BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women should be removed from combat roles.

Secondly, I wish to keep this as civil as possible, recent debates on this topic became slightly agitated. While women should be allowed to serve in the military, front line combat positions should be off limits for them in particular. This has no element of sexism or personal bias, more so this opinion is rooted in fact, logic, and ethics. Firstly, I would like to focus on the physical boundaries that divide both genders. On average, your basic man is 50% stronger when it comes to total force exerted than your average woman. Sure, there are those rare instances, but in general, men overpower women. In particular, women carry only two thirds of what muscle mass men typically have, and men have a denser skeletal structure. According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, women "were approximately 52% and 66% as strong as the men in the upper and lower body respectively. " (NCBI). Also, women tend to have more body fat, and less lean muscle tissue spread throughout the body. Women on average had 30% smaller muscle CSA's (Cross Sectional Areas), in the biceps, knee, and elbow flexors than men. This literally means unit for unit, men can exert more force from these specific areas. Women, on average, have 30% less lung capacity than a male, and this is very important, as oxygen is essential to motor functions. A little off topic, more psychological than physiological, women tend to have a harder time dealing with the stresses of life, which are laughable compared to those of combat scenarios. Another NCBI study, please refer to conclusion (. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). In essence, my argument entails that men are superior physical specimens to women, and therefore more fit for a combat role. Now, to integrate this into a more cohesive argument. While women may physically capable, but not as so as men, you could say why not? Why should women be excluded from combat roles? Well, this is simple. Women are a physical liability to men in combat scenarios, being less able to cope physically and mentally. Women, I may add, are more susceptible to PTSD. Liabilities are extremely dangerous in combat, most likely to end up with casualties as a result. So, you have to ask yourself, are lives lost or altered for the worst acceptable in exchange for mingling politics and gender equality into warfare? To this I say no.
the catholic church, from an official capacity, has never contradicted itself

The bible was thought to be true by the catholic church, and that's all that's all that matters in this debate. Many historians have shown the facts that Galileo was arrested and it was shown in catholic scriptures. The only way we know about the church preaching that the earth was 6,000 years old is from there own writings, and if that's not true and they lied about it then that is a contradiction in and of itself.
the catholic church, from an official capacity, has never contradicted itself

Some say its debatable if the Bible is full of error. I see a lot of merit to that and choose not to get into it. As for the other stuff you haven't shown quotes because you can't. What does it really prove of informally those things like earth she were taught. Even Jesus could have thought the earth was flat but he didn't teach it. Officiated teaching. OS what matters. But u haven't shown anything
the catholic church, from an official capacity, has never contradicted itself

i said i didn't want to debate biblical contradictions, and the fact the bible is said to be contradictory and the CC endorses it, is close enough to the bible debate stuff that i do not care to touch. earth six thousand years old.earth revolves around the sun. this goes along with the idea that the earth is flat that i mentioned. people believed it, and the CC is full of people. it didn't officially teach these ideas. you haven't and can't show the citations or qutoes saying so. the inquisition and killing lots of people wasn't a teaching of the catholic church. the church was full of sinners. even the apostles sinned yet we take the bible as the end all be all.
the catholic church, from an official capacity, has never contradicted itself

First of all, the catholic church obviously endorses the bible, which is filled to the brim with contradictions left and right. That is in and of itself a contradiction. In the 1300's and around that time the catholic church believed the earth to be 6,000 years old. Nowadays it has accepted a version of the big bang theory because it somewhat fits in with what the bible says. If they were all knowing don't you think they'd be able to make up their mind? When Galileo was proposing his idea that the earth revolved around the sun the church refuted this idea and arrested Galileo. They have now accepted this rudimentary idea, and therefore contradicted themselves. When the catholic church waged wars or hung innocents they were not following the basic laws of the bible that they preached from, therefore contradicting themselves from every time they preached the bible. There are even more that I could list but even one of these contradictions would prove the axiom of the catholic church having never contradicted itself completely false. Good day to you all.
the catholic church, from an official capacity, has never contradicted itself

in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church". i have reasons not to list here for excluding them. 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 also try not to be vague. so many claims of contradiction online are superficial. for example, "papal bull regarding jews", without getting into what exactly is contradicting what etc. if possible, find the quote or citation for what you are referring to. also I have debated this topic many times in the past, if you would like you may review my profile to see all the points brought up by past debaters etc
Rap Battle

