BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
On Balance, Capitalism Is Superior to Communism

Here is the challenge. Full ResolutionOn balance, capitalism is a superior economic system to communism. BoP is shared - pro has to prove that capitalism is superior, while con has to prove that communism is superior. DefinitionsOn Balance: "Taking everything into consideration; all in all."[1]Capitalism: "A system of economics based on the private ownership of capital and production inputs, and on the production of goods and services for profit."[2]Communism: "A political and economic ideology based on communal ownership and the absence of class."[3]Superior: "Of high quality; high or higher in quality."[4]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate.5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument.Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2]: http://www.investopedia.com...[3]: http://www.investopedia.com...[4]: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Resolved, the US should shift the focus in Afghanistan toward peace-keeping rather than combat.

As my opponent has not posted any arguments for me to counter, I'm just going to highlight my main points real quickly. 1) There is no peace to uphold in Afghanistan, so why would we switch to peacekeeping? 2) We've already tried going from combat to peacekeeping, when we thought we had won the war in 2002- the situation has deteriorated since then, proving that the switch to peacekeeping was ineffective. 3) The Taliban are weakening- if we pull back, switch to peacekeeping now and allow them to regain their former strength, the less-capable Afghan Army will ultimately fail to defend the state when it is given control of the situation in 2014, after the United States has pulled its troops out.
Resolved: Obama should be re-elected

Accept. Even though Pro didn't defne the terms of the resolution, I think it can be pretty clear what it surrounds. President Obama obviously refers to Barack Obama, the current President of the United States. Whether or not he should be re-elected come the next election will depend on a variety of perspectives on what makes a good President (mantaining national security, adhering to the law of the land, etc. ) which will be a point of contention most likely between my opponent and I. I haven't debated this specific opponent since our Pinnochio debate half a year ago and so I'm certainly excited for this debate.
Resolved: Obama should be re-elected

This will be one of my first political debates so I'm not sure how well this will go. Resolved: President Obama should be re-elected for a seond term.Note that I don't support everything Obama has done, but he has done a very good job for his first term (much better than Bush!) and I believe that he should be re-elected.Structure1. Acceptance2. Opening arguments3. Rebuttals4. Rebuttals/closingGood luck.
Anikin Skywalker vs Luke Skywalker

Luke Skywalker was a legendary war hero and Jedi who helped defeat the Galactic Empire in the Galactic Civil War and helped found the New Republic, as well as the New Jedi Order. Born in 19 BBY as the son of the fallen Jedi Knight Anakin Skywalker and the Queen and Senator of Naboo, Padmï¿½ Amidala, Luke was raised on Tatooine and hidden from Emperor Palpatine and his father, who had become Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith. In 0 BBY, Skywalker's life changed forever. A chance purchase of two droids, R2-D2 and C-3PO, led to him to receive training in the ways of the Force from Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi and to meet Han Solo, Princess Leia Organa, who was, unbeknownst to him, his twin sister. Skywalker then destroyed the first Death Star and joined the Rebel Alliance. Over the next few years, he fought in many of the most important battles of the Galactic Civil War, helping to found Rogue Squadron and fighting Imperial forces across the galaxy. In 3 ABY, Skywalker received Jedi training from Yoda, and learned from Vader that the Sith Lord was his father. One year later, he fought in the Battle of Endor, and succeeded in turning his father back to the light. Thanks to Skywalker, Palpatine was killed, and the Empire was dealt a crippling blow. One year later, the New Republic was formed. Over the next decade, Skywalker helped keep peace throughout the galaxy as the New Republic slowly defeated small remnants of the Empire. When Palpatine returned in the form of several clone bodies, Luke temporarily fell to the dark side and became the resurrected Emperor's apprentice but was later redeemed with the help of his friends, and he continued with his goal of reviving the Jedi Order. In 11 ABY, he founded the New Jedi Order, and began teaching Force-sensitives about the ways of the Force at the Jedi Praxeum, fulfilling his destiny as the first of the new Jedi. In the midst of this rebirth came numerous challenges for Skywalker and his apprentices, including the Black Fleet Crisis, the Almanian Uprising, and the lure of Waru, but Skywalker, aided by fellow Jedi and his friends, was able to overcome each trial. Meanwhile, after a long series of failed relationships, Luke married fellow Jedi and former Emperor's Hand Mara Jade in 19 ABY.
Abortion is bad for women.

