BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Catholic Church is the Authentic Church of Christ

My brother in Christ, we are all still growing. I see from your profile that you are a Baptist. I too was a Baptist who have converted to the Catholic Church. Thoroughly study the Catholic Church and pray to the Spirit of Truth for guidance and you will come to know the Catholic Church is the Authentic Church of Christ instituted by Him like I have. I feel so happy and so honored to have found the Truth, to have embraced the Truth and to have been received into the Truth which the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church teaches. Come home to the Catholic Church, come home to the Church of the Apostles, the Church of the Fathers, the Church of the Prophets and Martyrs, and the Church of Christ. I assure you, once you enter the Church with the knowledge and understanding of the Church and her teachings, you will persevere in the Faith and you shall do your best into telling other about the Church as well. Consider these final quotes: Thoughtful men, with hearts craving the truth, have come to seek in the Catholic Church the road which leads with surety to eternal life. They have understood that they could not cleave to Jesus Christ as the Head of the Church if they did not belong to the Body of Jesus Christ which is the Church. Nor could they ever hope to possess in all its purity the faith of Jesus Christ if they were to reject its legitimate teaching authority entrusted to Peter and his successors. -Pope Leo XIII Those who are seeking the true religion will never find it outside the Catholic Church alone, because, in every other religion, if they trace it up to the author, they will find some impostor whose imagination furnished a mass of sophisms and errors. - St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori There is no middle way between Catholicism and Atheism ... Hence, Protestants have abandoned themselves to the extreme of Atheism or Materialism, denying every maxim of faith .. .Oh, God! How does it happen that these new masters of faith do not see that being separated from the Catholic Church, and having lost obedience to her, they have also lost the rule of faith, so that at the present time they have no sure rule by which they can ascertain what is of the faith or what is not; thus, they walk in the dark, changing the articles of their belief from day to day ... On the other hand, its constant uniformity of doctrine in the dogmas of faith, from its first foundation by Jesus Christ, demonstrates the truth of the Catholic Church. It has been the same in all ages, so that the truths we believe at the present day were believed in the first ages. - St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori I will go peaceably and firmly to the Catholic Church. For if faith is so important to our salvation, I will seek it where true faith first began, among those who received it from God Himself. - ST. Elizabeth Ann Seton
The Burden of Proof should be Optional, not Necessary

After reading many debates, it seems that the words "burden of proof" comes up a lot. I do not think it is fair that someone should HAVE to back their evidence up, but rather it should be optional. Evidence, of course, adds to any debate. If someone wants to give a good argument on why "Nazi's were good people", they should probably have a good amount a proof as to why they can say something that goes completely against the common grain. There is a staggering amount of evidence to say that they were not, but very few examples of goodness. But there still are. This knowledge that there is some contradiction should be evidence enough to assume that maybe, Nazi's were good people. However, many people have claimed that if they can't show some sort evidence, then they are automatically the loser (another trend seems to be that the person who made this claim will not show much or any evidence to their own stance). If the Pro decides he wants to have a good debate, then he could point out the personal stories of surviving Jews who said that a Nazi pulled them away from the gas chamber line, or gave them some bread. But if he doesn't, con will claim that since he won't show evidence, there must not be, even though there is. So it seems to me that the burden of proof "argument" is more of a suggestion that has been turned into a requirement. If con wants to see evidence, they should provide their own, not try and force Pro to do so. Giving proof is definitely a good idea if one wants to give their point a good go, but is not grounds for saying they have no argument at all. Note: please don't accept this debate if you don't intend to take it seriously. The opponents argument, thus, is "The Burden of Proof should be Necessary, not Optional". (this is the polar opposite of my proposition, therefore, an acceptable stance)
The Burden of Proof should be Optional, not Necessary

