BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Old Testament Prophecy does not predict Jesus Christ

No uncontended arguments. Vote Con. Here's the full prophecy with verses included: Born of a virgin [Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23] A descendant of Abraham [Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16] Of the tribe of Judah [Genesis 49:10; Luke 3:23, 33; Hebrews 7:14] Of the house of David [2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matthew 1:1] Born in Bethlehem [Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7] Taken to Egypt [Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:14-15] Herodï¿½s killing of the infants [Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18] Anointed by the Holy Spirit [Isaiah 11:2; Matthew 3:16-17] Heralded by the messenger of the Lord (John the Baptist) [Isaiah 40:3-5; Malachi 3:1; Matthew 3:1-3] Would perform miracles [Isaiah 35:5-6; Matthew 9:35] Would preach good news [Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:14-21] Would minister in Galilee [Isaiah 9:1; Matthew 4:12-16] Would cleanse the Temple [Malachi 3:1; Matthew 21:12-13] Would first present Himself as King 173,880 days from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem [Daniel 9:25; Matthew 21:4-11] Would enter Jerusalem as a king on a donkey [Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:4-9] Would be rejected by Jews [Psalm 118:22; I Peter 2:7] Die a humiliating death [Psalm 22; Isaiah 53] involving: -rejection [Isaiah 53:3; John 1:10-11; 7:5,48] -betrayal by a friend [Psalm 41:9; Luke 22:3-4; John 13:18] -sold for 30 pieces of silver [Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:14-15] -silence before His accusers [Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 27:12-14] -being mocked [Psalm 22: 7-8; Matthew 27:31] -beaten [Isaiah 52:14; Matthew 27:26] -spit upon [Isaiah 50:6; Matthew 27:30] -piercing His hands and feet [Psalm 22:16; Matthew 27:31] -being crucified with thieves [Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:38] -praying for His persecutors [Isaiah 53:12; Luke 23:34] -piercing His side [Zechariah 12:10; John 19:34] -given gall and vinegar to drink [Psalm 69:21, Matthew 27:34, Luke 23:36] -no broken bones [Psalm 34:20; John 19:32-36] -buried in a rich man's tomb [Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57-60] -casting lots for His garments [Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24] Would rise from the dead!! [Psalm 16:10; Mark 16:6; Acts 2:31] Ascend into Heaven [Psalm 68:18; Acts 1:9] Would sit down at the right hand of God [Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 1:3]
Old Testament Prophecy does not predict Jesus Christ

This statement by Pro will be the basis for my contentions for this round: "Independent of my personal belief or non-belief, I will assume that the Old Testament is historically accurate, and that the characters, events and authors are all real. Both natural and supernatural events are assumed factual accounts." Unless this was a major mistake in Pro's argument, I will take it as a truth. Pro believes that the Old Testament is historically accurate. Assuming everything my opponent says as correct, that these Old Testament prophecies are unclear, I don't need them. The Messiah has to fulfill all the prophecies given. What my opponent has just done in his previous round is disproved the parts of the prophecy, Jesus never had to fulfill them if they're wrong. So regardless of what I think, Thank you! If this was a Mistake that Pro wants to correct if he does so now it would have some effect on his conduct points as it disagrees with the title. Note that this is his first debate so leniency is required. >>>>The only argument(s) I have to address are: >>A Decent of Abraham In ancient Israel the certainty of blood relations was rare(No blood tests or a grantee of faithfulness). What makes someone a son of another is who he was raised under and whose name he takes. This is s inconsistency Augustine of Hippo addressed: i)That Joseph had two fathers—one natural and one legal—as a result of a levirate marriage involving uterine brothers. ii)That Luke's genealogy is actually through Mary rather than her husband Joseph. iii)That Matthew's genealogy is actually through Mary rather than her husband Joseph. >>From Bethlehem/Herod/Slaughter of innocents Do you know who the successor of Herod the great is? It's is Herod Archelaus, the ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Edom from 4 BC to 6 AD, son of Herod the Great. His rule is consistent with the birth of Jesus Christ. Basically you got the wrong Herod. "In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn." Luke 2:1-6 http://www.biblegateway.com... It never explicitly says to Herod in any other book except in the Gospel of Matthew, and even then it only refers to him as King/Lord/Ethnarch Herod, so there was no direction to what Herod it is. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Old Testament Prophecy does not predict Jesus Christ

