BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
minimum faith needed for salvation is not clear

con's main point is that he has gone on a tangent about reinforcing the common conception that nonchristians must believe to be saved, which is what i pointed out to begin with. "So as for it being impossible to tell just read the holy manuscripts and try to work out a thousand religious fanatics dribble and you will have a set way to be saved. Which is I think read the bible repent any sins you have and don't be a witch. :) easy" why didn't i come to this conclusion earlier. note the sarcasm. i reiterate all my past arguments, particularly the last post.
minimum faith needed for salvation is not clear

It is like studying the world of Harry potter as if it was reality but I have done some research and I have found that allot of Christians believe that heaven is only for Christians, so being born on an island somewhere with no knowledge of the bible or Jesus but being a good person would justify hell, I think that shows yet another hole in the religion. After looking into the subject more closely I have found that as far as the the bible is concerned it clearly says that every masikas sindin Romans 5:12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." And then that we are all washed of sin thanks to Jesus in Romans 5:8, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." So anyone born after Jesus died is clean of this sin. Now is the only complicated part the exceptions are clearly stated so I will post the only ways to avoid being saved are, Not knowing the bible, 2nd Thessalonians 1:8, "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." Being anything the writers of the bible didn't like, Revelation 21:8, "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Or Not being written into the book of life... ? Revelation 20:15, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." So as for it being impossible to tell just read the holy manuscripts and try to work out a thousand religious fanatics dribble and you will have a set way to be saved. Which is I think read the bible repent any sins you have and don't be a witch. :) easy
minimum faith needed for salvation is not clear

one of the commenters who commented "gets" the issues here: "http://andynaselli.com...... we have to hold that at least essential doctrines are required. However none of us can make a comprehensive bold claim that this person is saved bec of his beliefs in this and this doctrine, but the other is not even though he lives the righteous life that Jesus commanded everyone. We can only assume the best and closest doctrine; the judgement is only upto the perfect Lord. The topic of your debate is very difficult to be debated. I believe that even those are saved who have minor misunderstandings and mistakes on the essential doctrines, but live in obedience and love of Christ. scholars and we all can have certain variance of disagreement on the matter of who and what exactly on need and who exactly are doomed. this is a valuable article http://www.reasonablefaith.org...; this is more than just "repent" and you will be saved. that doesn't include believing in Jesus etc. christians everywhere say that nonchristians who repent are not saved... so we have right there the explicit reuirement that you believe in Jesus too. as the commenter said, there's a list of required beliefs but no one is really placed in a way to really know what they are, or even to say what's be essential or what's not essential. for example, believing and repenting might be viewed as enough, but some asy you have to "rely" on Jesus too, which beliving alone does not necessarily accomplish. where is the magic line? there is no magic line.
minimum faith needed for salvation is not clear

I would just like to say that I am a very strong believer in the bible being a work of fiction created by men ( as its known it was) to control men just like all other religious manuscripts, they are just another simple way like laws to keep people in order, the only problem is religion doesn't stay upto date with the times and gives people a right to punish and extradite non believers. Now that my religion hating rant is over I will get to my argument. I think it is obvious what you must do to be saved it is stated that you must repent your sins and then there are laws literally written in stone telling you what your sins are and what not to do in future. It's very simple that's what makes it so appealing in a complicated world. But there are other points to take into consideration like going to church... Oh wait no there aren't because it doesn't once in the bible say you have to, that's just a way for religion to control people and take money from them.
minimum faith needed for salvation is not clear

