BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Promotions in Police Departments should not be done only by civil service exams

Seeing as how BoP would be shared, as not all police departments only use civil service exams to determine promotions today, I shall defend an only civil service form of promotion. In the free market, this would not be an issue; the agency that hired and promoted better people would do better, the less successful would fail. However, being part of the "public" sector, police can be hired and promoted for political, rather than useful, reasons. A police officer who does not understand the law he/she enforces will be less useful than one who does, and likewise an officer promoted based on political reasons rather than knowledge of the law will be a detriment to society. Pro may contend that good people skills, ability to handle a firearm well, and past records would be important to determining if an officer should be promoted; however, people skills and firearm management are part of the minimum requirements to being a police officer, and if there is no black marks on a record, then why should the person not try for promotion? In essence, an only civil service exam method of promoting police will be better at preventing corruption. I await Pro's Response.
Religon

Honestly there is so much ignorance in your statements that it is clear you are unable to see any of my points. Religon by very definition is ignorance to all other forms of theories to how the world came to be. You were clearly brought up in a very religious family, and they have beaten this idea into your head so much, that you can literally not even see other peoples views. The reason why I am no longer a christian is because I took a step back, and questioned religon. Also think about this: Now more then ever people have the freedom to believe in what they want to believe. This by law in america and almost all european states. If Jesus truly was the answer don't you think that people would either stay, or flock towards christianity if they had complete freedom to choose? But they don't. 1/3 of millennial are now identifying with no religon. Wouldn't your god have made it more obvious that the Bible is the word of god, the fact that die hard christians (like You) have to defend so rigorously a book (that clearly has so many flaws) with ignorance, and unwillingness to see the flaws in the bible as your only defense. Sure you may be able to show that the Bible has predicted three things out of many that never came true, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is true. You literally just dismissed all of the islamic predictions as false. This ONLY accounts for one book, what about all the other predictions? Are you really going to sit there and say ALL of those are wrong? EVERY single one? Just because there not in the bible? Please, I was in your exact same position, ready to defend everything in the bible, but if you put all pre conceived notions out of the way you will see that it just simply doesn't add up. There are so many problems with religon it is almost unimaginable. You have only countered a select few problems of many in the bible. What about the problem of evil? what about how there is little record of Jesus ever even existing? What about how there is no way to prove even if God exists? What about how religon varies by region? What about how there are a multitude of inconsistencies in the bible? What about the fact that the christian god kills and lies? What about how the Bible says to kill homosexuals? What about the fact that JESUS HIMSELF believed in the literal interpretation of the bible? What about how the bible indirectly says that the earth is only 6000 years old? What about the fact that the bible says the earth was created as it looks today? And trust me this is only the very surface of the problems. Now I do honor how you have at least been willing to listen to what I have to say (as most deeply religious people wouldn't) and still decided you are correct. However most anyone who is "on the fence" about an issue like this will most likley (as been proven) agree with me. Not you. Maybe just ask yourself "what if jesus isnt the answer." and go from there Im Done
Religon

Maybe I should rephrase, perhaps there is a "logical" argument, but again they can be substituted with other religious figures. By definition, yes they are "logical" because the premises support the conclusion, but the premises are simply false. They are only true according to the bible, and any text can say that their own writings are true (which is not true). These predictions that have happened in the bible, some may have come true, but what about all the other predictions that have not come true? Isaiah 17:1 "An oracle concerning Damascus: See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins." This failed and the city today is still inhabited, and to ignore this is just simply ignorance Matthew 16:28 "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." 23:36 "I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation." 24:34 "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." These are words of Jesus himself. Now you can try and argue your way out of it by "interpreting" it differently. But the bottom line is, this never happened. So if this was a lie, this proves that the bible has at least one flaw in it, which most likely means the bible has other flaws in it (which it has many). Surely if the bible was the word of god, everything in the bible would have come true. They simply didn't. Therefore the bible is not the word of god, but the word of man and only man. You have to do a lot of work here to make a even remotely believable argument, but if I disprove even one point about the bible, the whole book is therefore wrong. Which is why you are running in circles I think a little bit. You seem to be taking a very simple argument and turning it very complicated, is there any evidence to believe in one religion over another, and you still have not given me a sufficient answer. *If you want more information on Bill Nye debunking Noah's ark: Please please please watch this video and tell me what you think. Just the fact that you think that all the animals on the earth could fit onto one 520ft ship is honestly amazing, and a little depressing at the same time (not to be insulting, but that is my honest view on this topic.) And yes I am saying that there is enough evidence that either, almost or just as good, supports the Quran as does christianity. However even though there might be more evidence to believe in the bible over the Quran (which there may very well could be.) This does not prove that the bible is the word of god. Just because the bible predicted some events (which are correct) does not mean that the rest of it is correct, or from god. Think about this, if you ever seen a christian and a muslim argue over which religion is correct it goes absolutely no where because neither side has enough convincing evidence. (Changing religions is very very rare.)
Religon

