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

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.
Colin Kaepernick Should Definitely Be Considered An American Hero

My opponent is again changing her stance on previous comments that she has made in a separate debate's comment section. All of the people that you're (now) giving credit to are the same people that you threw under the bus in a previous debate. Did you not do that? The great thing about this platform is that everything you say is documented & can be viewed by anyone. Another great this about this platform is that I've only participated in a hand full of debates so your previous comments can & will be exposed. The only thing you're doing is asking hypothetical questions & giving (If this would've happened) type of statements. The fact of the matter is that 31 NFL teams wouldn't give this man a chance because he peacefully protested. So, What are the chances that 31 teams would all of a sudden decide to act like Kaep didn't even exist? Here's where your weak, Prejudice argument completely breaks down. . . I'll ask you this question; wasn't Jay Cutler retired when Miami offered him the job in Miami? So. . . You mean to tell me that a washed-up QB like Jay Cutler who's retired got the job over a QB who's in good physical shape and has a history of at least getting to the Super Bowl. I'm pretty sure Cutler wasn't in the best of conditioning. . . Since he was (retired. ) Any logical person will ask him/herself this one question. . . How could 31 teams IRONICALLY decide to not sign this man? . . . Here's your next contradiction. You said that "Jimmy Garoppolo came in & won 5 straight games with little experience. " You followed by saying that "a player like Kaep can do it as well. ". . . If this is the case in which It's Completely True, Then why wasn't Kaep on the field & there's 30+ teams available? Hmmm. Everyone knows that R. Lewis is inconsistent in what he says & does. Remember when Shannon Sharp exposed him on live tv for taking a knee when Lewis proclaimed that it was extremely disrespectful to take a knee just a week prior? In conclusion, I'll end this debate by exposing my opponent's most atrocious statement. You just said that "THE NFL DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DO OFF THE FIELD AS LONG AS YOU PRODUCE ON IT. " So tell me, What did Michael Vick do on the field that caused him to lose his job & go to prison? Explain to me why Ray Rice hasn't taken a snap since that elevator incident? What did Kareem Hunt do on the field that caused the Chiefs to fire and trade him? I rest my case.
Colin Kaepernick Should Definitely Be Considered An American Hero

My opponent just said that Kaepernick didn't sacrifice his job, And that the definition of sacrifice is an act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy. Here' s exactly why you made absolutely no sense. . . Wouldn't someone's life be considered more valuable than a job? Could you honestly say that the sport of football is regarded as more worthy or more important than someone who got murdered for no reason? The Baltimore Ravens & Ray Lewis? That was nothing more than speculation & here is why. . . Strike #1: Kaep wouldn't be starting over Joe Flacco during this time. Strike #2: If Flacco would've got injured, Do you honestly think that Kaep would've took over the offense especially when the team already has backup QBs? Strike #3: Backup QBs are already familiar with the playbook. If you knew anything about Football, Then you'd understand how difficult it is to transition a new QB into a new system. Strike#4: I guess we're now putting our faith in what Ray Lewis said despite his sketchy history on & off the field. The Dolphins, Ravens & R. Lewis was nothing more than speculation. You may want study what a "red herring" is and how it's used to take the focus away from a topic. Despite what you said about Castro, Miami's fans, Girlfriends & a t-shirt, Kaepernick's attorney possessed damaging evidence on these NFL team owners, Which is why they settled out of court & put a (gag order) in place. That particular evidence in a court of law totally destroys anything you say. In conclusion, You rambled about unwanted attention & strict codes of conduct that causes strife within an organization. I'd love to hear your thoughts on Robert Kraft & his devious affairs with underage girls at massage parlors. Isn't that unwanted attention? Isn't Kraft causing strife within his organization? Don't you think that Kraft should lose his ownership of the Patriot's the same way Kaepernick lost his job as an NFL player? The funny thing about Kraft's situation is that he was one of team owners who participated in the collusion and that speaks volumes.
Colin Kaepernick Should Definitely Be Considered An American Hero

