BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the bible does not teach that non-christians will necessarily be condemned

--"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). Obviously one must know Jesus to be saved. it says that Jesus saves. if a non-christian is saved, they are saved by Jesus. it doesn't say anything about who does or does not believe in this verse, so i'm not sure why you're quoting it. ---4:12 - "There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved." It is most certainly clear that knowledge and acceptance of Jesus is a prerequisite for being saved. it says that Jesus saves. if a non-christian is saved, they are saved by Jesus. it doesn't say anything about who does or does not believe in this verse, so i'm not sure why you're quoting it. Jesus saves. the name is undr heaven is Jesus, and he saves. again, you're imputing knowledge etc of Jesus in the verse, where it doesn't exist. ---Romans 1:18-20 - " The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;" -This clearly states that God is evident in creation and the hypothetical island man, unless he be on some island that was not created by God, would have had "what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to" him. God can "understood and perceived in what he has made." And the man on the island HAS NO EXCUSE. He will be condemned. i'd quote that verse for the opposite of what you're quoting it for. everyone has a conscious. they'll be held accountable if they act evil. not because they didn't believe in Jesus. the verse doesn't say what you're claiming about not believing in Jesus. Jesus isn't even mentioned. and, condemneation of anyone who's ever sinned isn't mentioned. you're imputing it where it doesn't exist. we do know though that Jesus saves. the questio is who that applies to. while there's a minute way you could construe by force your interpretation if you're willing to stretch the verse beyound where it goes literally.... you haven't shown that non-christians will necessarily be condemned by anything in the bible. in fact... if the bible says anything, it says that they can be saved. i'm not arguing this position, but it's more clearly that than it is what you say: "For to this end we toil and struggle, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:10) "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all." (Titus 2:11) i concede the second one isn't as clear... but it's a whole lot more clear than the verses your claiming accomplish what you claim.
the bible does not teach that non-christians will necessarily be condemned

Ah, dairygirl - we meet again... Let us examine the verses you actually provide for me... "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16). You argue that taken in context, all this means is that those people who hear the word and do not believe are condemned. Very well, so the people who are around and hear the good news and believe it are saved. "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). Obviously one must know Jesus to be saved. This is further elucidated by Acts 4:12 - "There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved." It is most certainly clear that knowledge and acceptance of Jesus is a prerequisite for being saved. ***************************** Now, the theoretical island man. He has no knowledge of Jesus, and can't be held accountable for his lack of belief because it was impossible for him to get the good news, right? WRONG. Romans 1:18-20 - " The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;" This clearly states that God is evident in creation and the hypothetical island man, unless he be on some island that was not created by God, would have had "what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to" him. God can "understood and perceived in what he has made." And the man on the island HAS NO EXCUSE. He will be condemned.
Youth Rights

You say only kids who save that large amount of money can earn your school money. I"m a parent, son go cut the grass every week this month and you got yourself two g"s large. You did a service for me and there is nothing saying I don"t put that much value on it and as a parent you would be irresponsible not doing this. You are just moving money to your kid"s name which they cannot spend and then they are making more money. If you wanted they could give you what they loaned you back when you are 18 and you"re not out money and they made 1200 dollars. Your logic behind a lot of this doesn"t make sense. You spelled out a very elaborate drug screening idea but it still doesn"t counter my argument saying that if someone is smart and does drugs on a Friday night they will be clean Monday morning. The government doesn"t work on weekends so I just beat your drug screening and am dropping acid every weekend. You keep saying that kids can get alcohol without they"re parents knowing it and yeah kids can sneak it but they have to keep it pretty discreet. You can"t be drunk or throwing huge parties with your parents" home where as if you had your own house and could buy an unlimited amount you"re asking for trouble. The drinking age is there for a reason. 14 year old kids shouldn"t be allowed to drink on their own. This is the time that parents need to keep a strict leash on them and teach them to drink responsibly but that can"t happen if you"re giving them miles of rope to hang themselves with. There are way too many issues with all of this. You can"t gage how mature and responsible kids are by jobs or money. That"s why there are age laws to help protect and not have to do this on an individual basis. And if this ever was put to practice I would be very upset that the government is wasting money and time on this when there are real problems in this country.
Youth Rights

