BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God will give you eternal life

God says "HO (a loud shout, attention grabber, not a pig English slang word describing a ghetto chick) every one that thirsts, come to the waters, and he that has no money; come , buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do you spend money for that which is not bread? and your labor for that which satisfies not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear to me, and come unto me: hear and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you."Binding Contract:I, God, do hereby swear by the blood of my Son, Jesus, to overlook all of your violations of my Holy Law (sin) and grant you full pardon and entrance into eternal life by the resurrection of my Son from the dead if you will agree to the following terms:1) You must acknowledge that you are the one who deserved to die and my Son did not deserve to die.2) You must believe that I love you so much that I died in your place in the form of Jesus Christ my Son, and you must believe that I raised Him from the dead and can do the same for you.3) You must ask me to accept you on these terms, asking for my mercy to forgive you and believe that I am willing to forgive you. You must receive my Son, Jesus, as your Saviour by asking me in His name to save you.This contract is written by me in the blood of my Son whom I gave to be the satisfaction for payment for your sins against me. If you honestly agree to the terms above, and will receive my Son as your Saviour, sign below.It's not too good to be true, , I always honor my Word, and I have committed all Judgement into the hands of My Son, Jesus, who paid the price to secure this contract for you.Sign here ____________________________________to enter into agreement with God and receive His guarantee of pardon and eternal life in Jesus Christ.If you signed this agreement and received Jesus Christ as your Saviour, getting baptized is the next step showing you are now identified in His death, burial, (shown by submersion under water) and resurrection (shown by being raised up out of water), and share the good news!The Gospel according to John is a good place to start reading, and of course use only the King James Bible. Then read the Letter to the Romans. And pray and talk to God every day and ask Him to show Himself to you through His Word, the Bible, and thank God and praise the LORD forever. Is God not offering you eternal life? If you refuse God's offer of eternal life, you must be one or more of the following:A)proudB)braveC)foolD) A and CE) A and BF) All of the aboveLet's have some fun and spread the good news!One rule: Neither Pro or Con in this debate is allowed to post comments. Either party who violates this one simple rule agrees to forfeit all conduct points. Acceptance of this challenge implies contractual obligations to abide by this rule and voters should uphold this rule awarding all conduct points against either party who violates this rule.
God will give you eternal life

Pro has made some pitiful statements with no evidence mor is he capable of proving hell heaven or hell exists therefore his contention cannot stand. No one has proof that god gives eternal life and pro is included. Vote for me as pro hasn't succeded in proving anything and just tries to say your going to hell. I wanted a good argument and all I got was unsupported rubbish. This is a troll account people and he has failed his burden of proof.
God will give you eternal life

Let me explain some things here, con. Who are you trying to convince? Who are you trying to fool?1) Of course scaring you with Hell won't work. You are demanding proof that Hell is real, and you are going to get proof.2) There is no such thing as a "troll account". Trolls are mythological critters the live under bridges.3) The positive proves itself. You are the one demanding proof while insisting there is none and the only way you will accept proof is to find yourself in the fire of Hell with no way out. It seems to me, since you are the one in danger of burning, the burden of proof that you are right is on you. That's a big burden, it will make good fuel for the fire of Hell.4) God will give you eternal life. If you won't accept it, then you will prove that you have no way out of Hell. God wants you to accept His gift of eternal life. If you won't accept Him, you are rejecting yourself into the fire of Hell.5) Your entire argument is pitiful because you are rejecting God's offer of eternal life in favor of your own death and eternal separation from God, and all of that attitude in all who hold it like you do will be put away forever in the fire of Hell where it won't annoy anybody any more.6) I don't have to prove anything. God proves Himself if you like it or not. Me, I like it. Praise the LORD!!!7) Your failure to accept the gift of eternal life God is offering you will only get you eternal death in the fire of Hell.I have no burden of proof, other than I feel sorry for you and that's a burden. I wish I could prove Hell is what I'm trying to warn you about, but the only proof you will accept now, apparently, is to find yourself in the fire with no way out. Do you want me to pray for you to get the proof? Do you realize what you are asking for? I'm sure God will give it to you sooner or later if you keep saying it cannot be proven. That's why I'm trying to tell you God loves you and He wants you to get saved from Hell. I can't help it if you don't want to be saved from Hell because you think the pleasures of sin are worth the fire of Hell. God will give you eternal life, but you are choosing eternal death and you are going to end up in Hell if you don't repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Your burden is on you. I tried to tell you.
God will give you eternal life

