azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

We have theories which explain the formation of the universe, the formation of solar systems, stars and planets, of life and evolution. We are working on theories to explain the origin of the universe. This is our knowledge, and it is great.Your theories are built upon untestable and unobservable science. This is not knowledge but it is assumptions. You assume how the universe formed. Yet you can't explain the very origin of matter, energy, and time. These are assumptions they are not even in the same realm as scientific law. We exist. We are proof that life does not require special planets or stars.I argue that our planet is very special and extraordinary. There have been no other planet that even compares to ours. Given the size of the universe this must happen everywhere, an uncountable number of times.False, there actually is a formula for that theory. Try looking it up. Nearby supernovas, quasars, passing massive celestial bodies, and asteroid impacts can all wipe us off the planet.False again, Quasars are all recorded at an insurmountable distance from us. Supernovas occur within the older globular clusters (that is no where near us). Do you even know the immense amount of distances between celestial objects? These are not rare in the universe and happen every few million to tens of millions of years.This is based on what, our observations in that amount of time? Nope it is just assumption. We have about 500 million years left on this planet before the sun changes so that we are not in a very habitable zone. In five billion years Earth won't exist at all. Space is a vast place, and seeding life would take us hundreds of millions of years.So false it isn't even funny. According to your secular scientists the Sun is still on the main-sequence and will be for another five billion years (of course that is an assumption as well). And you are talking about times that greatly exceed even our existence. My inferences are reasonable because we have knowledge which allows us to make them.False, you have assumptions. None of your theories are testable or observable. You are just guessing "god" because you have no answers. Don't elevate your suggestions of magic to the same level as knowledge.My answer is the authority of God. He was there when the universe began, so I would rather trust in His account then some assumptuous man.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

I'm going to jump in on this argument, starting with a few observations. First, I've noticed that this started off small, and with time each argument grows in length until one could probably write a short book about it.Second: Mr. Aveskde, you said, "Prove it. I follow parsimony, you do not." As I recall, you brought up the argument that there are tons of other planets like Earth. Due to the burden of proof, you are the one that has to prove it.You did not negate my statement. There are billions of billions of planets out there. Life seems to just require the right solar distance, time, liquid water, and organic compounds. These are common things in the universe.Once again, there is little proof of this. With all of the solar and exosolar planets we've found, none of them come even remotely close to meeting the requirements for Earth-like life.What you actually said was:My answer is the authority of primitive man (they invented your god, after all). They were not there when the universe began, but I would rather trust in their account than some scientists.What you said, if we actually follow your assumptions, was:My answer is magic. I would rather trust in magic than reason.Slippery slope, or something like that. Here's a fact: no human was around at the beginning of the universe. There is no written records from anywhere around that time. The big bang is a theory supported by some evidence, but it's still a theory, and in the end you still have to have faith that it's true. I really don't want to go into the 'does god exist or not' argument, as it really has little to do with the idea of space exploration, but I'd say that God also has some evidence going for him.You have no more proof that primitive man invented god than you do that the big bang happened. To turn your belief-centered reasoning back on itself, I'll hit you with a phrase similar to yours."What you actually said was:My answer is the authority of quite-possibly damned heathens. They were not there when the universe began, but I'd rather trust in their account than the Almighty Creator and Ruler of the universe."Just food for thought.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

