BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
LifeMeansGodIsGood will go to heaven when he dies

I have nothng else to say. I am 100 percent sure my sins are forgiven and I know I am going to heaven. I am saved. I'm sorry Con is not saved. If you are not saved, you are not goig to heaven. I am saved . Con should only speak for himself and not for me. Con cannot accept the fact that I am saved and going to heaven because he is not saved and believes nobody is saved here and now. I am saved here and now and forever. Con is correct, I'm being repetitive. I cannot prove somthing that Con will not accetpt. I have recieved the gift of God which is eternal life through Jesus Christ, through faith in His blood which He gave to pay for my sins, I know I have eternal life now, I know I am going to heaven. The only people who cannot believe this is possible for me to know without doubt are the people who do not know, such as con who admits he is not saved. I'm sorry for them, and I do expect more of them will be voting here. Con can have all of the points. It does not matter if con gets all the points and double for all of the points. Don't let Con convince you that you cannot be saved and know it now. If you are not saved, you need to be saved now. If you are not saved, you are lost and the Pope can't change that, only Jesus Christ Himself can save you. There is no hope in the Pope. The Pope is a fraud, and that is why the Catholics say you cannot be sure of being saved now.......they keep you working, paying, and never able to do enough or pay enough to get saved. The truth is you never can do enough or pay enough to be sure you are saved..........not even the Pope can do enough or pay enough to get saved. Not even the entire Vatican city is enough to buy a ticket to heaven. Catholicism is lies, idolatry, religious slavery of uncertainty. I am saved. My sins have all been paid for by God Himself with His sinless blood. That's enough. Nothing more could is necessary, and nothing less could pay my debt. God Himself paid. I don't have to pay the Pope, and the Pope cannot pay for me........the Pope could not pay enough to remove his own sins.......or con's, and con knows it. That is why con knows he is not saved. It does not matter if I win or lose this debate, I know I am gonig to heaven, I am 100 percent sure, I am saved, the real prize has already been won for me, I have eternal life!!!!!! Con loses if he does not get saved, and for now he is lost as he clearly stated he is. Who gets the most votes and wins the debate is not important. Who is saved and goes to heaven and who is lost and is cast away into fire of hell forever is what is important. Con needs to get saved now before it's too late.
LifeMeansGodIsGood will go to heaven when he dies

IntroductionThe reason I said failure to abide by the rules I set would result in a 7-point loss, is because otherwise my opponent would have an unfair advantage. Since the burden is mostly on him, it makes sense for him to go first.Conceding the debateMy opponent has already conceded the debate, stating, "I will concede loss on this debate from the start as most people will refuse to believe they can be saved, or they will refuse to believe that being saved is worth turning away from their pride or from the pleasures of their favorite sinfull self-indulgences. But I really do want to concede all of the points in this debaate to zmike."This is confusing. My opponent was the one who wanted to debate me and prove that he was going to heaven. I'm honestly confused as to his entire argument above.RebuttalsMy opponent literally has no argument. His entire first round is filled with question-begging bare assertions, repeated ad nauseam. Nevertheless, I shall thoroughly show why my opponent cannot be 100% certain of going to heaven.If you don't accept Jesus as your savior, you won't go to heavenThe typical Protestant argument my opponent argues is as follows:P1: If, and only if, you accept Jesus as your savior, THEN you will go to heaven.P2: LifeMeansGodisGood has accepted Jesus as his savior.C: He will go to heaven.The first problem is that "accepting Jesus as your saviour" has literally no definition. What on earth does this mean? Does it mean a warm fuzzy feeling in the pit of your stomach? Or does it mean self-sacrifice until the end of your life? My opponent has not defined what this means. Obviously, there are huge amounts of debate over this in Christian theology. The Catholic Church teaches that there are many ways to accept Jesus as God and saviour. This is called baptism (1). So under Catholic theology, and other Protestant theology, it's entirely reasonable that Plato and Aristotle are in heaven, or any other virtuous person who desired to do good.But it gets worse for my opponent.If LifeMeansGodIsGood rejects Jesus as his saviour, then he will not go to heaven. This is logically valid.Point in short: It is at the very very least, possible for him to do so. It's possible for him to become an unbeliever. He has free will, and does not know the future.If this is possible, then he will not go to heaven. If it's possible that he will not go to heaven, then he cannot be 100% certain.You might be able to say that you're 80% certain, or even 90% certain, but you cannot say with absolute 100% certainty that you are going to heaven.The reason is because it's entirely possible for you to reject Jesus (whatever that means in real life) and consequently not go to heaven.ConclusionMy opponent has not met his burden. He's just made bare assertions, and won't convince anyone. I've shown that it's at least possible for my opponent to not go to heaven; there's certainly nothing impossible about it. Thus, he cannot be 100% certain he is going to heaven, and cannot claim that he "is saved." Neither can anyone(1)http://www.vatican.va...
LifeMeansGodIsGood will go to heaven when he dies