Born of a Virgin It is easy to see how modern day Christians would read Isaiah 7:14 and believe that as a stand alone verse it predicts the coming birth of Jesus. Examine Isaiah 7 completely and we find that it is a dialogue about the war between the Jews and the warring kingdoms. In which case Isaiah (presumably) is comforting Ahaz. Isaiah is clearly expecting immediate deliverance and victory during the wars he speaks of. In Isaiah 7:8 he states that within 65 years Ephraim will be broken. The book of Isaiah was authored during the rein of Cyrus the Great and then added to during the Babylonian Empire. This is several hundred years before the espoused birth of Jesus. It would be simple for Matthew or whoever wrote the book of Matthew, who did not witness the virgin birth for himself to have merely added it to be consistent with the OT during his authorship of the NT. Criteria 1 and 4 are not met. A Decent of Abraham: "Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." I would like to draw attention to the fact that this is Joseph's Lineage being used. Joseph was not the paternal father of Jesus and it is impossible for him to be as she was a Virgin. If Jesus shares no blood relation with Joseph how can you logically claim lineage. Furthermore, according to your post Jacob is the grandfather of Jesus. In Luke it is Eli, both cannot be right. You must claim that one is of Joseph and one is of Mary. From Bethlehem / Herod / Slaughter of innocents: Mary and Joseph were traveling to Bethlehem to be counted in a census ordered by Augustus. Quirinius was the Roman governor of Syria. This is interesting because Quirinius did not conduct this census until 6/7CE. That would make the birth of Jesus about 10 years removed from the death of Herod. Luke2:1-3 Why would two residents of Nazarene travel to Bethlehem to take part in a nonexistent census? Luke was wrong on both counts! They cannot logically be in Bethlehem at the time of Herod's reign if Herod is dead at the time of the census. Sold for 30 pieces-Zechariah 11:13 After reading this verse it seems to be a description of a simple offering from with the author felt was a sizable sum of money. As stated, and after reading Zechariah 11 in its entirety, it is a fable about a Shepard. Had is said, the Son of God will be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, your point may have had some validity. Transferring this verse as a predicting prophecy about Judas is subjective. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Bible KJV
Old Testament Prophecy does not predict Jesus Christ

Hellos, and welcome to Debate.org, hope you have a nice and long stay with us here. To start my argument I will list all the Prophecy that Jesus has and is yet to fulfill. For Round One I must see which of the Prophecies Jesus hasn't fulfilled according to Pro. Below is a list, Pro is free to add to the List but must cite references from an internationally accepted Bible or Torah. Born of a virgin. A descendant of Abraham. Of the tribe of Judah. Of the house of David. Born in Bethlehem. Taken to Egypt. Herodï¿½s killing of the infants. Anointed by the Holy Spirit. Heralded by the messenger of the Lord (John the Baptist). Would perform miracles. Would preach good news. Would minister in Galilee. Would cleanse the Temple. Would first present Himself as King 173,880 days from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem. Would enter Jerusalem as a king on a donkey. Would be rejected by Jews. Die a humiliating death, involving: Rejection, Betrayal, by a friend Sold for 30 pieces of silver, Silence before His accusers, Being mocked, Beaten, Spit upon, Piercing His hands and feet, Being crucified with thieves, Praying for His persecutors, Piercing His side, Given gall and vinegar to drink, No broken bones, Buried in a rich man's tomb, Casting lots for His garments, Would rise from the dead!! Ascend into Heaven. Would sit down at the right hand of God. >>Contention(s)<< -Of the Temple of Solomon. You see, the story of the Messiah isn't finished[Revelations], Jesus will return from the dead on the Day of Judgment and rebuild the 3rd Temple of Solomon[Revelations]. It is also worth noting that the Second temple of Jerusalem was destroyed after the death of Jesus[Approx 27-40AD], the temple was destroyed in the years after the First Jewish Roman war, in the Siege of Jerusalem[70AD]. The Temple was destroyed in the Sack of Jerusalem a important part of Jewish History.[ http://en.wikipedia.org...(70)] et [http://www.rjgeib.com...] I await Pro's full argument in Round 2.
Old Testament Prophecy does not predict Jesus Christ

Many Christians state that the Old Testament predicts the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament. I challenge my opponent to show individual specific verses where the prophecy is clearly stated and fulfilled. My criteria is that the verses cited must clearly and directly predict the occurrence with no subjective interpretation needed. For example, if there is an Old Testament Verse that states "The Temple of Solomon will be rebuilt", the "Temple of Solomon" means a structure that is identified as a temple.
The Truth about Chiquita Banana!

