BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
James was the blood brother of Jesus

I apologize for being unclear in my first post I was talking about Hebrew as the language that the majority of Old Testament was written in, and Aramaic as the language of Jesus, which is neither here nor there as you wish to discount the the use of brother in the old testament for earlier stated and legitimate reasons. Since you like to quote Matthew take a look at Matthew 23:8 where we are told that we should call one another "Brothers" "adelphos" Clearly the bible does not imply that all Christians have the same birth mother. Now since this debate is about James let's look a little closer, The James mentioned in Matthew 13:55 is not in my opinion the actual brother of Jesus for the following reasons, Galatians 1:18-19 informs us: "Then after three years I [Paul] went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord"s brother." please note that the James which Paul is speaking about is bother of the lord and an apostle, of the apostles, there were but two named James. The first James is revealed to be a "son of Zebedee." He most likely would not be the "James" referred to because according to Acts 12:1-2 he was martyred very early on. Not to mention his father was Zebedee. It is more likely that Paul refers to the other James, except this James can not be the brother of Jesus either as Luke 6:15-16 reveals that this James has a father named Alphaeus, and not Joseph. If you would like, you could make the weak argument that James was not an apostle, or not one of the 12 as there is a looser sense of the word used in scripture for example Barnabas in Acts 14, however remember that when Paul wrote about Going up to Jerusalem to see Peter he was writing about a time shortly after he was converted and it would have been much more likely that he were speaking of the "12" , Now only 14 chapters after we are introduced to the bothers of Jesus as "James, Joseph, Simon and Judas," we find "James and Joseph" mentioned again, but this time their mother is revealed as being named Mary, but not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. We can conclude that "James and Joseph" are "brothers" of Jesus, but they are not uterine brothers. Matthew 1:24-25, and the claim Jesus was Mary"s "firstborn son" and that Joseph "knew her not until" Christ was born? Does Matthew here teach that Mary had other children? No, and this is where the old testament will become relevant. Exodus 13:1-2 reveals something very important about the firstborn in Israel: "The Lord said to Moses, "Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine."" The "firstborn" were not given the title because there was a "second-born." They were called "firstborn" at birth. Jesus being "firstborn" does not require that more siblings be born after him. You still have not accounted for Jesus giving his mother to the care of John even though it would have been the responsibility of the next eldest son in accordance with the law.
James was the blood brother of Jesus

REBUTTALMy opponent claims that there is no word for cousin in Hebrew, and that a longer circumlocution is employed in the text of the Tanakh, e.g. Gen 29:10, "Rachel was his cousin—the daughter of Laban, his mother’s brother." In the main, this is correct, although the words ben/bat dohd ("son/daughter of uncle") might have been used. This is immaterial. Firstly, the gospels were written in Greek, not Hebrew, so the author is not restricted by possible limitations in Hebrew. He might have merely used common Greek words to describe various familial relations. Also, even if there was no way to say cousin in Hebrew, they are not called brothers, they write the relationship out explicitly, as they do in Gen 29:10, so it would be obvious who was related to whom and in what way. Lastly, Jesus and his followers all spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew.My opponent makes the mistake of equating James, the brother of Jesus, with other people, also named James, in the New Testament. James, the son of Mary of Clophas, is a different person. Likewise, James the son of Alphaeus, and James the Greater. They are not James, the brother of the Lord. This can be verified by reference to the text of the New Testament.
James was the blood brother of Jesus

I agree with everything you put in your first paragraph, I also agree that the Greek has a word that means cousin, the only issue with your argument is that the confusion originates in Hebrew and Aramaic which happened to be the languages of most of the Old Testament, and of Jesus himself. In Hebrew, and in Aramaic no special word existed meaning cousin, nephew, half-brother, or step-brother; so they used the word brother or a circumlocution, such as in the case of a cousin, "the son of the brother of my father." When the Old Testament was translated into Greek and the New Testament written in Greek, the word was used to capture all of these meanings. Other Gospel passages clarify the relationships for example James and Joses were the sons of Mary of Clophas (Mk 15:40). and Judas was the son of James (not either of the Apostles) (Lk 6:16). James the Lesser was the son of Alphaeus (Lk 6:15). James the Greater and John were the sons of Zebedee (Mt 20:20). Also remember that Joseph was already dead and that Jewish law would dictate the eldest son would have to take care of the widowed mother, since Jesus had no blood brother the care of Mary was entrusted to St. John. Orthodox Churches have "speculated" that Joseph was a widower and had children prior to marrying Mary, in which case they would still be only "half brothers and sisters"
James was the blood brother of Jesus

