azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is PS3 better than Xbox 360
Side: PS3 is better

I have never owned a PS3 and I only have an xbox 360, which I have gone on to hate. Playstation network is free, xbox 360 gold membership costs 60 bucks a year. Xbox 360 get's the red ring of death, and the fact that microsoft added an actual red LED light for this occurrence, means that it happens a lot. Xbox 360, or at least mine freezes way way too much, and it often has problems reading the game disks. The disk tray almost always get jammed, so I have to get a pin and move the gears to finally get it to open. I'm not sure if this happens with PS3 but if you move an xbox while a game is running, it'll scratch it to hell. The Xbox 360 does have its benefits, though; suck as the controllers. Some may find the controllers too big, but i think they're comfortable to hold and handle, especially the triggers, though the buttons on the controllers often get sticky. Halo is also an advantage to Xbox even though the game can get very frustrating. Another good thing about the xbox is the price, which is I think about a hundred dollars cheaper than the PS3, but when it comes to quality, ehh. And the other advantage is the popularity of the xbox, it shouldn't be a problem in online matchmaking. But that's it..those are pretty much the only good things about it. The only reason why I didn't get a PS3 by now, is because of all of the money I have spent on games. If it hadn't been for the hundreds of dollars that I've spent on games, I would have a PS3 by now. I have played PS3 at my friend's house and I prefer it. When it comes down to quality, a Chinese piece of crap vs a Japanese piece of crap (it isn't crap lol) PS3 is the way to go, even if you have to spend the an extra hundred dollars on it, you really get the bang for your buck.
Debate: Is PS3 better than Xbox 360
Side: PS3 is better

PS3 just plays better than Xbox. I can get free internet on there. :) It's the best.
Debate: Is PS3 better than Xbox 360
Side: PS3 is better

Lets start off with saying the PS3 is way better than xbox 360.1.it has free online gaming2.it has a bunch of free games on the playstation store3. it has good graphics even on a SD tv.4.the games are cheaper5.xbox 60 has the same games for ps3the list could go on but over all PS3 is better
Debate: Is PS3 better than Xbox 360
Side: PS3 is better

I say PS3 is better. Now, i have an Xbox 360, but I've played the PS3 and it's way better. I mean now to play pretty much every game on the Xbox, you need wifi, orXbox Live, or gold.It's a waste of money and just plane stupid.
Debate: Is PS3 better than Xbox 360
Side: Xbox 360 kicks the ps3s ass

So, PS3 fanboys, how's that "free online" working for you?Oh, wait. It got hacked and millions of peoples personal details and credit card info was stolen right under sony's noses.At least I can trust Microsoft to not hand out my credit card number to some bored 19 year old.
Debate: Is PS3 better than Xbox 360
Side: PS3 is better

Um... it was hacked by an enormous group of hackers known as anon. They can hack anything so saying that sony got hacked by them doesn't mean anything. This is far more than some bored 19 year old. These people hacked the government. And no, no one's personal details or credit card information got stolen. And no you can't trust microsoft, because they're security is the absolute worst. Windows, is the most insecure OS there is, and the Xbox is the most insecure console there is. They were just lucky enough not to be the target in this case, and that bill you pay for your internet is irrelevant to any service or security you may think you're getting from it
Debate: Is PS3 better than Xbox 360
Side: Xbox is better

mate,mate that was a one time thing. i accept your opinion but your wrong so hows xbox working out for ya. NOOB
Debate: Is PS3 better than Xbox 360
Side: PS3 is better

It does not make difference that PS3 gets hacked, the same thing will happen to XBOX 360. Hackers know how to do their job. If they want to hack PS3 instead of XBOX it don't mean that it has bad security. Its what the hackers want to do!!!
Debate: Is PS3 better than Xbox 360
Side: PS3 is better

on black opz on xbox the gamers was easy as hell to kill and i have played at least 1000 games on there but when i got my ps3 the gamers was killing me left and right and my gameing skills have inproved and now when i play on xbox they can hardly kill me i fun that really funny
Debate: Is quoting the bible a good argument for Christians?
Side: No

It depends entirely on the religious beliefs of the individual with whom the Christian is debating. For instance, if a Christian is debating the topic of abortion with an atheist, then claiming that God hath declared the killing of unborn children is an abomination simply shall not work for the Christian's argument; instead, providing something secular, something to which the atheist may take, is a more logical step. However, if debating with a fellow Christian, then I would be quite surprised if no religious allusions popped their heads every now and then, and rightly so.
Debate: Is quoting the bible a good argument for Christians?
Side: yes

I am a person of faith and agree with you completely! It is just like any battle, know your opponent and fight in a language that is familiar to them (not in a negative sense here, just an analogy) that they can understand.
Debate: Is quoting the bible a good argument for Christians?
Side: No

