BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mormons are Christians

</body> The fact that Mormons have "human bodies" is irrelevant. Only the soul goes to Heaven. "They assert that through their religion alone, God has restored the lost and corrupted elements of the Christian faith so that only those who practice their religion possess the purest form of Christianity. "This quote from http://4witness.org... says that the Mormons believe that their religion alone is the purest form, meaning that it is better.The link I provided gave many fundamental differences between the Mormon and the Christian Churches. All of it was relevant. The fact that you say, "Only our Father in Heaven is a divinity" in and of itself proves that Mormons are not Christians. Christians believe that the trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are existent in one God. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but still a divinity, that came down from Heaven, died on the cross, and rose again after three days for the forgiveness of sins. To say that only God the Father is a divinity is the exact opposite of what the Chirstian church believes."Having perfect knowledge and belief of the gospel, and then denying it."Demons do not deny the Gospel, they deny that Jesus Christ is Lord."And Jesus is not a god either." Saying that Jesus is not a God is the exact opposite of what the Christian Church teaches, as I said above. To say that Jesus is not the Messiah and to say that Mormons are Christians is, in essence, saying that Jews are Christians. Jews themselves say that they are not Christian. The belief that Jesus is the son of God, is part of the trinity, and is a divinity is fundamental to the Christian faith. Thus, Mormons are not Christians."We don't...You obviously don't know our doctrine very much. Someone who falls away from the LDS church can return to it and be granted eternal life again."What if they don't return? Then, as I said, the Mormon church believes that that person will not go to Heaven.I hope you understand that "The Lamb of God" is Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Lamb of God because he came down from Heaven in the form of a human and was cruified for our sins. He is God's sacrificial lamb. Being "The church of the Lamb of God" is being followers, and believers, that Jesus Christ is Lord. Since Mormons do not believe that Jesus is God or the son of God, they cannot be considered Christians.Jesus Himself appointed the first pope, St. Peter, to carry on His teachings after he ascended into Heaven.Jesus teaches that, “I (Jesus) am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."John 14:5-7 That verse is proof alone that the gift of eternal life is present in Jesus alone.Finally, the fact that religions have, "mortal leaders who teach and inspire them" has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.
Mormons are Christians

But they do the will of their father in heaven as well as any other Christian denominations because they follow The bible!If you remove all the traditional writings and beliefs of a Christian church, you will find the bible at the source of it all. The LDS Church doesn't just believe in the bible, the use it to try to become better people and to prepare for judgement day. www.lds.org is full of speeches and testimonials about becoming more righteous people. Demons do not have a physical form. Mormons seem to have something called a "human body"They don't believe that they are better, just that they have more accurate information. One of the things I have learned frequently at my church meetings is that no one person (except Jesus himself) is fundamentally better than another.The Saduces in the new testament did not follow the traditional "Oral Law" of the Pharisees. Yet they still followed the Law of Moses. In a similar manner, Mormons do not follow some traditional Christian beliefs, but they still follow the bible.I followed the link. While made in good intent, I saw nothing there that was either relevant or was not just rebutted in this statement.There most certainly are NOT 3 gods, there is our father in heaven, Jesus Christ, and the holy spirit. Only our father in heaven is a divinity.Hmmm...Last I visited church(most recent Sunday), I don't remember hearing of any but one unpardonable sin: Having a perfect knowledge and belief of the gospel, and then denying it. Like what demons do on a daily basis. And Jesus is not a god either.We don't...You obviously don't know our doctrine very much. Someone who falls away from the LDS church can return to it and be granted eternal life again. I hear that almost every Sunday in church.It's very nice to see that you read a Book of Mormon, but you misinterpreted the verse. In the premortal existence, those who were lead away by the devil and rebelled against god's great plan became angels of Satan, followers of Satan, The Church of Satan. Anyone who was on god's side during The Premortal War has had the Atonement extended to them and is therefore "The church of the Lamb of God"Updates:If a Roman Catholic believes in the gift of life eternal through Jesus alone, than he would not listen to the pope, or to any preachers, just to the bible. Religions often have mortal leaders who teach and inspire them over the years.
Mormons are Christians

