azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

Nice, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet", trap type question.If your in a burning building and the fireman directs you to the front door and you run up the stairs did the fireman condemn you to your fiery death?No God is not sending anyone to Hell. He is offering you to join him in his Heaven he made for us.You can chose to join us or hit the highway "to hell".... Or what ever land of warm fuzzes and lollipops you think waits you in your personal reality without God. Since God gave us this world, dominion over it and free will, it's is the Christians duty to make sure everyone hears and has the opportunity to decide. And we are doing a terrible job at it. Anti-Christians should be pleased they have intimidated Christians making them less then they should be. So it's our fault that we are not doing Gods will on our planet.Your question and assumptions are flawed. I agree, God would not send everyone to Hell. He did create free will though...
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

A benevolent god wouldn't have created a place like Hell in the first place...
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

Everything we do on Earth, good or bad, is temporary, including what we believe in in life. No benevolent God would punish us INFINITELY for FINITE actions. In all honesty, I believe that the very concept of Hell and punishment is a falsehood created by religious groups who wanted people to conform to their beliefs. That doesnt mean that the core of those religions are false; simply that we must take everything that they say with a grain of salt. It would be a simple issue of "you have your beliefs and I have mine, but God loves us all" without the idea of the unfaithful being sent to Hell, and the Catholic church was afraid of that. Moreover, you will notice that in almost every debate over whether God judges on belief or morality, whether being homosexual is evil or not, etc. involves the side that argues the former on both arguing completely based on quoted scripture. So many Christians (not all, but many) put so much stock in the complete and utter inerrancy of one book that it's a wonder we aren't still in the dark ages. The bottom line is, that if there is a Hell, there are many Christians who love their idea of God who are fated for it, and many Atheists, Jews, and other such "nonbelievers" who are not.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

God will only send bad, evil, maniac people to hell. If just because you are a Muslim then you were sent to hell even if you done more good deeds than, let's say, The Pope, then God is very unfair.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

No. But according to some logic that has been dropped on me, he's not actually that benevolent, because the people he sent to hell, were made to be sent to hell.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

I say no. I think God is both good and evil. .
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

There is no such place as Hell. Hell belongs in horror movies only.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

I believe in god and the Bible. Thats why im on this side. The bible does not teach about Heelfire.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

Revelations 21:8Matthew 13:42Matthew 13:50Matthew 25:46Matthew 25:41Mark 9:43Jude 1:7I could go on. Point being, the Bible does teach about Hell and hellfire.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

Lots of good comments here, but too many foul mouthed trash bags who God still loves but I have had enough of in this discussion. I hope to see you all in Heaven.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

Let me put it this way. A benevolent god COULD send someone to hell if they truly were at odds with benovelence. Meaning if they were very bad people. Because then they're not only not living in the way the benevelont god instructed and demonstrated but are actually hurting the other people who did choose to abide and try to be good.But, I voted on this side anyway, because the context this keeps coming up in religious debates on this site is that simply subscribing to the wrong batch of beliefs will land you in hell. That it doesn't matter if you act like a good person if you have the wrong core belief. And also that it doesn't matter if a believer does NOT act like a good person because they simply have to believe to be saved. All of those pro religion arguments are nonsense. No benevolent entity is going to smack down and torture people who are trying to be good and instead favor those who are smug bullies gleefully treating everyone who's beliefs are different than theirs like trash.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Other

This is the sort of questions that makes the whole religious debacle seem amusing and ridiculous. The question is valid as it points out another fundemental flaw in the doctrine of Christianity.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

This is the sort of questions that makes the whole religious debacle seem amusing and ridiculous. The question is valid as it points out another fundemental flaw in the doctrine of Christianity.The weirdest part is how the inconsistency doesn't even seem to faze believers.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

Definitely it is one of many, too many in fact. Blind faith has a brain washing effect of the mind. Believers are forced believe it wrong to question so the problem can not be solved as to them it does not exist.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