When dealing with large numbers, it makes claims that the earth is unique sound specious.I would agree. But I'm going to believe evidence, and so far it's come up shy. Yes, we've only dipped our exploratory cup into the ocean of the universe, but I will be skeptical until we find another habitable planet. Yes, it will take a long time, and the math does show that it's possible, but statistical probabilities don't always hold true against reality.There are photographic records from that period. Our telescopes do not merely see great distances from us, they can see back in time, on the order of billions of years. The early universe is observed by measuring Cosmic Background Radiation.Our telescopes can't sea anywhere near the Big Bang. And the cosmic background radiation might be a residue effect of "Let there be light." Odd how religious people will have faith in things which are supported only by emotions but won't trust that which is supported by evidence. Selective scepticism, really.How's this? When traveling on a mission trip to Indiana, Peru (not Peru, Indiana), we were limited to a single personal checked bag. The other slot was taken up by things like medicine for the villages we would visit, all packed into massive 45-pound bags (as they couldn't exceed 50 lbs due to a price bump in the cost, and we were quite poor).The main group had gone left Salt Lake City for Atlanta, leaving only four of us with six medicine bags. One of our people was having passport troubles, while the other was helping him. In the end, the one guy couldn't come with us. So we divided that 45-pound bag into the five other 45-pound bags, and they all still weighed 45-pounds.Or when my sister's mission trip found a well of house paint bubbling up from the ground when they ran out while fixing an Appalachian house.Seems like evidence to me.Have you ever studied a single religion besides the one you were raised to believe in? Have you never studied ancient and extinct religions? To make a claim like yours one has to be completely oblivious to foreign cultures.I'm not claiming that religion is infallable. I'm claiming that God exists. There is a big difference between the two, just as there is a big difference between God's will and what people say God's will is (e.g. the Crusades). Religion in often invented by humans, usually for the purpose of controlling other humans. There is nothing that demonstrates or could demonstrate that an alleged "Almighty Creator and Ruler of the Universe" is communicating with us.Interesting. You say nothing could demonstrate the existence of God? You are so adamant and resigned that absolutely nothing could do it? What if Jesus came back in the Second Advent, with his army of angels and the trumpets blaring? Would you not be convinced then, or would you search for a natural explanation?
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

I would agree. But I'm going to believe evidence, and so far it's come up shy.If you believe evidence then you must accept that planets are common and earthlike ones are uncommon but not unique. That is what the indirect evidence suggests.Yes, we've only dipped our exploratory cup into the ocean of the universe, but I will be skeptical until we find another habitable planet. Yes, it will take a long time, and the math does show that it's possible, but statistical probabilities don't always hold true against reality.It sounds to me like you just don't want to accept that you aren't unique in the universe.Our telescopes can't sea anywhere near the Big Bang. And the cosmic background radiation might be a residue effect of "Let there be light." We see the cosmic background radiation which is residue from the early big bang, before the first stars.Don't make bare assertions to fit your prejudices.How's this? When traveling on a mission trip to Indiana, Peru (not Peru, Indiana), we were limited to a single personal checked bag. The other slot was taken up by things like medicine for the villages we would visit, all packed into massive 45-pound bags (as they couldn't exceed 50 lbs due to a price bump in the cost, and we were quite poor).The main group had gone left Salt Lake City for Atlanta, leaving only four of us with six medicine bags. One of our people was having passport troubles, while the other was helping him. In the end, the one guy couldn't come with us. So we divided that 45-pound bag into the five other 45-pound bags, and they all still weighed 45-pounds.Or when my sister's mission trip found a well of house paint bubbling up from the ground when they ran out while fixing an Appalachian house.Seems like evidence to me.Like I said, emotional evidence.I'm not claiming that religion is infallable. I'm claiming that God exists. There is a big difference between the two, just as there is a big difference between God's will and what people say God's will is (e.g. the Crusades). Religion in often invented by humans, usually for the purpose of controlling other humans.If religion is a human invention, then god must be as well, as it is a religious concept with no external evidence.Interesting. You say nothing could demonstrate the existence of God? You are so adamant and resigned that absolutely nothing could do it? What if Jesus came back in the Second Advent, with his army of angels and the trumpets blaring? Would you not be convinced then, or would you search for a natural explanation?A supernatural thing cannot be evidenced. Because they are defined to be outside the boundaries of nature, no natural evidence (your senses, the world, whatever) can be used to validate their existence as supernatural entities. It can only evaluate effects of their existence upon the natural universe.This is the burden you took when you decided to place your faith in the supernatural. You chose to abandon the possibility of ever having proof or evidence.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

