BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Denominations ARE the identity of 1Timothy 4:1

Truth be told, there ARE some denominations that "abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits...", but to say that a denomination is a manifestation of 1 Timothy 4:1 is to throw a whole lot of true believers into the general mixing pot of the world. I am an Evangelical Christian who goes to a community church. I believe that in order for someone to be a Christian they must believe in Jesus as God's Son wholeheartedly ("If you believe with all your heart, you may [be baptized]. The eunuch answered, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.'"Acts 8:37 NIV ), regardless of a denomination. There are two types of Christian Beliefs: the Disputable and the Undisputable. There are things set in stone that each and every born again Christian believes, like "Jesus Christ is the Son of God." On the other hand, there are values that need to be set aside for the sake of unity, like whether the Pope is the head of the Church or whether each person is responsible for himself. Like Christian Singer Mandisa says in her new song, "We're more beautiful when we come together." When we squabble about these small issues (which are by no means "abandoning the faith"), it gives the Lost a picture of us that is full of fighting over moot topics. If Catholic chooses to believe that the Pope is the closest man to God, I merely agree to disagree, and we unite on our common ground so we can do the most important thing of all: bring the unsaved to Christ.
Denominations ARE the identity of 1Timothy 4:1

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; RULES: 1. 1st round acceptance? 2. Biblical argument PROVING Denominations ARE IDENTIFIED as 1 Timothy 4:1 or Biblical argument proving they are "NOT" 3. Rebuttals. 4. Should BE Bible knowledgeable 5. Should at least BE able to give account for Reason for Belief, beyond mere opinion(s) 6. Obviously Should BELONG to a denomination. And Believe and be able to BACK their belief, beyond hearsay. Any Denominational (c)hristian is acceptable.
Denominations ARE the identity of 1Timothy 4:1

You are right- the biggest goal of ours is not what denomination we are, but that we warn the lost and to "improve your report card", as you cleverly put it. Telling them about Hell is vital, but not exclusive. Matthew 4:19 Jesus called out to them, "Come, follow me, and I will show you how to fish for people! " How did Jesus exhibit being a fisher of men? Not only did he warn about the impending danger of hell, he used the greatest hook of all time: LOVE. Jesus was a light in a dark world. He gained a following by showing love to the poor, sick, and unloved. 1 Corinthians 13:13 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether I am an Evangelical or a Russian Orthodox or a Messianic Jew. What matters is that I hold on to my faith, my hope, and my love. My faith is in Jesus, and he said "If you love me you will obey my commands. " His command is to go into all the world and spread the good news. That is one of my goals. My hope is that Jesus is coming back in the flesh one day to take me home, and I must NEVER forget that. My love is to be manifested BY Jesus THROUGH me: Matthew 5:16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. When the sun sets, all that really matters is that each and every believer has glorified their Creator and been a witness. As fun as it was for me to debate this, THIS isn't what really matters. What matters is that I go to school on Monday and shine the Light of Jesus through the halls and into the classrooms, and that every believer does the same in their environment.
Do people achieve greatness by finding out what they r good at and develop that skill above all else

You are only thinking in one direction. I could knock off your entire argument by simply stating... what if the person was extremely good at being bad? Look at Adolf Hitler. He was a persuading leader and he was too good at what he was doing (in a bad way).However, did that allow him to achieve greatness? No, it didn't. You can't simply achieve greatness by being good at what you are doing. Again, as I stated in my first argument, greatness is where one is recognized because he has provided a beneficial cause to the public and is looked up on. Hitler was good at being an evil tyrant. Did he provide a benefical cause to the public? No. Actually the quite opposite in fact. Advocates of Hitler firmly believed that he was the ultimate leader and together, they murdered about 11 million people during the Holocaust. Hitler built his reputation as a leader well enough to lead an attack that killed 11 million, innocent people. Developing his skill as an influential leader did not make Hitler a great person but instead brought him infamy and led to total destruction of innocent people. Your definition of greatness was where a person achieved "extreme professional success". What does "extreme professional success" mean??? This is an opinion of yours so it's different for everyone. A garbage man could view his promotion in his job as extreme profession success. Very different than what you had in mind. By the way you didn't answer the question. The question was whether you achieve greatness by finding out what you are especially good at and developing that skill solely. What you did was give me a "How-To" on becoming an expert which is to work your butt off for 10,000 hours. Totally irrelevant. lol
Do people achieve greatness by finding out what they r good at and develop that skill above all else