Abortion is almost always bad for individual women and is overwhelmingly bad for women in general. 1) Abortion hurts individual women psychologically. Just as not every person reacts the same way to other traumatic events, not every woman experiences serious post-abortion stress, however, studies suggest that at least 10% of women who experience abortion will experience some symptoms of post-abortion stress. Although complete numbers of women who have had abortions are unavailable, it is likely that 50 million abortions have been performed in the US in the past 35 years, to as many as 40 million women. If such symptoms are serious for even 5% of those women, then millions of American women may be experiencing unnecessary abortion related psychological trauma. 2) Abortion hurts individual women relationally. More than half of all relationships end within a year following an abortion. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, research arm of Planned Parenthood, a leading abortion provider, has collected data from their patients showing that approximately 1/3 of their patients felt forced, coerced or manipulated into an unwanted abortion -- often by a partner, parent, boss, teacher or other influential person. 3) Abortion harms individual women physically. Like all surgeries, abortion has physical risks. In the majority of cases, these risks are not serious. However, depending on the stage of pregnancy or the type of procedure, complications may occur in as little as one in 1,000 or one in 100 cases. Even at the lower rate, that means approximately 4,000 physical complications from legal abortions. Most of these complications are relatively minor, but, as we all know, a surgical complication is never minor when it is happening to you. 4) Abortion hurts women by leaving them with the responsibility of preventing pregnancy. If she fails, she may well face the choice between going to get an abortion OR losing her partner. If a woman chooses abortion, she faces the emotional and physical consequences of the choice. The guy may pay half for the surgery and he's off the hook. If she chooses to have the child, she will almost certainly have both more financial and emotional responsibility than the baby's father.
Abortion is bad for women.

Hi LoudounConservative. Not having an abortion also has potential consequences, which come with having a baby. In response to your first point, I think that pregnancy can also inflict harm on women, because generally the women that have abortions are the ones that did not plan on having the baby. If they do not have an abortion, they will have a baby which can cause severe emotional distress, especially if the women are young, and/or come from low socioeconomic strata. Regarding your second point, you say that "More than half of all relationships end within a year following an abortion." This does not necessarily mean that the relationship was hurt because of the abortion. It is conceivable that the abortion might have been the product of an already bad relationship. In other words, both the cessation of the relationship and the abortion may perfectly be effects of relationships that weren't meant to last long in the first place. On to your third point. You focus on the physical complications that can arise regarding abortion, but you do not supply any evidence as to how they compare to complications that might be had by not having the abortion, i.e. delivery complications. On your fourth point, I'm a bit unclear as to what you mean by "If she fails." Could you please rephrase/clarify? You write "she may well face the choice between going to get an abortion OR losing her partner." Wouldn't it be worse if she had no option at all? "If a woman chooses abortion, she faces the emotional and physical consequences of the choice." She would also face emotional, physical and economic consequences if she chose to have the child. How is abortion worse? I see that this is your first debate. Good luck! I'm a newbie too, so I hope I wrote in a clear way.
Catholics are Christians