what the absolute minimum needed to believe is not clear. this debate is beyond the "faith v works" debate and is simply in the realm of what faith is required to be saved. i am not saying this in terms of seeking to do or believe the minimum such as to "do as little as i have to to get saved". i ask christians and they say "believe in jesus". then i point out that the devil does as even the bible says. so they say believe he's your savior. then i point out that some believe that different people see that differently... a good message or atonement etc. a fundamentalist would say a good message is not sufficient. so... you have to believe in atonement is one element. but then there's various beliefs in atonement, "christus victor" v "substitionary" etc. but then the bible has lots of places where it says what to believe. "confess with your lips that he is lord and believe that he has risen and you will be saved". that doesn't really define what "Lord" is though, thoug h in any case all this atonement stuff may not be necessary after all. but what if they do beleive in atonement and all this other stuff, but dont' know to believe that he was risen? or what if they find that piece of evidence insufficient for belief but believe everything else? most christians just say "believe he's savior and you're good". and what if you don't like this "savior" stuff given it's a loaded word. what if you just "relied" on Jesus instead, and acknowledged that you're a sinner, wouldn't that be enough? well it's not confesing and beleiving all that stuff, though no one said that was teh end all be all of what's required. some don't believe he's god... is that okay? a dogamatic would start to list things you must believe. then i point out that that's dogmatic, and most would shy away from that. if it's too short though, they don't like the vagueness or the possibilities they are forgoing for the sake of an easy answer... it's a brutal issue when you get down to it. they want to have their cake... easy answer... and eat it too.. not giving a clear answer. you have people who are new to the religion and one wouldn think couldn't be held responsible to everything to a T, and you have those who have honest disagreements over what doctrines should be belieeved and what shouldn't. and even if they knew of one doctrine and rejected what tehy knew... what is the minimum they'd have to believe? they can do the "confess with your mouth" stuff and reject say the trinity and be condemned for it? basically everyone is at different stages. it seems the right conclusion is it depends on hwere you are in your walk. so... beyond the whole faith v works debate.. even in terms of faith... what one must believe is not clear or taught very well.
Clone animals to ensure food security

In this round I am going to take head on the fact kept by the instigator I to a certain extent agree that that the transgenic cloned lamb named polly is a successful testimonial for why cloning is good.yes with cloning we can make many such polly's. But an image cannot be seen with a single eye.We need both the eyes to get the perception of depth. In this case the depth is more to the contender side Here is the full picture:- As cells go through their normal rounds of division, the tips of the chromosomes, called telomeres, shrink. Over time, the telomeres become so short that the cell can no longer divide and, consequently, the cell dies. This is part of the natural aging process that seems to happen in all cell types. As a consequence, clones created from a cell taken from an adult might have chromosomes that are already shorter than normal, which may condemn the clones' cells to a shorter life span. Indeed, Polly, who was cloned from the cell of a 6-year-old sheep, had chromosomes that were shorter than those of other sheep her age. Polly died when she was six years old, about half the average sheep's 12-year lifespan. Although cloning can produce exact copy here are the potential drawbacks: 1.Increase in birth size. 2.Failure of vital organs like the kidney,lungs at the time of birth 3.premature ageing 4.Debilitated immune system. I do not mean that cloning is all together evil but its drawbacks outweighs the potential advantages.Maybe in future with better techniques,proper guidelines and a supportive society we might be able to make use of cloning in unprecedented ways. source: 1.http://www.genome.gov... 2.http://learn.genetics.utah.edu...
Clone animals to ensure food security

Well you said something about aid and aid will not always been the case. As countries have problems of their own.With cloning animals we can have: Agriculture and Drug Production:Not only can the best traits be perpetuated but farm animals could also be used as “machines” for large-scale production of medically important proteins. Polly, a transgenic cloned lamb, is an example. She is able to produce milk containing factor IX — the protein that is deficient in hemophiliacs.Having Agriculture and Drug Production, more of the food can be clone which can create more the of food. Now i don't want you to think about animal cloning as not being a normal food or good. So...According to http://www.fda.gov...... • cloning poses no unique risks to animal health, compared to the risks found with other reproduction methods, including natural mating• the composition of food products from cattle, swine, and goat clones, or the offspring of any animal clones, is no different from that of conventionally bred animals • because of the preceding two conclusions, there are no additional risks to people eating food from cattle, swine, and goat clones or the offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food
Clone animals to ensure food security

cloning is not the solution for food security In the current round of discussion the protagonist defended his/her argument by quoting that 'we make the more of it we have'.I would like to refute this by saying that by cloning we will not have more or even better we might have less It is proved (refer source) that after so many unsuccessful trails were they scientists able to develop a stable zygote(refer somatic cell nuclear transfer).This means that the probability to produce a replica is actually quite less.And given the factors like inheriting diseases,potential for abuses the value for the species would diminish and would cause an ecological imbalance. My first question to the protagonist is why are advocating cloning for the sake of food security? It may be true that we have a rapidly declining flora and fauna and hundreds of species are becoming extinct every year.But the food that we consume that is the livestock(cows,pig,fish,goat,chickens,sheeps,etc) are nowhere near being endangered.Then why is there a necessity to clone them considering the high costs and lower rates of success My second question is why is the protagonist stressing on livestock for food security? The world surprisingly is making active transition from 'meat-eating' to 'go greens'.why has vegetarianism been left out.Even the crops that we consume are nowhere near extinction,in fact scientist have discovered many techniques like drip irrigation system,tissue culture etc we are able to actually produce more output and that too a whole lot quicker. while it may be true that we can produce the same thing drawbacks like high failure rate,high costs,legal bottlenecks and red tapism(remember that it is banned in many countries and those who permit(like us)always have a tab on the research and development) I conclude that it is baseless in terms of food security source: 1.http://learn.genetics.utah.edu... 2.http://answers.yahoo.com... 3.http://www.indg.in...
Clone animals to ensure food security

