azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

I stopped debating her when I realized she wanted me to do all her homework for her. It doesn't work like that, I back up my claims with evidence as should be expected, so she should back up her own claims with evidence. I'm not going to do research into her own claims, neither would she research my claims, if she can't provide actual evidence, that's her problem not mine. She's a big girl, she can do her own research, and if not, she's not worth my time.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

She tries same stuff on everybody. People send her all info, evidence sources etc and she tries that again with same lies on other people...
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

They lied about it not having any paint on it. They lied about NASA testing it....see? Everybody sees your bullshit.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

And did you bother to read it? And the rest of the arguments?
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

I'm afraid you're wrong. The bible predicted Israel would once again become a nation & it happened in 1948. The so called saying that man made Israel a nation doesn't change the fact that the bible got it right. If you study the bible, it states God's promise to Abraham that the earth is as numerous as the stars & that the earth was flat. In the time of the 1400s or so they believe that there were only certain amount of stars & that the earth was flat. Secularist also denied that the Romans were trying to kill the Christians & it was later proven to be true. If anyone watches the documentary Jesus & The Lost 40 Days,they'll see for themselves(what history already proved) that He did walk the earth. I know this sounds silly, but if you look at Superbook's version of,King Darius,you'll see that's what he looked like. Anyone who doesn't believe me,can go visit the temple in Babylon,see for themselves & do a comparison. Anyone who doesn't believe me can research this.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Callaghan is a hoaxer. He published numerous papers and books on healing rocks. He is a bug scientist by education.NASA never did anything to that picture.Centifolia is mentally ill religious zealot.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

I have read much of those so called "debunked".That's a total lie. You still haven't read the article you keep telling people to read.All of them ended up as laughing stock in Christian forums.Further indication that you didn't read anything, you are just taking the opinion of other people. We laugh at the Bible, therefore it isn't true, according to you.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

I seem you try to lie to other people....It ignored the fact that the tilma lasted for 500 years when it should have decayed in 5.Never tested material. It avoids the topics that NASA tested it and came to the conclusion that it was not painted with human hands nor made up of any known material.Your favourite fake NASA scientist. you are really dumb religious zealot.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Never tested material.Your favourite fake NASA scientist.LOL :DIts amusing how the more evidence you find, the more of an idiotic you become.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Actually the theory of man evolving from apes has been debunked. The only proof evolutionist have are mere drawings and computer animations. In other words, they have no proof whatsoever. In Job 40:15. It states of an animal that has a tail a long as a Cedar Tree. Anyone who has seen a Cedar Tree knows theres no current animal that has a tail that.long. So what animal is it? It's a dinosaur my friend
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

apart of hundreds fossils of human predecessors ...yeah they have nothing
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

The Idea of some kind of creature having the power to control events and create things out of nothing is just to ridiculous to be true. Believing in it is on the same level of ridiculousness as believing in witchcraft, fairies, mermaids etc.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Perhaps as ridiculous as the purpose of evolution and existence of life, isnt it?Evolution is real, but why does it happen? If it seeks survival of the fittest, cockroaches has already won. If it seeks long life, trees has made it to the top. But no, the one who sits on the top of the food chain is the one who has no claws, no fangs, not even a good birthrate.And to add insult to injury, this animals are the only ones who question his beliefs. I choose intelligent design over nihilistic denials
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

You clearly do not understand evolution. It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.-Charles DarwinThat is us, we are the most adaptable to change. Also no way are cockroaches the fittest just because they can survive nuclear explosions, of course trees would not be on the top of the food chain because you might have noticed but trees aren't carnivorous. And just because you are Atheist does not mean you are Nihilist. People think Nihilism is just not believing in Religion but really it is believing life is completely without meaning and usually that nothing exists.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Also no way are cockroaches the fittest just because they can survive nuclear explosions,Wouldn't that make Cockroaches the highest level of evolutionized oganisms? They would clearly be most adaptable to change if they could survive a nuclear explosion. A human would be obliterated. A cockroach would survive. Which species shall flourish and repopulate? Humans or Roaches?
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

No, nuclear attacks don't go on all the time. If the Earth was hit by a bunch of nukes, the Cockroaches would be highest. They are able to adapt to a situation that hasn't occurred. That doesn't make you fit.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

No, nuclear attacks don't go on all the time. You do understand that this is a hypothetical event I am talking about right? They are able to adapt to a situation that hasn't occurred. That doesn't make you fit.Are you sure about that? Survival of the fittest. Who are the "fittest"? Those who survive. Who survives? Those that are the "fittest". If a Cockroach survives a nuclear explosion and can adapt to the new environment and reproduce successfully then it is most fit for change since a nuclear explosion is a great change. Darwin would agree that those that survive a change were most fit to survive. That is how evolution works. Mutations occur, and if they fail to have to survive then the successful mutations are deemed as "the fittest". Like I really don't think that's hard to understand.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