While this may be a reason some are christians, I don't see how these arguments are unique to christianity. If you substitute your arguments with, lets say, muslim characters (allah, Muhammad). You can see that muslims will use the exact same arguments to prove that their religion is right. Namely with your sections A, B, and C. Furthermore, just because you may agree with the beliefs of the religion, that does not mean it came from god or some other spiritual place. I can agree with all the beliefs in the constitution, but I know that document did not fall from heaven. Also muslims think that their beliefs and principles are "right" too. And for the exact same reason all other religions do. I was once a christian but found that these arguments are faulty and I left the faith. You have not given me any evidence to show that christianity is the "correct Religion." If christianity truly was the right answer, why do more people convert to muslim than any other religion? Why are religions based on where they are from? You would think that christianity would be all over the world in much higher concentrates if the christians god was actually real. After all the christian god is not restricted by travel. The reason why people are religious is because everyone around them is. Off note*: I'll use this as an example to my argument. The bible says that Noah built a 520ft ship with every single animal on it as the world flooded. This is obviously impossible, for one a wooden ship that long (as explained by Bill nye) is impossible to build because the wood will twist and the boat will fall apart. But christians will say that by the power of God, this was made possible. However I can use that excuse for any religion (or really anything I say). Muhammad flew on a horse with wings into heaven by the power of god. I was able to lift up my house by the power of god. Do you get my point?
Religon

Ah! What an excellent debate topic! In my view, there most definitely is a logical way to ascertain whether one should believe in a specific religion. Most religions are a system of beliefs. So to me, the logical way to go about determining whether a specific religion is correct is to comprehensively go through that religion's beliefs and determine whether their beliefs are correct. If a religion's beliefs are all right, I consider that religion "right", if they are partially right, I personally consider it wrong with pieces of reality. If it is all wrong...well...obviously it is wrong. So specific religions can be specifically found to be right or wrong, depending on the degree to which their beliefs are specific. Here is one religion I will start with. I am a little rushed, so I hope you'll forgive my brevity. Let's start with Christianity. In general, most Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God. So...we must see if this can be verified or debunked. There are three things I, personally, look at to this end. A.) Are the words attributed to God in the Bible infallible? (If not, they are not from God, at least so long as God is considered to be infallible.) B.) Ideally, the alleged words of God contain ideas and knowledge that could only be known by God, or can demonstrate that the source is God. C.) The Bible records the alleged words of God the same way today as it did originally. I argue that the alleged words of God in the Bible are indeed infallible, contain specific prophecies that contain details man could not have made up (Ezekiel 26!) and the earliest manuscripts show no significant deviation from the modern manuscripts. So there's one belief. Things of that nature. I'll continue in the next round. But I contend that there are definitely ways to demonstrate whether religions are right or wrong. Namely, one could test whether their claims are right or wrong! They should be tested in much the same way, and with at LEAST the same intensity, as a scientific theories or mathematical conjectures.
catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity

