azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

Where did I say that an argument had to be more than one sentence long?Is that not the point of your entire hissy.No. You'd just need to explain your little statement.How many times do you need to be told this, explaining that statement would require several books' worth of info, better to argue individual disputes.Thanks but is it working?SarcasmFighting a losing battle. But who does?Chopping apart my sentences to create strawman arguments, good tactic for winning.What did I not dispute?You haven't given me a single reason to believe in God.Okay we're talking about when you said "No reason to" or however you said it. Do you get that? You have yet to give reason to your lazy a$$ argument. Or lack thereof.Yep, that's what we are talking about.But you weren't writing a book (I'd be a short one Doesn't matter, have you ever written a book? I have.You were answering a question. ..by saying you had no reason to answer it..NO, yet again, I wasn't answering a question by stating I had no reason to answer it, I answered a question about why I didn't believe in God, and contrary to your opinion, no reason to is a valid answer to that. If the question had been what arguments exist against the existence of a particular God, then I could have expanded more.which is fine but I wouldn't show up to a discussion about a topic that I didn't have reason to discuss. Would you?- oh...yeahWhere is your valid argument?I don't know but I'm pretty confident with my arguments I don't feel the need to count. Why do you ask?Because, I stated earlier that you were the one calling my argument weak, but mine had more consensus points. I don't usually care for the points, but I thought it pertinent to highlight it here.Why?Because Obviously I don't agree with you.Now this is what would have been a much stronger argument rather than the one we've been talking about.But this argument had a point to argue, it was to show you that in one instance there was no reason to argue the point.K that's fine but it's just simply weak not to expound. You clearly have that ability because you've done it. What I'm saying is that you could have started out with a stronger argument.I have constructed many arguments on here when the topic so fits, but this one was too broad.Believing in God is an observable fact. Infact some of the arguments you have made are observations about christian people.But one can't dispute that Christians' believe, why they believe is the topic of the argument, and this is something that needs looking into, but again there are far more Gods than the Christian God.That has little to do with anything. This debate as a whole is not about convincing anyone to believe anything. Let alone our conversation.It has a lot to do with it, you provide a reason to believe and I try dispute your argument, I'd never set out to convince anyone to change their mind, but it is good to discuss matters such as this, it enriches perspective.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

"Is that not the point of your entire hissy."No. "had to be" implies not allowed to. I never said that you weren't allowed to post a weak argument. "How many times do you need to be told this, explaining that statement would require several books' worth of info, better to argue individual disputes."It doesn't matter how many times because it doesn't make sense. You're wanting one extreme or the other. Either a one sentence argument or a huge thesis covering every single aspect of the issue. Why are you looking at it that way? "You haven't given me a single reason to believe in God."You so want me too because I can't. That's so low. It has nothing to do with this debate or our little debate. You wish it did so then you could win. Sure if you're loosing an argument make it about something els right?!"Doesn't matter, have you ever written a book? I have."How long is it? "If the question had been what arguments exist against the existence of a particular God, then I could have expanded more."You can always expand more. Always. You're argument isn't invalid its just astoundingly weak. Us going back and forth like this may create the illusion that I'm making a huge deal out of this. I'm really not. It's just that I'm right and you keep putting false words in my mouth. "Where is your valid argument?"My arguments on the other side we already talked about this. "but mine had more consensus points"Look at my response to the debate on the other side and look at your original response! Shall we compare the two?... "Because Obviously I don't agree with you."Then you also don't agree with the textbook definition. .."But one can't dispute that Christians' believe, why they believe is the topic of the argument, and this is something that needs looking into"Yeah because you were so willing to look into why you don't believe. right"but again there are far more Gods than the Christian God."Yes there are many gods that people believe in. Is that supposed to strike some kind of chord with me? Not sure were you were getting at. "It has a lot to do with it,"How so? "you provide a reason to believe and I try dispute your argument"No reason to. (: Now if you would like to ask me why I believe-the actual topic of this debate (NOT WHY EVERYONE SHOULD BELIEVE) then I would again direct you to my argument on the other side. "I'd never set out to convince anyone to change their mind"Neither would I.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