OPENING ARGUMENTThe Gospels of Mark and Matthew both mention the brothers of Jesus. Mark 6:3 names them as James, Joses, Judas, and Simon. Matthew 13:55 names them as James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. The only name that differs is Joseph/Joses. In Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, Paul writes that he had met with "James the Lord's brother." The "Lord's brothers" are also mentioned in 1 Cor 9:5.Now, the Greek word used in the gospels is adelphos (pl. adelphoi), which translates directly as "brother." This might be interpreted in the wider sense of "brethren" but this seems very unlikely for two reasons. It was not used in this sense anywhere else in the New Testament, and the brothers of Jesus are listed alongside the rest of his direct family, including his mother Mary, in Mark and Matthew. In addition, these men were not the cousins of Jesus as there is a distinct word for this in Greek, anepsioi.The Catholic Church believe that these brothers were the half-brothers of Jesus, from Joseph's unrecorded, and therefore spurious, previous marriage. The Church hold to the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. However, there is no early evidence for this. It was a later tradition invented to explain these facts. On the other hand, there were those who believed these brothers were the children of Joseph and Mary, and hence the blood brothers of Jesus. The Ebionites, for example, were an early Jewish-Christian sect associated with James, the brother of Jesus, who also denied the Virgin Birth. Tertullian, an early Church father, also believed this was the case.These facts, taken together, provide a strong argument that James was the blood brother of Jesus.
Being offended / feeling victimized

Ah yes. The topic of being offended, rather a controversial one. In direct response to what you have said I do think that there are people who get offended at pretty much everything and it really is irritating. Knowing this, it is still not appropriate to say that no one should ever get offended at anything. An instance where getting offended would be beneficial would be someone making light of your beliefs in a rude way. This calls for being offended because you need to find out why they said what they did, and to healthily pursue in a friendly relationship with that person you have to understand their feelings and you have to understand theirs.
Being offended / feeling victimized

It is never ok to take offense or feel victimized by the opinions of others. This topic is culturally significant right now, but never should have been... Society reached the ideal position decades ago, proclaiming that, "Sticks and stones may break our bones, but words can never hurt us." But over the last 20 years of social engineering, the upcoming generations have been persuaded that emotional immaturity is a desired norm for society, and thus, must be catered to. Socialists consider this shift to be "progress" but, clearly, it is arrested development. My opponent must provide at least one instance in which taking offense to a verbal charge/critique is the most appropriate response.
Junk foods should be banned at schools whatsoever.

Since there isn't much he said, I"ll quote him and respond accordingly line-by-line. As a side note, it seems my opponent has not responded to my main argument, meaning the values I presupposed in it must be taken to be true since PRO has yet to touch it. In light of this, my responses can be fueled with the same rationale: "The reason why i think junk foods during school hours should be banned is because 1, it may increase littering,. ." ----> So what if it increases littering? Not only are there trashcans and some regulations against it (both via the local government and school supervisors), but this can happen anywhere. Hell, anything with any form of packaging can be littered, and many of these items are accessible to teenagers. So I ask of you, what makes it so much special when it's located on school grounds? ". ..2, it may set the kids to be not focused in school curriculum. " ----> How would this happen? There barely any empirical evidence to suggest this. Most kids, except for extremely obese ones, are actually have troubles with academics due to. .. food, let alone junk food located in school. If they eat it during breaks and after school, then how would they not become focused in school curriculum? Do mind that most teachers forbid students from eating food in class, and even if they get away with it's ultimately the student's responsibility and burden to decide to. "if you want junk food, eat at home. " ----> Why not during school breaks? You seem to support this claim and yet have given very weak reasons for why.
Junk foods should be banned at schools whatsoever.

Since my opponent has failed to define schools, and junk food, I will do so for him (with good intentions, of course: Schools will refer to public schools, which are "elementary or secondary schools in the United States supported by public funds and providing free education for children of a community or district. [1]" Junk food is a tricky and somewhat vague term, but it will refer to "foods with limited nutritional value. .. [that] would include foods that are high in salt, sugar, fat or calories and low nutrient content. Salted snack foods, candy, gum, most sweet desserts, fried fast food and carbonated beverages are some of the major junk foods. Generally, they offer little in terms of protein, vitamins or minerals and lots of calories from sugar or fat. The term "empty calories" reflects the lack of nutrients". [2]" My argument is very simple. Since public schools are owned by the government, then any moral obligations the government has should follow through with their handling of public schools - namely the dietary options available to pre-college students. I'll argue that the government's job is not to babysit it's citizens and force them not to be able to eat junk food, but rather give them the option of junk food alongside healthier groups of food. If a child decides to hurt their health with candy, then so be it. The government's role is to provide security, allocation of resources, and conflict resolution. Not babysitting. I'll leave further arguments for next rounds, since there are so many. ---References--- 1. . http://www.answers.com... 2. . http://www.dietitian.com...
which is better divergent or the hunger games

