BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Catholicism has Mistakes

I will break down my opponent's arguments piece by piece.First of all Mary the Virgin, and the saints are worshipped. The bible clearly says in the Ten Commandments, have no other gods and do not make yourself a god to worship. Worshipping Mary and the saints clearly violate this law. And the bible does say Mary did have other children, so I don't understand what's up with her name. The bible and Jesus says follow God only, so Catholics who claim they are following God, don't follow his commandments.First Mary and the Saints are not worshiped. The saints have prayers for guidence and Mary has a prayer for protection and guidence. You see the saints stand for things, like how St. Matthew is the patron saint of accountants http://www.americancatholic.org.... You see the saints are not worshiped it is just that they are looked to for guidence. According to this article http://catholiccomuter.blogspot.com... you can see that Catholics don't worship the saints or Mary.For the Virgin Mary part, her name is that way because through God, not Joesph, she had Jesus. I do know that Mary had several other brothers. Pro says that to only fallow God, but this is were he is mistaken, because there is the Holly Trinity. The Father (God), the son, (Jesus), and the Holly Spirt. so you see we still haven't broken a rule. Seeking God's kingdom is following his commandments and not just following him. Jesus said, "If you love me, you will follow my commandments." So Catholics violate that law.Pro states that fallowing God's commandments doesn't mean we're fallowing him, but the Commandment says, "Obey your father and mother." So we are obeying God and loving him and fallowing his rules. Thus not a violation.The pope is also a weird addition Catholics added. Popes supposedly hear from God, and tell everyone what God wants them to do. But, God wants us to talk to him ourselves. The pope himself could very well be the antichrist! My opponent here is wrong because Nostrodamus has predicted 3 anti-christs, and they have been: Neopleon, Hitler, and Mabus (last one has yet to come). But the pope is an interment from God and God uses the pope to communicate with his children. So Pro is wrong here.Sacraments Protestants don't baptise untill a certain age. Those unbaptised will burn if they don't get baptised.Prostant violated the Bible.http://www.protestanterrors.com...
Catholicism has Mistakes

First of all Mary the Virgin, and the saints are worshipped. The bible clearly says in the Ten Commandments, have no other gods and do not make yourself a god to worship. Worshipping Mary and the saints clearly violate this law. And the bible does say Mary did have other children, so I don't understand what's up with her name. The bible and Jesus says follow God only, so Catholics who claim they are following God, don't follow his commandments. Matthew 6:33 Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these thing will be given to you as well. Seeking God's kingdom is following his commandments and not just following him. Jesus said, "If you love me, you will follow my commandments." So Catholics violate that law. The pope is also a weird addition Catholics added. Popes supposedly hear from God, and tell everyone what God wants them to do. But, God wants us to talk to him ourselves. The pope himself could very well be the antichrist! Therefore, my opponent will tell me what is wrong with Protestantism, and explain the meaning of Mary and saints worship, and the pope. Thank you.
Earth is flat, so there must be a God.

Although I expected more from my opponent in regards to the nature of this debate, I except his terms and definitions.Earth that is flatFor my case I will be using two locations of earth that are without hill. first we'll start with Kansas. A study at Texas state university and Arizona state university concluded that Kansas is indeed flatter than a pancake, or without hills.http://www.improbable.com...There are several salt flat around the world, but I will discuss the biggest one. The Salar de Uyuni in Bolivia is 4,000 sq. miles of perfect, flat, earth. Proof of a Creator I'm sure my opponent may be wondering at this time about how this may prove a Creator. To that I pose a question : how is it, when the earth is (supposedly) spinning at 1,000 mph, do such large expanses exist that are perfectly flat? Logic and common sense tell us that any object spinning at such speed will exhibit centrifugal force, especially at the equator of a planet, and could never be flat. We can deduce from this that either:A. The entire planet is relatively flat, orB. Our creator has countered this centrifugal force, and flattened out these many areas of earth.Either way, the outcome remains the same. A Creator exists, and, in these cases especially, has made the earth flat.
Earth is flat, so there must be a God.

