BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
required threshhold of faith required 4 Christians to be saved is not clear

The Topic was, "the Required Thresh-hold for a Christian" to get into the Kingdom of heaven. Jesus is the Word of God. - un-stipullable premise of the religion. Jesus is known by many names - un-stipullable premise of the religion. Jesus did not change the Jewish religion one iota - un-stipullable premise of the religion. The debate was not founded on ones belief in the flesh of Jesus, it was founded on the Threshhold, the Narrow Gate, the Word of God, which is in all cases Arrogant not ignorant to deny, ignore or reject. No where in the Bible does it suggest that he Bible is the Word of God, yet it says Jesus is the Word of God, and Jesus is un-stipullably not a book. ie. The Word of God (the laws of nature/physics/philosophy etc.) tell us adultery is a sin. to Suggest that it is not is blasphemy, an unforgivable sin. It is not a sin because God said so - God said so because it is a sin. adultery: promotes the abandonment, neglect and disrespect of women; Glorifies unfaithfulness; enables womanizers; promotes jealousy invoked rape (which the solution for which is not forcing women to have sex with lazy men, disrespectful men, unfaithful men, drug addicts, criminals, arrogant men, fat people etc..); it promotes the lifestyles and perspectives of criminals, perverts, and corrupt politicians; it corrupts the imaginations, morals and ambitions of children; it leads to premature children which are likely subject to poverty and poor parenting; it creates lack of acknowledgement for responsibility; Adultery is in effect the root cause of all human error and social issues. It suggest faithfulness is unnecessary leading to depression and arrogance for those who are not " fortunate" or inconsiderate. * If a man is lazy, rude, a impulsive liar, arrogant liar, slothenly negligent - feigning ignorant, incompetent (unprepared or incapable), un-ambitious, abusive or in any other form disrespectful to his wife --- HE IS AN ADULTERER. He did not mean his vows, did not keep his vows, did not acknowledge his vows. He was in effect a RAPIST. NO scripture SAYS a man can rape a slave. They do not IMPLY that. Imbeciles who refuse to acknowledge what Judaism is, like to pretend they know something about religion and make false claims in order to make people hate the religion that they do not understand as much as themselves because they hold enmity against blasphemers and the corrupt atheistic system which they Presume is a valid example of the religion in practice. I was not off the wall. not even close. and in effect: All Debates require Both Parties to share Burden of Proof. You can not put a pound on my end of the scales and keep nothing to yourself. Pro was not debating. Pro did not contribute. in a debate, any and every debate, the SCALES are Even. Only a fool thinks otherwise. Summary: Anyone who thinks that the threshold is unclear, Denies the Word of God, is deemed a Blasphemer. "Not believing in God is condemnable"** (so that was obvious.) It is very clear. Don't promote adultery, atheism or abominations. I got One Button; the A hole.
required threshhold of faith required 4 Christians to be saved is not clear

cons points are all over the board. i question how mentally balanced con is. con gave three random, off the wall points about being thorugh the threshhold. he ignoresthat someone can believe that Jesus is God and rely on him for salvation and be saved? con just talks about raising your kids right, ot promoting negative lifestyles, and not promoting social injustice. talk about off the wall.
required threshhold of faith required 4 Christians to be saved is not clear

well i can somewhat agree with your inital points. if the threshhold is "dont sin" it's pretty clear. (though you could argue about what are sins and what are not, but i wont go there) the problem is we are all sinners and so we know to be saved we have to do something related to Jesus. con then goes on to actually state the threshhold. (i dont know why he bothered with the first stuff) beleive the word of God. this is too vague though, as i predicted. it's too open to interpretation, the bible is. and you still have to do something that the bible requires to be saved, and that specific point is unclear. at least it hasn't been elaborated upon by con.
required threshhold of faith required 4 Christians to be saved is not clear

