BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is a sinner and thus is flawed.

Thank you for your quick reply. You have yet to show how G-d sinned and refute my argument that G-d, by definition, is all good and thus cannot sin. Let's take a look at the ten commandments--ESPECIALLY the one that says, "Thou shalt not kill."The commandment is about respect for human life. God asks us to demonstrate love and not hate towards others by not murdering. We must learn to control our tempers. Taking another person's life is not our right to decide. That judgment is reserved for God alone. That is the thrust of this Commandment. God does not allow us to choose to wilfully or deliberately take another person's life. The Sixth Commandment reminds us that God is the giver of life and He alone has the authority to take it or to grant permission to take it. God wants us to go far beyond avoiding murder. He requires that we not maliciously harm another human being in word or deed. This is why John wrote, “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” 1 John 3:15. God desires that we treat even those who choose to hate us respectfully and do all within our power to live in peace and harmony with them. He wants us to be builders, not destroyers of good relationships. To accomplish this we must respect this wonderful gift of this precious possession, human life.You do know that you can break almost any of the Laws of G-d in efforts to save a human life--INCLUDING killing. Not all killing is immoral as even you would probably admit.Source: http://www.the-ten-commandments.org...Remember: War=/=Murder. In fact, you were allowed to break almost any of the law of G-d to preserve a life. Why did G-d order to kill? Good question! The fact that it is bothering you indicates a healthy soul...anyway, on to answering the question.Let's take a look at what King Solomon has to say:Everything has an appointed season, and there is a time for every matter under the heaven.A time to give birth and a time to die; a time to plant and a time to uproot that which is planted.A time to kill and a time to heal; a time to break and a time to build.A time to weep and a time to laugh; a time of wailing and a time of dancing.A time to cast stones and a time to gather stones; a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing.A time to seek and a time to lose; a time to keep and a time to cast away.A time to rend and a time to sew; a time to be silent and a time to speak.A time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace.You see, there are times where war is necessary. The reason G-d ordered the genocide is because he knew that they would be trouble. You know who the number 1 enemies of Israel are today? Iran/Iraq! You know who they were back then? The same people G-d ordered to eradicate.G-d is all-knowing as well as all-loving; therefore, sometimes he does things that make us question. G-d is also all-just; therefore, he has to eradicate sin. G-d cannot tolerate sin. THEREFORE, it must be paid for. I hope this answers some of your questions.
God is a sinner and thus is flawed.

You have a good point, I have failed to specify which God I was talking about. 1. I am talking about the God from the Christian Bible. 2. I can neither prove that God does nor does not exist, as is the case of all mankind. So, that being stated, the only way we can even continue this debate is by focusing on the "facts" in the bible and not so much on his existence. One can still debate the morality of a character in a book after all. 3. In the bible, God is responsible, either directly or indirectly, for almost all of the world's genocide. He has had cities destroyed, entire nations wiped out and conquered in his name, women and children slaughtered, as well as almost obliterating the entire world population. He also allowed his armies to take from their enemies as they pleased, allowing for rape, pillaging, and further murder. God also punished all those who dare disobey him. He sent plagues, caused famine and disease to ravage even his own chosen people. 4. The reason why these things are sinful is obvious. However, to elaborate, sin (in the bible) is described as breaking one of God's laws, which are the ten commandments. TEN COMMANDMENTS: 1)You shall have no other gods before me. 2) You shall not make and worship false gods. 3) You shall not take the name of god in vain. 4) You shall not break the Sabbath. 5) Honor thy father and mother. 6) You shall not murder. 7) You shall not commit adultery 8) You shall not steal. 9) You shall not commit perjury. 10) You shall not covet. By God's own words, by his own law, he is a sinner. He has broken and has made others break his commandments in his name. He is not good, in fact, even by his own definition he can be considered evil. This is evidence enough that God is flawed.
God is a sinner and thus is flawed.

ok, sorry I was just to tempted. I contend that god is not a sinner. How? because he doesn't exist. You haven't clarified what god you are talking about! In efforts to properly debate this, you need to 1. Define what god we are talking about 2. Prove god exist 3. Show how he sinned. 4. Show why it was a sin By definition, god is all good; so by god's very nature, he cannot sin!
Children should use technology like a computer, mobile phone, and television