Thanks Pro for instigating this debate. If there's something this site needs more of, it's debates about god and the earth being flat. People turn to this site for intellectual stimulation. .. well get ready for a stimulation platter. Flat earth and god amount to a combination of boundless intellectual entertainment. *Resolution*The mismatch between the debate tagline and Pro's round 1 sentence, the lack of definitions for any terms used, and the troll-ish undertones of this "resolution" require me to provide definitions and burden assessment 1st round. Definitionsearth - the surface of the planet on which we live as distinct from the sky or the sea. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...flat - without hills. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...*Burden*Pro, advancing a positive assertion, has the BoP to show that not only is the topography of the surface of the earth without hills, but that this concept is somehow itself a reason for the necessary existence of a universe creator/morality source.
Ronald McDonald 'Retirement'

With regard to our differing versions of the history of McDonald's my opponent posted a link to the McDonalds' website as "evidence" to support his outlandish claims. Ladies and gentlemen, you must agree that this is hardly an independent source. Indeed, the McDonald's website is a tool that the company uses to promote itself and to increase sales. Their skewed version of events is no more than propaganda designed to deceive the public into believing that their background is honourable and wholesome, when we all know it is not. To believe the McDonald's story on the McDonald's website would be like basing your understanding of Jewish history on "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler. Moving on, my opponent argues that Ronald McDonald is a positive role model for children who often endorses morals. What morals are these? "Greed is good"? "Survival of the fattest"? "The best things in life are served with fries"? Yes, it's true Ronald McDonald promotes certain charities but the actual donations are made by their customers – McDonald's don't put their hand in their own pocket – every last penny they make goes straight to their grasping, faceless shareholders. Finally, of course Ronald McDonald doesn't physically lead children by the hand through the doors of McDonalds but he does increase sales of their unhealthy products to children – if he didn't, McDonalds would retire him themselves. The sad fact is that in a country where over half the population is overweight many parents do not realise that feeding their children too much junk food can lead to serious long-term health problems and that is why Ronald McDonald is so counter-productive to educating children about the dangers associated with an unhealthy lifestyle. Therfore, Ronald McDonald should be retired. Please vote Pro. Thank you.
Ronald McDonald 'Retirement'

His defence of a ludicrous story is admirable, even if it is incongruous. Richard and Maurice ('Dick and Mac') McDonald are siblings. Rather than dithering over minute details, I shall rather give the final source: . http://www.mcdonalds.ca... And who is to say that the 'worst offender' is McDonalds? My opponent makes this assertion, but my opinion differs. McDonalds provides a careful calorie description of all of its products and offers a variety of healthy alternatives, including salad, soup and apple slices. They ensure that the consumers are undoubtedly informed of the product - and its negative consequences for the naï¿½ve and irresponsible. There are many that don't thoughtfully enlighten their customers as McDonalds does. Yum! Brands inc. is the largest fast food company in the world, yet Pizza Pizza, Taco Bell, KFC and Wingstreet don't deign to provide the same degree of information. Many attest that Kentucky Fried Chicken is considerably greasier than McDonalds. Coca Cola markets nothing but sugary carbonated soda that extracts irreplaceable calcium from children's bones. Even if McDonalds were the worst offender, I repeat my previous arguments that Ronald is not responsible for many of the parents bringing their children to McDonalds. The toys offered with Happy Meals should be accused as responsible more than Ronald. I am unwilling to provide pictures of that Miley Cyrus photo shoot, as my opponent proclaims, but I can and will provide sources regarding the incident. . http://www.etonline.com... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... The point of my mention regarding human icons is that they are morally fallible and often corrupt. Ronald McDonald is not one of them. Ronald McDonald is a positive symbol of McDonalds; he cannot commit any moral wrong or unethical action as he is merely a symbol and mascot. Unless somebody defiles his name, Ronald McDonald is uncompromiseable. He can only be optimistic and cheerful, often endorsing morals. When children 'idolise' a pop star or some famous figure, they are often let down when the star becomes involved in such scandal - and what does this indicate to the kids? that such action is acceptable because their star got away with it? Rather, Ronald will never be caught engaged in scandalous behaviour, and he shant let down any child - is it not better to idolize a symbolic figure than can do no wrong? Also, Ronald McDonald is the symbolic head of the Ronald McDonald Children's charity organizations. Without him being the moral head of charity, they will have to reform and create a new symbol. Ronald has symbolically helped thousands of children and hurt none whatsoever - how can any person feel justified in creating him into a criminal for something he doesn't do? Has Ronald McDonald ever personally led a child to eat in McDonalds? Of course not! Justice must prevail! Vote con. Thanks for a great debate, Brian. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Ronald McDonald 'Retirement'

