BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Catholicism is the base of Christianity

I noticed you refereed to Mary as the "Queen of Heaven and Earth" How so? I'm not saying she isn't as I have no way of knowing, but as far as I've understood, God is the All-Powerful ruler of Heaven and the Earth. The verse you quoted in Revelation does not directly state Mary is this woman."And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." And yes, most non-catholic churches did come from Catholic Churches. But does that make Catholicism the base of Christianity? Not how I see it. I know much of the ways of Catholics, since my best friend is one and we often have discussions about this very topic. Now I do not personally believe that Purgatory was already accepted before the Catholic Church was established. You could be referring to Abraham's bosom, which was where the Bible said the dead went to before Jesus came and died for us. I do not truly believe that baptize a child as an infant does anything. If its a safety net I don't think that its a valid net if the child chooses not to believe Christianity. I myself have been baptized quite recently actually. Its a conscious choice. An infant can't chose to do that on its own and thus I do not believe the baptizing of a child is valid. But that's irrelevant. So my arguments are 1: Just because most/majority of churches branched off the Catholic Church does not make it the base of Christianity You might as well compare U.S.A to England. Is England the base of American culture? 2. Even if the above argument is refuted, there are so many differences between the Catholic Church and the non-Catholic Churches, even if they did branch off of it, it doesn't justify calling it the base of Christianity. 3. The concept of Purgatory. When Jesus came down to Earth, lets use this analogy. Along his life he was building a bridge from Heaven to Earth. At what point did he stop at make a little detour that says "Turn here, Purgatory ahead" Unless of course, you had bought a pass that the priests in the middle ages sold. You could just spend a few bucks and get a reduction of your sentence in Purgatory!
Catholicism is the base of Christianity

Hello, I am Christian, and I do not believe it is the center at all, when Catholicism was first established, it was quite different from Christianity. For example, the majority of non-catholic Christians do not believe in what I call the "grace tank" redemption. You sin, your grace tank gets low, you confess it goes back up. And then the Catholics pray to and worship the virgin Mary, as though she is Gods daughter. At one point the concept of purgatory was introduced, which is found nowhere in the Bible and was simply created by the Catholic Church back in the middle ages. Many of the Catholics recommend baptism at birth, while most non-catholic Christian churches think that's ridiculous. Baptism is supposed to be a choice made by the person in question, not the parents. So all in all, no Catholicism is not the base of Christianity. There's so many differences and disagreements between them, and Christianity had been along well before the Catholic view of Christianity emerged.
Catholicism is the base of Christianity

There has been many debates in which people claim that the Catholic Faith is not the center of all Christianity, some claim to argue it is not even Christian. I challenge that argument and I want to debate any one who thinks Catholicism is not the center of Christianity, or is not Christian at all. Resources can come from any point in history, but the Bible or the Didache are highly recommended. The opponent may use any tactic he/she wants including references to how cruel the Catholic Church was or how Catholic Priests abused boys. Give me your best argument, and if we do not finish in five rounds, I will open a new debate to continue. There are no rules, only fair and non-abusive debating. Best of luck. God Bless
Should animal testing be banned

Nowadays, we have conquered polio. We have conquered most diseases that require animal testing. Also, an animal will think that their lives are more important than ours. Millions of animals are killed per year from animal testing according to PETA. There are not millions of last resort cases. We are following the common assumption that animals lives aren't as important as humans lives. If you were an animal, would you like to be tested on. It is immoral to test on animals because they are not approving it and how can it be morally fair that animals are more important than people. Animals play a huge role to the ecosystem and we mistreat them and test on them to keep ourselves alive, not caring that they are dying. Thank you
Should animal testing be banned

First of all, animal testing puts the life of the animal in danger, and that is cruel towards the animals. I would like you to give me your response if I asked you to eat poison to see if the human body had grown immunity towards it. Chances are you would die. Or be playing games on a Samsung Galaxy Note 7 all day. Chances are you would die. Why is an animal's life more valuable than a human's life. Thank you
Should animal testing be banned

I would like to start off with a quote from the Bee movie, "what makes you life more important than his". The woman had told her dad not to kill Gary, the bee, because he wouldn't like it if he was crushed by a human. I think that animal testing should be banned because it is cruel to animals. I know that my opponent will refute this point by saying, "if we can't test on animals, who can we test on. Right now, Technology is rapidly improving and we can use technology to conduct experiments in probably just a few years. If you were asked to go and eat a thought-to-be-poisonous berry, would you say yes, even though you probably would die. That is why animal testing should be banned. Thank You
Homosexuality is natural.