Every branch of Christianity is grafted into the vine. Jesus is the vine, I am part of His branches. His Spirit is the life of the vine and the branches. Only an act of God can graft you into His vine. Nothing any priest, pope, or yourself can do will make that happen, no list of penances or performance of sacraments can make that happen. Once it happens, it's done forever and you are God's property forever. Catholics make great Christians if they get grafted by God into the vine of Jesus ChristA Christian is a person who knows their sins are forgiven, fully paid for by the blood of God, God the Son, Jesus Christ. A Christian is a person who knows without doubt that they are saved now, completely and forever forgiven now, and sure without doubt that they are going to heaven. Catholicism is a fraudulent attempt to claim the authority of Jesus Christ through a man who pretends to be the embodiment of Jesus Christ today: the Pope. Catholicism enslaves its followers by forbidding them any assurance of salvation today so they must forever perform more and more sacraments, good works, payments to and purchases from the Catholic church to try to secure God's favor based on their own performances. People fall for this kind of religious practice because is caters to pride, encouraging them to trust in their own goodness so they can flatter themselves into thinking they are too good to burn in Hell.Catholicism uses a lot of Christian terminology and bible quotes taken out of context to support their fraudulent claims to be Christian. This is wearisome to me. People who think they are too good to burn in Hell and trust in the dogmas of a religion to get them out of it are tough cookies to crack. Even the best Catholic deserves to burn in Hell the same as me, and nothing they can do and nothing the Pope says or does, nothing any priest says or does, no performance of sacraments, and no amount of other people's prayers or penances on their behalf can get them out of deserving to burn in Hell. It is a mistake to trust in Catholicism. There is no hope in the Pope.
Catholics are Christians

As much as my opponent wishes to debate in the comments, in accordance with DDO standards, all voting will be conducted concerning only arguments offered in the normal debate area. My opponent may continue to offer comments, but I remind him voters may not assess the comments as part of their voting criteria. My opponent has accepted the debate and offered arguments, and so he has taken on full responsibility for this debate. My opponent also, by accepting this debate, has accepted the proposed definition of "Christian." I believe this definition to be fair and objective. Any other arguments concerning other beliefs fall under the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Now onto my arguments. I will offer opening arguments only for this round and rebut later. Catholics are Christians 1) Catholics believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and follow all of his teachings [1]. Catholics also must be baptized [2]. As the teachings and practices of Christian denominations nowadays vary greatly, to be a Christian, one must simply need to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and believe him as Lord and Savior. These arguments alone are sufficient to satisfy the BoP laid out in the definition of Christian. However, I will offer a second argument. 2) Christianity and Protestantism are not synonymous. In fact, Catholicism was the original branch of Christianity. Following Jesus' death, his followers formed a religion that would be called "The Way" or "Christianity" [3]. This Christian community would later describe itself as Catholic in order to combat the Arian heresy in the fourth century [3]. The Catholic Church would lay many of the doctrines for Protestants later to follow, such as the doctrine of the Trinity (in 325 AD) and the Catholic Church would also create and protect the Bible for thousands of years before Protestantism existed [3]. Protestant denominations would later spring out from the Catholic Church when in disagreement with Catholic Doctrines during the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. They adopted many similar doctrines to the Catholic Church. As Catholicism was the original branch of Christianity, and other branches changed the original tenets of Christianity, Catholics must be considered Christians. Conclusion Therefore, as Catholics retain the required beliefs to be considered a Christian, and are proven historically to be the main and original branch of Christianity, one cannot logically consider Catholics to be unchristian. Thanks goes to my opponent for his acceptance of the debate. I will rebut his arguments next round. Sources [1]http://www.usccb.org... [2] http://www.catholic.com... [3] http://catholicbridge.com...
Catholics are Christians

My arguments iwlll all be in the comments, sorry. I'm really not much for debate ettiquette.Knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men. The Catholic Church fits very well as The Great Whore of the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chapter 17) given to the apostle John while he was in exile on the Isle of Patmos.Really I just want to make this statement to clarify that I am totally against Cotholicism and all of it's religious practices which are absolutely unable to save anybody from the fire of Hell. No offense intended, Im not good at sugar coating the truth.
Catholics are Christians

I saw that you are opposed to this position and would like to challenge you to a friendly debate about it. My position is that Catholics are and should be considered Christians. Definition of Christian: A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings. My opponent may argue right away. I ask that in round 4 that they simply type "pass" and nothing else in order to keep this debate fair. I await my opponent's acceptance. Thank you.
Catholics are Christians

