azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: No

"esus was God I can give you verse from the Bible"STOP RIGHT THERE!!!!!!! I told you the bible is most just bullshit written by man. i won't tell you this again
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

So why are you a Christian then? Christians believe in God and believe in the Bible so what's the point of you being a Christian when you think that the Bible was written by God? Also you are dumb for banning me from your debate! Seriously you are a coward for trying to do that and you probably banned me because you didn't want to speak with me. What a coward. That proves that you don't want to talk to me. I will pray for you since you need serious help from God to open up your eyes and see the error of your ways.I am guessing you don't go to church then do you?
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: No

It was not edited
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

There is no legal means of editing it since it was created from a spacious difference in time period from then to now. Therefore any evident change would destroy the authenticity of the Bible.
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

So that is why the bible is not accurate
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

May I ask for a particular phrase that indicates the lack of accuracy of the Bible?
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

May I ask for the bible now?
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

Therefore if you have not studied the Bible, your claims would be ineffective since you cannot support your idea.
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

I have studied the bible before
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: No

I do not believe in god
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

Which one?? Every religion have their own idol to be entertain.
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

idol ?
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: No

And I do not believe in the bible
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

Oh yeah? Well I'm looking at one right now.. .
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

what ?!
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

Yep. The Bible is real man! I can see one right now.. .
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

Ah, but the contents aren't TRUE. :)
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

Why are you disputing me? I'm on your side!! !
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

But you have a bible. People with bibles usually sit on the other side.
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: No

It would depend on your definition of accuracy. If someone handed you an encyclopedia collection in paper book form (imagine it's nineties..... ok, ok the eighties) and it has volumes A B D G H L M O Q T W Y Z. Would you consider that an accurate collection, knowing that there was once or may still be a collection containing more? Several Roman councils were held in Europe during the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries in attempt to for the religious leaders to unify the Christian faith and as well as for the government to unify the people by adopting the unified religion. This is were many books that were held as part of the Biblical canon were thrown out, not because people didn't believe or because they weren't sound teachings, but because they conflicted with the laws of the government. The most profound argument ever made against Christianity was from none other than one of America's founding fathers, Thomas Paine. In his essay, The Age Of Reason, he points out the gaping holes found in the gospels of the New Testament and the validity of their authors who were all born decades if not centuries after the historic Jesus' recorded death. Anyone that claims to love others owes it to themselves and others to do their history on Christianity. It really isn't hard to find substantial evidence the problem is that most people grow accustomed to the tradition of it they forget to check the facts.
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: No

Is the earth flat? That's the answer for Is "The Bible accurate?" Lemme know if some brave souls fall off the edge of the earth.
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

Can you state a particular verse in the Bible that states that the earth is flat?
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: No

THE bible IS NOTHING BUT A WORTHLESS PIECE OF TRASH THAT SHOULD BE DESTROYED AND THROWN AWAY . HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA .
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

Did you read the top. It said to take this seriously. Please come back with better
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: No

The earth isn't stationary and the sun does not circle the earth... The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (Psalms 93:1) ... The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30) He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (Psalms 104:5) Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon. (Joshua 10:12)
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

The Bible speaks in figurative verses and should not be interpreted through Scientific means. The term it cannot be moved means that the Earth is on its present state and no mere man can move it himself thus divine providence can be the only way to do so. Then the second verse states that the sun and moon are important to the Earth and plays an important role in life here.
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: No

No. Here's but one example why: EVERYTHING after Mark 16:8 is an interpolation (fancy Christian way of saying forgery). The Church acknowledges it but do they remove it? Hell-to-the no. Why not? It would also require acknowledging falsehood. Not gonna happen.
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: No

What about the part with talking snake, talking donkey, magical tree and Flat Earth?
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: No

