BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christians cannot be reasonably assured of eternal salvation.

Thank you for taking the time to review this debate. This is my first, so I beg your indulgence when I inevitably make mistakes. I'm open to anyone taking up this challenge. The Bible states the following in Ezekiel 28:14-19; You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings. By your many sins and dishonest trade you have desecrated your sanctuaries. So I made a fire come out from you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching. All the nations who knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more. My argument is as follows; 1. God who is perfect created a perfect creatures; Lucifer, Adam & Eve. 2. Even though these created beings were perfect, still they sinned and rebelled against God. 3. Once a Christian goes to heaven they a free from sin and imperfection. 4. Given the potential for eternity in heaven, it seems reasonable to assume that at some point each person will sin and rebel against God.
You cant be Racist Towards White People

It seems you have forefited ? Also blacks are only a third of police brutality victims while commiting 40% of violent assaults. This in no way entails racism, it entails justice. White people do not have structural power over blacks, some of the wealthiest men in america are black (Dr,Dre worth 500 million dollars etc) You cannot blame your lack of ambition and intuition in an entire race. Some people get luvky in life, some people are unlucky and others work their asses off and get rich, some work their asses off and manage to lift themselves even the slightest out of poverty. I have bothing to argue against since you forfited so im stuck with what to say
You cant be Racist Towards White People

Did you know that the word Slave originates from the word SLAV like a Slavic person, from eastern europe? The ottoman empire enslaved much of the population of countries like Romania, (https://en.m.wikipedia.org...) Even here in Ireland its believed up to 100,000 Irish were sold into slavery in the carribean but some say 50,000. (http://www.irishexaminer.com...) The Arabic slave trade was one of the worst in history, over 10-18 million Africans from the Somalia and surrounding areas sold in saudi arabia. They would castrate the males to prevent them from breeding. (http://www.arabslavetrade.com...) Slavery was never about race and the imperial european powers bought the slaves if Africa from other Nigerian tribes who had captured them. Slavery has always been round and is not based on race, the Arabic slave trade ended a mere 100 years ago As for job disadvantages in (I presume the US) Blacks are far more likely to live in poverty, white people in poverty also have a hard time finding a job. This doesn't mean a white person is going to get a job above a black individual it means a middle class person is more likely to find employment than a poor person. Also keep in mind that while black people make up 13% of the US population they commit 50% of the nations homicides, and 93% of black murder victims are killed by a fellow black person. Again this is the fault of poverty. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org...)
You cant be Racist Towards White People

First off, from what I've deciphered, you're saying the racism is having power and privilege over people. While that is indeed part of it, it's much more complicated. I want to establish that while prejudice and racism are similar, they have different connotations. It is true that white people can experience prejudice, offensive opinion not based on reason. Anyone can. However, racism is much more complicated: It is a concept that operates on both an individual and institutional level. Racism is an institution where a particular race is dominant, and uses this dominance to oppress the other races in order to benefit. Instances of this are slavery: White people had oppressed Blacks in order to gain profit off of Black people's labor. Then later there was segregation, which was less direct but still oppressed blacks. Today, the oppression that racism creates is more on an economic and educational level. Job discrimination makes it difficult for Blacks to earn more money, which makes it more difficult for their children to get a better education, and therefore get a good job when their children are older. You can clearly see a cycle, and this is only one instance that the system of racism creates. White people do not experience any of this, and in fact benefit off of this. If African Americans and other minorities are refused from jobs due to their skin color, then white people have a higher chance of obtaining a job. Usually without even knowing it. White people do not experience police brutality at the same level black people do. More than 100 unarmed black people were killed by police in 2014. (. http://mappingpoliceviolence.org...) They also don't experience incarceration at the level either. While people of color make up about 30 percent of the United States' population, they account for 60 percent of those imprisoned. They're targeted by society and poverty because of racism on a structural level. (. https://www.americanprogress.org...) So while blacks can be prejudice against whites and say bad things to offend them, they're not being racist because they don't have the institutionalized power to protect them and their statements. Furthermore, if black people make negative statements or act negatively towards white people, it doesn't affect the power, rights, and opportunities that white people have. On the other hand, if white people act negatively towards black people, the power, rights, and opportunities of black people are restricted.
smoking should be banned