Let me explain some things here pro 1) Scaring me with hell will never work 2) this is most likely a troll account 3) You need to prove the positive since you are the instigator that is how burden of proof works in other words YOU need to prove that hell and heaven exists and I have to refute your reasons 4) Your last few arguments are pitiful and off track and not proving anything 5)Eternal life cannot be granted by non-existant yhings 6) You still need to prove that Hell,Heaven, and god exist otherwise you must agree to forfeit. 7) If you cannot fully prove god/gods exist your argument fails 8) Your failure to do so in the last few arguments means you most likely have lost the debate.
God will give you eternal life

Really? What makes you so sure? Do you think you can prove Hell is not real? When do you think you will prove it?I'll be in heaven with Jesus, who conquered death when He rose from the grave, when you have the proof of Hell if you don't get saved from it. The pleasures of sin are not worth the penalty, are they? Knowing God, knowing you have eternal life, the joy of knowing your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven, the love that comes from God and overflows your heart in desire for everybody else to know what you know, the confidence of knowing that no amount of pain or suffering can take away the joy that is ahead when you have eternal life...God will give you eternal life, and it's much better than the pleasures of sin which leads to nothing but eternal death and total loss of all pleasure. It's not wise to refuse God's offer to give you eternal life.
God will give you eternal life

I don't need to prove anything. God will give you eternal life. If you won't believe it, you won't get it, and you will get proof that the fire of Hell is real and people beg for water as they are in it. The burden of proof is on you to show me wrong. I hope you quit trying to show me wrong. You can't win. What does it profit a man if he wins a few debate points but loses his soul in the fire of Hell where the worm never dies and the fire is never quenched, and the smoke of their torments ascends forever? Burden of proof is on you, you can't prove me wrong.
Battlefield is a better game then Call of Duty for online multi-player

Thanks for the debate! This will be a fun one! First, I want to make an observation about the resolution. The resolution "Battlefield is a better online game than Call of Duty" leaves the burden of proof with affirmative. Secondly, as negative, if I proved that Call of Duty and Battlefield are equal, or that Call of Duty is better I win the debate. That being said, I have several reasons why Call of Duty is a better game. Contention 1: My opponent says "As far as video games go, the enjoyment factor is the ultimate sign of a good product." With this statement he is implying that a game that is more enjoyable would be better. Consumers would not buy a product they wouldn't enjoy, so, sales figures are a good place to look to see which game people enjoy more. Activision announced that Call of Duty: Ghosts sold more than $1 billion on Day One. EA has yet to release sales figures for Battlefield 4, which leads me to believe that it is less. If it were more, they would be the first to announce it to the world. But the fact they didn't doesn't bode well. Secondly, their stock dropped, so if they had seen considerable sales, it would have increased. Contention 2: Another way to measure enjoyment is by ratings. Call of Duty: Ghosts received a rating of 8.8 from IGN. (http://www.ign.com...). Battlefield 4 scored lower with an 8.5 (http://www.ign.com...). This draws the conclusion that Call of Duty was more enjoyable, otherwise it would not have received higher ratings. Contention 3: If we are looking solely at online enjoyment, Call of Duty is the obvious choice. Battlefield 4 launched with several glitches. Call of Duty did not. EA has also attracted several lawsuits from the glitchy nature of Battlefield 4. So for these reasons, and more, I urge a negative vote.
Homosexuality is natural.

