BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The New Testament Contains No Genuine Contradictions of Consequence

From Which of David's Sons did Jesus Descend From?1) They do. However, we see based on the fact that the geneaologies do not match, that there must be a difference in the geneaological approaches. Do not forget, Luke and Matthew were both writing around the same time, and likely interacted with each other. In addition to that, people (like Mary) were still living and easily could have corrected the conflicting Geneaology. If there was not an explanation for why the two were both accurate and necessary, one would have fallen to the wayside or been corrected. Matthew is tracing Jesus legal geneaology through his adopted father Joseph. While Luke is tracing the biological lineage through his mother Mary but indicating that Joseph was his legal father. Simply put, they are tracing different lineages for different purposes.2) Luke was not a Jew, why would we expect him to follow standard Jewish traditions in how lineage is described? Was Jesus Born of a Virgin? This respones has nothing to do with the context of the debate. We are debating if there are contradictions within the text of the New Testament. There is nothing to indicate that Paul was refering exclusively to the legal descent of Jesus, especially since he was writing to Gentile Christians in the book of Romans. Rather, he is discussing the biological descent of Jesus from David to Mary. Triumphal EntryMy opponent can theorize all he wants as to why the "error" is present. The simple fact is that grammatically it is just as likely that the "them" in "On them he sat" could refer either to the cloaks, or to the two animals. (The genitive plural ending for Masculine, Feminine, and Neuter are all omega-nu so it is impossible to know based on the form of the word what it is refering to. Since it is easier to concieve of Jesus sitting on multiple jackets piled on a donkey than it is to concieve of him somehow sitting on both a donkey and a foal, it is likely that the author was refering to the cloaks)If the contradiction being identified is that it states in one place that there was a donkey and a foal, and in another place that there was just a young donkey (foal). .. if there is a donkey and a foal present, is not a foal present? If I hand you my jacket and my keys are in my pocket and say "Can you hold my jacket and keys? " and later ask you "Do you still have my jacket? " I am not excluding the fact that my keys are still in your posession. It does not make it contradictory, it simply means that in the first account I was more detailed in my description than I was in my second. Thank you.
The New Testament Contains No Genuine Contradictions of Consequence

As per the rules, I will not bring up any new contradictions. From Which of David's Sons did Jesus Descend From? My opponent has committed an Appeal to Authority Fallacy. I respect DA Carson greatly, but I disagree with him, and so do other scholars as well as Church Tradition. The fact is this, unless my opponent can prove that my explanation is impossible (or highly improbable), I have resolved the contradiction. Okay, my opponent wants me to explain why his explanation holds no water.1) Both gospels state that they are tracing Jesus' ancestors from Joseph's side. In fact, Luke always refers to Joseph whenever he talks about the ancestry of David. 2) Jews do not transmit genealogy by the mother's side. To contention 2, my opponent admits that Jews do not transmit birthright from the mother. According to CON, the purpose of this is the reason why Mary is the legal genealogy. This provides a huge problem as the Messiah is to come from Solomon, as well as David. [1] The issue is Luke provides Mary's (? ) genealogy as coming from Nathan, another son of David, and not Solomon. Thus, there is a bigger problem with CON's assertions. Matrilineal Descent establishes the Jewish identity of the son, nothing else. What I am referring to, is Mary's genealogy is worthless in determining the tribe, the ancestors, or the messianicship of the son. I understand Jesus' messianichood is not what we are debating, but I feel that it is important to bring up the additional issue my opponent has brought up with this contradiction. Contradiction 2: Was Jesus Born of a Virgin? Explained above. Simply put, Jesus could not be a legal descendent of David if Jesus was born of a virgin. Contradiction 3 &4: Triumphal Entery. My opponent has brought nothing to the table to answer this contradiction. I believe the explanation that Matthew mistakes two animals for one is found in the LXX translation of Hebrew. Matthew has made a blunder in his gospel. Two animals are mentioned in three verses, therefore it cannot be explained away so easily as my opponent thought it was. Notice verse seven says literally, ". .. on them he sat. "I believe Matthew misread Zechariah 9:9 which reads, "mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey. ' As a Jew, I am familiar with the old testament word translated, "and. " In this passage, it does not indicate another animal, rather it should be, "Even. " Because of the poor translation of the LXX, Matthew made this blunder. [2] Thank you for such a great debate! Reference[1] . http://bitURL.net...[2] . http://bitURL.net...
Wicca is not devil worship

