BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus is still loving and pure even when he had all those innocents killed in the OT

I accept the challenge and would first wish to define some terms for us since the instigator failed to do so. Love - the absence of hate. First your claim about people living independently of the bible is misleading. What you say is true but you indicate it's a BAD thing. It's not. When we lived in accordance with the bible, it was quite a bit like the Middle East today (more stonings, less dirty bombs) and it's not some hypothetical that has yet to be tried, it's BEEN tried. It was called The Dark Ages. It is a BAD THING when society is based on the bible, history has made that OBJECTIVELY true. Next, you actually make an interesting argument about the fortitude of the nations that your God struck down. Most interesting was that you mentioned that they did child sacrifice, citing science as your proof. I didn't see any reference-so that reference ("archaeology has clearly shown") is rejected as adding anything to your argument. But that's not what concerns me. What concerns me is that in the same breath you explain the loving God is only murdering to seek vengeance for immoral behavior, and that the behavior of child sacrifice is the unrefutable evidence you offer. Because, I'm baffled how a Christian is so unaware of the Biblical side of this argument. Exodus 12:29 "At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt..." Child Sacrifice like that? Now to your free will impossibility: If your God already knows all that men will do, then they cannot possibly have a will free from His control. Otherwise, if it were free, the God couldn't possibly know the outcome until each decision was made by each will free of his control and therefore knowledge. You cannot have free will AND an all knowing god. Nor can you have a free will, a form of power with an ALL powerful god. This means man can only be blamed for a folly out of the god's power and knowledge. Which means man can only be blamed if he has independence from that god which requires a NON all knowing and NON all powerful god. You cannot have it both ways-BLAME=POWER, POWER=GOD WITHOUT ALL POWER. or GOD WITH ALL POWER=GOD WITH ALL BLAME Lastly you argue that because he waited extra time before murdering them that he's good or loving or something else implicit and I assume positive. So a rapist that lets his victim heal up between rapings must be loving too.
Jesus is still loving and pure even when he had all those innocents killed in the OT

Many people make this argument when trying to catch us Christians out. I thought I'd clarify the truth about whether or not Jesus is still pure and loving even when he had all those innocents killed back in the Old Testament. First of all I'd like to point out that whenever the Israelites came across another race, God didn't automatically be like "Israel, Destroy them!" He only had certain people annihilated and of course He had His reasons. A lot of the time humanity uses excuses of various kinds so they can live independently of the bible and seek their own unrighteous desires. Just because we can"t seem to solve a problem or understand something or because it seems contradictory to us does not means it is unsolvable or not true. The slaughter of Israel"s enemies at the command of God may seem inconsistent with a loving God, but it was really an act of love for Israel and others due to the moral condition of these nations which included child sacrifice as archaeology has clearly shown. The degradation of these people was horrible. Further, God, who knows the hearts of men and what they will and will not do, was acting on the basis of that knowledge. Thus, God ordered their judgment in order to protect Israel and their development as a nation, for it was through them that God would give the Savior of the world, the Lord Jesus Christ. Further, God had waited some 400 years before ordering their destruction until their iniquity became complete. Bible.org needs credit for their help in the making of my argument
Jesus is still loving and pure even when he had all those innocents killed in the OT

To believe murder of one's own children could be done on a massive scale, and homogenous judgement, even though an imperfect creation requires an IMPERFECT CREATOR, then you have violated my definition of love. Such a murder requires hate, even if it's just hate of what his creation had become... You must not understand love at all. Christian love is undefinable due to the simplicity, shallowness, and fallacy at the heart of the doctrine and throughout. Whatever it is, it is self depricating and hateful of others, at best.
Jesus is still loving and pure even when he had all those innocents killed in the OT

I fail to see what any of that has to do with the debate. I would make a few points in the interim. First, if Revelation is true, it would be billions obviously, not millions. Or is Jesus groovy with Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus? Next, you drag abortion into it? My stance there isn't even stated on my page, much less relevant to this debate. Shall I bring in Hitler? You know the SS all wore belt buckles that read "God is with Us. " He meant your god, a god of hate. Even today the bible teaches Hate of the Jew, Hate of the Woman, Hate of the Black, Hate of Children. It's a hateful book and that is precisely why it is the one book that has led to the murder of more people than any other. And Hitler quotes that book quite a lot in Mein Kampff. ..
It is improper to assume the state of existence of God.

