BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sola Scriptora and there is no papal infallibility

You did not give a source for papal infallibility being invoked only 7 times. So tell me what your source is. Yes, it says that it was inspired by God, but it does not say that it is infallible. NO WHERE does the bible say that it is infallible, and NO WHERE does the bible say that the bible is the only needed source of truth. You still have not given me a verse from the bible that says that it is the only needed source of truth. Jesus would not allow the Magisterium of the Catholic Church to contradict herself because He wants us to know the truth. And He gave us the Church (meaning the Catholic Church, not the congregation of all Christians, the congregation of all Christians do NOT make up one church, give a bible passage that says they do), to teach us the truth. Obviously if the Church contradicted herself then she wouldn't be teaching truth. What the Pope teaches is infallible because it is really Jesus speaking through him.
Sola Scriptora and there is no papal infallibility

First I apologize for forfeiting the last round. I was very busy and forgot about this debate. I do NOT drop the point that the bible was divinely inspired. It was. Yes, He was giving them the power to forgive sins, but He was also giving them papal infallibility. They need AUTHORITY to forgive sin. Jesus does not say that the authority applies only to forgiving sins. Remember He said "So as THE FATHER SENDS ME, so I send you". So we have to ask, how did the Father send Him? He sent Him will ALL AUTHORITY. And Jesus sends the apostles IN THE SAME WAY. Now where in the bible does it say that the bible contains all that we need to know. Yes, you gave 4 verses but none of them say that the bible contains all that we need to know. If the bible is the only needed source of truth then why does THE BIBLE say that? History should show that the bible is hard to understand. If the bible is easy to understand then why is the there so much controversy between Catholics and Protestants over what certains parts of the bible mean? If it was so easy to understand then we wouldn't have this problem. I can't remember the passage from the bible that proves my point but I'll find it and post it next round. The pope cannot contradict Himself on matters of Faith and Morals. Jesus will not allow it to happen. And again tell me how you know that that the bible is inspired by God other than that the Church teaches that? Papal infallibility has been invoked many more than seven times. Anything the Church teaches on Faith and morals are infallible teachings. And there are many more than 7 teachings. Where did you get the idea that papal infallibility had only been invoked 7 times? The Church does serve to protect and promote the truth , yes, but that is only part of what that verse means. It also means that the church has truth. It's not the bible or the Church, it's the bible AND the Church. And I want to Clarify, when I say "Church", I mean the Catholic Church, what Church are you talking about though?
Offensive speech/ideas must be protected in colleges/universities

Thanks Pro. Rebuttals1. College/Universities need to foster opposing viewpoints in order to preserve an academic environment. While this is true, it doesn't make my opponents argument more effective in any way. This is because for something to be offensive, it has to cause people to be offended(obviously). Most people won't be offended by someone having a different opinion on issues like taxes, gun control, or even abortion. However, they most likely WILL be offended if they present their viewpoints in an offensive way. Here's an example:Not offensive-"I disagree with the death penalty because I think all humans should have the right to their life. "Offensive- "Anyone who agrees with the death penalty is an inbred cur. "As you can see, while it is important for colleges to foster opposing viewpoints, they should also make sure that discussions remain civil. Note: I see that Pro's resolution says "speech/ideas. These are completely different things, so I'm assuming that the slash means "and" in this debate.2. Opposing viewpoints are going to be challenging/uncomfortable to consider. This is true. However, again, there is a difference between an intellectual debate and a cat fight. Also, Pro makes a claim here that I feel I need to address. "It is impossible not to be offensive to somebody somewhere. " Again, this is true. However, it is completely irrelevant to this debate. If what Pro is saying is that everything that can possibly offend anyone anywhere is offensive, then what I have to argue is that no speech should be protected in colleges/universities, because everything is offensive. For something to be offensive, it generally has to severely upset a large amount of people.3. Colleges/Universities that are becoming intolerant of offensive speech/ideas are disrespecting adult college students by treating them like children. Everyone has the right to free speech. However, again, this doesn't mean students should have the right to present those viewpoints in an offensive way, regardless of how old you are. "If they decide to be parents, how will their behavior now effect the way they might raise their own children? "By teaching them to present their viewpoints in a civil way.4. Censorship/intolerance is fostering disempowered studentsAs I stated in the previous round, colleges shouldn't create "safe spaces". However, this doesn't mean they should prevent students from creating private clubs where only certain viewpoints are allowed.5. Censorship/intolerance flies in the face of free speechYes, but if the speech isn't constructive, there isn't really a point to protecting it. Society should protect the speech of those with actual opinions, not those who just pull things out of their *censored by DDO*.6. Censorship necessitates dogmaPlease re read by first refutation everyone. Intellectual debates should be protected by colleges/universities. There is no point in spending the time to protect the speech of those who only seek to offend others.
Offensive speech/ideas must be protected in colleges/universities

