BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
muslims believe enough about Jesus to be saved by christianity

Matthew 24:13 - But he that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved. Matthew 7:21 - Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.John 3:16 - For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.John 3:36 - The one who exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; the one who disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.What must we do to be saved?John 3:16 says that everyone who has faith in Jesus will have everlasting life. But what does having faith in Jesus mean? John 3:36 adds that those who have faith will have everlasting life, but those who disobey the Son will not see life. So having faith involves obedience. Again, Matthew 24:13 says the one who endures to the end will be saved. To the end doing what? To the end doing the will of their Father in heaven, according to Matthew 7:21. Those who say "Lord, Lord" obviously believe in Jesus. However, if they don't show they have true faith through their obedience, they will not benefit from the gift of salvation.Do Muslims believe enough about Jesus to be saved? I'll answer that with another question. The Demons know more about Jesus than the Muslims themselves. Are the demons saved? How can the Muslims be saved if they reject God's word the Bible and follow a book with many flaws written hundreds of years after Jesus died?Thank you. I eagerly await Pro's response.
muslims believe enough about Jesus to be saved by christianity

muslims believe enough about Jesus to be saved by christianity they believe he was born of a virgin, died and was raised up to God. they believe he performed miracles. ===================== here is a debate where i say the required threshhold of faith to be saved as chistians is not clear. but we often say there has to be a 'holistic' approach, which could be said to save muslims. unless you go without reason to require things like "jesus is my savior" as a required tenant. the requirements are either too vague, or too listy/dogmatic. the bible says if you confess with your mouth jesus is lord, and beleive in your heart that he was raised from the dead you will be saved. it also say if you believe in the lord you will be saved. it also has all kinds of other statements. i'm sure if you do these, that is sufficient. but what about various other scenarios, like the content of 'sinner's prayers' that dont include those things? what or where exactly is the threshhold? if you believe he existed or is God is that enough? probably not cause the bible says demons do likewise. what about a list of of common beleifs? that you rely on him generally, that he is your savior, that you are a sinner, that he is lord, tha he rose from the dead, that he was incarnated, that he is God, that he is the son of God, that you believe you are saved (plenty of christians say you must believe you are saved, or you aren't saved), substitutionary atonement v 'christus victor' etc etc. ask different christians, get a different answer, almost every time. they just have 'gut feelings' but dont have firm answers. see past debates from me on this topic, and you'll note a different answer pretty much every time. some say you have to admit you're a sinner and that he is your savior. what if you believed all the other things and not these? or what if you believe you're a sinner, and that he's a savior, but not that he's God, or a various type of atonement belief. eg, chrsitaus victor v substitutionary. some say that he is God is required, some say legal substitution is mandatory. and how do you demarcate the requirements for those who are new to the faith, and those who are really knowledgeable? it might be seen a okay for a newbie to miss a thing or two, but less understandable for the expreinced etc. does this come into play? so what's the magical formula?
Transgender Rights and the Bible

You took Galatians 3:28 out of context. All are united under Christ through faith as stated in Galatians 3:26"So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith,"It is stated in 1 Corinthians 6:9"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men""A woman must not wear men"s clothing, nor a man wear women"s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this" (Deuteronomy 22:5). By this logic, since transgender have broken God's law, they will not inherit the kingdom of God. However like all sins are paid through the blood of Christ. The Bible does not condone the actions of transgenders.
Drugs should be legalized.

Yes, I do mean illegal drugs. I apologise for not making that clear. I will respond to your arguments and show why they are false in the next round when he unpacks them in more detail. In this round, I would like to explain my argument on why illegal drugs are creating a social underclass. When I say underclass, I do not mean a class of people who are of lesser value in society, but people who are trapped in a cycle of prison, unemployment and crime. I will explain. What happens with the majority of drug takers is that they get trapped in this cycle. They turn to drugs for whatever reason. Because the suppliers can charge whatever they want for it, the person cannot afford to pay for the drugs without turning to crime. In most cases, this means theft. Then they get arrested for either the criminal offence they have committed, or the fact that they have taken drugs. After a stint in jail, they have been surrounded by other criminals, without drugs for a year or more, and when released cannot get a job. The number of jobs at the moment is severely limited and so a criminal record will instantly see you crossed off the list. So they spend lots of time at home with nothing to do. What's an easy thing to do in your own home that brings you a small amount of pleasure in an otherwise awful life? Yep. You guessed it. So they get back into drugs, and the whole cycle starts again. Now the majority of the people in this cycle are black. . http://www.beckleyfoundation.org... Of the 353,000 people who were jailed for drug related offences in New York between 1997 and 2006, 52% were black. Only 15% were white. Black people are a victim of this vicious circle and if legalized, we can help a lost generation. The statistics from this website prove my point that drugs lead to a lot of theft cases: . http://www.bmstahoe.com... If legalized, this cycle can be stopped. Drugs will not be at prices which people can't afford. People will not need to resort to crime. Crime rate will be lowered and this social underclass will be stopped. There is another way in which legalizing drugs will help deal with crime. A lot of big criminal networks are funded by drugs. This is how they keep afloat. If their financial support is cut off, then they will become bankrupt and therefore the crime rate will be lowered. Legalizing drugs is dealing with the problem which is so deeply attached to Western culture, on every level. The users will be helped and rehabilitated, not punished and rejected. The dealers will be either prosecuted or go bankrupt. The criminal gangs will be put out of business. I eagerly await my partner's response. ..
Drugs should be legalized.

