azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: yes

So the use of the word "Intelligent" in that sense, is meaningless.So we can toss the first definition, out.
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: no

No, it's not meaningless. Especially when people use it with phrases like "intelligent design".
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: yes

Intelligent Design= Complex design, Brilliant design etc. Which would follow the second definition that you presented.It doesn't mean "a design made from intelligence" Or whatever other dumb way you could try to rephrase it, using the first definition.
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: no

Intelligent Design- the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence.
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: yes

And your point is?
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: no

That you're wrong. It's okay, I know that you know you're wrong. You're just continuing the argument because you like to be an asshole.
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: yes

All you did was continue to prove my point that the second definition is suitable. How does what you've provided there give the first definition, meaning? It doesn't.
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: no

Seriously? How does it support your definition?It doesn't mean "a design made from intelligence" Or whatever other dumb way you could try to rephrase it, using the first definition."a designing intelligence."
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: yes

Look at the whole damn thing.The other part denotes intricacy, thus proving the second definition to be suitable.
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: no

So you think only the second definition is suitable? Well, can't argue with stupid. See ya!
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: yes

Where did I type that?  What you presented did not give the first definition meaning.
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: no

Yes it did. Prove to me how it didn't.
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: yes

Because what you presented doesn't only mean "a design having intelligence" and that's the only way that it could prove the first definition to be right.
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: no

From Merriam Webster Dictionary1 a: (1) the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason; (2) the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)b: Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind c: mental acuteness : shrewdness2a: an intelligent entity; especially : angelb: intelligent minds or mind 3a: the act of understanding : comprehension What we might conclude from this.Intelligence does not just mean "brainpower" but signifies the intelligent as well. That is, of course, if you place any stock in technical semantics and codified use of the English language.If you don't, though, I think Cartman more or less re-explained my point. If intelligence is only brainpower then the meaning on its own (absent modification, less/more) is useless and redundant. It has far more utility as a distinct word signifying higher order thinking, rather than as a synonym for brainpower and similar words.
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: yes

1 a: (1) the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situationsDoesn't everyone have this?Intelligence does not just mean "brainpower" but signifies the intelligent as well. That is, of course, if you place any stock in technical semantics and codified use of the English language.So, not everyone has intelligence, because you prefer that the word should be saved for intelligent people?What does "Intelligence Quotient" mean then? Doesn't everyone have that as well?Also, why should it matter if it's meaningless or not, to say that someone has intelligence? It would not change the fact that they do.It seems like you're just making a random point and not following the topic.
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: no

Doesn't everyone have this?No.So, not everyone has intelligence, because you prefer that the word should be saved for intelligent people?I think the word has more utility if it is reserved for such a use, yes. I personally do not place much merit in IQ tests; there is a fair amount of research and analysis as to why IQ is a rather useless assessment. What it measures is not, to me, the same as intelligence even though it is named as such. I already explained in my OP why I think that diluting the meaning of intelligence to a point of meaninglessness is problematic. My argument has always been that words exist for conveying information, and that their value thus derives from their utility. A meaningless word has less utility than a meaningful word.It seems like you're just making a random point and not following the topic.If we have wandered off topic that is a consequence of my defending my OP which was perfectly on topic. My argument was that not everyone has some kind of intelligence because by my definition not everyone does. I would agree that getting bogged down in semantics is fairly monotonous however. If anything, though, the question effectively set the debate up as one of semantics to begin with.
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: no

the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situationsSo can this be rephrased to something like "Ability to keep adapting"? Which is not something that everyone possesses.
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: yes

The latter half could be rephrased that way I suppose, but learning and comprehension are fairly distinct from adaptation (though related). I am not entirely sure why you are bothering to rephrase it at all though...
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: yes

Was just seeing if I was understanding it correctly.
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: yes

Aha, gotcha.
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: no

everyone has a brain but only a few use it
Debate: dose everyone have some kind of intelligent
Side: no

Not people who can't spell does or intelligence (sorry had to say that JK). Not everyone has the ability to fully comprehend therefore that means everyone is not intelligent. To me there is a difference between having the ability to function physically vs. mentally.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