Thank you con. And now we may move on into our refutations:-Neutality: My opponent contends that colleges/universities need to preserve neutrality in order to foster an intellectual environment, and that in order to keep a college/university neutral it therefore needn't/mustn't protect offensive ideas/speech.On the one hand, I agree that colleges/universities, as a rule, should do their best to stay neutral. However, I do not believe that protecting offensive ideas/speech on college/university campuses automatically makes the college/university non-neutral; in fact, I might say that failing to protect offensive ideas/speech is a lack of neutrality unto itself because it opens up the doorway for students to begin censoring ideas and opinions that they don't like, such as pro/anti capitalism, pro/anti abortion, pro/anti war, pro/anti death penalty, pro/anti welfare, etc.-General Happiness: My opponent contends that making spaces "free of racist/offensive language, college students will be happier and [live] more productive lives". Clearly this would be the case, since three-legged races tend to work better when both runners are running in the same direction.But colleges/universities are not three legged races. Colleges/universities are meant to be spaces of of ideological diversity where not everyone agrees. I would also like to point out that the link con referenced here was to a study showing that more friends improves grades. I can't see what this has to do with creating spaces with already agreed upon debates, as such a university without disagreement on controversial topics would require. A student can have plenty of friends in an ideological diverse environment and this study has no bearing on the real topic of the debate.-Private colleges not required to permit free speech: Unfortunately this is a given; private colleges have the freedom to manage their colleges however they see fit, and to only allow the speech/ideas they want to be said to be shared. However, whether or not a college is legally bound to permit free speech or not, just because a college can restrict free speech doesn't mean it should. I would be highly critical of any college which would disallow the free debate and expression of thought.Now back to con.
Offensive speech/ideas must be protected in colleges/universities

I'm busy, but if you're reading this, it means that I found time to create an argument. You're welcome, Con. I know, I'm amazing.Now first of all, I would like to say that "safe spaces" are ridiculous (almost as ridiculous as this font). However, this is not the subject of the debate. This is:"Offensive speech/ideas must be protected in colleges/universities".With that out of the way, here are my contentions.Contention 1 - NeutralityJust because one isn't protecting offensive ideas doesn't mean that they are actively opposing them. In fact, it lets the students decide what viewpoints are acceptable among themselves, and by doing this they can create their own social groups (Sort of like safe spaces, but not violent, and spaces where nobody will be obstructed from going to and from anywhere.) Another positive of neutrality is that it saves the college resources they could spend on other things. To conclude this contention, it is best for the college administration to stay out of this issue.Contention 2 - General happinessBy making certain spaces free of racist/offensive language, college students will be happier and more productive lives. This is partially because people with similar ideas create and maintain friendships more easily. Obviously, friendships are extremely valuable in helping students perform, as this study shows.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Contention 3 - Private Colleges are not required to permit free speech.My opponent almost certainly knows this, and so does most of the audience. To be honest, this is my weakest contention. However, it is important to keep in mind that the 1st Amendment does not apply here. Just in case you don't believe me, I have proof.http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org...Note: Sorry for any font issues. Back to Pro.
athletes do get payed to much.

Athlete's bring in so much money over national television that they've clearly earned the money they are being paid. They deserve just as much money as an actor or actress. They work their whole lives to become an athlete, they put in so much time and work into this, it's not like you work your whole life to become a banker or someone who works at a gas station. This is real, they deserve every penny they make. Its easy to say that they don't deserve so much money but it goes far beyond that. The teams play all season to win games and produce revenue. They only make so much money because the team does. A doctor has no feasible way of making 15+ million a year or some wild number, because tens of thousands of people don't have his jersey, or season tickets to watch him operate on people. It really is just business as to why athletes make so much money.
There is a smallest distance

