BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The traditional Christian/Muslim/Jewish view of God is inconsistent.

I maintain that God cannot be omni benevolent if God created evil in the first place, and therefore that the traditional Christian/Muslim/Jewish view of God is inconsistent. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I know you were annoyed by my mentioning the nature of evil before so I am sorry now, but you claim that God can't be all good if he created evil in the first place. This is not true. That is like saying there would be no criminals if there were no laws. On the surface it is true, but in fact there would still be rapists and murders, they just woulnd't be criminals. There would be no evil without God because He is the Good that is missing in the presence of Evil. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Let me explain. Evil is the absence of God's will. God gave us free will and the ability to determine what we do with it. I have only ever gone to 9 Christian Churches and am not familiar with the predominate teaching of the Mosques or the Synagogues, but there are enough similarities I'm thinking they will be close to the same. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As free will was created, God's vision stopped being absolute. We had choices and we were free to make any and all choices. Nothing was predetermined anymore. God gave us the choice when he said, "do not eat of this tree" that command was free will . It was up to humans to choose to follow or not. All the teachings I have heard follow this. God did not know what we would do with that choice. Satan coming to tempt Eve he knew, but unless he specifically told Satan not to do so, evil did not yet exist anywhere. Eve created sin when she ate the fruit (if you completely believe the creation story as it is told in the Bible, which is another debate for another day) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I propose that God created the law that made evil possible, but the creation of evil was done by Eve and then Adam. At that moment, the moment Eve took the fruit, evil was born. There is nothing in the teachings I have learned that says that God can foresee man's choices. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I know you will say, "But what about all the times where the Bible makes predictions that later it seems to say did come true? How is this possible if God doesn't know what we will do." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ God takes free will away sometimes. Or rather as we can see from the Story of Jonah and the story of Moses and the story of Nebakanezer, God makes the alternative to doing what He wants so unpleasant that He gets His way. Kind of like when Mom lets me choose if I want to do the dishes or mow the lawn. Now I don't like to wash dishes, but Oklahoma in July is unpleasant for lawn mowing, so of course I would rather wash the dishes. She gets her way, but I still ‘get' to choose.
The traditional Christian/Muslim/Jewish view of God is inconsistent.

Perhaps my opponent misread my opening statement. I'll reiterate. If God is omni benevolent, omnipotent, can see all of time in a single glance, and God created Satan/evil, then evil exists because of God. Therefore, evil would not exist without God, thus God cannot be ALL good. How does it make sense to believe that God is perfectly good/righteous/pious if you believe that God created Satan/Evil and was capable of seeing the consequences of doing so before hand? I maintain that God cannot be omni benevolent if God created evil in the first place, and therefore that the traditional Christian/Muslim/Jewish view of God is inconsistent.
The traditional Christian/Muslim/Jewish view of God is inconsistent.

If my opponent is unable to post any further arguments due to unforeseeable circumstances, I am willing to treat this as a one round debate for voting purposes, thereby eliminating my second round argument. I will however post a second round argument in the event my opponent can continue. I don't believe that my opponent has refuted my stance in the first round. She addresses the nature of evil and other creations of God per the Bible / Qur'an, not that the traditional Christian/Muslim/Jewish view of God is consistent. The only possible refutation I can derive from her post would be that God did not create Satan. If this is the case, it would be inconsistent with the Bible / Qur'an because it is said that God created man in his image, meaning that man was given a soul. Satan was jealous of this because he felt it meant that God loved men more than the angels, and was eventually cast down from heaven as an eventual result.
The traditional Christian/Muslim/Jewish view of God is inconsistent.

I hope I am able to help at least a little. I would like to say in my first round that, if no evil existed, could good exist? Yin and yang, you loose one you loose both. So if God hadn't made Satan, in the beginning, would he being all good, mean anything at all? Most of what we consider evil is free will. Consistently in all three religions, there is mention of another earlier being, in about the same time, as God. When God made people, my Bible says ". . . Then God said "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground . . . " Notice how he says WE and OUR, meaning there is more than just him creating people. Here is a link to the Qur'an In the Muslim Qur'an (in English Koran): . http://quod.lib.umich.edu...
The traditional Christian/Muslim/Jewish view of God is inconsistent.

