BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Baptizing in Jesus' name

The phrase, "in the name of Jesus" is not a reference to a baptismal formula, but a reference to authority. It is similar to hearing someone say, "Stop in the name of the Law!". We understand that the "name of the Law" means by the authority of the Law. It is the same with baptism "in Jesus' name." To baptize in Jesus' name is to baptize in the authority of Jesus. This is particularly clarified Acts 16:18. "And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour." We also see that when people were being baptized that they did it calling on Jesus' name (Acts 22:16); that is, they were calling upon Jesus who has all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18). The church is supposed to "call upon the name of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor. 1:2) because it is by His authority (John 1:12) that we Christians have the hope and right of forgiveness of sins and adoption as His children (Rom. 8:15). Instead of baptizing "in the name of Jesus" we should listen to what Jesus said in Matthew 28:19 and baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit".
Baptizing in Jesus' name

Then why do all the discples baptize in His name alone? They knew what the name was. It's Jesus. Acts 2:38," Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you"in the name of Jesus Christ"for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 8:16," "For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized"in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 10:48, "And he commanded them to be baptized"in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." Acts 19:5, "When they heard this, they were baptized"in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 22:16, "And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name. Are just a few examples, theres many places in the Bible where the power resides in the name Lord Jesus.
Baptizing in Jesus' name

You're right about the authority being in the name of Jesus. And like you said, the name of Jesus is the name of the LORD and of the Holy Ghost. All the disciples baptized in the name of Jesus because they knew what the name was when Jesus told the to baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Again, that name is singular. If the authority all resides in Jesus why wouldn't we baptize in the name Jesus? We pray in the His name, heal in His name, why not baptize?I agree with a lot of what you said, just not the last sentence or so.
Baptizing in Jesus' name

Hello, My name is Ryan and I believe that we should baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. First thing First I want to thank you for taking time out of your day to debate me on a subject that is very important. So lets get started. The proper form of baptism is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as Jesus designated in Matt. 28:19,"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." The clear command of Jesus is to baptize this way. But,if that is so,then why do we see so many instances in the New Testament where people were baptized "in Jesus' name"? The reason they were baptizing "in the name of Jesus" is not because it was a formula, but because the phrase, "in the name of" means "in the authority of. We can see proof of this in Acts 4:7-10, "And when they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, 'By what power, or in what name, have you done this?' 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, 'Rulers and elders of the people, 9 if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, 10 let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified,whom God raised from the dead, by this name this man stands here before you in good health.'" The Jews asked "by what power, or in what name, have you done this?" Peter answers and says that it was in the name of Jesus that they had healed. In other words, "in the name of Jesus" means that it is by the power and authority found in Christ. We can see this usage many places in the New Testament. As you can see, "in the name of the Lord Jesus" and "in the name of Jesus" speaks of "in the authority of Jesus." Therefore, when someone is properly baptized, they are baptized in the name of Jesus; that is, by the authority of Jesus. Therefore, when they are properly baptized in the name of Jesus, they should say, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," just as Jesus commanded us to do.
Baptizing in Jesus' name

Many people baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But it's wrong.After all, what is the NAME of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? The term "name" is singular, meaning one. I strongly believe that name is Jesus. Acts 10:48 states: 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (All these will be KJV. Other translations straight out say "In the name of Jesus Christ")Luke 24:45-47 say: 5 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.Acts 8:5, 12, 16: "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.... They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus"And I will leave one last verse which is perhaps that most famous: Acts 2:38 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.Anything is open for discussion, as long as you state your view on the name we must baptize in (Trinity, etc.) Thank you for taking the time to read this, I hope this debate enlightens whoever accepts it. God bless!
Violent video games make children violent

