BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus was a real man with a real family who had a bloodline record that still continues to this day!

Now, onto the discussion: Christians vs. Jews First of all, let me make this clear; I am making no claim that Jews and Christians are the same. If my wording was ambiguous, re-read this sentence; I am making no such claim. What I did was refer to the book as the “Christian bible” for purposes of clarification. I’m not sure why PRO is so hung up on this point. Bloodlines I didn’t address PRO’s whole point about the bloodline running to the modern day queen because it is irrelevant. As I noted (and cited) in the very first round of this debate, a bloodline refers to ancestors and decedents [1]. This means that the bloodline that allegedly runs from Adam, through David, to Jesus, stops at Jesus, unless Jesus had a child to carry it on. I reiterated this point in the second round, but PRO has yet to address it. The Biblical Jesus Another point I have addressed in both preceding rounds is that PRO needs to provide evidence for the existence of the biblical character of Jesus. If sufficient evidence to show the existence of this person is not provided, everything else in this debate is moot. Returning to the Point I would like to refocus this debate on the original three claims made by PRO at the beginning of the debate. (1) The Jesus of the bible existed(2) Jesus had a family(3) Jesus’ bloodline continues today In the first round, PRO defined (2) in such a way that I will not dispute it, but he has yet to provide evidence for (1) and (3). I await this evidence in subsequent rounds. Sources[1] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Jesus was a real man with a real family who had a bloodline record that still continues to this day!

My opponent said he was confused, I must agree! I ask: if Jesus Christ was is a Sabbath keeping Jew, who never ate Easter ham, on Sunday or crack wafers in a Jewish Temple. What association does God's Word/The Bible have to do with Christianity? Please explain what part of the 1000's of different brands of Christanity who carry bibles but never actually read them. Have to do with Jesus Christ of the bible. I clearly asserted that Christians only use the name of God, but never actually obey Him. My point is crystal clear for those with eyes to see. Adam was in Eden the Garden of God, Adam walked with God. Adam is also the Alpha of the bible. Adam's family record leads to Noah, to Abraham to David to Mary to Jesus to The Red Ruddy Queen who sits on a throne. The same family claims to share Christ's bloodline. Try viewing the prior post again for better understanding. They have the actual throne of David in their house. Where did America (One Nation Under God) come from? Try England, The Queen's family who title includes "Keeper of the Christian Faith! ). https://www.google.com... I must ask my opponent to explain his assertion that Jews and Christians are the same or how their rituals line up with the bible text that you refer to. Let us try common sense? Adam was the only man in the Garden of God named Eden. Adam was the first man in David's birth record. Jesus claimed to be the Alpha of bible, The Root of David. Luke 3:38 King James Version (KJV) 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Revelation 5:5 King James Version (KJV) 5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. Revelation 22:16 King James Version (KJV) 16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. I am happy to inform my opponent that the Queen of England's family still exists today and facts are they just added a new baby king.
Jesus was a real man with a real family who had a bloodline record that still continues to this day!

I would now like to address PRO’s points. The Origin of the BibleI am well aware of the origins of the bible. My reference to is as “the Christian bible” was simple to make sure we are both talking about the same text. The Existence of JewsI never questioned the existence of Jews, so I’m not sure what PRO is aiming at. The Existence of ChristI never asserted that Christ didn’t exist; as PRO has made a claim, it is up to PRO to offer evidence as to the existence of Jesus. One point I did make, was to attempt to clarify what we mean when we say the name Jesus. My point is that the Jesus of the bible is a particular character that carries with it claims of a virgin birth, miracles, resurrections, and other miraculous events. If one is going to offer evidence for that biblical Jesus, they must also offer compelling evidence for these seemingly miraculous events. It is not sufficient to simply offer evidence for the existence of a man named Jesus, and not for his miracles, any more than the existence of a man named Arthur is evidence that he was a king who had knights who sat at a round table. One PRO’s own sources notes that, “there is no evidence over the accuracy of any of the descriptions of his[Jesus’] life, as described in the Bible or as understood by his believers [1]. Adam’s BloodlineHere is another point I don’t know why PRO included. We aren’t talking about Adam’s bloodline, so all of PRO’s evidence and arguments are irrelevant. PRO’s initial claim spoke of Jesus’ “bloodline record,” for which evidence of the existence has not yet been offered. Final ThoughtsI would just like to make it clear that PRO has yet to offer any evidence that the Jesus as described in the bible ever existed. He has also not offered evidence that Jesus, or even a man that character is based upon, has a lineage at all, let alone one still around today. Finally, I would like to thank PRO for this debate, I am enjoying it. [1] . http://rationalwiki.org...
Jesus was a real man with a real family who had a bloodline record that still continues to this day!