Yes, they do. First, let's define "greatness". It seems the OP means extreme professional success, so I will stick with that definition for the purposes of clarifying this question. To succeed so wildly, the person must be an expert at a particular skill or subject, more so than all those around him or her. To become an expert, ignoring prodigies, he or she will have to develop that skill. Popular research cites the amount of time required to develop a skill into expertise is 10,000 hours - an enormous amount of time. We can assume that the average person also needs to eat, sleep, work, etc., so these 10,000 hours would have to be extra time squeezed out from the leftovers. Needing to use this much time to become not only an expert, but an expert more accomplished than all those around him or her, means that he or she won't have much time to devote to developing other skills. Thus, this skill will be developed "above all else", as the OP states. As for "finding out what they are good at", it is only logical that 10,000 hours devoted to perfecting a skill the person already has a natural inclination for will be more efficient than another skill. In addition, it is also more likely that the person would choose to devote this time to a skill he or she already notices that they are good at because it's already more relevant to their life, probably more often used. Finally, let's talk about alternatives. Is it possible for people to achieve greatness is other ways? Sure. But I think it's clear that the OP was asking if this particular method was a path to greatness, and it certainly is.
Do people achieve greatness by finding out what they r good at and develop that skill above all else

One could be an expert in degrading other people but just because he is great at making others feel bad does not mean that he achieved greatness. While some people achieve greatness by developing their natural skills, not all of it results in good; developing one attribute above all else leads to destruction, not greatness. Greatness is where one is recognized because he has provided a beneficial cause to the public and is looked up on. Developing one skill above all else does not lead to greatness for it may lead to destruction and infamy. Flourishing in one skill may lead to deaths of family members. In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, the protagonist Victor Frankenstein suffers dire consequences for developing his skill in science. He uses his talent to create the creature, but the creature lives a miserable life due to his physical appearance and murders Victor's entire family as revenge. Frankenstein was able to create the creature because of his talent in science, but as a result his family was destroyed. Devastated and having no family, Frankenstein learns that developing one attribute above all else leads to destruction instead of greatness. While Victor lost his family due to his one skill in science, developing the aptitude a great leader can also lead to destruction. Victor may have been excellent in science; that was his skill that he exceled in above all else. WIth his skill he ended up creating a monster that killed his entire family. Therefore developing a skill above all else does not lead to greatness because it can also lead to destruction
Do people achieve greatness by finding out what they r good at and develop that skill above all else

Okay, I'm responding because I don't like forfeiting rounds, but honestly, I think this debate is going nowhere because of how vague it is. Sure, if someone found out that what they were good at was being malicious and then developed that skill, they would not be achieving greatness in your definition of the word. But that would be impossible in the first place. No one is naturally good at being bad. Being bad is not a skill. It's a vague concept. Skills that people can naturally be good at (be predisposed to genetically) are running fast, replicating art, etc. Skills in of themselves cannot be good or bad. How they are used determines that. So if your counterargument to people becoming experts and thus achieving greatness is that some people are experts in being bad, that is a very simplistic view of the world. Define "good" and "bad"; define how people "find out" what they are good at; define whether "good at" means genetically predisposed or something they've already purposefully worked on; define "skill". This question is too vague.
My hypothetical group of dead musicians is better than yours (HIP HOP VERSION)

*sigh* Why do my opponents keep forfeiting? My group is stupid dope and it's also copasthetic. My opponent is a chump and a forfeit is pathetic. Extend my arguments. Pro. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
My hypothetical group of dead musicians is better than yours (HIP HOP VERSION)

My band: 1:MC: Tupac http://en.wikipedia.org... 2:MC: Easy E http://en.wikipedia.org... 3:MC: Bugz http://en.wikipedia.org... 4:MC:Big Pun http://en.wikipedia.org... 5:Producer/DJ: DJ Screw http://en.wikipedia.org...
My hypothetical group of dead musicians is better than yours (HIP HOP VERSION)

FORMAT/RULES: 1. In round 1 both debaters shall present their hypothetical group line-up. 2. All group members must be referenced by at least a Wikipedia source. 3. All group members will be generally recognised as dead. Conspiracy speculation will not be given credit, Tupac and Elvis are dead, Paul McCartney is not. 4. Groups must contain exactly five members and no more. No artist may be selected by both debaters. 5. The group must include at least three rappers/MCs, at least one producer/beatmaker and at least one scratch deejay but multi tasking is allowed (eg. a producer who was also a scratch deejay would allow you to include 4 members who were just MCs). 6. We will debate rapper vs. rapper, producer vs. producer etc. as well as discussing the group as a whole. 7. Con may choose to start debating in round 1 or wait for me to begin in round 2. 8. We will be considering the general talents, technical abilities, creativity, charisma, popularity, body of work and just about any other factor my opponent wishes (rights reserved) in discussing the merits of our groups and the individuals that comprise them. 9. Obviously in a debate like this, a lot of our points will be based on opinion but we should attempt to back up our opinions with reliable sources that reaffirm them. 10. No blatant disrespect to any of the artists (RIP). __________________ My band: 1. MC: Biggie . http://en.wikipedia.org.... 2. MC: O. D. B . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. MC: Big L . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. Producer (and MC): Dilla . http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. DJ: Roc Raida . http://en.wikipedia.org... Any questions ask me in the comments. Thanks and good luck to my opponent.
Does Jesus have sweg

