BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus Is the Messiah Prophecied in the Old Testament

Thank you for showing superb conduct and good arguments throughout this debate. Micha 5My opponent drops the contention to show Jesus was messiah based upon this verse. In efforts to prove Jesus is Messiah, I feel this was a week "proof text" "This pssage is out of context"I could not disagree more. Where is your proof that Jesus wasn't king? He was king of the Jews! He was even brought to death with that title.=> He was mocked with that title. That does not mean he is king. Furthermore, no-where was he even crowned king!"The Messiah will be a king" The Lord wwill be His God. He will be great to the ende earth.That passage is completly correct! And yes, Jesus i God, but he wasn't God when he was on the earth. He was 100%human while he lived on the earth, therefore he could've had a God. => There are so many things wrong with this assertion. Hebrews states, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." Therefore, he cannot go from being G-d, to not being G-d. In addition, Micha re-affirms that G-d is always the same and is unchangable. Jesus actually as a conquering God. Just not conquering in how you view it. He conquerred sin, death, defeat, and lies. I think he is a very conquerring.=> I do not quite understand.Daniel 9You are rgiht when you say they didn't use this as evidene, but why did the need to? There was always so much evidence anyways, that more would be over the top. After all, Jesus want us to make the decision for ourselves.=> My opponent drops the fact that it is not a messianic prophecy.(See http://jewsforjudaism.org...) .=> If the NT writers would have used it, it would have been a very strong proof text. Therefore, we can be quite certain that they did not understand it as a Messianic prophecy.CON'S ARGUMENT"The act is the virgin birth is contradicted" ....Please do explain, as I'm sure it is another of those "contradicted" parts that you claim.=> Romans 1:3 as stated later on in that round.To answer the contradiction, my opponent states, "It is just saying again that he is of the lineage of and descendant of David. "Seed" was used comletly differnt back then. As it was used to say that he is a descendant. It also says that He was of the literal seed, because Joseph is a descendant of David, so is Jesus."=> "Seed" ment "Sperm" or "Offspring" (Strong's) Therefore, according to Paul, it seems highly likely that he rejected belief in a virgin birth. => Jesus cannot be of the offspring of David because of the mythical "virgin birth." As stated earlier, it was the father that was vital in determining which Tribe a person was from Romans 1:3As pointed out earlier, "seed" meant "sperm." I point out in my debate with ReformedArsenal that the definition, according to Strong's is: the product of this semen, seed, children, offspring, progeny http://www.blueletterbible.org......
Jesus Is the Messiah Prophecied in the Old Testament

Let me just say what an honor it is to debate against you!Here are some questions for you:Who do you think Jesus is?Do you think He died on the cross?When Peter acknowledged Jesus' Messiahship, Jesus did not correct Peter, but accepted Peter's answer (Matt. 16: 17-19). The woman from Samaria stated her belief that the Messiah was coming (John 4: 25). "Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he" (John 4: 26). Jesus' teaching and miracles were proof of his Messiahship. Jesus' teaching was different from others in his day (Matt. 7: 28, 29). Nicodemus said to Jesus: "...we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him" (John 3: 1-2, see also 20: 30, 31).The word Christ which means Messiah was used over 500 times in the New estament. Most of the times it was being referred toas Jesus.Do you believe the Bible is true?If you believe the Bible is true, then you should have no doubt believing in Jesus as the Messiah. And rememebr, to be f a Chrisitian faith, you have to realize that ALL of the Bible is true, not just some of the Bible.Resources:http://www.biblequestions.org...
Jesus Is the Messiah Prophecied in the Old Testament

In Respone to Zechariah 9:9The text is a three line unit with a 1:(1:1) structure. The first line introduces the following two. The middle line has three parts, or versets, with the major caesura coming between the second and third versets. The first and last lines each have two parts. Internal semantic, syntactic, and morphological parallelisms characterize the opening and closing couplets. The lack of strict parallelisms across the middle, tripartite line serves to set off and highlight its content. The rhetorical peak of the unit is constituted by the central line.Each verset of the whole is unfailingly made up of two to three stress units. Totals are indicated in the left margin opposite the Hebrew text. The pattern constitutes the meter of the unit. It is identical to that found elsewhere in ancient Hebrew verse.The above translation pays no heed to the history of the text’s interpretation. It differs from other translations for that reason. Claims to the contrary notwithstanding, modern translations of the Hebrew Bible often calque ancient translations rather than directly translate the Hebrew text.Translators are sometimes unaware of the degree to which their work is determined by tradition. To be sure, there is much to be said for embedding the work of translation within tradition. It situates the text within a stream of interpretation that has flowed without ceasing for more than two millennia.In response to Jesus and GodYou are right when the Bible says God is one. God is God. Jesus is God. Jesus=God. God=Jesus. Holy Spirit= God. Holy Spirit= Jesus. Jesus, God, Holy Spirit= God. God is one, he is just comprised of what we call a "trinity". Personal experinceActually, having a personal experience makes complete sense. There is no way you have a personal experience with no one. So to have a persoanl experience, it's obvious you need someone. That person is Jesus.Conclusion Altough my ultimate rreason fo this debate has failed (leading him to Christ), believe I should still win this debate, as I have backed up, and provided points that say Jesus is the Messiah.Face it, there are NO facts or any sense that Jesus is not the Messiah. It's obvious he is!
Americans should curb the use of racially-abusive terms for white kids

