azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

1. You are so accustomed to being defensive that you come across as antagonistic to begin with, which makes those who engage with you far more likely to do so more aggressively and confrontationally themselves. When my first encounters with you involve reading posts where you swear rather liberally and unnecessarily (using “shit” when you don’t need to, calling your opponent’s argument “lame ass” and telling them to “fuck off”), I anticipate that the conversation is going to be more confrontational to begin with.2. I called a belief in religion and its concepts of creationism and intelligent design delusional because by definition that is an accurate observation. I am perfectly capable of expressing myself without using term like “delusional” or “illogical” but I see no reason to beat around the bush instead of saying what I mean. In fact I provided considerable analysis beyond those terms, including the rationale behind the original alternative creation myth example (i.e. to show that your view is no more entitled than that other belief to be taught in class as fact). I observed that you have given me no facts or reason to believe your side, which substantiates my claims that your view is delusional and illogical, by definition. You argue that the evidence and reasons given me are not enough, but you have not given me any evidence or rational whatsoever. All you have done is insult a group of people who hold a different religious belief than you.3. At the point where I am substantiating my claims and advancing an argument as to why I call your view delusional or illogical I am not simply bashing you, I am calling you out on making an argument that lacks any supporting rational or proof. If anyone is not actually debating it is you because you have yet to actually counter the arguments in the thread nor actually responded to the challenge of producing evidence or reason for your side.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

forget the other stuff, that's pety. All you have done is insult a group of people who hold a different religious belief than you. And which religious group have I offended? The Africans? LOL you don't read do you? I did not offend them, I simply say you used an example to spite those that believe, pulling out the card saying "what about them?" ANd I Say, yes their beliefs and every other belief in a god(s) is just as valid as mine. So get that into your skull. The insult by you was saying their belief, or my belief, or X, Y, Z belief is as ridiculous as the other. Let's talk about America shall we? It's obviously that I have stated over and over and over on these forum that X, Y, Z beliefs are substantiated; that is humans have a right to believe based upon their evidence, including those of other nations and peoples. I felt offended that you were being offensive to the idea/fact of the belief in a god(s), and so I in a way, defended for all those that believe.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

You are conflating the acts of insulting and offending. To insult someone is to be abusive without cause, to offend someone is to upset them. As I have already explained, my observations of delusion and idiocy are not abusive but rather accurate because until you (or anyone) actually furnishes the evidence you claim exists in abundance religiosity fits those definitions to the letter. I readily admit that the views I express are offending to those like yourself, and of course I understand why it puts you on the defensive - if I held views that I could not actually defend and someone called me out on it then I would quite probably respond defensively (though I would not resort to profanity because as I have said it hardly lends your stance credibility). I do read, do you? You explicitly called that creation myth a "lame-ass story", so excuse my skepticism when you later claim to view their belief as equally valid to your own. Additionally, as I have already corrected you before, it was not my example so please cease the false-attribution. But yes, I would consider that creation myth to be on par with yours in that they are both equally unsubstantiated and irrational. Ultimatum: Show me the proof you claim you have otherwise you have not actually countered my argument with anything other than saying I am wrong because what I say offends you.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Ultimatum: Show me the proof you claim you have otherwise you have not actually countered my argument with anything other than saying I am wrong because what I say offends you. Go look it up yourself. But yes, I would consider that creation myth to be on par with yours in that they are both equally unsubstantiated and irrational. How many times must I say this. If you actually read back you'll notice that "lame ass story" meant that you are the lame ass for giving me a story that which you claim is "unsubstantiated and irrational". Man I really have to spoon feed you, how sad. Can't read between the lines much? Can't connect dots? MM, have fun with that.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

I cannot look up what does not exist. Besides, providing proof of your claims is your responsibility not mine.To quote you in your exact words: "If you think 'creationism' and 'intelligent design' has value of that similar to your lame ass story, then so be it." You are directly calling the story itself lame ass, not the argument. At any rate, you are clearly implying that that creation myth is not of equal value to your creation beliefs. You also clearly say that the story sucks, which is again a judgement upon the creation myth itself. I can absolutely read between the lines. Here is what I see: someone who made a snap judgement about another creation myth and is now trying to back-pedal and claim instead that they were insulting an individual with expletives instead. Either one is not very flattering.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Yawn. End of Story. Period. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

And so religion retreats, not with a bang but with a sigh.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Exactly. People have the right to choose their beliefs. .
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

It should be taught because if they allow evolution in school then there should be the other side. (Creationism) Then the students can see both sides and decide which one they want to believe.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Srom you are wrong, Pick the side that has the least votes and join. Then move to a foreign country.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

