azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

"I was not stating it was going to stand up in our courts."you implied that, eyewitness are credible because they are used in 'our judicial system' so you did imply that they would."I was stating that an eyewitness is seen as credible"under very strict conditions, which the bible does not meet."You assume they are lying because you refuse to 'believe' the existence of God."I do not assume they are lying. Like the judicial system, I simply do not count them as reliable evidence. It is not a matter of WHAT they are saying. Many aspects of the bible turned out to be true, but i only believe they are true because there is other, reliable, evidence (i.e. The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.)
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

Well it's generally assumed of the ape super family. Regardless, the evidence to prove evolution is extremely flawed at best.how so?we have witnessed the mutation of many species of viruses, bacteria, and insects that developed immunity to antiviral medications, antibacterial medications, and insecticides.and most people agree that evolution is factual.please, feel free to look at the evidence for evolution and determine what is flawed about ithttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01"The timelines suggest that, but the evidence doesn't."what does that even mean?the fossil timeline is a collection of physical evidence."Basic research would tell you that C14 dating wouldn't apply to something that old"I apologize, this was not conducted with carbon dating, but with Uranium-lead dating.http://geology.about.com/od/nutshells/a/ aa_earthbirth.htm "The translation of the Hebrew must be taken into account. In English the translators of the KJV were not specific on what the actual source of the light would be. This does not mean there is an error in the original Hebrew."There is absolutely no mention of G-d creating one great light and one mirror that reflects said great light. If you want to question the translation, the books saysG-d created two ____which would make the sun and moon identicaleither way, it is not the strongest argument, so I can accept that maybe the wording is off."What holes are these? I addressed your contentions"Stating that the evidence for evolution is flawed is not addressing a contention.I can do that toothe evidence for creation is flawedthe difference is that I have other proof that suggests that evolution is, in fact, not flawedyou have done no such thing.concerning the law of cause and effect:are you familiar with a cycle?A causes BB causes CC causes Athere is no point of origin.in accordance with thermodynamics, matter was never created.Due to quantum interpretation of time, the infinite range of gravity, the observed phenomena of universe expansion, it is thought that the universe is cyclic. This would result in a pattern with no origin, much like the example I gave you.and just because you cannot explain how something would occur does not mean it is magic.And, there have been exceptions to scientific rules before.maybe we will discover that there is, in fact, a way to create matter, which would explain how something could be created out of nothing just as we discovered that there is, in fact, a way to create magnetic monopoles.but in the meantime, the temporal cycle is most widely accepted because it has the most explanatory power and the fewest contradictions
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

"No. With all due respect, you obviously have never learned about mutations.a mutation can be either an addition, subtraction, or substitution of DNA." It is subtraction or substitution, but there is no addition. From your source: "http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_03" "Insertions are mutations in which extra base pairs are inserted into a new place in the DNA." This is not adding new information. This is replication of a similar base pair put into a different spot. We are not gaining new amino acids here. I would suggest to you to study more about the genome. A mutation NEVER results in new information! "the principles of Darwinian evolution are that" Let me stop you there. Natural selection is the elimination of unsuited species. Evolution (implies) is an addition to the genetic structure. What we know of DNA is that there is no new information that 'comes' into the genome. Creationists don't deny that natural selection occurs. We observe this in science all the time. What I don't believe (as there is no evidence) that the genetic information of a 'creature' can create new information within its genome. Evolution implies that a land animal can become a whale. To do this, it would have to acquire new genetic material to go from land to purely water. We have never seen such a transition. Where could this creature develop these attributes within its own DNA? What we know of genomes this would be impossible. That second article you know was linking those creatures through an ankle bone. This is evidence for you?
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

