BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
bible is not clear if we are justified by faith alone or if works are required in justification

I would like to start that Pro is attacking only my argument and did not actually present any new evidence in his last thing to refute what I said, even though I went and showed how I could refute his James passage. In response to James 2: 21, the two verses after that clear up what was meant by that. If you don't believe that, then you must believe that verses right beside each other are contradictory. Jesus never once said that you HAD to have works to be let into heaven. He made it clear that you should have works due to faith. My final verse is John 14:6 "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" In this verse, we show that belief in Christ is the ONLY way to have eternal life with the Father in heaven. Works and faith are not separate. Justification does not equal faith +works but instead faith=works +justification. Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." What James said does not contradict this but instead supports it. It isn't our works that get us into heaven. It is God. The only way for God to let us do that is if we have faith in Jesus Christ. As a result of having faith, we will do works however the works are a fulfillment of the faith. Even with our faith, without God's mercy, we still wouldn't be accepted into heaven. These last two verses and my explanations I believe have refuted what Pro said very well. Please vote Con. May God bless you. Thank you Pro for having this debate. I found it very interesting. God bless.
bible is not clear if we are justified by faith alone or if works are required in justification

first, so con acknowledes that his biblical support is weak, but yet still doesnt go on to get into anything else biblical. next, con ignores verse 21 from james which says that abraham was considered righteous because of his actions. he also admits that it is explicit that 'faith alone' doesn't justify. he seems to think that some how the excplicitness of the ephesians quote that we are saved "not of works lest anyone should boast", somehow trumps the explicitness of james. he also ignores all the passages from Jesus etc, that say that works are required. con does continue into philsophic reasoning, but doesn't show how it is faith only that justifies. he just points out that faith will have works present if it is real faith. again, a great point, but it doesn't prove that it's not works and faith that justify. basically he aruges it's faith = justification + works, but doesnt show show why it can't be justification = faith + works. again, his continuing anemic biblical support is a primary problem. the whole point of the debate lies in proving for or against certain bibilical support, and he has only mentioned one weak verse. you can't do this debate without getting into the bible. it doesn't lend itself to mere philsophizing only.
bible is not clear if we are justified by faith alone or if works are required in justification

First off, I concede that my verses weren't the best but I formed a quick argument just to start. Secondly, I would like to ask that spelling and grammar goes to me as Pro is confusing me with much of what he is saying. -Your James passage helps me. Vs 22: "You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did." His faith was made complete by what he did...that pretty much sums up exactly what I said in my first argument. For Vs. 23, we see that it was Abraham's belief that had God credit it to him as righteousness, not his works (which only completed his faith by showing that his faith was real). For Vs. 24, I see how that could be taken against me however that merely backs up that faith is only completed by works. Works without faith means absolutely nothing however faith with works means everything. I think all the passages are trying to show is that with true faith, works will be shown. Works aren't required so to speak in justification however they will be present if true faith is seen. The way I took this debate to be was that works were completely separate from faith. You are pretty much telling me that my argument is not topical when you didn't define exactly what my argument would be and only gave me a generality which I have fulfilled. Thus, what I am arguing is that works are not separate from faith, but are instead a part of faith and should not be considered different. So far, everything I have shown has supported that.
bible is not clear if we are justified by faith alone or if works are required in justification

everyone, even those who believe it's both faith and works that justify, believe that faith is the fist step. that verse from john that con quoted merely says if you have faith, you will do works. no one disputes this. con surely could have formed better biblical basis than this,b ut that's all he leaves it all. he then goes on to say that works and faith are both present, even if it's faith alone that justifies. this is all very nice, and a great argument, but there's weak biblical support. also, con simply ignores the James passage that says explicitly that we are not saved by faith alone. it also talks about the necessity of works. another passage by Paul says that we are "to work out our salvation in fear and trembling". if we focus not so much on the letters of the apostles, and paul, and focus on Jesus, we see an emphasis on works. In the story about Judgment Day, (Matthew 25:31-46) where Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, the only questions that Jesus asks the multitude concern works. Jesus also talks about the necessity to be baptized, participate in the lord's supper, etc. Jesus also gives examples of servants obeying their masters and doing right before the master returns. i could go on and on with examples of works based salvation being emphasized. i'll give him the benefit of the doubt that the verse at least emphasizes faith. but then we have all these above verses that emphasize works. how can we demarcate how jusitification is technically achieved with so many coflicting passage and theories? we can't. the bible isn't clear enough. we can know both faith and work are present, but not how they play into justification and salvation.
bible is not clear if we are justified by faith alone or if works are required in justification

