BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
catholic church official teaching is that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell

I read Pro's argument and came to conclusion that she never read Holy Bible. Unbaptized infants and Noncatholics.Firstly, unbaptized infants will not go to hell, for several reasons. The rational reason, if we assume God is just and merciful, then Him sending little children who have done nothing, would be unjust and unmerciful. Children not being baptized is not their fault, but it is their parents' fault. Therefore they cannot be judged for their parents actions, which they have no aware, no knowledge of, and no participation with. Second evidence is scriptural. "At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me." - Mat18:3. The child here is not a catholic, and not a Christian, and he (or may be she) was not baptized. And "whoever takes the lowly position of this child" means position of child is without any deeds (good or bad), because children has no awareness of good or bad, until they grew in certain knowledge.The claim, Noncatholics will not go to heaven is another nonsense, because Jesus never talked about Catholics, and never said it is a ticket for paradise. He told a parables, explaining how to get to paradise, and non of them say anything about catholic dogma. If Pro claims otherwise, she have to show it from the Bible.And thirdly, even before claiming such dogma, one have to prove the main claims of catholic dogma are true, rationally and logically. If they cannot be proved then whatever the secondary claim is just waste of time. If what you say about God is just nonsense, then there is no point to talk about secondary issues, like who will go to hell, and who will not. And it is God's business, whom He is letting to paradise and whom He is sending to hell. You cannot put an obligation on God.
catholic church official teaching is that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell

the only teachings that might say otherwise, are fallible, nonauthoritative statements. remember to be authoritative, it has to be the pope, intentionally, teaching, the church, on faith and morals. private letters, presentations to limited audiences etc, do not count. limbo, just some examples: Council of Florence Session 11 (Bull Cantate Domino): "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time..." Council of Florence Session 6 "..the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains." No salvation for noncatholics: you can find plenty of rigorist authoritative quotes here: http://en.wikipedia.org... the only authoritative type statements that i see that they can be saved are vatican ii. it could be argued that they said they didnt intend to define anything, and it's always possible to hope that noncahtolics would somehow repent or 'be shown an angel before death' or something as is traditionally the only way of getting saved. so when they say noncatholics 'may' be saved, it is a political statement loaded with far out possibilities while making it look like they actually have a shot. it's a political statement.
Man has the ability to exercise free will

Hello, Fred. This is one of my favorite subjects, and I am glad to have this debate with you. The photons emitting from my computer screen have triggered a complicated cause and effect, resulting in me accepting the challenge. I would like to start off by establishing what free will is. We are discussing the theoretical ability of the mind to make decisions of its own, and to control its own fate. I would now like to speculate on the nature of a mind. Its home is the brain. The brain is a physical object, which acts like any other physical object. Chemical reactions occur within it, which makes our "decisions" and "thoughts". You will refute by saying that we control our decisions. If you see a plate of food in front of you would eat it, right? If there was no plate of food there, would you have still made the decision to eat it? No. Of course not, several things, including the smell of the food, and your vision that reveals the food, CAUSED you to eat it. The brain is such an endlessly complex thing, but it still follows rules and cause and effect just like anything else. The nature of this speculation is incredible, as it is that of a brain pondering on the workings of it. We can, of course, never fully understand and predict the complex chemical reactions of a brain. Because we may not predict it, we assume it controls its own fate. The same may be applied to the rolling of a die. No man can predict what number it will land on when tossed across a game- board. We perceive it to be random. Though it is obvious that it is not random, and the die still follows the laws of physics, and every little crumb on the table that the die comes across, causes the die to make a slightly different course. Let's look back to history, shall we? In the very early ages, before science, people would perceive that things such as rain were the will of gods, and would dance and what not for rain. Of course none of them could perceive of water being held in clouds, evaporation or what not, so they assume that the rain has a will of its own. In our advanced era, we know that rain is caused by a predictable system of cause and effect. How is our brain any different? I have no wish to turn this into a theological debate, for I am an atheist. I will note however, that there is in fact, theological determinism. You should look it up. It is the belief that god controls the actions of Humans. wrote more ethic and sci can post round 1 or in comments. prefference?
Man has the ability to exercise free will