If you teach creationism, you are saying in science evidence does not matter. If that is the case, first that isn't science and second it opens the door for absolutely everything to be taught in the classroom. Just for fairness we should teach that fairies keep us on the ground instead of teaching gravitation, or that rainbows are not the light from the sun being split up in the rain but is caused by a pot of gold at one end.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Yes. Religious studies is important. Some many people in the western world are Christians and its important children understand the society they live in. However, clearly it isn't based on fact and has no place in teaching science lessons.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

I can respect your position, but I think the term "alongside" implies creationism and intelligent design" being taught as science next to evolution (as a valid, scientific alternative).
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Both should be taught. The "not pure science" arguement against ID is bogus because both use the excact same "evidence" and both are circumstantial evidence. What you believe varies on (WHAT?!?!) your beliefs.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=cEvq4xIHmH4&desktop_uri=/watch?v=cEvq4xIHmH4
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Actually a good idea kids will then be able to see how idiotic creationism is.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Good idea! All three theories should be taught side by side with the students asking plenty of questions.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Both evolution and creationism/intelligent-design are equally probable origins of humanity.It's like a game of Blackjack, you might count the cards and assume your bet is correct but even a card counter has a slight possibility to be wrong.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Magic vs science .... equal ... I think that you need help.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

I think your assumption that magic doesn't exist is a foolish one to assert.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Actually, no they are not. Evolution actually has a factual foundation. Faith based explanations of human origins do not. Furthermore, there is scientific research which indicates that faith is a byproduct of the human brain... lending credence to the idea that religion is nothing more than a human construct.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

As I said, you can count the cards but it's pure chance if the next card busts you or not.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Except that it is not pure chance. It is probability, and the greatest probability is that evolution is correct and creationism/intelligent design are incorrect. As with the Black Jack player, I act based upon what is most probably true.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

But the POSSIBILITY refutes the reliability of probability altogether.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

No it does not. We act upon probability all of the time, knowing that there is a possibility that it could be wrong. We do so because it is preferable to acting upon total ignorance (or at least we ought to).
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Just because you think we ought to doesn't mean you're right.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Unless you can actually refute why it is preferable to act upon the less probable answer then my point stands. My argument is that we should act upon knowledge before ignorance. You disagree? Then please, do tell me why ignorance is preferable.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

One man goes to a betting booth and bets on the dog that seems to be the weakest. The ratio of the win is 20:1.Another man goes to bet on the dog that is rumoured to be near-invincible. The ratio of the win is 1.5:1By chance, it is the one assumed to be weakest that triumphed in that race.Now who's laughing?
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

The problem with your example is that the weaker odds have a known higher return, whereas in matters of faith there is no known higher return for believing in it (but there are arguably known harms to doing so). Additionally, the person is still acting upon probabilities... so probability is not made moot by the possibility that something will or will not occur (and thus, per your own example my earlier point wins).(Props though for actually responding to the challenge; it is appreciated.)
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Except for the fact that in Islam there is the punishment of hell, as opposed to heaven, for believing in evolution instead of creationism.Many sects of Christianity and Judaism too.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

You will note that I indicated there is no known or even probable guarantee of either hell or heaven. You are believing against probability for no actual reason, whereas in gambling you go against the odds for a guaranteed, tangible, and certain payoff.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Don't be silly.You win nothing by being atheist.You win heaven by being religious...I decided to just suicide the shit and worship the Devil but that's my cynical Satanist individualism and I wouldn't wish my level of pessimism on anyone.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Oh please, who is being silly?The only thing that is guaranteed and certain is that we have the life we are living right now. An atheist lives that life with less delusion and more truth.There is no guarantee of any afterlife. You are certain to win nothing - neither heaven nor hell. The only thing you can be certain of is that you are choosing to live a life of ignorance.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

I'm sorry but I am not a Gnostic atheist and cannot respect the lack of doubt you have in it.We are simply different breeds of philosophical minds and must 'agree to disagree' as they say.I am a Satanist and you're a devout atheist/secular.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Alright, we can agree to disagree but I must say that has something of the feel of a cop out since you still cannot prove that an after life is even probable let alone certain. Very true though that we are approaching from different philosophies, although I would consider myself more of a committed than a devout atheist (I'm not devoted to it, I just think it is more probable and makes more sense). Also, just to clarify my stance, it is not that I do not doubt that atheism could be wrong but rather that I think it is less likely to be wrong. For me, the argument hinges upon probability.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Why do we have to TEACH either? why can't we propose the main ideas of both of the THEORIES, because neither one of them are fact, but not teach them like anything else believed is wrong? Treat it like a religious issue, because it is.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Creationism isn't a theory, it's a myth. We teach more theories in schools than you know. Theory of atomic structure, theory of enzyme action (lock and key)...It's not a religios issue, it's science and some religios people getting in the way.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