We made it to the end of March, So listen up as the Week in Rap starts. First in international news, hold up, wait, Russia was kicked out of the G8! Yep, because of all of their recent aggression, The G8 has just become the G7! A new way of measuring what students learn about, Based on critical thinking, but now we"re on the route To Washington State " they had a major mudslide, And many people are missing or lost their lives. Will they be found? We hope so, This goes out to the city of Oso. Yo so, you may have heard about the study, About the video games you"re playing with your buddy.
Catholics make great christians if they get saved

Same drill, yet again. Rebuttals"If you die today. are you sure your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven? "Once again, I don't see what this has to do with Catholicism. I'm not Catholic, so it doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't even matter if I'm Christian or not. "If you think the blood of Jesus Christ is not enough to pay for your sins, and you have to do things to earn salvation, you are working to get to heaven and you are not saved and you are not a Christian. "False, even according to the Bible. From Micah 6:8, "He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God? " The Lord requires us to do justice, which is doing something in order to be saved. Good try though. "Dicitionary [sic] definitions of "Christian" may be Catholic, but they are not God's definition of Christian. "Then you should have clarified or even mentioned the definitions I provided. Sorry, but this is irrelevant, seeing as Catholics are still Christians by definition. "your sins are forgiven and completely forever covered by His blood. "Again, this is irrelevant and pretty useless. This doesn't even matter according to the actual topic of the debate. "I have no burden of proof in this. "Yes, you do. I definitely don't have all of it. You're the one trying to prove that Catholics make good Christians if they are saved. "He proves Himself. "Is this a way of saying that Jesus fulfills the BoP? If so, then you're just flat out wrong; if this isn't what you're saying, then this statement is irrelevant, like most of your arguments thus far. "My opponent is not saved, he does not know if his sins are now and forever completely forgiven no matter what he does or does not do tomorrow. "Alright, are you kidding me? I am religious. I am saved. I am Christian, but not Catholic. Your arguments are comprised of prejudiced bigotry, irrelevant religious statements, and pointless, confusing questions. They do not consist of useful rebuttals, important evidence, relevant sources, unbiased statements, logic, or even powerful statements relevant to the debate. "It is not possible for my opponent to prove me wrong. "Yes, it is. Catholicism is defined as a branch of Christianity. There you go. "It is possible for him to allow himself to be fooled by the Pope and for voters to agree with him and be fooled. "Once again, I AM NOT CATHOLIC. I do not listen to the Pope; I do not really care what new changes happen with Catholicism; I don't even care how Catholicism differs from my denomination. Don't assume that I am Catholic just because I am arguing in favor of Catholicism. ConclusionMy opponent has not provided any meaningful arguments to this debate. Instead, he relies on religious faith to say that I am wrong. From the standpoint of a debate, there was no argument presented against me. I don't see how I could possibly lose this debate.
Catholics make great christians if they get saved

If you die today, are you sure your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven? If you cannot say "yes" without doubt to this question, you are not a Christian. If you answer "yes", you know that your sins were paid for by God's blood in Jesus Christ and nothing you do can add to this and nothing you do can take away from this. If you think the blood of Jesus Christ is not enough to pay for your sins, and you have to do things to earn salvation, you are working to get to heaven and you are not saved and you are not a Christian. You can pretend to be a Christian, you can be a good moral person doing wonderful acts of kindness and claim to follow the teachings of Jesus but not be saved and not be a Christian. God makes a lost person into a saved person who is a Christian. Dicitionary definitions of "Christian" may be Catholic, but they are not God's definition of Christian. A Christian knows their sins are forgiven and they are going to heaven and they don't need any help from any Poope or Mary or any idol of Catholicism such as the Rosary or pennance candles (used by the Vatican to rob people who hope they can earn favor from God for paying money on stuff like this) If you think being a Christian is being a good person who follows the teachings of Jesus, you are not a Christian if you say you are a Christian or not. Being a Christian is knowing God personally as your Father because jesus Christ Himself lives in you and is your life and your sins are forgiven and completely forever covered by His blood. I have no burden of proof in this. Jesus Christ makes a believer a Christian. He proves Himself. My opponent is trying to fool himself into believing that being a good person makes God owe him a pass so he does not have to burn in Hell. The fact remains that Catholics make great Christians if they get saved. My opponent is not saved, he does not know if his sins are now and forever completely forgiven no matter what he does or does not do tomorrow. My opponent is trusting in his own goodness rather than in the blood God paid for his sins. My opponent can't be good enough to be sure heaven is his home NOW, so he is not a Christian Now. It is not possible for my oppenent to prove me wrong. It is possible for him to allow himself to be fooled by the Pope and for voters to agree with him and be fooled. Vote for me or against me, it will not change the fact that Catholics make great Christians if they get saved.
Catholics make great christians if they get saved