I will be arguing that Hunger Games is better as Pro seems to be more Divergent aligned. I quote "I think that divergent is better because I has a better story line to it and it makes more sense" (Line 1), Divergent makes as much sense as Hunger Games. In Hunger Games, much like Divergent, in a country (most likely USA) the places are divided into factions and is set in the future, again, much like Hunger Games. In fact they are so closely related that I quote "The producers were aware of the story's surface-level similarities to The Hunger Games, but felt that the urban world of Divergent would contrast with the rural feel of Hunger Games and help differentiate the two. "[1] [1] . http://www.imdb.com...
God is real

May the records show that, because Pro may a positive statement, the burden of proof is on him; he must prove that a God exists, while my goal will be to neutralize and cast doubt on his arguments. I only have 10 minutes to do this, for some reason, so I'm going to focus on my arguing why, logically, Pro's position doesn't make any sense, rather than sourcing arguments. My first argument is that there is no evidence for his position and there is absolutely no reason that a God would be needed. If he wants to use the Prime Mover argument, I would counter that his position extends ad infinitum -- that is, if he says that we cannot explain our surroundings, and therefore there must be a creator, I would ask him how God was created. Did a God create that God, who created another God, who created another God? Where did that God exist if not in a universe or a perceivable reality? If that is the case, then how could he create that reality? Pros's case will likely be that God has no beginning or end. However, he must prove this and, in the process, disprove Einstein's theory of relativity. I'll conclude by pointing to Occam's Razor. It goes like this: "When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better" (1). The competing theory is whether there is a God who created the universe, or whether it was capable of self-creating. We know that, for a God to exist, he must have self-created and existed in some semblance of reality. Thus, the universe can self-create and my theory is plausible, while his has no basis for it. Finally, I'd like to ask Pro whether which God he is speaking of. Is the term universal, or is he speaking of the God of the Bible? Is the source for his contention the Bible? If that is the case, I'd point out the events in the Bible -- e.g., Great Flood, creation story, young earth, etc. -- that cannot be taken as literally true. If he'd like to go that route, we can certainly do so. I'll yield back to Pro at this point. 1. http://math.ucr.edu...
Watching Violence on TV is bad for you

"Also according to..."Illiteracy at work, the title of the a article is clearly "Children who watch too much TV..." too much anything is harmful. Is eating harmful, just because some people abuse it? No!"Research is always right!"Not always, but in this case it tends to be accerate, just not your conclusions of what it said. Such as in the article you posted, it clearly shows benifit, as TV watching (in children) "leads to more grey matter in the regions around the frontopolar cortex area of the brain" more brain is a good thing. Conclusion:This was a fun speed debate (ten minute rounds), but pro has no case.In addition to dropping every single point I've made, what case they might be said to have, is off topic; both targeting children, and video games instead of mere watching of television (as the resolution demands).Highlight to me, pro opening with a plagiarized material, ironically titled "Copycats."
Watching Violence on TV is bad for you

"because according to..."1. Had you read the article, you would have noticed it's titled "How Playing Violent Video Games May Change the Brain," not even harm the brain, and still only risen to the level of maybe.2. It remains off topic, interacting with a video game, is a whole different experience than simply watching something.3. Were it on topic, the increase in violence has not been shown to be harmful to the person playing; as I pointed out last round, people need to defend themselves."my friend Trevor"1. See 3 above.2. Correlation does not prove causeation.3. Still just a logical fallacy of meaningless Anecdotal evidence (one isilated incident, means little), so invalid as an argument.Sources:[3] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...;
Watching Violence on TV is bad for you

Pro's entire case is plagiarized a LiveStrong.com article written by Adam Fonseca [1], and should be dismissed as such.In case that is not enough, I quite enjoy watching violence on TV, it helps me relax, and thus is good for me. In fact I bet it's good for everyone here.And to the pathos appeals of think of the children: It's a dangerous world, they need to know how to defend themselves. I suggest starting with this eHow guide, which includes use of violent videos [2].Sources:[1] http://www.livestrong.com...[2] http://www.ehow.com...
Watching Violence on TV is bad for you

Copycats Children tend to imitate actions they see. As the AACAP suggests, a child viewing a violent act on television can be tempted to imitate the violence they observe. Aggressiveness tends to increase in children who watch a great deal of violent television shows, thus increasing the likelihood of imitating an act they observe. As the AACAP website states, children can be influenced in this manner after watching a single violent television episode, especially if the child is not monitored by an adult during exposure to the show. The likelihood of imitation increases when the violent acts depicted go unpunished in the specific television episode.
The 5\6 pemanent members of the united nation need to stand down.