This topic has been discussed since the earliest of times and involves religious, ethical, and scientific implications. In the realm of theology, the Creator does not assert His omnipotent power over individual will thereby allowing humans to make choices. On an ethical plane, without free will, how can we hold anyone morally accountable for their actions. While great strides have been made in scientifically mapping the thought process, the actions of the body are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question is: Does the machine (brain) control the soul or does the soul control the machine? In contemplating on whether or not to issue this challenge, I weighed all of the options and possibilities (consequences) of my contemplated action and decided to go ahead and issue the challenge. My intention is not to win or loose the debate, but supply a forum where ideas can be freely exchanged in a refreshing, open atmosphere without rancor.
is it ethical to implement an algorithm that gives self-driving cars the right to kill in case of em

In some cases this might seem like a good idea but what if it could save one or the other how would it chose who dies and lives should companies really have to play god and give everyone life scores and choose how important you are this would start up a lot of controversy. Do you really want to be judged to see if your life is valuable enough to live or so useless that you would die. What would the cars do if a white man and a Blackman with the same life scores who would it chose the black man or the white man, if it chose the white it would be called racist if it chose the black man they would say that it was trying to avoid trouble. Also this would give them ways to kill others that they don"t like by giving them a very low score.
is it ethical to implement an algorithm that gives self-driving cars the right to kill in case of em

Self-driving cars hold out the promise of being safer than manually driven cars. Yet they cannot be a 100 % safe. Collisions are sometimes unavoidable. So self-driving cars need to be programmed for how they should respond to scenarios where collisions are highly likely or unavoidable. The accident-scenarios self-driving cars might face have recently been likened to the key examples and dilemmas associated with the trolley problem. In this article, we critically examine this tempting analogy. We identify three important ways in which the ethics of accident-algorithms for self-driving cars and the philosophy of the trolley problem differ from each other. These concern: (i) the basic decision-making situation faced by those who decide how self-driving cars should be programmed to deal with accidents; (ii) moral and legal responsibility; and (iii) decision-making in the face of risks and uncertainty. In discussing these three areas of disanalogy, we isolate and identify a number of basic issues and complexities that arise within the ethics of the programming of self-driving cars.
Pokemon is freakin creepy.

I am very sorry for the technical issues I suffered, which prevented me from uploading my latest round. I attempted to contact Patriot Person by private message and by comments, even uploading the speech there, but alas, I will just have to re-submit my explanations here and hope that my opponent has the grace to forgive me. The Pokedex itself makes no sense. How can it identify a pokemon that has never been seen before, pokemon that hide in caves deep underground, like Mewtwo? If I scan a human, it doesn't give me a weight, cry, height etc. for every single human, just that one human in particular. The pokedex's flaws can be seen wherever a professor makes up the entries themselves. Grimer, the Sludge Pok"mon. It was born when sludge in a dirty stream was exposed to X-rays from the moon. The moon. The moon is, in fact, the weakest source of radiation in the known universe (http://www.mpe.mpg.de...), making it highly illogical why it didn't just get the x rays from the earth, or how the Pokedex came to know about this. It would make sense if the pokedex was some form of artifact made by arceus, but no, it was formed by a time paradox caused by Ash. I could go on about unrealistic tempatures given by slugma, or how Alakazam only learns 4 moves, but I have other points. The reason I cannot accept creepypastas as sources is because they are not canon. I stated at the beginning of the debate that the pokemon games came under the many worlds theory, where even games like Gale of Darkness would be counted, but these are Game Freak approved. If I put up a creepypasta about how all Giratina wanted was a cuddle from a loving trainer, I couldn't use that as evidence. But I checked with Cyndy and Latias, they enjoy hugs too. Dialga enjoys poking people. Darkrai and Cresselia have a dual relationship, but it is not a rivalry. Even if you claim he once inflicted nightmares willingly, he redeemed his character. Yes, it was to display how Tentacool isn't the threat you make it out to be, as even low level pokemon can fend them off with ease. I pose that the mind control is no threat, since we're going by animes are ok, Manaphy can just let everyone fly over the water instead, like in the movie, or people can just jump across the water without boats. See video for explanation. http://www.youtube.com... It makes no difference with the pg 13. You know Smaug can't possibly kill any of them, nor can they die from falls. You can't make Lord of the Rings out of the Hobbit, and you can't make creepiness out of such ridiculous arguments. Duncan.
Pokemon is freakin creepy.

