BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Catholicism Is Not a Christian Faith

In Pro’s opening “I do not believe Catholicism is a Christian faith because it does not teach a saving gospel,” we see the heart, apparently, of his conviction that Catholicism is not Christian. Pro does not define what he means to assert by saying the Catholic Church does not teach a saving gospel. Although we assume this will be made clear in the discussion to follow, the words themselves seem to suggest Catholicism does not teach a gospel which can save. Although this is not the crux of the debate, it is an interesting side note. In rebuttal, the Gospels which the Catholic Church adheres to are not significantly different from those found in other denominations. It seems Pro’s contention would also condemn other denominations for also failing to teach a saving gospel. In argument, Con points to the Sacrifice of the Mass, the centerpiece of Catholicism, which is the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross. The focus of the Mass is Christ Himself. This in and of itself cannot be seen as anything but Christian. Above the altar must be a crucifix, not a cross, but a cross with a corpus, as Christ is essential to Catholicism and its worship. Upon the altar are the bread and wine, which, as the priest utters the words of consecration, “Hoc est enim Corpus meum” and “Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum”, are changed to His body and His blood respectively. (1). These words are a translation into Latin of a compilation of quotes of the words of Christ at the last supper, as recorded in several New Testament books. Matthew 26:26 (2), Mark 14:22 (3), Luke 22:19 (4) After these words He said this was to be done in commemoration of Him. 1 Corinthians 11:25 (5). To repeat in this Christ centered form of worship the words of Christ, along with His command to do it, is hardly opposed to Christianity. It would seem at the very least that Catholicism, which is Christ-centered, is Christian by that fact alone. Redefining Christianity to mean anything other than belief in Christ and a desire to follow His teachings is gratuitous at best, a contrivance at worst. Pro’s definition that in order for a religion to be Christian it must teach a saving gospel is not only not the definition of christianity, but further Con will argue successfully that Catholicism and its Christ centered teachings and practices are directed toward saving souls by having them earn that right through serving God in the manner Christ taught us to do while on earth. In this way, it will appear that Catholicism is in fact a very Christian religion. Words of Consecration taken from the Canon of the Mass, Missale Romanum . http://drbo.org... . http://drbo.org... . http://drbo.org... . http://drbo.org...
Catholicism Is Not a Christian Faith

I do not believe Catholicism is a Christian faith because it does not teach a saving gospel. For me, the issue is not about trivial matters, but about the heart of the gospel itself as I will show. Of course, as a protestant, I am not a fan of the traditions of the Catholic church, but these are minor issues. If the Catholic church does not teach the real saving gospel, it is not Christian, although individual Catholics who do not agree with their church may be saved. I truly hope that I will lose this debate and be convinced that Catholics are in fact Christians, but I don't see how that is possible at the moment. I hope I am wrong, but if I am right, I hope those of the Catholic church will heed my warning.
Catholicism Is Not a Christian Faith

In this debate, I will take the Con position; that being Catholicism is in fact a Christian religion. Many non Catholics have made the claim that Catholicism is not Christian. Pro must argue that cause. Catholicism is that religion which holds to the dogmas and traditions of the early Church, including the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass, and has expounded on them, adding to them without diminishing already established tradition and truths. As Catholicism appears on its face to be a religion with a Christian foundation, the burden of proof is on Pro in this debate.
grandparents

My Grandparents live in Florida where it’s hot They play bridge on Sundays and drink Ensure a lot They make me watch movies that expired with disco And they force feed me snacks from box that reads “Nabisco” They take me to the movies and their senior price makes me weep By the end of the opening previews they are always asleep It’s not that bad until they start to snore in dreamy sin And I have to use my popcorn to wipe the drool from their chin
grandparents

My grandparents are as old as stars that twinkleTheir skin is saggy, baggy and wrinkledThey say subtly racist things that make me feel funnyAnd when they pass away they'll leave me lots of moneyMy grandparents smell like oats and aftershaveAnd they never miss a chance to tell me to behaveYou'll lose this debate in so many waysAnd I'll say with my grandpa, "those were the days". A Town. WORD.
evidence for Judaism

