azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

All petty insults aside. There's one fundamental area I have yet to hear from anyone; the distinction between micro and macro evolution theories. When someone asks me if I simply believe in evolution, my simple answer yes and no. Evolution happens all around us all the time. This would include our biological adaptation to the world around us, everything from immunizations, to physiological changes to adapt to our climates and our development as a species. However, if someone were to ask if I agreed with our biological relation with anything other than the human race, I would have to disincline to agree. There has been no concrete geological or biological evidence to support our development as a species from anything other than each other. This is not to say there are plenty of scientific theories. But in my observation, science says very little by itself, scientists say a lot. Now I admit I am not speaking as a geologist, biologist, anthropologist, or cosmologist. I'm simply speaking as one who has compared and contrasted arguments from both sides of the spectrum. My question is why does everyone think that God has nothing to do with science? If there was an intelligent designer, I would only logically assume fundamental laws to be interpreted by science would be a natural necessary part of that creation. Just to put it out there, the scientific method was actually developed by a theist. Just a thought.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

There has been no concrete geological or biological evidence to support our development as a species from anything other than each other.You have stretched the word concrete to the limits in order to make this true.My question is why does everyone think that God has nothing to do with science?That's a good question, why don't Christians believe that God works through science? Evolution does not require that there be no God. If there was an intelligent designer, I would only logically assume fundamental laws to be interpreted by science would be a natural necessary part of that creation.You know what would be really intelligent? To work smart not hard. Instead of creating a special design for each animal, why not create a method where animals can become other animals over time.Just to put it out there, the scientific method was actually developed by a theist. Just a thought.The Theist you refer to is Galileo and he was abandoned by the Church. Plus, the techniques used in the scientific method are older than that.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

There's one fundamental area I have yet to hear from anyone; the distinction between micro and macro evolution theories.Allow me, macro-evolution IS micro-evolution, but over a longer period of time.There has been no concrete geological or biological evidence to support our development as a species from anything other than each other.http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html http://www.prehistoricplanet.com/news/index.php?id=48 There is your evidence. Rocks form layers in a way, that the layers on top are more recent then the layers down below. So the deeper into the ground we find a fossil, the older it is, this allows us to line up all the fossils we have in a way that shows the time period that all the organisms existed, or lived. My question is why does everyone think that God has nothing to do with science?Because god can't be scientifically verified, the inquiry of god, can't be explored via science. However this means, science can't disprove, prove god's existence, which makes god utterly irrelevant to science.If there was an intelligent designer, I would only logically assume fundamental laws to be interpreted by science would be a natural necessary part of that creation.How do we know there is an intelligent designer?
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

the distinction between micro and macro evolution theories. That distinction is purely one of definition. Micro identifies evolution below the species level (which itself is a somewhat arbitrary definition since there is no one definition of "species" that works for all life.) Macro is anything indicating speciation or divergences at higher levels.Its like the difference between walking one mile and 20 miles. The second takes longer and you will probably get a bigger change in scenery, but the process is the same, and if you can do one, you can do the other. Unless you had some conditions that prevented you from walking such a distance of course. That is where we could delineate between the two; if there was a deficiency or mechanism that limited the amount of variety we could achieve over greater amounts of time. This has never been found.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

Evolution is wrong because I didnt adopt a gay kid. ` `
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

IF evolution is right,there will be less and less species due to the extinction of the 'filtered out' ones in the Natural Selection.And the remaining species will be fighting for their flesh.The last species will fight themselves and when the fighting ended,one of the last species will die of hunger.So,evolution=extinct.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

The theory that all living things will spread out and adapt to the environment leading to diversity does not say that all species will disappear. You have things backwards.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

Scientific method:Formulation of a questionHypothesisPredictionTestingAnalysisConclusionEvolution misses part 3-6 so it isn't a matter-of-fact,it is a hypothesis only.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

I think the death penalty should just be enforced for rapists
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

Or cut off their balls. Literally. Should work very effectively.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

Or vagina's, let's not be sexist.---------------------------------
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

That wasn't sexist...Cutting off their balls, in reality, is what I meant. Should solve the problem of rapists and other similar abusers.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

Right, you suggested that we cut off a rapist's balls. I then disputed you with, "Well, in order to not be sexist, you should have said, "Let's cut off their balls/vaginas."Females rape as well.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

You don't seem to know what sexism means.Females rape as well.Only a very very few cases.An alternative to actual cutting off would be disabling certain organs, but that would also include a bit of cutting. Unless there are some drugs that make it permanent.Point is that the hormones or whatever make them rape others are no longer produced. If that still doesn't work then death penalty, or some other use for them away from society.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

Only a very very few cases.What do you think the ratio of men:women in CEO positions is?Should we just say "he" instead of "he/she" from now on?Example: CEO's are a vital part of a country's economy. In an average business day, he will hire this many people and fire this many people etc.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

What do you think the ratio of men:women in CEO positions is?This goes about rapists how exactly? Or the whole debate for that matter?What are you going on about? We were talking about raping and the punishment for that act, not CEO's.Should we just say "he" instead of "he/she" from now on????Example: CEO's are a vital part of a country's economy. In an average business day, he will hire this many people and fire this many people etc.??? Rapists are a vital part of society?
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