you did not specify the council of trent passage as requested, but ignored it, not sure why it looks like you just found a bunch of stuff from the internet and are requesting that i negate each one. that is pretty cheap as a way to show contradictions. vague references, when you have the burden to show there's contradictions that meet the criteria i set forth, for infalliblity. maybe i should make a criteria that you quote the alleged statement and cite it etc, as people could go on all day finding easy things on the internet that dont fall into the criteria, are vague, and then require me to put in the effort to negate it all. for example, Honorus speculated about the nature of God in a letter to another person Sergius, this does not meet the definition of infallible teaching, "teaching the church". Censoring someone like Galileo is not a teaching of the church, but a practice the pope did.Same goes for treatment of Joan. The boniface salvation of noncatholics point you brought up is a violation of the rules in this debate, no limbo talk or noncatholic salvation talk in this debate. Youd have to cite the quote as to whether noncatholic religions have a "grain of truth" in them. this is so vague it's almost surely reading way too much into stuff. (unless they said "they have no grain of truth in them" etc which almost surely never happened. probalby just saying other religions are not the full truth, etc or are wrong isn't saying they have no grain of truth in them The quote by Adrian was either written in a private document that he did not address to the church as a whole, he didn't teach the church, a criteria that i set forth at the beginning.... or it is a fabrication. These are the two responses i got from catholics that i can find. I cannot find hte acutal letter or enough details, but this is at least as specific as you are being. The one person said it is a fabrication and that is why no one can find the source. My guess is you cant find the source? i read that many of Adrian's letters no longer exist so perhaps it did exist once? i cant say but i can say im almost sure you cant find the source. (i found a quote but it wasnt cited, so a quote doesnt count given it could be a letter or fabricateddd
catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity

"how do you address the point that you'd think the CC would have contradicted itself even outside the bible, over two thousand years?" What is the nature of god? (Honorius I was censured by the Third Council of Constantinople over this point) Is Galileo's heliocentric model correct or not? (Urban VIII forced him to retract his views, John Paul II stated that Urban VIII had handled the situation inappropriately and that Galileo as right) Is Joan of Arc a heretic or a Saint? (Eugenius IV thought she was a heretic, Benedict XV canonized her) Can non- Catholics be saved/united with god? (Boniface VIII and Pius IX stated that that was impossible, John XXIII and John Paul II said that it was possible) Do non-Catholic religions have a grain of truth in them? (the First Vatican Council says no, the Second says yes) Can the pope err on religious matters? (Adrian VI said so, Pius IX disagreed) "are you trying to argue the bible because you are not knowledgeable enough to find it contradicting itself beyond the bible? just a speculation, perhaps not" It's not in good taste as to speculate as to your opponents motives, beyond what is implied from their arguments. "i dont contest that the bible is considered infallible, even by catholics. i simply see it as too open to interpretation. because i can tell at this point that the debate is not going anywhere productive i invite you to use a bible quote against church teaching, so that i can show you that this is all true." My point was that your premises were nonsensical. You cannot have a proper understanding of the church without understanding the Bible. You argued that you would only want me to cite things that were "authoritative" and "infallible", but not the Bible- and to the church, the document that is the most "authoritative" and "infallible" is the Bible. It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion about the Church whilst intentionally excluding the Bible. Since you're Pro, and your argument is affirming an absolute assertion, you have most if not all of the BOP in this argument. I don't see how simply arguing my counterarguments will win you this debate.
catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity

as expected, someone took the debate just to bicker with me about the rules. i would have also expected someone to ignore the rules, just fyi. how do you address the point that you'd think the CC would have contradicted itself even outside the bible, over two thousand years? are you trying to argue the bible because you are not knowledgeable enough to find it contradicting itself beyond the bible? just a speculation, perhaps not i dont contest that the bible is considered infallible, even by catholics. i simply see it as too open to interpretation. because i can tell at this point that the debate is not going anywhere productive i invite you to use a bible quote against church teaching, so that i can show you that this is all true. i do see you cited the council of trent, and Jesus..,,, but you did not specify what in the council you were referring to, so i can't address it. also find another example of contradiction w the bible, just in case i am misunderstanding you here.
catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity

I accept your challenge. I would like to thank my opponent here, as well as the audience (for listening in and giving their honest opinion), as well as Martin Luther. As a side note, I would like to point out that my opponent has contradicted herself in the very terms of this debate. "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." "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." To serious Catholics, the bible is considered an authoritative source- indeed, it is considered the infallible word of god. For the terms of the debate to be followed as my opponent laid them out, one would have to assume that the Catholic Church does not consider the Bible the inerrant word of god- which, since they say they do, would represent a contradiction. Furthermore, my opponent seems to imply that everything the pope says is considered infallible; this is not true. Only statements made Ex Cathedra are considered infallible. The official concept of Papal Infallibility as dogma (as opposed to simply popular belief) did not come into existence until the First Vatican Council of 1869. Lastly, many, if not most, of the church"s teachings are based on sources that are considered infallible by the church, but the teachings themselves are mostly not infallible. If you truly believe that the Catholic Church has never contradicted itself, how do you reconcile The Council of Trent with Jesus saying "No one comes to the father except through me."?
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". 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
Harry Potter (pro) vs Twilight (con)

Everyone forfeits, eh? I'm snickering as I type these words.Members of my family AND the friends are not fond of it. I believe that, if any adult respects him/herself enough, he or she will not indulge in this pathetic series of mental vomit that J.K. Rowling has produced. Your first argument, the one about Merlin being a Slytherin is relatively irrelevant for I added that phrase as a ways of embellishing my argument and you, being the "intelligent" being that you are, could easily bring it out from the context. The phrase WAS at the end of the paragraph.Your concluding argument is acceptable and understandable but easily parried. Since Twilight centers on the vampire society, a well-thought through... "organism" that avoids bringing too much attention to itself, I believe Stephenie Meyer stands justified in her choice of not creating any special sport like Quidditch. After all, they're mythical creatures, not wizards, they cannot just cast an enveloping invisibility shroud spell so they can invent a new sport. Then again, why should they? What's wrong with baseball? The book is already creative enough with the afore-mentioned vampire concept. I would try harder but since Con decided, in her disrespect, that I'm not worth the effort that I had put in against her, I shall do the same.
Harry Potter (pro) vs Twilight (con)

Rebuttal: My opponent recently stated that Harry Potter does not appeal to adults, because members of his family aren't fond of it. Well, that might be their opinions, but there are many more adults in this world, believe it or not, and many of them love the Harry Potter series. Secondly, I would like to draw away from character depth, and state a known fact about Slytherins. My opponent stated that they are, "always the little annoyances.", when in fact only few Slytherins are evil/annoying. Example of a nice Slytherin: Merlin. My concluding argument: One reason why I (like many other people) love Harry Potter, is that the books are much more creative. J.K Rowling created new things and backed them up with their own leagues and history, whereas Stephanie Meyer did things like spark up baseball. Sources: 1. Merlin is a slytherin- http://harrypotter.wikia.com... 2. Extra arguments- http://www.wattpad.com...
Harry Potter (pro) vs Twilight (con)

Ok, look. I started this debate because I wanted to hear other people's opinions, and have a FUN debate about it. But, since my opponent has failed to be nice, and flat-out called me a fraud, I may as well take this seriously. To be honest, there are many reasons why Harry Potter is better than twilight. For example, it is aimed at a wider audience. Harry Potter was given an adult version, whereas twilight was aimed at teenagers and teenagers only. Second, the characters of Harry Potter go into more depth. Example, my personal favourite, Severus Tobias Snape. At the start of the books/films, you see Severus as the professor who just hates Harry and Gryffindors. But, as the series goes on, you see there is a lot more to this man than meets the eye. As it turns out, he does not hate Harry, he hates Harry's good for nothing father, because James bullied Severus when they attended Hogwarts. Not to mention, James is the reason Severus lost Lily's love AND friendship. Finally, Severus ends up working as a double agent for Dumbledore, at great risk to his life. But in twilight, all you get are good little vampires, and the evil ones. I do hope my opponent gives a fair debate, and quits declaring himself the winner. It's just silly.