Evidence of goda. )Evidence that the mass didn't always exist in gas form, because if they did they would still be that wayMy opponent did not show any evidence as to why mass would always have to exist in gas form. b) Evidence of a god from the problem of 1st cause. If the gas was not always there, where did it come from according to the law of conservation of mass and energy. )? I explained to my opponent that time is a part of the universe and therefore before the universe existed, there was no time and therefore the universe is not bound by the law of casualty. c)Pretty much the same as A and B. d)Evidence of god from complexity. 1st mentioned in R2, and clarified upon request in R3. If things which are complex need a cause then something which had designed said complex thing must be even more complex and thus need a cause. e)My opponent has conceded that he has not brought adequate evidence to prove that even 1 miracle has ever happened.1e) Creation of the worldMy opponent believes that the world coming into existence must have been a miracle, however I countered this with the theory of evolution and the big bang2e) ExodusMy opponent thinks that the Jews leaving Egypt is a miracle even though the only evidence he used to uphold it was the Bible which I had shown to be unlikely to be true.3e) SinaiMy opponent showed no evidence that this ever happened other than the Bible. Evidence for Judaisma) National revelationMy opponent has tried to pass this off as something more than an argument from popularity. However his argument goes that a lot of people have passed on the religion of Judaism and so this is somehow evidence that god exists. He has shown no evidence to prove that it is anything more.
evidence for Judaism

Just as infinity has no beginning it also has no end. If the mass was in gas form for an infinite amount of time and infinity has no end it follows that it is still in gas form. My opponent does not seem to understand my reasoning. The mass was not in gas form for an infinite amount of time as infinity refers to time and as time had not yet existed, it could not have been. My opponent does not seem to understand the definition of infinity. Regarding 1st cause, your analogy is not analogues bec. Your question is not a paradox, mine is, this is a classic argument. My opponent has not actually responded to my analogy but has only made the claim that it is not analogous. My opponent did not show why though and so I will ask that he does so in the next round. Regarding "miracles", my opponent brings up the big bang and evolution as "better" alternatives. I don't have space to deal with it fully, one point I will make is the challenge of missing links. For anyone who may not know what my opponent is referring to, I was refuting his argument that the very 'creation' of the universe must have been a miracle as it would not have been possible without god. I responded that evolutionary theory and the big bang theory better explain the formation of life and the universe. My opponent responds in no way to the big bang theory but claims that evolution has 'missing links'. To this point I will concede as scientists do not have fossils from every single generation for every single species. My opponent has also failed to show a single example of a link which would be needed to single handedly validate evolution which has not yet been found. My opponent after this, instead of proving that the Bible is an accurate and factual piece of work, offers vague quotations from religious apologists which do not actually prove the Bible's accuracy. At best it is an argument from authority as no new information is brought except that so and so believe that the Bible is accurate. "Science is now in a position to state categorically that the bible is factual till proven otherwise." This is a quote by Will Durant which my opponent believes proves the validity of the Bible and therefore Judaism. This is a very weak form of argument and my opponent is simply trying to shift the BOP even as he is instigator and Pro of this debate. After this my opponent moves on to his main argument, national revelation. My opponent brings no real argument but just makes a very weak argument from popularity. He tries to claim that it is not but this is my opponent's argument. "Judaism has been passed down for generations and generations and has gone from just a few people to millions." This same argument can of course be made for any religion such as Christianity or Islam or any ideology really like libertarianism or liberalism. This is not new evidence to my opponent's case. I await my opponent's response.
evidence for Judaism

For the short time that I have been on DDO I have honestly never seen a debate on the existence of the Jewish god in particular. I look forward to a stimulating debate! //"I argue that there is evidence for the validity of Judaism. mainly that there is a god, and he dictated the old testament. "// This quote from my opponent I think is more accurate of the resolution which he is defending then the title, "evidence for Judaism". To win this debate my opponent must prove that A. )There is a god B. )This is the god of Judaism and C. )He dictated the old testament. I should say it is a good thing that my opponent set this debate for 5 rounds as my opponent has quite a lot to prove. //"I there for[sic] will assume that god is a given. If not please tell me and I will address it in more detail Anthe[sic] next round. "// I do not accept that a pre-requisite that god exists will be assumed for this debate. I have now let my opponent know this so that as stated above he can adress it in more detail over the next few rounds. Now to define the terms of this debate so to keep confusion to a minimum. Jehovah(YHWH): The Jewish god is monotheistic, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent, is the creator of the universe and everything in the universe, interacts in human affairs(such as answering prayers), and delivered the Ten Commandments to Moses at Mount Sinai. These are the defining characteristics that I believe my opponent must prove exist as properties of god after my opponent proves that a god does exist. If my opponent has any problems with these characteristics or believes that the god he is advocating does not embody any of these characteristics I ask my opponent to either PM me about this or leave a comment in the comment section. Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. [1] Exist: to have actual being; be[2] I will ask my opponent to first show evidence that a god does exist and then expand upon his evidence for the validity of the Jewish religion in particular. [1]. http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]. http://dictionary.reference.com...
evidence for Judaism

