BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A saved person, a Christian, may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost.

All of them, and at no point did I "un-accept" them. I accept that "Christian" means "saved person" and "eternally lost" means "eventually wind up in Hell". Alright then you accept "eventually (finally; ultimately; at some later time) wind up in Hell (the place or state of punishment of the wicked after death; the abode of evil and condemned spirits; Gehenna or Tartarus.) The definitions are taken straight off of Dictonary.com - and of course are the ordinary, customary meanings of the words, also. So, at a minimum, you are accepting that someone - no matter who - "finally, ultimately, at some later time" finds himself in "the place or state of punishment of the wicked after death, the abode of evil and condemned spirits." No, you do not accept that. It's nothing but an infidel's word-game. " I accept it as true", but "since none of it exists, it's false." No need in a long response. It's like me saying "Yes, I accept that all good Indians go to the Happy Hunting Ground. Well, no, I sorta don't accept it: lemme un-accept it cuz there aint no such thing as a Happy Hunting Ground. Guess I just don't accept it. Prove there is a Happy Hunting Ground first, then we'll talk about it." That's your position to a Tee - if you wanna call it a position.
A saved person, a Christian, may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost.

Sigh... you're now arguing my personal character instead of the resolution."You do not accept a one of them. If so, why don't you kindly point out for me which one(s) you do accept."All of them, and at no point did I "un-accept" them. I accept that "Christian" means "saved person" and "eternally lost" means "eventually wind up in Hell"; now it's your burden of proof to show how it is possible for a "saved person" to "eventually wind up in Hell". You simply haven't even bothered doing that...Extend all arguments and refutations since my opponent hasn't presenting anything new or substantial this last round pertaining to the actual resolution.
A saved person, a Christian, may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost.

Disappointingly, it seems my opponent continues to not even attempt to prove any part of her resolution.Terms of the DebateI accept all of your terms' definitions, Pro; that doesn't mean I have to believe they exist. For instance, if I made a debate "It's possible for unicorns to live entirely off of fish" and then defined "unicorns" as "a horse with a single horn on its forehead," anyone is welcome to accept and attempt to negate the resolution anyway he/she sees fit, be it explaining that unicorns' diets must consists of more than just fish for survival or explaining that unicorns simply don't exist.Unless, of course, it was clarified in the instigation that "Whoever accepts this debate must agree unicorns/Hell exist(s)" which you didn't do."Not only that, but I said in the opening comments, "I am arguing against the typical Baptist position of "once saved, always saved.""Yes, you can argue whatever stance you want. Your disdain toward this Baptist belief was evident from the title alone, but you never said Con had to be a Baptist or to argue the Baptist belief."I might well have reworded the proposition, "The Bible teaches that ..... " but con would most likely have accepted, then just denied that the Bible teaches anything because it is a humanly-concocted fairy tale."If your resolution had included "The Bible teaches that [...]" I would not have accepted, because you would be arguing what the Bible says, not what is actually true. (Note there were two of your debates available for acceptance at the same time. The other read "The Bible teaches that water baptism [...]"; I didn't accept that one, and I have no intentions of doing so.)Conclusion"To summarize, con is nothing more than an atheist/agnostic/infidel"Go with "infidel". I like the sound of that."trolling around under the "Religion" section, agreeing to debate religious topics, then asking for proof that God, heaven, and hell exist and, of course, never really getting to the proposition - and he never intended to."You make a lot of assumptions about me. I'm sure the regulars here are quite aware I debate religious topics seriously. I have done nothing but address the resolution of this debate; you have simply failed to meet your burden of proof.Bottom line: you should have defined your position better (or, better yet, defined what you wanted your opponent's position to be better). If you make a resolution stating "It's possible for a Christian to eventually wind up in Hell" then it's only natural you will have to, you know... prove that. So far, you have not done so.
A saved person, a Christian, may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost.

Answers"(1) What was the salvation status of King Saul up until the point of I Samuel 11: 6? And what was his status at the point of his suicide?"I don't know if salvation is even possible, so I don't know whether King Saul was "saved" or not."(2) Does Heb 6: 4-6 describe a situation that actually happened or actually could happen?"It probably describes fairytale, like nearly everything else in the Bible, unless you can prove otherwise."(3) Does a believer - a saved believer - possess the free agency, the power of choice, to become an unbeliever?"No; belief (or lack thereof) is not a choice.My Opponent's ArgumentPro quotes the Bible a lot without any warrant as to why we should believe it's true. Let me remind the audience of the resolution: "A Christian may sin in such a way as to eventually wind up in Hell."There is no "according to the Bible's stories" in the resolution. My opponent must prove that (1) Hell exists, and (2) it's possible for a Christian to eventually wind up there. My opponent cannot use the Bible as evidence to prove the resolution until she has proven the Bible should actually be taken seriously as being factually correct (good luck).ConclusionExcuse the brevity, but nothing my opponent said necessitates a response at all. The resolution remains unsubstantiated.
A saved person, a Christian, may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost.