You disregard the knowledge of professors without providing any proof. You don't even give a source. They don't just use legends. From: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... "Pok"dex entries typically describe a Pok"mon in only two or three sentences. They may give background information on the habitat or activities of a Pok"mon in the wild or other information on the Pok"mon's history or anatomy. Pok"dex entries also include height, weight, cry, footprint, location, other forms, and a picture of the Pok"mon." That seems pretty accurate to me. And your judging of the lullaby not being fair is somewhat acceptable, but it is still about pokemon. This debate, is about a pokemon, so is the video. Giratina does not love you. Giratina is just showing fake affection so it can gain your trust. Then, Giratina, the Devil himself, will possess you, burn down the Johto region, than Sinnoh, than Kalos... Darkrai still wanted to inflict nightmares at one point. He represents nightmares, while his rival, Cresselia, represents good dreams. And what was that thing about Magikarp vs. Tentacruel about? Was that just supposed to be some fun joke? And why does it matter if a "level 100" Pikachu loses every second fight? The picture is still direct material from the anime, therefore that picture of Tentacool possessing Meowth is valid. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is rated PG-13, not PG. Boom.
Pokemon is freakin creepy.

Legends are not viable sources of information, especially for a Professor. Since each professor uses these legends as source for the Pokedex, they discredit themselves. (By the way, each Professor answers to Oak anyway) In no way does Oak or any other Professor explain the science behind their techniques. Oak's method is to give 10 year-olds pokedexes and send them off. Elm does the same thing. Birch observes them in the field, and since he's obviously never left Littleroot, since he can't handle a lvl 3 zigzagoon, I doubt his credentials. Rowan ups his game by sending 3 children off not even giving one of them a pokedex. Finally, I do not have X or Y, but I imagine that Sycamore also sends children out in threes. I would listen to the lullaby, but I can see the text reading "based on the creepypasta" already, so I'll give that a skip, as it's not even from the games. Next, in defense of Giratina, I would like to remind you in Pokemon Soulsilver, it's possible to have him cuddle you because he loves you so much. Not demonic material, it seems. Net up, Cyrus explains the distorted world as the opposite stand of the DNA like world they dwell in, so he's more of an anti-matter pokemon. Next up, Darkrai fled to Full Moon Island in Diamond because he didn't want to inflict nightmares. Due to its proximity to Half-Moon Island, Cresselia would easily be able to cure any rare cases. I did a short test by making a female character and then fighting Tentacruel with a Magikarp until it fainted. After my 4th one, I found out you just go back to the Pokemon center. No questionable Japanese pornography occurs. By the way, The picture you have is of the cartoon, you know the one where a lvl 100 pikachu loses every second fight. These enemies are as threatening as Smaug from the Hobbit. Claiming to be threatening, you know the pg rating prevents you from taking a scratch. See you next round, Duncan
Pokemon is freakin creepy.

