BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We are not saved by faith alone

"You are the one who needs to see reason. No, that verse from Ephesians doesn't but lots of other verses do." You have yet to bring up a verse that does. "I still agree that God is Love, but there is more than one kind of love. The bible was talking about the VIRTUE of love. It wasn't referring to God as love. So again I ask you, if we are saved by faith alone, then why is love greater than faith?"I disagree that the love that this scripture is talking about, is not God. If you have evidence for your statement, please show it. I have given my evidence as to why it is in fact talking about God. "And where does it say that Jesus was trying to show his disciples the greed of the rich man? And you didn't answer my question before, where does it say that Jesus will step up and say "I have her covered under my blood, she has accepted my payment for her own!" ?"I was trying to make a point. Based on Christian belief, Jesus stands in your place on judgment day. He may or may not say those exact words. "Just having faith will not guarantee that you will do works to do works. And this is Paul speaking, so we know it is someone with faith. Romans 7: 14 to 25 "We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.15.I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate."Paul hates sin because he has faith that God loves him and doesn't want him to sin. He sins anyway because it is Human Nature to sin. Romans 3 explains this. You can never become perfect until you are in Heaven. "16.Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.17.So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.""The Sin within him obviously wouldn't have faith because it evil, hence an internal battle within Peter." "18.For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it."When the bible speaks of flesh, it means the body. The body of man is corrupt. The Spirit of man can be redeemed by faith. This verse also point to an internal conflict. "19.For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.20.Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.21.So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.22.For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self," His Soul is his inmost self. "23.but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.24.Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?25.Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin." "We know the disciples have done good works. If your argument is that Paul had faith but did not do good works, please let me know and I can proceed to pour upon you the many scriptures that would prove otherwise.
We are not saved by faith alone

You are the one who needs to see reason. No, that verse from Ephesians doesn't but lots of other verses do. I still agree that God is Love, but there is more than one kind of love. The bible was talking about the VIRTUE of love. It wasn't referring to God as love. So again I ask you, if we are saved by faith alone, then why is love greater than faith? And where does it say that Jesus was trying to show his disciples the greed of the rich man? And you didn't answer my question before, where does it say that Jesus will step up and say "I have her covered under my blood, she has accepted my payment for her own!" ? Just having faith will not guarantee that you will do works to do works. And this is Paul speaking, so we know it is someone with faith. Romans 7: 14 to 25 "We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15.I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16.Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. 17.So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 18.For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19.For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20.Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 21.So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22.For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, 23.but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. 24.Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25.Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin."
We are not saved by faith alone

First of all I need to point that you just ignored most of what I said. Are you ignoring it because you do not have a response? That 's not what it says. It doesn't say that works will come from faith. It says that faith without works is dead. How could faith save us if ti is dead? Did you read the passage I quoted above where it says even the demons believe? Even the believe-but they are in hell. And back to what you said about love being greater than faith because God is love. The bible wasn't talking about love as in God, he was talking about the virtue of love. There is a difference. So I ask you again, if we are saved by faith alone then why is love greater than faith? That verse from Ephesians doesn't say faith ALONE. We ARE saved by faith but not faith ALONE, we are saved by faith AND works. And if we are saved by faith alone then why did Jesus tell the rich man to follow the commandments and to give away his possessions when he asked what he must do gain eternal life? (Matthew 19: 16-19) If we are saved by faith alone, then why didn't Jesus tell him to have faith?
Theological Debate: Islam Does Not Degrade Women

Resolved: The religion of Islam does not degrade women.Introduction Islam [1] is one of the Abrahamic religions. It has basis in the Qur'an and the sunnah [2], i.e., authentic narrations of the example of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).It is a common myth that Islam dishonors women by degrading them and promoting men's rights over women's rights. Whoever wants to take the stance as Con (i.e., to prove the myth right) can do so by following the rules given below. The contender will have to prove from the Qur'an, or eventually from the authentic hadith, that Islam has a negative view on women.Notice that the resolution mentions the term theology, meaning that we basically debate the Islamic theological viewpoints on women, not the practical situation that lies in the hands of Muslims in modern times.Rules Breaking the rules counts as forfeit and annulment of arguments: No personal attacks. No semantics. No misrepresentation of the opponent's arguments. Clarification In the first round, Con accepts the rules and definitions, and makes an opening argument. The second round is a reservation for my arguments and rebuttals, as well as rebuttals from Con to my arguments. Final round is for rebuttals. Thanks to my opponent in advance.| References | [1] http://www.en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...'an_and_Sunnah
Theological Debate: Islam Does Not Degrade Women

