BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Baptizing in the "Name" of Jesus satisfies the Matt. 28:19 (titles) requirement.

Thanks B. Butterworth for responding. This is my first debate on this website. I appreciate your patience with my temporary clumsiness with the debate structure and custom. In my initial statement (Rd.1), I was careful to cite very specific Biblical references (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5) substantiating my position; that water baptism was performed calling on the name of Jesus, specifically. These passages leave no question with regard to the invocative formula utilized, making my position anything but an "assumption", as you aver. As you said: "the Bible is a holy scripture which cannot contradict itself". This statement implies a high regard for the Bible. I concur, and this is why I am loath to quickly dismiss or otherwise overlook the Biblical doctrinal standard in deference to other ambiguous, questionable, non-canonical writings. This is not to dismiss those writings, however, where they differ from the Bible, they err. The name of Jesus satisfies the titles requirement because the man Jesus is Emmanuel (God with us)-Matt. 1:23. Also another verse says:, "... in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."- Col. 2:9. Then there is this:"God was manifest in the flesh,..."- ITim. 3:16. Therefore: The name of the Son... Matt 1:21 "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS:..." The name of the Father... Jn. 5:43 "I am come in my Father's name,..."(-Jesus) The name of the Holy Ghost... Jn. 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name,..."(-Jesus) ...is Jesus. Being baptized in the Jesus' Name is being baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This explains the Biblical record of the first church regarding their baptismal formula; that their practice did not contradict the commandment of Jesus, but fulfilled it. www.bible.com
Baptizing in the "Name" of Jesus satisfies the Matt. 28:19 (titles) requirement.

Basically your assumption that the early church baptized in the name of Christ (Christ alone) is just that; an assumption. When we actually look at a text by the early church fathers we see that they baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. "After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. " The Didache (7:1) The Didache (a. k. a. The Teaching of The Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles) was an early Christian writing dating back to about 70 A. D. . http://www.freerepublic.com... . http://www.spurgeon.org... Based on this, and the fact that the bible is a holy scripture which cannot contradict itself, I'd say that when the apostles say "in the name of Jesus Christ" they are simply alluding to "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". And you have to admit, the ladder is a bit of a mouthful compared to the first.
Baptizing in the "Name" of Jesus satisfies the Matt. 28:19 (titles) requirement.

It is known as the Great Commission. I reference the pertinent part for the debate: (Matt 28:19, Jesus speaking) "... baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" Luke also records a version of this great commission worded differently:(Lu 24:47, Jesus speaking) "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations,..." Today, baptism (immersion) is widely practiced echoing Matt. 28:19, utilizing the title words "Father", "Son", "Holy Ghost". However, the primitive church in the book of Acts baptized in the Name of Jesus (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5 ), saying: "...the name of Jesus Christ ...Neither is there salvation in any other: for their is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:10, 12) I therefore submit that the formula of baptism of the first church, as recorded in the book of Acts, was not errant; that baptism in the name of Jesus satisfies the Matthew 28:19 requirement for baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Baptizing in the "Name" of Jesus satisfies the Matt. 28:19 (titles) requirement.

You claim a theme emerges from the references to baptism from acts. I would agree. I claim the theme is referencing the baptismal formula given to us by Jesus Christ himself "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". As has been the case for 2000 years in Christian history. Where is your historical evidence for your new baptism???? You say one thing and I say another. What does the bible tell us to do? Go to the church. Matthew 18:15-17 " "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. " Which church should we go to? That church would have to have been around for 2000 years. It would have to have been founded by Christ. Has your church been around for 2000 years? Was it founded by Christ, or by a man? Because if it has been around for 2000 years, wouldn't you have historical evidence of it? Surly in the span of 2000 years ,one of your members actually wrote something down? Because if they didn't, and I contend they didn't, then you truly are preaching a new/false gospel.
James K Polk was the most efficient president in the history of the United States of America

I am asserting that the eleventh president of the United States, James Knox Polk, was the most efficient president in United States History. If you are going to debate this, you must offer a different president whom you can defend as being more efficient efficient-performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry. For round one simply accept and offer your president Try to avoid semantics, trolling, etc. Be reasonable.
goku vs superman goku stomps mad carzy 4