You do understand that this is a hypothetical event I am talking about right?You do understand that in a hypothetical event you can't draw conclusions unless the hypothetical event actually happens, right?Are you sure about that? Survival of the fittest. Who are the "fittest"? Those who survive. Who survives? Those that are the "fittest". If a Cockroach survives a nuclear explosion and can adapt to the new environment and reproduce successfully then it is most fit for change since a nuclear explosion is a great change. Darwin would agree that those that survive a change were most fit to survive. That is how evolution works. Mutations occur, and if they fail to have to survive then the successful mutations are deemed as "the fittest".It is survival of the fittest FOR WHAT ENVIRONMENT EXISTS. You don't get kudos points for being able to adapt to an environment that doesn't exist. According to you polar bears are more fit tan humans because they could survive the world freezing over. That's not how it works. As we can see, if the environment heats up instead of cools down, the polar bear no longer has the adaptation advantage. You can speculate all you want on whether the cockroach would be the fittest in the case of a nuclear strike, but your conclusion is worthless if there is no nuclear strike. Like I said before the cockroach would be the highest IN A NUCLEAR STRIKE. Like I really don't think that's hard to understand.Clearly it is, you don't get it.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

You do understand that in a hypothetical event you can't draw conclusions unless the hypothetical event actually happens, right?Point of a hypothetical event is to make conclusions based on what you think would happen. That's the point of hypothetic situations. Based on this if it doesn't happen I can't make a conclusion off of it. Let me provide you with an example. Suppose subject A has been hit by a car and died. Subject B feels sad and lost. Now in the hypothetical we can say what if Subject A survived? Then Subject B would not be as sad and lost as he is now. That is drawing a conclusion from a hypothetical.  It is survival of the fittest FOR WHAT ENVIRONMENT EXISTS. Okay? Let me use some logic here then.1. The fittest are the one who survive in their given environment.2. A nuclear bomb goes off.3. Environment changes and is now different.4. Species A, B, and C survive and reproduce and continue living. 5. The were the "fittest" to the change in their environment. 6. Species A, B, and C still exist in the new environment. 7. They truly are the "fittest" in this instance.I have said this the entire time. I don't get what you are attempting to argue. According to you polar bears are more fit tan humans because they could survive the world freezing over. That's not how it works. You clearly don't understand my argument at all. Did you even read what I said?iLoveVersace: " If a Cockroach survives a nuclear explosion and can adapt to the new environment and reproduce successfully then it is most fit for change since a nuclear explosion is a great change."Also if the world freezes over and polar bears are fine in that present environment they would be the most fit. Which is what I said about a Cockroach. Totes thanks for trying. As we can see, if the environment heats up instead of cools down, the polar bear no longer has the adaptation advantage.That's right, and any species that can survive extreme heat is now the "fittest" or at least "fit" to survive.  You can speculate all you want on whether the cockroach would be the fittest in the case of a nuclear strike, but your conclusion is worthless if there is no nuclear strike.Oh okay. So its useless to speculate if humans would exist or survive after a catastrophic meteor strike too, right? Since the strike has not actually happened, yet, then speculation is useless. Cool. Go confirm that with any scientist or astronomer that spends their entire life speculating these things. They would agree with you in a second. Like I said before the cockroach would be the highest IN A NUCLEAR STRIKE.Didn't I already say this? Yes Claire. Yes you did. Clearly it is, you don't get it.Pfft, says your argument.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

iLoveVersace:"Wouldn't that make Cockroaches the highest level of evolutionized oganisms?"That was your original argument. This makes no claims that highest levels because of nuclear strike.You said the answer was yes. Do you still say that about today's current conditions? If you don't think that is true for today's conditions, then you are correct. If you still think they are with today's conditions you have argued against yourself.You clearly don't understand my argument at all. Did you even read what I said?I was saying polar bears currently do not become more fit because of being able to survive freezing.That's right, and any species that can survive extreme heat is now the "fittest" or at least "fit" to survive.But, doesn't change how well the species has adapted to the current environment.Oh okay. So its useless to speculate if humans would exist or survive after a catastrophic meteor strike too, right? Since the strike has not actually happened, yet, then speculation is useless. Cool. Go confirm that with any scientist or astronomer that spends their entire life speculating these things. They would agree with you in a second.You misunderstood what I meant. I meant the conclusion can't be applied to current conditions. You went a little overboard there.Didn't I already say this? Yes Claire. Yes you did.So, your whole rebuttal is kind of stupid because we both understand what you wrote here.Pfft, says your argument.Your rebuttal doesn't seem to address my argument at all, so it makes sense to claim you don't understand.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