That's only a flaw if it was actually a doctrine of Christianity instead of a Greek doctrine that some people absorbed into their own version of Christianity.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

Someone is going about ritualistically downvoting me, with no dispute.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

Someone is doing the same thing to me. Perhaps they dont have a solid dispute but rather firm beliefs in what thier religion tells them to believe.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

I agree with you David, Mitt Romney just doesn't have what it takes and Obama was the best candidate we had to offer up as a Democratic President.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

A ringing endorsement of the Democrats...."the best we had to offer"
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

It constantly amazes me how people think we should give a crap what the world thinks of us.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

I know, right? It's not like we ever have to interact with the world, or that the world effects us in any way. Fk 'em!
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Interacting is one thing...believing that they should be able to determine or even have a say in the direction we should take is an entirely different thing. But I do agree with you on one thing! Care to guess?
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

"Old white people think they're not racist but really are, old minorities think the white man's out to get them whether they really are" Funny I was just thinking the same thing about liberals!
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

The problem with Obama and his ideology which is based more on socialism we can't affor. The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money. All of these things cost money and go against the grain on free market the rest of the world is going to eat us up if we go this route we are going that Obama wants.The rest of the world didn't hate Bush as much as you think, you should be more concerned about what we think here. How about Congress 22% approval rating right the lowest in history that concerns me more right now.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Obama laser like focus on jobs bla bla bla. Yes there is proof of this he was raised influenced and is good friends with Frank Marshall Davis, do I really have to type in all of the facts about that or are you just to lazy to go looking for the truth and even if the truth starred you straight in the face and smack you upside the head you would find someway to spin that ideology too. He may not be a pure Socialist but he most certainly was raised by one. We will never know really because Obama unlike all Presidents has sealed his records so I guess. Yes I will pay more in taxes by the end of this year when the capital tax rates expire. You want to see a welfare state mentality go look to Europe and Greece. Or should I say California, New York, New Jersey, Michigan next in line to help bailout them out. Look what pure Democratic power and statist governing does Bankruptcy. Dude you are so out there just pick your head up.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

