BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus could not be the messiah as per his 2 genealogies

Please just refer to my last comment on 1 Chronicle 28. It's re Solomon's kingship & lineage for the earth kingdom. there is never any mention of the kingdom that Jesus refers to: ".... not of this world." Your, "pass it on as an inheritance to your (SOLOMON) descendants forever," is the same as the above answer. Your, "Not inheritance. That means possession. Thus, the line does not go through the mother." I answered you last round with this. & if yoiu are so set on only using one reference that seems to fit your story line, Maybe I see your problem. Tunnel vision. Check other sources to verify & you'll get a different perspective maybe. Your, "Psalm 110 is irrelevant to the subject." What???? you brought it up last round. I have to ask about your memory cuz this isn't the 1st time you've done this. Anyway, it goes like this, " The Lord says to my lord "Sit at my right hand, ...." not your version of "the Lord said to my master David ...." there is no mention of David & wouldn't be cuz David authored this psalm. Your, "Look at the end of the Psalm, it does not fit Jesus: The Lord is at your right hand ...." If the psalm is about David's son the new priest/king, it certainly does follow. & if it's re Jesus, the risen Jesus crushes evil with His Resurrection & the psalm makes perfect sense. Your, "No, you can use the New Testament to show a point, .." Oh it's OK for you to use it to say repeatedly without any prompting from me, that Luke & Matthew's accounting of the genealogy is useless. That my friend is a double standard. Your, ".... His two genealogies have too many problems." & where is what you say stated in Ezra ..... or why did you use that reference? & if not Ezra. you need to give me some proof in the bible that eliminates Jesus .... So far, I have refuted all your 'proof' as flimsy, not related to this debate, or just not true. Your, "Also, Joseph line is cursed " This is in reference to the wicked king of Judah. If you are not aware, many of David's lineage that were kings, were not living God's rules. God therefore punished them, altho He kept the lineage going throughout all their reigns. Jehoiachin or Jechonias, or Jeconiah, or Coniah, or Jechoniah, or Jekonjah was the name (s) of Jehoiakim's son & is the one you have referred to in your quote I believe. Even tho he was not childless, his sons never sat on the throne. Zerubbabel was Jeconiah's (Jehoiachin) grandson. Though Zerubbabel did not sit on the throne as king, the fact that Haggai 2:23 uses the same terminology as Jeremiah 22:24 shows that Haggai intended to indicate a reversal of the curse. & Scripture alludes here to the verse Who art thou, O great mountain before Zerubbabel? Thou shalt become a plain (Zech. 4:7). This verse refers to the Messiah, the descendant of David. . . .From whom will the Messiah descend? From Zerubbabel. My bad re the 2 Samuel thing, sorry.
Jesus could not be the messiah as per his 2 genealogies

"You seem fixated on Solomon as" Because it's clear that the lineage of Kings must be from solomon in 1 Chronicle 28: the Lord has given me many"he has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel. See what it is say about Solomon "that you may possess this good land and pass it on as an inheritance to your descendants forever." So Luke's genealogy is useless. "using flimsy cherry picked verses." pass it on as an inheritance to your (SOLOMON) descendants forever. That does not look like cherry picking! "Are you aware that the ancient Hebrew language had only 8700 words. Most words had many contextually different meanings." It does not matter, if the tribal linage would have been through the woman, then the father would lose his lineage. the word "tribe" is the same as septer. https://www.blueletterbible.org... Not inheritance. That means possession. Thus, the line does not go through the mother. "It seems as tho you looked up that verse & cherry picked the only one that reflected that they did not expect any inheritance" I provided the link with more verses. The word means inheritance... go check the link: https://www.blueletterbible.org...... Psalm 110 is irrelevant to the subject. TO DAVID (in context it can be translated "to David") The L-rd said to my master (David)... Look at the end of the Psalm, it does not fit Jesus: The Lord is at your right hand[c]; he will crush kings on the day of his wrath. 6 He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth. 7 He will drink from a brook along the way,[d] and so he will lift his head high. "Using the new-testament is useless .... ' No, you can use the New Testament to show a point, but not to prove Jesus is the messiah. The new testament claims that Jesus is the messiah But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. John 20:31 Thus it would not be a debate to use the NT to prove it! Your, "Ezra 2" excerpt was when the exiled Jews were relocating back to the Jerusalem in ruins if I'm not mistaken. What's your point here again? In case of doubt, the priest were asked not to do their duties of the Priest. In case of Jesus, he cannot be a king because his two genealogies have too many problems. "Also, Joseph line is cursed " As I live, declares the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were jthe signet ring on my right hand, yet I would tear you off .. Jeremiah 22:24 "Write this man down as schildless, a man who shall not succeed in his days, tfor none of his offspring shall succeed tin sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah." Jeremiah 22:30 2 And after the deportation to Babylon: pJechoniah was the father of qShealtiel,4 and rShealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, Matthew 1:12 2 Samuel 7:16 I did not quote that verse, you did. Not sure what you try to prove with that verse.
Jesus could not be the messiah as per his 2 genealogies