First off it would just be another tax that would be nearly wasted money. There are many better uses for that 7.2 billion dollars that would be taxed besides setting it aside for students in grade school. You could work on fixing poverty, social security, health care, infrastructure and many other things that need to be fixed. As for you saying that they spend time doing school and deserve to be compensated that is false. Students who go to college and grad school don"t get paid for their hours spent "working on school" do they? NO, they actually are paying tens of thousands of dollars to do this. Now ask why do people spend money to go to school? It"s because school is an investment in yourself. Students in grade school are getting a free investment in their minds on basic knowledge and the tools to succeed in life. You used to have to pay to go to grammar school, which is essentially what these kids are receiving. They are just lucky enough that the government already pays for it. So you should not get money to do something, which is already a service being provided to you for free, that in history and still some countries today are paid for. Prove that I follow the law. Drug tests are unconstitutional to administer by a government sector without proper suspicion. And many drugs, except weed, are out of your system in 3 days. Do some blow or mushrooms on a Friday night at a party and your clean Monday morning for that random drug test. You say that college kids binge drink and even more after they turn 21 and can get it legal. Don"t you think this will happen sooner if you are allowing all this freedom (house). I know that it was harder in high school to get alcohol than anything else. I could get weed and a few other drugs pretty easy if I wanted but not alcohol. If you say these kids can drink you don"t think the one good kid won"t buy for all his buddies. Of course he will. Then all the irresponsible kids are drinking. Point defeated. Allowing just one responsible kid the opportunity to purchase alcohol gets it to all the ones you don"t think should be drinking, therefore, providing another mind altering substance to young teens, which even you say that they shouldn"t have. I don"t take anything personally and it"s not that I disagree some people are responsible and mature enough to do some of the things you discuss but it opens doors to allow other bad things to happen that are uncontrollable. How do you regulate the 15 year old buying alcohol for the 14 year old because he hands him an extra 20.
Youth Rights

I"m not sure where to begin on this one, WOW. I would say no voters or people in society think the government should spend more than 7 billion more dollars a year to GIVE money away to kids for RECEIVING a service already paid for. That doesn"t make sense. If I offer to help pull your car out of the snow you don"t think I should be paying you also do you? You mentioned having money for college when they are done with high school. Cool, $1200 that will pay for your books for two years hahaha. You really want to make that argument? Driver"s licenses to those who pass school and can hold a job (to show they are responsible). NO!!!! I knew many people who can drag themselves to school in high school, and make it to Burger King on time who were nowhere near responsible. Just because you can do this doesn"t mean you are emotionally mature enough to drive a car, which every time you do you have others" lives in your hands (pedestrians and other drivers). Oh I forgot to mention, those kids who would fit your criteria of responsible, were HIGH the whole time". Very responsible actions, but I mean if you pass school and keep a job flipping burgers you got some talent at a young age, especially if your high the whole time. Even more power to you. The next step in your 12 step program here was if they continue to, you know make it to work, save some money, and pass high school they should buy a house. Screw it, not like they won"t have all their friends over on Friday nights little party actions (of course with just fruit punch cause their minors). Oh, Oh, wait if they doont get in trouble in the house maybe letting them drink legally under no supervision. College kids, who are 3-4 years older than the kids we are talking about now, have significant problems with this. Just last week I knew a guy getting arrested for going to the wrong girl"s room and getting in bed with her cause he was so drunk. But it"s ok because these kids are responsible and can have their own house and buy their own booze at 16 or 17.
Is Battlefield 4 Better Than Call Of Duty Ghost

Battlefield 4: I have always thought that Call Of Duty is a better game. Black Ops 2 was one of the best games for me. I thought Battlefield 3 was hard and I often RAGED because I could not kill anyone. When I bought the Xbox One I also bought Battlefield 4. This game is so nice WHEN IT WORKS! It crashes every other round on conquest. The guns and bullet drop is very realistic. The damage that you can do with nades, rpg, etc. is amazing. The pros for Battlefield 4 is: 1. You can get into vehicles, 2. You can take down building, 3. 64 player servers. The cons are: 1. IT CRASHES ALL THE TIME! 2. Many guns are op. (over powered) Call Of Duty Ghost: This game looks the same as Black Ops 2. You cannot have the freedoms that you have in Battlefield 4. The game has been going on to long and the DOGS are too hard to knife and WAY WAY OP! (Over Powered) Though the game doesn't crash, it feels that they have not made it better at all. Also it seems that Call Of Duty Ghost is only made for 12 year olds that think it is cool to be douche bags. Over all I believe that Battlefield 4 is better and will be even better when they fix all of the crashes
Is Battlefield 4 Better Than Call Of Duty Ghost