I, zmikecuber, am not saved. I don't think anyone is. This includes my opponent. Hence, this debate.BoP is on LifeMeansGodIsGood to show that he will go to heaven when he dies. Not that he probably will, but that he definitely will, 100%.All we shall assume is that God exists, and the Bible is the inspired word of God.Pro starts right away.Pro must put in the last round "No arguments as agreed." If he does not, this will result in a 7 point lost.
Pirates are cooler than Ninjas

First, some ground rules for the debate: 1.) No lame defining of terms, unless something has multiple meanings which are drastically different, and a definition is required. Semantic arguments are lame, and everything will be done using the vernacular. 2.) This will be an equal burden debate, meaning that my opponent will have an equal burden to myself. Since I must prove why pirates are cooler than ninjas, he must prove why ninjas are cooler than pirates, not that the two are equally cool. Now, for my contentions: 1.) Pirates have treasure. Ninjas are broke. 2.) Pirates have really awesome ships with cannons and stuff. You can't beat that. 3.) Pirates have guns. Ninjas have shurikens. A gun is much more reliable. 4.) Pirates get to have sex with loose women at every port. 5.) When they're at sea, pirates get to have awesome gay sex with their shipmates. Who doesn't love hot sweaty pirate gay sex? 6.) Pirates have big crews to back them up in a fight. Ninjas, for the most part, are alone. 7.) Pirate captains get to command people around. Ninjas have no underlings. 8.) Johnny Depp played a pirate, and Johnny Depp is awesome. No awesome actor like Johnny Depp ever played a ninja. 9.) Pirates wear a beard. Chuck Norris also wears a beard. 'Nuff said.
Is Ebonics a Real Language

1st: you are neither a linguist nor are you Chinese so the fact that you are making personal experience type arguments and the fact that your arguments are based on opinion instead of facts makes your argument void. 2nd: It may be true that Ebonics borrows heavily from the English language, but doesn't English do the same thing? English after all is based on both Greek and Italian. But English isn't a dialect. It is a language. Just like English has its own rules and punctuation, Ebonics does too. That implies that Ebonics has the qualities of a language and therefore it is a language. Daedae324
Is Ebonics a Real Language

