BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Christian (One who has been saved from sin) Can Lose Their Salvation and Become Unsaved

Affirmed: The Bible teaches that it is possible to have once believed and obeyed the gospel of Jesus Christ and been saved from sin, then later having changed and turned from the faith, forsaking God, forfeiting salvation and becoming unsaved. 1.) It is possible for a Christian to sin (transgress God law – 1 Jn. 3:4) “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” – Rom. 6:1-2 “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” – 1 Jn. 2:1 2.) The penalty for sin is death – Rom. 6:23 (separation from God – Isa. 59:1-2/Heb. 3:12) “The soul that sinneth” – Eze. 18:20 “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.” – Heb. 10:26-27 “The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire” – Matt. 13:41-42 Therefore, since a Christian CAN sin and transgress God Word, for which the penalty is separation from Almighty God and eventually eternal punishment; then it is certainly possible for a Christian (i.e. one who has been saved and forgiven of sin) to so sin as to fall from the grace of God and lose their salvation.
Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art

I can't put any arguments anymore so I'll just refute Pro's rebutalls and reaffirm mine. So, Pro says a criminal with or without a gun won't worry whether a kid knows karate, but doesn't give sources as to where he got that from. Even then, I don't know how not learning martial arts would make the situtation better. In some cases, it can save a kid's life. Thats the important part. Pro seems to think those who learn martial arts will automatically resort to violence, but doesn't give sources. I can't simply assume that all kids will die trying to fight. If that is the case, it is the responsibility of the parent, to make sure their child is mature enough to handle martial arts. Pro is assuming that all kids are incapable of learning marital arts, by banning them from learning it. So, Pro doesn't give actual statistics as to how many kids actually have been abused. To answer your questionYes, but why should people care what I think? It's their life. Their money, Their training. So far, Pro has failed to prove basically every contention. He basically is looking at a bunch of youtube videos, and then asserting that all martial art instructors are abusing their student. I have sucessfully refuted his arguments, and I hope voters think my arguments were more substancial.
Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art

My opponents main arguements for children having a right to learning martial arts for self defence are:1. teaching kids martial arts helps reduce crime2. teaching kids martial arts helps reduce bullying A criminal with (or without) a gun won't worry whether a kid knows karate. But this kid might die trying to be a hero. We will always hear stories about kids preventing murders using martial arts but not the ones who died because they did.There are a lot of children who do martial arts and a lot of children being bullied. Teaching kids a martial art just makes bullying worse, children are prevented from knowing when someone is abused, and will be less likely to call for help (either by screaming, or asking). Anyone can be a bully, the fact instructors can be abusive shows this is true. Children under 18 are suffering more pain than they would if martial arts were not taught at that age. It is irresponsible to expect children to not misuse these fighting techniques. If children were encouraged to do other things they would be friendlier to each other instead of experimenting moves on others and similar things.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------There are too many martial arts to talk about individually, but they are all similar in what they claim to teach. I do not need to establish that all instructors are bullies because whether it should be banned for children or not is not just a question of how many children are abused by their instructor. There are many children who go through life without being able to recognise when someone is abusing them or when someone else is being abused right in front of them because they took up a martial art and had their mind conditioned to accept such things. Bowing, doing what you are told is not respect. People need to wake up!Worryingly my opponent (who is learning a martial art) and others like him do not think the videos I have shown are legit including the graphic video showing a martial art instructor stamp on a mentally ill mans head, knocking his head against a metal post despite hearing him hit it, and being able to see his blood! These videos should be taken seriously because people are being abused. What can someone learn from being knocked out? Obviously there will be much more of this happening than we can see because I doubt many dojos allow cameras or phones whilst training, and much is unreported, or not uploaded on the particular site I've looked at.Hopefully I have summed everything up, I apologise if I have miss some points out.Finally I'd like to leave you with a question:Can someone be abused if they are paying for something? Feel they are learning something? And enjoying it regularly?My answer of course is yes.Many thanks for having this debate. Please leave your comments and don't forget to vote!
Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art

RebutallsPro has failed to establish why all instructors are bullies. I'm not going to refute this anymore because I have a feeling Pro is just repeating himself. Most of his arguments are emotion to appeal. Just because people learn to take hits, it doesn't mean we all should consider it as accepting abuse. That is just Pro's interpretation of what a martial art instructor is. Let the student decide what he wants. You keep showing random youtube videos. I have no idea whether this is legit, or some guy trying to put something up for views. So I can't take it seriously. Argument sakes, I will though. First of all, this doesn't represent all martial arts teachers. Simply saying children should be banned from learning because a bunch of nutjobs were doing something is not a good argument.Sometimes, calling the police isn't an option. If you are in the park, and some guy apporaches you, are you going to ask him if you can borrow his phone to call the cops?Nobody is training them to be assassins. Martial arts is about self-defense. Ok? And that has what to do with what I said?
Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art

