azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

Which are not evidence at all. Even if there are a million videos, they are still not evidence. You need to prove your claim. Where are your arguments?They are evidence whether it is tangible or not. I understand it is hard to prove that they are true but when there are countless similiar stories, the probability of these stores being true is high. You are misconstruing my words. Feelings are not logical arguments at all.I stated that dead bodies are empty shell but yet, if someone urinated on my mother's dead body, my nerves will be hit. Then you stated that i contradicted myself. You clearly contradicted yourself when you said emotion opposing thoughts aren't a contradiction. Then again, if according to you that morality refers to "the human mind's opinion on right or wrong", there can't be anything judgement outside of morality. Furthermore, the words "right" or "wrong" are statements that refers to moral duties. Thus to say that they are wrong "outside of morality" makes no sense at all.For a sane person, morality shows the true right and wrong. However, that is according to the human mind. Right and wrong do exists outside the human mind; outside the human morality.I can't prove it so this is a strong belief, but i believe that is a universal morality. I believe that there is truth in another sense beyond humans's morality. When a human kills another human, it is wrong because our morality senses the death to be wrong or unjust. But it is wrong according to morality. Is it wrong according to all aspects of creatures on this earth? I doubt it. You are honestly the most unintelligent, vitriolic, uneducated, illogical and irrational debater I ever encountered.Vitriolic-harsh and angry words. :/ ......... ? What? How was i ever vitriolic to you. All this time you call me stupid and hard headed. Not only to me but to Srom1883. This proves that you are not only rude but you are a hypocrite. And to be honest, you are describing yourself with all "those" words because saying that im vitriolic doesn't even make sense.Edit. Well, i am vitrolic if you found my words harsh and angry. But i doubt you found my words "harsh" and "angry." But the term is perceptional so i can't really argue.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

They are evidence whether it is tangible or not.Red herring.I understand it is hard to prove that they are true but when there are countless similiar stories, the probability of these stores being true is high.But you said that it was unequivocally true that souls exist. Now, you are changing your story and saying that they most likely exist? Make up your damn mind! Well, if you even have a mind, that is...Right and wrong do exists outside the human mind; outside the human morality.Proof? If you can't prove it, this is an unasserted claim which can and should be dismissed in a debate.I can't prove it so this is a strong belief, but i believe that is a universal morality.What do you mean by "universal morality"? I don't think any ethicists use this term at all.When a human kills another human, it is wrong because our morality senses the death to be wrong or unjust.No. It is not necessarily wrong. The word "kill" does not imply any ill intention.Is it wrong according to all aspects of creatures on this earth?Do you know what the other "creatures on this earth" think? For all we know, if morality is merely a construct of social evolution, any other animals apart of humans may agree and see murder as immoral. However, since we cannot know what the other creatures think, if you were to mount such an argument, you would violate Occam's razor.In addition, by saying that it might not be wrong if such a judgement is made based on human morality, you are also committing the genetic fallacy. Thus, your argument is illogical.And by the way, since when am I a hypocrite? My reasoning is iron clad and you haven't shown my reasoning to be wrong.All this time you call me stupid and hard headed. Not only to me but to Srom1883.So? You are stupid and hard headed.And to be honest, you are describing yourself with all "those" words because saying that im vitriolic doesn't even make sense.I am immune to such frivolous assertions without evidence. My credentials literally fill pages. I have studied in arguably the best university in the world and it was a privilege to be accepted. I don't need to answer to you, pinhead.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

Red herringRed herring means something that is INTENDED to be misleading or distracting. Well the truth is meant to distract some from the lies but i can't say those videos are the truth. However, with many stories, the probability of it being the truth is high. But you said that it was unequivocally true that souls exist. Now, you are changing your story and saying that they most likely exist? Make up your damn mind! Well, if you even have a mind, that is...Well im on both sides. I believe that we have souls. With these videos, my faith grows stronger. However, there is always a doubt to be raised such as the possibility that the video is a hoax. One video in particular catches my attention. This girl stated that she left her body and saw a tennis show on top of the hospital. I can't say that it is true because im not her. Like i said, im on both sides of whether souls exist or not but im more on the side that souls do exist. Proof?Well, see the animal channel. There was this one video on youtube where a cheetah attacked an animal (forgot what kind that animal was) and the family of that animal attacked the cheetah. These animals have their own right and wrong. I am immune to such frivolous assertions without evidence. My credentials literally fill pages. I have studied in arguably the best university in the world and it was a privilege to be accepted. I don't need to answer to you, pinhead.What evidence? You are disrespectful and rude. It is a perception. And my fault, you are not a hypocrite. I was wrong with that word. I can respect disrespect if someone doesn't mean to attack me but you are completely attacking me to just hurt me. Am i wrong? That is great that you went to the best university. However, that doesn't neccessarily means that you are smart. Issac Newton didn't go to your school and he was an genious. And even though you went to the best university, you failed to proved why my scenarios are wrong....but that topic is in a totally different comment. My reasoning is iron clad and you haven't shown my reasoning to be wrongI have proved your reasoning to not be iron clad if you read my response to your repost of your argument against my scenarios. So? You are stupid and hard headedWell, everybody is stupid and hard headed.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