You said that "Kaep didn't sacrifice his job and that he wasn't blackballed. " Do know how ridiculous you actually sound? I want to ask you this question. Did Kaepernick win his case against the NFL? Are you aware that this particular case was about (Collusion)? Are you aware that blackballing is a form of collusion? Let's see what collusion actually mean? Collusion definition from Merriam-Webster Dictionary: A secret or illegal cooperation or a conspiracy, Especially in order to cheat or deceive. Collusion definition from Wikipedia: A secret agreement between two or more parties to limit competition by deceiving, Misleading or defrauding to obtain an objective. Fast-forward to 2019: Colin Kaepernick & Eric Reid settle their (Collusion Case) against the NFL. Both parties agreed to settle after finding out that Kaep's attorney had embarrassing evidence on NFL team owners that would have went public. Mike Freeman, An NFL insider, Provided the damaging evidence against NFL team owners. Https://www. Businessinsider. Com/colin-kaepernick-nfl-embarrassing-evidence-collusion-settlement-2019-2 Blackballed definition: To vote against, To exclude socially or to reject. . . So. . . Now that we know that blackballing is a form of collusion, And Kaep's attorney received damaging evidence against the NFL. . . "". . Need I say more?
Colin Kaepernick Should Definitely Be Considered An American Hero

Say less. I do not think that Colin Kaepernick should be considered an American Hero for these reasons: He did not sacrifice his job He was not blackballed I propose that the reason Kaepernick is no longer in the league is not solely due to his protests, But rather, A combination of mediocre play and the fact that his actions were extremely divisive and caused a media firestorm that put not only him, But his team at the center of attention. I'll expand on this in the next round, As well as rebuttals.
Colin Kaepernick Should Definitely Be Considered An American Hero

The last opponent that tried to debate this topic failed miserably because he couldn't present a solid case. Colin Kaepernick is definitely a modern-day hero because he stood up against injustice. Though he was clearly black balled by the NFL, He was still able to uncover how these people fraudulently conduct business. Kaepernick fully exposed how hypocritical America truly is as a nation. Anyone with common sense know that the protest was about police brutality. The media tried to change the narrative to something else which exposes how a certain group of people don't have a problem with innocent people being killed. Since you had so much to say in the comment section, Here is your chance to redeem yourself from the utter foolishness that you've been spewing.
ascended into heaven - verses do not contradict each other

first off id like to bring up murder. these are just a few verses where the bible contradicts thou shalt not kill. " Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel"Deuteronomy 17:12 "You should not let a sorceress live"Exodus 22:17 "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives"Leviticus 20:13 "A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death"Leviticus 20:27 second in the flood story god said he would never destroy the human race ever again yet in revelations its all about how he will destroy the world.
ascended into heaven - verses do not contradict each other

ascended into heaven - verses do not contradict each other John 3:13 states, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." 2 Kings 2:1 And it came to pass, when the LORD would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal. 2 Kings 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. " The Bible does not say that Elijah ascended to heaven. It says that he was taken up. The word 'ascend' means to go up. It pictures someone or something that goes up of its own strength. The word 'ascend' comes from the Latin word for 'climb' and it literally means to climb up. We speak of someone ascending the stairs. The first biblical use of the word is in Genesis 28:12 where Jacob sees "a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it. John 3:13 does not teach that no one has ever seen or entered heaven. It teaches that no man ever climbed up into heaven by his own power. The only one who has ever ascended to heaven in His own strength is the One who originated in heaven and came down to earth before He ascended."
Progressives and Neo-conservatives are both left wing.

