BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews

What is a Messiah? In Hebrew, the word Messiah is מָשִׁיחַ and it appears 39 times in the Tanakh (Old Testament), in eleven distinct expression; of these, 34 occurrences are nouns ("a messiah") and five are adjectives ("smeared with oil"). [1] Who is called a "messiah"? Example 1: King Saulהִנֵּה֩ הַיּ֨וֹם הַזֶּ֜ה רָא֣וּ עֵינֶ֗יךָ אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר־נְתָֽנְךָ֩ יְיָ֨ ׀ הַיּ֤וֹם ׀ בְּיָדִי֙ בַּמְּעָרָ֔ה וְאָמַ֥ר לַֽהֲרָגֲךָ֖ וַתָּ֣חָס עָלֶ֑יךָ וָֽאֹמַ֗ר לֹֽא־אֶשְׁלַ֤ח יָדִי֙ בַּֽאדֹנִ֔י כִּֽי־מְשִׁ֥יחַ יְיָ֖ הֽוּא׃Look, today you have seen with your own eyes how Adonai gave you into my power in the cave, and (someone) said to kill you, but (I) took pity on you and I said, “I will not stretch my hand out against my master because he is Adonai’s messiah. ” [2] Example 2: King Koresh (Cyrus)כֹּֽה־אָמַ֣ר יְיָ֘ לִמְשִׁיחוֹ֘ לְכ֣וֹרֶשׁ ׀ אֲשֶׁר־הֶחֱזַ֣קְתִּי בִֽימִינ֗וֹ לְרַד־לְפָנָיו֙ גּוֹיִ֔ם וּמָתְנֵ֥י מְלָכִ֖ים אֲפַתֵּ֑חַ לִפְתֹּ֤חַ לְפָנָיו֙ דְּלָתַ֔יִם וּשְׁעָרִ֖ים לֹ֥א יִסָּגֵֽרוּ׃So said Adonai to His messiah, concerning Koresh (Cyrus) — whom I seized by his right hand to flatten nations before him, and I will loosen kings’ loins — to open portals before him and gates will not be closed. .. . [3]Example 3: Prophets/Messiahs in the Pluralאַֽל־תִּגְּע֥וּ בִמְשִׁיחָ֑י וְ֝לִנְבִיאַי אַל־תָּרֵֽעוּ׃Don’t touch My messiahs or harm My prophets! [4]Example 4: The Kohanim (Priests) וְלָקַ֛ח הַכֹּהֵ֥ן הַמָּשִׁ֖יחַ מִדַּ֣ם הַפָּ֑ר וְהֵבִ֥יא אֹת֖וֹ אֶל־אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד׃. .. .then the oil-smeared kohén is to take some of the bull’s blood and bring it into the Ohel Mo'éd. .. . [5]Special note: This is the ONLY example in the entire Tanach where the word "Messiah" is followed by the definite article The" Who is "THE" Messiah? As we have seen in the above definitions, a messiah is a ruler/leader who is anointed with oil. When we talk about THE Messiah, we generally refer to the Messiah that will come at the end of days. Does Jesus fit the bill? The Bible prophecies that the Messiah will, among other things, do the following:- Rebuild the temple [6]- Gather the exiled Jews back to Eretz Yisroel [7]- Establish world peace [8]- Universal knowledge of G-d [9]- Bring about the resurrection of the dead. [10]QualificationsThe Messiah must be a descendant of David and Solomon. Because Jesus was born of a virgin, Jesus had no biological father. The Jewish tribe is passed from father-son; therefore, Jesus was NOT a biological descendant of David and Solomon. [11]RebuttalsMy opponent claims that Jesus fulfilled over 72 prophecies and that he will expand in coming rounds. I ask that you keep it to 5 prophecies so I can have adequate time and space to respond. Thank you. References1. . http://mordochai.tripod.com...; 2. First Samuel 24:10(11)3. Isaiah 45:14. Psalm 105:15 5. Leviticus 4:5 6. Ezekiel 37:26-287. Isaiah 11:128. Ibid 2:49. Ibid 11:910. Daniel 12:2 11. See . http://www.beingjewish.com... and . https://carm.org... מָשִׁיחַ
Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews

Resolved that Jesus, Yeshua of Nazareth, Yeshua bin Yosef, is the Masiach, Messiah. I believe that Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph is the Messiah. He fuffils at least 72 of the Old Testament Prophecies and claimed he was the Messsiah in truth. I will unpack some of the prophecies in the later rounds.
Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews

