BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Roman Catholic Church v. Baptist

"Gloria in excelsis deo" - Great Doxlogy The first thing I must do is apologize for this round. It will be a very poor showing for me. When I made this debate, I forgot I had to sit my final exams, and as a result I was not able to prepare as good a round as I intended. Hopefully I will be able to make up for it next round, but I again apologize, in particular to my esteemed opponent. Topicality The resolution reads "Roman Catholics adhere to the teachings of Christ." Because I am pressed for time, I will have to disregard any non topical contentions this round. Hopefully I will be able to revisit them later. Contention I: Salvation A. Exluding those from salvation This is non topical. I will respond to it next round, characters (and time) allowing. B. Works While topical, my opponent has not backed up this argument. He provides no scripture to show that anything is wrong with this. C. Baptism What's wrong with infant baptism? Contention II: Justification and Sacraments A. False History This is non topical. Again, I will try to respond to it later, but I cannot this round. B. Christ is not Justification There is no conflict here. You will be saved (i.e. not be damned to hell). As it says in the CCC (1031): "The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned." This makes logical sense, as if you will remember for a moment Habakkuk 1:13 (note: I have not quoted the entire verse): "(13) Mundi sunt oculi tui, ne videas malum; et respicere ad iniquitatem non poteris." (Biblia Sacra Vulgata) "(13) Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing." (New International Version) How then, can we as sinners be with God? Through purgatory. That is still achieving salvation. C. Mass This may be topical, but is not backed up. With luck, I will handle it next round. Contention III: Doctrine not following the scripture A. Non-inspired books You assert these books are non-inspired. I assert that they are sacred and canonical in their entirety with all their parts. Enjoy being anathema. B. You only need the church This is again an assertion not backed up by scripture or analysis. 1) Not backed up. 2) Not backed up. C. Supposed Idoltry No scriptural evidence provided. This is an important contention I will deal with later. Contention IV: Contradictions Sadly I do not even have time to address these. I will next round. In conclusion, I only really argued against one sub-contention, and for that I apologize. However, many of my opponent's arguments are unsupported, and often he just quotes something as the entirety of his argument. Since he has the burden of proof, this is important. I'm sorry for my horrible round.
The burka (and burkini) should be banned.

Though how does covering your body have anything to do with terrorism? I like how you have the guts to talk about oppression. Many women wear the Burqa out of their own will and then you are the one taking their right to wear it. How is forcing a woman to walk out the door without her religious clothing not oppression. Explain that to me. You're the one saying that they are oppressed and they are the ones saying that they aren't oppressed. They are oppressed for one reason only and that is because the western society can't leave them be and let them walk with whatever they like. Why do women cover their breasts? Think about it like covering yourself like any other human being should do since we're not animals, but then to another extent. Unlike some women today who literally walk out as animals with their thighs exposed in the marketplaces, as prophesied by the prophet Muhammad SAW. Women have always worn veil-like clothing, but suddenly it's a problem. The Burqa is a symbol of utmost modesty and that the woman is not a piece of meat that should be shared with anyone. The ban on the Burkini is even more ridiculous, women are practically forced to wear bikinis. The bikini goes against the Abrahamic faiths in every single way. It has come to a point that when a woman wears a sweater she is already a potential terrorist according your governments. What a joke. Our whole society is based on sex. Car ads have half-naked women in them. Beer ads have half-naked women in them. Food ads have half-naked women in them. This dating culture is so wrong. Breaking up with someone has become completely normal, breaking up with someone is like breaking a toothbrush. Maybe even faster than that. Someone leaves the other person and the this person is scarred. People don't even marry anymore, they go ahead and have sexual relations with whoever they feel like they can have sex with. Anyone that comes across they grab. The Qur'an tells to the women that they should cover the hair and the chest and you force them to violate that. The Qur'an also mentions a loose garment and again you try to take their right away. Maybe a law could be placed that they have to show their ID whenever they enter a store, a train station, public transport or whatever. You could add a law that instructs these women to show their face in certain situations. I'm totally for that to ensure safety, but to completely ban the Burqa is ludicrous. Here's another question. What should a Muslim woman wear on the beach if the woman can't even wear a hat with non-revealing basic clothing?
The burka (and burkini) should be banned.

