BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Satan is More Benign than the Christian God

I want to point out to the readers that my opponent has not provided any substantial contentions to my argument. Essentially, my opponent has pointed out that a small fraction (~5%) of Yahweh's total kill count is due to deceit which has indirectly led to thousands of deaths. Though, this does not account for the other 2 million murders committed by Yahweh. I would also like to point out that the number of kills, 2,301,417, does not even include the number of people killed in Noah's flood. If we were to include that, Yahweh's total kill count is actually 33,000,000, which was in fact, direct worldwide manslaughter performed by Yahweh, not indirect deceit. In conclusion, my opponent really only helped my argument by adding that, not only does Yahweh perform genocide, kill babies, and promote ignorance, he is also a liar. He did not attempt to explain how Yahweh is more benevolent than Satan, but rather tried to subtract some numbers from Yahweh's total kill count. This does not, in any way, help my opponent's case given that Yahweh's kill count still surpasses Satan's. Resolution Affirmed. .
Satan is More Benign than the Christian God

There is only one point I wish to establish in this round. This in not my entire argument, but only the first of 2 points I wish to make in conjunction with my argument. Prior to this debate I asked my opponent in the comments section if he agreed with the total death count and the manner in which God is held responsible for the deaths according to this source sited at http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com.... My opponent agreed on both counts. Therefore according to this list God is credited with 120,001 deaths by means of deceit and not a direct act of "God caused such and such to do so and so." My argument is as follows: In Judges 7:2-22 God is credited for the death of 120,000 Midianite soldiers. The words used in this list is, "God forces Midianite soldiers to kill each other" force is a bit of a stretch when you look at the passage in its entirety. The Israelites were told what to do and part of that was break jars after blowing their trumpets. What this in effect led the Midianites to believe was that the sound of the jars mimicked the sound of countless swords being unsheaved and that the Israelites had an enormous army. This put the Midianite army in a panicked state and led them to turn on each other. So in effect this was death by deceit. I am in no way at this time contesting the body count in this instance, but only trying to establish the manner in which these deaths occurred. It can be agreed, then that the death was through an indirect means of deceiving the Midianites into thinking they would be killed mercilessly. In 1st Kings 13:1 is another example of an indirect death as a result of deceit. This example is a bit more obvious. It says, "A prophet for believing another prophet's lie." Granted there would be a difference if the text said, "God caused a lion to maul the prophet," but it only says "a lion met him along the way." This example could hold as a case for God trying to warn the young prophet to not deviate from his course because God knew what would happen if he did. Regardless, the death was brought about by deception and therefore is the only point I am trying to establish.
Satan is More Benign than the Christian God

I assert that Satan is a more benevolent being than the God of the Bible. Here's why: - God killed 2,301,417 people in the Bible [1] - Satan killed 10 people in the Bible [1] - God said don't eat from the Tree of Knowledge - Satan said to eat from the Tree of Knowledge - God demands the slaughter of babies. (This occurs in several verses including this one: Samuel 15:3: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a$$.") - God mutilates those who oppose him: "... they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." - Hosea 13:16 As Thomas Paine rightly put it: "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the [Old Testament] is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the Word of God." In conclusion, the Christian God performs genocide, kills babies, and advocates ignorance while Satan is more merciful and advocates enlightenment. *Let me note that this is to be taken from a Universal standpoint, not a Biblical standpoint. If this were from a Biblical standpoint, it would lead to circular reasoning about how God is the moral standard, etc. [1] http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com... .
"Girls get special treatment"

