BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Whether the U.S. should financially support countries that persecute Christians.

I acknowledge that you are a Christian and that we share the same beliefs and I will continue to keep that in mind. I agree that the intent for funding these countries is to subdue aggression although I do not agree that it will create stability, you stated that it creates a sense, and I appreciate that you had the forethought to say "...Create a SENSE of stability..." and how you stated that it did not create actual stability. I think that it is immoral for the U.S. government to fund other countries solely for the reason of maintaining allies. I think that if other countries gave back something of substantial value and i acknowledge that some do yet most don't. And i do not think that is possible to unite the world in perfect peace and harmony, and even if we were to unite with near perfect peace between countries I don't think that that will create a better understanding of each other. Thank you for accepting and keeping it formal. (When I say "we" I am referring to the U.S as a whole)
Whether the U.S. should financially support countries that persecute Christians.

I will just begin here: 1. ) The USA funds these regions to demonstrate the moral values and economic strengths of This Christian country. whether the intent of the government is too advocate Christianity or not, our strengths historically and in modern practice originate there. 2. ) The USA as a supporter of any country, is subliminal reinforcement that would subdue aggression and create a sense of stability. This sense of stability would decrease those countries pre-existing issues like social incompetence and depression. 3. ) by uniting he world, we as a world become more understanding of each other first most, but also we simply are not ignoring the problems. I think those will be the major points I will stress and reinforce during this debate. I am very interested to hear what your responses are; hoping that you understand economics enough to see that investing in our own poverty is not a profitable industry. (* those countries have no capacity. The poverty in our own countries are from lack of ambition. )
Whether the U.S. should financially support countries that persecute Christians.

U.S. should not financially support countries that persecute Christians because the U.S. is already in nearly 18 trillion dollars of debt and it also morally wrong to support these countries because the U.S. was founded on Christian morals. We funded Pakistan and they did what? they hid one of the most wanted men to the U.S. blatantly in our faces, The U.S. also funds Sudan, and what do they give back? Terrorists.
Most of UltimateRussian's votes are bad and should be removed.

Rebuttal I: OpinionsThere are rules to be followed. The RFD can't just convey Con's opinion, it must explain Con's vote. The Reason For Decision isn't about Con's opinion, like in this RFD, "Obvious tho hes wrong." Or this "It was close!" Niether or those explain your vote.We already know the RFD's are bad because the last one was removed by the Admin. It was a perfect example. Conclusion: The resolution holds. Con's only argument was that they were his opinion.
An ideal society

1. if my society works, guns will not be necessary, but will be used if a person threatens the integrity of the society. 2. No argument 3. Diversity causes arguments and conflict, with my city, there would be no ethnic conflict. 4. Puritan society was successful up until the witch trials. I specifically put the "no law that goes against the Bible" clause in there just to prevent another witch trial. 5. My plan encourages work ethic as well as garentees 100% employment. 6. Diversity causes conflict. 7. No argument
An ideal society

1. Guns- Guns should be prohibited from all unless they get a license. 2. Free Speech- There will be free speech for all. 3. Immigration will be allowed, although there will be documentation required, to support diversity, to prevent disputes, and prevent the chaos of having to control borders. 4. Religion: All religion will be allowed to prevent a Puritan society. 5. People will have the availability to start their own businesses and ventures, or work for whoever they can get a job from. 6. Diversity helps societies progress. 7. Laws will be voted on by the people like a democracy.
An ideal society

In this debate, I will offer my view of what an idea society would look like and my opponent will offer his/her view. We will argue why our society is superior. Each person is permitted to change a portion of his view two times over the course of this debate. My society: 1. Guns-guns are owned freely 2. Free speech-people can say whatever they want 3. Immigration-This society will not have any new people 4. Religion-this society will be one hundred percent protestant Christianity. Christianity offers views on wisdom and family values I believe would be beneficial to keep. 5. Jobs-When a person turns eighteen, he or she will choose a job from a list of needed jobs and they will either enter that job or go to school for that job. Jobs can be changed if there is no longer need for that job or someone capable of doing that job wants to switch jobs. Doing an average amount of work at your job means you get to live in the society, going above and beyond gives you "currency" to buy luxuries. 6. In an ideal society, the people all look the same(as in race, but the race is open for interpretation) and speak using the same vernacular. 7. Society meeting will be held weekly to discuss matters, but no changes that go against the Bible. The Bible and this act as the constitution.
Jesus decides who will be thrown in hell and who will be saved as per the Christian Bible

