BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Eternal Security is a True Christian Doctrine

I have no trouble with any of the conditions, I often put the same ones in front of my own debates to accept it as axiomatic that the bible is the true word of God, that God exist, ect. I have no trouble with any of the definitions, I understand all the terms and concepts. Should it become apparent that we differ on some the terms debating those later will no doubt be half the fun of the debate. I apologize in advance if my opponent was hoping to get in decent scripture battle with the Con of this debate. Though I will try and use scripture with my arguments as they are always important in any Christian debate, I have found arguing from theology is my stronger suite and what I have more drive for giving. As per the conditions my opponent gave that is all I submit this round. I await my opponents opening arguments.
Eternal Security is a True Christian Doctrine

Eternal security is known by a few names. Here are the two most common: - Once saved always saved. - Once in grace always in grace.I will be arguing for the truth behind eternal security. In other words I will be arguing that once someone is saved according to the Christian doctrine of being born again (accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior and by acknowledging his resurrection of body and soul in atonement for our sins) then they can never again lose or forfeit it. For someone to accept the Con position they must only have an argument with the assumption that Christianity is true and the bible is the inherent word of God. This is a Christian vs. Christian debate as it only pertains to Christian beliefs among fellow believers. If you are not a Christian you can accept the debate if you just want to debate it from the standpoint of a Christian. However anybody that accepts this debate and then takes the point that all of Christianity is false and therefore eternal security is false, then they are going against the intent of the debate and will be considered an automatic forfeit loss of the entire debate.So Con's position will presuppose that Christianity is true, the bible is the true word of God, and so his argument can be either scripture or theologically based.Debate structure:Round 1: Acceptance and clarification / definition of words if necessary.Round 2: Opening argument and further understanding of definitions.Round 3: Rebuttal of arguments and further establishing of their own argument.Round 4: No new arguments given here as the opponent will not have another round to refute the evidence. This round will consist of further rebuttals of their opponents arguments, summarization of their points, and their conclusion.4 rounds total, 8000 character limit, 6 month voting period. Good luck!!
March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage

DefensePoint 1: InflationCon argues that a higher minimum wage contributes to inflation. However, Con significantly overstates the supposed problems that inflation poses for the economy. It can be conclusively demonstrated that a reasonable minimum wage hike will not lead to the outlandish hyperinflation Con's argument implies. It won't necessarily lead to any inflation to begin with. Refer to the previously-displayed graph of increases to the minimum wage, from 1938 to 2012: And compare with the rate of inflation over the same time period. If minimum wage hikes had an effect on inflation, we would see see a general correlation. But we don't. There is no accordance to begin with - let alone anything as drastic and dangerous as Con stated.For one example: The large increment to the minimum wage, which took place around 2008, directly contradicts the notion that it will somehow lead to more inflation. That is what we would expect were Con to be right, but as an analysis of the graphs demonstrates, no such thing took place. [1]Point 2: Economic StimulationCon then argues that the costs from a higher minimum wage would be pushed unto the consumer. This is somewhat true, but not in the absolute.While some costs may be pushed onto the consumer (as his sources show), that cannot account for the entirety of the new income generated by a minimum wage. That an inflation-adjusted minimum wage can be raised to begin with disproves Con's argument.Point 3: Good for native workersCon appears to have misunderstood my point: A higher minium wage would discourage immigration from the get-go. It can only be argued to harm legal immigrants's employment if we assume it has a significant impact on employment to begin with (which is contestable, refer to the third round) - either way, this would only prove my third point.Closing statementI would like to thank my opponent for a great debate to start off the Beginner's tournament. Vote Pro!Source: [1] http://www.tradingeconomics.com...
March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage

Definitions:USFG - short for United States Federal Governmentminimum wage - the lowest wage permitted by lawraise - increase the amount, level, or strength of Significantly - to at least $10 an hour Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: Con rebuts Pro's arguments in Round 2 and vice versaRound 4: Both sides defend their original arguments in Round 2 Look forward to a great debate!
Bullying should be allowed, as it builds character.

