BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity

in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church". i have reasons not to list here for excluding them. 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. note: -this does not include moral corruption, only official teaching. that means you can't use bad priest, even peodofile priests. it means you can't use the inquisistion where millions were killed by catholics. can't use the sins of past popes. it has to be actual teachings of the church, as said, councils and statements by popes. etc. impeccable v infallble, there's a difference. -since we are comparing official statements, id rather not use the bible either. it's usually too open to interpretation to begin with. we are examining the church's consistency on its own anyway... and you'd think even beyond the bible, it'd have contradicted itself within two thousand years. -also there's a differnce between widespread belief and doctrine. that so many believed the earth was made in six days, that the earth was flat, that man wasn't from apes etc... only shows they are human. it'd make sense at first impression. this isn't doctrine. you have to cite a quote or citation. -there's a difference between practice and doctrine too... preistly celibacy is practice, reading the mass in latin is a practice... etc also try not to be vague. so many claims of contradiction online are superficial. for example, "papal bull regarding jews", without getting into what exactly is contradicting what etc. if possible, find the quote or citation for what you are referring to. also I have debated this topic many times in the past, if you would like you may review my profile to see all the points brought up by past debaters etc
"Barry" or "Parry"

I would choose Parry. Here is my reasoning: 1. Barry is a more popular name than Parry; I'm sure the username of "Barry" already exists somewhere on that website 2. Assuming that the username "Barry" does not currently exist on the website (yet), it is reasonable to assume that there as at least one member there with the name Barry who... might get confused? Hey - ya never know! 3. The definition of parry is to ward off... which is what my original intention of accepting this debate was: to ward it off! In conclusion, vote CON if you think this was a pointless "debate" and that the instigator is a total tool for making a mockery of this site and himself. Oh, and that I did better than him with my "arguments" and yada yada yada.
The UK should leave the EU for it's own benefit

The proposition of this debate is that the UK should leave the EU for it's own benefit. I will be Pro in this debate and my esteemed opponent will be arguing against the proposition.BOP is shared.Important notes for readers and potential voters:This debate is part of the DDO Tier Tournament.http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...This debate can only be voted on by pre-approved judges. This is just a heads up for those that want to vote and then find they can't :)
Road safety should not be compromised by the clothing preferences of the obese

Tragically, thousands of people are killed or injured every day in road traffic accidents: something must be done to enhance road safety, but what? There is a simple measure that could be implemented tomorrow that could save lives, but the politicians have been reluctant to introduce it for fear of losing votes from the obese. Please let me explain. Imagine you are driving down the street at a steady sixty miles per hour when you spot a pedestrian stepping into the road two hundred yards away. No need to slow down, you think, they will be safely across the road by time you get to there but, too late, you realise that the person is obese and, therefore, cannot walk very quickly, so you slam on the brakes, but you are still doing forty when the grossly overweight pedestrian collides with your car. Now, the impact with 400lbs of sweating blubber at that speed would not only cause considerable damage to the car, but if the obese pedestrian came through the windscreen they could cause serious injury to the vehicle's occupants. That's why the obese should be made to wear high visibility vests, and have flashing amber warning lights on their heads when they are out in public, as depicted in this picture: http://www.debate.org... Obviously, some fashion-conscious fat people may object to being forced to wear the vest and light because they don't think that sort of gear is very trendy, but, at the end of the day, road safety must come first and it should not be compromised by the clothing preferences of the grossly overweight. Thank you.
Road safety should not be compromised by the clothing preferences of the obese