It doesn't matter how many times because it doesn't make sense.Strangely, it's only you that seems to think this.You're wanting one extreme or the other.And you're wanting incomplete arguments, sorry, not going to happen.Either a one sentence argument or a huge thesis covering every single aspect of the issue. Why are you looking at it that way?I'm not.You so want me too because I can't. That's so low.Is this why you jumped on my argument, because it made you feel insignificant?Calling me low for wanting to end this farce and get back to the debate, is a bit much, no?If you can't provide a reason, fair enough.You wish it did so then you could win.Are you stating that I would win if we were debating God?Sure if you're loosing an argument make it about something els right?!I hope the irony in this is not lost on you.How long is it?All three of them are one sentence long each, riveting stuff really.You can always expand more. Always.But, why should I?You're argument isn't invalid its just astoundingly weak. Well we've established that you think so.Us going back and forth like this may create the illusion that I'm making a huge deal out of this. I'm really not.Then stop.I'm really not. It's just that I'm right and you keep putting false words in my mouth.What the hell is a false word? I'm merely pointing out the gaping flaw in your argument, and that is that you haven't a leg to stand on.My arguments on the other side we already talked about this.Yes, indeed, spirituality and knowing yourself from personal experience or something like that, I technically have no dispute for that, I mean, You either know yourself or you don't. If you feel like this is the best for you then that's great.Look at my response to the debate on the other side and look at your original response! Shall we compare the two?...Work away.Then you also don't agree with the textbook definition. As wielded by you, not by how I read it.Yeah because you were so willing to look into why you don't believe. rightIndeed, because the Christian God is a good starting point, one where the ideas presented by this specific dogma can be challenged.Yes there are many gods that people believe in. Is that supposed to strike some kind of chord with me? Not sure were you were getting at.I was highlighting it, in order to hopefully communicate to you the enormity of an argument on this.How so?I have no desire to keep repeating myself.No reason to. (: Now if you would like to ask me why I believe-the actual topic of this debate (NOT WHY EVERYONE SHOULD BELIEVE) then I would again direct you to my argument on the other side.What you're saying is you've no reason to believe, you just do, is it?You my friend are Atheist to almost every God, I just go one God further, can you explain to me why you don't believe in Zeus or Thor or any other God? Probably not, you just don't, right? Well I feel like all these Gods need including.You display the Christian "Yahwahocentrism" , because you believe in the God of the Bible, that he is the only one worth debating.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

I'm sure there are plenty of people who believe that in a debate it is best to post a detailed argument with reason without going overboard and having to list every reason in existence. ..This is obvious.Of course there would be, if the topic were not so broad.All I'm wanting (and keep in mind I'm not telling anyone what to do) is a detailed argument with reason.On the contrary, you're wanting to nit-pick.But that's not why I called you low.... Nice try though.This debate is about God, your debate is from pedantry, it is in your inability to actually refute my original argument, that were it as weak as you proclaim, would be easy for you to tear apart. But you can't. This is my point, for this (my calling you out) you call me low.You'd have to define winAs in, you'd have to admit my argument the most logically valid, or would be by consensus. But in my post on the other side (that you haven't disputed yet)To be honest, it's because I couldn't be arsed, this debate is so old, I'd moved on by the time you started your dispute, I will give it a look though out of respect.I know it's so hard for you. But could you explain that for me? It's a lot of work I know.Sarcasm, oh joyYou say "Sure if you're loosing an argument make it about something els right?!"yet you are the one that has made this debate about your personal belief in my argument's weakness, have admitted you can't actually dispute it and label me low for calling you out.Because that's whatchya do in a debate.Only when necessary.That's when you say "your saying this" When I'm really not. Like when you were saying that I was saying you weren't allowed to post a one sentence argument.I know what it is to put words in someone's mouth, but never heard of false words, to me jijijihsudsjdh would be a false word because it has no meaning, and doesn't exist in any known language. It seemed pretty straight forward to me. How did you see it exactly?A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.I gave a reason.Nope. False words again.How is it "false words", when it is a question?So you know what I believe now.I do, because I've read your posts, where you've stated your beliefs.it's the 2nd part of the sentence I'm talking about)You've only mentioned Christianity.What makes you think I think other gods aren't worth debating?I don't, maybe I made an overly broad assumption out of boredom.Psychology is a science if you studied it (as I do) then you would realize how biased and closed minded you sound.Now, now, let's not get pissy. You are not a critical thinker.Thanks
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