In my closing round, I wish to respond to the argument that the messiah would be a prophet, priest and king. It is impossible for anyone to be both a priest and a king. The kings came from the tribe of Yehudah (Judah) and the priests came from the tribe of Levi. The Kohanim were Levi'im who were direct descendants of Aaron the Kohen Gadol. Also, to discount everything because "Jesus will come again" is a non-sequitor. Nowhere in the Bible does it teach that the Messiah will come again.
Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews

Thank you again for this debate my friend. Exzample 1 from round 1 King Saul was not a Messiah of God. The Messiah would be Prophet, Priest and King, and a suffering servant (Isaiah 52-53) Exzample 2 from round 1 King Cyrus was not the messiah, it (the messianic prophecy) was not fufilled in him Qualifications and refutal of what a messiah is Let's see the Messiah will insitute world peace and come in the last days. All is correct there. However, Jesus was fully divine and fully human and thus fufilled all these and will come again. Thanks for the debate, shalom
Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews

Once again, thank you for your reply. I'd like to begin by responding to Psalm 22. The KJV states:"For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers have encompassed me; they pierced my hands and my feet."What is going on here? At first glance, it may appear that this could be a prophecy concerning the messiah. However, the Hebrew states the following: יזכִּי סְבָבוּנִי כְּלָבִים עֲדַת מְרֵעִים הִקִּיפוּנִי כָּאֲרִי יָדַי וְרַגְלָי: The problem is the mistranslation of the phrase ca'ari, which I have underlined. The phrase "ca'ari" means "like a lion" and has nothing to do with being pierced or crucifixion. Here are more uses of the word ca'ari:"I compass my soul until morning. Lik a lion -- so He breaks all my bones, from day until night You make an end of me." - Isaiiah 38:13"Behold, a people rise like a lioness, and as a lion it fits itself, it will not lie down until it devours the prey, and drinks the blood of the slain." - Numbers 23:24Thus, the correct translation is as follows:"For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have enclosed me; like a lion, [they are at] my hands and my feet.David Ha'Melech uses this theme throughout the Psalms - comparing his enemies to wild animals about to pounce on him. Thank youMy opponent has yet to respond to a single argument that I have made in my opening round as to why Jesus is not the Jewish messiah. יזכִּי סְבָבוּנִי כְּלָבִים עֲדַת מְרֵעִים הִקִּיפוּנִי כָּאֲרִי יָדַי וְרַגְלָי:
Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews

Looking at your arguments on Psalm 34:20 and referring to the book of Zechariah...is the siege of jerusalem the one in 70AD?and, in Zechariah we see the mount of olives will be split, upon the return of the messiah.We see Israel's restoration.The Masiach or Messiah shall restore Israel, and the piercing part...How does that not refer to a crucifixion?Psalm 22 of David says that "they have pierced my hands on my feet." clearly a reference to crucifxion.I hope I have refuted as best as I can as I am still learning on debates.Thank you to my friend for this debate and shalom
Human is an unreasonable animal.

Human is an unreasonable animal. In short, the reason is the ability to make sense of things consciously or to verify facts.(https://en.wikipedia.org...) But, has human ever really used reason? Firstly, There is nothing that human understand. We perceive objects by sensory organ, construct ideas grounding those perceptions, and transform those thoughts into new ideas. We cannot feel thing-in-itself. Our sensual experience is just a phenomenon occurred by an encounter of sensory organ and objects. That happening is not a knowledge of things. So concepts made by phenomena are also false. Even though we think that we are aware of things, those awarenesses are not truths. Secondly, the human cannot verify facts. Induction is not a system for truth. We believe that sun always rises. In fact, we only know(of course, that is not the truth of thing-in-itself, but appearance occurring to us) that sun has risen.(sun rose today, the sun rose yesterday, the sun rose two days ago...) That does not demonstrate 'sun always rises.' Establishing truth is only probable by deducting from the fact. But we cannot know facts as previously noted. Therefore, we are not using real reason. There are only pseudo-truths. My assertion is also in error. What can we know? I just feel that we are not reasonable being but pseudo-reasonable being.
Human is an unreasonable animal.

