BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Environmental Protection

I strongly affirm that we should invest in the environment. Dictionary.com defines the environment as 'the air, water, minerals, organisms and all other external factors surrounding and affecting a given organism at any time'. The environment is everything around us. It keeps changing according to our actions, and as we all know, many human activities are degrading the environment. Why should we even care? Here's why: Neglecting the environment is harmful to our interests. The opposition stated that us spending time and money on the environment is a waste of resources and is harmful to our interests. But the truth is that EVERY implication of neglecting the environment will affect our biological and economic functioning. Securing the environment is securing the human race. The problems are not only immediate. Environmental pollution could pose a serious threat to our future generations, possibly even leading to our extinction. To summarise my arguments for the first round: 1) Human actions impact the environment and the state of our environment impacts us. 2) The problems caused can harm future generations. 3) So, protecting the environment is in our self-interest and could even prolong our species' survival. Sources www.dictionary.com
Baptism is an outward expression of an inward decision and has no bearing on salvation

It is always important to be respectful, regardless of position or belief. Again, well thought out argument I must point out however, that these are proof texts that only appear to make baptism a requirement when removed from the context of scripture in its entirety. 1.) James 2:24, within context makes the argument for proving the faith of a person. The point James makes here is that faith without works is dead. But the argument is that you must have faith first. There is no mention of baptism in this verse as well. The context of this verse points to works being actions to the world for Christ. James is not speaking of baptism but actions to make the world a better place. I would dare argue that these are actions after faith and baptism, since scripture does make it clear we receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit after baptism (Titus 3:5) 2.) Matthew 7:21 actually is speaking to the will of the Father. The verse declares that only those who practice and seek the Will of God will be admitted into heaven. This is another example of faith needing to be already established. One must believe to desire to aspire to The Will of God. This means a step of faith is absolutely necessary before action, in this case the Will of God. Not to mention, like the James verse, baptism is not mentioned here. It must be assumed that baptism is an action. I agree that it is but this is an action that occurs prior to seeking the Will of the Father but after a decision for faith, and I argue that it"s this decision, not the actions that occur afterward that secure salvation. As we will see in your Great Commission quoted verses, the action of faith precedes the action of baptism or any other actions. In Matthew we see that you must be a disciple before you can be baptized. The order is to make disciples and then baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The action of baptism here is an action accomplished after faith. 3.) Your Revelation reference really speaks again to actions done after decision. We can choose to accept Christ or not, once the decision for faith occurs we can then choose to be baptized. Scripture dictates that all will be judged by their deeds, regardless of salvation or baptism. We will all be judged and found wanting (Daniel 5:27) or guilty. For those who accepted Christ in faith will then receive a reprieve because the punishment has already been carried out. Again, this is because of the action of Christ, not running water. I await your reply Brother!
Baptism is an outward expression of an inward decision and has no bearing on salvation

First off, you are one of the few who are respectful. The apostle James contradicts the faith alone doctrine. James 2:24: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." In fact Jesus said it himself ! Matthew 7:21 (part of the Sermon on the Mount): "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Again, Revelation 20:13: "All the dead were judged according to their deeds." And again, Matthew 28:19-20a (part of the Great Commission): "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." So Baptism is neccesary for salvation. I will wait!
Baptism is an outward expression of an inward decision and has no bearing on salvation

In his encounter with Nicodemus, Christ made it clear that baptism was necessary for salvation. John 3:5 'Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." That tradition continued after Christ's ascension into heaven. The apostle Peter reaffirmed the need for Baptism. Acts 2:38 'Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.' Just think of baptism like a ticket into a club, a club of believers. I will wait for my opponents response!
The rite to bare arms

Its obvious that you have not done your research. In 2008 and 2010 the supreme court issue two 2nd amendment decisions. In district of Columbia's vs Heller,554 U.S. 570 (2008) . The court ruled that the second amendment protects the individuals rite to posse's a firearm unconnected to services in a militia. And to use those arms for self defense. And you are rite about 2 wrongs not making a right but that's not what were talking about here were talking about our rites and the rites of the people. Also you said it rite when you talked about how guns would be harder to get for the fact they are illegal. Now guns will be alittle harder to get but not for the ones that know were to look for them witch is why there called criminals, Think about it. They will get guns and break into your house and kill you and the police will not have the time to get to you. Did you know that after they ban guns in Australia it costed tax payers 500 million and in the first year homicide went up 6.2%, assault 9.6% , armed robbery went up 44%. Think about that for a min.
The rite to bare arms

1. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You have just looked at the second piece of that, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The first clause is actually more important, because it gives the reason why we are allowed to bear arms. The reason is so that we can have a well regulated militia. People today are not associated with any sort of militia, they just want guns. By not participating in a militia, citizens forfeit the right to own guns. You also say that we have the right to own guns, if we have a permit. This is unconstitutional, and does not contribute to your argument, it actually hurts you. You say that guns should still be restricted. This says that we earn our right to own guns, it is not a native right as a US citizen.2. Since when is violence the answer to violence? Two wrongs do not make a right. If government were to outlaw the possession of guns, then no one would be able to legally obtain them, and anyone possessing a gun could be tried for a serious criminal offense. Also, if guns were outlawed, it would be extremely difficult to get hold of a gun, and the usage rates would drop very low. This would increase safety. 3. Sources, please. I doubt that gun manufacturers and retailers account for a large amount of the working class, as many weapons dealers produce for the military.4. Why would civilians not having guns increase the time it took for law enforcement to get to you? Also, it is the job of law enforcement to ENFORCE THE LAW through whatever means necessary. It is not the job of civilians to enforce the law, stop crime, etc.
The rite to bare arms

I will try to make this short and sweet. 1. 2nd amendment rites: We have the rite to own and carry guns (with a permit) and the 2nd amendment gives us that rite. If you were to take that rite away from the people what else would we let them take? 2. Safety and protection: in the early 1900's the kkk started a movement to get rid of guns,(you can look it up for more info, it is recorded) the reason behind this was so that they could have total control, as we all know they will never get rid of all guns and the kkk knew that. Also they band whisky or shine, when they did this if gave people like al Capone an opportunity for a criminal empire to rise. The same will happen with guns and there will be no way for good honest people to protect there self's and family. 3.The economy: I know that this is not a huge matter for gun control but it is a huge matter to thousands of dealers, workers and shops. this would put a lot of people out of work and that's the last thing we need 4. Fairness: if they take them from us they should take that from the law also, and think about those problems. even if they let the law keep that, when an emergency happens how long would it take them to get to you?
Belief in the Old Testament precludes belief in the New Testament or Koran

Proof #1My primary point of contention is this:"When I pointed out they did not attempt to give commandments, he accused me of changing my arguments from Sinai establishing a standard for divine revelation in general to establishing a standard for giving commandments, and states he can't argue with me if I change my arguments. (As an aside, part of the point of debating is so each side can modify and refine their arguments. My opponent must respond to any new or changed argument too. Just because it's new doesn't mean it's not true.)"The problem is, you are not treating it as a new or changed argument. In fact, you continue to asser the same conclusion, that it is a standard yet to be duplicated, and have attempted to provide examples in support of this interpretation. I'll note that simply providing a specific example doesn't necessarily limit the argument to that example, just that it is an example of the concept you are trying to convey.Secondly, the point about God's voice being irrelevant is important as the use of God's voice to speak clearly to 1.2 million people as a standard is harder to meet than if we remove that as a crucial element.Proof #2Yes, as I cannot speak intelligently about the Koran, I'll concede it.Before getting into Jesus, I'll note that my opponent has specifically distinguished between a command and a commandment and that the Moses quote refers to commands. I'll ask how he resolves this as he gives a pass to the commands issued by later prophets on the basis that they are not commandments when the quote here explicitly refers to commands. What does the original Hebrew say?As far as Jesus is concerned, people's interpretations are irrelevant unless such an interpretation is necessary, which my opponent would need to demonstrate. That certain people believe that Jesus overturned the original commandements does not prove that Jesus did, in fact, overturn those commandments.SummaryThus far my opponent's argument ammounts to telling us the mind of God with regards to standards set for divine revelation or commandements (depending on which round it is) and that this requires a distinction between a command and a commandement (it doesn't apply to commands given by future prophets, only to commandements despite the fact that Moses said command in the quote my opponent has used to illustrate his argument) and the assertion that by merely calling his own proclaimations commandements and that people today choose to interpret them as overturning the Old Testament commandements, that Jesus has violated this standard and, thus, the New Testament cannot logically follow the Old.Even if I conceded the standard, there are still a lot of gaps to cover. First, simply calling something a commandement doesn't make it one. Simply establishing a commandement doesn't necessarily make it an addition to any previous list of commandments. Simply believing something to be an alteration (addition or substraction) doesn't make it the case. All of these must be demonstrated in order to demonstrate my opponent's argument.
Belief in the Old Testament precludes belief in the New Testament or Koran

