azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

(1) English translation.(3) religious source(4) Religious source(6) Encyclopaedia Britanica it also lists floods of the myth surrounding the painting.(7) Website of painting's owner(8) Poetry(10) Book about History of Christianity in southern America.How is any of it Material science?
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

1. So?3-4. And?6. Its not myth when there are empirical evidences7. Precisely8. Actually, its History10. The Guadalupe is the reason for the conversion of Mexicans. Is there a problem?
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

None of them hold a proof of magical properties of that painting. They only talk about that. Are there any scientific papers from independent institutions? Or is the "miracle" rather symbolic?
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

Britanica should have sufficed. But whatever, there's more to choose from.Try #11/16 and #24. Well written books complete that tackles History and the Scientists who dared to test the Guadalupe.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

But where are those results of those tests, where are those reports? Where is the result sheet of spectral analyse? Historical books are not scientific reports.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

sighIt was discussed there. Check the Table of Contents.Stop agrevating the thread. No matter what you do, all information will be the same
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

I do not need evidence that the painting exists... I am sure that it exists. However I do demand evidence of it's supernatural proprieties , lab reposts, records of examinations done by proper labs, result sheets. Not random statements.You know that all information are the sameYes, everything you gave me was useless and/or fake.Painting is obviously fabricated. Do you have other evidence for god? I am sure that you can offer different "miracles".
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

However I do demand evidence of it's supernatural proprieties , lab reposts, records of examinations done by proper labs, result sheets.Read the Wikipedia page. Everything was discussed thoroughly.All of you are the same. You all ask for evidence of God but now that it is right in front of you, you all cower in denial.pity
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

I read the Wikipedia page. There are statements of random people but no evidence...Is my word that I can fly, enough evidence for you? I assume not. So why I should be happy with random data less statements?
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

sighIf you are trying to fool someone, it aint working.There was no "statements of random people but no evidence" all are valid conclusions made by well renowned scientists. Or are you prepared to say that their tests are flawed?Just give up already. You cant change the truth
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

None of those "conclusions" is supported by data .
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

in 1979 Philip Callahan, (biophysicist, USDA entomologist, NASA consultant) specializing in infrared imaging, was allowed direct access to visually inspect, and photograph, the image. He took numerous infrared photographs of the front of the tilma.Summary Conclusions:(1) Support: The material of the support is soft to the touch (almost silken: MC; something like cotton: G) but to the eye it suggested a coarse weave of palm threads called "pita" or the rough fiber called "cotense" (MC), or a hemp and linen mixture (R). It was traditionally held to be made from ixtle, an agave fiber.(2) Ground, or primer: R asserted (MC and PC contra) by ocular examination that the tilma was primed, though with primer "applied irregularly." R does not clarify whether his observed "irregular" application entails that majorly the entire tilma was primed, or just certain areas – such as those areas of the tilma extrinsic to the image – where PC agrees had later additions. MC, alternatively, observed that the image had soaked through to the reverse of the tilma.[26](3) Under-drawing: PC asserted there was no under-drawing.(4) Brush-work: R suggested (PC contra) there was some visible brushwork on the original image, but in a minute area of the image ("her eyes, including the irises, have outlines, apparently applied by a brush").(5) Condition of the surface layer: PC reports that the un retouched portions of the image, particularly the blue mantle and the face, are in a very good state of preservation, with no flaking or peeling. The three most recent inspections (G, PC and R) agree (i) that additions have been made to the image (gold leaf added to the sun's rays-which has flaked off; silver paint or other material to depict the moon - which has discolored; and the re-construction or addition of the angel supporting the Marian image), and (ii) that portions of the original image have been abraded and re-touched in places. Some flaking is visible, though only in retouched areas (mostly along the line of the vertical seam, or at passages considered to be later additions).(6) Varnish: The tilma has never been varnished.(7) Binding Medium: R provisionally identified the pigments and binding medium (distemper) as consistent with 16th-century methods of painting sargas (MC, PC contra for different reasons), but the color values and luminosity are exceptional.The technique of painting on fabric with water-soluble pigments (with or without primer or ground) is well-attested. The binding medium is generally animal glue or gum arabic (see: Distemper). Such an artifact is variously discussed in the literature as a tüchlein or sarga.[27] Tüchlein paintings are very fragile, and are not well preserved,[28] so the tilma's color values and state of preservation are exceptional....What were you saying again?
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