The whole "CEO" thing was said to dispute the fact that you said "Well, women make up such a small amount of rapists." This is absolutely true with CEO's, as well. Men make up the greater majority of CEO's, as they do rapists. I said earlier that you shouldn't be sexist because you said, "Let's cut their balls off!" (This obviously leaves out the female gender)So I said, "Hey, wait! You must say balls/vaginas to include women!"Then you said, "Oh, they make up such a small percentage of rapists, I'm just going to say balls."I then used the CEO example to state this: So, according to your logic, because women make up such a small demographic of a certain entity, it would be okay to say "CEO's are a vital part of a country's economy. In an average business day, he will hire this many people and fire this many people etc." Notice how I said, "he" instead of "he/she".
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

The whole "CEO" thing was said to dispute the fact that you said "Well, women make up such a small amount of rapists." This is absolutely true with CEO's, as well.So what if it is true about CEO's? It is irrelevant.There are more males in higher positions because males are the dominant sex. They are dominant in physical aspect and in intelligence. It is a fact.The "Well, women make up such a small amount of rapists." is not something I said."Oh, they make up such a small percentage of rapists, I'm just going to say balls."I never said a sentence like that either.How many rapes done by females have you heard about? And how many done by males have you heard? See the difference? Rapes done by males are a far bigger problem than those done by females."CEO's are a vital part of a country's economy. In an average business day, he will hire this many people and fire this many people etc."So a rapists in an average raping day will take up for raping this many people and not rape this many? And they are a vital part of society? What the f are you talking about?"he" instead of "he/she"Just so you knew, English does not have a gender-neutral word.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

DUDE, I would LOVE to get raped by a hot girl LOL. You guys are HILARIOUS. Oh and as for "How many rapes done by females have you heard about?" It's actually very common in Russia. In Russia, women rape YOU! LOL, though I actually know of three particular cases where a woman will drug a man, take him to her car, drive him to her house, then rape him. BUT, it's not rape if you enjoy it LOL. This is hilarious. I can't believe this is an actual argument. You sure made my day a whole lot brighter."Just so you knew, English does not have a gender-neutral word."They?
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

DUDE, I would LOVE to get raped by a hot girl LOL. You guys are HILARIOUS.I had the same thought myself, if the the raper was a hot girl then why not? But then it wouldn't be rape because you want it, she has your approval. But if it's an ugly, big, and fat female... best not to even think about it (shivers). It's actually very common in Russia. In Russia, women rape YOU! LOL,Russia is decades behind rest of the world. Russia is no country to be taken as an example to justify something negative as "normal" or common. That country and a large number of its people are SERIOUSLY fucked up. I know, I live right next to it.though I actually know of three particular cases where a woman will drug a man, take him to her car, drive him to her house, then rape him.Men do it far more than women.BUT, it's not rape if you enjoy it LOL. This is hilarious. I can't believe this is an actual argument. You sure made my day a whole lot brighter.I just go with the arguments wherever they lead. This one did turn out rather funny."Just so you knew, English does not have a gender-neutral word."They?When it comes to calling one person as you can with the words "he" and "she". "It" is used when referencing objects, things, and animals, but not humans."They" is plural. There's no singular.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

"??? Rapists are a vital part of society?"Yes they are, because without rape, we wouldn't have rap. JK LOL
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

True enough, but that doesn't account for murders. I think the death penalty should be used for murders also.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

I think you have a fucked up sense of what's morally right and wrong.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

What's wrong about it a killer destroys a persons life well a rapists does the same thing just becuase there alive doesn't mean that they don't live with that for the rest of thier lives u have no idea what they go threw unless u have been in that position or know someone really close that has had that happen to him or her don't tell me ur sticking up for rapists maybe ur one of them
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

Wow, you obviously are the most ignorant person to post on this argument yet. Spelling errors, grammar errors, the run on sentences, and the solecism in your sentences; are you 5 years old?
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

I'm ignorant how? lol well let me tell u how it works were I'm from in california people fight with each for the opportunity to stab rapists yea I'm not to good at sentences or spelling I spent time learning more important things I have never needed spelling or how to write anything really important to b honest but I do have a g.e.d LOL let me guess why ur mad becuase u still live with ur mom
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

Wow, you have a G.E.D. What happened? Dropped out of high school? Or did you flunk out? Judging by you sentences (if you can call them that), you flunked out. And as for me, I have a Computer Engineering Associates degree and I'm working towards my Bachelors of Science in Computer Engineering, so keep that in mind. I suppose the "really important things" that you are learning that aren't reading and writing is how to roll a joint or take LSD since I couldn't imagine what a person who still lives in his mom's basement learns.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

I have 2 bodyshops and own 2 house outright no I didn't flunk out I was in prison for a few years shit happens well if ur ever in northern California let me know and will see how smart u are face to face tuff guy I doubt u have ever even have had real life experience with criminals or people that have killed people u just think u know everything and open ur mouth
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