There are very few people who recognise when someone is abused because a lot of people take up a martial art at a young age and have quickly learnt to obey their master and mentally conditioned to accept abuse. It is possible you do not know whether your master is a deceptive bully. You seem to think the videos I have shown earlier are "normal training" otherwise you would not think I should prove every martial art instructor needs to be a deceptive bully for it to be banned for children.I have found another video, see below, to make my point clearer, it shows a martial art instructor actually kill a mentally ill man in his dojo. Notice that nobody in the room calls the police, or questions their instructors actions. WARNING: VERY GRAPHICDo you think children should be brought up like this? Is it okay if the minority of children are mentally, physically and sexually abused? If martial art instructors bully their students (which I've shown they do), and cause people to turn a blind eye to abuse (which I've shown they do), it is therefore clear that martial art training will not help to stop bullying. In fact it makes it worse. If you read the comments of some of these videos you'll see people think they are funny. E.g. people think what they see is fake and funny on the below video but why would it be?? I have heard instructors say 'if martial arts is banned for children it would take away their right to defend their self'. However this is pure nonsense. Children don't need to learn how to break bones, boards, knock people out etc. They should be taught how to diffuse situations, when to call the police etc. Martial art instructors want kids to live in fear increasing violence so they make more profit.At one time it was necessary to train young people to be assassins, but now shoppers put their lives in danger to stop robbers. Criminals won't think 'a shopper might know karate and stop me, I won't carry out an armed robbery today'. They will think they can get whatever they want with a gun. Kids don't need to learn martial arts to stop bullies, if enough kids knew right from wrong and stepped in to stop a bully or tell a teacher the bullying will end. Isacc Ehrilich may be a distinguished professor but I don't believe he knows that children can scream.
Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art

Thank you ProPro didn't say who the BOP was on, I will assume it is on him, because he is trying to prove martial art instructors shouldn't teach kids.Pro's first argument consists of assumptions. He must prove that literally 100% of Martial Art instructors are deceptive bullies. I can simply say my martial Art teacher wasn't a deceptive bully, therefore Pro's 1st argument is refuted.I'll start with why Martial Arts is a good thingSelf DefenseEverybody has the right to self defense. Why should kids be excluded? With Martial arts, kids can defend themselves if somebody tries to mess with them. The best part, is that it is very unlikely a kid will inflict mortal wounds on their attacker, this way the kid has time to escape, and law enforcement can deal with the issue. This is different from a case dealing with a gun. Most often than not, if a kid shot their attacker, he likely would have sustained major wounds. Also, that depends on how responsible the kid is. A kid can shoot himself to death, he can't really beat himself up. Self Defense taught by martial arts is a viable and effective way in reducing crime. Some attacker isn't the only case. It is also very useful in school, where bullies lurk around.Detterence TheoryThe fact that children could defend themselves from threats brings in another point. It creates a psychological detterence factor. ccording to sources provided by Isaac Ehrlich, currently a University of Buffalo Distinguished Professor of Economics, he figured that according to the deterrence theory, criminals are no different from law-abiding people. Criminals "rationally maximize their own self-interest subject to constraints that they face in the marketplace and elsewhere.(1) In other words, if criminals know children could resist and defend themselves, they are less likely to even attack them in the first place.This is all I will present this round. My opponent has said R3 can be used for arguments, so you will see some extra arguments given. 1: Isaac Ehrlich, "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death," American Economic Review, Vol. 65, No. 3 (1975), pp. 397-417, and Isaac Ehrlich, "Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Some Further Thoughts and Additional Evidence," Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 85 (August, 1977), pp. 741-788.
an almighty god would be unable to learn how it is to have lesser power