Jesus may sit on the judgement seat but god has already decided before creation. Ephesians 1:4-5 "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love predestined us for adoption to son ship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will" And Jesus does nothing of his own accord but simply is the one caring out the judgment in which god has already decided long ago. John 5:30 "I can do nothing on My own initiative as I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
Jesus decides who will be thrown in hell and who will be saved as per the Christian Bible

"All of these verses suggest that Jesus and god are not the same" This is a debate for another time, nevertheless Jesus is the one judging: the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, John 5:22 Romans 2:16 by Jesus "christ"... that mean the christian god will use Jesus, who does all thing according to the father, to judge. So god gave judgment to Jesus and Jesus is the one judging. John 5:30 Yes he judges according to what the father told him, but still the one judging. Just like judges judge according to the law of the country, but the judges are still judging. "These verses suggest that Jesus is the means in which god will judge the people." Jesus is the judge, the christian father is the one making the rules. "Jesus may sit on the judgement seat but everything he does he does only because god told him to." Jesus is in the judgement seat, so he is the one executing judgement and deciding who will go to hell. That is, after he decides who he will choose as believer, and on the other side, who he will reject and judge according to what the father said; and that's in other words hell and the lake of fire.
Jesus decides who will be thrown in hell and who will be saved as per the Christian Bible

John 14:10 Believes thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, when ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. All of these verses suggest that Jesus and god are not the same, at the very least not completely the same person. Jesus says that god is greater than himself. That his actions and teachings are not from him but god. God may live in him but he is not fully god. Romans 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. John 5:30 "I can do nothing on My own initiative as I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. These verses suggest that Jesus is the means in which god will judge the people. Jesus again is a tool that god uses to do his work but the decisions are made by god alone. They may be one, in that Jesus is the heart and god is the mind. However, it is the mind that makes decisions. The mind may be influenced by the heart but the mind is in full control. Jesus may sit on the judgement seat but everything he does he does only because god told him to.
Jesus decides who will be thrown in hell and who will be saved as per the Christian Bible

Look at Ephesian 1:4-5 Because the christian god and Jesus are one in though and action, we can conclude that Jesus chose those who will be save. I and the Father are one." Look at John 15:16, it does not say "the father chose you", but "I (Jesus) chose you". Thus what Jesus chose, the father chose and what the father chose Jesus did as well! You did not choose me, but I chose you (Jesus said that) "I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. John 13:18 In him (JESUS) we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.. . Ephesians 1:11 "Jesus is not able to decide the fate of humans but is merely a servant of god to achieve god"s plans." If all scriptures are inspired, Jesus chose and the father chose together. "Jesus is merely the gate not the judge of man"s fate." No, Jesus is the one who judges. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, John 5:22 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man. John 5:27 Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."John 9:29 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. Acts 10:42 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead." Acts 17:31 I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom... It's clear Jesus is the one who chose those who are saved and he chooses those who will go to hell. He will judge them after deciding that he will not call them.
Jesus decides who will be thrown in hell and who will be saved as per the Christian Bible

The argument we are debating is if Jesus has the power to throw people into hell and decide who will go to heaven. In Ephesians 1:4-5 According as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, Jesus is the mere instrument in which we are able to come to god. It is god alone that is the one that is choosing who will pick Jesus and who will not. Also concluding that it is not even our choice as individual"s weather or not we will go to heaven or hell since god has already decided our fate. My opponent"s argument here: "On the other side of the coin, if the Christian god chose who will believe in Jesus and who will be chosen for adoption, then the other side of the coin most be true. He did not chose the one who go to hell, thus you cannot come to be saved by accepting Jesus." cannot be further from the truth by not picking certain individuals he is banishing them from his presence, which is essentially hell. 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9." The Lord will be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might." Jesus is merely a means that god used to allow his chosen ones to come into his presence in heaven. Jesus is not able to decide the fate of humans but is merely a servant of god to achieve god"s plans. John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Jesus is merely the gate not the judge of man"s fate.
Jesus decides who will be thrown in hell and who will be saved as per the Christian Bible

