BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Your Existence is Justified By Burning in Hell Forever, if Not By the Blood of Jesus Christ

"As long as you say the things you are saying about Jesus, there is no way for you to be justified outside of the fire of Hell." This is the exact same thing that is being questioned. You chose to use that in a debate, that is all about that statement being questioned? "You have sinned against God. Your sin sets you apart from God. You are a sinner. What is He going to do with you? Your existence as a person who has rebelled against their Creator cannot be justified except by the fire of Hell.' If my existence has rebelled against god, why did he create me? Just because my existence is Justified by hell? How is god "good" in any way? "you will be imprisoned in the fire of Hell to satisfy God's justice against you"......if you don't repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be justified through faith in His sinless blood in His bodily resurrection for eternal life. " Jesus is no different from anyone else. He was a mover and a motivational speaker, with many followers. He was executed for claiming to be the king of Jews. How does my existence need any type of justification? I exist, so I exist. Whats the need of a higher power to justify it? You claim to say that the higher power created me, and that creation has rebelled against god, because he created me imperfect? Whats the logic in that? "You want proof? That's a foolish thing to ask for." My opponent choses to show me no proof, therefor he has none. When in fact, he choses to tell me how hell can really justify me, when that is the exact thing that is being questioned.
Your Existence is Justified By Burning in Hell Forever, if Not By the Blood of Jesus Christ

As long as you say the things you are saying about Jesus, there is no way for you to be justified outside of the fire of Hell. It's simple logic. God created you. You have sinned against God. Your sin sets you apart from God. You are a sinner. What is He going to do with you? Your existence as a person who has rebelled agaisnt their Creator cannot be justifed except by the fire of Hell. Hell is jutice against you. God made a way for you to be saved from it. But you want to go on the way you are going. You are free to do that, for now. Your freedom as a sinner cannot be justifed, you will be imprisoned in the fire of Hell to satisfy God's justice against you.........if you don't repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be justified through faith in His sinless blood in His bodily resurrection for eternal life. Through His blood you can be justified to live forever. Without His payment for yorur sins, without Him, your existence cannot be justified outside of the fire of Hell. It's Justice. You want proof? That's a foolish thing to ask for.
Your Existence is Justified By Burning in Hell Forever, if Not By the Blood of Jesus Christ

"If His blood does not justify your existence, the only other justification for the existence of sinners is the fire of Hell" Can I ask you why it takes Jesus' blood? God wants you to be saved, so why bring up Jesus? Jesus is no different than any other sinner in this world! Whats so special about Jesus, when there are countless other men who died for humanity. I fail to see the idea why god would send us to hell, just because we exist in the first place. We are imperfect? So let me get this straight. God made us imperfect, and for that sole reason, he would send us to hell. We exist just so we can go to hell. But, for some reason you say god is good, because he doesn't want you to go to hell, because he brought up Jesus? Why bring up the idea of hell in the first place, when all you need to do is believe in a sinner who is no different from us! "If your living is justified by your existence, does that mean that your death in unjust?" No, your existence being justified by hell is unjust. I would also like to know, where is your evidence that our existence is justified by hell. What is your true evidence of hell? If you say the Bible, then how do authenticate the Bible? How do you determine its reliability? I would like to hear my opponent's reply on that. "our living cannot be justified at all and only the fire of Hell can justify your continuing existence as a breaker of God's law" How is our existence justified by hell? I fail to see any viable reason for that. God created beings imperfectly so we can go to hell? "God made a way for you to be saved from Hell. You can be justified by the blood of Jesus Christ and have eternal life, but you will not be justified by Him if you keep saying He was not good enough, he was a sinner." No, god doesn't care about you. Judging by your statements, it looks like god is very selfish and immoral. He doesn't care how good about how good of a person you are. He just loves you enough because your sole existence is to burn in hell. All he wants you do is believe in Jesus (who is no different than anyone else), and he won't care about you killing, raping, insulting, or lying. "Saying it's not fair won't keep you out of the fire of Hell." I fail to see any evidence of hell, besides a overly biased book that has yet to be authenticated. Thank you for your reply, Back to you pro.
Your Existence is Justified By Burning in Hell Forever, if Not By the Blood of Jesus Christ

