azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

I was simplifying the epithet "church and state" into it's elementary, generalized terms I could think of without getting leading the debate astray with semantics.At this point unless you want to talk semantics I really can't address your logic.If you didn't get it, they were meant to be generalized and encompassing many definitions and categories.Perhaps (regardless of how general or specific you try to be) it's entirely logical to view religion as a form of government, and vice versa....just maybeThat a government can remain neutral in regards to religion...is delusional unless religion isn't about idea propagation.And if you still did not comprehend the mere basics: Any religious matters should stay as far separate from legal matters as humanly possible.Poor me who doesn't understand the MERE basics of your logic!And just because there is not a "true" separation between the two.........You have conceded my whole point here........does not mean the phrase and it's processes are impossible or nonexistent.that the phrase and it's processes are possible and existent (albeit founded on faulty logic), I will concede.I apologize if I am incorrect, but I call bull. Your very first refute seemed particularly aimed at focusing on a game of marry-go-linguistics.That in general I am keen to engage in linguistic forensics (merry-go-linguistics sounds so pejorative) is true, and my tendencies ARE to try helping people (and solicit help from them for myself through conversation) to have a sound logical basis for the terms they use. I was trying to make my point in as few words as possible would have been more truthful. Your BS detector (less pejoratively your intuition) is spot on here. :)And we can do the same about reality and delusions or hallucinations depending on how philosophically extreme you wish to be.I like you use of "philosophically extreme" here....:)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Churches and governments are interpersonal organizations who define more or less imaginary boundaries, which they attempt to secure through whatever means they have at their disposal. Neither will tolerate diversity beyond an authoritatively established standard. Both have members who are only so conditionally.Wait, are you telling me you're one of those "governing hating, world hating, authority hating who demands from people to prove the difference between reality and what other possibilities may exist"?I believe that legitimate government depends on the consent of the governed. I was hoping for you to address the prior snippet a bit more directly but...its okAs to your "prove its" I'd be happy to give a go at convincing you, unless you are perfectly satisfied with your opinion on the matter already. Otherwise if you notice something clearly illogical about my use of language and would take the time to help me comprehend the MERE basics that would be mighty friendly of you.What are you talking about?I suppose it merits an entirely separate discussion.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: no.

Not really. The Constitution never mentions it. Just freedom to worship and the non-establishment of a Religion.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: Yes

As the world becomes more and more intelligent, educated, and open to critical thinking, it is hardly surprising that irrational beliefs fade away from society.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: No

If we're so intelligent and educated how come the main goal of atheists seems to be wasting time insulting "irrational beliefs".
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: Yes

Because irrational beliefs insult rational thinking.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: No

"Faith is not contrary to reason. Faith is reason grown courageous."Sherwood Eddy
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: Yes

Ain't that cute, you gave me someone else's opinion instead of yours. Use your own brains if you got them.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: No

That is my opinion, I'm just not the first to think so. If you think anything that you say hasn't been said before, then you're the one without a brain. Nothing is original any more. Copy and Paste is the norm, not the exception.You should start giving credit to those whose ideas you've stolen.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: Yes

That is my opinion, I'm just not the first to think so.If it is your opinion then you do not put another persons name after it. It doesn't matter whether you are the first to think of it or not, if you came up with it on your own you don't do what I just described, unless you're stupid.Might as well put a name behind every single word we use... And if we do something or move in a certain way then we should quote the name of who made it first? I honestly don't think names existed back then the way they do now, assuming you could pronounce them right.If you think anything that you say hasn't been said before, then you're the one without a brain. Nothing is original any more. Copy and Paste is the norm, not the exception.Basically you're saying that one has to always check if someone has thought of the same and put another person's name after their own creation. You're an idiot. You are saying that everything I do and think is not done by me. If I think, I do not copy paste other people, I literally use my own creative part of my mind to come up with anything. And I'm the one with no brain?You should start giving credit to those whose ideas you've stolen.You clearly don't know what stealing something means.If I think of something then it is of my own origin, I came up with it. It doesn't matter whether someone else has thought the same or not, it is my creation.If someone writes a book then that person did not really create it? He should put other peoples names as the author? Even though it is obvious that that person created the book, the story, not someone before him/her.Coming up with something you never knew existed before is stealing it? You literally cannot steal something you did't know even existed! Grow a brain, seriously!
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: No

