azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: peace

No.  It's just the most overt in how it achieves this and the lowest IQ of all religions (although Scientology is possibly worse).
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

Thank you for indulging my idle curiosity. I do not necessarily agree with Islam being the most overt or least intelligent, but I am not especially passionate about debating which religion is worse at the point where we agree they are all bad.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: peace

Islam's most fundamental concept is a rigorous monotheism :)
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

Not to mention Jihad. Christianity is also similar to Islam in this regard.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: peace

Christianity is also similar to Islam in this regard.LOL, no it's not similar to Islam in this regard.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

Crusades. NINE of them.Spanish Inquisition.Salem Witch Trials.Abortion Clinic Bombings.I could go on. That said- Islam has the appearance, in modern times, of having a larger and more active violent/extremist component- but remember that this is taken from a view where Christianity has a lot of influence in the world. Avoiding the obvious political joke, Christianity has had less need for violence has they've historically had a sizable enough population in the 'big' countries to simply legislate their agenda. As this is changing, I would not be surprised to see a resurgence of terrorism and violence carried out in the name of Christianity.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

The Bible doesn't really have passages that would explain why those events happened. The Koran does.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

The Old Testament/Torah, which is (mostly) a part of the bible, certainly does though.The relevance and interpretation of the Old Testament/Torah is one of the key differences between some denominations of Christianity.I'll grant that the sections that can be interpreted as advocating violence are fewer and more ambiguous (generally speaking) than those in the Quran, but they're still there.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

Shoot, I was focusing more on how those events were handled, and it isn't described to do it that way in the Bible. But, yes, the Old Testament does have it. Oops.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

The Old Testament/Torah, which is (mostly) a part of the bible, certainly does though.The relevance and interpretation of the Old Testament/Torah is one of the key differences between some denominations of ChristianityChristianity is mostly revolves around the New Testament and Jesus. Those specific things in the Old Testament was to show how God did things and the laws that were carried out were for the Jewish people and for the Israelites (God's people) not for Christians..So really Christians don't really have to obey those laws and aren't apart of Christianity because we are under a new covenant and now we just have to believe in Jesus Christ and follow His ways in order to get to Heaven.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

The entirety of my response to this statement is already encompassed by a line that you yourself quoted:The relevance and interpretation of the Old Testament/Torah is one of the key differences between some denominations of Christianity.If I had to extend it further, I would say that your stance on the relevance and role of the old testament is shaped by the denomination of Christianity that you subscribe to yourself; such is not the case for all denominations.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: peace

Crusades. NINE of them.Spanish Inquisition.Salem Witch Trials.Abortion Clinic Bombings.Those people claimed to be Christians. What is a Christian? A Christian is someone who believes in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. A true Christian would never kill or do those things in the name of Christ. Jesus said that we will know who is Christian and not by the fruit they produce. If it's good or bad fruit. Those people who did those things above aren't true Christians and our in hell for doing those acts.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

A Christian is someone who believes in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.You go ahead and define what a Christian is.A true Christian would never kill or do those things in the name of Christ.  Then you use the term true Christian.I am just confused at what the point of the definition of Christian was meant to do.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

You go ahead and define what a Christian is.It's not my definition of a Christian. I'm only restating what someone else said. So it's not my definition if I restated it. I am just confused at what the point of the definition of Christian was meant to do.A Christian is a follower of Christ. Someone who loves on other people, who treats others the way they want to be treated, someone who is humble, and is a work in progress with God.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

It's not my definition of a Christian. I'm only restating what someone else said. So it's not my definition if I restated it.Of course it isn't your definition, you love being wrong.A Christian is a follower of Christ.Except according to you apparently.Someone who loves on other people, who treats others the way they want to be treated, someone who is humble, and is a work in progress with God.I would love for more Christians to be like that. Still doesn't explain why you restated someone elses definition. That's all.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: peace

