BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evangelical Protestantism is Apostolic Christianity

This is because Pro has not demonstrated that the early Church rejected infant baptism and has not demonstrated that the early Church adhered to penal substitutionary atonement. On top of that, Pro neglected to include a number of important citations, but indicated that he planned to include them in the final round. Sola ScripturaThe understanding of the authority of Scripture in the early Church was not the same as it was in the Reformation Era. For one thing, the New Testament itself was not compiled for centuries after Christ. Not only does this mean that the early Church Fathers you mentioned may have simply been referring to the Old Testament, but it also shows that the definition of the Canon is dependant on sources outside of Scripture. This in and of itself disproves the protestant definition of the authority of Scripture because without the Tradition of the Church in defining what books comprise the New Testament, there is no way of determining authoritatively what is and isn't Scripture. Solus ChristusAll Christians believe that salvation is through Christ, and Orthodox Christians believe that the priest in the Sacrament of Penance is a witness, and not necessarily a mediator. Sola GratiaAll Christians believe that we are saved by grace, the difference is that Orthodox Christians, like the early Church, view grace differently from protestants. Protestants view grace as something that "frees us from our debt of sin". Early Christians, on the other hand, viewed grace as a sanctifying force, much like how grace is described in Titus 2:11-12 (DRA): For the grace of God our Saviour hath appeared to all men; Instructing us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly desires, we should live soberly, and justly, and godly in this world,God's grace doesn't just grant us pardon, it saves us from sin through our sanctification, and since the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), by saving us from sin, God saves us from death. Soli Deo gloria All Christians believe in giving glory to God through worshipping Him. Thanks to Pro to the debate. I would like to reiterate that for this debate Evangelical Protestantism was defined as non-infant-baptizing evangelical protestantism, so Pro still has yet to demonstrate that the early Church believed in penal substitution and that the early Church rejected the baptism of infants.
Evangelical Protestantism is Apostolic Christianity

Evangelical Protestantism is defined as non-infant-baptizing evangelical protestantism. Pro will be arguing that it is Apostolic Christianity. Con (me) will be arguing that it is not Apostolic Christianity. Apostolic Christianity is defined as pre-Nicene, pre-Edict of Milan, Christianity as practiced by the Apostles and their successors. Scriptural and historical evidence will both be accepted.
Evangelical Protestantism is Apostolic Christianity

Thank you Con for your prompt response. For my closing arguments I will rebut Con's arguments found in Round 2. Infant Baptism I concede to the point that the Early Church did practice and encourage infant baptism. Whether it is truly biblical or not, I assume is a different debate considering that in this one, Apostolic Christianity is defined as including the activities of early church fathers and not just the Apostles themselves. The practice of infant baptism in the Early Church does not nullify Evangelical Protestantism because it is our belief that regarding matters not explicitly commanded or forbidden by the Bible, it is up to the conviction of the believer. Their are indeed cases of early church fathers who did not believe infant baptism was required. [11] Penal Substitution Con claims that Penal Substitution was invented in the Reformation era and was not found in pre-Nicene writings. A simple look at the writings of early church fathers will prove otherwise. Clement of Rome "Because of the love he felt for us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave his blood for us by the will of God, his body for our bodies, and his soul for our souls." [12] Ignatius "Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes [sic.], that we might be saved." [12] Eusebius of Caesarea "And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us." [12] Basil the Great "By the blood of Christ, through faith, we have been cleansed from all sin." [12] Penal substitution and Christus Victor are not mutually exclusive. Victory over Satan by the death of Christ and his subsequent resurrection goes hand in hand with the belief that His death was for our sake. [12] CLOSING STATEMENTS: Thank you Con, for a thoughtful, challenging debate. My belief is that the two arguments Con initially presented are not essential doctrines in Christianity and therefore are not really true differences between Evangelical Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodox. Below are my sources. SOURCES: [5] http://www.confessionalpc.com... [6] Martin, Francis. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Ed. Thomas C. Oden. Vol. VIII. Downers Grove (Ill.): InterVarsity, 2006. Pg. 49 [7] Lawson, Steven J. Pillars of Grace: A Long Line of Godly Men. Vol. 2. Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Pub. 2010. Pg. 221 [8] http://www.confessionalpc.com... [9] Oden, Thomas C. The Justification Reader. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002. Print. [10] http://www.confessionalpc.com... [11] http://carm.org... [12] http://www.tms.edu... (sources for direct quotes in source 12 can be found in the text.)
homestead exemptions should exist, but property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue

