BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Catholicism practices Christianity

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Apostolic Catholic Church, is the world's largest "Christian church", claiming more than a billion members but does not practice Christianity because of its doctrines, practices, and beliefs which are false and not according to the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. These are the Catholic doctrines, practices, and beliefs which are still practiced by the Roman Apostolic Catholic Church until today:1. Using statues and graven images during their worship, and kneeling to them when they pray.2. Claiming Apostle Peter as the first pope.3. Using the Latin language during the priests' sermons.4. Calling the priests "Father."5. Naming the pope as "Holy Father" and claiming him as the Vicarius Filii Dei or Vicar of the Son of God (substitute of Christ here on Earth).6. Praying in repetition and using the rosary to do it.7. Prohibiting priests in marrying.8. Claiming Mary The Mother of Jesus as an intercessor or mediator other than Christ, and naming her as "The Queen of Heaven," "Mother of God," etc..9. Baptizing infants.10. Praying or interceding for the dead.11. Bowing down to the pope.12. Pouring water on the heads, instead of immersing in water, and calling it the act of baptism.13. Only the priests can drink the wine during the Lord's Supper, and the members are not allowed hence they are allowed to eat the bread only.14. Believing in purgatory.15. Praying and worshiping to saints (dead saints) and to Mary The Mother of Jesus.16. Claiming that the Bible is not a sufficient proof for doctrine.17. Celebrating feasts for the saints (dead saints) as a sign of worship to them and celebrating Christmas or the birth of Christ on December 25.18. Adding and taking away anything in the Bible.19. Traditions made by men.I think these are just some of the doctrines, practices and beliefs (false doctrines, practices and beliefs to be exact). I will state my reasons and prove why the given Catholic doctrines, practices and beliefs are false and not profitable for salvation, by using of course the Holy Scriptures, which is the Bible in the next round.A billion of people are fooled and lost due to this religion and if you're a Catholic, which you are Mr. Confucius91, and if you will not change (your beliefs, your practices, your religion), James 4:17, "Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is a sin."(NKJV) If you know that the doctrines , practices and beliefs of your religion are wrong and if you won't leave your religion, just like James 4:17 says, you know what to do and you don't do it, you have sinned.Seek for a church, which is the Church of Christ, that teaches pure salvation and does not teach and practice man-made doctrines and traditions.May this be a good debate and God bless you Sir.
Simulated Presidential Debate

I have already listed my solutions. My opponent attacks one: the regulatory levels. But he *drops*: Efficacy of the glass steagall act The fact that zero regulation would ruin the economy and, well, pretty much everyone How all of his policies on punishment are both immoral and unconstitutional, not to mention barbaric, and how my policies would be more practical in reducing crime How the existence of a Federal Reserve is necessary in preventing recession, moderating recession, and how QE policies have benefited the economy How anarchism is crazy This means he concedes all of those as true. The fact that the Fed has such a large impact, and he dropped it, is enough to give me the win. He argued 1949 levels of regulation are unconstitutional. If this were true wouldn’t the supreme court have acted? This is totally based upon my opponent’s opinion. But due to the fact he thinks you can enslave someone and it would somehow not be ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment tells us that he really doesn’t have any sound expertise or opinion as to what the constitution means. He has not (1) listed any unconstitutional regulation and (2) listed any supreme court case on the issue. This is enough to throw away his criticism. My opponent dodges the social issues question. He says he doesn’t want the government to switch opinions on abortion and gay marriage, but then in the same breath states that the government shouldn’t intrude in someone’s business… Yet prohibiting same sex marriage directly violates the privacy of the bedroom. As stated, his social policies are highly statist. To argue that the government is big and must be shrunk--and the way to do this is by expanding governmental power to discriminate against homosexuals--is totally contradictory and ruins his entire case. He has not offered *one* good reason to prohibit same sex marriage and has not offered *one* good response to the fact that prohibiting SSM is very statist and contradicts his entire position of small-government. Yes, who knows best. Someone who understands the facts of economics, someone who uses actual data, someone who isn’t a fringe anarchist, someone who isn’t supporting social statism, someone who is supporting reasonable regulation, someone who isn’t going to implement barbaric punishments into the justice system, someone who responds to claims and does not ignore them, someone who will actually rein in the Federal Government. My opponent picks and chooses what to shrink. Shrink government regulation but expand social regulation. I would cut back both. My position is non-contradictory and actually makes sense. My plans will work--his have no empirical support. This is a clear choice. Vote for 16kadams. Vote for a better America. (Plus I am Latino so I will win all the important states)
Simulated Presidential Debate

