BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Satan's power is dynamic not static

Regarding: 1) Job and Righteousness: I think you might be nitpicking when you say Job was not responsible for any of his own good behavior. (To me at least) that sounds like an OCD Argument (just saying). 2) There is such a thing as hedge of protection which God puts around His faithful ones. I HIGHLY suspect God has even put an Angelic Hedge of Protection around my dog as she has been protected many times from harm. My wife too has been protected many times as I have been. 3) In regards to your third and final argument all I can say is you better trust God and His Bible because satan is a whole lot smarter than you or I and you need God's hedge of protection. Through Christ there is victory over the Kingdom of Darkness, BUT ONLY through Christ. Regarding other experiences with the Kingdom of Darkness: *) Twice a Christian Devotional book (Daily in Christ by Neil Anderson) has warned in advance that someone I knew was using a something satanic and it turned out that a relative of mine was using a horoscope on Facebook. As soon as I told the relative to stop using the horoscope my relative stopped using it. Also the same Christian Devotional book warned me again about the same matter and that time a friend on Facebook was using a horoscope and even though I warned the friend that it was for the best that they stop using the horoscope, I personally believe they continued to use it as I saw evidence of the kingdom of darkness in their other posts on Facebook. NEVER-EVER seek guidance from the kingdom of darkness using a horoscope as you are opening yourself up to influences you don't want. Directly consult the Bible or a Bible-based devotional for insight.
Satan's power is dynamic not static

Rebuttal to Con's round 2: 1) God gave Job the gift of righteousness because Job had no righteousness of his own- "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away." (Isaiah 64:6) This Isaiah verse could be considered to apply to the Nation of Ancient Israel and their fleshly descendants only and not to individuals especially non-Jacob type people. But that is ok for this discussion on two counts- 1) Job is in the ancient Israel earthly lineage somehow 2) Modern day Jewish peoples so identify with Job that in their minds they probably consider Job a type of the Nation because of the great suffering that Job and the Moderns have witnessed. The reason point 2 above is important is because while Satan fell from Heaven like lightening denoting a loss of power it should be considered that whatever power remains in Satan's fall from Heaven is concentrated on the Earth. Why is this important? Because the suffering of the Moderns has many times been very much greater than what Job suffered. The history of the Jewish people records unprecedented suffering during WWII. The power of Satan is dynamic because it decreased in the fall from Heaven but increased on the Earth. 2) As to God placing a hedge around us today- I am going to try and describe what the "whole armor of God" looks like when we put the entire thing on before we Christians go out to do battle. First I will list the components. In Ephesians 6 there are 6 pieces of armor: a) helmet of salvation b) shield of faith c) loins girt with 'belt' of truth d) feet shod with gospel of peace e) sword of the spirit/word f) breastplate of righteousness When the Christian puts all this on he/she is supposed to look like the Lamb of God who was slain. There is no hedge about us. If we find that there is a hedge about us we need to break out and fight the enemy nothing wavering. The good soldier fighting the good fight is paid the wage of a soldier which is eternal life and not Earthly wealth. Pro's round 3 argument: Now why do I say that Satan no longer asks God for permission to attack the Brethren? Satan is no longer the one doing the attacking. While Satan's power is dynamic like shifting sand, Satan's position is in fact static. Satan is the one who is now trapped, trapped on the Earth. Satan is on the defensive making his final stand. We Christians are the ones who ask God to give us the ability to cause Satan to suffer loss.
Satan's power is dynamic not static

The position of pro, (me) is that Satan is not God's lackey. Con's position will be that Satan has to ask God before he can act. This debate is taking for granted that Satan in some form is real and certain terms will be used interchangeably such as Satan, Lucifer, Abaddon, Accusser, Adversary, Apollyon, Beelzebub, Deceiver, Devil, Enemy, Father of lies, God of this age, etc. The Bible, mythology, Rabbinical teachings and the Apocrypha is where the information about Satan is found. Science can give us very little if any information concerning this debate. History and philosophy even less. If you can't do more than 1 or 2 sentences then please don't sign up for this debate as I am new here and so far have not gotten much out of my opponents, (probably it is my fault). So I will start debating now and good luck- The Book of Job seems to lead the reader to the conclusion that Satan must appear before God as a prerequisite to Satan testing one of God's servants. As though God has a protective covering of some sort around His people and nothing can penetrate such a covering unless and until God opens up at least a little bit. Now at one point this may have been true, say in the Garden of Eden when the Man and the Woman were innocent. But Job was by no means innocent.
The lord our god is NOT one lord