I believe that cloning is not the solution to food security. As a matter of fact based on the present advancements in the field of cloning and in the nearby future you would still need a donor and a surrogate receptor.This is similar to the natural reproduction.This in no way can guarantee food security.Cloning can be used to get exactly identical donor.It cannot have a multiplier effect source: 1.http://learn.genetics.utah.edu... 2.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Clone animals to ensure food security

I believe we should clone animals to ensure food security!Full ResolutionWe need animals cloning to ensure food security for this world of billions of people!Definitions Animal Clone: "...one that appears to be a copy of an original form" Food security: "Food security refers to the availability of food and one's access to it."Ensure: "Make certain of obtaining or providing (something)."My stand: I believe that we should clone animals to ensure food security. There are alot of people dying from stravation, having nothing or little to eat, so animal clone is a way we could ensure food security.Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.-Any rule to the contrary notwithstandingVoters, stand by your belief. Through this debate i hope you may see a reason for your vote.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Arguement (rebuttals)Round 3: Arguement (rebuttals)Round 4: Arguement (rebuttals)Round 5: Defending your original arguments and conclusionhttp://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.google.com...
Clone animals to ensure food security

I would not like to add anything new but summarize my arguments from round 2,3,4 1.cloning is expensive and failure prone 2.The animals that we consume as food are nowhere near extinction hence cloning is not necessary 3.cloned animals have shown to have genetic differences with that of original and so consuming them can cause pathological and biological problems in the distant future 4.cloning does not have a multiplier effect.It is similar to natural reproduction I thank hilton for being such a wonderful instigator. I thank the voters who will exercise sound decision I thank debate.org for this opportunity
Clone animals to ensure food security

This brings us to our conclsion. Our stand by my original arguments by saying...we hope we get your votesAgriculture and Drug Production:Not only can the best traits be perpetuated but farm animals could also be used as “machines” for large-scale production of medically important proteins. Polly, a transgenic cloned lamb, is an example. She is able to produce milk containing factor IX — the protein that is deficient in hemophiliacs.Having Agriculture and Drug Production, more of the food can be clone which can create more the of food. • cloning poses no unique risks to animal health, compared to the risks found with other reproduction methods, including natural mating• the composition of food products from cattle, swine, and goat clones, or the offspring of any animal clones, is no different from that of conventionally bred animals • because of the preceding two conclusions, there are no additional risks to people eating food from cattle, swine, and goat clones or the offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food
Clone animals to ensure food security

Dear instigator, I whole-heartedly agree with you about FDA approving the cloned livestock to be used as human food. But consider this You have livestock worth $30,000.Would you rear them,take care of them which would at the maximum cost about $5,000 to $7,000 or would you spend $200,000 on getting them cloned. As I have mentioned before cloning is not only costly but also more failure prone(refer to my argument in round 2) Where can cloning be used:suppose you have a rare ox which is extremely delicious and a protein powerhouse worth $100,000,then under such an instance would you go for cloning. Also cloning is a modern biotechnological concept; though engendered in 1950,it is widely adopted very recently in 2000's and so we don't have a clear picture of what its long term effects could be. As I had mentioned in the round 3 of the genetic differences between a ordinary and a cloned sheep,let me elucidate further by quoting excerpt from a research article: In 2002, researchers at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, reported that the genomes of cloned mice are compromised. In analyzing more than 10,000 liver and placenta cells of cloned mice, they discovered that about 4% of genes function abnormally. The abnormalities do not arise from mutations in the genes but from changes in the normal activation or expression of certain genes. Problems also may result from programming errors in the genetic material from a donor cell. When an embryo is created from the union of a sperm and an egg, the embryo receives copies of most genes from both parents. A process called "imprinting" chemically marks the DNA from the mother and father so that only one copy of a gene (either the maternal or paternal gene) is turned on. Defects in the genetic imprint of DNA from a single donor cell may lead to some of the developmental abnormalities of cloned embryos. ergo,I hope that you imbibe the broader picture and modify your arguments.Cloning may have a bright future but certainly not now..
Evolution is more scientifically substantiated than strict, biblical Creationism

