BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
George W. Bush destroyed America's Reputation

That is not nessicarily true. Some people think it is, but my opinion is that it wouldnt matter if he was president or not. It wouldnt stop the terrorist anyway. If their going to do it, their going to do it. It's not like Bush saud "Hey, bomb this here state." now did he? Im sure if anyone else what president, it would still be the same. I admit that Bush is wrong about the war, but he cant pull out now, or even consider setting a date for the soldiers to pull out, because then the terrorist will know when all this is happening and they will most likely attack agian.
Salvation from Sin and the Essentiality of Water Baptism

Then I guess this debate's been a waste of time. What I've been saying all along is that yes, it's God's will, but it seemed like you were saying that baptism alone could save someone since you said baptism alone was the way to Christ. Like I said before, our premises are going to be similar since we're both Christians and share the same beliefs. I apologize for wasting our time.
Salvation from Sin and the Essentiality of Water Baptism

"My opponent"s argument is barely short of non-existent. Actually most of what seems to be his case consists of my own premises." We're both Christians, aren't we? Of course our premises are going to be similar "But, here is what "Pitbull15" is saying. 1.) Once one becomes a Christian, he/she will automatically, or in his words "naturally" do good works, such as repent and be baptized, and 2.) If baptism washes away all one"s past sins, then that would necessarily leave his/her sins yet committed unforgiven. What my opponent fails to propose prove in 1.) of his comments is HOW THE BIBLE SAYS ONE BECOMES A CHRISTIAN. He forfeited the so-called "faith ONLY" position, which he espoused in his previous comments, which he denies saying. But, below is a quotation from the closing remarks of his previous comments: "Anything other than faith alone would be a works-based salvation. Ephesians 2: 8-9 says that you"re saved through faith in Christ alone." Thus, he has neither refuted my affirmative arguments, nor offered any Biblical alternative means of obtaining salvation from sin in any way." Here's my proposition on how to become a Christian: What I'm trying to get across to you is that "faith" is a package deal. Naturally doing good works and getting baptized, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Someone with true faith would be compelled to do these things. John 14:6 says "Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." Acts 3:19 says: "Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord." And how could I forget Romans 10:9-10? "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." But, I may have had your definitions confused before I accepted your challenge. Are you saying baptism alone is necessary for salvation, or are you arguing it's a necessary step, but not the way to salvation? Because I believe it's necessary, too; but not the true way to salvation in Christ. I apologize, but I want to get a clear definition.
Salvation from Sin and the Essentiality of Water Baptism

I didn't say that faith ALONE would save a person. If he doesn't do good works, his faith is not strong. I know it may sound like a No True Scotsman fallacy, but a person who had accepted Christ as his savior would have already repented and done good works to accompany his salvation. He would naturally be compelled to repent, do good works, and be baptized. So basically, it's a package deal; you can't have one without all the others. "1.) The New Testament teaches that one"s sin are forgiven and "washed away" when he/she is baptized. "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for ("eis" = unto/into, see Matt. 26:28) the forgiveness of sins" " Acts 2:38, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and WASH AWAY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord" " Acts 22:16. There is no other scriptural way for an alien sinner to have his/her sins forgiven or "washed away", except through baptism. 2.) The New Testament teaches that the one and ONLY way INTO Jesus Christ is through baptism. "Know ye not, that so many of us as were BAPTIZED INTO Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?" " Rom. 6:3, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" " Gal. 3:27. These two passages speak regarding putting off one" sins and putting on Christ, which is done so through being baptized. Therefore, without and prior to baptism one is STILL clothed with sin and apart from Jesus Christ." Baptism may wash away all the sins already committed, but what about the sins the man has yet to commit? Jesus Christ died for all the sins of the world past, present and future. When one is baptized, it is a symbol of your sins being washed away by Christ and a public profession of faith, as well as integration into a church. Baptism doesn't save from sins but from a troubled conscience. In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter taught that baptism was not a ceremonial act of physical purification, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. Baptism is the symbol of what has already occurred in the heart and life of one who has trusted Christ as Savior (Romans 6:3-5; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12). Baptism is an important step of obedience that every Christian should take. Baptism, however, cannot be the big requirement for salvation. To think of it that way is an attack on the sufficiency of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Salvation from Sin and the Essentiality of Water Baptism

