azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: God loves you.
Side: He died to save you from Hell.

This diatribe against God and against me is why you believe God does not love you? You could have just summed it up by saying you believe there is no God and then conceding that really you have nothing to talk about. God loves you if you believe it or not. If you end up in Hell after your death is finalized, you will never be able to believe it. I hope you repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and receive Him as your Savior before you have to appear before Him after you finalized your Hell-bound attitude against Him.
Debate: God loves you.
Side: I don't believe it.

A psychopath is incapable to feeling emotions such as love.
Debate: God loves you.
Side: I don't believe it.

so you believe God does not love you because you are a psychopath? God can and will fix that if you will repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved from Hell.
Debate: God loves you.
Side: I don't believe it.

so you believe God does not love you because you are a psychopath?No it's because god is the psychopath
Debate: God loves you.
Side: He died to save you from Hell.

Typical of psychopaths to say the people who bother them are psychopaths. God loves you, psycho
Debate: God loves you.
Side: He died to save you from Hell.

saved from Hell.The real hell is spending an eternity with a Psychopath that you call god.
Debate: God loves you.
Side: I don't believe it.

Talking like that won't excuse you from being against God, and you can't blame Him if you end up stuck in Hell frying like an eternal sausage squirming like a worm. He did everything He could to prove His love for you, trying to get you to come into reason with Him so He could pardon you rather than execute you and give you what you are asking for.
Debate: God loves you.
Side: I don't believe it.

I'm going to try and take you seriously, even though you have, in my view, behaved somewhat childishly. I doubt we will get anywhere constructive, but I will try. In the debate description, you said: God wants you to be with Him in heaven forever, so He took on a body as the Son of God and paid for your sins with His own blood so you don't have to pay with your life in Hell. You will be justfied for eternal life if you agree with God as to His right to punish sin after He took the punishment on Himself and death could not hold Him in the ground; if you will repent of your sin and believe Jesus is risen from the dead and is God and receive Him personally as your Savior, God will give you eternal life...Jesus wil live in you by His Holy Spirit makign you a child of God.Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. God loves you and does not want you to be lost forever; He loves you so much He will let you be lost forever if that is what you want to be...even though you broke His heart so much that He died for you.However, throughout that, you presented no reason why I should believe that. So as a starting point: You have made the positive claims: God exists, God loves you, God became Jesus, if you call upon the name of the Lord you shall be saved, etc. etc.. So far, you have presented no reasons to believe that. So, present why you believe that to be true, and then we can discuss that. Otherwise, you are saying "I believe this because it's true," which is not a legitimate argument.
Debate: God loves you.
Side: He died to save you from Hell.

You are arguing against the truth. Jesus is God, God came down from Heaven as Jesus Christ. God did not become Jesus Christ, He is Jesus Christ. God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit. These three are One.I"m not making an argument, I'm stating facts. You don't want to believe the facts because you love the pleasures of your sin and prefer believing you have the right to exist outside of Hell so your sin is worth the price of your death. You are a fool, and you can prove or disprove it for yourself. To prove you are a fool, keep on talking and thinking the way you have been until your death is finalized. To disprove that you are a fool, agree with God...you can't do that, can you? You are too proud, aren't you? You won't agree with God, will you? I don't think you will, and I hope I am wrong. I really feel sorry for you.
Debate: God loves you.
Side: I don't believe it.

PM me and I'll tell you all the reasons God does not love me...
Debate: God loves you.
Side: He died to save you from Hell.

Ok, but know in advance that if you are abusive in speech with cuss words directed toward me or toward God or toward any problem you have or see in the world, or anything anywhere in the world or universe, I'll say God loves you if you believe it or not and I'll quit listening to you. I'll PM you and promise confidentiality of your statements as long as you are not boasting of or planning crimes. We have all done things punishable by law, I'm not concerned about petty crimes in your past. If you have raped or killed or committed grand larcenies, you probably should not speak of such things directly with me. God offers pardon so you can live forever with Him, having eternal life now as His gift for you. You can receive God's love. In PM, you can tell me why you think God does not love you and I'll try to show you that He does no matter how things may appear.
Debate: God loves you.
Side: He died to save you from Hell.

For the record, I repeatedly offered in PM for this person to tell me the reasons he believes God does not love him. I'm sorry I never got a response, I think I could convince the guy that God loves him.
Debate: God loves you.
Side: He died to save you from Hell.

Oh dude that's true. lemme get back to you
Debate: God loves you.
Side: I don't believe it.

