azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

"A true scientist comes up with a theory and tries to prove it false."Then why are all scientific experiments, such as the Miller Urey experiment, attempts to prove evolution true?"The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge"The scientific aspects of evolution are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of evolution in order to make man as a god. That might as well be posted on every evolutionist website, since they do everything that they can to push God out the door science or not. So no, you didn't refute it; I'm not satisfied. "Ad hominem attacks now? I feel special.""MarkML0528 said: "This guy is delusional"Ad hominem; I feel special too. You know, you shouldn't accuse other people of things you are guilty of..."Yes, you are correct. Creation.com is not a reputable site, therefore your argument implodes in on itself."This is an example of a straw man argument. You are attacking Creation.com rather than the argument they present. Now I don't have to answer your "Where did I use a straw man argument?" question because you just used one. Look at that, I took care of two posts with one."Oh, well then why did it happen outside of a laboratory experiment a few billion years ago? How else did we get here?"First question: Prove it!Second question: God created us."We'll go along with what you say, that pigs are our closest ancestor according to DNA. How does this disprove evolution? We still share a common ancestor with apes, as well as any other form of life."Because evolution tries to tell us as fact that we evolved from apes when we may as well have evolved from pigs."Prove that scientists support it? Okay."You do realize that you own post says that it is no longer widely accepted right? Looks like you just shot yourself in your other foot.Now back to on topic, enough with the straw man augments! Are you going to provide a rebuttal for my post concerning the Miller Urey argument as being proof that evolution is false or not? If not, then I do not think you have a rational enough mind to handle debate.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

No, it started out as that, but then they changed it to try to prove evolution right when their first few experiments failed.They didn't try to prove evolution correct after several experiments failed. I don't know if their experiments did in fact fail several times at first (do you have a source for this?), but if it were failing, I imagine the following experiments were fine tuning of earth's early atmosphere. I suppose it would seem so, but I just finished 84 consecutive work hours (72 hours in the previous week alone). I didn't necessarily have time to arrange my argument properly on the website, so I wouldn't necessarily call myself "lazy". Now I am typing my arguments into Microsoft Word and pasting them to the website from there. That way, you won't have to worry about this type of situation any more.I believe I said your action was lazy, not you yourself. And even if I had called you lazy, was I supposed to somehow just know you worked 84 consecutive work hours? Believing in something for which you don't even know how it happened? And you call me crazy?? Wow, you got issues because you said you belief was based off of fact not faith. Without that "how" you are relying on faith. You are no longer trying to prove evolution false, as in your first argument; but trying to prove it true contrary to science (which supports my "science is secondary to the gospel of evolution in order to make man god" claim).It is not a reliance on faith, for that would imply unjustified belief. The Miller Urey experiment shows us that organic molecules can form from inorganic materials, so we already know that life can form from inorganic matter. What we don't know is how it exactly formed on Earth billions of years ago. Scientists have lots of ideas, and they continue to do research on the subject to this very day. So how you accuse me of having an unjustified belief, I do not know. I am not trying to prove evolution true just to satisfy my own personal conclusion. I am interested in the truth, not whatever makes me feel more comfortable. The science points overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, not creationism. As for evolution being contrary to science which supports "science being secondary to the gospel of evolution in order to make man god", that is complete nonsense. The theory of evolution is beneath the scientific method. If you or anyone on this planet could prove the theory of evolution wrong, you would win a Nobel Peace Prize among a mountain of other achievements. Science rewards challenging established beliefs. Your idea that evolution is above everything else in science is completely unfounded and uneducated. You've become a victim of creationist propaganda. Why not?It raises the question "who created god?". To which you and other creationists reply "Well, god doesn't need a cause. He has always been there". This is just special pleading, otherwise we can say that the universe has been here forever. Equal argument.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

HAHAHA!Oh... man. I laughed for like two whole minutes after reading this. Probably one of the funniest posts I've read on CD, yet.You, sir, get a fucking upvote.
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

So then... how come we have the remnants of a tail?Seriously? You are completely ignoring facts I have given.Yah fool...
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

remnats are you talking about a skeleton are you bone chemist
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

Are you one of Srom's troll accounts? .
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

Do I have to be a bone chemist for referencing scientific research?
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

well you said a word that reminded me of a bone so I thought you were a bone chemist
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

That word is a bone. But I am not a "bone chemist" as you say. I'm just merely using scientific research collected from actual "bone chemists."
Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

And you still have to explain to me why we have remnants of a tail in our coccyx, giving proof that in some point in time, we had tails.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