"this creates disincentives to own excessive property, when property should be promoted to be freely distributed as much as possible." - You're correct, placing a heavier tax burden on individuals with 'excessive' property would be a disincentive to owning large amounts of land. I don't think, however, that this disincentive would help to freely distribute property. The people with the money will still buy land because they can afford it. And the people that do not have money will still not be able to afford it. "we should not get rid of property tax..." - I agree. "it should be our main focus..." - I disagree. A major part of our nations wealth is collected at the top: "The top 1% took heavy hits from the dot-com crash and the Great Recession but recovered fairly quickly: Saez"s preliminary estimates for 2012 (which will be updated next month) have that group receiving nearly 22.5% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90%"s share is below 50% for the first time ever (49.6%, to be precise)." http://www.pewresearch.org... Land distribution favoring the wealthy is not a result of having low tax rates on property, it is an effect of wealth distribution itself. Why focus on taxing land (at the state level) which has be purchased, when taxing income (state and federal) targets the source? That's like collecting water from a leak into a bucket instead of patching the leak, it may somewhat work but it doesn't fix the actual problem. "last in line, so as to encourage commercial activity, sales tax. which would have to focus on those with more income, perhaps." - What?! A hirer sales tax rate (again, municipal and not federal) for those with more income? Uhhhhh, income tax? Which is my argument altogether, that property taxes as well as sales taxes are and should remain secondary to income taxes. Property taxes are a result of income and therefore cannot be our nations primary focus on tax revenue. What would happen if we did tax much more heavily the individuals with massive amounts of land? Perhaps they would parcel it out and sell it and retain their wealth, thus creating many more "small" landowners relying on government incentives and homestead exemptions, thus lowering the amount of overall revenue collected through property taxes. The wealthy would remain wealthy and our government would lose money. "why couldn't it balance the scales between the wealthy and non wealthy just as much as income tax? there is no difference where the revenue comes from..." - Wrong. There is a major difference where the revenue is generated. It's the difference between being taxed on income or property, one of which is purchased with the other. Heavily tax the top on their incomes, redistribute to the impoverished, and push for regulations and reform that keep those at the top from manipulating the system and finding loopholes to unfairly maintain their wealth, such as putting it in land.
homestead exemptions should exist, but property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue

it wouldn't have to be done at the federal level. it could just replace state and local income taxes. but even if it were federal, and regardless of where its done, why couldn't it balance the scales between the wealthy and non wealthy just as much as income tax? there's no difference where the revenue comes from, just a matter of preference. doing it with property instead of income would cause property to be distributed more justly given the disincentives to owning it. so as a matter of monetary distribution, it balances the scales as much as any revenue source. and as a matter of practical effects, it balances the scales of property distribution.
homestead exemptions should exist, but property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue

hey dairygirl, i disagree. were property taxes our primary source of federal revenue (impossible) it might give some elbow room for income tax reform. it would not, however, balance the scales between the wealthy and the impoverished in regards to taxation rates. property taxes, as well as sales tax, are applied at a municipal level at varying percentages, not at the federal level.
homestead exemptions should exist, but property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue

while homestead exemptions should exist, property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue the primary source of income should come from property tax in excess of one's own personal property. and the homestead examption should be nothing for cheaper land, but for excessively large properties, it should only be a reduction. if you can't afford to own an excessively large property, tough luck. and of course again propety outside one's own, should be taxed largely. this all creates disincentives to own excessive property, when property should be promoted to be freely distributed as much as possible. a person shouldn't be required to have a roomate, but when it starts to get excessive, you need to start figuring somehting else out if you can't afford it. bottom line though is we should not get rid of the property tax, it should be our main focus, aside from possible homestead exemptions. (next in line is income tax. this way we can get a firm revenue,,,, if people want to make money, they are going to have to pay income tax. last in line, so as to encourage commercial activity, sales tax. which would have to focus on those with more income, perhaps. see pros and cons of 'fair tax', but also note the disadvantags that would entail needing to keep poor people from having to pay, and ensuring enough revenue.
Art is not a reality it is a concept to people choose to believed in.