Of course it isn't your definition, you love being wrong.Your the one that said go ahead and define what a Christian is. That's why I said "It's not my definition." Except according to you apparently.No, I believe that a Christian is a follower of Christ. Who said I didn't think that? I would love for more Christians to be like that. Still doesn't explain why you restated someone elses definition. That's all.Again, because you said and I quote "You go ahead and define what a Christian is.". That why I restated someone else's definition because I thought you said that was "my definition" when really it isn't.I'm one of those Christians that actually do that.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: peace

Your the one that said go ahead and define what a Christian is. That's why I said "It's not my definition."I was not asking you to do anything. I was pointing out that in your post that you wrote independent of me that you wrote down an idea of what a Christian is.No, I believe that a Christian is a follower of Christ. Who said I didn't think that?We disagree on how strict "following" means.Again, because you said and I quote "You go ahead and define what a Christian is.". That why I restated someone else's definition because I thought you said that was "my definition" when really it isn't.I said it afterwards. You are funny.I'm one of those Christians that actually do that.I actually think you are pretty close, so ok. But, we both agree that there are a whole bunch who aren't.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

What we have here is the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. Not that I can blame you, because I wouldn't want to be associated in any way with those who do such things, regardless of any overlap in beliefs.You've said it yourself: "A Christian is someone who believes in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior." A non-Christian, then, is someone who does not believe in or accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. By extension, for someone to be a 'false' christian would involve professing that they believe in Jesus, while not actually believing, right?I assert that it is entirely possible for an individual to believe that Jesus is their Lord and Savior, and then to go on and commit any number of atrocities. If they truly believed that what they were doing was for the greater good, and were further convinced that they had already received forgiveness for all sins (inherited, previously committed, even those not yet committed), it's even more plausible.And who says the fruit is bad, really? For the Crusades- to this day, there are people who would be completely happy with Islam dieing out entirely and being displaced by Christianity. Arguments could be made in favor of the intent of the spanish inquisition and the salem witch trials, even if not specifically in how they were executed. Same deal with the bombings.It should also be noted that the majority of the people involved in the crusades, inquisition, and witch trials were illiterate; their entire understanding of their religion came from the interpretations of others, with almost no ability to even attempt to understand things on their own. Many of those who were involved in the crusades, in particular, were not only true believers, but devout ones; the message itself was corrupted. Yet they still believed in Jesus as the messiah and son of god, and as their deliverer, lord and savior, even if the specifics of the teachings were twisted. By your own metric, the majority of the crusaders would in fact be considered true christians.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: peace

You've said it yourself: "A Christian is someone who believes in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior." A non-Christian, then, is someone who does not believe in or accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. By extension, for someone to be a 'false' christian would involve professing that they believe in Jesus, while not actually believing, right?They would have to believe in Christ but they would have to follow what He said. You can't be a Christian and do whatever you want. I assert that it is entirely possible for an individual to believe that Jesus is their Lord and Savior, and then to go on and commit any number of atrocities. If they truly believed that what they were doing was for the greater good, and were further convinced that they had already received forgiveness for all sins (inherited, previously committed, even those not yet committed), it's even more plausible.People will receive forgiveness from God is when they stop doing the sin that they do. If the person continues what they are doing then they aren't forgiven until they stop totally. And who says the fruit is bad, really? For the Crusades- to this day, there are people who would be completely happy with Islam dieing out entirely and being displaced by Christianity. Arguments could be made in favor of the intent of the spanish inquisition and the salem witch trials, even if not specifically in how they were executed. Same deal with the bombings.Christ said about bad fruit basically referring to the people who said they were Christians but not really following what Jesus taught. It should also be noted that the majority of the people involved in the crusades, inquisition, and witch trials were illiterate; their entire understanding of their religion came from the interpretations of others, with almost no ability to even attempt to understand things on their own. Many of those who were involved in the crusades, in particular, were not only true believers, but devout ones; the message itself was corrupted. Yet they still believed in Jesus as the messiah and son of god, and as their deliverer, lord and savior, even if the specifics of the teachings were twisted. By your own metric, the majority of the crusaders would in fact be considered true Christians.The interpreter who was teaching them about God should have told them about how they shouldn't kill in the name of Christ and do other things but they didn't and what they did was wrong. Those interpreters who didn't teach them that will be judged by God and be punished. So still the crusaders were not be considered true Christians.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