Ok, basically you are saying that Jesus is not God so it is not possible for His blood to justify you. If His blood does not justify your existence, the only other justifcation for the existence of sinners is the fire of Hell. God cannot have sin in His presence. You have broken God's law at some point, we all have. Since you insist Jesus was a sinner, then for you there is no way for your sins to be paid for outiside of the fire of Hell. If your living is justifed by your existence, does that mean that your death in unjust? Your living is not justified by your existence or you would have no death. Because you are not justified to live, all you will have is death and the only way your existence can be justified when your time is over in this world is for you to exist in Hell forever because you are a siinner turned againt God. All devils and people who have turned againt God will be turned away from God forever in the fire of Hell He remains glorified in creating you, but you will never appreciate His glory if you are burning in Hell. Hell is your homw if you are not justified to live forever.You are taking Bible passages out of context and twisting meanings. Those things are not worth answering. You are saying He was a sinner. All that is needed to say is that if your living is not justified by God Himself in that He gave His sinless blood in the Son of God as payment in full for your sin so that you can be justifed in His resurrection for eternal life;, your living cannot be justifed at all and only the fire of Hell can justify your continuing existence as a breaker of God's law. You have lost your freedom because you have broken God's law. You have lost your life because you have broken God's law. If you reject the blood of God in Jesus Christ as your justification for living by His resurrection from the dead, not only your life will be lost but your soul will be lost in Hell where all sinners will be confinied in the consuming fire of Hell so their sin can never again disrupt God's peace. If you end up stuck in Hell forever, the smoke of your torments there will rise forever as a testimony that God punishes sin. You must bear your responsiblity for breaking God's law if you reject what He did in substituting Himself to take your death, bureid, and rose from the dead free from sin to be the justifer of all who believe on Him.God made a way for you to be saved from Hell. You can be justifed by the blood of Jesus Christ and have eternal life, but you will not be justified by Him if you keep saying He was not good enough, he was a sinner. You have no way to be justifed other than the fire of Hell as long as you take that stance against God. Saying it's not fair won't keep you out of the fire of Hell.
Your Existence is Justified By Burning in Hell Forever, if Not By the Blood of Jesus Christ

"and every other person who has ever breathed God's air (atheist's too, it's still God's air if they admit it or not): sinner. " If you claim to say that every person in this world that has ever lived, is a sinner, then that means that Jesus is a sinner too. If Jesus is very special because he died for our sins (although, that can be debatable based on historical records), then what about other people who died for us? Why aren't they treated like Jesus? Based on your statements, everyone is a sinner. Then that means Jesus is a sinner too. In fact, Jesus was also a drunkard. (Matthew 11:19). If Jesus is no different than us, and he died for us (making people worship him), then what about the millions of soldiers, and historical figures such as Gandhi? They are also sinners like Jesus, but they also died for the sake of their people. I am assuming that you believe Jesus didn't get sent to hell. Then what makes others so different than Jesus? My opponent takes up the rest of the round telling me to carefully read he's statements once again. When in fact my questions are being based on what my opponent said. P: "Admit that you deserve to die now and burn in Hell forever as a sinner " C: "What? How does anyone deserve to die? God wants you to die and burn in hell forever? How is god moral? Why did he make us if we admit we deserve to die? " P: " Because God caused them to come into existence He has no right to punish them for being the imperfect creatures they were born as" C: "If god loved us so much, why did he create us imperfect? He thought that he was going to create brilliant thinking beings, that are imperfect, and just because of that sole reason, he would send us to hell? Because we are imperfect and we exist, means we deserve in hell? Sounds like god can't be called benevolent anymore. " As you can see, my questions are being based off your responses. I would highly appreciate if you can answer them, if it is not enough trouble.
Your Existence is Justified By Burning in Hell Forever, if Not By the Blood of Jesus Christ

