BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

"demons have faith in God as the bible says, and they are not saved." Wrong. Demons had "proof". The Bible never states they had faith. Demons cant be saved, their judgement is already passed. "Saving" faith only involves mankind, not any other creation. The demons "know" they are doomed, hence their trembling. So while demons, do "believe" they are in trouble, the Bible never states that they have faith or can be saved. Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed { are } they that have not seen, and { yet } have believed. Demons saw God and Jesus. 2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; Demons cant be saved. I Corinthians 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? We judge demons. "Some people have a minimal faith but still are not saved, as con suggests any amount of faith is sufficient.... "not all who say to me Lord Lord" (will be saved) "have we not prophesied in your name...." etc etc" Where does it state that any of these examples had "faith"? They gave examples of their "works". Yet, it was obviously the wrong work. They did not do the one work required, which was to DO the will of the Father. What is the will of the Father, what work is this? Quick answer, have "faith". Lets see if scripture agrees John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear the requirements are either too vague, or too listy/dogmatic. the bible says if you confess with your mouth jesus is lord, and beleive in your heart that he was raised from the dead you will be saved. it also say if you believe in the lord you will be saved. it also has all kinds of other statements. i'm sure if you do these, that is sufficient. but what about various other scenarios, like the content of 'sinner's prayers' that dont include those things? what or where exactly is the threshhold? if you believe he existed or is God is that enough? probably not cause the bible says demons do likewise. what about a list of of common beleifs? that you rely on him generally, that he is your savior, that you are a sinner, that he is lord, tha he rose from the dead, that he was incarnated, that he is God, that he is the son of God, that you believe you are saved (plenty of christians say you must believe you are saved, or you aren't saved), substitutionary atonement v 'christus victor' etc etc. ask different christians, get a different answer, almost every time. they just have 'gut feelings' but dont have firm answers. see past debates from me on this topic, and you'll note a different answer pretty much every time. some say you have to admit you're a sinner and that he is your savior. what if you believed all the other things and not these? or what if you believe you're a sinner, and that he's a savior, but not that he's God, or a various type of atonement belief. eg, chrsitaus victor v substitutionary. some say that he is God is required, some say legal substitution is mandatory. and how do you demarcate the requirements for those who are new to the faith, and those who are really knowledgeable? it might be seen a okay for a newbie to miss a thing or two, but less understandable for the expreinced etc. does this come into play? so what's the magical formula?
Legalization of Marijuana

"we are all mature here.""No I am not."lol"You doubt my inventory of lays?"Pardon me. "Okay, that may sound accurate now, but drugs are apsychadelic substance people enjoy smoking, so it explains why people would be willing to go to such lengths to protect it."And video games are electronic forms of entertainment that people enjoy playing. Black market dealers don't fight to protect the product, but the revenue the product generates. Since revenue would still be generated if video games were illegal there would still be disputes. This is because money is still there to be fought over. " But while normal video games are legal, pirated copies of video games aren't legal. And tell me if I'm wrong, but I've never turned on the news to see people dead in a shootout over bootleg Halo copies."That is because the amount of money to be made off of bootlegs is very small, nowhere near enough to attract the violent kingpins that run the underground drug market. How could it be when everyone goes to gamestop or pirates for free online? The same could be said for marijuana because everyone would be going to the headshops/dispensiaries for it, instead of going to the dangerous dealer(who could've spiked your weed, or tried to rob you). "It has both to do with them and the weed. I didn't make them pay me back because they were potheads. They've got better things to do with their money. If they didn't, then they wouldn't have to ask me to bring food when I went to their place." I hope you aren't implying that weed is the reason that they are in such a situation because there are many successful marijuana smokers (i.e. Micheal Phelps). But anyway, do you feel your friends deserve to be imprisoned and criminalized for eating your lay's? If you support prohibition then you do."And there completely are connections between two acts. If say, I'm a kid and I start playing Halo, I'll start playing Call of Duty. I know that there is a VERY large gap between halo - call of duty and weed - cocaine. What I'm trying to say is if I do one thing, I might want to start doing a similar thing."This is the equivalent of what you just said. If say, I'm a human and I start drinking Sprite, I'll start drinking Moutain Dew. All you did was name two things that are within a similar category. You gave no explanation as to why the one act compells a person to the next. Which is exactly what the gateway theory accuses marijuana of doing. The gateway theory in itself is a logical fallacy (please look up if you don't know what that is). Here is a link to a site with all the logical fallacies. The gateway theory is the first fallacy, Faulty Cause. http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu... Thanks and it's been a pleasure debating! I welcome constructive criticism from all. Vote for me everyone!!
Legalization of Marijuana