Numbers 14:18 "The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." 2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:10 "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."
Wicca is not devil worship

Actually, in the scriptures it clearly says that the element are bondage; Galatians 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: It says that elements are WEAK and BEGGARLY and why would you want to be under that! Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? In fact it says that they will be burned up! 2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. In fact twice it says they will be destroyed!!! 2 Peter 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Now as far as the star, there are two stars spoken of in the bible - the morning star which is Jesus and the star of another god; 1 Corinthians 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. Acts 7:43 Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon. Amos 5:26 But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves. Revelation 8:11 And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter. So, yes, Wicca is another god, contrary to Jesus. It is a false god and a false worship.
Wicca is not devil worship

I hear all the time that Wicca is devil worship and it is not Wiccan faith is a section of paganism which is belief in multiple gods. One major reason Wiccans are called devil worshippers is the fact that the pentagram has a major role in there practice. The pentagram does not represent the devil it is the symbol of the elements circle fire water earth air and spirit. The belief that people who are Wiccan are satanic spawns from the Christian bible and the belief that they are witches.
DEAD BABYS

All I wanna say is that my oponent is obviously inadequate of affirming dead babies. Also, all I wanna say, I say all I wanna say is that the only difference between a trampoline and a baby is that you take your boots off when you jump on a trampoline. Also, I just want to remind you that when you blend a baby, you should do so feet first so that you can see the expression on their face. Thank you.
DEAD BABYS

how it is true that i completly agree with the javalin way of saving a baby...all i have to say is last weekend when my neice was drowning i saved her by throwing a javolin at her head so she didnt have to suffer in the water without being able to breath it was to put her out of her missori. I always have a tasteful enjoyment in the arts that is why i have a baby with no legs and arms hanging on my wall...
Muslims are Victims of Hate and Terror

I don't have many more arguments so I"ll rebut the Nazi comparison.You can not compare Nazi's with ISIS. Lets say a German in the 1930s held views of anti-capitalism and anti-business. He supported his political ideology but believed in peace and 0 violence towards the Jews. Is his views wrong because of other Germans with simulate views are violent.You can not hold prejudice against Muslims because of the acts of terrorists in another nation. You can follow the religion of Islam without being cruel and there is just as much violence as their is peace in the Queran.
Muslims are Victims of Hate and Terror

Con's Quotes:* "Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them. This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger: If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment." (Quran 8:12-13)* "When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, "I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers" hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!""(8:12)* "And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying."(2:191)In these quotes, The Quran is describing the punishments for violating Sharia Law. I am against violence and not arguing for it. Islamic laws on the other hand, prove absolutely no violence:* Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” - Anti Terror and Murder * “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” (-The Cow, 2:256). - Muslims are forbidden from imposing Islam on others * “But if the enemies incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace. And trust in God! For He is the one who hears and knows all things.” (8:61) * "Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them" (4: 90). Con says that Islam is the cause of terrorism but that is not true at all.There is very little religion involved in terrorism. “Less Than 2 Percent Of Terrorist Attacks In The E.U. Are Religiously Motivated”http://thinkprogress.org...In the US, 94% of terror attacks in recent years were carried out by non-Muslims.https://www.fbi.gov... s://lh3.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="624" height="312" />The Hatred Muslims Do Not DeserveGoogle Search, “Hatred against Muslims”. https://www.google.com...; You will find long lists of news reports of hate crimes against Muslims. @Con, do you think these crimes are justifed? Islam is a religion and anyone can be believe in Allah and automaticly be a Muslim. ISIS does not represent Muslims, just like the Orlando Pulse shooter does not represent gun owners. Discrimination against the religion of Islam is no differant than hating blacks, LGBT, or Jews.
Muslims are Victims of Hate and Terror

ISIS Does not represent the majority of Muslims: There is a difference between a Muslim practicing his/her religion modestly and radically. They can follow their creators practices for word or follow in a modern and reasonable form. 87% of Muslims in the US are against ISIS and they are the ones who follow reasonably. Same concepts for Christianity. Origins of Christianity and Islam both link to slavery, holy war, terrorism, and genocide. But a modern disciple to these religions could keep and show faith on a human level. Who is a Victim to ISIS? More than 90% of those killed by ISIS have been Muslim. ISIS believes following the Quran as if they were living while it was created. But the majority of Muslims worship a God and believe in peace. It is wrong to discriminate against a religion that has proven itself to be different than it’s radical group. This is especially wrong in a country that calls itself a follower of it’s Constitution which gives every American the right to worship any God they choose. It’s not practical to hate against a religion: Donald Trump has argued to ban Muslims from entering the US. How do you ban a thought from entering the US. A female, Muslim, immigrant, could just take off her hijab and say she's a Christian. Banning a religion does not seem practical.
Homopshobic

