BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
According to the bible. The Adam of the bible was is God Himself. 99.9% Christians are in error.

I apologize for my misunderstanding in the last round. I believe I see what you're saying now. However, where does the Bible differentiate between the descendants of Adam and Eve and the descendants of the rest of mankind? Where did these other people come from? Did they come about before or after Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden of Eden? If they came about before, then they would conceivably still be living in the garden, because the Bible says nothing about them sinning or being cast out. If you could show me where these guys are mentioned in the Bible, I would appreciate it. Moving on to the Alpha and Omega: Jesus Christ is in fact the Beginning and the End. Adam however is neither one of these things. He was not there in the beginning, as was Jesus according to John chapter one. He was created later by Jesus, who is The Word. There is also no Biblical mention of Adam being the end, whereas Jesus is explicitly made known as the end in Revelation. So we see that while Jesus fits the title "Alpha and Omega," Adam does not. This brings us to the "Root of David."(I now understand the point up you were making. Apologies for being slow!) As you said, Revelation 22:16 clearly establishes Jesus as both the root and offspring of David. The offspring part is the easiest to understand as the genealogy of Jesus is given to us in the Bible. But how can He be both offspring and root? Well, again, let's look to the genealogy. Who is the ultimate ancestor and therefore root of David? Not Adam, but YHWH! Like you said in round one: The son of Seth the son of Adam the son of YHWH. It's the Creator that is the root and also, through Jesus, the offspring of David. Therefore there is no need for Jesus to be a reincarnated Adam to fulfill the words spoken in Revelation 22:16. May YHWH bless and keep you!
According to the bible. The Adam of the bible was is God Himself. 99.9% Christians are in error.

Adam returned via virgin via Mary=Christ. Born from above, Born of water through the womb. Satan's fallen angels attacked the daughters of Adam not all of mankind. Remember the curse. Adam = Christ could only return through a daughter of Eve. Yes Eve was a God Woman. Their bloodline became the giants and the sin of Noah. Noah's bloodline was the only one left. My Point has everything to do with the debate. Alpha and Omega? Rev_1:8, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Rev_1:11, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. Rev_21:6, And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. Rev_22:13, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. " Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. " Rev_5:5, And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. Rev_22:16, 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.
According to the bible. The Adam of the bible was is God Himself. 99.9% Christians are in error.

Now I'm really confused... What exactly does Jesus being decended from David have to with this debate? I would like to offer you counter arguments, but I just don't understand your points. I'm very sorry. I suppose I'll just give another new argument. This one concerns Eve. The Biblical account of her creation, found in Genesis chapters one and two, suggests that she was the same type of being as Adam. After all, wasn't that was the whole point of her creation? God Himself said "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." (Genesis 2:18 ESV). And then after she is created, Adam says "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (Genesis 2:23 ESV). Now, if Adam was actually God, wouldn't Eve be God also? Or at least part God? I'm interested to know your opinion. God Bless!
According to the bible. The Adam of the bible was is God Himself. 99.9% Christians are in error.

Thanks! Christ came in the flesh through the bloodline of David. Ponder the fact that if you agree with most of the 99,9.5% religions, you actually deny that Christ came in the flesh as a flesh man as it is written. 1Jo_2:18, Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 1Jo_2:22, Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 1Jo_4:3, And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 2Jo_1:7, For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Your new point is well taken! Who did Jesus pray to? Was God proud of Himself? If Jesus was is God? Mat_3:17, And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Mat_12:18, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. Mat_17:5, While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. Mar_1:11, And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Luk_3:22, And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. Jesus asked the riddle to the religious right! (HINT ADAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Mat_22:42, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. Mat_22:45, If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? Mar_10:47, And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me. Mar_10:48, And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he cried the more a great deal, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me. Mar_12:35, And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? Mar_12:37, David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly. Luk_1:32, He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: Luk_3:31, Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, Luk_18:38, And he cried, saying, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me.
According to the bible. The Adam of the bible was is God Himself. 99.9% Christians are in error.