First and foremost, the intent of this debate is not to offend anyone, but more for personal clarification regarding the traditional Christian/Muslim/Jewish view of God. As an agnostic theist, it seems to me that these traditional views are largely inconsistent for the following reason. As I understand it, the traditional view of God by Christians, Muslims, and Jews is that God is A)omni benevolent (infinitely/perfectly good), B) omnipotent (all powerful), and C) capable of seeing all of time from beginning to end in a single glance. Also, I understand the traditional view of Satan as being omni malevolent (all evil/bad). If God is omni benevolent, omnipotent, can see all of time in a single glance, and God created Satan/evil, then evil exists because of God. Therefore, evil would not exist without God, thus God cannot be ALL good. How does it make sense to believe that God is perfectly good/righteous/pious if you believe that God created Satan/Evil and was capable of seeing the consequences of doing so before hand? I maintain that God cannot be omni benevolent if God created evil in the first place, and therefore that the traditional Christian/Muslim/Jewish view of God is inconsistent. My only prerequisites for the challenger are that they have an extensive understanding of biblical scripture so that citing the Bible won't be an issue, and that they argue from the the aforementioned premise that the traditional Christian/Muslim/Jewish view of God is that God is omni benevolent, omnipotent, and capable of seeing all of time from beginning to end in a single glance.
Military rule for Egypt is inefficient and Unjustifiable

Let me just address you kindly, before a flame war starts in the comments. Egypt's military is not the best governance for the country; as is shown with the current events. Egypt has a democratically elected president, but the military had the media's back up, and decided to end his LEGITIMATE RULE. Using a small group of less than three thousand people, the media staged a "protest". In a coup de tat the democratically elected ruler was removed, and General Sisi took his place. During the time period following, over 30,000 people have been killed or imprisoned. Please stop using your failing religion and your origins as an excuse for the governance of my home country by a terrible regime.
Military rule for Egypt is inefficient and Unjustifiable

Military rule is one of the most efficient types of rule; leading to the innocent deaths of protesters and those which the military leaders deem un-worthy of political existence. I.The economics of democratic countries are on average greater than those with a military leader. a.The GDP per ca-pita of democratic countries grows at 5.4 percent faster than countries with an un-democratic leadership. b.Of those countries, the ones with communist and military leaders rank in the world are lowest third for economic growth and expansion. II.Political Stability a.The stability of countries that have democratically elected leaders are exponentially more stable than countries that have dictatorial leaders. b.Countries that have or once had democratic leaders are much more likely to become allies with what are considered the four world powers. c.Only democratic countries are allowed into the U.N. , and other international organizations. Those without a leader chosen by the majority of people are not allowed representation in these organizations. III.Violence and Crime a.The crime rates of countries that are currently under dictatorial/temporary leadership have crime rates over 230% of those with stable democracies. b.A woman in Nigeria is 4X more likely to be abused (assaulted/raped) than women in England. c.With crime comes the next topic, POVERTY. IV.Poverty and Lifespan a.Because the economies of countries with unstable democratic rule tend to have worse economies, then their rates of poverty are much higher than those of democratic countries. b.The lifespan of countries with democratic rule, also the countries with a small middle class and few educated people, tend to have much smaller life spans, depending on statisticians; between 3 to 15 years difference. V.REBUFF a.One can state that countries with military rule are "transitioning" towards democratic rule. This is utterly false, as 5 of the last 7 military coups led to a permanent military rule. Of those, one still remains in a volatile democratic rule, with sham elections; Egypt. b.Egypt may be used to counter many arguments, such as "military rules are sometimes "supported" by the people"" This is also not true, it is shown that over 60 million of Egypt"s 90 million disagree with the military rule, and those are the people that state it openly. SOURCES: http://folk.uio.no... http://sgforums.com...
Stealing is Sometimes Justified

Last round is for polishing up, so no new rebuttals. However, I would like to point out a thing or two about my opponent's last arguments."I never argued against my opponents definition. I simply added my own. I never said no to the previous definition."That's the thing. You can't add a new definition that switches the old definition. The definition in the first round was the only definition, and you agreed upon it. Then he proceeded to use quotes from famous people to prove his point... even one from a FICTIONAL MOVIE. If all of those guys said that crack and nicotine was great and totally legal, would you believe it? No! My opponent fails to refute in a proper manner in the third round.He also said details should have been added in the second round. I added the new details in the third round to properly refute what my opponent said by adding new details. Nowhere in the agreement does it say I could not add new details to the scenario later on.Anyway, I finish up this debate. I ask con to keep his writing to a minimum as I can not respond.Thank you for the debate!
Stealing is Sometimes Justified