Well, I'll try again since the last negative did not post an argument, and his account is no longer active. I am arguing against the typical Baptist position of "once saved, always saved. I will define the terms: A saved person: one who is saved, not lost A Christian: synonym for "saved person" or child of God May sin: the possibility exists that this person may believe or commit acts contrary to God's law Eternally lost: eventually wind up in hell The historic Baptist position is that a child of God (once saved) cannot possibly ever be lost (always saved). Of course, I deny this. First round acceptance only. 5 rounds, 24 hr response. During each round after the 1st, each disputant is permitted to submit three questions which his peer is to answer in his next post. No new lines of argumentation permitted in the last round.
Deaf Kids matter,so why are they cheated out of their education.

"Deaf kids matter, so why are they cheated out of their education." My opponent starts with the unsubstantiated claim that deaf kids matter. He offers no evidence or sourcing for such a statement. Fortunately for my opponent I wish not to argue the inherent worth of the deaf population. I happen to agree that deaf people do indeed matter. I do, however, disagree with the basic premise: deaf kids are cheated out of their education. My opponent uses the possessive pronoun "their." A few questions arise from this usage: (1) When did they receive this education? (2) Who gave this education to them? (3) Who is responsible for taking their education? (4) In what way did they take it? (5) Why won't they give it back? Dictionary.com defines cheated (v) as: To deceive by trickery; swindle Therefore, what must be proven before the topic's premise is valid is: (1)Deaf kids possessed education (2)It was taken from them (3)The way in which it was taken from them is considered cheating by definition. Now my opponent in his opening statement tries an entirely different strategy. "some schools don't have specialist in the schools to help death children…" My opponent, on a somewhat tangential note, believes all schools should staff specialist to deal solely with dead children. I am not sure what provoked such a perverse disposition, but I find it sanitarily insane to think schools should store dead children, let alone hire specialist for them. My opponent also believes that dead children have the same inherent worth has living children. As vague has his logic is, I believe my opponent is trying to show that if dead children are benefited with specialist and proper education, then why are deaf kids not. My opponent then logically stumbles when he states, "I think that if a child has the ability to learn then he or she should be able to learn like any average child." If it were true that the child has the ability to learn like any other average child, why in the world would my opponent desire specialists for them? Either my opponent wishes to call them average, or he wishes to state that they are not average learners and therefore require special needs. Considering that many deaf children also suffer from multiple disabilities, I would say that they are not average children – though their inherent worth is the same as any child. If they are not average, they therefore require special assistance. But I can state categorically that no schools are tricking deaf children out of their education. I need hard evidence to show that schools are swindling deaf children out of their hard earned education.
Nurse Practitioners To Deliver Primary Care services Independently

While nurse practitioners are a noble and important profession, they follow a different treatment model than a physician would. Physicians follow a disease based model, which means they specialize in pathology and identifying what's physically wrong with a patient. A nurse practioner follows a patient based model, and specializes in treating the patient and providing education and preventative care. While these models do overlap in some ways, a nurse doesn't know what he doesn't know when it comes to certain diagnoses. Patients are rarely textbook cases and often times an ailment can discuise itself as something else. Someone without as much experience or education in studying diseases might miss that diagnosis and prescribe the wrong form of treatment. Alternatively, patients might be referred to specialists for unneccessary testing that could have prevent from a simple oversight from a doctor with more experience. We also need to look at how often a physician and nurse practician are educated and tested for recertification. While both can take up to 8 years to become a liscensed medical provider, a doctor is required to do more residency and have mandatory education hours each year, and recertification every 6-10 years. A nurse practitioner is required to be recertified every 5 years, however, no education hours are required. Physicians are required to be more up to date with current procedures than a NP would be. In addition, studies that have been done on NP and physicians have shown patients ranking NPs and MDs about the same as far as level of care goes. However, since many NP's work under a physicians supervision, it is hard to tell what is exclusively nurse treatment and what is treatment with them working on a team. The two practices are complimentary to each other, however treating a patient is also about science as well as treating the patient, and that's where physician supervision comes in. They need to be there to oversee the NP's to make sure everything is running smoothly and patients are getting proper care they need. - http://www.thepalife.com...;- http://www.medscape.com...;
Nurse Practitioners To Deliver Primary Care services Independently

