BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Gospel

You're welcome. My apologies about any confusion. I'd wondered if my contention was entirely clear. Indeed, the contention is being challenged. I have firstly stated that 'Gospel' can merely be defined as 'doctrine'. Thus, many doctrines state it as obligation, which opposes your leading argument. Secondly, I have negated that Abraham assuredly did not receive the orders (nor anybody else of the original covenant) as Baptism symbolically replaces sacrifice. And, even though it is partially symbolic in nature, Baptism is still essentially required in order to further one's walk with Christ. It is the admittance that one is willing to shed the old life for Christ. It is an obligation. As I have stated, Jesus was baptised, John the Baptist did baptise (and was baptised), and all twelve disciples were baptised. It can only be assumed that the Apostles, having baptised many, were in themselves baptised. "Beginning from the Baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." - Acts 1:21, 22 Acts is written by the Apostle Paul, is it not? Thus, I do clearly contend that Baptism is an obligation if one wishes to further his/her Christian walk. One can, indeed, bide time until s/he is completely ready to become 'sanctified'. Sources: http://www.gospelweb.net... http://www.answerbag.com... http://www.lcms.org... http://www.greaterthings.com...
The Gospel

Thank you for your challenge, although I am a little confused about the "pro" position you have taken. I had assumed that since the "con" position was that " baptism is not part of the Gospel" that the challenge would prove that it IS part of the Gospel. You seem to be agreeing with me on my point when you write "symbolic practice" in your statement. With all due respect, I need a CLEAR challenge to my contention before I can proceed any farther.
The Gospel

Greetings, have fun and keep 'er clean. : ) Firstly, I the definition of 'Gospel' is this: 1. often Gospel The proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles, which is the central content of Christian revelation. 2. a. Gospel Bible One of the first four New Testament books, describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and recording his teaching. b. A similar narrative. 3. a doctrine maintained to be of great importance 4. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) the message or doctrine of a religious teacher 5. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) a. the story of Christ's life and teachings as narrated in the Gospels b. the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ c. (as modifier) the gospel story ~ . (Christian Religious Writings / Bible) any of the first four books of the New Testament, namely Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Thus, it is one of my contentions that 'gospel' is a definition that varies extremely widely, and must be narrowed in order to actually fit my opponent's argument. This said, it appears that most of the definitions of 'Gospel' seem to refer to the Chapters of the New Covenant, making my opponent's argument regarding Abraham irrelevant. Abraham was the 'Father of Israel' and lived in communion with God. However, this was a time before Israel and even before the Ten Commandments were issued to the Israelites. I think one might recall that Moses (by Divine Inspiration) established most of the rules that the Israelites were to follow. Even so, the Old Testament is irrelevant to Baptism, as the Israelites lived by the ancient Hebrew Law established by God. Everything changed with the birth and death of Jesus Christ. With this New Covenant, one no longer was required to sacrifice lambs etc. in order to repent and have the sins forgiven. With this New Covenant came the symbolic practice of the sins being washed away with Baptism. John the Baptist demonstrated this, as did Jesus. "John's concern seemed to be twofold: (1) John baptized others for repentance and forgiveness of sins, something the sinless Jesus did not need; (2) John's ministry included the coming of a "mightier" one who would bring a better baptism—not only with water but with the Holy Spirit and fire. Jesus persisted and John acceded to administer Jesus' baptism. In accepting John's baptism, Jesus is seen as identifying with sinful humankind and expressing his full solidarity with us." ~ http://en.wikipedia.org... My second contention for the moment will be that, as a rule or doctrine "..maintained to be of great importance." (as the online dictionary defined 'Gospel'), Baptism is an obligatory doctrine in which to actually symbolize the sins of the 'old life' being washed away. By doing this, one furthers one's walk with God in the Christian religion. Cheers and stay classy!
The Gospel

I contend that nowhere in the Bible is baptism clearly shown to be part of the Gospel. It was not in the Gospel that Abraham received. It was not in the Gospel that Jesus preached. It was not in the Gospel that Peter preached on the day of Pentecost. It most certainly was not in the Gospel that Paul preached. The Bible gives us an unmistakably clear definition of the Gospel in the Word and it does not include baptism.
Holocaust Part 2- This time it's Fat people.