I will approach this as I approached last round. Rebuttals first, then my arguments if necessary.Rebuttals"If you were saved by Christ, when did you get saved and what did you get saved from?"This is irrelevant, assuming Pro is talking to me. If not, it's still entirely pointless - it doesn't matter where and when you were saved."If you are not sure you are going to heaven, you are not sure you are saved and that is because you are not a Christian."Also irrelevant. I agree with this and so do Christianity and Catholicism."A christian is saved from their sins, death, and Hell. A Christian is going to heaven immediately and nowhere else with their sins forgiven now and forever completely." This is a good example of the sin of presumption that you mentioned in round one. A Christian cannot assume they are going to heaven after being saved. You cannot go to heaven if you live life after being saved the same way that you did before you were saved."the devil, Satan, is a Christian"No, this is faulty logic. Believing something is different than believing in something. It is both a transitive and an intransitive verb. The intransitive form, which takes no direct object, is defined as "to have a firm religious faith" by Merriam-Webster. The transitive form means "to consider to be true" giving us a similar but different meaning. Christians believe in Jesus, God, and the Bible; Satan merely believes Jesus, not in him. He believes that Jesus performed miracles; we believe in Jesus' power to perform these miracles."Catholics are no more christians than the devil."You must be missing something here. You have nothing to back this up, and frankly, I'm offended and I'm not even Catholic. This is an offensive, biased, and bigoted belief, with no support whatsoever."so are Catholics if they don't get saved before they die."You haven't even shown me that Catholics aren't Christians, let alone that they aren't saved. At least make an attempt at using evidence to back up your claim."...a religion with no real hope."Again, a pretty offensive statement if you ask me. I don't know if you realize this, but it's possible to say you don't agree with a religion without downright slamming it and saying it is false, hopeless, and on the same religious level as the devil. ArgumentsAgain, Pro didn't acknowledge my arguments, but this time he at least acknowledged the definitions. I will restate my arguments in the clearest way possible for Pro to understand.P1) Christians are, logically, members of Christianity.P2) By definition, Catholicism is part of Christianity.C1) Members of Catholicism are Christian.P3) Likewise, Catholics are members of Catholicism.C2) Catholics are Christian. ConclusionPro has refused to acknowledge my unarguable logic, as there is no way to defeat it. He also has not provided any concrete evidence, only blatantly prejudiced, biased, bigoted, statements of belief, while at the same time claiming to be Christian, a very tolerant and accepting religion.
Catholics make great christians if they get saved

If you were saved by Christ, when did you get saved and what did you get saved from? If you are saved, you know your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven without any doubt. If you are not sure you are going to heaven, you are not sure you are saved and that is because you are not a Christian. A christian is saved from their sins, death, and Hell. A Christian is going to heaven immediately and nowhere else with their sins forgiven now and forever completely. Catholics make great Christians if they get saved. By your definition of a Christian being a person who professes belief in the teachings of jesus Christ, the devil, Satan, is a Christian since he believes the teachings of Jesus Christ. Catholics are no more christians than the devil. A christian is saved from Hell. The devil is bound for Hell, and so are Catholics if they don't get saved before they die. Catholics make great Christians if they get saved, but they tend to get offended when you tell them they are lost and not Christians and they won't listen to the Bble telling them how they can know for sure today, now and forever, that their sins are forgiven and without any doubt they can be sure they are going to heaven the moment their time in earthly life is finalized. Catholics are religious people who are trusting in their own good works to earn a "Don't burn in Hell" card from the Pope. The Pope is a fraud. The Pope has no power to get you out of Hell. The Pope is a sinner the same as you who needs to be saved before He can be a Christian. If the Pope gets saved, he will be a Christian and resign from being the Pope of a religion with no real hope.
Catholics make great christians if they get saved