George Carlin pretty much summed this argument up for me.
Debate: God loves you.
Side: He died to save you from Hell.

Remind me that you are an idiot and nothing you bring has yet had value in my discussion.
Debate: God loves you.
Side: I don't believe it.

George Carlin is a dirty minded foul mouthed fool and you have to be like him to think he is funny.
Debate: God loves you.
Side: I don't believe it.

Nope, to quote Richard Dawkins:“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”I can reference biblical verses for each of those claims if you want.Also, taking all the events in the Bible the Christian God has killed an estimated 24,994,828 if you take into account the flood of Noah (its 4,994,828 if you don't).Even if we go into this "debate" going by the assumption that everything in the Bible is true (it isn't by a long-shot) then your god would still be a very unloving and hateful person by anyone's standards.
Debate: God loves you.
Side: He died to save you from Hell.

Richard Dawkins is a fool. He sounds like a raving maniac in his hatred toward God and Christians. If you want to idolize a fool, go ahead.
Debate: God loves you.
Side: I don't believe it.

Do you want me to quote the Bible? Because I can back up every one of those claims with evidence from your own holy book. Or does the Bible have too much hatred towards God and Christians to be considered a usable source?
Debate: God loves you.
Side: He died to save you from Hell.

It's you who harbors hatred toward God, in spite of the fact that He loves you. Satan quoted the Bible to Jesus, using it to try to confuse Jesus by twisting the meanings and taking things out of context. You're boasting of being able to support your arguments with the Bible is old stuff, it's all over the internet. You can find the correct answers yourself if you want them. I could give them to you, but I know you will not accept them and it would be a colossal waste of time for me to entertain you. You want to be wasting away in your intellectual laziness, that's your problem. I'm not going to entertain that kind of stuff.
Debate: God loves you.
Side: He died to save you from Hell.

Richard Dawkins is an idiot, ignoring God's Justice. Sin is killing every one of us in body, and we deserve to die. Dawkins the fool is trying to deny justice, and you want to do the same thing believing you have the right to exist outside of Hell only because you can't see that you are a dead person talking now and worthy of eternal death in Hell.Why in the world people put a bag of hot air like Dawkins on a pedestal is a mystery to me..........well, I guess it's understandable since sinners don't want God to rule over them. Dawkins can't get you out of Hell. You're wasting away and running out of time existing as a sinner in the world outside of Hell.
Debate: God loves you.
Side: He died to save you from Hell.

Sin is killing you, and you are including yourself in the number of people whose deaths you are blaming God for, correct, fool? You and Dawkins, what a pair of fools.
Debate: God loves you.
Side: I don't believe it.

You are arguing against God's love. That makes it a debate. If you were discussing the love of God reasonably with me, then it would not be a debate. Fool.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

In any debate it is important to assert the facts. Facts are the basic support structure of any argument, and anybody with common sense would agree. So let's examine the facts;*The defintion of FACT; an idea that is true becuase of circumstantial evidence to support it.This is something that many "mythologists" fail to understand. There IS evidence that Jesus was real. But, evidence that he was God/Part Of God amounts to nothing more than folklore and stories. Christians take their faith on the bible. Definition of FAITH; to believe in something without circumstantial evidence to support it. Here is another fact; The bible was not only written decades after Jesus, but was edited and re-written numerously. Books were added and removed, translated and re-translated since it was written almost 2,000 years ago. Christianity's main argument for the existence of God is the bible. So theoretically, if a single part of the bible is proved untrue then the thread of Judea religion is torn apart right? The bible was written (and re-written) so that there is no way to prove it wrong. Kinda like a horiscope right? Science is absolute fact. It is based on the PROVEN laws of nature. It is based on humanity's need to know the truth of the world around us. Christians believe that becuase we can't explain the creation of the universe, God must have done it. Most people can't possibly fathom the imensity of the unviverse so to assume that there is a creator who conjured up the whole of it is preposterous. FACT; Creation of the Universe (The Big Bang)is only a theory, and not accepted as a proven law. So to use something that is still as of yet, unexplainable, to "prove" the existence of God is actually more damaging to your argument than anything.Now it is time for opinions: People are afraid of the unknown. Since the beginning of mankind people have had gods and folklore to explain the unknown. As science developed, gods became obsolete and purely fantasy. The modern Christian is just a product of an earlier ancester. People cannot accept the fact that death may possibly be permanent and final. They cannot accept that life is just a random universal evolution. People want to be comforted by the fact that there is someone there to guide and nurture them. The real miracle is life itself and your time in consious existance should be considered the most valuable gift of all. Life is precisiuos, enjoy it. Accept that we are infitesminally small and only amount to anything as a whole. Life is a wonderful beautiful thing that should be chersish accordingly.Please note: I am not trying to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. This is just my argument as an intelligent person. I think Christians have a wonderful moral basis (for the most part) and that everyone has the right to live and believe in what you will.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