so ill just give you all the reasons they aren't so you can wrap your tiny brain around it 1.Black Markets of cigarettes. 2.The poor getting poorer, because the average smoker has to pay more. And they will. Each and every time. They will pawn their gold, they will mortgage anything they have to smoke. 3.The poor will shift to "Beedis" And "Beedis" are more injurious to health than cigarettes, although they are cheaper. 4.Protests from Smoking Unions, Trade Unions, Human Rights Activists, Liberals, Communists. Hartals and Strikes will occur on a day-to-day basis resulting in a loss of revenue and loss in markets. 5.People would boycott the ruling political party at the time of banning. The politicians know this very well. So, they are not going to ban it. And finally 6.Indian tobacco Industry earns a whooping Rs. 10271 Cr ($ 1.58 Billion) and Rs. 2022 Cr ($310 Million) in foreign exchange. Banning cigarettes will be a huge loss to India"s economy.
smoking should be banned

There is also the risk of fires in smokers" homes. Statistics show that smokers are seven times more likely to have a house fire than non-smokers, and about 1000 Americans die from smoking-related home fires annually. What"s more, 90% of wildfires in the US are caused by smoking. Another lesser-known statistic is the number of car accidents smokers get involved in. Studies have shown that smokers get distracted an average of 12 seconds while looking for a cigarette or lighter. Compare this to the 10 seconds one gets distracted by cell phone use and it is plain to see that smoking while driving is more dangerous. It has been stated that 76% of car accidents are caused by smoking, which is alarming considering no one talks about this risk.
smoking should be banned

many things in this world pollute the air and corrupt our children's heath and well being however smoking being so "destructive"is very addictive and time consuming first the world will end someday and when it does i highly doubt it'll be because of cigarette smoker if we ban them all those factory workers and people working for them will be out of jobs and the people who are addicted could potentially go crazy with the crave of needing to smoke soon it will be just like marijuana people will sell it and there are tons of smokers out there its just another reason to put people in jail and for them to pay fines and taxes to the government because of it
smoking should be banned

Smoking affects the population in many ways. It affects smokers' health and controls their smoking habits and use of time, and the spiraling cost of tobacco makes it an expensive pastime. Secondhand smoke affects others and pollutes the environment. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, children are susceptible to the effects of secondhand smoke because they are growing and developing. Children exposed to secondhand smoke have increased risks of sudden infant death syndrome, middle ear infection, asthma, pneumonia and bronchitis.
Everything Can Be Explained Without God

"Why did I come here through evolution " Mutations and natural selection. Both of which have been observed in the case of sickle cell anemia. The sickle cell blood cell mutation gave them a survival advantage over those with round-shaped red blood cells because sickle cell blood cells do not carry malaria (Natural selection) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... "How did you get a keyboard?" I bought it from the store. " What is information?" Meaningful facts or other mediums of knowledge. "Since everything causes everything, the best, fullest explanation for anything is everything. It thus seems reasonable to consider the universe to be God. God should be the one ultimate explanation for everything." In a way you are right because The universe is most likely eternal or came about as fluctuations from an eternal quantum vacuum.
Everything Can Be Explained Without God

I clarify that the Wikipedia entry I referred to may lack the claim that "[e]very true proposition can be explained, in at least the sense of 'logically deduced,' by the philosophical theory of everything, the set of all and only true propositions." I made the referral because I referred to the Wikipedia entry to be certain of the philosophical theory of everything, and possibly because the article provides supporting evidence for my side of the debate in addition to that certainty. I know about evolution. I know there's evidence for it. I know how you accepted this debate. I know how the Internet works. But all those explanations you provided are incomplete. Why did I come here through evolution and not by some other means? How did you get a keyboard? What is information? Since everything causes everything, the best, fullest explanation for anything is everything. It thus seems reasonable to consider the universe to be God. God should be the one ultimate explanation for everything.
Everything Can Be Explained Without God

"Wikipedia, last visited Jul. 16, 2017." Not the most reliable source "my current life situation" Well you came here by a process called evolution from primates. Basically a common ancestor between us and other primates evolved into different species and we most likely evolved from primates over time. Here is a tiny sliver of evidence from one line of evidence among 23 lines of evidence. http://www.talkorigins.org... explanation in comments " your participation in this debate," I accepted it by clicking "accept the challenge button" then I wrote some characters using a keyboard to type up my opening statements or acceptance round "the existence of the Internet" Computers have information. This information is physically transferred through tubes that connect all the computer in the world. Some computers have a wireless connection to the virtual WWW so no tubes so they can send this information without the need for tubes.
Everything Can Be Explained Without God

