BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
from a christian perspective, people who are unrepentant, and know they are wrong, should be forgive

Also as a Christian point of view: When people are unrepentant and they know it they should not be forgiven. Yet they are forgiven anyways. In what point do we argue this? In God's point or in our Christian people's point? The reason I ask this question is because, Christians may have a perspective similar to God's. Some Christians do not. If all Christians came to the same conclusion it would be somewhere along these lines: " We sin everyday. Its a natural thing. We should not be forgiven yet we are." People should not have to forgive someone for doing something and not being repentant about it. In (And I quote) Luke 17:3A533;4, where Jesus tells us, "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, A533;I repent,A533; you must forgive him." That's IF he repents. That only says to forgive them if they turn to you seven times and say "I repent". Your argument topic says people who are unrepentant. Yes, it would be nice to forgive everyone but, why should we? Unless they repent and want to be forgiven or if you want to forgive them(As long as they have repented), They shouldn't be forgiven.
The Doctor Who 50th anniversary was not a good a good anniversary episode

Your main point is that 50 years is that 50 years is a huge milestone, but that has almost nothing to do with the resolution. The resolution states "The Doctor Who 50th anniversary was not a good a good anniversary episode". As DW is celebrated every ten years with an anniversary episode, it's a safe assumption to say you meant every tenth-year anniversary episode. "I'm Basically writing (the script) a love-letter to the fans. " So a montage and the Doctor talking about past companions past lives and past adventures not only Honors the shows history but gives fans the ultimate love-letter. " He also said it would be important to the plot. If it was all fan service we wouldn't have that. Each anniversary has forwarded the plot or been important to the show's continuity, without being to reliant on past gimmicks and references. In "The Three Doctors", the Doctor regained the knowledge of how to fly the TARDIS, and continue his journey through time. In "The Five Doctors", the Doctor became president of the Time Lords. In "Dimensions in Time", The DW universe was tied with the Eastenders universe. Finally, in Zagreus, Zagreus is shown to be an anti-time monster capable of being able to take over Time Lords and cause damage and hallucinations. You fail to give any arguments for why Fenric is not the ultimate villain. Again, your whole idea has nothing to do with furthering the show. It has solely to do with the past and not moving on with the future. Not only that, but it is a weirdly specific and strange thing to expect, and it is ridiculous to be disappointed when such a thing doesn't happen.
The Doctor Who 50th anniversary was not a good a good anniversary episode

Oka Doctor Who has been around more than 50 years now and is such a phenomenal and cultural Icon that just mentioning bits and parts of the 50 years of the show would not serve justice for how long the series is and all the characters and all the events and adventures on the show. Showing a montage would not only attempt to show all 50 years of the incredible series but also but also honor all the characters on the show. Second thing You said that if the 11th doctor talked about his past lives it would be too "fan-servicy" but Steven Moffat said and I quot " I'm Basically writing (the script) a love-letter to the fans. " So a montage and the Doctor talking about past companions past lives and past adventures not only Honors the shows history but gives fans the ultimate love-letter. Third thing Fendric was NOT the mastermind behind all the events the Doctor faced. Fourth thing the Ultimate Villain that controls all the evil creatures and was against the doctor from the beginning would not be silly at all in a matter of fact it would be scary. And This evil adversary would of been great for the DOTD because as we saw in TOTD the first cycle of doctors are over. So Having the doctors ultimate Enemy that controls space and time and all the species in universe in DOTD in would give Show the sence the the first 50 years are up(or the long fight is finally done) and its time for a new adventures or the next 50 years. One other thing I would like to mention. At the end of the DOTD all the doctors are staring at galafrey and David Tenant Mat Smith and John Hurt are the only doctors that are really present. Why couldn't all the doctors be present instead of stock footage of them. I know Christopher Eccelston did not want to retern and the first three Doctors are dead they could of been stock but Tom Baker through Paul Magan they could and should have been there that would have been epic almost all the doctors in the same room and it would also be a real reunion instead of having only three doctors and 99.9 percent of stock footage around you. I know that four of them are old but that's scene is at the end of the DOTD the writers didn't even have to explain why they are older at that point they can just abandon reality just to give the perfect ending because its at the end of the episode. Tom Baker was the only classic Doctor that sort of played him self and that wasn't quite clear. All the Classic doctors wanted too reprise there role they even had small protests (look it up its true) and only Paul Magan got to truly reprise his role as the 8th Doctor. That is why I think that the Day of The Doctor was not a good anniversary special.
The Doctor Who 50th anniversary was not a good a good anniversary episode