My opponent does not respond to either of my contentions, so you can vote for me based on his having dropped my arguments. In terms of his contention: There are (3) problems. 1. His argument is a call to authority, but he gives no reason for us to respect the Bible as an authority. 2. He claims that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, but it doesn't. The bible says things about homosexual acts, but nothing about homosexuals themselves. Some gay people remain celibate for the sake of their religious beliefs, so homophobic beliefs target them unjustly. 3. He gives on justification for why homophobia is okay just because homosexuality is wrong. Everyone sins, that does not justify bigotry against those who might commit a certain type of unethical act. My opponent has not responded to any of my points, and every single link in his argument is logically inconsistent.
Homopshobic

My opponent ha forfeited his round and therefore has conceded my framework. With this in mind I offer 2 arguments: 1. My opponent's homophobia is likely illegal, and therefore "wrong." The definition of homophobia which I supplied included discrimination against homosexuals. In most places in the United States, discrimination against persons on the basis of sexuality is illegal (http://www.nolo.com...). My definition of wrong also included illegal acts. Therefore, because my opponent did not object to my framework, you can vote Con because his homophobia is probably illegal, and therefore "wrong." 2. My definition of homophobia specified that it is "irrational." If a person is causing another person harm (for example in the form of discrimination), for irrational reasons, then your cruelty is unjustified and therefore "wrong." Once again, because my opponents never objected to the framework, you can vote Con without hesitation. Thank you, and good luck to my opponent.
Homopshobic

Given that pro has not provided a framework I will use this round to do so and then await my opponent to initialize the argumentation. Definitions: 1. homophobic: (from Webster's Dictionary) Definition of HOMOPHOBIA : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals " ho"mo"pho"bic \-G2;f!3;-bik\ adjective 2. wrong: (from Webster's Dictionary) Definition of WRONG 1 a : an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause b : a violation or invasion of the legal rights of another; especially : tort 2 : something wrong, immoral, or unethical; especially : principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law Voting Issues: Based upon these definitions, and the wording of my opponent's challenge, the burden of proof is upon ME to prove that the state of being homophobic is injurious, unfair, unjust, a violation of legal rights, immoral, or unethical. If I can prove that the state of being homophobic is any of these things, then the statement that "homophobia is wrong," would be true, and I should win the debate. My opponent has no burden except to rebut each of my arguments. If he succeeds in doing so, then he should win the debate. He can also win if he is able to substantiate some argument which provides reason for disregarding or outweighing what I have said. Good luck demoreo21. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Music in Schools

The argument for banning music in school is that its a distraction to the learning environment. If you'll listing to music your not paying attention, and are less focused on your work. This is up for debate and studies go both ways but teachers vary in their enforcement of that rule based on their teaching style. Those who care more tend to enforce during lectures and not in work unless that individual has had problems previously. Those who are in it for a pay check yet the kid be stupid if they desire.
i am god

god is a creator, creation only happens in the mind, information exist beyond space and time, and the creator is the creation and creation cant exist without creator, i can imagine my neighbor walking around in his house, and believe what that i know what he is doing, but only physical experience is true, and god is just 1 second ahead of my personal physical experience of now god is information, a world creator if believed, you can believe in ponies and superman, because you can create them in your mind, they doesn't come from reality, so information is a world creator destruction=turn my back it being in my mind, is me being it, i am my neighbor, as he does whatever i imagine god is a metaphor for the creation of the mind, whichs makes the creator, me you can see me on the one dollar bill, i am pointy and im looking at you from the top of a pyramid
i am god

My opponent still has not fulfilled BoP and did not refute my points, so I believe my Round 2 points will flow through the rest of the debate, as they were dropped. My opponent, in round 3, asks me, "how can you lie if lies doesn't exist?" I will assume he meant, "How can one lie if lies don't exist?" I believe this is irrelevant to this debate, so ultimately, my opponent has thus far, contributed nothing to his side of the debate, and therefore, I have nothing to refute. As BoP is not on my side of the debate, I have nothing more to add. Thanks! Over to Pro!
i am god