John 14:12 - "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." This verse sums it up for me. See, faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven. I do find it a little hard to argue this as it is a very delicate process when dealing with the bible although I am glad I can at least debate with a Christian. As I said, this verse sums it up. With faith in Jesus Christ, faith will be done. Faith is - Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion. Belief is "An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. 'his belief in the value of hard work.'" I included the example for a reason. If said person (lets name him John) truly believed in hard work, he himself would be a hard worker. If he wasn't a hard worker, than he didn't truly believe in hard work as he himself didn't do hard work. The same goes for faith. If you have faith in Jesus Christ and in his works, death, and resurrection for our sin, than you will believe what he told us about work, and go do it ourselves. However, if we don't do work, do we truly follow Jesus? One of Jesus's last commandmants was Matthew: "19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."" If we truly followed Jesus and his teachings, than works will surely follow.
star wars is more scientifically plausible than star trek

Considering the vastness of space there is undoubtedly enough metal and materials to construct the Death Star and its Star destroyers.Building one imperial star destroyer would take more metal than at least 20 sky scrapers. Yes they probably could find that much metal and materials for star destroyers but the death star would require more metal than we've dug up and used in all of human history.We have also never proven that there are not additional dimensions so Hyperdrives do not count a sun plausible.I have no clue what the underlined phrase means.in the future technological advancements would allow this all to happen so Star Wars is no less plausible then Star Trek.According to this statement one day we will be able to violate E=Mc^2, we will be able to create entire dimensions, we will be able to get the power of several suns in a place the size of mars' moon, be able to create 200 gigaton weapons, and be able to destroy planets. There is no way we could violate physical laws, create dimensions, create 200 gigaton weapons, destroy planets, and get the power of several suns in a few kilometers of space; it is simply impossible to our knowledge. CONCLUSIONPro's only rebuttal is that one day future technology will let us do all the things in star wars despite several violating the laws of physics. Therefore pro's rebuttal is invalid.
star wars is more scientifically plausible than star trek

1.Star wars has AN ENORMOUS moon sized space station along with a fleet of ships kilometers long.2.Star trek's largest ship is 685 meters long and only six of those have ever been made.3. six 685 meter long star ships along with numerous smaller ones is more plausible than a fleet of starships that are multiple kilometers long mainly because of the sheer amount of material needed to build those ships.1. Star Wars has a hyperdrive which sends the ship into another dimension.2. Star Trek has a warp drive that creates a spatial distortion that it rides on.3. A warp drive is more plausible than a hyperdrive as evidenced by NASA experimenting on the method used in the warp drive(aside from the warp plasma and warp coils) while alternate dimensions are still speculative.1. Star Wars has a superlaser that destroys planets and star destroyers that have an output of 200 gigatons.2. Star Trek's most advanced ship has a phaser output of 16 megawatts.3. 16 megawatts is more plausible than the several hundred yottawatts required to destroy a planet or 200 gigatons.1. Star Wars has Star Destroyers that have a power core that outputs the same amount of energy as several main sequence stars.2. Star Trek has warp cores with a power output of 12.75x10^6 terawatts.3. A power output of 12.75x10^6 Terrawatts is more plausible than the power output of three stars.1. Star Wars has the power source"hypermatter" that when anihilated produces more power than an equal amount of anti-matter violating E=Mc^22. Star Trek has the power source of anti-matter which doesn't violate E=Mc^2SOURCEShttp://techspecs.acalltoduty.com...http://starwars.wikia.com...http://starwars.wikia.com...http://starwars.wikia.com...http://starwars.wikia.com...http://starwars.wikia.com...http://www.ditl.org...http://starwars.wikia.com...http://en.memory-alpha.org...
star wars is more scientifically plausible than star trek