I'm glad to be able to debate this very opinionated modern topic with you. For the record, when accepting this you simply say drugs so for our purposes you mean all illegal drugs. My basic arguments to be expounded upon later are listed below Drugs should not be legalized for several reasons 1.) Drugs harm the Environment 2.) The war on drugs is successful, and is world wide 3.) Drug usage is highly addictive and overall bad for an individual
Drugs should be legalized.

I think that drugs should be legalized for a number of different reasons. 1) Illegal drugs are creating a social underclass of people who are trapped in a vicious cycle. 2) The war on drugs has failed and should stop immediately. 3) If made legal, we can control the supply of drugs. I will elaborate further on these arguments in my next post. I would invite anyone who has the opposite view of drugs policy to join me...
The World would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power.

I think a little history of Saddam is in order... One must understand that Saddam was legally a criminal at the time of his rise to power in Iraq. He participated in a coup in 1963, and left the country when the new leader tried to arrest some of the party leaders under him. When he returned in 1964, he was arrested. He escaped in 1968 and participated in another coup that put him in a high position in government. He began to amass power through his military rank and eventually brought up many other members of government on treason charges based on evidence he claimed to have found that they were spies. This put him in power as the self-declared president of Iraq. One must understand that much of Saddam's early work was indeed beneficial to the Iraqi people. However, Saddam was a Sunni, and acted in manners that were repressive to the Shiite and Kurd populations of the country. As part of this beneficial action, but more due to his propaganda campaign, statues and posters of him were erected around the country. In 1979, the Iran-Iraq war gave Saddam the excuse he needed to begin a genocidal extinction of the Kurdish population in northern Iraq, a group that had always been at odds with Saddam's Sunni-controlled regime. It is a matter of record that chemical weapons were used not only against Iran targets and military, but IRAQI civilians as well. Saddam continued his campaign against the Kurds in northern Iraq, resulting in somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 deaths. It is also a matter of record that between 3/15 and 3/19 1988, Iraqi forces under the order of Saddam Hussein launched a chemical warfare attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja, population 80,000. That's quite a "town." The attack killed roughly 5,000 people with agents like mustard gas, sarin, tabun, VX, and hydrogen cyanide. Clearly, one can see that Saddam Hussein is by no means a fair and impartial leader. He seized power from a legitimate government illegally, and subsequently used his power to repress two significant portions of the population in his country (Kurds and Shiites). He then perpetrated a campaign of genocide against one of these populations. I submit this is indubitable evidence that the world would NOT be better off with Saddam Hussein in power. Consider his past behavior applied to current world politics... which ethnic group would he kill off next? The Kurds? The French? Americans? No country, and certainly not the world, is going to be better off with a genocidal, unfair dictator in power. I will certainly live under no such rule.
The World would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power.

Please read this entire debate before voting. My belief is backed up with facts and logic, not a "blame America first" attitude. It truly is not as crazy of an idea as it may seem, just read with an open mind and then vote. Thank you. I see the Iraq War as a huge mistake and I believe, with good reason, that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power.
The World would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power.

I've been very busy with school lately, sorry I missed the last round. I don't deny that Saddam was a horrible dictator; however, he was the lesser of two evils. 1. His megalomania did not allow Al Qaeda to take hold in Iraq. His power although threatening to his own people was contained to those borders. He would not let Al Qaeda operate because he saw it as a direct threat to his power. Now with the corrupt Al Maliki government in power Al Qaeda has a potential to gain strength and in many ways is. 2. Sectarian violence was only waged by Saddam himself and while I admit that did cause considerable damage over the span of his almost 25 year reign, now, according to a study by MIT the civilian casualties caused by this war and the ensuing sectarian violence is almost 600,000. Significantly more damage in just 5 short years compared to Saddam's 25 years (http://mit.edu...). 3. Iraq was the only nation that Iran was intimidated by. Iran is dominated by shiites and while so is Iraq, they were under the rule of Baathists which are Suni. This kept a puppet government from forming in Iraq, a spectre that will now haunt the country and in all probability will happen. While I don't deny that Saddam was a horrible dictator, statistically there was less horror and carnage during his reign than there is currently during this Maliki administration. Also, there was not a threat of a puppet government or an invasion from Iran. This leaves one of the biggest threats (if not the biggest) to international security unchallenged from taking over the entire middle east. Keep this in mind as this debate truly comes down to the lesser of two evils, which unfortunately was Saddam. Vote based on logic, not emotion. Good day to all.
Certain acts of terrorism can be justified.

