azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

The universe did have a beginning. If you are disputing this then you don't know much about science. The Big Bang is essentially indisputable. All evidence supports this. Do you even realize that if the universe was eternal there would be no non renewable resources available? The Big Bang really should be declassified as a theory and made into a law. The reason it won't be is that atheist scientists don't want to be backed into a corner. Let me explain this. Atheists go into science with the purpose of convincing the masses that God does not exist. They spend their entire scientific careers trying to find proof that God isn't real. Per capita, the conversion rate of scientists is overwhelming to belief than the other way around. Very few scientists who believe in God convert to atheism.If the Big Bang is absolute, then atheists should have to accept it as scientific fact just like they need to accept the laws of thermodynamics. But atheists overwhelmingly reject scientific facts when it goes against their view. Atheists make up wild ideas to try to convince themselves that they are right while ignoring the laws presented to them.fact: the universe had a beginningfact: matter and energy cannot by created.fact: matter and energy are not eternallogical conclusion: God is realStudy science and you will see things in a different perspective.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

You beat me to presenting the fact that the Big Bang verifies what the Bible first declared: that the heaven and earth began.You framed some good points. Well done
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

To the contrary, I am not at all disputing the Big Bang Theory as our most probabilistically true explanation for the origin of the present iteration of the universe. What I contest is that there is any evidence to even probabilistically suggest that this is the first iteration of the universe, and that the Big Bang was not the consequence of the collapse of an earlier universe in sequence of eternally collapsing and expanding iterations. We have not established that there was nothing before the Big Bang, therefor we do not know that the universe has a finite beginning. I am not bending the science to fit my views; I am observing that we do not yet have the proof to draw a conclusion either way. Who is really bending the science here? You wholly neglected my second objection to the Kalam argument, which is that it assumes that a finite origin necessitates divine causation. That we presently lack an understanding of how something could come from nothing does not make it implausible that it is naturally possible. The assumption of the divine as origin of the finite universe is nothing more than than an unfounded assertion for those too incapable of living with non-knowledge, or for those predisposed to bend the absence of knowledge to their pre-existing beliefs.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

they mean well but cant allways do well all religion has problems jews cant eat ham muslims blow stuff up
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

There is no God. There is no evil. Which makes this question doubly negated. God-lovers and evil-believers... bring it.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

While I'm not going to argue the God angle, I will argue the evil angle.There most certainly is evil. A number of things are classified as evil- if there is a god, then ostensibly he classifies them as such. if there is no god, it is simply mankind that has classified them as such.To say there is no evil is about as valid as to say there are no mammals, simply because they are human classifications rather than innate properties. You could say there is no such thing as economic class either with the same reasoning, and still be wrong.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

I should clarify that I do not think there is an objective God or an objective evil. They obviously exist as mental constructs; what I deny is that they exist beyond such human cognitive abstraction. If people ceased to believe they existed, they would not exist at all because they are not actual realities (only imagined realities). I will completely understand if this alters your response or interest in debating this matter; I should have been clear from the offset.I do object to your comparing morality to mammals. It is not at all the same to say that there is no evil and to say that there are no mammals. Evil does not exist outside of the human imagination; mammals do (whatever they are called they still exist). It is also inaccurate to compare evil to economic class. The concept of the latter is derived from an actual objective reality whereas evil originates purely as a mental construct. Evil is an ascription of relative value (esp. moral) to that which otherwise lacks any innate value. Mammal is not a value ascription, but a technical description. The same is true of economic class.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

I'll agree with you that there is no such thing as objective evil.I disagree with your objection regarding the comparison of morality to mammals. There are a number of actions that we classify as good or evil based on their characteristics. There are a number of animals that we classify as mammals or reptiles (etc) based on their characteristics. These are still labels that we apply to things and do not exist in objective reality. While the criteria for what constitutes a mammal is admittedly far more objective than the criteria for what constitutes evil, it's still not absolute; the classification of some animals into Mammalia is under dispute, after all. Without taxonomy, these animals would still exist and would still have their properties- Just as without morality, the actions we call evil would still exist and would still have their consequences.I'll concede that they vary greatly in how objective vs subjective they are, but taxonomy is not entirely as objective as you seem to believe, and morality is not entirely as subjective as you seem to believe either- certain things are considered to be evil almost unanimously.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

