azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

People don't just make sudden observations and then decide to tell others about those observations for no reason. There is always a reason. I think you know what that reason is, even if you will not admit it.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

I wasn't telling others, I was telling him. But I see you have taken it upon yourself to act in his defense, as atheists often do, and believe that I was speaking to others including yourself, which I was not. I really do believe this discussion is utterly pointless (although it is actually giving us points, I mean the other definition of pointless) and this really is not going to go anywhere. Are you finished accusing me yet? :)
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

Your statement was not against David personally (the one I bolded), but against atheists in general. So of course, I'm going to say something.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

I was talking to him and making an observation and before he could even reply you butt in and involve yourself. Fair enough, but at least admit it, its not much to admit. So anyways, I was thinking, we could start a discussion about whether or not your faith that God does not exist gets a capital but I just don't think it qualifies for one (a capital) to be honest. It (the capital/non capital debate) would however make this discussion more interesting and give it some sort of meaning. What say you?P.S. Yes, I know I'm a freak when it comes to parenthesis.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

If you want to start a topic, I'm not going to stop you. That you think Christians are superior because they get a capital "C" shows the frivolousness of your position. Whether or not a noun gets a capital letter has nothing to do with whether or not they have done something to "deserve" it, this is not how grammar works. Interestingly enough my spell checker is telling me to capitalize the "N" in Nazi. Perhaps you wish to discuss the merits of Nazism?
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

After all this time you still believe I feel superior? I specifically answered your question on this saying that it would not be the word I would use. It sure is interesting that Nazi's get a capital when atheists don't huh, that must be a real bummer for you guys - thanks for pointing that out; I had not considered this until now. You really are making a major deal out of nothing. If it bothers you this much then just convert to Christianity?
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

It sure is interesting that Nazi's get a capital when atheists don't huh, that must be a real bummer for you guysNo, not at all. Why would we be bummed out, by not being grouped with Nazis? If anything it shows that having a capital letter, means nothing. So why would you be happy or proud of a completely inconsequential and meaningless fact? I find this very interesting.If it bothers you this much then just convert to Christianity?It doesn't bother me, that's the thing. It amuses me that you are so proud of a capital letter that you feel the need to announce this fact. You are like the child who thinks she is better than the other child, because her lunchbox is bigger. So if you want to parade this childish notion by starting another debate about it, go right a head. You are only making a mockery of yourself.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

No, not at all. Why would we be bummed out, by not being grouped with Nazis? If anything it shows that having a capital letter, means nothing. So why would you be happy or proud of a completely inconsequential and meaningless fact? I find this very interesting.I was being sarcastic - not that you would have any idea what that is mind you. You were the one to bring up Nazism not getting a capital, I was merely making a joke out of it.It doesn't bother me, that's the thing.Then stop banging on about it like two fucking rabbits giggity giggitng!amuses me that you are so proud of a capital letter For the millionth time, I was stating a sudden observation that had rushed into my head at that moment. What are you, 90 with no marbles?You are like the child who thinks she is better than the other child, because her lunch box is bigger.And you are like the old man who forgets where his own bathroom is so shits in his pants instead. Seriously, why do you keep stating something when I have said so many times what I originally meant? It really is beyond me.So if you want to parade this childish notion by starting another debate about it, go right a head. I was simply trying to cheer you up; you were clearly offended that you don't get a capital and keep banging on about it telling me I'm superior when I clearly am not, so I thought that perhaps we could go to war about it and see each other's arguments. Obviously you'd rather sit there and cry like a baby whilst tossing insults in my direction - go right ahead, they bounce off me each time.You are only making a mockery of yourself.LOL, you've been making a mockery out of yourself this whole time with your petulance and blubbering, carry on though it doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

For the millionth time, I was stating a sudden observation that had rushed into my head at that momentMaybe then you shouldn't feel obligated to state every thought that rushes to your head.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

Maybe then you shouldn't feel obligated to state every thought that rushes to your head.I don't take orders from asinine gits - hey look!!! - something else that just popped into my head.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

