BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Catholic Church Same Today As It Was In Early Christianity

Ok, first he concedes all points, so extend all arguments and he concedes that the catholic church is not the same as it was in early christianity. >> Catholics must believe in ONE set of (unchanging) doctrines. If any 'Catholic' deliberately denies even one article of faith, that person ceases to be Catholic and is a heretic. [4] Fact:Catholics of every age have admitted to the exact same articles of faith as Catholics today. -This is not only impossible but just stupid, he's basically telling you that every true catholic has never lusted, and has never had pre-marital sex. Please it's only human to do these things, so common sense would tell you that there is no true catholic church. >>my opponent has yet to bring forth one historically solid rebuttal against any of the three claims I made about the Catholic Church in R1, which was the framework for this debate -like I said, there is no way all catholics can be unified, I didn't use evidence, I used logic >>She has remained unadulterated and 'the same' in the sense that Catholics continue to profess the exact same doctrines and have the same unity of govern't as they did before the Schism -Then why are there so many heretics? If it has true governing, why has it no control over all christians? The answer is- it doesn't >>My opponent argues that his source is more 'credible' than mine because it is more recent. Yet he cites the opinion of a newspaper article on the words of the Pope! I have cited official Church documents outlining exactly what Church teaching is on the subject - and NOTHING has changed in 100 years, so 'recent' does not mean more credible. Evolution is not an officially held Catholic belief and my opponent cannot prove otherwise. Also, non-Catholics very often do not understand the doctrine of 'Papal infallibility'. Not everything the Pope says or does is official Church teaching or is even right. He is believed to be protected from error only under certain conditions[5]. -ok, one my source is a report on local catholics teaching evolution, two- he says nothing has changed in the past 100 years. I could make an entire list of things that have changed, but the facts point that 100 years ago, it was a crime to teach evolution in school, evolution was a secondary idea, and many scientists denied its existence, also he says popes aren't always right, then how can you trust his source? he says that his source is potentially uncredible.
Catholic Church Same Today As It Was In Early Christianity

Pardon the forfeit I was (ironically) at a debate tournament On my framework, that if I prove that in one way the catholic church is not the same, I win. My opponent has yet to provide a counter-framework, and since I prove that there is a change, then I win. Also, I don't have to answer his points, because like my framework says I only need to prove one way Ok, under his definition of the catholic church, there is no constant church. Because there are many different beliefs in a church. And, the catholic church is a community Ok, for my argument "'If one member dies, then the Catholic Church is not the same anymore.'", he conceded that it has changed by developing. He never defines same, and since I do, then I win. ok, one of his main points was that if the catholic church reamained unified, then they are still the same, but if the eastern orthodox church seperated, then it could not be unified, therefore it has changed and I win point c) they sent children to die, the catholic church no longer sends people to die for stupid reasons, i win on this, because his claim is that the spanish inquisition wasn't horrible, this is sixth grade history, spanish inquisiion, crusades= BAD D) ok, he concedes that alot more people do not believe in exorsisms, the point is that if people are not unified in the beleif, then it is not the same thing ok, on the evolution debate. His source is 61 years old, mine is from 2 years ago, you should give this argument to me. also, their official stance is 102 YEARS OLD!! you cannot weigh it because times have changed since then, and his source saying that the pope never announced evolution is still 15 years old, all my evidence is much more credible and like i said his sources are uncredible, so they have changed their stance on evolution, therefore they are not the same ok, so quick note for my opponent, your source doesn't say anything about straw man, but, (a straw man is a logical fallacy in which you attack the weakest argument) ok, first of all, if he wanted me to only debate the 3 points above, he should have established that in rd 1 second, he should have fit a more loose definition example "the catholic church is mostly the same", but he didn't therefore, I can and should attack every argument no matter how weak i look forward to the last round, and vote con
Catholic Church Same Today As It Was In Early Christianity