I except this debate and its definitions and rules. I would also like to thank my opponent for a chance to debate,and I wish himw the best of luck. My opponent says that islam theologically does not degrade women. I disagree and I will be proving my opponent wrong. In the Qur'an, Sura 2:228 says ' Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status. ' It's basically saying that that wives have same rights as their husbands, but they are still not looked upon as equals. How does this not degrade women? To say that women are not equal to the men and are lower is clearly degrading women. Sura 4:34 says: 'Men are managers of the affairs of women because Allah has made the one superior to the other. ' This clearly says that men can tell women what to do, because the men are superoir to the women. How is this not degrading women? In Sura 4:11 the Qur'an says: 'The share of the male shall be twice that of a female' Once again it degrades women as 2nd class citizens. The Quran in Sura 2:282 says: 'And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets , the other may remind her. ' This is saying that a woman's testomony is only worth half that of a man. In conclusion, the Qur'an says that women are not equal to men, and if you ask the commen woman if being considered inferior to a man degrades them you will get a yes. Therefore, Islam degrades women.
SpongeBob SquarePants is the best show on Nick!

That was one episode. I have never seen a cursing kid before. That does not "require" a con vote. The voter's opinion matters, not ours. Also, kids don't remember that stuff, and if that isn't true, then they are smart enough not to be influenced by that. SpongeBob isn't rated PG, now is it? So, it's not influential or inappropriate. Naruto is a good example of a bad show. It's violent, has blood, and even six year olds have Naruto backpacks, sandals, and other merchandise. So, I think that SpongeBob is not a bad show. You are being overly critical.
SpongeBob SquarePants is the best show on Nick!

First of all, in the Sailor Mouth episode, they learned thier lesson and were punished. Second, Nick News isn't a show. It's a short series, meaning it is too short to be a show and they can't put it on the show lineup. Third, people learn lots of valuable lessons from SpongeBob. Such as... "Idol worship is unhealthy." -Patrick "Never underestimate what looks like a moron." -Sandy about Patrick "All you need to fly is friendship." -Spongebob "As long as you belive, anything is possible!" -SpongeBob Many other things have been said like that.
SpongeBob SquarePants is the best show on Nick!

Spongebob is not the best show on nickolodean for 1 Reason: It is bad for kids and sends bad messages. One episode in particular is terrible for children watching the show. The "Sailors Mouth" Episode was sent bad messages to children watching the show because they learned to curse and swear from this episode and found it acceptable since spongebob was doing it, so they felt as though it was okay for them to do. This is terrible for kids and children should not be exposed to that type of action in an animated childrens show. Now, the question of whether or not spongebob is the best show on Nick: Spongebob is not the best show on Nickolodean, i am going to declare the most important thing for children to get out of a television program is Education. This is arguable by my opponent if they feel this is not true. Education is the most important thing a child can take from a television show because otherwise they are just sitting there, not doing anything and they are not learning anything so they are not engaged and not doing anything. This is espessially true in Spongebob, kids do not learn from spongebob, all they do is watch him run around and be a weird sponge at the bottom of the ocean. They learn only things such as Cursing and other bad things from spongebob. The best show on Nickolodean is Nick News, the reason? Nick News has kids engaged and thinking about the world around them. It does not teach children bad ideals such as cursing or other bad morals such as ones learned from spongebob. Nick News has people Engaged and thinking about the world around them, this is a good thing because it is also something the parents can engage their children on, because they can actually get into the news and talk with their kids about it. The Nick News is also good for kids because it tunes it down for a level children can understand and make sense of. Thinking of the world around you is critical to education, that helps with your world knowledge and helps you make sense of things, this is why Nick News is more educational then Spongebob. My opponent, in order to win this debate must argue my value of what makes a show the "best" which i framed as Education. They must argue how they are either more educational then Nick News or they must offer a new value as to what makes a show the "Best". -AJN0592
SpongeBob SquarePants is the best show on Nick!