Only God can fully explain everything. But God and the universe seem to be the same thing.Every true proposition materially implies every true proposition. Thus, everything in the universe causes everything in the universe. Every true proposition can be explained, in at least the sense of "logically deduced," by the philosophical theory of everything, the set of all and only true propositions. See "Theory of everything (philosophy)," Wikipedia, last visited Jul. 16, 2017.As requested, some examples of things that I think only God can explain are my current life situation, your participation in this debate, and the existence of the Internet. By "explain" in the last sentence, I mean "completely explain."
Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to US national security than Iran

I just want to clarify that the rules of public forum are simply that it is a policy debate over domestic and international policy and if there is anything more to it I'd like to be informed in the next round. Thank you, I hope this turns out to be a good debate and I am willing to defend the position that the country of North Korea poses a more serious threat to the United States than the country of Iran
Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to US national security than Iran

1. China did not encourage the North Korean invasion of the South in 1950, the North Korean's continous violations of the DMZ, North Korea's continuous skirmishes with the South killing their soldiers, police, and civilians along with U.S. soldiers, the North Korean assasination attempt of the South Korean president in the Blue House Raid, the North Korean sinking of the South Korean destroyer or the recent bombardment on the South Korean military base. North Korea has and will make several acts that constitute as acts of war without China's approval. 2. Who else will hold back the North if we don't need the South to do it and we won't lift a finger? China certainly hasn't stopped them from committing acts of aggression in the past and now neither will anyone else? 3. They also have vowed to destroy the United States. Reuniting Korea might be the first step to quickly acquiring nuclear weapons with the range to attack the U.S. Also do to our vast amount of military installations world wide to serve our global strategic interests such as the ones we have in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc, many of our armies are able to be struck by North Korean rockets. Again, this would not be a big deal if North Korea had safeguards regarding nuclear weapons such as Russia, Pakistan, India, China, etc some of whom are U.S. enemies but are not a threat do to their nuclear weapon arsenal. North Korea again, is run by a single mad man who cannot be stopped by his own government system if he feels like he wants to launch a bomb at San Francisco. 4. Currently they threaten U.S. military bases but the fact that they have nuclear weapons, rockets that can strike very close to the U.S., and aren't very far from developing rockets that can reach the United states shows that they are much more a security threat than Iran.
Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to US national security than Iran

1. How are you so sure that the mere whim of the North Korean dictator would be the only thing preventing him from launching nukes? You also have to factor in that North Korea's only ally, China, does not want a war on it doorstep and that the US can easily crush North Korea in a nuclear war, providing an effective deterrent. 2. When have I ever hinted that we need the South to hold back the North? I only said that the US doesn't need to lift a finger to contain North Korea. 3. What makes you so sure that North Korea will be a direct threat to the US in the near future? All they care about is reuniting Korea, something that won't happen any time soon. 4. If North Korea doesn't have long-range missiles, how are they a threat to US national security? You are arguing that the potential to be a threat is threatening. So if you have a dog, that dog is a threat because it can go outside and get rabies from a raccoon?
Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to US national security than Iran

Yes when the U.S. was isolationist and a weak global power we were isolationists. Much of what occured in the globe didn't affect us. However nowadays we have cars, planes, ships, electricity, all of these require oil. Therefore it is imperative that oil trade is open to the west. The U.S. economy is also based on shipping goods, services and ideas abroad especially to countries in Asia. Much more North Korea does have nuclear weapons with the ability to launch them. The only thing keeping nuclear missiles from being fired from North Korea at the U.S. is only prevented by the whim of the current dictator and their inability to currently develop a long range rocket. Due to the severe lack of basic safeguards all nuclear states have regarding situations when nuclear weapons are used, the most reliable prevention method is that the DPRK can't build a long range rocket. If they do either by inevitable figuring out how to do so without having to even invade South Korea or invading South Korea for their economic resources, they have to be stopped since by then, the mere whim of Kim Jong il, a fanatic and undoubtedly insane anti-american with no regard for our lives or his own people, is the only thing holding back such an attack requiring the U.S. and South Korea to intervene. North Korea managed to build nuclear, biological and chemical weapons all without having to invade the South and they have also been developing rockets with longer and longer strike distances. Invading South Korea is simply one method to speed up the process. You've even hinted that a major obstacle holding back the DPRK is South Korea. We do need their alliance and North Korea currently threatens South Korea as we speak and will directly become a threat to the United States in the not so distant future. The only thing preventing the North from taking over the Souths economic resources is the South Korean military and since the takeover the South's economic resources directly threatens South Korea as well as the U.S. combined with the fact North Korea is run by a single fanatic with nuclear weapons, the DPRK should be regarded as a severe threat to U.S. national security. I'm not saying you think that North Korea is more of a threat than Iran but you did say that Iran was not a threat so I don't think I have any questions to ask you trying to support the notion that Iran is not a threat any further.
Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to US national security than Iran