My opponent states, 'a blink of an eye in terms of human history - they would become small minorities in their own ancestral homelands. ' True, but it is a mystery that remains today. Did they really come from that land? There is no scientific-al way to explain where they had first came from. They might of traveled from continent to continent. Who knows? 'That's why it is important to teach American kids not to discriminate against any minority: whether it be black, Asian, Hispanic or white. ' It will not be possible. Has my opponet thought of the idea of bullying? Bullies don't care what others say. They will keep discriminating on others as long as they please. In the 1940's racism was very popular against african americans. No one has done anything about it, so why should we do anything about 'white-kids' being racially bullied?
Americans should curb the use of racially-abusive terms for white kids

Have you ever heard of a country being outnumbered from its own race? " as follows: I am no scholarly historian, but just of the top of my head, I can think of three major instances where the indigenous race has become outnumbered: the aboriginal Australians; the Maoris of New Zealand and, of course, the Indians of North America. When the British first landed on these remote shores the indigenous majorities, at the time, had no way of forecasting that in a matter of a few hundred years - a blink of an eye in terms of human history - they would become small minorities in their own ancestral homelands. and, worse still, would be pushed to the fringes of society. That's why it is important to teach American kids not to discriminate against any minority: whether it be black, Asian, Hispanic or white. Thank you.
Americans should curb the use of racially-abusive terms for white kids

Good luck on this debate, 'So, in a few years' time, when white kids are outnumbered by non-white kids in American schools, and are targeted by the other children because of the colour of their skin, it seems entirely reasonable to expect teachers and parents to crackdown on the use of racially-abusive terms for white kids.' Firstly, teachers and parents should not be strict about the use of racially-abusive terms for white kids. Why you may ask? Well because firstly, the white kids where the first ones to use hurtful racially abusive terms to 'non-white kids'. It is literally impossible for the white kids in america to be outnumbered by 'non-white kids'. Have you ever heard of a country being outnumbered from its own race? No right?
Americans should curb the use of racially-abusive terms for white kids

White children in the United States will soon be an ethnic minority in schools. According to US census data "Black, Hispanic, Asian and mixed-race births made up 50.4% of new arrivals in the year ending in July 2011". (1) In everyday life this will mean that while teachers and parents continue to discourage the use of racially-abusive terms for children from the black, Hispanic and Asian ethnic minorities, kids from the white ethnic minority will be subject to such taunts as: ‘culo blanco' (Spanish for ‘white arse); ‘pal figi' (Haitian creole for ‘pale face'); ‘gui-lo' (Cantonese for ‘white devil') and ‘okina hana' (Japanese for ‘big nose'). So, in a few years' time, when white kids are outnumbered by non-white kids in American schools, and are targeted by the other children because of the colour of their skin, it seems entirely reasonable to expect teachers and parents to crackdown on the use of racially-abusive terms for white kids. Thank you. (1) http://www.bbc.co.uk...
The terms black and white should not be used to identify ethnicity

So I will propose that we should not use these terms to represent a race or ethnic group. social definitionsBlack- refers to African Americans, of darkest color: being the color of coal or carbon white -refers to anyone of fair complexion who does not fit the standards of other ethnicity's,dictionary definitionsBlack- of darkest color: being the color of coal or carbonWhite-of the color of pure snow ethnicity-ethnic affiliation or distinctiveness. Structure1-acceptance2-positions3-rebuttals4-summarization/rebuttalsA forfeit equals automatic win to the opposser.
Should parents be responsible for crimes committed by their children

