BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
On Average, The God Of Abraham Is Not A Kind Being

Yeah Con has definitely conceded.Con's venus analogy is poor.No I don't advocate criminals being sent to venus.Maybe child torturers or childer serial rapists/ killers, but that's about it.The difference is that hell is FOREVER. That is not just.I can be a great person, give to charity, solve world hunger and god can still send me to hell?Yeah this god is not kind at all. Con acknowledges that if god exists, we have no free will, but he does not acknowledge the implication. If we go to hell, it's god's fault, because god has known we would go to hell for all eternity, yet he still let disbelievers be born.This is surely unkind.
On Average, The God Of Abraham Is Not A Kind Being

God did not create Hell. He created the means to make Hell but even if he did make it for a prison for the Devil and his hordes of demons. Doesn't imply that he created Hell because he was just plain evil. God is good, and he created the means to produce evil. He knows everything and nothing. He has seen the beginning of times and the ends of times. He knows all and sees all. Thank you for stating that. Especially since it implies that he has no reason to keep us, and he should just kill us. 'He has to show himself for me to believe in him'. The Bible states that if god showed himself to us that he would burn our good with our evil. Purity Sin = Corruption Heaven = Purity Corruption Atonement = Purity Hell = Corruption Blood of Jesus = Atonement Heaven = Eternity With God Hell = Eternity without God Therefore, Purity = Eternity with God Corruption = Eternity without God The key: Atonement by the blood of Jesus. A universe where people are sent to Hell is less favorable. . . Well Venus is a Hellish world; when space exploration starts isn't that a great place to send criminlas? Hell was made for people that will always never believe in god. Not for people's sins. If you believe in god, Jesus died on he cross for our sins. I mean I'm not stating it will give you a full ride if you killed billions of people, but at that point you don't really believe in a god more you think oyu are god.
On Average, The God Of Abraham Is Not A Kind Being

Did god make hell? Yeah' Hell is a place of suffering originally prepared by God for the devil and his angels (Matthew 18:9; 25:41). Everything that ever was or is or will be is created by God, including hell (Colossians 1:16). John 1:3 says, “All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.”God did create hell. Con says: "It isn't gods fault for our hardships. It is ours. . . Why doesn't he change us? Well because my friend, it has allowed us to do whatever we want."Once again, NO. Problem Of Free Will(Non-gods):P1)An omniscient god knows the future.P2) An omniscient god can't be wrong.P3) An omniscient god can predict your actions and can't be wrong. P4)An omniscient god knows your actions.C1) You don't have free will.So if there's an omniscient god, then everything we do was determined by god.P1) God created everything that existsP2) Evil existsC God created evilP1- Defended by aforementioned versesP2- Fairly obvious. con agrees. Evil and suffering exists.C- necessarily follows.I think con has conceded the debate. The resolution is regarding if god is kind.We can debate if god is moral, but I think we both agree he isn't kind.http://www.gotquestions.org... http://mswara-holocaust.wikispaces.com...
On Average, The God Of Abraham Is Not A Kind Being

I stated that god is not only a loving god but a judgemental god is because: He loves us but doesn't allow us to do sins without consequences. Just like my parents. They love me but if I do something stupid, they just don't let it slide. The case for Hell is not God's fault in all arguments you throw back at me. Did god make Hell? No, Satan did. Did he make it for the sinners? No, in the book of Revelations, doesn't it state that even though god comes to the Earth and shows himself to us and even though the Non-Believers could've chose to follow him, in the end didn't they stay on the Earth with the Anti-Chriest? God didn't bring evil to this earth either. Didn't he WARN (like I stated in my first argument) to Adam and Eve that if they eat from the Forbidden Tree there will be consequences? Did they do it anyways? Though in the end didn't god keep them alive because he loved them too much? God has absolutely no reason to be kind to us; even though we are like his characters in a novel, or that we are all his creations (don't you feel special when you make a masterpiece? And you want to help preserve that masterpiece? It isn't gods fault for our hardships. It is ours. . . Why doesn't he change us? Well because my friend, it has allowed us to do whatever we want. I can become the most selfless, heartful person in the world or Hitler. Would you like walking around naked in a place full of ripe fruit your entire life without a mind to think and a body to feel, your entire life? Because that's what we would do if we weren't in the situations we are today.
On Average, The God Of Abraham Is Not A Kind Being

The first problem is I will openly state that NO, I Am is not a kind being. Because he is not just a loving god, but a judgmental god. He/she/it of himself is a loving, caring god. He in the bible told the Israelites time and time again that these actions will have these consequences and these actions will have these consequences. All of our strife is caused by our actions not by god's doing. He warned us of the consequences of moving away from him and of course we don't listen and look at how 'perfect' the world is. Secondly: Are you an Atheist? If yes, then god is nothing in your eyes so there would be no reason to continue. I accept. With these opening statements.
On Average, The God Of Abraham Is Not A Kind Being

