BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Roman Catholic Church Accepts Evolution

My opponent proposes an analogy of my argument with Juggle and pedophilia. Allow me to explain why this analogy breaks down:The Catholic Church endorses research and discussion of Evolution,and,Juggle endorses debates about pedophilia.This is not similar, so a correct analogy cannot be made. In one situation, Juggle is endorsing free thought, but not endorsing either side of the debate. With the Catholic Church, it endorses both sides- Creationism and Evolutionism. If the Catholic church endorsed research into atomic bombs, it would be consistent to argue that the Catholic Church, though possibly through silent consent, would be also endorsing war. “[N]ew scientific knowledge has led us to realize that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory” (Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution, October 23, 1996).The Catholic Church endorses Evolution as a viable scientific model. This proves the thesis: "The Roman Catholic Church accepts Evolution.
The Roman Catholic Church Accepts Evolution

“[T]he Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions( … ) take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution( … ).” Your quote demonstrates the Church merely allows Evolution to be “researched” and “discussed.” By your logic, Juggle (the parent company of this website) endorses pedophilia just because they allow it to be debated. You have not demonstrated any official support at all for Evolution from the Catholic Church. Back to you.
The Roman Catholic Church Accepts Evolution

"The teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36),The Catholic Church is compliant and accepting of Evolution.Compliance can be equivalent to endorsement. A moral example (albeit extreme; apologies):If I have a gun pointed at a man, and I look at you and ask you if I shouldn't kill this man, and you say nothing, and so then I shoot him, then I argue that you would feel partially guilty for the situation. You would take some responsibility for your silent consent. The same is true with the Catholic church. They argue that Evolution is compatible with the Christian faith. By arguing that it is compatible, it undermines the Christian faith. They should be opposing Evolution.So, even though the Catholic Church may allow its members to decide between Creationism or Evolution, its compliance with Evolution is its compliance with an atheistic doctrine. They endorse it to be seen as relevant to the world.
The Roman Catholic Church Accepts Evolution

Pro will argue in support of the following resolution:The Roman Catholic Church officially endorses Evolution.**of which Universal Common Ancestry (UCA) is a central pillar.(1)Con will oppose the resolution. Pro is to post his opening arguments in the first round.Explicitly defined rules:1. Nobody (neither commentators nor debaters) may discuss non-meta subject matter in the comment section until after Voting Period closes.2. Until Voting Period closes, debaters may not contact voters regarding their votes.(1) http://www.nature.com...
Prove to me guns cause crime

Thankyou for your acceptance and i will be blunt for now to provide you room to debate the matter. I say guns dont cause violence for no true facts show it so. If someone wishs to commit a crime they dont really need a gun to commit a crime nor a murder. Futhermore gun restrictions beyond background checks hold no use. If a criminal wants a illegal or illegal to them gun all they need is the blackmarket. I say we need to focus less on guns (the effect) and more on whatever is the cause in a said case.
Prove to me guns cause crime

I will put forth a final rebuttal but that is it as this round is mostly meant as closing statements. Now let me say this you tell me to cease the cries that other things can cause crime. I am sorry pro but that has done little more then prove me indeed correct. What you showed is a gun crime needed the gun to be a gun crime. Sadly you still failed to show how the crime needed the gun to be a crime. You supplied little more than a oxymoron my friend. The cause for the murder such as drugs as example is the y the crime could come to be through many different variants as towards an x. Sorry but you still didn't show that crime needs a gun or that a gun Leeds to crime. Let me stop there. Now I thank pro for a strong and fun debate and hope to hear from him more in the future. He did have the harder end as to be the provider of (proof) now I feel he came short. With that said I also feel he put forth a very good effort and his last rebuttals on reasoning where by far his best. So I say a due and thank you for debating with me.
Prove to me guns cause crime

First, a definition: Causality is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect) where the second event is understood to be a consequence of the first. [1] Now, on causes themselves. Necessary causes are such that the prescence of y necessitates the prescence of x, even if x does not necessitate y. [ibid. 'Logic'] The murder of someone by gunshot is y. Clearly, murder by gunshot (which is x) necessitates the prescence of a gun; however, the prescence of a gun does not necessitate a murder by gunshot. If this reasoning cannot be defeated, then I have established that guns are a necessary cause of murder by gunshot, and therefore that guns can cause some crime. Hopefully, this appeal to pure reason will be more successful where my many analogies and examples have failed, and yes, murder by gunshot is a crime. Also, please cease your cries that 'something else could have been used to commit murder'. Yes, there are many different ways to cause murder, but guns are definitely one of them. In boxing, you might defeat your opponent through possessing more stamina, more skill, or you might take performance-enhancing drugs, or you might give slip him some attenuating drugs, or you could land one lucky blow which alters the course of the entire fight. All of these things can cause victories in boxing, and so too are there many causes of crime. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... (ibid. 'Logic' refers to the section of the article above titled 'Logic')
Prove to me guns cause crime