1) The Bible isn't meant for literal interpretation. There is no debating this. All major churches of Christianity confirm this. 2) Those quotations from Matt Dillahunty are irrelevant. They attempt to discredit God, not prove that there are multiple. Try to stay focused. 3) I never said you should interpret it as I do. I merely meant that I hold the view of the Catholic Church. 4) Judges 10:14 "Go and cry out to the gods which you have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of your distress." This is an example of sarcasm in the Bible. Obviously the Bible isn't advertising other Religions. Thus, this verse should be interpreted as "Go ahead and cry to other Gods, see if they will be there." This is one example of sarcasm in the Bible and proves that you aren't supposed to believe the Bible word-for-word. Rather, you must understand the underlying tone, perspectives, and intentions of the author. 5) The website I provided proved that the meaning of words in Hebrew sometimes deviated from the LITERAL meaning of the text. It is called "Colloquialism". Few people speak their mother toungue 100% properly. 6) Also, please quit with the bombastic, drawn-out, run-on sentences. Improper grammar doesn't bother me, just please refrain from overstating your point. It makes it seem like you're shooting for quantity/quality. If you want to get a point across, you have to do so efficiently. 7) ""For starters, you are citing a version of the Bible that I don't adhere to." that was fully explained. But nah. Just like nearly every---single---christian---out---there---you---can"t---read. Do you know what "reading" is? You know. Words. Sentences. Nah. I know that far too much for you to adhere to. Sheesh. " Please refrain from ad hominem. I can read at an adequate skill level. In fact, I can read so adequately that I can look beyond the text and put some actual thought into what I read. 8) Any first semester scholar understands the importance of looking beyond what is directly in front of you when reading ancient text. Please do make an effort in learning how to understand connotation and meaning. 9) Your final paragraph was, again, irrelevant. It again had nothing to do with polytheism or monotheism in Christianity.
The lord our god is NOT one lord

1) "There"s after all no possible way that this god is "one". That"s according to the printed text of the bible. " You already messed up. You are going by the literal writings of the Bible. The Bible is supposed to be read for symbolism, guidance, and from a "spirit of the law" point of view. You and Biblical fundamentalists take what the Bible says and don't process it with any thought. 2) Those videos go through a lot of trouble to make completely ridiculous statements. They're playing with semantics when their main point can easily be disproven. Plural words in Hebrew often have singular connotations. For example, "Shamayim" is a plural word yet it means "heaven" More on this at http://studiesinscripture.com... 3) "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:" ESV For starters, you are citing a version of the Bible that I don't adhere to. But, no matter. Secondly, all lines of the Bible are supposed to be interpreted, not taken literally. This specific quotation should be interpreted as "in the midst of all these false gods, this God is the one who truly holds judgement." 4)" Indeed the bible clearly states that there are other gods. Exodus 20:3 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." no other gods? Why would god admit to other gods? Strange he did here and it discredits him. ".... Oh bullcrap. He is saying " do not idolize" as many people at the time would follow false Gods. He did not state that any of them are real. When he says this, he doesn't mean merely deities. He is referring to all things held above God: beauty, materials, money, etc. Put some more thought into your understandings of literature. In summary, most of your points play of a literal understanding of the Bible. While this is practically impossible to debate because of you're limited understanding, I'll suffer through.
Should high schools start school at 9 instead of 8,

I agree, the issue shouldn't be with when school starts, but how long the school day is. However, unless the amount of school days in the year is decreased, we would have to be in school for nearly 11 months if we were to reach the 180 day quota, which leaves little time for summer. There is really nothing that can be changed that would make a real difference except for the total amount of school days.
Should high schools start school at 9 instead of 8,

The real issue here is that teenager's need the most amount of sleep, and they are not getting it. If teens choose to overwhelm themselves with extracurricular' s and are forcing themselves to have less sleep then really there is nothing to say on both sides of the argument. The only way in which the hour being pushed back would truly work is if the school day itself was decreased by an hour and then that would allow students to handle more on their plates and to sleep more.
Should high schools start school at 9 instead of 8,

Like you said, it's all time management, and in that case the more time you have in your schedule the easier your day will be post schooling. pushing the school day back an hour pushes everyone that the student has to do back an hour and that means the student will go to bed later. studies show that it is more beneficial to go to bed early and wake up early than to go to bed late and wake up late.
Should high schools start school at 9 instead of 8,

Studies have proved that teenagers get the least amount of sleep out of all people. With this being said starting school at a later time would allow teenagers to sleep a little more and be well rested for the day ahead of them. Most high school students on average have 3.5 hours of homework waiting for them when they get home. Also add in that most high school students have jobs and other responsibilities to deal with. With the time being set back an hour I feel that everyone would benefit from this, not just the students themselves.
Vaccinations (mandatory/ disbursemenet)

