BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
what the absolute minimum needed to believe to be saved is not clear

i've met plenty of christians who have said you must confess jesus as savior and that you're a sinner,and you're saved. there's plenty who say baptism isn't required to be saved but rather is somehting a saved person does. so you're staking a claim that if you do all four of the first but not baptism, then you won't be saved? and what about some who say you should partake of the Lord's table, how does that fit in? remember i'm looking for the minimum here, that's the point of the debate. and what about those bible verse that say things like "what should i do to be saved? and it goes on to say believe Jesus rose from the dead and that he is Lord". those are listing a lesser requirement than you are with your longer list and yet it's a biblical response. and even if you used that verse, as mentioned earlier, as your standard, there's plenty of other holes that could be poked. i'm just not sure what direction you want to take this debate at this point. "To start, it is not my theory because it isn't a theory, its a practice. Secondly, unless my opponent can justify how this practice of believing everything can preclude them from salvation, my argument will hold firm." as to the second point. the whole point of this debate as is stated in teh title even, what is the "minimum" needed to believe? if you state that everything in the bible is needed, then you are going to extreme, given there's tons of biblical responses that state with the sinner's prayer what is a minimum. you gave a response that ensures salvation, but that doesn't address the theoretical issues at hand, the minimum. as to the first point, what does it being a practice have to do anything? opponent needs to clarify their argument. it's ironic he says a bunch of things that are unintelligible ramblings after accusing me of doing so, as to all his points. but i'd rather stick to the substance of the debate and welcome clarification. anyway how does it being a practice change the fact that not anyone would know enough to believe everything in the bible? it's an impractical answer as well as a theoretically not sticking to the point of the debate topic, what's the minimum. i think my topic is structured well enough. it's hard to refute because there is no hard and fast rules here as i said at the end of my initial post. unless youcan show otherwise, which you haven't done. and it's hard because i'm making it very theoretical you have to stop and think. im sorry for the inconvenience...
Noah's ark (from the biblical story) was real

First Read Genesis 16: 19-20 and Genesis7:2-3 In the original Hebrew the word beast and cattle is the same behemah witch means land vertebrate animals in general. The word creeping things is REMES in Hebrew which has a number of different meanings but here it probably meanings but here it means REPTILE. Noah did not need sea creatures because they could servive so they were not on the ark most likely. Now horses Zebras and donkeys are most likely (non evolutionary) descendants of from a equine(horse like) kind since they can interbreed although their ofspring are sterile. Same with Dogs wolves and coyotes are probably from a canine kind. Domestic cattle (clean animals for sacrifice) are descendants of Aurochs so there were probably at most seven( or 14) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs are may be descended from cattle kind itself. Tiger and lions can produce hybrids tygons and ligers. So it is likely that Aurochs are descendants from the same original kind. Woodmorappa totals about 8000 genera including extincted thus about 16000 animals had To aboard. How could you fit a. Huge dinosaur on the ark? Well of the supposedly 668 dinosaur genera only 106 weighed more then ten tons when fully grown And the number of dinosaur genera is probably greatly exaggerated. The Bible does not say that the animals had to be fully grown the largest animals were probably represented teenage or even younger specimens. The medium size of all the animals on the ark would actually been that of a small rat according to Woopmorappes s up to date tabulations. While only 11% would have been much larger than a sheep. The ark measured 300"50"30cubits (Genesis 6:15) which is about 140"22"3.5 meters so its volume was 43500 m3 (cubic meters) Or 1.54 cubic million cubic feet. This is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American stock cars each which can hold 240 sheep. If the animals were kept in cages with the average size of 50"50"30 centimeters (20"20"12 inches) That is 7500Cm3 or 4800 cubic inches the 16000 world only occupy 1200 CM3(42000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. Even if a million insect species were on board it would not be a problem because they require little space. If each pair was kept in of 10 M (four inches) per side or 1000 CM3 all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 M3 or another 12 cars. This would leave room for 99 trains and 99 cars each for food Noah's Family and range for the animals. However insects are not included in the meaning Behemah and Remes in Genesis 16:19-20 so Noah would not have taken them aboard as passengers anyway. Sources Creation ministries. Com
Noah's ark (from the biblical story) was real