Ignoring your crazy conspiracy theories,Who signed for the bailouts? Oh yeah Bush, a republicanWho brought brought the US economy from its strongest point in history to it's second weekest in history? Oh yeah Bush, a republicanWhen was the last time the budget was actually balanced? Oh yeah Clinton, a democrat
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Oh Who signed for bailouts? Yeah Bush Oh guess what the bank paid them back with Billions in interest so it was in the best interest of the tax payers actually didn't cost us dime we actually made money from it a lot of it, so when Obama talks about taxpayers being on the hook for bailouts of the banks and that it cost us what the fuck is he talking about? He's saying that because he knows most people in the US don't have a fucking clue on banking, fractional reserve lending and most people just buy everything a politician says. Remember the amount of the bailout paid out to banks the government has made that money back with billions more to spare. Maybe he's talking about GM which they failed because of overpaying unions and Gm failing would have happened anyway. The banks paid it back with interest so it was a good thing. Weakest in history not even close the Great Depression. You need to learn more about the facts it wasn't Bush's fault if you even knew what you are talking about when it relates to business, governments and so forth. The last time the budget was passed was with Clinton but it was with a majority republican house and senate that did it. Oh and by the way one of the biggest reasons is the Glass/Stegall act that Bill signed that was a big part of adding risk to banking allowing banking and investment under the same roof, just to name one. I can even talk to about the capital reserve requirements which the whole talking economy thing about the US is well overplayed and some of the banks where forced to take the money, but I won't get into it with you on that I don't want to act like I know what I'm talking about only the fact that I'm somewhat of a nerd and study econ for the fun of it. To blame it on Bush tells me you really have no clue on this matter it was many things that was out of his control. It was a culmination on things going as far back as 1970 when the seed was planted with Fannie and Freddie. If you really take the time to go and look at the actual facts you will then hopefully become unbiased and you will be able to point the finger not only at the banks and wall street but 30 years of bad government policy. They all knew it was going to pop eventually but it's easier for them to just blame it on the bad evil bankers and wall street than to be able to point the finger at themselves. Just ad the fact to Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd taking millions from Freddie and Fannie right before the fall and then telling us only weeks before that everything is fine, and know these guys are the ones calling the blame. It's a sick cycle. What amazes me the most is that the real fault lies with the FED reserve. They are a private bank that has never been audited they control our interest rates make our money give loans to banks and we have never once looked to them for their practices. The FED is the one mainly to blame but it takes people who understand monetary policy to even delve to that one. Look i was not a big fan of Bush he did some good things and bad things but to blame him for this is just ludicrous.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Your foreign policy criticism of Romney seems very generic. You say that all republicans are guilty of cowboy diplomacy, and you try (unsuccessfully) to extend that to Romney. You say that we have become more popular over seas, and that that proves that Obama will have a more successful foreign policy than Romney would. Popularity over seas is not the only measurement of foreign policy success. Reagan was very unpopular overseas, but he was very important in bringing down the soviet union. He was very successful in "foreign policy". Bush was much more popular in Israel than Obama. Bush should be vastly more popular in Africa than Obama, because Bush gave vastly more money to Africa than Obama. Obama has had some major foreign policy gaffs. Wiki leaks indicates that he asked the prime minister of Japan if he could apologize for bombing them during WWII. They said no, indicated that the idea of Obama patting himself on his back for how wonderful he was on the aniversary of the bombing was a "non starter". Obama's Gimmicks (e.g., reset buttons) have not helped with Russia. Obama's declarations of utopian aspirations (e.g., the abolition of nuclear weapons) have not made us look serious, and has made us look like pussies to our enemies. Obama's confessions of lack of staying power (e.g., proclaiming a date certain for leaving Afghanistan) should have been done in secret. Obama has undermined our allies (e.g., waffling on trade agreements with friends like Colombia, or visiting Israel’s neighbors but ostentatiously shunning Jerusalem).Obama should not have tried to currying favor with our enemies (e.g., the abortive outreach to Syria’s Assad). This view of America in decline, and America as a potentially malign force, has percolated far and wide. It is intimately related to the torrent of criticism, unprecedented for an American president, that Barack Obama has directed at his own country. In his first year in office alone, President Obama issued apologies for America in speeches delivered in France, England, Turkey, and Egypt not to mention on multiple similar occasions here at home. Among the “sins” for which he has repented in our collective name are American arrogance, dismissiveness, and derision; for dictating solutions, for acting unilaterally, for acting without regard for others; for treating othercountries as mere proxies, for unjustly interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, for committing torture, for fueling anti-Islamic sentiments, for dragging our feet in combating global warming, and for selectively promoting democracy. The sum total of President Obama’s rhetorical efforts has been a form of unilateral disarmament in the diplomatic and moral sphere. A President who is so troubled by America’s past cannot lead us into the future.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

If Cowboy diplomacy is defined as doing something unilateral, then Romney may be more Cowboy than Obama. However, more specifically there are some situations when we should take the lead, or be willing to act alone, after we have exhausted every effort to convince, and persuade the international community. If, in your stupid immature oversimplifying world, you want to define Cowboy diplomacy as doing bad diplomacy, then the guy who was able to work with people on both sides of the isle, negotiate behind closed doors, and get things done is Romney.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Romney is more likely to achieve a good balance between jobs and our environment. The environment is not the greatest threat the we face. The sun will eventually engulf the earth and destroy everything on it. At this time we need to ensure that the future of this planet is led by democracies that respect the rule of law, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and human rights. These things need America to have a strong economy. We can recover from environmental damage, but we will not recover if totalitarian countries, like Iran, Cuba, China, North Korea, and Venezuela are able to gain power and influence, and America and the free world loose power and influence.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

Wow, you're scared of all kinds of things. You really think those places are that much of a threat? You sound like a pussy.I say that because I'm tired of right wing nutjobs demonizing a perfectly legitimate U.S. president whose done none of the things you keep wetting your bed about. Man up, quit being a pussy, and quit hating America so much.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

