BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
what one must believe to be saved is not clear... or at least is taught sufficiently in proper terms

i ask christians and they say "believe in jesus". then i point out that the devil does. so they say believe he's your savior. then i point out that some believe that different people see that differently... a good message or atonement etc. a fundamentalist would say a good message is not sufficient. so... you have to believe in atonement is one element. some don't believe he's god... is that okay? a dogamatic would start to list things you must believe. then i point out that that's dogmatic, and most would shy away from that. they want to have their cake... easy answer... and eat it too.. not giving a clear answer. it could be generally whatever savior means to you. but what if someone believes he's god etc, a new convert? that wouldn't cut it. basically everyone is at different stages. it seems the right conclusion is it depends on hwere you are in your walk. some people say you can't violate a tenant of the bible beliefs of Jesus... but oesnt i know many who say they don't believe he's god or aren't sure despite the bible. does that mean they're not saved? i know some who say it don't matter if they believe these things... they must believe in atonement. if that's the case though, then atonement is a necessary thing. i could point out many christian who don't know what that is... beyond the mere lack of knoing the definition etc. so could it be it's not what you believe but rather what you don't? that doesn't help cause the list problem is just starting in the negative direction. it seems the right answer is it depends on where you are and your heart relationship with God in terms of your believe in jesus. how many christians would say that when you ask them what you must believe? i know of none. so... beyond the whole faith v works debate.. even in terms of faith... what one must believe is not clear or taught very well.
CIIR's Argument for Morality is Valid

'What makes an argument valid is that its conclusion follows from its premises.' - University of Northern Colorado Philosophy Department (http://www.unco.edu......)As my conclusion follows from it's premises, I guess it would be considered an argument. Since nothing has been proven to be untrue about any of the premises or conlusion, it cannot be considered invalid.Con has tried to prove the arguement invalid, but has not shown where it is invalid other than the fallacy of association. Now with the fallacy of association Con has mistaken my argument and has tried tomake it fit.http://en.wikipedia.org... Con claimed my argument as such:P1: A comes from CP2: B comes from CC: A=BIf you were to make this a diagram, C would be a large circle with A & B inside it. This make my argument correct, but a Fallacy of Association is:P1: C comes from AP2: C comes from BC: A=B If you were to diagram this, A & B overlap with C in the overlap If my argument was as such:P1: Experience comes from MoralityP2: Experience comes from Common SenseC: Morality is Common SenseThen my argument would fall under Fallacy of Association, but it does not make this claim. Nowhere in this debate has Con shown that my conclusion is not correct, therefore he cannot claim it to be invalid. I encourage the audience to look at the debate as one of learning. The argument itself is valid and I have shown that. To site a source about arguments and tell me that mine was not an argument, no matter how poorly I might have put it together, does not mean it is invalid. If Con was going to prove my argument was invalid, I feel he did a poor job, as he did not know what an Association Fallacy was in the first place or how it is structured. Better research on the part of Con could have given him what he needed to prove my argument invalid.Now it is up to the audience to vote.
CIIR's Argument for Morality is Valid

Ave.Closing Statement'What makes an argument valid is that its conclusion follows from its premises.' - University of Northern Colorado Philosophy Department (http://www.unco.edu...)CIIR continues to insist that I have to prove that morality is not equal to common sense. This is not how we prove an argument to be invalid. We prove an argument to be invalid if its conclusion does not follow from the premises. It could be the case that morality is equal to common sense. That has no bearing on the validity of an argument. His argument is only valid if he can prove that his conclusion follows from his first two premises. The only thing I am disputing in this debate is that his conclusion follows from his premises.Now that we have this established, let's take another glance at the premises of this argument. Morality comes with experience, common sense comes with experience, therefore morality is common sense. Remember, I have not disputed the conclusion. I have only disputed whether the conclusion follows from the premises.The conclusion obviously doesn't follow from the premises. I gave three paradoy arguments to show the problem with CIIR's logic. I also pointed out that it was an association fallacy (two things sharaing a trait does not mean they are the same thing). My three paradoy arguments, as well as the association fallacy claim, were not disputed by CIIR. The only thing he offered in respect to this was a bare assertion fallacy, when he tried to argue that I didn't prove it was a fallacy just because he says so.CIIR's entire defense of his argument is based on a misunderstanding of what logical validity even is. He thinks it means that his conclusion is true. That's not the case, as my source showed. A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows from the premises. An argument is not valid just because its conclusion is true. That's the fatal misconception CIIR has about validity.CIIR tried to center this debate around whether his conclusion was true or not. It's a complete non-starter, because the validity of an argument has nothing to do with the truth of its conclusions.I encourage the audience to look at both sides of the debate and vote based on which of us tried to engage with the other more, and which of us tried to engage with the resolution more.Vale.
CIIR's Argument for Morality is Valid

