BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pope Francis is a heretic and not a true Pope

I concede that, within the framework of all your definition and dogma, your argument is both valid and sound. I argue that the dogma and definiton off which you base your very argument is corrupt, however, and that it is a contradiction to the message of Jesus Christ, and by extension, the Word of God. In John 14:26, Jesus tells us that He will reveal further Truth in the future through the Holy Spirit. What this means is that at the point of the Ascension, the Church was only just born, and would grow and develop over its lifetime. I argue that the early Church leaders who made it a rule that the Church cannot evolve or be changed are the true heretics; the ones who tried to kill the living, growing Church in its infancy. None of the doctrines you've talked about are the direct words of Christ, nor are they in the Bible, so even to a Christian they are not definitely true. All of the Vatican II statements and the statements of Pope Francis that you have attacked have to do with accepting people outside of the Catholic Church, and I would say that this is part of the evolution of the Church, part of God's project of Universal Acceptance and Love. In the Bible, Jesus Christ confirms that the Will of the Lord is to cultivate Universal Love and Acceptance between all members of humanity. In Matthew 7:12, Jesus sums up the Law of God quite succinctly: "In all things, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." In Mark 12:31, Jesus confirms that one of the two greatest commandments of the Lord is to love thy neighbor as thyself. This is a message of Universal Acceptance and Love incompatible with earlier Catholic doctrine that condemns anyone outside of the Church. God and all of his Laws transcend time, and the only way for an eternal law to be expressed within the framework of time is through evolution over time from the most abject ignorance of the Law to the ultimate confirmation of the Law. I have argued that the only Law of God, other than personal love for Him, is Universal Acceptance and Love for Others. Therefore, the true heretics are the ones who stop the evolution of the Church and the ones who reject the fact that the Lord's ultimate goal is that all can become conscious of His glory and take part in it through love for Him and Universal Love and Acceptance for everyone else. Vatican II and the words of Pope Francis come closer to Universal Love and Acceptance than any Pre-Vatican II doctrine, therefore, Vatican II is not a defection or a corruption and Pope Francis is a true Pope that leads the Church further towards its ultimate goal.
Pope Francis is a heretic and not a true Pope

You have not proven that the Church is indefectable or infallible. The BOP is on you, you made those claims. There is no reason to believe that doctrine can be stable. There is no reason to believe that Church teaching has ever been perfect. You have not proven that Vatican II and post Vatican II teachings promote evil or that pre-Vatican II teachings promote good. Without proof for any of these claims, there is no good reason to believe that Pope Francis is a heretic. Since there is no good reason to believe that Pope Francis is a heretic. saying that he is not a true Pope is unjustified.
Earmarks

Resolved: On balance, congressional earmarks are bad. Definition: Earmark: a provision in Congressional legislation that allocates a specified amount of money for a specific project, program, or organization. [Merriam Webster - 1] Every year, money and power is being processed through a system without any transparency nor accountability. What is this called? Earmarks. Congressional earmarks are items that direct funds to certain projects without any speculation from the government nor opinion from the public. In the past, we have seen it lead to many instances of wasteful spending and it has become another way for corruption to occur in United States politics.
Earmarks

Winter break was turning into a drag, so I needed something interesting to get college apps off my mind. For the sake of a fun debate, I will let my opponent choose between two resolutions: 1. Resolved: On balance, congressional earmarks are good. Or, 2. Resolved: On balance, congressional earmarks are bad. My opponent will state which resolution he/she has chosen, and will debate the PRO side for that resolution. See Observation 2 for judging. Definition: Earmark: a provision in Congressional legislation that allocates a specified amount of money for a specific project, program, or organization. [Merriam Webster - 1] Observations: 1. This is a straight up debate. Setting up a framework based on your interpretation of the resolution is okay, but no unreasonable or obscure definitions. Simply put, earmarks are, on balance, either good or bad. 2. Because the resolution uses the words "on balance", we must use a weighing mechanism between the pros and cons of earmarks when judging the debate. Impacts must be weighted against each other. No work can be done by the judge; all must be done by the debater. 3. Round 1 is for introduction. Round 2 will be used to present our framework and arguments. No new arguments after Round 2. Rounds 3 and 4 are for rebuttal and summary. I thank my opponent in advance for accepting. I look forward to a fun debate. Good luck! [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Ron Paul has the best chance to win the general election against a Democratic nominee.