Pro: "the point is you attack it... con" . This constitutes the epitome of a non argument to defend a stated position. He argues neither facts nor reason to support the initial claim. To be certain arguing the attributes of an Almighty God through facts and scientific evidence would be very difficult. However, the topic was presented in such a manner as to make it clear we are arguing these attributes through a philosophical lens. I do not find fault with Pro in not having cited reference sources. This is not an easy task when discussing topics such as this present. From a philosophical standpoint Con reiterates the accepted notion within the debate premise, that we are discussing the quality of an Almighty God, if there be one. There is no need then to delve into the reality of this God for purpose of this debate, as we are merely stipulated His possible existence and delving into His attributes. Now it is inconsistent with the concept of an Almighty God that he should be defective in His knowledge, as has been famously stated, purportedly by Sir Francis Bacon, "ipsa scientia potestas est" (knowledge itself is power). {Meditationes Sacrae (1597) }. If reason and philosophical thinking lead to the conclusion, "Knowledge itself is power", it stands to reason there is nothing incompatible with an all powerful God having knowledge of the things beneath Him, and still retain His perfection and attribute of immortality. For again, mortality is a lack of power, an inability to maintain life, a power which surely would be encompassed by a being having limitless power. Pro's argument is refuted, based on acceptance of the premise presented.
an almighty god would be unable to learn how it is to have lesser power

The argument given in Round #2 by Pro, "I am not Con" is agreed by Con. However, this in no way establishes a valid argument to prove his case that an Almighty God would be unable to learn how it is (comprehend or understand the experience?) of having less than omnipotence. His argument also falls short of making a case that He is therefore, based on Pro's argument, not immortal. The full Omnipotence of God does not preclude His knowledge of pain, suffering, and an understanding of lesser beings. This would suppose that power and knowledge are mutually exclusive principles. This premise is however rejected. We see even in human nature no direct correlation between greater ability and lessened knowledge. Pro's statement is accepted that he is not Con. As Pro has not made any argument in favor of his case, Con has sufficiently stated the case to the contrary.
an almighty god would be unable to learn how it is to have lesser power

The format for the debate not being set out in advance by Pro, I will limit my round #1 response as much as possible out of fairness, as Pro's round #1 offering is very brief. In that vein, I use this 1st round simply to accept and resolve to argue against, with the understanding that Pro's argument has been clarified by him/her to include the title, "an almighty god would be unable to learn how it is to have lesser power", as well as the clarification in the comment section, "god couldn't learn what pain is, as an immortal" It being understood this is then the topic for the debate, I gratefully accept and will argue the Con position. Best wishes to Pro.
pornography

Pornography overall, is an unsafe profession for both producers (the actors) and viewers . This is especially true for a women that is a porn actress. They are consensually abused daily in their line of work. Although it may be technically consensual , the women actresses are pushed to consent either by a large amount of money or threats. This may not seem okay as long as the woman agrees to it but it is as if they have no other choice. A previous career in pornography will not help get her a job, in fact it will keep her from having many jobs. Furthermore, pornography is a huge pool of STD infected people. Although in most places they are screened monthly, this may not be enough because one infected person could spread a disease to hundreds In the matter of a few days. Pornography is essentially filmed prostitution. One or more parties are paid to have sex with another consenting person. I will cover the effects on viewers in the next rounds,
pornography

Pro is going to argue in favor of legal pornography Con should read the following before accepting 1. General guidelines: Burden of Proof: shared 50/50 2. What this debate is and is not: This debate is a debate only about being pro or con concerning legal pornography in the U.S. Automatic forfeiture for arguments that refer to illegal pornography or illegal actions. Specifically this means Con (as well as Pro) cannot argue against Pro (as well as Con) if that argument includes rape, the use of children in pornographic material or other illegal behavior. Here is my reason for excluding the above-mentioned: Pro finds such behavior abhorrent. Pro does not endorse or believe in supporting such disgusting acts. Therefore, Pro wants to center the argument only on legal pornography.
Tax on Cigarettes

The tax is proper. 440,000 people due due to the inimical effects of smoking cigarettes annually in the United States! Also, studies by the Center for Disease control have shown that the air quality in New York is proven to be nine times higher than in New Jersey, where smoking remains legal. Next, those who live with smokers have a 20 to 30 higher percent chance of developing lung cancer, than those who do not live with them. Lastly, smoking is the impetus for bronchitis, emphysema, and stomach cancer in adults. Of course, they would be taxed with other detrimental activities like trash, sewage, and eating fast foods because cigarettes are classified as a domestic issue. Cigarettes are a cogent place to start with taxing because 43.8 million people use them and they're virulent in the United States. Also, if spending if the unstable area of analysis and not regulating the revenue, we should allot some money towards organization and steps to improve budgeting. I'm actually proposing a higher tax on cigarettes, in order for people to either stop buying them, which will lead to a healthier environment or buy the same amount for higher prices, which will lead to more money for the federal government, towards a more proficient budgeting program. Getting rid of the tax would be severely malignant because more and more packs of cigarettes would be bought at a lower price. By doing this we're not just giving money to the Washington Pit, but actually doing American citizens a favor and the money from the higher taxes on cigarettes could be allocated towards the educational system or infrastructure in the United States: Both need a lot of improvement and I'm sure many people would agree with that!
Tax on Cigarettes