At least someone agrees with him, which is more than can be said for you.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: Yes

Are you kidding me? Just because someone? That's just... Did you even think before writing your completely worthless response?Oh, and I've got someone agreeing with me too. Eh eh, in your face!
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: No

Everytime you reach a point in a debate where you realise you're wring you just insult your opponent and claim their argument is invalid. You really need to grow up.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: Yes

Telling the truth is insulting? Okay then.If it is invalid, it is invalid. It's invalid because it is stupid or irrational or against logic or against reality.Grow up yourself...
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: No

"Telling the truth is insulting? Okay then.If it is invalid, it is invalid. It's invalid because it is stupid or irrational or against logic or against reality.Grow up yourself..."Once again, you're dragging your opinion into this debate. Do this again and I won't bother replying.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: Yes

Then what are you doing here? Debating is about giving one's opinions on some subject, it is about discussing things. Although it is hard to do that if one side has, well, issues with making coherent arguments.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: No

Your supposed to display your opinions as opinions instead of false facts. You then su[pport your opinions with evidence, you don't use your opinions as evidence to support far-fetched claims. You also have to take the other side's argument and dispute instead of asying ridiculous things like "what you said is stupid, so you are stupid" and not bothering to reply to the statement.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: Yes

Your supposed to display your opinions as opinions instead of false factsFalse facts? Are you saying you've never done that? Does life change over time? There you go, evolution is real.You then su[pport your opinions with evidence, you don't use your opinions as evidence to support far-fetched claims.Sometimes logic will do, assuming the opposition has enough of it.You also have to take the other side's argument and dispute instead of asying ridiculous things like "what you said is stupid, so you are stupid" and not bothering to reply to the statement.If some argument is stupid then it is stupid, I reply by saying it is stupid and then comes the part that is stupid about it. Not my problem you lack what it takes to understand.The "so you are stupid" only comes if the stupid arguments come one after another, or if an argument is very stupid.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: No

Nummi, we've had this conversation before. You can't apply your own opinion to a debate and force everyone to accept it was fact.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: Yes

You want Nummi to have an open mind and not think all his opinions are facts? Good luck with that.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: Yes

ou want Nummi to have an open mind and not think all his opinions are facts?I have an open mind, unlike you (you have actually demonstrated that).When did I say all my opinions are facts (I've indicated many times the opposite, with actual words...)? Never pops to mind.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: No

"When did I say all my opinions are facts (I've indicated many times the opposite, with actual words...)? Never pops to mind.""It is a fact all Christians are stupid" - Nummi
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: Yes

"It is a fact all Christians are stupid" - NummiWhere exactly did I say that? Care to direct me to it?
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: No

This is the debate you said it in (you have to click a lot of show replies to find it, but it's there.) http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Britain_is_the_Best_Country_in_the_World And I actually had the quote wrong, you actually say all religions keep you stupid."It is a fact that religion keeps people stupid. That is the problem with religion. Get that through your thick skull." - Nummi
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: Yes

I did not say there "It is a fact all Christians are stupid".By denying reality, religious people do that because it is required to be religious, you keep yourself stupid, ignorant, in regard to reality. In fact in many cases even delusional (having false and unrealistic beliefs and opinions is being delusional).I did not say all, I said religion. Religions are based on fantasy and they are meant for taking as reality, it doesn't matter if one is worse than the other, they all have one in common - fantasy. They have no place in modern world nor the future, they insult logic, reason, reality, and make humanity look like a mass of stupid meat.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: No

"I did not say there "It is a fact all Christians are stupid"."No, you actually said all religious people are stupid. Which is even more ignorant."By denying reality, religious people do that because it is required to be religious, you keep yourself stupid, ignorant, in regard to reality. In fact in many cases even delusional (having false and unrealistic beliefs and opinions is being delusional)."Once again, they do not deny reality. "I did not say all, I said religion. Religions are based on fantasy and they are meant for taking as reality, it doesn't matter if one is worse than the other, they all have one in common - fantasy. They have no place in modern world nor the future, they insult logic, reason, reality, and make humanity look like a mass of stupid meat."They are as much a fantasy as evolution, you of course have done little research into either and thus cannot make a comparison.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: Yes