I still see an important distinction with the examples at hand. Subjective classification will be inherently fallible, whereas objective classification will be significantly less fallible... that relative fallibility is why the two are neither comparable nor equitable in utility. What truly distinguishes the subjective and objective realities, however, is not accuracy. The distinction I was really attempting to make was with respect to the distinct processes of classification inherent to the subjective and objective.The difference between saying a particular thing is evil and that a particular thing is an animal is this: The idea of evil would not exist in any sense at all absent our construction of it, because it does not refer to anything that objectively exists. "Evil" does not reference an approximate, actual thing. The idea of an animal would cease to exist subjectively but its essence would remain intact, because the object to which it refers does objectively exist. "Animal" does reference an approximate, actual thing. In neither case does the label actually exist independent of our thoughts, but with morality the value it references does not exist and the with taxonomy the animal it references does still exist. For further clarity, you claim that morality is the labeling of an action and its consequence. However morality does not label either of these things, it labels a system of value ascription that is then applied to action and sometimes consequence.You also write that "certain thing are considered to be evil almost unanimously" and I am led to conclude that you conceive this as a basis for objectivity. This is a logical leap unsupported by the reality of what morality is labeling: the process of value ascription. Everyone could believe in a certain moral; that would just make it a universal subjective truth. It would still not be objective.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

I think you're overvaluing the concrete vs. the abstract. There is a distinction between the two, yes, but not so much of one as to invalidate the metaphor; we may just have to disagree on that. The way I see it, "evil" does reference an approximate, actual thing- it's just more subjective in what it references. Without the term evil, we would still consider things such as murder and rape to be every bit as bad.I think you're overly nit-picking my words too. You're extending this from my usage of taxonomy in the prior sentence, but I have to also point out that taxonomy does not label animals; it is a system used by man to classify life forms, based on their characteristics. Similarly, morality is a system used to classify actions based on their characteristics. The difference is simply that the characteristics of animals are generally objective, whereas the relative value of the various characteristics of an action is subjective and based on the morals of the individual, the group, or the society.I wasn't presenting the fact that some things are all but unanimously considered evil as any kind of proof of objectivity, but rather to demonstrate that the subjective isn't always whimsical; it can, in some cases, be every bit as solid as something objective. One cannot have a clear, rational view of the world while remaining entirely objective in my opinion. I think you rate objectivity too high and underrate the subjective, personally.But this has gotten rather long, hasn't it? What I originally disputed was your claim that there was no such thing as evil. There is, even if the classification of some things as evil is itself disputed. I stand by that claim.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

I think you are correct, and this has rather departed from the original question into a matter of personal semantics. Your original dispute was a consequence of my poor phrasing, and this debate we are having now is a spin-off from my clarification on objective versus subjective morality. I feel that I have said all that I have to say on this, and that you likely have as well. I am content to agree to disagree and go our separate ways if you are.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

Unless we're talking in the realm of imagination...hypothetically.... then no God is not evil, because in order for God to be evil, God would first need to exist to do evil things. -shrug-
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: Yes it is racist

While I agree with all the heritage-voters on the issue of why the Civil War was fought, the question pertains to the flag as it is used today. Having grown up in South Carolina, a state that flew the flag atop our state house for most of my life (and later on the state house grounds, in front of Main St.), I knew many people who were on the side of heritage. All of those people were, without a doubt, prejudiced. They used the flag as a slap in the face, a way to get away with racism under a different name. Even if you don't believe that the flag is racist, I hope we can agree that it is traitorous. It is, afterall, the flag of a nation that no longer exists.
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: No its heratege

Although i agree with you that some people use the flag as a means to be racist, I disagree that that makes it racist. The kkk wore pillow sheets over their heads, but that doesn't not mean I'm going to stop using it as it's real purpose. People use flag for racism: not the real purpose. THe real purpose of the flag is for heritage.This is strictly speaking of what it stands for now. Not the past.
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: Yes its racest

The real purpose of the flag is to honor a country that did not pan out. I'm certainly not opposed to honoring those that fought in the Civil War, even if they were fighting for secession from the country I love. But the flag itself is merely a symbol of that failed attempt. There are far better ways of honoring our heritage than flying a flag that many consider to be a symbol of racism. And why do we need to honor the Civil War heritage separately? Shouldn't the American flag be the ultimate symbol of that heritage, as the North won the war and kept our nation intact?
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: Yes its racest