If I am wrong, describe a doubt that you have that cannot be described as a trust.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

I trust that no one will take me up on that challenge....in other words, I doubt anyone will.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

I will.Doubt is not necesarilly a form of trust. If your friend claims he can predict the number of coins in your pocket, you doubt that he can, but there's a chance he could, so you don't trust that he can't. There's no trust here, only doubt, you doubt both possibilities.Infact, this can be said about any scenario involving probability and prediction. Say there's P chance of an event happening, your friend predicts it will happen. You doubt that his prediction is right, but there's still a very real chance that his prediction is right, so you neither trust that he's right nor that he's wrong.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

I will.I was once unsure about whether anyone would take me up on the challenge, so I didn't say I was absolutely sure, I said that I trusted that no one would. (in other words I doubted anyone would)I no longer have any trust/doubt on the matter, as absolute certainty has been reached. It seems to me that my opponents so far (you included) in this debate are equating trust with absolute certainty.If your friend claims he can predict the number of coins in your pocket, you doubt that he can, but there's a chance he could, so you don't trust that he can't. There's no trust here, only doubt, you doubt both possibilities.I have some trust that he could succeed, and some that he could fail. I trust that both are possibilities. If I doubt that it's likely, I am trusting to some degree that it's not likely.Infact, this can be said about any scenario involving probability and prediction. Say there's P chance of an event happening, your friend predicts it will happen. You doubt that his prediction is right, but there's still a very real chance that his prediction is right, so you neither trust that he's right nor that he's wrong.My trust might tend toward the affirmative of a proposition, or more to the negative, or I may be relatively neutral. When my trust shifts toward the negative of a proposition we call it doubt, but it is trust to the contrary.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

I doubt that I'll pass the maths test. I have a lack of trust in myself.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

You trust that you haven't learned the material well enough to pass the test. You trust your self assessment.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

I agree. Take god for an example. You have to trust Him to question Him. 012345678910
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

How does that ensure that doubt is a form of trust?If you trust him, then you won't doubt him.If you question him, then you don't trust him until he gives you a reason to relieve you of doubt.What you are saying is just contradicting.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

If I do not trust God, I will lie to Him and pretend that I do not have doubts, but because I trust Him, I can be honest about it.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

This whole thing just doesn't make sense.Doubt technically means "no trust".So basically the topic title is saying "No trust is a form of trust". >.>It can't be a form of something if it lacks the core thing needed for it to be that form of something.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

I do not agree. Even Jesus had doubts and He was perfect. Not one single person on this earth currently is perfect in any way. Trusting God means loving Him even if you do not understand Him.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

Doubting gods reasons but still putting trust in him are two different things . That is in no way saying that distrust is a form of trust.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

everyone experiences doubt sometimes, even Jesus and He is God. 01234567891012131415161718
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

Superfluous.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

So you are unable to properly address my argument? 01234567891011121314151617181920
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

Your argument has nothing to do with anything surrounding or in this topic.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

Ah, the good old fashioned fallacy fallacy. Well played. Now address my argument or admit that you dont know what you are talking about.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

I didn't say that everyone doesn't experience doubt, but when they do experience it there is no longer trust until they stop experiencing it.You become neutral when you start to doubt.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

I didn't say that everyone doesn't experience doubt, but when they do experience it there is no longer trust until they stop experiencing it.As if a trusting person can have absolutely no doubt. Trust without doubt would perhaps be better labeled worship.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

There is doubt of X but there is still trust in Y.X=gods reasoning. Y=God himself. Which is what I meant.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

So much for my attempt to get the debate back on topic .
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

No one is perfect except God. I completely disagree. 01234567891011121314151617181920
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

Doubt technically means "no trust".Doubt = To become less certain about somethingTrust = to be somewhat certain about somethingThese positions are by no means mutually exclusive. In fact doubt is actually an increase in a type of certainty. for example when I doubt that my food is cooked well, I become somewhat more certain (trusting) that it isn't
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