"I accept under the conditions of this argument that for arguments sake that the bible is 100% inspired by god. Jesus was the sacrifice for the redemption of human kind and the way to reach god. " Even though I only believe in the Hebrew Bible, what you said will be used for this debate. The Old and New Testament is 100 % the word of the christian god. First, let us look at Ephesians 1:4-5 According as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, So here we have god choosing before the foundation of the world who will be a believe in Jesus. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Romans 8 And again we have god who predestined some to believe in Jesus. And Jesus/the christian go predestined us (christian) for adobtion. Ephesian 1:5 On the other side of the coin, if the christian god chose who will believe in Jesus and who will be chosen for adoption, then the other side of the coin most be true. He did not chose the one who go to hell, thus you cannot come to be saved by accepting Jesus. Look at John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. See... NO ONE CAN COME, that is the unbeliever who do not accept, the one that draws near are the one that are chosen before the foundation of the world. So, basically, the few that believe in Jesus and are going to pass the eternity in Heaven with him were chosen by god not because of what they have done, but for an unknown reason to us. And those who do not believe in Jesus were simply not chosen, or in other word, god decided not to care about them! And what faith will attend them, hell? For a while, maybe, but worst, they will be thrown in the lake of fire forever and ever and ever. Thus the would not have been able to save themselves even if they would have like to. Again in John 15:16, Jesus said "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed" So basically, someone might think that he chose Jesus, but Jesus chose him. And on the other side of the coin, did not choose the other. That is, if they keep on their unbelief until death. But if they change their mind, they were part of the elect who were written in the book of life. Revelation 13:8 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Roman 8:7 NOR CAN IT DO SO. So you have no power as a normal man to come to Jesus. This is of course all according to the New testament, which I do not believe. The Hebrew Bible G-d asks people to come to Him and to repent, and people are able to do so..
Jesus decides who will be thrown in hell and who will be saved as per the Christian Bible

I accept your challenge to prove that Jesus is not the one who decides who goes to have and who goes to hell. I accept under the conditions of this argument that for arguments sake that the bible is 100% inspired by god. Jesus was the sacrifice for the redemption of human kind and the way to reach god. However, the power to decided who goes to have and who goes to hell in solely in the hands of God alone.
Jesus decides who will be thrown in hell and who will be saved as per the Christian Bible

hell definition a place regarded in various religions as a spiritual realm of evil and suffering, often traditionally depicted as a place of perpetual fire beneath the earth where the wicked are punished after death. Jesus definition Jesus definition. A prophet of the first century of our era; to Christians, Jesus Christ, the son of God, a person who was both God and man, the Messiah sent by God to save the human race from the sin it inherited through the Fall of Man. The story of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem is called the Nativity. Saved definition: Salvation is deliverance from danger or suffering (in hell) The Christian Bible: Old and New Testament will be consider 100% inspired.
Jesus decides who will be thrown in hell and who will be saved as per the Christian Bible

In john 15:16 that is Jesus talking to his disciples saying to them that he chooses them as his followers. They did not choose him as a leader. Which does not have to do with their eternal destination. Ephesians 1:4-5 "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love predestined us for adoption to son ship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will" Again clearly shows that god and Jesus are two different people and Jesus is being an instrument of gods will. Here are more versus suggesting the difference between them. Either they are two separate people or the bible is to contradictory to be clear on its meaning. Either way god is the superior force in the trinity and is the decider of the fates of man"s eternal destiny even if he is deciding through his son Jesus Christ. Thank you. Matthew 24:36 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the Son, but the Father only. Matthew 26:39 My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me, yet not as I will, but as Thou will. John 5:26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. John 5:30 By myself, I can do nothing: I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who has sent me. John 5:19 The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees the Father doing, because whatever the Father does, the Son does also. Mark 10:18 Why do you call me good? No one is good, except God alone. John 14:28 The Father is greater than I. Matthew 27:46 My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? James 1:13: When tempted, no one should say, God is tempting me. For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt.
The wealth of the 1% should be distributed between the working classes.