I do appreciate that you are asking questions and making statements without insulting me. Few people who do not want to admit that they deserve to die now can do that. Most of them will say I am being hateful or ignorant or dumb or whatever. Most people for some reason are incapable of arguing with me on this site without trying to degrade and insult me. I can't disagree with anything the Bible holds true. The Bible does specifically adress certain types of antagonistic behaviour and does call people names according to their behaviour. Since you are showing me a measure of respect, I will not point out the names in the Bible that would apply to you based on the things you have stated in your arguments. For this debate, the only name I have for you is the same name that applies to me, Ghandi, Hitler, Muhammed, Mother Tersea, Bhudda, and every other person who has ever breathed God's air (atheist's too, it's still God's air if they admit it or not): sinner. All of your questions and objections have been answered. If I say more, I'll be repeating myself. For this round, I will only ask you to look more carefully at the questions and statements you are making and the answers I gave. You are repeating your questions and statement. I don't want to repeat my answers. If you didn't accept them the first time, yoiu will not accept them by me repeating them now. Scroll back and look. All of your questions and statements were answered. You are not accepting the answers. You can understand God if you try. All you are doing is trying to justify your existence outside of the fire of Hell. It's not possible to justify your existence outside of the fire of Hell if you are not justified by God Himself in the death, burial, and resurrection of God the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ our Messiah and our King.
Your Existence is Justified By Burning in Hell Forever, if Not By the Blood of Jesus Christ

You are saying it possible for Gandhi to be burning in hell? Then whats the point of heaven? You can be a mass murderer, yet still make your way to heaven! How is that is that moral, from a benevolent god? You have to have a certain religious belief to have a way to heaven? Whats the point of heaven, when all you need to do is be lustful, sin, murder, insult, but believe in a certain religion, and attend to a certain church to go to heaven? "Heaven, Nirvana or the non-existence which is the hope of the atheist." The definition of an atheist is: "a disbelief in the existence of deity" Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com... How exactly do you know that heaven or nirvana is the hope of an atheist? I highly suspect that you are giving false claims for atheism with no back up evidence. "The only payment God can accept as complete payment is the blood of the One who never deserved to die, but died on behalf of sinners who would believe on Him and receive Him as their Saviour" Historically, Jesus died for considering to be the "king of jews". Also, one death is not the same as an eternity in hell, being tortured a thousand painful deaths. Source: http://www.gospel-mysteries.net... "He is not a religion" Definition of religion: the belief in a god or in a group of gods Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com... No, god is not a religion. But people who follow or believe in god, means they are religious. You, as I suspect are a follower of Christ. You are part of a organized belief structure called a religion, and the name of your religion is Christianity. "We are sinners who deserve to die and burn in Hell no matter how much we are like Ghandi or any other esteemed example of trying to be good while being imperfect" If god loved us so much, why did he create us imperfect? He thought that he was going to create brilliant thinking beings, that are imperfect, and just because of that sole reason, he would send us to hell? Because we are imperfect and we exist, means we deserve in hell? Sounds like god can't be called benevolent anymore. "Ghandi's good works outweighed his bad works so he earned a 'don't burn in Hell' certificate" So, you are saying, even good people deserve to burn in hell. You can proof your worthy of heaven by killing everyone surrounding you, yet believing in Christ. I find that ridiculously immoral from an all moral god. "He created us because He is good. He gave us life because He is good." You are saying he gave us life, so we can burn in hell? He brought us life, and so we can experience beauty for 90-100 years, then burn in hell, solely because we are imperfect, and we exist? Thank you for accepting my request to debate with you pro. Forgive me, I did not write that in my previous round. Hopefully, we will have a respectful and enjoyable debate.
Your Existence is Justified By Burning in Hell Forever, if Not By the Blood of Jesus Christ

I would like to ask a question before I present my argument. 1. Gandhi was not a christian. Hitler, on the other hand was a Christian. If hitler asked to repent he's sins, he would go to heaven? Lets say Gandhi did not accept Jesus into he's heart. Gandhi deserves to burn in hell? Even though Gandhi's actions outweigh the bad deeds in he's life, a benevolent god will forget all that? Gandhi deserves to burn in hell because he was Hindu? "All religions focus on what you can do to attain eternal life in whatever mode or state is taught by that religion" Please provide further evidence or sources to make that statement true. "All religions are evil and bankrupt, some more so than others" I find this a contradiction to your previous statements. I believe that you are a follower of Jesus? You also believe in the Bible, I am assuming? Please do correct me if i am wrong. If I am correct, then you are a Christian. Christianity is a type of a religion. If you say religion is evil, then Christianity is also evil. Definition of Christianity: the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies Source:http://i.word.com... Also, what is your evidence of hell? If your reply is the Bible, how do you know that the Bible is a reliable source of evidence? If you say "it's the word of god", where is your evidence that the Bible is a word of god? "Admit that you deserve to die now and burn in Hell forever as a sinner " What? How does anyone deserve to die? God wants you to die and burn in hell forever? How is god moral? Why did he make us if we admit we deserve to die? Life is a precious thing! How does anyone deserve to die? I would like to know how my opponent justifies god as moral and benevolent. " The only thing that can justify your death is the fire of Hell which is the end of sinners if they reject God's offer of pardon for their sins based on the fact that He paid in full for them with His own blood in Jesus Christ." One death of Jesus is not the same as torture for eternity. Why did god create us, just so we can be justified with eternal torture? How is that moral? I would chose not to exist if I knew that existing meant 90-100 years of beautiful life, and then burn in hell because why? Because you exist.
These scenarios ought to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