"The New Testament teaches that water baptism is necessary to the salvation of the soul. And without which no one can be saved from their sins or enter into Heaven. Jesus said; "He that believeth and is baptized SHALL BE SAVED. He that believeth NOT shall be condemned." - Mk. 16:16 Jesus affirmed that in order to be saved, one MUST both believe AND be baptized." It also says that he who doesn"t believe is not saved. It didn"t mention anything about baptism in that part, so it wouldn"t necessarily imply that baptism is needed. What translation do you have? I"m using KJV. "Jesus also commanded His apostles to "make disciples of every nation, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" - Matt. 28:19. Jesus affirmed that disciples (i.e. Christians, followers of Jesus Christ) were to be made by baptizing those who have heard and believed the gospel message." When one is baptized, it"s meant to be a public profession of faith, not as a means of salvation. While it"s certainly an important step in obedience to God, it wouldn"t be necessary for salvation. Jesus' death alone paid for our sins (Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus' payment for our sins is appropriated to our "account" by faith alone (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Ephesians 2:8-9). Therefore, baptism is an important step of obedience after salvation but cannot be a requirement for salvation. Anything other than faith alone would be a works-based salvation. Ephesians 2: 8-9 says that you"re saved through faith in Christ alone. If you are a believer, the rest including works and baptism will come naturally.
Salvation from Sin and the Essentiality of Water Baptism

The New Testament teaches that water baptism is necessary to the salvation of the soul. And without which no on e can be saved from their sins or enter into Heaven. Jesus said; "He that believeth and is baptized SHALL BE SAVED. He that believeth NOT shall be condemned." - Mk. 16:16 Jesus affirmed that in order to be saved, one MUST both believe AND be baptized. Jesus also commanded His apostles to "make disciples of every nation, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" - Matt. 28:19. Jesus affirmed that disciples (i.e. Christians, followers of Jesus Christ) were to be made by baptizing those who have heard and believed the gospel message. 2 Tim. 2:10 & 3:15 clearly state that salvation from sin exists only "IN CHRIST". And, the one and ONLY means of entering Jesus Christ is through the means of water baptism; "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." - Gal. 3:28, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? " - Rom. 6:3 Unless one's sins are forgiven and "washed away", he/she cannot be saved and therefore, cannot enter Heaven - Jn. 8:21. The apostle Peter, made abundantly clear that it is through being baptized that one's sins are forgiven; " Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" - Acts 2:38, and Ananias instructed Saul of Tarsus to "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" - Acts 22:16. Therefore, the New Testament teaches unequivocally, that in order to be saved from sin and enter Heaven eternally. one MUST be baptized in water.
Chrisitians should not celebrate halloween

we should kill the man who wronged us with kindness??? I'm sorry but you miss interpreted that metaphor, to which I bring up another, when one is killed, who kills the man who killed him, but than who kills the man who kills the man who killed the man and so on? The bible does say to dink but not be drunk, but alcohol can cause birth defects in pregnant women. But dude, times have changed, yea Halloween has a bad past, but so do people! should we not celebrate ourselves? And you give all those verses, yea evil is bad and should be avoided at all costs, but Halloween is not evil! may point out the argument that I brought up before with the preschool kids, that you ignored, If you go to a preschool, or elementary school and ask "why did you do Halloween?" and truth be told, I bet not one of those kids would say "because by mommy worships the devil, and she was practising witch craft" no, they all would say something like "I like to dress up and get candy." those little people aren't practising with or worshiping demons or practising witch craft! no one throws party's for Halloween because of its past but it is for wee little people to dress up an get candy and have fun! Not every thing has the perfect past, Halloween, and nascar are just two, but I am sure many more are there, you just pointed out Halloween, we still like them, event though they are wrong, and to think you want to get rid of the one that brings joy to the little people who are sad that they just started the 16 year journey through school? Halloween is not evil anymore, just like a radioactive mound that was closed to the public for twenty years, its better now, the radiation is gone and the evil is gone in Halloween. Halloween should be celebrated by Christians, but not as what you think it is because it isn't that. How dare you literally take candy form Babies, they are Christian babes, innocent Christian babies that just dress up as pumpkins and butterflies, who have fun and get candy, that they most likely won't eat, but it is also exercise. Gees lay off. It isn't that bad, have I not made myself clear? I wish I could debate more on this but it is only a two round debate.
Chrisitians should not celebrate halloween

The bible says not to get drunk but does not say you cannot drink. Therefore the alcohol issue you bring up about NASCAR is illegitimate and I do not see how it pertains to the debate. You have skewed the text on turning the other cheek. It means that if someone wrongs you, you are to kill them will kindness. Boxing is a sport and is not someone wronging you. Therefore I do not see how that is legitimate. We are not discussing what we should do on halloween but whether halloween should be celebrated by Christians. I stand on my first attack on the issue
Chrisitians should not celebrate halloween