"we are all mature here."No I am not."Then, I promise you would see shootouts of video game dealers protecting their merchandise."Okay, that may sound accurate now, but drugs are apsychadelic substance people enjoy smoking, so it explains why people would be willing to go to such lengths to protect it. But while normal video games are legal, pirated copies of video games aren't legal. And tell me if I'm wrong, but I've never turned on the news to see people dead in a shootout over bootleg Halo copies."I doubt you had a such a substantial amount of lays that you were little more than annoyed about what happened."You doubt my inventory of lays?"If you were, then you should have made sure they paid you back and if they didn't that's on them not weed." It has both to do with them and the weed. I didn't make them pay me back because they were potheads. They've got better things to do with their money. If they didn't, then they wouldn't have to ask me to bring food when I went to their place."Please reveiew and try to understand what I said so you can properly respond"Okay, this time I got of my lazy @$$ (metaphorically, I'm still sitting here) and read your thing on gateway drugs. And there completely are connections between two acts. If say, I'm a kid and I start playing Halo, I'll start playing Call of Duty. I know that there is a VERY large gap between halo - call of duty and weed - cocaine. What I'm trying to say is if I do one thing, I might want to start doing a similar thing. It's a psychology thing, I guess.
Legalization of Marijuana

"Should video games be illegal? What about sports or talking to women?"Say what you will, I've heard it before. Quite frankly, I've never heard a case of a f***ing mexican cartel geting in a shootout over the latest copy of Call of Duty or some s*** like that.You made a good point about the harmful affects, so I'll give you that one."a gross overexageration of the munchies"I don't think so. It may seem like an exaterattion to you, but some of my friends are potheads. I can tell you from personal experience of being around someone who's high but not high myself that they ate every bag of lays in my house. Maybe I took it too far, but as I said I'm a bit of a d*** about the way I argue.And as for the gateway drug thing that you wrote an entire f***ing seminar on, if weed becomes legal then how does it stop being a gateway drug? People take pharmacudicals all the time illegally, so making it legal might make it worse, because teenagers can get in a whole lot more trouble, and now someone who actually needs that weed for cancer or something can't get it because some idiot names Brody needed to get his weed."I am not trying to be rude but "it completely does" is not an arguement."Okay, fair enough. What I was trying to say is that weed, like any other mood changing substance, causes crazy psychadelic affects. These things can cause certain people to do reckless and impulsive things, mainly because they're just so calm about everything. Alchohol does this too, but instead of calmness, drunks get pissed about everything. I'm not trying to say weed's a bad thing, I'm just trying to get people to drop the subject. It's not like it's hard to find or anything. Are you too lazy to visit a nearby park that you'd rather wait in a line to get some more pot?
Legalization of Marijuana

Hello all, I will be arguing for the legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational use in the United States (to at least a level equivalent to that of alcohol's) . I will begin by presenting a few main statements and their subset points if they apply. I respectfully request for my opponent to refute them, then I will challenge their arguments. Also feel free to add any points you may have or to not address any of mine that you choose. I do not wish to focus on other drugs besides cannabis although I intend to mention them for argumentative purposes if necessary. This is simply to establish a sense of organization, please and thank you. My Arguments 1.There will be little to no negative effects to the country/society from marijuana's legalization. a) Marijuana is not addictive. b)Marijuana is physically impossible to overdose on c) Marijuana's supposed "negative" effects, whether long term or short, are negligible, and many of which cannot credibly be declared true. d) The Gateway theory is fundamentally flawed e) Marijuana's intoxicating effects are not harmful to the users or others within itself (i.e. causing aggressiveness or other adverse changes to mood or perception), and therefore responsibility is placed on the user. f) Youth's access to marijuana will not be increased by legalization but will in fact be decreased g) assuming it is true that marijuana's potency has increased since the 1900's, it is an irrelevant fact seeing as how the negative effects remain unchanged. 2. There will be a plethora of positive effects resulting from marijuana's legalization. a) The revenue saved and made from marijuana's legalization will be substantial and much needed to the country b)The medical benefits of marijuana would benefit many of its citizens, saving lives and creating a greater quality of life for many c) Legalization will allow regulation of cannabis and therefore a greater degree of damage control. (i.e. preventing child access, stopping drugged driving) d) Legalization will improve society by ending prosecution and punishment of responsible, contributing citizens simply for committing the victimless crime of consuming marijuana for medical or recreational purposes. e)Cannabis integration would benefit our culture and uphold our rights as a nation under the constitution. 3. Even if marijuana was a harmful substance it is clearly no more harmful than legal substances (i.e. alcohol, tobacco) which have been perfectly integrated into society and are tolerated. Therefore, it should be treated no differently. 4. It is not the governments place to tell us how to live, but to protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for all.
Legalization of Marijuana

