BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Catholicism or Protestantism? (Pro-Protestant, Con-Catholic)

While my opponent’s argument will focus on papacy, my argument will outline why Catholicism follows the Bible more precisely than Protestantism Firstly, I feel it is important to state that both religions have their pros and cons, and while Protestantism may be a preferred form of religion, it is not necessarily exempt from high positions of power (the main focus of my opponent’s arguments) However, my arguments are intended to explain why Catholicism follows the Bible, so, without further ado, where are my main points. 1. VIEWPOINTS ON SINOne of the most hazardous facets of the Protestant doctrine is that its followers seldom, if at all, view all sin as equal. No, instead they focus on sin they are exempt from, such as murder. This is troublesome because it creates a dichotomy for someone who believes their sin makes them inferior to their peers. (For example, a d pious homosexual who feels that his sin guarantees him Hell, whereas the judgmental and dishonest nature of his peers does not. ) In the Catholic doctrine, a more cynical, but inclusive tone is taken. We are all sinners, and must atone for our sins. The Catholic doctrine pays attention to the term “equal” which follows the love one-another message of the Bible quite nicely. 2. VIEWPOINTS ON WORSHIP1st Chronicles 16:23 tells us to worship God every day. Protestants main worship day is on Sunday. While not all Protestants follow this belief, a large percentile do. They absolve the rest of the week for acts of normative behavior. A devout Protestant normally does this. A devout Catholic regularly attends mass (which mostly occur over three times a week) While this may not directly follow the previously mentioned verse, it more closely does so. 3. VIEWPOINTS ON MARRIAGE Tying in with the sin argument, Catholics follow the Bible more directly when it comes to marriage. In the Protestant doctrines, divorce is far more common and accepted. This viewpoint directly assaults the Bible’s view of marriage. The question this debate aims to resolve is which doctrine follows the Bible more closely. Whereas I do not conform to religion, nor do I agree with either doctrine, as an academic argument, Catholicism may be more controversial, but it also follows the Bible more strictly. Thanks, again, for Pro initiating this debate! I look forward to rebuttals.
Catholicism or Protestantism? (Pro-Protestant, Con-Catholic)

Having just accepted this challenge, I’d like to make a quick clarification before we begin. I do not conform to a religious doctrine, but if I were to do so, it would be Catholicism because of their interpretation of the bible. Hence, I’ll be arguing their use of the Bible is more accurate. Before we begin, does my opponent have any definitions he’d care to mention? I look forward to a well fought debate! Let’s keep this civil but impassioned!
Free verse is not poetry

As a poet myself, I find free verse is quite commonly the most meaningful kind of poetry. I know that's going off topic but I find the task of having to rhyme words to one another can be very restricting and the poem loses its...je ne sais quoi. It becomes a slave to convention, I guess. I find that the common person is OBSESSED with categorizing trivial things...this being one of them. According to the wikipedia definition free verse CAN be categorized as both poetry and prose. None the less, I will attempt to argue this trivial matter. Poetry is defined as "a form of literary art which uses aesthetic and rhythmic qualities of language"such as phonaesthetics, sound symbolism, and metre"to evoke meanings in addition to, or in place of, the prosaic ostensible meaning." Poetry aims to convey something whether it be a story, an experience, an emotion etc. under restrictions. Free verse actually uses restrictions. As wikipedia states, "Most free verse, for example, self-evidently continues to observe a convention of the poetic line in some sense, at least in written representations, though retaining a potential degree of linkage, however nebulous, with more traditional forms." So in essence, free verse is just less restricting than other forms of poetry but it still has some restriction and should be categorized as poetry.
Free verse is not poetry

This work points out http://www.scribd.com... Based on the definition of free verse it follows free verse is not poetry http://en.wikipedia.org... . "In poetry, metre (meter in American English) is the basic rhythmic structure of a verse or lines in verse " http://en.wikipedia.org... "The word "verse" is commonly used in lieu of "poetry" to distinguish it from prose. Where the common unit of poetry, that is, verse, is based on meter or rhyme A verse is formally a single metrical line in a poetic composition" Free verse is usually defined as having no fixed meter and no end rhyme" Thus free verse is not poetry/verse and those who write it are not poets as free verse is not in metre-which is the defining essence of poetry ie which makes a writing poetry if free verse is poetry then there is no way to tell free verse from prose also if free verse is poetry then the works Dickens or Tolstoy or any prose writer is poetry and the telephone directory or encyclopedia are poetry
Free verse is not poetry

you say "Poetry is defined as "a form of literary art which uses aesthetic and rhythmic qualities of language"such as phonaesthetics, sound symbolism, and metre"to evoke meanings " you say one of the characteristic of your definition of poetry is metre but free verse does not use metre so therefore it is not poetry you say "So in essence, free verse is just less restricting than other forms of poetry but it still has some restriction and should be categorized as poetry." so tell us what is the difference between free verse and prose
Medea is responsible for her actions

