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

one question no one has ever answered for me. NO ONE. Where did the very first thing (what ever you want to call it) come from.Evolutionist have no problem saying we do not know, or it just always was. But when I say the very same thing about God, they think I am crazy. It takes more faith to believe "it just happened" than God did it. In both arguments, something had to have either just appeared or always been.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

No idiot, Evolutionists are scientist respective, biologists with are in expertise in Evolution which is about diversity of species nothing more nothing less. This you may find surprising but Cosmology and Biology are very different disciplines.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

Let me ask you a question. I'm not trying to sound like a smart aleck, this is a question that will make sense after your answer.Do you know anything that is 100% absolutely true? If so tell me what it is please.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

Do you know ANYONE who does know anything to be absolutely true?
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

Yes I do know that I am male. ... ....
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

No I do not.However I will not jump into the fire just because I can't know for sure that I burn alive... Same way I know the difference between primitive stone age mythology and 21st century science...
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

what I'm getting at is this.Is it possible something you do not know could prove what you think you know false?
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

I can spot what is more likely Scientific theory develop by tens thousands highly trained experts trough observation and experiment -or-Myth full of talking animals and magic, made-up by illiterate goat farmers who lived thousands of years ago ...no brainer...
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

It's not the same, i'm afraid to tell you. Scientists and evolutionists reasearch these things, and they search for answers. When a scientists says:"I do not know"What they mean is, "I do not know yet"When a Christian says"I do not know"they have given up and are content with that lack of knowledge.Also, no respected scientists can get away with just saying"It was always there"Science requires proof, and that's what makes it the more logical option.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

I believe God created the universe. I believe God was the timeless and immaterial cause of the universe and his work is recorded in Genesis. I believe God used the Big Bang and evolution to create the universe and life on this earth.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

I don't know why more people don't take this position.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

Where did the very first thing (what ever you want to call it) come from.Just because you have a question that hasn't been answered doesn't mean that you have anything related to evolution.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

This comment makes no sense. Why is it so strange for me to believe God is and has always been. But not for you and whatever started what you think started evolution.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

It is weird for you to deny evolution because there is so much evidence for it. It is weird for you to deny the process that causes life to change over time simply because you think God is required for the start of the universe.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

You really should having this in a cosmology debate. This STILL has nothing to do with evolution. However...something had to have either just appeared or always been.That "something" that has always been would be energy. We KNOW energy, we know how it works, how to trace it and know it cannot be created or destroyed. So if you wanted to define God as energy, and accept our current demonstrable understandings thereof, you would get a lot less argument from us. But your version of God is outside of energy, has characteristics that energy does not appear to (intelligence, intent, morality). You automatically step beyond the reasonable assumption that at least one item is eternal by adding unnecessary, unfalsifiable and biased characteristics. Its not the same thing at all.And so what if we don't know how it began?!? It is literally the oldest mystery in the universe and we didn't have the understanding or technology to make sense of it all until last century. It takes a while to figure things out when you are honest and diligent about finding the truth. Nobody should accept an unverifiable proposition just because a verifiable one hasn't been proposed. That's lazy, dishonest and completely unhelpful.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

the point is not that we say 'God couldn't have existed forever' but that you use the universe requiring some creation because it is complex or something and then you claim something more complex (God) can exist forever which is then a contradiction.Also for the big bang, we are slowly getting close, we have even identified what happened in the mere seconds after the big bang (gluons turning into protons etc).although it is possible that the universe has existed forever as a big bounce (universe expands then contracts really small the explodes again).If your on about the start of life, well we are getting closer; I am sure you have heard of the Yuri Miller experiment which created amino acids (required for life).
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

I always thought that you are just another braindead religious drone. I would expect you to simply support that retard rambling about BBT in Evolution topic...Just wow :Djust the (5) during the initial expansion was no light present. Universe was not transparent for about 300 000 year
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

No please explain point 6, it might not go over the rest of every other persons head .
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

Anitmatter exists the same way matter does, but the elements of it are reversed. Instead of a proton have a positive charge, it has a negative charge, instead of an electron having a negative charge it has a positive charge. When the two meet they do in fact "annihilate" each other, but it is more than that. When they come into contact with each other, they release pure energy as, for a lack of a better word right now, they die. At the start of the universe, or the singularity, it is theorized there was an equal amount of matter and antimatter that caused the release of pure energy. Antimatter no longer exists in large clumps but it has been detected in the reaches of space in small amounts and has been created in labs.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

Learn science before you look dumb talking about it.......................................
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

