BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Proving Catholicism to be teaching false doctrine, and thus a manmade church"

I'd like to take the time to point out something very important about my opponent. He is using what is called a "snow storm" strategy. I've also heard it called "blizzard". If readers of this debate will carefully notice, he lists a lot of scripture, but it is so very often non-sequitur in terms of this actual debate. Examples from this last round: My opponent was given a list of scriptures from the New Testament supporting my cases for the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. The only verse he truly comments on is from 2 Peter 1:20-21, which he blatantly misinterprets. We, in the Catholic church are not opposed to people reading and studying the bible on their own, but we also recognize the teaching authority of Christ's church that he established. So, when Protestants like my opponent, disagree on any segment of scripture and form 40,000 plus denominations, creating divisions in the body of Christ....they have no other authority to go to except their own personal interpretations. A priest (who speaks on behalf of the larger church) has that ability to be the ruling factor if disputes arise. Then my opponent dodges questions I have asked him repeatedly about the Trinity and Hypostatic Union...and just rambles off a bunch of off topic scriptures about topics we have not discussed. This is typical of fundamentalists. My opponent would have you believe, that his 21st century interpretation of the Bible (which was originally more than 66 books by the way, the Protestants in the 16th century removed books...my opponent failed to talk about that), is superior to an institution that can trace its roots directly back to Christ walking on earth. When was your church established again friend? I will answer your questions about "books" when you answer mine about how and why you accept doctrines not found in the Bible, and call your church not mad made. We've already established a pattern of you telling lies in this debate so far, please do not drag the name "Christian" down any further with your nonsense tactics. Don't be an intellectual coward, stop dodging questions I asked you in R1. BTW, 2 Timothy still says "useful" or "profitable" and not "sufficient for all matters of faith". You're rebuke of my dismantling of 2 Timothy for Sola Scriptura was lacking at best.
"Proving Catholicism to be teaching false doctrine, and thus a manmade church"

So my opponent has only done SOME of what was asked of him in Round 1. Let's recap: A: What my opponent actually defined 1. He defines false doctrine as "not scriptural or found in the KJV as those listed above". He has not told us WHY it has to be found in scripture or WHY we have to use the KJV of the Bible as opposed to another translation. Would my opponent agree that since the Holy Trinity is not found in scripture, nor the "Sinner's Prayer", nor the term "Sola Scriptura", nor the Hypostatic Union (Christ having two natures), nor the names of the Gospel authors....and so many other things I am sure my opponent takes for granted...that since those items are not found in the KJV explicitly, that they are therefore not taught or valid in the Christian faith? This is why defining your terms and providing justifications are so very important. I come from a faith that can trace its lineage from Pope Francis to Peter, and therefore Jesus himself. When was my opponent's church founded by some guy? My church was instituted in Matthew 16, and described in Acts, and Jesus gave them special authorities (Matthew 10, Luke 9:1). B: My opponent going off of the rails The rest of my opponent's list of items simply seem to be a list of items found in Catholic teaching, that he (being a great theologian apparently) disagrees with. He does not define the following: 1. What he means by "man-made" and how HIS church is not man-made but the Catholic church is. 2. Why KJV is apparently the ultimate source for Biblical scholarship 3. What he means by Sola Scriptura 4. Defining Catholicism He either did this because he CANNOT provide such definitions, or he hoped that the audience would forget that he was supposed to do this upon accepting this debate. Maybe he just forgot. I will ask my opponent once more to define the aforementioned terms, and to feel free to make an opening statement beyond a superficial list. Feel free to work with the list you already provided IN SUPPORT OF your reasons showing that the CC is man-made and teaching false doctrines. Please remember, we are probably not going to evangelize each other, but rather people who will one day read this conversation. Your conduct will be judged by others, and so far, it is playing against you.
"Proving Catholicism to be teaching false doctrine, and thus a manmade church"

I appreciate the opportunity to debate my opponent on this subject of grave importance, as it has caused and still causes people to be lost by being in a man made church teaching false doctrine which I will easily prove. DEFINITIONS: 1. False doctrine, meaning not scriptural or found in the KJV as those listed below. 2. Original sin. 3. Praying to the dead. 4. Pope. 5. Catholicism. 6. Oral traditions being inspired. Just the few of hundreds more which I could've listed, but unnecessary, as these alone will prove my proposition that the Catholic church to be nothing more than a man made religious entity. The churches of Christ is the one and only true church spoken of in the bible , which I will prove beyond any doubt. ===================================================================================================
Need a help with my debate case.