Western values are not summarised by freedoms for everything. We don't have an unlimited freedom of speech, as endorsing and encouraging a terrorist is against the law; a law many people would happily have in place. We do not have freedom of clothing (and therefore expression), as it is against the law to walk down the street completely naked. Our freedoms are already restricted, and thank goodness they are. A society that we want to live in is not one that is unrelentingly in defence of freedom. The notion of tolerating the intolerant simply is not a notion that we abide by nor one we should desire. Consequently it is our duty in order to protect the society that we have to restrict the oppressive and intolerant. Today we have a trend of progressive moral relativism in which all opinions and all values are given equal footing in the name of freedom and inclusiveness. I propose that this is an evil and wicked idea because it seeks to undermine all of the hard work of true progressives and people of good moral principles who sought to give us the freedoms and security that we currently have. Freedom is incredibly important, however only a complete anarchist would claim freedom has no limits. The burka is a symbol of oppression (simply look at this thing; it looks more like a big potato sack than a free human being (1)) that we ought not to tolerate in modern western civilizations. It completely eradicates face to face conversation by one's inability to see the faces of those we speak to. It radiates a very cruel and harmful notion that women must cover themselves head to toe lest a man finds them attractive. It teaches those who wear it that the female body is something either too precious or too foul to be seen by the opposite sex, which in no way improves the lives of the women in our society. I don't say this as a feminist but simply as a humanitarian. Do we want in our societies the trivialisation or normalisation of a self degrading and self deprecating ideology? This is a very simple question. Con here would call the hiding of the body moderate modesty. I propose that it is a very obvious ploy to dehumanise and so devalue the women con tries to protect. This nonsense tries to present sexual attraction as a thing to be feared and suppressed rather than respected and enjoyed. What we see today is dangerous oppression which tries to infiltrate itself into our society. Liberals for a long time have tried to bring oppressive, old fashioned, and simply worse cultures into especially the UK masquerading as multiculturalism. The freedoms and security that we currently enjoy may soon be under serious pressure (Look at the attacks all across Germany as a consequence of the migrant crisis (2)) due to the constant bombardment of self deprecating and oppressive cultures. It must not be allowed to continue. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.independent.co.uk...
The burka (and burkini) should be banned.

I accept because I am not someone who limits freedom of religion. I recently saw a Muslim woman bearing a hat to cover her hair and long sleeves to cover her body and yet she was forced to take her clothes off on the beach by the French police for no reason. That's not protecting the people, it's harassment in every way. This society is wrong in every way, we can walk around naked on the beach, but we're not allowed to keep our modesty and be chaste.
The burka (and burkini) should be banned.

Welcome to my debate. 1st round: Acceptance 2nd round: Opening argument 3rd round: Rebuttals 4th round: Closing statements This debate is in response to the recent burkini ban in Cannes, France. It is a source for great controversy with claims that it unfairly limits freedom. I will be arguing for the notion that the burka and burkini should be banned not only on security grounds (which don't apply to the burkini) but also due to what they stand for and our desire to have such ideals thriving in society. This will extend to a larger point about the importance of freedom in our society. In this debate I expect sources and sounds reasoning. No trolls or silly arguments. Good luck!
Mandatory Driving Age Requirement to 18

What about the expense of implementing a Graduated Driving License? Where will the funding come from for all these new implementations? First, I agree that 14 years old is too young to be driving. I couldn"t even see over a steering wheel at that point! However, what about the burden being placed on parents for their children being unable to drive at sixteen? I know that although I did not have the luxury of having a new vehicle at sixteen, I had a way to transport myself and my parents forced me to have the responsibility to take care of that vehicle, maintain it, and work to pay for the insurance and gas. Second, the restrictions that you discuss are already in place for new drivers. As a teen, until you"re 18 and obtain a Class C License, you"re not allowed to drive between the hours of midnight and 6 A.M. I think that not having the ability to drive after 10PM is a little strict to teenagers that have fast food jobs because most restaurants don"t close until around that time and clean up time is extensive, especially on weekends. I know that as a server in high school, this would have been impossible for me to work under those constraints. New drivers also have restrictions about the number of passengers in a vehicle with them. Although not as strict as the stages you"ve displayed, I think these would be unobtainable constraints due to the schedules and life styles of most families with teens. Third, again, these restrictions already exist. If you get speeding tickets, reckless driving tickets, etc., the courts have the ability to take your drivers license, at any time, not just when you are a new driver. These stages and steps overcomplicate a system that is already working very effectively. Fourth, this again seems like another unnecessary step to put another burdensome cost on new drivers and their families. The government has a fee for everything. When you get your license, I"m sure that there would be a fee associated with this new driver decal should be implemented. Also, are there any statistics from New Jersey stating that these reflective decals have decreased accidents at all? I couldn"t find any that support this theory. Also, with whatever statistics you find, you have to account for the fact that each year the number of teens getting their license is decreasing. So, this could account for any decrease in accidents in the New Jersey area. Unless a study is done, the reflective decals don"t really prove that they are any better than any other laws in place to reduce accidents in new drivers. "Graduated Driver License." State of New Jersey. 10 May 2010. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.
Mandatory Driving Age Requirement to 18

