BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Many of the biblicle figures were african.

I agree that it is not ALL biblical figures that my opponent must show to be african, it is simply many of them. He admits that Abraham was likely not African, even though this was an example he brought up. Next, he goes to argue that many the Isrealites are African, since they were at one time in Africa. And since many biblical figures were isrealites, this would seem to affirm the resolution. However, after so many generations, you can really no longer be considered "African". They may be of African descent, but they are no longer Africans. For instance, I consider myself American. I am largely of European descent, but I am not European. African: A native or inhabitant of Africa Source: Merriam-Webster Take you, for instance. You are an American, your family's been here probably at least a few generations. You would indeed be an African-American, but you are not African. African-American: An American of African and especially of black African descent Source: Same Note how that definition clearly defines you as an American, not as an African. You simply have primarily African ancestry [I assume, at least]. This is the same for the isrealites. Shortly after they left Africa, they could no longer be considered Africans. Regarding the Queen of Sheba: http://www.historyfiles.co.uk... As we see in the first line there, the son of Sheba and Solomon was named Menelik I. It is true that Jesus is directly descended from Solomon, but NOT through Menelik. It is through one of Solomon's other children, Rehoboam. See here. http://en.wikipedia.org... See how Menelik is not listed anywhere there, and Rehoboam, the son of Solomon who succeeded his throne, is listed as a direct descendent between Solomon and Jesus? Not only that, but Jesus' descendents for generations did not live in Africa, thus he is not an African, even if he had African descent. Also, regarding Jesus' ethnicity, "It is most commonly argued that Jesus was probably of Middle Eastern descent because of the geographic location of the events described in the Gospels, and, among some modern Christian scholars, the genealogy ascribed to him. For this reason, he has been portrayed as an olive-skinned individual typical of the Levant region." Wikipedia - Race of Jesus - 22 May 2008 6:50PM EST RE:"This would make sense, but then again who's to say anything in the bible or Quran in credible? The bible is over 2000years old, and has been edited and rewritten many times over. There is even one case in which the bible had many of its original books stripped from its pages and rewritten. Make no mistake, I am a firm believer, I'm just giving you the facts." Who's to say indeed. I would say very little of it is historically credible. However, since it's most of what we have to go on, it's what we must to use. So I've argued against Jesus being African. And I've argued against the Isrealites being considered Africans. And in doing so, I also argued that most biblical figures were indeed middle-eastern, or perhaps a seperate race, like Israeli.
Many of the biblicle figures were african.

My opponent makes a good case. He states that we often mistake people like Jesus' race based on what we've seen in pictures. This is entirely true. While most art shows Jesus as a white European, he was almost certainly not, and the same is true for other biblical figures. However, it seems my opponent is making a huge mistake. While it is likely that Jesus et al. had dark skin, this does not make them African. As my opponent himself admits, Abraham was a mesopotamian man. Mesopotamia is not Africa, it is the middle-east. Ergo, not African, Middle-eastern. And Jesus certainly wasn't born in Africa. I have no reason to believe his mother was, either. Not all dark-skinned folk are Africans, not all light-skinned folk are European. Most of these biblical figures were not African, even if they were dark-skinned.
Many of the biblicle figures were african.

Just picture it. your walking through a meuseam and you stop to look at a very peculiar painting. Upon further examination you recognize it to be a portrait of George Wahington, but there are a few problems with the way he is portrayed. Instead of having wooden teeth, a white powdered wig, and white skin; his teeth are perfectly pearly white, his hair is in thick black dreadlocks, and his skin is dark brown! You say " Wait, Washington didn't look like this. ", and someone near by asks you, "How do you know? " and you say "Because they taught us this in school. He was of European decent, and their arent many African's in Europe. Besides there are numerous documents that give his physical description, and none of them state that he is darkbrown with dreadlocks. " Rather then acknowledging the truth in your words this person is enraged and randomly rants about how your an idiot and how its just impossible for George Washinton to be cacausion, completely ignorant of the facts you just presented him with. Its not that you just wanna rant, nor is it that George washington would be any less of a great man if he were African, you simply have evidence that points to the contrary but no one around you will listen because they are too engulfed by their ignorance to accept that. This is often how I feel when I am around a large group of christians and we are having a religious debate. I'll say somehing like "Moses (and/or Jesus) are African. Despite what I say to prove my argument no one will accept that fact, but mabey someone on this website will listen, and that is why I've began this debate. I'll begin my argument by adressing the geography of many biblical locations. Unless you don't read your bible, you should know that all large-scale biblical occurances happened in or around the arabian peninsula. This is also where many of the people of the bible originated. In case you didn't know, that would mean that these people would have to be of darker skin, as are all natives of this land. Now allow me to adress the Arabian peninsula itself. It is located right in the middle of north-east African and middle-eastern Asia. In case you were unaware, all of the natives of these locations are prodomonately very darkskinned. Abraham himself was originally a Mesopotaamian man. Mesopotamia; which is literally locater in the heart of what is now the Arabian peninsula. Can anyone deny these facts? Ok thats all I have 2 say 4 now. I dont wanna get too intense before the real debate begins. I hope my opponants arguments are backed by factual information and probability rather then biased opinion. Besides this I wish my opponant the best of luck! P. S. So u all wont find my debate too biased, I'd like you to know that I myself am a muslim, who occasionally enjoys reading the bible. Peace and blessings of Allah be upon you. [and no Im dead serious]
superman V's his gayness gayness wins