Nevertheless, I don't think I need remind the voters that Newton's laws of motion dictate that an obese person would, on average, walk slower than a normal person or to provide them with sources to prove that no obese person has ever won an Olympic medal in a running event. 2 – Not only the obese -------------------------- It is true that not only the obese are at increased risk on the streets, and that's why schoolchildren are made to wear high visibility vests: . http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk... and why so many physically-disadvantaged people do also: . http://www.fotolibra.com... And it's not little kiddies and the handicapped that wear high-visibility gear to prevent road accidents - in Spain, prostitutes do too. . http://www.mirror.co.uk... So why should we continue to allow the obese to cause a danger to traffic? 3 – Personal responsibility ------------------------------ True, motorists are personally responsible for driving safely, but pedestrians have an equal responsibility to make sure they do not pose a danger to the traffic. By not warning drivers that a wide load is crossing the road by refusing to wear a high visibility vest and a flashing warning light on their heads, the obese are ducking their responsibilities. 4 – Statistics --------------- It is true that "Fat drivers (are) more at risk of road accidents". One of the reasons is that they can't concentrate as well as normal people because of a weight-related sleeping disorder. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... This same lack of concentration put the obese at extra risk because not only will they walk across the road slowly but they are less likely to check it is safe to cross to get from McDonalds to KFC in the first place. 5 - Functionality of the visibility vest ----------------------------------------- If drivers have poor eyesight or are drunk or are tired or are high on crack, they should not be behind the wheel of a car, so this argument is a non-starter and, as far as black people not being visible at night is concerned, this is not too much of a problem as black people about to be hit by a car can quickly run out of the way: that's because unlike the obese; black people are hugely successful in Olympic running events. 6 – Discrimination --------------------- My proposed measure would not only protect motorists but would also help the obese at the same time. Even though the obese have a lot of padding, it is probably still quite painful for them when they get run over. And, as we have already established, they are not the only ones to have to make themselves visible to be safe. In conclusion, this proposal is not intended to ridicule or humiliate the obese by making them wear unfashionable clothes and orange flashing lights on the heads: no; this is an attempt to enhance road safety by reducing the number of collisions between vehicles and grossly overweight people and I, therefore, urge you to vote Pro. Thank you.
The Debates here are about who's the best BSer rather than about real facts

What are real facts? They are facts that have documented sources to back them up (form legitimate creators of the source). My opponent admits that "it's mostly just cut and pasting things from other sources." which would suggest that the debates here are essentially efficient plagiarizing as opposed to being "all about who the best BS artist is".The reason behind pro's assertion is that "You can "prove" anything with enough twisting of words and facts along with some links to some bias website that confirms what you say." However, he fails to prove that this is BSing. Instead of BSing I would say that this is documenting efficiently for the victory in a debate.The second, and in my view inferior, line of reasoning that my opponent uses to reach their conclusion is that "There's very little thought as to what goes into a debate and it's mostly just cut and pasting things from other sources." If the sources that are cut and pasted form have truth and not BS then is this not disproving the proposition?In conclusion, the debates here are, according to my opponent's reasoning, a series of effective and accurate copy paste edits but not a series of BSing.Thank you for reading this debate, I hope you have a very nice day.
The Debates here are about who's the best BSer rather than about real facts

It seems to me that people here don't debate to find the truth. It's all about who the best BS artist is. You can "prove" anything with enough twisting of words and facts along with some links to some bias website that confirms what you say. There's very little thought as to what goes into a debate and it's mostly just cut and pasting things from other sources. Debating here is a waste of time.
The Dresden Firebombings were justified

Introduction My opponent claims that the firebombings of Dresden were justified because, in short, Dresden was a city that served greatly to support the Nazi party, whether it was through weaponry, communications, or transportation. I say the firebombings were horrific because it was an unnecessary blow to the Germans while they were already down. The Pro challenges me to argue that the bombings achieved a little, but I will go so far as to say they achieved nothing. A Blind Leap of Faith Pro starts his debate by describing the horrors of Dresden. How it was a weapon-producing nightmare. How it had a large stockpile of weapons and soldiers. How it would fuel World War II. Unfortunately, what he is quoting is mere speculation taken from reports that the United States wrote to justify the attacks. In fact, the SAME source [1] says that "the contribution [by Dresden] to the Nazi war effort may not have been as significant as the planners thought. " When the US went to firebomb Dresden, they had no idea that they were about to annihilate a beautiful city with 135,000 people. The crime was later recognized to be so cruel, that "indiscriminate bombing on civilians" or firebombings were banned during the Geneva Convention[2]. From Art to Ashes Even though Dresden may have contained weapons, what it was known to have, all across the world, was culture. Referred to as the "Florence of the Elbe," Dresden was a famous as an economically and culturally flourishing commercial area. Known for it's world-famous art museum, great schools and beautiful buildings, Dresden was a landmark of culture[3]. The bombings of Dresden didn't just destroy a city, but a large piece of German history and culture. Kicking While They're Down The last reason I believe that the Dresden bombings were justified is pointed out in the Pro's second source. Germany was already going to surrender World War II when Dresden was bombed [4]. Further crippling Germany was unnecessary and therefore unjustified. There was no reason to attack Dresden. Conclusion The bombing of Dresden was unjustified because Dresden was not confirmed to be a war city. Dresden was just a bustling center of art and culture when it was bombed. Since Germany was going to surrender, regardless of the firebombings, the firebombings of Dresden were not only strategically pointless, but rather completely unjustified. I hand it off to the Pro. Sources 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://www.dw.de... 3. . http://www.history.com...
The Dresden Firebombings were justified