The way that I would go about increasing this age requirement would be through the implementation of Graduated Driving Licensing (GDL) laws. Now most states, including Georgia, already have GDL laws in place. But what I would do is make these laws more strict and uniform across every state. 1) Persons at the age of 17, will be allowed to get a restricted license. There are currently 9 states in the U.S. that allow 14 year olds to get a restricted license. This is a huge problem in my opinion. Most children at 14 are still in middle school. Something just doesn't sit right with me that children this young are behind the wheel of vehicles, whether they are supervised of not. 2) There will be two stages associated with restricted licenses, Stage 1 and Stage 2. Stage 1 will last 6 months and would require supervised driving by someone aged 25 with 4+ years of driving experience. Stage 1 drivers will also have a curfew and will not be allowed to drive from 10 pm -6 am. Drivers will become Stage 2 once they meet the Stage 1 requirements. Stage 2 will last another 6 months and drivers are not required to be supervised. Their curfew will also be extended 2 hours from 12 am- 6 pm. Once the requirements from Stage 2 are met drivers will be allowed to take a driving test to get a full unrestricted license. 3) If there are any violations observed during the restricted stages, discipline will given at the discretion of law enforcement. Discipline can range from time added to a stage or a drop from one or multiple stages. 4) While in the restricted stage, drivers will be required to obtain a decal for the vehicle they drive that indicates what stage they are in. Drivers must have these decals placed on their cars before they are officially considered to be in a stage. Currently New Jersey is the only state with a measure requiring those younger than 21 without full-privilege licenses to display a decal on their vehicle identifying them as new drivers. These decals are a great way for law enforcement and other drivers to determine who the new drivers are on the roads around them. While this is just a bare bones version of the changes that I would make to the laws that are in place currently, the implementation of some or all of the points that I made would improve the driving environment significantly. http://www.ghsa.org...
Mandatory Driving Age Requirement to 18

Is there a statistic out there that supports the "there will be less drivers on the road" argument? I can see how that might be a potential result of raising the driving age, but at 5PM, during rush hour, it"s not teen drivers you seen on the road. It"s adults leaving their jobs. The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute actually reported that every year, fewer and fewer teens are getting their license. In 2008, 31% of the teens turning 16 that year got their licenses. In 2010, it decreased another two percent! Teens aren"t what are overcrowding roadways and causing congestion. To address the emissions argument, that"s just crazy. I understand that protecting the environment is important, but there are more harmful things being emitted into our atmosphere than car emissions. In the world right now, there are approximately 1.3 billion cows. Just like any other animal, they expel gases. However, the gas expelled by cows is methane, which, statistically, is 25 times more harmful to the environment than carbon dioxide. In 2006, the United Nations" Food and Agriculture Organization reported that the livestock sector (most of which are cows) "generate more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent (18%) than transportation." According to the same study, the average cow produces enough methane per year to do the same greenhouse damage as four tons of carbon dioxide. Methane is also naturally emitted from wetlands as well as human activities like natural gas systems in homes. So"are over crowded highways causing global warming or livestock? I think this is a ridiculous avenue to take with the driving argument, but I"ll address it nonetheless. Discussing the driving age is necessary because as stated previously, there are significantly higher injury rates in teen drivers than those who have more experience. The key word there is EXPERIENCE. Teen drivers will always be crappy drivers until they"ve become more experienced. When I first became a paralegal, I made mistakes. Just like everyone does when they are LEARNING. Making teens wait to learn something doesn"t make them better at it. Prolonging the learning process only makes the situation worse. Blitz, Matt. "Do Cow Farts Actually Contribute to Global Warming?" Gizmodo. TodayIFoundOut.com, 11 Apr. 2014. Web. 29 Apr. 2015. Goldmark, Alex. "Study Confirms Fewer Young People Getting Driver's Licenses." Transportation Nation. 20 July 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2015. EPA (2010). Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Natural Sources . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. U.S. Department of State (2007). Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In: Fourth Climate Action Report to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change . U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, USA.
Mandatory Driving Age Requirement to 18