(1) I agree on the definition of anger being as a desire accompanied by pain, for a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight at the hands of men who have no call to slight oneself or one"s friends. (2) Both parties have agreed on the necessary conditions for anger is it being attached by a certain pleasure that comes from expecting revenge. (3) When anger is present on cannot control ones actions, one cannot balme another for their actions either. (4) One can avoid being angry, just because ones family member is angry does not mean one will be angry. (5) Having responsibility and being in control have big differences such as when anger arises one may not be able to be in control of their actions although one can take on responsibility of ones actions. (6) When one is mad one tends to take on action without thinking, so anger cannot be controlled. (7) One can easily snap when dealing with situations especially as an adult because situations become worse as you get older. (8) We have both agreed anger is an emotion characterized by antagonism toward someone or something you feel has deliberately done you wrong. (9) Therefore, Medea is not responsible for her actions. I have restated my premises and made any necessary changes and I still agree on the definitions that have been stated but my argument still remains that Medea is not responsible for her actions.
Medea is responsible for her actions

(1) Anger is defined as a desire accompanied by pain, for a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight at the hands of men who have no call to slight oneself or one"s friends. (2) Necessary conditions for anger is it being attached by a certain pleasure that comes from expecting revenge. (3) One should not blame their actions on others, one should take account of their own actions. (4) Anger can be passed down for generations in ones family. (5) Having self-empowerment allows one to take full responsibility of the risks that will come out of their actions when anger arises. (6) One can control their anger and if one gets angry there are ways to calm oneself down. (7) Taking responsibility of ones actions is apart of growing up and becoming an adult. (8) Anger is an emotion characterized by antagonism toward someone or something you feel has deliberately done you wrong. (9) Therefore, Medea is responsible for her actions. I have restated my premises and edited where necessary. My argument still stands: Medea is responsible for her actions.
Medea is responsible for her actions

(3) Anger is not needed in situations but it does arise. When one feels it coming one does not think to stop it, one just gets angry and handles the situation out of anger no matter whom one harms. (4) Just because you see someone act a certain way or do certain things does not mean you will grow up to be like that. You are in control of how you become you can choose whether to act like your own person or to follow someone else. (5) It is hard to remove yourself from a situation when you are angry, if you do not think then how are you supposed to be able to control what is going on. You are taking action based on your anger not what you would do if you we not angry. (6) One cannot control their actions when emotions are involved. One does not sit there and think to oneself that something bad is going to occur. One goes in a situation not knowing any outcomes so you cannot say one can control their actions when angry. (7) One does not handle situations as an adult as they do a child. Just because you know how you are when angry does not mean you can control your actions because one does not know when their anger will arise.
Medea is responsible for her actions

(3) Anger is not needed and situations can be handled without it. Fighting against it when you feel it coming, especially with using affection can easily treat anger. If you love someone you will do everything in your power to make sure no harm comes his or her way. (4) States of character arise out of an activity, that"s why the activities we exhibit must be a certain kind. If you"re used to certain ways with your parents then that is how you will become, habits become permanent after a while. (5) You don"t have to think before taking action to not be able to control your anger. As you feel your anger arising you can remove yourself from a situation so that if in fact you don"t think you will be in no position to cause any harm to anyone. (6) Although you cant control your anger you can control your actions, when knowing you are putting others in harm it is easy to calm yourself in a situation. If you know there"s a chance of something that may occur and cause anger to arise then you could just avoid the situation completely by staying away from the situation all together. (7) Being accountable for ones anger issues can give one insight to how their actions are in a situation filled with anger. Dealing with situations for a while you begin to handle them better so if you"ve been handling them as a child as an adult you wont have any problems with controlling yourself.
Medea is responsible for her actions

