BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Latin

There are as my opponent correctly stated several extant languages that either have Latin routes or considerable Latin influence however these languages are not themselves Latin. Here is a picture of a member of the species Homo Heidelbergensis [1], one of these would be humanities last common ancestor (because we have some percentage of Neanderthal DNA and Homo Heidelbergensis appears the common ancestor of "us" and Neanderthals). Do we say that because we, ancestors of Heidelbergensis are living Heidelbergensis lives today? Just because languages that come from Latin are spoken today doesn't mean Latin is spoken today in the same way that just because there is a species that come from Homo Heidelbergensis living today doesn't mean that Homo Heidelbergensis is living today. Addressing your point about us using Latin words in everyday language the mandarin word for mother (ma/ma ma) is phonetically similar to ours, the ancient Hittite word for water (watar) is phonetically similar to ours. That doesn't mean we speak Mandarin Chinese or ancient Hittite it simply means we have some words in common, the fact that someone who speaks French or Italian cannot understand someone who speaks Latin (although no such person exists because no one knows how to pronounce Latin also showing it to be a dead language) shows that they are distinct languages not dialects of one and this is what you would have to argue if you want to pursue your argument that we use Latin in everyday language (as we do German, Norse and French). [1] http://3.bp.blogspot.com...
Latin

Although it seems obvious that Latin is no longer used in everyday conversation, I don't believe that to be true. If you go by the by-the-book definition it is, but, upon closer inspection, you will find that Latin never truly died, it was just reincarnated in the modern Romance languages, such as Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, and Romanian, which are all really just continuations of the ancient Latin language. Therefore, if you look at Latin in this way, you stating that Latin is a dead language strays from your provided definition, which is, "A language that is no longer in everyday spoken use." Looking at the list of Romance languages, I would say we use quite a bit of Latin, or at least Latin principles, in everyday communication.
the roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

Belief and enforcement of the Geocentric Model"However, the transition between these two theories met much resistance, not only from the Catholic Church and its reluctance to accept a theory not placing God's creation at the center of the universe, but also from those who saw geocentrism as a fact that could not be subverted by a new, weakly justified theory."[2]Pope John Paul II regretted the treatment which Galileo received[3]Abuse of the Sale of IndulgencesMartin Luther's commentary on the subject. 95 Thesis.[1]The Pope drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift[4]Pope says sorry for sins of church[5]"John Paul II yesterday attempted to purify the soul of the Roman Catholic church by making a sweeping apology for 2,000 years of violence, persecution and blunders."..."Yesterday's apology was by far the most sweeping and an unprecedented act for the leader of a major religion. One of the highlights of this year's jubilee, or holy year, it was the result of four years' research by a panel of 28 theologians and scholars. ... Disquiet that the apology was a beautiful gesture but a theological mistake bubbled to the surface last week."Sources:[1] http://www.spurgeon.org...[2] http://www.princeton.edu...[3] http://www.catholiceducation.org...[4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
the roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

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.
the roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

The story of Abraham was in the Old Testament, and faith was not used to describe Abraham, neither was salvation in the Christian sense. The bible needs an interpreter, as my opponent pointed out. It cannot all be true. It is not all true. James in James 2, and Paul in Ephesians 2, are contradictory. This is born out in the conversation between Paul and Peter in the book of Acts.[1] If James and Paul had a conversation about the topic, they would NOT be in agreement, they would be yelling. Please read the three passages in question. In all seriousness, please recognize the obvious contradictions, take into account the context, and vote Con. [1] Acts 15
the roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

first i note that con seems to be ignroing the last points in debate and moving on. the bible is too full of interpretation to say the the RCChurch has contradicted itself. faith is the bottomline of what saves... but all agree works must be necessary. protestants say works result from salvation, catholics say it's part of salvation. the bible verses don't spell out which is correct. it's most ly just academic "what ifs" anyway. faith alone doesn't save, said James in that chapter.... works being necessary. yet we wee in romans that Abraham was saved by faioth. it's just a amtter of how you reconcile all thse verses. too mucn interpretation. it's not a contradiction issue.
the roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