If my argument is a Fallacy of Association and this is the claim made by the Con, then it is up to Con to prove that it is such. As Con has not proven that Morality and Common Sense are not equal, my argument is still valid.As for his 1st & 3rd contention, They state nothing that the 2nd contention did not state other than the examples given. I do not need to repeat myself. I do not need contentions, as I am the Pro for this debate, I did not initiate it. Con has the ball in his court to prove that my argument is invalid, not by stating it is a fallacy of association, but to prove that Morality is not equal to Common Sense. This is the only way to claim it is not a valid argument. If and when I actually get a refutation that I can argue against, I will, but until then, no refutation has been made that will allow me to directly debate the validity of my argument.As it stands, my argument is valid, because it has not been proven to be false.
CIIR's Argument for Morality is Valid

Con is correct that this debate is about the validity of my argument, but if he is going to prove it invalid, he will have to do better than asking me to repeat myself by refuting 3 redundant contentions. Con is also correct that the BoP is on me, but con has not refuted the actual argument yet. Instead he is trying to show fallacy where there isn't any. If con wants to prove that my argument is invalid, he needs to prove that my argument is completely false. If morality is not equal to Common Sense, then con must provide why. I can provide nothing more until then.
CIIR's Argument for Morality is Valid

Ave.IntroductionIn R1, I put forward three contentions that I would defend in this debate. Let's go over each contention and see how Pro responded to them.Contention #1Pro provides no response to my first contention. At this point of the debate, we can consider this contention upheld.Contention #2In response to this, Pro argues that it doesn't mater if morality can equal common sense. His argument would be valid either way, he claims. This is an overtly false statement. If morality does not equal common sense, then the conclusion of his argument is invaid, and therefore the entire argument.Instead of proving that morality is equal to common sense, he simply argues that it's not part of the argument. Anybody who read the conclusion of the argument can see right through this. Verbatim, it states that 'Morality is common sense.' This is another way of saying that morality is equal to common sense. Pro has to justify his, and if he can't, the argument is toast.Contention #3There is no attempt to respond to the third contention of my argument.Response to Other Statements by Pro'Con has not given why Morality does not equal Common Sense and therefore the refutation of the argument is invalid.'This debate is not about whether morality is equal to common sense. Rather, it's about the validity of a particular argument in favor of that idea. We shouldn't confuse the two with each other, as they are very different things.Pro also confuses the burden of proof in this debate. Since he is taking the Pro position, he must prove that his argument is correct.'Also, putting the same refultation into 3 contentions is redundant and does not make the first argument any more valid.'This isn't a response to my refutation. It is merely a criticism of my debating style.'Morality and Common Sence are both learned from Experience so my argument stands as valid.'Here, we have another instance of Pro misunderstanding what this debate is about. The resolution is not 'morality and common sense are both learned from experience'. This debate is about his argument that attempts to show that morality and common sense are the same thing. We could both agree that morality and common sense are learned from experience, and it would have no bearing on the resolution.'This will be interesting if Con can actually come up with a fallacy for this argument other than changing words around.' (In the comments section of the debate.)It's called the fallacy of association.Concluding StatementPro completely leaves my first and third contention alone. He answers the second contention, but only with claims that are easily answered. Aside from that, we have criticisms of my debating style, and not much else. Back to Pro.Vale.
CIIR's Argument for Morality is Valid

It does not matter whether or not they can equal each other for the argument to be valid. I can do the same with all theological and philosophical arguments and make them all invalid. Con has not given why Morality does not equal Common Sense and therefore the refutation of the argument is invalid. Also, putting the same refultation into 3 contentions is redundant and does not make the first argument any more valid. Morality and Common Sence are both learned from Experience so my argument stands as valid. It is not fallacious.
CIIR's Argument for Morality is Valid