Red herring means something that is INTENDED to be misleading or distracting. Well the truth is meant to distract some from the lies but i can't say those videos are the truth. However, with many stories, the probability of it being the truth is high.Irrelevant. I referred to your statement as a red herring and not the evidence that you claim justifies your stand. You are truly a pinhead.Well im on both sides. I believe that we have souls.It is illogical for one to say both that "souls exists" and "souls probably exists" at the same time. That is exactly what you have done.These animals have their own right and wrong.This is no evidence of right or wrong. The ideas of "right" and "wrong" pertains to judgements made based on moral duties. As an ignoramus and a pinhead, I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between moral values and duties. Moral duties are not merely duties to your own family or even species. They are duties which transcend any form of relationship and are categorical based upon reason and logic. Are you saying that if animals have a sense of "right and wrong" they are able to use logic to determine what constitutes "right" and "wrong"? Even if they are, will you be so bold as to claim to understand what they think?I can respect disrespect if someone doesn't mean to attack me but you are completely attacking me to just hurt me.If I were to attack you just to hurt you, I wouldn't exercise logic and argument like I have done above. I would just be calling you a pinhead, an idiot, ignoramus, troll, unintelligent and a person with less IQ than an amoeba cell. If I were to merely attack you on personal grounds, I would not even bother explaining what I said like I am doing right now.However, that doesn't neccessarily means that you are smart.I never said that I was smart. You are putting words in my mouth. And you should apologise for that. Furthermore, Socrates, arguably the inventor of logic, even declared that he knew nothing! How can I claim to be any more intelligent?you failed to proved why my scenarios are wrongI did prove that your scenarios are wrong. You are either too arrogant to admit defeat or too stupid to understand simple English. And thus, while my stand remains firm, yours is arbitrary.Well, everybody is stupid and hard headed.That is a hasty generalisation. One can claim to be not smart, but not stupid at the same time. All I know is, you can't because you are definitely not smart, but you are stupid.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

Irrelevant. I referred to your statement as a red herring and not the evidence that you claim justifies your stand. You are truly a pinhead.I stated: "They are evidence whether it is tangible or not." How is that a red herring? How is that intended to be misleading or distracting. That doesn't make sense but yet, you called me the pinhead. And next time you called something a red herring, state that specific "something." Be specific and clear please. It is illogical for one to say both that "souls exists" and "souls probably exists" at the same time. That is exactly what you have done.No. I meant that some parts of me think that souls exists and another part of me don't. And you should apologise for that.Fair enough. I apologise. I did prove that your scenarios are wrong.Sigh. No, you didn't. Read my response that i made to your argument that you reposted. I truly think i defeated your dispute for that repost. Edit. Wait. I have to be more specific. Yes, after i thought some more, you are right. One can claim to be not smart, but not stupid at the same time but it depends on the topics of learning. One person can say that they are not smart in biology, but not stupid in chemistry. However, someone can't say that they are not smart in biology but not stupid in biology. You have to be specific when you call me not smart and stupid. In what topic of learning where i am not smart and stupid. Calling me stupid in general says i have no intelligence at all and i can surely prove you wrong. I got a B in Physics 1. This is sole proof that i have intelligence. I can aquire and apply physics knowledge and skills. The fact that you just called me stupid and not smart IS A HASTY GENERALISATION.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

I stated: "They are evidence whether it is tangible or not." How is that a red herring? Simple. Because you have not asserted how that is relevant to your argument. Furthermore, I have not said whether tangibility is a necessary characteristic of whether an evidence is valid or not. There must be arguments to support why an evidence should be considered valid in the first place. You have not shown why we should accept your evidence and thus, I have no grounds to think your evidence is valid, tangible or otherwise.And next time you called something a red herringI was specific. I stated that your statement was a red herring. That is why you could accurately quote the statement I was referring to in your unlettered and unintelligent rebuttal.No. I meant that some parts of me think that souls exists and another part of me don't.Are you schizophrenic?In what topic of learning where i am not smart and stupid.Philosophy and debate.I got a B in Physics 1.Aww, how cute. I've got 11A*s in the Cambridge General Certificate of Education (GCE) Ordinary Levels in English, Chinese, Higher Chinese, Mathematics, Additional Mathematics, Chemistry, Physics, Social Studies, History, Geography and Philosophy. I've also got 5As in the Cambridge GCE Advanced Levels in English Literature, Mathematics, Geography, Economics and Philosophy. I have also graduated with first class honours in Philosophy from Harvard, which I got into via my perfect SAT scores. So what if you've got a B in Physics 1?
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