I am the arrogant piece of Shi* that is about to debate you in this aggravating topic. CON: The Threshhold is very clear IT is an act of arrogance in all scenarios to be sinful. There is no ignorance for sin for any people every in all of history. There is only arrogance for sin, and no one has the right to claim ignorance under penalty of blasphemy and condemnation. The Word of God, is undeniable even when and especially when considered as being an unwritten, unspoken, untaught truth of our reality. Denial of the Word of God is arrogance even if you never heard of or if you were never taught how to act PROPER or morally. It is arrogance to be sinful. The threshold, thus, accepting eh Word of God, which regardless of it's nature of having been reserved, documented and kept in papers, is a Manifested part of our reality, and I will destroy you in this debate, regarding you as one who uses the Lord's name in vain to suggest blasphemous denial of morality is forgivable, not as a mere atheist imbecile who thinks that Morals are questionable - which is BS.
required threshhold of faith required 4 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 intoplay?so what's the magical formula?
Death Battle: Midna vs Fi

Light and Dark, tools that were used by Link in order to save Hyrule. But which element is more powerful? Midna, the Twilight Princess, and Fi, the Spirit of the Goddess Sword. Who would win in a fight? Does Light overcome Dark? Let's find out.Rules:1) This debate will be about comparing certain stats; Strength, Agility, Durability, Abilities, and Equipment.2) My opponent will choose either Midna or Fi round 1. I'll be arguing that whoever the Contender doesn't pick would win.3) No arguments from bias (Like if someone said Mario would beat Mega Man because there's so many Mario fanboys).4) No new information in the final round, since I'll be unable to repsond to such. Doing so will count as an instant loss.5) Attacks from Hyrule Warriors will be valid. However, mechanics from Hyrule Warriors (Weak Point gauge, Focus Spirit, etc.) will not be valid.6) No outside help. However, if the character is able to summon clones, that is allowed. But no more than 3 clones out at a time.7) The battle will take place in a 100ft x 100ft x 75ft arena, so no homefield advantage is present.8) No trolling of any sort.Stats:These are the stats we're going to discuss in the fight:Strength: How powerful the character is.Agility: How fast the character is.Durability: How much damage the character can take.Abilities: Projectiles, summoning wolf copies, teleporting, etc.Equipment: What equipment the character has, if anything.When accepting, my opponent will state their chosen character in Round 1, and arguments will be acceptable in Round 1. So, who accepts?
The United states should send a manned spacecraft to the moon

Point: A manned spacecraft to the moon would be unreasonable due to costs and efficiency Evidence: Cost of Mars rover : approx. 820, million(Keep in mind mars is significantly further away from earth than the Moon, which would reduce both fuel and time to arrive to the Moon.) Cost of sending a man the moon: Apollo from 1959 to 1973 adjusted to inflation would cost 109 billion over the 14 yearsExplanation: If all the time on the moon spent by man, it would only add up to a fraction of the time a rover could be on the moon. The costs and efficiency of the rover outweigh the benefits of a human in a space environment. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The United states should send a manned spacecraft to the moon

I happen to find your latest response extremely dull and it was not backed up with evidence to support your claim still. Until you can provide evidence, your latest claim is not yet valid and i am still in the lead of the debate as i have producedPointEvidenceExplanation yet a less proffessional way of making a discursive arguement could be followed out by:Stating your pointEXplaining your pointIllustrating your pointThat may become use to you as you clearly seem incabable of organising your arguement.
The United states should send a manned spacecraft to the moon

Thank you CON for stating clearly that robots are more efficent than human beings themselves. However you so stupidly are making the judgement that engineering a robot costs more than the food and water to send with a human into space. Do you know how much money it takes to build a space robot? The total cost of building, launching, landing and operating the rovers on the surface for the initial 90-Martian-day (sol) primary mission was US$820 million much more than youre claimed 200 million for sending a human. I think i have made my opposition look stupid here by proving that the expense is much cheaper for humans than robots.I invite CON to state another disadvantage with which i am prepared to rebuttle. Source(s): http://en.wikipedia.org...;
The United states should send a manned spacecraft to the moon

I would like to open by stating that sending a man to the moon would be a waste of money and a space robot would be significantly more efficient compared to a human. Cons of sending a human: The cost would go well into the billions, and the astronaut would have to return within a short amount of time. food, fuel, water, and oxygen would all add to the cost. Pros of sending a robot: As seen with the mars rover, it would be significantly cheaper to send a robot. The price of the first mission was 300 million and the second mission was 200 million. The mars rover was sent in 2003, and is still there, although its mission has ended. The rover would also have the ability to collect samples, analyze them, and send them to a site on Earth, all while staying in the same spot.
University Education should not be free

