BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Baptism is essential for salvation

I wouls accept your pastors arguments except I am working on the authority of the scriptures and it does not say that in there. A lot of people have different views but it has to be supported by what the holy word says. You discussedJohn3:5. I think it is clear that it is batism because it discusses baptism by water and the holy ghost. Peter during Pentacost put the two together"repent and be baptized for the remmision of sins and receive the holy ghost" Acts 2:38That verse also shows that through the waters of baptism we receive forgiveness because of the atonement of Christ. Later i Acts 22:16 it says "be baptized and wash away thy sins" teaching the same idea. You also mentioned my scripture Mark16:16. I do not think your logic stands up because you could apply that to the first part of the verse. Why did he not just say :he that bekieveth will be saved". He put in another requirement by saying"he that believeth and is baptized will be saved" Romans 6:3-6 talks about how we walk in a newness of life after being buried with Christ symbolically by beibg baptized. It is through that ordinance that we gain a newness of life and are able to eneter the kingdom of God that the Savious taghut about in John3:5. In closing, I think I have shown that it is essential based on authority of the scriptues.
Baptism is essential for salvation

To start, I would like to share my pastor's view of baptism. He likens baptism to a wedding ring. You dont need a wedding ring in order to be married, but it publicly shows that you are married. Similar to baptism, you dont need baptism to achieve salvation, but you publicly confess your faith. Essentially, baptism is a way of symbolically showing that the Holy Spirit has washed away your sin. Baptism doesnt wash away the sin but it represents how your sin has been washed away. Jesus encourages his followers to show their faith through baptism but it's not a necessity for salvation. Romans 10: 9 says "If you declare with your mouth "Jesus is Lord", and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead then you will be saved(NIV)." Nowhere in this verse is baptism mentioned as a requirement for salvation. As for John 3:5, there is debate about whether or not "water" even refers to baptism [1]. And as for Mark 16:16, my opponent left off the end statement which says "but whoever does not believe will be condemned(NIV)." Nowhere in this second section is baptism mentioned. If the verse said "whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned" then it would be a different story, but it does not. [1] http://carm.org...
North Korea is a constant threat to World-peace and military intervention is necessary

I will be arguing pro, that North Korea is a constant threat to World-peace and military intervention against them is necessary. Terms: 1) Threat- A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not 2) Peace- Freedom from disturbance; quiet and tranquility. 3) Intervening - Interference by a country in another's affairs. 4) Necessary - Required to be done, achieved, or present; essential. The burden of proof will be shared in this debate Rules: 1) Users must address every obviously plausible argument, dropping ONLY pettifog or obviously flawed arguments. 2) In the first round, users must not make any arguments; doing so will result in loss of conduct point. 3) Debate format is as follows: Round one - acceptance (this) Round two- Pro (me) will post opening argument. Con (them) will post opening argument and rebuttal Round three - Pro (me) will rebuttal and make closing statement. Con (them) will make closing statement ONLY. Not following this rule is an automatic loss of conduct point. This is the case so we each make: 1 opening statement 1 rebuttal 1 closing argument If a situation arises in which the resolution is obviously flawed is some way and makes one side of the argument impossible, it may be slightly altered if we both agree.
Fathers should have a say in deciding whether or not to abort their unborn child

So here I will make my points: 1. The unborn baby belongs to both the father and the mother Based on how we treat other objects in which multiple people have a vested interest, both father and mother should have equal rights to the child. As an example, suppose two people, a man and a woman, owned a house together (legally). Because the house is effectively owned by both the woman and man, and anything the woman does to the house would affect the man, the woman would not have the legal right to do whatever she wanted to it. For example, she cannot sell the house without the man's consent. Half the genetic material of a baby comes from the father, and the other half, the mother. Should there not be an abortion, both parents have equal rights when it comes to custody. If a woman decides to keep her child, the father is required to pay child support regardless of whether he wanted to keep the child or not, or face future jail time. It is obvious that parental rights and responsibilities are given to both parties. Thus, it is reasonable to argue that the father should have a say when it comes to aborting their child, since they have legal rights to the child as well, with such rights being equal to that of the mother's. 2. Abortion takes its toll on both mother and father Abortion has mental and emotional effects on both parties. Both men and women may experience depression, eating disorders, etc after abortion. Abortion can also destroy a relationship, something which is shared by both parties. It is thus reasonable to say that both parties are equally impacted by abortion. When that is the case, shouldn't father have a say? Shouldn't they have a voice when it comes to a decision which will affect them as well? My argument is rather simple. Since both parents have equal rights to children, and since abortion has impacts on both parties, fathers should get a say as well. It would be unfair for fathers to not have a voice in a decision that affects them. References: . http://www.life.org.nz... . http://dadsrights.com... . http://www.menandabortion.info... . http://www.vice.com...
Legalization of recreational marijuana in the U.S. would benefit the economy