As my opponent does not prove anything, and did not post any arguments except two words and a smiley face, I will work to refute that. My opponent says "lies exist" which I will define as the following: Lies--an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood http://dictionary.reference.com... Exist--to have being or to live https://www.google.com... So according to my opponent, as he did not provide definitions, he says that falsehoods live. This is not true, as something false cannot possibly be true. Unless my opponent can prove that the untruth is the truth, I win today's debate. Observation: In the first round, as my opponent did not set up boundaries, I did so. Since Pro has not met BoP, he cannot win today's debate. He has not yet proved God exists, or that he is somehow God. Thanks, and over to my opponent!
i am god

I accept. Thank you, Pro, for this chance to debate you! :D As the negation of the resolution, I do not have to prove anything, while Pro has the BoP to prove that he is, in fact, God. In order to win this debate, Pro must first prove that God exists, then he must prove that he is God. Any failure to do so will mean that I win this debate. Good luck to Pro! I look forward to seeing your arguments!
Atheism has Proof, Evidence, Facts, Validity and Truth that it's Accurate, True and Correct.

Pro can you show me proof and evidence from History and Sciences that says Atheism is Accurate and CorrectHow many times are you going to ask a question that I answered? The fine tuning argument is a scientific argument for atheism and the lack of biblical archeology is evidence from history against Christianity. You still haven't addressed my other arguments.It's clear who won this debate. There was nothing but evasion from Con. Con I will ask you a question, if atheism has no proof, evidence, facts, validity and truth that it's accurate, true and correct then why do you continue to run away from my arguments? If Pro says he has a belief in being a Atheist then Pro would be a false atheist because atheism has no real believe system atheism has a unbelief system and atheism promotes doubt and unbelief into people that is why atheism is madness for the fact that no one wants to live in doubt or in unbelief why well everyone believes in something rightThis makes no sense at all. An atheist can't "believe" in atheism since atheism is unbelief, but an atheist can have other beliefs. We don't live in doubt we just want evidence to support claims. Even then that's not atheism that's skepticism, so it's irrelevantAnyone who read this debate should know who to vote for. I'm beginning to think Con is shockofgod trolling, from what I've seen of SOG it defiantly seems like him.Watch the video from more proof and evidence of atheism being accurate and correct.http://www.youtube.com...
Atheism has Proof, Evidence, Facts, Validity and Truth that it's Accurate, True and Correct.

Pro can you show me proof and evidence from History and Sciences that says Atheism is Accurate and Correct I want it in Written evidence :) a Atheist has no real proof and evidence that says atheism is accurate and correct can atheism speak for it's self and the answer is no Atheism is a made up fear based Religious cult that has no real proof and evidence for being real here is video proof and evidence: place watch http://www.youtube.com... / Me Quote If Pro says he has a belief in being a Atheist then Pro would be a false atheist because atheism has no real believe system atheism has a unbelief system and atheism promotes doubt and unbelief into people that is why atheism is madness for the fact that no one wants to live in doubt or in unbelief why well everyone believes in something right atheism cannot believe believe in being a atheist because atheism is a unbelief system and if a atheist says he or she dose not believe they are a atheist then that means they have denied being a atheist thus anyone who says they do not believe they are a atheist is not a atheist at all :) here is video a must watch of how a atheism cannot provide proof and evidence that says atheism is accurate and correct http://www.youtube.com...
Once Saved Always Saved

I would never favor that someone be shot...you are talking as if I would know that there heavenbound or something...I NEVER assume that ANYONE is heavenbound....and 2..i know that murder is murder...so for you to assume that killing someone who ya think is heavenbound would be moral..thats all on you.....as for me i dont get my believe by just a few verses but the whole pic....there is not 1 verses in the Bible that you can use to show me that OSAS is right.....oh...by the way...why would you be "for" something that you done believe?...your a athiest...you think God alone is as fake as a cartoon...i could go on debating and throwing verses at ya on what the bible says...but you aint for either side really....and to what you say about predestination.....so far you have talked as if there are certain peaple that are destined to go to heaven while the others are hellbound and cant be saved....that alone will go against what the bible says..and the verses you are trying to use..you dont even understand