The only harm that you have mentioned is that taxes of the country go out to free universities. Response to that below: 1- If the argument is only about taxes being used to fund free university education then please note, this is not really a harm. Eventually, the purpose of taxes is to be spent for the welfare of the country. You have to show that in countries where university education is free, taxes could have been allocated in areas with greater benefit to the society at large than free university education. 2- My argument in favor of free university education is: It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that every citizen rich or poor is provided equal opportunities to be able to pursue a successful life. The benefits of university or higher education are immense.. Economic benefits to society of higher level education include increased tax revenues, faster economic growth, greater innovation and labour market flexibility, while individuals profit from higher earnings, lower unemployment and higher productivity. Costly university education becomes an impediment for the individual and the society at large to be able to reap these benefits. The cost of obtaining a U.S. degree is among the highest in the world and rising, which burdens local and international students with heavy student loans. The average amount of student loan debt again crept up for the Class of 2013, and is approaching $30,000, according to a new report from the Institute for College Access and Success. In its ninth annual report on student loan debt, TICAS found nearly 7 in 10 graduating seniors in 2013 " 69 percent " left school with an average of $28,400 in student loan debt, an increase of 2 percent from 2012. But the amount of student debt and the likelihood of graduating with debt varied greatly between both states and colleges. Some states had average debt amounts as low as $18,656, while others topped $30,000. Between different colleges, average debt amounts ranged from $2,500 to $71,000. Government has a responsibility that citizens are empowered with higher education through a free university education system to start giving back to the society. Students must not have the burden of costly debts over their shoulders for years and years after they graduate.
Tattoos Are Unnecessary

Thank you, Con, for your argument. I would like to point out that I am not denying anyone their desire or right to get a tattoo, I am merely stating why tattoos are unnecessary. I understand they are pleasing to some people, and I'm not telling people not to get them, I am just arguing that they are unnecessary. "I believe as it is their body, their life, their free will, their responsibility, and their choice, it should be up to the person of the legal age to get one."I do as well, but this was not my point (as I mentioned above). My point was that the tattoos are unnecessary. "Many people would rather have a picture, or a name on their body at all times instead of a necklace picture to carry since it is on their body, it's a part of them forever so they can always express the love, appreciation, and affection that person has for the tattoo of their choosing."They can, but that doesn't mean they should. Like I said, there are alternatives that make tattoos unnecessary. Also, they can still carry the memory of that person in their hearts, which allows them to both permanently keep the memory and keep their skin beautiful. What you are implying is that they are desirable, but I am saying that they are unnecessary, which are two different things. "They feel it is a part of their personality and they have the right to show their gratitude for the deep meaning they carry with them."I agree, they have the right to show their gratitude, but like I said, there are alternatives. "you can actually get a tattoo removed, or have it tattooed over"Again, that is very painful, and the only reason someone would do that is because either (a) they regret it or (b) they don't want to go through the pain to remove it so they have it tattooed over. "This is your opinion. Like I have stated before, many people find SOME tattoos attractive. "I admit, I used a wrong choice of words there. "I see it as a form of art, expression and a personal choice. If the person chooses to get a tattoo, grow the pain, and get something on their body that was intended to last forever, I see no problem as it is their body and their choice."As do I, but as I have said numerous times: desirable, but unnecessary. In conclusion, tattoos are unnecessary because there are other numerous alternatives. I am not saying people do not have the right to get one, but getting one is unnecessary. Good luck to Con.
Tattoos Are Unnecessary