I argue that there is evidence for the validity of Judaism. mainly that there is a god, and he dictated the old testament. In the request for debate my opponent asked for evidence on Judaism. I there for will assume that god is a given. If not please tell me and I will address it in more detail Anthe next round. I will very briefly quickly state some basic well known evidence for god. then move on to Judaism. one piece of evidence is basically the complexity of the universe. another is the problem of first cause. Some/all evidence of Judaism is also evidence for god. I now will precede with some of the evidence for Judaism. first is revelation at Sinai. evidence of "revelation at Sinai" is as following: People observed it and communicated it to others, through communication a story does not die with the death of the generation that observed it, rather it is trans generational it remains being passed down generation to generation by millions of people from millions of people to millions of people in a continuous chain for over 2000 years. The message has been that your ancestors experienced along with hundreds of thousands of other people the revelation of god. (the Jews are not the only one with this tradition the Muslims and Christians have accepted the revelation at Sinai. so now they are also passing it down making it billions.). I will alow con to respond. then continue.
Marvel Vs. DC

OK then, thank you for the history, I actually did not know some of that, and it was very interesting. However this debate pertains to which 'team' would win in a fight. Even though con posted history in stead of counters I will list some characters and their respective strengths. We have, over here at Marvel, Captain America. An iconic hero who has stood the test of time and continues to be a fan favorite. His shield is made of an unknown nigh indestructible alloy. It is a shield that can both defend it's user and attack the opposition. He is a super human who was created by the United States Government and possesses super enhanced reflexes and senses. We have Iron Man as well a.k.a. Tony Stark. The man is a genius who spends his money to defeating crime and protecting people. His suit is a powerhouse that is a force to be reckoned with. He is able to fly wherever he wishes and can send someone flying with one of his repulsors.
Marvel Vs. DC

DC Comics (founded in 1934 as National Allied Publications is one of the largest and most successful companies operating in the market for American comic books and related media. It is the publishing division of DC Entertainment Inc., a subsidiary company of Warner Bros. Entertainment, which itself is owned by Time Warner. DC Comics produces material featuring a large number of well-known characters, including Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Green Lantern, the Flash, Martian Manhunter, Green Arrow, Hawkman, and such superhero teams as the Justice League and the Teen Titans, and such antagonists as Lex Luthor, the Joker, Two Face, the Penguin, General Zod, the Riddler, Bizarro, Sinestro, Catwoman, and Darkseid. The initials "DC" came from the company's popular series Detective Comics, which subsequently became part of the company's official name. DC Comics has its official headquarters at 1700 Broadway, Midtown Manhattan, New York, New York. Random House distributes DC Comics' books to the bookstore market, while Diamond Comic Distributors supplies the comics shop specialty market. DC Comics and its major, longtime competitor Marvel Comics together shared over 80% of the world.But D C winsthe votes.
Marvel Vs. DC

Firstly, thank you to whoever accepts this debate, it has been a source of much strife to me and many of my comrades. I will take the position of Marvel whilst con will have DC. You will get all of the heroes AND villains from your respective comic company. Please note that this is a hypothetical situation that is all of the characters in combat, not which had better storyline, etc. Please keep it civil and polite. Please also try to remember that this will be my first debate here. Thank you. Let me begin by stating that Marvel has Hulk on their side who is immensely strong and can swim through lava without a care. Also, the angrier he gets the stronger he gets, I have heard many arguments that have the DC characters ignoring him and he cools off, I would attest however, that he would simply get angrier BECAUSE they are ignoring him. The hulk is simple minded, which is at times an advantage. Also, stronger than Hulk, and without the worries of losing rage is Abomination. Abomination is quite simply, a smarter, stronger and overall better superhero/villain. Next up, we have Deadpool, one of my personal favorites. Deadpool is quite simply Deathstroke with better equipment, better moves and a sense of humor. Deadpool has super agility, super accuracy and an adamantium skeleton, just like Wolverine. With his speed and accuracy with a gun he could easily take out most any hero. Marvel has almost all of the gods as well, including, but not limited to, the Asgaardians and Olympians. With gods on their side, specifically, Odin, Thor, Loki and Zeus, DC would stand no chance; and if Superman thinks to make an appearance there are two simple solutions; either hold Lois Lane hostage or bring in some Kryptonite to weaken him. And with this I will end. Once again, thank you for your time and effort to whomever accepts this debate.
Anti-bullying laws are a bit too much!