That was your original argument. This makes no claims that highest levels because of nuclear strike.Did you read the rest of my "original argument"? It all flows together. You should have posted it all since I addresses his argument directly.  You said the answer was yes. Do you still say that about today's current conditions? They are still fit since they still survive. We are still fit since humans still survive.  I was saying polar bears currently do not become more fit because of being able to survive freezing.I never said potential made them more fit. I did hint that potential made them more adaptable to change. If your genetics help you survive in multiple environments, biomes, or whatever, you are fit. If you survive and reproduce you are fit. Both cockroakches and polar bear do this today. Therefore they are both fit. If a nuclear strike occurs the cockroach would survive and reproduce and still remain fit. The polar bear would die. It wasn't fit enough. But, doesn't change how well the species has adapted to the current environment.If it can surive and reproduce it has adapted pretty well to it's current environment.  You misunderstood what I meant. I meant the conclusion can't be applied to current conditions. You went a little overboard there.Nope. I went off of what you said in text since it was so stupid and idiotic. Now you just want to change what you said. Cartman: " You can speculate all you want on whether the cockroach would be the fittest in the case of a nuclear strike, but your conclusion is worthless if there is no nuclear strike."So, by your own words a conclusion is useless if the event hasn't actually happened. Also speculation can be applied to current situations since they will help us adapt to that incoming change. I speculate that humans won't survive a metoer strike that will influence us to find ways to sirvive the metoer strike and begin to speculate again. So, your whole rebuttal is kind of stupid because we both understand what you wrote here.What's stupid is you. You = stupid. My argument was fine. You thought it wasn't. You're stupid. Your rebuttal doesn't seem to address my argument at all, so it makes sense to claim you don't understand.You know very well that my argument stayed on the same topic as yours and was perfectly relevant, idiot. Oh Claire why do you put up with this? I have no clue. I didn't think he was that idiotic.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Did you read the rest of my "original argument"? It all flows together. You should have posted it all since I addresses his argument directly.The rest of your original argument said that cockroaches are more fit because they could survive a nuclear explosion: "They would clearly be most adaptable to change if they could survive a nuclear explosion.". Now you are saying that surviving at all puts you at the highest level. They are still fit since they still survive. We are still fit since humans still survive.You are the one who assigned some higher level of fit that doesn't apply, not me.I never said potential made them more fit. I did hint that potential made them more adaptable to change. If your genetics help you survive in multiple environments, biomes, or whatever, you are fit. If you survive and reproduce you are fit. Both cockroakches and polar bear do this today. Therefore they are both fit. If a nuclear strike occurs the cockroach would survive and reproduce and still remain fit. The polar bear would die. It wasn't fit enough.Not true, your original argument said cockroaches were more fit.Nope. I went off of what you said in text since it was so stupid and idiotic. Now you just want to change what you said.Cartman: " You can speculate all you want on whether the cockroach would be the fittest in the case of a nuclear strike, but your conclusion is worthless if there is no nuclear strike."So, by your own words a conclusion is useless if the event hasn't actually happened. Also speculation can be applied to current situations since they will help us adapt to that incoming change. I speculate that humans won't survive a metoer strike that will influence us to find ways to sirvive the metoer strike and begin to speculate again.I didn't say you misunderstood what I said, I said you misunderstood what I meant. I didn't make it clear when the conclusion is worthless. The previous argument was to clear that up. What's stupid is you. You = stupid. My argument was fine. You thought it wasn't. You're stupid.Your argument repeated established fact. What is smart about that?You know very well that my argument stayed on the same topic as yours and was perfectly relevant, idiot. Oh Claire why do you put up with this? I have no clue. I didn't think he was that idiotic.Yes, you stayed on the same topic, but you were supposed to go to the new topic of showing how your opinion is different. I didn't say you were irrelevant. I said you didn't actually address what I said.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