Before you tell me Death battle isn't a reliable source, prove it. Before telling me to look it up somewhere else why don't you? Until then, it is a reliable source. Also, there are many transforming of comic book characters, while Goku is limited to his show. Superman has been anywhere to a weaker, more human like hero, as well as an unstoppable force of good. Also, If Superman can fly into the sun, and gain energy from it, why can't he withstand a nuclear blast. This is because their are different versions of Superman, just like any comic book hero. I mist be honest, in some versions Superman would be destroyed, but in other versions, Goku would be finished. The stats from death battle are based off of real comic books, and the stats from a real show. If superman was at his full potential (like at the end of Death battle) even at his full potential, Goku's strength, speed, and durability are no where near Supermans. Also, just because Goku did blow up a galaxy, doesn't mean superman can't do the same thing in some version. Also If Goku was to release this galaxy destroying blast, Superman can fly out of the way with his immense speed. I'm sorry to tell you but, a giant laser isn't everything.
goku vs superman goku stomps mad carzy 4

Unless you can prove to me the death battle stats are wrong, with a reliable source, that part of your argument is invalid. Also I should tell you the rock paper scissors scenario. As you know rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper, but paper also Barbara rock. Even though rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper, which is the one that beats rock. In turn Superman beats a powerful enemy. Yet this powerful enemy beats Batman. Batman beats superman though. In turn Batman can beat Superman, but is defeated by the enemy that Superman defeated. I agree with you Batman would beat Superman, but that doesn't mean a different kind of enemy, Goku, can defeat superman.Also, if superman is beaten by someone in a game like injustice, it doesn't matter. In its case there is no rock, paper, scissors. Anyone can beat anyone.
goku vs superman goku stomps mad carzy 4

The original superman could, and would sneeze away entire solar systems is was the silver age the original superman could not fly and fought for what us small people thought was good against the mob bad land lords and corrupting in the government as a news reporter and was a hero the people http://static.comicvine.com... sliver age superman boxed muhammad ail and lost http://media.npr.org... sliver age superman was a homeless man who made lois fat http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net... stats from death battle are wrong http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
goku vs superman goku stomps mad carzy 4

The original superman could, and would sneeze away entire solar systems. If you don't believe me look it up on the video from my last argument. Also supermans strength, speed, and durability are well beyond that of Goku's. Goku can lift 160,000 tons, go 2.5 billion kilometers per hour, and withstand 34.7 Sextillion megatons of force. While Superman can lift 6.6 quintillion tons, go 9.4 billion kilometers per hour, and withstand 10 octillion megatons of force. Superman and Goku are literally so equally in everything else, you have to base it off of this to see who should win. Obviously Goku could find out a way to defeat Superman, hence the red Sun and kryptonite, but without any knowledge of them Goku is screwed.
goku vs superman goku stomps mad carzy 4

ok I hope my opponent does well and good luck I like batman also he was my favorite superhero from a kid I like comics more than anime the only anime I like is dbz how can batman beat superman? if superman can lift more that batman? because batman is a fighter (Goku very well could beat Superman, but he very well could lose to superman) this is right because writer chaises the outcome but in this fight is no writer batman has Bay superman I think 7 times(even in the new 52) the only time superman ever beat batman was injustice video game so how does batman do it? kyptonite, red sun, sonics,robot suit. he breings superman to batman level then superman cant win batman has better fighting ability and can judo superman even when he has powers and can get a few hits in before his hand hurt that brings he to he point superman is not a fighter in any way look at my past arguments superman has yoga and pressure points as a fighting stile Goku's abilities are better than superman powers and in a fight would win If Goku teleported Superman to a star other than a yellow one (since the yellow star is the source of his power) he could defeat him. yes If he is brought to a blue star his power is doubled from what it already is he would blow it up blue star sun? also the disc that could cut superman in hafe Superman could be defeated by Goku would be if he revealed his weaknesses i donk this so batman and karate kid have both beat superman and have got hits in he is not that stronger aquaman and ww both could beat him and have to say goku would not is wrong superman has no power level and no feats that show he would have a strong one goku would to clear win this with just fighting and power he could blow up galaxys http://www.youtube.com...
goku vs superman goku stomps mad carzy 4

First off, someone needs to stop watching that show. Second off I know I'm routing for Batman in a battle between him and Superman, but that is based of of my rock paper scissors scenario if you check out my other argument. Goku very well could beat Superman, but he very well could lose to superman. Their power levels are both well over 9,000 :) Yet superman and Goku's abilities come so close the winner basically is the strongest, literally in how much they can lift. Superman is much stronger than Goku by far if you have checked out any of the old comics. Superman has pulled planets out of the gravitational pull of its star. Just to top it all off, the only way Superman could be defeated by Goku would be if he revealed his weaknesses, being red stars and kryptonite. Superman would not be stupid enough to reveal either one and if he did he could still pull through (unless Goku shoots him with a kryptonite bullet). If Goku teleported Superman to a star other than a yellow one (since the yellow star is the source of his power) he could defeat him. If superman is brought to red star he's dead. If he is brought to a blue star his power is doubled from what it already is. Go to http://m.youtube.com... to see the basics from screw attacks death battle Goku VS Superman to see the basics.
goku vs superman goku stomps mad carzy 4