"I hope you aren't implying that weed is the reason that they are in such a situation"No I'm not. I'm straight up saying it has something to do with it. Not the direct cause, but I'd have to have my head up my own @$$ to say it had nothing to do with it. "All you did was name two things that are within a similar category."Yeah, because it's something called experimentation. However, I don't actually think the gateway theory exists. i was just stalling the argument because I was prepping a big gun. An undeniable argument why weed should not become legal.Right now, weed is popular. It's cool. And the best part, I do agree with you that it's about as addictive as other non-harmful things, such as video games. And like I just said, It's not that harmful. But one of the main reasons people want to smoke weed (besides the fact that it's a psychadelic and people love that s***) it's illegal. It's cool in society to be a troublemaker, so weed is an easy way to break the law a little bit without putting your life at risk. So imagine this if you will - weed stops being illegal. People might still smoke it recreationally, but it would mostly be used medically. Nobody would be saying "come on, just smoke some weed, it's cool." Thay'd just smoke weed a little. Guess what happens then? Cocaine becomes cool. Ecstasy becomes cool. All the things we're afraid weed is a gateway drug to. Those drugs are lethal, severely addictive, and ruin lives. They'll become the new cool thing on the market, because most people have an unquenchable need to rebel. You won't see people with cannabis posters on their wall listening to ragae music. They'll have sold all that stuff to get their fix. Weed is perfectly fine, but we shouldn't legalize it because it's the lesser of two evils.
The Unwinnable Debate

1. The only opposing position is to assume we do not exist, which is just as much unproven. 2. Conservation of energy; energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change from one form to another. 3. I cannot prove our paths are prewritten, but you cannot prove we do not have complete free will in a linear timeline. Conclusion: Con's assertions rely on doubt of the opposing position, not affirmation of his own. Is not the universe just as much a mystery as when we began? :)
The Unwinnable Debate

1. "Our World?" Does our world exist? We may think it does because we are in it, but that is assuming we exist. Our reality has yet to be proved by the CON. 2. Cyclic? That would require and infinite number of cycles, once again unprovable. 3. How do you know that we think? How do we know our thoughts aren't already written for us? Prove we don't walk into daylight, our actions and paths prewritten for us.
The Unwinnable Debate

1. This is possible, but we have no perception of that being. We cannot assert such a claim based on our current view of our world. 2. If the universe began, this would be true. However, if the universe is cyclic, it is theoretically infinite. Infinity is at least very plausible. 3. Does our ability to think about such things not affirm our existence in what we designate "reality"? "Cogito ergo sum" - Descartes [1] [1] http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com...
The Unwinnable Debate

1. Do WE truly exist while we are asleep? Mentally, this could simply be metaphysical regeneration of our existence. It is possible that the only physical existence is that of another being, who may, in turn, be the dream of a higher being. 2. Considering the fact that the universe started some 15 billion years ago, then it could only be around 15 billion light years in each dimension. This is not considering warped dimensions or alternate realities or other such things that could theoretically lead to infinite sizes but have not been proven. 3. We may exist, but only to ourselves. We may, in fact, not exist simply because we are, in fact, the thoughts of someone else. Perhaps we are even the thoughts of each other, but that is not provable because we exist, but perhaps only to ourselves.
The Unwinnable Debate

Hi The God Hand, and good luck! 1. As far as proving we all actually exist, that is impossible. However, our physical bodies still exist to other points of view while we are asleep. 2. Infinity is currently nothing more than an imaginary figure, as we've found nothing yet that is truly infinite. However, we can't assume that the universe is NOT infinite because we haven't found where it ends. 3. "Reality" is the consensus of all beings' perceptions. By that definition, we exist.
The Unwinnable Debate

Hello, Debate.org. Today, I propose an unwinnable argument. This argument is around various facets of the nature of the universe. 1. Do we exist? There is no real proof that we exist. We could, at the moment, be a figment of imagination. Since we sleep, this could be when we no longer truly exist. Since we don't know how we exist, this point is impossible to disprove. 2. Does the universe extend infinitely? Since nothing practical in usage by humanity is infinte, and the universe contains everything known to be practical, then the universe itself must be finite. 3. Is there even a universe? Much like Point 1, the existence of the universe is not unprovable to be in existence. -The God Hand
Should Abortion Be Legal