I believe that progressive parties and neo-conservative parties would be the same if put on a political spectrum, instead of on opposite ends like most spectrums today. The only differences between these two are minor, but not enough to make them opposites on a dichotomy.Whoever takes the position as contender will be against my belief. Looking forward to a wonderful debate.Here's the set up:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Present argumentsRound 3: Rebuttal of opponent's argumentsRound 4: Defense of case + rebuttalsRound 5: Finishing defenses and rebuttals + conclusion
Donald Trump will be a Crap president

Before we do anything else... Let's get the argument bingo up. http://imgur.com... Donald Trump, despite being attacked by critics, is in fact a far superior President. He will be no Reagan, but he communicates well, which is a MUST international relations. Also, say what you will about the guy, but expect to hear the attached YouTube video. http://www.youtube.com... Definitions time. quality of presidency - Ability to solve problems and ensure American supremacy domestically and abroad. Ranges from Carter (barely worthy of the title) to Washington (The standard to which every POTUS should be held) Alternately, Obama (crap) to Reagan (All hail the God-President) Having played the board game, I found the "You're Fired!" card OP and in need of nerf. Personally, it's Monopoly with more thought needed to play. The question I have for you is: Did he learn from those failures? He has a ton of money, so he could weather those failed attempts. We need to keep out criminals (like every illegal immigrant) and housing them is expensive as hell, so unless we start subjecting illegals to summary execution, the wall is a far better option. The "politicians' filter" you mentioned is a bit of an understatement. There is literally an entire industry dedicated to getting people elected, and Trump, unlike Hillary the Perjurer and Bernout, has essentially said "I can do this without you." Lo and behold, he is the far superior choice, if not the only choice. Incidentally, thanks for poking me to do more debate stuff.
Donald Trump will be a Crap president

Well, I am debating against a Trump support, so...the point, where is it? Right here----> Donald Trump could possibly be THE worst candidate for presidency. His ideas are idiotic, not to mention absurd. And all he says in his speech, is "I'm rich, I'm great..."ect. And he speaks his mind. It's good that he doesn't have a "politician's filter", but it would have been better to have. And his statements are laughable. "I have a great relationship with the blacks". Wow, that could possibly be farther from the truth. His company has been sued for discrimination for rental terms and conditions, made statements, and said that apartment weren't available for inspection, when, in fact, they were. And he's a businessman, not a politician. And not a good one at that. He has many unsuccessful attempts at products, such as airlines, vodka, a f*cking Trump board game, a magazine publishing company, steaks, a f*cking University?!. Just stop. And just try to tell me "But he will build a wall to keep illegal immigrants out!" Just stop. That will most likely ruin the U.S. And no, Mexico will never pay for it. Even the former Mexcian president used his second language just to say "f*ck no".
Should Gay marriages be allowed

Gay marriages will change the Foundation of society. "Legalising gay marriages will open doors for all kinds of crazy behaviour . People may even wish to marry their pets" . Gay marriages will encourage people to be gay, in the same way hanging out with criminals can make you a criminal. by Channy says: December 14, 2015 at 12:06 am. It will cause kids to realise they have more options why not experiment. the fowling example was given by Yeezyyeezy says: June 12, 2016 at 10:38 pm "you take 100 gay people put them in an enclosed area for 100 years"..they will die out because life is not meant to be with the same sex".put 100 straight people put em in an enclosed area for 100 years and there will be 2x the amount then what started"why? Because life was meant to be male and female,not male and male as well as female and female".
Should Gay marriages be allowed

The people that turn out to be that way are totally born with it. They have an attraction to the members of their same gender. People are born that way, but at first there is no way to prove it as their genes are not supposed to show any signs of it until puberty is finished, and that is a biological facts. Also, in some countries these kinds of marriages are totally allowed and the public has no problem with it. Also, maybe some religions are against this, but i am totally skeptical, so i do not believe anything that has no proof, but there is proof in this case. Also, if (theoretically) you were that way (i want to restrain using that word as much as i can), then you will actually know what it feels like. They are humiliated, harassed and molested by gangs and even the open public. Laws to allow these kinds of marriages are to reassure them that they ARE ALSO HUMAN. Answer this question, can you tell who is homosexual by the looks of his/her face, and ONLY by the looks? As an above average citizen, no one can, actually. That is why to make them feel free, to guarantee them their rights is just a way to give them their own freedom, because that is what the constitution guarantees. Every constitution guarantees every human being the right to mating and other things, and these people of the LGBT community, are also human beings, but still they are not allowed what they should be allowed to, which is a basic human instinct.
Should Gay marriages be allowed

