BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pentecostal (vs. Baptist)

2000 characters is not enough to provide all the scripture in full context, I would hope that we read the entire passage before and after along with multiple translations to get an understanding as (I assume) we are not all old English majors and the language can be confounding. I tried to provide a quick guide as to what tongues are, not underline random words and with respect to Con, I have used the KJV even though it is less than ideal for this kind of study. Con seems to be stuck at Pentecost. That was an isolated manifestation of the gift of tongues and an uncommon one. As I tried to show, Tongues is a form of communication that takes place in the spirit, It is not meant for everyone to understand, it is spoken directly to God, the interpretation is for everyone else. “1 Cor 14 is clearly stating that what Pentecostals are known for is unbiblical” This is false Unbiblical: contrary to or unsanctioned by the Bible [1] 1 Cor 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all1 Cor 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.1 Cor 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.Tongues in the church need to be followed by interpretation; this is how we know that it is the Spirit of God moving thought the service and not something malicious. If a word in Tongues is not interpreted, the speaker needs to check himself to ensure it was a moving of The Holy Spirit and not himself. That is why instructions was given (1 Cor 14:28). Paul was big on prophecy, but not everyone has all the spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12) and as a body of believers we are to come together each with our own talents as one. Do not think that because some have lost the meaning that it is irrelivant, All the gifts are required (1 Cor 12:12-30)Thank you [1] http://beta.merriam-webster.com...
Pentecostal (vs. Baptist)

I wasn't saying everybody heard all of the languages. I think you missed my points though. 1. everybody can understand it (otherwise it's worthless to the church) 2. it had a very supernatural feel to it, not second guessed 3. it had a purpose (getting people saved) I could underline the word spirit thousands of times in verses but it has no meaning if you just take it out of context. Where in the Bible does it explicitly make mention of a heavenly or angelic language that we want to get access to? Would we not expect to have heard of this somewhere? Anywhere at all in the KJV... See, this is how ALL false doctrine originates. You take a random auxiliary verse, don't use it in it's context, but instead apply it to something that you take and run with. 1 Cor 14 is clearly stating that what Pentecostals are known for is unbiblical. It pretty much says that at best you are speaking with God if nobody understands you. However, if you are speaking with God at least YOU would know what is being said. Sadly, most Pentecostals even admit that they themselves don't know what they said. Therefore, not only is it worthless to the church but it was for naught altogether. There is no way to know that person isn't blaspheming God instead of praising. I should also mention that speaking in tongues is only 1 of many gifts. Why cling to that one when we should be praying for the gift of prophecy? Do you believe the primary application of 1 Cor 13:1 to be: Hey, you know there's a heavenly language? You wanna get in on this? No, the only point of the whole thing is to say your much speaking of good is all for nothing if you don't even have charity. Why be associated with a church that has charlatans making claims that can be disproven? Having outbursts that are worthless (and could be sinister in origin) has no place in a true church. Nor convulsing around on the floor as if demon-possessed. Why do these strange things happen at Pentecostal churches? It is a concerning issue.
Pentecostal (vs. Baptist)

Misled, no. Misinformed yes. At Pentecost, The Holy Spirit took what was being said and translated it so that every man heard what was being said in his own language. The people were not amazed at all the languages they preached in but that each man heard it in their own language. No, one, man heard every language. But this is not the full extent of speaking in tongues. What is speaking in Tongues? 1 Cor 14:2 2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.John 4:24 For God is Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.Ephesians 2:18 For through him (Jesus) we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.1 Cor 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels…(Heb 1:14 Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?)2 Cor 5:17-18 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliationTongues are a spiritual language given to those who believe (In Jesus) that we might be reconciled to God. So that we would have a means by which to make our hearts and minds known to him. The ack of speaking in tongues is to free our spirits to communicate directly with the Father.What is it purpose in the Church? 1 Cor 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.To attract the attention of unbelievers, showing that we are different. It takes hold of a man’s spirit, and when they are in the doors, the interpretation of tongues (the revelation of the spiritual unknown) grips their hearts and brings them to repentance(I ran out of space but theres so much more)
Pentecostal (vs. Baptist)