"First thing I know a montage has not been used in any Anniversary specials but this is 50 years of Doctor Who we are celebrating" The resolution says "anniversary episode", not "50th anniversary". DotD was, at least to most fans, the second best anniversary episode, right behind The Five Doctors. "to see the 11th doctor talk about his past lives and and what he thought was best and worst about all of them" We already got to see Strax do that, and it would have felt too fan-servicy. "The Doctor did not have to question every action he had ever done and was not stretch to the breaking point and did not have to admit failure." Never did anyone promise this for the fiftieth, nor has that happened in any other anniversary special. In fact, I had never heard any speculation or rumors that this would happen. "Fendric was by no means the ultimate villain and he certainly was not the mastermind behind all of the disasters that the Doctor had to face" He was the mastermind behind destroying Ace's life and leading her to the Doctor, which is in fact the only reason she appeared to the Doctor in the first place. So, he was indirectly behind all of the disasters from Ace's debut forward, as the Doctor would have acted differently had he not experienced his time with Ace. "Imagine if you after saving the universe countless of times discovered that your whole life and all your enemys were being controlled by a powerful villain that can control time and space and is now coming directly after you and all you love himself." This would have been an issue for several reasons. One, this is incredibly unlikely, and kind of ridiculous to believe. If this is the only thing that could have happened to not make you dislike the special, your hopes were not only too high, but oddly specific Two, the fans wouldn't have liked it. The whole Clara saving the Doctor thing only went well with the fans because it was balancing out the GI killing the Doctor. Had it been just her, and not cancelling something out, it would have been upsetting. Changing the entire series by having an unknown in every single episode is not a wise move, and is likely to put off casual viewers and upset fans.
The Doctor Who 50th anniversary was not a good a good anniversary episode

First thing I know a montage has not been used in any Anniversary specials but this is 50 years of Doctor Who we are celebrating what a better why to honor all the people that work on the show and its characters and from the doctors perspective a montage would show him that he has had a great life (made some mistakes) but had a good life and the biggest family in the universe and the most fantastic adventures also we might of gotten to see the 11th doctor talk about his past lives and and what he thought was best and worst about all of them and we would haven gotten to see old companions and the best scenes from the show past before are eyes quickly not to mention voice clips too (2) yes Galafray was a big emotional threat and it was a great plotline but I did not get the sence that this was the Doctors Ultimate fight/Day that he would remember. The Time when all that he has done and will do must be put aside for this event. Galafray and many life's were saved which is good but there was no threat to the doctor himself. The Doctor did not have to question every action he had ever done and was not stretch to the breaking point and did not have to admit failure. Fendric was by no means the ultimate villain and he certainly was not the mastermind behind all of the disasters that the Doctor had to face. I'm thinking of a villain that the doctor has to face that is not only smarter them him but also the greatest evil mastermind behind everything the Doctor has come against. Imagine if you after saving the universe countless of times discovered that your whole life and all your enemys were being controlled by a powerful villain that can control time and space and is now coming directly after you and all you love himself.
The Doctor Who 50th anniversary was not a good a good anniversary episode

Rebuttals (1) It didn't respect its great history Of course it did! As you've said, it had all twelve Doctors (No, sir, all thirteen!), Tom Baker, and Totters lane. The Doctor not telling Clara about Susan was because it was more of an easter egg, showing that the Doctor is travelling with another teacher from Coal Hill, and that Clara knows Ian. It's obvious to the fans, and doesn't really require an explanation. (2) No Montage Literally no other anniversary special (Three Doctors, Five Doctor, Dimensions in Time, and Zagreus) had a montage, and this episode actually had the closest thing out of any other, with all the Doctors flying in at once. A montage is not and has never been a part, let alone important part, of an anniversary special. (3) No Real Threat to the Doctor There was a completely real threat to the Doctor. He had to make an awful decision, and live with it for the rest of his life. The Doctors meeting was explained, if you paid attention in the beginning. The Moment was showing the War Doctor what he would turn into if he made the choice to destroy Gallifrey and opened wormholes into the future. That adversary's been done already, his name is Fenric. (4) No 8th Doctor While it would have been nice, we got a whle new Doctor, pus two regenerations we've waited over 17 years for! (5) no companions While the special was great, there was certainly room for improvement. I agree that cameo appearances would have made it so much better, perhaps the Moment flashing between faces of various companions from the Doctor's past and future. Arguments (1) The theme of death There was a theme of sadness in the beginning, and the Doctor's end coming soon. We learn why when we realize that each Doctor died on the adventure just after they left. (2) The theme of redemption The joy and happiness in all of the Doctors after realizing how to save Gallifrey was done excellently, and made for a perfect scene showing how good it can be to realize how terrible you aren't.
The Doctor Who 50th anniversary was not a good a good anniversary episode