Thanks to blamonkey for accepting the challenge. Let's jump right in.Legalization of recreational marijuana in the U.S. would benefit the economy in the following regards.Taxes:The legalization of recrational marijuana would generate billions of dollars in taxes for the government to spend on other beneficiary programs that might also benefit the economy. Legalization would generate tax revenue of an estimated $46.7 billion annually [1].The cost of incarceration:The cost to keep a prisoner incarcerated is an absolutely enourmous burden on taxpayers. It is estimated that it costs taxpayers a whopping $15,921,896,814 to house marijuana related inmates [2]. Although my own research shows that it may be even more, because source [2] bases this on the assumption that it costs $21,006 to house one inmate for a year, I hvae found other sources that state the value closer to $30,000 [3].Decline of Organized Crime / Corporation and trading benefits:Similar to the decline of organized crime following the repeal of alcohol prohibition in 1933, legalization of recreational marijuana would cause the marijuana trade to cease in America entirely, causing gangs and other organizations to disband. This branches off into my next point.The commercial availability of marijuana would cause business boom, employing countless citizens, getting people to spend money (always good for the economy), and generating a massive amount of revenue. Also since America is most definitly a world power, America's decision to legalize recrational marijuana has a good chance of causing a domino effect, making other nations see the benefits of legalization (employment and revenue) and legalizing it themselves. This would cause an international market to be crerated, opening up the U.S. to export it's recreational marijuana to other legalized nations, further increasing government profit and corporation revenue. With tons of foreign money being paid to the United States, we would inevitably see a increase in value for the dollar, which is good for everyone in the U.S.************************************************************************************************* I turn the argument to con.
Regulated/taxed recreational marijuana legal over the age of 25 & any age for validated medical use

It's pretty disappointing to find out this in the last round but Pro broke the rules. Pro made plagiarism.Here you can read the sources Pro didn't quote, thus falling in plagiarism: http://blog.norml.org... https://prezi.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... https://www.google.com... This are just from round 1.You can check if you don't believe me using this page: http://smallseotools.com...It was an interesting debate, but I'm afraid to say that plagiarism means instantaneously loosing the debate.Judges, take this into account and vote for Con. Cheers!PD.: I don't think you this this in bad faith but next time quote your sources please!
Regulated/taxed recreational marijuana legal over the age of 25 & any age for validated medical use

1) LOL I was pointing out the difference between guys and girls because you were saying that once a person demonstrates mature attitude/responsibility they should be considered an adult = a lower minimum age limit cause younger people can be mature. By that measure GIRLS and GUYS should have different minimum age limits cause GIRLS mature on average faster and years before GUYS ;) 2) A PSYCHIATRIST is qualified right now because of legal definitions - psychiatrist deal with MENTAL ILLNESSES and prescribe drugs aka pills to TREAT the MENTAL ILLNESS. Laws and regulations at present treats marijuana use as a mental illness cause of the political stigma attached to it and to placate critic of marijuana use. I don't think marijuana use is a MENTAL ILLNESS unless it becomes an addiction that you can not control so its won't wrecks your life so I feel that psychologist, who deals with emotions and mental well being, which most users use marijuana to relax and therefor have better mental well being, would and are better qualified to prescribe. 3) Incidences once rare can become standard once people learn an easy way to duck responsibility and make easy money. Its a sad but real truth otherwise their wouldn't be hundred of thousands of lawyers chasing ambulances, staking out hospitals, and listening to police scanner looking for clients. They wouldn't be doing it if they weren't making money from the effort which they only get paid if they win so there are people winning such cases, cause of legal loopholes and sweet talking the juries, even if it seems absurd to the rest of us. 4) I agree that kids have an innate need to do opposite what is bad for them, adults do too :) How many time do you look down when people tell you not too ? I would hope to include educational programs and advertisements so kids realize consequences of violating the age limit and regulations. And cigaretts are kept behinds a counter " like a wall" to keep underage kids away and we have smoking sections, booths, to keep those who don't want to be around the smoke, cigaretts seperate. Hmmm ?
Regulated/taxed recreational marijuana legal over the age of 25 & any age for validated medical use