They would have to believe in Christ but they would have to follow what He said. You can't be a Christian and do whatever you want.Except for every single Christian in the history of Christianity.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

They would have to believe in Christ but they would have to follow what He said. You can't be a Christian and do whatever you want.If this is the case, I assert that there has never been, nor will there ever be, a single 'true christian.'People will receive forgiveness from God is when they stop doing the sin that they do. If the person continues what they are doing then they aren't forgiven until they stop totally.Whats your basis for this belief? This is another point that different denominations disagree on.Christ said about bad fruit basically referring to the people who said they were Christians but not really following what Jesus taught.By that logic, there is no good fruit.The interpreter who was teaching them about God should have told them about how they shouldn't kill in the name of Christ and do other things but they didn't and what they did was wrong. Those interpreters who didn't teach them that will be judged by God and be punished. So still the crusaders were not be considered true Christians.You keep moving the goalpost for 'true christian.' If that's going to continue, I can't really see any point in continuing the debate. I should warn you, though, that given the dozens to hundreds of translations of the bible, and the tens of thousands of interpretations of each, there is a staggeringly low chance of the version you received being the actual intended version by God (should God even exist). As such, if the other points haven't already precluded the possibility, there is still a very strong case that neither you, your pastor, nor anyone else you know is a 'true christian.'That would certainly lend credence to the whole '144,000' thing; if the bar is as high and difficult to see as you claim, it would stand to reason that only a small trickle of individuals throughout human history would actually meet that standard. Though again, what the '144,000' actually represents is again contested by different denominations...
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: peace

If this is the case, I assert that there has never been, nor will there ever be, a single 'true christian.There has been true followers of Christ. Whats your basis for this belief? This is another point that different denominations disagree on.The Bible because it says to repent and what does repenting mean? It's to turn away and do no more of whatever the sin is. You keep moving the goalpost for 'true christian.' If that's going to continue, I can't really see any point in continuing the debate. I should warn you, though, that given the dozens to hundreds of translations of the bible, and the tens of thousands of interpretations of each, there is a staggeringly low chance of the version you received being the actual intended version by God (should God even exist). As such, if the other points haven't already precluded the possibility, there is still a very strong case that neither you, your pastor, nor anyone else you know is a 'true christian.'I know there is different denominations of Christianity and I know that the version that I seek is the intended Christianity that all should follow. I know people who are "true Christians" and some that died as a true Christian.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

"I know that the version that I seek is the intended Christianity that all should follow"Jesus is so lucky to have you
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

Thank you! :D
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

I don't do a whole lot of voting, but I had to upvote this :D
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

There has been true followers of Christ.Such as?The Bible because it says to repent and what does repenting mean? It's to turn away and do no more of whatever the sin is.Not true. To repent is simply to feel remorse for ones action. In more narrow usage, it can also mean to feel such remorse over an action as to be disposed to change ones own life because of it- this does not mean that the repentant individual is capable of making such changes. More specifically- to repent of a sin, one must have first committed it. As such, repenting for one sin or another would not, even by the strictest definition, extend to precluding the individual from committing an entirely different one.I know there is different denominations of Christianity and I know that the version that I seek is the intended Christianity that all should follow. I know people who are "true Christians" and some that died as a true Christian.How do you know that the version you follow is the intended one that all should follow? I'm sure that you know people who fit your definition of 'true christian' but I've seen nothing to suggest that your definition of 'true christian' is correct. Same deal for the fallen; I'm sure people have died who fit your definition, but who's to say yours is right? I don't believe all, or even most of Jesus' disciples would meet the standard you're pushing.I think you need to repent for your hubris.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