So like my comment said the Bible says that it rained 40 days and 40 nights I we all have seen recently when it rains and rain floods appear even sweeping away whole towns and leaving entire country in ruins. So It is entirely possible that deluge of rainfall the likes of which we have never seen since over 40 days could have flooded the entire earth plus the Bible says this.According to the bible the ENTIRE world was flooded to over 29000 feet (above the highest mountains) that includes the oceans. So the oceans had to be "flooded" too meaning that the sea level rose at least 29000 feet. That means that the water had to be coming from a source other than the ocean and the only source could be ice at the poles. The problem for the biblical story is that even if all the ice at the poles were poured down as rain it still wouldn't be enough.My opponent said that some of the animals couldn't have made it to the ark because of the continents well he must not of heard of Pangaea source Wikipedia. Pangaea is the theory that all of the continentsat at one time was one big subcontinent. That could easily explain how all the animals made it to the ark and back to there homes. then sometime after the world split apart. Now I don't agree with time period that some scientists say Pangaea supposedly broke apart but I do believe that this could be a Biblical concept. Genesis 10:25 NIV Two sons were born to Eber: one was named Pegleg because in his time earth was divided his brother was named Joktan now this could mean lots of things but but it does sound a lot like Pangaea.The problem with my opponents pangea animal theory is not only the timing which is around 200 million years too early, but the continents would have to have broken apart less than 4000 years ago and there is NO WAY that the tectonic plates could move fast enough. It would have to be moving at a speed of AT LEAST 1 kilometer per year. However according to the time frame you provide the lifetime of Peleg which; seeing as his father lived to 400; was likely at most 300. In that case the plates would've had to move even faster at the least: 10 kilometers per year. It's more likely that the verse you mentioned was refering to the nations rather than the continents. The thing is that there is no way that pangea was around at the time you suggest.And the ark not being big enough God could have easily supernaturally made the ark bigger on the inside then on the outside. Now I truly believe that God told Noah to build an ark that was big enough for all the animals but just something to think about. The Bible says that God was the one who brought the animals to the ark so Noah did not have to go and collect the animals himself. Now con simply says "God can do it." That does not constitute a sound argument.CONCLUSIONCon has not been able to prove that Noah's ark was possible nor disprove my arguments.
Noah's ark (from the biblical story) was real

Oka first things firs theta-pinch can you look at my most recent comment please. So like my comment said the Bible says that it rained 40 days and 40 nights I we all have seen recently when it rains and rain floods appear even sweeping away whole towns and leaving entire country in ruins. So It is entirely possible that deluge of rainfall the likes of which we have never seen since over 40 days could have flooded the entire earth plus the Bible says this Genesis7:11G when Noah was six hundred years old on the seventhteeth day of the second month all the outlets of the vast body of water underneath the earth burst open all the floodgates off the sky were opened. If that happened today all of that it wouldn't be good let just say. My opponent said that some of the animals couldn't have made it to the ark because of the continents well he must not of heard of Pangaea source Wikipedia. Pangaea is the theory that all of the continentsat at one time was one big subcontinent. That could easily explain how all the animals made it to the ark and back to there homes. then sometime after the world split apart. Now I don't agree with time period that some scientists say Pangaea supposedly broke apart but I do believe that this could be a Biblical concept. Genesis 10:25 NIV Two sons were born to Eber: one was named Pegleg because in his time earth was divided his brother was named Joktan now this could mean lots of things but but it does sound a lot like Pangaea. And the ark not being big enough God could have easily supernaturally made the ark bigger on the inside then on the outside. Now I truly believe that God told Noah to build an ark that was big enough for all the animals but just something to think about. The Bible says that God was the one who brought the animals to the ark so Noah did not have to go and collect the animals himself. And I can prove that this could be an Biblical concept too
Noah's ark (from the biblical story) was real

http://www.sciencedaily.com......Volume of the ark: 39,366 cubic meters-. http://www.metrum.org......Can the ark hold 6.5 million animals? Answer: NoPoint 2 Say the ark can hold that many animals; where's the food? The ark was afloat for 10 months so there is no way Noah could have both gotten the animals in AND the food. -. http://www.ask.com......Point 3There is no way terrestrial animals could get to the ark from different continents and islands. REBUTTALSSo First off scientists have discovered fossilised sea creatures in places that you would normally not find them such as high mountains. Heres a quote from Evowiki: Seashell fossils in a mountainous region may be explained by tectonic activity: the land previously was beneath the sea, but the shifting and grinding of the plates could have raised the seabed above the water. Mountains could have formed afterwards due to further plate activity. This is why seashells are found mostly inside the mountain, not simply on it as if they were deposited there. They were laid down in layers under water before the mountains were mountains in the first place. Even if all the ice on Earth melted, there is not enough water on the planet to submerge the highest mountains. Which debunks your second claim that there was a massive ice melt that caused a worldwide flood If fossil seashells were deposited on mountains due to a global flood, then they would be badly damaged due to severe water turbulence, and, if the shells comprised of more than one component (i. e. , brachiopods, or clams), the component pieces would be disarticulated and scattered far and wide. And as such, a global flood fails to explain why there are beds of fossil clams and brachiopods throughout the world, filled with intact, articulated individuals. CONCLUSIONToo many impossibilities to be true.
Magnetic confinement fusion is more promising as an energy source than inertial confinement fusion.