1)Sorry if I didn't use the precise words but by guys a was generalizing women and men (I'm not a native speaker so I can have this errors). Anyway you could just point out that and couldn't rebut my argument. So point for me in the age section ;)2)A person who prescribes medicinal marijuana has to know about the psychological and physiological consequences of consuming weed. The only specialist which meets this is, as I said above, a psychiatrist, not a psychologist neither a general doctor.3)Your other argument is worried about too rare situations, thus invalid. The amount of people suing in this kind of situations (like the one of your example: drunk driving) is minimum. Is minimum because It would be absurd to do so and because the chances of some judge giving the reason to them is almost impossible. That's why what you said is exaggerated.4)I'm not against having some regulations, but what I showed last round was that the high walls thing was exaggerated. And I never stated that if laws related to marijuana are violated there would be no consequences, there would be the same consequences as with any crime.I understand your worries about kids taking thing further and testing limits. However, I believe that all you cause with high limits is an appealing sense of prohibition. It's like that DO NOT ENTER sign that begs you to enter. This doesn't mean to enter in an anarchy without any law, but to be more balanced and rational with limits.
Regulated/taxed recreational marijuana legal over the age of 25 & any age for validated medical use

I agree with marijuana decriminalization but I disagree with what you are proposing."I am for the legalization of recreational & medical marijuana ONLY under strict & enforced regulations and laws." Why should marijuana get stricter laws than other drugs. It is scientifically proved that marijuana is not more dangerous than the other common use drugs (when I reefer to "common use drugs" I will refer to alcohol,tobacco and prescribed pills). As a matter of fact, marijuana is safer than them. Ergo, its insane to propose to make more strict laws for it.I will now rebut your 4 points:1) I agree that medical marijuana use doesn't need minimum age. But minimum age for recreational use set as 25??!! Kids with 16 can drink alcohol till they get an ethilic coma but marijuana (which can't harm you) will have a 25 years old minimum. I'm not saying that 16 kid should smoke weed but 25 is exaggerated. I feel that 18 or 21 would be a better age (you are mature enough and your brain is pretty developed by that time).Also, in my opinion is exaggerated to need 3 different medics to prescribe one single drug. Why can general doctors (not psychiatrists) prescribe psychiatric drugs but you need 3 doctor and extensive testing for cannabis? As you can see this law would be excessive and absurd.2) Marijuana is a plant, like any other plant. You don't have to be registered to plant chamomile. I know that the difference is that marijuana can be used for drugs making. But so can the other plants. You can smoke chamomile, salvia divinorum, ayahuasca, acacia, anethole, and so on. But you don't need a registry to plant them.Limit the plant amount and the other regulations fall in the same.But the last one is nonsense. Video surveillance by a regulatory office? That means someone from the government spying on me!3) I agree that they should pay taxes and be regulated as any other legal drug producer.However I disagree with registering consumers. There's no registry of alcohol drinkers or tobacco smokers or caffeine consumers. Why marijuana? If marijuana isn't worst, why should it be that regulated and limited? 4) I don't argue against regulation to this facilities but this are inflated.150 ft within a church, seems silly, but I won't enter in the religious debate because it isn't the center of this topic. "smoking is prohibited in outdoor seating (a) outdoor seating must be enclosed with a fence/wall with minimum 10ft height and preventive security measures" that sound like a jail to me. This is humiliating to people who just want to smoke.Also, why more taxes? This is like some sort of punishment for this facilities, which is nonsense.To conclude, all of this regulations just make marijuana consumption harder and humiliating, enhancing the illegal market.
Political Correctness

Alright, Thank you for your clarification. The issue with saying that political correctness simply a "bad" is that political correctness is a general notion that society naturally supports. It's a normal behavior. Because humans interact with one another, often for their own self interest, humans are likely to be choosy with their words. How they talk, speak, or otherwise express themselves is going to be representative of their personality. Does political correctness actually endanger free speech? It could a safe argument to say that the Federal Communications Commission endangers free speech (when talking about the broadcast market), but not the notion of political correctness. Political correctness is a guideline for speaking, especially in the instances of meeting an individual or audience for the first time. You wouldn't rationally say things that are shocking to people you just met. You'd probably wait till you got to know someone before you actually started throwing out the --Pollack/Mexican/Mick/Insert race here-- joke. Changing gears a little, and referring back to Imus, he was ousted because his nappy headed hoes comment upset certain special interests. Those interests likened Imus to racism, and the sponsors of the show backed out so they would not get accused of being racists as well. It was a magnificent display of censorship. To your point, this action was uncalled for. However, it was also a display of businesses trying to make sure they maintain their appeal with the public interest. Shutting Imus down was as much of a demonstration of the stations respect for the public opinions as it was censorship. Im commonly referring to meeting an individual for the first time as a basis for my argument, but if you translate being PC to broadcast media, the same rules apply. Being on broadcast media is the same as meeting someone new...EVERY SINGLE DAY. Someone who never watches channel X will see it for the first time. If that someone catches an offensive statement in that first time they watch it, then channel faces loss of sponsorship and bankruptcy (depending on the severity). It doesn't matter what the context of the statement was, sometimes it wont even matter about the message, people will respond to those statements. This is not some federal ban on language, it is either the political motives of special interests, or the ability to misinform the public that creates the strong need for political correctness. Someone can say, more or less, whatever they want. The fine line is how you say it. It's a lifelong experiment to find out how to say things to people without offending someone. Trying to follow in these strides is a noble enough goal. It's a means to communicate with as many people as possible, in more general language, that people from different backgrounds or subcultures can understand and respect. This is not to say that one should avoid politically correct language at all costs, but in the public eye, it is essential. Perhaps political correctness and censoring on the basis is evil, but it is a necessary evil.
Political Correctness

