azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

I am a Biblical scholar and I will submit to you that, when it comes to slavery, the Bible was on the cutting-edge of justice and mercy for slaves. Here why:- The Bible taught that everyman, even a slave, had an immortal soul. Pagans sometimes claimed that their enemies, or slaves, did not have souls- The Bible states that one can only have a slave for seven years and then they must be released. A slave can choose to willingly become a slave for life, but it was their choice to do so.- First, the Jews, and then the Christians were known to have treated their slaves with far more kindness than the Pagans, including the Greeks and the Romans- In Biblical culture, it was extremely frowned upon to have sexual relations with a slave and cases of rape were prosecuted before the Jewish Sanhedrin. In contrast, a Greek or Roman slave-owner could just bend them over whenever they felt the urge to do so.The Bible is not neutral about slavery and obviously disapproved of it by restricting its use to 7 years.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

The Bible is not neutral about slavery and obviously disapproved of it by restricting its use to 7 years.Gun ownership is limited, obviously Americans disapprove of Gun Ownership. Sound like a good argument to you?Placing limits on a practice =/= Disapproval of the whole practice
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

The Bible is completely logical to anyone that thinks logically. The Bible is completely illogical to those who don't think.It is not the Bible that thinks, it is you.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Superb point.Fuck the people who misinterpret a book of metaphorical teachings that was meant to guide primitive people and their primitive thoughts in the Dark Ages.Biblical literalism is disgusting, and so is the opposing idea that Biblical literalists represent Jesus Christ.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Send in the swear words you say? I'm only 13 you know. We'll have none of that here. And yes, that's right, I'm to advanced for my age.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

I will refrain from swearing then as long as you refrain from putting words in my mouth. Thank you.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Thank you for your co-operation, but it is called a debate.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

And that means you're supposed to put words in my mouth?
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

And that means you're supposed to put words in my mouth?Haha!
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

These are ramblings of a mad man! :OHave you even read my arguments of slavery and sexism with scrutiny? Can you even read?The bible is just a fictitious book that was written by men who weren't without prejudice.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

No, you think the Bible is just a fictitious book written by prejudiced men.His point was that the Bible was written with only one thing in mind. Since you don't know what that thing is, it is only you who thinks, not the Bible. You are the one who is mad.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Lunacy from the bible:If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker?Come on, don't you think this is enough to show that the bible is corrupt?How am I mad when you support a book like this, and don't make up excuses because there is NO excuse when trying to justify rape.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.Cite the verse please. I will correct your misconception about it.What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker?Come on, don't you think this is enough to show that the bible is corrupt?Since it's nigh impossible that you understood the verse correctly, I doubt this will convince me the Bible is corrupt.And even if this verse does actually does seem to support rape, it will still not convince me the Bible is corrupt. What's corrupt today was not corrupt to the audience the Bible was intended for.How am I mad when you support a book like this, and don't make up excuses because there is NO excuse when trying to justify rape.There are a few excuses from ancient times that could logically justify rape at the time. I don't like it, but that's how they kept order back then.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

What misconception? It says it all right here. If you are referring this to a metaphor, then that is just unheard of. Read it again. It's Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Ah, I see. Well you didn't put the verse's citations, so you may have been paraphrasing. I checked now and see you posted it correctly.As for the verse, it has been misread and written. I look up several Bible versions after I read your reply, and I also looked at some commentary on it.There are a few Bible's that do not use the word 'rape' in the verse. One or two did, but of 5 times I read the verse, I saw the word rape in 2 of the 5 different re-writings.This mean the verse may have nothing to do with rape, and probably doesn't. YES, 2 of 5 is very close to half, but that's not the point. If the verse was rewritten so many times that the words in the verse are drastically different in between Bibles, then we don't actually know what the verse says.And since you're right, it's just a little illogical, in only one way or two though, to be forced into a relationship by your rapist, I'm going to go with the the more logical translation of the verse.The logical translation of the verse is approximately, 'If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.' 'Lay hold on her, and lie with her' doesn't automatically equate rape. It equates some sort of force, but that force isn't necessarily violent, nor damaging, nor without mutual consent.This verse is probably about marriage as a punishment, actually. The man made advances upon the virgin woman until she decided to give her purity to him. This is wrong and chaotic, so the woman's punishment is to be married to this man without any say, and the man's punishment is to pay a huge fine to his new wife's father and then be married to his new wife without any say.And if the fine of fifty silvers, which was actually a huge amount of money at the time, was not able to be paid to the father, then what? Then the husband of the father's daughter would be the father's slave until he had done work equal to his debt.Even if the verse may have been written in relation to rape, which would make no sense, it would still be to an extent a punishment for the rapist.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