Your argument consists of 1) we should tax cigarettes, 2) because they are detrimental "towards our environment " 3) "because they are detrimental to ourselves", 4} "because they are detrimental through future implications towards future generations. " 5) "Also, it would allot more revenue towards the federal government, "6} "which is what we need "7) "because it's very unstable." Let's look at each point; 1) We already tax cigarettes so perhaps the question is whether that tax is proper. That depends on the next few points. 2) They are bad for the environment. Granted, but are they taxed in line with other detrimental activities like trash or sewage? 3) Bad for ourselves. Granted, but are they taxed in line with other detrimental activities like eating fast foods? 4 ) "they are detrimental through future implications towards future generations. " Those implications may have more to do with taxation and what should be taxed rather than cigarettes. 5) More revenue for the federal government may not be a good thing. 6) We do not need more revenue for the feds. They do not have a revenue problem they have a spending problem, 7) The feds are unstable because of spending. To sum up, cigarettes are already taxed, but the reasons cited by the Senator seem to have more to do with funding big government rather than preserving peoples health. I would rather get rid of the tax, or earmark the tax for health projects, but not just give the money to the Washington Money Pit.
Tax on Cigarettes

If I may summarize your argument, you seem to indicate that A)" increasing the tax on cigarettes will cause a drop in use "or B) an increase in federal revenue. C) other things should be taxed - trash and fast food and D) the feds have "many good things they could do with the money" - e.g. improve infrastructure. Let's look at each point. A)" increasing the tax on cigarettes will cause a drop in use". This is using tax as a penalty. Smoke and you pay the penalty! But look at what effect this same penalty tax would have if applied to other activities such as trash pickup! People would find avoidance tactics which would do more harm. B) increasing the tax on cigarettes will cause an increase in federal revenue. The feds do not need more money. Annual Federal revenue today exceeds the entire TOTAL WEALTH of the entire Forbes 400. C) other things should be taxed - trash and fast food. NO. Other things should be the focus of public education not the focus of a new revenue stream. D) the feds have many good things they could do with the money - e.g. improve infrastructure. The Federal government is NOT the ultimate developer of infrastructure. Look at the Erie Canal, Ohio Canal, the National Interstate Defense Highway system - all built via private bond investments. In conclusion I would put forth that we should FEAR THE NANNY STATE. We should educate but not legislate. Leave the tax where it is. Use the existing revenues to educate and reduce smoking.
Baby-killers (AKA "Abortionists") Deserve the Death Penalty

My opponent wrote: "repeatedly states that the mother is guilty of a malicious crime" I never made that statement, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. "So you very clearly state that the seriousness of the crime is the loss of human life" That is your statement, not mine, so you are once again committing a straw man logical fallacy. "you very CLEARLY STATE THAT THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS CRIME IS THE LOSS OF ANY HUMAN LIFE" That is your statement, not mine, so your strawmannirg continues: Don't you ever get tired of lying? Probably not -- believers in atheist Dogma are natural-born liars. "The intent to kill an innocent baby by tearing her body limb from limb using razor-sharp stainless steel implements is most definitely malicious." First, that's a bit graphic" Baby-killing is a horrific, demonic, and extremely graphic practice. If you don't like reading about it, then you should not engage in debates on the subject. "an "appeal to emotion"" Malice is an emotional state, and you yourself brought up the question of malice -- I didn't bring it up. Therefore, my response to your question regarding malice is not an "appeal to emotion" logical fallacy, but is, rather, a logical, very fitting, and inevitable response to your questioning me on the subject of malice. "So then are you suggesting that the doctor should also be put to death" Not "also," no, because I never stated that anyone but the baby-killer (to whom you refer as "Doctor") himself should receive the death-penalty. Also, Doctors make a vow to refrain from doing any harm, and since killing babies is definitely harmful to the babies, such demonic individuals have violated their vows to practice Medicine, and thus given up their right to be referred to as actual "Doctors." I won the debate: Thanks for your time! =)