PrefaceThis was a topic that happened to come up in a discussion Mishap and I were having. I think this has the potential to be an informative and fun debate for us both; I would just ask that Mishap wait at least 3 days prior to accepting. Thanks to her, and I look forward to the debate.TopicEvolution is more scientifically substantiated than strict, biblical CreationismDefinitionsEvolution - "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." Science - "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method "Scientific Method - "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"Substantiate - "to establish by proof or competent evidence: verify" Creationism - "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis."All definitions were excerpted from Merriam Webster. [1] For the purposes of this debate, "strict, biblical Creationism" denotes a literal interpretation of the bible's creation story.StructureR1: AcceptanceR2: Constructive CasesR3: RebuttalsR4: Rebuttals, Final FocusRules1. No forfeits2. All citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. BOP is thus: Pro must show evolution more scientifically substantiated that creationism, whereas Con must show that creationism is at least as equally substantiated as evolution.6. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossThanks......again to Mishap; it should be fun! :)[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
July Beginner's Tournament: Same Sex Marriage should be recognized.

Round StructureRound 1: Acceptance only. Round 2: Constructive arguments only. Round 3: Rebuttals only. (Silence on any point implies consent. )Round 4: Conclusion. (Anything but new arguments. )Full ResolutionSame Sex Marriage should be recognized by society. DefinitionsGay (Same sex): Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. Marriage: A legal union between two persons that confers certain privileges and entails certain obligations of each person to the other. Should: Used to express obligation or duty. Recognize: To acknowledge the existence, validity, or legality of. Rules:1. No trolling.2. No forfeitures.3. Shared BoP (I must argue that they should be recognized, my opponent must argue that they should not be recognized).4. Both debaters must assume that marriage itself should not be discontinued. 5. Breaking rules 1 or 2 will result in a complete forfeiture.
Abortion Is Murder!

Sorry about that, as I was in a hurry trying to catch a plane to Helsinki. I'm Catholic therefore I believe in God. I find it hard to believe that some people don't think a God exists. I like to see what people say when I'm the one criticizing myself. I'm a Alt Right, Conservative, Trump Republican. I have in fact said all those things. If you would like to debate me on those topics I'd love to as I'm very passionate about them. I strongly welcome you to debate me about whether God exists, and all mathematicians agree 0.999... = 1. It's not absurd at all. The thing I hate about Liberals and Leftists is they yell things with no proof or evidence of why they are correct. 1. I did in fact mean No, abortion is not justified murder. 2. The definition in short is an UNLAWFUL killing. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear earlier. 3. There is in fact a difference. A killing could be lawful and/or justified, a murder is never lawful and/ or justified. 5. Ok fine I'll answer you're strange hypotheticals that make little to no sense. Going down the -'s from round 3. - No - No - No - No From these answers you probably believe I have no morals. I do it's just that I strongly believe that things happen for a reason. And as every single time traveling movie says, changing the past can have disastrous effects on the present. Ex. If Hitler wasn't born WWII probably wouldn't have happened. It's pretty safe to say that if WWII never happened we'd still be in the Great Depression. P.S. Since you call 0.999... = 1 "absurd" I'm starting a debate with you about that.
Abortion Is Murder!

No abortion is not justified murder. The freaking definition of murder is in short an UNLAWFUL killing. There is a difference between killing and murdering. No I still don't support abortion on any of your hypotheticals, the only case I would allow an abortion is if the mother will die. Now to your -'s. Here are some hypotheticals for you. - Would you kill someone in a coma or persistent vegetative state. - How the hell are you supposed to know if the baby is going to be a murderer at birth? - Adoption, and would you kill a child whose parent was financially ruined abusing drugs and are homeless. - How were Hitler's parents supposed to know he'd be Hitler when he was a baby? With your first - your denying someone of their life, for a condition or state they are in. P.S. Most of your hypotheticals make no sense.