There is a marked difference between a scientific theory and a lay person's theory. The former is substantiated by a significant body of scientific research and evidence, while the latter if frequently little more than conjecture. The former has standards of procedure, demands reproducibility, checks bias, and is subject to peer review and critique. The latter is arbitrary and entirely subjective. Evolution belongs to the category of scientific theory, whereas religion is nothing more than a conjecture. There is actually evidence and reason to support the scientific theory of evolution; there is absolutely nothing to support religious belief other than faith itself.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

We have to teach because that's what schools do. I suppose by your logic we should also just teach math as a main idea or WW2 as just a main idea. No that isn't how education works.Also, creation isn't even worthy of being called a theory. A theory is an idea that has a possibility of being correct. Creation has ZERO chance of being correct whatsoever. It's not worth being taught because its mythological bullcrap that should never be taught to kids that it might be true. No, if it does get into schools it belongs in a social studies class being taught along side Zeus and Thor.Evolution on the other hand has a VERY high chance of being true. In fact we almost know for a fact it occurs to some degree, we just don't know certain lineages. It is also not just a theory but a SCIENTIFIC theory. That means that it is a theory that is backed by substantial evidence. There you have it. One is crap. The other is an actual serious scientific area of study on a legitimate phenomenon. Get over it.Oh, on another note creation CAN'T even be tought in schools because that is against the constitution.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Approximately two thirds of the American population are absolute idiots. How comforting.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

You see, this language, calling people "idiots".... Fuck ya very much. ;)
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Idiot: A stupid person.Stupid: Lacking intelligence or common sense.Creationism/Intelligent Design: Not common sense or logical.---It is not an insult, it is an accurate observation.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

An accurate observation is "The earth is round." An inaccurate observation is "The earth is flat." And people have believed in the latter and we all know now the earth is round. Mankind cannot tell those that believe, nor show them, 100 percent fact and truth that god(s) does not exist. And so yes, it is an insult because until you can provide physical evidence to say god doesn't exist, then you're invalid. And the evidence that those whom believe existx, is not good enough, you say "There is no god". There is more evidence for god(s) than there is for against god. Yet you continue to call people idiot and stupid. I can turn around and say "You're stupid and idiotic for not believing", however I will not. Not because I don't think that way about you, but because there is not need for that. Keep that shit to yourself. ANd if you don't then insults require defensive stances, including mine. Do you get that? When the "idiot, stupid, insane, non-intelligent" remarks disappear, I guarantee mankind will eventually begin working together to figure this shit out and it will be better for both parties and a quicker resolve to these dilemmas.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Technically, the earth is an oblate spheroid but "round" is close enough. It was scientific/mathematical knowledge since at least the time of the Greeks that the world was spherical, and the myth of the flat earth did not develop until the 17th century as part of a campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching. It was perpetuated by those interested in undermining long held scientific understandings and knowledge for religious-political reasons. No one would never have believed the earth was flat if it were not for Christianity. Thanks for proving my point.You have once again claimed that there is evidence for your view, yet you have not given me a single such piece of evidence nor has any person of faith I have had this conversation with (despite my requests for same). It is also not my responsibility to find proof against something for which there is no reason to believe exists to begin with. If my accusation is that your beliefs are idiotic or delusional because they are unsupported and you cannot provide me with a single fact or reason that your belief actually makes sense then my point stands and my burden is fulfilled.You think that we will make progress when people stop calling other people out on their ignorance and stupidity; I think that we will make progress (or at least make it more quickly) when there is less individual and social tolerance for dogmatic belief unfounded by fact or reason.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Technically, the earth is an oblate spheroid but "round" is close enough. LOL you're a fucktard, man. We're not using technicalities here. We're just talking. You knew what the fuck I meant. Fuck that noise, asshole. I'm not going to sit here and RETYPE the evidence that I believe in. At this point you are simply an asshole whom thinks this is a game. You're not worth my time anymore, just another asshole whom bashes on religious people by calling them ignorant and stupid. It's not a matter of calling any person out for ignorance, as compared to what? To your knowledge of the world? So now you're right and everyone else is wrong? Fuck you Jace, you're an asshole just like nummi, and I'm sure several other fuckers whom enjoy bashing religious people. See how far that takes you. Regardless of us, the truth is there and will reveal itself eventually without humans bickering at each other. You're not special Jace, remember where the fuck you stand. I know where I stand. Remember who started the bullshit, you did. You're the one acting like "offending" and "insults" are not similar in this case. You both insulted me and offended me and I responded you claim ignorance based upon my beliefs that which you know little about. So you're the asshole presuming and hating on religious people for very little reasons. You've got no solid reasons why you eve hate what you hate. Before starting shit, make sure you realize what the fuck you're fighting for, and/ or about and why.