Proof #1When my opponent said "whether or not God spoke is almost irrelevent" I interpreted that to mean "whether or not God spoke is almost irrelevent." That is, whether or not God spoke has no bearing on your conclusion, it isn't a factor. To state this, then subsequently suggest that it is "integrel" is to do a complete reversal. Perhaps this was merely an instance of a poor choice of words.The contradictions don't end there:In the first post my opponent stated: "[God speaking to the entire Jewish nation] presumably was so no one could possibly claim that they were being fooled by a charlatan. Either way, it certainly had that effect and, more importantly, set up a standard for divine revelation."However, now my opponent says: "Prophets don't need miracles to prove themselves. The bible says they can merely correctly predict the future, or something similar. In fact, they can be merely confirmed by a different confirmed prophet" and that the standard in the first post wasn't about divine revelation in general, but "a standard for giving commandments"Unfortunately, while my opponent rightfully suggests that it is my responsibility to refute his arguments, I can only refute arguments which remain consistent from round to round. I would suggest that providing such conflicting information constitutes self-refutation.Proof #2My opponent a clear and helpful distinction between commands and commandements. However, I think it is also important to distinguish between commandements in general and The Ten Commandments. In the link posted regarding Jesus' commandements, it is stated:"The commandments of Jesus must not be confused with the Old Testament Law. Jesus's New Testament Commandments are not to be obeyed/observed as a way to reach Heaven, but as an act of obedience, love, and reverence for our Saviour, and because He said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments " (John 14:15, KJV)."Thus Jesus' "commandments" are distinguished and separate from the Old Testament commandments. He was not trying to add or take away from these, nor creating rules on which salvation was contingent.Furthermore, to suggest that any such rule is in violation is to depict the Old Testament as self-refuting. Given the general definition of "commandement" there are hundreds of such statements in the Old Testament:http://en.wikipedia.org...So the question because, why are those statements in the link allowable, but not those made by Jesus or Mohammed?
Humans share a common Ancestory with Primates

First of all I would like to say that no there are not transitional human-ape fossils. There are human fossils like Neanderthals, who in fact had bigger brain cases than modern day humans. There are also other human fossils and ape fossils but none in-between. As there are so many claimed ape men I won't mentioned them all now, but will try to address any you bring up. Also it is not fact that human DNA is 95% ape DNA because neither the entire human genome nor ape genome has been sequenced. So far I have only made your points invalid, however the real proof that we did not evolve from apes is that evolution is impossible. It would require mutations that added useful genetic information, which just doesn't happen. (Richard Dawkins fails to give example of a mutation which "Can be seen to increase the information in the genome".)
Humans share a common Ancestory with Primates

people share a common ancestor with primates my first thing to say is that we share over 95% of are genes with them, we have homologous structures and they have every bone in the body that we have. it is said that we broke off from that group of animals 5-8 million years ago. fossil records can help you see that over time certain skulls started to look more human like than primitive primate like.
Humans share a common Ancestory with Primates

Going back to the similarities in human and ape DNA, http://listverse.com... has some interesting points: "It is often said that humans and chimpanzees share 99% the same DNA. Genetic comparison is not simple due to the nature of gene repeats and mutations, but a better estimate is somewhere from 85% to 95%. This figure may still sound impressive, but most DNA is used for basic cellular functions which all living things share. For example, we have about half the same DNA as a banana, and yet people do not use this to emphasize how similar bananas are to us! So 95% does not say as much as it first appears to. Chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes, two more than humans. It is thought that this is because in a human ancestor, two pairs of chromosomes fused into a single pair. Interestingly, humans have some of the least genetic variation of all animals, which is why inbreeding can cause genetic problems. Even two completely unrelated humans are usually genetically more similar than two sibling chimpanzees." Though this seems to be written by an evolutionist, the evidence shows creation. Also the fact that human beings have little genetic variability reflects what is written in Genesis, that is, we are all descended from Adam and Eve. The Bible doesn't state how many apes that He originally made, so they could have a lot more variability. The only limitation to the smallest number of apes that all modern apes have one ancestor among is that there were only 7 pairs on the ark. ( I assume apes are ritually clean because it didn't say otherwise in http://www.ucg.org....) Also I would like to point out that the similarities these tests found were between humans and chimpanzees, not just any ape (my mistake) or primate. If you have any questions on this topic http://creation.com... is a great website to visit, or you can challenge me to debate.
Humans share a common Ancestory with Primates

