azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is good for world

"Two five year olds just asked me if a Half wit typed this I said " yes called Jefferey '"If this wasn't made up...then it's my first proof your brain is actually frozen and you take counsel from two five year olds before you utter anything here on CD.Thanks for the proof.Plus, no child is born with the theory of evolution already installed in their minds. They are brainwashed to believe it especially the under the care of a grandpa magician/ atheist. (You are an icon to them but an idiot to me)They readily accept any nonsense you give to them won't think twice about it.kids who don't manufacture their own knowledge or are incapable of making sensible analysis do not factor in an argument.
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is good for world

"No child is born with the theory of evolution already INSTALLED in their minds" Are you sure about this Jeffrey? How is it possible then that more and more public schools in America try to ban the subject of Evolution from their repertoires? "They are brainwashed to believe it especially the under the care of a grandpa magician/ atheist." Oh really, since when was the notion of "critical thinking" considered to be brainwashing? Atheists who despise the notion of creationism and only rely within the seeable physical world aren't magicians (au contraire)."(You are an icon to them but an idiot to me)" Look Jeffrey, if you argue intelligently you shouldn't be diverting the topic to yourself, someone else or an irrelevant topic such as the courtroom. Kids who are educated at the first place to inquire the topics being thought to them and to search anything that might go against the topics have the might to scrutinise critically. It's the same with scientific papers which are daily being tested by scientists as crowd-sourced information delegated by societies then would go through rough scrutinising again.
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is good for world

You're new here welcome .What's most interesting on this site is that the opponents of Evolution are incredibly aggressive and hostile to anything that upsets their world view , which I suppose is only natural as they feel so much is at stake .The last stats I read about countries who reject Evolution put America on a par with Saudi Arabia and Turkey in the rejection of Evolution which is truly appalling and very telling .The dishonesty used by those taking a stance against Evolution is shocking , in a recent encounter the piece below was used as evidence to defend a question I asked which was ...." why are no peer reviewed papers published by opponents of Evolution in any journals ,scientific publications , or reputable sources ?This is one of the dreadful cowardly defence used by opponents of Evolution.....From http://creation.comWe have often received feedback in the form of questions on the lines of, ‘If creation is scientific, then why don’t you publish in peer-reviewed secular journals?’ Andrew Kulikovsky answers this common question in detail. He points out the advantage of peer review but then documents its many shortcomings in practice, including rejecting top research while admitting fraud, as well as an all-too-common role in protecting the ruling paradigm. So it is folly for anticreationists to hide behind it instead of dealing with the arguments. This is why, to keep the advantages and overcome its drawbacks, creationists have started their own journals, e.g. CMI’s longstanding publication now titled Journal of Creation.
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is good for world

Are you sure about this Jeffrey?Must we argue over this?Babies learn."How is it possible then that more and more public schools in America try to ban the subject of Evolution from their repertoires?"Because they are now learning. Its not default. And it can be prevented, after all it shouldn't be part of the school syllabus......it's just a theory with flaws also. Oh really, since when was the notion of "critical thinking" considered to be brainwashing?Critical thinking with a two and five years olds?Come on!! Its brainwashing, not brainstorming.Atheists who despise the notion of creationism and only rely within the seeable physical world aren't magicians (au contraire)He claim to be a magician.if you argue intelligently you shouldn't be diverting the topic to yourself, someone else or an irrelevant topic such as the courtroomHe started it that way and arguments between he and i have been that way ever since.Kids who are educated at the first place to inquire the topics being thought to them and to search anything that might go against the topics have the might to scrutinise critically. It's the same with scientific papers which are daily being tested by scientists as crowd-sourced information delegated by societies then would go through rough scrutinising again.Kids take delight in knowing something new and do judge what they are being taught whether right or wrong.And they will grow up to defend it with all their might,
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is bad for world

There you go again ! Do you have to bring my name into everything can you not fight your own battles ?
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is good for world

There you go again ! Do you have to bring my name into everythingSo?can you not fight your own battles ?Oh please......stop trying to take credit that doesn't exist
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is bad for world