I never said that superman would be destroyed in most versions. I said he would be destroyed in some versions. I cant dodge this fact because super heroes are displayed in different ways in different comics. Goku only has one source, (other than facts given from his writers) his show. In most versions superman has an unstoppable potential, while in others he is weaker and can be defeated. You are right though, Goku often overcomes enemies with power much stronger than his own. Yet, he was killed by an android. this means, Goku is stoppable one way or another. All of the comics made by DC are reliable sources, no matter the differing versions. Death battle went off of one of his strongest forms from different DC comic sources. Also, in the Death battle, superman is not at his strongest potential. He is not near a blue star. Not that he would ever reach one, but I'm just saying. If superman ever reached his full potential, nothing could stop him. Lastly, like I said, it doesn't matter who has beaten superman, it matters if he could beat Goku.
Rap battle 5

you think your cool slingin your rhyme yet your ahead of time this game ain't over till I say we stop and by then you'll drop like a dime you'll regret you even started the d*mn battle ill end up treating you like my cattle I forfeited last round cause I only needed two I don't even need to be embattled this is getting quite boring I think you'll understand you really get very bland yet you cant fight like a man but next maybe ill use my backhand
Rap battle 5

To no surprise, you just quit. In my eyes, you're not worth it. As I rise, you hit a wall of bricks Your best prize would be a ball of shiit. Wait no. That's not true. Because even that's too good for you. You deserve less than my worst verse, I spit a line, then see who I hurt first. You rap like you've been through hell, Livin the streets, like you know so well. In real life though; you can't tell, How to write rap's, kid, 'cause you can't spell. All you are is a joke to me, If you could, you would vote for me. Just leave now.. wait. Too late! You're already gone. What "great debate" I don't even know what to say anymore, You're done already, you can't hold steady, You're the 5th I've beaten of many more! My first line broke you to your core. Reply if you want, It'll just diminish you. You can't think of a taunt, 'Cause I've already finished you.
Rap battle 5

First off, who the f*ck are you? Think you're styles real? My raps are steel, that's true. When they hit you, That's how they'll feel, When they crack right through. You really believe, You matter that much? Keep your trap shut, You could just leave, I'd be happy to lose touch. My raps don't make sense? Yours are fake, hence, You'd only make cents, In the rap game, for your sake, commence With a line, I break your defence, All of your "talent"couldn't shake my fence. We're only in round 2 Your weakness surrounds you, You want to fight me? Try asking politely. You little wanksta, The end has come. You ain't a gangsta, You ain't even friends with one. But don't let my views, Go burst your bubble. But it's no news, That you're in trouble. Go ahead duke, Let's hear some repentance. I'll try not to puke, From the first sentence.
Rap battle 5

What you think your doing battling with me? you really need to see what I've got is real what you've got is steel your just a punk as* rap aid I'm a straight up gangsta can blow you up but I'm not gonna aim just gonna and sit here spit rhymes with my gun up you think your a G you don't know what you see but what I see is true to me you may just sit there and snort crack or you can join me and rap I will teach you bi the morning you will know the ropes but I know eventually you will choke and when you do u will be holding out your hand but if you don't take it now you'll will just let yourself down in. you gotta learn what to say and spit cuz your rap is just stupid sh*t what ever comes out of your mouth you don't know it but I know you will eventually throw it and if I spit a few lines then ill go
Rap battle 5

Everybody get up, sit up, time to beat down. I'll f*ck sh*t up, once I turn my beat loud. Except for you, Get back in your seat now. Succumb to defeat now. You already feel the heat, how? I'm just getting started, You must have departed, this is what the chart said: my opponent is retarded. Trust me, I need to succeed, the winner must be me you'll be starting to bleed, when I leave Best believe,it's my speed that I use to feed, the fire to start my desire, you'll start to perspire you liar, I'll choke you with wire, You might admire my drive in which I inspire to build my empire, I aspire to strike back, go ahead write that, down and I'll fight back.
Child Labor is More Important than Education is Today