SpongeBob SquarePants has been around for 9 years now, and it's had 1 movie, several tv specials including "Where's Gary?", "WhoBob WhatPants" and many others. Fairly Odd Parents is a bad show. A lot of the time, it is sexist. Any time there is babies involved, there is dirty diapers. I don't like it. Tak is based off of a video game, Barnyard is based off of a movie, The Mighty B is disgusting a lot of the time, H2O is stupid, because if they didn't keep it a secret, IT WOULDNT BE THAT BIG OF A DEAL!!! Oh, I'm sorry. They would lose their boyfriends! OMG! *gasp* Is this really something to be teaching to kids? The Naked Brothers Band, where do I start? They have no talent whatsoever! The six year old kid was caught having sex in the closet! The name of the show (enough said). If these people are trying to imitate "the rock and roll life style", they should just forget it! Icarly is not that bad. After all, it gives Seattle some well deserved reputation! (I live in Seattle) SpongeBob is the best. No one can ever resist that ridiculous smile or that funny laugh or that pure awesomeness!
SpongeBob SquarePants is the best show on Nick!

Okay, first, i would like to have you extend my argument about education which has not been argued at all throughout this entire debate. This means 2 things: 1, The Education standard is the only one in this debate so my opponent agrees with me on the grounds that the winner is the person who increases education the most. and 2: My opponent never argues my indicts on spongebob from round 2, which states that spongebob will only ever teach kids bad things such as cursing, but Nick News can teach kids everything about the world around them. This is why a CON vote is required. Now, i am going to extend my analysis which went dropped in round 2. "I would like to define what spongebob is, since this is just analytical, my opponent may argue this. Spongebob is an animated cartoon. this means it is for Entertainment not for education" - one of my round 2 arguments. and "Now, Since spongebob is not an educational show (its an entertainment show) it cannot possibly get the amount of education Nick News can provide to children who watch the show. Nick news provides the best education (and therefor requires a CON Vote) because it teached kids knowledge about the world around them and they actually are learning, since that is the primary goal of Nick News, not just a secondary effect from spongebob. Therefor you need to vote for me now because of the actual education provided by nick news..." - one of my round 2 arguments. Now, My opponent argues that Naruto is bad and that spongebob is not. My first point is that spongebob still has bad morals regardless of whether or not kids remember it in the end, and 2, it still cannot claim the same level of educational value as Nick News can. This is why you vote me up, i have proven that Nick News is a better show than spongebob so therefor there is no way that spongebob could be considered the "best" show on Nick. Now that i have completely disproven the "resolution" of spongebob being the best show by showing that other shows have a better educational value, you cannot vote pro on this resolution because it is untrue, because nick news is better and it is the best show on nick. -AJN0592
Define Love Objectively

Hi....This seemed full of potential for an interesting debate, and also an excuse for much philosophical rambling abstractions lol. So thus here I am.Love...that which is directly responsible for the very existence of humanity, and civilization. That ever so lovely potion of oxytocin encompassing our post synaptic cleft...holding our relationships to one another together, this magical glue is what makes society possible. After all, how could a father or mother raise a kid, or even withstand each other for that matter, without this magical crazy glue of mystery....Well, they can't, and wouldn't. So........what is this stuff " love" Yeah, it's just Oxytocin....that's about it...This transcendental ineffable sensation, is as is everything else we can possibly experience.....is caused by our brain.In this particular case, " love" is not whatever Pro claimed it to be...It is instead rather the explanation aforementioned that I gave ^, the actual true definition of love, " objectively".In any case............This is both a valid negation of Pro's Case, and a logical construction of my case. Pro of course would have to negate my case on the basis of logic and evidence as I proved mine...and then reconstruct his... Which if he values logic and evidence will parallel mine exactly.-------------------------------------Evidence, if not understood and comprehended sufficiently...............“The increase in oxytocin during the period of falling in love was the highest that we ever found,” says Psychology professor Ruth Feldman at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, author of a study she and her colleagues published in Psychoneuroendocrinology. New lovers had double of what is usually seen in pregnant women.Evidence for claimed role in paternal relationships, and upbringing of offspring......as follows....."Biol Psychiatry. 2010 Aug 15;68(4):377-82. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.02.005. Epub 2010 Mar 31.Oxytocin and the development of parenting in humans.""Abstract BACKGROUND: The nonapeptide oxytocin (OT) has been repeatedly implicated in processes of parent-infant bonding in animal models; ""Oxytocin showed high intraindividual stability across the first 6 months of parenting and the OT levels of husband and wife were interrelated at both assessments. Maternal OT was related to the amount of affectionate parenting behaviors, including "motherese" vocalizations, the expression of positive affect, and affectionate touch, whereas paternal OT correlated with the degree of stimulatory parenting behaviors, including proprioceptive contact, tactile stimulation, and object presentation.Ergo.....Vote CON, if you value logic and evidence.Thanks, ;) I await your response.
Define Love Objectively

