azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be proud.

I disagree. America is great because it can be improved upon. Its remarkable that the founding fathers so many years ago had the foresight to allow the people the ability and the freedom to change it.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

Nothing is great because it can be improved upon. It has potential, maybe. That's like saying "North Korea is great because it can be improved upon".
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be proud.

That is a simplistic argument. I would venture that North Korea is not great exactly because it can not be improved upon. Of course there is also the population starving, being run by an insane dictator, extreme technological backwardness, etc. but these problems can't be fixed like they surely would be if North Korea had the same type of government that we do.You take for granted that we can improve our country. I don't think that is what makes our country great, but it certainly deserves more credit than you are giving it.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be proud.

Stating that something is the greatest in no way means it cannot be improved upon. The best in any category can most definitely be improved upon but does not disqualify it from being the greatest at the time.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

Ah, but too often the greatest get smug and when that happens, they won't be the greatest for long. I believe we're in the state of disbelief that we're being left behind right now, not willing to accept the facts that this nation needs to evolve.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be proud.

If your statement were true, then you would be happy with the US being smug because it would lead to "won't be the greatest for long" but you are not happy which proves your statement is pure bull.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

So you have deduced that I WANT the US to fail? How? You're wrong by the way, let's see an argument and not an accusation.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

america is where people who lie to further themselves, and i know liars are everywhere, america has a concentration, im an american, and i dont really feel loyal to my so called homeland.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

I care, why? No country can be considered best, in any way. Shut up about it.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be proud.

These debates are not required. You dont care then dont put up juvenile comments. To your point, any country can be considered the best, its just up to the individual to think what they want.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

There are only great countries, not the greatest. We have our strengths and our faults, nor it makes us better or worse.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

this is such a fixed debate because:1) CD is written in english therefore only english speaking people use it.2)a large population of english speaking people belong to the U.S.AI don't have anything against americans but I hate it when citizens of the U.S.A say they're the greatest.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

No, I'd probably go with New Zealand. Low religon rate, high tolerance. Heck, you might not have to pretend you're Canadian to be accepted.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

I would say that it is relative as different people have their own views. Usually a person would say that his or own country would be the best as it is their home.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

America didn't accept blacks long time ago and they fought a lot of wars, so I would recommend Finland, because their country is kind of peaceful and they are the Highest GDP country a few years ago by the way the year I wrote this was 2010.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

is it fuck !!!!!!!! they all are a bunch of flumps!!!!!!!!!
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be proud.

What? I can't even figure out what your argument is supposed to be.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

What makes a great country? is it the wealth? armed forces? so many things that define a country yet none of which make it great, land is land and is not great but the soils for man, but people say the USA is great because they defeat "bad people" in war such as the Nazi and the Japanese during WW2, yes Hitler was crazy but aside that, is it really that great to kill someone? that after you think "what if he had a family" and that will stay on that person forever, but a great country does not exist so long as there is war.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

Even a blind could see the abnormalities in the country also the country was unfit for human beings to live here/there
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

The war of independence is the worst thing that’s happened to America it seems. As it’s just been fighting every other country in the world since becoming republic of Britain. If you compare what the founding fathers wanted and what it’s become they would revolt!
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

The United States fought tooth and nail for their freedom, sacrificed thousands, destroyed families, uprooted homes, killed many good people.Canada asked; now we're free!
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

Not anymore. (data below are quoted from Time vol 177/10)1. USA is not the most prosperous country in the world. Norway is2. USA comes 12th in college graduations.3. USA comes in 27th place for life expectancy. Japan is first, Hong Kong is seventh.4. USA ranks 31st for adequate food and shelter. First is Denmark, second is Singapore
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

No I think you should judge a society by how it treats its weakest citizens. The Us doesn't have Health insurance for everyone. Most industrial countries do. Our education system is falling behind and the gap between rich and poor is the growing.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

Most of those who are probably for the "proud" side are probably Americans! And that is what makes all the other citizens of the surrounding countries angry! The reason that we "hate" them so much is because they don't know that we hate them! I think they need to stop taking themselves so seriously, and perhaps just focus on actually making their country great, because part of being a great country/nation, is having a great reputation. And I bet that most people out there, no matter if you are reading this a loathing every single word I put down... you know it... USA has a horrendous reputation with the rest of the globe as being the "bully". I think they need to grow up and start taking responsibility for their actions, just like we would teach any young child to do so.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

American and agreeing. It doesn't take much sight to see that everyone has a problem with is, and it doesn't take much to see why either.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: don't know

I don't know. I haven't been to every country, so I couldn't possibly say. I guess this might depend on what you desire in a Nation.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