I will ask you this: how big is the universe? Isn't it infinite, according to most scientists? Tell me, have you ever measured how big it is? Then how do you know it is infinite? You believe that the universe is infinite without actually knowing how big it actually is. Sounds to me like science is based on faith as well. :)-----to believe in something without circumstantial evidence to support it.-----You can never be completely sure that any scientific theory is true anyways. Just because there is no evidence to contradict one does not mean that there may be evidence in the future to contradict it.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

First, not once did I mention that the Universe is infinite. I did not even imply that. Einestein claims that the universe is constantly expanding, but that it has boundries. Secondly, if you are to imply that the Universe isn't imense, just becuase you haven't seen then I have a questions for you;1.By your own logic, Why believe in a God you can't see, or hear?
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

Never said you did. I am asking you a simple question.-----Einestein? Who is Einestein? :) -----I want to know what your opinion is. You said that you were intelligent, did you not?-----If it has boundaries as you say, then where are they? Where is the specific point where the universe ends?-----Miracles. I have seen them, and science can't explain them.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

Sounds to me like science is based on faith as well. :)You would be wrong.While if you're watching the science channel, and it's some special about the Universe, you may hear the word "infinite" thrown around,this is because it's tv though. In a classroom or lab, no self-respecting scientist would use such a silly term.We know that "infinite" is impossible,a couple things scientists do believe are,The Universe folds in on itself, so if you were going in what you thought was a straight line at the speed of light for trillions and trillions of years, you would eventually end up where you started, by then of course everything would be different, so even at the speed of light it would appear infinite,Others don't believe it folds in on itself, but is limited. Currently we know it is expanding, some believe it will collapse in on itself again, others think it will just keep going on forever,whatever the correct theory though,none of them involve infinity, simply numbers we cannot yet imagine.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Both

"We know that "infinite" is impossible,"We? So you're a scientist now!? Congratulations.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

Well, we doesn't necessarily assume any group of people other than those who know infinity is impossible. This could include plumbers, hygenists, scuba divers, etc.But I meant people in general. As in it's general knowledge.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

I type in 'infinite universe' on Google and get 1.87 million results. So no, I wasn't watching the science channel. Nice try though. :)-----"a universe that is infinite and expanding"Stephen Hawkinghttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/home.html -----none of them involve infinityMind answering this one then?Steady State Theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

"a universe that is infinite and expanding"Stephen HawkingWell, regardless of where he said it, I assure you Stephen Hawking knows that it is impossible for something to both be expanding and infinite at the same time. What is meant is that there is no limit to it's potential expansion perhaps, but at any time anything can be measured (assuming the means are available) and given a number that says how big it is, and at of course you can always add a 0 to any number no matter how big it is, therefore, there is no such thing as "infinite." Which he knows.That's what I'm saying.And again with the Steady State Theory. That theory requires constant creation,if something is added, then obviously whatever existed before something was added was not "infinite" as that thing added would have already been there, and so any creation within something that is already infinite is impossible.Making the constant creation necessary for the Steady State Theory impossible.Again, they don't mean infinite literally, as infinity is impossible.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: God

Stephen Hawking knows that it is impossible for something to both be expanding and infinite at the same timeActually, in this context, infinite means expanding.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

I watched an hour special with Stephen Hawking describing in what event time travel would be possible, and he specifically said that infinity doesn't exist.So yeah, it exists if you change the definition, as he may have at some point. But speaking of the agreed definition of the term, it is self-contradicting.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

I watched an hour special with Stephen Hawking describing in what event time travel would be possible, and he specifically said that infinity doesn't exist.Finite means some matter with limitation. If there is no limit to the expansion or increase of some matter, what limit is there other than a technical limit from one point of reference? In essence, what is infinite cannot be defined or measured, and the volume of something that is expanding cannot be defined (except at one point) until it stops. If the universe will not cease its expansion, it may be called infinite.Regardless, when the universe is referred to as infinite, it is actually suggested that it is expanding without limitation. Due to the ambiguity, I deem it to be a poor choice of words. Is it actually expanding without limitation? I do not know for certain, and neither does anybody else for that matter, which is why I do not immediately concur with Mr. Hawking. The greatest hypocrisy in modern science, I believe, is argument over theoretical physics.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: SCIENCE