New born babies are given vaccines at a young age becuase that is when they are not vulnerable. Now think about back in the day when babies could easily get sick and most them died at age 5 or below. But now in medical advance can keep infants and new horns alive. Serious reactions are very rare, happening in 1-2 people out of a million shots give. Thousands of people take part in clinical trials to test a vaccine before it is licensed by the FAD (Food and Drug Administration). People who have vaccines protect others they love and including babies becuase they are too weak to protect from foreign invaders in their bodies. Now think about chicken pox; almost 11,000 Americans had to go to the hosiptal and over 100 died, each year for chicken pox. Now becuase vaccines chicken pox are rare to see and helped saver lives. Now in 2008, a San Diego boy got measles on a family trip to Switzerland. When he got back home he spread it to family members, classmates, and even children at the doctors office. The only people who got sick where the ones who didn't get shots including a baby. So do you really want people have this fear of spreading disease to innocent people? www.cdc.gov/vaccines www.whyichoose.org/vaccinesafety.html www.vaccines.gov
Vaccinations (mandatory/ disbursemenet)

Vaccines can cause death among citizens, including students. Vaccines cause brain inflammation which can lead to death or permanent brain damage and disorders. Now imagine your best friend goes into the doctor and gets a vaccine, then they don't return because they died from that vaccine. Studies of infants whose deaths were recorded as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) show a temporal relationship with the DPT vaccination. If you had a child would you risk them dying by a vaccine? Now about 30,00 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990 with 13% classified as life threatening illness or even worse death.www.vaccine.procon.org
Vaccinations (mandatory/ disbursemenet)

Arthritis is the wear or tear in joints or inflammation in one or more of your joints. This happens because when you age your body gets weaker and it also happens a lot in people who play sports. The only reason we get vaccines for diseases that are eliminated becuase it is for out future generations to be safe for all diseases. So our future generations doesn't have to worey about sickness or illness. Vaccines are put into our body so your anit-bodies can fight the disease and then as evolution takes its place our children or even or ge and children will be safe for all this sickness today. And what about the people will asthma? People asthma need vaccinations and the people around need to vaccinated because citizens with asthma are more likely to catch a sickness. In fact a Michigan University said, and I quote "People with asthma have more exuberant immune respond to disease...it alsonmmay trigger an asthma attack."(David A.M.D. Keep Asthma in Check. Jan. 1. 2012. Apri.10.2014.) Not only does asthma make people's immune system weaker but it also makes out symptoms worse. Now, most of my family; including me has asthma. Now it is scary to hear that people do not take vaccinations and knowing that me and my family are not likely. To catch what they are carrying. Now look at the school I bet most of your friends have asthma and now picture them laying in a hospital bed in pain because they caught a deadly disease for someone who didn't want to get vaccinated. www.everydayhealth.com/asthma/keep asthma in check www.apic.org www.mayoclinic.org/disease/asthma/vaccines
Vaccinations (mandatory/ disbursemenet)

You said if vaccines weren't safe then doctors wouldn't be giving them to us, right? Well sadly that's wrong vaccines do hurt us. Vaccines can cause a threat to our bodies. Common childhood vaccinations may cause serious reactions including anaphylactic shocks, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not life threatening. Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillian-Barre Syndrome (GBS) and other disorders. Vaccines can cause a clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules, which may lead to lymphatic cancers suck as leukemia and lymphoma. www.vaccines.procon.org
Vaccinations (mandatory/ disbursemenet)

In a website called AutismSociety, I quote "There is no know single cause for autism...generally accepted that it is caused by abnormalities in the brain structure or function." (Apr.10.AutismSociety.Lives Affected by Autism.Nov.19 2012). This quote is exexplaining that autism is not caused by vaccines but by a mutation in the brain. If vaccines were the cause of Autsim, wouldn't more children have Autsim? Vaccines are more cheaper to have than to treat a disease. For example, if someone was vaccinated and they had a serious disease it would cost the family over $1000 to pay for medical treatment. Vaccines are covered by most insurances so they have little to no cost to you. Now why would you want to waste money for a disease that could have been prevented by a vaccines. Scientists usually take 10 to 15 making sure a vaccine are safe and effective and if they were not then they wouldn't be giving it to us. www.vaccines.org www.austism-society/causes.org
Vaccinations (mandatory/ disbursemenet)