Debate (definition0: 9. to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will. 10. to dispute or disagree about: The homeowners debated the value of a road on the island. 11. to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton. 12. to deliberate upon; consider: He debated his decision in the matter. 13. Archaic. to contend for or over. http://dictionary.reference.com... Debating doesn't necessarily have to be two individuals with opposing viewpoints. Debating can also be two individuals who can discuss an issue in depth and bring other angles of the issue to light. I am glad that we can agree on most of the issues in the debate. In my opinion, the main problem with this website is that too many members want to oppose each other all the time. There sometimes are good points made by the opposing side, but for some reason agreement can never be made on a topic. Why is it that two individuals want to fight each other with words, instead of trying to really solve the issue at hand? I believe that we can come to agree on some things, don't you? This debate was more or less to "deliberate" upon, not necessarily a debate to argue. I would like to thank you for your response. And also, thank you for the information you supplied in regards to Carl H. Lindner Jr. and his support for John McCain and the Republican Party, also in his contribution in the aid of $1.7 million to South American terrorist groups, following 1984. This information brings to light the ways of politics, and also is a good example of how corporate America and the Republican Party work hand in hand towards their own self-interests, which is not in the interest of the American people, or any other groups of people around the world. In my opinion, I believe that the media has a major hand in the control and manipulation of the American people. I agree with you that there are large groups of American people that have put their own self-interests above the interests of the world. If Americans had better understanding of world affairs, and progressed outside the setting of a U.S. classroom, the condition in Guatemala might have been different. I believe we as Americans need to be more open minded when dealing with the rest of the world, because there are always two sides to a story. I blame the American people for being so naive. I also blame the media for supporting President Ronald Reagan, and allowing him to convince the American people that Guatemala was turning Communist, and I also blame the media for allowing corporate America to deceive U.S. citizens.
The Truth about Chiquita Banana!

I think dollydo and I agree on pretty much everything in this debate, but it is a debate so there has to be an argument. However, on reflection I agree with my opponent that to blame the Germans is a little unfair so I have decided to let them off the hook (aber nicht selbstgefï¿½llig werden, meine Freunde, immer beobachte ich Sie!) Instead, I will now argue that the Americans who vote for the Republican Party that are the ones that were ultimately responsible for the torture and deaths of the Guatemalan dissidents, intellectuals and their families. You see, Republican governments support big businesses like Chiquita because big businesses support Republican politicians by funding their election campaigns. Now most reasonable people would agree that Ronald Reagan introduced some morally suspect legislation but I don't believe that even he would have supported Chiquita's evil, viscous, inhuman and illegal operations in Guatemala unless he had to because Republican presidents cannot afford to bite the hands that feed them. but the scandalous link between the Republican Party and Chiquita and their terrorist henchmen didn't end in the 1980's Carl H. Lindner Jr., the billionaire Cincinnati businessman, was CEO of Chiquita Brands International from 1984 to 2001, and remained on the company's board of directors until May 2002. He was also the fundraiser for Republican Senator John McCain and oversaw the payment of $1.7m to South American terrorists groups. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Now, I'm British and even I know all about the stench of corruption that pervades the Republican Party so I must assume that Republican voters in America know about it also. In view of this, the only conclusion I can reach is that because the Republican Party is traditionally known as the party that cuts wealthy people's tax bills, the rich and the financially aspirational have voted Republican in order to line their own pockets thus displaying a cynical disregard for the dire consequences that innocent men, women and children in countries like Guatemala face when Republican governments are elected. Therefore, it is the people who vote for the Republican Party that have blood on their hands and that must accept the blame for the atrocities committed in Guatemala by Chiquita's henchmen and their Republican backers in the United States, because without their votes the Republicans would never have been elected in the first place. Thank you.
The Truth about Chiquita Banana!

Nationality (definition): 1. The status of belonging to a particular nation by origin, birth, or naturalization. 2. A people having common origins or traditions and often constituting a nation. 3. Existence as a politically autonomous entity; national independence. 4. National character. 5. Nationalism. The U.S. has been far removed from Europe for centuries now. Although the majority of U.S. citizens are of European origin, it is still only a small factor that makes up someone's nationality. Nationality relates also to birth place, common traditions, unity, borders, political independence. Therefore, the blame for the atrocities in Guatemala is directly related to the U.S. I do agree, that our ancestral drive for independence and power can be related to our earlier conquests in the Americas. I am not blaming the U.S. in it's entirety. I am blaming corporate U.S. for unethically behaving towards other nations. And also the U.S. government for not monitoring and controlling foreign policy when it comes to trade. If both government and cooperate America had been both ethical in their dealings with Guatemala, the situation could have turned out better for these indigenous peoples. I believe it is unethical for the U.S. to acquire any land in any other country or nation without moral consideration given to the well being of the people that occupy the land. The U.S. is not all to blame either...there are always two sides to a story. In my opinion, the Guatemalan government is just as much to blame for it's part in this lucrative banana trade. Guatemala, a country that was already faced with hardships, saw an opportunity for wealth and prosperity, and through easy manipulation and influence by powerful people, cost them their whole nation. It is good to have a debate when we can agree on something. I am glad I was able to share a bit of Guatemala with you, and let you in on the truth about Chiquita Banana Brands. I hope you will in the future choose not to support Chiquita Banana Brands, there are other brands of bananas out there...if you can't live without your potassium. :) I know that every time I walk past the Chiquita bananas at the grocery store, my stomach rolls over, and I think baby killers. I am somewhat trying to appeal to the audience here...I hope it works. I also hope that you share this information with others. Understanding the world is key to being able to fix it...if it isn't already to late. Small steps in the right direction is a good start though. If you have any other interesting information you would like to share, I am all ears! Thanks for the response.
The Truth about Chiquita Banana!