The people of the humane race not of the human race. Within an unbias sandbox of the cause and effect of our actions as we all know too well what we learn from history don't we and that is what again; THAT WE LEARN VERY LITTLE FROM IT AT ALL. Can we learn that within war it doesn't matter who's right it's all about who's left afterwards? For the bias, victors tell there side of the story and the hist-story never get's told until a later date 50 years I think it is that the governing rule lets the truth out of the bag. If ever at all. And this is the 5/6 governing forces that rule the united nations. Maybe a UN handbook could be a possibility for us to underscore. While we as slaves to a system that has failed us for a way too long continues to do so. https://en.wikipedia.org...
The 5\6 pemanent members of the united nation need to stand down.

The 5\6permanent members of the united nations need to stand down. We the people say "us that stand between the governing rule and religions and beliefs are calling out to the masses of musicians to sing as we never have before to save mother nature as she is suffering badly." So a friend is someone that can be there own friend first off. A friend knows that their own health be it there mental health our there physical health or even there spiritual health is a burden of responsibility. Just like any other position of authority. So maybe a friend is someone that just knows this and does what they can to live up to it as best they can. We all may think of the dark side of the moon. Or the doomsday preppers. But hey has Trump got a rocket ship ticket for us all. This stupidity of pointing rockets at each other is reckless, as to say the lest. Clean up your own backyards then we the minority that suffer because of the majority may just consider you to be a harmless narcissist other than a diabolical sociopath or a self-imploding psychopath. Peace be with us all within a harmony of melodies. Come on people let it all out for the hardest change is change its self. As the first sign of intelligence if the ability to adapt to change.
Puerto Rican Statehood

Although the BOP would usually be rested on me, per rules of debate, if Con makes an R1 argument they have shifted the BOP onto themselves. I believe Puerto Rico should not become a state for how it would affect us. The poverty rate in Puerto Rico is 45%. Drug and crime rates are very high, which only brings more problems upon the United States.You are making bare assertions with no evidence, sources, proof, verifications, warrants, or implications, I will not be able to successfully respond to your arguments until they have ground, and of course assertions without proof are groundless.
A God is Intrinsically Impossible

I am affirming the position that the existence of a God is intrinisically impossible. I would like to first provide some definitions.Intrinsic - Part of, describing, or belonging to a thing by its very natureGod - An omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent entity that created the entirety of existenceExist - Having a position or presence in realityOnce again, I am affirming that existence of a God by these definitions is intrinsically impossible. If anyone wishes to challenge this position then do so. However, if you disagree with my definitions or want the position to be more general or specific you must state this before I present my opening argument. I look forward to a challenger.
U.S vs The World

I am obviously the pro for this debate, I believe the United States of America could never be truly conquered even if the entire world ganged up (excluding nuclear stockpiles as the U. S. and many other countries would be obliterated if they were used), the reason I believe this is due to the following, - One of the biggest factors is the land it's self the U. S is 3,537,441 square miles. The logistics of many countries would simply not function, hundred of thousands of enemy troops would be under supplied and demoralized leading to easy victories for the Americans. Many countries would not be able to transport troops in mass across the oceans without relying on susceptible civilian craft. - The U. S. also has a large population, some 324 million strong. Large groups of guerrilla forces would pop up, the military would have thousands of volunteers, and militias would grow also. The industrial system would also be brought to bear supplying the defense. -My final point is that the United States could achieve almost complete resource dependency. The giant Utah copper mine, U. S. oil dependency is decreases no matter how you look at the numbers, we have millions of acres of farmland, and the list continues. Links: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . https://www.westernwatersheds.org... . http://www.foreignaffairs.com...
U.S vs The World

What if the entire rest of the world attacked the US all at the same time??Surely they quite simply would not stand a chance.The entire world attacking by LAND, AIR and SEA ....ALL AT ONCE?...devastating...Further ..." Today, the U.S. actually gets most of its imported oil from Canada andLatin America. And many Americans might be surprised to learn that the U.S. now imports roughly the same amount of oil from Africa as it does from the Persian Gulf.Apr 12, 2012" WITH NO OIL YOU CANNOT FUEL A WAR>>> PLAIN AND SIMPLE>>>IF THE US WAS DEPRIVED OF MOST OF ITS OIL < WHICH IT WOULD BE SINCE IT IMPORTS THE VAST MAJORITY OF IT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE OIL TO FUEL THEIR TANKS < PLANES> AND ANY OTHER WAR MACHINE THUS RENDERING US TROOPS INCAPABLE OF MOBILIZING OR FIGHTING>>> THIS WAR WOULD NOT LAST LONG FOR THE US<< IT WOULD LOSE>
U.S vs The World

As I have stated before the U.S is to large for most countries logistics to function properly. I also forgot to mention that the U.S. satellites could keep track of enemy movements, warning all troops of attacks. I would also like to add that tons of countries have "weak" troops, meaning there soldiers are not well-funded or well-supplied. I will refrain from posting any more due to the fact that my opponent forfeited his last round, only to make it fair :)