My opponent has focused on the argument that attacks on our allies are a threat to our national security. He explains that our allies help defend our interests internationally, but he forgets that America was once a country without allies. America pre-World War I was one that valued isolationism. We didn't like to stick our heads into other people's business, especially European business. Thus we had no allies. Latin America hated us for forcing them to pay back the Europeans they were indebted to. Europe respected us but wasn't interested in our friendship. Our relations with Japan and Russia soured after we helped them make a treaty ending the Russo-Japanese war that weakened both sides. Yet we seldom had to worry about our national security. National security is called national security for a reason. National security is security at the national level. What my opponent is talking about is international security. My opponent also argues that North Korea's military strength is greater than Iran's, and thus North Korea is a greater threat. I concur that on the surface it seems like a strong military is a threat. However, we spend more on our military than the next 9 countries combined. Our military is among the strongest in the world. No country is foolish enough to mess with us if we don't provoke them ourselves. North Korea's threats to attack the US is a response to the US threat of defending the South with nuclear weapons. Even if they were to attack, our anti-ballistic missiles would be more than enough to stop them. Knowing this, it really doesn't matter how much the Korean dictator hates us. He can rage and languish with his hatred, but he does not have the capability to act on his rage. My opponent makes a good point about the possibility of South Korea's vast economic resources landing in North Korea's hands. However, such a possibility is slim, as South Korea can easily use those vast economic resources to increase their military power. A united Korea is still far in the future. The US doesn't have to lift a finger to contain North Korea, even if it does have nuclear weapons.
Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to US national security than Iran

1. I stated that the U.S. has international interests that involve our security and economic interests. We have very important strategic intersts abroad in regions such as the Middle East and in Asia. Our allies such as Saudi Arabia, Israel and South Korea help secure our interests and relieving much of the burden so we don't have to put forth as much military or economic effort on our part to make sure strategic interests such as oil, free trade, etc aren't threatened. If we lose the ability to maintain strategic interests such as those then our economic and military stability abroad will be severely compromised 2. This is a very well connected globe and what occurs abroad often directly affects the United States. If a good amount of our oil supply in the Middle East was gone then gas prices would soar and compromise our economic might as well as our ability to fuel a military. Having a strong economy that is not easily manipulated is essential to national security. In Korea's case if South Korea were to fall and have their massive economic might subjegated to the whim of North Korea, a nation which already has the ability to launch nuclear missiles close to the U.S., their ability to launch nuclear strikes against the U.S. will be increased tenfold. If North Korea were a stable nation in possesion of nuclear arms such as India, China, or Russia, this would not be so problematic. However North Korea is under control from a lone dictator who has made it clear that he has a clear disdain for the U.S. as well as his own people. He has no regard for human life and well being and when he makes threats against the U.S. and South Korea while he has formidable nuclear capabilities then it should be regarded as a severe threat to the United States's own soil 3. For the reason I explained in number 2 the U.S. cannot allow North Korea to gain the ability to launch a good amount of nuclear weapons with the ability to hit in a good amount of the U.S. Therefore if South Korea's vast economic resource comes under attack then the United States should be fully prepared to defend South Korea more for our sake than theirs. 4. Simply google "Kim Jong il threatens the U.S." and you will see several reports of incidents showing that North Korea has continued to vow to attack and wipe out the U.S. This is coming from Kim Jong il himself and in a country like North Korea where there are no safeguards whatsoever preventing an absolute dictator from using nuclear weapons then the possibility of whether or not North Korea will use nuclear warheads against us rests on the word and whim of Kim Jong il.