it is true his homosexual tendencies are his true strength" I agree 100% I also agree 100% Think about it. If his gayness allows him to do so many wonderful things such as redo his hair really fast, be well groomed, have impeccable taste in clothing etc. than if it was unleashed 100% it would not only help him to do those things even better, but with his speed and benevolence he could redecorate entire cites in a matter of minutes. Amazing looking cities would lead to less crime (broken window theory), increases in property value as well as just providing amazing scenery. His gayness is his greatest asset and we should encourage him to fully unleash it. even so he may be well groomed but could he be to well groomed to stop crime http://1.bp.blogspot.com... and he spends to much time watching the view to stop crime now you could say this help him stay informed is it not more likely that he would put people in danger wile he is watching the view http://4.bp.blogspot.com... it is clear what the officer meant http://kara.allthingsd.com... should we really encourage him to fully unleash it? http://www.sabotagetimes.com... with his speed and benevolence he could redecorate entire cites in a matter of minutes. Amazing looking cities would lead to less crime (broken window theory) yes but what would this world look like if superman fought lax would it look like this? less crime will cause the villains to change and be different would they not? http://blackcomicguy.files.wordpress.com... what would superman battle the new villains with? http://static.comicvine.com... This is the Red Herring fallacy. This has nothing to do with this debate. I disagree it has every thing to do with the debate jimmy and Clark are room mates and best friends and have lived together for many years in the comic would they not share there most secret parts of there lives together http://static.comicvine.com... http://3.bp.blogspot.com... and more? http://www.slate.com... http://i246.photobucket.com... Superman simply doesn't have bad hair days so not true even tho the is prepared http://static.comicvine.com... jimmy being clark roomate and freind is very inporant to superman would it be natural for superman to share jimmy life stile after all the naiz were just a bucha guys hanging out who spent long nights playing games and pilow fights and doing there hair in the day they took over faranch if superman has this late night parting life stile how would he not a danger to the planet http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net...
superman V's his gayness gayness wins

"it is true his homosexual tendencies are his true strength" I agree 100% "but with he suppressing this power for so long would it be likely to unleash it after a brake down" Think about it. If his gayness allows him to do so many wonderful things such as redo his hair really fast, be well groomed, have impeccable taste in clothing etc. than if it was unleashed 100% it would not only help him to do those things even better, but with his speed and benevolence he could redecorate entire cites in a matter of minutes. Amazing looking cities would lead to less crime (broken window theory), increases in property value as well as just providing amazing scenery. His gayness is his greatest asset and we should encourage him to fully unleash it. "it could be any thing a broken nail a bad hair day boom there goes the planet" Impossible, bullets bounce off this guy. A broken nail is impossible. Plus this guy has fault doomsday and destroyed his entire costume and still not had any hair out of place. Superman simply doesn't have bad hair days. "he has to keep this gay levels down below critical mass" As much as I'm against superman getting married, I still insist his Gay levels need to be brought up. Look at my examples to see why. "not to mention jimmy and the gay bars" This is the Red Herring fallacy. This has nothing to do with this debate.
superman V's his gayness gayness wins

I was going to post something considerably more entertaining here, but it's unnecessary. Pro has only supported his claim of Superman's homosexuality which I've already accepted in round 1. What pro had failed to do is show the superman will be defeated by his own homosexuality. It seems to me Superman's homosexual tendencies are a strength. How fast he's able to change hairstyles helps protect his identity while also allowing him to look his best.
superman V's his gayness gayness wins

I fear I have a worthy opponent but very well i will lay my case 1 superman goes to gay city superman said it was for his job lois was told it was not place for a woman a gay place http://luchins.com... 2 superman has seceret rainbow powers why are thay seceret? what is he hideing http://feastoffun.com... 3 this pink kyptonite why is supergirl not changed? http://lh3.ggpht.com...
superman V's his gayness gayness wins