**Children should use technology like a computer, mobile phone, and television because they can use it for researching information, doing projects, using e-books instead of old and heavy textbooks, it also makes the world closer and smaller by talking in social media programs, also the social media programs can make your child speak up and be confident to talk, it also, improves your communicating skills, last, this is another way to teach children, and the children are interested in.** REBUTTAL I believe that children aren't getting other needed things because of all of these technologies, and their are many dangers to these devices. 1)Invisible Radiation from Wireless"Technology and Electricity Inhibits Your Oxygen Supply https://www.scienceoflight.org... 2)Electrosmog can cause brain fog & electrosensitivity (ES)."Symptoms include: ~ Mental confusion ~ Headaches ~ Disruptive sleep patterns ~ Chronic fatigue ~ Depression ~ Hypersensitivity and erratic blood pressure ~ Skin complaint ~"Behavioural patterns in children 3)Cell phones are addictive. A)One of the worst things with this technology is it allows young minds to have unlimited access to sexually graphic images and pornography. It has been proven that when kids are exposed to sex at a young age, they have future problems with identity, intimacy, and successful relstionships. B)There are studies that link large technology use to anxiety disorders and depression. https://www.google.com... 4)Studies show that too much texting and Social Media affect social skills and growth in a negative way. It's like learning a language. A child is grasping for ways to communicate, and absorbs whatever is there. If the child hears Spanish, they absorb Spanish. If they hear English, they absorb English. If they are in social situations, they learn social skills. If all they primarily see is a device, they absorb communicating through a device, rather than through face to face human interactions. This is not helpful with interacting with kids, adults later, or being successful at work as an adult. https://m.huffpost.com... ----- http://www.dailymail.co.uk... https://www.webmd.com...
Children should use technology like a computer, mobile phone, and television

Children should use technology like a computer, mobile phone, and television because they can use it for researching information, doing projects, using e-books instead of old and heavy textbooks, it also makes the world closer and smaller by talking in social media programs, also the social media programs can make your child speak up and be confident to talk, it also, improves your communicating skills, last, this is another way to teach children, and the children are interested in. Although, people might say that these children will be cyber-bullied, but as long as they are taught to prevent it and stay away from it, this will not make a problem. Some may say:"They will get attracted to it and they will not be concentrating in school" But I think, if your child can self-control it, let most of the kids do, that will be not a problem. If your kid cannot control themselves from playing games, you can tell them the negative ways of getting addicted to playing games, and they will probably stop playing and control themselves from playing games. Some people may say "It makes your child's eyesight bad" but, if you use the media in an appropriate way of using it in a certain amount of time, and you can decide it and write on something, called Media Schedule, you can write the time that your child can use media and let them decide when to use the time. So, your child can still have a good eyesight. And, your child will be happy that you give them time to do whatever they want on technology items. Also, if you are still not unsure to let your kid use technology, there is some kind of apps that you can install to the media and you can always spy on your kid using the media.
Death Penalty

I would like to use this round to address one statement my opponent made. "The death penalty gives the family closure, that he or she is really out of their life forever." While this may be true in some circumstances, it certainly is not true in all cases. "A poll in April found that only 15% of Boston residents said they wanted Tsarnaev to receive the death penalty."[17] Based on this evidence, I assume that some people actually feel better when mercy is extended even to the worst criminals. Here is Donald Kraybill's testimony of what transpired after Charles Roberts shot several Amish students: "I think the most powerful demonstration of the depth of Amish forgiveness was when members of the Amish community went to the killer's burial service at the cemetery... Several families, Amish families who had buried their own daughters just the day before were in attendance and they hugged the widow, and hugged other members of the killer's family."[18] It certainly is very hard to forgive someone who commits terrible crimes, and might still be unrepentant. But I believe that sometimes, when we forgive, we help ourselves out. Dr. Plante says, "It is really hard to forgive, whether it is forgiving yourself or others. We all could likely use some help learning to do it better. But what we may not be aware of is that learning to forgive is good for both our mental and physical health. Quality empirical research has shown that when we are better at forgiveness we experience lower stress, tension, levels of depression, anxiety, and perhaps most important, anger."[19] So in conclusion, I believe that we have not heard any solid arguments to convince us that the death penalty is the right thing to do. Please vote! Sources: [17] http://www.cnn.com... [18] http://www.npr.org... [19]https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Euthanasia