Your theory is that space isn't measurable. Throw out all of the tools we use, then. From rulers to micrometers a simple clock they must all be useless based on your law. Space IS measurable as we've developed measures for it, hence distance is measurable as it pertains to space. You are saying space can always be halved...but it can't. You can't halve zero, and at some point in measure we reach zero. "Perhaps I'll make the challenge again sometime, so I can get an opponent." And perhaps a mathematician will take it so they can more eloquently destroy your thesis than I. The insult wasn't necessary.
There is a smallest distance

You are correct and indeed I intended to make that in the comment section but was half asleep at the time. That doesn't change my point, however. "smallest" is a descriptive word not appropriately applied to distance. The question here, I believe, is distance measurable? It is to the limited abilities of our most advanced tools so in that respect, yes there is a "smallest" distance being the shortest distance we are capable of measuring. If we can't measure it, then it's only conceptual.
There is a smallest distance

I did not claim there was a smallest size which a square peg could be. I meant that there is no smallest distance. Take a chair, in a room, for example. I am saying that there are an infinite number of locations the chair could be at between where the chair currently is and where the chair would be if you moved it 1 cm to the right. That is what I'm saying. I never spoke of shapes or pegs, so I don't know why you had to assume them. My topic is, literally, whether or not there is a smallest distance. You probably should have clarified your misunderstandings via a comment, rather than simply taking the debate. Some people claim the universe is discrete, and it was one of them I was hoping to debate.
The Coming Collapse

Whether you like Keynesian economics or not, it's still a part of the mainstream economic consensus. This isn't a political issue or a political debate, it's what has been formulated after centuries of study by economists and will continue to be ever-changing.As for what you are alluding to about the definition of liberal, what is now known as "modern liberalism" is still very much a part of the liberalism ideology, it simply depends on what a person defines as freedom.>> Keynesian economics started as an upstart school of economics for those who didn't agree with classical economicsThis is not entirely true. The economic ideas of John Maynard Keynes were always created complementary to the economic ideas of the classical economists. This is because classical economics is more of an era than a school of economics. The ideas of the likes of Adam Smith are just as influential to Keynesian economics as they are to Chicago economics, Austrian economics, or even Marxian economics.>> Austrian economicsAustrian economics is no longer a part of the mainstream economic consensus, and it hasn't been for at least decades. The works of Austrian school economists such as Friedreich Hayek aren't necessarily wrong though, but the parts that have been accepted by economists have been taken from Austrian economics and placed into the new economic mainstream. This is because economics is not a politically ideological position that people who are interested in politics want to believe. It's a much more collaborative and inquisitorial effort than an adversarial one, and fundamentalists of any economic school are not going to get any far.>> If you give people a blank check to borrow as much as they possibly can, then jack up interest ratesAs we're talking about monetary policy by the government, the Federal Reserve has kept the base interest rates at very low levels. More economists are saying the rate is too low than is too high, but the current levels aren't controversial.>> The entire system is based on consumption.This is the essential element of Keynesian economics. I'm not arguing for Keynesian economics, and my response for this round seems to be talking more about the basis of economic theory than I would've liked it to be, but it seems you're really just opining against Keynesian economics, when really it's Keynesian economics that ensures gross domestic product is counted particularly as the aggregate demand of the economy, as the stock market, which is not consumption but rather just exchanging the ownership of something, is not counted as aggregate demand.>> guaranteeing that our current consumer credit system won't turn into a death machine churning out zombies.There may very well be unsafe lending and exchanging practices by financial institutions, but to claim that this will destroy us all requires some very extraordinary evidence.
The Coming Collapse