"This is not adding new information. This is replication of a similar base pair put into a different spot. We are not gaining new amino acids here"there are only four base pairs in the human genomeAdenineGuanineCytosineand Thymine.the combination of these base pairs form different amino acidsand different combinations of amino acids create different proteinsand different proteins lead to different traits in the animal.the insertion, deletion, or substitution of a base pair (A,G,T,or C) results in a change in the amino acida change in the amino acid results in a change in a proteinand a change in a protein results in a change in a trait.most of these traits are not beneficial, i.e. sickle cell anemia, caused by a change in only one base pair.However, if for any reason the new protein is NOT harmful to the organismas has been witnessed in such occurrences including bacterium developing resistance to antibacterialssome witnessed changes brought about by entirely random genetic mutations include:the bacterium may increase production of the antibiotic’s target enzyme so that there are too many of them and the antibiotics cannot inactivate them allthe bacterium may produce an antibiotic-inactivating enzymethe bacterium may alter the permeability of its cell membrane, or wall to the antibioticand since these bacteria survive in conditions where non-resistant bacteria cannot (unfortunately, hospitals) they spread throughout the population as other strains of bacteria die off, in a process known as survival of the fittest.http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/antibiotics/resistance.htm "Where could this creature develop these attributes within its own DNA? What we know of genomes this would be impossible."it would develop attributes based on random changes to the organisms genotype, which change the organisms phenotype (compilation of features).most mutations would be negative to the organism, and it would die (i.e. diseases)a rare number of mutations would prove to be helpful, and it would be better suited to its environment. It is the rarity of beneficial mutations that make the process take so long."That second article you know was linking those creatures through an ankle bone. This is evidence for you?"Yes, this is evidence.you can determine whether an animal is a carnivore or herbivore based on its teethand you can determine whether a woman has been pregnant based on fractures in her ribswhy do you doubt that a specialized ankle bone can clearly show that a limb that is amphibious?
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

"But because of sin, all things will die. God isn't giving cancer to anyone. It's because of sin we are made vulnerable, and therefore are capable of getting sick and dying. What killed the rescuers (from cancer) was the chemical mixtures used in making the buildings. The "free will" of mad men brought the towers down. Don't blame God for the acts of men."Okay so let me get this straight all things must die because of sin? Now keep this in mindA man devotes his entire life in medical studies, helps finds multiple cures for numerous diseases. Helps millions of people, yet get a deadly disease and dies a miserable death. This Man was Christian lets say for the sake of the argumentNow theres a second man who has done exactly the same things but is an Atheist.*Now tell me does god punish the second man and not the first?Does God Punish them both? for trying to keep people alive and going against the rule that is, All things must die because of sin.And also there are plenty of proofs that god doesn't exist, the problem is are you educated enough to understand them?http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/Arguments_Against_God_Atheological_Arguments_for_Atheism.htm
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

"Does God Punish them both? for trying to keep people alive and going against the rule that is, All things must die because of sin." They are not violating any rule. The fact that someone is a Christian doen't mean they will have a better life. In fact it means they will struggle, be persecuted, and tested to the limits of their faith. Mark 13:13 "You will be hated by everyone because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." NET You assume because he has a 'miserable' death that God has abandoned him or He doesn't exist. The difference between the Christian and the atheist, is the Christian will live on forever in Heaven with our Creator. The atheist will die and be eternally seperated from God. "http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/Arguments_Against_God_Atheological_Arguments_for_Atheism.htm" This site has no evidence, just rambling conjecture and opinions of atheists. If you believe that you are so educated, then surely you can find a better source then about.com on the internet.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

I find it interesting you continue to site bible as a source, and a website where the article is written by professional writers isn't a credible source. A wise man once said The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits."This site has no evidence, just rambling conjecture and opinions of atheists"If you had bothered to read something you would have seen those are logically structured arguments that do not use opinion but Reasoning to produce a answer.And just because an atheist is presenting an argument doesn't mean its rambling.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

your missing the foundation of this problem. WE chose to disobey God. We were tempted by evil to be our own Gods and we chose to disobey. Therefore we cursed the land in which we live on. We suffer because of us. The truth of the matter is evil and good does exist. There is nothing more special then his creation choosing to follow him. We deserve to have the freedom to make a choice. Jesus christ died for us so we can be apart of him. So God can live in us. So we can be unified in his love. Evil is a virus. The more your set apart from God the more the virus dwells in you and eats you away.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