[--Messaging--]This is irrelevant, I actually denounced the act hinting it was rude in the PM. [--My opponents analogy's--]His analogy actually helps my case. So he says he challenged me, correct. He started the party. So his analogy is I asked, he invited me and he began. He then quit the party mid flight. If anything this is MORE rude then the way I put it, therefore his analogy helps my cause. So he made he party then left essentially saying he preferred the other party/person. In other words this helps my conduct case. Also as stated DDO usually thinks if an initiator starts a debate he should be able to finish it. His second analogy is a marathon, but this application fails. Because our debate already began. So we are running, he gets a phone call and says I just got invited by someone else to another marathon bye. As this one initiated first it would seem rude to quit the first obligation in the name of another, especially when you are the instigator. --> Both analogies show he did a conduct violation, mine does as well. Either way I win the conduct point. [--Strawman?--]A strawman is a fallacy that is informal that means I am misrepresenting ones position [1][2]. Calling someone out for a conduct violation is not misrepresenting your position. Your position is technically I want to leave this debate, I am in another. This is proven by your round 2 post. So I stated you want to quit the debate in the name of another, which is proven by your own words:"I am already in process of this same debate with another user, Id rather not repeat it."So no strawman was committed. Reasons to vote CON -- Arguments: Dont vote on arguments in this debate, the argument point is the conduct point to con (or no points to either if you thought pro won). I won because his own arguments (analogies) proved my point, and mine did as well. Sources: Me, I had them. He should have cited his strawman argument, as the way he explained it was false. Spelling: Tied, we both had some mistakes. Though his format was poor, so give it to me (optional). Conduct: This is replacing the arguments vote here, and I showed his argument proved my side. His concussions where false and mislead. --> Vote should be 3 - 0 to CON. Or 4 - 0 con. Depending on your stance on the S/G.Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.nizkor.org...
Homosexuality is natural.

I messaged you saying that it will be cancelled. I challenged you at your request, so its like asking to get invited to a party. This will give the party leader to cancel as he pleases. I did not ditch the obligation, I had an exact same obligation. For example, if I want to go run a marathon with a friend, and then want to go to a different one with a different friend because I'm not sure if it could do the first one, it would be pointless to do both. Just combine them. If you want to follow the debate, follow ScottyDouglas and my debate with him. CON is unreasonable is being a strawman, a classic logical fallacy to make me look like I am an attacker pulled from quick and expanded assumptions.
Homosexuality is natural.

Yes you messaged me, it was actually very rude. I ask you for a debate, you challenge me (essentially saying yes). AFTER this debate began you ditched this obligation in place for another. Here is an analogy that makes sens to everyone: One party says it "might" invite you. This party invites you inside. After formal greetings (after yo RSVP'd) you decide to go to the other one because they accepted you in. So you go in private to the party leader, owner, whatever and say I am leaving for another party, this party would be repetitive. --> rude. My opponent was very rude and therefore conduct vote should be towards CON.
Implement an option to require voters to spend a min amount of time reading a debate before voting

1st issue - Discrimination against super-speed readersThere exist people capable of reading 1000 words per minute (wpm). They shouldn't be forced to have to wait to vote simply because the norm can't do what they can.Evidence: Howard Berg. He is listed in the 1990 Guinness Book of World Records for reading more than 25,000 words a minute. The average person reads 200 words a minute. http://www.zimbio.com...2nd issue - Doesn't serve its purposeOne can merely open a debate, read it and be literally too stupid to understand it and vote bomb. Another issue is that they can open it, switch programs/tabs and just listen to some nice music laughing at the flaw of the system, then return to the tab when the time is up and vote bomb anyway.3rd issue - It should either apply to all debates or none.It would be unfair to members of the site to make this non-compulsory. What I mean is that you can't say that for some debates this should apply and for others we'll let people vote bomb mindlessly for the fun of it. This would create an unfair gap in validity of votes (if it is effective).4th issue - Different debates are different lengths.If you set the minimum times as five minutes for a one round debate with 1000 character limit you're really being quite silly. Some debates are really long, some are not. You can't set one universal time for all without making it unfair.
Implement an option to require voters to spend a min amount of time reading a debate before voting

1) The title refers to debate.org <--- debate over the title or anything said in this round = automatic loss 2) 'min' in title = minimum If you are unclear on EXACTLY what the title means, please leave a comment before starting. Remember, any argument concerning what the title means or any other semantics = loss for my opponent. If you accept this debate you accept my terms. Good luck! I had this debate before but for some odd reason for which I still have not solved, my first argument was literally posted in Greek. Wtf.
Should Cellphones Be Allowed In Class