Ave.IntroductionIn this debate, I will be defending three contentions.(1) CIIR's argument for morality cannot be true if two things that come from the same source don't have to equal each other.(2) Two things that have the same source do not have to equal each other.(3) From one and two, the argument is invalid.Contention #1The logic of this argument can be stated in a different way.P1: X comes from A.P2: Z comes from A.C: X is equal to Z.Simply replace A with experience, X with morality, and Z with common sense. Now that you have done this, you can see the assumption of Pro's argument: two things that have the same source must be equal to each other. If I can prove that this is not the case, then the argument falls apart, because it is left without any basis.Contention #2I have thought of several paradoy arguments to show why two things that have the same source do not have to equal each other.P1: Morality comes with experience.P2: Proper toilet use comes with experience.C: Morality is proper toilet use.P1: Understanding of math comes with experience.P2: Morality comes with experience.C: Understanding math is the same thing as morality.P1: Using a computer comes with experience.P2: Morality comes with experience.C: Using a computer is the same thing as morality.Pro's argument is a classic fallacy. The fact that two things share something in common does not mean they are equal to each other.Contention #3If two things with the same source do not have to be equal to each other, then Pro's argument fails. Two things with the same source do not have to be equal to each other. Therefore, the argument is false.Vale.
CIIR's Argument for Morality is Valid

Ave. This debate will be centered around the 'Argument for Morality' as stated by CIIR. This argument has two premises and a conclusion. P1: Morals come from experience. P2: Common sense comes with experience. C: Morality is common sense. The first round of this debate is for acceptance. The next four rounds will be constant debating. General rules of conduct should be followed. Vale.
Gun control of any kind would be bad for the US

Thanks to my opponent for opening the debate. To begin, we need to establish what gun control is, and what it is not. Gun control is not some Orwellian principle that would require citizens to lock their weapons in government vaults and wear serial numbered arm bands. Gun control is not taking people’s guns away. Gun control is applying common sense measures to ensure that people exercise their Constitutional rights in ways that are safe for everyone. Anything that can be highly dangerous rightly requires some degree of government regulation: Drivers must get licensed before operating a vehicle, surgeons must pass state exams before cutting people open. Guns are no different. For this debate, I will argue that it makes perfect sense to regulate firearms in several ways. First, it makes sense for the government to require background checks and permits before letting people carry weapons in public. This is a simple measure that ensures guns are not purchased by people with a history of criminal activity, substance abuse, or mental illness. Any reasonable person would agree that it’s a bad idea to let such people freely purchase guns. Requiring permits ensures that people actually know how to operate their firearms. We do this for drivers because we don’t want people who can’t correctly operate a vehicle zooming through our neighborhoods and highways. Such a reality would put everyone at risk. Similarly, since the Constitution protects the right to carry a weapon, it only makes sense to require that people know how to do it safely. Second, firearm owners should be required to attend basic firearms training. If hunters must pass a safety course before being allowed to carry guns through uninhabited woodlands, citizens should have to pass a safety course before being allowed to have guns in densely populated residential areas. Firing a weapon requires much more than simply squeezing a trigger. It involves decision making, accuracy, and remaining calm under stress. People using guns to defend themselves or others without any practice in these areas can make dangerous situations worse, not better. These measures do not infringe on anyone’s Second Amendment right to own a gun. People can still buy, carry, and use weapons freely. Gun control of this flavor simply makes sure that people who choose to buy guns respect them and know how to properly use them. If applied in such a way, gun control only helps to make society safer for everyone.
Gun control of any kind would be bad for the US

Leaked information and government actions in the past few decades has proved that gun control would likely result in terrible things happening to America, as it would make controlling an armed population much easier. MK-ULTRA, NSA data mining, and the IRS targeting conservatives, prime examples of how dirty our government can truly be, and being able to own assault rifles and other firearms is essential to continually safeguarding our Constitution. (I won't include links for those simply because a search on Google will get you plenty of info on them) Gun control is a nasty creature that needs a stake driven through it's heart.
John F. Kennedy's Assassination | CIA | Extraterrestrial Life

It is true that we do not know much about Area 51 or aliens, but there is no real proof that the JFK assassination had to do with the quote of him asking for proof of aliens. For all we know, we still don't know if aliens are out there. We all know from the stories that Harvey Lee Oswald or whatever his name was assassinated JFK because of angry reasons. It was most likely a coincidence that this had ever happened.
John F. Kennedy's Assassination | CIA | Extraterrestrial Life