Yes the American flag should be the ultimate symbol I'm sure some use it as a symbol of the civil war but most use it as a racist symbol
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: Yes it is racist

While I would agree it is racist it does have its roots in the southern world of the confederate states. It has come to symbolize hatred of mankind, typically African-American blacks. We must not allow that flag to fly anywhere in the USA. It belongs in a museam not masted and flown.
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: No its heratege

The first amendment of free speech Would be trampled if we were not allowed to fly the flag we want.
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: No its heratege

That's a point I didn't address in the above arguements.You are correct that it should certainly be allowed, just as a nazi flag should be allowed if one chooses,a Mexican flag,two gays kissing in public,the crazy guy on the corner rattling off about the world's end,the jesus freaks,The question though was not whether it should be allowed, but whether or not it is racist, which it most certainly is, which I argue very well about 3 responses up, and 2 or 3 replies deep. If you don't understand why, please reply to that arguement, and you can prove me wrong, or maybe I can persuade you.
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: No its heratege

"I argue very well"Good for you man, good for you. _____________________________________--
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: Yes it is racist

I agree that it would violate free speech to not allow the flag to be flown. On the other hand, states should not be flying it on their state house or have it embedded within their state flags.
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: Yes it is racist

While I understand your point locke, how would it be if Germany would fly the NAZI flag underneath their own? It would conjur up images of a world gone to hell and back. Usually a nation flys their present day flag and not one from eons ago...and especially one that has such deep meaning in the negative.
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: No its heratege

I have to say that the racist comment dont fly. Using the argument it is the flag oionf a failed nation, why is there no American been adopted by Iraq or other failed nationsinvolved with the U.S. Second who made the case to remove it from the buildings? A yankee and our dear president was very vocal in the argument. Bottom line it was not racest until Northerners stirred the racest angle.
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: Yes its racest

" I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands....etc." If you want that other flag, you have that RIGHT! WE, the people, have the RIGHT to object to those who wish to fly another flag in OUR country and THAT is OUR first amendment RIGHT! The votes are in, WE want only OUR flag.I was in N.C. last summer and saw BOTH the American and Confederate flags flying. The "Stars and Bars" was flying ABOVE the American flag! That was an ABUSE of the first amendment. Luckily, this IS a free country, you can fly any flag you want LOWER than ours, but, any state government that insists on flying another "country's" flag as a statement of "pride" doesn't deserve the protection of the Constitution!
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: Yes its racest

It represents our racist heritage. ;) fiftycharacters are required for me to make this dumb joke.
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: Yes its racest

1. yes it is, racists use the heritage arguement (valid or not) to validate their wanting to wave a symbol of racism in everyone's face.2. the south tried to secede, had they been successful who knows how long they would have kept slaves, maybe even until today, so the idea that that heritage is somehow worthy of fond rememberance is basically mentally retarded.3. everyone on earth who does not have their own confederate flag hanging in their trailer home or truck equates it with racism, so what on earth possess these people to have it other than wanting to identify themselves as a racist, while at the same time being able to maintain the lame excuse of heritage? I say nothing, show me someone with a confederate flag, and I'll bet I can trick them into a conversation about how blacks are ruining the country.4. Pretend Santa is real, and confederate flag weilding hillbillies aren't racist. The south declared that war, and it was the bloodiest battle in history. And as a result of the N. winning, we became the most powerful nation in the world, and ended slavery in the South. wtf are those a-holes celebrating exactly?
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: No its heratege

I actually own a Confederate Flag shirt...am I some racist hillbilly? Or am I just proud of my Southern Culture...?
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: Yes its racest

You really want me to answer that? Would you wear that shirt if you were going to a grocery store in NYC? No, because you know black people may see it and get offended.You know it offends people, you know what people think of it,it's akin to telling a joke that you have to look around to make sure there are no minorities around to tell, you probably just shouldn't tell the joke.Anyway, the heritage line is complete bs, because they weren't running around with that flag before they decided to secede,and weren't you one of the people pissed about Mexicans waiving Mexican flags in the US? So what's the difference? There is none, it's hypocricy, and the rebel flag stands for slavery and secession.
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: No its heratege