Try putting it in a sentence. Might make things clearer. :/I doubt that you are you going to the park with me. I trust that you are not going to the park with me. The second sentence can either put trust in the speaker or to the other person....which is the debate's question. To the speaker: I trust in myself that you are not going to the park with me. To the other person: I trust in you that you are not going to the park with me. I don't speak like that (The sentence just above "To the other person") so that is why I am having trouble with this debate. Putting trust into someone to do something negative is odd to think. But I will bet it is an unnoticeable common. Um....Lets say your husband cheats on you constantly and it breaks your heart badly. Now think about this because I think I have something. The person you love has just changed before your eyes. As if he or she is a new person. You are chained to the relationship and just have to accept the new person who he or she is. So when your love says that he or she is going on a business trip...your mind will automatically doubt that your love is actually going on a business trip and instead pursue an affiar. And your mind will accept your love as a new person and say "I trust IN YOU that you are having an affair."
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

If she was uncertain then it would be doubt, but now she claims to be certain of it by claiming she trust that judgement.So she comes to the conclusion of trust because the doubt is gone.Doubt is still not a form of trust.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

"If she was uncertain then it would be doubt." Yes she becomes doubtful that her husband is not going to a "business trip." "But now she claims to be certain of it by claiming she trusts that judgment."Yes she becomes certain of the doubt by trusting in the doubt or her doubtful judgment. "So she comes to the conclusion of trust because the doubt is gone." No. She trusts that the doubt is there. She has become certain of the uncertain. "Doubt is still not a form of trust." It seems contradictory to say that one can be uncertain and certain at the same time. It makes sense to me. If one person becomes uncertain of something, that is like saying that you are you certain of your uncertain thought. In other words, you trust yourself to believe something is uncertain. Like...if I showed you an apple and told you it was an orange...you will probably laugh. You will be most likely certain that the apple IS NOT an orange and that I am a complete idiot. At the same time, you trust your doubt because you trust your experiences. And it is your experiences or knowledge that tells you that what you see is an apple. Am I wrong? I could be. You seem smart.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

doubt+evidence(anything that convinces you)=trust.If she really believes that he isn't going on the trip, then it isn't doubt.Something has convinced her to trust that he isn't going on the business trip.You can trust that you are uncertain, but that does not make the uncertain certain.doubt is neutral basically.Like...if I showed you an apple and told you it was an orange...you will probably laugh. You will be most likely certain that the apple IS NOT an orange and that I am a complete idiot.  This isn't doubt then.At the same time, you trust your doubt because you trust your experiences. And it is your experiences or knowledge that tells you that what you see is an apple.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

You said that "you can trust that you are uncertain." In other words, you can trust your doubts. So is that saying doubt is a form of trust of oneself? You also said "doubt+evidence(anything that convinces you)=trust." So doubt has to be a form of trust because it plays in the equation of it. "If she really believes that he isn't going on the trip, then it isn't doubt." No that can still be doubt. If she KNOWS that he isn't going on the trip, then there is no doubt. But if she believes, well that isn't knowing. .... brb.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

DAMN LOL. I said i will be brb!!! Now i can't edit. hahah
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

In other words, you can trust your doubtsIt just means that you are acknowledging that you are uncertain of something.BUT you are not actually trusting that the problem itself is true.But if she believes, well that isn't knowing.But it isn't doubt either.Belief and doubt are antonyms for christ sakes.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

(Merriam webster of the definition of doubt says "to say that you accept or do not deny the truth or existence of (something)")If i acknowledge the doubt, i accept the doubt's existence. I accept it because i chose to accept it. (Merriam Webster of the definition of trust: "belief that someone or something is reliable, good, honest, effective, etc.")I think i'm a reliable person. So i trust myself with my acknowledgment of the existence of the doubt. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- edited. sorry. I made a mistake.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

Ok that still does not make doubt a form of trust. They are separate.  It doesn't matter how you word it.You can trust something, but still have doubts, but that does not make doubt a form of trust.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