You can't say that the 2 out of 5 verses don't count, because that in it's self would be illogical. The 3 verses that don't contain meanings of rape can't just automatically mean something else, they all have to mean rape because the other way around wouldn't make sense. It says that the man who raped or 'lay' with the virgin would have to pay 50 Shekels for the crime he has done, and yet the woman wouldn't have to pay anything, this means that it was only the man's wrong doing and not the woman's, because she did not want do it. This is called rape. If she did want to do it she would get punishment just the same, or even worse.But since this is an act of fornication, they would have to marry against their will, but the rape victim would suffer more emotionally as she was forced into this by her attacker against her will and now cannot go out of it. Then she would be stuck in the world's most terrible marriage, for the rest of her life.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

The 3 verses that don't contain meanings of rape can't just automatically mean something else, they all have to mean rape because the other way around wouldn't make sense.It makes plenty of sense the other way around.It says that the man who raped or 'lay' with the virgin would have to pay 50 Shekels for the crime he has done, and yet the woman wouldn't have to pay anything, this means that it was only the man's wrong doing and not the woman's, because she did not want do it.No, it was the man's wrong doing because he took her virginity; even if it was with her consent, it was without order and wedlock. The man made the advance, she foolishly agreed, and they resorted to chaos. The man took up more a punishment then the woman because women and their ability to bear children are more valuable then a man's ability to plant the seed that becomes the child. Well, were more valuable. In those days.There is not enough evidence that the verse talks about rape. You're not thinking of the living conditions of these ancient cultures.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

"It makes plenty of sense the other way around"No it doesn't because rape means rape and the other verses say "Lay with." which could mean rape. Obviously, this would mean they are meaning rape as said in the other verses. So what I mean is, if the bible says that the 2/5 verses say it's rape, and the 3/5 verses that say that it most likely means rape, that means it is rape, because if it was the other way round, the 3/5 verses that say "Lay with" would have to be the same as the 2/5 that say rape. But since it clearly says it's rape in it's self, and not "Lay with" which could be mean rape, then it doesn't work because that would mean contradiction, and contradiction in a so called logical book makes things illogical.For your second answer, you justify by saying that "the woman doesn't get as punished as the man because she is the one who can bear children." I see what you mean, but as explained from above, this is more likely to be about rape, and women of those times were not treated well. And forcing the rape victim to marry the attacker and become husband and wife for the rest of their lives still doesn't seem... logical. Even if the man has to pay the heavy amount of 50 Shekels, the woman would still suffer a considerably more burdening punishment. This is about rape, okay?
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

No it doesn't because rape means rape and the other verses say "Lay with." which could mean rape.'Lay with' means to have intercourse. You just want to translate that into your head as 'rape' when it means something much more general then that.But since it clearly says it's rape in it's self, and not "Lay with" which could be mean rape, then it doesn't work because that would mean contradiction, and contradiction in a so called logical book makes things illogical.It's not a contradiction. It's a mistranslation. You must blame the translators, not the book.In fact, the book has been mistranslated so much, that people have interspersed the word 'homosexual' with 'animals rapist' and 'misogynist'. Those three words have nothing to do with one another. Which is the truth? We'll never know unless we all learn Latin, the original language the Bible was first written in.The point is that we were not the intended audience of the Bible. The translators of the Bible in some cases were idiots, but if more of them said 'lay with' instead of 'rape', then the original text meant something more along the lines of 'lay with'.To lay with is not to rape.This is not about rape.You just want it to be about rape because you're frustrated and want to win the argument.And forcing the rape victim to marry the attacker and become husband and wife for the rest of their lives still doesn't seem... logical.It's logical if you don't think of rape as apart of the picture, which is probably isn't since, like you said, that wouldn't make sense. It also probably isn't since 'lay with' like I explained, does not mean rape.This is about rape, okay?I'm sorry, but it's not. You don't have to go on trying to force an untrue point. I know what it's like to be in your position, especially since I myself am stubborn, but it would be best if you just surrendered so you don't end up saying something you wish you hadn't. It happens to the best of us.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