"But notice how even you, yourself, only said that God "would easily be able to" but stopped short of saying He "did". " I did indeed state that as it is a theory, just as a the Big Bang is a theory. Although God being linked with the big bang theory has not been proven, neither as the big bang theory. "It is a logical fallacy to say B could have caused A, we have A therefore B must be the cause. When B is not the only possible cause for A that conclusion is a non sequitur. " We have yet to discover the origin of the big bang theory. "In short you are correct, space and time are different, but they are not as separate our intuition would lead us to believe. " My argument still stands, space and time are different entities. I have effectively refuted each of your points, therefore I urge a Con vote.
It is improper to assume the state of existence of God.

If Con would prefer to devote the remainder of this debate to the “existence of God based on the creation of the universe” I have no objections. I will take this as my opponent’s agreement with my BOP argument. I leave it to the reader how best to vote on this debate. Con, you correctly cite the big bang theory as the primary alternative theory for the creation and development of the universe. As of yet, science has not developed any widely accepted or useful theories for the genesis of this “single point of near infinite energy density”, and it is conceivable that it never will. I also agree, as you stated, “God with powers of infinite would easily be able to create the explosion, or big bang”. Right in Genesis it clearly shows how this would easily be within the powers attributed to God. But notice how even you, yourself, only said that God “would easily be able to” but stopped short of saying He “did”. He could have. It’s a valid and widely accepted theory. But as with before, we cannot make the leap from “He could have” to “He did”. Too many other possibilities must be eliminated before we can conclusively state “God did create the universe. ”It is a logical fallacy to say B could have caused A, we have A therefore B must be the cause. When B is not the only possible cause for A that conclusion is a non sequitur. As for your second point: yes, temporal and special dimensions are not interchangeable. However, as Einstein showed in his work on General Relativity, they must be considered together in a four dimensional spacetime, most notably to correctly calculate the effects of time dilation at relativistic speeds and frame dragging within rotating gravitational fields. But that is all an unnecessary complication for this debate. In short you are correct, space and time are different, but they are not as separate our intuition would lead us to believe. I thank my opponent for this mentally stimulating debate and for his excellent conduct throughout. I look forward to reading Con’s conclusions and to future debates together.
It is improper to assume the state of existence of God.

"Con, you have made things more difficult for yourself than required. In this debate you need not actually prove the existence of God, but merely show why you should not be required to. " Maybe so, but I would prefer this topic. "The universe had a beginning, a point when it came into being: all logic and physical evidence would indicate this is true as well. " You then proceeded to refute that God created the universe by stating there are other various points that are "either more or less likely depending on your beliefs and point of view. " Since you do not post any other theories negating the my point I will proceed to post a familiar theory of how the universe was created and refute it. Once again, I will cite the Merriam Webster online dictionary. The big bang theory is defined as "a theory in astronomy: the universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single point of nearly infinite energy density. " One way you can tie this to God creating the universe is that God with powers of infinite would easily be able to create the explosion, or big bang that this theory states that that created the universe, would be correct. "The same goes for the existence of spacetime, and in many ways this is just a restating of the earlier point. Spacetime and the universe are virtually synonymous outside questions regarding high energy physics. The existence of space and time do not, alone nor together, imply the existence of God. " Time and space are actually very separate deities, time is defined as "a non spatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future" Space is defined as "a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction " While these two have similar definitions, it is clear they are separate deities. I thank my opponent for this debate, so far. I greatly look forward to Pro's response. Good luck.
It is improper to assume the state of existence of God.

I am an atheist. I completely deny the existence of any god, supernatural phenomena, spirits, souls, an afterlife, ect." Since my opponent is arguing for it, it would only make since to make the topic God Does not exist. God does not exist. I will input some definitions that will allow for further understanding of this debate. Please note, all my definitions will be cited from the Merriam Webster online dictionary. The definition of God is the being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe. The definition of exist is that of to have real being whether material or spiritual. The universe exists so we must assume that God has created it. The universe does indeed exist so we must assume and believe that God has created it. If the existence of God was false then there would be no universe, furthermore without God's existence there would be no concept of time or space. Clearly the Earth has a concept of time as the sun does not appear in the same place forever, therefore we must assume the entire universe has the concept of time. We, also, must assume that the Earth has a material concept of space as any one person can not stand in the exact position I am standing in, so we, again, must believe that the entire universe has the concept of space. Without God's actions, we would have no concept of time or space nor would there be a universe. That is all, for now.
It is improper to assume the state of existence of God.