To sum everything up, my opponent has used ad-Hominem attacks to show Superman can't do his job. Saying that Superman can't do his job, because of his sexual orientation is wrong. There are gay cops, firemen, police officers etc.. My opponent has failed to make a single argument that also isn't an ad-Hominem attack. Superman's capability to do his job is completed unrelated to his sexuality and my opponent has failed to show otherwise. Voters, please take into account that BOP was on pro and that he provided no evidence that didn't contain a logical fallacy or the use of an inaccurate stereotype to attack Superman's capabilities.
Resolved: The Bible condemns homosexuality

To conclude this debate, my opponent has originally conceded in my definition of condemn by showing that all I had to do is provide one instance where the Bible does not condemn homosexuality to win this debate. This was only refuted in R5, but should be thrown out of the debate since he originally dropped it. My opponent has also dropped arguments that homosexuality occured with Ruth, David and Johnathan, and that traditional marriage, by my opponent's standards does not condemn it. We can also see that my opponent has also dropped the Plato argument that shows relationships can be with the other half, which can be of the same sex. These things can show that the Bible supports, not condemns, homosexuality. Thus, you have to negate the resolution due to the several dropped arguments by my opponent.
Resolved: The Bible condemns homosexuality

Get this I'm not going to read a whole book to fid your source, you have to rferance a specific part of that book for me. And like I said before, only have to provide one pace in the bible where homosexuality is condemned, it ist enough for my opponent to provide a single place where it is not. Also, your verse is still irrelevant, Solomon practicing polygamy doesn't mean that homosexuality is OK, it's like if I got arrested for drug use and my defese was "but Joseph Stalin tortured people to death," no one is going to care.
Resolved: The Bible condemns homosexuality

Yes I did provide a source as it was source three Round 1. This argument has been dropped several times as my opponent has failed to acknowledge it. On David and Johnathan, it doesn't matter. Unless it's condemned, which it does not appear to be so, we have to realize that under that circumstance, it is not condemned and hence I win under the semantics of the debate. I have provided this verse and series. This was, once again, in Round 1, it seems as though my opponent hasn't been the one reading as he seems to accuse me of. He only claims two irrelevant verses, but this is still relevant due to its relation. Ignoring it is a farse mistake by my opponent. As for the verse, I provided the verse for it last round and I'll post it again. He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away. 1 Kings 11:3.My opponent drops my arguments in regards to Adam and Eve which is important as that confirms an acceptance of homosexuality in this debate meaning that I win do to that concession.
Resolved: The Bible condemns homosexuality

Actually you didn't provide any sources for your claims. And Leviticus 18 instructed the Israelites not to act as the Egyptians/Canaanites do, that means no incest, no homosexuality, and no bestiality, according your form of interpretation, I could say that Leviticus 18:23 is only telling you not to fornicate with hairy people. We all know this to be false and I shew you the actuaal hebrew words. And you are ignoring my point in regards to David and Johnathan, the point was just because David did it doesn't mean it's OK, and I could also claim that because God didn't criticize Lot for offering his daughters to a roaring mob that this means that God doesn't have a probllem with men offering their daughters to be raped to death, because it happened in the bible right? Also, your claims that Naomi loved Ruth just as Adam loved Eve - it's ridiculous, you never provided any verse that says this, only two irrelevant verse, one which could be used against homosexuality and another which isn't relevant at all. Also, you will never find any verse saying that Solomon as right by marrying 700 people, it wasn't accepted it was tolerated. Infact Abram cheating on his wife Sarah with his other wife Hagar was as God told him a terible decision.
Resolved: The Bible condemns homosexuality

I actualy did site a source for Kedoshim so, once again, I'll extend that argument across the board. I didn't have to refute your translations as they are still referring to the actions of Kedoshim making these verses not actually about homosexuality, but a Gentile religion of the Canaanites. If you do not understand the context of which the Torah was written then you cannot expect to understand what the verses are about. As for the David argument, it doesn't matter what else he did. He was still a major character in the Bible who performed homosexual acts and in doing so, God did not specifically condemn him for it. Pro conceded that he was bisexual and his actions with Johnathan shows that there was a homosexual relationship occuring here. My opponent is being ludicrious here. The statement in the verse in Ruth had a love that was only used between Adam and Eve in the Bible. When a word describing love here that is only used to describe the love between Adam in Eve in the only other case in the Bible, it shows that there is a strong homosexual relationship between these two. This point was dropped originally dropped by my opponent as he only provided the attack on the Genesis portion which I pointed to the Adam and Eve reference. First off, my opponent drops the Androgyne argument, which can show another half. Regardless of male or female, it still shows the possiblity of a homosexual relationship, so I'll extend that argument across. We can still see that many of the famous people in the Bible had several wives and this was accepted. King Solomon had over 700 wives and 300 prostitues. He had seven hundredwives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away. 1 Kings 11:3.
Resolved: The Bible condemns homosexuality

