved? All of the mammals saved? A black market during the smoking ban would be a small consequence of saving millions. Appeal to Emotion. But, a partial ban on smokes would not alleviate these issues. And you know those plastic rings that hold cans of pop and beer together in the Supermarket?[4]Marine wildlife are effected by them.[5]As for the "second argument," yes, they both cause deaths, but a very less number than smoking, rendering it not a fair argument to smoking, with 88,000 deaths by drinking (2). However, drinking is not very dangerous (that much, except for an overdose) on its own, but drinking and driving attributes to most of the deaths.But Pro, THINK of the 88,000 who are dying. Think of the ~51% of 18+-year old drinkers who drink often.[2]Some say 30% of Americans abuse alcohol.[3]The principle remains that you just cant control people's behavior. I could say the same things, and apply it to alcohol. This is a form of Special Pleading. Thank you, and vote NIGHTCATS.[1]http://reason.com...[2]http://www.cdc.gov...[3]http://www.cbsnews.com...[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...[5]http://www.helpwildlife.com...
Motion: This House will remove all relics of saints.

Thank you for the allowance of a more formal style for my lack of familiarity with parlament form. I can see where there is concern for keeping a Catholic point of view, if i chose to argue from an athiest perspective arguing that faith is to foolish to consider therfore throw the relics away...we would get nowhere under those terms cause there is no amount of debate that could make one concead from that foundational point. in this case as a prodistant i should keep from arguing with common prodestant veiw that Relics and 'Cathlic idols' are interchangable terms. I should find this easier than most prodestants since many other denomenations accuse the Methodist church as being too much like the Catholics. But before i let your point about view go I think its worth considering that if all christians were open to considering that the perspective of another church could contribute to the perspective of there own, we would have less divisions among the churches. And this website would be a lot more usefull in reduction of those denomenations. So the focus of the motion is not just the discorgement of greedy use of these objects, but the protection of the objects themselves. I think my rebuttle for that is still covered by the uselessness in there removal analogy. As for your response to that anology, you are quite correct in your assumption on how I ment it. You stated "However, humanitarian considerations are still the top priority" So you agree that their removal means the Relics become useless as a consiquence? If they are useless; why are they being protected? You asked after that "How can an object be useful if it is dilapidated?" obviously most of the relics out there are a testament to the fact that there dilapidatedness does not matter. in spite of the fact that it is only a shard of wood from the last supper table, or merely the head of john the babtist, it is still consider a relic. if they have deterated at the start of there finding than that would lead one to question if they are even real. If I handed you a chunk of wood and said it was from Noah's ark, you would not belive me if the piece did not appear to have rotted any. Also asking "How can an object be useful if it is dilapidated?" is like asking "How can a sheild protect me if I let it get dents from swords bashing against it?" ultimately we must accept that its okay if the sheild gets a few. its the risk that comes with purpose it must surve. If its too dangerous for the sheilds sake to fufill that role then to justify its existance you must find another use for it, like a paperweight. exept with relics they have no other role to switch to once you remove them from public view. As for your last point i could not agree more, even without a Cathlic perspective. Faith is the most importent thing needed to be saved. I dont need to touch pauls bones for salvation. I need to accept the sacrifice made by my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ made on my behalf and everone else who has ever been alive.
Motion: This House will remove all relics of saints.

Good day to you, Marauder. I understand that you are not familiar with the Parliament form of debating, so i'll make it a little less-formal. With regards to your first point, I guess I was not able to elaborate my other points on why I am in f of the given motion. Besides from greed, I favor the motion because I believe that we need to safeguard our church treasures from further deterioration. We are all aware that the relic of saints in churches have been venerated by the people years, some even for centuries (like the relics of our Lord Jesus Christ in the churches of St. Peter's basilica and the Lateran basilica in Rome). They are exposed to the elements of nature and the frequent touching of the people with their hands or with devotional materials like rosary beads, crucifixes, veils and the like. Through the passing of time, these relics are deteriorated, and in some cases, they are victims of vandalism by people who developed hatred to the Church or those people who tried to plunder the Church of its treasures, as stated in the status quo. With regards to your point in reference to Matthew 5:15, you have a point in telling me that the light cannot do its function if it is kept away. I am assuming that you are also associating this to the safekeeping of relics, thus making an analogy: safekeeping of relics = light under a bushel. The common object in this analogy is the uselessness of the object. However, humanitarian considerations are still the top priority. As I have stated above, many relics of saints are victims of natural or man-made deterioration. How can an object be useful if it is dilapidated? Furthermore, you discussed that faith is essential to be able to use the relic, then I think it is apt that faith should be the sole instrument of the faithful to obtain through the intercession of the saint venerated in their relics any favor the faithful may ask. A relic is a mere sacramental (object, time, place, or words that gives grace but not necessarily it is a guarantee in salvation) and the most important thing a person needs to be saved is faith.* ___________________________________________________________________ *=NB: I am talking about a Catholic point of view, since the parameters of this debate (as per the motion) is Catholic.
Motion: This House will remove all relics of saints.