All you have posted is mere words but no sustenance in which to provide a backbone. You said yourself and I quote that the gun was essential to the crime. So if that was true (which it is not) but if it was than you yourself have admitted it wasn't the cause. I still await the mere proving of it being the cause which you have completely failed in which to do. Sorry but many a thing can be used for murder beyond simple guns when a person truly means to cause crime or violence, they may prefer a gun but in no way is it either essential nor the cause. These twins could have bombed it or arson-ed it or for the love a God stole a car and simply go mad with running people over. Yes the guns were their choices but that doesn't make them essential or the cause, it took their want and their drive to do it to make it a issue at all. Also I didn't argue your house case? Wasn't my second paragraph for that? In any case let me rephrase. If someone intrudes in my house and intends me harm and I shoot them well the gun wasn't the cause their trespassing was, or lets flip it. If he has the gun and I resist or get in the way and I get shot, well it's because I got in the way not because he had a gun. I could have defended my home many other ways, a bat as an example, so the gun was neither essential nor the cause. Or in his case he could just simply over power me or use a knife as a few examples, so again neither essential nor the cause. Also I have provided strong argument. I have clearly shown how gun sales have sky rocketed and yet crime has dropped. So let's look at it like this. If Gun = Crime Then More guns should = more crime But wait crime has been on the drop even though there is more guns so it only leaves one conclusion. Guns do not = crime what so ever. My proof to back it up, the first on gun sales the later on decline of crime. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.cnn.com... Also look to the true cause of a crime as you said psychopaths, well in a way you prove me right. For last I checked when gun murder happens don't they always point to a mental issue or maybe on drugs. Not once have I heard "Well he got a hold of a new M-4 Carbine and thought, hey lets try her out.". Sorry but this has never been the case even in the cases people use so often like yours they were mental, and that was the cause. While say what happened to Connecticut well he was on drugs. Also if I must prove guns are neither the cause or essential to crime/violence/murder. Then lets remember the Boston marathon bombs. Were those guns? Nope they were bombs. You know this incident. https://en.wikipedia.org... So I rest my case in showing that my opponent has although supplied a good effort, he has failed to prove that guns lead to any crime or violence or murder of any kind, nor has he proven their essential to it either.
Prove to me guns cause crime

Your personal incredulity is not an argument. You say "it took a pair hands [sic] and a thought to pull the trigger to be the cause". Yes, this was the cause of the gun being fired, but the gun is essential to the murder. You have not defeated any of my examples, and in fact you did not even discuss the example of the gun-wielding homeowner, which I believe proves my case by justifying my other examples. It is indisputable that the cause of the burglar's retreat was the gun, and in a similar vein, it can be established that the cause of mass killings by one or two people is the product of the twin causes of both the possession of a psychopathic disposition and a gun. I notice your argument hinges upon the idea that 'more guns does not lead to more violent crime'. For the moment I will not accept or deny that statement; however, I put it to you that 'guns in the hands of murderous psychopaths causes more violent crime', because guns may facilitate murder exceptionally, as seen at Columbine, and I believe 'more murders' qualifies as 'more violent crime'. These are "cold hard facts", if not the largely irrelevant statistics you seem to desire.
Prove to me guns cause crime