So I guess ill address your attacks in the same order 1. First off everything takes some amount of skill to accomplish. Next you have to look at is even if you don't "define" art you cant just ignore it. To say it doesn't exist is ignorant because you cant deny something that is right in front of you. 2. Happiness is something drawn from both definitions. For art is something that is created look at the interpretation i made for both definitions, everything is art if you follow any standards defining art, not just both of ours. 3. Grouping the arguments on this part, you said that following our definitions some people would see art. Thats what im saying above how everything is art, and sure saddened art is still art because it brings out raw emotion. 4. Yes it is a concept but that still is in existence its been proven time and time again, and you still havent said what we would call things that people like van gough and picaso have created are we supposed to ignore those works of art. 5. Like you said light is refracted, blue light so the sky is blue, blue light anyways. Thank you for the debate............Vote Negative
Art is not a reality it is a concept to people choose to believed in.

Lets first examine your definition "the expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture." Breaking it down "the expression of creative skill through a visual medium" This is exactly what my definition is saying that something worth seeing and brings you happiness the other portion of your definition was showing examples but wasn't absolute as to what can be defined as art. Also you said "a set standard or have any one person or level of skill achieved by any one person that would universally be a considered art" Thats what I am saying there are not any standards to art but it ties in with point two where everyone has known happiness so everyone knows art. But all definitions meet this basic standard for art, that everything is art. For the second point its not an assumption, if not now at some point you were happy you found something wonderful that you couldn't take your eyes off. Whether 10 or 20 years ago. On the third point its all personal opinion but everyone knows art, you might think somethings hideous but I might say other wise and vice versa. But yes there are all different opinions but they are all on the same basic standard listed above. For this final point art is existent if only in our minds it still exists. Its proven anytime you see something and you think wow thats cool. To deny that it has never happened would be like saying the sky isn't blue
Art is not a reality it is a concept to people choose to believed in.

i think your explanation says it best "art CAN be defined as" another definition as provided by Oxford English dictionary is art-"the expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture." First, the fact that there are multiple definitions for this one word "art" that do not necessarily correlate with each other means that its relative to the person defining it. As such it cannot have a set standard or have any one person or level of skill achieved by any one person that would universally be a considered art. Second, your definition assumes that everyone has found something beautiful. If one person in their existence has never found something beautiful, then art doesn't exist. Third, taking your definition, someone can believe something aesthetically pleasing and someone else can believe it is hideous, thus making it based on a personal opinion. much like a religion, people believe in it based on nothing but a feeling and a personal belief, no actual definitive evidence. your other point i never said art was non existent. i said art was an unproven concept and based on belief. an you hit the nail on the head by saying "it exists if only in a persons mind". i also said i didn't believe in it.
Art is not a reality it is a concept to people choose to believed in.

I concede that yes art is based on perception but everyone believes in art in on form or another. Art can be defined as "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing" - Websters Dictionary Everyone finds something beautiful or appealing so it exists if only in a persons mind. To say that art is non existent is ignorant.
Is there a god (is christianity true)

First off I'd like to say that we all have different faiths and beliefs and I accept that and I hope in this debate that we do not upset one another. Have you ever been to a psychologist or psychiatrist? No I have not, but the difference between God and a therapist is a therapist is scientifically proven to be real. You just said it yourself God is a placebo and by definition a placebo is "a measure designed merely to calm or please someone." Can you prove that Jesus wasn't supernatural? I can say the same thing can you prove he was supernatural, we all need to remember that the bible was written approximately 3500 years ago you don't think that maybe some information could of been twisted or miscommunicated from then till now? I take you as a little gullible if you think religious figures wouldn't lie to spread their faith. Are you saying they died for nothing? And what about all the people that died for Al-Qaeda's cause died for nothing when they attacked the twin towers? people die for causes that they believe is right whether it be Christianity or Al-Qaeda The dinosaurs died in a flood, while 2 of every animal fit in a tiny boat for a couple years with inadequate food. I don't have much to say other than good one and that evolution is the more realistic theory, but don't get me wrong you may be right.
Is there a god (is christianity true)