"GO screw your self" This imperative sentence is ambiguous and some forms of the sentence can not be demonstrated. This shows no relevance to the debate. "Why cant a person just say what they think" I stated what I thought was better, which is Call of Duty ghosts. "with out" *without "some douche bag like you" Douche bag - a small syringe having detachable nozzles for fluid injections, used chiefly for vaginal lavage and for enemas. [1] With this definition said, I am not in fact a douche bag. "getting in the way" My opponent failed to explain what I was "getting in the way" of. Throughout this debate, my opponent failed to state one sentence that would support his argument. Since he stated arguments against himself, there is no need for me to provide any more evidence. Thank you opponent. Vote Con. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Is Battlefield 4 Better Than Call Of Duty Ghost

"First, I said that Black Ops 2 was good for me because it was easy and Battlefield 3 was hard" Thats exactly what I refuted. : "Battlefield 4 is much better because you can do more things and not run around with a shot gun and own every one" I'm inferring that by this, my opponent means that the only thing you can do in CoD ghosts is run around with shotgun and "own every one." That, is a very false statement, and I believe I don't even need to go on about how it is false. "Dice and EA are working on fixing the game. Check out this link" That is assuming that the game is not good at the moment, because if it was it would not need fixing. Opponent, please state a legitimate response next round. Thank you.
Eternal Security

I am sorry that i was unable to post my rebuttal. I had technically difficulty over the course of the weekend. I also had a debate tournament during that weekend. Rebuttal: prodigal son "My opponent makes a fatal mistake in this debate by using the parable of the prodigal son. You can fall from grace and the prodigal son proves it. Notice that Jesus makes the parallell: ". .. was dead, and is alive again; he was lost and is found. " (Like 15:24). " My opponent agrees to my definition of true christian. In his opening argument, my opponent states that "It is impossible for a Christian to do anything that would send him to hell. " The fact that my opponent uses the word christian, means that my opponent agrees that the person in question is a true Christian in God's eye also meaning that the individual is a born again. With this been said, we must look at the fact the my opponent agrees to my definition of true christian, renders this argument false thus supporting my argument that a true CHRISTIAN is provided with eternal security. "One thing is for sure; a person in state of being "Saved" is not lost, and a person possessing salvation will notbe considered as being dead. " This statement makes no sense as my opponent failed to elaborate on his point also rendering his argument null. "I'm sorry, but I have been focusing mostly on my abortion debate and am unable to completely respond. .. I will respond in the next round. This is not a concession. " My opponent did not further elaborate on his thought meaning that i am unable to properly understand his side of the argument. Opponents case: "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. " My opponent's acceptance of my definition of true christian makes this point null. This scripture verse does not describe a true christian in terms of the debates definition. " "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. " ones again, this describes a hypocrite who calls himself christian. This does not describe a true christian. In conclusion, My opponent have failed to convince me that the bible does not preach the existence of Eternal security. My opponent also weakend his case in agreeing to my definition of a true christian as described by the bible. For these reasons.
Eternal Security

Thank you for providing your argument. Is it possible to fall from grace? This is a very important issue that is necessary to give attention to. Sorry for the long wait and if I do not respond to everything, I appologize.True Christian=Born Again Christian which I agree.Rebuttal Contention 1: Prodigal son.My opponent makes a fatal mistake in this debate by using the parable of the prodigal son. You can fall from grace and the prodigal son proves it.Notice that Jesus makes the parallell: "...was dead, and is alive again; he was lost and is found." (Like 15:24). One thing is for sure; a person in state of being "Saved" is not lost, and a person possessing salvation will notbe considered as being dead.I'm sorry, but I have been focusing mostly on my abortion debate and am unable to completely respond...I will respond in the next round. This is not a concession.
Eternal Security

Full ResolutionIt is impossible for a Christian to do anything that would send him to hell. This is known as "eternal security" or "once saved always saved" or as Calvinist say, "Preservation of sains." It is my contention that the Bible does NOT teach the above resolution, but the EXACT OPPOSITE. I'd love for a Christian to prove me wrong on this assertion.RulesRound 1: Acceptance only.Round 2: Opening statements, no rebuttals.Round 3: ClashRound 4: Clash/Closing statements VotingVoting period will last for 3 months. ArgumentsYou will be alloted 72 hours (3 days) to post your arguments. You will also be alloted 8,000 characters.SourcesPlease do cite your sources.
Alcohols use as a socially acceptbale narcotic should be banned forthwith