However, the only direct counterstatement to any of my contentions has been “Magnetic confusion [sic] relies on magnets. Inertial confinement relies on electrical power only. This seems more promising. ” No sources have been cited, nor any reasoning for this claim provided. To be honest, I was hoping for a bit more in-depth argument, as I did preface this debate with "must be knowledgeable in the subject to accept". Also, note that the magnets used in magnetic confinement are solenoidal electromagnets, relying also only on electrical power and superconductivity. In any case, Con has not presented a complete argument to counter the original resolution, other than an uncited and unexplained opinion.
Magnetic confinement fusion is more promising as an energy source than inertial confinement fusion.

My opponent has not adressed the topic at all so far, so I am unable to post a rebuttal or response. The topic, again, is: "Magnetic confinement fusion is more promising as an energy source than inertial confinement fusion. " All my opponent has done in his argument is shown that there are two main methods of inducing fusion. He has not given any indication as to why inertial confinement is superior to magnetic confinement. As such, I eagerly await his actual argument in this round. As of current, however, Con has not met the shared burden of proof, as he has not even adressed the topic.
Magnetic confinement fusion is more promising as an energy source than inertial confinement fusion.

There are two ways to achieve controlled nuclear fusion, by magnetic confinement and by inertial confinement. Magnetic confinement fusion uses a magnetic field to contain a hot plasma. Inertial confinement fusion uses an intense pulse of laser light to compress and heat a small capsule of fuel. The fuel in both cases is usually a deuterium-tritium mixture, because that combination is the easiest to fuse. Most research effort has been directed towards magnetic confinement technology. The plasma geometry is usually based on the toroidal “tokamak” configuration invented by Tamm and Sakharov in 1950 and declassified in 1957 [1]. Over 198 tokamaks have been built [2].Four large tokamak projects were built in the 1980s. Two of these, the American TFTR [3] and the European JET [4] reactors, were aiming for breakeven fusion energy generation when first conceived, but both fell just short of this goal. Energy breakeven occurs when the energy released by the fusion reaction equals the energy put in to heat the plasma. The Japanese JT-60 tokamak [5] lacks tritium-handling facilities and is restricted to deuterium-only plasmas, but the plasma conditions it has achieved would have yielded break-even fusion output if a deuterium-tritium mix had been used [5]. The Russian T-15 tokamak [6] has explored the use of large superconducting magnets. The ITER project has mapped out a road map to a commercial fusion power reactor, if ITER continues to demonstrate that the tokamak line of magnetic confinement is the most promising for power generation[7]This scenario assumes that ITER will deliver on the promise of tokamak-based fusion. That isn’t guaranteed. Magnetic confinement fusion remains a scientific research problem rather than an engineering problem, and the engineering issues have barely been touched. Sources:[1] Plasma Physics and the Problem of Controlled Thermonuclear Reactions, I.E. Tamm and A.D. Sakharov, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Vol.1, pages 1–47. Pergamon, Oxford (1961). [2] http://www.webcitation.org...[3] http://www.webcitation.org...[4] http://www.webcitation.org...[5] http://iopscience.iop.org...[6] http://www.webcitation.org...[7] http://www.iter.org...
Magnetic confinement fusion is more promising as an energy source than inertial confinement fusion.

===Resolution=== “Magnetic confinement fusion, as a whole, holds greater and more immediate commercial promise as an energy source than inertial confinement fusion.” I will argue pro and be supporting the use of magnetic confinement fusion; my opponent will argue the use of inertial confinement fusion (which may include inertial electrostatic confinement systems, if he/she wishes to include that). Obviously, this is a shared burden of proof. The argument pertains particularly to near-future (within the next 100 years or so) commercial viability of fusion as an energy source. ===Rules=== Must be somewhat knowledgeable in the subject to accept. No trolling/semantics. 5000 character limit, 72 hours to respond, 1 week voting period. No baseless or unscientific speculation. R1: Accept R2: Main arguments (no rebuttal from con yet) R3: Rebuttal (no response to rebuttal from con yet) R4: Counter-rebuttal and final statements. No new information or rebuttals. Failure to comply will result in automatic forfeit. ===Definitions=== Magnetic confinement fusion (MCF): "an approach to generating fusion power that uses magnetic fields to confine the hot fusion fuel in the form of a plasma." [1] Inertial confinement fusion (ICF): “a process where nuclear fusion reactions are initiated by heating and compressing a fuel target, typically in the form of a pellet that most often contains a mixture of deuterium and tritium. [without the use of magnetic fields]” [2] Inertial electrostatic confinement fusion (IECF): “a concept for retaining a plasma using an electrostatic field whereby the electrostatic field accelerates charged particles (either ions or electrons) radially inward, usually in a spherical but sometimes in a cylindrical geometry.” [3] ===References=== [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Peyton Manning is one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time. No, not the Broncos/colts just him.

