BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I am justified through the blood of jesus Christ

My opponent sure is putting a lot of words in my mouth in this debate. All I am saying is that God loves me so much that He paid for my sins againt Him wiith His own blood and be believing on His resurrection and calling on God in the name of Jesus Christ to save me from sin, death, and Hell, I am justified through faith in the blood He willingly gave to pay for my sins so He can overlook my crimes agaisnt Him. If I smack Duncan accross the chops, that would be a sin against God. The wrath of man does not work the righteiousness of God. It would be wrong for me to do that to Duncan, even though he is a crybaby complaining about the idea that we all deserve to die and burn in Hell, but it still would be wrong for me to do that to Duncan. Anything that anybody does wrong is a violation of God's law first. I deserve to die because I am a sinner. Duncan hates me for saying we both deserve to die and burn in Hell. Duncan's hatred against me is a sin against God. Duncan does not deserve to live any more than I do. The difference between me and Duncan is that he thinks he needs no forgiveness from God. Really, he does not. If he has no objection to burning in Hell, he does not need God's forgiveness. We all deserve to burn in Hell now. If Duncan feels threatened by this idea, I think he needs to talk to God about it. God loves Duncan and will forgive him of all his wrongs if he will A. Admit that he is a sinner who deserves to die and burn in Hell. B. Believe God loves him so much that He gave Himself to pay for Duincans sins with His own blood, and He rose from the grave bodily offering Duncan forgiveness for the things he did which Jesus had to pay for to buy Duncan back from sin, death, and Hell. Duncan could be juustified by the blood of Jesus Christ, but he insists that hsi existence justifies his life. Than is not justification. It is nothing but acceptance of death. If you won't admit that you are guilty toward God and have broken His law, you can find no mercy from Him. If you don't have his mercy, you have no justification for living.Apparently, my opponent only wanted to whine about me saying that we all deserve to die and burn in Hell. He can say there is no God. That does not hurt me at all. It's only hurting himself. To say there is no God is an attempt to negate yourself by thinking you do not have to give account to God for your actions, so nothing you do really matters. That's wrong. What you do matters. The problem is that you have done wrong and have broken God's law and set yourself apart form God. You need to be jsutified or you have no reason for God not to leave you cast away in the burning garbage pit of Hell. I hope my opponent will quit crying about God's Judgement. It is good to know God punishes sin and forgives sinners based on the fact that He gave His own blood to pay for thier sins. You can never prove God is not there and you can never prove Hell is not real hot burning fire that punishes sinners.Don't be a fool.
I am justified through the blood of jesus Christ

If we are being realistic, then I have to use an argument I'd prefer not to use, because I don't take joy from saying this to people of faith. There is no god. There is no evidence of any deity, and any problems with the big bang theory are problems with the explanation of any deity as well. Religion is a natural development in human society because it helps motivates groups to co-operate, but oftentimes it is abused by its leaders and marginalises society. I don't like saying this because I have many friends with faith, who I don't want to hurt in any way, and I don't hate the people who believe, rather the system under which they are guided. God has yet to be proven and he is not supported by any credible theory. The only evidence you claim to have is an ancient book that's been translated so many times that the guidelines written for its ancient audience can only be vaguely interpreted. I don't like arguing about the existence of god because I understand what I have to say is hurtful to many, but I understand that those who have faith will be able to respect my opinion as I respect theirs. I have stated above what is my belief, and I understand and accept that others may hold conflicting ones. This debate is different, which is why I will now be arguing from a point that agrees with God's existence. The way I see this debate is one which is meditation on the very nature of morality. You are arguing that not only does every person alive have to explain why they have morally justified their life, but your way is the only way to reach that solution. What I am saying is that you are not justified by God committing suicide 2000 years ago. The idea that we are born with sin is one created by God. God is not a viable source of moral guidance when you take into account His sins. Wiping out the dinosaurs? The Black Death? Every earthquake and tsunami that has ever taken a life. The being that designs flesh eating bacteria (http://www.medicinenet.com...) is not a good being. Sine is defined as something that offends God, so by His standards, anything He doesn't like is immoral. This makes morality prone to change depending on God's mood at the time. Murder is wrong unless god is in a "smite some heathens" mood. Philosophy will always involve the search for morality, but I personally follow Mill's theory. Any action that improves the living quality of the world in any quantity without it diminishing is a morally good action. In that way, if we even needed to be justified, surely it would be through our own actions? Through morally good action regardless of religion? You cannot be justified by the actions of someone else. The reason I opposed your preaching is because you locked down challengers while using the site as advertising. To counter your last line; If you are living forever while scolding others for existing for even a fraction of your existence, you are self-centered and self obsessed. Duncan.
I am justified through the blood of jesus Christ