I never argued against my opponents definition. I simply added my own. I never said no to the previous definition. As for your added information about the scenarios, this is added information that should have been added in the first round of scenarios. I will however take all of this into consideration, and make counter arguments with certain quotes. Quote 1: "Enter, stranger, but take heed Of what awaits the sin of greed, For those who take, but do not earn, Must pay most dearly in their turn. So if you seek beneath our floors A treasure that was never yours, Thief, you have been warned, beware Of finding more than treasure there." R13; J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone Quote 2: "Man is not, by nature, deserving of all that he wants. When we think that we are automatically entitled to something, that is when we start walking all over others to get it." R13; Criss Jami, Diotima, Battery, Electric Personality Quote 3: "The robb'd that smiles, steals something from the thief; He robs himself that spends a bootless grief." R13; William Shakespeare, Othello As seen, all of these great books, authors, poets, and people have one thing in common. They all see stealing as a crime that is unjust. This is my argument. This may not be a real life scenario, but it is living proof that thievery is bad.
Stealing is Sometimes Justified

I knew my opponent was going to say that (other options). So allow me to add more specifics to the scenarios. He also argued against my definitions, which I strongly advise for a loss of conduct points. I quote my opponent:"I agree to everything that was stated in my opponents first argument." That means the definitions and the scenarios alike. My opponent knew well before he posted his rebuttal the definition of stealing. A new definition shall not be used, as agreed upon.--Counter Rebuttal I: Scenario 1-- Israeli: Plants bomb in Empire State building with 10:00 on the timer and quickly flees the city and kills himself, as to never be found. He did not even alert any other Israeli's about the bomb, so anyone who takes it would be considered stealing.Johnny: Johnny finds a big bomb in a restricted access room that was put there by an Israeli person. The bomb would detonate in 30 seconds if Johnny does not disarm and take it elsewhere. He has absolutely no time to alert anyone else. Yes, Johnny could just leave it there after disarming it. However, the government of the U.S.A would take it if alerted, so then the government would be stealing. No matter what Johnny does, it would be considered stealing. He has no choice.Furthermore, you state how it is not stealing by your own definition. I see no need to refute the latter part of your argument because it does not follow the definition agreed upon.However, there is one claim that I would like to point out. If Johnny goes for help to the security guards, don't you think the security guards would take it out of the building, or steal it? Do you really think anyone in America would really leave a bomb inside the Empire State Building and not take it somewhere?--Counter rebuttal II: Scenario 2--Alberto lives next to a very successful farm in Nigeria. However, that is the only source of food for miles around, as he has no other neighbors. He usually survives on road kill by a small road, but today there wasn't any. Alberto is too weak to walk far, so he can not reach his next neighbor. His family is sick, so they can't either. There are no relief funds in this part of Nigeria. The farmer was off to sell potatoes, and Alberto decides to steal. It is his only option.So, this new scenario uproots your argument that he could've gone to someone who actually shared. Also, I do not see your logic that he has to have another neighbor. Where do you get this information from? This new scenario also uproots your saying that he could've traded. No one was within his walking distance, and he was poor, so he did not have any tradeable items he could afford to lose. Therefore, your argument is falsified.As for your conclusion, it is also flawed. Even if these people had other options, it is still justified becuase it is for a legitamite reason. Even if it is not the best choice, it is still justified (according to the definition). I look forward to round four.Thank you for reading.
Stealing is Sometimes Justified

I disagree with these arguments because I believe that the people could find many other solutions to the above problems. For example in scenario 1, Johnny could have gone and warned someone who worked there, and not only would the job be professionally, but also, it is not stealing. The definition of stealing according to the New English Dictionary, is to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force. If Johnny was to tell someone else about the bomb, then first off this would not be in secret, and he is not doing anything by force, therefore he is not stealing. He would not be taking anything, and even though he does know how to disarm the bomb, he will not be taking and not returning, because he is not doing anything. Lives could and would still be saved, but without the stealing factor of it all. Looking at scenario 2, Alberto could have done many things. One thing he could have possibly done would have been to to someone else who would have shared. If he had one neighbor then he would also have had one in the opposite direction approximately the same distance. Also he could have sold something of his or traded it for food. Stealing is not the only solution to this problem. Many people are going through a very similar problem right now. Most third world countries are starving, but other countries are helping them. I do not necessarily disagree with the statements of my opponent, but I do have solutions that are not stealing, so therefore stealing is not justified since there are other ways of doing things. Life saving/living is a very important thing to do, but it is possible to do this in ways other than stealing.
Stealing is Sometimes Justified