You made the point of increasing the age requirement to 25 because most adult's brain do no develop until then. My response to that statement is.... maybe that's not such a bad idea if it makes the roads safer. Well 25 may be a little extreme but 18 is an ideal age in my opinion. Raising the driving age would cause for there to be much less vehicles on the roads. Having less cars on road on the roadways, even if its just a small amount, would absolutely benefit the society and increase the overall safety of other drivers. It would help prevent overcrowding on roadways, limit congestion and allow traffic to move more freely. This would also in turn lower the amount of traffic accidents. Limiting the amount of cars on the road by an age restriction would also help the environment. The vehicles we drive are a major cause of global warming. Collectively, cars and trucks account for nearly one-fifth of all U.S. emissions, emitting around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases for every gallon of gas. About 5 pounds comes from the extraction, production, and delivery of the fuel, while the great bulk of heat-trapping emissions (more than 19 pounds per gallon) comes right out of a car"s tailpipe. So any measure that creates safer roads and a safer environment due to the reduction of car use should absolutely be considered. http://www.ucsusa.org...
Mandatory Driving Age Requirement to 18

Learning the hard way is often the best way. As with most things, driving is a skill that has to be learned. It is not something you can memorize, take the test, and get an "A!" People can be told how to maintain control of their car, but until they get the real experience themselves, it won"t be real. Raising the driving age from 16 to 18 will not make a difference. Learning a new skill at any age will be difficult and will come with bumps along the way. Becoming a smart driver is wholly experiential and gaining that experience, whether it be at 16 or 30, would be the exact same. Our country is already implementing the right laws to prevent fatalities on the roadway. Texting & Driving laws for example are a great step in the right direction. Our country can also take more aggressive steps such as making it much more difficult to get a license and punish more harshly those who drive recklessly. If it"s unlikely to change, why do a debate on it? Shouldn"t we instead of focusing on rising the age of driving to require more experience with new drivers before they drive alone? I don"t doubt statistics, but actively working to make our new drivers better drivers isn"t going to happen if we just keep prolonging their ability to drive. After doing some research, I found an article that researchers from the National Institute of Health discovered that there is a section of the brain, they called it the "executive branch" that is responsible for weighing risks, making judgments and controls impulsive behavior. This obviously is less developed in teens. The NIH suggested that this portion of the brain does not fully develop until 25. Should we make people wait until they are 25 to get their drivers license? Davis, R. (2005, March 2). Is 16 Too Young To Drive A Car? Retrieved April 27, 2015, from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
Mandatory Driving Age Requirement to 18

The age at which you are legally allow to drive differs from state to state, but in most states the age requirement is 16. In some American states it can be 15 or younger (1). Usually you are allowed to take a driving test a year or more before you can vote or drink alcohol. But it is the younger drivers who are involved in the higher rate of accidents. In the United States, the fatal crash rate per mile driven for 16-19 year-olds is nearly 3 times the rate for drivers ages 20 and over. Risk is highest at ages 16-17 (2). For the past few years, there have been attempts in Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois and Massachusetts to increase their driving age, although these attempts are unlikely to change anything in the foreseeable future (3). Because of the risk younger drivers present, my argument is for lawmakers to raise the legal driving age requirement to 18 years old in all states. 1.http://parentingteens.about.com... 2.http://www.iihs.org... 3.http://www.cbsnews.com...
Affirmative action by race in education should be illegal

I thank Con for his first argument. Con mentions fairness--a theme that will surely be prominent in this debate--but what really is fair? Is it fair to reward someone based on the discrimination faced by their ancestors? If the discrimination is not felt by the people being rewarded, I don't see how that's fair at all. Is it fair to reward someone because they belong to a race that is statistically poorer? When there are many members of this race that are rich, and many, many members of a statistically richer race that are poor, who do not recieve the same benefits because they do not belong to the statistically poorer race, I don't see how that's fair either. Is it fair to reward someone based on discrimination that we can't observe? If Con can't show that certain races are involuntarily discriminated against through statistical evidence, then the discrimination that he mentions is nothing more than a claim.It is not fair to whites to exclude them from certain scholarship funds and to consider their race in college admissions. For every person that you admit into a college because he is black, one person is turned down because he is white. Preferring minorities in college admissions creates an atmosphere where a slightly less-qualified equal income black person will get into college easier and recieve more scholarship money than a slightly more-qualified equal income white person. Why is this acceptable? We figured out a long time ago why discrimination is wrong when it's against blacks. Why does Con believe that it's okay when it's against whites?In conclusion, "Being black" should not be listed under a person's qualifications. The way soneone's born should not disadvantage them in life.
Affirmative action by race in education should be illegal

Black people and minorities in general have been socially, political and economically disenfranchised from American societies for centuries. Might I remind you upon until some 50 years ago African-American people could not enter certain establishments or go to certain schools simply because of the color of their skin. From the beginning of the Unites States of American having a darker pigmentation than Caucasian was almost a guarantee of injustice and inequality and unfortunately in this modern age there are still a few who hold on to these Neolithic views therefore it is only fair that the government ensure the wellbeing of these people who they had adversely affected for generations and keep affirmative action legal. It is only fair that they do so.