As to the LG part, that should probably soon go extinct if it is something genetic. The same is possible for the entire community, though, but perhaps not so probable. Sounds like a win-win scenario. But sadly, the homophobic fundamentalists are also those people who don't understand natural selection. Ideally, they would have been the first ones to go extinct.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

There must be an evolutionary reason for their persistant lives ;)
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

Yes, they were forced against their natural instincts. The things I said in the last line.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

I think the natural instinct is to reject anything that is different ;)
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

Oh, I thought for a while that you were talking about the LGBTQ community.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

It applies to both ;)
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

It does seem to.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

It is as I intended ;)
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

So you intentionally made it vague.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

Absolutely. Have you ever seen me take a stand on anything? I mean, I may be pro-religion in one debate and an atheist in the next. It all depends on my mood ;)
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

So does mine. But I don't like religion enough for my mood to be that way for long.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

Are you saying you eat beef? ;)
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

No, I don't. I'm pretty much vegetarian. Hindus don't eat beef - it's probably even illegal to sell in India, for I have never seen such.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

So..., do you revere cows? ;)
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

Some might do. There are even street cows here - some sort of curse on cows by some demigod. 2 of the biggest deities - Krishna and Shiva, had a special thing for cows. I don't, though. Except that my name is a reference to Shiva.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

Your street cows there would be street tacos here ;)
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

Well, we're the only country that has a bill of rights for cows, or so I've heard. You can't find beef. All of the foreign chains offer just cocks/hens and goats here. Or perhaps seafood.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

You haven't lived till you have tasted beef ;)
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Oh, hell no!!!

Incidentally, I've been living, without that, for a long time.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Oh, hell no!!!

You are like a zombie. And you are not even aware of that fact ;)
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Oh, hell no!!!

I'm Zeus. Didn't you see my picture?
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Oh, hell no!!!

https://media.giphy.com/media/Fjr6v88OPk7U4/giphy.gif  ;)
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Oh, hell no!!!

Is that, like, your orgasm face? Seems like it.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Oh, hell no!!!

No, that's some chick rolling her eyes at your crap ;)
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Oh, hell no!!!

Oh, that's strange.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Oh, hell no!!!

Not as strange as your crap ;)
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Oh, hell no!!!

I wonder about that.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Oh, hell no!!!

You don't think your crap is strange? ;)
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

I see myself as having a bit of a unique perspective when it comes to LGBTQ.-First, for a community that wants acceptance and to be seen as anyone else, stop with the incessant labeling; and if you feel you need a label, BTQ should be sufficient. -Second, I'm still undecided when it comes to transgender. For years homosexuals have argued it's natural, it's not a choice and they were born this way. Well, with regards to gender, you are born male or female and to identify as another is a choice you are making. I do accept them, however as a parent I'm not sure how I feel about the locker room issue that has been in the media as of late. On the one hand you have parents concerned with their daughter viewing a penis or their son viewing a vagina. On the other - something I haven't really seen mentioned in the media - is the parent of the transgender child having to deal with possible ridicule and/or threats to the child. Again, I'm undecided on the matter.-I support the community simply because there is nothing wrong with it, and also because it doesn't affect me. If two women want to get married, fine, why shouldn't they? If two men kiss in a movie, fine. Again it has no impact on my life. Should a boy who identifies as a girl be allowed in a girl's locker room? I'm not so sure. What's to stop a boy from dressing up as a girl one day and just walking in? I understand there's nothing to stop him now, but at least it can be argued he doesn't belong there. If it becomes allowed all he has to do is argue that's how he identifies and nothing can then be done about it.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Oh, hell no!!!

I support the community simply because there is nothing wrong with it, and also because it doesn't affect me. Ignorant and selfish.I will have a heart attack if i see you in heaven like this.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

Ignorant and selfishIt's actually the religious who are ignorant on the subject. Discriminating against a group of people because they're not the same as you is terrible for humanity and it's simply hateful. I'd be curious why your god teaches you to hate something he created (granted this same god is responsible for mass genocide and condones slavery). And selfish? How is being accepting of someone else selfish? Do you even understand the words you're using?I will have a heart attack if i see you in heaven like this.Are you suggesting you can have a heart attack in heaven? Doesn't sound like a perfect place. If you simply mean you'd be surprised, I'd be even more surprised given there's no reason to believe such a place exists.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Oh, hell no!!!

why your god teaches you to hate something he createdGOD Created lucifer, why is he now his enemyAre you suggesting you can have a heart attack in heaven?that is the point, heaven should be a place of no pain but i will accomplish that(a heart attack) upon seeing you there
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