First of all, believing in Jesus Christ alone does not mean that one is a Christian. Even demons believe in Jesus. Jesus says, in Matthew 7:21-23, that, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness." Secondly, Mormons consider themselves better than Christians, saying that Christianity became corrupt at the death of the New Testament apostles. They also claim that God has restored the lost and corrupted elements of the Christian faith in Mormonism, so that only those who practice their religion possess the purest form of Christianity. They are not Christians because they deny many of the doctrinal tenets of the original Christian faith. Here are a few fundamental differences between Mormonism and Christianity, to prove that these two religions are completely different, according to http://4witness.org...: According to the Bible, there is one eternal God in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Mormons believe that there are three separate Gods, according to the prophet Joseph Smith, who is not recognized as a holy person in the Christian faith. They also believe that God had not always been God, but that He is an "exalted man." According to the Bible, Jesus Christ is the one and only son of God. "His blood is sufficient enough to cover all sins, including murder." Mormons believe that Jesus earned his godhood. They also believe that there are some sins that Jesus" blood cannot cleanse- such as murder. Christians believe in the gift of Eternal Life by faith in Jesus Christ alone. Mormons believe that all people will be granted eternal life, except those who leave Mormonism. This is a verse from the Book of Mormon: "And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil."""1 Nephi 14:10 If Mormonism the "church of the Lamb of God," this verse makes the Christian church, the "church of the devil." If then, according to Mormonism, our church is the "church of the devil," how can you claim that Mormons are Christians? Once again, thanks for the debate. Sources: http://4witness.org...
Mormons are Christians

In response to philochristos' comment, I have given definitions.Mormon- Those who believe in the tenets, teachings, and beliefs of the official LDS church[1][2], excluding any fundamentalists or other offshoots and branches. Christian- Any person who believes in all of the following: Jesus is the Christ The Bible (new and old testament) is the word of god through his chosen prophets, and is therefore an inspired work Round 1 is ACCEPTANCE ONLY[1]:http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]:http://www.lds.org...
The Obama foreign policy has been a failure.

Judges, please read this debate with an open mind and a view toward voting for the best debater rather than the debater you happen to agree with. A ballot is an evaluation of who argued better, not a referendum on the resolution. I am aware this is a politically divisive issue, so if at the outset of this debate you have a hard time imagining yourself voting for the side you disagree with please abstain from voting.
The Obama foreign policy has been a failure.

This debate will consider the resolution "The Obama administration's foreign policy has failed to be effective or beneficial for the United States of America. " The time frame for this foreign policy covers President Obama's inauguration in 2009 until the day of this debate's posting, September 2, 2013. I will be arguing that this policy has been largely a failure and my opponent will argue that it has been largely a success. The first round will be for acceptance, second/third for contentions, defense of contentions, and rebuttal, fourth for conclusions. No new ideas may be introduced in the fourth round. Please have at least two contentions and keep things somewhat organized. Contentions do not necessarily have to be rebutted. Definitions: 1. Foreign policy: a strategy pursued by a nation in its dealings with other nations 2.
One world goverment.

New ideas will be born. Some of these ideas will be great and others the polar opposite. Yet, in order to create and maintain a world government, we only need to uproot the terrible ideas and promote the best ideas, which is a good idea anyways. There will always be gray areas. Especially when two ideologies are very close to each others. Think two different forms of capitalism, one with slightly less government control than the other. They will conflict, yet there a good chance that neither are horrible ideas, therefore both can stay. Just as different states in America have slightly different rules. One state could be more capitalistic than another. Then, there is local government, which could be slightly less capitalistic or more socialist. Yet, who cares about the minor differences so long as nobody gets hurt. Yet, in both scenarios perhaps a world government is the best way to deal with the worst ideas humanity has and will create. I bet almost everyone is against thought police when it comes to the trivial. Yet, how about if suddenly a terrible autocracy regime came back to life? Wouldn't we want to quell that regime as soon as possible? A world government is the best way to swiftly nip the problem of a ruthless new or old autocracy regime in the bud. As for weapons of mass destruction, perhaps this is the best case for a world government. As a species the odds of us surviving to colonize another planet are looking increasingly low. Between global climate change, weapons of mass destruction, resource shortfalls, and unforeseen apocalyptic events like meteors falling or the sun becoming unstable humanity surviving for another 500 years is low. Yet, we can't just give up. We have to try. It is probably too late for the Earth now due to global climate change. Yet, there is other options to preserve humanity. https://www.sciencedaily.com...
One world goverment.