The Pokedex takes entries from not only legend, but witness accounts of the pokemon. That includes adults, not just ten year olds with pokeballs. The entries are also found by scientific studies, and Oak is not the only one who writes them. Oak writes them for the Kanto region only. Elm writes for Johto, Birch writes for Hoenn, Rowan writes for Sinnoh, Juniper writes for Unova, and Sycamore writes for Kalos.Therefore, most of t\your arguments about the truth flaws of the pokedex are wrong. Onto more reasons why pokemon is creepy. Have you heard Hypno's lullaby? I'll have it in this argument, just in case you haven't. Hypno is the evolved form of Drowzee, whom I mentioned in my last argument. Hypno holds a pendulum, and loves to hypnotize people into sleep. According to one game's Pokedex, Hypno stole a child it hypnotized. Thus, Hypno's Lullaby was born. Don't listen to or watch it if it is close to night or you are tired. http://www.youtube.com...EVIL POKEMON GIRATINA IS THE DEVIL. I mean, it was banished by Arceus, Palkia and Dialga for its violent ways. Satan, much? Also, look. How many wings does it have? 6. How many things on its neck does it have? 6. How many spikes does it have along its sides? 6. Therefore, 666. Giratina is the Devil, Arceus is God. Darkrai is evil. Darkrai is the legendary version of a word I can't say without this argument being against DDO rules. He spreads nightmares to a whole country, just for giggles. He makes everyone wet their beds and cry themselves back to sleep for GIGGLES. Plus, he even looks evil. Bet you weren't expecting Tentacool! Tentacool uses its poisonous tentacle-stinger thingies to possess people and pokemon. Here is an example picture of one possessing a Meowth. So what will Tentacool do to you? Kill you with its poisonous stingers, than possess you so it can do whatever it pleases with your body. So what does its evolved form, Tentacruel do? O.O
Pokemon is freakin creepy.

The issue of Pokedex entries is one I will duly explain with a counter-question. Let's imagine it here; you have fought your way through the darkest cave of the Sinnoh region, in a cave of misdirection. Upon the end of the cave, you behold a massive Ghost Dragon, Almost fifteen feet tall. You battle this beast, using a self made Ultra Ball Machine Gun, and finally, capture the legendary. You are then informed not only are you not the first to see this Pokemon, but it has name and several entries. As in, Oak already had every entry and merely used the whole adventure thing as an excuse to get rid of you and the other kids in your town. "It was banished for its violence. It silently gazed upon the old world from the Distortion World." is the entry for Giratina. But how did the Pokedex know this? Who banished it, if Arceus is not in your pokedex? This points to the idea that Oak is making up the entries himself, with no research done save for a couple of ten year-olds with poke balls. Kadabra especially points out the flaws here; A boy turned into a Kadabra. Was he the first Kadabra? Does this make Human a pokemon? Can we evolve? If there was only one male kadabra, did he just f*** a load of dittos? If the first kadabra was a human, then where did the first Abra come from? These are old stories made by adults to frighten bold children, akin to the Kappa legend in our world. They are not serious biological studies, and for this reason, I refuse to believe Oak is even a qualified professor, as he has done little to earn a P.H.D. in Pokemon. The entries are written by an old man who has caught few pokemon, and while he claims to have been an experienced trainer, we see veterans a lot older than him still using pokemon, so we can chalk it down to him lying to children again. The Pokedex is a flawed device about as reliable as an unsourced Wikipedia page. Most likely, I believe upon receiving an email from the Trainer regarding a new ghost type, Oak goes to creepypasta.com and finds something there. This is the end of the Pokedex as a source of creepiness, You still have three more rounds however, giving you plenty of time to search elsewhere. Duncan.
Pokemon is freakin creepy.