Resolution: Euthanasia should be legalized in the United States Definition of Euthanasia: "Painless killing of a person who has a painful incurable disease or incapacitating disorder" [1] It should be noted that in this debate I'm advocating for voluntary euthanasia: " When the person who is killed has requested to be killed" [2] Rounds: Pro (1) Rules (2) Contentions (3) Contentions/rebuttals (4) Rebuttals/Closing Statements Con (1) Contentions (2) Contentions/Rebuttals (3) Rebuttals/Closing statements (4) Shall type only "no round as agreed upon" and nothing else Rules (1) If my opponent fails to type "No round as agreed upon" in the last round will lead to a full 7 point FF. If my opponent types any other words besides "No round as agreed upon" in the last round, he or she will FF the entire debate with a 7 point loss. (2) 10k character limits. (3) No semantics or trolling/ this will result in a ff. (4) Plagiarizing results in a FF. (5) The rules, structure, and definitions of the debate cannot be negotiated or changed once the debate has started unless both debaters have reached an agreement on something to change or add. (6) The BOP in this debate is shared. Thanks. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.euthanasia.com...
Challenging The Status Quo: A New Ideology In The Works

I disagree with the notion that this not a religion, because what I have highlighted in my ideologies are a set of principles to adhere by, ala a belief system. My religion IS about focusing on yourself and developing a relationship with whomever you feel god should be, wherever you are from. "Nothing for the individual human being. It"s just you saying, "JUST BE GOOD", mankind isn"t that simple unfortunately." WELL... THAT'S why my religion stands out, how many other religions do you see putting people first? As stated many times my religion is not fear based, it's a root one approach at changing yourself for the better. YES, the majorities of religions are based on some organized set of cultured revelations given by god, BUT not all of them. Atheism and Taoism for example require no gods.the definition of religion is vague in nature, mine is simple to follow it you look past your god complex. YES, All religions and faiths discriminate against all other religions, belief in Muhammed does automatically disqualifies you from heaven in the Christian view, AGAIN my religion focuses on protecting people's faith, gender, sexuality, and upbringing/race. REGARDLESS of what my ideologies are, religions will always offend others. This is not my problem, again this may cause it to fade into obscurity, but in the meantime, It's a good set of principles to adhere to. "MRAAJism literally doesn"t stand for anything", WAS it not you who identified the 3 pillars of it all, which includes Peace and Anti-Corruption. "Let me ask you then, if all moral and ethical behavior of MRAAJISM is based upon development of the community ---- Why shouldn"t we sterilize people carrying certain genetic diseases? Or why not grow human fetus in test tubes so the community can harvest their organs?" - MY religion is not government. MRAAJISM does not wish to interfere with what you do as a man, just what you can achieve by following its principles. Ie i don't want to control you, only guide and direct you to a hassle free life. In conclusion, MRAAJISM is an ideology to get behind because it puts people first. it is not interested in fearing the unknown, but developing one's moral standing based on the principles highlighted, especially the development and prioritisation of learning self discipline. You claim I don't have the horsepower to tread these waters. Obviously not at the moment because I'm just promoting it, it's not been implemented yet. See title, In the works. Finally I want to say you have completely distorted my goal. I intended For Round 1 to merely be acceptance, R2 I'd have been expanding on my loose definitions (introduction), but since you chose to exhibit contempt from the offset, no mutual respect was possible. There's one thing you achieved in all of this, and that's demonstrated how manipulative you are. Example, you say you have no interest in attacking my character, have you not read what you have written? Jonlee deserves 0% respect from me, for he doesn't understand the concept of putting other people first, something MRAAJISM PROMISES TO DO.
Challenging The Status Quo: A New Ideology In The Works

In life, one needs to make enemies, one will not succeed without them. Since I'm a business graduate with good English writing talent, I must admit I admire your approach. You've gone all in, attempting to discriminate and discredit me. I know all about how to manipulate and distort texts, and you've done just that But my people know (with one quick look at my profile, that I'm no saint). However they are aware that i stand up against injustice. You do know that was just an intro, we'd have obviously expanding in a coherent manner. You are filled with so much hate at my 'wild' approach, however i will tell you that I'm not here for your approval, in fact I can grow from this and develop. You're basically saying I don't understand religion, well keep on debating me then, because i don't talk out of my asss. I'm all in with my beliefs, they're based on experience, knowledge, and research. Not ignorance or hatred. That worst part of your argument is that u are open to discrimination. Il admit the intro was quite rushed and comedical, however i want people to enjoy religion, not be obliged to it. MRAAJism is all about working on self discipline remember, not being a sheeple
Challenging The Status Quo: A New Ideology In The Works