We have a shared BOP, I need to prove that the bombing was justified and helped the allied war effort, my opponent will need to argue that the bombing achieved little in strategic terms. DRESDEN WAS A MAJOR MANUFACTURING CITY Dresden was a manufacturer of weapons for the Nazi war effort. German Army High Command listed 127 medium-to-large factories in Dresden producing weapons for the Nazis with over 50,000 workers. The factories included a poison gas factory, anti-aircraft and field gun factory, an optical goods factory, gears, electric gauge, and x-ray technology factories. [1] Colonel Harold E. Cook, a POW held in Friedrichstadt and says that “I saw with my own eyes that Dresden was an armed camp: thousands of German troops, tanks and artillery and miles of freight cars loaded with supplies supporting and transporting German logistics towards the east to meet the Russians”. Dresden, being a military manufacturing city was a viable target for bombing. DRESDEN WAS A MAJOR COMMUNICATIONS CITY Dresden was a major communications centre, with messages being relayed through Dresden to the East front where the Germans were fighting the Russians. Because Dresden was relatively untouched before, railway and communication lines remained operational. Bombing Dresden would severely hamper the ability to relay messages to the East, allowing the Russians to punch a hole in the German line. [2] DRESDEN WAS A MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CITY Bridges, railway lines, and roads all remained in good condition as because of Dresden’s position, the Allies hadn’t bombed the city before the firebombing. The destruction of the bridges and railway lines prevented the Germans on the East front from retreating to the city and reinforcements arriving to the Eastern front. So, we can see that Dresden was a major military city that was actively helping the Nazi war effort. Thus, we see that the bombing of Dresden was justified. Vote Pro. SOURCES . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.history.com...
heaven and hell were created just like Jesus name was

Well the Concept of God and Heaven always has been more of a Answer to the Question "Why are we here", "What is the Meaning of life" As far back as you look, Humanity with its deep thinking, Has unlike other species. Questioned its utter existence, Said questions result in other beliefs that are said to provide evidence. I do not doubt that many have used their ideas to simply justify Violence and Destruction As seen with the Terrorist group ISIS, That uses its beliefs to justify the Atrocities it commits. However I also do not doubt that many Religions often provide a safe haven with various tools to help succeed in life. Many need the concept of God in order to Guide them, While others Simply put. Can Survive without a belief in a Creator. Said belief in a Creator is not wrong or Right, It just simply is. As long as their belief does not discourage other people or devalue people simply for not following the same Ideology, Then Said belief is not wrong to believe in. because after all, It is just a Belief that provides Comfort. Such as you may used Video Games or Music to combat the realities of the world or the daily struggles, They to use the Religion as a form of Comfort. A verity of reasons why they would use it for Comfort could be explained to, That ether they feel the need to use Religion of Guidance due to possible struggles or need to not be seen as just a piece of History in time with no logical narrative to it, That is nothing once you perish from this world. So Humanity believes in Narratives for many reasons upon. Said reasons also create the idea of Heaven in which is a ever lasting Paradise. However the concept of Hell comes to the very question "Would Bad people be allowed in a Paradise?", " Would Adolf Hitler or Genghis Khan or other villains in History be in a Paradise?" The Answer to that is a unknown, But to the ideas of Religion, The answer would be a No. Religion can be used to justify Destruction, So can other things such as Social Class of Wealth or Ethnic Race or Age. In which practically anything can be a justification for War. However just because it can be used as a Justification, Doesn't mean it always will. Many Hinduism in the mountains of China are very peaceful people that really re frame themselves from Violence. It is not known if Heaven Exist or Not, However I surely believe it provides closure and sanity to some.
Disney Princesses Are Bad Role Models For Young Girls