I don't take orders from asinine gits - hey look!!! - something else that just popped into my head.Yet you accuse me of throwing insults...
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

Yet you accuse me of throwing insults...and said "two can play that game" :)
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

...and said "two can play that game" In reference to grammar. What names did I call you again?
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

In reference to grammar. What names did I call you again?Forget about names, it is your constant insulting of my intelligence. LOL, what is the point in these back and forth posts? They are seriously going nowhere...
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

Well, hold on here....who insulted whose intelligence first? In your second response you called me a dumbass, and then asked "Where is your intelligence at?".Prior to that, the only thing I said which could be construed as insulting your intelligence was this:"You're a fool, if you don't think you are taking someone's word for it when you read the bible."You're a hypocrite. It doesn't bother me that you don't like me, apparently you react the same way to anybody who questions your religious views.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

1. You keep questioning my knowledge as if I don't know what Christianity is, I was pointing out I understand your religion perfectly, and in fact better than you and most Christians. I explained to you why that is. The other reason is to show that I have perspective on your religion while you do not, meaning I am more able to argue for or against any point of your religion than you are. Which I keep demonstrating like every time your try to argue with me on any of these debates.2. Well, an old testament god would probably strike me with lightning or whatever, the one from the new testament would be far more interested in what I have to say than yourself though. You're boring. Either way he doesn't exist.3. I'm on a debate site to debate. I spend about as much time thinking about religion as it takes to type this. It's easier for me because I'm a lot smarter than you and know more about it than you do. Personal attacks, innacurate one at that, have no bearing on this debate other than to highlight how easily Christians are influenced.4. I don't use spell check and I type very fast. Sometimes I miss something. Christians, christians, Muslims, muslims, Scientology, scientology - they each mean the exact same thing regardless of the size of the letter preceding it and none of these terms are capable of feeling insult whether they are capitalized or not.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

I understand your religion perfectly, and in fact better than you and most ChristiansYou're such a pompous prick, you know that? That statement is laughable and extremely, extremely false.I explained to you why that is.You said something about your qualifications, but that in no way proves you know my faith better than me.I am more able to argue for or against any point of your religion than you are. Which I keep demonstrating like every time your try to argue with me on any of these debates.LMFAO - what?!? You demonstrate shit in each post, you have not proved me wrong once and all you do is spew horseshit over each post you create. Its amusing though, keep doing this.Well, an old testament god would probably strike me with lightning or whateverI think He is rather amused at your dumbness, if I was Him I'd quite enjoy watching you make an utter ass of yourself.the one from the new testament would be far more interested in what I have to say than yourself though.He doesn't give a shit what you say if its offensive to Him.I spend about as much time thinking about religion as it takes to type this.Which is another reason why you don't know half as much as I do about my faith.You're boring. Not half as dull as you.Either way he doesn't exist.Then stop talking about Him like He is right next to you, you moron.I'm a lot smarter than you and know more about it than you do.Someone who feels they need to brag about themselves this much is someone that is not very smart at all. If you had even half a brain cell you wouldn't have posted all this horseshit.Personal attacks, innacurate one at that, have no bearing on this debateSo why are you creating them then? Stop contradicting yourself you asinine pig.have no bearing on this debate other than to highlight how easily Christians are influenced.You think you influence me? The only influence you have on me is how much you make me want to squeeze the miserable life out of you. Other than that, you may as well be dead.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

He doesn't give a shit what you say if its offensive to Him.How does a perfect all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God become offended?
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

How does a perfect all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God become offended?Just as my father was offended when I disobeyed him. Its quite simple to understand. Of course, there are many more levels of offending someone than that example.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

Just as my father was offended when I disobeyed him.Perhaps he was disappointed, not 'offended'. Of course, being disappointed is only possible if you don't already know what is going to happen (read: Omniscient).
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

You're right; that was a rubbish scenario. Alteration: child and father are shouting at each other after child disobeys him and the child hurls a line of insults at him, offending him. As for your second point, I used to think that way when I was little but I just suddenly started to see it from His point of view: He knows what will happen if He sends His Son, but still He does it because He loves us so much, and although He knows Jesus will be rejected, it still hurts like crap watching Jesus, His only Son, suffer. It makes perfect sense when you look at it from that point of view.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