You should have fought back. In post world war 2 Churchill was at a meeting and and basically said that we must never surrender.But you did letting those bullies attack you you should have fought back that is the dumbest thing you could have ever done.That is literally dumb for you.You could have sued them for assault and harassment in the first,second,and third degree.Voters please note that my opponent brought you into her web of folly attacks.sound of sunshine if people dont listen to your story make them.Please voters dont be pressured or trust her just use caution when voting.Why didnt you call the police or FIGHT THEM BACK!OR just take defense lessons.Did it ever occur to you that Hm I should just fight back or were you to busy crying.Again voters it seems my opponent seems to lacks the mental capacity to understand volatile situations (No offense).But voters consider this she could have 1.Took fighting lessons 2.fought back 3.go to court.However my opponent seems to lack proper knowledge to take course of her actions and to defend her self putting her life and others at risk how let me explain She could have died not fighting back 2 her mother could have informed the police but she did not inform her parents 3.If she did and they did not listen she could have contacted the police her self.Voters this girl has delibritaly put her self at risk then calling someone the police,school counseler.My opponent may even have mental retardation because of all the lashes she suffered all the lashes she could have prevented she brought this to herself for not taking the appropriate actions.SHE could have helped herself if no one would but she would just stand idle getting punched over and over getting napkins constantly for the bleeding having fears of all most everything having multiple scars half dead and what did she do you ask?NOTHING she delibritly stood there being harassed and assaulted.Voters let me ask you if you choose sound of sunshine you will give the ever awaited attention she always wanted she still has a debate going with shadow gamer.Voters Churchill once said to never surrender and she did the exact opposite she let her bullies beat her she may have according to her story and my knowledge stockholm syndrome.What it is a person capture a bystander for harrassment or torture.Then which the victim enjoys it the torture.So she enjoyed may have enjoyed the punch after punch or jab after jab.And if she didnt why did you tack no course of action whatsoever.And or she may be a quidecintial child needy of approval and attention despratley allows a bully to beat her up for the sympathy and or pity.Please voters consider both sides but pay attention.(Note: This is not for harrasment or superiority)
Bullying should be allowed, as it builds character.

My story is real, and there is proof. Countless facebook posts, schoo files, and school board meetings (with minutes available). I, in fact, did notify authorities and teachers. Nobody helps. The real point I'm trying to make here, and failing at doing so here is that, some kids (mentally disabled, special education, physically disabled, etc) may not be equipped to cope with situations like bullying. Shouldn't there be something to protect those kids from bullying? Or how about, something to protect everyone from bullying.? What if it was your son, being brutalized at school because he was a bit different, possibly even perfectly normal. Or your daughter, being slandered at school and on social media, causing her to slip into depression?
Bullying should be allowed, as it builds character.

Listen sound of sunshine!You have the upper hand your story was depressing and sad but nevertheless flawed.Let me point out why: #1 You have debated about this before with shadow dragon the topic was should bullying be allowed.#2 you fail to point out that during that sad story that you did not inform anyone any proffesional for help.#3 YOU could have fought back in the face of a fist or a gun you must not stay idle if you do death is immenat.#4 YOU must change the future by taking initiative to fight for yourself regardless the excuse or back story.Sound of sunshine let me tell you something about the would no one cares really about that sad story people have kids and family so other people and there backstory dont really matter to them sure they may care or show pity but those same people on the inside dont care.Your story was sad but in the modern world not all of the US will hear your cry that bullying is bad.I will end this your argument has been a waste of time.Let me tell you why even if you are sucssesful in banning bullying forever it will still happen superiority will linger in human mind what will you do to the bullies put them in the electric chair that would be more gruesome.You brought this on yourself if you defended yourself of fought back or went to somewhere else that could have been avoided.OR took defense lessons.Your gpa from 4.2 to 1.2 was your fault let me point out why my teacher always says "Don't be with your feelings"that means whatever your feeling is meaningless.Please voters note that this story may have been made up since there is no video proof of any of these events and a great writer could come up with this story so it doesn't seem to me real it may be fabricated.Sound of sunshine you got your wish you have my pity and my attention if you made that story for pity and attention if it was real then I pity you for not doing the right thing which is Telling an authority,a teacher,a well trained psychologist,Or a defense teacher
Bullying should be allowed, as it builds character.

WHatever has happened to the bully does not make it okay for them to hurt someone else. We need to be teaching children that there are different coping mechanisms than hurting someone else. In the end, two wrongs do not make a right. What about the kids who bully because somebody is "different"? No reason behind it. No traumatic experiences. Just because they don't meet the criteria to be accepted among peers. And what about the teens who bully that are fully capable of understanding right from wrong. Schools teach that it's wrong, the media teaches that it's wrong, because it is. If a teenager can understand that things like murder, rape, stealing, and cheating are wrong, they surely have the capacity to understand that bullying is wrong. Let me try and understand, are you really trying to say that bullies do it because they need self confidence, and that we should consider their background before we punish them? Or not even punish them at all? And that if a teen bullies, well that's fine and dandy! It's because they don't know right from wrong?
Bullying should be allowed, as it builds character.