I'll start my second round by defining the word- same. identical with what is about to be or has just been mentioned: This street is the same one we were on yesterday. http://dictionary.reference.com... 1-If I can prove in one way that it is not the same, then I win this debate. 2- My opponent refers to the church as if it were a thing, it is not. It is a community of people. Therefore, I will target the people of the church. 3- I will accept my opponents challenge of change in doctrine but first rd2a- I win- My opponent established early christianity as 4th century to 5th century. First of all, The church split in two, The eastern orthodox and the roman catholic church. And neither group held all of the original ideas. And this was in the year 1054 AD I win this debate, because the original catholic church no longer exists. Vote con http://simple.wikipedia.org... rd2b-Extend how a church is a community, Then automatically, because one member dies, then it is not the same, because they have just lost a fraction of their ideals. But even if you don't buy that, I'll move onto my own points A) The church RENOUNCED its position on the origin of man and went to an evolutionary doctrine. This is Not the same, because the idea of evolution wasn't around during beginning of christianity http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.timesonline.co.uk... http://cin.org... kick point b C) OH YOUR GOD! did you really just say that the crusades were good? And on the spanish inquisition- REALLY? just look at this source. http://www.thenagain.info... D) 1. If you BELIEVE that you can cast out demons, and then CHANGE, you have changed your belief, 2. Ok then what constitutes the church? and if you say god, I want proof. E) just extend arguments and explain how it was a straw man. Now extend my offense on his position of the church.
Abortion

I am very aware that women who go in for abortions are sometimes raped. However according to New York Times, although I am aware that not all surveys and such are accurate (I will leave the link below), only 1% of women who go in for abortions are raped or have had some sort of incestual intercourse. They way that I see it, the women should fight through the pregnancy, although it will be tough, and put the baby up for adoption. Yes, many women understand that their child would not be growing up in a healthy environment, sometimes abusive. I am willing to bet that most times, when asked later in life, an abused child wil be happy that they were not aborted. Yes, the fact that sometimes a woman might put her life on the line in a pregnancy. I would say that for the overall betterment of society, although we are slightly overpopulated, in my opinon, that abortion should still be illegal. Just for, like I said, the overall betterment of society. 57,000,000+ abortions and counting since 1973. Some women may lose their life, but for the keepsake of the majority of lives, I believe that abortions should be illegal. Thank you for accepting the debate, I have learned a new aspect on the issue. You were actually proposing intellectual information, opposed to others on the website.
Abortion

The paper you recommended was very convincing, and a not too long read either. Even though there still are many questions open as to cloning etc, for the sake of this debate I will agree with you that conception is the beginning of new life. There still are god reasons for women to be able to have abortions. I would argue that there are many cases in which women didn't freely choose to get pregnant, and therefore your argument that abortions should be illegal due to women having to face the consequences of their actions invalid. First of all not all women choose to have sex, some endure rape and they should not be forced into an unwanted pregnancy. Further it often times happens that other preventative measures failed, often times due to ignorance of usage. Another argument is that women usually have a good reason to abort a fetus. Many abortions occur due to the woman feeling that she can't provide a stable environment for the child to grow up in. Be that relationship stability, economic status or simply the fact they will not be able to care for the child due to other responsibilities they hold in life. There also is the case in which women are simply physically not fit for a pregnancy, and without abortion their lives might be under threat. Sure for the second argument you can claim they have to deal with the consequences, but is that really an optimal society we would be creating by disregarding all these negative points. In my last argument I want to make the case that it would be unwise to let the government regulate what we do with our bodies.
Abortion

Correct, I believe that at the moment of conception, there is a living child in the womb. I don't believe that the problem is that people don't believe that a fetus is a child, I believe that those who get abortions are not willing to accept the consequences for their actions. As a woman who chose to have sex, and happened to get pregnant, the woman has the responsibility of paying the consequences for her actions. I find this to be a common themesamong liberals, the not wanting to pay the consequences for their actions. I apologize, as I don't know how to further debate the fact that a zygote is a human being, but here is a link if you would like to read on. http://bdfund.org...
Abortion

Thank you for inviting me to this debate. I assume you brought up the guns issue to prove that we as a society value life. I'll accept that and focus on abortion from here on. I also will assume your question is how can we morally justify abortion, and not that you are disappointed that the population (in the USA?) could be larger than it is today. As already clarified, we value life. Killing a person is considered morally wrong and is punished harshly by our justice system. So the entire question is from when on do we consider "something" to be a person, to have its own life. I think we can both agree that after a child has been born it should definitely count as a being with a wright to life. On the other extreme I think we can both agree that sperm and egg cells are not considered living beings, as they are constantly produced by our body and die off when no intercourse has taken place. We therefore have a time continuum between the fertilization of the egg cell by the sperm (forming a zygote) and the birth of a new child. Somewhere in that continuum we have to draw a line from where on we consider the zygote/embryo to be a living being. Now we could say: "As soon as the embryo is 9 weeks old it is a living being and shouldn't be aborted", in which case we would pass a law limiting abortion to the first 9 weeks of pregnancy. But to claim that there should be no abortion at all equals claiming that as soon as the zygote is formed a new life has begun. Would you be willing to make that claim and support it with arguments? Disclaimer: The biological process of a forming embryo is far more complex then the possibly inaccurate depiction I have made here. It's been a while since I had biology.
Abortion