Firstly I would like to address the fact my opponent keeps using the argument '45% is less than 50%' to disprove my argument. Clearly she has not read over it fully. Cleary my argument with that point was Women aren't even being given special treatment by the men they trust. Despite what you may believe, Pro, I do have basic math skills and I know 45% is less than half. Also I have only used statistics from the UK as that is where I am from. It's not so difficult to understand is it? Now on to my opponents arguments. She claims only 1 in 5 women have experienced, sexual abuse, however she mustn't have read her own statistics very well either as her source (http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk...) says, " 1 in 5 women (aged 16 - 59) has experienced some form of sexual violence since the age of 16." If you read it correctly, this is not a statistic that encompasses all women. This is a statistic that encompasses a very select group of women. Females, from the UK, aged between 16 and 59 who have experienced sexual abuse from the age of 16 onwards. So my opponents statement " in reality, only .4% of all the women in the UK have had this unfortunate experience." Is simply not true. The burden of proof is still on my opponent to show that girls experience special treatment. Maybe my opponent can address the satement that two women are killed a week if she correctly reads this evidence (http://refuge.org.uk...) Domestic violence has a higher rate than any other crime. 81% of domestic violence victims are women, now surely you can see this satistic is much, much more than half? Not only that, but only less than half of domestic violence cases are even reported and on average a woman is attacked 35 times before she goes to the police. Think about how many women are being abused behind closed doors. My opponent stated: Just for clarification, my usage of the words special treatment are intended to mean that men treat women with more respect than they treat fellow men. Even if this is what she meant by her initial statement (which was vague and unclear) my last argument clearly shows that men do not treat women with more respect. She also stated: I am convinced that my point is still standing. Yet she has still not given any arguments or proof to show that women are treated differently and better than men. I look to you mishapqueen, to prove that women are treated with more respect.
"Girls get special treatment"

Con said "Pro, by generalising is saying that the majority of girls get special treatment just because they are girls. This is simply not true." Using her own statistics, however, we see that she has not yet proved that the majority have been mistreated. If we take majority in the traditional sense, that is, more than 50%, we see that the only percentage she provided, (assuming it is correct) is 45%. 45% is less than 50%. Simple mathematics. But that number is actually a percentage of the percentage of abused women in the UK only. Using the UK as an example, only 1 in 5 women have experienced sexual abuse. (http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk...). 45% of .2 (1/5) is .4%. So, according to both statistics, in reality, only .4% of all the women in the UK have had this unfortunate experience. However way you look at it, we still see no majority. If Con is going to prove me wrong by saying in general, women are not treated well, she will need to demonstrate that a majority, i.e. more than half, are experiencing abuse. Do not get me wrong, I am not saying to ignore the women who are hurting, for the purposes of this debate only, I say that their unfortunate circumstances do not disprove my argument. Also, these incidents are only from the UK, which may have a different ratio from other countries. I cannot address the "two women killed a week" argument since it was not backed up with any sort of evidence. Even if the bad news is more important, it still does not make a majority. This is a touchy and emotional issue, but we must make the decision for this round on logic, not tear jerking examples. While I do not deny the atrocities committed against women around the world, I would like to invite the reader to step back and look at the numbers 45% out of 1/5 equaling a total of .4%. As is likely obvious to any reader, any one of these numbers show only a minority being effected, not a majority. Just for clarification, my usage of the words special treatment are intended to mean that men treat women with more respect than they treat fellow men. I am not saying one girl is singled out among others to be treated specially. Please do not get carried away by the pathos here. Let me summarize one more time what we both have said in this round. Con: Some women are mistreated, so women are not getting special treatment Pro: Con still has not disproved that many women do receive it, you just don't hear of it, because that is not the type of thing the media publishes. Con: It is false that the majority of women have special treatment. 45% of sexually abused women were attacked by their husbands. Pro: 45% is less than 50%. My point that the majority of women receive special treatment has not yet been disproven. I am convinced that my point is still standing and that in order to effective disprove that the majority of women are treated badly, we need a real statistical majority.
"Girls get special treatment"

I disagree that 'The statement that not all girls have special treatment, (i.e. special privileges simply because she is a girl) does not directly disprove my statement that girls in general get special treatment. '. Pro, by generalising is saying that the majority of girls get special treatment just because they are girls. This is simply not true.As my opponent has used personal experience as an argument, I will state mine also as it is quite the opposite. I have always been courteous and polite, said my pleases and thank-you's, but I have never been treated exceptionally compared to other women. Many men have treated me with respect, but this does not mean it is special treatment, as they treat other men with respect too. I am being treated as an equal. My opponents wikihow link does not back up the point at all and is therefore redundant. 'Unfortunately, people tend to hear the horrific bad news rather than the good news of chivalry.' I agree with this statement, however, the horrific bad news is surely the more important? The facts are there. Women are not being treated equally and with respect. On average, two women a week are killed at the hands of their current of former male partner. Is this not proof that women aren't being given special treatment?Of all the women sexually abused, 45% were attacked by their husbands and partners, and only 17% were attacked by strangers. Women aren't even being given special treatment by the men they trust. [http://www.womensaid.org.uk...]
"Girls get special treatment"