What does any of this have do do with the origin and diversity of species of living creatures?
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

If the Big Bang is wrong, all of science is wrong and religion is right... Like seriously, are you dumb or something?
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

Satire?
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

muah
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

Err....that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. A quick google may set you straight but guessing from your knee jerk reaction I can guess you do not believe in evolution.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

you are correct I stopped believing in fairy tales when I was around 4 or 5
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

you are correct I stopped believing in fairy tales when I was around 4 or 5 so you are atheist?
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

I am a born again child of God who has asked Jesus Christ to forgive my sins, and save my soul. I believe the Bible to be God's holy Word, without error. I am his servant and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ because he called me to do just that 35 years ago. Ordained Baptist Preacher.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

but you said no fairy tales ...As far as I know talking snakes, people made from mud, flat Earth, magic .... sounds like fairy tale to me... :D
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

No, you are wrong. Fairy tales have happy endings. ;)
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

Dear Retard, this topic is about Evolution that has nothing to do with cosmology.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

Dear Idiot, in your theory the big bang had to happen before the evolution started. Or it would not have any where to start.Any way where did the very first living thing come from? Did it just appear from nothing? Or, did it just always exist?Don 't be a hypocrite and say either one. Evolutionist laugh at us when we say it about God, but you think it is Okay to believe it about your THEORY.By the way I typed REAAAAAAL sloooooow so you could comprehend.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

You are truly retarded. Evolution is not about origin of live but about it's diversity, fucktard. Completely unrelated topic, same as the Big bang Theory.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

Any way where did the very first living thing come from? Did it just appear from nothing? Or, did it just always exist?Don 't be a hypocrite and say either one.Actually, you are right, it isn't either of those. The first living thing came from the raw materials on the Earth at the time and were sparked from energy sources like lightning. It didn't appear from nothing. Hope that helps.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

That is like saying you don't know if your family tree exists because you don't know how the universe started.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

Dear IdiotAd hominem, really? You think that is going to help you at all in a debate?in your theory the big bang had to happen before the evolution started. Or it would not have any where to start.Well no shit... everyone knows that.in your theory the big bang had to happen before the evolution started. Or it would not have any where to start.Well, there is the theory of Abiogenesis, I am not well educated on it, but even it that for some reason never held up, that doesn't mean we assume it is god, that means we keep searching till we find out how. Everything in the universe is made up of the same stuff, you are made up of the same stuff as rocks, and asteroids and starts, you are stardust, but in a different form. The question isn't simply "where did we come from?" but "How we came to be?" from the universe.Don 't be a hypocrite and say either one.Nobody is though, you are making a false dichotomy by simplifying it to only two answers, like I said it's not about where we came from, we know where we came from, the universe, it is how we came to be from the universe. Evolutionist laugh at us when we say it about God, but you think it is Okay to believe it about your THEORY.No they don't, most that accept evolution for what it is, and the fact that it takes place, generally believe evolution is guided by a higher power, I would disagree, but one can accept evolution, and still believe in a god.By the way I typed REAAAAAAL sloooooow so you could comprehend.Ummmm, yeah I could totally tell (I am being sarcastic btw) when someone posts an argument it's very easy to tell how slowly they typed... lol. Yeah you indeed did help him in his confusion... by typing really slowly when it doesn't make any difference and then stating it, because we wouldn't know either way... XD
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

in your theory the big bang had to happen before the evolution started. Incorrect. Biological evolution is change within preexisting life over time. All that is required to begin this line of inquiry is to have some form of life at the beginning. It does not matter how it got there, it full well could have been God. But IF it was God that created the first life, the evidence strongly shows the current diversity observed within in life is likely obtained through natural selection.The Big Bang does not have to be true for this to be true. The method by which the first life form appeared is irrelevant. As long as life is there, evolutionary inquiry may begin. Given that you have spent all of your time in this debate attacking (and rather insufficiently) big bang theory and most recently abiogenesis, but not a word about evolution, I am inclined to believe you have no strong evidence against evolution itself. Am I correct? Evolutionist laugh at us when we say it about God, but you think it is Okay to believe it about your THEORY.Highlighting the word "theory" as some implication that it invalidates the proposal shows your ignorance. Evolution is a scientific principal, so the word "theory" in this instance falls under the scientific definition. A scientific theory is testable and tested, and is valid until ONE fact irreconcilably contradicts it. All it takes is one. If a theory has existed for over a century without that single piece of damning evidence being presented, its probability is very high. A lesser form of theory would be a hypothesis, but even those need to be falsifiable. God, therefore isn't even a valid hypothesis and will therefore never be as strong as a scientific theory.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

