BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Phrase "Under God" Should Remain In The Pledge Of Allegiance

Con tries to equate "Nature's God" with "Laws of Nature", "science", and "God", but that's wrong. "Nature's God" refers to the God who created nature, or "The God of Nature". Indeed, that is what Jefferson, who was a Deist, meant by the phrase!Here is a quote by Jefferson to remove any doubt that he believed in God: "I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences for which we were accountable to him". (1)Con has already conceded that Jefferson believed in a God who created nature by calling Jefferson a Deist. Deists, by definition, believe that God created nature. If a Deist wrote the phrase "Nature's God", it must be concluded that he was referring to the God that created nature!By Con's logic, the phrase "Jacob's toy" refers to "Jacob", and "Jacob" and his "toy" are the same entity! I hope you, the voter, realizes that this is the crux of my opponent's argument and that it simply makes no sense."under God" should remain in the Pledge. Thank you.
The Phrase "Under God" Should Remain In The Pledge Of Allegiance

My opponent did me the favor of proving my point in Round 2 by trying to reiterate his false claim in his Round 2 argument. There is a huge difference between Jefferson's reference to "Nature's God," which is a Deist sentiment, and the suggestion that referencing God is necessary in the Pledge of allegiance. Nature's God requires no acknowledgement, worship, reverence, or mention. For an 18th century deist, referring to Nature's God, or the Laws of Nature is the equivalent of denying religion, and therefore affirming the lack of religious influence in the formation of this nation. My opponent says that none of my arguments matter because they don't deny the fact that our rights are derived from nature. The fact that our rights are derived from the Laws of Nature (science), Nature's God, God, etc. have nothing to do with the Pledge of Allegiance, and the mention of God in the Pledge. The mention of God in the Pledge does not honor the secular nature of the Founders' intentions.
The Phrase "Under God" Should Remain In The Pledge Of Allegiance

Our nation is not based on solely secular principles. It's based primarily on the principle of God-given rights. (1) You claim America was founded mostly by deists, not Christians. I don't know why you mentioned that. I never argued either way. It doesn't change the fact that this nation is founded on the principle of God-given rights. It doesn't matter if the phrase was added in 1954. It doesn't matter if it was added after extreme lobbying from The Knights of Columbus. Neither of those things change the fact that this nation was founded on the principle of God-given rights, or the fact that the phrase "under God" simply enforces this. Thanks for your rebuttal, though. (1) http://www.archives.gov...
The Phrase "Under God" Should Remain In The Pledge Of Allegiance

My opponent's argument is completely contrived. He claims removing the phrase from the Pledge would undermine the most basic principle behind our nation's freedom, but doesn't seem to understand that our nation, and our freedoms are based on Ancient Greek democracy, and secular principles. To be clear: the nation was founded mostly by deists, not Christians. The writer of the Declaration of Independence, for example, Thomas Jefferson, was a deist, and even wrote his own bible in which he stripped Jesus of deity. John Adams, his friend, and another major figure in the Revolution, was a deist. John Locke, who was not a revolutionary, but heavily influenced the Declaration of Independence, was also a deist. The man who influenced the Patriots to declare independence, Thomas Paine, is also the most influential deist in history. The phrase was added in 1954 after extreme lobbying from The Knights of Columbus, not by the deist founders, nor by the Socialist author of the original.
The Phrase "Under God" Should Remain In The Pledge Of Allegiance

Thank you Con.I believe the phrase is necessary to the Pledge. It reinforces the most basic principle upon which our nation was founded: Our rights come from God and can't be taken away by government. Removing the phrase "under God" from the pledge would undermine the most basic principle behind our nation's freedom.It may be an affront to many people, but only to those who oppose the foundational principles of America. Why are they pledging allegiance to a country if they don't agree with it's fundamental guiding principles?There is no problem with the Pledge teaching the fundamentals of American society to children.The circumstances under which the phrase was added doesn't reduce it's importance. Whether Communism is a threat or not, we should be reminded that without the principle of God-given rights, we lose American exceptionalism.The phrase does not violate Constitutional law. I hope my opponent finds that I've satisfied his request for simplicity and conciseness.
The Phrase "Under God" Should Remain In The Pledge Of Allegiance

My opponent believes the phrase "under God" should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance. I believe it is neither necessary to the Pledge. I also believe it is an affront to many Americans, and it's removal is of less consequence than it's permanence. The Pledge of Allegiance is directed at children. Currently it teaches, and enforces a monotheistic point of view not shared by millions of Americans. This is a violation of government neutrality towards religion. The addition of the phrase was done so by Congressional legislation at a time when the fear of Communism was at it's height. This new law promotes a religious establishment within the context of the Pledge- a clear violation of Constitutional law. There are not enough characters for me to continue to make my point in this round.
morality