Bats are not birds.
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

The error in this translation is the use of the word fowls from the Hebrew word owph which literally refers to any flying creature. The originalHebrew text is explaining what flying creatures were acceptable for consumption and which ones were not. Because the bat is technically aflying creature, it was accurately included in this list.You might ask - Why didn't the Bible just classify the bat with other mammals?Answer: At the time, the bat fit best under the classification of winged creatures. The extensive scientific classifications we have today did notexist 3500 years ago. (and we know definition which matters, not the subject discussed: For example, the Pluto is no more a planet today and it was a planet some years ago) The Bible listing the bat with other winged creatures was literally and technically correct. Just because modern definitionshave changed does not make the 3500 year old classification of winged creatures incorrect. [I am going to create a web page within six months where you can find all of the answers of your so-called contradictions. I could have answered here, but you atheists are getting jealousy of any theist who refutes your men-made contradictions. For example, you all atheists used (and have been using) offensive languages when failed to refute my right clarifications of your so-called contradictions. And I was compelled to set my debates private, as you know it is filled more with obscene languages of atheists than real debate arguments and I fear if some of theist will see such obscene words wouldn't hesitate to show his/her anger because of your obscene languages (as a result of despair). And do you know, all these shows the character of a person? It shows what a person is - gentle or third grade... You know, though I scolded you (all) for your obscene words, I never used such words. And you atheists take credit after using such words. I am really amazed. I am sorry to say that, most of the atheists (seeing their vulgar/obscene languages in disappointment) are not grown in families i.e. they never experienced social life Therefore, unless and until you atheists promise me not to use such words I won't make my debates public. Even if you don't promise me, I have decided to watch all your activities, i.e. if atheists use vulgar/obscene words being disappointed with the debate with the theists or not... and when I will come to know that, most you do not show your disappointment, then I'll make my debates private. So, why should we invite strife? May God bless you.]
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: No

Are you going to make all of your debates public yet?I've been waiting days...make them public.
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: No

The earth is not flat.
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: No

The sun does not revolve around the earth.
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: No

Men do not come from dust and women do not come from men's ribs.
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

That phrase was used figuratively. It was termed as dust meaning coming from nothingness. It means that out of the void, man existed due to a primordial motion in which triggered our existence. The creation of women was used figuratively as well. It means that women were not created from the head to rule men nor created from the feet to be stepped upon, but from the rib to walk with them and guide them. Therefore both statements are used figuratively and thus may not be considered invalid.
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

Right, that was one of the figurative parts of the Bible. Like the parts about Jesus Christ; he never existed, he was just a metaphor, a figurative example.
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

The Bible was written by men inspired by God. Therefore every literary style in each book differs. Therefore not every statements are figures of speech. The Bible was also not written overnight, it was written at different time periods from the Babylonian captivity until the Reign of the Roman empire. Therefore the information indicated there varies upon understanding and points out to different audiences.
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: Yes

The Bible was written by men inspired by God. Therefore every literary style in each book differs. Therefore not every statements are figures of speech.I'm not sure where you're getting the bit about the Bible being inspired by god, but even if I grant that assertion as fact I don't see how you can conclude, "the Bible was inspired by god therefore the literary styles differ therefore not every statement is figurative. How does divine influence have anything to do with different literary styles? In fact, if it was the same dude (god) who was responsible for all the revelation and inspiration in the Bible, wouldn't that go to say the stories should all be in a similar literary style, as they're all coming from the same source? Therefore the information indicated there varies upon understanding and points out to different audiences.This argument for why we should pick and choose from the Bible makes a lot more sense, but in my experience Christians don't pick and choose which verses they want to follow on the basis of who the writer of that scripture was addressing. They pick and choose based on their personal opinion of the moral merit of the verse, which explains why every Christian I've met follows part of the Ten Commandments, but not all of it. Christians will accept one verse because it's a morally sound verse, and reject a verse not half a page later (i.e. very much still in the same book, which has one audience and one literary style) because it's morally abhorrent. What I don't understand is why Christians will claim this is because the verse they like was supposed to be taken literally and the verse they don't like was supposed to be taken figuratively. I know for a fact almost all Christians reject outright literal commands from the Bible. They just seem unable or unwilling to admit that they, themselves, without the Bibles help and against the Bibles wishes, chose to follow morally good verses and ignore morally bad verses because they (you) are a higher moral authority than the Bible.
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: No