"You really want me to answer that?"You can't answer that. Because you don't know him personally. Would you wear an american flag shirt in another country that has people that hate us?If not then why sport anything with an American flag on it here in the U.S.? The American flag in front of my house is obviously there to stick it to other countries because I hate them and not because I'm proud of my country or anything. [sarcasm]
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: No its heratege

I agree and understand just about everything except for:it is impossible for one not to both understand what the general meaning of a rebel flag is, and at the same time, be OK with flying it. Unless they really are "racist hillbillies." Don't get me wrong I'm not a big fan of the confederate flag. But I don't think that the flag should be directly linked to racism and slavery. The south where not the only racist ones. More racist yes. I don't know if you read my post on the other side but I used the U.S. flag as an example. The U.S. has dealt with a lot of racism and discrimination. Does that make it symbolize racism? Maybe. See, it can symbolize whatever you want it to. To many of us Americans the U.S. flag symbolizes freedom and prosperity and lots of other positive things. For somebody that had ancestors die fighting for the south the confederate flag could represent their sacrifice. I'm not going to tell that select few what to do. It's their freedom and choice. And funeral if they do choose to go to new york. (+At this point I think that it's to late. It's already been so associated with racism that the majority directly thinks of racism and slavery when they see it. The reason I'm not a big fan is: 1. that /\. and 2. It reminds me of a bad time when we where not united as one. That's why I wear a shirt with a U.S. flag on it. (((=I read the whole thing.
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: No its heratege

I did see your point on the other side, and it was a very good one.However, my arguement has never been whether one should be allowed to have one, but whether or not it is racist.Well, one can certainly in their mind not believe the flag is racist.I submit that while our flag does have a terrible history or racism, that is not what people see. I do not believe that is the case with a confederate flag at all. Actually though, I'm not even the best person to answer that I suppose, I think I got more caught up in winning the debate, than something I think is that important.
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: No its heratege

Actually, the swastika is still displayed by Buddhists and other religious cultures. They didn't decide to cast out their beliefs because Nazis fucked shit up for them.
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: Yes its racest

Please correct me if I'm wrong (American history obviously isn't my strong point), but weren't the confederate states formed because of disagreements between the north and south in how to maintain and expand the slave trade? To that regard, the confederate flag has its roots firmly planted in racist beginnings. This is entirely different to the swastika symbol, which was used for thousands of years to represent things such as Eastern gods, eternal life, etc. Hardly a valid comparison, is it?
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: No its heratege

No, it mainly came from Federal Law being abused by the North... refer to what I said before.
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: No its heratege

I don't care if Mexicans wave a Mexican flag... that's JakeJ stuff.If I were in NYC and had that shirt with me, I would probably wear it. Though, it's not a club shirt, just an average day shirt.Actually, I've never seen anyone get offended when wearing this shirt anywhere. I live among a lot of black people.
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: Yes its racest

I don't care if Mexicans wave a Mexican flag... that's JakeJ stuff.How is that "JakeJ" stuff!? What's the matter? Do you not want me defending your post to drag your popularity down? Are you calling me racist? Please explain. Just call me Jake by the way. (=
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: Yes its racest

This may be my fault.But I do remember a few people while there were the protests by Mexicans about immigration or something, complaining about them waiving Mexican instead of American flags.Nothing to do with racism I think pyg would back up, infact I agree, they should have been waiving American flags, that would have been much smarter on their part.I was making the connection, that we have a perfectly good flag no matter what part of the country you're from, including the South, and that a Rebel flag appears to me at least to me in direct opposition to that.But whoever it was arguing against them waiving a Mexican flag (whom I agreed with) should see a correlation between their reply that "it's heritage" and the rebel flag reply that "it's heritage."Nothing to do with racism.
Debate: Is the confederate flag racist? or is it heritage?
Side: No its heratege

Well to answer for myself I wear mine as I would anyother shirt. Maybe the black people you mention in New York have no clue as they are not from the south. What about when the black people wore Malcolm X shirts (even more of a racest statement) most whites could have cared less. No disrespect to anyone or group but if a person lives outside of the South they probably have been brain washed into a certain point of view. Granted there are some racest people who have made the flag have a bad feel to some people but where I live blacks and white get along great (yes in the deep south) Why because we respect each other and know that a flag cant define who or what a person really is