Do you ever just shut up and leave people alone how many times do I have to ask you ?You have to start doing that(shutting up) yourself....You can start by not replying...
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is bad for world

Can you give me one of those flaws that you've mentioned? Please support the statements that you give instead of throwing things unto the pulpit. It should be a part of the school syllabus as it has been proven to be a fact. If you're going to equate different theories from the theory of evolution the evidences are substantial. It's not brainwashing, brainwashing is when you force children to learn about a few bible verses that were written thousands of years ago without any evidence. Whilst if you teach children the factual events that happened ago I suppose that it isn't called brainwashing. In countries such as Finland,Germany and France ( Considering other high-schools in America that freely teach evolution) the teacher must and will notify his/her students to think critically first. Perhaps you're too dimwitted to even realise that you're uncle was acting sarcastically. Your arguments don't make any sense!! They're advised by the teachers to bring-up opinions about the topic and search for flaws! The truth is the truth, par evolution with your fucking bible and see if it holds any water.
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is good for world

Science is a gift from God to be used wisely. I am alive because of neuroscience.
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is bad for world

You have just convinced me that we need to ban neuroscience.
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is good for world

Leave me the fuck alone............................................................................................
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is bad for world

This is what you wanted. You forced me to be a troll to you. Now you will continue to receive the responses you deserve.
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is good for world

Leave me alone................................................................................
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is bad for world

This is what happens when you act the way you act. You get what's coming to you.
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is bad for world

Ouch :) that gotta hurt ... that's a knockout punch ...... 😂
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is good for world

Yes, because they piss off the religious right. ..................
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is bad for world

The Religious Left are pissed off when you say Climate Chaos is a hoax ! Do you deny that ?
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is good for world

Your argument is incomprehensible as your motion is, he was specifically talking about the religious right whilst you talk about the religious left. The question is about the good contained in scientists and science in our world. The "religious left" isn't probably that scientifically inclined as you think.
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is good for world

Absolutely. But one must make sure there are certain ethics that are maintained. There is such a thing as going too far, as is the case with most anything.
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is good for world

Of course science is good for the world. what idiot would say otherwise?
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is good for world

You must be very new here. You'll soon understand the answer to that question yourself.
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is good for world

Of course scientists are good for the world, knowledge empowers everyone. Science advances the world and empowers every aspect of society, we live longer, happier lives due to our scientific prowess. Science is the means that our species learns, and to gain wisdom means to learn. Yeah sometimes it seems a little ridiculous with irresponsible people not paying attention due to their phone, and sending in essays with texting lingo but compared to the preservation of life, rising quality in life, it is worth it, plus much popular technology exists in it's infancy (cell phones) that young people are just starting to learn how to use responsibly. We'll grow out of it.
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is good for world

You'd be dead or at least vomiting up your guts from sickness without science.Science created medicine and the technology we use in our daily lives. We'd be in the Stone Age still without it.
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is good for world

I love playing video games. I can relax after a day's work only this way. I want to immerse myself in the game and enjoy the magical world. So thank you very much for the game poppy playtime you recommended.
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is bad for world

Overall no, in fact from what I can see science has caused more destruction overall, such as via the invention of nuclear weapons, gas chambers, and sweatshop labor.In fact most of the good things which science produces are just remedies to ills caused by humans for tampering with nature in abnormal ways to begin with.Vaccines for example only had to be invented to cure diseases which Europeans caused themselves by living in dirty cities, and which Native Americans had lived for 1,000s of years without ever catching since they lived closer to nature and did without dirty industrialism (which unfortunately is also why they died of the diseases Europeans brought to them).If anything science is just a necessary evil for the sake of survival, rather than a good.For that matter the average "scientist" is not very intelligent or creative, and many of them are little better than bean counters or video game debuggers, only a few standouts such as Einstein were truly inventive. They're also often very unattractive to women because of how ugly and reductive the nature of their work and their minds is, and also more likely to be sociopathic I believe.Truly intelligent and creative people tend to be found far more in the arts and humanities, or the formal sciences such as logic and mathematics, rather than the ugly 'natural sciences' like biology and chemistry.
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is good for world