Well I do make endangering free speech my main arguement, but truly just saying that political correctness is bad. Lets examine the word "nigger". In present times it is ok that african americans to say, but why not whites. The point being is that it DOES limit free speech, but it is generally bad. People should have the right to say anything they want no matter what, hence FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Another example could be Don Imus. He called a couple african american women quote "nappy headed hoes". He was immediately critized for his remark from jesse jackson to al sharpton. If an african american man would refer to african american women as "nappy headed hoes" its wouldnt be regarded so seriously. Political correctness is not good due the endangerment of free speech.
Political Correctness

Hey Jevan, I think you left the topic a little open ended on what, particularly your argument is. You mentioned that political correctness endangers free speech, which seems to be the key point. From there, an endangerment of free speech equals bad. Okay. I believe you also tried to explain where problems with political correctness become evident. I'm a little hazy on where you are going, so please clarify that in your next argument. Political Correctness is neither a universal good, nor bad. Language is always evolving, and it is therefore necessary to recall that what is deemed "improper" now will not be the same in the future. As an example, the word "Humbug", a word that Charles Dickens made timeless in "a Christmas Carol" was a curseword. It was not meant to be said in the public eye, and Dicken's usage of curse words as common language is one of the reasons he became so famous. Another example, one far more practical to today, would be the used of the word "nigger". This word was common language historically, and that has been changed through time and social pressure. It is now a taboo word...at least for whites. It will take time, and changes in society's overall view of language for words to change in their level of offensiveness. My guess is that your contention is that words such as the above should not be ostracized from language, but rather embraced. Doing so would presumably make an offensive word into a less derogatory one. While this is a fair point, self censorship is a natural process in a society where people interact on a frequent basis. If you are trying to make a friend, you will choose your words carefully as a means to avoid offending another person. It's considerate. Your decision to be PC can be critical if you are uncertain as to who you are talking to. In such cases, being politically correct is necessary, which it a good thing (even if it is only in this situation). I will leave it here, I look forward to your elaboration on the subject. :-)
Political Correctness

Political correctness is a term used to describe language, ideas, policies, or behaviour seen as seeking to minimize offence to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. Conversely, the term politically incorrect is used to refer to language or ideas that may cause offense or that are unconstrained by orthodoxy. Political correctness implies censorship and endangers free speech by limiting what is in the public discourse, especially in universities and political forums. Political correctness claim that it marginalizes certain words, phrases, actions or attitudes through the instrumentation of public disesteem. I will give more arguments once the round has started. Thank you!
should middle school have an art class

I strongly disagree with your statement. If art class is a waste of time, why isn't math class a waste of time? Why isn't English class a waste of time? Before you rebut saying these classes aren't a waste of time because in those classes, kids actually learn material, let me tell you this, you can learn in art class too! Just look at all the possibilities, using math to figure out the direction and angles of different lines, using English and history to determine how old a painting is, and the story of where a painting came from, and you can use science to know what chemicals go into the paint or pencil an artist uses! Art class is an amazing opportunity for a child to learn many things, and If you think that schools should not have art class, then you are just limiting the amount of knowledge a child can have.
flat earth

Excellent points but other than the picture I have seen on the website you posted never have I seen a object 50+ miles away. If the earth was flat we should be able to see the end of it since our eyes can see The Andromeda galaxy which is 2.6 million light-years away. As for the sky line photo, it's just a mirage. This happens when air below the line of sight is colder than the air above it. The image appears above the true object. This is explained here http://www.kfvs12.com.... And for the NASA documents and other experiments that prove the earth is flat, there are many that may appear to show a flat earth but under closer observation actually prove the opposite or are just theoretical. Also if the earth is flat then were is the end of the earth, we should be able to see it, take a trip to go look at it. I look forward to seeing the experiments and documents you were talking about.