The Central Intelligence Agency or better known as the C.I.A. has finally revealed the truth about aliens or extraterrestrials, a long time ago, already. They have shown all(or is it?) papers they have about U.F.O.s and I believe there is no possibility of this being a hoax. Why would they waste their time, creating these just to fool us?Source:https://www.cia.gov...Another possible evidence is when the President John F. Kennedy was assassinated is because of the CIA.Here's a quick fact:John F. Kennedy(JFK) demanded U.F.O. files to be revealed and was assassinated 10 days later, during the motorcade."An uncovered letter written by John F Kennedy to the head of the CIA shows that the president demanded to be shown highly confidential documents about UFOs 10 days before his assassination. The secret memo is one of two letters written by JFK asking for information about the paranormal on November 12 1963, which have been released by the CIA for the first time.Was JFK shot to stop him discovering the truth about UFOs?"Sources: http://www.veteranstoday.com...http://www.express.co.uk... In 1999, the U.S. government paid the Zapruder family US $16 million for the film of JFK's assassination. This also has a connection to the CIA, as well.Here's a silent, short film of JFK's assassination, filmed by Abraham Zapruder who is a private citizen:- How was Abraham able to film the incident in a very close shot?- Why was he only focusing on the car?- Why did Abraham continued shooting the film after the assassination instead of running away?More source:https://en.wikipedia.org...;
John F. Kennedy's Assassination | CIA | Extraterrestrial Life

Well if the NSA didn't want us finding it, why put it up in the first place? I'm quite certain that what happened when JFK died was because of rage out of Harvey Lee Oswald. No Aliens, no random quotes, just rage. That's it. We don't even know if aliens even exist, so there you have it. The truth is that Harvey Lee Oswald killed JFK because of rage.
A bit socialistic policy is good for a society

Quando voce menciona uma politica socialista, Voce precisa considerar que existe um fator cultural que pode desordenar toda a sociedade. O problema do sistema socialista esta no enaltecimento do coletivo em detrimento do individuo. Caso esteja se referindo a medidas consideradas "socialistas", " precisamos analisar a "eticidade" presente em tais medidas. Sobre a necessidade de presen"a estatal em areas consideras "essenciais", Proponho uma discussao acerca da legitimidade do Estado.
A bit socialistic policy is good for a society

Purely Socialist society has been tried and fail completely in many nightmare attempts, All ended in misery. However lets also be realstic, Every sciety has a state and government functions. Education housing, The police, The military. The government has a role to play in many functions, Caring for those who can't fend for themselves providing basic needs white preserving the market system for those doing well without government aid, The government should do for people what they can not do for thesmelves.
If liberals had their own U.S. state most Americans would not want to live there.

Supposing the federal government were stripped to a minimum and liberals had their own state (where they could impose their policies without constraint), I submit that most Americans would not want to live there. For the purposes of this debate let us assume said liberal state must compete with other non-liberal states in the union for population. Let us also assume there are no barriers to migration between states. Firstly, liberals are nearly unanimous in their willingness to tax America's most productive citizens (i.e. the wealthy) to finance programs they want to provide to the rest of society. With this, it is safe to say that wealthy Americans would be wise to flee such a state or avoid seeking residency there in the first place. Secondly, a state founded in unbridled liberalism would most certainly offer an abundance of attractive social programs to its citizens. Hence, it is likely that the least productive citizens from other states (which did not reward lack of productivity) would flock there in pursuit of these generous handouts. The added population on the part of generosity seekers would surely cause the state require any remaining wealthy citizens to pay even higher taxes, all the while creating a larger voting block of unproductive citizens who would rally in support of more social programs. Once the wealthy citizens (including wealthy liberals) realized they had no choice but to leave the state to avoid financial ruin, the remaining middle and working-class families would be left to pay for an entire state of dependents. It wouldn't be long before they too opted to abandoned this socialist utopia in favor of a state that allowed them more control over their earnings (i.e. their time, i.e. their lives).
The US government should make long term birth control affordable for low income women

The government has the right to negotiate health care costs just like an individual. Not only do they have the right, the frequently do. The United States government has been involved in the health care market for years. Medicare and Medicaid (created in 1965) are both long term examples that show government involvement in these matters actually helps both individuals and the market. Medicaid and Medicare are also examples of the government negotiating and participating in the market. It is not only our government that negotiates prices for health care services, the insurance companies also participate in manipulating the market in this fashion. The newest health care laws, namely the ACA, have not caused the economic problems that you are suggesting. One reason would be the fact that health care demand is very inelastic (you get health care or you shorten your life). The supply for health care is also pretty inelastic. This is because the companies who make health care products/services cannot easily change their product. Economics 101 shows us that 2 inelastic supply and demand curves result in very little shortage when a price ceiling is introduced. Both the economic math, real world data, and history show that providing affordable health care (including birth control) does not hurt the economy, it actually helps individuals and the society. One of the government's jobs is to take taxes and use them in ways that help society as a whole. Your argument about this government policy would be a whole different debate, so I would like to not open that can of worms in this debate. Can we both agree that this is a role that our current government holds?