Keynesian economics has been purposefully misconstrued into the broad spectrum, leaving most people clueless as to the value of the term versus the implications. The public, though misinformed on a lot of issues, has the correct term for Keynesian economics much like "democratic liberal" is now the opposite of the political science definition of liberal the way people say things. Keynesian economics started as an upstart school of economics for those who didn't agree with classical economics, which was literally the implementation of common sense and using finance records to put together a way to churn out good economic policy. Keynesian economics has traditionally differed from the opposite, Austrian economics, in that it assumes the issues it plays with to be positively influenced by government intervention. There are a lot of things that are different between the two schools, and I'm not saying all of what has become "Keynesian economics" is bad. A lot of people wonder if this point in time we've come to take for granted, one of economic growth globally and prosperity and efficiency in the states will continue or whether society will run into problems. Well, the problems have already begun. I've mentioned over the table derivatives like mortgage-backed securities, but have I mentioned how many? There were 2 quadrillion before the massive write-off that followed the great recession, now there are 4 quadrillion. You must understand that while the immediate implications of economic law don't always apply, common sense always does. If you give people a blank check to borrow as much as they possibly can, then jack up interest rates, what will be the effect? Well, ironically, mortgages are doubly effected by interest rates, and they are the first thing that will be "on the chopping block" (well, who needs a new house anyway) when the fed is forced to raise interest rates. That is the basic effect of the overnight lending rate of the fed. However, that is only the beginning. The entire system is based on consumption. Companies need profits to continue producing. You can think of it as "all being done on the margin". We once had wealth, and still do, in the form of fixed capital. Now we're massively over-borrowing. The same sources that track the real economy, what we get for our taxes as opposed to what our leaders would like to lead us to believe, also say there's a lot of manipulation going on. I will admit that I'm no economic guru, but I've studied economics enough to know these companies that do things "on the margin" have no place guaranteeing that our current consumer credit system won't turn into a death machine churning out zombies.
The Coming Collapse

>> In a recent poll, 60% of voters said they were against the current administration. However, not only that but they are also uninformed.I'm actually surprised that it's only 60% that are dissatisfied, but certainly if you include polling to cover all aspects of government, the dissatisfaction would be higher. This is not a rare occurance though, and high levels of dissatisfaction with government has been recorded many times. The malaise at the worst of the previous president's last term is certainly greater than what it is in 2015. [1]>> A world-shaking event such as a tidalwave of job losses would cause people to try to have more of an influence over the forces that shape their livesThere has already been a world shaking event, the global financial crisis, which sent unemployment and bankruptcies soaring. We did not see such doomsday even at the worst of the recession, so we certainly aren't going to see such collapse at these relatively better times.>> Though Keynesian economics have been tested by the fed for a long time, it should be noted that the free market fundamentals that were put into operation along with a rote change in the technology curve, a perfect testing environment, have been successfully employed by developing countries in their own environments to make them more successful.Keynesian economics, which have been used for almost a century now, are firm views among mainstream economics. They have been successful in ending, shortening and preventing recessions not because the principles are actively against the free market, but because they complement free market capitalism. As far as the Federal Reserve is concerned, we can see that inflation has been kept at target levels, not spiralling into significant inflation and not turning into a deflationary crisis either.>> Anytime you want the gdp to grow, you employ production growth strategies without worrying about such exogenous variables as employment and interest rates that can clearly be controlled with the right flow of capital.This is actually a very significant concern to economics. By raising employment for example, with more people having more money to spend on goods, demand increases and sellers of goods raise prices to the equilibrium, thus increasing inflation. This is probably the most famous example of good policies create bad outcomes, measured by the Phillips curve. The challenge for economists is to reach non-accelarating inflation rate of unemployment. [2][1] http://www.gallup.com...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...;
The Coming Collapse

In a recent poll, 60% of voters said they were against the current administration. However, not only that but they are also uninformed. A world-shaking event such as a tidalwave of job losses would cause people to try to have more of an influence over the forces that shape their lives. The silent majority is "silent" because somehow the movements such as march on wall street and minimum wage action, as well as minorities against racist university officials are quelled without any remark by the press. If there was something to report, they would. On the other hand, a basic understanding of economics and an investigation of manipulating factors reveals all necessary strategy for the long term. Though Keynesian economics have been tested by the fed for a long time, it should be noted that the free market fundamentals that were put into operation along with a rote change in the technology curve, a perfect testing environment, have been successfully employed by developing countries in their own environments to make them more successful. Anytime you want the gdp to grow, you employ production growth strategies without worrying about such exogenous variables as employment and interest rates that can clearly be controlled with the right flow of capital. Economists agree that with the right resource base, an almost immediate recovery is possible with the existence of a good amount of fixed capital. In short, lending institutions and "money market banks" would write off the debt they were owed and pay each other bundled up loans that were owed to them by small entities. Bigger organizations would pay what they were able, and if they went in the red, they would become bankrupt. However, some would be able to survive. Corporate obligations to private individuals would become history, and the gateway would be open for a flood of new growth. Thanks for the debate, i forgot to mention it.