Here’s a huge problem with your argument, you see, parents strictly only are an influence on the child, but they do not actually make the child’s decisions. Children are of their own free will, and should therefore be held for their own actions seeing that they are strictly the ones that chose to do their action. What if there was a group of really good parents but against all things they taught, the child went out to murder and steal? What if that was due to violent things they saw on TV or video games? Logically the parents wouldn’t be held accountable for their actions, but through your arguments you say they should be. The main point: Children choose. Parents influence. Now under the circumstance that a parent is directly influencing a child to murder and steal, that is understandable, but that is not how it works. Parents indirectly influence a child through the kind of environment they put the child in. Indirect influence is not something you can hold someone accountable for, and so therefore parents should not be held accountable for the actions of their child.
Should parents be responsible for crimes committed by their children

Parents should be responsible for their children's crimes for a variety of reasons. Children are a reflection of their parents. Your parents curse, the child is most likely to curse, the parents believe in God, the child believes in God. Racism is past down from generation to generation because of children are exposed to that kind of behavior. Also when kids go out and rob someone where are their parents? When a child is committed for murder the parent should be also charged for a lesser offense. if parents are charged they will strive harder to be a better parent and role model.
Ellie is WAY cooler than Holton!!!!!

Firstly, 500 characters are not enough. Secondly my opponent did not define the topic or terms so my definition will be the only acceptable ones. Ellie is the owner of a doggy Daycare and does not even own the whole thing. How cool is that? Holton is a amazing pole valter and doing sports is "cooler" than having a doggy daycare. If you do not believe me look at the pictures which will be in the next round. http://www.directathletics.com... http://www.maddieandelliesho...
Ellie is WAY cooler than Holton!!!!!

Ellie is so much cooler than Holton. Holton don't even bother answering because whatever you say is going to be pointless and completely irrational. There is nothing you can say to help your case because it WILL be lame. I hope you accept this debate because I would like to argue with someone and I like nothing more than to argue with you. Please do not take any offense to anything said and good luck! lol
The KCA is ridiculous.

I accept. As Con, I will argue that the KCA is not ridiculous. There are probably some people who don't know what the KCA is, so I would like to explain what it is very fast. The KCA (the kalam cosmological argument) is an argument for the existence of God, and it goes like this: P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. P2: The universe began to exist. C: Therefore, the universe has a cause. With that said, I'm looking forward to a fruitful debate. I now turn it over to Pro for his arguments.
God exists

I see that you have derived it from specific sources. Did you watch it to point out some of the minor/major philosophical flaws? "Before that moment there was the infinite past" Incorrect. Past past/ adjective 1. gone by in time and no longer existing. "the danger is now past" synonyms:gone (by), over (and done with), no more, done, bygone, former, (of) old, olden, long-ago; More That supernatural occurence has already past in time, though. So therefore, it is now part of the "infinite past". What IS in between the past and the future? The present. "After that moment there was the infinite future" Except for what has already past in time. "Infinity has no beginning or end" I suppose I'm with you. "The fact that the Universe did not come into existence somewhere around the infinite past or infinite future is itself proof of intervention through decision" Like I said, that supernatural occurence has already past in time. So therefore, it's now part of the "infinite past". The rest is part if the "infinite future" except for whatever else has already past in our time. UNLESS You are reffering specifically at that time during the birth of the Universe, then of course. That is just logic. It came into existence in neither, but rather in its present time. "It is also proof that the laws of physics pertaining to the creation of the Universe, prior to its birth, either did not exist or weren't previously applied" Incorrect. If the laws of physics that were involved with the birth of the Universe either did not exist or weren't apllied prior to its birth, then otherwise, the creation of the Universe would not have succeeded. "All of the laws of the Universe did not exist, because before that moment they were not there" They did in fact, exist. They just weren't there yet. The Universe began as a tiny dense ball no larger than a molecule. And then suddenly, matter merged together and exploded, creating a never-ending Universe. It can not create physics and energy, but rather, it could ADD it. For they were already there. "in the abscence of God, there would be eternity of emptiness" "It began as a tiny dense ball no larger than a molecule" And that was finite until matter merged together and exploded. Also, if God exists, why doesn't he intervene with the Earth's happenings?
I'm Pro Second Amendment: Change my Mind