Thanks for accepting the challenge. anyway I think that the Day of the Doctor was a great episode itself and I hear that the 3D was spectacular but I don't think it was not a good Anniversary episode. Here's why (1) It didn't respect its great history. Yes it had all 13 doctors most stock footage and there were a ton of little references and Tom Baker made a appearance but they did not make it feel like it was The Doctors Day the one he would remember forever. They should of had Doctor at least go to and mention that Trotters Lane was where he first landed on earth or have the doctors walk through all Tadis designs. (2) No Montage This also goes with respecting its history as well. It would have been great if Mat Smith's Doctor was somehow at the brink of death and suffering and then he thought of every moment till this point and we got a montage of memories. Basically clips of of all 50 years of the show it would have given thousands of fans tears to see all 12 doctors and all the companions and all the planets and all the villains and all the bad and good dayes in the doctors life. (3) No Real Threat to the Doctor The Zygons Were neat and dangerous but they did not show much threat in the end and di not give a reason that the 10th and 11th and the War Doctor to meet. I think there would of been an adversary so great and powerful that he controlled time and space and has been. Dictating the Doctors ever move Secretly ever since he left Galafray. This Moriarty Is Smarter than the Master and the Doctor together and has control over the creatures of the universe and also threatens it. That kind of ultimate enemy would give a real reason for the Doctors to reunite and stretch them to the breaking point. And really pose a threat to him his friends and reality. Despite saving Galafray The Doctor did not get to fight a grand villain that really out smarted him and force him to really show his emotions. (4) No 8th Doctor the 8th doctor was and is amazing and He really did want to be in the 50th its not like he is a busy guy. He was in the Night Of The Doctor (with was fantastic) why couldn't BBC hire him to make a appearance in the Day of the Doctor or have a role in it or made a small "Live" cameo at least. And I think the segment from NOTD should have Been a prolog opening for the 50th what a unexpected enjoyment would that of been (5) no companions No I do not want a over crowded pool party of companions but they could have had a few companions make cameo appearances or something. (2) no montage
Human's have no Instincts

In regards to the definition of Instinct, a fixed pattern of behavior cannot be overridden. For example: During mating season, Salmon swim up stream to spawning grounds to lay their eggs. This is something that happens even if the Salmon is infertile or (for lack of a better term) "Don't want to" swim up stream. This behavior occurs every year with ALL Salmon. It is their instinct to lay their eggs in a spawning ground up stream. Humans do not have any behaviors such as the behavior of the Salmon, that ALL humans do, regardless of situational circumstances.
The Bible contains error.

I thank Renascor for agreeing to debate this with me. I shall be arguing that it is highly unlikely the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is true. Being that this is an intramural debate between Christians (Renascor and I) certain things like God's existence and the Bible being God's Word are being taken for granted in this debate. I propose some definitions of terms in order to make things absolutely clear: God - "the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe" [1] Biblical inerrancy - "is the doctrinal position that the Bible is accurate and totally free of error, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."" [2] The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy perhaps gives the most sophisticated statement of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. [3] The first round should be used for acceptance of debate and for taking care of any definitional or terminological issues. Rounds 2 - 4 will be used for argument about the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.spurgeon.org...
Bestiality should be legal so long as permission is given by the owner of the pet or animal.

I do not misunderstand the very concept of rights. Humans have rights over each other- my parents have certain rights over me until I turn eighteen; rights over my bank account, where I go to school, anything that requires parental consent. At the same time, my parents are responsible if I do something wrong; if a minor is caught with beer then his parents can be held accountable whether they knew about it or not. If a child doesn't go to school his or her parents can be held responsible, and child abuse is illegal. The principle behind these laws that children are inferior in some ways to adults and therefore adults can have control over them. But children still have some rights, and adults are not allowed to just do whatever they want when it comes to kids. I'm not saying animals and kids are the same, but the principle is the same: rights are not all or nothing. Children and adults are different, and animals and people are very different. Plants feel "pain", but they not the physical suffering that animals do, and at any rate bestiality does not involve plants at all. As to your argument that animals kill in the wild, we say that we are superior so let's act like it; just because animals act a certain way doesn't mean we should act that way towards them- we have higher brains and higher morals. It's the idea of being the better person, or in this case, species. You said yourself that animal enslavement is just, but that does not mean we are their "gods". Animals do not have no better purpose then to serve us; they would be fine without humans- the exceptions being domesticated cats and dogs, but they are only the result of our impact on evolution. We are not doing animals any favors, so it would reason that morally we should cause them the least pain possible after taking what we need from them.
Bestiality should be legal so long as permission is given by the owner of the pet or animal.