I remind him that he must type only "pass" next round in order to keep with the debate's code of conduct. 1) My opponent seems to be arguing that if one does good works, they cannot be a Christian. In addition, he asserts that: "'Christian' is not a religion of good works, no matter how much it uses Biblical terminology. " Firstly,"Christian" is not a religion, but a description of one who follows Christianity. Christianity is no longer itself a singular religion but a belief that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the Messiah promised by the Jewish Old Testament and an attempt to follow His teachings, held by a variety of different denominations, each with differing theological views. No matter how often one attempts to pass their beliefs off as the "one true path" of Christianity, it will remain a "No True Scotsman" argument. My opponent continually asserts that his Biblical interpretation is correct, and anyone who denies it is not Christian. He asserts that Catholics believe things contrary to the Bible. This is rather ironic considering my opponent completely ignores four Bible passages presented earlier offering support for the "good works" philosophy that my opponent completely denies. As for my opponent's statements about the devil "inspiring the pope to enslave people", I am not quite sure how leading people to Christ would be in accordance with Satan's plan. 2) My opponent gives one last insult to Catholics at the end here. Conclusion As I hope voters can see, my opponent has ignored almost all of my arguments in favor of a continual "No True Scotsman" argument. His entire argument has been a fallacy, and my arguments have stood unrefuted throughout the debate.
Catholics are Christians

Catholicism is a religion of good works. "Christian"is not a religion of good works, no matter how much it uses Biblical terminology. The core beliefs of Catholicism are contrary to the Bible. The Bible says we can know (that's not hope or feel like maybe it's true) that we have (not will have, but have.......now) eternal life (1John 5:13). If you do not know right now that you have eternal life and your sins are forgiven and heaven is your home, and you are bought and paid for by the blood of Jesus Christ, you are not a christian no matter how much you claim to have the same core beliefs as all christians do. The devil has the same core beliefs, the devil knows Jesus is God, the devil knows He died for our sins and rose from the dead. The devil inspires the Pope to enslave people in a religion that can never get them to heaven. There's really not much to argue about. Catholicism is a lot of darkened mysteries thet belong in the dark where they came from.
Catholics are Christians

I will now rebut my opponent's arguments. I will assign each paragraph of my opponent's last argument a number and rebut them. 1) It seems as though most of my opponent's argument revolves around a singular point. It claims that Sola Fide (Justification by Faith Alone) is required to be a Christian. Firstly, this is entirely a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, as my opponent bases his argument entirely on the denial of Catholic teachings. He claims Catholics aren't Christians simply because he doesn't believe what they believe. Secondly, many Bible verses reject Sola Fide. Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. " Matthew 16:27: "For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. " James 2:24: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. " Revelation 2:23: "Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. " 2) This is pretty similar to the above rebuttal. My opponent uses more than a few ad hominem attacks (such as stating "they [Catholics] can flatter themselves into thinking they are too good to burn in hell") and "No True Scotsman" arguments to essentially say that Catholicism is wrong because it rejects Sola Fide, and that makes it unchristian. My opponent makes the incorrect assumption that the Pope claims to be Jesus on earth. This is untrue. The pope is the leader of the Church on earth, and helps to teach, bring non-Christians to the faith, and communicate with other Christian denominations [1]. It is believed by Catholics that Christ entrusted Peter and his followers with this task [1]. Whether or not this is correct is irrelevant to the resolution of this debate, as all Christian denominations have differing theological teachings, for there would be no different denominations without disagreement. 3) This proves nothing other than that my opponent does not care for Catholics. 4) This argument bases itself on a misunderstanding of Catholicism. My opponent seems to think that Catholics worship the pope, or something along those lines. My opponent continually asserts that Catholicism is not Christian because he doesn't believe in some of its theological tenets. My opponent has communicated his beliefs quite firmly, and I applaud him on that. Unfortunately, these beliefs have little to do with the debate at hand. Conclusion My opponent has offered little in the way of valid proof that Catholicism is not a Christian religion. He has dropped all of my previous arguments, and they stand unrefuted. Catholics retain the same basic, core beliefs as all other Christians, and Catholicism remains the original sect of Christianity, from which all others separated. I thank my opponent for his arguments, and look forward to the next round. Sources [1]. http://www.stjameshopewell.org...