If you believe evidence then you must accept that planets are common and earthlike ones are uncommon but not unique. That is what the indirect evidence suggests.Planets are common, yes. But still, as of yet, we haven't found another earth-like one. The indirect evidence is statistical math, which also fails to apply to casinos and weather.It sounds to me like you just don't want to accept that you aren't unique in the universe.I'll accept it when there's evidence to do so. As of right now, there is none. So it seems that you're more based on faith (at least in this regard) than I am.Like I said, emotional evidence.How is that emotional evidence? It's bleedin' physical! Did you even read what I said? You're arguing that the supernatural doesn't exist. I give an example that cannot be explained naturally. Fifty-five pound bags cannot weight 45 pounds. That's a fact. But it did. That's physical evidence for a supernatural.Same goes for paint bubbling out of the ground. None of it is emotional. It's physical.Sounds like you just don't want to accept that.If religion is a human invention, then god must be as well, as it is a religious concept with no external evidence.No. The Constitution of the US provides set rules with which to rule a country. In the 200+ years we've been doing so, there have been dozens of views on how to interpret the document. These views are not originated by those that wrote the constitution, but are the product of people since that time.But that doesn't mean that the Constitution, or it's writers, are a product of people since it was written. If I suddenly decided that those who wrote the Constitution didn't exist, that it was written by people in the early 1900s, than there would be no external evidence for them. I could easily discredit everything written about them as just being fantasies of a confused culture. Nobody talks to them nowadays, thus severing all evidence.Except God does talk to people today. Imagine if you will you were able to take pair of HAM radios, some battery packs for power, and a buddy, back to the 1400s. Your buddy goes off somewhere, but you keep in contact with the radios.Nobody would believe that your buddy exists. You're using a level of communication that's beyond the science of the day. But just because it wasn't physically and scientifically possible at the time, doesn't make it impossible.Because they are defined to be outside the boundaries of nature, no natural evidence (your senses, the world, whatever) can be used to validate their existence as supernatural entities.What about natural evidences that cannot be explained naturally. Like if gravity turned off all the sudden. Or something smaller, like a mountain getting up and jumping into the ocean.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

Manned missions to space impose a huge amount of risk on the astronauts who travel to space. Apart from the expenditure of money, a travel to space also risks the human life. The human beings who travel in space have to face harsh conditions and challenge themselves to adapt to unfriendly environment. Unmanned missions and those using robots to explore space are a solution to risking the human life. But robots mean another new technology, thus incurring added costs.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

What seems to take us by surprise may land us in trouble. We may find something in space that is lethal to life on Earth. We may discover something that is extremely harmful for the living beings on Earth. Space exploration may invite some dangerous microorganisms that may exist in space. The extraterrestrial beings may actually prove dangerous for human life.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

Space exploration can mean a major leap for mankind but it is also criticized as not having achieved any major scientific breakthroughs. Public interest can serve as the determinant factor in judging the suitability of space exploration. It may not be wise to splurge on space exploration if other basic needs are being ignored or left unfulfilled.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

One of the most important cons of space exploration is the money spent in the research. The money that is spent on space exploration can rather be spent to reduce poverty in the underdeveloped countries. The national wealth can rather be channelized towards the betterment of the downtrodden lot of the society. Space exploration involves both astronomy and space technology. It requires a huge amount of money to be spent on the journey to space. Some believe that the money can be diverted towards the poor. When many cannot even meet their basic needs of life, is it right to spend on space exploration?
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

Space exploration has provided the drive and the excuse to develop technologies which will and have allowed for a more sustainable solution to poverty in some countries. Unless Money towards space exploration would be going towards another research agency specialized towards solving poverty all which would happen is welfare, a temporary solution.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

We should limit ourselves to things that are current viable IE exploration of our solar system.Anyone with an IQ knows that interstellar travel is far beyond our reach, and will remain so for the forseeable future.Anyone who thinks otherwise is a star trek fuktard who lives in his mommies basement.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

Humans seeking to save the body that dies are trying to out do God by thinking they are saving the body forgetting the soul. The human living on mars when the sun explodes is only going to have a limited time on mars even if they are successful,and the ultimate end will be freezing to death,and losing their soul only relying on human intellect,and not on God.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

now imsure imwrong and im sure america wouldnt sped so much on it if i wasnt. but as far as im cocerned we dont reallygain anything from space exploration, and feal free to correct me on that point but i really cant see what benifitsus about someone bringing us some moon rock. i mean i can see some of the benifits of space ie satalites etc but what are the realbenifits of eploration?
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

With this kinda recession and problems and issues up to neck I find it quite an expense to pay any attention there. There has to be a certain amount of investment but not something insane which is done usually. The World is need of solutions that involve attention as well as finance.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