You say that if kids don't work, they won't earn enough money. Well, why not let the parents do that, and let the kids get education. Why? If you think about it, the more education a kid gets, the higher the chance he'll be more successful when he/she grows up, which will let him/her get out of poverty. Child Labor is a cruel way to earn money, and it should be stopped.
Child Labor is More Important than Education is Today

I would like to clarify that I do support Child-Labour and I am an advocate to its destruction. I am otherwise utilising this debate to explain the dangers capitalism has brought to these children, and why currently education would not help. Child-labour is crucial to our capitalist system. We are reliant on exploiting these children because of how cheap it is. Ever wonder why we are able to afford cheap clothes, jewelry, etc? Because the child labourer was paid for his crums. Furthermore, if the child-labourers were to be forced into education rather than working they would need to find other ways to make money to keep themselves alive--providing education does not provide food at the table. And like many children who are not capable of taking these jobs, it becomes even easier to be exploited into other horrible things such as the sex trade. Thus, what would be the point of educating these children? There aren't any options for these children to move on to. In essence, our capitalist system would never abide to preventing child-labour so long as it is benefiting ourselves. Ideally we want children to be educated, to have the ability to maintain innocence. But to do this, we have to change our economic system to provide freedom for all.
Child Labor is More Important than Education is Today

I will be arguing that Education is more important for children than child labor: Child labor and poverty are inevitably bound together and if you continue to use the labor of children as the treatment for the social disease of poverty, you will have both poverty and child labor to the end of time." Child labor is a highly prevalent problem deeply rooted in society. Child labor prevents children from reaching their potential by all but ensuring that the child"s education will be diminished - leading to poverty and crime. A limited education limits job prospects to laborers, due to a college degree or at the very least high school diploma required for most jobs. It negatively affects children both in mental and physical ways. Physical injuries and even mutilations can be caused by child labor, through a combination of faulty machinery, exhaustion, and workplace hazards. Child labor has adverse effects on health, cognitive ability, and happiness, all of which play a pivotal role in the development of a young child. The opponent, please give your opening speech.
Child Labor is More Important than Education is Today

As I've stated previously, I do not think that child-labour is in any way moral, and therefore arguing that its wrong is in fact agreeing with me, however that's not the argument I'm making. I'm suggesting that the system involuntarily offers no choice for these children, and the only way to actually give them this option would be to change the system, or wait long enough to find someone else to exploit. You ask why the parents shouldn't be the ones working, and that's probably because in a lot of the cases they are working as well. Its even more brutal when you consider that you essentially have the whole family working but they can barely afford any nutrition. "the more education a kid gets, the higher the chance he'll be more successful when he/she grows up" This isn't true. First of all, they'd need a significant accumulation of wealth to even be able to find a country that would provide substantial education, then be able to speak that language fluently to properly be educated. Then they'd probably need to work within that country to have any substantial amount of money, because if he goes back home then he isn't going to be making lots of money because everyone is poor. Not to mention that an education does not necessarily mean you're going to be rich, or that you'll even find a job. They will probably still have debt from the education they received, debt from moving to another country as a foreigner, and the debt because they moved back to the country were they cannot make large accumulations of profit.
There is no such thing as trying, you either do it or you don't

I am sorry that my opponent could not post his argument in time and I am sure by all means that he was busy so he could not post it. I thoroughly am enjoying this debate even though only one debate has been posted. First As I stated before, Yoda is a fictional character and just because Yoda says something, doesn't mean its true. He is a character that was created through some computer graphics and if you trust Yoda as a fictional character then its right out there obviously that you would trust Anakin when he says to jump into the Sarlaac pit or Darth Sidius when he says to force choke yourself. Stating a quite from a fictional character that will never be real is not quite enough back up to argue. Second He did not specify that definition from Merriam Webster's dictionary therefore I am free to take his brief statement and make it into my own definition. As I stated in round 1 "There will be no abuse of semantics, dictionary's, literary devices, or any form of abuse of any kind", This means that whoever sets the definition in play gets to keep the definition that way. My opponent says "for any possible action that can be committed, there are only two possible outcomes". This is true, but also take notice of how he says "for any possible action that can be committed". That means to try because to try, in my definition, means to start an action to put you on the course of succeeding or failing. You can't fail or succeed without without taking the course of action to start it Sources http://www.forexfactory.com... (This source may seem irrelevant, but they are talking about the topic of trying and they all agree with he/she when he/she posted that question because they didn't reject "trying")