1979 Philip Callahan, (biophysicist, USDA entomologist, NASA consultant) Wrong, they are two different peoplehttp://radar.jpl.nasa.gov/people/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowPerson&pplID=81 Respected NASA radar alghorythm sceitistandhttp://gap.entclub.org/taxonomists/Callahan/index.html EntomologistIf first line of your article is fake, then there is no reason for believing the rest. It is certainly fabricated as the person in the front of it but I am good person and I read what you posted. It says that it is ordinary picture.Than You.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

You simply presented another scientist with the same name. But nevertheless, both of them are well renowned in their art.How was that supposed to make any difference?
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

One is NASA consultant and the other one is Entomologist, very different people with very different skills, so it is a bit confusing because it is not clear which one it is.The conclusion that you have posted, stated that it is an ordinary painting, nothing special, no moving eyes, heart beating, etc...
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

"The technique of painting on fabric with water-soluble pigments (with or without primer or ground) is well-attested. The binding medium is generally animal glue or gum arabic (see: Distemper). Such an artifact is variously discussed in the literature as a tüchlein or sarga.[27] Tüchlein paintings are very fragile, and are not well preserved,[28] so the tilma's color values and state of preservation are exceptional."No cotton tilma can survive 300 years of exposure to human contact, insect, fire, bomb attack, and acid spill.A replica was made, once, but it lasted only for 8 years till it decayed completely. But here, we have a 500 year old painting which is still pristine in colors and strength.Tell me more of how that it is an ordinary painting
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

Just well done painting, nothing really special, these things happen all the time. It also says that the painting is peeling off and it could have been multiple times refurbished.No cotton tilma can surviveIt can stay thousands of years, it depends on primer.is still pristine in colors and strength. it is not, it is falling apart and peeling off... it is right in your report.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

Only someone who has no background in biology would believe that cotton can last more than 100 years.Let alone have intricate, microscopic designs before the invention of computers
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

Primer will stop the decay. Also as Callaghan found picture was multiple time redone/re touched... so there is no reason why it should not last longer... This is really far from miracle...
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

1. Wheres the evidence that Primer can stop decay?2. A retouched painting does not give the mantle a longer lifespan
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

1. Wheres the evidence that Primer can stop decay?Point of primer is to make colours stick to material and to prolong lifespan of painting...2. A retouched painting does not give the mantle a longer lifespanRetouching means fixing. So they were repairing that picture, several times... Why miracles needs fixing ???Therefore there is nothing special about that picture. Any picture ca stay for so long.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

1. You're making things up, aren't you? First and foremost; nothing can ever protect a painting from age and exposure to the elements for hundreds of years, not even glass. Second; I cannot find any study that says the Guadalupe was covered in Primer. Can you point it out for me?2. Retouching simply means that the picture would be repaired. That doesnt mean that the cloth itself can be fixed.Quit denying already. We havent even tackled the microscopic designs yet.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

Retouched means repaired and not just once, with repairing paintings can live forever... There are many other pictures in castles and galleries that are much older that your bogus painting.Why didn't he mentioned, that it has heart beats, eyes moves? Because it is a bullshit.As he said it is ordinary picture that was well cared of... no magic, no microscopic designs, moving eyes, nothing... lies lies lies...
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

You have no idea how retouching works, do you?To retouch a painting is to simply repair the paints and cover the stains. Even with todays technology, it is impossible to restore a painting back to its former glory, let alone save it from decay.You seem to have skipped the "primer" part. Spare me your denials, it is not amusing to watch. Either you admit the existence of the paranormal, or keep on embarrassing yourself; your choice
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

Where he talks about magical properties like, heartbeat, moving eyes...?Or is it just relatively old picture?...
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

It isnt an old picture; it is the Lady of Guadalupe.And since you cannot argue any further, I guess you know what that means, right?
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

no, no, no wikipedia....Where is report talking about it being magical? Last report (done by Callaghan) said that it is an ordinary painting...
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

Wikipedia is the most detailed source of information on the net. Why are you afraid to face the truth that science has abandoned you?P.SLast report was done by NASA, who consider its materials as something not from known material.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