I would like to start this round by pointing out, like many people have done in the comments, that humans are technically classified as primates. All this really means is that the people who decided what animals should count as primates were evolutionists, and so naturally thought that humans are just another ape like creature. Therefore I ascertain that you mean "humans share a common ancestry with apes", and will be debating against this. Also "ancestory" is not a word, so I will assume you meant ancestry. As you have not posted a rebuttal to my previous argument, for this round I shall merely give some of my reasons as to why I believe evolution is not a scientifically viable theory of how we came to be. 1) Something was needed to create the first cell. As evolution couldn't account for how it developed before life, something would have to have spontaneously materialise that displayed: -Movement -Reproduction -Sensitivity -Growth -Respiration -Excretion -Absorption of Nutrition 2) DNA is made from nucleotides which are polymeric, meaning that they are only made from other nucleotides. For one to be formed by the forces of nature alone would be operationally impossible. 3) Irreducible complexity Basically this is saying that for a system to function it needs all of it's parts, or at least most of them. For an eye to function it needs a large amount of genes. If any one of these were to not be there the eye would be deemed useless. Therefore specimens with those genes would not be selected for unless they had all the important genes, of which there are too many to simply happen to mutate into being in the same animal. Similarly an ape with human teeth would be useless unless he could make human food, but it would be pointless for him to make human food if he didn't already have human teeth. 4) Mutations change existing genes, they don't create new ones. The thousands of genes humans have would therefore have to have been present in our first ancestors.
miracles occur, but almost never to atheists

I will be debating you on this. I would like to tell you about the placebo affect. This is normally done with medication. One person is given the real medicine and the other person is given the fake one. Scientist check back in a few days to see how they are doing. Most of the time the person with the fake pills acts happy and acts cured. This is because of mind over matter. This is how some miracle workers do there thing. They pick people who are not super sick and make them think they are healing them with the power of god. This person thinks that god is so very powerful and heals them. They then act better when there are infact not better. They just feel happy. That is how miracles work. atheist are very scientific. They do not believe in god so they don't believe in miracles. So it is hard to get an atheist to experience this affect. atheists are just very scientific and would not
miracles occur, but almost never to atheists

the placebo effect is known for only working sometimes. at its core, recovery is hard core body healing etc not mental stuff etc. that means most of the healings that occur to religious folks is probably something body related, not mental related. second of all, some of the healings etc are not things that could be mental, seeing out of eyes w out retinas etc, it's something hard core physical. you need to find at least some examples, or your argument holds very very little weight
Drug legalization

Hello my friend, yes, I am very aware of the drug "marijuanna" that can be used for sick patients who have cancer or something even without your video (FYI, I agree with his statements on marijuanna), my dilemma though isn't necessarily against that drug itself and how it can help people who are "sick". No, the issue is, if people truly care about the sick then why are there people who just wanna smoke even if they're not sick? It's because of those people is have an issue with the drug legalized. The other drugs, you can argue with because you and I both (should) know what those things alert to. It's not about how I feel about them. It's what I know. Also, though, what you should know marijuanna isn't known to completely cure a cancerous patient. It is only used to relieve painful situations (which in relativity alters the mind). Any other drug is know to alter the mind but has more of a negative effect. So we can agree with the maijuanna being legal but not the others because of what they do. Also, we weren't talking about medical drugs because if that's the case I shouldn't be taking allergy pills if I was against medical drugs. We're not talking that though, were talking the drugs that are illegal right now. And you haven't answered my question directly. Why do you believe (or think) that drugs should be legal and or implemented? (Oh and thanks for sending the video).