Sure, that would be a great alternative. I just listed the opposite of Speciesism like you asked, but it looks like you've found something better.Your best bet is indeed to say that we should give animals rights, but not the same rights as humans. Thats where the issue of Natural vs Legal rights comes in (though his should only come up in a debate at Qualifying level). So if you're going for the approach of treating animals with respect but still differently than humans, then you're respecting their natural rights. Natural rights are things like life, freedom, liberty. As opposed to Legal rights, thigns like the right to vote, free speech, etc. A good criterion then would be Respecting Natural Rights. Note that many people do have actions as a criterion rather than a belief, such as this one. My 2 cents
Need a help with my debate case.

However with biocentrism all species would have equal rights. Wouldn't you run into a lot of problems with that because of people making arguments about how we then have to respect a cat as we do another human. Would a better criterion be something about how animals should only have rights to an extent. Like the right to be respected and the right not to be abused. Should my arguments be towards animals having rights equal to humans or is it just animals having any rights in general? If its just any rights in general then wouldn't you run into less arguments if you chose a criterion that just states that they are _______ enough to be granted some of the basic rights? What would this criterion be? Sorry for the _______ i couldn't think of the work, i'm tired and i'm logging off. Thanks for the help i'll check your answer in the morning.
Need a help with my debate case.

So i promise this will be my last question (tonight). I finished my case. Its good enough to turn into my coach, i honestly don't even think she reeds them (more of a completion grade). I do have a lot more work to do before any kind of a tournament. Also i meant to say contentions, it was just a typo. Sorry. So.... Value=Justice Criterion=The opposite of speciesism? So what exactly is the opposite of speciesism? If speciesism is "The assigning of different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species membership."
Need a help with my debate case.

Ok, you're probably needing to do other stuff right now so I'll keep this short."1) Discriminating against animals is no different that discriminating based on race or sex 2) Animals feel pain/suffer"These should be contentions, not criteria. The contentions are the actual reasons that animals should hav rights. Thats what those are.So it should go like thisValue- justiceCriterion - XContention 1 - Discriminating against animals is no different that discriminating based on race or sex*insert detailing papragraphs*Contention 2 - Animals feel pain*insert detailing paragraphs*Your criterion should be Rejecting Speciesism. Its what you use to acheive your value in regards to the resolution. The trick is that the criterion has to to relate to each of your contentions. Rejecting Speciesism relates somewhat to both your arguments, so go with that. Good luck.
Need a help with my debate case.

Thanks for taking this debate even though it isn't a real debate! That is really all the information i needed. So, i changed my value to justice. My criterion is 1) Discriminating against animals is no different that discriminating based on race or sex 2) Animals feel pain/suffer I wrote a few paragraphs on each and i think I'm good. Also your right i really didn't take the 3 hour time limit into consideration, but its due tomorrow so i guess it doesn't really matter after that. I just needed a quick answer. If i have any more questions i will PM you. Thanks again for you help. If its any consolation I'm 99% sure you'll win this debate!
Need a help with my debate case.

So for an assignment in my debate class i have to turn in an aff case tomorrow. I am doing LD so the current resolution is: Justice Requires the recognition of animal rights. This is my first case i have ever written and i need a little help. I have picked my value which is going to be speiesism. I am having trouble finding a criterion. I have a general idea for my contentions but im not sure if they'll work. Here is what i have so far...... INTRO: Many of today's animals do not have rights. In rare cases certain species, such as cats and dogs, are given legal protection. This only proves severe discrimination when it comes to animal rights. For this reason I stand in affirmation of the resolution which states: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights. VALUE: Speciesism is defined as "The assigning of different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species membership." This term was coined by philosopher Richard D. Ryder in 1973 to describe the widespread discrimination that is practised by man against other species. Believe it or not speciesism is discrimination and like all discrimination it either overlooks or underestimates the similarities between the discriminator and those being discriminated against. Thats pretty much it. Do i need to write more for my value? This whole debate thing really confuses me so if you can help i would really appreciate it. Thanks!
World peace is only possible by eradicating humans