Everything you say is true but only if the students are using their phones in class. They should still be allowed to keep their phones with them in class in case of an emergency and their parents need to call them. And cell phones can be used to do a variety of tasks in class set up by a teacher such as taking photographs of science experiments. It can also help relax students to do classwork if they are allowed to listen to music from their phones. My school allows us to listen to music on some occasions when we work and ususally nobody is distracted too often.And even if there is a test there could still be a teacher that supervises the students so that they will not cheat. Receiving phone calls during class is rare for students when most of their friends are in school and so phone calls are usually from parents and about something important.Therefore cellphones should be allowed in class.
Should Cellphones Be Allowed In Class

I think cellphones shouldn"t be allowed in class. Here are my arguments. Having the Internet on the phone provides for an opportunity to cheat. Students can refer to the Internet for answers on a test, or they could text an accomplice for the answers. They could also photograph information from a textbook and use that to cheat in the test. Neither of these acts leads to any sort of education for the students, but on the other hand, discourages them from working hard. I also think cell phones shouldn't be allowed in class because they are distracting in work. A student can't concentrate on their work with a cell phone in their face. Also it is influencing their language skills. Sometimes they use shortened sentences like, example, "r u busy 2day?" instead of "Are you busy today?". It can be unnerving for other students because of the notification tones, too. Lastly they can use it to text in class, making them not concentrated on their schoolwork. I eagerly await your argument
Psychology personality theories is outdated

please get your Psychology theory bush up before you take the sit, you theory are based on general psychology , and we are talking about Psychology personality theories, etc the Big Five personality traits. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.nimh.nih.gov... we have seen there a rise number in Mental Disorders. those rise is contribute by psychological impart , military, civil, economic, social and much more changed again we are arguing in OVERALL change, not SINGLE individual change
Psychology personality theories is outdated

I am sorry I will not agree to that mainly because what you said makes no sense. Let me try to reword your question and answer it. I think you trying to say is that physiological needs are the foundation of these psychological theories. I will agree to that. I mean Look at Maslow, Erickson and even Freud, they are all based on instinctual urges to stay alive and require those needs to be met in order for the person to develop. (Maslow’s first level in his hierarchy, Erikson in his trust versus mistrust crisis, and Freud the ego would not develop if physiological needs are not met.) I do not understand your point about hungry people. The number of hungry people has no effect on these theories. On the contrary the theories will predict how these hungry people will develop. Unless you can show me an example on how this disproves any theory. Human development and human intelligence are two different things. Not one theory I explained incorporated intelligence. Can you show me a way intelligence disproves any of these theories? What about communication? What does this prove? Do you really think eHow is a reliable source? Who is this Kay Ireland and what credentials does she have that allows her to write on this topic? Assuming your article is accurate it only talks about how people talk on face book and twitter, not how they develop. When a theory was written does not have any weight on it accuracy. For example not many people go “well the theory of gravity was written in the 1700’s that’s out of date.” Yes, more research has been done on gravity just like there has been a lot of research on theses theories. Another big problem some people have is they do not understand what a theory is. What I mean is that people use the popular definition of theory instead of the scientific definition. The popular definition of theory is an idea or hypothesis. The scientific definition of a theory is A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.
Psychology personality theories is outdated

let just start by basic Psychological need of Psychology, Air, water, and food are metabolic, we saw proofed changed to date. do u agree than Psychological change do contributed to psychology change in human? Main point A. food supply contributed to psychology personality change. in Maslow's hierarchy ,erikson's theory stages or another psychology , they commonly agree than Psychological need is the most foundation of psychology, which If these requirements are not met, the human body cannot function properly and will ultimately fail. Air, water, and food are metabolic requirements for survival in all animals, including humans. Clothing and shelter provide necessary protection from the elements. THERE IS A GREAT REDUCE ON HUNGRY PEOPLE. Using the new estimates, there were 1 billion hungry people in 1990-92 and and the world population was 5,370 million (US census estimates for 1991). Thus the proportion was .18 and halving it would be .09. The current proportion (870 million hungry divided by 2013 world population of 7,095) is .123. Thus in 2013, the world is .033 away, or 234 million people, from reaching this target. Thus, in summary, the world is from 870 million to 234 million people away from reaching a hunger reduction goal, depending on which goal and which estimate is chosen. sources from http://www.worldhunger.org... ------------------------------------------------- nutrition make a effect on human intelligent. http://health.howstuffworks.com... --------------------------------------------------- There a change in human Communication Internet Affect Human Communication http://www.ehow.com... -------------------------------------------------------- overall Psychology personality theories is build from human thinking ,feeling , we have proofed there is a great change in contribution in our thinking ,feeling. how will a 1950 human think the same as a 2014 human with that much of change. all those contribution do reformed the way of thinking. Fact will not always be the same fact, it will change over time and time.
Psychology personality theories is outdated