As mentioned in previous debates, i'm well versed in a variety of religions, such as Sikhism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Deism, however i firmly believe one can connect to god (oul search) w/out an organisation interfering, so I have decided to publish my own religion, in light of my ongoing "beef" with followerofchrist1955. In depth, the aim of my religion is to promote peace and limit hypocrisy + corruption, and it is based on a blend of the aforementioned faiths. Con- can argue the flaws in my ideologies Everyone -we can discuss this further in comments section .................................. MRAAJism- The Peoples' Faith Ideology 1: God is personal, don't enforce it on people, soul searching is an independant journey. 2: Learn & Develop Self-Discipline and Morals: Treat someone how you'd like to be treated. Teach don't Impeech 3a: No Discrimination: Highly frowned upon, abusers will be forced to take an ethics class or be fined. 3b: Accept other faiths, educate dont eradicate, 3c: How to deal w/ extremists, and conversly atheists: state your claims in an influencial manner, but if they still hate, give em a leaflet to the local counsellor. 4: Not for Profit: No shrine, temple or bible for MRAAJISM, just principles, be humble and graceful 5: Sin: Avoid the basic 7 "deadly" sins, and learn the 5 sikh virtues (just go to wikipedia for more info), that will start you off Philosophical aspect 1: Does MRAAJISM believe in an afterlife? - MRAAJISM says do not worry about after life, just focus on present life. 2: Is karma real? - Probably, just don't sin in the first place 3: Is sin natural:- Yes, we love it, we enjoy it, we indulge in it, but understand it will destroy in the long run, a simple humble life is the most peaceful life. 4: The paranormal: Do't fuk with them 5: Reincarnation: Don't be silly, its highly unlikely 6: On societal issues like racism, LGBT, and abortion: more on that later...
Challenging The Status Quo: A New Ideology In The Works

My opponent wants to be the victim, it gives him power when he is losing. He wants you to feel that I"ve been cruel or unfair to him. He claims that I didn"t comply to his rules of the debate, but it was him who failed to set any. It"s the plea of pity--- not merit, and you should reject it. You should reject it because this platform, as I understand it, is a debate. There are no shortage of discussion forums or community forums in the cyber world, and if my opponent was seeking a discussion he should have gone there. This is a debate, a grappling match of intellect, and in the market place of ideas your feelings are completely meaningless. I find it highly amusing indeed, that my opponent claims to be slighted by my approach at this debate, because I didn"t follow a set of imaginary rules existing somewhere in the ether of his mind. He didn"t take the time to think about how he wanted to structure this debate until the outcome wasn"t in his favor. That is precisely my critique of his claimed "new religion" ---- he has all the desire, but none of the self-discipline of mind or developed intellect that would be required to create a "new religion". My opponent claims he is starting a "new religion," yet I sincerely believe he doesn"t understand what a religious movement or institution is. He has no central philosophy to his "belief", he has no written texts, no description of God, no thoughts or input on the origins of man or death, he has no thoughts on the cosmos, or man"s place in the universe. His description of his "new religion," was so lazily proposed, so absent of coherency, I myself had to give it some semblance of structure in remarks, simply so that I wouldn"t be entirely bored dismantling it. The only structure to his "new religion", are the places where, he, being unable to conjure any philosophical thought himself, leaves the burden of doing so to real religions, by telling people to, "go look up the 7 deadly sins on Wikipedia". In closing, this is certainly not a "new religion", because it isn"t anything, it"s a vague, poorly thought out, terribly articulated, doctrineless, and imbecilic, belief in everything, which is belief in nothing, -------- certainly not an "original and new religion."
Why do some people deny the existence of God? (Only Atheists)

You make good points. Here are my arguments. God condones slavery. Genesis 17:12 states "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised." Exodus 12:43 states "The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it." Exodus 21:1 states "Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life." We today view slavery as morally unacceptable and it is illegal in most countries. Why, then, do we praise and worship a deity that deems it as morally acceptable? If God were to exist, wouldn't you expect there to be a benefit to those who follow and obey him? Why, instead, do we see the opposite? Christians are persecuted by some for believing in God, as are Jews. Muslims are also persecuted by some for their beliefs. If you look at the history of these religions, you will not find ease and prosperity for them, as God has supposedly promised. The Jews were enslaved in Egypt, murdered in the Polish death camps, and yet through all this they looked to God. God offered them no help through those trying times, and for that, His people suffered. The promise of heaven for believing can't be guaranteed. This "benefit" is worthless should the people be killed or tortured and not able to reach heaven.