Ok, since we can't be realistic, I guess I'll have to try to be realistic for both of us. I'll try to sort out your helter skelter argument that has nothing to do with the fact that God loves me so much that He paid for my sins with His own blood so I am justified by His resurrection. I am forgiven of my sins and I do not have to burn in Hell. While I am guilty of being a sinner the same as you, God will find me innocent because He Himself paid for my sins when He took my death on the cross. He wants you to be found innocent also, but you keep saying you do not need to be justifed so there is no justificatkion for you. Sitting there whining and crying about me saying that if your sins are not forgiven yoiu are not going to heaven and the only other place for you to go is into the fire of Hell is not realistic. It's just being a cry baby. I gave you this challenge because you were being a cry baby acting like you don't deserve to die.. Now all you do is insult me and say I'm insulting you and whoever else you say is insulted by me telling them the truth. We all deserve to burn in Hell. We all deserve to die. You are not justified or you would not have to die. You are under death penalty and denying your guilt will not get you off the hook. Hello, earth calling. Who said you have to justify your existence? You are the one who is trying to say you are justifed simply because you exist, therefore you need no justifcation. I'm saying you are guilty and unjustifed and deserve to die and burn in Hell the same as me and everybody else. I'm also saying I am forgiven because God loves me so much that He paid for my sins with His own blood and rose from the grave so that by believing on Him and calling on God in Jesus' name to save me from Hell, I am forgiven and God is satified that my sin has been paid for so I am justified by the resurreciton of Jesus Christ, justified by His blood. That is the only thing I have to explain how I am justifed. You are trying to put all kinds of words in my mouth and make all kinds of unrealistic accusations and insults while you accuse me of all kinds of stuff. Your problem is that you are trying to deny your own guilt. We are all guilty of breaking God's law and we all deserve to die and burn in Hell. If you don't like me saying that, too bad.The only thing you are proving is that you are not justified. You exixt, no doubt about that. But you are not juistified to live or you would not have to die. You have no gaurantee of one more breath of air becaue you do not deserve it and you are not justifed to live. You are condemned to die. You are a dead man walking and talkign, you are as good as dead and death is justice against you. If you don't want to accept the fact that you deserve to die, I can't help you. You can just go on being a crybaby saying you hate my preaching.Repeating what you avoid: If you are not living forever, your excuse for living is not very good, is it?
I am justified through the blood of jesus Christ

We can't be realistic here, I already agreed to acknowledge God's existence in this round. Justification of something implies it was previously unjust. Why was it unjust? How is it wrong to exist and why should any person have to provide a reason as to why they should continue existing? Here's the problem; justification is supposed to be justice. Justice is doing what is just, or morally correct. That means you believe one must explain why their very existence has improved the quality of life for others. Let's all remember that. You say that because God made the Romans execute his own child, you existing has made the world a better place. God is Jesus, so God committing suicide, patricide and filicide, all on one, has made your birth a morally justified occurrence. Second of all, I said last round that I'll accept that God exists, but Death is not a sentient entity. It is an occurrence. You're not a slave to going to the bathroom, or a victim when you get a cold. My life is not taken away, it ends when I die. I don't have to return it to a bank to get my deposit back. Sure, I talk about religion a lot, but more as a reactionary than an instigator. Religion doesn't affect me, but this site is a real gem to me, and when someone decides to abuse it as a pulpit for their religion while shutting out discussion, that is something I take offense from. I get that you have a right to religion, but so do I. So does every person on this site, and in the world. You disrespect our chosen beliefs when you make claims such as us all going to hell, when every other religion is just as valid as yours. This isn't just your belief here; you are going onto this site and declaring that every other person on this site is going to suffer for all eternity unless they agree with you. That could even be considered a threat. If we can be offended when a stranger hurls derogatory insults at us online, we can damn well be hurt when someone constantly insists that not only are our beliefs and ways of life wrong, but immoral too. God loves you so much does he? That's good for you. Too bad he forgot about all the other people in the world. The people who don't have access to the internet or even clean drinking water. The people who don't even have basic education. Since they don't have access to all these resources, they will also suffer damnation by your reasoning. They weren't even given a chance. If God allows these people to suffer, then by his inaction, harm has befallen millions. Justify that. Justify the actions and existence of a deity which helps few and harms many, all while claiming to love. God is omniscient. He knows all. He created every person knowing their ultimate fate. Every crime is his doing. True, he does good as well, but murderers don't get let off just because they gave to charity. You are the only one who claims that justification is necessary. The sun sets red. How? Because red travels farthest. Why? Does there need to be a reason? Duncan
I am justified through the blood of jesus Christ