However I must refute his claim that the bible is a Christian document. For one; Christians do not follow Christ, God or the Bible=God's Word. The actual word "Christian" is only used in a negative. Example they were called Christian then beaten, jailed then killed in the worst way men could devise/imagine. Next I will attempt to educate my opponent. On the fact that the actual God/Christ of the bible was is Jewish of Hebrew roots. So if anyone associates the Christ of the bible with the Christian Religion of today, they error and never read the bible themselves with understanding. So if one wants proof that Jews exist. One needs to look around. Or Google Jew, Hebrew or Wailing Wall. . http://www.tripadvisor.com...One can assert that Christ never walked the earth, or just look around and know the simple truth that Jesus did exist. . https://www.google.com... If you want proof of Adam's bloodline being tracked til this day one just needs to ask the Queen. Adam to Queen Elizabeth II[ Home ] [ Up ] GENERATIONS 1. Adam m. Eve2. Seth3. Enosh4. Canaan5. Mahalaleel6. Jared7. Enoch8. Methusaleh9. Lamech10. Noah m. Naamah11. Shem12. Arphaxad13. Salah14. Heber15. Peleg16. Reu17. Serug18. Nahor19. Terah m. Amtheta20. Abraham m. Sarah21. Isaac m. Rebekah22. Jacob m. Leah23. Judah m. Tamar24. Hezron25. Aram26. Aminadab27. Naasson28. Salmon29. Boaz m. Ruth30. Obed31. Jcsse KINGS IN PALESTINE 32. K. David m. Bathsheba . https://www.google.com...
Fox NEWS' Varney: Obama offering free preschool so toddlers will vote for him

In another nauseating lie from Fox NEWS, pundit Stuart Varney made the following statement: "Look what the president is doing here, it’s a repeat performance of his campaign, which is you raise taxes on the rich and you offer all kinds of free stuff to people who will vote for you in the future. Free preschool education for 4-year-olds, it’s free, here it is. Hand out the goodies."Varney seems to be claiming that President Obama's main motivation for asking for universal preschool is to bribe toddlers into voting for him in the future. He references his repeated claims that Obama won his second term by bribing other voting groups with "free stuff," and today seems to be extending this argument to toddlers as well.However, Varney forgets that Obama's term will expire in four years, before these children can vote. There are other issues with Varney's argument, and I would like to see how well such a statement can possibly be defended. The resolution to be debated, therefore, is: Is Varney correct? Is the sole reason that President Obama is advocating for universal Pre-K to entice affected voters to vote for him?I believe that the Fox NEWS reporting and analysis on this matter cannot be defended or justified. Therefore, I do not want to hand wring over many rules. I ask that we not resort to semantic misconduct, quibbling over every errant word and punctuation. I also ask that we set the first round aside for definitions and acceptance and such. Any other things may be negotiated in the comments section, and I will be happy to honor any agreements made there.
Same-Sex Marriage

I don't know what you mean by "define" in this case. I believe you missed the point of my first arguement. I'm not saying that just because they do something wrong and it doesn't affect me it is right. They don't harm people, so who are you to judge who they love. Let's see, the children are NOT victims. It seems you don't think it is good for children to get adopted just because their parents are of the same sex. A man and a woman having a family is far more harmful, just look at the divorce rates. It would be much more likely for a straight couple to get divorced, which obviously hurts the child. There is no harm in same-sex marriage. "Regular" marriage is much more harmful. There are far for cases in divorce, rape, abuse, etc in regular marriages. The only way it affects the couple is with happiness. Once again, children do not need a mom and a dad. Over 25% of children in the United States havea single parent, they turn out fine. So I guess by your logic we should ban single parents too. Here is the thing about the Bible, God didn't write it himself. Scholars wrote the Bible for God, but it has most likely been greatly changed over the years. By saying homosexuality is a sin, you are also saying God is a hypocrite. If God is the all powerful being, he doesn't make mistakes. So gay people were all apart of God's plan. If he didn't want them to exist, he wouldn't have created them! Simple as that. Therefore, being gay is not a sin and was merely constructed over the years by biased writers. I'm not saying the Bible is bad, it is a great teach tool, but to make your decisions just based on it shows ignorance. Homosexual activity is completely normal. If you do some research over 450 species engage in homosexual activity, so is it really unnatural now. Seeing has 450 species have it, but only 1 condems it. 450>1. You honestly can believe that overpopulation will never be an issue. Clearly we will eventually run out of room and supplies, it is basic thinking. As we live longer, we have more children. We have more children and we don't die out as fast so we have more and more people. I don't know how you got to the idea that it "bliinds faith," which has nothing to do with it. I'll look at one the points from that article. 3) "But we"re growing exponentially!" This article is clearly influenced by the authors personal beliefs. We have already gained 36 million people this year, so obviously the population is increases dramatically. That means we get roughly 72 million new people each year. In 10 years, that is 720 million people, which is almost 1/7 of the worlds population. Once again, you missed my point. I'm talking about the stories involving a molestation case, not all of the news. If gay intercourse is unnatural because of STD'S then so is straight intercourse. A lot of STD'S were caused by straight couples, which lead them to spread. If you want to blame someone for aids, blame the hunters who killed the monkeys in Africa and contracted aids. The con has backed up his information with ideas,that too, have many flaws and are based of off an authors biasm, not facts.
Same-Sex Marriage