"Mary was in a direct line from David with he son Nathan." Please tell me where the name Mary is in that genealogy! Also, genealogies are passed only through the father in the whole Hebrew Bible. "But the land shall be divided by lot. They shall receive their inheritance according to the names of the tribes of their fathers. Numbers 26:55 Joseph, even if he was in direct line from David was not the father of Jesus as per both Luke and Matthew. Thus that genealogy could not be used. Furthermore Mathews' genealogy has been cursed as I said in my previous argument. 2 Samuel 7:16 Yes, it is true, but it will not be Jesus, the messiah has not come yet.
Jesus could not be the messiah as per his 2 genealogies

Mary was in a direct line from David with he son Nathan. Joseph was in a direct line from David with Solomon. (Joseph Adopted Jesus as his own so giving him all legal rights involving heirship). 2 Samuel 7:16 says: "Your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established for ever." This must mean that the kingdom of David would be established and secured by a descendant." Luke 1:31"33, he said, "Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." Sorry, just because you don't like the genealogy set forth in the bible, it doesn't mean it's not valid. (Mary) LUKE David, father of (Joseph) MATTHEW Nathan Solomon Mattatha Rehoboam Menna Abijah Melea Asa Eliakim Jehoshaphat Jonam Joram Joseph Uzziah Judah Jotham Simeon Ahaz Levi Hezekiah Matthat Manasseh Jorim Amon Eliezer Josiah Joshua Jeconiah Er Shealtiel Elmadam Zerubbabel Cosam Abihud Addi Eliakim Melchi Azor Neri Zadok Shealtiel Achim Zerubbabel Eliud Rhesa Eleazar Joanan Matthan Joda Jacob Josech Joseph Semein Joseph Adopted Jesus as his own son giving him all legal rights involving heirship. Mattathias Maath Naggai Hesli Nahum Amos Mattathias Joseph Jannai Melchi Levi Matthat Eli Mary Sorry for the closeness of the names re Mary's family omn the left & Joseph's to the immediate right. been a long day & .............. The only viewing problem may be under Mary's lineage under the name Semein. The 2 preceding lines describing " as his ...." & "all legal" should go along with Joseph's side. therefore Semein is immediately followed by Mattathias.
Jesus could not be the messiah as per his 2 genealogies

Round 1 - Opening Arguments Only (No rebuttals) Round 2 - Rebuttals Only Round 3 - Counter-Rebuttals Round 4 - Counter-Rebuttals Round 5 - Closing Arguments and Closing Statements The Hebrew Bible (old testament) only is as per this debate is the only inspired word of G-d. Serious Debate only. would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. And would like to apologise for not answering in the previous round. First let us look at Matthew's genealogy found in Matthew 1 https://www.biblegateway.com...... 1 And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ. First Matthew's genealogy is useless. The whole Genealogies go through the father. Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus. Thus, his genealogy does not count. As an example, if the High Priest would have had adopted a son, this son would not have been able to serve in the temple. So the whole genealogy is useless. " And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ." Furthermore, the lineage goes to a curse person: Jeremiah 22:29-30 Is this man Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) a despised, broken pot, an object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out, cast into a land they do not know? O land, land, land, hear the word of the LORD! This is what the LORD says: "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah. Second Luke's genealogy: https://www.biblegateway.com...... 3 First, this is not Mary's genealogy. This an attempt to justify the contradiction between the two genealogies. But let us say that it is really Mary's genealogy. Mary's genealogy is useless as well. The lineage must come from the father side. For example, if Aaron would have had daughters, their sons could not have serve in the Temple as the High Priest. Furthermore, the line of the messiah must come from Solomon, not Nathan. 1 Chronicles 29:1 "Then King David said to the whole assembly: "My son Solomon, the one whom God has chosen" Finally. Both Lines have Zerubbabel and Shealtiel Jeconiah begot Shealtiel, and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel. 13 Zerubbabel begot Abiud (Matthew) the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri (Luke) Zerubbabel could have had 2 sons and one would have been the father of Joseph and the other the father of Mary. Shealtiel must have only one father. Sometimes, that person can have 2 names, but the rest of the genealogy must stay the same. Because of that, it is another contradiction in the genealogy. Furthermore, that would not "by-pass" the curse, if we still talk about the son of Jehoiachin (Jeconiah). For that reason, Jesus is not a descendant of King David and could not be the messiah.
Creationist Web sites are legitimate and possibly reliable sources and thus may be used in debates