Okay okay okay, let's calm down for a second. Amidst the confusion my opponent would like to throw out, we must get back to the main points of this debate. To begin, I would like to remind everyone that my opponent has completely dropped the fact that fat people rule the streets. Who's going to deliver the marijuana to make Wylted feel better when he loses this debate? Well it has to stem from fat people because they rule the streets. So he's going to need fat people pretty soon. So this point is pretty significant. Keep in mind that if he drops an argument he automatically concedes it. Concerning donutsCops will fight for their right to eat normal, unhealthy donuts. If we start a fat people holocaust, we will be declaring war on all police forces in the US. Like who's going to freaking arrest people? We're going to need military actions. All of this over some donuts and a little bit of belly? America, I think nay. Concerning Wylted's knowledge of fetishesThe only way Wylted knows about all of this is because he's obviously secretly into some of it. That's gross dude. That wasn't even the point. The actual point of the sex thingI'm just saying we aren't like forcing society to participate in pity sex. There are some people who like that anyway, so they can do it with the fat people, and no one has to be harmed by this. Therefore, his sexual observation is not a harm to my side. It's kinda just neutral. Onto Weird AlI know I'm going out of order. Hush. If we do some deep soul searching we're going to find it within ourselves to realize Weird Al was wearing a fat suit in that video. See, he had to prove that fat people ruled the streets, but he wasn't fat to be a representative. So he had to make himself look fat so that he would have street/fat credit. Therefore, there is no boosting the economy thing with him. And those garter belts aren't going to do a thing if Wylted is the judge. He called Weird Al fat. I mean what else do you need me to say? I'm not saying that Wylted is being unfair, but he's moved the goalposts more times than I care to count. So, how about we all go get some Starbuck's, realize that the whole holocaust thing shouldn't happen, and move on with our lives. Thank you for reading this. Really. Thank you. So so much.
Holocaust Part 2- This time it's Fat people.

Concerning my sources: None of them are fat. Meghan Tainor is curvy, Gabriel Iglesias is fluffy, and Weird Al is skinny. Wylted is just being super offensive because he thinks it will make his point better. What a prick. We need a more fit police force My opponent says that as if that's going to happen. There is one thing inhibiting this goal that the resolution doesn't account for. Lack of Standard: Wylted called Weird Al fat. I mean come on. That's fat? If that's fat then most humans are probably dead under his side of the resolution. Basically people would have to be this skinny in order to survive the Holocaust: That's not even healthy. That would leave us with a physically inferior human race. Even Wylted would be dead [1]. Africa They're used to not having food regularly. There would be plenty of food from the mountains of crap a level six eats on a daily basis. As for crime rate, I say we need steroids in donuts so that cops can get juiced while being happy, and as for having to bang a fatty, I'm going to quote a friend of mine "if it exists, there's a fetish for it." [2] You would actually be taking away some people's preferred sex partners. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sources: [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] My friend Raj + common sense [3] All of my pictures.
Holocaust Part 2- This time it's Fat people.

SOURCESMy opponent's sources are all biased. Every single source is a fat person. i should get all the source points in this debate, because I've taken the high road and have not used biased sources. My opponent's only unbiased source is source number 5 which is your mom.SIZE MATTERS"hell, police officers can be pretty fat, but they work for the public safety and take down criminals on a daily basis"That's the reason why only slow members of minorities are in prison. If police officers weren't so fat than maybe all minorities would be in prison. This argument by my opponent actually works in my favor. My plan to holocaust all fat people would mean a fitter healthier police force that can virtually eliminate all crime and make the world safer for white dudes.LACK OF STANDARD My opponent actually has the position that lacks standards not me. My plan calls for not having to give pity sex to a fat chick so your boys can bang her hot friends. My opponent wants to live in a world where people have to have less leg room on a plane, less options at Hot Topic and more expensive healthcare expenses as well as higher prices at Wal-Mart. I want to live in a world where everybody can have sex with pretty people and where everybody is healthy, happy and can go to the beach without by exposed to Ricky Lake's monstrous booty. My standard for determining if people are fat is my own good judgement and common sense which will be taught to the people at the DMV, so they can properly spot fatties and secure them for transport to an internment camp, to await there humane death. AFRICA My opponent's plan to feed the starving kids of Africa, actually provides less food. The meal of a fat person is of considerably less food than if we just cooked the fat person, threw some BBQ sauce on them and feed them to children. My opponent's plan also does nothing to eliminate obesity or to lower the crime rate or having to bang a fatty rate.
Holocaust Part 2- This time it's Fat people.