I believe that same-sex marriage is fine. Gay people don't hurt me, trust me I'm not saying that they don't commit crimes, but they are just normal human beings. Many people tend to bash gay people "in the name of God" like the Westboro Baptist church. These people are indirectly calling God a hypocrite because the Bible clearly states "Love thy neighbor as they self." The WBC says that God hates gays, the Bible never says that, but God loves everyone. We are not trying to define the meaning of marriage (the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.) Note: This definition was updated to include same-sex couples. We just want gay people to be able to get married, there is absolutely no harm in that. The Bible states that there shouldn't be same sex, but it never says anything about the people themselves. So having sex with someone of your sex is a sin, so what? Judging, lying,and eating shellfish are sins, but we all still do those things. It doesn't make to sense to me how we throw a fit on a single sin in the Bible when there are hundreds of sins mentioned. A lot of people say "It is unnatural" but what's unnatural about two people falling in love with each other? Gay people should not be treated as second class citizens, they should be able to get married and not be discriminated against. This is exactly like blacks in the 1960's, a lot of people hates blacks them but society eventually accepted them. We don't say letting a black man and a white women getting married is an abomination and it redefines marriage. Gay couples, can't have biological kids (Unless they use a sperm bank," but isn't that good. We have 7 billion people on this planet, and we are definitely running out of room and materials. They can always adopt and the "Children need a father and a mother" simply isn't true. Plenty of well-known people had only a father or mother, so they didn't have both. Two fathers/mothers don't effect a child. The only bad thing is that the child could get bullied, but I doubt the next generation will judge if someone's parents are gay/lesbian. Being gay is not a lifestyle. If it was, when did you choose to be straight? Some gay people would choose to be straight if they could, who would want to be treated so poorly and harassed. Most of the stories you hear now a days are priests molesting little girls, so the whole gay pervert stereotype has died out. It does not promote polygamy or incest either. Incest a lot of the time leads to birth defects because of how similar the genes are. Comparing a man having more than one wife to a man marrying another man (or woman) doesn't make any sense. Gay marriage simply encourages a better life for gay people and makes them feel respected. It isn't hard to treat someone with dignity and love, regarding of who they love. Let's not get into the transgender bathroom issue either, that's a whole different debate.
America should have open border policies.

You see, if Mexico and America has a criminal extradition treaty, which is one country transfers a suspected or convicted criminal to another country, therefore allowing both nations to take criminals (drug cartel leaders, human trafficking leaders, organized crime leaders) to back to the other country to face justice. Not only that, the police force of the United States is 765,000 officers, not including SWAT and FBI members. Then there Interpol, an international police organization that works against some of the thing you mention, including human and drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, organized crime (mafias and drug cartels are examples), and corruption. Not only that, every country on mainland North America are part of Interpol.
America should have open border policies.

We'd make ourselves prone to war. Although we are in NATO, it would be a strain on other countries to have to assist us if someone undocumented from another country attacked us. We also have plenty of illegal activities going on with the borders up. The number would spike up so much higher if drug dealers, human traffickers, etc were allowed to just enter and go as they please! An open border would just make the US a criminal hangout for many.
America should have open border policies.

Illegal immigrants are people who enter into a country ILLEGALLY. Open Borders means that people can go through borders without any restrictions from stopping them. Also, about disease, that has not been proved because international airports is an hot spot for disease since millions of flights are made across the world. Also, it is very unlikely that there be war because of open borders. The United States spends more money than any other nation on earth and has more troops than any other country except People's Republic of China. Also, it is part of NATO, which in the treaty says that an attack on one country in NATO, is an attack on countries in NATO, which includes the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Turkey, and Canada. Therefore, open borders have nothing bad about them.
America should have open border policies.