OutlineI. IntroII. People have different ideasIII. Extinct/near extinct ideasIV. ConclusionV. SourcesI. IntroMy opponent made many good points. The main point I realize when reading my opponent's argument is people have drastically different ideas. Yet, ultimately many of these ideas are wrong-headed. There is hope, since many ideas are now extinct. II. People have different ideasThere are full throttle libertarians, socialists, and a hybrid between the two. Only one of these ideas can be correct. Same goes with government, theocracy, capitalism, and communism. Religion has the basic conflict of ideas, atheism, agnostic, deism, polytheism, and monotheism. Only one of these ideas can be correct in each bracket. I perceive two main problems with spreading ideas, passive and aggressive. The ideal is assertive. An example of passive is three islands. Each with people with radically different ideas. Yet, neither island interacts with each other. Since only one of the three ideas is correct, the other two islands suffer because of the silence between islands.On the flip side is aggressive, this nation rather than trying to rationally convince or appeal to the empathy and mercy of others, uses brute force. Often, brute force is the worst possible algorithm. You may get people to agree when threatened, only to continue the wrong-headed idea behind your back.The best solution is assertive. Push your ideas somewhat, but never with violence nor dishonesty. Impact, in summary, the many nations and people of the world have too different ideas to accept a world government today. Therefore, using appeals to logic and empathy we must first convince them to let go of the worst ideas, while asserting the best ideas. After there is more uniformity of good ideas, a world government would be that much easier to achieve and maintain. III. Extinct/near extinct ideasIdeas are difficult to exterminate, yet not impossible. How many people still worship the Norse Gods [1] or Egyptian Gods? How about monarchy? In medicine there are many medical practices that are extinct now including blood letting. [2] Yes, wrong headed ideas are difficult to extinguish, but it is possible. I don't think a violent revolution was needed to end blood letting. That being said, if consistently and assertively pushed by enough people, an idea can become extinct. IV. ConclusionThe main roadblock to a one world government is radically different ideas. Many of these ideas are wrong headed. If we press assertively in an open and honest way the best ideas while criticizing the worst ideas we can get rid of some of the worst ideas humanity has ever imagined. With these terrible ideas out of the way, a world government would be much easier to forge and maintain. Note such an algorithm may take quite some time, but neverthless seems worthwhile. Thanks for reading and thanks to my opponent for continuing the debate. V. Sources1. https://www.washingtonpost.com...2. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
One world goverment.

I always thought the united nations was in the middle east. Since it is in a sense the center of the world. Anyways, don't you think it would make more sense to have a one world government? Sorta like the European Union, except for the whole world. Think about it one currency, one religion atheism of course, together we could even conquer global climate change, oh yeah and everyone would be vegan/strict vegetarian. I just feel that a one world government would be the best for veganism, ending wars, environmentalism, and animal rights. Or perhaps I've just let my hopes and dreams interfere with my judgement. What do you think good idea/bad idea? Thanks in advance for accepting.
Anatidaephobia

Anatidaephobia (the fear of somewhere, somehow a duck watching you) The ducks are watching...+48 I mean that's pretty stupid. But when you think about it... It's kind of really scary to have that in your mind all the time. :I+29 The fact I can get it right away with a lot more to come back and I don't think that it was not immediately available to comment on the way I am so excited to be able and willing and able to do it again I have a great way of saying it is not an issue of whether it was not immediately available to comment on the way I am sure you think I can get it right away with the same thing to say it was not a fan since I got to see you soon enough for you and your not going to be the first half of the day before I can be found at a time when you are not going anywhere near me I was in oops the obest ois in my room for a long way toward an amazing voice of reason she is not an easy to play the piano lessons and a few years and years in the morning to all my life and the way to the point where you are the only thing that would have to go back and I don't think that I have a great way of the day after a few weeks and of of it and morythe on a train and a ggreat to say I don't give me some more and ...more
A human fetus has personhood at conception

My partner and I are debating this at school and are preparing for counterarguments. Cons, please either a) argue that a fetus becomes a person at 34 weeks (our opponet's stance) or b) negate our points/find flaws in them. Thank you! Stance: A human fetus has personhood at conception. Personhood- the state or fact of being an individual or having human characteristics and feelings. Reasons: - A child can survive outside the womb before the age of 34 weeks. Though survival may require outside aid, full-term babies as well as elderly persons can require the same things, and they are still considered people. - Many bodily functions happen before 34 weeks, including (but not limited to) a functioning nervous system, ability to move out of free will, and ability to feel pain. - A human fetus is a genetically unique individual from the time it is concieved (the moment the sperm and egg are fully joined). - The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 made it a crime to harm/kill a fetus in the course of other offenses, such as homicide, granting fetuses the rights of living people. - Conception is the only instantaneous moment in which one can difinitively say that there was no life, but now there is. It is impossible for humans to identify the exact moment a baby develops a certain bodily function, or to know the exact second which conception completed. Trying to define any other moment as a beginning of life is pointless, as it simply cannot be definitively measured. Please note that we are NOT debating abortion, though we are tiptoing around it. We are not discussing anything about women's right to choose, religion, or the like. Any such commentary is off-topic.
Social Media has become a place to show off