There have been many philosophers who have envisioned world peace running a wide range, from Marx to Kant to even Ayn Rand. What has never been suggested, even in such a wide range of thought, is the complete elimination of humanity to achieve world peace.For sake of the debate, I will use Kants enumerated list of articles for perpetual peacePreliminary Articles1. "No secret treaty of peace shall be held valid in which there is tacitly reserved matter for a future war"2. "No independent states, large or small, shall come under the dominion of another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase, or donation"3. "Standing armies shall in time be totally abolished"4. "National debts shall not be contracted with a view to the external friction of states"5. "No state shall by force interfere with the constitution or government of another state"6. "No state shall, during war, permit such acts of hostility which would make mutual confidence in the subsequent peace impossible: such are the employment of assassins (percussores), poisoners (venefici), breach of capitulation, and incitement to treason (perduellio) in the opposing state"Definitive Articles 1. "The civil constitution of every state should be republican"7. "The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states"8. "The law of world citizenship shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality"Immanuel Kant - Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch https://www.mtholyoke.edu...Since pro did not define what constitutes world peace, I suggest that fulfilment of Kants articles would constitute world peace. Pro must show that these cannot be achieved in anyother way than the elimination of all humanity.I will demonstrate only one way this round that these articles could be achieved without elimination of the species.The robot from “The Day the Earth Stood Still” could land on earth with a checklist and force humanity to abide by the Kants articles.Back to you pro.
The Christian God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus or Thor

In this, my concluding round, I am left to explain my reasoning throughout the debate and clarify my position. I will recreate a new debate, re-callenge my opponent, and clear all definitions in the OP. I will also provide a much higher character count. 1. God is defined as "uncaused". Ok. 2. The Universe had a "cause". Ok. 3. Does this mean God exists? No. Even if we 'define' God as being 'uncaused', and agree that the universe had a beginning, the his doesn't actually prove that God exists. There are other problems as well. For instance, even if the universe came into being (The verdict is still out on this, we do know of the Big Bang an the start of space/time, but that does not actually mean that the cosmos had a "beginning" as commonly understood), Even if the universe had a beginning, this doesn't mean it had a "cause". (Hawking suggested the universe could have spontaneously came into being). Moreover, Even if the universe had a "cause", why would we presume that this cause was an 'intelligent being' opposed to natural phenomena like multi-world theory (among many others). Why couldn't some non-intelligent natural force have caused our universe? Why is "God" necessary? Why is "God" even likely? As we know, in our universe, "intelligence" occurred very late in its history. Intelligence happened due to evolution over millennia. Why presume intelligence existed before the universe itself? You need to define "spiritual" because we aren't on the same page as far as its meaning. IMO, if "spiritual" exists then it must be material. How is "spiritual" anymore less material than blackholes? To address #3, Even assuming the premises (and causality is an assumption), this does not negate the possibility the universe could create itself. I'm not arguing that the universe actually created itself. I'm suggesting that it could be a more natural and reasonable alternative than "God did it!". Honestly, "God did it" is begging the question itself.
The Christian God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus or Thor

This argument is taking a new direction. Instead of talking about arguments, we are talking about definitions. God, by virtue of his nature (the definition of his being), is uncaused, timeless, and omniscient/present/benevolent. You have accepted the definition by making this an argument about a CHRISTIAN God - I am just reviewing Christian philosophy with you. 1. That's why I first defined God (and differentiated Him from the contradictory definitions of Zeus / other pagan "gods") and why this definition (demonstrated in point 2) is more philosophically reasonable to exist (hence why it's more likely than the existence of Zeus/Thor). It was a rebuttal to your error - where you say Zeus & the Christian God are the same thing (in regards to the likelihood of their existance). 2. I don't see why I need to define spiritual - this has nothing to do with the debate. In regards to material - it's pretty straightforward, materiality refers to physical phenomena. A black hole is a scientific concept to describe physical behaviour in the universe. I'd prefer not to argue about what a black hole is but to return to the debate. Again, this is misconstruing the debate to a definition debate. 3. The universe can't create itself because the other premises state that anything that began to exist has a cause. If you accept the premises then the logic is there. My opponent is once again - BEGGING THE QUESTION. He has offered NO PROVEN, EVIDENTIAL OR PHILOSOPHICALLY REASONABLE ARGUMENT for why the Universe "created itself. " I have already demonstrated why God is timeless & uncaused - its by virtue of his nature / definition. It does necessitate that God is all knowing, all powerful and all good because these qualities qualify His ability to create the universe - it follows pretty logically. My opponent has offered 0 arguments to prove his burden (that the likelihood is the same) and his rebuttals have been unsubstantiated and are begging the question.
The Christian God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus or Thor