the geocentril link merely off hand refers to the catholic church. it was a prominent figure in those days so there was much opposition. but it wasnt official teaching, popes and councils, as was the criteria in the first post by me. this only proves they are human, like all christians. the earth seemed flat, evolution seems too counter intuitive... at first. regretting treatment of galileo only shows that he was sorry for the acts of former catholics. same arguments go for your point about apologizing for past sins. impeccability does not mean infallibility. they aren't pervect, jsut like the apostles weren't perfect. peter even denied jesus three times, etc. yet we stil read teh bible etc. do as said, not as done. official teaching again is the criteria. indulgences are said to be part of the churches ability to forgive sins, "Jesus breatehd on them and gave them the holy spirit, saying whose sins ye forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins ye retain are retained". they say this is forgiving the temperal punishment due to sin. you can disagree with this all you want, but it's not a contradiction. sale might be a bad act, but it's due to the sinful nature of men, not a teaching of the church. the pope didn' t reverse stance on condom use. even in that article, it merely says he's recognizing that it's a lesser evil than spreading disease, liek from a male prostitute. but that doesn't mean it's okay, and he says tehre that it's still immoral. nothign changed. in fact the articles at the bottom of that one address the "confusion" with the popes words that were created, spread about by that article and folks like you. taken all out of context.
assisted suicide should be legalized

i do not understand how telling me that i have a poor grammar and what so ever has to do with the topic. my opponent past most of his time repeating it over and over, and i see it as a lack of arguments. what i mean is, if he doesn't have any more exciting arguments to tell us about, then it's too bad. also, my opponent talks about murderers having a role to play in death rate. really? are we encouraging that? futher, you say that rights are man-made and that they can be taken away? that is right, but when we talk about right to life, what does a murderer has to do with that? those are criminals, and are to be put in jail. so you claim that life can be taken away by men, and that god doesn't have anything to do with it? well, it implies that whenever i fell like dying, i can just see a doctor. come on, everyone knows how much life is pretious and how many people would end their lives at the first occasion. in fact, according to a WHO survey, 116 men and 45 women committ suicide every year in greetland. it that a normal thing? of course not, and instead of legalising suicide, each government would better try to understand why people would leave sadness arround and may be try to change that, than saying yes,, go ahead, kill yourselves! where is our bright and shiny future we so often talk about then?
assisted suicide should be legalized

I am your opponent and I will be against your stance; I will be for the legalization of assisted suicide, or euthanasia, and I will refute all of your arguments. Opponent is obviously Catholic of Christian, and lacks sources, evidence, and logic/reasoning. I will find this debate an easy one to accomplish. Audience, please vote for pro - we can already tell who is going to win in this debate, so there is almost no point in debating. But, for the sake of opponent, I will debate with you and refute all of your arguments effectively. It appears that, based on your writing style and content, you lack knowledge, skill, and experience in making an effective debate with such poor writing structure. First off, you make many spelling and grammar mistakes that even a child in middle school would not make. You state that it is absurd for three reasons - what? Is this a debate or elementary language class? You don't have to write that, and while that is the format of an essay, the style of your writing is too simple and inferior to even qualify for a debate. Also, your arguments are weak and base them on reasoning and logic used by those ignorant of science and law. You lack any evidence or sources to back up your claims, and the ideas for each argument is too weak. I am sorry, but if you continue to debate like this, I will forfeit this debate as a result of your inferior debating skills compared to even a beginner in debating. As for your arguments, I will still be refuting them; whether or not you understand them (due to your obvious lack of debating skill), will not be an excuse for countering my arguments. You claim that only God has the right to determine if you should die. Yet opponent does not think first if opponent is atheist, agnostic, spiritual, or even of other religions. As stated in my other debate, rights can be taken away, are superficial, and are completely made up by intelligent life forms. Clearly God is not an intelligent life form as He is a divine creator; clearly, He is natural and therefore cannot make rights as they are man-made and can be taken away. Besides that, you also claim that logically speaking, death is pre-determined by a variety of natural factors and shouldn't be determined by humans because they lack the knowledge and power. You are completely wrong - humans can choose when to die (that's why suicidal people and murderers exist) and they do have the power as long as they get the consent and have the means to assist the said person in suicide. With your other arguments, they are too weak, irrational, and illogical to even refute. What does spending money have to do with this? I am sorry, but it is too vague, so please do explain it in the comments. Also, what does survival of the fittest have to do with being responsible for dying patients? Yes, ending their lives so you may not have to bear pain is seen as weak, but that is not an effective argument to convince the law to illegalize euthanasia. I hope for the best in you as your debating skills are extremely terrible as a child's.
assisted suicide should be legalized