Thank you, Wylted, now I'm going to be moving into my case.Size Doesn't MatterA recent study has shown that size actually doesn't matter to an extent [1]. Someone can definitely be beneficial to society even as a larger person. My opponent fails to see that the fluffy can help. I mean, hell, police officers can be pretty fat, but they work for the public safety and take down criminals on a daily basis [2].Lack of StandardMy opponent's plan lacks a standard for when someone is to be considered fat. There is actually no good standard for this.The problem with BMI is that it can tell you that you're overweight, when in fact you're just extremely muscular. This is because it only takes into account your height, weight and age. It does not adjust for how much of that weight is actually fat.The problem with weight is the same thing. You can't just say that a 5'8" man is worthy of death for being 210 pounds, when he doesn't have a trace of fat on him.The most reliable method is the Fluffy method, but this can only be judged by opinion [3]. However, scientists have a hard time competing with the Fluffy method as it is practically seamless when deciding an agreement between two friends.Fat People RuleAccording to another study, fat people pretty much rule the streets [4]. As you can see from the evidence presented so far, being fat is actually a considerably good thing until you hit the "Oh Hell no level." However, I have an alternate plan for this level of fat that I think my opponent will enjoy.Concerning AfricaThere are children starving in Africa [5]. Now, what do we do about this problem? Well, the best thing to do is have the government keep a watch on all people at the level 6 in fatness. Now, for the biggest meal a level 6 has in one day, the government is to take all the food and send it to Africa on a carrier plane capable of preserving that food for the amount of time it takes to get there. This food can be distributed to the children of Africa and maybe even the adults.It is through this that Africa and America will prosper.Thank you for reading my case. Now back to Wylted.--------------------------------------------------------------------Sources:[1] http://www.youtube.com... (All About that Bass - Meghan Trainor)[2] http://www.hollywoodreporter.com...[3] http://www.youtube.com...;(Gabriel iglesias, six levels of fatness)[4] http://www.youtube.com...;(Fat - Weird Al Yankovic)[5] Your mom
Holocaust Part 2- This time it's Fat people.

I was sitting around watching a holocaust documentary on the History channel and it kept getting interrupted by commercials for dietary supplements, but during one commercial break I saw that Sally Struthers commercial about the starving children in Africa and I was moved to tears. In my drunken tear filled state I was struck by a grand ideal. I had figured out how to rid the world of most, if not all of it's problems. THE OBESITY EPIDEMIC The obesity epidemic is something that hits close to home, because America is probably the country with the highest percentage of fat people. The obesity epidemic hurts us, because it's just unhealthy to be fat. When you consider the rise of insurance premiums to us as well as the extra cost attached to our products at Wal-Mart to supply fat people with those electric carts, the price becomes staggering. If we simply killed all fat people, our insurance costs as well as the prices at Wal-Mart would decrease significantly. That's not even the biggest benefit. No other plan exists that is more effective at ridding the world of this obesity epidemic than just killing fat people. If my opponent has a more effective alternative to ridding the world of obesity, I'd like to hear it. Frankly I don't think one exists. LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR You might wonder what the hell are we to do with all those dead bodies, besides make soap from the fat. This is the best part of the plan. Remember all those starving kids in Africa? We can use the remaining flesh after we have a large enough quantity of soap to more than feed all the starving kids in Africa. I don't want to see kids starve, despite the fact that my opponent will more than likely advocate for keeping fat people alive and letting little kids starve and die. SOME OTHER STUFF Here are some of my other complaints about fat people. Fat people ruin my clothes buying experience. If their clothes, weren't taking up 75% of the rack at Hot Topic than I would have more of a selection of T-shirts with witty phrases. Or what about the fact that I have to go through the trouble of pushing over a pair of size 40 waist jeans to get to my size. Everybody knows being fat free is a good thing. When you go grocery shopping it costs a premium to get stuff that says the word fat free on it. What if America was fat free? If it was than it would cost more and Mexicans couldn't afford to come here and steal all of our jobs. It actually sucks to sit next to a fat person in a plane. There is already not enough leg room in coach and than I have to have to put up with my legs rubbing up against another dudes just because he doesn't have the common decency to eat a salad occasionally. It sucks to have to take one for the team. Why should I have to screw your fat friend, just so my boys can get laid. If their weren't fat people to start with, maybe I could bang a pretty girl for a change.
Students should not wear spandex shorts in sports

I accept.PRO is affirming a positive statement, and thus bears the sole burden of proof: he must demonstrate to us why students ought not wear spandex shorts while playing sports. I don't need to demonstrate that they should, but only must prevent PRO for proving otherwise. Therefore, if you're uncertain by the end of this debate, you presume CON.Now, the only thing he says in his R1 is that schools are "contradcting themselves." He doesn't actually explain the contradiction, though even if there were a contradiction, this is an is/ought fallacy: it's possible to change school rules such that students are still allowed to wear spandex shorts during sports. We could even have a scenario where private schools, via an appeal to private property rights, could decide for themselves what their students wear. Note that if PRO concedes to this possibility, you vote CON because he's conceded the debate. He must argue that *all* students *should not* wear spandex shorts.With that, I pass back to PRO.
Courtrooms should not be open to the public to walk into in the United States