My opinion of Creationist sites being more unreliable lies mainly not in the conclusion itself, but the nature of the conclusion as something that can't really be tested. While I do appreciate the fact that some people accept different theories, as without this we would still believe that Earth is flat and that the sun revolves around us, we should be able to weigh the arguments provided with any theories. By this, I do not mean that we should start teaching every theory that exists, but we should instead accept the theory with the most proving power as the best answer for now, and be open to debating any theory as compared to the current mainstream one instead of dismissing it. It could be said that natural selection applies to theories in this way - the best one naturally is the best at explaining things. I'm not against using creationist sources in debates because they are creationist sources, I'm against it because the sources themselves often lack anything that can be tested. I feel it is appropriate to cite Occam's Razor - Creationism might be a simpler way to explain things, but Evolution has greater ability to explain things.
Creationist Web sites are legitimate and possibly reliable sources and thus may be used in debates

Ok. Time for closing arguments. I think it's unfair for Evolutionists to say Creationist sites are unreliable simply because they come to a different conclusion than Evolutionists do. I apologize if I accidentally said atheists ridicule theists. It IS true that some do, but I did not mean to say most do. I think some Creationist web sites should be considered reliable, as I am against Evolutionists having a monopoly on science. That's not how science is supposed to work.
Creationist Web sites are legitimate and possibly reliable sources and thus may be used in debates

I've heard of that resistance against antibiotics argument. The good news for your case is that this supports natural selection, a crucial and non random part of Evolution. The bad news is, this does NOT prove the idea that natural selection and random chance can turn one species into another. The bacteria resisting the antibiotic never was something other than a bacteria. Scrambling DNA doesn't count as adding information, which is VITAL for Evolution, or monkeys can't share a common ancestor with a human being. Suppose I have some Scrabble letters, spelling ATHEISTS. I can scramble the words into all kinds of words (Hats, haste, thesis, etc.) However, I CAN'T get computer or game because some of the letters are missing. DNA is the same thing. Another popularly paraded evidence for Evolution that's very similar is Peppered Moths. Same rebuttal. Personally, I'm fine with teaching Evolution, just not lying in schools. http://www.newgeology.us...
Creationist Web sites are legitimate and possibly reliable sources and thus may be used in debates

Hello. My first reason for suggesting that Creationist web sites may be used as references is that people have NO problem using web sites that are biased towards Evolution as reliable sources, such as Talkorigins and Nobeliefs. I think it's safe to use Creationist web sites as sources. My second reason is that there ARE many Creationist scientists. http://creation.com... My last reason for suggesting Creationist web sites may be used as reliable sources is to avoid indoctrination. People think that Evolution is a fact, and shouldn't be questioned. http://www.talkorigins.org... Suppose I were running to be president of the U.S. Imagine how upset people would be if I told them to accept me as their president, no questions asked. In addition to this, suppose I insulted people for not voting for me. You could see how upset people would be. However, Evolutionists do this a LOT.
Creationist Web sites are legitimate and possibly reliable sources and thus may be used in debates

This debate is about whether or not Creationist Web Sites should be permitted in debates about Creation versus Evolution. Creationist Web Site= Web Site defending the idea that God created the universe. Permitted= Allowed Evolution= The idea that life isn't created, just originated by pure chance. I'm standing firm on PRO. Rules= No insults in comments or debate.(Stares at Devient Genie and Sagey). Con, please present your case as to why Creationist web sites should not be permitted in a debate. 1st round is for acceptance. 2nd round is for arguments. 3rd round is for rebuttals. 4th round is for closing statements. The only other rule is respecting Freedom of/ from Religion. It is up to me to explain why I think Creationist sources should be allowed in use for a debate. I will use Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research as two examples of Creationist web sites. Who is my challenger?
People are born evil