My resolution will be that in the worst case scenario, it is justified to steal, or it is sometimes justified to steal. My opponent's resolution is that even in the worst case scenario, it is not justified to steal. Justified: Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason. Steal: Take (another person's property) without permission and without intending to return it. Religious references shall not be used (such as Bible or Qur'an). When a scenario is presented, it can not be argued invalid. By accepting, you agree what I am debating for, and what you are debating for. You agree to the rules and definitions. With that said, let the debate commence! !
Stealing is Sometimes Justified

Using quotes from famous people is a way of stating what others think, and if my opponent does not wish to this as me failing to refute in a proper manner, then I would suggest you make a debate about that, and see how it goes, or an opinion to see what the maximum amount of people think on this. As for me adding a definition, our agreement never said I could not add a definition. It simply stated that I was to agree to the definition. There is no rule about adding another definition. Finally, I believe that your arguments are all valid. They are not however, real. This is one flaw. My quotes were real. Stated by real people, but the scenarios were not they were as well as made up. That is my argument to conclude this debate.
Jesus is God incarnate.

I do not think that you understand the concept of the trinity. It states that God is one, but comes in different forms. It does not say that there are 3 Gods, all in different forms, but 1 God whom is present in 3 forms. God the Father: Guardian, Lord, Alpah and Omega, Creator, Forgiver God the Son: Christ, Jesus, Savior, Messiah God the Holy Spirit: Eternal, Almightly, Omnipresent These three examples are the three forms that make up God. Jesus falls under God the Son. He is God in human-form. The average human, let alone any human, cannot preform the miracles which Jesus did. He rose from the dead. He accended into heaven and promised that he would come back. Jesus claimed to be God. Now tell me, what human could touch a blind man from birth and make him see? What man could rise from the dead? "Do you accept these 4 main points? " Yes I do. They did not say, " There are 3 Gods. One whom is the Father, one who is the Son and one who is the Holy Spirit. They stated that God comes in 3 forms but is one. I look forward to your response.
Jesus is God incarnate.

As I was doing some research I came across a site (http://www.afcministry.com... ) that gave a nice little breakdown of the trinity. It's short and to the point. I would like to take a look at the 4 main points that they bring up.. I think they are pretty standard component beliefs in the 3 parts = God, trinity concept. Explaining the Trinity 1) The Bible teaches that there is only one God. (Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 44:6-8, Isaiah 45:22) 2) The Bibles teaches that there is one who is called the Father and is identified as being God. (1 Peter 1:2) 3) The Bible teaches that there is one who is called Jesus and is identified as being God. (John 1:1-3&14-18, John 20:28-29, 1 John 1:1-4&5:20, Philippians 2:5-8, Revelation 1:17-18, Revelation 22:12-20) 4) The Bible teaches that there is one who is called the Holy Spirit and is identified as being God. (John 14:16-17, John 15:26, John 16:7-15, Acts 5:3-4, Acts 13:2, 1 Corinthians 12:4-18, Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 10:15-18) Do you accept these 4 main points? I'm not asking if you agree with the source that I sited as a whole. I just want to make sure we're on common ground before I give my main argument. Again, as far as I know, those 4 points listed above are basic building blocks of support for the trinity,correct? (Nor am I implying that the 4 points above are the only support used to defend the trinity. Again I just want to find a basic, common ground before giving my main point.)
Jesus is God incarnate.

:) "The Old testament states clearly that there is only ONE God. Matter of fact, its stated as such in the first commandment. " Yes. This is true. There is only one God. God consists of the Trinity. The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. He is all three of these. In this case, Jesus is The Son. He is God in a human form. So, during this debate, we are not arguing whether or not Christianity or God is true, but rather that Jesus was really God? Am I correct?