No, you actually said all religious people are stupid. Which is even more ignorant.So I forgot to add most. Wouldn't be the first time.Once again, they do not deny reality.Then why do some say the great flood happened? Why do they say the souls go into heaven or hell? Why do they say the world is some 6000 years old? Why do they say someone came back to life from death? Why do they say there is no evolution? If someone provides real evidence against those and they deny it then they are denying reality.They are as much a fantasy as evolution, you of course have done little research into either and thus cannot make a comparison.I clearly know far more about evolution than you do (the fact that you deny it).Evolution is a fact, it is real, it is happening as I write and as you wrote your argument.Fossils, similarities in organisms, organs we have but do not need but are used by other creatures, lab experiments (a bacteria began using a substance it previously couldn't), DNA similarities. Those all support and prove evolution, you by denying it you deny reality.And you claim my opinions and arguments aren't based on logic and reality. Yet those are the things you contradict with your arguments and opinions. Sorry but, you are delusional.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: Yes

Nummi, we've had this conversation before. You can't apply your own opinion to a debate and force everyone to accept it was fact.Of course we have, not my problem you lack logic, especially in regard to something specific.I'm not forcing anyone or anything, just expressing my opinions. What you said was simply stupid, and I responded to that.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: No

"Of course we have, not my problem you lack logic, especially in regard to something specific."Here we go again, we can't have a proper debate if you're going to sit there and believe that everything you say is true."I'm not forcing anyone or anything, just expressing my opinions. What you said was simply stupid, and I responded to that."You responded to my "stupid" statement by enforcing it?
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: Yes

Here we go again, we can't have a proper debate if you're going to sit there and believe that everything you say is true.I know you are stupid.But seriously, when it comes to religion then you are so wrong. You cannot even see it is nonsense. Meaning what I say about it actually is true, because I base what I say on logic.You responded to my "stupid" statement by enforcing it????You cannot understand what I say.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: No

"I know you are stupid."Once again, you enforce more argument instead of disputing it. You clearly hold the delusion that I am stupid and therefore everything I say is stupid."But seriously, when it comes to religion then you are so wrong. You cannot even see it is nonsense. Meaning what I say about it actually is true, because I base what I say on logic."It is based on your logic, I cannot argue with someone who is so closeminded that you won't accept any other form of thinking or opinion other than your own."You cannot understand what I say."I said "You can't apply your own opinion to a debate and force everyone to accept it was fact."You replied "Of course we have, not my problem you lack logic, especially in regard to something specific."Your believe that I "lack logic" and you are impressing it as a fact.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: Yes

Once again, you enforce more argument instead of disputing it. You clearly hold the delusion that I am stupid and therefore everything I say is stupid.You got it in reverse. First it's what you say that is stupid and from that I conclude that you must be stupid.It is based on your logic, I cannot argue with someone who is so closeminded that you won't accept any other form of thinking or opinion other than your own.My logic is based on what really exists or what has the biggest possibility of being real. What I do not know for certain I never claim it to be so either. You on the other hand are religious, and that should say it all.You are close-minded, not me.This "Of course we have, not my problem you lack logic, especially in regard to something specific." is not the response to this "You can't apply your own opinion to a debate and force everyone to accept it was fact." Learn to understand what you read.How exactly am I forcing others to accept my view? Your arguments are stupid in the first place... Of course I will counter them.Your believe that I "lack logic" and you are impressing it as a fact.If you didn't lack logic then you wouldn't give so stupid arguments. And if you didn't lack logic then you'd probably also not be religious.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: No

"You got it in reverse. First it's what you say that is stupid and from that I conclude that you must be stupid."Exactly, whether the statement is "stupid" or not is your opinion and you force it into the debate as a fact."My logic is based on what really exists or what has the biggest possibility of being real. What I do not know for certain I never claim it to be so either. You on the other hand are religious, and that should say it all."No, you "logic" is based on prejudiced and your opinions."This "Of course we have, not my problem you lack logic, especially in regard to something specific." is not the response to this "You can't apply your own opinion to a debate and force everyone to accept it was fact." Learn to understand what you read."Then why on Earth did you write it as a response if it wasn't a response? I've given you lessons on how to debate before and now it's clear you haven't paid attention to them."How exactly am I forcing others to accept my view? Your arguments are stupid in the first place... Of course I will counter them."You not forcing others to accept your view you are forcing others to accept it as a fact, you do this by denying anything that contradicts it and using the claim to support your arguments."If you didn't lack logic then you wouldn't give so stupid arguments. And if you didn't lack logic then you'd probably also not be religious."This is all opinion and prejudice, which is what makes 90% of your arguments, the remaining 10% are insults.
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: Yes