My opponent has not at all supplied factual evidence that homosexuality is biological or of genetics. If homosexuality IS genetic, and the offspring of a carrier to the DNA marker carrying the gay gene is born gay, or homozygous gay, (no pun intended,) then the mother and the father would have to be at least heterozygous gay gene carriers. Homo meaning like, and hetero meaning passive. For instance, if gay is genetic, like hair color or something, than every gay person would have to have a few gay ancestors that were homozygous gay. Surely you dont believe that you can ONLY be gay if your ancestrial lines were also gay? ? Also wouldnt homosexuality been eliminated or "bred" out for the lack of reproductive homozygous gay gene carriers? One could not take the position that Homosexuals commonly reproduce in heterosexual manners in order to "pass" the gay gene on, for that theory would be in direct contradiction with the very defintion of homosexuality. The factual evidence that proves homosexuality is in fact UN-natural is the very definition that defines NATURE. My opponent seems to take the platiform position that the basic fact that homosexuality occures makes it natural. We are not in disagreement to the fact that homosexuality occures, but the cause for these occurences. Again, the occurences of homosexuality in other societies and species does not disprove that it is UN-natural. As I said before, two squirrels of the same gender having sex is just as un-natural as two humans having sex. The behavior patterns of animals or "incubated" societies of humans do not define nature. By the way, if these societies were truly secluded, then how do you know so much about their sexual behavior? As the defintion of sex according to Merriam-Webster is: >The sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females. < This proves your assumption that sex is not based on reproduction is false. If one could be considered homosexual, yet not be "intimate," with the same gender, than my beer drinking buddies could argueably be gay. For it does require intimacy to be considered sexual in any sense, homo or hetero. Sexual behavior IS social, in every species! Social as the word is DEFINED means: `marked by or passed in pleasant companionship with one's friends or associates; `of, relating to; `the interaction of the individual and the group, or interaction of individuals; www. merriam-webster. com By the above defintion, sex IS social, in fact it requires it, or it would just be considered masterbation. As they say,"it takes two to tango! " (not necessarily just two. ) In closing, By the very DEFINITIONS of the word natural, in fact contradict the definitions of homosexuality. The BASIC FACT that homosexuality does not have "potential," or "necessity," proves that homosexualty is NOT of nature, and the "occurences" of homosexual behavior is the act of two of the same gender and species bieng sexual, is IN FACT, SEX out of its PRIMITIVE state, there fore, UN-NATURAL. Thank you,. .
Homosexuality is natural.

I. Animal homosexuality proves that it is not created by humans as a choice. It is a biological fact. II. I agree with your definition of homosexuality and do not understand why you would post it. Homosexuality was not influenced by civilization. To be blunt: this is just a dumb assumption. Every civilization has homosexuals including isolated tribes, animal groups, and every civilization in the world. Therefore, it is obvious that homosexuality is not created by societal influences. That is just a dumb assumption. If anything civilization discourages homosexuality, not influence the creation of it. III. Sexuality is not based on reproduction or else old people should not be able to have sex or it is unnatural. Infertile sex would be unnatural. And every time someone has sex and does not get pregnant, that would be unnatural. Homosexuality is not unnatural. IV. Animals would have no influences from civilization. If anything civilization discourages homosexuality, not influence the creation of it. V.My opponent has not proved homosexuality to be unnatural. I have proved that homosexuality is naural because it shows up in animals and other civilizations. I also gave all these sources: [http:// www. msnbc. msn. com/ id/15750604/] [Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy and Clyde E. Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1948), p.651.] [Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, Homosexuality: a Symbolic Confusion, (New York: The Seabury Press, 1979) p.l57.] [Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, online at http://helping.apa.org..........] [D'Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T., "Childhood Gender Atypicality, Victimization, and PTSD Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth," Journal of Interpersonal Violence] [Myers, D. G., Excerpt from Psychology, 8th edition. (New York: Worth Publishers, 2007), http://www.davidmyers.org..........] [Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, online at http://helping.apa.org..........] [Myers, D. G., Excerpt from Psychology, 8th edition. (New York: Worth Publishers, 2007), http://www.davidmyers.org..........] [Roselli C.E., Larkin K., Schrunk J.M., Stormshak F., "Sexual partner preference, hypothalamic morphology and aromatase in rams," Physiology and Behavior, 2004, Nov 15;83(2):233-45.] Homosexuality has been proven to be natural.
Homosexuality is natural.