Aww, how cute. I've got 11As in the Cambridge General Certificate of Education (GCE) Ordinary Levels in English, Chinese, Higher Chinese, Mathematics, Additional Mathematics, Chemistry, Physics, Social Studies, History, Geography and Philosophy. I've also got 5As in the Cambridge GCE Advanced Levels in English Literature, Mathematics, Geography, Economics and Philosophy. I have also graduated with first class honours in Philosophy from Harvard, which I got into via my perfect SAT scores. So what if you've got a B in Physics 1?First off, i stated that i got a B in physics 1 to prove my intelligence. If you thought i implied that you are not intelligent or that i was smarter than you, i did not. You said that i was stupid but that was and still is a hasty generalisation. ha ha. philosophy and debateWell i can say the same to you about your debating skills. Because you have not asserted how that is relevant to your argument.You stated that those spiritual videos are not evidence. And i stated that evidence can be tangible or not tangible. And i stated that there are many videos that do account of people stating "out of body experience" which gives truth a high probability of existing. This is my reason why you should accept my evidence. Now im confused why you would think why what i stated is not relevant to my argument. It is relevant. And thus, not a red herring. Here is my question to you that i should had stated before stating "they are evidence whether it is tangible or not:" why are those videos not considered evidence? Lots of similiar personal experience reveals the truth more than one or two videos. If thousands of videos state an out of body experience, i will believe that souls do exist. I stated that your statement was a red herring*Not exactly. You just stated "red herring."
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

First off, i stated that i got a B in physics 1 to prove my intelligence. If you thought i implied that you are not intelligent or that i was smarter than you, i did not. You said that i was stupid but that was and still is a hasty generalisation. ha ha.I have never said that I thought you implied I was not intelligent. My point is that there is no point for you to bring up academic credentials. I am at least twice or thrice as qualified as you. No doubt, there are a multitude of others who are more qualified than myself.And since when is calling you stupid a hasty generalisation? You can score a B in Physics 1, but still be called stupid. True intellect is demonstrated not by how well you score in school, but whether you have applied what you have learnt in school successfully into your life. For all I know, your "good" results could be a result of rote memorisation, which demonstrates mediocre memory work at best.Well i can say the same to you about your debating skills.Really? You haven't debated against me or even seen me debate in real life. So what right do you have in making such a generalisation? For your information, I debate every single day because it's a passion. Being on this site is merely a way to kill time.And i stated that there are many videos that do account of people stating "out of body experience" which gives truth a high probability of existing.Yes. And there are many accounts of people saying that they can't feel the Earth rotating. Does it mean that it is highly probable that the Earth is not rotating?You are basing your assumption that these accounts are unfalsifiable. You have not given any arguments to show that the accounts are valid to believe. Why should I accept your evidence if you have not backed your evidence up and show that it is unfalsifiable. Coming from a family of lawyers, evidence is merely the first step to proving something.Now im confused why you would think why what i stated is not relevant to my argument. It is relevant. And thus, not a red herring.Because until you have argued your point, whatever you write is irrelevant and should be treated as a distraction.If thousands of videos state an out of body experience, i will believe that souls do exist.This is argumentum ad populum. Just because thousands of videos state an out of body experience, it could be that every one of them are wrong. You haven't proven that every single one are valid and logical to believe. Thus, any fair minded person, would have no reason to believe in them.In addition, if you were to believe in anything without backing up your claim, I can safely say that you're unintelligent.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

True intellect is demonstrated not by how well you score in school, but whether you have applied what you have learnt in school successfully into your life.That is why when you called me stupid, i stated that i got a B in Physics 1. Doing physics problems is the same as doing problems in real life. Not exactly the same but nearly the same. And calling me stupid is a hasty generalisation because you weren't specific in the beginning. You just called me stupid, but what am i stupid in? You told me: philosophy and debating. Now, it is not a hasty generalisation. Yes. And there are many accounts of people saying that they can't feel the Earth rotating. Does it mean that it is highly probable that the Earth is not rotating?Ok. I admit defeat with my argument with those videos. Hmmm. There was this one video where someone took a picture of what look like a soul leaving a body. But i have to look into that if i want to. it could be that every one of them are wrong. That is true. Or is it? That is why im open minded to the possibility of me being wrong. That is why i am on both sides of the fence if souls exist or not. But anything in this world can be a lie. History texts books, scriptures, even life can be lie. What if we are just a brain in a vat? How can we even say common sense is even the truth? 1 +1 = 2. But is that the truth or just something our brain understands? In other words, do we understand the truth or do we understand what our brain is "meant" to understand?
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