My opponent, I want to hear your solutions. You are spending your time saying how bad my solutions are but presenting your own. I spell out what I will do. I am going to follow the constitution no matter what. My personal beliefs mean nothing because we already have a law. This law is the constitution and I plan to uphold it despite the fact that I disagree with parts of it. That is what we need. Politicians that are will to put their personal beliefs aside and uphold the constitution. Are you going to uphold the constitution? No because my opponent wants regulation from 1949 which includes unconstitutional laws. The regulation I want is in the constitution. For example, the New Deal. It did nothing but bad and the power to do such a thing was not in the constitution and therefore was prohibited by the tenth amendment. On gay marriage. I will limit my fight to a national scale. Trying to stop the federal government from going one way or the other. Same with abortion. The federal government is pocking its nosing into your business. I plan to stop that. No more of the government passing stupid laws, not more, interfering. I plan to withdraw the government out of you life. It will provide for the common defense and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. And nothing else. Let the states worry about the other stuff. I ask you a question, America. Who knows best, the government that knows nothing about your situation or the states, which knows more about what is good for the state. The federal government has overstepped its bounds and it need to be leashed again. I will leash it and prosperity will follow. I challenge you America to go home and to help other people so that the state doesn't have to. I want the people to take action, not the government. Look not at my personal beliefs but what I will do. I will lead America back to the constitution. I will repeal every single bill that takes your money and throws it down into a black hole. It is your money not mine. Vote for me, for a better tomorrow, and for the constitutional future, for a future of less government and more jobs. Walle_ras 2016
Simulated Presidential Debate

My opponent has purposefully mis-stated my position. read the Chapitalarchist Manifesto online for my position. Unfortunately, anarchy is a utopia that is unattainable. If men were angels they wouldn't need government. Chapitalarchy is a type of anarchy. Anarchy is about no government. Chapitalarchy wants no government, but admits that unless there is no governments in the world a government must be there. However, lets strip all power away from it. Let it have the power to judge and the power to defend and that is it. A flat tax of 10 dollars would cover the plan that I desire. Who would enforce the justice system? No one. If a criminal refuses to be punished he will not be punished, he will be outlawed. In the eyes of God and man the person is an animal. He can be captured and sold as a slave. This is perfectly constitutional as it would require due process of law. This sounds horrid, and it is, but people will not try and get away from a flogging or a restitution payment because the risk outweighs the benefits. As for gay marriage, let them be gay, just not in this country. Do I have to allow every sin to become an anarchist? Can't I label myself as one because I accept the majority of their beliefs? The great depression happened because of pre 1949 government intervention. People were hurt. Do you want that again? The only solution is to stabilise the currency, and to stop regulation of the economy. You all are americans. My opponent wants to play with your hopes and dreams. He wants to copy the mistakes that created Standard Oil, and other robber baron capitalists. The true entrepreneur cannot get a foot hold because the wall street execs are manipulating the government. Bribes, 'presents' it doesn't matter. It is corruption and the end is when I will get elected. Corruption will cease and I will not be a 'king' with courtiers all around. It is time to take action. Let us not repeat what got us into this crisis. That is what my opponent wants. I am a man of the people. I am a middle class politician. I do not own millions of dollars. I do not drive a new car even. I promise that I will be as frugal with your money as with my money. Unlike other people I dive into my pocket to help Americans. I will not give governmental money to any disaster survivors. I will give my own money. Your money is not for me to stuff my pockets with. I even think my salary, if I was elected, would be to big. I will donate 50% of my salary to charity if I am elected. Many American's are hurt by the Federal Reserve. It causes the boom bust cycle that caused the housing bubble. It also caused countless recessions. I say let us go back to what the founding fathers wanted. Vote for me for a better future, for an Austrian future, for a freer future. Walle Ras 2016
Simulated Presidential Debate