i agree to an extent with your arguement i never said i agree ... dont try to make it look that way . im going to finish this with the same example i have been using all the way through this debate. if somebody supresses your freedom your right to live , you must take matters into your own hands , i dare say it at the risk of vote bombing , but whats the lifes of a 100 maybe a 1000+ comapred to the lifes and freedom of millions , the only acts of terrorism that cannot be jusistified are those that are not in the name of freedom for yourself or fellow countrymen.
Certain acts of terrorism can be justified.

While my opponent does not specifically address my points, I will attempt to address his appropriately. My opponent agrees to ALL of my arguments, but then comes back by saying: "Well, think about it! If you were..." Nonetheless, he agrees with my definitions, and with the fact that terrorism violates the term "just." IT IS IN THE ETYMOLOGY! Consider the word: Terrorism. "The unlawful use or threat of violence." Now consider the word: Just. "Guided by truth, reason, etc. according to the law." Key words there-According to the law. Terrorism is against the law by definition, and therefore is, by definition, unjust. That being said, terrorism CANNOT be justified, since the words are polar opposites. Every example my opponent gives you IS STILL BREAKING THE LAW. Therefore, it is UNJUST. That goes directly against the resolution. For these reasons, I can only negate the resolution. Thank you.
Certain acts of terrorism can be justified.

now you say I must answer these questions in order to win ? I have but I shall answer them in more detail. No , no its not fair on any innocent victim of terrorism , no terrorists don't ask if they can blow up your house. Think about it though , if your fellow countrymen were being killed , there freedom taken away by this other country , your family might have been killed by this other country . Your country cannot fight back as it is to weak , the only answer if nobody else will help ? terrorism . The IRA proved that , when the other country is suppressing your freedom and killing your people sometimes , why should these " terrorists " or as I will refer to them as freedom fighters , as I believe when you are fighting anther country with a good cause you are not a terrorist , you are a freedom fighter . Sure it is never good when innocent people are caught up in this , but think about it . If this freedom fighter forms a group to try attack the other country's government , but due to lack of resources and this other country's extreme protection of government buildings. This person has no other option but to start killing innocent people in this country , till the government starts taking notice . This is a harsh and scary truth about life. Now this sounds like this man who has done this would be no better than a murderer ,some people may argue this . However just imagine you were in his position , your countrymen killed , maybe your family , its government brought to its knees by another invading country etc nobody will help and you cannot directly attack the government there , I wish for you to answer why this man should not be allowed to seek revenge on this country's people innocent or not till he and his people gain freedom. Now pf course you have said how would you like it if it was your family getting killed by this man , I admit I would be devastated and full of hate etc . But you have to understand there is a harsh truth about life , this " terrorist" might be killed himself and has already lost his family of he does not take drastic action , There is a in old saying " kill or , be killed ".
Certain acts of terrorism can be justified.

Well, since my opponent sadly does not define any terms, I will take the liberty myself. Terrorism-"The unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law Just-"Guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness." Dictionary.com So, when dealing with whether or not something is justified, one must look to whether or not the act adheres to all aspects of justice. We now ask ourselves, is terrorism truthful, reasonable, just, or fair? --TRUTHFUL-- It is fairly obvious that terrorism is not truthful. Do terrorists ask you if it is ok to blow up your house? Or what time of day you would like them to do it? It is obviously not so. How can terrorism be truthful? Mu opponent MUST answer this to win the debate. --Reasonable-- Again I ask, do terrorists ask you if they can set a bomb off at your house? Will they anyway if you say no? Terrorism is in NO WAY reasonable to the victim. My opponent must also answer why terrorism is reasonable to win. --Just-- This is what we are debating. This can also correlate with fairness, which I will address next. --Fair-- OK, so you walk home one day, and your family has been murdered by a terrorist because of your political beliefs. Is that fair? My opponent must also answer why terrorism is fair to win the debate. I await my opponent's rebuttals. In his next speech, he must prove why terrorism is truthful, reasonable, just, and fair. If unable to do so, then surely he has lost the debate. That being said, I conclude the first round of the debate. Thank you.
Certain acts of terrorism can be justified.