I am Catholic, but I believe that the Bible can be inaccurate because it was written by man, not God. Man can mix things up and mistranslate.
Debate: Is The Bible accurate?
Side: No

It is prone to human error and mistranslation. It cannot be fully accurate.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

Yes
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

What makes all of those actions evil, LittleMisfit? Can you go into detail on this? I would love to hear you argument.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

They match the definition of the word evil. Simple as that.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

So what makes the definition of evil true? Why do they have to be evil? Why can't they be good?
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

Because we are speaking English and that's what the word Evil means in English. If we just change definitions of words willy nilly then it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation because we won't know what each other is talking about.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

That isn't what I mean. Evil: profoundly immoral and malevolent.What makes any of God's actions "immoral" and "malevolent"? And if they were why isn't this the objective truth?
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

What makes any of God's actions "immoral" and "malevolent"?Again, because his actions match the definitions of those words. And if they were why isn't this the objective truth?It is objectively true that they match the definitions of those words, but all definitions of words are subjective. Words are just a way to communicate thoughts and ideas with each other. Since we are speaking English I'm going to assume you are using the English definitions of words unless you say otherwise.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

Again, because his actions match the definitions of those words.I wouldn't advise using these definitions, but your argument is working against you. here is why.Immoral: not conforming to accepted standards of morality.What morality is true? If many forms of morality exist then what he does is either good, bad, or neutral. Thus his actions are not objectively evil. they are evil to you and other that follow similar moral in acordance to your own.Malevolent: having or showing a wish to do evil to others.Again, this levels off into the subjective. Saying God is evil cannot be objectively true. It most certainly can be subjectively true, but there is no way this is true for all people. If I say God has only done good and all his actions are good the do not fit the definitions any longer. It is objectively true that they match the definitions of those wordsNot true, and I have just demonstrated this.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

I wouldn't advise using these definitionsSo what definitions am I supposed to use? You didn't provide any definitions so naturally I'm going to assume you are using the standard English definitions.What morality is true? If many forms of morality exist then what he does is either good, bad, or neutral. Thus his actions are not objectively evil. they are evil to you and other that follow similar moral in acordance to your own.I never once said his actions are objectively evil. I said they are evil according to the English definitions of the word evil. There is no such thing as objective morality. All morality is subjective. You and I already had this conversation in another debate.Not true, and I have just demonstrated this.No, you demonstrated that definitions are subjective, but you didn't demonstrate that gods actions don't match the English definitions of those words, which is what my argument was.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

So what definitions am I supposed to use? You didn't provide any definitions so naturally I'm going to assume you are using the standard English definitions.Are you like not reading my arguments? I said this in the argument above.Immoral: not conforming to accepted standards of morality.Malevolent: having or showing a wish to do evil to others.No, you demonstrated that definitions are subjective, but you didn't demonstrate that gods actions don't match the English definitions of those words, which is what my argument wasMy argument actually did. If his actions are subjectively good or evil or neutral then they cannot logically be placed into one category. They must be placed under all the definitions in order to fit all morals. I provided the definitions and the fact that it becomes so subjective means that his actions are to be deemed good, bad, or neutral by whoever. This makes your argument weak.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

Are you like not reading my arguments? I said this in the argument above.I misread your argument. I'm was multi-tasking so I wasn't focused. You ask if the Christian god is evil then play a semantical game where all words that are actually relevant to this debate are basically meaningless and can be defined any way you want. How are we supposed to debate something without a clear set of definitions. It's impossible. So, define evil
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

You ask if the Christian god is evil then play a semantical game where all words that are actually relevant to this debate are basically meaningless and can be defined any way you want.Thats not it at all. I am attempting to eliminate the sense that God is bad. It's impossible. So, define evilIf I use the Christian definition then it's like this. Evil is the lack of good, evil is the lack of God, therefore evil is the lack of God.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