your missing the foundation of this problem. WE chose to disobey God. We were tempted by evil to be our own Gods and we chose to disobey.I think you are missing the very problem with the foundation, God could never have given man free will, this would contradict both his omniscient and omnipotent attributes. For he would have to have known exactly which way everyone was going to choose, having put all this into place with this knowledge of every outcome possible changes free-will into a pre-determined path, one which is unavoidable. So little cancer kids suffering in hospitals, people being raped, tortured. Genocide, famine, ethnic cleansing all of these and the countless other horrible realities of life were all planned by your omniscient deity, probably he is having a laugh, like a director watching his movie play out.Jesus Christ died for us so we can be apart of him. So God can live in us. So we can be unified in his love.This is another one, I cant honestly see why God would do this, it makes no sense, what point was he trying to prove, first of all god and Jesus are one, but also father and son, and also as it seems master and puppet. The horrific slaughter of Jesus which is technically God was needless, surely with his almighty power he could have planned a different set of circumstances or something. That is unless he loves a bit of hardcore torture porn and has a penchant for drama.Evil is a virus. The more your set apart from God the more the virus dwells in you and eats you away.This sounds like a scare tactic, the sort that you hear every Christian spout. Basically what you are saying is that I, my wife and my children all have evil growing inside them because we don't follow your contradictory ancient dogma, Sure buddy.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

No, because that would be like asking if a chair were true or false, which sounds silly. A better question would be, "does god exist?"
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

Nope. At least not the way christianity or any other religion depicts it.If theories about the Annunaki were true, then we could say the summerians worshiped a god, but that god was no more than an alien. It's just that the summerians were astonished by it, and they only had a basic concept of alien and outerworldly life.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

if god was real...why are the people suffering? Why do people do the horrible things they do? Why is the racism? why is the homophobism? Why isn't there any proof?If god was real then Id like to meet him...so i can throw his failure in his face...
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Only if you are paying for it via your. taxes.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

So what you actually mean is that health care is not right, but rather a financially derived privilege.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

YES with the exception of emergency healthcare, which is de facto a right due to current federal law in the US,
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Out of curiosity, do you support or oppose mandated emergency healthcare?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Yes I do, when we are referring to an immediate life threatening situation. In the case of general healthcare at no cost, I am in favor of help for the helpless and the truly needy. In the case of healthcare at no cost, for just anyone in any situation NO. In the broad sense Healthcare is not a right IMO.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Yes I do, when we are referring to an immediate life threatening situation. In the case of general healthcare at no cost, I am in favor of help for the helpless and the truly needy. In the case of healthcare at no cost, for just anyone in any situation NO.Do you think that largely describes the current law in the U.S.? What changes are necessary?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

IMO the problem is fundamentally the COST of almost any healthcare in the US is ridiculously over priced. No one has put enough focus on simply the cost. Obamacare for example, focuses on how to pay the costs of healthcare, while leaving nearly untouched, the causes of why it costs so much in the first place.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Yes, the cost of healthcare in the U.S. has long exceeded that of other countries and had been spiking in the years before the passage of the ACA.I would point out though, that the ACA does target costs in some ways: driving early detection - no-deductible preventative tests, etc. and people who now have insurance seeking care before issues become catastrophic (see also), focusing on quality of care (penalties for high rate of hospital readmissions), establishing best practices through IPAB and better documentation of tests and outcomes, encouraging provider coordination, facilitating use of electronic medical records, more waste/fraud/abuse enforcement for Medicare and Medicaid, Partnership for Patients to develop better practices for preventing acquisition of illness in the hospital and reducing complications with transitions to home, nursing homes, etc. etc. etc.Do you have suggestions on other cost savers that should have been included?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Out of curiosity, do you?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

But that would end up being a bigger drain on resources. It would be cheaper, more efficient, and lead to better outcomes if primary healthcare was provided. One of the reasons why hospital costs so much right now is that people are waiting til the last minute so that they can use the emergency room, which increases the wait time, and hurts the people that would actually need it.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

So now the truth comes out. You conservatives care more about money thasn you do people. What if someone is unable to pay for healthcare?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Yes reality does come into focus. There is no free anything. Governments like ours, operate primarily on tax revenue. It has nothing to do with caring about people an everything to do with financial reality. Services like healthcare are provided at a cost. By federal law, no one can be refused emergency medical care. Additionally medicaid exists to provide medical care to people who can't afford it. Further that ACA mandates that everyone have insured access to healthcare.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Do you support taxation? .
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Yes. Tax revenue is essential to support the necessary functions of government. The point upon which we differ is, what those "necessary functions" include. In the case of the US, the federal government has only a handful of responsibilities enumerated in a constitution. Providing free healthcare for all citizens is not among them. Protecting the right to live and freely pursue happiness is protected for each citizen. The right to live does not include a right to receive food, shelter or healthcare from the federal government.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