I extend my thanks to 1stLordoftheVeneribilty for his considered response but does he really expect the voters to believe his ridiculous version of the history of McDonald's? What he's saying is that two men met and it turned out that, not only were they both interested in cooking (which in the late 1940's was strictly women's work) but also that, by pure coincidence, they happened to share the surname "McDonald". This seemed highly unlikely to me so I thought I'd check his story but the only source he provided to was a list of famous McDonalds and guess what? Neither Richard nor Maurice McDonald are on it! But top marks for imagination to my opponent anyway! By the way, in my true account of the history of McDonalds, I never stated that Lord Kroc was illiterate; it was Ronaldo Donaldo that couldn't read and write properly. My opponent then went on to list a number of other ruthless corporations that peddle unhealthy products to innocent children in order to make massive profits for their callous, grasping shareholders - but this debate is specifically about the worst offender – McDonald's, so we should ignore the fact that they are not the only villains in the piece. It would appear that my opponent and I agree that eating too much junk food and staying indoors playing video games rather than going out to play has led to many American children becoming dangerously overweight. I further concur that it is their parents' fault. These people are behaving extremely irresponsibly and the worst offenders should have their kids taken off them and be prosecuted for child abuse, just as they are here in the UK. Nevertheless, that doesn't excuse McDonald's from making the problem worse by encouraging kids to ram greasy burgers and fries down their neck at every given opportunity. 1stLordoftheVeneribilty then goes on to cite various examples of celebrities that have fallen from grace and wrote: "Young Children adore Miley Cyrus with screaming fanfare, yet she let Disney down with a Topless photo shoot." Really? I think she is far too naive and innocent to do anything like that and I won't believe it unless my opponent produces the photos as proof. As far as the rest are concerned, they paid their price for their indiscretions and were forced to change their ways. Tiger Woods, for example, got a golf club wrapped around his head and lost millions of dollars in sponsorship deals when his wife found out he'd been unfaithful to her. Furthermore, he had to make a public apology and promise to resist the temptation to ‘exchange courtesies' with ‘ladies of questionable virtue' in the future. (1) In conclusion, because others do wrong in life doesn't mean McDonald's should be allowed to get away with ruining the health of suggestible children whose parents are too irresponsible to take care of them properly and for that reason Ronald McDonald should be retired. Thank you. (1) http://www.timesonline.co.uk...
Ronald McDonald 'Retirement'

Greetings Brian! I thought I would invite you to this debate since you like the miscellaneous and random. This fits the bill. I recall that once you argued against obese people, so I hope you won't mind this change of tune - arguing for them. :P However, this is a saddening and almost depressing revelation. Is personal responsibility being eroded so that a mere symbol can be blamed upon the choices and actions of hundreds of thousands of people? This debate is predominantly about the blame of the famed McDonalds symbol Ronald McDonald. A group of protesters have raised a protest and requested that Ronald be retired, "...for nearly 50 years, Ronald has been hooking our kids on unhealthy food and spurring a deadly epidemic of diet-related disease," I aim to prove that this is an unfounded folly and absurd to state the least. Ronald McDonald doesn't force anybody to eat at McDonalds. Rather, he has represented a restaurant for fifty years and brought joy to advertising. Indeed, he appeals to children, but there are a great variety of promotional symbols, icons and figures that do likewise. Bud Light, for example, is viewed to be sexy and handsome - always having a great time. Why don't people spend time campaigning against him and the far worse effects of alcohol than on an innocent and legitimate symbol of both a restaurant and a variety of Charity Organizations. Apologies, Brian, if you find this to be a favoured debate or do not wish to debate on the Pro side of this group and their arguments. I thought, however, that you might enjoy it, due to the absurdity of what this group is proposing. : )
Gay Marriage

Marriage has always been a sacred bond between a man and a woman.Homosexual couples using in vitro fertilization (IVF) or surrogate mothers deliberately create a class of children who will live apart from their mother or father. Yale Child Study Center psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of IVF often ask their single or lesbian mothers about their fathers, asking their mothers questions like the following:"Mommy, what did you do with my daddy?" "Can I write him a letter?" "Has he ever seen me?" "Didn't you like him? Didn't he like me?" This shows that children really need their biological parents or else they develop social disorders and have identity problems.
Gay Marriage

A recent study by abbie goldberg shows that gay parents might be the best parents because gay parents are able to bring out more talent than straight parent, and gay parents are more motivated and determined to be parents, not people who are only focused on work. Straight parent are also worse because the 2 genders have very different perspectives on life, meaning that the parents will be raising the kid to look at life in 2 completely different manners. The parents will end up butting heads, and this increases the chance of divorce, which perminately affects the child.
Gay Marriage

A recent study from the Family Research Council has found that children living in a lesbian home Are more likely to be currently cohabiting Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance Are less likely to be currently employed full-time Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver." Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
Gay Marriage

It is in the child"s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent. The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex "marriage." A child of a same-sex "marriage" will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model. Same-sex "marriage" ignores a child"s best interests.
History has condemned nations getting into other nation affairs