1. School shootings. While there has never been any links from violent video games to school shootings there are some patterns that cannot be ignored. Before 1975 there were 139 recorded school shootings the first of which was in 1764 (the second was in 1853). I picked this year because it was the official release of "Death Race". Some background before I continue. "Death Race" is considered the arcade game that sparked the first controversy over video game violence. The game consisted of up to two players controlling cars with the objective being to run over "gremlins" (who resembled humans very closely) in order to earn points. The public response was outrage. NBC as well as CBS's 60 minutes reported on the violent effect it could have on teens as well as The National Enquirer and Midnight magazines. There are even reports of angry mobs dragging the arcade game out of stores and lighting them on fire. Since 1975 there have been 199 reported school shootings. Keep in mind that both of these figures count both accidents and single suicides (i did not have the time to sort those all out). This seems to be ample proof that there has been a significant growth in school shootings. While there is no proof that connects school shootings to violent video games it cannot be ruled out. 2. Level of violence. I completely accept your provided definition of the word itself from Webster however the context you later employ I do not. You ask why there has not been an increase in the number of armed robberies. I argue that video games do and have caused a rise in violence in the real world but not quite to that extent. I highly doubt that any grand theft auto video game has caused any significant rise in actual car thefts but that doesn't mean that these types of games hasn't contributed to increases of violence at a much lesser level. I have seen first hand the anger and frustration that is created by an extremely difficult level on some video game and have also seen that taken out in physical violence. 3. The ESRB The ESRB was created in 1994 in order to regulate the age at which children were allowed to play certain types of games. I'm not talking about any type of pornography or language but the violence section. Why would a federally funded and controlled program worry about the AGE of which certain children can play violent games? Because they fear that the children could be affected by the violence and are not yet ready for the games. That is the conclusion of my first rebuttal. I also can't wait to see yours. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://controversy.wikia.com...
Violent video games make children violent

Glad to hear that you're new here too. Considering how new I am, sorry for any errors in my argument. When looking at whether video games make children violent, first we must establish what people mean when they say 'violent'. The Merriam Webster Dictionary gives it as: 1: marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity 2 a : notably furious or vehement b : extreme, intense, 3: prone to commit acts of violence Here I am editing out some definitions that do not relate to the topic at hand. I am particularly looking at the third definition, as many have attributed video games to school shooting, saying that violent video games actually influence them enough to do something of the sort. That, in my perception, would be making someone prone to committing acts of violence. Is this possible? While studies show that people may feel more aggression while playing a violent game and shortly after, there has never been proof that there are long term psychological effects. In fact, studies show that video games can actually make you smarter. That action gamers, which I take to be games in the first-person-shoot genre(Not limited to such, just an example.) which would be a violent game.From 1995 to 2008, violent video game popularity has skyrocketed, while the number of violent crimes have lowered by almost 50%. If video games are truly a source of violence for children, then why aren't there MORE shootings? Why don't we have more armed robberies? Considering how many people play games like Call of Duty daily, you would think the number would be much higher. As The Washington Post's Max Fisher wrote: "In fact, countries where video game consumption is highest tend to be some of the safest countries in the world, likely a product of the fact that developed or rich countries, where consumers can afford expensive games, have on average much less violent crime". That concludes my argument, I can't wait to see yours. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.thewire.com... http://videogames.procon.org...
Best Place To Go In A Zombie Apocalypse

If I were to be forced to endure a zombie apocalypse, I would go to an island. A small one, such as the numerous islands in Fiji. Though many people argue that the zombies could reach me because they can't drown, water pressure would crush them. I would stay on this island for approximately one month, allowing the walking corpses to become decomposed to the point that their legs can no longer function, thus slowly crawling on the ground. However, you could also go the one place the undead can never reach you. The living room.
kids can date in school

That's a good point you have about a kid needing someone special to make them happy when they are sad; however, that's why a kid has his friends and familia. And a kid below the age of 13 can have fun with his friends! Why at a young age should a kid date someone, have a heart break, and fallout of society way before they hit their teen years? I've seen it before. And high school is where kids get ready for the real world! High school is where kids become teens, find someone they TRULY love, and it's special you know. That's why kids should not date in school, but should wait until they are teenagers in high school.
kids can date in school

(Kids Should Not Date at All Until They Reach Highschool) Yeah, I'm o.k with kids dating, but they should not date unless they reach high school. High school is thought of as the bridge into growing up you know. It's where all the big stuff happens, where students are mature the most, etc. Kids in middle school and elementary school have no clue what they're getting into. I've seen it before. One moment as a 9 year old they learn about kissing, next moment, they might lose their virginities by the age of 10! That's why it should happen in high school.
Charizard would win scyther in a pokemon battle