The rest of your original argument said that cockroaches are more fit because they could survive a nuclear explosion: "They would clearly be most adaptable to change if they could survive a nuclear explosion.". Now you are saying that surviving at all puts you at the highest level.How in God's name did you not understand what I said after quoting it?Let me explain it for you since you can't understand it.Cockroaches would be most adaptable to change if a nuclear occured and they survived. That means exactly what it reads.Now I am saying "surving at all puts you at the highest level"? Really? When did I say that? Oh that's right. I never did. You are at the highest level of survival if you can survive a nuclear explosion, DURING AND AFTER THE EXPLOSION, which apparently cockroaches can do.  You are the one who assigned some higher level of fit that doesn't apply, not meWhat? You asked a question and I answered it. This is your response to my answer? Not true, your original argument said cockroaches were more fit.This is my entire first post. iLoveVersace: "Wouldn't that make Cockroaches the highest level of evolutionized oganisms? They would clearly be most adaptable to change* if they could survive a nuclear explosion. A human would be obliterated. A cockroach would survive. Which species shall flourish and repopulate? Humans or Roaches?"Never did I say more fit. Thanks for lying agiain, Liar. I didn't say you misunderstood what I said, I said you misunderstood what I meant. I didn't make it clear when the conclusion is worthless. The previous argument was to clear that up.You need to be more specific when you argue. Your argument repeated established fact. What is smart about that?Did you want some new form of transendent knowledge? Or a basis of previously known fact?  you were supposed to go to the new topic of showing how your opinion is different.What opinion? Why even discuss why my non-existent opinion needs a new topic? That's irrelevant. I never need to tell you why my non-existent opinion is different. Thats completely irrelevant.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

How in God's name did you not understand what I said after quoting it?Let me explain it for you since you can't understand it.Cockroaches would be most adaptable to change if a nuclear occured and they survived.That means exactly what it reads.Now I am saying "surving at all puts you at the highest level"? Really? When did I say that? Oh that's right. I never did. You are at the highest level of survival if you can survive a nuclear explosion, DURING AND AFTER THE EXPLOSION, which apparently cockroaches can do.Your statement is making a blanket claim that cockroaches are more fit in current conditions because they can survive an event that is not happening currently. Are you claiming this is true or not?What? You asked a question and I answered it. This is your response to my answer?You assigned the higher level before I asked anything.This is my entire first post.iLoveVersace: "Wouldn't that make Cockroaches the highest level of evolutionized oganisms? They would clearly be most adaptable to change if they could survive a nuclear explosion. A human would be obliterated. A cockroach would survive. Which species shall flourish and repopulate? Humans or Roaches?"Never did I say more fit. Thanks for lying agiain, Liar.How does that not mean more fit? If you are not saying cockroaches are more fit, then you didn't say anything at all. Do you believe that cockroaches are more fit since they can survive a nuclear explosion?You need to be more specific when you argue.Why? I was specific and you still didn't understand me.Did you want some new form of transendent knowledge? Or a basis of previously known fact?Which one of those is you actually showing how I have a said something different than what you believe and how it is different?What opinion? Why even discuss why my non-existent opinion needs a new topic? That's irrelevant. I never need to tell you why my non-existent opinion is different. Thats completely irrelevant.You don't have opinions? That's news to me.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Im done. You suck at arguing. I done. Go argue with someone else and then place your wity insult below like you usually do.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

At least I am not the stupid bitch who thinks nuclear explosions are how you determine who the fittest creatures are.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

SHE MY ALLY, U R NOT,YOU BE UGLY, SHE BE NOT! xoxo
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

She isn't your ally you kiss ass.Plus, how do you know how to judge female beauty, aren't you gay?
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Fuck off you homophobic cunt.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

It is not homophobic to say that a gay person can't recognize beauty in the opposite sex.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

I am not gay.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Oh, ok. A lot of your comments seem very gay. My mistake.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

we are the most adaptable to changeNo were not. The most adaptable to change are ants, rats, cockroaches, grass and phytoplanktons.By the way, ever heard of carnivorous plants? If evolution seeks to create the most flexible species, then it shouldnt have created humans who focuses on intelligence. Humans are one of the weakest predators in the planet, we have no body weapon to use and yet, we now rule the land, sea and sky. Gee, I wonder why
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

You are truly mentally ill :D
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Said by the person who suffers from it :D
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Some plants are carnivorous but trees aren't and even the ones that are can only consume insects.The reason why we rule than land, sea and sky is because of our superior intelligence so we know how to build tools, weapons, buildings, aircraft, ships and boat whereas over species don't. Gradually over time humans used their intelligence to develop new technology, it was the work of them alone and evolution not a creator deity.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

The reason why we rule than land, sea and sky is because of our superior intelligencePrecisely. If evolution seeks adaptability, it would have improved the body of small rodents but instead, evolution decided to create humans who can not only create weapons but also test everything he knows.Philosophy never improved our survival rate. And yet, it exists. Would you still believe that evolution is a random chance?I vote for intelligent design.