I fully acknowledge your definition of a language, and i reply with the dictionary.com definition of a dialect: a variety of a language that is distinguished from other varieties of the same language by features of phonology, grammar, and vocabulary, and by its use by a group of speakers who are set off from others geographically or socially. According to this definition, Ebonics can be considered a dialect of the English language. Ebonics, similar to English in the use of vocabulary and grammar, is as you stated mainly used by the "African-American/Black culture", and it is fair to say that this culture is separated socially from other cultures, and if we can take that social aspect one step further, Ebonics is spoken among the middle to lower class African-american/black community as common knowledge would show. thus proving two social factors that separate those who "speak" Ebonics, and those who speak English and fulfilling the definition of a dialect rather than a language Also, Ebonics could not be a language because many linguistics know, a language is more political and cultural than just a group of words with grammar rules. For example you can take the Chinese and the Japanese. Though to an outside spectator that knows little of the two, the languages may sound, and actually be similar, but weather they are, or not is irrelevant. If you tell a Chinese person that he speaks Japanese he/she would most likely correct you because telling them that they speak Japanese can be considered an insult, culturally and politically that person is Chinese and not Japanese, thus it is reflected in there language. Japan and China are politically, and literally separated, thus represented in there language. However those who 'speak' Ebonics, doubtfully, would like to be separated from their counter-parts who speak English. Yes there among those two groups (Ebonics 'speakers', and English speakers) but this separation is not political or cultural. This separation can not be considered a cultural separation because I do not believe that all African-Americans/Blacks would like to be culturally linked to being able to 'speak Ebonics, however all Chinese (as those who are of direct Chinese decent and live in china) are culturally associated with the Chinese language.
Is Ebonics a Real Language

1st: Your comment of Ebonics being miss-understood by Americans is not really helping your case because the majority of Americans only speak English. With that being said, if an American cannot understand a foreign language such as Njerep, is it to say that it cannot be a real language just because Americans cannot understand it? 2nd: The definition for the word language, according to the dictionary, is: a body of words and the systems for their use common to a people who are of the same community or nation. As you have just stated, and as everyone knows, Ebonics is most commonly used with African American/Black people. So in keeping with what the dictionary says, because Ebonics is most commonly used by the people of the African American/Black community, it is in fact a language. daedae324
Aliens are better than zombies when it comes to gaming

To answer the question proposed: "Why does it matter whether or not there is a second in command? And what about zombies your main goal is to survive and kill these zombies what's the point?"If I am to believe the conquering force of extra terrestrials are indeed superior, killing ONE member of the race, even a handful of them, seems... well, beneath their intelligence. The next question is rather moot: the point of an alien antagonist is to survive as well, usually "humanity" is what you are fighting for. The resolution is not about the end result, but the method of villain. In the course of this discussion we have seen exactly why aliens don't stack up: for all of their infinite complexity and superior technology, they become formulaic. The Aliens franchise, as previously mentioned by pro had serious issues with this. Colonial Marines had you fighting human company mercenaries. Alien Isolation had you fighting the "Joe" androids. Fighting the Alien alone simply wasn't enough. We have also seen a lead title franchise (Halo) get used as the gold standard for alien fighters, only to find they have the same set of exploitations over and over again, and to add insult to injury, the "Grave Mind", the predominant villain for the first three installments was one great big zombie trope. We have explored that it seems many mass shooters that makes use of multiplayer server space adds some variety of zombie DLC to their title, which would seem counter intuitive if such a market was shrinking, or didn't exist. In conclusion, there is only one thing aliens bring to the table: tech. Technology that seems to enable these aliens to bridge vast reaches of space, only to be ground to a halt by some slug throwing hardware arguably out dated to even those that are using it. What do Zombies bring to the table? Well.... if you are at the table... with zombies... they usually bring salt and ketchup. In zombie games, humanity has to realize they are not the apex predator. There is no leader that can be shot to stop the invasion. There is no McGuffin that can be turned on to make the zombies teeth stop chomping. There is only you, your pals, and a pile of ammunition that seems to shrink every second.To some, good luck. To the rest: bon appetit.
Aliens are better than zombies when it comes to gaming