My argument is that if you understand the theories I have explained you would see they are still applicable to modern day life, which is why I tried to explain these three theories. I hope you do not think that I copied and pasted that argument. Anyway, I will break down your arguments. 1) Your historical argument. Yes it there have been many sociological changes and technological changes that have taken place over the years. This does not change the psycology of the mind. For example using Erikson's theory, a person would have gone through all of the stages of development in the 50's that a person would go through today. Air-conditioning, woman working and voting, and technology would not affect them. Not one of the theories I have posted relies on technology or a lack of technology. If you can provide one example how these changes contradict any of these developmental theories I will give up and let you win this argument. (I left divorce out I will come back to it at the end of this argument.) 2) Is there really a new risk or is longevity of people just increasing? Back in the sixties a lot of people did not live until 80+ years old, but now a lot of people do. My own grandparents are 85. But is this a psychological issue or is this a neurochemistry issue? What I mean is is the psychology changing or the chemistry of the older brain changing? Could you provide examples on how older people’s psychology is changing and how this causes the theories to be outdated? 3) You are right Biology is linked to behavior. I encourage you to look at Maslow’s theory which includes biological needs. Erikson even addresses biological needs in his Trust vs. Mistrust crisis stage. I do not think I fully understand this argument. Now as I said I would I will address divorce. Let me ask you a question; is divorce a psychological issue or a sociological issue? Now the answer could be both. The cause of the divorce could be psychological and then the divorce can lead to sociological implications. Regardless of how you look at it how does the issue of divorce render any of these models out of date? I can see these models predicting divorce. For example, I will use Erikson, if a person fails his Trust vs. mistrust stage, s/he will have problems maintaining relationships and if that person gets marries s/he could possibly end up with a divorce. From your first argument I believe you have confused the field of psychology with the field of sociology. Sociology is the study of cultures and society. Your arguments would be much more compelling for that argument than this one, unless I am misunderstanding them which is entirely possible. To sum up this argument I, give me an example or even an expert opinion on how these advancements have rendered these theories out of date.
Psychology personality theories is outdated

This is a argument on YOUR point of view, is psychology personality theories is outdated? you hammer the slot of no. please be clear on your topic . sit is not for copy and paste this is not a science class room. Main point psychology personality theories is outdated, because of human changed 1)extend from change that we viewed in history from post 1 2)in biology new risk of degenerative disease and new infectious disease new Genetic differences across human populations, present and past Human growth and development are differences thousand more to list. 3)human biology is linked to our behavior psychology is about human behavior, its unlike another science , its not a fixed science.
Psychology personality theories is outdated

This argument will be based on all Psychology personality theories, be it Maslow's hierarchy theory of need, big 5 personality traits, sigmund freud theory of personality or so.. , the argument are ,is psychology personality theories is outdated? Psychology personality theories is outdated. compare to 1954 to 2014, we see some change in human mind set , living environment , the way we think, feel are changed . Psychology personality theories is linked to how human think, feel , and our environment .so how could it still be the same? Psychology personality theories is all about human personality. we saw that women began joining the workforce in large numbers. telephone communications improved dramatically. the divorce rate rose and remained high. Air conditioning & the portable air conditioner became commonplace people now able to access information instantly without needing to visit a library medical & dental technology have advanced cellular phone and computer made communication instantaneous and easy i could list a few hundreds more. those event will indeed cause new impart to environment , the way we think, those theories are build from environment , the way we think, Psychology personality theories is not a fixed subject alike math,its a subject about human and human are changing all the time Psychology personality theories is totally outdated.
Psychology personality theories is outdated

Is there a specific theory you want to discuss? I will go throw most of the theories that I know and that will take forever. Most people use Freud as an argument that theories are out dated but vary few experts us Freud's theory. It is however a basis for some other theories. What I mean it that research's took Freud's theory and changed it t make it more applicable. The most common theory used in developmental psychology is probably Maslow's Hierarchy. This is a time tested and proven theory. So I will refine my argument's more once you have decided which theory you want to argue.