'Lay with' does mean intercourse, it just doesn't cover everything, for all we know, it could mean rape, but we are sure that rape means. You can't just ignore the verses that speak of rape. The original bible uses the word "Shakab" Which could mean "Lay with" Or "Rape." But we do know that in some verses, they use "Shakab" as in context of rape. Read this: Isaiah 13:16Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished (shakab).(This clearly means that they were forcibly raped, because why would you kill babies, loot houses and then ask politely to the women after destroying their homes)And this is actually an order directly from God who doesn't care, he just wants them raped. And it violates the rule of sex before marriage.Wouldn't you find it creepy if, God, the all perfect and all loving being who is the basis of the bible wanted you to be raped? I don't mean any offense, I'm just showing how much nonsense this is.Illogical. Illogical and Illogical."You must blame the translators, not the book"So that's what you have come to. Blame the translators you say? I'd say you're struggling. The bible is riddled with countless contradictions which make it illogical, and we all know that the bible was is worse as it gets. They were brutal in those days you see, so future translators decided to substitute the outcome of "naughty" words so it would be easier to believe. You've shown it your self how they have "Lay with" and "Rape." They also decide to change "slave" to "servant" to lighten the blow and ignore verses where they beat them. The bible, and I mean the original bible was as worse as it got. It makes sense that people would change the "naughty" words of the bible, but it wouldn't make sense if they changed "lay with" to "rape" because that would be mocking their own bible. But blaming the translators doesn't seem like a full-hearted debate, it just seems desperate. It shows that there is not much evidence to stand with against all the flaws of the bible.It's impossible to think that the bible is 100% flawless because of all the outbursts of blasphemous verses that need to be straightened out, but they don't get anywhere because we all know that the bible contains contradiction, and contradiction leads to illogicality.Why do really want to protect the bible so much? It just has too much problems.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Okay, now that is just wishful thinking. You say "Well there HAS to be a special meaning" What about in the bible when it says that the world is 6000 years old. They didn't even have any technology to support that and we already know for a fact that it is wrong. How is there any special meaning to that? There are some metaphors in the bible but some don't apply to some verses. Why do people make up so many excuses?
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Once again, creation theories were meant to get people to stop wondering about the pointless and instead tend to their societal needs. The Bible was not being literal about it's creation theory. Just because some cook of a Christan says it was literal doesn't mean it was literal. YAWN.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Oh, but whole countries and societies are full of people who take this literally, even the Vatican so saying that would be a huge let down for them. But you are right. Too bad loads of people fail to realize this.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Every Catholic with authority I've ever talked to or read words from has always said the Bible wasn't literal just because many followers believe it literal. Every Catholic priest, bishop and cardinal I've heard speak don't believe in Biblical literalism, and believe that any Biblical literalists are getting it wrong.And twice as many religious scholars from all walks of faith have said the same thing.Don't get the opinions of the sheepherder from the sheep themselves. All they'll say is 'baahh' and you won't understand what the sheepherder really thinks.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Only recently has the Vatican said that evolution 'could' be true, and that it could coexist with religious faith. The official stance of the Vatican since the beginning of the Catholic church has been that of a literal creation story.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

That was them taking into consideration the opinions and feelings of their sheep. I don't care for the opinions of sheep though, I care for the opinions of the sheepherder. Just because the sheepherder cares about his sheep doesn't mean I do. I only care about him and his opinion.And after talking and listening to him, his opinion seems to be that Biblical literalism is idiotic.The only thing I regret about this reply is that I cannot remember the sheepherder's name...
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