Pain is simply a method by which an organism communicates with itself distress- while plants might not feel the same 'pain' we do, they still feel distress when harmed. Plants act to move away from harm and toward good, and have methods of trying to defend themselves from harm. You seem to misunderstand the very concept of rights; you can't have 'rights over' something, rights are equal. If you were to kill a human, claiming that you would 'need' the meat it would clearly be unjust- but why? Because it's a human, an intelligent creature worthy of rights. The same claim you made of animals not being slaves could have easily been used by slave masters of a few hundred years ago.... In one case, an actual human is harmed (As with the human slavery). Most everybody would argue that slavery of humans is horrible, yet slavery of animals is infact beneficial to them- why though? Because we're more intelligent than them. We're essentially their gods, we have full rights over animals so long as we own them. In other animal worlds dominance means that other species can be treated without regard. In fact, dolphins kill others young for the hell of it. While I agree civility is needed for each other (humans) we have no obligation to treat animals with any civility. If animals feel pain, they feel pain while being killed for food, while being harvested (plants) and while being enslaved.
Bestiality should be legal so long as permission is given by the owner of the pet or animal.

The "pain" felt by plants is not analogous to the pain felt by animals. Plants have a system of nerves that allow them to react to outside forces, but they do not feel the unpleasant sensation of pain that humans and animals do. If I hit a dog and then hit a human both would have similar reactions; crying out, moving away or trying to defend themselves. We do have some rights over animals. Killing animals for food is within our rights because we need meat to eat; of course vegetarians get along fine but humans our omnivore's and meat is healthier and even necessary for some people. As for your "slavery" claim, most animals who do actual work for humans, for example pack horses, aren't in any abnormal amounts of physical pain, and because they do not have the emotional needs of humans slavery isn't torture for them. The same goes for pets, most of whom lead much better lives then they would in the wild. But what the real debate here is whether animals have any rights at all. We may be the dominant species but this doesn't mean that other species can be treated without regard. Animals are essential to us, and they can feel pain as humans do, and so we have a moral obligation to treat them with some kindness and respect. It's true that animals can't take on human responsibilities, but as we are mentally superior we should be able to take on more responsibilities than animals. Animals do have rights, and bestiality is a breech of them, because it causes unnecessary physical pain. We kill animals because we need to eat them, we don't need to have sex with them.
Bestiality should be legal so long as permission is given by the owner of the pet or animal.

There are major differences between animals and people. The simple fact that animals can feel pain does not mean we can or should afford them rights- every mildly complex living creature (even plants) react to 'pain'. Should we all die from lack of food? After all, wouldn't killing an animal, plant, insect, etc be a form of murder- or even worse- slavery? Most people would disagree, why? Because animals, plants, etc do not deserve human rights. They're not human, they can not possibly (as a species) ever follow by our laws or responsibilities. They are brutes. Bestiality is most likely painful, but animals have no rights against such. After all, much more severe crimes than rape are subjected to animals with no consequences, included in those would be slavery and mass murder. If you argue that animals should have rights, wouldn't it be hypocritical to say that 'well, slavery and murder is legal, but rape- oh gosh no'.
Bestiality should be legal so long as permission is given by the owner of the pet or animal.

Animals may be "property", but your argument assumes that there is no difference between an animal and a car, or a computer, and therefore they are deserving of some rights, especially where bestiality is concerned. First and foremost, and animal is a living thing that can feel pain, and other emotions too depending on the animal. Because of this, we have responsibilities to them as we do to each other. Mental superiority does not give us the right to do whatever we want; I am mentally superior to someone with severe brain damage but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to hurt them. And bestiality is causing harm; sex without arousal is very painful, and it is doubtful that the animal would be aroused by a human. And if we say that we are more fit to take care of animals than the animals themselves, we have to take their overall well-being into consideration with our own needs