the day i first read about assisted suicide, i was stunned i coundn't even imagine why someone would want to "legaly" end his days. it just soound absurd for three reasons. first, only GOD has the last word on whether or not your time has came. this shouldn't be seen only religiously, but also with logic. there is no way you can take such a decision without even thinking about whethe or not you have that power, since you didn't have any in choosing when you will be born. and so, it's just absud to choose when you will dye. the second point is that most f the time the reason why opting for assisted suicide is because people don't want to bear paint anymore. step back a minute an think. someone is very sick, we know he is going to died and everything seems so dark. it's more than normal the he will want to suicide himself just to run away form the pain. but comitting such an act is not just refusing that wonderful gift that is life, it s also running away and rufusing your responsabilities. for someone really grown up, it's understandable that pain is a normal phase in life, even that pain can show how strong or how weak we are. let's us not show that we are weak, please. last but not least, assisted suicide is the perfect pretext for families not to spend money on a dying brother or sister. money is so pretious and important ot our eyes that we are ready to give up on our family just for a few more cents. i am not saying that money isn't a good thing, but just that it make people forget the love they have for their close ones. for these three reasons, i stand in firm opposition to ha ving this law passed in any state and country. it's immoral and we are not the one choosing when we dye.
Is life easier than school

1st: I don't think you should generalise it. Mean while for some people who don't have good parents it might be a breath of fresh air to leave their houses once school is over, so they can be independent, others might find it extremely hard because their parents were extra protecting. I assume you are just talking about your academic life compared to your professional life, Be still, you shouldn't discard the impact that a loving home can have on your mindset and the way you see school. 2nd: I do understand where you are coming from. It is true that school takes up a massive amount of time and generates no income, so anything that implies money is out of your decision control. Also, in most careers, you don't have homework, you simply get home and rest (I am not even going to talk about lawyers or teachers, for example, because I know that is very specific, but still, a possibility of having a "life" and the problem of homework". What you should have in consideration is that school gives you some room for error. You are penalised, obviously, so you can learn from those mistakes, but you wont find this kind of tolerance elsewhere. If you need a job more than a job needs you (and let's face it, more and more people are getting educated and competition is real) I don't imagine many people will have any problem discarding you if they deem you incompetent out of one mistake you made. 3rd: If life is, in fact, easier than school, is because school prepared you so for it. If you didn't go to school you wouldn't be used to dealing with a lot that you have to deal in your life. Dealing with school matures you and might make you have a different perspective on the issued of your life, meanwhile things that happened when you started school might seem a nightmare because your perception of them was still immature. Also, I can admit that the school system is flawed in some ways, but it's one of the only ways you can ensure you have a good future with a decent paying job. I know that, in some cases, people that go to college don't get what they want in life and some people who quit school are rich, but I am considering the vast majority.
Obama is a war criminal and murderer

You've made a weak case that Obama is responsible for war crimes but haven't offered any evidence yet to suggest that he is guilty of murder. You are arguing that Obama is both a war criminal and murderer. If you don't prove both allegations then your topic is false.1) Presidents are never assumed to be responsible for atrocities and other acts of war that've been committed. This would apply to any president or ruler in history during a time of war.2) Obama's intentions as president are to avoid war atrocities. No sane, rational human being wants to kill civilians for the sake of killing civilians. Obama is a sane and rational individual. Therefore it's unwarranted and an unfair comparison to accuse him of crimes likened to Saddam and Gaddafi that destroy innocent civilians for speaking out against their regime. Here you said:". . . [Obama] committed crimes while in office that are as bad as the crimes that have led to others, such as Saddam and Gaddafi."3) Obama himself didn't commit any war crimes or murders.Your "collective punishment" argument is bogus simply because this is an isolated incident of war and it's impossible to prove intent. The U.S. military follows very strict procedures in war to save as many civilians as they possibly can. This has been to the detriment of our military's safety while in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama is a war criminal and murderer

Under the Geneva convention "collective punishment" is considered a war crime - drone strikes against pakistan villages amount to collective punishment, this is beyond reasonable doubt. Collective Punishment is where a whole group of people (eg the village) suffer through murder or just intimidation etc for the crimes or alleged crimes of a minority - the suspected terrorist. Civilian death estimates vary from hundreds to thousands depending on the source: http://en.wikipedia.org... - apart from the CIA which stands alone (and unquestioned by US media) with claims that there were "no civilian deaths", such an amazing and inaccurate claim looks clearly like someone trying to cover their own asses. We can conclude from these sources civilian deaths are significant, collective punishment is significant - beyond reasonable doubt. According to Huffington Post, Obama is aware of mistakes that were made in killing innocent civilians (in contradiction to CIA reports) and was reportedly "surprised and upset and wanted an explanation" over the killing of an innocent boy Abdulrahman al-Awlaki the son of a suspected friend of some suspected terrorists http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Obama himself authorises these strikes and the targets used, he is as guilty as Hitler was for murdering the jews. Obama's active role is not denied by the White House, in fact it is promoted as a sign of him being 'tough on terrorism' or 'keeping America safe'. "Extrajudicial killings" as they are known means deciding someone is guilty and murdering without trial which goes against the principles of the American or international justice system - it is cold-blooded murder http://www.theguardian.com... Amnesty International no less says America (and by extension Obama) must be held to account for "unlawful killings in Pakistan through drone attacks" http://www.amnesty.org...
Banking System