Phrase 1~3: The belief and the ideal do not secure the truth. 4~6: How can you know 'blind justice,' 'Renaissance,' and 'women's suffrage' are more reasonable than any other system? You presuppose that non-western, non-modern culture are unreasonable and that we 'were' unreasonable. 7~8: Is there an example supporting your assertion? We know well humans unreasonably respond when attacked by something.
Human is an unreasonable animal.

Western culture is founded on the belief that humans are reasonable. The idea that humans could be unreasonable in total goes against everything the American founding fathers believed and fought for. The founding fathers fought for the value of the individual overall, that one person can make more of a difference than all of society, and this still rings true today. They also fought for the blindness of the judicial system, 'blind justice' and this has been working for centuries, the idea of humans being totally unreasonable is contrary to these facts. Humans reasoned themselves out of the dark ages and into the Renaissance. Women reasoned themselves into suffrage in America. If you are attacked by wolves, you cannot reason with them. If you are attacked by humans, you can reason, it has been done before.
Human is an unreasonable animal.

That posts only deals with truths in everyday sense, in other words, pseudo-truths. Those kinds of knowledge will help our survival, debating for policy, and developing machines, etc. But we are discussing philosophical problem. Genuine truth must have no counterexamples. There are many unproved descriptions in that posts. I want to show you a little. Phrase 1: Definition is a promise. The promise is not the truth. 2: Counterexample: We cannot know other's qualia itself. 3: Writer also agrees the model is the truth with exceptions, but the valuable pseudo-truth. 4: Prediction does not secure the truth(~seems to require~). 5: Craig concluded that using empirical methods. We demonstrate scientific knowledge by mainly applying inductive reasoning. Researchers would have experimented with right anterior insula. They would have observed many times how right anterior insula to function. But observations does not assure that kinds of performing of right anterior insula as truth, as I referred in paragraph 4 of the first round. I stop here because you can also clarify pseudo-truths easily by adapting skeptical method like above. People always treat incomplete truths and believe that those are truths. That is why I feel that we are unreasonable animals.
Quran(pro) vs Bible(con)

Well, my opponent couldn't refute the sciencitfc miracles I stated that prove the Divine origin of the Quran and so goes on to use the Bible to prove that the Qur'an is false; although I stated in the 1st debate that we're questioning the Origin of Bible and Qur'an and so tbe Bible too is under the test, and thus my opponent can't use the Bible to falsify the Qur'an UNLESS he shows sicienitifc phenomena stated in the Bible equivalent to those I stated. Indeed, here are some errors and contradictions in the Bible which denies its Divine Origin:1- The author of the book of Psalms is so confused; he states that the Earth and Heavens will perish at the End of times (110:25) while in Psalms (78:69) he states that tbe Earth will abide for ever.So can it be both ? Earth perishing and abiding forever ? Well the author may have a point.2- Heleoing leprosy, in Leveticus (14:49) God orders sprinkling houses with BIRD'S BLOOD to disinfect Leprosy, well it seems that the author didn't know that blood is a fertile soil for spreading infections as well as he advocates it as a method of curing. So God seems he wants to kill it not cure it.3- Leveticus (12:1-5): the Bible states that a woman is unclean after bringing a male child for 40 days while female child for 80 days so can you tell me a scientific explanation of how does bringing a baby girl makes you double "unclean" BTW that's too sexsit.4- the Book of Ezra. and Nehimiah dp contradict each other several times when narrating the same historical event; for example Ezra. 2:65 states 200 singing men and women while in the same event Nehimiah 7:67 states 245 signing men and women. Seems like God is confused in counting ?5- (2 kings 24:8) states that Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he started to reign Jerusalem while (2 Chronicals 36:9) states that he was 8 years old when he reigned. Any explanation ?6- (1Kings 7:26) Solomon's temple had 2000 baths while (2 Chronicles 4:5) it had 3000. Contradiction.7-Now to the New Testament- Gospel Mathew 1:18 says that Jacob is Father of Joseph while Luke 3:23 states that the father of Joseph is Heli. Seems that thr two Apostles weren't receiving the same "Holy" Spirit.8- 1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. 2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.Those are enough to prove my point, although I have more. Goodluck :)
The United States federal government should let the refugees in the U.S.