(Glad to be debating you. Have fun and no flames. (:) Ladies and Gentleman, today america is facing a crisis. Our debt is rising, and the United States government is regulating everything in sight. Common sense is dying and my opponent wants it to further dye. He continues to support regulation of the economy. My opponent has asked me to define excessive law. Excissive law is law that strays from natural law. For example all of the employ rights laws. With a true and unaltered chapitalarchist society that would not be a problem as workers would just work elsewhere. And if other businesses wanted to have workers they would increase wages and or safety. Natural Law has two laws, do all you have agreed to do, and do not encroach on peoples persons and their property. If people followed these laws the world would not need government. But sadly, a government is here and unlike the liberals I will just shrink the U.S. government to the size it was in 1789. Before bureaucracy bogged it down. I will interpret it like Thomas Jefferson did, if it isn't here you can't do it. About the death penalty, it is the ultimate punishment in this society. And why not the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime? Also, why do we even have jail time? Jail is eating up our countries money. 70.7 billion dollars is spent on keeping inmates in jail, says solitude canyon. It would be much cheaper and more humane to bring back flogging. Give someone a half dozen and send them on their way. Don't let them rot in jail. Not only that the victim has to pay for the criminal to have air conditioning and internet. Preposterous! The death penalty is sad. I don't like to think of any one getting killed. But by punishing this one man many people are saved. John McRae was in for the death penalty for his murder of an 8 year old boy. In 1971 he was paroled. He murdered three other little boys. John Miller killed an infant. He was put in for life. He was paroled and killed his parents. This is just two of many. Please read this website, http://www.wesleylowe.com.... In conclusion, the entire justice system is over bearing. It punishes crimes that do not exist and leaves murder un-punished. But I have a question. John Miller is a horrible person. Why are not abortion clinics treated like murderers? Thank you.
Simulated Presidential Debate

Stance: ConservativeCon: Abortion, support going back to 1949 levels of regulation, gold standard, minimum wage lawsPro: Capitalism--with some regulations, death penalty, guns, small government, Federal Reserve, amnesty Premise I: What is anarchism- Anarchism, and specifically my opponent supporting anarcho capitalism, means that he supports there being zero government. Capitalist institutions, he must contend (based upon his pro capitalism and ideology anarchist) that all government intervention is bad. - "Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism, market anarchism, private-property anarchism, libertarian anarchism) is a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property, and open markets (laissez-faire capitalism)." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) - I must note his opinions of banning abortion and gay marriage are statist opinions and are contradictory to anarcho capitalism. I must also note the largest ideologies are conservatism and moderate, followed by liberals. So, if this were an actual election, my opponent would be trailing pretty severely (http://www.gallup.com...). This debate should be voted on normally, I presume, based upon arguments. My arguments will be:C1) Death Penalty- Get tough on crimeC2) Capitalism- No government is crazy, plus, a president anarchist makes no sense - Reduce regulation, but no regulation is insane- Government has an important role when it comes to capitalismC3) Social issues- Opposing gay marriage is silly. My opponent must substantiate these claims. - What does "excessive" law even mean? And you should oppose *every* law, or you are contradicting your position- Con abortion is good. But what would the exceptions be?- How would you legislate abortion and gay marriage? Federally? It is on your platform--so it means you *will* do something about it. But isn't that excessive law? Isn't that against the 10th amendment? Just making sure the debate had some format to continue. Good luck.
I Brett Nortje will prove God exists, or, that gods exist.

This is the question that is bound to come up every now and then in debates, where do we come from, is God real? Although I worship Venus, the goddess of health, I am drawn more to her abundance she supplies me with; abundant laughter and good feelings, joy, if you will? These gods of ours, are they real? I believe they are, and, will be for the argument that God is real.
I Brett Nortje will prove God exists, or, that gods exist.

That's not Evidence , that's argument from ignorance You just tell me that planets exist therefore God exist That's not proof , that's Ignorance , if you cant explain something the correct answer is "I don't Know" , No "God did it" why is it so bad for people to say i don't know? this isn't make u sound stupid , there is allot of things people we know and allot of things we don't know, but if you don't know something this does not mean that some god did it
I Brett Nortje will prove God exists, or, that gods exist.

Well, first there was 'a big bang.' This big bang led to the universe beginning, as it was compressed into nothing - instead of there being nothing, all of a sudden there was something, instead of there being emptiness, there was activity. I am not denying main stream science. First of all, there are not enough dinosaur bones to validate the amounts of life stipulated by science, which, means there was a lot of hurriedness of the guiding hands to move from one dinosaur to the 'next model,' yes? This would make sense, as, with the advent of new dinosaurs, there would still be some living like the crocodile, of course - look how many of those there are? Otherwise, there is no support for teams of dinosaurs gently progressing - where are the other 'old things?' Then, I believe in god as the universe, a reactive conscious. Everything is conscious, as even rocks grow and seek to dominate the world around them by cellular division, or, something similar where they grow - yes they do, check. This means that the only difference between life and death is that there is a pulse - bacteria is alive, we are alive and jellyfish are alive, yes? This means that since jellyfish are alive, yet only react, and, everything reacts to sensory input only, and, since things that are dead have no senses, there are always reactions. Milk gets swirled, coal dissolves in fires - these are all reactions, and, everything that reacts is as conscious as us, where we are also, if extreme science is to be understood, merely reacting to our environments, yes? Then, it is a case where we came from chemicals, yes, and, this means we are descended from a random chemical to begin dominating the ocean by not dying as the bubbles erupted from the sea bed. This was bound to happen, when though was uncertain - think of billions of bubbles erupting from the sea bed, reacting or 'thinking' for a moment, then simply dying, we are descended from one in a trillion of those that managed to survive for another moment, and, one in a trillion of those that managed to survive for another moment, and so forth, yes? This means we come from 'the bang,' and, this universe that keeps reacting is indeed continuously reacting and growing, as everything else is. So, these gods are consciousnesses in the form of karma at least, they will exert forces of energy upon us as the Greeks found them to be planets - Venus, Neptune, Mars... These affect our lives in many ways, and, they are also 'reactive.'
My opponent will win this debate!