Nurse practitioners are registered nurses with years of nursing and medical experience who go back to school to become certified as Nurse Practitioners. They are trained clinically to provide primary care services and have a lot to offer. With physician shortages, lack of access to care in certain areas, changes in healthcare reimbursement, it is essential to fill the gap with highly trained individuals such as NP's. In California currently NP's are not allowed to practice without the supervision of physicians within their scope of practice (training) to give primary care. This barrier should be removed to allow the general public to gain access to care from trained healthcare providers.
Humans can be good without God

We can both agree that according to the Bible God did make man in his image so if he did exist that would be a form of objective morality, a standard that was given to us by someone higher up but that ignores subjective, the most important type of morality in our modern society. In the quote my opponent used: //"To be consistent, in a world without God we must acknowledge that our moral duties are subjective. If there is no moral lawgiver to set the standard, then the standards are arbitrary. Right and wrong or moral duties are arbitrary accidents of random evolution that happened to be helpful for survival. Things that we consider ‘wrong' are only wrong because of social constructs."// The last sentence of this quote is key. The last sentence is still acknowledging that without God there would still be some sense of right/wrong although it may not be objective. But it really doesn't matter if it's objective or not seeing as the definition of morals is "motivations based on ideas of right and wrong" and, as the quote states, without God there is still some form of subjective morality. This is devastating to his case seeing as it contradicts the argument the Con is supposed to make that says "God is a prerequisite for morality". If we look to his claim that God is a prerequisite for any form of morality we can see it just isn't consistent with the claims he makes literally 3 paragraphs down. Now to some offense, in a society such as our were morals change and evolve without the implementation of God it is easy to see that God is not needed for morality. An important example that must be made is as follows: Say there is a time traveler X and he starts off in 1920. During said time period being racist against African-Americans is perfectly acceptable and people don't think twice about it. X then wonders what the future would be like and so he hops in his time machine and goes to the year 1960. During this period the Vietnam war is raging and African-Americans are serving in the military. Racism is still around but is not as wide spread nor is it as widely accepted. Then we jump to 2011. In 2011 racism is much less prominent and even less acceptable. The change from a rather racist society to a more integrated one was a major shift in our perception of right and wrong and was not attributed to God. So far the Con has not proven that God is a prereq, if anything he himself showed that without God there is still some form of right/wrong. Also the Con has not shown that without God humans cannot do acts of good. Con, your turn.
Humans can be good without God

I accept the values, and will start the argumentation. According to the Bible under God's Moral Will: "-Negatively, God wills us not to lie, cheat, steal, hate, murder. -Positively, God wills us to tell the truth, be honest in all dealings, love one another, be gentle and kind, and so forth. -In essence, God's Moral Will tells us to be exactly like Him because He created us in His own image. " Thus, since we are in God's image, God is a prerequisite for our morality. The idea of us to follow god offers a prerequisite, and need of god to have forms of morality. People need theories, and ideas for things they don't know; the idea of the sun rotating over the Earth for example. This is one of the many reasons they need gods. "When humans are unknowing and confused they make theories in order to solve things. In years to come these theories are usually proven false and it takes generations to believe the proof. One such example is the sun revolving around the earth. We now know that this theory is false, the earth revolves around the sun. I feel that religion is the same. Humans were confused about how we came about, and needed something to lean on to erase that unknowing. They came up with the idea that we were placed here by something greater than life itself. Science has proven evolution in so many different ways. It will take many generations before the world sees this. " "To be consistent, in a world without God we must acknowledge that our moral duties are subjective. If there is no moral lawgiver to set the standard, then the standards are arbitrary. Right and wrong or moral duties are arbitrary accidents of random evolution that happened to be helpful for survival. Things that we consider ‘wrong' are only wrong because of social constructs. " If actions are arbitrary without god to set the morals, people cannot be morally good or bad, serving to make god as the constructor of standards for morals. Thus, God is necessary for morality to be given in human beings, and don't believe in God, or if there is no god, there cannot be any specific moral conduct. All good would be arbitrary instances, and/or defined by rare instances of social constructs of morality, proving god the best measure as the constructor for moral conduct. Sources: * . http://www.biblebell.org... * . http://www.angelfire.com... * . http://rationalfaithonline.com...
Humans can be good without God