Wikipedia is the most detailed source of information on the net.No it is not very detailed and can be edited by anyone.Last report was done by NASA, who consider its materials as something not from known material.Where is the report?
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

No it is not very detailed and can be edited by anyone.So where is your evidence that the Wiki page is flawed?Where is the report?Here
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

Link is broken .
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

http://www.conchiglia.us/UK/UKClettere/07.67UKNASASCOPERTESULLATILMA13.05.07.pdf
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

I made the link work.That PDF is same as you sent me before, contains 4x word NASA but no scientist names =, no lab name, no project number nothing, just the word NASA. Full of shit an prayers... All claims there are bullshit or Callaghan is lying... which is it?
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

Your denials are amusing to watch.Everything has been laid out in a silver platter. Whats keeping you?
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

Callaghan's paper contradicts that PDF .
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

Prove it.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

PDFOftalmological studies realized on the eyes of Mary, have demonstrated that as a light, was placed near to the eye, the retina contracted and as it was furthered away , the retina dilated, exactly as happens with a live eye. Callaghan said no word about it no matter that he used bright light and microscope...PDF2.The temperature of the fibre of maguey which was used to make the Tilma maintains a constant temperature of 36.6 degrees, the same temperature as that of a body of a living person.It would glow under infra red, impossible to miss, why didn't he said a word?PDF3. One of the doctors who has analyzed the Tilma, had placed a stethoscope under the belt of the vests of Mary (sign of her pregnancy) and had heard the beating of a heart that rhythmically were repeated at 115 pulsations per minute, the same as those of a baby in the womb of the mother. Callaghan is again not talking about it... yet the heartbeat would cause unmistakable distortion... why he skipped something like that completely?PDF4. There are no signs of paint on the cloth. There are no traces of a paint brush nor of other known painting techniques.I quote Callaghan " Brush-work: R suggested (PC contra) there was some visible brushwork on the original image, in a minute area of the image ("her eyes, including the irises, have outlines, apparently applied by a brush")."PDFscientific studies have not obtained information o the colours that form the image, nor on the style use to paint it. There are no traces of a paint brush nor of other known painting techniques. The scientists of NASA confirm that the materials that compose the colours do not belong to any of the elements known on Earth. I quote Callaghan "The technique of painting on fabric with water-soluble pigments (with or without primer or ground) is well-attested. The binding medium is generally animal glue or gum arabic (see: Distemper)"so on so on ...lies lies lies...
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

Again bullshit, you are intentionally mixing someone random blob with his report!!! show me in the report made by Callaghan that he saw retina moving !!! Stop lying
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

You did not even read my post, did you? The eye examination was not done by Callahan, but by other doctors like Dr. Jose Aste Tonsmann.Truth is bitter to those who fear it
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

Dr. Callaghan did examined eyes, it is in his report, the only thing he said about eyes is (and I quote): ... there was some visible brushwork on the original image, but in a minute area of the image ("her eyes, including the irises, have outlines, apparently applied by a brush")...ordinary painted eyes...see... Wikipedia lies... and you are lying too...Where is Tonsmanns report? Does it even exist? Like the NASA test that did not happen?
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

Callahan is not an eye specialist. While he studied the eyes of the Guadalupe, his findings are still small when compared to Tonsmann'sTonsmanns report are hereKeep on denying, its not like ive never heard of them before.come on, you know that science does not support your belief anymore. I wonder what you're gonna say next
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

There is nothing like picture eye specialist, they are done by brush (no need expert for that). What you sent is not a report, it has no author or links, nothing. Just photoshopped blob in picture.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

"In the last 15 years, some other images have also been found in photographs of the Virgin's eyes. Such photographs have been amplified by computers, by Dr. Aste Tonsmann, a very well known specialist."What were you saying again?Just give up already. Nothing can break the truth
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

What were you saying again?I just said that I want report not blob, some ones idea, or random garble.I want report that can be linked directly to Tonsmann... Do you even understand the concept old study or report?Because until now you only sent broken Wikipedia article, PDF with fake data, Calaghan's report that it is ordinary picture and dead end website...
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

It is a report. But if you want further discussions. Then hereUp until now you claim Wikipedia is fake, started a debate that no one responded to, claim that Callahan is a fraud and rejected all researches done.Science is no longer with you. You can stop posting now.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