Your reply has given me much to think about. I apologize for my very brief reply, I was extremely busy this weekend and was not able to give as much focus to this debate as I needed to. You asked "DID ADAM KEEP IS EYES CLOSED WHEN IN EDEN WITH GOD?" Well, where in the Bible does it say that Adam saw God? In fact, John 1:18 (which was quoted by Pro) suggests that no man has beheld God. Period. Now, I'm not trying to be difficult and I apologize for misunderstanding, but I don't really get what you mean when you talk about God forming Himself. Genesis 2:7 talks about God "squeezing" man into shape. Where does your idea that God was actually forming Himself come from? I'll end round two with a new point. If God was Adam, then what about the conversation between the two in Genesis chapter three? And why would God hide from Himself and then throw Himself out of the garden? Again, I'm sorry I was so brief. God Bless!
Ah, The bible is so full of it.

Um no silhouetted moo juice gobbling on the moon cow, You fail to understand that this debate in guided by my hand, Not yours. Got it grumpy in a Leviticus 20:13 neo-noir shell? Indeed the barfly up your rubbery shell is slipping into a tired glass of your runny panther baited breath. If you don't like it, Why them mousey on down your yellow rick toad and forget about this twine that gargles your flat iron fist. "That's a typical tactic folks use -- start throwing out other statements, " Why yes it is for you to do as such, Especially when you try oh so desperately to CHANGE THE SUBJECT from your claws from your downtown you know where areas with a batters up approach, But it always lands without a home run approach third to second. "which came first-- the Church or the bible? " Is irrelevant and has 0% of nothing to do with the conversation. "in order to understand a piece of literature properly, " in which your spring chicken She-Ra uniforms most certainly doesn't, And thus the rest of your ooga booga ping pong bong gong show taped live from your dustpan in an attempt to produce snowflakes from your scalp, The rest of your paragraph is easily and rightly ignored. Then you broadly grow where no ferngully has gone before and ask another silly question, Totally ignoring the rules, AND, Completely ignoring the article, AND being a Mad Max Power Rangerette dressed upped in her cotton whoolies batgirl outfit to reflect the eclipse if the halloween moonlight "So the question remains, How do YOU know you are reading each passage in it's proper context? " Irrelevant. Why don't you answer it since you think you are god everything? "Then please enlighten us. . . " Who is this us oh glory be by the lumberjack lampshade? Um no its only you entrapped in a Yojimbo Spaghetti Western. "by explaining how you determine you are reading it in the proper context. " Why don't you do that since YOU ARE a kitchen knifed eggspurt forgery at taking YOUR bible out of context all---the---time? "- If you admit you are not sure you are reading it in the proper context, The you run the risk of misinterpreting it" Don't you worry teedle duh, I have a much less of a worry than your shaved eyes by a razor blade and then run over by a cheap bicycle. "Actually, I learned. . . " Don't worry incapable of graduating any elementary school punk on a typewriter, You've only learned that you are fragmented beyond your glory handwarmers. "Let's be clear, " In which you've thus far have completely blown. Your loss. "I'd gladly debate the author of the article" Well then why don't yah go right ahead and do just that! Duh duh dummy. "I pay attention to the rules. " Um nope. Not with your filler-upper-downer elastic manure roach feed nipples that you find so endearing. "The rules don't mandate that I take everything you write as truth. " Well they are MY truths. You play in MY house and by MY rules when YOU debate ME, Or we don't debate. Got it? I don't conform to YOUR bombastic nonsensical instagram snapchat twitter accounts made for runny babbits that you have proven yourself to be. Have fun.
Ah, The bible is so full of it.