No that is not the point I tried to make. Not at all.I meant is that a bully is a person who needs self-esteem.So in the brain its is concluded that the only way to gain esteem is to show that your the alpha male and the victim is the beta male.But it depends what is you definition of bullying because to one eye it may be like continuos harrasment. Our in another name calling or joking about ones parent.Also people who bully may have been bullied on them selves or have been bused or sexually harrased and need lots of more confidence.You cannot state my side as "A load of bull" because people who bully may do it for reasons unknown.You don't know what happened in his of hers life.How can you say bullying is wrong.I say this because if a child bullies you he's a child non the less a child no not what is right or wrong.If a teenager bullies you then thats because he or she are not fully developed to use there pre-frontal cortex or the part of the brain responsible for desicion making or right or wrong judgment.
Bullying should be allowed, as it builds character.

That is a load of bull. The world wouldn't be "calm" Just because bullying wouldn't be allowed does not mean people wouldn't do it, it just means that they would get their well deserved punishment for doing so. "Because it is a feeling to be respected and the human brain sees that as intimidation as the only form for respect." Exactly, bullying is meant for INTIMIDATION. This, is not good! Not good at all! It does not show bravery or courage at all., it shows that some arrogant prick is feeling a little low on himself so he wants to go make someone else feel horrible too. Now, what if it's not bullying between men, but between women? A young girl, like myself, being brutalized and harassed every day until she reaches the breaking point. Is this respectable? Does this make me want to say "Hey, she's pretty brave and because she has intimidated me, had ten girls gang up on me and beat me to a bloody pulp, and made me feel like I was not worth breathing, I should respect her!" No!
Bullying should be allowed, as it builds character.

Yes bullying should be allowed.Because it is a feeling to be respected and the human brain sees that as intimidation as the only form for respect. Bullying also should be allowed because imagine if there was no bullying everything would be really calm and people would like some action. It provides a pinch of action.Not only that but it gives males a feeling of superiority and a rush of testosterone.Also it shows bravery and courage just in the wrong context. The courage, bravery, and the respect builds up a character that shows not to back down when the world puts it down
Bullying should be allowed, as it builds character.

Bullying should not be allowed, whatsoever. Bullying has been proven to cause severe mental issues, such as depression, anxiety, isolation, even suicidal thoughts and/or actions. As I would prefer to keep this argument based on facts, I'm going to write about my experiences. I'm thirteen, and I have been bullied since I was five years old for many reasons. My race, being the main one. I'm white and hispanic, and I am not excepted by the hispanic community... I live in LA so that's difficult to escape. Others include the fact that I'm much younger than everyone else in my grade, I don't break the rules, I don't dress very feminine, etc. I attempted to kill myself for the first time when I was eight years old... That's pretty young, don't you think? Well, I guess I started getting bullied from an early age. My second attempt was when I was eleven. I still get bullied to this day, and have been forced out of my school because of it. My GPA, which usually stood at a 4.2,has now dropped to a 1.2 because my depression, and fear of going to school. Beyond my sad little back story,I would like to get back to the detrimental effects bullying has caused in many cases such as Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris of the Columbine Massacre, Amanda Todd, Rebecca Sedwick, and many more. They all suffered depression, anxiety, and many other disorders as the aftermath of bullying (except Eric Harris who was a born psychopath). I, myself, suffer depression, anxiety, panic attacks, and violent black outs. There have been situations where my bottled up rage towards my attackers have caused me to black out and become aggressive... When I was seven, I was dragged into the girl's bathroom and began to be beaten by other girls, some from my grade, some from grades above. My head was slammed against a toilet bowl and a wall as I was kicked and punched repeatedly. Four years later, a girl who had been bullying me since I was eight (and her little group of friends) came up to me and cornered me, yelling at me, and pushing me down. They began kicking me in my ribs, and bam, flashback. I don't remember what happened, my mind had gone blank, but after watching school security footage I realize that I probably could have killed that girl if teachers wouldn't have pulled me off of her. This not only shows that bullying puts the bullied child's life in danger, but also the bully's life. Bullying should be treated the same as harassment is in legal terms.
Jesus vs Satin !!

Pro didnt care to define Jesus or Satin, but since he is new here I will go ahead and define both terms for him. I dont know off hand who 'Satin' is, but after a little research I determined that Pro most likely is referring to Josh Satin, a baseball player for the New York Mets who is one of the only Jewish baseball players to ever reach the majors. http://en.wikipedia.org...Since the topic is apparently baseball, 'Jesus' most likely refers to Jesus Colome: A pitcher who played on the Washington Nationals which one of the Mets rivals in the National League East. http://en.wikipedia.org...Now that thats out of the way, lets look at the Pro's main argument"how isnt jesus the truth ? he gave us life" No he didnt, The Mets have still been as sucky as ever. He did not give us life nor is he 'the truth'.... Please back your claims with evidence Pro.Also, just because Josh Satin is a Jew that doesnt make him a liar, thats ignorant of you to claim and will most likely cost you conduct points.... "he died for our sins ."Ummm.... The Jesus youre referring to is alive and well, in fact hes only in his Mid 30's... He most certainly did not die for our sins, you may have him mixed up with Goku from Dragon Ball Z
It is impossible to prove that God is omnipotent. Christians only.