Hello, I am really looking forward to this debate on morality, which has been one of my most favourite subjects since senior school to discuss and argue about. But before we official begin this debate, would you be able to clarify for me your notion of morality, as well as your argumentative position for this debate? Once your argument and position has been clearly stated, I will proceed to rebut your argument while stating my position on this debate, as well as stating the implications of my argument. Looking forward to your reply
Detective Case

Well it seems like Detective Con was right on As presumed, I inserted the information about the student being in Disneyland Wyoming was a false information in which I purposely placed in to see whether or not con would notice and define the investigation through real life means. Con's deductive ability is spot on, as I once again intentionally placed the information about the months of the deaths and it's ended mark. Impressively con was able to deduct that the dates was related to summer time and thus connected it to the activity of the culprit In any case, Con has won this case and I may ask to give con the points of victory.
Detective Case

The Guilty party is number 3 Yobi Jobs. Evidence 1. Hint that the suspect likes to lie. He went to Disney in Wyoming according to his alibi but Disney isn't in Wyoming. 2. The murders all took place in mostly summer months and likely on weekends since the number of days when divided by murders in the months adds up to be about one for every weekend day meaning even though a few murders happened at the tail end of the school year, they likely happened on weekends so the boy could rest up for school just fine. 3. Another clue stated the word innocent in a riddle I presume that to be a hint about the culprits age.
Detective Case

I would like to give con two clues, but the two clues will be in riddle format Clue #1: I am rhyme and reason that contain corruption of betrayal , I am the culprit. Clue #2: I am a figure cloaked in shrouded fog, I am the innocent, yet I intend to be the culprit. May I remind Con that the next round must provide his conclusion, but if con really and I mean REALLY needs an extra round, I will come with an idea of how to settle the situation. Good luck and have fun.
Detective Case

Before I begin my case I would like to present some ground rules.Rules - Objective: Detective Con's objective is simply to come to one of the 4 conclusions (resolution) I will display in a minute and of course one of the four will be the right resolution.- However, Con cannot come to a conclusion until round 3.- In round 2 must be used as a evidential round and logical reasoning for the conclusion.- Pro (I) cannot create in logical rules in round 2,3, and 4 that would thwart Detective Con's reasoning.- Detective Con will have 3 assistance, meaning con can at any rounds ask for assistance from pro and pro is required to give a clue, whether it may be small or a critical one: it's up to pro.- Con may not ask for assistance from others to solve this case.- Con must have at least 3 evidence to come to a conclusion.CaseAugust 1st 2019,The police have finally come to the a decsion that the recent murders consisting of 58 deaths (March 1st-August 1st) are all related, therefore dealing with a serial killer. All the deaths were female, and were hung from telephone antennas, after being stabbed multiple times in the heart (according to forensic research) Now as of March 21st the killer who roamed the streets of the state Wyoming, has suddenly stopped killing, but some speculate that the killer, known as X may come back to kill sooner or later. The victims fell within the hours of 12 a.m and 6 a.m according to consistent data from the depart of police investigation team. No ransom notes were ever found within the two dates, therefore the police have assumed that this mass murderer is not writing ransom notes or any wants from the police. On July 7th police officials had 4 suspects: 1) Police man, John Gow.Reason: Suspected of being the serial killer because he was MIA throughout march 1st-21stAlibi: John states that he was on a trip to Spain for summer time2) Janitor from New york, Empire state building.Reason: Suspicoun of coming to the state of Wyoming from March 1st-August 1stAlibi: Janitor states that he was on an important business trip to attend at Wyoming.3) High School Student, Yobi JobsReason: Suspicoun due to some past criminal acts, such as robbery of toy stores and bullying and tends to go an extent of be sexual.Alibi: Went to Disneyland in Wyoming, during one of the victims death4) Construction Worker Rob YakeReason: tends to stay overtime during work and has a strong sense of sexual harassmentAlibi: Rob claims that he was sick during the time of deaths and time of discovering for the first 23 victims.However before the police could do real investigation in their alibi, the chief investigator brought detective con to the job.Now it is up to Detective con to use the files of evidence and speculation from the case and solve the remaining mystery of this case.Note: If Con fails to solve the case and find the culprit, I pro will use the last round to solve the case, for the win of this debate.Goodluck have fun. Alt+M Alt+N
from an official capacity, the roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

your points are all extremely vague. I don't know what i'm suppose to be responding to. for example, papal bull regarding jews. what does this mean, what specifically is contradicting what? I don't know enough and you haven't said enough for me to even begin addressing it. "burial fees", what about em, and how was there contradiction? I could go on. if this list is as strong as you're making it out to be, find the top three, find the cite and quote from the pope where he is contradicting other popes, councils contradicting other councils. and then I will rebut the arguments you've made.
from an official capacity, the roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