/news/world/555434/Islamic-State-ISIS-Smuggler-THOUSANDS-Extremists-into-Europe-Refugees According ISIS sources, they report that there are 4,000 ISIS agents inside the EU alone. ISIS poses a large terrorist threat as they cannot be negotiated with and willingly will die for their cause. It has already been established that refugees pose a risk as some of the Paris attackers were refugees http://www.breitbart.com... 62% of Americans do not believe more refugees should be accepted. Since we are a representative democracy a just government ought to listen to the people based on social contract theory. A just government derives its power only from the people, who implicitly consent to the contract in return for the government listening to them, consent of the governed. Therefore a 38% minority ought not to rule in a democracy for the people. Conclusion Refugees pose a risk to national security and most Americans do not want to accept them. Vote Con based on sources and arguments. Pro failed to provide an argument in this debate. Thank you.
Liberal v. Conservative (Uncensored)

Reminder that civility is no longer an issue, so if I get rude, I’d like to assert that it’s nothing against my opponent. It’s only because I’m very passionate about these issues. Now I’d like to take the time to address some of my opponent’s beliefs. I support LGBT individuals having equal rights, as I believe they already do. I oppose actions that, under the pretense of equality, give special privileges to supposedly oppressed groups, restrict free speech, or attacks the functioning of traditional institutions. In order to discuss this issue, I’ll need my opponent to clarify a few things. 1. ) Do you feel homosexuals are not suppressed groups? 2. ) When you say you believe we already have equal rights, what do you mean? 3. ) If you support us having equal rifts, does this include gay marriage? I fully support the second amendment and gun rights. I’ll not attack your direct beliefs at this moment, however, I’d like to assert that while we have the right to protect ourselves, there should be a limit to the firepower our weapons have. A person does not need an AK47 to protect his home; a simple shotgun would suffice at doing that job. I am pro life but support exceptions for rape, incest, and mother's health. It’s nice that you support exceptions. In that regard, you are miles ahead of your conservative peers. However, should it not be the woman’s choice? I support freedom of religion. Contrary to what pro stated, I do believe that freedom of religion does include the right for protestants to be, in his view, "consevative a**holes". To clarify what I meant about conservative a**holes, I’m referring to the denial of services for homosexuals. Particularly the denial to give them marriage licenses or provide services (i. e. Bakeries, Florists, et. all) My opinion is that if you are not a church, you should cater all people. Also, I feel denying homosexuals service is a hypocritical double standard, given that people cater a plethora of other sinners. If you say you refused to cater to gay people, do not use religion as an excuse for your bigotry. As for gender equality, I think it is largely a empty term. Men and women should have equal rights. But, the fundamental reality that men and women are not the exact same needs to be acknowledged as well. It is ridiculous to look at the fact that, for example, women and men are not exactly equally represented in every profession and assume discrimination or oppression. I’ll agree with you that men and women are different. However, gender equality addresses more than simple equality. It addresses sexism in the workplace, misconstrued stereotypes, and the wage gap between the two genders. But, the "oppressive patriarchy" theory of gender relations is ridiculous. This is false. For far too many years, men have asserted that they are superior to women. In many cases this still happens. This is sexism at it’s finest. If you have evidence to back up your assertion, please prove me wrong. I doubt you will.
Liberal v. Conservative (Uncensored)

Thank you for challenging me to this debate. Looking forward to it. My Personal Beliefs: I am politically conservative. My philosophy is generally supportive of limited federal government, traditional American values, and patriotism. I support LGBT individuals having equal rights, as I believe they already do. I oppose actions that, under the pretense of equality, give special privileges to supposedly oppressed groups, restrict free speech, or attacks the functioning of traditional institutions. I fully support the second amendment and gun rights. I am pro life but support exceptions for rape, incest, and mother's health. I support freedom of religion. Contrary to what pro stated, I do believe that freedom of religion does include the right for protestants to be, in his view, "consevative a**holes". As for gender equality, I think it is largely a empty term. Men and women should have equal rights. But, the fundamental reality that men and women are not the exact same needs to be acknowledged as well. It is ridiculous to look at the fact that, for example, women and men are not exactly equally represented in every profession and assume discrimination or oppression. The claim that men hold a unilaterally privileged position in society due to historical oppression or patriarchy is also a claim I would disagree with. There are clearly areas in society where men hold privilege and areas where women hold privilege. We also need to acknowledge the sociobiological basis for many of these realities. That doesn't necessarily justify them. But, the "oppressive patriarchy" theory of gender relations is ridiculous.
SickInTheHeadz