GOD Created lucifer, why is he now his enemyIf your god is all powerful and all loving, why does he allow lucifer to exist? Keep in mind that despite my arguing such theological questions, I don't actually believe it to be true.heaven should be a place of no pain but i will accomplish that(a heart attack) upon seeing you thereIf you accomplish this you would also make your god a liar.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

If your god is all powerful and all loving, why does he allow lucifer to exist?I hate it when you try to describe God how you want him with the use of If. Absurd cynicismAre you wiser than God? Who are you?Even God intends to do away with lucifer but just in the right time.To the main answer:The same reason your sinful sorry ass is still aliveIf you accomplish this you would also make your god a liar.with God, nothing is impossible, which proves God's honesty when He claims Omnipotence.Plus deliberate harm to one's self is doesn't result pain but pleasure.(masochistic).Therefore i will have the pleasure of having a heart attack when i see you in heaven like this. A Record.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

I hate it when you try to describe God how you want him with the use of If. Absurd cynicismI don't believe in a god so I cannot assume it of being anything, therefore "if" is necessary for the question to make sense.Are you wiser than God?Again, don't believe in god, but if such a being existed I'm not sure if I'm wiser, but certainly more moral.Even God intends to do away with lucifer but just in the right time.Ah, not enough innocent people have suffered yet?Plus deliberate harm to one's self is doesn't result pain but pleasure.(masochistic).Actually a masochist derives pleasure from pain, so the pain still exists.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

Ah, not enough innocent people have suffered yet?Suffered for disobedience and leaving them at the satan's mercy(he has none).Greed,Gay,Selfishness,Abortion, Homocide,incest, etc= Pain(in any form).It makes you vulnerable.Actually a masochist derives pleasure from pain, so the pain still exists.To the audience it's pain, to actor its unimaginable pleasure.(different perspectives)One's meat is another man's poisoin.It's about what am feeling not what you are thinking.People find more pleasure in death than living so they commit suicide.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

Suffered for disobedience and leaving them at the satan's mercy(he has none).I would contend there are millions - if not more - who have never heard of God or Jesus and are in the midst of great suffering. If your god is allowing them to suffer for disobeying rules they were never told, how is that their fault? I also question if the punishment fits the crime. For the simple matter of not believing - despite providing no evidence or giving us any reason to believe - your god has determined the punishment to be eternal torment and agony (oddly sounds like your type of heaven). I don't know if you're a parent, but there is absolutely nothing my child could do that I would merit such a punishment.
Debate: We should accept the LGBTQ community - I mean - what's the worse that could happen?
Side: Sure, why not?

Every soul knows the law of God.Not true. Consider how many different tribes of people out there, who have never heard of your god, are instead worshiping other idols? If they know the law, they're already breaking the first one.You said you were a christian before ,but was never told hell wasn't created for man?Of course I was taught that. My point is once you can view the idea of it from the outside (as a fictional story), it shows just how immoral this god is if he existed and not worthy of worship. You went on a long tangent speaking in metaphor, but never did address the point that according to your god, despite having no evidence to support his existence (god is, after all, the reigning hide-and-seek champion) he will send you to be eternally tortured simply because you didn't believe; this according to an old book filled with stories of events that are contrary to scientific evidence, immoral acts condoned by god, all for the purpose of explaining how god sent himself as a sacrifice to die for us to save us from himself because of the rules he put in place. That's right, he sent himself to die because of his own rules. Imagine this event happening:-You're sitting at home with your family and you hear a knock at the doorknock knockYou: "Who is it?"Stranger: "My name is Chuck, you need to let me in!"You: "And why would I do that?"Chuck: "I'm here to save you!"You: "Save me from what?"Chuck: "Me"-You'd call the cops.-Could he have simply forgiven without the need for sacrifice? Absolutely, but god - the masochist - decided otherwise, all because we were doomed from the start when the first two humans - Adam and Eve (who interestingly lived about 150,000 years after the first homo sapiens had already emerged) - were placed in a garden with Satan and a tree they couldn't eat from, and doomed all of humanity (curious how that worked for those that lived before them). Funny that before sending himself to die he first gave it a try with Noah (because your perfect god needs to try different things; him being all-knowing and all-powerful), which makes perfect sense since if two perfect beings managed to fail, why wouldn't an alcoholic and his family be a better choice? Finally a few thousand years later (guess god needed time to work things out) he sent himself to die only to rise up in 3 days and say he'll be back again and have since been waiting now 2000+ years because...reasons. (Guess I went on my own rant... but at least I avoided metaphor)So hell wasn't a punishment in the first place. It was actually like a workshop for God.Trial and error? Some perfect godBut you're atheist you chose not to choose anyoneNo, I did not make the choice of choosing no one, I simply realized there was nothing to choose.