No those people are as christian as you. Every time a Christian does something bad the rest of them label them as not being a "true" christian (whatever that means) when in reality they read the bible, follow jesud, and believe the word of Christ just like you. Please explain why 80% of the prison population identifies as christian. Are these millions of people who believe just as feverently as you do? Face it, Christianity can be interpreted (with ease) to be violent.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: peace

Please explain why 80% of the prison population identifies as christian.Is this around the world through persecution or is it for crimes? Face it, Christianity can be interpreted (with ease) to be violent.No it's people who think Christianity is violent just by what other Christians have done in the past. When in reality it's not violent at all. We are peaceful, and loving people. It's just there are people out there that follow Christ but they are doing it the wrong way.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

Is this around the world through persecution or is it for crimes?Those are the US statistics (and you can't claim persecution there, it's a democratic country with a Christian majority), and it was for their crimes.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: peace

Those are the US statistics (and you can't claim persecution there, it's a democratic country with a Christian majority), and it was for their crimes.Then for those people who are in jail and they say they are Christians. They should know better than to not commit the crime that they made. As Jesus even said that we will know who is a Christian or not by the fruit they produce.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

As Jesus even said that we will know who is a Christian or not by the fruit they produce.So according to you, only the good Christians are real Christians. How convenient.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

For crimes? like murder, rape, theft, ect. and no. christianity straight from the bible can be used to justify violent actions. it commands the killing of gays, witches, apostates, anyone who works on sunday, and unbelievers, and it condones slavery and rape. and thats just off the top of my head. in fact the confederate states of america back in the times of the civil war used passages in the bible to justify and persuade the union forces that slavery is ok. Sure christians are good people, just as atheists, hindus, and muslims are generally good people. But it isnt because of christianity that theyre good people. Youre not good because youre christian youre good AND christian because i guarantee when you make any moral decision you dont immediately crack open a bible. i guarantee you think to yourself and use your own moral compass and past experience to judge what you should do.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

All soldiers in Crusades where wearing crosses and who could afford it had a flag with a cross and men in front line were carrying huge cross... all of those people were Christian and before battle they have prayed and had motivational speech done by Bishop and commander telling them that who dies for Christ goes strait to the heaven... They could not have been any more Christian...
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: peace

... And they successfully kept the muslim empires from growing larger, laying the foundations for modern free society... What do you dumbasses do with it? You import Islamic Fundamentalists who have very successfully curtailed freedom in Europe.It may just be possible the Crusaders considered their actions a little more carefully than you.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: peace

Crusades. NINE of them.Spanish Inquisition.Salem Witch Trials.Abortion Clinic Bombings.Where in the Christian doctrine are these permissable? I'm under the assumption that the bible is actually against these things. I would not be surprised to see a resurgence of terrorism and violence carried out in the name of Christianity.Those acts wouldn't be permissable. These are not upheld by the doctrine. Those acts are the inaccurate interpretations of the bible and the will of God.
Debate: Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion of peace?
Side: violence

Where in the Christian doctrine are these permissable? I'm under the assumption that the bible is actually against these things.Old Testament, numerous entries. Different denominations of Christianity differ in their interpretation of the Old Testament, their opinion on how relevant (if at all) the Old Testament is to the faith, and the extent to which they believe Old Testament Law was 'recanted' by Jesus. Such is the problem of ambiguous scriptures with multiple differing translations and countless possible interpretations. For an easy example, scroll down a bit to Idiotobx' quote from Deuteronomy.Those acts wouldn't be permissable. These are not upheld by the doctrine. Those acts are the inaccurate interpretations of the bible and the will of God.So you say. What makes you so confident? Those with a different view on the scriptures would say your interpretation of the bible and God's will are the inaccurate ones. Do you have a scriptural basis for making these claims that is consistent across all translations of the bible and isn't ambiguous enough to allow for varied interpretations? I assert that you do not.