Yes, I already agreed that God is defined as all knowing, all powerful, and all good. The Greek gods are "gods". They are called gods, and by definition they are gods: god - ( lowercase ) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. http://dictionary.reference.com... 1. I agree with you, the "argument" made in support of the God in Christianity can not be used in support of Zeus or Thor. This is true. However, your conclusion is that because of this the Christian God must be "more likely". This is a fallacy. You are assuming that the argument itself is true. Just because an argument can be made doesn't lend credence to what it is arguing. 2. I asked my opponent to define "material" and "spiritual". He has yet to do this. Would my opponent consider space-time itself to be "material"? We all know it exists, but it certainly isn't like any material thing we know. How about black holes? Are Black holes "material"? I contend that my opponent has a vague and ambiguous definition of "spiritual" and "material". 3. This argument is a fallacy by definition. Even if we assume all of the 3 premises, the conclusion does NOT follow. As I have said before, why couldn't the universe have created itself? Who created God? Is God "timeless"? Do you have proof that God is timeless and uncaused? The universe itself had a beginning, but we don't know what existed before the big-bang. Did the seed for the universe exist forever in the past? Did other universes cause our universe to exist? Questions science has yet to answer. Even if we presume that our universe had a "beginning" (A term not very good to use with talking of the big bang), this doesn't necessitate an omnipotent all knowing, all "good" intelligent designer of the universe. The mental stretching needed to draw that conclusion is, to be sure, ridiculous.
The Christian God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus or Thor

"God is defined as all powerful, all good and all knowing? Is this true? Perhaps. I'll assume it to be true for the sake of this argument. We'll define "God" as having these qualities." I think that was a really silly post because my opponent clearly referred to the Christian God and not any other God, "In all of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, God is conceived of as eternal, omnipotent, omniscient and as the creator of the universe. God is further held to have the properties of holiness, justice omni-benevolence, omnipresence." [1]. It is precisely my point that the Greek gods aren't perfect. If they aren't perfect then they can't properly be defined as gods. When we make this distinction, we therefore make the distinction between the likelihood of their existence. The likelihood that I am referring to is philosophical reasoning. It is much more philosophically unreasonable to say that Zeus exists versus the Abrahamic God (more on this later). - This point on distinction that my opponent made has been rebutted. 2) The second point my partner made is that the evidence he is looking for proves only material things. His example is quantum physics - which talks about immaterial phenomena. This is untrue, physics is the study of matter and its motion. Quantum physics is a very theoretical field too - which means its not a good example. Physics doesn't prove anything until it is empirically observed (that is the nature of science). String theory is just a theory - it hasn't been proven. My opponent is begging the question by asking why spirituality isn't material - that's also not the point of this debate. 3) Uncaused cause. Why is the universe contingent? Because it had a beginning (verified by science - Big Bang). Philosophically: 1. Everything that exists or begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe exists and began to exist. 3. The universe must have a cause. 4. The cause of the universe is God. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Christian God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus or Thor

Thanks. 1. God is defined as all powerful, all good and all knowing? Is this true? Perhaps. I'll assume it to be true for the sake of this argument. We'll define "God" as having these qualities. To answer your question about Greek gods,, you ask, how can 2 perfect beings rival one another. Well, How many Greek sources define their gods as all being "perfect"? Moreover, what did they even mean by their term "perfect"? Did it mean all powerful? Of course not, simple readings of the Greek stories prove this. None of the gods were "All powerful". Thus, Even if we define the Monotheistic God as being all knowing, all perfect, and all powerful...This does not mean that his existence is any more likely than the Greek gods. Your argument against their existence, the fact that they rivaled each other, doesn't really work out unless you can prove that they were all considered "All powerful". 2. You argue that evidence can only prove "material" things. First of all, what does "material things" mean? Modern physics deals with non-material forces and phenomena and things on a daily basis. Especially quantum physics. So, you must mean "material" to mean things that actually can be measured or shown to exist in any way. Because, after all, modern physics can prove things even if we've never officially measured them. Why isn't "Spiritual" also "material" if, for instance, strings in string theory or other exotic physical things are "material". Moreover, to address your "uncaused cause" argument. You argue that God is the "first cause" or "first mover". Even assuming that the creation of our universe requires a first cause (This is an assumption), why does "God" need to be the first cause? Why couldn't the universe have caused itself? If God exists then who or what caused God to exist? Did God cause himself to exist? If so, Why can't our own universe be the "First cause"? Why does our universe require a causer but God does not? Please explain. I await your