When you doubt, trust is implied. It comes along with the doubt, you trust yourself in order to believe in it. Thus, doubt is a form of trust.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

That would also make trust a form of doubt though...which would really make them the same thing. So it is not a form.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

So in order to win this argument i have to show that trust can bring doubt. :)hmmmmmmmSo let me create a scenario i like to use: A man cheats on his wife. Merriam webster states that trust is: "belief that someone or something is reliable, good, honest, effective, etc."So a woman sees a suspicious text message on her husband's phone and suspects or trusts that the text is something reliable to determine that her husband is actually cheating. Merriam webster states that doubt is: "to be uncertain about (something) : to believe that (something) may not be true or is unlikely"So basically if she trusts the text message to be something reliable, she also believe at that time and moment that the text not being reliable is unlikely. lol, ok that is my argument. xD
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

Belief and doubt are antonyms for Christ sakesAre you saying that because of that fact, the two words cannot relate or be connected in some way? I disagree. Doubt is to believe that something may not be true. And Belief is something believed. These two words basically revolve around the word "believe" and that is what makes these two words connected. Oh, I use Merriam Webster again. I personally have a hard time thinking that these two words are antonyms. Maybe they are synonyms because of how they relate.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

Definitely not synonyms. One is like a positive and the other is like a negative.One just can't exist without the other.Just like left can't exist without right.Yes can't exist without no.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

I don't see it as antonyms. Doubt is when you believe something isn't true. Belief is something believed. I doubt that he got an B on his test. I believe that he didn't get an A on a test.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

I actually agree with you that it isn't synonyms. However i can't say they are antonyms either.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

doubt+evidence(anything that convinces you)=trust.Whoa buddy, you better stick to the dictionary definition or you may end up being accused of being capable of independent thought.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

You obviously just think too highly of yourself.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

I will practice thinking less of myself, thanks for the tip.Now, do you hold to the statement you made in bold below or not?doubt+evidence(anything that convinces you)=trust.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

What's flawed about it?
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

You don't want to answer ?
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

You don't want to answer mine?
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

Not out of order. Different standards of manners I guess .
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

So much for being an "independent thinker".It's not independent thinking when you have to go ask the community for validation. And just because some people agree with you does not mean you are right.That's fallacious reasoning.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

So much for being an "independent thinker".No one thinks entirely independently. My you are stuck with a black and white mentality aren't you?It's not independent thinking when you have to go ask the community for validation. I disagree with enough popular notions to trust that I am a relatively independant thinker. Do you think I created this debate expecting validation?And just because some people agree with you does not mean you are right.That's fallacious reasoning.Right. That's why I am happy that it's not how I reason.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

No one thinks entirely independently. My you are stuck with a black and white mentality aren't you?Excuses.I disagree with enough popular notions to trust that I am a relatively independant thinker. Do you think I created this debate expecting validation?I am talking about those other two debates you created. Dur hur.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

Those were for you .
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

For validation. Your efforts are futile.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

For validation. I aim to convince more than you. Your efforts are futile.Some of them, for sure.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

I aim to convince more than you.tomatoes potatoes
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

I honestly think it is... For example, i doubt the american government for what it stands for. If you don't trust someone it's still a form of trust, just untrust.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

Well, that makes perfekt sense... So to recap, you untrust the American government because you doubt what it stands for, therefore you trust it, er, I mean untrust it... Did I get that right? Somehow, I doubt it! :)
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

indeed you did get it right... although i don't know if you're being sarcastic or supportive lol
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

I'm so confused after typing that I'm not sure either, LOL!! :))
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

"Untrust" isn't a word...
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

Yes i know this, auto correct obviously shows that. I'm just to lazy to go back and put distrust. My point was still clear so i don't give two shits.
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Agree

Oh... well do you at least give one shit?
Debate: Doubt is a form of trust
Side: Disagree

The opposite (or lack) of something is not a form of it. Light is white and the color black is the absence of light. Although both are considered colors by most, black is not a "form" of light. (And no, blacklight is not black- it's purple/ultraviolet).