"Of course there would be, if the topic were not so broad."No. I'm sorry it would still be the case. "On the contrary, you're wanting to nit-pick."Well I guess you could call it nit-picking.. just a simple way to break down certain points that I disagree with. Otherwise details might get missed. I find it efficient. I'm assuming you're talking about how I'm breaking down your arguments.. "This debate is about God, your debate is from pedantry"Yes the debate we're having is separate. But I don't think it's inappropriate. I was actually intervening in a discussion you were already having. If I remember correctly. "it is in your inability to actually refute my original argument, that were it as weak as you proclaim, would be easy for you to tear apart. But you can't. This is my point, for this (my calling you out) you call me low."Well, you raise a good point. I sort of did dispute it but not directly. Though according to my stance on the issue it wouldn't last long. You see my reason to believe comes from something you don't believe exists. It's just not very compatible. "You say "Sure if you're loosing an argument make it about something els right?!"yet you are the one that has made this debate about your personal belief in my argument's weakness, have admitted you can't actually dispute it and label me low for calling you out."See here's the thing. If I had directly disputed and we were already having a debate directly relevant to the topic then I suddenly brought it up in the middle of everything- then you'd have a point. That's what I was talking about when I said that. "Only when necessary."But your reason as to why it wouldn't be necessary is that you'd have to go to such great length with all kinds of research.(Which would have been smart to put in your original post) but that's not true soo......"I know what it is to put words in someone's mouth, but never heard of false words, to me jijijihsudsjdh would be a false word because it has no meaning, and doesn't exist in any known language."Ok fine you put words in my mouth. That's what I meant djbdsvoljkbdsv (: "I gave a reason."Fine you did. We've established that. But it was more a statement than an argument. If you had explained as you eventually have to me then it would have been a better argument. "How is it "false words", when it is a question?"You can put words in somebodies mouth in the form of a question sure why not? "You've only mentioned Christianity."So? You implied that I don't care about those other religions enough to talk about them. I mentioned Christianity because I'm a christian but my argument is broad enough to cover all belief. I have great respect for the beliefs of others. Including atheists. "Now, now, let's not get pissy."sdakljbdslkjsbdalkjbds (: oh sorry I'm I boring you?
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

No. I'm sorry it would still be the case.Yet again, you're still the only one.Well I guess you could call it nit-picking.Because it is.I'm assuming you're talking about how I'm breaking down your arguments..No, I'm talking about your ridiculous pedantry.But I don't think it's inappropriateIt's both inappropriate and pointless.I was actually intervening in a discussion you were already having.Of this I am aware.You see my reason to believe comes from something you don't believe exists. It's just not very compatible.So, where does this leave us?See here's the thing. If I had directly disputed and we were already having a debate directly relevant to the topic then I suddenly brought it up in the middle of everything- then you'd have a point.So, because it wasn't you I was originally debating, it's OK for you to hijack the debate and bitch about the "quality" of the post.But your reason as to why it wouldn't be necessary is that you'd have to go to such great length with all kinds of research.Had this debate been more specific, my argument could have reflected that, how are you not getting that? If I had followed your line of reason, I'd have not been able to cover why I don't believe, it is logically sound to state I've no reason to believe, if I can defend this position. Which would have been smart to put in your original postI'll thank you to not tell me what you believe is smart or not.but that's not true soo......Oh but it is.But it was more a statement than an argumentDebates normally start with an opening statement.If you had explained as you eventually have to me then it would have been a better argument.This is because discussing this topic with you, parameters were set within arguments, that allowed for some more specific points to be madeYou can put words in somebodies mouth in the form of a question sure why not?Because I asked you if it were your intention, this was to clarify, not to engage in some form of pseudo passive-aggression.So? You implied that I don't care about those other religions enough to talk about themI've already admitted to making too broad a generalization on this, why do you pursue it, is it to construct some form of strawman
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

Is this not the time where you start to list irrefutable reasons to believe in a God?
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

Are my posts old, lame arguments, the ones on the "I believe because...." side?
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

Caught them now, cheers, was wondering really, normally you give a bit of retaliation, tis why I asked.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