I do not have a misconception of what a debate is. Debates are civilized arguments, and arguments are justifications of our beliefs. This means that the person only needs to justify their stance, by whatever means they deem necessary. It is their view, and they thus must be able to decide how to defend it. If they chose to not defend it well, by way of providing evidence, then that's their problem. It is not up to the opponent to demand that they provide evidence in a debate made purely for entertainment purposes. Burden of proof is an obligation in legal proceedings, not 'civilian' debates. I have a college textbook on philosophy, under 'arguments' here are only five: Deductive, Inductive, Argument by Analogy, Logical Possibility/Counter Example, and Reductio ad Absurdum. You can look these up for yourself. Under fallacies, it lists fifteen, 3 of which I can relate to Burden of Proof. They include attacking the straw man, distraction, and irrelevancies. Attacking the Straw Man: A debater is unable t refute his opponents points, and will instead continually question his opponent without raising any of his own points. This has been the case, were rather than try and produce their own counter example, debater will say "passing the burden of proof", questioning the legitimacy of their opponents case, and will conveniently not say anything in defence at all. Distraction: A debater will make statements that lead away from the main issue. Burden of proof certainly does this, as it makes the opponent have to post links to websites, book references, videos etc, rather than press on with the issue they're defending, in the end weakening their point. Irrelevancies: Arguing a point by arguing everything else (charts, statistics, etc) without attacking the point. This is a fallacy on both of the debaters. Rather than attack he issue, they will have to validate and argue on a chart. Nowhere is there a "Burden of Proof" argument, rather, it is a misconstrued concept from legal proceedings. There it really matters, but in a place like this, civilized debates do not need to prove anything physically, one only needs to attempt to justify their own belief how they want. So he is not required to prove 1 thing particularly, only their own stance. If the argument is "God Exists", there is no real way to show that with physical evidence, only personal accounts. Inversely, there is no way to prove he doesn't. If cons says that pro has the burden of proof, that is not an argument on their part, but they'll take it as such. They would also be accountable for proving that God does not exist if they feel the need to call upon it. Showing again burden of proof can only be a suggestion. In legal cases, there is a definite outcome, thus evidence is needed, here though, it is just a way to back up an argument that can be made on personal beliefs alone. One can back up an argument by what they know, but it would behoove them to back it up. The opponent cannot demand that proof be shown, only suggest it. Otherwise, its merely a deterant.
The Burden of Proof should be Optional, not Necessary

I believe you have a misconception as to what debates and arguments are. "Burden of proof" falls on those making claims as opposed to statements. Let's take the classic case of the existence of God. Claims: God exists God does not exist Statements: There is not enough evidence to prove the existence of God If a person's thesis argument is that God exists, the burden of proof falls on him, and he MUST provide evidence. Simply stating that god exists is not an argument, it is merely a thesis statement. A person can't carry on a debate ad nauseum because a debate is not about who repeats their points the msot times, or who uses the biggest font. It's about the strength of the argument, how well the arguments are strung, and whether or not there are logical flaws. To put things simply, if a situation calls for burden of proof, proof MUST be provided, or the debate is lost. If there were no objective modes of deciding whose point is stronger, debates would simply be shouting matches.
If the God of Abraham is real, he only favors Jews and Arabs.

The world is a massive place. While the Holy Books were taken place, there was an abundance of civilizations around the world, to include the Native Americans. Yet all three books take place in the Middle East, with absolutely no diversity. Were the Asians or Europeans not worth saving? Clearly not. The lack of diversity and the fact that the God of Abraham endorsed the wholesale slaughter of different "heathen" civilizations rather than redeem them shows that God has no interest in anyone other than Arabs and Jews.
Why Deism is the most logical stance to take with regards to explaining the natural world

This is NOT a debate. This is a collaboration. Since Saberen and I are both Deist, I thought it would be interesting to have a collaboration where we prove my resolution. Please do not vote since this is not a debate. I would be extremely satisified with a tie. I repeat this is a collaboration. Saberen, it is up to you whether to accept this collaboration or not.
Teen boy bands and pop music groups should not make comebacks!

Groups such as the Backstreet Boys, New Kids on the Block, and the Spice Girls are a few examples of music groups; popular amoung teenagers and kids, who have made recent comebacks. The Spice Girls, for example, released a cd but the majority of the songs on it are remakes of their older songs. The groups come back older, with less fashion, and a loss of fans.
Teen boy bands and pop music groups should not make comebacks!

I had a lot of fun debating with you polishgirlinar. Strange topic, to say the least, but I liked it anyway. -- >>The bands (if they were very popular) do receive attention while they are disbanded. For example, if a person from the does a solo album (Gwen Stefani's solo career) it draws attention to the group. "oh she/he was in ______. I have their CD. " Also, when any of the members are in the public eye (charity work, rehab, clubbing to hard, etc. ) news lines something like "Well ________ from the ________ band went to rehab for drugs). It may not be good publicity, but it does show that they are still around. << Gwen Stefani's original band "No Doubt" has not become disbanded, only its lead singer has left the band to perform her own tour. Therefore, it is earning its own attention apart of Gwen's. Further more, the fact that bands receive attention while they are disbanded is irrelevant to the debate. We are debating pop and boy bands reuniting, not pop and boy bands that have been disbanded. >>The band you mentioned Ozma only disbanded in 2004. Of course, they still have a following. If you recall boy bands are mainly a product of the 1980's and 1990's. Therefore, the example you have given is not from the same time frame as what the topic suggests. << The topic suggests no time period. Pop originated in 1950's with the Beatles, then it went from there, grew more popular in the 1970's with the Village people. As for Boy Bands, the Jonas Brothers, is a boy band group that is growing in popularity. Boy and Pop bands have no time frame. Neither does this debate. >>Next, you said "What band did you ever wish would return, to play the songs you remember and loved them by? " This is where my personal opinion came into play. << However… you did not tell me your opinion. You went on to give a speech about how debating show be done, but you never give your opinion on my question. You completely ignore it, for reasons that I can only speculate. In conclusion, pop and boy bands are like any other band. They have their fans, their tours, their CD's and there disbanding. What is different about pop and boy bands is that they can appeal to a family sense. Kids like it, and its ok for adults to listen to with their children. In the case of New Kids On the Block, which was an enormous success in the 1990's, they had a long time in spotlight, and they ok for the entire family. What is wrong with them reuniting to bring old and new fans to their side? I don't know if there is anything wrong.
Teen boy bands and pop music groups should not make comebacks!