I understand and acknowledge that speaking in tongues is and has been a real thing according to the Gospel. However, people are being misled about what it actually is. So what is speaking in tongues exactly and what is it's purpose? Acts 2:2-7 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? So what happened was: They were gathered around preaching the Gospel when they hear a sound from heaven like a great wind. The Holy Spirit comes upon them and they see something like cloven tongues of fire over them. They begin to preach again, however, now everybody is able to hear them preach the Gospel in their own native language (tongue). That is the miracle. The people were amazed at the fact that they could edify the Lord and preach the Gospel in all those different languages at once. They weren't amazed saying, "Hey, that's some cool gibberish! It must be of the Spirit!" No, they had great evidence of something supernatural and it served a purpose (getting people saved). 1 Corinthians 14 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? The Bible is clear that if nobody understands it it's worthless to the church.
Pentecostal (vs. Baptist)

2,000 Characters is not nearly enough space... I will post the scriptures and the readers will have to read it themselves... In defense of, and to set the premise for Pentecostal belief, one should know that it began on the day of Pentecost, 50 days after Jesus ascended into heaven. Acts 2:1-17 Speaking in tongues is part of the Spiritual gifts bestowed upon Christians, as a manifesting of The Holy Spirit that was given on the day of Pentecost. 1 Corinthians 12:1-11 If Tongues were no longer relevant, Why was there given instruction on how to limit them, instead of eliminating them? 1 Corinthians 14:26- Again, If we were not to utilize this gifting, why does the Bible mention it more than once, and why are there instructions given on how to grow these gifts? (The questions are stated in traditional Hebrew fashion, with the implied answer being no.) 1 Corinthians 12:28-31 The Bible also uses the concept of tongues to teach about the true meaning of Love (Charity as translated by the KJV) 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 If the Gift of Tongues was irrelevant or unnecessary, than why has it been interwoven into other doctrines? Do people take this concept and make a fool out of themselves and God, Yes. That is why there was given clear instructions on how and when it was to be used, as well as, how to deal with people who are just acting out. (Tongues need to be followed up by their interpretation)
Pentecostal (vs. Baptist)

Sir, I would like to challenge you to defend your position of being a Pentecostal Christian as supposed to just a basic King James only Bible believing (I guess you could say Baptist if you want to label it) Christian. If you accept you will defend the doctrines that Pentecostals hold (like "speaking in tongues") and explain why they are the correct things to do. I will attempt to disprove or discredit those doctrines as false or misinterpreted. The judges should be Christian or at least have an understanding enough of it to give an honest opinion as to which makes more sense. Are you ready?
Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior

Violent Video Games cause violence in children: http://edition.cnn.com... http://time.com... http://www.pamf.org... http://www.psychologytoday.com... They just do. I think you meant "Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior [In Teens]" because they don't, but in children they do, it's not a debate; children will emulate Power Rangers and all sorts of things they see on television as well (http://www.thecrimson.com..., http://www.ofcom.org.uk...) and they are especially susceptible to media. Good luck.
Should Kids Be Forced To Go To School

May this argument rage on until a clear victor is found. Pro states that most Americans will not teach themselves. I see your point here, as this is most likely true. However, and alternative to school would this: Once a week, a child would go to a school. Although not a traditional school. A teacher from each subject would assign work to each child. They would then give them papers for the ways to do it, explain for 5-10 minutes, then go to the next teacher, etc. Once home, a child would look at their resources and do the work. Over a period of time, they would turn in work, review, repeat. The test would be online under the supervision of parents. This would let them do the majority of the work at home, and this also lets them do it in a comfortable environment. Pro also states that English and History can also be useful subjects. This is true. However, there are few chances to be a bestselling author, or a recognized author at all. History opens up very few pathways to jobs. Now, you might be thinking "What about archaeology? ". Once again, science plays a vital role in archaeology. Carbon dating, for example. Another thing. From what I've seen in my school, English does not teach you much (But then again, we are in America. ) other than grammar. The only other thing that might be relevant to the real world is vocabulary, yet the vocabulary they teach is simple. I doubt anyone would know what an oxymoron is. For everyone who doesn't know, oxymoron are two words that contradict each other. I await your defending argument Pro.
Should Kids Be Forced To Go To School