You start off your argument by using the phrase "Overall no" and proceed by mentioning a few benefits such as the prevention of climate change and the prevention of diseases. Science isn't a "necessary evil", it has always been a necessity for us humans to inquire the nature of an aspect in our world whether it be in the microscopic level or in the external level. . Either you're a troll or an utter idiot, natural sciences is one of the most important sciences around besides logic and mathematics as it's being used to analyse everything that's abstract in our universe wherein logic and mathematics aren't able to solve such. Without natural sciences you're not going to be able to take medications for whatever illness you undoubtably have.
Debate: are scientist and science good for the world
Side: science is good for world

Just look at the average length of life for a person over the centuries. Science did that.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

Yes there's a lot The cosmogical argument Alsdeqeen argument The ontological argument
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: No

Cosmological-http://www.skeptical-science.com/atheism/debunking-argument/ ontological-http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ontological_argument I have no idea what the Alsdeqeen argument is. Neither does google, at least in English. Care to explain?
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

Sure look up for " برهان الصديقين " it's in Arabic
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

Perhaps you mean the Seddiqin argument?If so, it is a version of the Cosmological Argument.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: No

According to what I can tell, this just translates to "the Proof of the Righteous", and the way it is described on Islamic Teaching websites, it's basically just the argument from morality, people do good because they wish for Allah's praise and fear his torment.I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. We know where morals come from, and it wasn't a magically scribed rulebook, they developed because we are a social species, and we have empathy and the capacity to reason for the greater good of the tribe.So, no, whether English or Arabic, this argument is still wrong.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

There is no such thing as morals in evolution. All that matters is survival. There is nothing wrong in evolution with killing you to take what you have. In evolution there is nothing wrong with forcing you to be my slave after sterilizing you so you can't produce offspring. You don't get to evolve, I do.hahahhahha
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: No

That's only seen with religion, though.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

Cartman(16636) 1 pointThat's only seen with religion, though.3hrs agoSupport Dispute Clarify Report Jump to Debate→New Response!  JatinNagpal(781) 1 pointYou'll have to be an idiot to think that.Wait...8hrs agoSupport Dispute Clarify Report Jump to Debate→New Response!  Atrag(4366) 1 pointYou have one tiny passage from the old testament? Before Christ followers of God went to heaven if they followed the Torah that changed with the birth of Christ. Lesson 1 of Christianity you fake.17hrs agoSupport Dispute Clarify Report Jump to Debate→New Response!  JatinNagpal(781) 1 pointInsulting you would require that you be smart enough to at least understand them.You're an idiot than which can no greater idiot be conceived.I wonder how you can even use this website. If people in ancient Israel programmed a chatbot, it'd be smarter than you.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

Islam upholds something it calls God in place of the Living God who is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The God of Islam is something bitter and demanding, something that was miserably alone in eternity past, something that is cruel and demands it's followers kill or enslave all who will not bow to the God of Islam who is not God of the Bible.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

Beast of the Earth argument...If you get on facebook and look up "Beast of the Earth", that page will open your eyes beyond belief.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

I personally believe in a God. I don't have a solid case for his existence, but it reminded me of Rene Descartes' Meditations, where he tackles the question. Although it is just his thought process and not proof, I think people might want to check it out if you haven't. It's just an interesting take. Read 'Meditation III: Concerning God, That He Exists'Take from it what you will.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: No

It's better to read God's word. Descarte was trained by Jesuit Priests, the hitman thugs of Catholicism.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

Have you seen Fromwithins post about god ? Pure gold. He is a true man.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

I will start out with just one to allow other opinions to flow in.The Moral Argument "Can man be good without god" To get this average response I do not mean can you be good without believing in god (the answer is an obvious yes) I mean be good without him at all. So 0 commandments, 0 laws, 0 foundations for governments, etc. Without God there is no Objective Morality just differing opinions. This debate I will not intervene at all nor will I leave a link to strengthen my argument. Good Luck to both sides!
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: No

You have to actually prove morality is objective before we start assuming where that morality came from. And so far there is no compelling evidence supporting objective morality precisely because everyones opinions differ and have differed between time periods and cultures since the beginning of time.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