Thats not it at all. I am attempting to eliminate the sense that God is bad.Why would you do that? Why no let his actions speak for themselves instead of trying to redefine words to make him look good? Nearly every culture in the world associates evil with actions that are harmful to people such as murder, rape, slavery, etc. Simply changing the definition to try to make god look good doesn't change the fact that he does things that most people would consider evil. If I use the Christian definition then it's like this. Evil is the lack of good, evil is the lack of God, therefore evil is the lack of God.Okay, but you're just redefining the word to fit your desired narrative. I can do the same thing. I can say evil is anyone that has a bad haircut. The purpose of definitions are to make it easy to communicate. If we change the commonly known definitions then it just causes confusion. If we use your definition of evil then the debate title should have been "Is the Christian god lacking the Christian god?"
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

Why would you do that?Because his actions are truly good. They aren't bad. Why no let his actions speak for themselves instead of trying to redefine words to make him look good?I haven't redefined anything. I have eliminated their basis. Their roots in moral relations relative to the subjective. Nearly every culture in the world associates evil with actions that are harmful to people such as murder, rape, slavery, etc.Doesn't logically make it universally bad. It is only subjectively bad since you benefit nothing from it. Simply changing the definition to try to make god look good doesn't change the fact that he does things that most people would consider evil.First, I would not say "most" since there are many religious people. Second I used the dictionary definitions. I did not change them.  Okay, but you're just redefining the word to fit your desired narrative.Again this is not the case. I have yet to modify any standardized definition. I am saying that evil is the lack of good. God is good. Therefore it logically follows that evil is the lack of God. I can do the same thing. I can say evil is anyone that has a bad haircut.That doesn't follow my form of reasoning. What makes that haircut "bad"? That is my subset of which you have yet to follow.  If we use your definition of evil then the debate title should have been "Is the Christian god lacking the Christian god?"The definition of good and evil remain constant. My definition explains the existence of evil. Not evil itself. I have not defined good or evil. Therefore you are making assertions that are non-applicable.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

Because his actions are truly good. They aren't bad.So you think slavery, sexism, torture and indiscriminately slaughtering entire towns (including children and animals) are "truly good".I haven't redefined anything. Yes you did. You redefined evil as a "lack of good" and a "lack of God." Show me one dictionary that says that evil is either one of those things.I have eliminated their basis. Their roots in moral relations relative to the subjective.What you've done is say that since evil is a subjective term nothing can be labeled evil. Therefore this whole debate is pointless because the topic becomes nonsensical without a usable definition of evil. The debate title should be "Is the Christian god a subjective word that has no applicable meaning in this debate."First, I would not say "most" since there are many religious people. Second I used the dictionary definitions. I did not change them. Even religious people use the standard definitions of good and evil until someone points out that their god does evil things, then they change the definition.Again this is not the case. I have yet to modify any standardized definition. I am saying that evil is the lack of good. God is good. Therefore it logically follows that evil is the lack of God.That is not a standard definition because you won't find it in any standard dictionary. Even if I accept the definition "evil is the lack of good" you still have to prove that god is good, otherwise it's just a baseless assertion. Evil is not the absence of good. Good and evil are just words we use to describe certain actions. If I'm not doing a good action does that mean I'm doing an evil action? Of course not, the default is neutral. Good things can happen without evil, and evil things can happen without good. The two are not as intertwined as most people seem to think.The definition of good and evil remain constant. My definition explains the existence of evil. Not evil itself. I have not defined good or evil. Therefore you are making assertions that are non-applicable.I said, "define evil." You replied with "Evil is the lack of good, evil is the lack of God, therefore evil is the lack of God." Now you're saying you haven't defined evil, you were just defining something to explain the existence of evil. This debate has one big semantic nightmare, so unless you can come up with a clear definition of good and evil that can actually be applied I'm done.