I fail to see how you have proven anything. I asked How do Guns = Crime What you gave is tragic but not proof. A criminal mind causes crime not a gun. For a gun is but a tool and it took a pair hands and a thought to pull the trigger to be the cause. Also the murder you brought well what about this they could have ran around with knifes or got a glass bottle and a paper towel and gas and arson-ed. So don't give me such a preposterous idea that that was guns and guns alone that caused it. Also your burglary idea doesn't help you either for the fact is the cause was he wanted to do it, not that she left the window open, yes the window helped. Also gun murders the gun helped, but neither case are they the cause. Look let me make an example here one regular and one well murderous. Normal first than murder second Say I hammer my finger and it busts wide open, it sucks. so I go band aid it. Murderers gun done innocent people, so the government starts getting rid of guns. It's the next day and it happens again, I don't know what went wrong. It's a month later and death rates just as high as murderers and burglars found other means to kill and cause crime, except now no one can defend themselves, damn it what went wrong here. Well it's simple we went after the effect rather than the cause, I didn't change the hammers trajectory and no one thought about what leads people to cause crime. So there is a new face but everything is the same. So again guns don't = cause. The criminal does. So I will ask once again please provide irrefutable cold hard facts that connect crime to guns. Cause consider this http://www.cnn.com... This article brings up how violent crime is on the decline. Yet http://www.thedenverchannel.com... As this article provides gun sales are going ever higher and even after tragedy and a threat of ban. Here is one on the nation as a whole. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Here is another article on the manner if you want to read. http://falkvinge.net... I would like to rest on that last article for now as it makes a very strong point so I adjurn this round with please provide true evidence that GUNS = VIOLENCE and not just incidents of guns being involved.
Prove to me guns cause crime

The most pertinent assertion you make is that 'you do not ned a gun to commit a crime'; however, the crux of my argument is that you do. I shall proceed to show that this is the case. I am aware that the example of Harris and Klebold is probably an overused one in the gun debate, but nonetheless I am a little lazy, and so they will suffice. Had they not had guns, they would not have been able to kill 13 people and injure a further 24 more. I realise that they would have wanted to kill their fellow students regardless, indeed, this is obvious, but the fact remains that they would not have been able to do it. It can then be said that the relationship between the guns used and the Columbine shooting was causal, as it cannot be simply correlative if it could not have happened in their abscence. If there is a causal relationship, then guns were a cause. If someone's house is left unlocked, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that this may be a cause of the subsequent burglary. The financial difficulties of the burglar serve as motivation, of course, but he may not have broken into any houses had not he seen that window left open. The open window was definitely a cause in the burglary, though not the only cause. Since I do not want to be biased, overtly at least, I shall give a second example illustrating the causal effect guns can have. A man might hear a burglar enter his home. The homeowner is a small man, and he immediately runs downstairs; unfortunately, the burglar is strong, and in the ensuing fight the panicked burglar kills the homeowner. Now consider if the homeowner had a gun: the burglar is confronted, but instead flees at the sight of a weapon. What has caused the different outcomes? The gun. I believe it is not possible to accept that a gun here caused the situation to be for the better, but in the case of Harris and Klebold it was irrelevant. You also discuss gun regulations - but that is not the debate at hand. I think it is certainly a noble idea to prevent individuals from wanting to kill each other rather than simply preventing them from doing so.
You should not abort a child

To begin, you state "its destroying another persons life" however, this point depends on the definition of life and when life begins in the womb. I for one, think life begins at birth, and before birth, the fetus is similar to a parasite. This is because unlike a human, it gets all of it's necessities from it's host or in this case, the mother. This includes nutrients, vitamins, minerals, warmth, shelter and water. Without the mother, the fetus could not survive, and therefore is property of the mother, and not a self-sustaining life. Next, you make the comment "Would someone like to abort a child and then have a grudge over that choice for the rest of their life", but not all women who have abortions feel miserable afterwards. Many might even feel relieved to know they wont have to take care of a child that they know would not have proper care. I don't understand what you're trying to get at with your next statement. "Some young children have babies and for some reason abort the child and have others and abort them"? And...? For your next 'fact', you say "this will be a very dumb thing to do when you know that you are going to destroy the chance of having a child", however that's an opinion, not a fact. Why would someone who's having an abortion care about destroying the chance of having a child? The whole point of having an abortion is so they wont have a child. I find your next point very unlikely. "Some people do this on purpose they get pregnant and abort the child"? Are you saying people get pregnant just so they could have an abortion? It's a drastic measure to avoid having a child, not a hobby. "I know that its their children and their property but its not fair to abort a child" Care to elaborate on that? Also, you accept the fact that the fetus is the property of the mother. Doesn't the mother have the right to choose what to do with her property?
You should not abort a child

well i understand that but: fact1-its destroying another persons life fact2-would someone like to abort a child and then have a grudge over that choice for the rest of their life. fact3-some young children have babies and for some reason abort the child and have others and abort them fact4-this will be a very dumb thing to do when you know that you are going to destroy the chance of having a child. fact5-some people do this on purpose they get pregnant and abort the child fact6-I know that its their children and their property but its not fair to abort a child.
You should not abort a child