Counter to Points 1 and 2 I have combined these points because Pro's arguments are very similar and are essentially the same. Pro says the reason why trials should not be public is the lack of privacy and the strain it puts on the family of the accused and the victim. I would like to first point out that in the source that Pro supplied, it is stated that trials are judged on a case by case basis and will be excluded from public trial if the are issues of decency (rapes cases), security (organized crime), juvenile cases (children) or cases that have to deal with classified information. Since there is an opportunity for cases to made private in the cases of decency, it would save the family much embarrassment. I would also counter that the use of public trials can act as a deterrent for crimes as potential criminals may not commit such crimes as to avoid the embarrassment that it would cause their family. But a more important point is that the family is not required to be there. The family may be estranged from the criminal, they may even hate that member of the family for the shame they brought to the family. They may also want people to see the horrors of the crimes that were committed so that people become more aware of the issues and future criminals may stray away from such crimes. Point 1 While Pro may have concerns about family members, the is a greater reason why removing the use of public trials could hurt families. The use of public trials originated in England to deter public officials from secretly charging innocent men who would only be seen by their judge. If all trials are made public by law (except for previously listed exceptions), this would deter people in positions of power from attempting to detain people that they do not like. Some might say that this would never happen in this modern day and age but alas when people are given power and wish to cover their tracks they will go to great ends to do so. By getting rid of the 6th Amendment of the Constitution, there would be much more harm done due to the general lack of accountability then the benefits. Point 2The courtroom as Pro has stated has many people working for it. There were around 759,200 lawyers employed in 2008 (granted not all of them work in courtrooms) and that does not include all the judges, bailiffs and other staff that are needed to make a courtroom operate. How will potential workers for the courtroom know whether or not they want to work in the field of law unless they see how the courtroom really operates. Becoming a lawyer or a judge is a huge investment of both time and money, and if people cannot see this process at work, how will they know if they really want to work in this field. They want to see the entire process and know some of the intricacies of the system without having to actually be in court. Vote Con! Sources. http://bit.ly...http://1.usa.gov...
Courtrooms should not be open to the public to walk into in the United States

Imagine a family member had done a reprehensible crime. Imagine being distraught driven to tears at the consequences that are coming for the person you love. Imagine the pain when the newspapers publish the article and everybody is talking about it, and you know that it's your family that did it. Imagine all of this publicity. Yet you walk into the courtroom on that day, and it's full of other people. According to the sixth amendment apart from in specific cases where publicity could inhibit the trial all trials must be public. This law is a problem for the reasons of privacy, and it being unnecessary. The first reason why courtrooms shouldn't be open to the public is because of privacy. As was stated in the opening paragraph families are distraught after their family members have done crimes. It is incredibly hard for all family and friends to see the people they loved do these things and receive these punishments for it. It's hard enough with just you in the courtroom, yet there are many strangers who don't know in there and have no right to be there. It's absolutely unnecessary. Of course witnesses are different, but if you're not going to contribute anything to the case that is going to be considered, there is simply no reason that you need to be there. It makes the family feel like people are coming to watch some kind of spectacle when it isn't; it's there family life. These are emotions in real life not a TV show. Overall, it infringes on privacy to have people there who aren't going to contribute anything watching. Secondly, once again similar to the issue of privacy is just how uncomfortable it makes the family. Having people they've never seen before watching. The newspapers after, the news programs, and the open courtrooms all don't help with this very difficult stage in the family's lives. The family hasn't even done anything wrong, and it's so hard for them to experience that pain. The accused person already has punishment enough with fines and imprisonment; it will only make them feel worse to have people looking at them as they're being tried. Overall, it makes the family and the accused person feel uncomfortable when it's absolutely unnecessary. Overall, courtrooms should not be open to people other than family, close friends of the accused person, witnesses, family, close friends of the victim, and everybody else that's necessary in making the court run (judges, lawyers, etc.). The public is completely unnecessary and it only humiliates the family and the accused person more than necessary. It's like having had people watch while writing the United States Constitution. They didn't because they wanted people to see the finished product, and it would have been harder letting the public in. Here, the public will get to see whether the person is innocent or guilty, but they don't need to see the process because it is intrusive and unnecessary. Links: http://en.wikipedia.org...