Is quoting text from The Shattering a good argument for Warcraft fans?If yes, you're probably right.If no, you're probably right.It's not the quote that makes the argument. It's the quoter.
Debate: Is quoting the bible a good argument for Christians?
Side: No

Quoting a fiction book as factual evidence is never a good argument.
Debate: Is quoting the bible a good argument for Christians?
Side: No

If it were a valid statement about truth, you wouldn't have just one source promoting it. It would be better to use a source that was peer reviewed, and current. The Bible's best claim for veracity is itself. You can say the same thing about any other holy text, by the by.
Debate: Is quoting the bible a good argument for Christians?
Side: yes

Not so.There has never ever been a book that has stood the test of time and research for verification than the Bible.The Bible was written by over 40 humans and over a period of 1500 years. They came from different backgrounds and locations (three different continents) and in three different languages. They wrote on different topics and still in content was unified. Not one book could stand alone without the others, they are one unit. Amazing. If you found 10 people from around your area having similar backgrounds who all speak the same language, and have the same culture…then separated them and asked them to write their opinion on “the meaning of life”…..and you compared their writings would they all agree with each other? No. I highly doubt it. But every writer in the Bible over the period of 1500 years with different cultures and education levels, from three continents, three languages….hundreds of subjects…… were in complete agreement in what they said and what they were inspired to write. I doubt this happened by mere coincidence. For Christians it is the Word of God. I believe it is a book that even modern science, archeology can verify. No book on earth has been studied more than the bible has.
Debate: Is quoting the bible a good argument for Christians?
Side: No

There has never ever been a book that has stood the test of time and research for verification than the Bible.Excluding, of course, the variant origin stories found in Genesis, the idea that the Sun revolves around Earth and that light could shine down on an Earth that predated the sun, the whole concept of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood, talking snakes and donkeys, etc. Not only has research failed to verify these things, but they are impossible. The Bible was written by over 40 humans and over a period of 1500 years. They came from different backgrounds and locations (three different continents) and in three different languages. They wrote on different topics and still in content was unified. Not one book could stand alone without the others, they are one unit. A lot of what you say is true. However, the Bible was not put into its current form until the Council of Nicea. Several books of the Bible, including some which dispute others, were voted out. As if truth could be determined by a show of hands. And the fact is, whether or not all of these people agreed, it doesn't actually prove that they were right. And at least two of them disagreed on the order of events happening in Genesis, and a few other things, so this agreement was hardly complete. I believe it is a book that even modern science, archeology can verify. Then your belief is wrong. Modern science disputes MANY claims made in the Bible, while archeology only shows us that many of the desperate stories composing the OT were originated some time before the establishment of Christianity and possibly even Judaism, and were modified from their original telling to fit with the collection that became the Bible. No book on earth has been studied more than the bible has.True. And the Bible has repeatedly proven incorrect during these studies.
Debate: Is quoting the bible a good argument for Christians?
Side: yes

well science has proven that it is possible for the red sea to part and god could make it do what scientist say it would need to do
Debate: Is quoting the bible a good argument for Christians?
Side: No

A phenomenon known as "wind setdown" could conievably part the seas, though it probably wouldn't be quite as dramatic as displayed in the movie "The Ten commandments." Geologic activity is another possible explanation, although the activity that could have pushed back the Sea has been dated to a time quite a bit after the Exodus, and the Jews involved could have been escaped slaves, but wouldn't have been following Moses. Either way, while I will grant that a few events described in the Bible may possible, quite a few are not, and quite a few descriptions of the workings of the Universe (such as the formation of the Earth) are downright wrong. Finding one or two things that are right doesn't mean that EVERYTHING in the Bible is right. As far as God having the power to do things, well of course he could if he actually exists. He is always described as omnipotent. But, of course, he would have to be guaranteed to exist for these actions to be attributable to him. The events themselves don't serve as proof, especially if the actual occurrences can't be proven to have actually have happened, regardless of if it possible or not.
Debate: Is quoting the bible a good argument for Christians?
Side: yes

The Genesis account says nothing about the Sun revolving around the Earth:Genesis 1:14-1914 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.The previous poster is mentioning the tons and tons of corroborated historical evidence associated with the Bible. You are talking about assertions made in the Bible that have not yet been corroborated, however I will point out that while there are things that can't currently be corroborated there has been no historical fact in the Bible that has been refuted, at least to my knowledge so feel free to enlighten me.In order to say that claims in the Bible are wrong you will need to specify which claim that is and why it is wrong.
Debate: Is quoting the bible a good argument for Christians?
Side: No