Although I have seen a variety of debates similar to this on debate.org, I have never debated the topic, and I thank you for the opportunity. First of all, you say that "The reason why I am in favor of not aborting a child is because what's the sense of wanting kids, then when you get pregnant and have the chance to have a kid you are going to abort the baby". Most women who get abortions had no intention of getting pregnant in the first place. The either forgot to use contraceptive devices, or said devices failed. Although this may not apply to all women, it's generally the case. Your next point is "Its not fair for a kid to suffer fro so much". The fetus inside of you is completely dependent on you. It is not a life as much as it is a parasite, and physically, it can't suffer if it's aborted before 26 weeks, as it's not developed enough to experience or feel pain. There are even studies that suggest that pain cannot be felt until after birth, due to psychological development that cannot occur in the womb. Finally, you say "and when you are living your life after you abort the child you will feel guilty" however this is not a fact and does not happen to every women who has an abortion. Regardless, women should have the right to abort a child because it is part of her body, and in a sense, her property.
You should not abort a child

Aborting a child is taking away another persons life as soon as they come into the world. The reason why I am in favor of not aborting a child is because what's the sense of wanting kids, then when you get pregnant and have the chance to have a kid you are going to abort the baby. Its not fair for a kid to suffer fro so much and when you are living your life after you abort the child you will feel guilty.
The American Confederacy had the right to secede and the Union should not have invaded.

To speak of the confederacy having "rights" is to misunderstand the purpose and nature of rights. Rights originate in a series of facts: 1. Each human being who is alive chooses to be such (those who don't die). 2. In order to fulfill that choice man must enact the edicts of his reasoning mind upon his existence. 3. Force from others against one's person or property prevents 2. 4. Other humans have a close-to-equal capacity for force, and the capacity to restrain that force should they so choose. 5. It is therefore rational to refrain from use of force against another human's person or property, so long as it is clear that this restraint shall not be shown if that other one does not reciprocate. Region, federalism, and especially "democracy" , play no part in this. "Gang rape, after all, is democracy in action"-Terry Goodkind. Individuals are the possessors of rights, a confederacy can only hold them to the extent the individuals within them do. The confederacy was created to defend the interests of a group (slaveowners) that regularly initiated force against human beings (african slaves). This violates the condition of reciprocity, thus violates rights. In the violation of the right of another lies the negation of one's own. Granted that there may be difficulties in the morality of many members of the Union itself, the Confederacy did not have any rights whatsoever, being an explicitly anti-rights organization based upon initiated force. Where no right at all can exist, no right to secede can exist.
The American Confederacy had the right to secede and the Union should not have invaded.

Once again I will take the unpopular side in a debate regarding US history. Remember to vote on who presented the best arguments, not whom you agree with (unless they co-relate). So hear it goes, a pro-South argument about the American Civil War. To understand the root of the problems that eventually manifested themselves in the ugly form of the American Civil War, first one must understand the US's history. It was a nation birthed in blood and rebellion, just as the American Confederacy would have been had the state not failed. It was founded on the principles of a balance between a federal government on the Potomac as well as having a great deal of power centralised in local, regional governments- lest the majority political opinion exert itself to aggressively and meddle in affairs that could be better handled on a regional basis. But by 1860 things had greatly changed; the newly elected President only had about 40% of popular vote, and was overall the most loathed president in US history. His ideals were radical and out of touch with the majority of Americans, particularly his radical federalism (for he believed that the federal government ought to be more powerful than state governments), a sentiment obviously not shared by too many Americans. Had the Democratic Party not been undergoing a schism at the time between Douglas and Brecknidge (and to a lesser degree, Bell), which lead to a executive incursion by the less popular Republicans. Most of the Southern states' citzenries (excluding Delaware, Missouri and Maryland) determined to PEACEFULLY order their legislatures, (which were as democratically elected as Lincoln, if not more so,) to issue a series of Declarations of Independence and form their own country which better represented their values, namely that of a weak central government. And they would have succeeded, had an army of invaders launched themselves into the independent (by order of the citizenry) nation known as the Confederate States. Writhing in blood-lust the Republican leadership refused to relent their attacks, a barrage that would cost more than any war in US history before or after, at the price of 600,000 young American and Confederate lives. How is this an example of democracy- using military force to force the will of an unpopular government on the citizenry of a seceding country? Was this not exactly what the British had done four score and seven year ago?