"I was hustling you", oh burn!!! BURN!!!! You got me man, you so got me. I was so fooled by this player (SARCASM). Honestly? Really?You really think you got me somehow? That thought is so FULL OF IT. I can't even describe how irrelevant that is to this debate too.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I am going to tell you why your fundamental claims are wrong:Your claims are not credible since they lack substantial support from sources and key evidence. -You tried to post a link for your %s but its only a link that directs the person clicking it to the youtube homepage which is very irrelevant indeed to my opponent's points. "why are they afraid of people coming for their rightfully owned cash?", this is an irrelevant notion that they are afraid in the context of this debate, since the BoP is on Con to prove that in some way, it affects a bank's credibility."all their cash is hidden on Bermuda", this cannot be confirmed in this debate without sufficient backing of sources provided by Con.Yes, people can sometimes be blamed for starting a bank run crises by over spending a bank's reserve, but this is very unlikely to happen for most banks because of the regulations I had listed earlier, and especially with this that I found recently: The Federal Reserve Act. It is a policy that "requires that banks keep a certain percentage of their money in (their)reserve,"(howstuffworks). This is highly likely to prevent embezzlement. Even if his points concerning embezzlement were likely, does that mean that the system itself is faulty? Not at all, with the points I have given so far, it shows how the system is economically efficient regardless of the people behind the scenes.Oh yeah, and your alternative would arguably lead to frequently more problems because of the costs of such a system and the inconveniences for many. "Financial intermediation" as I mentioned earlier, is a necessity for people who need money to achieve something, and if it is not provided then the financial system overall would destabilize and cause more frequent financial crises. You likely did not do any research on this, but had you done any proper research, your arguments could have been much better because this is certainly a fairly controversial issue among economists. Sources:-http://money.howstuffworks.com...
Banking System

I was hustling you; Point 1; 2% inflation rate, not interest rate, http://m.YouTube.com... Point 2; Why then are we only allowed to withdrawal a certain amount in a day, if the bank truly can return deposited, why are they afraid of people coming for their rightfully owned cash? If they had the cash on hand like they are supposed to, or if their reserve rate was enough to cover people's deposited, then they would have no problem with giving people their money. Point 3; And yet the banks accept trillions in free money from the Federal reserve, even though they are billionaires, it's called "insurance fraud", how are the guys with billions dead broke, the answer is; they aren't, all their cash is hidden on Bermuda, then they get free tax payers dollars from congress, and free inflation payers dollars from the Federal Reserve, regardless of whether or not they have the cash. Point 4; The answer is very simple; don't spend other people's money, the banks can hold people's money, and not spend it, very simple, say the bank wants to make a loan, they can loan their own private cash out, on course this would not gain interest for depositors, but the banks don't do that anyway.
Banking System

Your argument: Fraction Reserve Banking allows banks to make more money on loans and to make bigger return for depositors. My Argument: This is not true, banks commonly only have a maximum of 1% interest, which is not even enough to account for the Federal Reserves 2% interest policy. Your Argument: Fraction Reserve Banking allows for long term loans, and quick return for depositors. My Argument: It may allow for long term loans, but it does not allow for quick return for depositors, in fact it has no other affect to the depositor but that the bank has spent 97% of his money. Your Argument: Don't worry about spending other people's money, uncle Sam and the taxpayers will cover it.
Banking System

I will be arguing that our banking system needs some serious reform. Fraction Reserve Banking: This is my entire point, a fraction reserve bank is a bank wherein the bank only has to keep a fraction of its deposited, right now it is 3%, this means that if you have 100$ in the bank, the bank can spend 97$ and only keep 3$, they can alternatively take your 100$, and write 3,333$ in checks, and use that 100 as reserve, they can also use checks as reserve, this means that if you have 1,000$ in the bank, it is most likely "backed" by 30$ in checks from another bank, which is backed by 90" in the other bank, so if you have money in the bank, they most likely only have a few cents to secure your money.