Well, I can see by opponents avatar that he is already possessed by the devil. The fact that my opponent has attempted take control of the debate and making unreasonable demands clearly reveals that my opponent has evil intentions and wants to win at all costs. My opponent seems to think that babies must be proven to be evil. Really? Why pick on poor innocent babies? Again, my opponent is displaying further evil intentions. Evil is an ongoing concern which should involve the entire lifespan and not just be restricted to the study of babies. That said. Lets look at some baby research to see what's going on in the world of academia. http://www.smithsonianmag.com... In fact, 6- and 10-month-old babies did seem to have strong natural opinions about the climbing scenarios: They passionately preferred the helper to the hinderer, as assessed by the amount of time they spent looking at the characters. This result "was totally surreal," Hamlin says"so revolutionary that the researchers themselves didn"t quite trust it. They designed additional experiments with plush animal puppets helping and hindering each other; at the end babies got the chance to reach for the puppet of their choice. "Basically every single baby chose the nice puppet," Hamlin remembers. Then they tested 3-month-old infants. The researchers couldn"t ask the infants to reach for the puppets, because 3-month-olds can"t reliably reach, so they tracked the subjects" eye movements instead. These infants, too, showed an aversion to the hinderer. Here we see a typical example of university based research into baby behaviour patterns. The baby likes or prefers the puppet which is helping and not hindering the climber. Note - The university interprets this behaviour as a baby with good intentions. One must take into consideration that a baby is a totally useless lump of human flesh and that is completely 100% reliant on its providers in order to survive. Thus, it is only logical that a baby will gravitate towards a helping stranger rather than a hindering stranger. Thus, the baby is not being nice or good at all. The baby is thinking about its chances of surviving and needs all the assistance that it can find. Thus, the babies intentions are totally self indulgent and are not as magnanimous as the researchers may suggest. Thus, we can plainly see that the researchers clearly wanted the baby to seen as magnanimous and have projected magnanimous characteristics into their interpretation of the babies actions. But, alas, the baby is clearly acted in a selfish and greedy manner to ensure its own survival in a hostile and dangerous world.
Is Dec. 21, 2012 the end

The Aztec calender does not predict the end of the world. The Aztec calender doesn't predict the end of the world, why? Well the calender hanging up in my room isn't ment to predict the end of the world. This would bring up 2 different outcomes. 1 the end of the calender just means the begining of a new cycle. 2 they ran out of room. I mean come on they wrote pretty big and on a rock you are bound to run out of room.
Is Dec. 21, 2012 the end

Unfortunately, my opponent has fundamentally misunderstood my arguments. He offered no refutation whatsoever and resorted to a false claim of a personal attack in order to win the round. He never explains why I have no inherency or topicality. I do not need to prove why the world will end in 2012: I simply need to show that according to the Mayan prophecies, the 4th ba'k'tun would end on December 21, 2012 and usher in the Fifth World, or Fifth Ba'k'tun. I never used personal attacks and only used evidence in the round to show this to be true. Please vote for me because my arguments went unrefuted.
Is Dec. 21, 2012 the end

I stand by my negation because an analysis of Mayan culture reveals that 2012 is indeed the end of the world. Mayan mythology divided the ages into ba'k'tuns, or worlds. Literally, according to Mayan mythology, the end of one world was the beginning of another. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...(Native_American_mythology)) The Mayan Long Count calendar was a linear, rather than a cyclical calendar, meaning that there is no other cycle: the calendar ends when the year is reached. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...). According to the Mayans, the Long Count Calendar ends on our equivalent of December 21, 2012, which means that the Fourth Ba'k'tun, or "world" would end and the Fifth Ba'k'tun would begin. So, according to Mayan mythology, the current world ends on December 21, 2012 and the next world begins on that date. Problems with my opponent's cases: He has two central arguments. The first is that a New Cycle starts. Unfortunately, as my sources explain, the Long Count Calendar is linear rather than cyclical, so it cannot start a new cycle. His second argument is that they "ran out of space." Unfortunately for him, the date is not measured in a stone tablet calendar; instead, it was inscribed on several ruins, including the Tortuguero site. I feel sorry for my opponent; he is applying Christian beliefs to the ancient Mayan tradition. The world will indeed end on December 21, 2012, though not in the manner that he seems to assert.
Is Dec. 21, 2012 the end

Okay, my bad (hand covering face) not every one is perfect. But to continue. The Mayan calender doesn't predict the end of the world, why? Well the calender hanging up in my room isn't ment to predict the end of the world. This would bring up 2 different outcomes. 1 the end of the calender just means the begining of a new cycle. 2 they ran out of room. I mean come on they wrote pretty big and on a rock you are bound to run out of room.
Is Dec. 21, 2012 the end

My opponent has made his argument with the claim that the "Aztec calendar does not predic the end of the world." He is correct: The MAYAN calendar makes the prediction, and not the Aztec calendar. Please do not allow him to change the resolution: he explicitly stated that the Aztec calendar does not predict the end of the world. It is not fair for him to swtich the resolution after someone has already accepted the debate.
Abortion should be illegal in all cases.

Bottom line is, It's the woman's choice, It's her body, Who has the right to tell a woman what she should do with a pregnancy, It's her choice, And her choice only, Not some government, Not some other person. Free will, Free choice, We are not slaves to some system, Women have rights and whatever happens during a pregnancy is up to the woman. No bureaucrat, No man or other person has the right to tell a pregnant woman what she should do with a fetus, NOT person, A fetus inside her. Case closed mic drop