Doing physics problems is the same as doing problems in real life.You will find yourself to be wrong there. Does physics answer the question of what Richard, Duke of Gloucester, implied when he said, "Now is the winter of our discontent,/ Made glorious summer by this sun of York" in his opening soliloquy in Shakespeare's The Tragedy of King Richard III? Does physics answer the question of whether morality is subjective or objective? Does physics answer the question of whether or not we should help the poor?That is why i am on both sides of the fence if souls exist or not.No, you aren't. You categorically stated that "souls exist". Don't change your story now because you are under heavy criticism. That's pure cowardice. Stand your ground and debate.But anything in this world can be a lie. History texts books, scriptures, even life can be lie. What if we are just a brain in a vat?That has no bearing on whether your assertion that "souls exist" is true or not.How can we even say common sense is even the truth?I thought you said your got a B in Physics 1? If you even study physics at all, you will know that common sense is unreliable. No wonder you got a B and not an A.But is that the truth or just something our brain understands?A "truth" is also what a brain perceives to understand.Are you asking all these questions just to salvage your position and make yourself seem intelligent? As a philosopher, I have debated too many times on every single one of these questions.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

You will find yourself to be wrong there. Does physics answer the question of what Richard, Duke of Gloucester, implied when he said, "Now is the winter of our discontent,/ Made glorious summer by this sun of York" in his opening soliloquy in Shakespeare's The Tragedy of King Richard III? Does physics answer the question of whether morality is subjective or objective? Does physics answer the question of whether or not we should help the poor?Physics doesn't answer all questions. But it doesn't answer a lot of questions. No, you aren't. You categorically stated that "souls exist". Don't change your story now because you are under heavy criticism. That's pure cowardice. Stand your ground and debate.I told you that i am on both sides of the fence. Don't deny that i didn't stated that before i made my previous argument to you. I thought you said your got a B in Physics 1? If you even study physics at all, you will know that common sense is unreliable. No wonder you got a B and not an A.Yes common sense is unrealiable. However, when you study physics, your common sense changes. A "truth" is also what a brain perceives to understand.So how do we know if what the brain percieves is even the truth at all?Are you asking all these questions just to salvage your position and make yourself seem intelligent? As a philosopher, I have debated too many times on every single one of these questions.No. And no, im not a philosopher.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

Physics doesn't answer all questions. But it doesn't answer a lot of questions.First, you are contradicting yourself even within these two sentences. Second, you are also contradicting what you said previously, which was "physics answers life's questions." I think questions of literature and ethics are key life questions as well.I told you that i am on both sides of the fence. Don't deny that i didn't stated that before i made my previous argument to you.I do deny it because your very first comment did not state you are on the fence. You stated categorically that "souls exist" before going on an unintelligent verbal diarrhea on how videos are evidence of your claim.However, when you study physics, your common sense changes.Ah, if physics confers common sense, then how is it that we still don't have the answer to most questions in philosophy? For example, the question of "what is art?"So how do we know if what the brain percieves is even the truth at all?That is an illogical question.No. And no, im not a philosopher.Obviously I already know that you're not a philosopher. You don't even seem to appreciate the fundamentals of philosophy, let alone the finer details.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

lol oh, i meant that physics DO answer a lot of questions. Not all but a lot. :DWell, i am now on both sides of the fence. I change my thinking. :DYou asked: "What is art." I say everything that is perceived. (touch, smell, taste, hear, and sight). :D I don't think my question was illogical. If you don't remember, i asked how do we know if what the brain perceives is even truth at all? How do we know if our brain understands the truth or understands what a brain CAN understand? Like for example, gravity points downward. But is that the truthful fact or is that something our brain is meant to understand?
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

i meant that physics DO answer a lot of questions. Not all but a lot.Which is a direct contradiction to your statement that "physics answers life's questions."You asked: "What is art." I say everything that is perceived. (touch, smell, taste, hear, and sight).Feeble response. Numbers are things that we perceive. But numbers are not art. Now, I am not saying that it cannot be made into art, what I am saying that numbers themselves are not art.How do we know if our brain understands the truth or understands what a brain CAN understand?Your question is still illogical. All you are trying to do is to extrapolate beyond necessity.