In this debate I propose that alcohol should be banned as a socially acceptable narcotic. To elaborate, this means no more drinking wine, beer, vodka etc. I am not pushing for the termination of ethanol's use in research and medical related fields this is purely in the social sphere.Definitions:Narcotic: A class of substances that blunt the senses, and that in large quantities produce euphoria, stupor, or coma.Alcohol: Ethanol (CH3CH2OH)Banned: To make officially illegal.Forthwith: Without delay i.e. as soon as possible.I hope we can have a good debate. Any questions please ask in the comments.Important: BOP is shared. This is something I say for all debates I instigate (as of 6/27/2014). It makes voters vote on what is presented and not look for a semantic reason to vote against or for someone. Ideally, the BOP is on Pro, but its not possible to prove anything beyond doubt. So in effect if we are to apply BOP to any debate then Con automatically wins. By sharing BOP, I make the debate arguments open to a more rational non semantic vote. And I avoid the terrible "Lest I remind you BOP lies on Pro in this debate, and they have not met their BOP".
Animals SHOULD have the SAME RIGHTS as HUMANS.

Good luck, Pro, interesting topic. While I am not for the mistreatment of animals, the idea that they should have the "same" rights as humans is a poorly phrased construction. Animals are not capable of cognizant thought, and to give them the same rights as people would result in a huge cutback of human rights, down to "don't abuse other humans." We could elevate animal rights to the current standard of human rights, but that is wildly impractical, as animals would not be able to take full advantage of them, and granting animals Constitutional rights does not provide a net good for society.
president obama's plan for increasing troops in afghanistan is in the u.s. best interest

The U. S. should finish the war in Afghanistan in order to have less deaths. 2. Sending troops can make the U. S. make more friends and allies 3. the 30,000 troops would be slowing down terrorist organizations. Pro 1. The U. S. should finish the war in Afghanistan in order to have less deaths. The USA obviously needs to send more troops into Afghanistan in order to destroy the Al Qaeda people so that they can stop killing innocent U. S. citizens as well as the Afghan citizens. Since we want to send more troops ( judging that this is in the United States best interest ) then obviously this would be a good idea. Clearly if we send more troops we can also finish the war so that people can return to there daily lives instead of killing off other people. Some people might think that this would cause more deaths but since like my opponent has clearly stated that there is only less than 100 Al Qaeda troops, this should not be much of a problem to end this war quicker and so we could also draw our troops back home to the U. S. Now for my second point 2. Sending troops can make the U. S. make more friends and allies Since we are sending troops to Afghanistan we are negotiating peace which would give us a chance to befriend the Afghans which would help us gain allies to corner and slow down the process of the terrorist of increasing considering the fact that unfortunately we can not destroy terrorists once and for all but this could help us improve things for them and to show the Afghans that this was all a mistake and that this would never happen again. Like my opponents said, that there are only less than 100 terrorists in there. We are not there just to destroy the remaining terrorists, we are also here to help improve their economy judging that their economy is in the toilets. And finally I would like to add that the 30,000 troops would be slowing down terrorist organizations. Terrorists are constantly growing. Unfortunately they can only be stopped but never destroyed. But since we are sending this 30,000 troops into Afghanistan and destroying the remaining terrorists, we would be destroying their mission of trying to take hold of Afghanistan. And if we stop them ( this may relate to point #1 ) then their will be a lesser chance that they will plot another attack on the U. S. similar like the twin tower incident which goes to less deaths. If we do not send the additional troops we might be able to win but the chances are very slim so I would say that sending the 30,000 troops would be in the United States best interest. And before I am done I would like to repeat the following resolution: Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the u. s. best interest.
president obama's plan for increasing troops in afghanistan is in the u.s. best interest

I will now back up my case. Now, my opponent attack my first point saying that this war is not the following resolution. But yet it does. Because you have to look closely and study the war in order to make any final judgements. The war is clearly unconsitutional so there for we should have never even joined the war and that we should retreat out of here. And My opponent's second rebut was to my second point. Now, we can't just say that the Al Qaeta fighter are stronger than our military. I need to see proof that our troops are going to get killed off. My opponent stated the word "might" so he, himself, does not even know if this is going to happen or not, and his rebut really don't make any sense saying that the number of Al Qaeda fighters doesn't matter. My opponent's third rebut was to my third point. My last point was just an example of how the other millitary groups have fought a war against terrisim and have lost terribly. Fighting terriosts is just like fight a thought you really can't stop terriosism.