Gees lighten up man, Halloween is a time of fun and candy! yea the origins aren't good, but they aren't anymore, look at NASCAR, it started wit a boy trying to out run the cops because he took over his dad's moonshinin' business (Moonshine is a common term for home-distilled alcohol, especially in places where this production is illegal) does this mean Christians shouldn't be a NASCAR fan? The Bible does say not to get drunk, and NASCAR's origin does have alcohol in it don't yea know. Now don't forget boxing, the Bible says to turn the other cheek. If you go to a preschool, or elementary school and ask "why did you do Halloween?" and truth be told, I bet not one of those kids would say "because by mommy worships the devil, and she was practising witch craft" no, they all would say something like "I like to dress up and get candy." I'm sure many Christians have had bad history, possibly they were prostitutes, or Gothic, but does that mean we shouldn't celebrate them on birthdays or anniversaries?? yea harvest festivals are good, and Jesus' word is spread, but have you ever thought about giving out candy with Bible tracts on them? Or just give out tracts, or if you really want to get their attention hand out vinegar samples with Bible verses on them. Really all Halloween is is a big party where we can scare each other and give, eat candy.
Hiroshima Atomic Bombing Decision

I will wrap up the debate. Rebuttal"The US should not have dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but instead could have staged a demonstration of the Atomic bomb, and shown it to the Japanese. The leaflets that were dropped in Japan were only words, but an actual demonstration could be the final straw for Japan to surrender. "The public would not have known about it in that case. Even if they had, doing a demonstration does not have anywhere near the psycological effectiveness of actually bombing a city. Truman believed that a failed demonstration would be too risky for the war [1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...], as the Americans were not even sure that the bombs would work. The Japanese did not surrender even after the Hirohshima bombing and only did so after Nagasaki went the same way. This provides convincing evidence that they would not have surrendered after a mere demonstration. "The doves were powerful, and would have forced the surrender of Japan if it the Emperor did not have to be removed. "Con provides no evidence supporting this statement. I have shown that the military was powerful and attempted a coup to continue the war even after both bombings. "The development and usage of the Nuclear Bomb in general was catastrophic. Soon after WWII, the Cold War erupted. Several countries have since developed nuclear weapons, and those nations now have the power to destroy each other. "My opponent has not provided any evidence for this argument either. I have no reason to believe that an actual physical demonstration caused other countries to develop their own nuclear weapons program. The possibility of nuclear weapons was known by scientists since the discovery of fission, and even Nazi Germany made a doomed attempt to create them [2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...]. All the bombings did was expose the threat of the bombs and radiation to the public eye, which has undoubtedly made the world a safer place. Without Hiroshima, the public might not even know about the existence of such weapons to this day. Lastly, my opponent goes into great detail to describe the pain and suffering of the victims. He does not address how much more pain and suffering there would be if America actually invaded. Previous Arguments1. I pointed out how the Soviets did not intend to conquer Japan. He has not responded to this.2. I pointed out how the Japanese military might have deposed Hirohito, and how such an attempt was later made after he wanted to surrender. He has not responded to this.3. I have shown that the Japanese would have executed prisoners of war if not for the quick end that was brought by the bombing. He has not responded to this.4. I pointed out how food and supplies could have been rushed to Japan's starving people and victims of occupation. He has not responded to this.5. I demonstrated that the Japanese were completely prepared for invasion and that the casualties on both side would have been several times larger than what the bombings wrought. He has, again, not responded to this nor any of my points. Vote ProHave a nice day. :)
Hiroshima Atomic Bombing Decision

The death toll was higher when the atomic bomb exploded on Hiroshima in 1945 than the entire war on terror in the Middle East. Between 90,000 and 166,000 lives were taken due to the atomic bombing on Hiroshima. Around 200,000 more Japanese had died by 1950 because of post-attack illnesses. Everything within a radius of 4.7 miles of the city was affected. All this annihilation occurred because the Japanese did not accept President Harry Truman's Potsdam ultimatum to surrender. At the time, the Allies, which were a group of countries that supported each other during the war, and the Japanese were fighting the Pacific War. The war was causing hundreds of soldiers to die. The atomic bombing was a quick way to end the war without any more casualties for the Allies, but it resulted in an undeserved massacre. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima was an extreme overreaction because it ended an immense amount of innocent lives. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima was easily preventable if it was given enough thought. At the same time as the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan was also being attacked by the Soviet Union. It is likely Japan would have surrendered soon because of the Soviet forces and the defeat of Germany. Japan was already shaken up by the nightly air raids, and was seriously considering surrender. There were already many Japanese who wanted their country to surrender, including the "Doves", who were Japanese people who wanted to surrender. The Doves would have taken action to force the Japanese to surrender if the Emperor did not have to leave his throne according to the terms ultimatum. If the ultimatum was tweaked slightly, Japan would have surrendered. Also, Emperor Hirohito was for peace, and wanted to surrender as soon as possible: "By early July the US had intercepted messages from Togo to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow, Naotake Sato, showing that the Emperor himself was taking a personal hand in the peace effort" (www.ihr.org). Emperor Hirohito saw the hopelessness of the war effort, and wished to do everything to stop innocent civilian casualties. The Emperor needed time to convince the persistent militaristic leaders that it was time to end the war. With additional time and negotiation on the ultimatum, the bombing could have been prevented.
i see a new United States.