Ok, let's try to be realistic here. This debate is not about your existence. You exist. Your existence is a fact and does not require justifcation. If you burn in eternal Hell, you exist. If you live forever in heaven, you exist. If you do not exist, you do not exist. You exist, and you can't change that and nobody can change that. Nothing changes the fact that you exist. Facts stand on their own without justifcation or condemnation. This debate is about your excuse for living. Your existence is not an excuse for living. If it is your excuse for living, it's a poor excuse because you are surely dying. It sounds like you have no excuse for living. All you have is dying, and that is a fact. Death is authoritative over you. You are not authoritative over death. If existence justifies life, why is life denied in death? There is no justification of life simply in existence. You need justification to live or you will surely die unjustified. If existence justifies your life, then your life cannot be taken away. You life is already taken away by death, that is all you can count on. Your existence does not justfy you, you do not have the right to live simply because you exist or that right would not be denied by death.You talk about religion a lot. That is because you are religious in trying to justify yourself by saying "I exist". You are trying to convince yourself that you are exempt from judgement of death in Hell because you exist. You are fooling yourself. That is what religion does. Religion leads people to think that they can please God or gain entrance to heaven or be exempt from punishment of Hell based on their own worrds or actions. What I am talking about is reality. I do not respect beliefs that are wrong. I respect your right to believe the wrong things. I do not repect wrong beliefs. You have the right to believe whatever you want to believe. It's hard for me to sit quiet when I see you saying things that show you are on your way to Hell and you need to be saved from it and I know you can be saved from it. Maybe you do not care and you will not listen. Others are watching and considering the possibilities. The ones that only God knows are being touched by His truth are just as important to me as writing these things trying to tell you that God is being reasonable with you and He is more than fair and He is just to leave you in the fire of Hell forever if you don't care that he died in your place and gave His innocent life's blood to pay for the guilt of your sin which you deserve to burn in Hell for. Will you see before you feel the heat of the fire of Hell? I really hope so.God loves me so much, He came down from heaven to die in my place. He gave His Son to pay for my sins. His blood is my justification. God took my punishment on Himself and I have admitted my guilt and accepted His blood payment for my sins. He justifies me in His resurrection. His eternal life is mine. He lives in me. I am justifed by His blood.
I am justified through the blood of jesus Christ

I do not need justification for my existence. I am here. Why would I need justification? There isn't an authority I have to validate myself to in order to be worthy of existence. Don't misunderstand me; I can respect other religions. I have no quarrel with those who desire religion in their lives. But they do not need the approval of that religion to live. In understand if you feel that by your beliefs, anyone who isn't part of your religion is wrong, but the catch of me respecting your beliefs is that you have to respect the beliefs of others. Yes, you have the right to choose your own religion, but so does everyone else, and you have to respect that as well. The issue here is not that you hold beliefs which I do follow. It is that you have been using this site as an altar. No; DDO is a site of debate and discussion. Those who would use the site as advertising are abusing the freedom this site grants to shout. If you want to preach, you can found your own website, or bring this up in the forums. However, opening a debate implies that you are actually willing to discuss and debate, and the way that your recent debates have been left with no one able to accept them prevents this. I can see that answering this debate with pure reason could be ineffective, and since we have a few rounds to go, I'm go to hypothesize for the next few rounds. Next round, I'm going to explain why if God existed, we still wouldn't need to justify ourselves to him. P.S. rebuttal; Yes, votes should be base on the argument, which is why in the voting system, which side you agreed with to begin with gives no points. I began with an argument from the point of someone is not religious, but since I am aware the existence of God is a different debate topic, next round, I will argue while agreeing the christian God exists. I won't deny that Jesus is God, but that means Jesus is his dad, and he got his own mother pregnant with himself. See you next round, Duncan.
I am justified through the blood of jesus Christ

We are either guilty, or guilty but justified. If things are not made right, we have to pay for our sins. We are all guilty of breaking God's law. We must die guilty and pay for breaking God's law or be forgiven and justified so we don't have to pay. Are you justified, or do you think you are good and do not need to be justified? What is your excuse for living? If you are not living forever, your excuse for living is not very good, is it?You can expect some Hell ffire and brimstone preaching in my arguments. Preaching is nothing but proclaiming truth. If you are not justified by the blood of Jesus Christ, then you are going to pay for your sins in Hell. I will repeat this in my arguments and explain why it is true if you do not accept it or understand it.. This debate is under the category of "philosophy", "love of wisdom", because it is wise to know that you are justified and will not be held guitly in God's Judgement. Don't be a cry baby please, take the challenge and brace yourself for some Hell fire preaching, Mr. Duncan. P.S. To the voters: there is no secret here that my arguements wiill be packed with preaching. If my opponent accepts this challenge, it has been made clear to him that preaching is going to be plentiful and bold. Votes should be according to the arguments, not against preaching. I expect my opponent to deny that Jesus is God, and I will turn the debate against my opponent showing how he cannot be justified to live wiithout Jesus Christ's sinless blood payment and resurrection. .
Axis Showdown: Germany would have annihilated Japan.