That sounds more like a change in relative understanding rather than objective morality
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: No

If you can prove there is objective morality then what he described is a problem in understanding. If however, there is no objective morality you would see exactly what he described. In any event, the assumption that objective morality exists is illogical.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

What I mean by objectively moral is that something is right or wrong regardless of how I may think or feel. Some of the proof is in the fact that everyone would say that some things are right or wrong. Some examples of things that are right or wrong are as follows. Some things that would be good are things like taking care of children and people that are sick. For bad, popular examples are things like murder, theft, and rape. Its universally accepted that these things are good and bad and will remain so regardless of whether or not we think or feel otherwise. My question for you is, why do you consider it illogical?
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

What I mean by objectively moral is that something is right or wrong regardless of how I may think or feel.Ok. By default it doesn't exist. Otherwise, everything would exist.Some of the proof is in the fact that everyone would say that some things are right or wrong.People have subjective morality. That doesn't mean objective morality exists.Some things that would be good are things like taking care of children and people that are sick.Would you take care of my children for free? I am not seeing the morality there.For bad, popular examples are things like murder, theft, and rape.Those are all immoral by a subjective definition. Murder is unlawful killing. What is unlawful? The subjective definition found in our laws. Theft is just the unlawful taking of someone's stuff. If someone leaves a lawnmower in their front yard and you take it, it is theft. If the lawnmower has a sign that says "free", taking it is no longer theft, hence, subjective. Rape is unlawful sex. We aren't even sure what constitutes rape at this point. It is very subjective, and still changing.Its universally accepted that these things are good and bad and will remain so regardless of whether or not we think or feel otherwise.The acts that would be considered murder in one state may be considered self defense in another state.My question for you is, why do you consider it illogical?Saying something exists because it exists is the tautology fallacy. Using fallacies is illogical. Saying something without proof is not logical.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

Ok. By default it doesn't exist. Otherwise, everything would exist.Not sure I follow. What does the existence of objective morality have to do with everything else?People have subjective morality. That doesn't mean objective morality exists.Is that true for everybody?Would you take care of my children for free? I am not seeing the morality there.Why are you bringing price into this? I thought we were talking about morality?Those are all immoral by a subjective definition.Which part of the world allows things like murder, theft, and rape? Assuming they're using the definitions you gaveThe acts that would be considered murder in one state may be considered self defense in another state.Would you be willing to give an example?Saying something exists because it exists is the tautology fallacy. Using fallacies is illogical. Saying something without proof is not logical.Who started using these fallacies and when?
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

Logically everything doesn't exist by default. You have to show it exists.Everybody has subjective morality, yes.The price matters because of I pay you it is a different transaction and doesn't play into morality.What part of the word immoral makes you think it is allowed. Moral things are allowed. Murder, theft, and rape are forms of killing, taking things, and sex. Those things can be allowed.In Florida you allowed to kill someone in self defense even if you had the chance to avoid conflict. In California, you have to be sure that there is nothing else you can do.Deli_subs used the fallacy with the moral argument for God.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

Logically everything doesn't exist by default. You have to show it exists.This sounds unnecessarily restrictive. It also sounds like a bit of a cop outEverybody has subjective morality, yes.So whats true for each individual is true for everyone?The price matters because of I pay you it is a different transaction and doesn't play into morality.So its only ever right to take care of children if I get paid to do it?What part of the word immoral makes you think it is allowed.My point was that no where in the world where you find things like murder, theft, and rape acceptable. Thats because of objective morality. Its always been that way and probably will continue to be that way. Moral things are allowed. Murder, theft, and rape are forms of killing, taking things, and sex. Those things can be allowed.So killing something, taking things, and sex in a proper context justifies the immoral use of each?In Florida you allowed to kill someone in self defense even if you had the chance to avoid conflict. In California, you have to be sure that there is nothing else you can do.Thats evidence of leniency, not subjective moralityDeli_subs used the fallacy with the moral argument for God.Just in the few replies that you've had with me, it looks like you were using that same argument for your side