No problem. This was a fun debate! ^^ My first political! ^^ The fact is, honestly, even with Ron Paul, I believe that there won't be a chance of a Republican election. The General population honestly knows and feels that Bush has been such a bad president. Even though as it is, Ron Paul isn't able to pass McCain. If he can't do that, then there's no way he's the one going against the Democrats, meaning there's no chance for the Republicans.
Ron Paul has the best chance to win the general election against a Democratic nominee.

Yeah, I agree. I don't think the Republicans have any chance this year, unless of course they pull out a miracle like Ron Paul. That would probably be enough to shake things up a bit and give them a chance, otherwise when you look at the numbers, its clear that the Dems are probably going to take it hands down this time. Well, sorry about the confusion, I will make sure to write longer intros to my debates in the future!
Ron Paul has the best chance to win the general election against a Democratic nominee.

Ah, I see. In that sense though, I agree with some of your points. In my opinion also, he would control fiscal discipline very well as well, as from what I've read for debate. However, I still believe that many people are still not going to vote Republican. We've seen the current fisaco called our present unfold for the past eight years. Before the current president, we had a Democrat, who was very successful. That same president's wife is running on the Democratic side this year. I believe honestly, that people will be voting for the Democrats because of the fear factor that a Republican will fall just as bad, if not worse then Bush. Also, I've been hearing that Ron Paul is going to be dropping out, that he's running just to make a point.
Ron Paul has the best chance to win the general election against a Democratic nominee.

I'm sorry for the confusion, I mean that Ron Paul has the best chance to win the general election, assuming that he would win the party nomination. If you took this debate in an attempt to argue that he will not win the party nomination, then I would certainly not disagree with you since he is in, at best, fourth or fifth place among the Republican candidates so he most likely will NOT win the nomination. Ron Paul is against the war, while all the other Republicans are totally for it. Since the War is by far the most crucial event of the millenium to date, this issue is of prime importance to the american voters. Ron Paul would actually have a chance to take away a bunch of the Democratic votes, while keeping most of the Republican ones in the process, because of his anti-war stance. Every other Republican candidate is going to have NO CHANCE in the general election, because most people are sick of the war and are going to vote Democrat because of it. If the Republicans could muster a little humility and give their votes to Ron Paul, instead of pigheadishly trying to get another Republican war-monger in the white house, then they could possibly walk away with yet another Republican Presidency.
Ron Paul has the best chance to win the general election against a Democratic nominee.

Yeah, this is going to be my first political debate. I'm also new to this site, so beware of noobish posting. XD I'm also a little bit off on what you mean in your topic, as in if you mean against Democrats, or against his fellow Republicans. Anyway.. I don't think that Ron Paul has the best chance to win the general election. After seeing the New Hampshire Primary, I think Senator John McCain has the best shot. He killed by I believe over 20% of the vote, leading off with a huge start. Also, not to mention Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom had large numbers on the Democratic side, of which it doesn't pertain right now. However, I honestly think that the Democrats are going to win this election, just because of the fact that Bush hasn't done well in his two terms in office. The American people want and need a change, and many believe that changing their party will be that necessary change.
do people who cut themselves do it for attention

Interesting argument...I do see your point and I do understand however... Let's look into No. 4 in that long list of yours "Emotional abuse or physical abuse may cause some people to close off the outside world and become reclusive. In this state, they may resort to cutting." The same person who HATES being abused resorts to abusing themselves? Either your source is not reliable or you're confused. If I don't like candy and people forced me to eat candy, I would not eat candy as an escape to being forced to eat candy. Does that make sense? No it doesn't. You said they feel "dirty" or "unclean" however you put it correct? To simply state it's the same case as mentioned above. Also you stated this "People who cut have no intentions to kill themselves..." is a lie. The risk of suicide is higher in those who commit acts of self harm. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.patient.co.uk... in the "Prognosis" part it states this "More than 5% of people who have been seen at a hospital after self-harm will have committed suicide within nine years." Anyways...Thanks for this debate. I didn't try to come off as a person who thinks self-harm is a joke or a lie, it is a real thing and I do believe there are people with issues and they should be helped.
do people who cut themselves do it for attention