I believe the United States having open border policies is a disaster waiting to happen. If we have open borders, then the United States will be open towards not only disease, corruption, etc, but is also open towards attacks, war, militia attacks, and much more. If we open our borders, we'll also be giving illegal immigrants who aren't registered opportunities to commit crimes and even if they are kicked out, they will be able to re enter and continue. This would also create a huge economic crisis. Illegal immigrants don't have to pay taxes, healthcare, insurance, etc.
The wage gap doesn't exist

Since the 1963 Equal Pay act, It has been illegal to pay women less. The reason why modern women aren't making as much money is because of the life choices each gender make. Men are more likely to ask for promotions(1), They are more likely to succeed negotiations in interviews(2), They work more hours(3), They take higher paying jobs(4), And they're more likely to accept promotions(5). There isn't a gender pay gap, There's a gender earnings gap. Men have earned their money while women haven't. (1) Research shows men are four times more likely than women to ask for a salary raise, And economist Linda Babcock of Carnegie Mellon University says this has a snowball effect. - https://www. Npr. Org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitate (2)Men are more likely to ask for what they want. Cultural norms may be at play here, Since historically it has been acceptable for men to be assertive in the business world, While women who are tend to be viewed as aggressive or difficult to work with. Https://www. Careersolvers. Com/interviews/salary-negotiation-are-there-differences-between-men-and-women/ (3)Employed men work an average of 42 minutes more per day than employed women. 42 minutes might not seem like much, But that is an extra 3. 5 hours a week or 14 hours a month. Https://www. Forbes. Com/sites/karinagness/2016/06/30/new-report-men-work-longer-hours-than-women/#7b674a0818b4 (4)In the most lucrative professions, Women make up less than 30 percent in each role. Https://www. Cnbc. Com/2017/04/03/women-are-scarce-among-the-highest-paying-jobs. Html (5)Research has found that men are more likely than women to engage in dominant or aggressive behaviors, To initiate negotiations, And to self-select into competitive environments. Https://hbr. Org/2015/09/explaining-gender-differences-at-the-top
Abortion is not justified and should be illegal. (except to save the life of the mother)

I have the BOP in the round. However logic dictates that if we are unsure about the humanity of a baby, we error on the side of caution. Thus, my opponent needs to show that the unborn aren’t human until the third trimester (based on Roe v. Wade.) Cognitive ability is having the ability to achieve an action, an action, that according to my uncontested definition of cognition, is the process of acquiring knowledge. However a patient in a severe coma has zero cognitive ability. He may have a prefrontal cortex, but is in a state where he doesn’t have the ability to acquire knowledge or understanding. Does he have no right to life? The true standard for life should be determined as cognitive potential, which is the potential for someone to acquire knowledge or reasoning. Someone in a coma may not have the ability in that moment, but they have the potential to regain it. In the same way, at the earliest states of pregnancy “The embryo contains the natural capacity to develop all the human activities: perceiving, reasoning, willing and relating to others. Death means the end of natural growth, the cessation of these abilities. Second, Con said that because cognitive ability should determine the life of the unborn because it is how doctors determine when someone is dead. However, this is faulty. Doctors don’t use cognitive ability to determine death. They use brain activity. However, brain activity develops in a fetus at 43 days(1), well before the third trimester standard employed by Roe v. Wade. So judges, if you agree that cognitive potential should be the standard, or if you agree that brain activity should be, both determine the unborn are human at early stages of pregnancy, well before Roe v. Wade. ii. Rape De facto guardianship can come into play when rights are abrogated. Refer to my analogy. if the women can escape the cabin she is still obligated to stay and protect the baby. Con disagreed with this, asking what if there is a fire. However, that’s not the analogy. Con is right in declaring that self-preservation overrules de facto guardianship during a life-threatening scenario. However, if there isn’t a life-threating situation, then the right to liberty is abrogated and de facto guardianship still applies. Con has not sufficiently refuted this argument Con declared that ending the life of the fetus is only a side effect. This is the equivalent of saying that ending the life of a burglar is only the side effect of shooting him. In abortion, the intention is to kill the baby in order to remove the burden on the mother. Pretending that it’s an unintended side effect minimizes the worth of human life. I find it difficult to submit that one should have a legal option to shoot a non-threatening burglar, if he would have lived otherwise. Here is the key point. In rape, a women’s right to her body is violated, but in abortion, a child’s right to life is destroyed. Which is more important? Sources: 1. http://christiananswers.net...