Adoption is a solution to this problem, however that solution only goes so far. In the United States alone there are more than 104,000 children[1] that are not adopted every single year. I realize the counter argument would be well the child is alive still, yes this is true. However this example is in the United States alone, which does not come anywhere close to having birth rate, nor does it account for an extremely impoverished majority population. The top 10 countries with the highest birth rate currently are all countries with a high poverty rate, high rate of disease and a number of them have a high rate of war. [2] These countries do not have abortion as an option, which would be best for the families. If safe sex practices were socialized or abortion were avaliable this would allow the families to have a healthier life, become more prosporous and not having such high amounts of disease. Sources 1.)http://www.adoptuskids.org...2.)http://www.indexmundi.com...
Should Abortion Be Legal

Valid Point there. But even if the family unable to take care. Every life counts, the mother has to give birth and the baby could be sent to a family that longs to have a child. That could solve the problem, but delivering a child would be hard work and the mother could live peacefully. If the baby is aborted that is just show of the selfishness of the mother that doubts that the baby would be happy. I do see how the Pro side would think, the woman got sexually assaulted or raped, it's not her fault, but in old times they did not have that decision and that went well the mothers loved their child, rape was there but the women ended still loving their child. But why not now, well not everybody likes children and they don't see that they are the same as them but unborn, most people that have that voice of legal abortion already have been born, isn't that unfair for the innocent babies.
Should Abortion Be Legal

Thank you for the argument Con. Rebuttal 1: "...a mother that is supposed to love her child in every way, a indescribable loving way..." This is a valid point, however the validity of this point goes only to serve the selfish interest of the mother. A child that is born into an impoverished family, a family with consistent reoccurring drug problems, a family simply not ready for a baby (youth) and a number of other realities bring that baby into the world with a host of problems. If the mother truly loved the child in the manner which you say then these situations would not exist, however they do exist and will continue to exist if abortion is illegal. I don't think that abortion should be illegal as there are instances were it is beneficial for the family. There are many instances were abortion was not the correct choice, but infringing on someone's rights to pursue their own choices is never correct.
Should Abortion Be Legal

Good Statements can be made, for legal abortion but Life Starts at the 2 cells (Sperm and Egg) when they meet. Years ago Before all of yours (Unless you are older than 120 [I think]) Was slavery In the US people treated them differently because they looked different that can be said to babies as well, doesn't mean that they are not alive, or viewed upon as livestock. People who want abortion to be legal, want because they got raped, but why would a mother give up, a mother is supposed to love her child in every way, a indescribable loving way, not cause their children's death. On the titanic the rules were Women and Children first, but Woman already lived long enough and younger or even unborn children should have more chance than a grown man or woman. I think babies are essential and the 55 Million Soon to be Lives that were killed should have a voice in our community.
Should Abortion Be Legal

TermsLiberty: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. [1]Life:the experience of being alive [2]Self awareness: conscious knowledge of one's own character, feelings, motives, and desires. [3] If we are to look at a human life and, for sake of argument assume that the development begins at inception, this would seem that your argument would hold validity as all peoples are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by law. However this is not the case in many instances in our country, for instance, we have thousands of people incarcerated in the United States, which infringes on the pursuit of happiness. Hundreds that have had there lives taken after having lives on earth and not only a womb, due to the death penalty. Now we have people trying to infringe the rights of liberty by determining what choices they are permitted to make as a human with their bodies in terms of abortion. Seeing as the research is inconclusive as to which point humans develop self awareness we can not argue as to whether or not fetus's are alive. Which I would argue does not begin until at minimum one year of age, based on research by "Lewis and Brooks-Gun", and the experience of being alive as a human does not begin until self awareness is realized. [4] I will let the Pro continue the debate based on the parameters above. Thank you.Sources1.) https://www.google.com...2.) https://www.google.com... 3.) http://www.merriam-webster.com...4.) https://www.verywell.com...
Should Abortion Be Legal

I will be taking the Pro side of the debate: "Abortion shold be legal." First and foremost I would like to thank the Con for the opportunity to debate this topic! I would like to take this opportunity to define the argument further and common terminology that will be used. DefinitionsAbortion: : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. b : induced expulsion of a human fetus [1]Legal: Permitted by law. [2]Argument structure:Abortion has a number of gray areas, one common one which the Con defined in her first argument was that of rape. If it is amiable to the Con, I would like to look only at black and white of the subject and leave the gray areas be. The argument will be looked at only in terms of legality. I look forward to the debate!Sources:1.) http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2.)https://www.google.com...