You're right; that was a rubbish scenario. Alteration: child and father are shouting at each other after child disobeys him and the child hurls a line of insults at him, offending him.This is the same thing you said before, only you added "hurls a line of insults at him", which doesn't fundamentally change the question at all. Being OFFENDED is a uniquely human characteristic, that would not apply to a perfect and all-knowing God. I think it is much more likely that YOU were offended, than God. If 'said deity even exists.He knows what will happen if He sends His Son, but still He does it because He loves us so much, and although He knows Jesus will be rejected, it still hurts like crap watching Jesus, His only Son, suffer.Then why send him to suffer? I thought Yahweh could do anything, is he not omnipotent? Is there some rule that blood must be spilled for forgiveness, a rule that even God cannot break? Furthermore, if God knew of everything that would happen, why did he wait until 30 AD to sacrifice his son? Not that it matters to me, but given all that is written in the Bible it seems apparent to me that the authors of the Bible did NOT believe that God Yahweh could see into the future, many of the stories in the bible would not make any sense if that were the case, particularly the great deluge and the events leading up to it.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

This is the same thing you said before, only you added "hurls a line of insults at him", which doesn't fundamentally change the question at all.Well, its not the same as I added to it. Being OFFENDED is a uniquely human characteristic, that would not apply to a perfect and all-knowing God. I think it is much more likely that YOU were offended, than God. If 'said deity even exists.There are many levels of offense. To sin against another is to sin against God because in doing this we are turning our backs on Him as we sin. Because of this, we are drawing the truthfulness of Him and the goodness of His character into question and this says to Him: "You're a liar". Therefore, sin in the words of Proverbs 17:5 insults God.Then why send him to suffer?So that we had a second chance and to show us how much He loves us.Is there some rule that blood must be spilled for forgiveness, a rule that even God cannot break?Are you implying that Jesus was not willing to bear the weight of our sins and unwilling to obey God?Furthermore, if God knew of everything that would happen, why did he wait until 30 AD to sacrifice his son?The concept of time is very different in the eyes of God so to speak as it is in our eyes.it seems apparent to me that the authors of the Bible did NOT believe that God Yahweh could see into the future many of the stories in the bible would not make any sense if that were the case, particularly the great deluge and the events leading up to it.Just call Him God, its far easier :) Where did the authors state that He could not see into the future?
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

There are many levels of offense. To sin against another is to sin against God because in doing this we are turning our backs on Him as we sin. Because of this, we are drawing the truthfulness of Him and the goodness of His character into question and this says to Him: "You're a liar". Therefore, sin in the words of Proverbs 17:5 insults God.Offense does not always follow from insult.Are you implying that Jesus was not willing to bear the weight of our sins and unwilling to obey God?Whether or not Jesus consented to it ("father why have you forsaken me?"), doesn't change the fact that the whole event was completely unnecessary assuming that your God actually is omnipotent.The concept of time is very different in the eyes of God so to speak as it is in our eyes.So different that he forgot to 'save' mankind until 30 AD?Where did the authors state that He could not see into the future?Where did they say that he could? It is said that Yahweh knows everything, many have interpreted this as including the future, but nowhere is it explicitly stated.Why would lucifer enter into a wager with Yahweh, if he knew that he could see into the future?
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

Offense does not always follow from insult.It often does though, and in this case, it often does too, like I just explained. So different that he forgot to 'save' mankind until 30 AD?I see you did not fully understand my statement. I will rephrase: Time is very different to God than it is to us. Our lives are ruled by time; bedtime, daytime, lunchtime, teatime, naptime, bathtime; we have to be in certain places at certain times, we have to be at work for a certain time and finished by a certain time, we have to wake up at a certain time and sleep at a certain time. With God, time is not the same at all. Therefore, whilst you are indignant that He took so long to send His Son, you are forgetting that the 'so long' phrase is very much related to time, something that you view very differently to Him. Comprende?Where did they say that he could?Don't answer my question with another question, you stated that the authors in the bible said that He could not see into the future; back this up or retract. His understanding is infinite; Psalm 147:5, He can do all things, things that no man can do; Matthew 19:26, He is everywhere, He never leaves us; Matthew 28:20, He is omnipotent: "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth" Revelation 19:6. He can do all things, including seeing into the future.I have in effect proved your statements wrong, all you have to do is retract the original: "the authors of the Bible did NOT believe that God Yahweh could see into the future", you even capitalized the 'not', seeming so sure of yourself.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