ALL instances of homosexuality is un-natural, or not how nature intended it. Animal homosexuality and human homosexuality all apply to the same laws of nature,.. sexual behavior of the same species of the same gender is worthless, unnescesary, and goes AGAINST nature in every realm, plant, animal, and human. Two men can not reproduce, two male plants cannot reproduce, two female animals cannot reproduce, thus, not concieving offspring and continuing life of said species. Un-natural. Not following the laws of nature, that in fact dictate what is natural. "A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality" as the definition of nature. Artificial as defined by www.merriam-webster.com concludes: Based on differential morphological characters not necessarily indicative of natural relationships. Sexual behavior IS however "influenced" on civilization and yes sometimes artificiality. And by the definition above, homosexuality IS unnatural. Heterosexuality IS also influenced on the above notes, however, because of its necessity in plants, animals, humans, etc. It can, would, and must exist without influence, or in its primitive state. According to www.merriam-webster.com the definition is as follows: naï¿½ture: as it is defined in the English, french, latin. The word derived of indo-euro roots. nature: `A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality: `Theology Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace. `The processes and functions of the body.(Anas, for excretion of waste, mouth, for intake of nutrients, not sex, or reproduction.) `the physical constitution or drives of an organism; especially : an excretory organ or function —used in phrases like the call of nature. (manipulating the organs into something not intended.) Being as sexual prefrence is based simply on sex, or reproduction, which is the very basic institute of life, for not only humans, but plants as well, then wouldn't homosexuality, the only prefrence to sexual activity be of the un-natural state, or natural order? Simply because animals have the same homosexual tendencies as humans doesn't make it natural as well. Animals and humans are equally of nature, 2 male squirrels having sex is just as unnatural as 2 female humans having sex. I believe by very definition of the word Nature, the root word of natural, clearly proves that homosexuality in every sense is in fact UN-natural.
Homosexuality is natural.

I. "The simple fact that sexual acts between species of the same gender can not concieve or reproduce offspring make it un-natural or even necessary by law of nature. " Homosexuality is different from heterosexuality. Reproduction is an aspect of heterosexul sex. But the fact that they are different does not make it unnatural. And you can't prove otherwise. Perhaps, it was the creator's intention for gays to adopt. II. Nature or natural occurences happen out of necessity. All things that are natural do not occur out of necessity. Look at disease, small pebbbles, conservatives. III. Homosexuality is un-necessary because it does not contribute to the creation of life or promotion healthy life Perhaps, God wants gays to adopt due to the fact that so many orphans exist. The fact that homosexuals do not have children, 'naturally', does not prove that homosexuality is unnatural. IV. Homosexuality takes place in animal species and isolated tribes. [. http://www. livescience. com/ bestimg/index. php? url=&cat=gayanimals] [. http://news. nationalgeographic. com/ news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal. html] V. If homosexuality was a choice why would people choose it? VI. These SCIENTIFIC sources say that homosexuality is natural. I worked hard to get only scientific sources. If you have some opposing, factual source [which you wont], they should be unbiased. That means no NARTH, Exodus, or Focus on the Family, etc. [http:// www. msnbc. msn. com/ id/15750604/] [http:// www. pureintimacy. org/ gr/ homosexuality/a0000058. cfm] [http:// www. apa. org/ topics/sorientation. html] [Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy and Clyde E. Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1948), p.651. ] [Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, Homosexuality: a Symbolic Confusion, (New York: The Seabury Press, 1979) p. l57. ] [Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, online at . http://helping.apa.org..........] [D'Augelli, A. R. , Grossman, A. H. , & Starks, M. T. , "Childhood Gender Atypicality, Victimization, and PTSD Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth," Journal of Interpersonal Violence] [Myers, D. G. , Excerpt from Psychology, 8th edition. (New York: Worth Publishers, 2007), . http://www.davidmyers.org..........] [Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, online at . http://helping.apa.org..........] [Myers, D. G. , Excerpt from Psychology, 8th edition. (New York: Worth Publishers, 2007), . http://www.davidmyers.org..........] [Roselli C. E. , Larkin K. , Schrunk J. M. , Stormshak F. , "Sexual partner preference, hypothalamic morphology and aromatase in rams," Physiology and Behavior, 2004, Nov 15;83(2):233-45. ] Thank you.
Homosexuality is natural.