I'm a pussy because I think North Korea, China, and Iran are bigger threats to human kind than global warming? What does this have to do with being a pussy? This has nothing to do with Obama hate, and has everything to do with calm disagreement with issues.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Mitt Romney is more likely than Obama to spend the appropriate amount of money fighting global warmingWhy is warmer worse than colder? We want the earth temperature to never change? It has always changed. Change is the only constant. Sure it can be scientifically proven that spitting in the ocean raises the ocean levels, but by HOW MUCH? How much money should we spend guarding the shore line to prevent people from spitting into the ocean? Do we spend 1 trillion US dollars to prevent 1/2 a degree in 5 years? Do we spend 10 trillion? 100 trillion? A trillion trillion? This argument is so stupid. People on the left never think that a business cost benefit analysis should be done. To them this is religion. We are just supposed to turn off our brain, take our marching orders, and repeat after me: Global Warming is caused by man, and we should do whatever it takes to stop global warming, no matter what. This is religion to Obama and his environmental backers, this is a long term business decision according to Romney. Romney is right.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

Do those of you who write the prezez name with two R's realize there is only one R in his name. It's Barack...Barack Obama. I mean if you're going to argue about him get the spelling right. He is our President, after all!
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

yeah......... So why would Mitt not be as good as Barack?? That's kind of what the debate is about. ((:
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

No. Barack Obama isn't absolutely insane. Mitt Romney is a religious nutcase. Granted, Obama is moving rather slowly about doing what he promised, at least he's moving toward it. Mitt Romney would have been horrible.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Yes, simply because he is more qualified than Barrack Obama in economics.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Romney is a corporatist. That is pre-fascist. Just look at his haircut!!. Just look at his houses, particularly the one in the Wasatch Mountains. Rich, rich, rich, and getting richer by the day, not because he's smart, but because he's priveleged.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Who cares about his haircut!!? So just because he's rich he's evil and power hungry? Wow you have watched to many movies. And it is because he is smart.For the record, I love Mitt Romney's hair.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

Mitt Romney would not be a better president than Barrack Obama. Ron Paul or Ralph Nader would be better than President Obama.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

Ron Paul is the only republican candidate I would actually consider worth researching into rather than just automatically voting against him. He might not have as large of a base as the other republicans with republicans, but he has a larger base then the other republicans when you consider non-republicans.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

There sis no way the Mitt Romney would be a better president than Barrack Obama, and I wish people woudld stop making debates about this. It is getting rediculous. Obama won the election, he is our president for 4 years GET OVER IT!
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Oh we will get over it in 3+ years! Those will be good times indeed!Not only will he go down in history as the first black president , he may go down as the worst one as well and given that we have already survived Carter thats saying a lot
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

My god. You haven't given the man a chance. How can you say after one year in the position that he will make a bad president. No one should say he will be the worst president because right now he's done a whole lot better than Bush. Who got us into the mess in the first place.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

I based my opinions on the history of his actions and decisions. Also I disagree with your opinions of Bush but then its just my opinion! : )
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

Oh sweet Jesus no! So many reasons (hum being a Moron un-included.)
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

No, sorry i meant to say Mormon. But i guess moron is just as good.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

It is now 2015 and I don't think Mitt Romney would have turned out to be better than President Obama.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Mitt Romney: "Stimulate the economy, not government"2012
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

"A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Fine, but neither does a witty quote. ((; ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

What does that even mean? Is he advocating getting rid of environmental laws? Eliminating social security?It's a lot easier to throw around meaningless soundbites than to discuss the issues.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

The context was the 2009 Stimulus bill, that should have gone to stimulate the economy, but instead went to a bunch of pet projects that had very little to do with the economy.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

3 downvotes with no comment for just a statement of fact?that's keeping it classy...
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

He wasting over $868 billion on a “stimulus” that Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf admitted would have “a net negative effect on the growth of GDP over 10 years.”