I will do this round through the use of Pokedex entries.1. DrowzeePokemon Silver Version Pokedex entry: "it remembers every dream it eats. It rarely eats the dreams of adults because children's are much tastier". So not only does Drowzee sit by beds and eat people's dreams, he sits by CHILDREN's beds and eats their dreams just because they're TASTIER. On to the next one.2. GastlyPokemon Red and Blue Versions Pokedex entry: "Almost invisible, this gaseous pokemon cloaks the target and puts it to sleep without notice."Kids, don't go in that old house, or else the Gastly will STRANGLE you until your UNCONSCIOUS. Be home by 6! 3. KadabraPokemon FireRed Version Pokedex entry: "It happened one morning - a boy with extrasensory powers awoke in bed transformed into Kadabra."So, is this saying that children can just transform into pokemon? That leaves us with the scary question: were all pokemon once children? If so, that means everyone who has ever played pokemon has kidnapped children, kept them in cages (pokeballs) and forced them to fight other children. 4. Duskull (there are two creepy entries) Pokemon Platinum Version entry: "It loves the crying of children. It startles bad kids by passing through walls and making them cry." Okay, so you've got a pokemon that loves the sound of children crying, so it scares them with its demonic methods. It says it targets bad children, so is Duskull supposed to be some demonic, harsher form of Santa Claus?Pokemon HeartGold and SoulSilver Version entry: "If it finds bad children who won't listen to their parents, it will spirit them away - or so it is said." So now not only does demonic Santa scare children, but he takes them to HELL.One more for this round...5. DrifloonPokemon Pearl Version entry: "It tugs on the hands of children to steal them away. However, it gets pulled around instead." So, Drifloon is a pokemon that disguises itself as a balloon in order to kidnap children and "spirit them away". Spirit them where, exactly? Is it Hell again? Good job, Nintendo.
Pokemon is freakin creepy.

Very well! As a seasoned Pok"mon fan, I Mega-Absol-utely accept your debate. I only ask you grant me some leniency regarding X and Y, for I will be relying on an friend who has it for information. I also have an understanding of creepiness, having played Majora's Mask, so we can discuss these creepy moments with authority. First up, as a "starter" fact, "causing an unpleasant feeling of fear or unease" is the definition we're going for here. Largely subjective, so feel free to object to it. Secondly, under the many-worlds theory, all games are canon, and you can choose any game as an example. Finally, I'll forgive you for your previous errors, but ctrl-shift ", or you forfeit automatically from now on for failing to address the title Pok"mon properly. (Joking here) Good luck PatriotPerson, this will no doubt be a highly enjoyable debate! (I will be using various Pok"puns throughout the debate, apologies in advance) Duncan.
Pokemon is freakin creepy.

This is another PatriotPerson debate, brought to you by, well...PatriotPerson. Anyways, I will argue that pokemon is creepy. Freakin creepy to be specific. You, opponent, will argue that it isn't! Please, if you accept, you must be completely willing to do the entire debate (that means no forfeiting). I hate forfeiting. ROUND ! IS FOR ACCEPTANCE! Oops I put an exclamation mark instead of a 1, but you know what I mean. Good luck!
Abortion

What if the mother was raped? While I believe that life begins at implantantation, I support last resort choice that is safe and legal for the mother. Women have the right to make difficult choices for their pregnancy. Do I support birth controll or consensual sterilization as a first resort for free as an independent progressive like Bernie? Yes. Do I think abortion takes a human life? Yes. Do I realize that last resort choice has to exist when two human lives are connected? A resounding yes. That's the very definition of prochoice. My main problem with abolitionists and life of the mother onlyers is that I PERSONALLY BELIEVE that they support legalized forced organ donation. When even a corpse has the right to choose who uses his or her organs, but a live breathing woman does not, I have a problem with that. Here's the thing forced lifers fail to realize: I have no opinion or rights to what or who uses your human body, nor do you over mine. Pardon my French, but no one supports chits and gigles abortion, but anyone of any faith or none whatsoever can support last resort choice. It's a very emotional subject, and so hard to avoid lifers accusing me of hating children (I don't), or choicers accusing you of hating women even if you don't. My final point ius that women will die if abortion is banned according to pre Roe statitistical studies. Is that really prolife?