Right, right... there's really no reason to... :). He doesn't exist after all.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

why dont you expand on that, the whole point on the debate is to give your side with detail and facts, maybe even experience, but if you cant do that then your just wasting your time on this page. This could potentially be a sensitive subject to so atleast have a plausible reason instead of just saying he doesnt after all -_-
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

Lack of convincing arguments for such a thing. The fact that I disagree with both religions + the religious. Occam's Razor.-Under scientific procedure, what happens once, and again, and again, and again, tends to keep happening, and become asserted as scientific fact, despite a less than perfect understanding of such. It is therefore justified to believe that there is no God, simply because there is a lack of proof.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

I agree completely. To invest faith in this manner perplexes me - and I don't see why someone would believe in God other than being brought up in the midst of such beliefs in the first place. There is a significant lack of proof, only extremely old and unreliable sources. They aren't proof, they just sort of poke at the issue. Theres no real way to look back at the origin from a verifiable standpoint. Another point is human nature - A good example being the Salem witch trials, in which a good deal of people were accused of witchcraft, and were either killed or imprisoned, because of a group of girls going on a power trip and people trying to swindle each other out of land. The Crusades and other historical events show religion being used in the same way. So, judging by the actions of God's believers in the past, and some even in the present, I feel justified in saying that the belief is vague to the point where there's barely any definition to it. Therefore, I simply cannot believe in a benevolent God, or any at all, until proven otherwise by scientific means, rather than passionate responses.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

So, judging by the actions of God's believers in the past, and some even in the present, I feel justified in saying that the belief is vague to the point where there's barely any definition to it.Yeah, the good old 'objective morality' argument seems to be said a lot more than followed.Therefore, I simply cannot believe in a benevolent God, or any at all, until proven otherwise by scientific means, rather than passionate responses.A God (who claims to be omniscient, omnipotent & omnibenevolent) is impossible. The arguments been ripped to shreds by the Problem of Evil, to which there is no satisfying rebuttal.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

Religion is man made. I seriously don't have an idea if a god exists. I do know religions are man made and too contradictory to put faith in.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

it depends on the religion..... :) .................................................
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

I see you are accusing religions without quoting.... is that a way of vague debating to frustrate others?Please quote from those religions to be answered.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

How about Christians constantly telling us about gods love, when it's obvious god loves us like an abusive spouse? Or here's an obvious contraction for you: Islam, religion of peace.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

everyone knows what she's talking about she doesn't have to quote .
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

I believe that anyone with any individual thought would be intelligent enough to know the obvious. But I'll give you what you ask. How about how the bible says murder is wrong, yet it tells you to kill countless times. Such as a child who swears. And don't bother telling me the old testament doesn't apply. The Christian god is supposedly perfect, but if he is so perfect there would be no need to change the rules after the first time. There's more examples but if you wish to learn more I'm sure you can find them elsewhere.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

Isn't Atheism also man made?
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

Isn't Atheism also man made?I'm pretty sure there are no Christian dogs.If you don't believe in a God, you're an atheist. You don't need to be aware of this, you don't need to have an alternative belief, you simply do not need to believe in a God.Atheism is not man made, it is the natural state of things, the status quo.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

"I'm pretty sure there are no Christian dogs."I think it's more likely a dog would believe that a superior being created all he can see, than to think that everything around him appeared out of a bang."If you don't believe in a God, you're an atheist. You don't need to be aware of this, you don't need to have an alternative belief, you simply do not need to believe in a God."But why would someone choose not to believe in God unless they find something which they consider more believable?"Atheism is not man made, it is the natural state of things, the status quo."So is killing everything that competes with you.So
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

I think it's more likely a dog would believe that a superior being created all he can see, than to think that everything around him appeared out of a bang.Pretty sure a dog would not be able to comprehend such events. And if they could, I'd imagine they'd simply be apathetic.But why would someone choose not to believe in God unless they find something which they consider more believable?Because people do not start by believing in God, and then stopping when they find a better alternative. They start with nothing, not believing in anything, not knowing anything. 'Choosing not to believe in God' is not something that everyone goes through, Christianity is not a big a part of everyones life as it is yours.So is killing everything that competes with you.I never said it was good, I simply said it's natural. But wow, an appeal to emotion, not like theists to use such fallacious techniques to try and 'win' debate.