Yes the evil government out to get you because they want you to pay taxes, that's right feed your paranoia like the nuts in Waco and Timothy McVeigh. Ok so I will reply to your concerns First of all this whole notion of a tyrannical government and how Jefferson originally said it is BS, so educate yourself first. As far as scholars can tell, Jefferson never said it. Monticello.org, the official website of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, says, "We have not found any evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote, 'When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny,' or any of its listed variations." The quotation (which has also been misattributed to Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, and The Federalist), actually was apparently said in 1914 by the eminent person-no-one's-ever-heard-of John Basil Barnhill, during a debate in St. Louis If good government actually came from a violent, armed population, then Afghanistan and Somalia would be the two best-governed places on earth. As we saw from the 2010 shootings in Tucson, Arizona, the consequences for democracy of guns in private hands, without reasonable regulation, can be dire--a society where a member of Congress cannot meet constituents without suffering traumatic brain injury, and where a federal judge cannot stop by a meeting on his way back from Mass without being shot dead. As for your concealed carry, that is also a big misconception, so read on son, get learned There is no credible statistical evidence that shows that weak concealed carry laws reduce crime. In fact, the evidence suggests that permissive concealed carry laws may actually increase the frequency of some types of crime, such as assault. One recent study found that states that award concealed carry permits to anyone who meets minimum standards experience 13 to 15 percent more violent crime than states with stronger laws. Overall, research confirms the commonsense conclusion that more guns create more opportunities for injury and death, not fewer. Claims that firearms are used defensively millions time every year have also been widely discredited. Even when a firearm is used in self-defense, which is rare, research shows that a firearm is no more likely to reduce a person"s chance of being injured during a crime than other various forms of protection. One study suggests that carrying a firearm may actually increase a victim"s risk of firearm injury during the commission of a crime. So there you go, I don't know where you are getting your information from but you are wrong. Guns kill and that is all they are used for. I say ban the second amendment, nobody needs a gun, so stop living in this paranoia induced fear, you don't need a gun
I'm Pro Second Amendment: Change my Mind

You mention the NRA a lot in your argument. We could talk about NRA all day long, but I'd rather we stick with the core of the argument. It is ridiculous for cities to charge you for not giving them your gun. People are the ones killing people; guns are not. I think we should have more security to actually get the guns and to access them. Again, Concealed Carry owners break the law 6% less than the police! They are the most responsible citizens in America. When you bring up all the mass shootings: This is why teachers should have guns, to stop the shooter. It would only be teachers who already conceal and carry, just like they do at the mall, taking a walk, or doing anything. You can't deny the fact that there were multiple armed security guards in the Parkland shooting, yet NONE of them did anything to stop it! So your saying to leave it to the cops. If someone starts shooting at you, the cops aren't right there to stop it. You can shoot back if you have a gun, or other armed civilians can. In the Texas church shooting, a man stopped the shooter with an AR-15. In a Tennessee church shooting, a good Samaritan stopped the shooter and held him at gun point until the cops arrived. These are just to name a few. Concealed-Carry people are more law-abiding than the police and the most responsible people. By the time the cops arrive, it will be to late, as we have seen in so many of these shootings. Again, more guns save lives than take them. In places where guns were banned, murder rates spiked up. This is because of bad guys using knives or getting guns illegally. If the government takes away our second-amendment right, we will have no way to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.
I'm Pro Second Amendment: Change my Mind

I know that the NRA runs the country in the USA, with 36 billion dollars in revenue last year, the NRA has the government in their pocket and with the antiquated 300 year old parchment called the Constitution that was written when USA was the wild west and you needed guns to survive. Well times have changed in 300 years. And we don't need guns. Only in America do we have a gun death every 11 minutes, rampage school shootings, well people have finally had enough. And it's about time. All those stubborn NRA loving people with the mentality that "Nobody is taking my guns away" well we don't have to, we will just hit you where it matters, your pocket/wallet. I applaude Deerfield Michigan to be the first to outlaw assault rifles, and if you are a trailer park, confederate flag waving, redneck who says he is not giving up his guns, well we will fine you $1000.00 a day!! I'm pretty sure that welfare check and those moonshine and meth proceeds of crime won't be enough to cover that fine every day, so it's time to get rid of guns, this is the first step. Way to go Deerfield!! People have had enough with Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tec, Orlando Nightclub, Florida school, on and on, enough is enough. The wild west is over, there are grocery stores for food, we have police forces, FBI, ATF,, State Police, city police, we have enough police presence to protect the public, now lets get rid of the guns, so stop your paranoia and get rid of the gun or be fined $1000.00, how does that catch yea hillbilly? https://www.cnn.com...
I'm Pro Second Amendment: Change my Mind

Concealed Carry owners are 6% more law abiding than police, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center. They can shoot the shooter, and stop the massacre. States that implemented "shall-issue" concealed carry laws reduced murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent, according to an analysis of FBI crime data by economist and political commentator John R. Lott Jr., PhD. Conversely, states with more restrictive concealed-carry laws have gun-related murder rates that are 10 percent higher, according to a 2013 study in Applied Economic Letters. Statistically, guns save more lives than take them. Guns are for self-defense, but mainly to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, like the founding fathers wrote in the Constitution. If the government takes away our guns, we won't have any self-defense against a tyrannical government.