Very good debate topic, thank you for posting this. This provides a very specific and well outlined argument.My position stands to be, that the Catholic Church has contradicted itself in the course of history. As to stay away from the "weeds," I will rely only on Papal decrees.The Catholic has contradicted itself in these areas:Papal Bulls regarding JewsStance on what is a Knights Templar is allowed and notThe establishment and oppression of the Society of JesusPapal bulls Regarding Jews1205 AD Etsi Judaeos by Innocent IIIForbids Jews to own Christian slavesJews were not forced to convertHouses of worship were allowed for Jews 1442 AD Super Gregem Dominicum by Eugene IVRevokes Privileges of Castillian Jews Knights Templar1145 AD Militia Dei by Eugene IIIAllows Knights Templar to accept tithesburial feesbury their dead in their homeland 1308 AD Faciens Misericordium by Clement VSets up procedures to persecute the Knights TemplarSociety of Jesus1540 AD Regimini Militantis Ecclesiae by Paul IIIConfirms the formation of Society of Jesus1773 AD Dominus Ac Redemptor Noster by Clement XIVPermanently and irrevocably suppressing the Society of Jesus1814 AD Sollicitudo Omnium Ecclesiarum by Pius VIIRe establishes the Society of JesusAs we can tell the Catholic has contradicted itself in Papal Bulls several times(there are more than I have brought up in the first round). The Papal Bulls are considered "infallible" yet they appear to be fallible as well as some of the councils of the Catholic Church are fallible.
from an official capacity, the roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church". you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years. the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes. note: -this does not include moral corruption, only official teaching. that means you can't use bad priest, even peodofile priests. it means you can't use the inquisistion where millions were killed by catholics. can't use the sins of past popes. it has to be actual teachings of the church, as said, councils and statements by popes. etc. impeccable v infallble, there's a difference. -since we are comparing official statements, id rather not use the bible either. it's usually too open to interpretation to begin with. we are examining the church's consistency on its own anyway... and you'd think even beyond the bible, it'd have contradicted itself within two thousand years. -also there's a differnce between widespread belief and doctrine. that so many believed the earth was made in six days, that the earth was flat, that man wasn't from apes etc... only shows they are human. it'd make sense at first impression. this isn't doctrine. you have to cite a quote or citation. -there's a difference between practice and doctrine too... preistly celibacy is practice, reading the mass in latin is a practice... etc
Feminism is no longer about gender equality

Discrimination and indeed violence against men certainly does happen, but I repeat my contention that such shameful misandry does not constitute feminism. Pro refers to the other issues I raised as off topic. Since I did not elaborate on the reasons for bringing them up, I shall do so now. Pro does not dispute that massive discrimination against women happens, which was the purpose of raising the aforementioned issues. If there is discrimination, then there is also a need for action to counter that discrimination. Feminism, by definition, is that action. Misandry, by contrast, is discrimination against men. Pro contests that feminists have crossed the line between positive discrimination in favour of women to achieve equal rights and negative discrimination against men intended to punish men or surpass equal rights. I disagree for several reasons. First, the unfortunate societal discrimination that Pro describes is a uniquely Western problem. The vast majority of nations worldwide not only do not suffer this problem, they actively hold a status wherein it is women, not men, that are inferior. Let us consider that it was only in the last fifty years that women got sufferage in several countries (. http://www.time.com...). It was only a dozen years ago that Egypt cancelled a law in which a rapist could walk free if he married his victim (. http://news.bbc.co.uk...). Statistically, girls are less likely to be allowed an education, permitted to own property, survive childhood. .. (. http://www.taliacarner.com...) . .. in short, as this source shows (. http://www.taliacarner.com...), the vast majority of feminists are seeking to aim for equal rights, not surpass them. It is my contention that Pro has not observed the state of feminism outside Western nations, and so speaks of a situation with regards to Western nations which is inapplicable to the vast majority of feminists outside them. Now to Western nations themselves. I cannot comment on the actions of NOW, since I don't know why they behaved like that. (I would imagine that they felt it was an invitation to be degraded when they were already as a gender experiencing more degradation than men. ) I can however state with reference to the sources in the previous round that discrimination against women still exists in the Western world, so that positive action must be taken to counter it. Therefore, feminism exists. Of course there are women who hate, and blame. I contend that the silent majority of Western women support feminism but do not support misandry; and I reiterate my explanation that many women who blame men feel in turn blamed for their gender via religious instruction as well as the worldwide and/or former state of female oppression. This does not justify the behaviour; it does, however, tender an explanation.
Feminism is no longer about gender equality