"First off I'd like to say that we all have different faiths and beliefs and I accept that and I hope in this debate that we do not upset one another." I am an atheist who accidentally accepted this side. I will defend it as best I can though. I would suggest re-posting this debate if you wish to debate someone who actually believes this. "So to start this debate I ask where is your proof that praying to a religious figure will "strengthen" me in my time of need." Have you ever been to a psychologist or psychiatrist? It is very helpful to talk to someone and explain what your going through. That is where the strength comes from. Even if it is a advice that you seek, wisdom that you generate is good as well. That's the purpose of prayer. If you talk it through with someone, even if the existence of that someone is under question, it is still helpful. So by this, the placebo effect proves the existence of god. Somehow. A woman at a "learn about Christian science" booth told me that. "Now to be fair I know that for a fact Jesus of Nazareth was a real person but that people fabricated his plight to make him seem as an immortal or even supernatural, and this goes for other." I will attempt to defend the existence of Jesus as a supernatural being. I have one question. Can you prove that Jesus wasn't supernatural? Can you? I have never heard solid evidence against the existence of Jesus as a supernatural being. And we have reliable eye witnesses that were written about, instead of writing themselves, so we KNOW that it's true, because religious zealots never lie to prove their religion. Because it is a societal norm for 98% of the world that accepts the divinity of Crist (real number may have been taken from a youtube video and may be off by about 50-60%) And what about all the people that died for Christianity? Are you saying they died for nothing? Are you saying their death's were meaningless? What about the witches that attacked the innocent people at Salem town. they knew about the witches, and they took action to protect their children! It was only the Satan worshipping mayor that shut down the trials to protect his wife who was a witch! And what about all the miracles in Christianity? What about all of these miracles? Sure they occur in other faiths, but that's simply the devil stealing their souls! The whole "old earth" theory, is evolutionist hogwash. It is not supported by any evidence, and radiometric dating is uncertain and unreliable for dating. The dinosaurs died in a flood, while 2 of every animal fit in a tiny boat for a couple years with inadequate food. Don't deny what you know to be true!
Is there a god (is christianity true)

First off I'd like to say that we all have different faiths and beliefs and I accept that and I hope in this debate that we do not upset one another. So to start this debate I ask where is your proof that praying to a religious figure will "strengthen" me in my time of need. I have heard stories (some very absurd) and I have been to church but no one as convinced me that their is a god that praying will somehow help me, explain to me why people pray. Now to be fair I know that for a fact Jesus of Nazareth was a real person but that people fabricated his plight to make him seem as an immortal or even supernatural, and this goes for other.
Final, DDO Beginners Tournament: Euthanasia is not a morally permissible practice.

Standard tournament rules, we have agreed to the definitions on the BBC Ethics website . http://www.bbc.co.uk... which are as follows:Active euthanasiaIn active euthanasia a person directly and deliberately causes the patient's death. Assisted suicideThis is when the person who wants to die needs help to kill themselves, asks for it and receives it. CompetenceA competent patient is one who understands his or her medical condition, what the likely future course of the disease is, and the risks and benefits associated with the treatment of the condition; and who can communicate their wishes. DignityThe value that a human being has simply by existing, not because of any property or action of an individual. DNRAbbreviation for Do Not Resuscitate. Instruction telling medical staff not to attempt to resuscitate the patient if the patient has a heart attack. Doctrine of Double EffectEthical theory that allows the use of drugs that will shorten life, if the primary aim is only to reduce pain. Futile treatmentTreatment that the health care team think will be completely ineffective. Indirect euthanasiaThis means providing treatment (usually to reduce pain) that has the foreseeable side effect of causing the patient to die sooner. Involuntary euthanasiaThis occurs when the person who dies wants to live but is killed anyway. It is usually the same thing as murder. Living willA document prepared by an individual in which they state what they want in regard to medical treatment and euthanasia. Non-voluntary euthanasiaThis is where the person is unable to ask for euthanasia (perhaps they are unconscious or otherwise unable to communicate), or to make a meaningful choice between living and dying and an appropriate person takes the decision on their behalf, perhaps in accordance with their living will, or previously expressed wishes. Palliative careMedical, emotional, psychosocial, or spiritual care given to a person who is terminally ill and which is aimed at reducing suffering rather than curing. Passive euthanasiaIn passive euthanasia death is brought about by an omission - i. e. by withdrawing or withholding treatment in order to let the person die. PASAbbreviation for Physician Assisted Suicide. Voluntary euthanasiaThis is where euthanasia is carried out at the request of the person who dies. As pro I will defend that euthanasia is not morally permissible and will be excluding indirect euthanasia and palliative care from the definition.
God Exists

Rules: 1. No forfeits 2. Citations may be posted in comments. 3. No new arguments in the summary. 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution) 7. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate (unless otherwise specified in R1) 8. Con begins in R1 and must write,"I waive this round." Or something like that in R5. 9. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a loss Structure: R1. Con's Case R2. Pro's Case; Con's Rebuttal R3. Pro's Rebuttal; Con's response to Rebuttal R4. Pro's response to Rebuttal; Con summarizes case. No new arguments. R5. Pro summarizes case. No new arguments; Con waives round. Definitions: God - An extremely powerful, incorporeal mind that created the universe and is the source of morality.