(3) Anger can be resisted but once you get angry you have no control over it, whether it is towards someone you love or not. There have been many cases where wives have killed their husbands whom they loved out of anger due to infidelity. Emotions can get the best of someone. (4) Although traits can be passed on anger is not. Just because your around something or was born with angry parents does not mean you will be angry, in fact you can become the happiest person in the world. (5) When one does not think before taking action one can do very harmful things in the act of anger. After the action is completely one can take responsibility of doing it but while in the act one has no control especially if one is not thinking. (6) There are no ways to avoid anger because you cannot predict the future to plan out situations. Once one becomes angry it is very hard to calm down from the situation. You can"t avoid a situation that you don"t know is going to happen, one just has to think before having a reaction, which is very hard to do when anger is present. (7) Just because one is accountable for their anger issues does not mean one can control them. It just means they are aware that they have anger problems, it is hard to controls oneself in certain situations even as an adult.
Medea is responsible for her actions

(3) One can control their anger especially if it is towards someone whom they love. Everyone is accountable for their actions and can control anything they say or do no matter what emotion one is feeling. (4) It is proven that traits are passed on through the genes of ones parents. For example if ones parents are bipolar then one has a great chance of receiving that trait just as if ones parents have anger problems. (5) By taking the responsibility of ones actions one can control what they do. Knowing something is wrong and doing it anyway is entirely a self-made decision that one can control. (6) There are plenty of ways to make sure you don"t get angry, avoiding situations and keeping calm are two of many. Just as something can make you angry something can calm you down. You are in control of showing emotion. (7) If one is accountable for their anger issues then one can control their actions while feeling the emotion of anger. As one grows up by dealing with situations where anger was present by the time one becomes an adult controlling ones self should come easy.
Medea is responsible for her actions

(1)I agree on the definition of anger being as a desire accompanied by pain, for a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight at the hands of men who have no call to slight oneself or one"s friends. (2)Both parties have agreed on the necessary conditions for anger is it being attached by a certain pleasure that comes from expecting revenge. (3)Although you can not blame someone for your actions, when anger is involved you cant control your actions. (4)If your family member has an anger problem that does not mean you will, you can avoid being angry. (5)Taking responsibility and controlling ones actions are two different things. Controlling yourself may not be an option when filled with anger, after committing your actions you can easily take on the responsibility of what you"ve done. (6)Anger is not always controllable, when one is so mad they tend to take action on the situation without even thinking. (7)Controlling your anger gets worse as time goes on, as an adult dealing with stressful situations can cause you to snap. (8)We have both agreed anger is an emotion characterized by antagonism toward someone or something you feel has deliberately done you wrong. (9)Therefore, Medea is not responsible for her actions. Non-controversial Premises 1,2& 8 are definitions and both parties agreed on them so they are non controversial. Controversial Premises 3,4,5,6& 7 are all controversial because people may have different views then I do. Premises (3& 5) are true because you can take responsibility for your actions and still not be able to control them. Premise (4) is true because just because someone has something doesn"t mean you will unless your just following down behind them. Premises (6& 7) are true because habits get worse as time goes on, if your angry a lot eventually you wont be able to help being angry all day everyday and your actions will become uncontrollable.
Medea is responsible for her actions

(1)Anger is defined as a desire accompanied by pain, for a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight at the hands of men who have no call to slight oneself or one"s friends. (2)Necessary conditions for anger is it being attached by a certain pleasure that comes from expecting revenge. (3)Everyone is accountable for their own anger issues, blaming someone else for your own anger mishaps is not acceptable. (4)Sometimes one"s anger stems from their family"s generations passed down. (5)Self-empowerment comes from within you. By empowering yourself you take full responsibility for anger actions and the risks they may bring. (6)Your anger is controllable, just as there are ways to get angry there are also ways to calm yourself down so your anger doesn"t control your emotions. (7)Being accountable for one"s anger behaviors is apart of growing up and being a mature adult. (8)Anger is an emotion characterized by antagonism toward someone or something you feel has deliberately done you wrong. (9)Therefore, Medea is responsible for her actions. Non-controversial Premise 1,2 &8 are non controversial because they are simply definitions. Controversial Premises 3,4,5,6& 7 are controversial because my opponent may have different views on the subject. Premises are (4 &5) are true because sometimes if anger runs in your family it will be passed down to you. Premises (3, 6& 7) are true because you control your actions and can prevent yourself from doing certain things.
"I think therefore I am," is fundamentally flawed.

Um. .. Your definitions didn't prove anything. Throwing out definitions doesn't do anything. Provide a logical link. Seriously, I missed the entire point of how those definitions proved your case. You really need to work on clarification. Actually, I'm now worried that some voters will actually understand your useless definitions and vote CON because I was too confused to actually refute them. Anyway, you still haven't refuted this idea: I can still be an illusion, even if I have thoughts. Think about thinking as just another sense. Just because I can smell doesn't mean I'm real. It doesn't even mean that the smell is real. Same idea with thoughts. Just because I have a thought doesn't mean I'm real, and it doesn't mean the thought is real. This idea has NEVER BEEN REFUTED by my opponent. "I think therefore I am" fails to prove existence on an individual level, even when you consider my opponent's useless definitions.
"I think therefore I am," is fundamentally flawed.