You should really read the bible sometime because it was Abram who married Hagar, not Lot, Lot was the guy who committed incest with his daughters and was a sodomite who offered them to a roaring mob. Abra was the father of nations and all that, a very different character. Also, you never provided any sources for your claims about the pagan ritual of castration you talked about, and you never responded to my argument about the translations of Lev 18:22 and 20:13,and another thing, though I admitted that King David was mos likely bisexual, this doesn't count as conceding an argument. Keep in mind, David did a lot of things which God condemned him for, multiple wives, murder, etc. You completely dropped Ruth I see, since you cannot find any verse implying that Ruth was a lesbian, you dropped this point and instead decided to argue against Genesis 2:21-24. Either way, "other half" was defined as someone of the opposite gender in that verse so yes, it does mean it has to be a specific gender. Also, God never permitted Abram to enter int a polygamous marriage with 3 women, because #1 he was married to 2 women, #2 this was actually against Gods will, and caused Ishmael to have to be sent out.
Resolved: The Bible condemns homosexuality

Leviticus: Your claims in regards to the Pagan ritual of castration have no scriptural backing or sources so I will dismiss them like that, in regards to your translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, these two passages actually read like this: Leviticus 18:22: Shakab zakar mishkab ‘ishshah tow’ebah This translates to “to lie with men as you would with a woman is a disgusting thing.” Leviticus 20:13: ‘Iysh shakab zakar mishkab ‘ishshah shenayim ‘asah tow’ebah muwth muwth dam This translates to “if a man lies with men as he would with a woman both of them have done a disgusting thing and they shall be put to death.” [1] David and Jonathan: This is completely false, the word used for love in 1st Samuel 18:1-4 is ‘ahab, which could be translated to sexual, but also could be translated to that of a friend. Either way, David was also a man who murdered someone to steal his wife, and gave this wife STD’s so that the baby died, probably had something to do with bisexuality. In regards to Ruth, your verse doesn’t in the slightest indicate they loved each other, and neither of the verses on the picture you posted do either, Genesis 2:24 doesn’t say that Ruth was gay; in fact that verse could be and is used against homosexuality and Ruth 1:14 doesn’t say she was gay either, please drop this point. [1]. https://www.blueletterbible.org...
President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

Lincoln was NOT and abolitionist and wanted slavery illegal only in the territories for he can send african americans there to live away from the whites. He issued the proclamation the free the slaves of the Confederate States of America, just to suffer there economy and win the war. Abe also wanted to free slaves because he wanted them to fight in the Northern army. The slaves wern't officially free till 1901 when Delaware ratified the 13th amendment. Lincoln also belived that freeing the slaves would threaten the Union. http://ourfoundingtruth.blogspot.com...
President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

I believe That the Gettysburg Address was to try and help we the people understand more about us as a people. In all honesty if you read it out loud and review it....the primary basis of the speech is that Man is created equal...that included women at the time. If you remember....President Lincoln gave this speech November 19 1863.... Before that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued January 1 1863...... Now we all know that the Emancipation Proclamation was to free the slaves.... though it didn't quite free all the slaves. My point is that the Gettysburg address to me was to try and get people realize that we ARE ONE nation we are not all separate race and ethnicity should not determine anything. We are all people. Thank you
President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

Lincoln didn't feel like freeing the slaves during the proclamation was something he wanted to do for freedom, it was something he had to do for the outcome of the war. Slaves were sent to military forts to build the forts for the South so Lincoln agreed the freeing the slaves will put the Confederacy in a situation of debt. Lincoln put down his political claim for Republican because of his dislike of slavery in the territories. He didn't care what slaves did down in the Confederacy unless it would change the outcome of the war. And it would of so that's why he emancipated them. If Lincoln was a abolitionist he would of freed the slaves of every single slave state. Lincoln's big issues were keeping the Union together.You state that he could not touch the borders because of them being under CSA control. Mossouri and Kentucky set up Confederate government but never fully used them, Maryland was fully controlled by the North and there was no issue in Deleware and West Virginia... Plus if Confederate control was and issue in the borders how did he free them in the CSA?I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.http://www.history.com...