"Since space is near infinite the amount of metal used by humanity is tiny proving pros rebuttal useles"It's not useless because there's a limit to how far you can travel within a realistic period of time."and also the rest of his argument was not worth reading and a waste, the phrase means as unplausable."I'm pretty sure you're saying this because you can't figure out a rebuttal for everything else."You have not proven me wrong yet I have proven you wrong."You haven't quite proven me wrong since you didn't make any actual arguments. I on the other hand showed that star trek is way more plausible with star wars unplausible scale and blatant violations of physics.CONCLUSIONI have given 5 ways star trek is more plausible than star wars while pro has given no arguments why star wars is more plausible. Therefore since the burden of proof was shared pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof while I have. Pro's only argument is that with future technology the things in star wars will be possible completely ignoring the fact that several things in Star Wars violate the laws of physics! Because of that pro's argument does not withstand scientific and realistic scrutiny.
Gay marriage should be legalized in the entire US

Pro's argument for gay marriage commits the quod nimis probat, nihil probat fallacy. In other words, his argument proves too much. If taken to it's logical conclusion, it not only results in the government having an obligation to issue a license to gay couples, but it also results in the government having an obligation to provide everybody with a spouse.The reason Pro thinks government ought to allow gay marriage is because gay people have an equal right to tax benefits with straight people. But if the government has an obligation to take action or provide a service on the basis that doing so ensures equal rights to tax benefits, then not only should the government issue a marriage license to gay couples, but they ought to provide a spouse for each person.After all, the only way I can have an equal right to tax benefits is if I get married. So if the government owes me that right, then the government owes me a spouse.The Surpreme Court has consistently found that the right of counsel guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment entails not just that criminals have the right to hire an attorney, but that if they are unable to do so, the state must provide the accused with a court appointed attorney.So if there really is a right to equal tax benefits that requires the government to take action in order to ensure the realization of that right, then not only would the government be obligated to issue a marriage license to both gay and straight couples, but they would also be obligated to provide spouses to people who can't find them themselves. The government ought to find me a wife because unless I have a wife, I don't have equal tax benefits with married people.That is the absurd consequence of Pro's premises. If we reject the absurd consequence, we must object the premises that lead to them. The faulty premise is that people do, in fact, have an equal right to tax benefits. No such right exists. Or, if it did exist, it would not be a positive right. It would be a negative right.A positive right is a right that requires another to provide something to you. For example, the right to an attorney requires the government to provide one. A negative right only requires others to not hinder you in your pursuit of whatever it is you have a right to. For example, if you have a right to speech, that doesn't mean anybody owes you a platform from which to speak. It only means the government cannot legally hinder you from speaking.Marriage and tax benefits are not positive rights because the government has no obligation to give everybody the same tax benefits, and the government has no obligation to provide people with whatever prerequisites those tax benefits have. For example, home owners have tax benefits that renters don't, but that doesn't mean the government is obligated to provide each person with a house. Parents have tax benefits that non-parents don't, but that doesn't mean the government is obligated to provide each person with a child.There is no positive "right to marriage," and there is no postive "right to tax benefits."
It's time to rid Dorset's hillsides of gay porn.

1. My opponent conceded that in no factual evidence he has given that the historical carving of a naked male giant was in any meant to be a "gay" symbol. I won't comment on his other remarks regarding this. 2. I cannot give my opinions to a village to that of which I don't belong, but usually (at least for many business owners) tourism is a very positive feature that allows local businesses to thrive. So the inhabitants may not enjoy the extra wait time for their meal, I can assure you that if the tourism were to vanish, so might many of the local pubs and diners. 3. Stonehenge is a symbol of Celtic origin however I doubt you will find many people advocating knocking it down. Simply because it is blocking traffic and because people don't enjoy the site of it. 4. There is a large difference between the image of a naked man on a DVD and one of an ancient carved giant which dates back to times shortly after the Death of Christ. Destroying an ancient statue simply because it depicts a male sexual assemblage would be the same as destroying many other statues of great historical and cultural values that depict male sexual organs such as: . http://gallery.nen.gov.uk... . http://www.berkshiremuseum.org... . http://imagecache2.allposters.com... So far in the debate: 1. I have successfully negated my opponent's views that the picture of "rude man" is a gay icon. 2. I have successfully shown the carvings historical and cultural value 3. I have successfully shown the impact the carving has on local businesses Since no clear proposition was stated I can only assume that I have successfully negated my opponents implied proposition.
It's time to rid Dorset's hillsides of gay porn.