To begin this round I will be refuting my opponents points, then I will clearly demonstrate that Germany in no way could have annihilated Japan. first radar I am unsure of pro's source for Japan not having radar but hear are mine that they did have it. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... my opponents point about the German subs is certainly valid but subs don't hold enough troops for a full scale invasion of any of the Japanese island. pro goes on to say that the German air-force was far superior but this point is useless because the German bf 109 only had a range of 621 miles. Also nether Germany or Italy had any aircraft carriers during ww2. So if you can't get the plains to the battle they are useless. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... now to my arguments first Germany had no way to get there aircraft to the Japanese islands, there range was to short and they had no aircraft carriers. Second Germany had no way to get troops, or tanks to the islands because they had no transport vessels, or landing crafts. So in conclusion if Germany can't get there air craft or there personnel to the Japanese islands they can in now way annihilate or even defeat.
Axis Showdown: Germany would have annihilated Japan.

I will be negating the resolution that Germany would have annihilated japan. to accomplish this goal Germany would have to accomplish to victory. in which japans government , and fighting force would need to be completely crushed. I would also like to point out that japan would not even need to attack Germany to prevent being annihilated and could just continue island hop to ward of destruction. the majority of my arguments will come in the second round good luck.
Axis Showdown: Germany would have annihilated Japan.

Good luck, have fun and keep it clean. This is my first debate on here, so wish me luck. :D Both of the two Axis Powers mentioned in the title are extremely powerful. Both are particularly effective on a certain terrain and climate. For example, Japan's battle fleet was one of the largest in the world, and it featured the largest battleship of the time. However, it was hampered by several factors. Its strategy was based on the fleet as its backbone and island hopping as its progressive tactics. Its military numbers were substantially smaller. There are many more decisive factors that I think decide the issue. I daren't continue until somebody accepts - I wouldn't want to scare everybody off at this point... :D One thing I think is integral in this debate, and, if you're willing to agree upon, is to ensure that most terrains are considered in the battle. I imagine that Japan has certain advantages in the island hopping techniques (amphibious APCs and tanks, for example), and Germany would have definite advantages in the desert, per se.
Axis Showdown: Germany would have annihilated Japan.

I would like to point out that my opponent has been misleading the voters yet again. Because in fact the Japanese had all the technology for radar before the capture of a British radar system in Singapore, but there government deemed it to be of no significant advantage so chose not to fund its project pro goes on to say that if Germany were to fight Japan they would have developed better weapons. Not only is this purely speculative, but also if Germany had the ability to build better weapons why did they not. Lastly Germany could not have annihilated the Japanese like the U. S. Did because they did not have a nuclear weapon. The rest of his argument has nothing to do with the resolution so therefore will not be rebutted. I would like to point out again if you can't get your plains, tanks, or personnel to the battlefield you can not annihilate the opposition.
Iran is not a threat to world security

Thank you again, jamesblue. This is a fascinating topic, and I appreciate your engagement with it. This has been a very worthwhile debate. My closing will be very brief. My opponent seems to have argued a slightly different resolution than the one he proposed. Throughout this debate, my opponent has largely been arguing that Iran's actions are justified. That's a worthy question for debate. My opponent makes a very strong case that, due to the history of foreign interference in its domestic affairs, Iran's prior pursuit of a nuclear weapon as a deterrent was rational and defensive in nature. Although I do not accept this position uncritically, it nevertheless is one that I agree with more than I disagree - Iran is not the apocalyptic death cult that its Western opponents caricaturize it as. I largely concede that the actions of Iran's leadership have proceeded rationally from its understandable incentives and legitimate interests. But this debate is not about whether Iran is justified, it's about whether Iran is a threat - and it undoubtedly is. I have shown how Iran's rational pursuit of a nuclear weapon endangers the entire region, and the interests of the United States, Europe, China and Russia. It doesn't matter how justified that pursuit may be - the potential disasters that would follow a nuclear Iran are terrifying in the scope.