Now, before I comprehensively prove that Jesus did in fact have sweg, I would like to obliterate my opponents pitiful exuses for arguments. Firstly, although gun does shoot you in Russia, gun shoots you everywhere else. You also falsely stated that due to his high lvl swag, Jesus had no sweg. However, becasue of the effect electromagnetic fields have on black holes and and the suspicious nature of JFK's assassination, ever since 1978 Jesus and Chick Norris were allowed to have swag and sweg. This is explained excellently in this GIF (. http://i.imgur.com...). As well as this, Proverbs 21: 2-5 say "If thou art hath swag, thout shalt not be given sweg unless they are able to turn water to wine". As you should know, Jesus turned water into wine and performed many other sweg-worthy tasks. Vote pro because I know about sweg and con is tripping balls. Visit mother Russia before mother Russia visits you.
Does Jesus have sweg

Since this is totes not a troll debate, I shall answer with swagaliciusness Jebus Crust only had lvl 6669 swag, therefore, having Negative pizza (based on the quartile-hors theory) or no sweg at all. Therefor, unless you can dispute jebus only had lvl 6669 swag, you lose this debate. Now, Obama wants to have a few swiggity words with swaggity Bill Clinton. "Our aim is the improvement of the theoretical description of radiative corrections in Quantum Field Theory by using the most advanced computational techniques of mathematical physics based on the exploitation of the iterative structure of scattering amplitudes which emerges from the use of complex momenta. The recent boost in the progress of evaluating on-shell scattering amplitudes is due to the exploitation of qualitative information on their analytic properties, such as factorization and unitarity, which have been quantitatively turned into tools for computing them." Vote con, as pro can not dispute jebus had lvl 6669 swag!!!!11 Now, a message from our sponsors. Do you ever feel like potatoes don't have enough mustaches? Well call 1-800-SovietRussia today! We offer the best high-quality mustaches! Remember, in soviet Russia, guns shoot you!
Does Jesus have sweg

Nien, nien, nien, 9 . Gun does not shoot you everywhere else, guns are used as knives everywhere else! And jebus had swag since 6969 Ad, therefor nullifying the black holes. And we all know how JFK was killed- Snoop Dog went back in time, shook his booty, and JFK died. And Jebus didn't have sweg since the "wine" was actually human piss mixed with Jebus's spit. And then Jebus made him drink it. This action is Un-swagaliciusness and therefor, jebus has 6669 swag. Still. Also, the ur umma law of theoretical physics stats that anyone with a doge as a profile pic is WRONG. Therefor, he is wrong, I am right, nah nah nah nah. Vote con! As Pro is getting high and drunk on liquid/powdered doges when he types these. Now a message from our sponsor. Do you need to know how to own 25 MachineGuns, be so fat you need to have a wheelchair, and be the 27th country in math? Go to 'Merica camp! We will teach you essential skills of being Murcan like the ones above! Also includes How to write honor and gray How to have a dumb government How to not know about anything other than America How to worship celebrities How to no fact check How to be influced a lot by the media And much much more! Call 408-666-8253
Death Penalty Should be Legal

In my eyes, the person is first found guilty. The authorities have found him guilty. His fingerprints are on the gun. The other man is surely dead. They don't deserve life on Earth after the other is dead. Say the man is not given life in prison. After ten years he is bailed out or released and he kills someone else? How do you know he's not healthy? How do you know he won't do it again? Life in prison is not a great solution for the economy because they have to continue to pay for him to stay alive. He doesn't deserve to live. What would the difference be anyway? He's kept in jail for the rest of his life? His life is basically over!
Death Penalty Should be Legal

I disagree. I think assumed criminals should not be given the death penalty. I think life in jail will be a much better solution. What if the assumed criminal is later found not guilty AFTER he is killed. What will happen then? I think life in jail is better for this exact reason. If he is found later not guilty they can free him and pay him compensation and his life will be almost back to normal whereas with the death penalty, you have just killed an innocent man/woman and there is nothing you can do about it
Death Penalty Should be Legal