****REBUTTALS**** "Scyther is faster, and would be able to dodge charzard's attacks. Scyther's speed is 105 while charizard's is only 100. Also, here's another fact about scyther's speed. "You can not honesetly expect to win this debate alone, on the fact tha hos agility is a mere 5 notches higher than Charizards, do you? Even after all those stats I threw at you? Charizard has higher HP, SP. Attack, and SP. Defence. In total. Charizard exceeds Scyther in 34 levels of ability. Speed being 5 more than Charizards isn't a large enough factor to weigh in the battle to make a significant difference. "Scyther doesn't only have two moves, scyther has various moves that will help him beat charizard like:"I never said that Scyther had 'only' two moves. I said that he only had two moves that would be effective against charizard. Then I provided a list of moves that scyther has, the same one you provided. ****MY CASE**** Dear audience, my ENTIRE case has been dropped, please extend all arguments. 1. My opponent has not proven that Scyther has superior stats than charizard, other than speed lol. EXTEND2. My opponent never touches on Charizards type being better effecting that Scyther's. EXTEND3. My opponent has not refuted battle style and behavior of both pokemon. EXTEND4. My opponent has not refuted that Charizard has more effective moves than scyther. EXTEND****CONCLUSION****My entire case has been dropped, and hers refuted. :)
Charizard would win scyther in a pokemon battle

I will accept the challenge. Although I agree with you, I will debate that scyther would beat charizard in a pokemon battle. 1. Scyther is faster, and would be able to dodge charzard's attacks. Scyther's speed is 105 while charizard's is only 100. Also, here's another fact about scyther's speed. "Scyther is also noted for its agility. While hunting in the wild or in a battle between trainers, it relies on its speed to strike quickly and to avoid being struck in return by its foe. If angered, it can boost its agility, allowing it to quickly tear down any opponent. Its nigh-supernatural speed can make it seem to be in more than one place at once, or to seem invisible as it moves in, strikes, and leaves the opponent before he can feel the blow. For this reason, Scyther is sometimes known as "the ninja Pokï¿½mon"." http://gaming.wikia.com... With than information, charizard would get confused and wouldn't be able to attack. 2. Scyther doesn't only have two moves, scyther has various moves that will help him beat charizard like: Rain dance Toxic Hyper beam Protect Double team Aerial ace Swords dance U-turn Rock smash quick attack Scyther can do rain dance to weaken charizard and use toxic, hyper beam, or cut to attack charizard.
Obama will not be our next President

"Thank you for arguing for me." -I didn't argue for you. Let's see what I did do: I corrected your facts, your spelling, and your grammar (btw, you're welcome;), asked questions which you did not answer, and then went on to make my own arguments for my position. "You must prove that Obama will be our next President." -Incorrect. Besides the fact that this cannot be proven or disproven, as I already told you, neither my arguments nor my position are restricted to parameters you set during your R2. I am not arguing that Obama will be President, I am arguing that he *might* not be President, and you are arguing that he *will* not be President. There is an important difference, whether you see it or not. Also, as I said, the burden of proof is on you, once again to prove something that cannot be proven, and you just burned a round on nothing, but that's ok because you didn't really have a choice. "I like your username, does it have any special meaning? And the picture on your profile, who is that? You? Your turn:)" -Ok... To answer: Not really, Dr. Haustein, and no:) One more to go Britt
Obama will not be our next President

Thank you for arguing for me. Obama will not be our next President 1. Ignorance: Under this category falls those voters who are white (or other) and will not vote for Obama because he is black (mulatto, actually), blacks who will not vote for him because he isn't "black enough," women and men who will not vote for him because Hillary isn't on the ticket, women who will vote for McCain *just* because he has a female on the ticket, and those that will not vote for him because they would rather have a beer and a barbecue with McCain, or rather have McCain change their car tire when they get a flat. 2. "Legalism": There are already thousands of lawyers working for both campaigns, and it seems inevitable with the closeness of the race and how much is at stake, historically and politically, that they will swoop in and take over, much like 2000. 3. Karl Rove: He works with the McCain campaign (all while being an objective consultant on Fox News), and no Democrat can compete with him, either strategically or tactically. His "style" will end up dragging both candidates through the mud and destroy whatever confidence anyone has left in the American political process. You must prove that Obama will be our next President. So far you are not doing so well. My arguments in the first round were exactly what they are, arguments for the first round. In the second round I will go into the rest of my argument, that you have already lined out for me quite well. Thank you. Remember, we are debating on whether or not Obama will be our next President. I say he will not, you say he will being the negative. I like your username, does it have any special meaning? And the picture on your profile, who is that? You? Your turn:). P.S. We are not debating on the morals of the campaigns or the voters, we are just debating whether or not Obama will be our next President. Try in the next round to give me some reasons WHY Obama will be our next President.
Obama will not be our next President