Structure:1. Acceptance2. Opening Arguments3. New points/ Rebuttals4. Rebuttals5. Rebuttals and ClosingThe God Of Abraham: "Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are sometimes called "Abrahamic religions" because they all accept the tradition that God revealed himself to the patriarch Abraham. The theological traditions of all Abrahamic religions are thus to some extent influenced by the depiction of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible, and the historical development of monotheism in the history of Judaism."http://en.wikipedia.org... On Average: " generally; usually." http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com...Kindness: " Kindness is a behavior marked by ethical characteristics, a pleasant disposition, and concern for others. It is known as avirtue, and recognized as a value in many cultures and religions."Kindness: " According to Book Two of Aristotle's "Rhetoric" it is defined as virtue).[citation needed] It is defined as being "helpfulness towards someone in need, not in return for anything, nor for the advantage of the helper himself, but for that of the person helped". http://en.wikipedia.org...
Anti-Semitism: Why the hate? - Opponent:Jewish

Okay, but instead of forfeiting the next round we should at least write something. I'd also ask that we keep in mind that this is a debate - and as I've provided certain insights, voters should vote Pro. Anyway, to answer your questions: -I don't know what the solution is for Israel and Palestine, my opinion on the conflict is mostly neutral. -I consider those kind of claims (on Jews controlling the economy and exaggerating holocaust statistics) to be baseless and without credibility. Figures from the holocaust are around six million (so they are not exaggerated). If you include all the mass shootings that took place across Eastern Europe, the deaths in ghettos, etc. in addition to the number of those who died at concentration camps, the figures make numerical sense. [1.] https://www.ushmm.org...
Anti-Semitism: Why the hate? - Opponent:Jewish

Hello emil, I think we should end this debate after this round because not many people are commenting, so its sort of dead. We can start debating on something else. Anyways my follow up questions are, do you believe Palestine should (/ shouldn't) be independent from Israel?, and how would you respond to Anti-Semites arguing that Jews control the economy n that Jews exaggerate holocaust figures? explain your opinions, thx.
Anti-Semitism: Why the hate? - Opponent:Jewish

Well Emil clearly knows her history, and so I believe she gives a credit-worthy account of how/why Jewish people are discriminated against. There was one point in her argument that I was not aware of, and that was the Sanhedrin's' disapproval of Jesus. That makes perfect sense, and of course Christians would naturally despise them for this. However, just like Islam, both Judaism, and Christianity, clearly want to be the dominant Abrahamic religion. What I'm trying to say, is it all religious factions are suspect to hypocrisy, so don't judge someone based on religious identity, but by personality. I'll now let Emil respond to any comments or expand on her arguments, and then I'll pose a follow up question.
Anti-Semitism: Why the hate? - Opponent:Jewish

Ok so as mentioned in the comments, this is a conversation rather than a debate, and I'll be taking an unbiased impartial stance. I'm unbiased because I'm a British Indian and there are not many actual Jewish people in West London, so i don't quite understand their culture. North/East London on the other hand is famous for being antisemitic because the Jewish population is higher there. Anyways... apart from the whole aryan race complex i don't understand why people hate jews. Could you please elaborate on this emil and give your opinion on why they hate?
Most Truth in reality is in the middle of two extreme options

This argument is about whether or not this statement is true: "Most truths in reality are not Black and White. Rather, most truth is somewhere in the middle of two extremes." When talking about 'black and white' and 'extremes' it refers to two very polar viewpoints on a topics truth in reality. For example, some persons take the stance that we live in a reality where good and evil are very black and white and there are actions that are absolutely evil and actions that are absolutely good. Different persons take the stance that there exists no good or evil in the universe. These are two polar opposites. However, someone with the viewpoint of the statement above (the one being debated about) may say that neither polar viewpoint is correct and that the real truth of good and evil is something of a mixture of the two polar viewpoints (i.e. good and evil exist, but the morality of actions and choices are not polar and can sometimes be both good and evil). The existence of morality is a bad example for this. A better example for the statement being debated is having two polar opposing political parties (such as a left wing authoritarian and a right wing libertarian) and choosing a party that has policies in between the two radical viewpoints (such as a moderate). The statement above does not say that polar extreme viewpoints are never true. However, the statement does say that they usually aren't true and that usually the true viewpoint is one in the middle. For this debate I am arguing that the statement is a true one. I argue that most Truth in reality is in the middle of two extreme options.
hate is a necessary evil