First off I would simply like to state, I, in no way approve of or promote, discrimination against homosexuality, or infractions of the rights for a homosexual to be a homosexual. My stance is only that homosexuality in terms, of devoted, or strict prefrence of sexual behavior with species of the same gender, is in fact un-natural. As it goes against nature, and or the natural order of things. The simple fact that sexual acts between species of the same gender can not concieve or reproduce offspring make it un-natural or even necessary by law of nature. Nature or natural occurences happen out of necessity. for example: Natural wild fires have been necessary to control or eliminate the unwanted, and promote new, fresh life. Homosexuality is un-necessary because it does not contribute to the creation of life or promotion healthy life,.. which is the reason nature did not intend for strict homosexualty to exist. un-natural, or against nature, and/or the natural order.
Homosexuality is natural.

+++ Homosexuality is natural. It is not a choice. Nobody would choose homosexuality if it was a choice. Homosexuality is a natural occurence in animals and in environments without contact from other societies. [http:// www. msnbc. msn. com/ id/15750604/] [http:// www. apa. org/ topics/sorientation. html] [Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy and Clyde E. Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1948), p.651.] [Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, Homosexuality: a Symbolic Confusion, (New York: The Seabury Press, 1979) p.l57.] [http:// www. pureintimacy. org/ gr/ homosexuality/a0000058. cfm] [Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, online at http://helping.apa.org.......] [D'Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T., "Childhood Gender Atypicality, Victimization, and PTSD Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth," Journal of Interpersonal Violence] [Myers, D. G., Excerpt from Psychology, 8th edition. (New York: Worth Publishers, 2007), http://www.davidmyers.org.......] [Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, online at http://helping.apa.org.......] [Myers, D. G., Excerpt from Psychology, 8th edition. (New York: Worth Publishers, 2007), http://www.davidmyers.org.......] [Roselli C.E., Larkin K., Schrunk J.M., Stormshak F., "Sexual partner preference, hypothalamic morphology and aromatase in rams," Physiology and Behavior, 2004, Nov 15;83(2):233-45.] Every scientific source will explain to you that homosexuality is natural and at least partially biological.
Tell me why... (Quick Fire Rounds)

Nah, I'm not from Nazareth. It's from movie, "Life of Brian" (). The crucifixion song, "Always look on the bright side of life," is pretty close to my mantra. George Carlin created the so-called religion, frisbeetarianism, during a stand-up act. When you die you are reincarnated as a Frisbee that gets stuck on a roof.
Let's Debate!

I'm sure we can remain friends :D Musicians may be happy that people will commit a crime for their music, but as you said, it still isn't right. I think they would still need the money. iTunes is what I'm getting at, as that would be a gReat solution to free music being illegal. iTunes is paid AND is digital, which would cut off people's free music that isn't right to take. Also, a musician will not necessarily be happy that people are commiting crimes fOr their music (especially Christian singers). After this debate, you've managed to sTay being a friend. I am very grateful for this. Thank you!