Well, Let's cross examine these definitions, I'll start with number 1: Merriam Webster defines: body as: "a mass of matter distinct from other masses b: something that embodies or gives concrete reality to a thing; also : a sensible object in physical space" reality as: "the quality or state of being real" {not illusory}/ "something that actually exists " Antonyms for reality: "belief, fantasy, hypothesis, imagination, theory" as given by: Defining using M-W again: fantasy as: "obsolete : hallucination" Hallucination as: "an unfounded or mistaken impression or notion : delusion" delusion is, as stated in M-W, synonymous to: "illusion" We see now that the process of thinking leads to existance. Also, through extensive processes, we may prove my opponent's belief of thought being illusory is false as well due to the examples he so aptly provided for me. I have refuted this point and insist that you concede to the logic. As per my second contention, I must drop it. I realised very quickly how illogical it sounded. The purpose of defining "is" would have gone with my second contention and thereby, I see only one contention left which I have proven and refuted to conclude: "I think therefore I am" is not fundamentally flawed and, through definition (as that was my opponent's refutation) leads to existance. Thank you to my opponent and the judges. I urge you to vote Con. Thanks, -EG
"I think therefore I am," is fundamentally flawed.

Don't run a semantics argument. That's lame, and it's avoiding arguing the topic. And it is facetious to define "is". However, for my framework, the being that this line of think is actually supposed to prove the existence of can't be an illusion. It must be the actual being. The entire idea of "I think therefore I am" summed up is basically: the fact that my thoughts exist prove that I exist. I could not have thoughts if I don't exist. This is wrong for two main reasons. 1.) Why can't an illusion have thoughts? Descartes doesn't actually prove the existence of any being. You could still be an illusion, even if you are perceiving thoughts. For example: "I" might "be" someone else when I am dreaming, and "I" might have thoughts in this dream. However, this does not mean that this "being" that I "am" in the dream is real. It is still an illusion. There is no reason why we can't be illusions in "real" life, and still have thoughts. There's your first fundamental flaw. 2.) This does not prove that the thoughts are not an illusion. In order for Descartes' arguments to hold any weight, he must be able to prove that the thoughts that one perceives are not illusory. If the thoughts of a "being" are illusory, then it follows that the "being" itself is illusory. Since "I think therefore I am" is an absolute statement, yet these two reasons keep it from being absolutely true, the statement is fundamentally flawed.
"I think therefore I am," is fundamentally flawed.

Hello. Thank you for proposing this debate for my sake. As you might have guessed, I am a fan of Descartes work not only because he was a revolutionary in his own rights, but also for his Christian appeal that he would back up with reason. As always, some terms need to be defined. Merriam-Webster defines: flaw as: "an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness " fundamental as: "serving as an original or generating source : primary" is as: "Third person singular present indicative of be. " (And, no, I wasn't being facetious in defining is, it will be important later) Now that I've gotten that out of the way, let's debate, shall we? I will prove through decisive knowledge and reason alone that this resolution is wrong. "The phrase "I think, therefore I am (Cogito ergo sum)" (Or I doubt, therefore I am, {dubito ergo sum} which was changed in order to please the Roman Catholic church) is not used in Descartes's most important work, the Meditations on First Philosophy, but the term "the cogito" is (often confusingly) used to refer to an argument from it. At the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt — his argument from the existence of a deceiving god — Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any has survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence he finds it is impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon, the tool he uses to stop himself sliding back into ungrounded beliefs), his belief in his own existence would be secure, for how could he be deceived unless he existed in order to be deceived? "But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I {,} too do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all] then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I {,} too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, {I think, therefore} I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. " (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17) Obviously, Descartes had his intention of relaying to the masses why he BELIEVES he exists, not why one must exist. You may argue that he uses himself as a reference but it is safe to assume that he literally meant himself.
"I think therefore I am," is fundamentally flawed.

I hope my opponent accepts, since I know that he is a big fan of Descartes' works, he seems to want people he knows to debate him on here, and I figured I'd give him a topic he should know about. If he accepts, I'll put forth my opening argument after he makes any statements he wishes to make. (I put this under the religion category because there is no category for philosophy.)