Let me try to narrow the point I am trying to make:Peyton Manning is a great Quarterback. But he is not one of the greatest.This is because he cannot win champtionships.He has 14 years of playoff history, and in 13 of those he delivers a loss, usually do to his own poor choices as a QB. you can see his passer rating plummete to a 70 rating during these playoff losses. This is both in Denver last year and in Indianapolis. He will never be one of the greatest because he cannot finish the job. I don't care how amazing he is in the regular season, when it matters the most he fails to live up to his name. His brother is the opposite. However I wont say eli is one of the greatest either, just used to prove a point on who excels in the playoffs.
Peyton Manning is one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time. No, not the Broncos/colts just him.

I have to agree that he does choke when he is under the pressure of the playoffs, but he still has the second most touchdown passes of all time! He does crack under pressure and he has only one once. But when he won, they killed. Also, I clearly stated that Peyton is a great role model and team player. You completely skipped that because you know he really is a great person and overall player.
Peyton Manning is one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time. No, not the Broncos/colts just him.

He is not the greatest for sure. But is he one of the greatest? Maybe in the top 10, but he i not in the top 5. So if we can go by that I can explain why Payton manning is not one of the greatest QB's of all time. There are many things that people take account for when it comes to being the greatest of all time. When it comes to his QB rating, he is in the top 3However when it comes to winning in the playoffs, He is has failed all but one time in his 14 attempts. Why does he continue to falter during the playoffs while other greats seem to find a way to seal the deal? That speaks loudly to why he is not the great, something causes his passer rating to plummet in games that matter.
Peyton Manning is one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time. No, not the Broncos/colts just him.

The Colts and the Broncos may not have been the best teams in the NFL, but you don't have to like them to understand that Peyton Manning is still an amazing quarterback. I'm from Atlanta, and I still understand that Peyton Manning is a great quarterback. Now if you are a Giants fan, you may think differently, but still, you have to somewhat agree since Eli is his brother. I Believe that Peyton Manning truly is one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time, and even though he is getting older, he still is a great team player; quarterback; and role model.
Christianity is the one, true religion

I would also like to give my apologies to Pro for not clarifying in the first round that, for the purposes of this debate, we will assume that a God exists, as that would be an entirely separate debate on its own. Hopefully, that lessens the immense burden of proof on him. . .. I agree with Pro's assessment that proving the following premises is essential to proving Christianity's truth:I. Jesus was the son of GodII. Jesus died for our sinsIII. Jesus rose from the deadHowever, that alone does not prove that Christianity holds exclusive claims to the truth:A) Pro must also show why other religions with similar claims to exclusivity, mainly Islam and Judaism, are false, as they all have their own "miracles" going in their favor (e. g. scientific predictions in the Quran [1] )B) The resurrection does not necessarily mean that Christianity is the only true religion; Islamic theology accepts the resurrection of Jesus yet rejects Christianity's exclusivity claims. The only thing that would directly prove that Christianity is the only true religion is if Jesus specifically said so, and the only source we have of him saying that is the Gospels. However, it can easily be shown that the Gospels are not a valid sources of historical information:a) Motive for Fabrication-the Gospels were written by people trying to spread Christianity; speaking of things like exclusive claims to truth certainly helps increase the appeal of the new religion to potential converts. b) Internal Contradictions- the Gospels rarely agree on who said what, where and when, especially around the parts recounting Jesus's resurrection [2]. This, in combination with the fact that the Gospels were written a few decades after Jesus's death [3], shows that the Gospels are not at all historically accurate. These two facts show that there is a high likelihood of any claims to exclusivity having never been made by Jesus. Unfortunately, I do not currently have the time to do the research to build a strong case against Pro's argument supporting the three starting premises; I will do so next round. However, for now, I have sufficiently shown that even if Jesus did rise from the dead, it wouldn't mean that Christianity is the one, true religion at all. SOURCES[1] . http://www.answering-islam.org...[2] . http://agnosticreview.com...[3] . http://carm.org...
Why, Gay/Lesbian People Should Not Get Married

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." This by itself proves the Bible to kill gays. That out of the way, the Supreme Court in Zablocki v. Redhail has decided individuals regardless of gender may or may not get married as long as both parties have accepted it. The right to be happy.
Why, Gay/Lesbian People Should Not Get Married

Why are you calling god evil. He is not evil we are evil by Disobeying his word by being gay so he is not evil for hating sin, he is is just saying that if u are gay then I will hate that sin against you and saying that he hates gays. Just like he would hate everyone else when they lied or did any thing else but god loves everyone even for there sin including gay, lying and every thing else so we do not hate gays it is we hate what they believe in. This is Also a reason why gay/lesbian marriage should not be allowed.