Topic: Disney Princesses are a bad role model for young girls. They are often disobedient and portray a dependence on men that is unrealistic and unhealthy. While they provide good entertainment for their audience (predominately young girls), it is also the case that these young girls will idolize these princesses as their role models which may lead to bad behavior and irrational decision making. We're going to spilt the princesses up into three groups. The classic princesses in which Mr. Walt Disney himself had took part in their creation: Snow White (1937) Cinderella (1950) Princess Aurora [Sleeping Beauty] (1959) The middle aged princesses which ranged from the late 1980's to the late 1990's: Ariel [The Little Mermaid] (1989) Belle [Beauty and The Beast] (1991) Pocahontas (1995) Mulan (1998) And lastly we have our modern princesses: Tiana [Princess and the Frog] (2009) Rapunzel [Tangled] (2010) * All years came from the Internet Movie Database pages that corresponded Structure of the debate: Round One: Pro presents case. Con accepts. Round Two: Pro refutes. Con presents case, refutes and defends. Round Three: Pro refutes and defends. Con refutes and defends. Round Four: Pro refutes and defends. Con refutes and defends. Round Five: Pro defends. Con defends. Voters are presented.
As a parent, selecting a school is the most important choice you will make in your child's life

Thank you. I am (Pro) this argument. I recognise your point, there are numerous defining factors that parents will make choices on during their child's developmental years, however, choice of school, is the most important. This is a choice that will affect your child for the 13 most important years of their life (including primary and secondary). I believe that your argument regarding Parent A and Parent B does have its foundations, but is ultimately flawed. A child will , either choose to accept or reject the choice to be Parent A or B. There are too many emotional variables to the human psyche that can ultimately lead to changes in the chosen approach. A child's development cannot solely be measured by their interaction with one individual (or parent). A child spends 5 days a week, 6 hours (at least) per day at school. In that time they will be exposed to a multitude of important developmental factors which play an important part in their future life. They will develop habits which affect all of their cognitive facets. The child will be exposed to numerous people, of different ages and backgrounds. Choosing the right school will challenge the parent to consider the backgrounds of the other children attending the school, the quality of teacher, the schools demographics, facilities, pupil results amongst many other factors. (more factors can be seen here..http://listsurge.com...) Much of ones success is based on how one deals with other people. Once a person leaves school, they will spend the rest of their life placed in social situations, success in these situations will be based on the habits we developed in our developmental years. Choosing the right school for your child will set them up for these events. Can you imagine the change in psychological behaviours if you had been sent to a school where you didn't fit in? Never had the opportunity to develop your key skills? Didn't achieve the academic results you were capable of? Didn't meet a wide range of people from a variety of backgrounds? What makes this the most important decision is that fact it reaches so many different developmental factors as illustrated in my answer.
As a parent, selecting a school is the most important choice you will make in your child's life

Subject: As a parent, selecting a school is the most important choice you will make in your child's life ........................................................................................ I am against this statement (CON), I believe that there are numerous other defining factors that parents will make choices on during their child's developmental years. Regardless of whether these decisions are consciously or subconsciously made, it is of my opinion that one of these 'choices' will hold far more impact on the child's life than the choice of school. I admit and agree that the choice of school could be classed as a 'defining' choice however it is not my belief it is the most important. Whilst I can not put my finger on what the single most important choice a parent can make would be. I would propose that is a combination of choices and factors that supersede the PRO statement. I would ask you to consider for the purpose of this round, an example: Parent A chooses a negative parenting style, never rewarding their child but only punishing negatives. Parent B chooses a positive parenting style, rewarding positive behaviour and softly punishing negatives. Would you agree that this choice the parent faces is surely more important than the choice of schools? Dependant on the parenting style adopted by the would be parents. The implications of this choice could be far reaching. In the example above, The child of Parent A may struggle with self confidence and motivation. Whereas the child of Parent B would have more self confidence due to the positive reinforcement they have been exposed to in their younger years, We would imagine that Child B is more likely to achieve higher results in their exams due to the possibility of the reward for doing so. This approach has been supported and studied by numerous psychologists and adopted in numerous organizations and business. I would reference the quote from Professor Julian Elliott from Durham University, a Chartered Psychologist ""It has long been understood that the allocation of rewards and sanctions is rendered more powerful when these follow closely the behaviour that is to be conditioned. The power of different types of incentives (social recognition, tokens, money) to different age groups as shown here is also in line with expectations. So the use of particular rewards to drive short-term behaviour as found in this study is not unduly surprising." Source: http://www.bps.org.uk...