I'm licensed to carry a gun in 21 states. It doesn't matter how tough you are when you are staring down the barrel of a .45, so I'll gladly meet you face to face.Oh, and by the way, it's two, you're (you are), you, tough, you; and these are some punctuation marks: . , ; : ? ! This is an apostrophe: ' These are quotation marks: " These are parentheses:()I hope you learned a lot from this post. In our next post, we can learn basic grammar rules. If you feel confident enough, we can even learn advanced sentence structure. I can even teach you how to diagram sentences.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

You think your the only one that has a gun computer tough guy yea let me know when your in northern California but I'm done going back and fourth with u its just a big waste of time u have nothing to learn from and all ur grammar and bullshit is a waste of time for me if u know what I'm saying that's all that matters
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

Ur just annoying that's it u debate things u don't know about u just give ur opinion suck a dick
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

No, your sentences are annoying. Just as annoying as your lack of facts.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

So somebody should have their life, their supreme possession, taken away from them simply because a small part of their body went inside of another person's body?
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

People are destroyed mentally for life and some even kill them selves.due to what happened to them becuase it was so traumatic and most get away with one and do it again some even start killing thier victims so yea .I'm surprised that you are sticking up for rapists
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

The Pyschiatrist will help the victim not the killing .
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

"He who takes a man's life, so shall his life be taken."It's not just the act of murder that's bad, but also the thought process leading up to the actual murder. It takes a really hateful, spiteful, incurable mind to do something as think about murder until he actually does it. Death to rapists and murderers.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

In which case, why is the death penalty acceptable? By your definition, the death penalty is hateful, spiteful, etc. And how is life imprisonment a less effective solution?
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

No the death penalty in not hateful because it is performed due to the fact that he killed someone. Unlike the murderer who was probably robbing a bank or something like that.Well, what't the point of leaving him in prison until he dies? Just kill him right then and there.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

No the death penalty in not hateful because it is performed due to the fact that he killed someone. Unlike the murderer who was probably robbing a bank or something like that.An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. How can we teach society that murder is wrong by murdering those that do it?Well, what't the point of leaving him in prison until he dies? Just kill him right then and there.Because there's nothing to say that life imprisonment is a less harsh punishment. Humans are group animals, an entire life separated from those closest to you is potentially a fate worse than death.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. How can we teach society that murder is wrong by murdering those that do it?"An eye for an eye won't make the whole world blind if the person never took the eye in the first place. By allowing the death penalty, you are setting an ultimate standard for those who murdered. If you want to kill somebody, then expect the consequences of your actions."Because there's nothing to say that life imprisonment is a less harsh punishment. Humans are group animals, an entire life separated from those closest to you is potentially a fate worse than death."Because prisons don't have visitors lists? So much for "separation from those closest to you". And death would do a better job.
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: No this is wrong.

An eye for an eye won't make the whole world blind if the person never took the eye in the first place.The death penalty does not prevent murder. Sticking with the phrase, people will take eyes no matter what the punishment is. Thus the punishment set should not be one that is hypocritical and morally questionable.By allowing the death penalty, you are setting an ultimate standard for those who murdered. If you want to kill somebody, then expect the consequences of your actions.What of those who care not for life or death? The death penalty does not faze sociopaths, suicide bombers, and indoctrinated fundamentalists. For them, death is not the ultimate standard: and they carry out the worst crimes.Because prisons don't have visitors lists? So much for "separation from those closest to you". And death would do a better job.I don't support the idea of a visitor's list. I prefer complete solitary confinement. And what do you mean by "death would do a better job"?
Debate: Do you agree with the Death Penalty?
Side: Yes! Kill for punishment!

"The death penalty does not prevent murder."Neither does life in prison. In fact, my state doesn't have the death penalty, but it has one of the highest murder rates in the country. So I guess your statement was wrong. (Oh wait! You're going to post some B.S. website statistic that will some how "prove" that I'm wrong. Well keep these things in mind if you are going to do something stupid like that, the statistic has to take these into accountability: border control/illegal immigration, gun control, and population size. These are the minimum amount of things that have to be accounted for in order for me to know you aren't blowing smoke out your ears.)"Thus the punishment set should not be one that is hypocritical and morally questionable."Well, if your profile is correct, your an atheist. You don't believe in absolutes. So stop allowing all this B.S. to spill out you mouth when you think morality is relative; because it's really stinking up the place."I don't support the idea of a visitor's list. I prefer complete solitary confinement. And what do you mean by "death would do a better job"?"I mean death would do a better job of separating them from those close to them. And hey, if you think man is just an animal, then the death penalty shouldn't matter to you since you can't say life has any intrinsic value (remember, you believe in relativity). And since you don't believe in life after death, it's not like he's going anywhere; so there's can't be a negative side affects to his death anyways. After all, when he dies, he'll simply cease to exist. Therefore is just the past, and therefore; will never have existed (remember, existence is what's in your mind according to atheism) so you can put all this behind you. Now I've just killed off any "moral" and "physical" argument you might have. Good luck.