Yes the Call Of Duty franchise has "numerous" games on zombies but that franchise doesn't only feature zombie games many of their games include head to head combat with humans not zombies. For example take Modern warfare or even one of their newest one Call Of Duty Ghost. The majority of weapons used in aliens games are not always small there are plenty of times where these weapons are actually pretty big. Yes I'm going back to the Halo franchise. For example in halo 4 sure you have your weapons that are small such as the Needler but you also have other items such as the Suppressor or LightRifle. Even if it is not in the halo franchise Why does it matter whether or not there is a second in command? And what about zombies your main goal is to survive and kill these zombies what's the point? lastly there are other franchise that have aliens. For example take aliens vs. predator that is a movie as well or even MIB (Men In Black) which is a huge hit to the movie world.
Aliens are better than zombies when it comes to gaming

"People find it more interesting than Zombies"....Halo I have already negated as a game that ripped Zombie concepts off completely, however if Pro would like to keep mentioning it, and that it is not as interesting as zombies, it becomes puzzling that many Halo achievements are based of winning infection games, a Zombie trope at heart. I remember with pride working up the ladder of zombie slaying awards, and having a blast while doing it. The Call of Duty franchise has featured numerous Zombie DLC adaptations. If such is so uninspired, why do major franchises churn out these DLCs if there is no market? Even Red Dead Redemption had an entire game type based around a zombie flavor. Rumours swirl with every Halloween as to whether or not Rock Star or Take Two will release undead mods for the season.I would like to point out that for 2 of my points, the opposition agrees with me: "For example aliens have these awesome futuristic weapons that you can pick up and use for yourself " and yet through silly script requirements, these awesome weapons fall into your hands, and the reason why this awesome techonology was not used to decimate the play scape so much smaller weapons are used is rarely explaned.Also: "For example if they are trying to take over the world your mission is to find the leader and kill him/her." Why, exactly? What vareity of exposition is needed for this convienient loophole of a plot device going ot make sense? This superior race of alieans has never heard of a "second in command"? It boggles the mind that such an assertion has traction regarding which is more challenging: aliens seem to always have a flaw built in. Resident Evil is one of the most well known franchises of all time. In addition to its game platform, it has spawned a series of successful movies to boot, in which their creative understanding of mutant Zombies have given rise to a variety of new an interesting creature. Umbrella Corporation will go down in history as one of the most famous evil companies, right along side Weyland Yutani. House of the Dead, another popular arcade shooter also spawned a movie, though its success as a movie is really dependent it its cost vs box office take. In what way does either of those examples signify something that is unpopular? The amount of creative license and innovation that came from those properties has set zombies up as hallmark in gaming, standing just as proud next to their silver screen interpretations. I am confident those following along will need more than lasers and illogical command structure to sway them.
Aliens are better than zombies when it comes to gaming

I disagree with that this is because aliens are now being introduced into the gaming world because people find it more interesting than zombies. How do I know this? Well because while black ops 2 sold over 24.2 million world world wide Halo 4 sold over 60 million copies world wide (which both are pretty high I have to admit). Also the fact there are more alien games coming out is because zombies are just played out now, sure it was cool at first but not right now in this day and age. Also aliens are more exciting they put you up to a challenge. For example aliens have these awesome futuristic weapons that you can pick up and use for yourself instead of brooms or bats that comes with zombies. Also aliens don't move slow they can be fast which is a bigger challenge and makes it more fun. Lastly aliens have cooler objectives for you to do. For example if they are trying to take over the world your mission is to find the leader and kill him/her. This is why I think aliens are better when it comes to gaming
I"m anti abortion, Chnage my mind.

Well again, You went from "anti-abortion" to "abortion is ok in certain situations". My work here is done. That being said, I will continue to discuss it in the following rounds. 1) When specifically do you think a fetus becomes a human? At what week during the pregnancy? 2) There are lots of people who are 100% against abortion (like the sloppy wording of your debate's subject). They believe it's immoral in any circumstance, Usually for religious reasons. 3) Population control is a world wide problem since we all share the same static resources on the same rock. The scope is much larger than only the USA. Fertility rate went down slightly, But the population didn't. We still have other factors contributing to population and the population only increases with each year. Addressing it now is easier than addressing it when it's too late; or denying it like people like to do with global warming. http://www. Worldometers. Info/world-population/us-population/
I"m anti abortion, Chnage my mind.