"Virgins can understand things. " And I never said otherwise. Again, A failure at reading and understanding what was written. I said that your virgin brain can't understand. And I was right. You truly don't understand. "But pressuring people in all the ages to have sex whatever the gender is unethical" No, It's the most moral thing one could do, After ending all suffering of course. "But only one paragraph (or even less) is used to actually post those things that actually says you're right. " All paragraphs confirm that I am right and that you are wrong. You just can't understand it, Virgin brain. "I wrote SOME nonsense and you wrote ALL nonsense" No, You wrote all nonsense and I refuted your nonsense. Done. "I'VE NEVER SEEN A PERSON HAVING THIS MUCH DESIRE TO DIE. " I don't see how is this an argument. "Issac Newton died a virgin. " Oh, The guy who praised a failed watchmaker's argument. And also, You are not Issac Newton. And you will never be Issac Newton. The best thing you can do for yourself is to go outside and lose your virginity. This is my friendliest advice to you. "Scientist and innovator, Nikola Tesla, Abstained from sex for his entire life. He believed that sex would distract him from his work. " And you think that if you abstain from sex, You will become Tesla? Trust me, You have no reason not to be distracted with sex. As your work is completely useless to you, As was Tesla's work completely useless for him, And somewhat useful for others. "Tesla had many inventions that probably you are using right in your home. " Yeah, And his inventions caused a lot of suffering and deaths and addictions. Also, What was the last thing you invented, Mister "I wanna be a Tesla"? Oh, Nothing? Well, Keep being a virgin. Maybe you will actually invent something that won't cause suffering and misery, Unlike with your fellow Tesla idol. "Virginity made them the top of the hall of fame" "virginity argument done. Now let's talk about something else. " Considering the fact that I surpassed those people with my flawless morality code and a sense of truth, It is obvious that not being a virgin made me at the top above them. Maybe not as famous, But then again, Fame is not as important as is reducing the suffering. And sure, If you want to be virgin because you think you will turn into Tesla, Fine. Call me when you actually turn into Tesla. Oh, That's right. That won't happen. You are just wasting your time, My time, And your poor mother's time. "These are all your debates. " That's not true. I have plenty more debates. As I have carpet-bombed debate. Org because of you. So it's actually you who caused those debates. That is, You and me together bro.
SickInTheHeadz

Play with Wii u and Switch. Don't play with virginity. as the last argument i am going to actually pull some of your real arguments. Comments are just a buff of overpopulation here. And you wrote a plenty of things, That i can argue back with. "Also explaining and proving are two different things. You didn't prove anything, So everything that you said is invalid. But of course, You can't understand something like this, Because your virgin brain is just a complete and utter failure. " Stereotyping. Virgins can understand things. All people learn english language arts before they are married and having sex. I know you are old enough, But pressuring people in all the ages to have sex whatever the gender is unethical. I don't have only one choice. I can be a virgin if i can. You wrote 3 paragraphs about a "religion". Even if it is a religion, It doesn't need ONE HALF OF THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT. Evidence is clear and i say i fail on this one. But religion isn't too big of a thing. I wrote this is just to write a small portion of it, At all. But only one paragraph (or even less) is used to actually post those things that actually says you're right. That is just. . . Sad. And what you wrote, Is just excuses to be lazy. You want to die? Because that is what you says. I'VE NEVER SEEN A PERSON HAVING THIS MUCH DESIRE TO DIE. Trust me. I know how you died. By misguiding and probably being regretful. Everybody like this should feel that way, And not like you who is still trying to misguide as much as possible behind and on the computer screen. "The rest of your comment is just pure nonsense, Doesn't even deserve attention. " well how do you say about that? I wrote SOME nonsense and you wrote ALL nonsense except the last one due to lack of comprehension. and virginity isn't bad. Issac Newton died a virgin. And also: "Scientist and innovator, Nikola Tesla, Abstained from sex for his entire life. He believed that sex would distract him from his work. " Well this happens. Tesla had many inventions that probably you are using right in your home. Newton developed rules of physics that you learned before, If you claim to be smarter than me. Virginity made them the top of the hall of fame, And the lose of virginity made my opponent misguided. I am not comparing you and insulting you, But science is more important than sexuality. virginity argument done. Now let's talk about something else. "Give a 6 year-old girl a lick on the cheek" "I love licking 4 year-old girls" "Give a 6 year-old girl a lick on the cheek" "4 year-old girls should be licked by adult men" These are all your debates. Repetitive to a state so mad that no one wants to debate with you. Seriously. Why do i even debate with you? As my last words i would like to see your argument. See you at arguments and votes.