I also applaud my opponent for recognizing the fact that discrimination against men and boys does exist and that there are feminists who could be described accurately as misandrists. This is progress of a kind, because when I type the word misandry the spell-check reminds me that many people don't believe hatred or discrimination against men exists. The problem is that these radical feminists and there ideas are not on the fringe but are actually the feminist orthodoxy. Its clear that feminist organizations are inherently gynocentric, that the men in these organizations are a small minority and the male point of view completely non-existent. Warren Farrell (. http://en.wikipedia.org...), the only man to be elected three times to the board of NOW (National Organization for Women) in New York, found himself quickly falling out of the favour of feminists as soon he began sharing the the male perspective and raising issues concerning men. "Farrell was leading anti-sexism workshops on college campuses across the country [. .. ] [He] made men participate in "beauty pageants" to make them see what it was like for women to be judged on their looks alone. The feminists were good with that; they loved him; they sponsored him; they took him out to dinner and told him how wonderful he was. But Farrell also wanted the women to see what it was like to be a man. Men, according to Farrell, "take 152 risks of rejection from first eye contact with a woman until intercourse. " He decided that women should have to participate in a role-reversal exercise in which they were forced to ask a man out. The feminists did not like that. According to Farrell, most of them, after watching the men go through the beauty contest, walked out when it came time to participate in the role-reversal "date. " But Farrell's biggest argument with feminists came in the mid- to late '70s, when, one by one, NOW chapters across the country came out in support of giving mothers primary custody of children in cases of divorce. " (Save the males: . http://www.salon.com...) None of this made Warren any less of a an advocate for women's rights and freedoms, yet there was something unacceptable about this to feminists. Farrell eventually found himself excommunicated from the feminist community and blacklisted from media appearances. All because he tried to be fair and give men equal representation within the feminist movement. It is indisputable that feminism has a strong female bias and membership, and as a consequence, is incapable of being equal. Now with the other issues you raised, albeit off topic, its really a difference between equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. What's important is that women have equal rights, freedoms, and opportunities, but the outcomes don't have to be equal in every way and shouldn't be imposed.
Feminism is no longer about gender equality

The assumption made by Pro is that some negative discrimination against men is made by people who term themselves 'feminist', therefore all feminism is now about gender inequality and a female dominance in society. I challenge this on several levels. First of all, even in Western countries where discrimination against women appears on the surface to be vastly minimal, it is present. Women are underrepresented in government (. http://www.independent.co.uk...) to the extent that a black man was made president before a woman was. Consider the proportions there. There are massive gaps in pay in the workplace and in vocations sought by women that cannot solely be explained by the 'women have babies and so don't concentrate on their careers' argument. Further to that, many subjects and/or vocations remain predominantly masculine-orientated (. http://www.aip.org...).Further to this, I would contend that there is a deeper psychosexual discrimination at work (. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...). A man is valued in society primarily based on academic and career achievements, or perhaps social achievements. A woman is valued based on her attractiveness as well, and often more so than against her intellect. Let us not forget the religious hang-over in Western society, which was until very recently predominantly Christian and unfortunately influenced by the misogynist St. Paul (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). As an anecdote, I remember a highly intelligent friend of mine reminding me that 'woman should be subject to man' (. http://bible.org...). I have also been told before that a decent woman should not seek knowledge, because it was Eve's curiousity that condemned humanity; all this in the last decade. The resultant psychological oppression remains relevant in the modern era. I will not go into the horrendous discrimination against women outside of Western society except through a single anecdote. Travelling in Egypt, I stayed with a Nubian family and was shown the community centre. The boys were playing on a playstation. "Where are the women? " I asked. "In the home, which is their place," I was told. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...).To conclude; whilst sadly it is true that discrimination against men happens, it is by no means true that feminism is about superiority rather than aiming to reach equality. Misandry cannot be equated to feminism.