The statement that not all girls have special treatment, (i.e. special privileges simply because she is a girl) does not directly disprove my statement that girls in general get special treatment. Just because some do not experience it does not disprove the fact that many girls do receive it. In my personal life I have discovered that if you act like a lady you will be treated as such. I have seen men who many would characterize as "rough" turn into perfect gentlemen when I'm around them. They watch their language, carry heavy things for me, open doors, and in general treat me with respect. I am not saying that how a woman is treated relies solely on herself. The training of a man has a lot to do with it too. How women are treated is based on cultural norms and customs, and how men and women work together. Even women in Islamic cultures who have to where head coverings and veils believe that they are treated with respect. (Voices Behind the Veil: The world of Islam through the eyes of women, Edited by Ergun Mehmet Caner. Copyright 2003) In the last century or so, the feminist movement has been working hard to try to prove women deserve respect. While I do not completely agree with them, we must acknowledge that a woman these days has a lot of freedom and men are being exhorted to give women special respect. (http://www.wikihow.com...) Yes, some women are treated abominably, but that does not falsify the claim that many women right now, do see a lot of respect from men. Unfortunately, people tend to hear the horrific bad news rather than the good news of chivalry. Whether or not men get special treatment in certain areas is not pertinent to the subject at hand.
Wikileaks

First off i must apologize to my opponent for the forfeits seeing how the season is here, with the christmas time and all, i just did not have the time to sit down a debate. So, im truely sorry for wasting your time, as a good deed i will give my opponent the win for attacking her case now would be abusive since she cannot defend. I will vote pro for my opponent and i hope her a merry christmas, as well as every one reading this merry christmas to you as well. Again im truly sorry i just was busy with family matter about the holidays.
Wikileaks

My questions and definitions....... Definition's: 1.Terrorism- The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives. A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the population of a state. Questions: 1. What for any reason should anybody give out government information of classified documents and be published globally on the internet for every country to see? 2. How far does the freedom of press extend to opinion rather than important classified documents?
Wikileaks

Dear Fox News lovers: I'm calling you out specifically considering I can't seem to find a competent opponent... "There are traitors in America. Whoever leaked all those State Department documents to Wikileaks is a traitor and should be executed or put in prison for life." -- Bill O'Reilly. "Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty" -- Mike Huckabee " [Assange] is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands." -- Sarah Palin "Wikileaks should be declared terrorists." -- Sean Hannity I'm wondering who among you will defend these sentiments from your beloved pundits. Wikileaks is an international media non-profit organization that publishes submissions of otherwise unavailable documents from anonymous news sources and leaks [1]. Recently Wikileaks has come under fire for releasing controversial material, such as classified videos and documents from the U.S. military, and evidence of politicians acting less than scrupulous, even to the point of having enough evidence to possibly warrant resignation for wrong-doing [2]. Everyone from Barack Obama to Glenn Beck has been condemning this website (hey they agree on something!). Even the politicians are finally coming together on one issue; Senator Joe Lieberman's introduced bipartisan legislation to amend the Espionage Act and criminalize Wikileaks that way [3]. Newt Gingrich quipped, "Information warfare is warfare, and Julian Assange is engaged in warfare... Information terrorism, which leads to people getting killed, is terrorism. And Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism. He should be treated as an enemy combatant. Wikileaks should be closed down permanently and decisively" [4]. I personally think Julian Assange is among the best and most important journalists of our time, and would love to debate the merit of Wikileaks. While the law will most certainly be pertinent to our discussion, saying "it's against the law" is not a sufficient argument and in fact an appeal to authority when determining the merits of what should be. Nevertheless I don't mind what contentions my opponent uses. The first round will be for accepting this debate, and Con can post any comments or questions he or she wishes for the Pro though I accept full responsibility to make the first argument (unless my opponent wants to). I will also accept the burden of proving Wikileaks should continue to exist and be available to the public. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.time.com... [3] http://lieberman.senate.gov... [4] http://lieberman.senate.gov...
Resolved: Baptism is not a requirement for Salvation.