The bands (if they were very popular) do receive attention while they are disbanded. For example, if a person from the does a solo album (Gwen Stefani's solo career) it draws attention to the group. "oh she/he was in ______. I have their CD." Also, when any of the members are in the public eye (charity work, rehab, clubbing to hard, etc.) news lines something like "Well ________ from the ________ band went to rehab for drugs). It may not be good publicity, but it does show that they are still around. The band you mentioned Ozma only disbanded in 2004. Of course they still have a following. If you recall boy bands are mainly a product of the 1980's and 1990's. Therefore, the example you have given is not from the same time frame as what the topic suggests. Next, you said "What band did you ever wish would return, to play the songs you remember and loved them by?" This is where my personal opinion came into play. I would like to say that emotions should play into debate, but only to an extent. If you can not make what you are saying believable and create emotion in the listeners/readers, then how do you expect to connect to them and get their votes because like it or not peoples emotions play a role in the way they vote. Thank you
Teen boy bands and pop music groups should not make comebacks!

This will be swift and clean. -- >>All of the examples you provided for recognition were dead when they got it. This debate is not about dead boy bands, it is about living bands having a reunion. Therefore, the evidence you have used against is irrelevant and inadequate!<< Are you so naive to think that death is the equalizer that I spoke of? When a band's touring or musical carrier has halted, what do people often refer to the status of the band? "Oh that band has been dead for a while." Though death is not the exact expression, it means that they have not received any attention for a long time. What I speak of is that several artists, musical composers, even "boy bands" can receive acclaim after there time in the spotlight, or "death" and can return to reminisce on the times before. Irrelevant and Inadequate, huh? >>I have actually out grown all of my obsessions with the boy bands I grew up with and the pop stars.<< What you think has no influence in this debate. That sentence is a useless attempt to put in personal emotions in this debate. I could care less on what your obsessions are or how much you have grown. Here that means nothing. >>You have many bands you wish would return, but yet you "strongly dislike" them? seems a little contradictory doesn't it?<< You truly do not see what I have said. This debate is becoming easier by the moment. What I said was: "I strongly dislike pop and boy bands..." "I have many I wish were not gone from the stage and I wish they would make returns to it." Did I ever once say that I had pop and boy bands that I wish came back? No, you assumed that. I have bands in much different genres that I wish would return. http://en.wikipedia.org...(band) Ozma, a rock band that disbanded in 2004, was and is my favorite band, and there genre is rock, not pop or boy band. Now they have reunited and have announced a new CD is on the way, I cannot wait for it. The fan base for Ozma as not only been revived with the announcement of the new CD, but new faces are joining it, creating a second fan base for new comers, strengthening the band. Proving a point that I was not contradictory like you said I was. Nice try. >>In conclusion, it is not good for them to have comebacks to the stage. As I have stated before they less fashionable, older, and with a loss of fans. Finally, they do not have to have comebacks/reunions to prove to us that they are not dead! What do they have to prove? In their day they were great, some were the best of the best. They realize that they are older and that some were great (not all were though), they have nothing to prove now though.<< Everything in your rebuttal was promptly picked apart and disposed of. That a band can be "dead" and not actually have passed on, that my views were not contradictory, and that bands can come back as strong has they had before, if not stronger. Please try to give me something a bit tougher to work with. This is disappointing.
Teen boy bands and pop music groups should not make comebacks!

All of the examples you provided for recognition were dead when they got it. This debate is not about dead boy bands, it is about living bands having a reunion. Therefore, the evidence you have used against is irrelevant and inadequate! I have actually out grown all of my obsessions with the boy bands I grew up with and the pop stars. You have many bands you wish would return, but yet you "strongly dislike" them? seems a little contradictory doesn't it? In conclusion, it is not good for them to have comebacks to the stage. As I have stated before they less fashionable, older, and with a loss of fans. Finally, they do not have to have comebacks/reunions to prove to us that they are not dead! What do they have to prove? In their day they were great, some were the best of the best. They realize that they are older and that some were great (not all were though), they have nothing to prove now though.
Teen boy bands and pop music groups should not make comebacks!