America isn't so great. I'm American and I wish I lived in another country. A european country to be exact (not sure which one though). We've been raised to believe America is the best country. How are we the best? Sure we have freedom and democracy, but what is truly great about America? We aren't a particularly peaceful country. We've had one bad politician after another get elected to lead our country. We're fighting wars that we should stay out of. Our soldiers are fighting over seas and losing their lives. Those are lives that can never be taken back. There are countries that stay out of these wars. Countries where people don't have to worry about their loved ones dying in a pointless fight. America is a very controlling country. America is viewed as the capital of the world. For America to be the GREATEST country, we need to start thinking about ways to be more peaceful and more caring towards our own people. Allow each individual the chance to live an exceptional life and not waste it. I also would like to clarify, that I have great respect for our troops and I am glad that I live in America instead of some third world country.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

Hell no. We are behind in almost everything but military power. Just because you are stronger than someone else doesn't make you better than them. That's the way a child would think and that's how most of our so called leaders think.
Debate: IS the USA the greatest country.
Side: Citizens should be apologetic.

How could the USA possibly be the greatest country? So many Americans act like we're the only country with freedom or something and just show their ignorance by saying things like that. We lead the world in only three categories: Number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of scientifically illiterate adults, and defense spending.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Certainly, science can explain almost everything in our world and even make logical educated guesses on the things it can't. There are detailed scientific reports that explain everything from the Big Bang to how evolution created us.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Certainly, science can explain almost everything in our world Oh? They can't even explain gravity, quantum entanglement, super symmetry, or the double slit experiment...
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Science is the only reason you have any clue about gravity, super symmetry, or the double slit experiment. You wouldn't be uttering those words without science.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

If science is created, then it isn't science we should be giving perks to, and they point to that very assessment. Cue atheist rage.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Cue atheist confusion. Please clarify. What perks now? Science is "created" and received perks because of it?
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

If you were a computer programmer and created a virtual reality game, does the binary computer code get the credit, or do you....
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

If you're eating alphabet soup and the letters say "John" does John get credit?
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Not if you arranged them. The universe coming into existence by the construct of dual self error correcting code (James Gates) is more like every book in the library of Congress and the internet manifesting by chance.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

I am not entirely convinced of the reality of James Gates's theory. It is highly theoretical and there is not much experimental science to support it if any. I would also disagree with the idea that the universe manifesting is highly improbable. We do not know the cause. We cannot say anything about the probability of a universe coming into existence because we have no other universe to compare it to. Perhaps it isn't improbable at all. There might be billions of universes and a universe manifesting could be quite common. There is no way to measure the probability of this.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Perhaps it isn't improbable at all. There might be billions of universes and a universe manifesting could be quite common.Aaaah... and in those infinite universes and realities, the jackpot would eventually spew out the highest possible and immortal being...
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

We do not know what is possible because we don't know anything outside of this universe. It is pointless to talk about the probability of something happening when it has happened. Hence the anthropic principle. Perhaps there is some super powerful being out there. But there is no evidence of it. You can make up whatever you want outside of this universe, but until you can show that it is there, there is no point in believing in it. Funny thing about God is no matter how much we discover, as long as there is something we don't know, somebody will say "god did it" until they are proven wrong. Just like lightning, the sun, earthquakes, disease, and so on and so on.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Perhaps there is some super powerful being out there. But there is no evidence of it. I've provided you evidence. If you look you'll see that faith is reasonable and logical. If not, that says it all. It means you don't want any evidence, which is fine, but that's still reality.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

You did not provide evidence. You cant just suggest a theory and call it evidence. You need an experiment or some sort of thing that can be measured. You need facts not assumptions. Just saying that god could be out there or pulling out a bible quote isn't evidence.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Just like lightning, the sun, earthquakes, disease, and so on and so on.The Bible makes no claims that natural events are all acts of God.It even says to not worship the sun, stars, moon, etc because God created them.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/4-19.htm
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

But these are things people thought before the bible. And there are definitely parts of the bible that are reinterpreted because we shouldn't take them literally. Unless you believe everything in the bible is a hard fact. My point is that when people don't know an answer, they say it is god. This happens in your religion just like all the others.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

You can make up whatever you want outside of this universe, but until you can show that it is there, there is no point in believing in it.Sounds like a decent theist or atheist argument but logical either way.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

I would also disagree with the idea that the universe manifesting is highly improbableIt's highly improbable.http://www.livescience.com/46478-universe-should-have-collapsed.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned Universehttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/ Copy paste-Faber, a professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, was referring to the idea that there is something uncannily perfect about our universe. The laws of physics and the values of physical constants seem, as Goldilocks said, “just right.” If even one of a host of physical properties of the universe had been different, stars, planets, and galaxies would never have formed. Life would have been all but impossible.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

There were a few points brought up here. First, the universe manifesting is different from the conditions of the universe being finely tuned for life (aka the goldilocks principle). Have you heard of the anthropic principle? Basically it means if our universe wasn't finely tuned for life, we wouldn't be here. So there's no point in discussing it. We know we are here already. The chances of us being here are known to be possible because we are here.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