How would you propose implementing this law forbidding religion? It is entirely impractical, and would be impossible to do so peacefully. Religious people would fight to keep their religion. If it doesn't come down to fighting then people will ignore the law, and thus the law is impotent. Or it would only be used to target few individuals. So in order to make your vision true we would need a lot of guns, and tanks, and planes. Maybe throw in some atomic weapons for those really pesky areas... It would come down to a full scale thermonuclear war. It would be global, and we would call it "World War Three". Albert Einstein once said "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." These few and far between primitive people that would be left... They would just form brand new religions, and start the cycle over again. If it's not practical, then it's a mute point, and what you propose is not practical.
hate is a necessary evil

hate is religion.. atheism belief=theism=love disbelief=atheism=hate like brightness and shadow.. the more brightness the more darker the shadows no need to hate a buffalo.. the buffalo is not a terrorist or racist now you are just making claims.. not debate worthy or am i not a brain in a vat? religion is terrorism.. by opposing knowledge... laws exist to limit religion people has to be burried or something.. no religion going on.. where else you gonna put em if all religion is abolished there is no longer religion
hate is a necessary evil

It seems as though you are trying to make two entirely separate, and unrelated arguments which should be two separate debates, but I'll take on both of your arguments in this debate. Argument 1: Hate is a necessary evil. Argument 2: Religion is only good to end religion. I already made rock solid case for argument number 1 in round 1. Were you advocating for shooting at the police? Self defense is not hatred... You shoot at a cop, and you will be dead or in prison soon enough. Sometimes you do need to kill out of love. A native hunter loves his tribe so he takes his bow and arrow in to the field to hunt the buffalo. He does not hate the buffalo, but it has needed resources to feed, and clothe his people. So he must kill the buffalo out of love for them. On to the religion portion of the debate. This is a wide topic. Different people have different belief systems. I believe that people should have the freedom to choose their own religion, or lack there of. Some religious practices are barbaric, and primitive. You simply can not lump them all in together though. I am an agnostic personally. I will not claim faith, or disbelief in god. For all you know, you are simply a brain in a vat https://en.wikipedia.org... Some religions need to be changed. I am against circumcision on a child without their consent. That is wrong. I'll give you that. I'm also against people who use religion as a reason for violence or terrorism or conquest. However recently my grandmother died. She was a practicing catholic. I went to church for the first time in this millennium out of respect, and I was there when she was lowered in to the ground. Sometimes religion acts as a way for coping with the bad parts of life. There is nothing wrong with a ceremonial burial. Religious freedom is important. Abolishing all religion would be the same as forcing all to have the same religion.
hate is a necessary evil

selfpreservation is moral.. war on religion love is hate to the contrary.. like taking a kids ice cream yes hate for fire is pointless.. no disagreement there, thats like hating a tiny stone for dropping on your head.. where as some one that loves throwing stones at peoples heads makes for a different scenario i dont agree that a cop dont need to hate, try shooting at one.. obviusly his job requires him to do certain things but people understand and agree with that, hate is not necessary.. but police are not theists either, unless a police man loves his authority a bit to much hating people because you feel they are vermin is not a necessary evil.. hate can be unnecessary, no disagreement there.. you may look at the topic to simplistic or i need to change it to hate for religion.. but im arguing for atheism you dont kill the enemy out of love.. this is madness of religion you dont have to hang some one, thats being lawless.. but busting pedophiles could come from love for kids, but esentially that is hate for pedophiles, yet you could simply restrain a pedophile and call the police
hate is a necessary evil

First off the bat I will define hate. "Hate is an intense hostility, and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury. Source: The most common dictionary definition. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Love, and hate are both passions. You can use love as a substitute in any case where you would have needed hate as a necessary evil. Hatred is not needed in order to fight against what is wrong in this world. I will give various examples of why love is a good alternative to hate. Example 1: A fire fighter need not hate fire to put the hose on it. The fire fighter instead can fight out of love for his neighbor. If I were in a house that is on fire I would rather have a fireman that is full of love than hate. The fireman who is hateful would be focused on simply attacking the fire, and all consumed with destroying that fire, where as the fireman full of love would be more concerned with helping the people from burning to death, or dying from smoke inhalation. Example 2: A police officer need not hate in order to fight crime. Imagine a world where police officers were loving, and handled things peacefully a lot more often than they do now. Sounds pretty good huh? Now imagine a hateful police state where they view you as vermin... not so much. Example 3: You get cancer. Your doctor sitting their saying "oh I hate cancer so much" is not going to resolve anything. He might really hate that cancer, and give you a huge dose of radiation... or maybe he could take a more loving approach, and make you as comfortable as possible. The 2nd option seems favorable. Example 4: War / national defense, "You must hate the enemy." This is untrue. I have several veteran friends. When it comes down to it they were not fighting because they hate the enemy. It was not "Lets kill all these rag heads" They were fighting for the brother in arms fighting beside them. It was out of love, not hate. Finally I will go on to an extreme examples where love can trump hatred. A pedophile who is attracted to children. Is it necessary to hate this person? How about we round up some good old boys, and go hunting for pedophiles to keep the kids safe. We will hang them from trees, and skin them alive! We will castrate them, and terrorize them! This sounds pretty good, but sadly it will not work. This method in dealing with pedophiles is not effective. It will drive the pedophiles deep underground, and in to the shadows. It only tackles the tip of the gargantuan ice berg below. It will increase the risk to the innocent children. How would a loving approach be different? The majority of pedophiles have not acted upon these evil urges they have. If you take the approach of these people can not help the way they were born, and couple it with some counseling, therapy, and medication. It could turn them away from pedophilia. Fewer pedophiles would stay in the closet, and they would be more easily recognized. They would get the help they need before they hurt the children.
Euthanasia Should Be Legal In America