First... My opponent failed to actually prove it was pointless. The whole story was to show liars will cut themselves or lie about cutting themselves to prove my point. My story brought up a decent statement. Second while cutting releases endorphins it doesn't actually help. Multiple websites (too many to count) and people on Yahoo agree...it doesn't help and never did. And if actual people with problems are aware why would they still cut? They aren't even addicted to the cutting...they like the endorphins. To further strengthen my argument, I would like to restate what you said "Very few people cut themselves for attention" which is a hasty generalization. You claim this without evidence to support it. How can you prove very few people cut for attention?
do people who cut themselves do it for attention

I would like to begin this round with a retort against your argument; your entire story about Person was completely pointless, and here is why" 1st you had one person who may have been lying on a social media sight, (I can"t get onto any social media sights where I am but I am still interested in your references if they"re not social media- or YouTube) I would like to point out that people who take part In NSSI (Non Suicidal Self Injury) tend not to show their injuries and usually hide them with clothing (hoodies, long sleeve shirts, or turtle necks for instance) Next I would like to argue with some facts of my own. 1. Myth #3: NSSI is a cry for help " or, someone who hurts himself on purpose is being manipulative. The idea of intentionally causing injury to oneself is foreign to many people and difficult to understand. Why would someone hurt himself on purpose? For many people who engage in NSSI, the behavior is a way of dealing with aversive feelings, thoughts, or situations. Most people who engage in NSSI do so to regulate emotional and physical experiences, such as reducing feelings of sadness or anger. Even though you might think that the pain of self-injury would make someone feel worse, people often do it because it makes them feel better, at least short-term. NSSI is an adverse coping strategy, but people engage in it because it"s easily available and effective at regulating emotional, physical, and social experiences. www. caringforourchildrenfoundation. org/? p=22948 2. Traditionally, many doctors, therapists, and family members have believed that people engage in NSSI primarily to manipulate others. However, recent research has found that such social factors only motivate a minority of cases and usually represent cries for help rather than coldhearted attempts to exploit caretakers. Although there are many reasons why people engage in this kind of self-injury, the most commonly reported reason is simple, if seemingly odd: to feel better. www. scientificamerican. com " Mind & Brain " Mind Matters This Argument is from personal experience I use to cut myself, for several different reasons, sometimes I just was feeling really low. Sometimes, I felt so angry that I needed to inflict pain on something, so rather than hurting someone, I would do the damage to myself. These are just 2 of the reasons why I myself would cut; I hid it from everyone, using my hoodie, and long sleeve shirts, In 100+ degree weather. The only reason why I"m even admitting to this is because it"s part of my healing process, and because now I wish to help others who go through the experience that I went through. (Not to mention It will help with the debate) But seriously I know what it"s like. Very few people ever are willing to cause themselves harm, without, their being in serious mental pain already. There are a few people who commit NSSI for manipulation purposes; I will admit that, but only a few. Many people don"t have the will power to put the blade into their skin. It is usually the mental pain that drives them to try it.
do people who cut themselves do it for attention

This is my first debate, nice. I would like to state right now, that not ALL people cut themselves for attention. However, I will also state, that people do it for attention as well. I am NOT saying everyone that cuts themselves do it for attention. Right, to the argument... I have met people who claimed to cut themselves but really didn't. How did I find out? Simple logic that's how. Let's use this example for my argument alright? First, the inconsistency of said person's photos(No names will be released. We will refer to this person as "Person"). The Person's photos on the social media website was not the same. What do I mean? Person's photos were of different people, but edited to make it look like someone else. Person's photo A and B did not match because the scars were in different places each time. Though, subtle it was noticeable. One scar, above the knee has rotated in photo B but was in a different position in photo A. If someone cutting themselves has photos, look for inconsistency. That will tell you that they are trying to get attention. Secondly, they avoided death. Yes...it sounds weird but it's true. Apparently, they had "killed themselves". After one month they returned saying they were alright...but didn't they die? Apparently, a "friend" had taken over Person's account and had a photo with a description explaining how they killed themselves. There is only one explanation...obviously Person was posing as said friend. Another way to detect a liar. Thirdly, Person was off and on happy. Yes it can happen in depression, but this was an odd pattern and I'll explain why. Person would go on about how Person was fat, ugly, and had no boy/girlfriend relationship and no one liked Person. However a week later they had a boy/girlfriend and were talking about how they were good looking and fit. A few days later they denied anything about having a relation, and deleted all posts related to how happy they were. Possible break up? Sure it can happen, but what made it so peculiar was...they said they had a boy/girlfriend a few days later. This repeated for a while then ended. Off and on relationship in a span of 2 weeks? That's not normal and is a good sign that they are lying. How does this relate to my argument and the debate? These are the ways you can tell someone is posing, and it is like this on ALMOST every depression account on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, etc. That's right, people play and pose as depressed kids, teenagers, and even adults. But do people actually cut themselves for attention? Let's pause about smokes and mirrors and discuss people who aren't depressed but do cut themselves for attention. According to a few websites I've been to many people agree that SOME people do cut themselves for attention. If you want sources ask, and I'll provide. I'D LIKE TO RESTATE WHAT I SAID EARLIER WITH ANOTHER NOTE. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO CUT THEMSELVES AND HAVE REAL ISSUES. IF YOU KNOW SOMEONE THAT HAS A PROBLEM, TELL SOMEONE THEIR LIVES COULD BE IN DANGER.
do people who cut themselves do it for attention