So there's no point in discussing it. We know we are here already. The chances of us being here are known to be possible because we are hereIf reality is finite, the probability of a universe that supports our existing is virtually impossible by random chance. If it's infinite, hmm... may be pandora's box for atheism.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

There's no way to know if reality is finite or infinite. If it is finite, we know it isn't impossible because we are here. If it's infinite, our existence is inevitable. The size of the universe is so massive, that even the smallest probability is almost inevitable. Given the probability of life happening in this universe, most astrophysicists are confident that we are not alone. Even though life is rare, there are millions of opportunities for it to happen. I am attaching a link of a talk on this by Stephen Hawking who is widely regarded as one of the most intelligent people to have ever lived. Here is his take on the probability of the universe, second law of thermodynamics and entropy, and even a touch on where we are headed. Very beautiful stuff.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

If it's infinite, our existence is inevitableI agree with this logic. It's why more studied theists consider God a strong possibility.If it is finite, we have to mentally wrap our minds around the idea that a thing can literally exist inside of...nothing.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

I admit, I prefer the concept of an infinite reality. But I still find it hard to believe there is some sort of all knowing entity that made it. I think it is much more probable that we created the concept of a god than the other way around.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

I wrote computer code most of my life, so I view it as an infinite reality can only exist within a medium with a programmed loop in the program. God would essentially be the "programmer" of sorts.In simulation theory, it is easier to create simulated realities than real realities, so it is more probable that you are in a simulated reality.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

I'm okay with the idea that the universe might be a simulation. I would even be okay with the idea that we might be created by something else. But I still think it's a big jump to say that we understand the nature of "the programmer". I wouldn't necessarily call him God. You can't jump from we are programmed to this programmer is an all knowing, all powerful being. And you can't say this being wasn't created himself. It's also highly unlikely that this being is the same person behind all of the books in the bible. That's too big of a jump. We could start with that the universe is programmed as a theory. But that's still a vague theory, and we still know too little to understand anymore than that.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

You can't jump from we are programmed to this programmer is an all knowing, all powerful beingSure I can. If I showed you inner dimensional beings that were hive minded and had mental and telepathic capabilities beyond comprehension, you'd happily accept intellectualy that they were there. I'm simply proposing someone of such abilities who created our reality. They themselves could be a simulation based off of another version of themself that has the very abilities in the simulation that created our simulation of a god.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

In order for me to accept them, you wild have to demonstrate their ability. Like if you showed me a painting and said there was a painter, i could agree. But if you showed me a painting and said the painter was telepathic, I would be skeptical of his ability based on the fact that all I saw was a painting.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

I have the links to my sites on my profile. I made the sites so that I didn't have to produce hours of information to each person. It's very time consuming. You are welcome to check them out if you so choose.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Like if you showed me a painting and said there was a painter, i could agreeDarwinism, DNA, bodily functions, laws of physics, etc are systematic. You are looking at something much more systematic and complex than a painting just by looking at the plethera of systems all around you.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Are you saying you think there is a painter of our reality, but that you just are not sure of his characteristics?
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

And you can't say this being wasn't created himselfFor all we know he made infinite simululated realities and the realities are governed by a simulated version of himself that is eternal, omnipotent and omniscient, and the programhas so many back ups and error correcting loops that it cannot ever end.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

For all we know that child be possible. But you shouldn't assume its true just because you can imagine it happening. You have to first show there's a programmer. then show new evidence supporting his additional programs.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Perhaps. DNA, Super Symmetry, RNA, the double slit experiment, quantum entanglement would be a few examples.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

And the codes, loops and simulation replicate faster than they can be destroyed, and they repair the old simulations eternally and cannot end. It only gets bigger and bigger until it is unstoppable.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Given the probability of life happening in this universe, most astrophysicists are confident that we are not aloneLooks like we share a common belief.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

We do not know the causeTheists propose a theory based on the Big Bang, the Kalam Cosmological argument, the fine tuned universe argument, the Fermi Paradox argument, and the historical account of a man named Jesus Christ, added with the prophecies that I provided you.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Those are 5 separate theories. Each of these I have an answer to, but I think that leads into a deeper debate. I would invite you to start that debate on a seperate channel.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Of course, if science begins proving God, you'll turn on it in a heartbeat, and the liberal media will label science as "propaganda".
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

If science began proving god, I would gladly accept. But fact of the matter is that there's nothing to show. Theres no modern day miracles that are verified. There's no real noahs ark. Not even a prediction of the future that isn't just vague enough to be questioned. I want the evidence. I crave it. Send me a real link and not a link to your Facebook page.That's the beauty of science. It shows us what is real. That's also why the religious have made it their enemy. It exposes their lies. Then they toss and turn and try to use science and refute it at the same time instead of actually making a strong case for the god that should evidently be there.