I thank dollydo using this debate as vehicle to expose such an outrageous example of corporate greed. Chiquita's exploitation of Guatemalan people and their natural resources is truly appalling and, in my opinion, the behaviour of these unscrupulous fruit merchants is nothing short of scandalous. I, for one, will certainly be boycotting all Chiquita's products from now on and I would urge all the voters to do the same. However, my opponent is wrong to blame the United States because this whole caboodle is ultimately the fault of the Germans. That's right. You see, there would be no United States at all if it wasn't for colonists from England settling in North America and there would be no English people to settle there if it wasn't for the Anglo-Saxons who came to England from Germany. (1) So lets not give the poor old Americans a hard time and instead direct our vitriol and bile towards the Lederhosen-loving Germans' Teutonic ancestors. Thank You. (1) http://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov... (2) http://www.bbc.co.uk...
God IS real

I mentioned before. While ethos may prove as supporting evidence, as the only source of evidence alone, it is not substantial. And aside from that, you have quite literally supported none of your claims with any forms of evidence. If we are debating 'the existence of God', then the contender is supposed to assume that 'God is not real'. To the contender, who would not believe in the existence of a God to being with, your statements, without empirical evidence to support them, are quite irrelevant. Not exactly sure how I would be "taking advantage" of the world, considering the fact that this debate was purely for the sake of practice and to gain the privilege to vote on other debates. And quite frankly, where I "want to go" after I die, is also heaven. I mentioned before, I am a Christian adopting an atheist position for the sake of this debate alone; this debate is by no means personalized. However, you have not presented an honest "argument" of your own. I would also appreciate if the voters would take this into consideration. The debate was appreciated, Glitter. However, I believe my statements speak for themselves. I might add a word of advice; not criticism, but just a favor. Do not fear skepticism- even against yourself. An honest answer will evolve in time, but never limit yourself by the opinions of peers or for the 'sanctity' of the crowds.
God IS real

I sent this to one of my friends: He hears you. He would not have made you if he would not help you. He loves you and hears you whenever you pray. He already knows what your life is going to look like, so when you pray for something, it may seem like He's not listening, but he is. He threw out one of his angels because it wasn't acting nice. He flooded and killed the world because everyone was acting the way they are now. He was sad that he made those people and they took advantage of the world and ruined it. Our world is turning into a modern Sodom and Gomorrah. Some day, God will come back to Earth and take his followers up to heaven with him. But if you go along with the world and do those things that are wrong, you will not go to heaven. Heaven is a magical place. When you enter those beautiful gates, you will wear a crown and robe and walk the streets of pure gold. Wherever you want to go does not exist.
God IS real

In order to gain the necessary three debates for voting privileges, I will be engaging in this debate. However, before I start, I would like to note that I will be arguing a philosophical stance, contrary to my own personal beliefs. As I will quite literally be arguing against my own, personal beliefs (I do identify as Christian), please forgive me if my arguments may not seem entirely. .. Substantial at times. For the sake of broadening my viewpoints, I believe it best that I argue a contradicting stance for once. I would like to also note that I will not be arguing the validity of any religion's Holy texts, rather, I will strictly define my argument to notable laws of science, philosophy, and lack of representation.
Liberals have more compassion than conservatives.

It is the conservatives who are barbaric because they refuse to help the poor. Every time a liberal politician wants to help the poor, conservatives scream "not my wallet" ad neuseum. Conservatives oppose the right of same sex couples to get married. Conservatives want to tell wmen what contraception they may use (Hobby Lobby, aka Snobby Lobby), conservatives whine about free speech while censoring those that disagree. On CreateDebate, the conservative Republican owner refused to ban two people who slandered me, called me a rapist, one of which told me that I deserve to be raped, yet I am the one who was banned, while they stray. Conservatives oppose the fairness doctrine which promises fair and balanced media coverage, Conservatives think it is okay for parents to hit their kids. Conservatives oppose the right of workers to a fair work environment including but nbot limited to fair psy. Conservatives are all for gun control for black people,. A black woman named Marissa tried to use the stand your ground law, and now she is serving 25 years all because she defended herself when her husband threatened her,. Conservatives start wars for bull**** reasons. Conservatives oppose education rights. Conservatives oppose healthcare rights. I only agree with conservatives on one thjing: I think sex changes are wrong. All of my other beliefs are liberal. All of this is what is barbaric. I will choose the side that serves thepoor and disabled, not the rich.