The death penalty is a serious problem the world. For other countries they kill without a crime. There needs to be some sort of law to stop these crimes. I don't understand why some people are for abortion but against a death penalty. How could you kill a defenseless, innocent baby but not kill a man/woman who just murdered someone? The death penalty should be legal because it would stop these crazy people from committing these horrible crimes! Say your a homeless man struggling for money and you have a gun. You kill a man or do something horrible enough to him to get in prison. You are now in jail being fed daily so your life is no longer a struggle. "Why the death penalty is still necessary"- catholicworldreport.com Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken? A. Human life may be lawfully taken: 1. In self-defense, when we are unjustly attacked and have no other means of saving our own lives; 2. In a just war, when the safety or rights of the nation require it; 3. By the lawful execution of a criminal, fairly tried and found guilty of a crime punishable by death when the preservation of law and order and the good of the community require such execution. 1 Thus, killing another human being in self-defense, during a just war, or through the lawful execution of a criminal does not violate the Fifth Commandment"s rule "Thou shall not kill" (which many modern editions of the Bible translate as "Thou shall not murder"). The permissibility of these three types of lawful killing (unlike the deliberate killing of the innocent, which is always prohibited) depends on contingent circumstances. As long as (in the words of Pope Innocent III) "the punishment is carried out not in hatred but with good judgment, not inconsiderately but after mature deliberation," the death penalty may be imposed if it genuinely serves the common good.
Mormons and JW are polytheist

"...Indicates to us that the Word will be a Manifestation of God" I am sorry, manifestations of G-d don't have their own mind and pray to G-d. Jesus and G-d were different being and thus, even if you have no problem with it, it's still polytheism. Jesus, the perfect image of the christian god spoke to the christian god and was under his authority. The voters can decides, nevertheless, the bigger god sent the lower gods through virgin birth to save the world of the bigger god's wrath. If they are not one, they you are worshipping 2 gods, and a third god if you add the "holy" spirit.
Mormons and JW are polytheist

My opponent has said the following as a clarification for the his original argument: "Maybe my opponent did not understand my point. If G-d send Jesus (a god/angel) who is their lord (adon) and savior, and worthy or worship. Then The Upper CASE G sent the lower case god to the earth." I have no problem with this and neither do the Scriptures. Since we both know the Trinity to be false, then the only explanation for "a god"" in the John 1:1 of the NWT is that, the Word will be God-like, which the original Greek would agree as I have said in my argument above. Essentially, the NWT of John 1:1 indicates to us that the Word will be a Manifestation of God, rather than God Himself. This does not by means support polytheism nor does it even have the slightest connection with it, but rather debunks the man-made doctrine of the Trinity. My opponent continues and says: "As my opponent agree that Jesus was a lower case god who was with the upper case GOD and sent by him." And this, my friend, is the argument of the JWs. The LC (lower case) god was did not point to a god like those of Greek or Roman mythology but rather an image of UC (upper case) God or a reflective essence of God, the All-Knowing the All-Wise. My opponent says: "That this lower case god will save the world, then this is by definition, worshiping 2 gods." Think of it this way: The relationship between the Manifestation of God and God Himself is that of a perfect mirror. God is likened to the Sun " the source of physical life on earth and the spirit and attributes of God are likened to the rays of the Sun. The Manifestation of God is likened to perfect mirrors reflecting the rays of the Sun. Therefore, the Manifestation of God act as pure mirrors that reflect the attributes of God onto this material world. So in conclusion my friend, I may have not understood your original argument but there is no reason that you should call the Mormons of JWs, polytheists.
Mormons and JW are polytheist

Maybe my opponent did not understand my point. If G-d send Jesus (a god/angel) who is their lord (adon) and savior, and worthy or worship. Then The Upper CASE G sent the lower case god to the earth. There is no other way than seeing that as polytheism. As my opponent agree that Jesus was a lower case god who was with the upper case GOD and sent by him. That this lower case god will save the world, then this is by definition, worshiping 2 gods. I do not believe in the trinity. I believe that G-d is one and that Jesus is not a god and that the Greek testament is not inspired.
Mormonism isn't Christianity

Now I would like to address the comment of us not believing that Christ dieing was naught to save man from sins. We do not believe that that is the only thing you has to have happened that is true, you also have to repent to, for lack of a better word, access the power to be cleared of the sins you had. Also we do not carry crosses in our church because it is almost like remembering the thing that killed Jesus not Jesus himself. Like if Jesus was killed with a sword I am sure every christian church would have a big sword sticking out of their roof. In a way a cross is almost a form of idol worship. Also we do not believe that we can be equal to god, or that we can become gods or goddesses. After we die we await judgment day, and based on how good you were on earth you go to one of three levels in heave, the highest is where god himself lives with his son Jesus Christ. If you are not a mormon on Earth go to a type of spirit prison in which you can choose to accept the Mormon beliefs then, and then be judged accordingly. Finally we believe that Jesus will come down at the end of days, and once all the wicked have been destroyed there will be 1000 years of peace on Earth, and all the good will be resurrected. After which we will return to heaven.