I would like to start off by reminding everyone that tattoos are permanent. Now, I realize that people get tattoos so that someone, or something, can be a part of them forever, but tattoos are not the right way to do that. Why not have a picture of them instead? Or something of theirs that they gave you? There are many ways to cherish a loved one or thing, but tattoos are not the right way to do it. Our bodies are very important and not something to be tampered with. People carelessly get tattoos without thinking about the importance of their bodies. It's not right to damage the nature of our skin for the sake of a memory. If someone wants something to be a part of them forever, there are other ways to do that that are less painful, risky, and, well, more attractive. Why damage your skin permanently with the name of someone when you can wear a necklace with their name? Or carry a picture of them? Additionally, why have that person or thing permanently sewn into your skin when they will always be permanently sewn into your heart? The answer: Don't. There are other ways to show your love other than damaging your skin with tattoos. Secondly, tattoos can be very unattractive. I have seen people completely covered with tattoos, and no offense, but it isn't exactly pleasing to the eye. Why would someone want to ruin their skin like that? Just for a memory? Just to look "cool? " There are other ways to remember someone/something, and tattoos are far from "cool. " Thirdly, getting a tattoo is risky. When people get a tattoo, they might ask: "Should I do this? " "Will I regret it? " "Maybe I should/shouldn't because. .. " Now obviously when they get the tattoo they have ignored these questions. But that's the problem: people don't know if they will regret it or not, and they end up finding out when it's too late. (And I think we all know that tattoo removal is a very painful process). Also, when someone gets a tattoo, it comes with the risk of reactions with the skin like redness, warmth, a pus-like drain, allergic reactions. Granulomas, etc. People shouldn't risk these things just for the sake of having a tattoo. Lastly, I would like to address the purpose of people getting a tattoo to express themselves and their individuality. A tattoo will do nothing but damage the nature and beauty that is skin. If people want to show that they are serious and dedicated to their unique personalities, they can achieve this in ways that are less risky, unattractive, and painful. They can paint, write, sing, dance, wear their own art (like a T-shirt or other clothing types), etc. Therefore, tattoos are not necessary to express one's uniqueness. In conclusion, I believe that tattoos are unnecessary due to the fact that they come with too many risks, there are alternatives that meet the need for a tattoo, and they can be very unattractive. Sources: (1) . http://health.howstuffworks.com... (2) . http://www.fda.gov... Good luck to Con.
Time exists.

Pro titles debate....Time Exists Pro then uses definition that doesn't address whether the idea of time is existential. Pro then claims because mechanical clocks exist, then time does. Pro then claims that time zones are being confused with time. So, remove all knowledge of time zones from the minds of humans. Now answer this question...What time is it? The definition he uses claims that time is used to order events. Events are defined by the date they occur on. If something happens on July 4th then it is documented on that date. But by definition it also occurred on July 5th in another part of the world. That doesn't constitute a way of documenting "ordered events", it merely is a vague idea of when the event happened.. And technically, it having 2 different days that are applicable, the ordering of events is meaningless in regards to specific times. The use of past and future within pros posted definition of time is an ambiguity fallacy as the past and future, when time is applied to them, become chaotic ideas of when something should be documented as happening. Pro has offered no evidence that Time Exists as the title "claims" is his assertion. He contradicts the assertion within the first definition. Bait and switch, very typical of deception and an inability to actually have a consistent idea of time,
Time exists.

Let us revisit the definition of "Time", since Con seems to not understand it: Time "a measure in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them." - Wikipedia Premise 2: Since Time is the measuring and ordering of events, I don't see how we could have separate events without some concept of Time with which to sort them. It's simply nonsensical, and Con has not shown how we are to talk about the past, present, and future without referring to Time. Premise 3: "clocks are not faulty [sic]" means that the clocks are working as they're supposed to, and are not malfunctioning due to damage, magnetic interference, or incorrect assembly. It does NOT mean they are absolutely perfect at recording time. They don't have to be perfect, they just have to be good enough for the job. A clock, by definition, records time. https://en.wikipedia.org... If clocks don't measure time, then they are useless. We have many examples of functioning clocks that record time. Since the burden of proof for this debate is shared, Con needs to provide an example of a working clock that does NOT measure time. If he cannot do that, then he has no evidence for his claim that clocks don't keep time. Assertion: Con is confusing Time with Time Zones. "Time of day" is the time since midnight; since midnight occurs at different times depending on where you are in the world, the time of day in each time zone is different. However, if you and your friend measured the time since Texan midnight, you would make the same measurement, since you're using the method of keeping track (time), and neither of you is experiencing any significant relativistic effects. Con's premise: "My premise...you haven't defined anything remotely accurate to the claim." I'm not sure what you mean by this. I defined Time in Round 1. By accepting the debate challenge, you accepted that definition of "Time", so that is the definition we are debating (and no other). "I will not engage in any more rebuttals." Is that a forfeit? "Premise 2 and 3 are nonsensical, inaccurate, and ambiguous... You haven't even represented an argument, you've merely set up a train of thoughts and definitions that are demonstrably false." This is not a premise. Con has not put forth an argument for why Time doesn't exist. Con has burden of proof too, and has so far failed to meet it.