For the record, Con is against Anti-Bullying lawsPro is Pro Anti-Bullying Laws"A six year old child calls another child ugly. Should this child be charged with bullying? I would say absolutely NOT"Thats not considered bullying...."A person is bullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons, and he or she has difficulty defending himself or herself."http://www.olweus.org..."Who decide what exactly can be considered bullying?"The parents of kids who killed themselves from being bullied by others....."I believe that our society has forgotten how to teach our children to love themselves.... I believe that these issues are solely based on a child's self-esteem"Time out, you think all bullying cases happens because the one being bullied has self esteem problems!??!!? People get bullied because of many reasons, most often it is because one bigger person wants to force authority over another by using size to his advantage.... Not because the one being bullied "needs to learn to love themselves"" I think the responsibility lies on the parents to teach their children how to love themselves"Teaching a child to love themselves isnt going to offset being called a cunt or a f*g by others at school by the same person every day....." It is silly that simple childhood name calling can cause a child to be arrested"Unless it prevents a suicide or the kid being abused from shooting up the school, the kids behind the Columbine shooting were bullied and look what happened..... " What happened to the old saying of teaching a child to have "tough skin?"They got a gun and killed themselves or other students............"No, instead we blame the school and everyone else for not protecting the child."Yeah because they allowed it to happen, refused to take action, ignored it, or even encouraged it in some cases when they could have ended the conflict before a disaster happened....."Children need to be taught how to have high self-esteem"Getting your a** whipped after school every day by the same person has a drastic effect on a persons psychic that having high self esteem cant offset. Pro has a seriously warped idea of why bullying happens (blaming the person being bullied instead of the bully) in the first place but anti bullying laws exist to try to prevent these cases of bullying from leading to someone committing suicide, bringing a weapon to school to try to kill the bully, bringing a weapon or a bomb to a school to kill as many as possible, etc. Anti-bullying laws are required to help protect kids who cant protect themselves from harassment or physical abuse that cant be fought off with some hippie BS like "telling a child they have pretty eyes"
Anti-bullying laws are a bit too much!

A six year old child calls another child ugly. Should this child be charged with bullying? I would say absolutely NOT! So where do we draw the line with the anti-bullying law? Who decide what exactly can be considered bullying? I believe that our society has forgotten how to teach our children to love themselves despite what someone else might say! It is a shame that children are taking their lives because someone is bullying them. The recent rise in adolescence suicide is evidence of this. I believe that these issues are solely based on a child's self-esteem. I think the responsibility lies on the parents to teach their children how to love themselves. It is silly that simple childhood name calling can cause a child to be arrested. What happened to the old saying of teaching a child to have "tough skin?" No, instead we blame the school and everyone else for not protecting the child. Children need to be taught how to have high self-esteem. We have become a generation that seems to lack time and interest in our children. A parent's daily reminder that a child is pretty, or smart, or has nice eye, can help build a child's self-esteem. Yet, instead we work long hours trying to achieve this American dream of the rags to riches ideology. We now choose to blame the system for our lack of involvement.
Anti-bullying laws are a bit too much!

" These people have suffered a great lost and no matter what their children are gone forever!"Wait a minute, you think that anti-bullying laws are an act of revenge by parents??????? What kind of bullsh*t logic is that, thats like saying that there shouldnt be laws against murder or rape since the families of those who got murdered or raped are just trying to seek revenge!!!" Do you really believe that these people not have some bias while making these laws?"Yep. "My point of saying of all this is to show the important role that the parents MUST play before it get to the next level!!!"Parents cant stop bullying from happening though, that responsibility comes from the school and the bullies themselves to not bully others. Schools that know bullying is happening and do nothing to stop it is unjust, and people who bully other kids to the point where they kill themselves is unjust too, therefore we must fight bullying by threatening severe punishment for bullying and punishing people who already did cause kids to kill themselves. Parents can only do so much to prevent bullying, and anti bully laws exist to punish those who caused people to kill themselves or their peers and to prevent other cases of bullying from happening. Jasmine Mcclain was a black girl who killed herself because she was recklessly teased by other white students for dressing poorly. Now why do you think these kids get away with causing someone to murder themselves Con? Anti bully laws exist to prevent bullying and punish those who do bully others, why in this case do you think these white students should get away with causing this black girl to kill herself Con???http://www.askkissy.com...For the record, Jasmine was 10 years old when she died,