First, Don't confuse the discussion by shot-gun blasting a bunch of statements. That's a typical tactic folks use -- start throwing out other statements, Diverting attention from the discussion at hand. I'm not talking about where Jesus is real or not. I'm just asking a question. Which came first? If you don't feel comfortable answering the question because it has "Jesus" in it, Then fine. Take that out. Answer the question-- which came first-- the Church or the bible? It's an important question, Because in order to understand a piece of literature properly, One should really understand certain things about it; when it was written, Who wrote it, What was the environment the person wrote it. If one doesn't read a piece of literature in the proper context, One is at risk of misinterpreting it. As an example, It would be foolish to read "Aesop's Fables" and take it literally. Likewise, It would be foolish to read Elie Weisel's "Night" as if it were a fable. You understand this point right? So the question remains, How do YOU know you are reading each passage in it's proper context? I can't answer that for you-- which is why I'm asking you. - If you are positive you are reading the Bible stories in their proper context, Then please enlighten us by explaining how you determine you are reading it in the proper context. - If you admit you are not sure you are reading it in the proper context, The you run the risk of misinterpreting it Actually, I learned that somewhere in either elementary school or middle school English Lit. Class. Let's be clear, You're the one citing the article and my assumption you hold to it's beliefs. I'd gladly debate the author of the article I pay attention to the rules. The rules don't mandate that I take everything you write as truth. Rather, The rules of debate allow for questioning another's assertions. When questions arise regarding an argument, It's fair game to pose these questions in a debate. Clearly you understand this right? 1) You start by saying you read the Bible cover to cover. That's great. I commend you for doing that! 2) Next, In paragraph 2 you begin your exegesis on it. Right there, First few lines of your 2nd paragraph, That's where I say "Wait, Hold on! ". That's when red flags go up in my mind, Which prompted my question-- how do you know you are reading it in the proper context? I don't know you at all-- for all I know, You could be someone that reads Aesop's Fables and takes them literally-- someone who would really expect there to be a talking turtle and rabbit. But alas, I don't like to make assumptions, Which is why I ask you: enlighten us and explain how you are sure you are reading a particular Bible story in it's proper context? If you are not able to answer that, Then I question your ability to interpret it-- a piece of literature that consists of over 40 different books, Letters, Poems, Etc written by different people at different times in history. If you can't explain this first simple question of your argument, Everything else that follows from you is suspect. so please. . . . Answer the question.
Ah, The bible is so full of it.

"What came first-- the Bible? The Church? Jesus? " Who really cares? I mean there's no proof that this jesus character ever existed. And the church is corruptible and is corrupted. And first you have to prove that YOUR god exists, In which nobody has ever done in the entire history of the human race before you can mention any bible otherwise according to you so-called christians, Sorry bubba roast beef, You ain't got the fat to cook your greased monkey cheeze crackers in. "There are many things not in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible is it written "Thou shalt not put thy neighbors arm in a meat grinder. " Yet, We can still use other teachings from the Bible to deduce that one should not put their neighbor's arm in a meat grinder. " And guess what snookums is a sling with a cast that has mint flavoring, We don't need a god to tell us these things. "My gut tells me you probably aren't reading the Bible in it's proper context. " Well my gut tells me that the bible should not be read by yodeling choirboys up in high bushes swinging from good ole fruit and berry trees such as you, Not ever, Especially when taking a steam shower. "Where did the Bible come from? " Who cares? Irrelevant question. "How do you know you that you are indeed interpreting what you are reading correctly. " I don't. But one thing thong in your tire iron lung that you can be sure of is that I can interpret YOUR bible a lot better than you. "I never said you took the money. " Well you kept it for a poor boy sanb**ch. "How do you know YOU are reading each passage in the proper context? " Irrelevant. Tell me muchkin mumps man where do you dig up these genie-us questions? What special itching powder do you scratch your coweth runneth over brain with? Next time, Should you decide this debate to continue, How's about paying attention to the rules. Not too hard - is it? Also, And again because this is the second time you've done it, Don't refer to me as if I've written the article. Because I didn't.
Ah, The bible is so full of it.

What came first-- the Bible? The Church? Jesus? There are many things not in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible is it written "Thou shalt not put thy neighbors arm in a meat grinder. " Yet, We can still use other teachings from the Bible to deduce that one should not put their neighbor's arm in a meat grinder. My gut tells me you probably aren't reading the Bible in it's proper context. Where did the Bible come from? How do you know you that you are indeed interpreting what you are reading correctly. Read this sentence: "I never said you took the money. " That one sentence alone can have multiple meanings depending on what word you emphasize, Contect, Etc. Now imagine a book like the Bible (a book that consists of multiple books, By different authors, Written in different times etc). Again, The question is; How do you know YOU are reading each passage in the proper context? Let's start there.
Political Pragmatism Is Insane