i see a new United States. with no president, and our army under the command of the senate. Senators Shall never receive a bribe for a vote. under penalty of treason. No war or alliance shall be made with any nation. Our Military shall not conceal ANY information from the public. Cut all Foreign aid. allow any person citizenship as long as he/she did not commit a federal crime in there former country. change the name of the army to The People's Militia anyone within a political party may not ever be a candidate for President (political parties just cause more separation among the people) And no plant developed in nature shall be made illegal
why gay marriageis ok

I know not everyone is gay but what if everyone were? The answer would be the end of mankind, of course that wouldn't happen based on the majority of the world being straight but hypothetically speaking if everyone were straight it wouldn't leave a negative impact on the world but if everyone were gay it would because they aren't capable of procreation so the government shouldn't support their relationship by marrying them, bottom line is gays need straights in their life to legally adopt children and keep mankind going but straights don't need gays for those reasons gays should keep in mind that being gay isn't illegal but gays getting married should be because it isn't marriage and the government shouldn't support a lifestyle that doesn't benefit them in any way shape or form, but straights can procreate and that benefits the government. If a friend came out to me I wouldn't tear them down for it because it's not my place however I might tell them my beliefs and pray for them.
why gay marriageis ok

not everyone is gay but that's what makes it special.its better to be different then to be the same as everyone else. getting married is you have found some one to spend the rest of your life with. if you are Christian I have a feeling that you are if "god" made humanity and he made everyone differently he made people gay and since I'm not gay my self it is not that big of a deal ,but if a friend came out to me I would not think different of them I would stick up for them what would you do???
Healthcare should be considered a right to all of a country's citizens

To your point that healthcare is a service: You are not wrong, but just because a service is required to guarantee a right, does not mean that right is void of its value. To guarantee the right to free speech, people employ the service of police officers to protect them when they may be attacked during a protest or a rally. To guarantee the right to privacy, people must use a service. On Internet traffic, for example, people will sometimes employ VPNs so that their traffic can not be intercepted. Just like any other service, people pay the owner of the VPN for its use. To your point about the car mechanic: No one is in danger of losing their life when they have a car that doesn't run. They are just put in an unfortunate situation that does not allow them to travel long distances. In a case of a heart attack, for example, that person will certainly die without proper healthcare. Or for a different example, someone with cancer will die, very slowly, if they do not receive the proper healthcare. It is not a question of if they will die, but when. Although they may require a service to live, that service is still put in place to guarantee their human rights. I don't see why a service is automatically disqualified from being a human right. What about the right to a fair and speedy trial? That seems like a service to me - it involves many people working, for monetary gain, as judges, police officers, and lawyers. Just because a lawyer may provide a "service" to its client, doesn't mean that client doesn't have the right to a lawyer. To your point about universal healthcare being lower quality than private healthcare: We do not need to abolish the private healthcare system. I am not calling for the abolition of the private healthcare system, although I do despise it. I am calling for a healthcare system that guarantees healthcare to anyone who needs it. This would, of course, include mostly poor and middle class people. However, these people would still be free to pay for insurance or medical services on the private market should they so desire. I am trying to avoid giving an unfair advantage to the wealthy when it comes to healthcare, and a right to healthcare is the first step in doing so. A man should not go into crippling debt because he had a stroke. It is absurd that in a country as rich as America, people should be thrown into life ruining debt and bankruptcy because of an unforeseen medical cost. Let us assume that the quality of healthcare is vastly inferior in countries with a right to healthcare. Those countries with universal healthcare have overall healthier citizens that those countries who primarily use a private system. Those countries with universal healthcare have less people die each year from preventable and treatable conditions, injuries, and diseases. Those countries with universal healthcare have a less poverty, due in no small part to the burden of paying for obscenely expensive healthcare lifted off of the lower class. Would the quality be less in certain cases - perhaps, but overall, the health of the nation would improve drastically.