"Excuse me, but are you serious? The argument that says they cannot make life decisions.. Those people make me sick. Children are as smart as any adult. I am twelve, and although I'm young, I know a good deal about education. My reading level is high school. I know a lot more stuff than most people here know. Mostly because I want to get a job inventing software/hardware for computers. I am doing research on this and getting a good understanding for it. I know ja vascript, and I'm pretty sure most people don't know ja vascript. But did school teach me anything relevant to the career I want? Other than math, no other subject has taught me anything. I taught myself ja vascript simply by reading it. Nothing in my school has taught me anything important. And history.. Don't get me started on history. Which job would give a crap about where indians live? What we do care about are more interesting subjects, such as World War Two. And the French were barely mentioned, if not only hinted at when I was taught the revolutionary war. Honestly, it's better to teach yourself rather than have other people force useless subjects on you that you will never use in your life. Science/math are an exception, but the rest.. No. Just no. Kids should have a choice to go to school." I disagree with your opinion on the poll "Should Kids Be Forced to Go to School". I think that kids like you are the exception, not the rule. You also have failed to mention one of the most important subjects, English.Arguments:Most kids, especially in America, don't think of education as a positive thing. Kids like that will not go to school by choice. How else will America get the jobs that they need to stay competitive in the future? Surely those kids will not teach themselves everything?You also said that history is useless and science is. What if one were to become a historian? What if you became and author? I think that English and History might help other professions. Science and math are valuable in others. I think that all subjects are somewhat relevant.It is good that you have the initiative to teach yourself ja vascript, but even that will not get you far. There is more too programming than just one language, and ja vascript is one that is easier to learn than others. It is hard to do focused learning without a real teacher. Very few have that gift.There are other jobs out there than just programming and science. Although these jobs are important, other subjects create jobs too. School is still important and relevant.
Should Kids Be Forced To Go To School

Final round.Rebuttals:None (you forfeited)Arguments:If one were to teach oneself things solely on their own, they would likely make mistakes. Mistakes are a natural human thing; we can't get rid of them. If we do not have another person to guide us, we might practice in the mistakes we made while teaching ourselves. Teachers can point out errors.If we were not to have colleges and such, we could not learn high level skills. While it might be easy to teach yourself to do addition or possibly even calculus, where could one learn to be an accountant, a doctor or an engineer? Would you want to have a "professional" accountant get you in trouble with the IRS because they messed up information that they found out of a book? Would you want an engineers designing a skyscraper who had taught himself various things, yet still could not design a safe building? Perhaps most of all, would you allow a doctor who taught themselves how to do neurosurgery? I don't think so. We need professionals, and we need professionals to learn from professionals. Without these systems of education in place, our world would be a very unsafe place.Another argument for schools is that homeschooled students have a hard time adjusting to a social life[1]. America is social. If all students were schooled in the home, there would be problems for America when these kids got to the real world. Even if the benefits of a home education did help America, we would be unable to function without a social generation.My last question for you is this: can students really stay self-directed on their own? I would claim that the majority can't. Many will not attempt to learn even with a teacher there, which you can see from going inside of any public school. Would these students who constantly procrastinate and misbehave be able to teach themselves the information that would make America into a nation that could compete on the global stage? Maybe some of it, but I don't think that anyone but the extremely gifted could do this. To learn how to read and write, to perform mathematical functions, to learn about the complicated world that we live in, students need school. There is really no substitute.Thanks to my opponent for participating in this debate.Sources:[1]http://www.cbsnews.com...
Should Kids Be Forced To Go To School

Rebuttals:Teachers might need more than 10 minutes to explain something. A student in need of help might not be able to get any. An impoverished family might not have access to the online assignment. Numerous things prevent your vision from happening. Regardless, I count this still as school, nevertheless a reformed one, under the basis of this argument. English actually teaches you how to write. People need that. Without it, you could not write persuasively, to get a grant or to debate someone as you are doing now. If you need to write a report, the grammar skill that you learned in English will be useful. A well written report report will look good, unlike one that would be the result of an uneducated worker. A scientist writing a paper needs English. I could go on and on.History is a little different. Nowadays, Social Studies is a more common subject. Where would our country be if people did not even know about the rest of the world? What would we do if people didn't vote simply because they did not have the education to even understand the issues? Needless to say, the nation would be a train wreck.I never said that science wasn't important, but it generally applies to a different set of professions than history and/or English does. Science, and all subjects, are important in some way.Arguments:School gives students the knowledge of skills that they might not otherwise have. For example, a school teaches kids how to stay on schedule. You are punished if you are late to class, and you get a credit reduction on late work. In the real world, being late can get you fired, and turning in an important project late can result in a job loss also. Students without school do not have this.Another argument is that schools give the potential to learn other things. A student without a solid base in mathematics cannot learn to be a theoretical physicist, likewise, a student who doesn't know about Social Studies cannot become a politician. You need to learn the basics to master anything else; math is a preresiquite for accounting, and English for a journalist. You cannot learn everything on your own with a shaky understanding of basic concepts you taught yourself.I await your response.By the way, I did know what an oxymoron was.
Drone attacks on Pakistan