For this first speech I will simply be stating my stance on this matter and what I feel my opponent must prove in order to win. I will not be making a full fleshed out case YET because the Con must make an argument as to why humans do need God. Once that is done I will argue his/her points and then provide some offense. My stance: My stance on the matter of goodness and morality without God is humans do not require a God or Goddess in order to do acts of good. What must be proven if the Con is to win: The Con must prove that God is a prerequisite for morality and that without God humans cannot do acts of good. I will define good as: moral excellence or admirableness(1) I will define morals as: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong(2) Thanks in advance for debating! ~~Peter (1):http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... (2):http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
english should be our official language

ok.. first of all: were not debating on illegal immigrants, were debating on whether or not the us should have English be our official language. so, i'm my argument i'm perfectly correct. in your first argument you said : "The first step to reverse the evil of inclusivity is to establish the language by which we exclude people. Voting Pro on this topic allows the government to start excluding people from society." well your actually hurting your argument because why would we want to stop people from coming into the USA? i get the over-populazation bit, but really? "evil"? your second argument says that immigrants will not want to come to the us because they would feel excluded... thats exactly what i'm saying! if we have our official language people would feel excluded and not want to support the united states, therefor our allies like spain, germany, france, would all feel excluded and we don't want that kind of tension with in the united nations. Also, if illegal immigrants want to become legal they a required to learn english anyway so theres not point. so, in your response please try and stick to the subject.
english should be our official language

there a reason what we don't have one- america is considered "the melting pot" where all races join to make one. having english as our only official language would ruin that reputation, and is viewed as racism. the proposition might say that other countries have one official language (germanys is german) but america was colonized by many ethnic groups EI: french english Spanish. some of the people arguing for English as an official language say, it's already the most spoken So, it's a no-brainer English should be the official language. Right? But, by that logic, the official language should've originally been a mishmash of native american tongues. Early colonists and immigrants from Europe should've cast away English and learned the language of North America, not of Britain! the proposition might say: We speak it in Congress, courthouses, national parks, and Presidential speeches. It is spoken in almost every store business, etc. You get my point. So why isn't it our national language?" Yes, English is far and away the most widely spoken language in the United States. But this does not address WHY we "NEED" to make English our official language. 1 our of 5 people speak a different language in the home, so if we have english as an official language, that will not change.and even if they did start to speak english, it wouldn't be because thats our official language it would be because they would want to speak the language of everyone else to do better in the job industry.
english should be our official language

lol this was an interesting round : ) 1. Countries hate us for being racist --> My opponent is misusing the term racism. Its actually ethnocentrism. And as Ive pointed out he provides no warrants that countries ll hat us for being so. Not like they can do anything anyway. 2. No one will come --> People still will, but they are the ones who know english. Affirming just ensures that we dont go over the brink mark (over population and over consumption) highlighted in my first speech 3. Population will go down even with large economy --> This is basically a concession. Affimring will prevent ecological disaster by stopping over population. --> Technological unemployment is hitting the US, number of people dont really matter anmore to such an extent 4. Seperate from our allies --> Extend the observation that he giveno warrants or jusitifcations that immigration policy isolates our allies --> Extend the turn that increasing european nativism within the US will actually foster closer and stronger ties with our european allies 5. Its just how people think these days --> What? Warrant? --> A majority of Spanish can speak english, they wont be deterred ==Voters== 1. He dropped and implicitly conceded in some of his sentences that affirming will help deter immigration. This links overpopulation which is linked to ecological diaster. As such affirming stops eclogical disaster. This outweighs any NC benefit. Magitude: ecological diaster directly affects everyone within the US. Probablity: the links directly state that immgration and overpopulation are inter-connected. As such its ahigh probability that it will occur 2. He gives abolsutely no reasons to vote neg. He simply amkes unasserted claims that we will lose our allies and that we are being racist as such. We are not being racist because we arent claiming superiority,we are simpy trying to avoid ecological disaster. Interesting round since it was so out there. :D Yay for confusing policy arguments which I ran Thanks!!
english should be our official language

ok so your saying that basically its ok if other countries hate us because were being racist, its ok that no one will come to the us anymore, its ok that our population will go down even when that is partly why we have as large an economy as we do, its ok if were separated by our allies because they cant speak our language.....since when is all of that good? and my argument that said our allies will not support us if we have english be our official language is 100% because that is just how people think these days, if i was an immigrant from spain and the us is telling me that i have to be able to speak english and english id our official language when 20% of our entire population speak spanish only, i would move right back to spain because thats just common sense.