First of all, you are trying way too hard. I was messing around. Secondly, pragmatism is defined as practical approach to problems and affairs. So you are saying that politics being practical is insane? I apologize but even though I researched this for a quite long amount of time, I could not find any other definition for pragmatism nor political pragmatism that would fit under the term insane. In that sense, it would not be insane as it does not exist to my knowledge. It is also based on problem or theory. What is wrong with this, or how is it insane? I really do not understand the logic you have presented. There is my first serious argument. I hope the voters base it on fairness and logic and not on their opinion.
Political Pragmatism Is Insane

My opponent has basically summarized, yes, why political pragmatism is insane. It brutally asserts others expectations as stupid... or as I put it, "excessive". To be clear and fair, here are two philosophical encyclopedias that reiterate the necessity of recognizing autonomous practical reason according to Immanuel Kant: http://www.rep.routledge.com..., http://www.rep.routledge.com... http://plato.stanford.edu... Political pragmatism denies this autonomy by asserting collective practical interests without consent. The asserting are literally insane because they extract their sense of self from the self of others. Instead, they should be contributing their own sense of self to the satisfaction of others in advance of association.
Political Pragmatism Is Insane

The argument here is pragmatism is an insane method of proscribing policy because it denies the autonomy of judgment. Instead, it expects people to conform to an authority they don't consent to authorize. People aren't explained "why" in advance of conformity. They are simply expected to conform. The argument pragmatists usually refer to is the cost-benefit ratio of attention span. People don't have the time, energy, and attention available to explain everything, and everyone can't explain themselves to everyone else. Those who demand everything be explained instead are treated as insane for having excessive expectations. This position of "excessive expectations" is precisely why pragmatists are insane in the first place. Pragmatists do not recognize how the definition of "excessive" is subjective. They simply project their standards of "excess" upon others who don't consent. In turn, pragmatists say nobody consents, but everyone has to compromise. Those who refuse to compromise are again insane in having excessive expectations... ...but again, excessive expectations are subjective. Pragmatism ultimately resolves to a circular argument.
Piontless homework

Do you think education is important? If yes, next question. If no; no point in continuing debate. Do you believe good grades are important? Good grades can help with job opportunities and higher level education opportunities such as college. If yes, please continue. If no, don't. What if the only time you learned to speak was by learning at a school. How good of a speaker would you be? You are a good speaker today because you constantly listened, learned, practiced speech on a daily basis in and out of school. This shows how much learning things outside of school helps people. Hope this example makes sense. We need to do more than what the 8 hours of school provide to be better students and better people for a better society.
Piontless homework

We hate homework !!! we think it is stupid ruthless horrible, we don't like it we wish it could end! it is just wasting time at home after we have learned so much in school and it is very stressful!! kids need more time and now parents are giving kids so much classes and they don't have time to do homework. Plus in school they get in trouble if they did not do it when they could not help it! Its really absurd when parents say children now a days don't have time for them ! It is not okay we think that it should totally stop. we are the commanders of non homework. kids need more time for their playing and hanging out so we should be considerate. we all need time to spend for fun stuff and we should stop home work and enjoy our social life.!!!
Religion must logically be rejected

Cameron presented only the Kalam Cosmological Argument. However, this greatly falls short. All the Kalam argument does is show that the universe has a cause. The universe having a cause is a far cry from showing that religion is logical, or should be accepted. My opponent then argues about the likelyhood of life being spontaniously created. He pulls a random number out with nothing to back it up. In fact, scientists as far back as the 50's have already been able to see the building blocks of life form in early earth conditions. http://www.chem.duke.edu... They created many different Amino Acids in just a few short years. This seems to suggest that with the right conditions, life will spring up with very high probability, without a religious god. It seems that the odds of life forming on a planet lie almost entirely on the odds that a planet will have the right atmospheric conditions. And we already know that the odds of that are not so small given the billions of planets out there. But none of this suggests any logical reason to believe in any religions. None of this suggests that there is an afterlife, that jesus died for your sins, or that god has the same face as Samara, or any other religion for that matter. Still, no logically reason has been provided to accept religion, so religion must logically be rejected.