I stand by the quote that " one mans terrorist , is another mans freedom fighter ". I am not saying that it is acceptable to kill , but I am saying that , If somebody freedom is being oppressed then it is acceptable , to start attacking the oppressors by any means possible. Even if that means taking civilian life's. I am in no way what so ever , talking about terrorist acts like 9/11 , if anybody brings that up saying something like , " Hey man so you think 9/11 was ok ?? ". what I mean is that The world should not hate all terrosits , who kill with a reason and do it for their freedom and country's freedom , but should only hate those terrorists who do it for publicity , money and just because they don't like another country. I am referring to acts of terrorism such as the British occupation of Ireland which caused the IRA to start setting off bombs in England. Or even as far back to William Wallace fighting the English. Please however I am not interested in Iraq and Afghanistan I mean more significant and meaningful acts of terrorism.
Certain acts of terrorism can be justified.

Well, my opponent can't seem to make up his mind. Does he agree, disagree, partway? He does not attack my case, so I can only assume that he does. Given that, I will now attack, again, his repetitive example. "im going to finish this with the same example i have been using all the way through this debate." ...That I have already attacked. "if somebody supresses your freedom your right to live , you must take matters into your own hands , i dare say it at the risk of vote bombing , but whats the lifes of a 100 maybe a 1000+ comapred to the lifes and freedom of millions , the only acts of terrorism that cannot be jusistified are those that are not in the name of freedom for yourself or fellow countrymen." OK, lets take a real-life situation here. Middle-eastern radicals feel oppressed by US presence. They want "freedom." They want justice for "fellow countrymen." What do they do? Terrorism. How is it felt by innocent bystanders? 9/11. Its that simple. Terrorism is unjust by definition. (Which my opponent did not contend) In addition, it kills innocent people in the name of "freedom." Was 9/11 in the name of "freedom?" Sure, why not. Was 9/11 just? Absolutely not. Since the resolution specifically states whether or not certain acts of terrorism can be justified, one can only negate it. Thank you.
Should the US encourage a One World Religion? (Christianity)

Okay, I stand in affirmation to your topic. First off, while it is true that the conflict between Israel and Palestine stemmed from religous issues, it is not because of their different beliefs that led to the conflict. The Jews (Israelis) felt religiously entitled to the land the Muslims (Palestinians) owned; consequently, they attempted to gain ownership of the land. The conflict itself is not a religious hate-crime, rather it is land ownership, which is what caused a majority of wars today. Athough it would be hard to convert another 3.5 billion people to Christianity, over time, it could be done. And this would not lead to any religious wars. How many wars can you think of that existed directly because of religious beliefs? None. Therefore, the beliefs of a country would not lead to any conflict. It might lead to disapproval from other nations, but it will definitely not lead to any type of conflict. And as you stated the different beliefs of different countries: "muslim India, Hindu Pakistan, Protestant England, Buddhist China", these large, important countries all have different religious beliefs. Have they engaged in a large-scale war? No. And why should they just because the US suddenly becomes a Christian nation? For all these reasons I stand in affirmation to the topic.
Should the US encourage a One World Religion? (Christianity)

For many, many, many, again, many years, the conflict between Palestine and Israel has been known to the World as a religious conflict. However, if the US were to encourage a One World Religion, it more than likely cause turmoil beyond belief. According to the UN, the percentages of the major religions with in the world are as follows: Religion Population % Atheists 2.4% Buddhists 5.9% Christian 33.0% Hindus 13.3% Jewish 0.2% Muslims 20.1% Non-religious 12.0% Other 12.6% Sikhs Notice how Christianity is the majority....due to this FACT we cannot simply afford a One World Religion. ========================================================================================================== CONTENTION NUMBER 1: IF THE US WERE TO ENCOURAGE A ONE WORLD RELIGION, IT COULD LEAD TO A RELIGIOUS WAR ========================================================================================================== I myself, am i devout Christian and follower of Christ, however, we are a communtiy a 6 billion people and therefore we cannot convert another 3.5 billion people to Christianity out of the blue. According to the UN Department of International Affairs, if the US were to become a One Religion Nation we could be jeoperdizing our standing and making enemies with most of the World (as if we already are'nt). Mostly muslim India, Hindu Pakistan, Protestant England, Buddhist China, and the affirmatives Totalitarian Christian United States. If Christianity became one country we could have a war bigger than any of the World Wars and Vietnam COMBINED, as stated by the US Department of Defense. Therfore, I urge a PRO ballot on this question. I wish all the luck in the world to my opponent and do hope we can still be friends. Thank you.