When we speak of wealth inequality, it is absolutely necessary we address the severity of wealth inequality, and the repercussions of this disparity , before we resign ourselves to this idea that deliberate inaction is the best recourse. Credit Suisse, a financial services company, published a report that highlighted the global 1% have more wealth than the other 99% combined. The 62 richest individuals possess the same amount of wealth as the poorest 3.6 billion. Since 2010, those 62 individuals saw an estimated 542 billion dollar increase in their wealth. Now, we can assume the bottom 99% experienced at least some measure of increase in their wealth, right? No. The complete and utter opposite happened, with the bottom 99% suffering an estimated 1 trillion dollar loss in their wealth. If the major idea behind supply-side economics, is that the rich are prone to reinvest, which in turn provides the bottom 99% with greater avenues for wealth, then why has the latter seen a decrease in their wealth? There is more to wealth solely than income in terms of data, but the latter has influence over the former. For that matter, income in itself is necessary for further gains in income, with the most immediate example being a formal education, a luxury few obtain without accumulating debt. Consequentially, student loan debt has an inverse effect on economic growth, as income which would normally recirculate into the economic, is now funneled into paying off these debts. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are commonly put forward to counter the assertion that an education is necessary, but both came from families whose incomes afforded them opportunities most working class individuals do not have access to. In proposing wealth distribution, it must be made crystal clear the goal is not an equalization of outcome, but an equalization of opportunity. In a race, it is unlikely that a determination can be made on who possesses merit, when the starting line is radically different. Redistribution of wealth is a means to achieve this end. Individuals ought to reap the fruits of their labor, but under current circumstances, that can not be true. As opposed to receiving pay in accordance to their productivity, members of the working class predominately receive a fixed wage. The amount the working class is paid is not equal to the amount of profit generated for their bosses, thereby creating an inherently exploitative system. The Top 1% are, in actuality, accumulating their wealth through taking the fruits of other people's labor. How is anyone able to characterize pilfering the profits made by the people below them as hard work?
The wealth of the 1% should be distributed between the working classes.

The 1% do not tend to keep their wealth in the bank. Indeed most people keep their personal fortunes in the safe keeping of a bank or premium bonds for example, the very rich instead store their wealth in a different way. When we talk about the very rich, we don't tend to talk about them having a lot of money spare. Although of course they do, we instead say that they are 'worth' a lot of money. That is, their wealth is spread out in investments. They invest their money in other businesses, into factories, into the services that everyone uses. Consequently their money does a lot more than just sit in a vault, leaving the poor empty handed. If the wealth of these people was to be redistributed, the consequence would be the investments that the very rich make would stop. The businesses and services that thrive on these investments would stop. This would be disastrous for the general public, who would then have to rely on government action for society to function; something that always leads to problems. Moreover the incentive to work hard, particularly in finance and other high stress-high pay professions will disappear. It is the goal of many people to reach a point in their lives when they don't have to worry about bills, and can buy anything that they want. Consequently many people go into professions like business, or law. The result of the destruction of the 1% would be for that incentive to work hard to be destroyed too. In an ideal world, people would work hard for the good of everyone. In reality, people are greedy. People want to give themselves alone as much comfort as possible. To eliminate the 1% would be to destroy this ambition, inevitably leading to fewer people in finance and business and law. To conclude my opening statement, the 1% don't only provide luxury for themselves. They also provide luxury for others in their investments which support the private sector, which is home to enormous numbers of jobs and services. Consequently in trying to help the working classes, those who would do away with the 1% will in fact condemn them.