Let me begin by thanking Ragnar_Rahl for his writing and for his time. This debate has gone in some areas that I hadn't quite expected it to go, but it has still been very interesting and certainly entertaining. ======= Case Pro- Rebuttals ======= ======= Scenarios 1-4 ======= 1. A 25-year-old male teacher has an affair with his 15-year-old female student. 2. A 25-year-old male teacher has an affair with his 15-year-old male student. 3. A 25-year-old female teacher has an affair with her 15-year-old male student. 4. A 25-year-old female teacher has an affair with her 15-year-old female student. All of these scenarios refer to one teacher that now sits before a judge and is waiting to be prosecuted. You've misinterpreted this debate by assuming that these situations refer to future possibilities. Consequentially you have decided to construct an argument retroactively. You're throwing in an additional variable, namely the potential for pregnancy, to draw a distinction between them. But none of these situations involved a pregnancy because they are all "identical". I'll just appeal to the fairness of the people voting. ======== Contention 1: Heterosexual sex doesn't necessarily result in pregnancies. ======== Even if I were to go along with your argument thus far it would still fail for the following reason. You have failed to realize that not all forms of heterosexual sex involve a risk of pregnancy. Heterosexual couples can engage in forms of sex that involve zero risk of pregnancy even without the use of contraception. You assert that heterosexual relations carry the risk of pregnancy but we know this isn't true. Oral sex carries with it no risk of pregnancy whatsoever. The Bill Clinton line of defense will not be tolerated as a rebuttal because it's completely weak. It was pathetic when he tried to use it and it will be even more pathetic if you try to use it. Oral sex is a form of sexual engagement and given the definition I have used for an affair this point will stand. " For the purpose of clarity an affair will refer to the physical act of sexual engagement between two people. " (Case Pro) Round 1 Your entire argument is based on the false assertion that heterosexual relations intrinsically carry a risk of pregnancy. However, we know for a fact that oral sex between heterosexuals can't result in pregnancy. Your argument could be surmised as follows, "Don't impregnate or get impregnated by your students. And don't engage in any behavior that carries the risk of this. " Since this is what your argument essentially amounts to it doesn't logically draw a distinction between any of the scenarios I outlined, because not all heterosexual sex carries the risk of pregnancy.
These scenarios ought to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

" This debate isn't concerned with what laws should be in place to prevent teachers from having sex with students in the future. You are arguing about what laws should be in place to prohibit this kind of behavior. We are debating how the teachers in my situations should be prosecuted after the fact." Having a contract means you get prosecuted after the fact. Prior restraint was not my advocacy and is not possible without policemen in the bedrooms of both parties, which is absurd. It's after the fact prosecution of heterosexual student-teacher relations that I was advocating. " This guideline would necessarily entail the view that none of the situations I outlined resulted in a pregnancy because it would be impossible for all four situations to end up in a pregnancy." The possibility of pregnancy is intrinsic to gender. If you exclude pregnancy as a consideration you are excluding a consideration that derives from the gender of the participants. The guideline is fulfilled merely by all parties being fertile (which is the norm at both age 15 and age 25). The possibility of pregnancy, among fertile parties, is nothing more than a question of whether the relations are heterosexual or homosexual (which is nothing more than a product of the genders of the participants), as far as the law can ascertain. "Furthermore your argument, if I understand it correctly, has the absurd effect of allowing teachers to have sex with their students as long as they could ensure these relationships don't end up in pregnancies. What exactly are you saying; that lesbian teacher should be allowed to have sex with their female students because they can't get each other pregnant." What's absurd about it? The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relations, on the grounds of the fact that heterosexual relations have a risk of pregnancy, has a compelling educational purpose.