This is an open style debate on whether most people who cut themselves (intentionally) do it for attention (pity from others, to fit in, to make a point to those they are having problems with, rebel (against their parents) I will be arguing that most do not. This is a 3 round debate, with 48 hours to respond, anyone can accept. And Con may start his/her argument in round 1.
The Trinity is not a rational belief

Sadly, I find your reply a cop out. The topic was clearly stated, and my position was listed as well. You should concede defeat on the grounds that you jumped into a debate without first understanding the position of your opponent. I would also, like to highlight, that you yourself know that the fault was not in my phrasing for you were quick to post in the comments that you were in error. I kindly request that you concede defeat in light of the above.
God exists.

The resolution is that God exists. Pro will be arguing that God exists, while Con will be arguing that Pro has not established that God exists. By accepting this debate, Pro agrees that they have the burden of proof to establish that it is objectively more likely than not that God exists. The rules for assessing this are the standard rules of logic, including the rules of deductive and inductive inference. For example, a deductive argument must be deductively valid and have premises that we have sufficient reason to believe are true, and an inductive argument must establish that the conclusion is the best or only explanation for the evidence cited in the premises. God for the purposes of this debate shall be defined, by default, as an omnipotent, omniscient, all good person. I take this definition from the first paragraph of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "Concepts of God." [1] If Pro wants to use a definition other than this default definition, they should ask for me to approve it in the comments section before accepting the debate. The following types of definition are unacceptable: (a) Definitions that attempt to win the debate by defining God as something that obviously exists, like "God is love" or "God is the universe." (b) Definitions that attempt to define God as something radically different from the traditional Judeo-Christian God as conceived of by Anselm, Aquinas, Richard Swinburne, or other traditional authors. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu...
Like It or Not: Trump will reach Lincoln-Level Heights Post Mortem (Short Debate)

I don't think he will because of the amount of idiotic things the man has done the reason Lincoln is so fantasized and such is because of the things he did and why he did those things like the civil war and the freeing of the slaves Trump on the other hand isn't in a good spot right now with the government shutdown and among other things the only way I personally see Trump being remembered if for the rest of his presidency continues like it is now is either impeachment or people beating his presidency to the ground because no matter if you're in support of Trump or not his presidency has been a royal disaster sure hes gotten some things done that's to be expected however hes done more wrong then good in a good amount of people's eyes mine included
Like It or Not: Trump will reach Lincoln-Level Heights Post Mortem (Short Debate)

The evidence in brief is compelling, the history books will only speak highly of Donny Trump. He's rich, powerful and influential He has Global recognition, celebrity himself Huge far Right wing support, they too like him are Controversial Manipulative, eg knows how to cut someone off, simply by saying "fake news" etc Con- in brief highlight why you think he will not attain greatness, ie he not be remembered like a Jefferson or a Lincoln.
African Americans are stealing our heat and it's unfair

This has been a problem for centuries, and i'm surprised i'm the first to acknowledge it. Africans have black skin, and dark colors absorb more sunlight, and stealing all the heat from America, and because of this, is why eastern America is getting pounded with snowstorms, and why it is so cold over here. We have 3 rounds and a max of 8,000 characters. go.