That was them taking into consideration the opinions and feelings of their sheep. When the catholic church vehemently supported biblical literalism for over a thousand years they were just 'taking into considerations the beliefs of the sheep' but when the Vatican finally accepts Evolution as a valid scientific theory, they did that without considering the sheep?This is Special Pleading.http://www.answers.com/topic/special-pleading It seems the Vatican only considers the opinions of the sheep, when that opinion differs from your own, but when the Vatican agrees with you, that is something they just genuinely believe. Surely you can see the arrogance is this assertion, yes?
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Did you ever consider the possibility the Catholic Church just changed after over a thousand years of being primitive? Perhaps the sheepherder finally woke up one day and decided he was too old to think of his pet sheep as anything more then just sheep he had to herd, as opposed to them being the things that define him.What is arrogant about actually believing that the Catholic hierarchy isn't necessarily a crock of corrupt shit? Is it impossible to believe that a governing body might actually be truly virtuous and not be a fool? Do I have to mistrust them even though they've been successfully guiding people for over a thousand years, making them one of the oldest, continuous governments in existence?I'm sorry, but I think they're sincere. I see no reason to assume they're fooling everyone. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I have no reason to believe they don't have harmonious intentions. I don't think they're perfect, but they certain aren't the demons that atheists want people to believe they are.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Did you ever consider the possibility the Catholic Church just changed after over a thousand years of being primitive? Consider it? yes. Believe it? No.Perhaps the sheepherder finally woke up one day and decided he was too old to think of his pet sheep as anything more then just sheep he had to herd, as opposed to them being the things that define him.I think the more likely explanation is that the Catholic church was losing followers and chose to save itself by changing the official dogma to be more digestible to the modern public.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Believe it? No.Why?I think the more likely explanation is that the Catholic church was losing followers and chose to save itself by changing the official dogma to be more digestible to the modern public.It had just as many followers after saying they approved of evolution as they did a year before they approved of it. If they had even seen a slightly significant drop, such as thousands and thousands, the media would have reported this. They've had over a billion church members for some time. It's not hard for an observer of their numbers to spot such a change in their numbers so vast that the Church would make such a dramatic change within it's stance by saying evolution is plausible.You know what I think is most likely? That as the years went by, more young Catholics came into the Church and gained power, it got to a point where there were so many powerful, wise, and elderly Catholics with modern views that the Church finally woke up and smelled it's millennium-old outdated stance.Is it impossible for it to be a sincere change in opinion?
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Why?Because if we are looking at a group of people we must think sociologically and sociologically there must be cause and effect. A person may come to a spontaneous epiphany, but a group of people (the Vatican, in this case) will not all simultaneously come to the same epiphany spontaneously. There must be an environmental cause, that would cause this general shift in thought. I have given what I think to be a very plausible cause. The potential loss of followers as well as European social and cultural pressures.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

I have also given what I think to be a very plausible cause. Their observation and involvement with modern culture has caused them to realize that the modern opinions of many of their leadership and sheep are more important then the outdated beliefs of their leadership and sheep.Is it impossible for them to do this without having an ulterior, politically-corrupt motive? Or would your logic have them not be sincere just because they're theists?
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

I have also given what I think to be a very plausible cause. Their observation...This observation could have been made at any time, why the change now? There must be some other cause.involvement with modern cultureThis falls more in line with what I was saying earlier. That being, European social and cultural pressures upon the Catholic church as well as making the dogma more digestible to the modern public. These two factors combined, I think, is the cause. I don't see anything inherently corrupt about that, but to say outside opinions played no role, is untenable.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

This observation could have been made at any time, why the change now? There must be some other cause.Now you're the one assuming they can change fast. What if it took the, a hundred years to digest and accept their observation?This falls more in line with...Then perhaps our theories on this aren't particularly different. I just find something inherently wrong about suggesting that they would lie about their actual beliefs just so they could hold onto more followers. It can't be just that, and it sounded to me like you were saying it only was that, which translates into my mind as you demonizing them.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

The bible is completely logical to rapists, the ignorant, sexists, homophobes, slavers, hypocrites, the gullible, cowards, and the arrogant. The bible is completely illogical to normal, reasonable people who refuse to have blind faith and want real truth.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

What is real? Is it that which fits nicely into what you believe?What truth do you want? Chances are you would like it, if you knew it.