First off, it is not my purpose to offend anyone or their beliefs. In the theological debates I have read on DDO so far, when the two participants have drastically differing beliefs the common pattern seems to be for one participant’s beliefs to be assumed as true and the other participant receives the BOP. Unless this is the explicit topic of debate (e.g. “God exists”), it would make more sense for conflicting beliefs to be considered equally likely until a claim is made and then for the one making the initial assertion to accept the BOP.An abstract generalization is quite different from a concrete application, however. So, I issue the following (hopefully contentious) challenge!I am an atheist. I completely deny the existence of any god, supernatural phenomena, spirits, souls, an afterlife, ect.Therefore, I challenge my opponent to show why you should not have to accept the BOP for any claim or assertion based on any topic where our beliefs differ—the choice of the specific example for this debate I leave entirely to you. (This is, of course, assuming such was not the explicit topic for debate in the initial challenge.)To state it another way: Con is claiming I (Pro) should accept X in a debate when our beliefs differ on X, and further that I (Pro) should also accept the BOP that X is not so.Conversely, I (Pro) am claiming that simply denying X is a sufficient counter until Con satisfies the BOP that X is in fact so.I’m expecting X to be some topic of a theological nature (e.g. God exists, humans have a soul, there is an afterlife, etc.), although I’m happy to entertain other topics. I would prefer the topic be something we both actually do disagree on and not something we both view as a simple fact (i.e. I don’t want to have to argue against accepting gravity or something). Also, X naturally must be something with a clear division between competing points (e.g. yes or no, true or false, but not teal is greenish).If you need any clarification or would like any wording changed leave a comment.Debate rules: 3 rounds, 5,000 character max, 72 hours time limitYes, it can be a bleak belief system at times, but then how else would I maintain my dark, sarcastic outlook? I kid, of course. Let’s have fun!
homosexual should not be allowed to adopt or raise any child!

You say studies shows gay parenting is wrong, which studies exactly, I have found studies that shows that children with gay parents actual have a good social life(link in the bottom) . The good things about gay parenting are that the children learn to be open for different sexuality. I think your argument that it will confuse the child is unvalued because the child has lived their whole life, so it is just normal for them. I could not find in the bible where there exact says homosexual is wrong. I personally do not thing homosexual is wrong, and if children is raised with gay parents and think homosexual is right, the world would be better. You maybe have some personal against homosexuals. By the way you spelled God wrong! http://www.bu.edu...
homosexual should not be allowed to adopt or raise any child!

I just can"t see the sense in what you are arguing. You say, "If they need a father or mother figure, they can have another adult they can talk to" and I thing you are wrong, it is just a wary small percentage of them who get a chance like that. And just to get back into the building subject. If a child Is adopted studies have shown that most of them have been bullied even if they don"t come from a family where the parents are gay, and if we then add the fact that the parents are gay, if would just make the situation mush worse and bring a lot of confusion to the poor child. Good made this earth where a couple where created with a woman and a man. It is wrong It clearly states in the Bible to be homosexual is wrong.
homosexual should not be allowed to adopt or raise any child!

we are living in another time today, we should be more open to the fact about gay parents. We are all different and some people take things better then others. Some people can not even stand to hear they are apoted, but some people take it just fine. I still think that gay parents should be allowed to adopt, the child could still have a good childhood, and because we are living in a different time, having gay parents could be a natural childhood. I can give you right that it can be hard to have father or a mother figure, but the gay parents can still give children a good childhood and raise them good. If they need a father or mother figure, they can have another adult they can talk to. Gay parents should have the same rights as other people have.
homosexual should not be allowed to adopt or raise any child!

I am aware of the fact that there are many children being bullied and don"t have any gay parents. But I am just in the believing that the best way of raising your child is if you have your biological parents or just both have a farther figure and a mother figure. It would also make a lot of confusion for the child. If we just take as an example a lesbian couple that have adopted a child, then when he/she is old enough they will start asking questions about where they come from and where his/her father is. And I know that you at some point have to tell where they come from with an adopted child even if your not in a gay couple. On the other hand it would just make it mush harder for the child to understand it all. I just think that the child should have as natural a childhood as there are possible, and there is nothing natural in haven the same sex parents.
homosexual should not be allowed to adopt or raise any child!

just because parents are homosexual does it not mean it should be illegal to adopt a child. You tell that you know homosexual parents, who child were bullied. but children get bullied some times, and it is not fun but every child get bullied and not every child with gay parents get bullied. If a child gets bullied because her or him has gay parents, it is the bully's parents' fault for not hyphening raised a good kid. If homosexual parents should not be allowed to adopt or raise children, because the child get bullied, should other parents who child get bullied also not be allowed to raise children.
homosexual should not be allowed to adopt or raise any child!