Solve the problems here on Earth and then space exploration can be a consideration.
Debate: Should Marijuana be legalized?
Side: Like, yeah man

The medical evidence in support is very overwhelming, and Hemp is one of the most sustainable crops grown throughout history. The government could earn billions in taxes, shut down a black market, regulate quality, we can make everything from textiles to paper to carbon fibre out of hemp."In 1916, USDA Bulletin No. 404, reported that one acre of cannabis hemp, in annual rotation over a 20-year period, would produce as much pulp for paper as 4.1 acres of trees being cut down over the same 20-year period. This process would use only 1/4 to 1/7 as much polluting sulfur-based acid chemicals to break down the glue-like lignin that binds the fibers of the pulp, or even none at all using soda ash. The problem of dioxin contamination of rivers is avoided in the hemp paper making process, which does not need to use chlorine bleach (as the wood pulp paper making process requires) but instead safely substitutes hydrogen peroxide in the bleaching process. ... If the new (1916) hemp pulp paper process were legal today, it would soon replace about 70% of all wood pulp paper, including computer printout paper, corrugated boxes and paper bags."From http://www.jackherer.com/$100,000 Challenge to Prove Us Wrong!If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction, were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse Effect and stop deforestation;then there is only one known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper and textiles; meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs, while simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time...and that substance is the same one that has done it before . . CANNABIS HEMP!
Debate: Should Marijuana be legalized?
Side: Like, yeah man

It should be legalized. We need to strive for a rational legal code. In relation to tobacco and alcohol, two of the legal drugs, cannabis is hands down the least harmful. It does not have the physically addictive properties of either alcohol or tobacco, cannabis users can stop anytime with withdrawal symptoms on par with or less than that of caffeine withdrawal. More than that, tens of thousands of people die every year from lung cancer and alcohol related accidents and illnesses. If your an alcoholic you can die if you just stop drinking. No one to my knowledge has ever been killed from smoking or quiting cannabis. In addition, cannabis has not been shown to have the carcinogenic effects that tobacco has. Cannabis has even been shown to promote new brain cell development, and its users report wide ranging benefits. The Netherlands model shows that soft drugs can be legalized and it actually improves the society. We need to end the propaganda and misinformation campaign, bring more reason and fairness to our legal code, and legalize cannabis.
Debate: Should Marijuana be legalized?
Side: Like, yeah man

I'm sold on your argument. One up vote for you. I need new brain cells! Just ask almost anyone on this site ;)
Debate: Should Marijuana be legalized?
Side: Like, yeah man

As the dutch example shows, legalizing marijuana doesn't come with any significant negative effects to society. Instead, the government has an additional source of income from taxes and saves significant amounts of money that is currently being spent on arresting, prosecution and locking up non violent marijuana users.
Debate: Should Marijuana be legalized?
Side: Like, yeah man

that's cool, except the tax part. Why is government owed a tax for the growth or sale of this particular plant? We don't have special taxes for coffee, which is about the equivalent in overall social effect and harm-potential (that is, almost zero).There's nothing that justifies that marijuana be subjected to anything other than standard sales taxes.
Debate: Should Marijuana be legalized?
Side: Like, yeah man

I agree but since you can just grow it in your own back yard and they can't tax that, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Debate: Should Marijuana be legalized?
Side: Like, yeah man

I totally agree. In addition to this argument, marijuana should be legal for many reasons. It would be financially beneficial for farmers to grow marijuana in their fields in the U.S. Instead of relying on prescription drugs, marijuana helps with medical conditions concerning: Glaucoma, arthritis, cancer, pain, nausea, AIDS, Multiple Sclerosis, Brain Injury/Stroke, Anti-Tumor Effects, Asthma, Epilepsy, Schizophrenia, Migraine, and eating disorders. It also helps with increased intelligence and focused attention. Marijuana should have been legalized when alcohol was legalized.
Debate: Should Marijuana be legalized?
Side: Like, yeah man

Face it, the real reason pot is illegal is so 1) cops have increased ability to harass minorities and lower class people, and 2) profits from alcohol and pharmacy are artifically protected. These reasons do not justify the loss of freedom of millions of Americans. 1 out of 3 Americans have tried marijuana (and that's just those who will admit it.) Should we really imprison a third of the country?