With thanks to my opponent for taking up this debate, I will admit that my link didn't specifically state that the Cerne Giant is a gay icon. However, the BBC is a highly respectable broadcaster and their website is very popular with timid old ladies who probably have no idea that there is any such thing as "gays" and would be deeply shocked and offended if they learned that some men would actually prefer to suck some filthy, *****-encrusted **** rather than a nice pair of juicy ****, otherwise I'm sure they would have mentioned it. My opponent then goes on to say that the Cerne Giant "brings much tourism to what would otherwise be an overlooked village". Maybe the villagers want to be overlooked? Maybe they don't want a load of tourists in their Fiat 500's and Jeep Wranglers taking up their parking spaces? Maybe they don't want to have to wait to be served in the village pub while a couple of effeminate men deliberate over whether to have the mushroom quiche or the crayfish salad for lunch? Yes, the carving may be of Celtic origin, I don't doubt it for a moment. But so what? The Celts also used to sacrifice virgins but we don't continue that practice for the sake of tradition. Then my opponent wrote: "I negate that the statue has anything to do with homosexuality…" What? When a heterosexual bloke go walks into a shop in order to buy a DVD and he sees one with a picture of a man with a massive great erection on the front cover, he doesn't think: "Oh, I expect that's a film about ancient fertility symbols…" No, he thinks: "That's gay porn, it's time to move on very quickly now…" Finally my opponent suggested that the Cerne Giant should be preserved for cultural and historical reasons. That's all very well and good for him – he lives in Pennsylvania. As far as I know, there are no massive gay porn carvings in that particular state. If there were, and had to take long detours in order to avoid 30 ft long penises, he might think differently!
It's time to rid Dorset's hillsides of gay porn.

1. I negate that anywhere (in the only factual piece of information posted by my opponent) in the article does it mention about the carving being that of a "gay icon" 2. Also the same piece of information posted by my opponent states this: "He has brought notoriety and tourism to the village of Cerne Abbas; people have travelled from all over the world to see the figure, which is also known as 'The Rude Man'. " Furthermore it goes on to state: "This is a common Celtic symbol and could date the Giant as far back as 180AD. " My point being that obviously the said carving brings much tourism to what would otherwise be an overlooked village. Additionally the carving is an ancient celtic symbol which preserves the celtic culture. It dates back almost as far as the death of Jesus. In fact, the statue has also spurred much public debate as to its origin. Therefore I negate that the statue has anything to do with homosexuality and will continue hold that position until my opponent shows more factual evidence supporting his position. Additionally I affirm that the statue has much cultural and historical value and should be preserved if only for these prominent values.
It's time to rid Dorset's hillsides of gay porn.

Every time I travel through the village of Cerne Abbas in Dorset, England, I am sickened to the pit of my stomach by the sight of an 180ft figure of a sexually aroused man, which has been cut into a nearby hillside and which dominates the landscape for miles around. http://www.bbc.co.uk... If the figure were that of a buxom teen lovely fiddling with herself, no doubt the PC brigade would have had the giant image ploughed over years ago, but because it's a gay icon, it receives the full protection of the law. It's time for decent, hardworking heterosexual men to assert our right to live in an environment free from giant gay chalk porn engravings and to that end I urge you to vote Pro. Thank you.
Biotechnology

According to the OECD definition, biotechnology is: "The application of science and technology to living organisms, as well as parts, products and models thereof, to alter living or non-living materials for the production of knowledge, goods and services. " Simply put, it is a technology that is based on biology, which uses living organisms to make innovative products that improve our lives. Have access to safe and affordable food while enabling more food to be grown using less land,& energy