Such a bold claim? To be clear, I am from Pakistan and attacks in a sovereign country without its authorization are supposed to be violating laws of a country. I agree that the strikes are meant to chase off the terrorists, but these policies are not working that way, instead terrorists are reborn in the shape of normal civilians. Just think of it this way, if all of your family is killed in a drone attack being innocent civilians, what will your mindset be? The extreme one, just like a terrorist thinks, resentment and anger. This is how terrorism multiplies. You are replying to swords with swords. If you are giving me the example of 9/11, in iraq US has killed hundred times more civilians ever killed in US. I am not undermining the terrorism, and terrorist activities, but claiming that drones are not an answer to the terrorism in the world. See for yourself, terrorism hasn't gotten less, its just gotten bigger. First it was just the taliban, now you have all sorts of groups like ISIS which are bigger and stronger. The US needs to be accountable of all the lives they have taken, not hide them. This is no way to answer the whole world for their actions.
Drone attacks on Pakistan

C1: The drone strikes are killing high priority terrorist leaders and are discouraging other groups My source will prove that high priority terrorists are killed by these drone strikes. Yes my source is about a terrorist in Yemen but it still supports the point of the drone strikes working. Con is acting like the drones are just mindless acts of cruelty by the U.S. which is not the case. The strikes are also scaring possible terrorists into hiding. In the war in Afghanistan many of the leaders ran into caves deep in the mountain ranges. The fact that they did hide proves that we are scaring them out of attacking more innocent people. Other terrorist groups can see what we are doing to them and realize if they step out of line they could suffer the same thing. C2: The drone strikes are in action to prevent innocent lives from being taken The reason we are using these drone strikes is to stop terrorists from carrying out their work. Have you forgotten 9/11? Do you not see what these people are capable of? Without the U.S. retaliating, these terrorists will continue to bomb us and kill thousands of people whenever they want. The strikes are in place to stop the death of innocent people and occupy the terrorists time by chasing them and forcing them into hiding. " violating millions of laws domestically and internationally" There are no laws against drone strikes and con lacks a source on such a bold claim. "There is a rise in hate due to no planned foreign policies." Our foreign policies and actions are carefully planned by hundreds of people. The hate towards the U.S. for these actions is only be ignorant people that live here. The civilians in the Middle East are affected by terror groups as well, when we chase them off and stop them we are helping those civilians. Civilians are never meant to die in these attacks. The terrorist groups are causing these deaths. http://post.jagran.com...
Drone attacks on Pakistan

It is actually absurd bombing a country, while violating millions of laws domestically and internationally. How would you feel living under the threat from the sky 24/7/365? U.S government claims the civilian casualties like this "if any males that are of the same height in the vicinity of the attack are not counted as casualties". So if I'm the same height and in that particular area where the drone is going to attack and I die, I'm a terrorist? The government also claims that the drones are secret orders, from secret officials and bombed at secret places and the number of people killed are a secret too. This is just painful to hear. No doubt there are terrorists, no doubt there is killing, but these policies are just giving U.S a bad name in developing countries. There is a rise in hate due to no planned foreign policies. Drones can not even identify clearly what a person looks like, just think of something flying over you almost at the height of the sky, hidden by the clouds. How can you be sure of your targets? You can not, its a theory and percentages at which massive manslaughter is being performed. I urge to stop the drones in Pakistan, or at least answer the people to the number of killings that have taken place sine the first drone attack in 2002, which was accepted as a mistaken target.