I am in the believe that it should be illegal for all gay couples to adopt or raising any child. I have known a gay couples who have adopted there "own" child, and I saw have it ruined there kid. When he started going to school people started bulling him because of his gay parents, and he"s been going though a hard time ever since. He does not have many friends and generally he is just having a hard time being social. But I can see why, one time one of the boys from his class where holding a birthday party and he was the only one of the boys who wasn"t being invited. And it was all just because his parents where gay. I believe he would have gotten a much better life if his gay parents didn"t adopt him. He is just not happy. So I just think that it is sad to see, and therefore I would like if it became illegal for all the gay people to adopt or raise any children. It would prevent other kids from going through a similar experience.
Nikola Tesla really invented the light bulb.

Nikola Tesla really invented the light bulb, with lots of years of research and improvement (and of course lots of years without girls), Nikola Tesla finally did it and invented the light bulb; Nikola Tesla devoted himself into science and has forgotten the fact that he can actually raise a family and go to his son's graduation day, but Tesla sacrificed this type of enjoyment in order to serve the human race and make their lives easier by creating the light bulb. Then one day a douche bag (which is Thomas Edison) came up to him and stole his patent. Which then became famous for his petty crime. (end of story)
We shouldn't bother saving the pandas.

It is a scientific fact that pandas are already hopeless as a species. Other than issues with breeding that I discussed earlier, their main food is not very nutritious and they are extremely susceptible for various diseases. My opponent has very rightfully pointed out that they are almost impossible to breed in captivity. Yet, why do we spend so much of our resources trying? When we clearly can't save them at all so why waste so much time and money? Indeed, people love the species for very superficial reasons and get emotionally attached to them. But are we being realistic here? It is not only a "symbol" for biodiversity, as side opposition has pointed out, but also an illusion. Indeed, people are emotionally attached to pandas, hence its fair to point out that it only makes us FEEL as if we are pro-nature and maintaining biodiversity. We, as humans, like to convince ourselves we are making the best decisions by simply to choosing to "save" the cutest species we can. But is it really helping with biodiversity? The fact of the matter is that the hundreds of millions of pounds that are being used all around the world annually to try an already doomed species just because its a "symbol". This money can be used, instead, to save a rainforest that would probably constitute of millions of more species and have so much of a more positive impact. In the big picture, investing so much of our time and resources on these bears is not solving the problem with biodiversity, deforestation or any of the larger issues we need to face. We, as humans, should make EDUCATED and not EMOTIONAL decisions on what species to save.
We shouldn't bother saving the pandas.

Raya states that 99% of species are extinct, and this is true. In fact, all species are bound for extinction. However, saying that this fact alone means we should let them go extinct without a fight is like saying that we shouldn't have hospitals because all people are going to die and most humans already are dead. Second, pandas are not an unsuccessful species. They are ancient, and they are classified as a living fossil. This means that pandas have been so well adapted to their environment that they have survived mass extinctions long enough to be genetically different from extant species. It"s also wrong to say that pandas are reluctant to breed. This is true in captivity, but they compete to breed in the wild. They do have a low birth rate because of the females" short reproductive window; however, in evolutionary terms, this is an effect of having no predators: they evolved slow birth rates because they needed to cull their own populations. When humans began interacting with them, poaching introduced a predator and caused them their current problems. Their being on the edge of extinction is human-caused. That said, there is an extremely important reason to save giant pandas, and that is that they are charismatic mega fauna. In simple terms, they're cute and cuddly. This in and of itself is not a reason to save them, but people love them for superficial reasons, and this gives them the potential to be powerful symbols for conservation. If we tell people that pandas are in danger, it makes them more sensitive to the need to protect the Earth than telling them that that something they dislike or fear needs protection. Pandas make environmentalism marketable in ways that few other species have or can. One example of the unique impact that pandas have is that they are among the first species to have their natural habitat named a UNESCO World Heritage Site. This is a great precedent to set, and it was achieved because people love the species.