Thank you for the opportunity to debate. My opponent accuses my arguments as slippery slope when, in fact, they were very obvious. Slippery slope is when there is no historical evidence to back up. My opponent has yet to respond to the fact that the Haitian government's GDP is 6 billion dollars roughhly while the earthquake costs roughly 14 billion. Economics would tell you that the earth quake would have bamkrupted the government had the red cross not have stepped in. RFD S/G: My opponent had horrible grammar such as not capitalizing I and saying "im" instead of I'm Arguments: My opponent has not affirmed his resolution Sources: This should be obvious. I am the only one who used sources.
History has condemned nations getting into other nation affairs

It's caled "logic." It is quite obvious what would have happened. Hitler first invaded Poland and then went on a rampage throught Europe. No one country could have defeated him. We needed to join forces against fascism. He would have performed genocide outside those nations.Caled? You put a huge death toll. Thats had no logic in it what so ever. http://en.wikipedia.org...;I urge a strong vote for con. My opponent had horrible spelling and never argued his side of the case.You based your arguments on "what if". You really dont know what would have happen. I used the logic:"The more gas you put in a fire, the bigger it gets"Caled? http://en.wikipedia.org...;This is whats called a Slippery slope fallacy. Actually the number is1978167400No. That number is wrong. 1,978,167,400(1.97 billion) death toll in 1940 would nearly kill humans. In 1940 the population was only about 2.3 billion. So that wrong. http://www.infoplease.com...( this does show 1940, but the population is still small for that number)I love how my opponent ignores my forst(?) rebuttal as if he's conceding that point to me. Anyway on to the debate.So we should have ignored the genocide Hitler did and ignore Japan in the Pearl Harbour Attacks?I dont think so. Also; http://www.nizkor.org...
History has condemned nations getting into other nation affairs

I love how my opponent ignores my forst rebuttal as if he's conceding that point to me. Anyway on to the debate. "I dont need a source. That was a war where 70 million people died." Actually the number is 1978167400 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... "Any way we avoid fighting should been the way." So we should have ignored the genocide Hitler did and ignore Japan in the Pearl Harbour Attacks? "How do you know more deaths could have come from this?" It's caled "logic." It is quite obvious what would have happened. Hitler first invaded Poland and then went on a rampage throught Europe. No one country could have defeated him. We needed to join forces against fascism. He would have performed genocide outside those nations. I urge a strong vote for con. My opponent had horrible spelling and never argued his side of the case.
History has condemned nations getting into other nation affairs

"I know. But it should only be Germany and those who Germany attacked. The war would have been much smaller. Thats war.More lives would have been saved if we protected ourself only. "My opponent hasn't gave a single valid source to support this claim. Could we truly afford to sit back and ignore Hitler's rampage throught Europe? I have given 10 sources showing how many peopke were killed as a result of the fascist state. Imagine how many more would've died as a result of us sitting back and ignoring Hitler,I dont need a source. That was a war where 70 million people died. Any way we avoid fighting should been the way. How do you know that more deaths could have come from this?
History has condemned nations getting into other nation affairs

Thank you for a quick response. "Normally its more of the people, not the nation as a whole"I am unsure what you're saying. The GDP of Haiti is $6.48 Billion US dollars at current prices - 2009 compare that to the USA with a GDP of $14.12 Trillion US dollars at current prices - 2009Source: World Bank, World Development IndicatorsI honestly do not think Haiti could have recovered without the help of the red cross. "I know. But it should only be Germany and those who Germany attacked. The war would have been much smaller. Thats war.More lives would have been saved if we protected ourself only. " My opponent hasn't gave a single valid source to support this claim. Could we truly afford to sit back and ignore Hitler's rampage throught Europe? I have given 10 sources showing how many peopke were killed as a result of the fascist state. Imagine how many more would've died as a result of us sitting back and ignoring Hitler, I await your response.
History has condemned nations getting into other nation affairs

Let's take a look at Haiti. The death total was more than 200,000 http://www.telegraph.co.uk......Should we have sat around and not come to their aid? The Haitian government are poor, the people are poor! There is no way that the gov't can pay for it all by themselves. Normally its more of the people, not the nation as a whole. C2: When human rights are violated, we need to protect the life of humans!Should we have sat around and done nothing? How much further could Hitler have gone? He also rampaged throught Europe taking nation by nation. If we had not have gotten involved and other nations united to defend Europe, Europe would most certaintly have became a fascist state. I know. But it should only be Germany and those who Germany attacked. The war would have been much smaller. Thats war.More lives would have been saved if we protected ourself only. Im glad I saved the Cold War for this round.We wanted to save nations from communist, but we could fight them; a war would break out.Sometimes you cant save people.