OPPONENT's CASE REVIEW: 1. You're in the ballpark. Clarifying water baptism which comes from the Greek baptizo mean submerged. (Mounce's Expository Greek) Spiritual baptism along with indwelling and sealing are works of the Holy Spirit at the time of Salvation (Systematic Theology, Henry Thiessen; doctrines of pneumatology & soteriology) 2. Referring to John 14:2 & 6, but not relevant to the topic. "1. recover an acceptable number of souls; 2. for baptized souls to be saved without visiting the Father; 3. having Jesus as a personal savior is not necessary to salvation"? What Bible are you reading? Definitely need to provide source for these statements. While you are correct that no one cometh unto the Father but by Jesus, that isn't the topic of discussion. Gotta stay with the program. OBSERVATIONS: A. My opponent hasn't presented any information to confirm that water baptism is required for salvation. B. My opponent has numerous grammatical errors. C. My opponent has paraphrased the words of Jesus, but has not cited any sources. MY CASE: A. I have cited scripture indicating the requirements for salvation, of which water baptism is not stated. B. 2 Timothy 3: 16 proves the legitimacy of scripture. C. While on the cross along side the two thieves, Jesus forgave the one who believed. Since he did not have the opportunity to get baptized did that negate the promise of salvation made by Jesus himself? I think not.
Resolved: Baptism is not a requirement for Salvation.

Pleasantries aside, my dear twerpter, I will contend that both of your contentions are in error in as far as that they are 'shortsighted'. 1.) I shall address "Baptism" as it is fully intended which was that one had to be baptized in the holy spirit. The public display being merely John's initiation of the concept and Jesus' confirmation of the correctness of the concept. One must be baptized in the holy spirit for it is by this that a person is marked by God that the soul will be maintained and continue. 2.) Jesus said that no one may come unto his father except though him(Jesus). He also said that there were many 'spiritual houses'. Even though he paid the price for the previous system's failure to recover an acceptable number of souls, the path that he and God created by his death s wide enough for baptized souls to be saved without visiting with the Father. Thus I summarized, while baptism is necessary, having Jesus as a 'personal savior' is not. Eros for your correction.
Resolved: Baptism is not a requirement for Salvation.

INTRODUCTION: Concur CONTENTION ONE: Baptism is a public display of obedience which is symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. (Romans 6: 1-11) CONTENTION TWO: One must accept Jesus as their personal savior, believe that Jesus died for their sins, and confess him as Savior. (Romans 10: 9-10, 13) SUMMARY: While baptism is practiced, it is not a requirement.
Trinity is not logical and biblical

Some of my 'old' debates usually ended up because of my bad, or my opponent's. So I'm challenging people, again, to accept this if you're a trinitarian. I'm still a student, a learner, so please correct me if I use wrong grammar or spelling. So let's get into the point. To prove that God does not exist as trinity, here are some biblical verses : + Jesus have a God (Please recognize the use of the word 'our') - "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:" (Deuteronomy 6:4) - "Jesus answered, "The first is, "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one;" (Mark 12:29) Confirming Moses's teaching, and teach it with exactly the same way. "Then the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that "he is one, and besides him there is no other";" (Mark 12:32), confirming Mark 12:29 and the one God. "When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." After that no one dared to ask him any question" (Mark 12:34), Jesus confirm the confirmation of the 'scribe'. + Jesus was sent by God (meaning he is a messenger) - "And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." (John 17:3) - "I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do." (John 17:4) And some questions for my opponent : - If Jesus was sent, how come he is the sender? - If the Father is God, the Word is God, and the Spirit is God, while they're distinct from each other (they even 'talk to/send' one another) why only one God? - If Jesus was fully man and fully God, wasn't he supposed to inherit 100% of man's nature and 100% of God's nature? Those three questions, I hope that my opponent will answer them, along with his/her/their opening statement. My point : Either Jesus is not God, or the bible contradicted. Very simple rules Round 1 : Opening statement Round 2&3 : Rebuttal Round 4 : Closing Statement (to be continued if no one's satisfied) Please refute and Thank you for your time.