By abortion keeping abortion legalized, we are losing millions of innocent lives on a yearly basis. If you are opposed to keeping guns legal in the United States; 57,000,000+ abortions have occured since 1973. Since 1973, only 1.6 million deaths as a result of gunfire. (I use the word "only" to contrast that number from the number of abortions, not to discredit the significant amount). So answer me this; what logical reasons can you give me for why abortion should remain legal?
Abortion

Well there is not much left for me to respond to, so I will end by saying abortion contributes to the betterment of society due to all the issues I mentioned in my last argument. I don't see how there are any positive aspects to outlawing abortion for society. You say there would be 57M+ more lives, but I can't see why our society would be better off with that increase of population, if anything it's the other way around. Thank you for your open mindedness, it makes debates much more interesting and dynamic.
Can We Be Good Without God

Since I'm seriously limited by character count I'm going to skip to the main points brought up my Con. Unfortunately the ED was a bit of a side issue so I had to drop it.1. Epistemic CertaintyFor Con, every transcendent truth (essentially, every truth) needs to be grounded in God's existence. In other words, we humans could never be certain of the law of contradiction or even basic mathematical truths given that these truths "transcend" human minds and thus require a "transcendent" mind to realize them. I simply don't agree with this, and everyone has the potential to apply doubt to virtually every proposition. If you refuse to accept that 1+1=2 in a theistic world, but not an atheistic world since our minds are "limited" and incapable of knowing transcendent truths (I don't know why he assumes this) then I don't know what else to say. Mathematical and logical truths can be known through human reason. A limited mind can still have knowledge of "transcendent" concepts. As humans, we are capable of reasoning out truths about this world independent of the issue of whether God exists. 2. Betterment/Happiness vs. SufferingHow does Con know that God is good? If it's not betterment for another group then it's not betterment. Betterment is defined as improvement. Con makes no substantive criticism with this point. Con then puts up a straw man claiming that my promotion of joy over suffering exonerates rapists and criminals. This deserves nothing more than a two word response: Net suffering. Rape and assault victims suffer tremendously and the experience can have far reaching consequences. Society is much less safe is individuals are allowed to perform these crimes scot-free. 3. Can humans have moral knowledge?Con says no. In fact, Con doubts all knowledge that we have and claims it all would be vacuous in a God-less world. Luckily, I do not have to convince him. My argument is very simple: Humans are capable of reasoning out moral truths about the world independent of whether or not God exists. Even as vague as terms like "the well being of conscious beings" - we can already discern certain truths. Science was is not epistemically routed in God's nature, is it therefore false? The field is science is testimony to man's ability to discover truths about this world, and lays forth a framework for doing so. If someone is unable to accept the scientific framework the conversations there. ConclusionIn conclusion, there will be no convincing Con but I feel there is hope for those who believe that all truth claims need not be routed or "validated" by some supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful divine being. As soon as we can admit that humans are capable of moral knowledge independent of God's presence, Con's argument falls apart. Once we have taken our epistemic faith out of a celestial dictator and into the scope of human reason, my argument about moral knowledge being routed in "the well-being of conscious beings" becomes much more plausible.
Can We Be Good Without God

Thanks for the extension, it was either finish my assignment or complete this debate... >>I just have to pose a quick question to Con about the objectivity of God's morality. Namely, is there moral reasoning behind God's commandments or are they moral simply because He commanded them?<< It is interesting you posed the Euthyphro Dilemma, I don't need to refute the two horns of the dilemma because the dilemma presents a false one: There is a third alternative, namely, God wills something because He is good. What do I mean by that? I mean that God's own nature is the standard of goodness, and His commandments to us are His expressions of His nature. In short, our moral duties are determined by the commands of a just and loving God. So moral values are not independent of God because God's own character defines what is good. His nature is the moral standard defining good and bad. His commands necessarily reflect His moral nature. Therefore they are not arbitrary. If one was to pose the question "if God commands to abuse our children, are we obligated to do so?" The question is a false one, its like asking "if there is a square circle, would the area be a square of one of its sides. >>Take the law of non-contradiction<< Slightly off topic, however the law of non contradiction also requires a transcendental mind. Does this particular law apply in all places in all times? Of course, its a concept and concepts require minds, concepts that transcend our minds require a transcendent mind. >> "betterment" of conscious beings<< How do you know that betterment is good, what one group of humans say is betterment might not be betterment for another group. >>conscious states from suffering to joy.<< Again, who's standard a paedophile experiences joy in his crimes a rapist experiences joy in is assaults, whos standard are we saying is joy. It seems to me without a "ultimate ruler" to measure all other lines to see if they are crooked, we could not know if the line was straight or crooked. >>The Moral Landscape<< The moral landscape is according to his standard ant what he thinks is morally right, thats just another form of subjectivism, he even states this in the book. Conclusion I think that my premises still stand that is: 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. C. Therefore God exists A brilliant refutation of Sam Harris's moral landscape can be found here: http://www.youtube.com...
Can We Be Good Without God