Really magnified picture with lines and colors added? on webpage called "Sancta" (Saint) :D that is not report either...I want real full blown report done by scientist Not by people talking about scientist
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

Thankyou for proving that you did not read the article. :D
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

No need, black and white photos with drawn in lines and >colour bubbles< ...sorry but no.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

Those are photographs done by Dr. Rafael Torrija Lavoigne and Dr. Jose Aste Tonsmann themselves. Read the article
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

It is an article not a report! Only report you offered said that it is an ordinary picture. I can write down article about me walking trough walls. I can write that that Aste Tonsmann was witness of it..
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

Sorry for the late reply. This never appeared on my inbox.It is a report actually- taken from wikipedia itself
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

What I meant by report/paper is that you are reading about finding from the author in structured form. NOT an article where unknown person is talking about what he heard about something... Like when you read paper done by Callaghan then he describes that painting as ordinary painting done by brush, but in the PDF you gave me you can read that Callaghan can't identify the material, it is done by unknown method bla bla bla.... just pile of shit that has nothing to do with original Callaghan findings.That is why I am asking for papers/reports.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

His analysis was never published in academic works. But his lab reports are available onlineHere is the video of Dr. José Aste Tönsmann himself admitting the divinity of the Guadalupe...if you are interested.I wonder when will your denials end.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

The picture was photo shopped, picture suppose to be from digital infra red camera yet magnification is blur instead of being squared. I saw better fakes before... is it your work?Most importantly José Aste Tonsmann of the Mexican Center of Guadalupan Studies ...which makes everything he says just marketing slogan...That is probably why Callaghan reported that it is just ordinary picture and person who is an employee of "Mexican Center of Guadalupan Studies" fakes results and says that it is magical.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

It came from wikipedia actually. They used that picture as their source of information.Actually, Jose Aste converted to the Guadalupan Studies in 1979 after he failed explaining the Marian image. And of course, you have other evidences that would prove him fake, correct?Like ive never heard of that one before
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

He is compromised, means his opinion does not matter .
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

Are you saying that Evolution is false because Charles Darwin is a theologist? Are you saying that Einstein is a fake because he is a Jew?Judging a person by his religion is no different from racism and sexism.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

Wrong arguments.Are you saying that Evolution is false because Charles Darwin is a theologist? He was trained as a priest, because of his father but he did not have profit from proclaiming some product magical and being employed by that product's ownerAre you saying that Einstein is a fake because he is a Jew?Completely incomparable his work has nothing do to do with religions.however your pseudo-scientist is employed by company that owns the painting and that makes his opinion irrelevant and worthless.What about offering me article in peer reviewed science journal about your painting (by science I mean real hard science like Chemistry, Physics... not "Creation Science" or "Religious Science", Journal like Nature, Photon...etc.)? There must be hunders of them... give me some.
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: yes, I believe in god

He was trained as a priest,Charles Darwin was never a priest. He is a theologist of great faithCompletely incomparable his work has nothing do to do with religions.Actually, Einstein used his work to promote Religion- after he defected from the Jewish societyHe is anything but an atheist. Does that make him a fraud?however your pseudo-scientist is employed by company that owns the painting and that makes his opinion irrelevant and worthless.You can be sued for what you just said. If you are gonna call him fake, you need some evidence for that. And by the way, let me remind you that he is not the only scientist who tested the Guadalupe.If you are unsatisfied with Jose; Richard Kuhn- the Nobel Prize winner- will be a great start
Debate: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
Side: no,I don't beleive in god

Charles Darwin was never a priest. He is a theologist of great faithNice try, Darwin studied medicine and natural history, he was forced by his father to became Anglican pastor.Actually, Einstein used his work to promote Religion- after he defected from the Jewish societyHe is anything but an atheist. Does that make him a fraud?And here we go again with anonymous Wikipedia Article.Allow me please to quote a bit from Einsten's personal corespondence "...God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish...."You can be sued for what you just said. If you are gonna call him fake, you need some evidence for that. And by the way, let me remind you that he is not the only scientist who tested the Guadalupe.If you are unsatisfied with Jose; Richard Kuhn- the Nobel Prize winner- will be a great startI cannot be sued for stating obvious thing, There is no evidence thatRichard Kuhn ever did anything with that picture.