See, we all know that these guys (Gays) are not only men, but they are also in the case of women. Now we also know that they did not have to chose whether to be homosexual or normal, but it is a mental issue. But they are also citizens, and they also have their own rights, according to which they can mingle. Also Gay Marriage is openly prohibited by law in some countries, but in some countries, it is not. Also if humankind was all god's doing, then for every wrong thing ever done or committed, god is to blame.
The BIble is not fiction

The bible is completely illogical and fiction. It is well written, but extremely vague. The vagueness is the key, it leaves itself open to interpretation, by design. Whoever authored the book certainly knew what they were doing. I feel that by even saying that you have facts to back some of the stories is condemning the book as a whole. My father would say, if it looks like a duck, it's a duck. I urge anyone to read the bible and the ask yourself, does this make any sense? The answer is no.
The BIble is not fiction

The Resolve: The Bible is not fiction I am in favor of the resolved, and therefore my opponent shall not be in favor of the resolve. I would like to start off by saying the best of luck to my future opponent. I very much so hope that my opponent will not just say, "The Bible is stupid". I will be presenting information that will prove that the Bible is more than a book, through phrophocies in the Bible that has come true, and I will be showing evidence of certain stories in the Bible being real.
The BIble is not fiction

None of the stories you explained are fact. People of faith will twist anything into proof of their religion. You sir, are debating a topic that is not true. Noahs ark? 2 animals of every species on earth? Where did they poop? How does a lion and a gazelle get along? Moses parting the red sea? Jonah survived being eaten by a whale? The bible certainly is interesting, but obviously not true. Faith and reality are vastly different!
Generally speaking socialism and communism are synonymous.

Rebuttals: Con says "The main difference there is that Baptists and Methodists are both subgroups of Christianity, what are Socialism and Communism subgroups of?" Baptists and Methodists both derive from the Bible and Christ"s teachings. Communism and Socialism both derive from Marx and Friedrick Engles. Con says in regard to what Communism and Socialism have in common" "Irrelevant what they have in common. Fascism and Socialism have some common elements as well, does that mean they are synonymous?" It is highly relevant as the resolve is that they are synonymous. Fascism and Socialism have significantly less in common. The Core tenets of Socialism and Communism are identical. Con says of using a thesauris "It's useless because different thesauri have different definition. This resolution stands on the basis of socialist theory in opposition to communist theory. The problem here is that this resolution is called 'Generally speaking socialism and communism are synonymous' When it comes to complex and strict ideologies, generally synonymous would mean they do not oppose each other in any area (or oppose each other in very irrelevant areas)" We have already clearly defined what generally synonymous means in this debate. To "not oppose each other in any area" does not fit the definition. Con says "If they were truly synonymous they would have theses in addition to the already established ideology. Communism does not build upon socialism, communism opposes socialism in many of the main policies of socialism." Communism does build on socialism. The communist manifesto "briefly features their (Marx, Engels) ideas for how the capitalist society of the time would eventually be replaced by socialism, and then eventually communism."(1) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Concluding remarks: First I would like to again thank Benko for accepting this debate. Second I will summarize the core tenets of Socialism and Communism Socialism: 1: Classless society 2: Government Control of the means of production 3: Absence of private property 4: Equal earnings, medical care, and other necessities Communism: 1: Classless society 2: Government control of the means of production 3: Absence of private property 4: Standard of equality " economically and socially Third I will conclude as I did in round 2 It is clear when observing the definitions and summaries of communism and socialism that they are generally synonymous. The resolution stands! Vote Pro! Thanks for reading! (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...