Hello PavlvsMagnvs! this is my first debate here too. I'm unfamiliar with parliament form and looking at wikapiedia didnt help much. but ill try my best. the motion presented by you have presented is so we can stop... greed I guess, as the ultimate benifit to keeping the relics from public view. that sounds kind of ridiculous put that way, but if you feel thats a mischaracterization of what you envisioned goal for their removal than please correct me. Jesus said dont hide your light under a bushel*. the for is reletivley obvious, what good could that light ever do if its function, illumination, cant be fufilled. likewise what good are these relics to the people at large if the people can never see them? protected in a vault somewere that only the christians that are probably spiritualy grown a fair amount can access, the people who could be most inspired by these objects would never see them. theoritically nothing about Jesus's robes can heal a person, the Lord himself is the sorce of the healing. But as far as the mind set of the people are concerned faith focused on the robes is counted just as good in his eyes to allow his power to work through them. by this logic then it is reasonable to see how a persons faith might need or at least succesfully be able to use the a relic, like the shroud of turin, to pray near to be healed, wich i have heard has happened, though i cant cite a source for that, i was only told of this from a preacher once. if relics like that are kept from public view, mircales cannot happen as a result of their viewing. As for your main argument for their removal, i concead many do abuse these and for bad purposes. But so is the healthcare system, like when food stamps are sold for money to buy cigarettes, but that doesnt mean we should just do away with it because there are infact people who are helped by it. Animal abuse reporting can be used wrongly when a person drives by a house see's a skinny hourse and reports it without talking to the owner to find out its so old that it defieys logic the beast can be as bulky as it is, but the system can help some. I ask if only for the good of the few isnt it worth it. If you speak about God on television, and it humilates you to most and only saves one sole who watched, wasnt it still worth it? Mathew 5:15*
Motion: This House will remove all relics of saints.

Good day to you. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you hat ignorance is encouraged in respect to faith therefore it is good that the faithful are ignorant about the relic because it is in respect with faith. I think in this argument, the ignorance of man to what the relic is, and its purpose is not essential to salvation, so is the relics of saints. It may remind us of the men and women enjoying the gift of salvation, but this will not guarantee salvation for us who venerates it, or even to those who keep them and dispense them. You said in your comparison with a candle: "A candle is also of no use once it melts (completely). but it has too. you would not buy it without intending to light it eventually. relics may last longer than a persons life last, but that does not make them immortal, eternal, so permanent that they never meet there end. putting it a vault may extend its 'lifespan' a great deal but for what good? we never use the relic again to prevent its deterioration because its deterioration would cause us to never be able to use it again?" In my opinion, I think that there would be a good use for the relics if they are safeguarded properly: they might become a reminder for the future generations that a person of virtue lived during his day, and the proof is the relic.This is also what I mean when I referred on the historical value of the relic as stated in my previous argument.
Motion: This House will remove all relics of saints.

Good day to you, Marauder. I think the only thing I can say with your first point, is: Here, here. On your second point: Yes, I agree that uselessness may become a consequence for the safekeeping of Relics. However, relics kept in the vaults of the treasury of relics of the Vicariate of Rome are also of the same status that is: kept in the vaults, unvenerated by the faithful and awaiting the requests of Churches or bishops, although, I realize that this statement may be rebutted by stating that relics in the vault me useful after the formal requests of the bishops of their respective dioceses. But my point is this: if they would not become useful in the first place, then I think it is better that they be kept in vaults or enclosed reliquaries, safe from further natural or -made deterioration. In connection with the term "natural or man-made deterioration" and your comparison to the "shield with dents from swords", you said that: "its the risk that comes with purpose it must surve". You also said: "exept with relics they have no other role to switch to once you remove them from public view". I agree with the second statement, but I must wonder:what benefit it should give if the relic is destroyed due to man-made or natural deterioration? It is no longer conductive to prayer, as this is one of the purpose of the relics being venerated, it leads us to prayer. If relics are to be removed from public view, it may be replaced by an alternative that has the same purpose (e. g. statues, pictures, etc.), without jeopardizing the time-given value of the relic; or to rephrase it, the antiquity and the historical value oif the relic. (I apologize for the occasional typographical errors in my past arguments, I'm having a hard time with this old keyboard of mine. I humbly ask for your forgiveness).
God vs. Satan Rap Battle (not vocal, text)

As typical, none of my majestic Scriptures declare that you have horns Except that my son has real authority, i elevated him since he wore thorns You kill your bars while mine are divinely inspired, they are God breathed Rider on the white horse slays mine enemies with the sword from the sheath When will you understand that no matter how far you go down the wrong path That the fires of hell shall never burn brighter than the fury of my own wrath I allowed you to feed upon the weak, annihilated because they never were my sheep You only feed upon those who lacked faith in me as you get pummeled into the deep The curse that is creatin' the critical condition placin' humanity stricken You couldn't contain him in a cyclical prison, you are a tenacity fizzin You can never foresee the biblical wisdom that's a reality written You are a cowardly and pitiful victim, a witness of a majesty risen! I never created your trashy miserable state of existence Nevertheless, i could careless of your wretched condition Eternally blessed are my people, they grow in persistence Internally rested as you flee from my light, no resistance!