I will go through Pro's last round, and rebut every point that I can.Rebuttal"You are not a Christian if you are not saved"This is wrong according to the definition I posted last round, which Pro subsequently agreed to by not challenging the definitions. I could just end my rebuttal here; for now, let's continue on like this is true."...your religion which pretends to be Christian..."If one was Catholic, I would assume that this would be extremely offensive, as Catholics view themselves as Christians. No matter, I just think it is an unnecessarily harsh statement, especially seeing as this debate is about Catholics themselves."...knowing your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven. Catholicism calls this 'the sin of presumption'..." From the sources I have found [1][2][3], presumption is assuming your sins are forgiven without any attempt to change your behavior. This is different then assuming your sins are forgiven if you live a morally righteous life after being saved by Christ."Catholics make great Christians if they get saved..."They already are saved, and are also Christians, both of which I have shown. This argument is mainly invalid, then."I am relieved to see my opponent showing some understanding of English."This just seems like a straight ad hominem against me. I clearly understood English in my first round; my lack of an argument, or simply asking for definitions, was out of respect and an attempt to allow you to post your own definitions. This didn't work, so I defined relevant phrases, which you did not follow. I even gave you another chance to alter the definitions as you saw fit; you either ignored this, or you thought the definitions were acceptable. I assume it was the former. Either way, the definitions stand as I stated them in Round 2.ArgumentsI have no need to state more arguments, as Pro didn't acknowledge mine and also failed to fulfill the BoP. I rebutted his arguments successfully.Quite literally, Pro has no possible way of winning this debate. My definitions have been accepted by both sides and they clearly show that Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity. If Pro had changed, questioned, or even mentioned the definitions that I provided, then I would be open to altering the definitions themselves.ConclusionPro's argument from this round has been rebutted, and he has failed to fulfill the BoP. He also didn't mention my arguments, which either means they are acceptable, or he can not challenge them. My definitions also stand as Pro failed to challenge them or change them. Voters, keep in mind the ad hominem attacks in both this round and the last. Thank you.Sources[1] http://goo.gl...[2] http://goo.gl...[3] http://goo.gl...
Catholics make great christians if they get saved

You are not a Christian if you are not saved. If you are a Catholic, your religion which pretends to be Christian forbids you from knowing your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven. Catholicism calls this "the sin of presumption", a mortal sin, and the sin for which the Catholic church burned many people alive thoughout history when they refused to recant their assurance of knowing they were saved. Catholics make great Christians if they get saved because when they get saved, they see the wonderful difference of knowing you are saved which the Catholic church dogmatically worked to deprive the religious adherit from knowing. I am relieved to see my opponent showing some understanding of English.
Catholics make great christians if they get saved

I was simply allowing Pro to post their first argument in the second round. I didn't realize that your first round was an argument. This would have been more clear if the debate had been structured, which it obviously wasn't. I have nothing to rebut against Pro, as I see no argument presented, just a stance on a position. I will, however, attempt to challenge the previous round's "argument". The reason that I asked for definitions is to give you a chance to use whatever definition you want and possibly twist them into an effective point for your side of the argument. You have forfeited this right, so I will define key terms as I want. The definitions I post later will be the only definitions used in the debate, unless you disagree with them next round. Also, BoP will rest on Pro, as he is the one making the claim. The first paragraph of Pro's first round states what "saved" means, from solely a religious standpoint. I agree with this, but there is no argument. Pro does not state how one becomes saved, nor even give an example of a person who is not saved. Because of this, it is not a useful argument. "Catholics make great Christians if they get saved." This is the only argumentative point I can find in Pro's first round. Seeing as it is the topic of the debate, it is not an argument, just a stance on this idea. I will argue that Catholics are already Christians, as that is one option presented in Pro's first round. The definitions are as follows. Catholic, n. - A person who belongs to the universal Christian church; a member of the Catholic church. Christian, n. - One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.Catholicism, n. - Roman Catholicism; the faith, practice, or system of Catholic ChristianityCatholics, by definition, are Christian. Catholics believe in Jesus Christ, making them Christians by default. Also, Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity itself. I really have nothing else to say, as the BoP is on Pro who is making the claim.Thank you.