The resolution is whether atheists can have an objective moral foundation without invoking a theistic entity. -Con Case-I just have to pose a quick question to Con about the objectivity of God's morality. Namely, is there moral reasoning behind God's commandments or are they moral simply because He commanded them?-Pro Case-1. Rules don't require a transcendent rule giver.Take the law of non-contradiction. In fact, any introductory logic course will lay forth a plethora of rules and fallacies governing logical discourse. Obviously, these rules were not passed on by a divine entity, but can rather achieve the label of objectivity by discovery through human minds. As humans with a developed mind we are capable of reasoning about our surroundings and drawing inferences. 2. Virtually every moral system concerns the issue of "well-being" of conscious beings.As innocuous as this statement is, it has attracted a lot of controversy. Despite its broadness, certain moral facts can immediately be deduced (i.e. do not throw battery acid at children's faces) and a number of other "common sense" moral conclusions. Moreover, the issue of well-being is only a jumping off point for moral discourse. The issue of how well-being is best achieved is a different debate, but I firmly believe that the notion of well-being is the only intelligible moral starting point for a moral framework. Clearly, atheists and theists hold different views about the true nature of "well being" but this is in part due to differences in concepts concerning reality. Both theistic and atheistic frameworks virtually always tie back to the issue of the "betterment" of conscious beings, although there is debate as to how far we should extend this circle, as explained in Peter Singer's "The Expanding Circle." At least from my own non-theistic perspective, morality does not exist as a platonic form or have transcendent value. It exists out of an objective necessity and only applies in a universe with conscious beings capable of a range of conscious states from suffering to joy. There are objectively right and wrong answers in terms of where to go from our jumping off point.3. Harris' "Bad World" Some of my arguments are based on Sam Harris' argument that objective morality can exist without God. In making his points, Harris presents the viewer with a thought experiment brought up in his book The Moral Landscape, and at least two of his lectures [1][2]. In the experiment, Harris asks the reader to consider a universe where every conscious being suffers immensely for a long period of time. Harris then implores the viewer to make a definitive value judgment about this world, and then contrasts it with its antithesis. From here Harris is able to provide a scale to which acts can be judged by. Acts that push the scale towards greater suffering are bad and vice versa. [1] http://www.youtube.com...[2] http://blog.ted.com...;
Can We Be Good Without God

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. C. Therefore God exists We should first detail some definitions, starting with God which means an all powerful perfectly good creator of the world. By "objective" I mean independent of peoples opinion and by "subjective" I mean dependant on peoples opinions. By moral value I mean, the worth of a person or action, whether it is good or bad. When mentioning moral duty I am referring to our obligation to act in a certain way, whether that action is right or wrong. For example it is good or bad no matter what people think about it, for instance the holocaust was wrong even if the Nazi's had won the war and brainwashed everyone to say the holocaust was right; it still would be wrong. It is important at this point to show a distinction between values and duties, for example it would be good for one to become a cancer researcher but one is not morally obligated to do so. PREMISE 1 In the past moral values have been based in God being the highest good. However if God does not exist, then what is the basis for moral values? Why would we the think that human beings have moral worth? Lets now consider moral duties. It has been though in the past that moral duty sprung from Gods commandments. If God does not exist why think we have any moral obligations to do anything? If there is no moral law giver then there is no objective moral law that we must obey. PREMISE 2 Most of us agree that moral objectives and duties exist, for example we all have a duty to be tolerant, open minded and loving. Furthermore it is objectively wrong for the government to round up all homosexuals or atheists and throw them into a concentration camp, much like Nazi Germany did. CONCLUSION So the logical conclusions is simply and answer of we cannot truly be good without God; but if we can in some measure be good, then it follows that God does exist.