Obama will not be our next President. I have three arguments for this stance on this debate. 1.RACE-Unfortunately America is not ready for a African American President. Racism is not far enough in our past yet. I am a Union member. Out of the twenty seven people I work with there are three Republicans, including myself. The "dems" I work with were split, twenty for Clinton, four for Obama. When Clinton lost the nomination twenty of the "Dems" said they would NOT vote for Obama. Race was the main factor in this swing but the flag and his Pastor were also included in there switch. At least in the white blue collared class it would be safe to say this is a common trend. 2.Division-The Democratic Party has developed deep division in this once honorable Party. With the Sixties brought Liberal ideas and the Democratic Party was quick to pick these votes up. In doing so they alienated there Party, but bonds are hard to break and the blue collar "dems" were and are not quick to switch sides. They are not only blue collared but they eat, drink, and bleed blue. But the because of this the Party was and still is divided today. A very wise man once said "A divided house can not stand". On the other hand the Republican Party is extraordinarily One house. I say this was the deciding factor in the last two elections and will remain a winning factor in this election as well. 3.INCOME-Money will play a part in the election as well. The average annual income of the constituents of the Democratic Party is twenty-five thousand or less. Because of the demographics of the Democratic Party a large number of voters will not be able to make it to the polls without support from the Democratic Party, and most will not vote because of issues in their personal lives that will keep them from the voters booth. I know the Democratic Party does a very good job at getting to these voters and makes sure they make it to the vote but they can not get all of them. With out every single vote the election will be lost. The Party already lost about a third of the voters when they nominated Obama, without this third the election will be extremely hard to win. With the extremely wise choose of a female for VP the Republican Party has seen a enthusiasm I have never seen my life.
I"m Pro-Life, Change my mind.

1) So what is life then? The human mass may contain life but that was not my question. I would not argue against your proposal that the potential for a new human being starts at conception. Though it must be argued that life and it's potential must have existed before conception. 2) It's not clear at all what you are trying to say regarding your religion, As I was only focusing on the "Pro-life" issue. Nonetheless; religious doctrine tends to be somewhat ambiguous and contradictory in it's regard towards lives. Therefore religious doctrine would be shaky evidence on which to base a pro-life argument. 3) I only suggested that pro-lifers tend to be selectively moral in their respect for life. In fact I would go as far as to say that selective regard for life is an inevitable human trait that is essential for survival. Answer me three questions: A. Are you vegetarian? B. Do you support the U. S. Led war on terror? C. Do you think that law enforcement agencies should have the right to bear arms and kill in in the line of duty? If you are truly "Pro-Life" it is incumbent upon you to answer yes and no and no respectively. If you cannot, Then you are undoubtedly selectively moral. I would strongly suggest that the spark of life that exists within a foetal mass is no different whatsoever to the spark of life that exists within all other creatures and human beings. In fact I would go as far as to say that the spark of life found within a foetal mass is no different to that which exists in all living organisms. I would therefore assert that being "Pro-Life" can never realistically be a viable human option.
I"m Pro-Life, Change my mind.

1. I believe a new human life starts at conception. This is when a completely unique different set of human DNA is created which determines everything about this fetus. Arguing anything but conception, Doesn't really hold up. 2. No I believe it's wrong without my religion forcing me to believe that. I'm part of my religion because I agree with the doctrine on my own terms, Not because they force me to to be a member. 3. How have I been selectively moral.
I"m Pro-Life, Change my mind.

Hello. What exactly do you mean by "Pro-Life"? As one usually finds that pro-lifers and anti-abortionists tend to be selectively moral. What do you think life actually is? Are you pro-all life or just the bits that suit your conditioned morality? No criticism intended here, As I would be a hypocrite if I suggested that I was any different. I would go as far as to suggest that the human condition is such that all people will be selectively moral when it suits them to be so. Regards.