Exactly, whether the statement is "stupid" or not is your opinion and you force it into the debate as a fact.As a fact? Because what you said was stupid. And you keep making them! So, the conclusion is, you are stupid.No, you "logic" is based on prejudiced and your opinions.I've got very little prejudice, if any. And my opinions? Are you saying you aren't using your opinions? My opinions are based on reality and logic, but I've said that already.Then why on Earth did you write it as a response if it wasn't a response? I've given you lessons on how to debate before and now it's clear you haven't paid attention to them.Really? Read it again, perhaps you'll notice this time. Paragraphs... and usually people begin answering from the beginning...Honestly, how could you not see what that response was meant for? It's self-evident if you read it. You cannot understand written messages? Or interpret them as you see fit? That would explain a lot...You not forcing others to accept your view you are forcing others to accept it as a fact, you do this by denying anything that contradicts it and using the claim to support your arguments.That describes you rather well.I don't deny, I respond with logic. Which is more than you can do (from observation).This is all opinion and prejudice, which is what makes 90% of your arguments, the remaining 10% are insultsNow this, is a good example of prejudice.Where did you get those numbers? I'm curious to know.To you religion makes sense and what it says is real, even though there is abundant scientific and logical evidence to prove it nonsense. I base my opinions objectively on reality, yet you claim I am prejudiced? Hypocrite. Honestly, pretending to be someone you're not... Or you know you are, well, mentally a bit of a mess?
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: No

"As a fact? Because what you said was stupid. And you keep making them! So, the conclusion is, you are stupid."Whether I am stupid or not is your opinion. It is not evidence you cannot use it to support your arguments. "I've got very little prejudice, if any. And my opinions? Are you saying you aren't using your opinions?"Where are my opinions in this debate? "My opinions are based on reality and logic, but I've said that already."Your version of "reality" and "logic" are based on your opinions."Really? Read it again, perhaps you'll notice this time. Paragraphs... and usually people begin answering from the beginning...Honestly, how could you not see what that response was meant for? It's self-evident if you read it. You cannot understand written messages? Or interpret them as you see fit? That would explain a lot..."You avoid answering my question because I should already know the asnwer? You do too much of this Nummi, answer the question properly this time."That describes you rather well."Another opinion based on some of your wonderful "logic"."I don't deny, I respond with logic. Which is more than you can do (from observation)."Logic such as "It is a fact that religion keeps people stupid"."Now this, is a good example of prejudice.Where did you get those numbers? I'm curious to know."I got them from where you get yours, my "logic" and view on "reality".
Debate: Is the age of Christianity slowly passing away?
Side: Yes

Whether I am stupid or not is your opinion. It is not evidence you cannot use it to support your arguments.My argument that you are stupid is supported by your stupid arguments... It should be easy to understand. My opinion that you are stupid comes from observation, of your arguments, from reading your arguments.Where are my opinions in this debate?All of it? Are you saying you don't use your own brain?Your version of "reality" and "logic" are based on your opinions.You got it in reverse. My opinions are based on logic and reality, but I've said it a couple of times already. I first need something to base my opinions on... First comes the opinion and then comes reality, and logic? What you said is like saying that everything that exists is because I have thought of it. I wish it was true...You avoid answering my question because I should already know the asnwer? You do too much of this Nummi, answer the question properly this time.I haven't avoided your questions... Stupid questions and arguments are, well, stupid. You don't answer what is stupid you say what is wrong about it.What question?Another opinion based on some of your wonderful "logic".It is an opinion. That comes from observation.Logic such as "It is a fact that religion keeps people stupid"You clearly don't know what religion is. It's fantasy backed up by repeating the same crap over and over.I got them from where you get yours, my "logic" and view on "reality".The problem with your logic and reality is that they come, at least partly, from an ancient and stupid book of fairy tales. Since those tales are fantasy then how can you take them as real? You should have the logic to see what they really are - not real. As you keep claiming you have logic... but you clearly do not have enough of it.