SO STUPID, RIGHT?!LIKE 'BANG' AND MAGIC OMG! SO FAKE!
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

Like there's no magic in the bible? OK, make a man out of mud, then decide it's too sloppy, make a working man out of wood, and make a woman out of his (wooden) rib without using magic then post me pics, ok?Please don't point holes in the opposition when your argument has the same holes.Even if we were originally made from wood, which we were not, we are clearly not now. The only way the transformation could have taken place is by evolution!
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

The rib wasn't wooden, it was bone!
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

Did you copy and paste those fallacies or did you type that all yourself?
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

Let me tell you why that's bullshit. You opened with:"THE BIG BANG THEORY"This debate however was about evolution. You're out.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

What does the big bang theory have to do with evolution. Also, learn what the big bang is before talking about it.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

Most of your statements are not taking gravity into account, not to mention the other forces. Not that it matters though. You are in the wrong debate. Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity. "This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception." {E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32. }"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."27.Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997. No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Except one pretty important one: IT ONLY WORKS LIKE THAT IN A CLOSED SYSTEM.We aren't in a closed system, new energy comes in from the sun every day, so even though energy is constantly being lost it is constantly being replaced, and there is plenty of energy to power the kind of reactions we need to keep the ball rolling. What you don't seem to realize is that if the second law worked the way you seem to think it does, all life as we know it would not function as it does. How much more complex are you now than you were when you were just a fertilized egg?
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity."This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception." {E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32. }"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."27.Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.The earth is not a closed system.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

The bible disproves the lie of evolution........................................
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

same way as it proves talking snakes and flat Earth .
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

same way as it proves talking snakes and flat Earth .The talking snake was Satan and the bible supports a round earth please see the book of Job
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

no, talking snake was a talking snake.... nothing more .
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

The Bible does not teach a flat earth.Isaiah 40:22"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

Circles are flat...... .
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

circle is flat disk .
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

Also it proves that Earth is flat and snakes can talk :D
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

How does the bible prove anything, if the bible itself is unproven?
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

Can you prove that? .
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

Is that before or after the talking snake and flat earth?
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

No, I don't accept evolution.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

Not too much to be said eh Srom?
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

Yeah.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

The bible disagrees with evolution so it's not true................................
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

The bible also disagrees with the earth being a sphere..........................................
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

It also says that Earth is flat ... so be aware of the edge ..you may fall over :D
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

SO does Harry Potter .... so it is win-win :P Fuckyeah
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

You mean that Bullshit book that responsible for millions of deaths. You mean that book who brainwashes people and gives them wrong information. The bible is historically inaccurate.The j in Latin was invented in the 1400's, while Jesus is 200 years old. How does that happen. In accurate. Even the great flood is a lie. So is Adam and Eve asshole.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

I think it's funny how you got downvoted for actually making sense.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

You better do some checking. The bible has been proven to be more accurate than some history books. Archeology is also proving the bible to be true. They have in the past few years even found chariots in the bottom of the Red Sea. As in Exodus. The Bible has things in it scientifically that science has only discovered in the past hundred years. It is way ahead of its time.Almost the entire Old Testament was written in Hebrew during the thousand years of its composition. But a few chapters in the prophecies of Ezra and Daniel and one verse in Jeremiah were written in a language called Aramaic. This language became very popular in the ancient world and actually displaced many other languages. Aramaic even became the common language spoken in Israel in Jesus' time, and it was likely the language He spoke day by day. Some Aramaic words were even used by the Gospel writers in the New Testament.The New Testament, however, was written in Greek. This seems strange, since you might think it would be either Hebrew or Aramaic. However, Greek was the language of scholarship during the years of the composition of the New Testament from 50 to 100 AD. The fact is that many Jews could not even read Hebrew anymore, and this disturbed the Jewish leaders a lot! So, around 300 BC a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek was undertaken, and it was completed around 200 BC. Gradually this Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, was widely accepted and was even used in many synagogues. It also became a wonderful missionary tool for the early Christians, for now the Greeks could read God's Word in their own tongue.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

We were created about 10,000 years ago by a super-intelligent father who fancied playing with reality for the lels and making a species in his 'image'. :)
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

No, Humans came here 7 million years ago. Your Facts are wrong. Modern Humans appeared 400,000 years ago. 10,000 years ago would be when Civilitation was established.