I like how you ignored my second paragraph all together, and ignored my last question. Why would lucifer enter into a wager with Yahweh if he knew that Yahweh could see into the future?It often does though, and in this case, it often does too, like I just explained.You cited a passage that states that sin 'insults' Yahweh. As I stated offense does not always follow from insult. What you said in no way proves that Yahweh (at least according to your holy book) is offended or can become offended. Even if it did, it would show that the bible attempts to apply human characteristics to a perfect being, which is absolutely archaic and defies our understanding of what perfect is. That a perfect being can experience jealousy and wrath tells me that he/it isn't perfect at all.I see you did not fully understand my statement. I will rephrase: Time is very different to God than it is to us. Our lives are ruled by time; bedtime, daytime, lunchtime, teatime, naptime, bathtime; we have to be in certain places at certain times, we have to be at work for a certain time and finished by a certain time, we have to wake up at a certain time and sleep at a certain time. With God, time is not the same at all. Therefore, whilst you are indignant that He took so long to send His Son, you are forgetting that the 'so long' phrase is very much related to time, something that you view very differently to Him. Comprende?Yo Comprendo pero su explicación es irrelevent.I understand what you are trying to say, but unless his differed perception somehow inhibits or impairs his ability to 'save' mankind before 30 AD then your statement is entirely irrelevant. Lest his perception itself become a weakness.Don't answer my question with another question, you stated that the authors in the bible said that He could not see into the future; back this up or retract.Go back and re-read my statement. I did not say that they SAID this, what I said was that they BELIEVED this, which is implied by the context of some of the stories. My example was the wager between Lucifer and Yahweh.His understanding is infinite; Psalm 147:5, He can do all things, things that no man can do; Matthew 19:26, He is everywhere, He never leaves us; Matthew 28:20, He is omnipotent: "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth" Revelation 19:6. He can do all things, including seeing into the future.Literally none of these passages say that he can see into the future. Perhaps if you hadn't left out my one of my sentences, you would see that I actually predicted your response to this question. These passages are interpreted as meaning that he can see into the future, yet none of these verses explicitly say this. Even if they did, it would present a particular incongruity with some of the biblical stories.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

Why would lucifer enter into a wager with Yahweh if he knew that Yahweh could see into the future?Because Lucifer was an ignorant asshole, that’s why.You cited a passage that states that sin 'insults' Yahweh. As I stated offense does not always follow from insult.And I stated that whilst it does not always follow from insult, it does often, and that is one of those times.Yo Comprendo pero su explicación es irrelevent.Es pertinente, que acaba de negarse a aceptar la verdad.I understand what you are trying to say, but unless his differed perception somehow inhibits or impairs his ability to 'save' mankind before 30 AD then your statement is entirely irrelevant.You clearly didn’t comprende. Time is different to Him therefore when you act indignant that He did not come sooner, you are again talking in the language of time.I did not say that they SAID this, what I said was that they BELIEVED this, which is implied by the context of some of the stories. My example was the wager between Lucifer and Yahweh.Said/believed, same difference. Either way you implied something false. The example you give is not a very good one as the author of this book is aware of how evil Satan is and is not in agreement with him, so obviously does not believe what Satan does. Furthermore, you said "authors", this is plural yet you gave one example. You need more to make your statement true.Literally none of these passages say that he can see into the future.They say he can do anything. That is enough, surely. An omnipotent being can do anything; looking into the future would be included in that. If God could not look into the future then He would not be omnipotent would He? Its common sense really.