...I'm sorry,Did you dispute me than go on to say If there is no limit to the expansion or increase of some matter, what limit is there other than a technical limit from one point of reference? In essence, what is infinite cannot be defined or measuredIf something can be measured at any point in time it cannot be said to be infinite in the sense that is being argued here.If you change the definition to that which is not finite, than just about everything is infinite since we don't have absolute knowledge of anything being finite... example if the universe is expanding at approaching the speed of light are all particles in it becoming larger? Hence not finite?Maybe you meant to clarify Hawking's statement of an "infinite" universe as one expanding? That's sort of what I was saying though.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

Well, neither created the world. The world happened on it's own through the natural evolution of the Universe.I mean, we made science, so obviously science has not made anything before we existed.And whether or not there is a god, we already know how the world came into being right up to something like a millionth of a second after the big bang, and it wasn't a magic creator waving a wand.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

science exist even before man's evolution hence big bang itself is science
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

linkAs you can see, science requires some sentient being. The Universe is not "aware" in any way, and as far as we know, the conditions under which the big bang occured would have been impossible for any sentient being to have existed in, much less to have facilitated.Therefore, while our understanding of the big bang is a result of science, the big bang itself has 0 to do with science.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

when two bamboos dash against each other fire erupts.............what sentient being is required in this act of science
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

follow the link I provided,you're confusing the definition of science, with what science attempts to understand.ex.two bamboo sticks that somehow in nature rub on each other enough to make a fire without any sentient thing rubbing them together to make a fire,this would be an act of nature, not science.the science would be some sentient thing trying to figure out why the act of two bamboo rubbing each other creates fire.Subsequent experiments with bamboo would be science,but them rubbing each other to start with had nothing to do with science.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

As you can see, science requires some sentient being.Sentient being?????.Do you think for rising of the sun you need a sentient being........comets clashing is because of a sentient being.......
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

... are you doing this on purpose to be annoying, or do you really not understand what science means? Science is the act of studying and trying to figure things out. The sun rising is not science. Stars have existed for billions upon billions of years, all "rising" from the perspective of trillions upon trillions of planets throughout the Universe.This is not "science" it is only the state of the Universe. When we, a sentient being, do things like measure color differences in various stars to determine the chemical make-up, when we time their movements across the night sky, that is science. Things simply doing what they naturally do is not science. Science by definition is a thinking thing trying to figure out something that naturally occurs. You cannot have science without some being that thinks.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Both

I believe in God. Does that mean I think that the world was created by "a magic creator waving a wand"!? [see comment on other side]
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

No, it just means you don't believe your religion when it says god created us.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Both

So are you saying that the only way God could have created us is by magic?
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

I'm saying creation is magic... and doesn't exist, and all religion says someone "created" stuff, whether they opt into the creationism theory, an intelligen design theory, or like the Mormons, simply choose to say "god has not yet revealed the answer."
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Both

Oh well thanks for making it personal. l:  For the record, we don't believe God created the earth from nothing, but that he used elements that where already there. So how is that magic? the Mormons, simply choose to say "god has not yet revealed the answer."We believe that God Is omniscient. Therefore it's only logical to assume that it's impossible for us to know everything that God knows in this life. I believe part of his plan is for us to learn things. It would be impossible for us to learn everything God knows here on earth.
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

I wasn't a personal attack Jake, just a statement. So don't feel you have to take it as one, of course you can, that's understandable as well.At any rate, I find that position much more defensible than creation from nothing. So congratulation, rare up vote on a god v. science debate from me.However, the question remains then, why would a god be necessary to make us from the available elements, if nothing was needed to create the creator from available elements? But I know, he wasn't created, just is. I would say if something so much more powerful, intelligent, and bigger than us could "just be" then why couldn't we - and on the debate would go until we die...I only add that last paragraph to stave off a theological debate on the existance of a god ;)
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Both

However, the question remains then, why would a god be necessary to make us from the available elements, if nothing was needed to create the creator from available elements? But I know, he wasn't created, just is.Nope, wrong again. Of course we don't think God just came up from nothing. We believe he came from a different planet and had parents. But we don't claim to have all the details. Thanks for the upvote (:
Debate: GOD vs SCIENCE
Side: Science

Science is a human concept, and it didn't create the world. However, I believe in a scientific explanation of the origin of the world.