I will address them presently. I will begin by reiterating and expanding on my first point. The title PRO chose for this debate is, "My opponent will win this debate! " The word will was used to describe the future tense of win. Even now, as the debate is coming to a close, you can scroll up and read the word will. PRO is trying to predict the future. Now, even if all of the argument PRO has made stand, it is irrelevant; he cannot know the future. If I was the best debater on DDO, and I laid out the most devastating arguments possible, I could still lose the debate. Perhaps we will be vote bombed, or perhaps a single troll voter will vote PRO. Maybe nobody will vote and we will tie. The claim that titles this debate, "My opponent will win this debate! " carries with it a burden of proof that has not been met.
My opponent will win this debate!

Overall ArgumentFirst of all, I would like to point out that when PRO set up this argument, he could not have known that I was going to accept it. Anyone could have accepted it, therefore, his initial claim that, "My opponent will win this debate! " [1] is a claim he could not have known. Win RatioPRO's first real argument is that my win ratio is better than his; this is largely irrelevant. As any investor will tell you, "Past performance is not a guarantee of future results" [2]. How many wins or losses I have may or may not have any bearing on this particular debate. AmericaWhile I thank PRO for his kind remarks about my homeland, I must point out that we aren't all that great over here. We have numerous problems, including a lack of regard for the rest of the world, lots of guns so you can be shot at any moment, and we have a rampant drug problem [3]. Being from the US is not necessarily something one puts on their CV. Misc. PointsPRO also said some very nice things about me in his arguments, of which I am very appreciative, but those points to not a successful debate make. PROPRO, on the other hand, is far superior to me. First of all, his profile is nearly blank [4]. That he isn't advertising his personal details shows that he has the kind of forward thinking that wins debates. Also, he spells "honor," "honour. " How cool is that? ! That alone should be reason enough for anyone to vote for PRO in this debate. [1] . http://www.debate.org...[2] . http://davisadvisors.com...[3] . http://www.thetoptens.com... [4] . http://www.debate.org...
My opponent will win this debate!

Thanks MrJosh it is a peasure to be debating with you. Firstly MrJosh has a positive 75% win ratio on the site, much better than mine (50%) so already he is more likely to win but anyway. Con is cool, he's from America (the best country in the world FACT). He's from the famous state of Illinois and in it the famous city of Chicago, one of the many places I want to visit and the setting city for the highly anticipated open-world console game Watch Dogs. I can't wait for that. He also has a Bachelor's Degree. Congratulations on achieved that qualification all the work will pay off and shows you are capable of a higher level than others. It can vary but is generally considered a high honour. Which is fantastic! Well done Con. I quote from his profile : I am a father, a husband, a skeptic, a martial artist, a humanist and many other things. This goes to show how many good commitments he has but also impressive (martial artist). 'and many other things. ' There's more! !He is a father and is married, this is just an example of how responsible he is and set up his life. I'm sure things are going well for him! Con includes in his activities:'Work, school & being a dad'He has the ability to spend time working hard for his family and spending time with his child(ren). Sounds like a good the kind of description for a good father. He also has a very interesting collection of reads and some of which are considered highly intellectual books 'A Brief History Of Time' by Stephen Hawking is just one fascinating science novel recommended. Con has a good choice of music varying from dance to rock. This is not uncommon and also very respected genres in the musical community. MrJosh appears to be open-minded and likes to ask questions and that's a sign of using intelligence and creativity (being an athiest myself aswell, I respect his thoughts and views) 'Doctor Who, Star Trek, How I Met Your Mother, Big Bang Theory' are known to be some of the very best science fiction and comedies around. I completely agree with these choices especially How I Met Your Mother and the Big Bang Theory. I can tell MrJosh is interested in Science and this is clearly a very good thing. He's also a family man and martial artist. (two good traits)To conclude, I think my opponent has won this debate already.