Actually many studies have examined possible links between vaccination and increase prevalence of autism. There has been a study, the Lemaet research reported that showed a link between a MMR vaccine and autism. It remains possible that immunzation may trigger the oneset of autism systems in children with underlying or genetic condition. www.autimspeaks.org/science/policy-statement/onformation-about-vacines-and-autism
Vaccinations (mandatory/ disbursemenet)

Vaccination should be mandatory because a vaccination does nothing to harm ones religion or other beliefs. If the human body is so precious then shouldn't we be doing anything to protect it? Advances in medical science can now protect our society, families, and friends from disease that could have wiped away our race. These vaccination have completely eliminated disease like polio and whooping cough. Vaccinations have no serious side effects, they only side effects are redness or soreness. When people say that vaccinations can cause autism or other deadly side effects are just myths.
Vaccinations (mandatory/ disbursemenet)

Vaccinations should not be mandatory, because of peoples religious beliefs. Many people hold religious beliefs against vaccination, forcing parents to vaccine their children would violate the first amendment, which is the freedom to exercise their religion. Vaccines interfere with the natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is natural and humans should not interfere with it. The ethical dilemmas associated with using human tissue cells to create vaccines. Also people believe that the body is sacred, it should not receive certain chemicals or blood of tissues from animals, and should be healed by God or natural means. www.vaccines.procon.orgwww.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/cultural-perspectives-vaccinations-cultural
Vaccinations (mandatory/ disbursemenet)

So what do you ha e to say about people who take showers everyday and still get sick because they ddin't take vaccine. Hygiene has played a little role in our health because when we revive a vaccine our bodies knows how to fight it and then out next generation becomes even healthier and even stronger than we did in the 1090s and the 1800s. Vaccines helped us stay healthy for over 50 years. And now think what medical science can do for us in the future to our generations. www.health.ny.gov www.medicalhealth.org/vaccines/safety
Vaccinations (mandatory/ disbursemenet)

Well there are some benefits from not getting a vaccine. Actually getting the disease like chicken pox can give you a lifelong immunity, whereas getting the vaccine may not. Disease declined before vaccinations. The disease of the 19th century in our society had a high fatality rate, but during that disease and at that time we increased our hygiene and we also increased our living conditions. People took baths regularly, washed their hands before eating, and cleaned more often. Now in conclusion not getting a vaccine can give you a life long immunity and it can also help our hygiene and improve our living conditions. www.drfeder.com/index.php?page=articles&action=veiwArticle&articleID=156
Bf1 elites should more be avalable

Yes, you are right about that but think about how if it came across snipers trying to take out players. What if they give a chance to select the type of elite. let's say If a sniper is low on ammunition and tanks have spotted him He gets all the elites and he can pick one And the obvious answer is the tank hunter to tank out thus tanks (see what I did There) anyway I thought of your choice and though about mine as well and I though both will work well together
Bf1 elites should more be avalable

Extend Pro used same argument twice. Overall, there would be more harm done than good with a higher elite spawn rate. Elites would be dominating and infantry would be inferior to any more than the current two elite soldiers per game. More elites would also make other parts of ye game less powerful: even other elites. Think about it, if more elites are running around, elites become weaker than they already are because they are against the same powerful weapons.
Bf1 elites should more be avalable

First of all, the game is already balanced when it comes to elite classes. On each map, one side gets an elite class and the other class gets another. For example: Sentry at B in Sinai and Flametrooper at E. On Argonne the elite is in the middle: balanced and fair. On Fao the kit is at the castle, which is equally far from either side and once again fair. There are more examples but I will save it because you don't want to hear about elite spawn locations and I'm running out of chars.
Bf1 elites should more be avalable

Let's start by going over the uses of each class Tank hunter: destroying tanks Flametrooper: close ranged enclosed space fighting Sentry: putting down a lot of rounds in one area to stop enemies See scenarios with more of each class: More tank hunters: tanks become virtually useless, as they can get sniped in four hits and more tank hunters will only mean more sniped tanks More sentries/Flametroopers: taking objectives would be impossible, game would be broken Elites are OP, too many is chaos
Rodeo

It's a shame my opponent had to forfeit, but I do wish she could have let me know beforehand or posted a reason for her absence rather than drag out the entire time limit. In conclusion My opponent has not shown that animals unfit to be in rodeo's are harmed while I have made arguments and posted sources to the contrary, most notable posting sources showing when horses mentally and physically matured and showing that sources that sold rodeo horses sold horses well within or above the age limits My opponent has not shown that animals experience more pain depending on whether or not they are whipped to go fast or slow. My opponent concedes that rodeos are entertaining My opponent concedes that rodeos are good for the economy by increasing economic activity. My opponent had bad conduct for instigating the debate and forfeiting the last round.