"I think people in today's time update their posts not to express their opinion or anything but to aggrandize themselves." This is simply inaccurate. I mean, we are currently having this debate over a social media network that was founded upon the opinions of its users. Yes, Debate.org is a social media network, based upon Google's definition of social media: "websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking." You created this debate, and we are now sharing our opinions on the matter with one another. It's a social media network, and we are sharing our opinions and not aggrandizing ourselves. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I find lots of people in my peer group, who puts anything even what they are eating and My Friends the time is close, where people will post the information about their how many times they pee." First off, your grammar is horrendous. Please be more mindful of it. It helps everybody involved. I have seen nobody, across all social networking platforms, ever share with people how and when they go pee. You must have some weird friends. As far as the food thing, I don't see how it makes someone "aggrandizing" to share a delicious looking meal or snack w/ their friends. Honestly, by stating you don't care about what people are doing, you come off as the one that is "aggrandizing" and self-centered. I'm not saying you are, but that's the impression it leaves. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To be fair, they are sure to be SOME people who show off online. However, these individuals hardly represent every user of social platforms. Social Media can hardly be defined as "a place to show off".
Social Media has become a place to show off

I think people in today's time update their posts not to express their opinion or anything but to aggrandize themselves. I find lots of people in my peer group, who puts anything even what they are eating and My Friends the time is close, where people will post the information about their how many times they pee. I mean come on, what's is the urge to put everything online. An expression is not Condescending People.
Drugs Should be Legalized

The amount of resources we would have to invest for such a plan and the negative effect it would have on innocent people overwhelmingly outweighs any possible positive effect it might have. The toll that the drug war takes on innocent, everyday people is insane. http://www.cato.org... Just like Prohibition, the drug war has been unsuccessful and disastrous. It has created mobs, gangs, and street warfare. It has destroyed our inner cities. It has hurt taxpayers immensely. The Constitution exists for a reason. Whenever individual freedoms are violated, there are always major consequences.
Drugs Should be Legalized

Legal action has assisted in tackling drugs in any ways, but a new system would defend more people. If local law enforcement can work with people in the insides of the drug business, locating and capturing dealers would be much easier. Also, the solution would be much less dangerous for the officers and people nearby and also bystanders at the scene of the arrest. In a cultural pullback, too many problems can erupt, throwing the nation into chaos and panic.
Drugs Should be Legalized

Portugal decriminalized drugs. 14 years later, the data showed "that Portugal has by no means plunged into a drug crisis." This is one example of how practical legalizing drugs is. If people want to endanger their own lives, they have every right to do so. "Drugs are traded by violent criminals today because the drug trade is illegal, not because it inherently attracts criminals." Also see-Prohibition. To expand on the above point, when a product becomes illegal, all trading is done underground; mobs gain monopolies on products and use brute force to achieve their means. If drugs were legal, the drug market would be far less harmful to both its consumers and civilians. The war on drugs creates far more violence (http://www.forbes.com...) than drug legalization would. The best way to combat drug use is cultural pushback, not legal action against people making their own independent decisions.
Drugs Should be Legalized

Even though I agree with you, I will be taking the con side for the fun of it. Good Luck! Even though people should be able to make their own decisions, drugs have a too big downside. Drugs take away your sense of thought, mental drive, and many health issues. Last year, 47,055 people died from drug overdoses (CNN.com) and the issue is affecting people all over the nation. Looking forward to a great debate!
Drugs Should be Legalized

Drugs should most certainly be legalized. Any measures opposing the freedom to use drugs violate individual sovereignty. In other words, by banning drugs, a government violates the rights of individuals to make their own choices and act according to their own judgement. Since all people have the freedom to think and sustain their own lives and values, if they are not violating other people's rights, then they have every right to use drugs. Good luck!