My opponent makes no argument for why we should favor his interpretation of the right to life over my interpretation. My argument was dropped, so we must assume that the right to life only includes the right to keep your life, and not the right to do with it whatever you wish. However, despite my thoughts on the right to life, I believe that assisted suicide should be legal. Not because it would fulfill a right, but because it would reduce unnecessary suffering to those who will inevitably die without any reasonable chance of recovery or at least any remaining time without pain. Doctors should not kill their patients, and my arguments supporting that were dropped. Pro gives no reason as to why Euthanasia should be legalized that is unique to his plan over my counter plan (assisted suicide), and I have shown that his plan presents disadvantages that mine does not have. Therefore, you must negate.
Euthanasia Should Be Legal In America

Some of my opponent's arguments do not link to his conclusion. When someone is given the right to life, that means that the government outlaws murder, and punishes those who infringe on the right. This has nothing to do with the right to do with it whatever they want. With Pro's interpretation of this right, anyone including depressed teenagers and the like, are allowed to commit suicide, even when it would clearly harm society for them to do so.My opponent's sole valid point is basically this: that those who want a way out from their pain should have it by killing them, which is a merciful thing to do. However, I also agree that patients should have the right to die in this circumstance, with assisted suicide. This would achieve the same upsides, without the downsides of the doctor outright killing the patient.With the doctor killing the patient, doctors are given power that may be abused. For example, when it would benefit the doctor, the doctor could fake consent, among other things. Assisted suicide achieves the same upsides, without the ethical downsides of euthanasia.
Scotland should be tried for colonial crimes against humanity

"Alright here i go: we should not judge the people of present by what the people of the past did if i were to arrest you for what your great great grandfather did what good would i be doing i would be arresting an innocent man."I don't judge all of them for what they did. I don't hate Scots as a whole, though I don't approve of the culture of the Lowlands, and the whole "guilty before proven innocent" system of law in the Lowlands. What I do say is the Scots should have some decency in their hearts to at least apologize for what they've done to their subjects. It's humiliating what the Indians, Native Americans, Chinese, Welsh, southern English, and Irish had to go through.Another thing was that in the Lowlands of Scotland (somewhere in the northeast part of the Lowlands), the KKK was formed. It was not formed in America, but there. Glasgow was also the first city to have brutal race riots, in 1919, treating blacks like garbage, another one followed shortly not too far, south in Shields (Durham, England). Hatred of tomboys and autistic people runs rampant in the south of Scotland and north of England too. Plus it was there that eugenics was born (Sir Francis Galton was related to the famous Scotsman Darwin [Darwin was Scottish]). It's not fair to me, an autistic kid, and millions of autistic men in Scotland, that we've never gotten our due apology or at least done something to rectify wrongs. Scotland is not alone. Denmark, also a colonial power, has never apologized either for their wrongs, and many Danes seem to be proud of it too.
Scotland should be tried for colonial crimes against humanity

Alright debatefox, buddy, take your time. Just make sure you get indepth info. Here's why I say Scotland (mostly the Lowlands) should be tried for crimes against humanity. I will start with a statement. This society tends to call Germans/Austrians Nazis and Italians Fascist but overlook other nations' crimes against humanity.All the hatred and animosity many former subjects have towards Britain have to do with Scotland (and northern England), and it began with a Scottish king, and it has been Scottish-led since the old days. Mostly the Lowlands though. James I (a Scottish king) was the one who initiated the brutal conquest of Virginia (Jamestown, which is named for him). He also launched an invasion of southern England in an attempt to bribe and steal the crown of England. Many English civilians were victims of his invasion. Also James the First was the mastermind behind the Highland Clearance, which was basically an attempt to purge a mostly Nordic/Anglo-Saxon Scotland of Gaelic/Catholic influence, by driving the Gaelic Highlanders out of the Lowlands. It's something similar to Andrew Jackson's Trail of Tears.It was also under James, that the first wars against the Native Americans occured (1622, 3 years before the end of his reign). That's all I have to say for now. To this day Scotland has never apologized or even thought of apologizing. Many in Scotland are proud of what they did, unfortunately.