Thank you for your reply. I find it a wholesome distraction to debate the nature of God. 1. It does not take infinite power to do any of those. Creating the universe in seven days in an incredible feat, but not infinite. This would mean God existed before creation, but we are talking infinity, not eternity. All of the things listed can be measured, and thus are not infinite. 2. God, eternal and infinite. Only through eternity can infinity be shown. Since eternity is provable but infinity is not, paradox 3. Infinity cannot be explained by our laws of physics. In this reality, only measurable things are real. So even if God was omnipotent, He would not be omnipotent in our reality, and thus his omnipotence is not real. Thanks for the chance to debate the nature of the Lord. -The God Hand
It is impossible to prove that God is omnipotent. Christians only.

I accept, and before I start I want to clear that because one cannot prove something it doesn't make it true or untrue. "Omnipotence:... unlimited power.." 1. Because a lesser being describes greatness as omnipotence doesn't make it so. Omnipotence is what it is, and that is to have unlimited power. Unlimited power is not the same as greatness, therefore that first point is flawed. We ARE lesser than God, so that already gives Him the advantage of power. He IS all-powerful, and He does have unlimited power. Who but God can create the whole universe in seven days? Who but God can create mankind with His very own breath? Who but God can open up the Red Sea? Who but God can be dead for three days, yet resurrect? Who but God can do all that and more? No one. So no one compares in power with Him because only He has that kind of power, that unlimited power, therefore He IS omnipotent. 2. Infinite: never-ending, unlimited, boundless, endless. Time is infinite. A paradox is something that contradicts itself. God is infinite and omnipotent. If He was just one or the other, THEN that would be a paradox. 3. What we comprehend forms our reality, true, as individuals, however, that again doesn't make it a fact. Ex: I'm mistreated all my childhood and rewarded when I steal for whoever is mistreating me. My reality then becomes to steal, and that it is a good thing to steal. Does that make it correct? Or even better, a fact? No. Inifinity IS incomprehensible because we know a start and an end for everything, so infinity is only comprehensible to an omnipotent being: God. "God would not be real except in a finite from." Again, time is infinite, so according to you not real. Time is real; your point is flawed. Thanks for the opportunity to debate this topic! -simplymara
It is impossible to prove that God is omnipotent. Christians only.

Omnipotence: Infinite, unlimited power, usually to be deployed however wished. God: A deity of any kind. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is impossible to prove God is omnipotent. 1. So what if God is powerful? A lesser being might describe greatness as omnipotence. We are lesser to God, but is God all-powerful? 2. Infinite means just that. Nothing in the laws of physics can be "infinite." Unless you were omnipotent, but that is impossible, forming a paradox. 3. Since humans cannot comprehend infinity, and what we comprehend forms our reality, infinity is incomprehensible, and thus God cannot be omnipotent, because then God would not be real except in a finite from. I await your argument. -The Godhand
It is impossible to prove that God is omnipotent. Christians only.

Thanks for your reply. 1, Since all those acts occurred in a reality where infinity is unprovable, we still cannot prove thet God is omnipotent. 2. We live in a one-way time. We can only see in front of us. We live in a space that expands in every way, so we cannot see it forever. We can see eternity, but not infinity. So we can't really see past time to find space. 3.He may be omnipotent, and we may never comprehend Him. However, since He cannot be provable in our existence, His omnipotence remains a theoretical, if not metaphorical, figure. Thank you for the debate.
It is impossible to prove that God is omnipotent. Christians only.

Thanks for your reply. 1.Maybe I'm not understanding.. Infinity-synonyms include eternity, endless, boundless, and so on. If we agree that God is infinite, and we agree that omnipotent means absolute infinity, then we are agreeing that God is also omnipotent. Proof would include His acts. Some of His acts include those already mentioned. 2. I don't quite understand the beef jerky example, but if time is proof of eternity, and infinity is a synonym of eternity, then how can be and not the other? 3. At first we began talking about comprehending, then about measurable things. There are many things we can't begin to comprehend, nor can we measure them, but that doesn't mean they aren't real, or that they don't exist. God is definately unmeasureble, and we might never comprehend Him and how He is omnipotent, but that is not a strong enough point to be able to argue that He is not omnipotent. Thank you for your replies and for this debate!