The purpose of this argument is to define "love" objectively. I have created the theorem below that as not been proven wrong which objectifies morality. The link below it clarifies how the theorem was created. I will make a statement of love in regards to the theorem. You may counter that statement or you may counter my objective definition of "love". The con/against has the burden of proving me wrong in any aspect. The pro/for has the burden of not being wrong. My argument will include to you the reason of which is why you are wrong. I do not consider this as misconduct. I am unapologetic, however, I will always speak in truth. I will be logical even if you can't find the logic. I will also sometimes speak in pseudo, in which you must interpret and counter of your own volition. If there is anything that I have exaggerated deceived, or lie about, then point out my discretion. This is an argument and I am saying you are wrong. I reserve the right to change my mind when presented with new information or evidence based on reason and logic. May the truth be revealed. The Objectivity of Morality: What is right and wrong is what one should or should not do. "The sole meaning of life is serving Humanity." -Leo Tolstoy It is right to follow the sole meaning of life. The only way to serve Humanity is maintaining its existence. Therefore, it is right for Humanity to survive. Thus it is wrong for Humanity to become extinct. You should not maliciously or apathetically end humanity. http://www.debate.org... It is right to love Humanity. I define "love" as taking the time to give what others need and is not selfish.
The 22nd Amendment of the United States of America should be repealed

The 22nd Amendment reads as follows:22nd Amendment Amendment XXIISection 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress. [A] Put simply: [the 22nd Amendment is] an amendment to the U. S. constitution, ratified in 1951, limiting presidential terms to two for any one person, or to one elected term if the person has completed more than two years of another's term. [B] A - . http://www.law.cornell.edu...B - . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Naturalized citizens should be allowed to run for the presidency.

And when the law does not represent the best interest of the people, it is not only our duty it is our responsibility to change that law , and that is in the constitution. The president has always set an example for the people to follow. If he is a touches the lives of more people, if he is a bad one the opposite is true. But we need to recognize that in addition to the president , also the presidential requirements effect everyone else because the alienate Naturalized citizens from doing any public good becuase the goals for them have been set lower than the goals for anyone else, and that is costing us. These wonderful talented people are turning away and focusing more on them then others and that is selfish but it didn't start with them it started with the constitutional requirements set more than two hundred years ago. Remove the requirement and have faith in the people, and only good will come from that. And to make sure I hit your points espionage is not widespread and is very impractical to be carried out by spending millions of dollars in campaigns money that by the way has to be gained by spreading out $2,300 transactions per person, because that is the law. And then on the odd chance you win to continue being a spy throughout your tenure its just impractical no one will spend the funds it wont happen at the level. The only levels where it could happen would be perhaps on the City level, and very improbably maybe the state level. But thats a moot point because on both those levels Naturalized Citizens can run for the office. Taking away the right to run for president on the basis of reducing espionage infiltration In my opinion is not a strong reason for pulling the carpet underneath many ellegable candidates; I don't think we'll gain very any security from that. Ben Franklin once said "Those who will give a little liberty, for the sake of a little security: Deserve neither and will Loose them booth." In the argument that you brought up I think Franklin words are applicable.
Naturalized citizens should be allowed to run for the presidency.

I know, some terrorists were American, people shouldn't be judged by nationality (I know, I sound hypocritical), and people should analyze someone's career in public office, but still, you need to know and respect the law of the land, kids. That's just how it goes. We also need to eliminate the risk of espionage (I'm repeating myself, I know). Are you convinced?