This debate is just too silly to pass up. I strongly dislike pop and boy bands, but that does not mean I can't fight for their return! Ok! -- After analyzing what little of an argument you had, I found only one statement that could count as being against the idea of reunion. >>The groups come back older, with less fashion, and a loss of fans.<< Edgar Allen Poe, a famous writer, did not truly receive his earned recognition until he was dead. Many classical composers received acclaim long after passing. What makes you say that pop and boy bands cannot still receive credit after their time in the light? What hinders them from returning to reminisce on the time of stardom and joy? Not only would the fans, which for pop and boy bands are usually very numerous, enjoy the return but also so would the band itself. What band did you ever wish would return, to play the songs you remember and loved them by? I have many I wish were not gone from the stage and I wish they would make returns to it. In conclusion, it is not only good for pop and boy bands to return to the stage to perform, but it is for any band that wishes to come back and show the world that they are not dead just yet.
Atheist (Pro) vs Catholic (Con) {poetry or rap}

Science you say, now you're just guessin'. Let us digress on a history lesson. Hospitals, schools, advanced universities. Were all but established by our learned clergy. Check out your cup, what have you been drinking? Atheists have no monopoly on critical free-thinking. Origin of life, the big bang, the cure for all cancers. Please don't imply that you have all these answers. As far as the action with guy upon guy, I worry more 'bout the plank in my eye. For all of your talk of brimstone and purgatory, I know a God full of forgiveness and mercy. Before you even think about dissin' our Pope, The Pontiff of the Holy See is the dopest of dope. So next time you see a priest while he blesses, Look what he wears, we're the original cross dressers.
Atheist (Pro) vs Catholic (Con) {poetry or rap}

Your God tells Catholics to care for all people well, According to your god, everyone else will rot in hell. The world is not so great, so let me open the gates of science. People everywhere else have different fates, so join the logic alliance. Your God is too busy to care, so pray to him- he won't respond, I know it. Theists depend only on a book, so where's the evidence? Why can't you show it? Your God tells us to love our enemy, But then he burns them in hell for eternity. Also for no reason, Catholics are against homosexuality (according to the the bible). Just one last thing before I leave, Adam and Eve work together, but Adam And Steve sometimes work better.
Atheist (Pro) vs Catholic (Con) {poetry or rap}

Humans are so enlightened, this is true No need for the bible to tell us what to do. Of course we then promptly transpose So much into legislation"rows upon rows. If we are so clever, so upright Why do we need a red stop light? Speed limits, police & criminal law Are we that upstanding? Are you so sure? Life is unfair, Life is unequal So prepare yourself for the biblical sequel For the solution lies quite clearly therein Love your enemy, as well as your kin As we sow, so shall we reap Over spilt milk, no need to weep. God is one of simple consequence Back over to you, get ready to dance
Atheist (Pro) vs Catholic (Con) {poetry or rap}

We don't need a God to teach us lessons, All people should know how to be good and still stay independent. If there was a God, don't you think he'd care? Look at the world, society is neither equal or fair. There's no God. No heaven, and the only hell is the one I'm living in. I was once a Christian, so I understand & listen. I know what you're saying, So take your demons back to hell, Because the angels you know are hiding in a shell. Your God punishes the disobedient. Even your devil lucifer was once in heaven until he fell.
Is it ok for my girlfriend to have a girlfriend (and yes have a sexual relationship with her)

Ok first off, hot lesbians are the most sexually amazing thing I have ever seen. yes I'm very attracted and in away a little jealous that sometimes I feel it is easier for hot women to pick up other beautiful women than it is for men. I'm not completely blind to the fact that it could back fire, say they have a relationship then decide to really hit it off then go to orgies with other men behind my back. I take that as cheating. Or worse comes to worse she decides to completely dump me then I'm left as fool for others in the sense that "wow dude you let your woman fool around with another girl the entire time and didn't cut her off". I could see that to be embarrassing and a hit on my intelligence. or it could go like they have a relationship, are open about it with me. They do show signs of affection in front of me. They keep in at the house or if at public they keep their relationship restricted. My girlfriend is still into me. I might even occasionally get invited into a threesome or next step after that a polyamory relationship. but we just keep it between the three of us. Ultimately I can go on for days about all the different best/worse case scenarios that can occur. question is, should a man ultimately willing to share their female significant other with another woman? yes or no....I down but I could be wrong.