It's all good that incident with my mom was almost what. . . 4 years ago? Ummm, A fetus is technically fully developed and has all human deatures at about a little over 11 weeks so. . . As well as this to make it even more clearer, By saying a fetus isn't developed, You're saying a baby to be born in minutes on it's expected week is undeveloped? 2. Ummm, Again almost all pro-lifers belief in abortion in certain scenarios. It just makes sense in those. However 80% of abortions are not for a valid reason, That's what the whole abortion debate has always been about. Nobody denies that a rape victim should be able to get an abortion. 3. As for the USA, We could sustainably support China's population. Would our government need to drastically change, Yead, But still as for the USA, We are not bound to be overpopulated for quite a while if ever. Our birth rate went down by 2% for the last two years.
I"m anti abortion, Chnage my mind.

1) I am sorry to hear about your mother, But that argument is still subjective, Not objective. There is a difference between your mother and a fetus, She is a fully developed human, The fetus is not. What you are referring to is euthanasia, Not abortion. That's a different topic. 2) If you agree here, Then it sounds like I have already changed your mind. You went from no abortion to abortion in limited cases. My job here is done :) 3) Personally, I would never abort a fetus because of an unplanned pregnancy, But that's just me. Nonetheless, This was not my argument for #3. My argument was fetuses that are developing with life crippling abnormalities or disorders. 4) Just because it's not overpopulated like other countries does not mean it's underpopulated. Regardless, Population is growing in an exponential projection. This will be a problem and this is still a valid point.
I"m anti abortion, Chnage my mind.

1. Look, Pain and conciousness don't really hold up, With this logic it's moral to kill people in a coma. My mother has been in a coma once and believe me, That's not okay to just kill people in comas. The child's parents shouldn't be able to decide because it's murder. 2. I agree, Under the circumstances that it was rape, Or the mother can die, Abortion is okay, But before second trimester. But a clear majority of abortions are not from rape or birth health issues 3. Rape - abortion okay. If you're talking about those people who have a baby at 17, Then the should absuolutely have to carry the pregnancy to term. It's called not being a slut. Also, Birth control and condoms are extremely cheap. There is no excuse to having an "unplanned for pregnancy". Those people are just dumb, And are a slave to their desires, And have no self control. I as well as my wife were virgins till marriage. 4. USA is pretty underpopulated, So. . .
I"m anti abortion, Chnage my mind.

I'm not necessarily pro-abortion, I'm rather somewhere in the middle; but, It sounded like an interesting topic. Below are my initial outlined arguments, Numbered for your rebutting convenience. Any subjective religious concerns regarding the soul would need to be left at the door in order to maintain separation of church and state (in the US at least). 1) I would personally define an immoral action as being any action that imposes on another individual's personal will. The fetus is not developed yet and is not recognized as a sentient/conscious human; nor can it feel pain. Since it is not imposing on the fetuses will, Because it hasn't developed will yet, It is not immoral. The child's parents should have the option to choose whether or not they want to keep it. 2) It is unfair for a rape victim to have her life disabled by an unwanted or uncontrollable pregnancy. 3) It is unfair for a child to grow up with a crippling or life disabling ability. It is further unfair to subject the parents to raising that child when that life style was unplanned or an unintended consequence. 4) Population control. It is one less person adding to the exponential population growth. This might sound cold, And it mostly is, But it's a valid point nonetheless when considered objectively. In order for any of the above situations to be reconcilable, Some level of abortion law would need to be legislated.
Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide

If the patient is suffering from an extreme amount of pain, they may enter palliative care. Palliative care reduces the pain as much as they can so that they can spend their last days with their family. If the person would like to end their life right away, how do you know that they're are in the right mental state. Their illness may have affected them so they should not be able to determine to end their life then and there.