"Protecting the right to live and freely pursue happiness is protected for each citizen. "Not that I agree with the previous poster, because I don't, but what if someone is in a situation where they are unable to purchase food, or shelter? What if someone can not afford healthcare, and will die without it? In those cases, how is there right to live and pursue happiness protected?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Universal healthcare is not necessarily the same as giving aid to people who absolutely need it.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

I agree, but how do we determine who absolutely needs it? Does someone with cancer that is progressing slowly (but will certainly die for it) need it? Or do we only determine that they need emergency reactionary care when some of their symptoms are about to kill them?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Valid point, although I don't have an answer to it, unfortunately.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Neither do I, which is why I believe the concept of healthcare being a right is far more complicated than I think it is normally treated.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

When the US federal government was charged with protecting a certain right for individuals, the concern of our founders was in protecting that right from government infringement. Our founders were intent on establishing a government that protected our right to a life. They did not intend that the government provide a means to live.However the social conscience of a generous nation has seen fit to create scores of federal government programs that provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves. These truly needy are not receiving their right, but rather their privilege to be assisted by a caring society. IMO
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

"Our founders were intent on establishing a government that protected our right to a life. They did not intend that the government provide a means to live."But what happens when there are no means to live without providing one? I am no referring to the ramifications of the social safety net, by the way, simply the concept and principles of this conversation. If the government is to protect our right to life, does that not require some intervention when such a right to life is not attainable by an individual in question?
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

If the government is to protect our right to life, does that not require some intervention when such a right to life is not attainable by an individual in questionIn a word -- NOIt is not required, but as I said a generous and caring society does try to identify and aid the truly needy among us. Which is exactly what is being done in the US.A right implies a valid demand for healthcare  that does not exist.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

"If the government is to protect our right to life, does that not require some intervention when such a right to life is not attainable by an individual in questionIn a word -- NO"Then it would seem to me that the government is not bound to protect our right to life, or at least has incredibly limited protections regarding our right to life."It is not required, but as I said a generous and caring society does try to identify and aid the truly needy among us. Which is exactly what is being done in the US.A right implies a valid demand for healthcare that does not exist."I am a little confused about this. Surely there is a valid demand for healthcare, as people surely strongly desire the necessary treatment to maintain their health, well being and, ultimately, life. I don't believe that healthcare can be a civil, much less constitutional right due to the way our country is set up, so don't think I am arguing from that stand point, I am simply confused by that previous statement of yours.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

I'm sorry. I can only restate the main point again.The constitution protects our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the federal government. The founders were trying to prevent the same tyranny that they left behind in Europe.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

I agree. Taxation funds essential stuff. .
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

I like the system we have in the UK everyone has access to "free" (you don't pay except for prescriptions when you receive the service but a portion of your taxes funds the health service, for those who may not know!!). It may not be the best in the world but due to disability I have to use it regularly and I have had to use the emergency side as well and it is a bloody good service and I wouldn't change it for the another system.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

We did a comparison of different healthcare systems, and one thing we found about the UK healthcare system is that by making healthcare a goverment provided service, it encouraged support of preventive healthcare programs, which are often overlooked in America.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

The UK does indeed have the best overall healthcare system in the world. By quite a large margin.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

At the end of the day, the only rights that exist are the rights we implement through our form of government.We require that anyone who shows up at an emergency room receives care.Therefore we have long made at least some healthcare a right.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

Ideally I propose that there are three inalienable rights that governments should provide to the general public.The right to free public health care, education and transport. Under a benevolent dictator it would be possible however that again is an ideal and not reality.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: Yes.

I agree. I am glad to meet a fellow liberal on here. I value those three rights that you mentioned.
Debate: Is healthcare a right?
Side: No.

The right to free public health care, No such thing exists, sorry.