First, let me say that I wasn't claiming that all of the errors that I listed were contained in the Genesis account. Looking back on my entry, I guess I can see how you could read that from it, so I apologize for the confusion. As the far as the sun and rest of the cosmos, I grant that such a perception is more due to extrapolation of what the Bible says (and the Catholic church's stance on the subject back in Galileo's time). However, the Bible does clearly state that the Earth is stationary:Psalm 93:1 "The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, he hath girded himself: the world also is established, that it cannot be moved." I Chronicles 16:30 "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." And there are a few others if I remember correctly. Meanwhile we have a few stories here and there of the Sun and the moon briefly halting over specific geographic locations, indicating the belief that these objects moved in relation to Earth, which is exactly how it looks to observers on Earth. But the Earth does move; its orbit, orientation and axial tilt can be modified by external or internal force; and the surface and interior of the Earth are in constant motion. So no matter how you slice it, a literal interpretation of the Bible is wrong, and many Christians in history HAVE operated under the belief that the Earth is at least stationary, if not the literal center of the universe (although quite a few church leaders did promote that concept as well). As far as historical context, that depends on what you are looking at. I do believe that there was at least a seed of truth in most of the Biblical events, particularly in the New Testament. But I also find it very likely that the events that were finally codified and published as the NT were a mixture of exaggeration, superstitious explanations for unusual events, and some direct propaganda made to gain followers or vilify certain nations or rulers. So some of the people mentioned in the NT really did exist, though it is difficult to say if anything said about their actions has much veracity. The communities mentioned did exist, but most of the specific events (some of which were quite epic and would have been big news throughout the region) have little to no corroboration. And the simple fact is, getting accurate historical information from that time and place is quite difficult. But ultimately, I don't think it is really that important. Even if all of the big events were corroborated, the supernatural nature of them wouldn't be. And even if some supernatural aspects could be identified, their mere presence wouldn't be enough to establish many or any of the so-called universal truths that the Bible claims. I will make more specific claims as this conversation warrants. I made several in my previous statement and expanded upon the fallacy of Earth's stationary nature in this one. I will be happy to bring in more later if you desire.
Debate: Is quoting the bible a good argument for Christians?
Side: yes

Here is the problem with some of the translations. As you are aware, as in everything, you lose something sometimes when particular passages get translated. Also, I believe you are taking the passages out of context. It is not suggesting a geocentric universe when taken in context. If you read the whole verse, its merely suggesting, who but God could move the Earth? I believe this line has probably been used in the defense of geocentricity but that is not the intended meaning. For instance, the Earth is also rotating at a stead speed along a fixed axis which also meshes with what the gospel is saying.Most times, some simple Google searching will reveal better answers for you.
Debate: Is quoting the bible a good argument for Christians?
Side: No

Here is the problem with some of the translations. As you are aware, as in everything, you lose something sometimes when particular passages get translated.True, which is one of several reasons that I think that literal interpretations of the Bible are inherently flawed. The other side of the coin is that the necessity for interpretation of the Bible ALSO makes non-literal interpretations at least potentially flawed. Either way, its veracity can easily be questioned. This isn't so bad if people treat it more as a collection of parables, teachings on esoteric wisdom, thoughts worth examining, etc. But if taken to be the absolute truth, which many Christians claim it is, than we run into various problems of veracity. For instance, the Earth is also rotating at a stead speed along a fixed axis Was this ever identified within the Bible? Most times, some simple Google searching will reveal better answers for you.I've done a fair amount of that. It isn't my only method, but sometimes it is the easiest one I have available for these online debates. It can certainly be said that this method provides just as many attacks on Biblical quotes as support for them.
Debate: Is quoting the bible a good argument for Christians?
Side: yes

True, which is one of several reasons that I think that literal interpretations of the Bible are inherently flawed. The other side of the coin is that the necessity for interpretation of the Bible ALSO makes non-literal interpretations at least potentially flawed. Either way, its veracity can easily be questioned. This isn't so bad if people treat it more as a collection of parables, teachings on esoteric wisdom, thoughts worth examining, etc. But if taken to be the absolute truth, which many Christians claim it is, than we run into various problems of veracity.You have to use some common sense as well. The writing style of the Bible changes. Often times because there is no good way to properly describe what it is trying to impart to you. For instance, when the Bible discusses hell there is a lot of "fire" where if you were to ask most Biblical scholars they would say that there is no fire in hell. Fire is a literary device that is being used to represent judgement. Hell is merely no longer being in God's presence.However there are situations where you can take literal interpretations of the Bible and what it says. John 6:1-5 I would say you could take as a literal interpretation, when Jesus gave 5,000 people bread and fish.You can't just always read it one way or the other. You have to read the passages in context and compare them with other passages to get a better grasp on the true meaning. So while there are passages that you can argue weren't translated correctly, when compared with similar passages discussing similar topics the idea that it is trying to get across remains intact.This is very bad if people treat it as a collection of parables and teachings. If you don't believe in Christianity, then your only option is to take the teachings of Jesus as that of a crazy person. He claimed to be God. He claimed divinity and taught with that authority. There is no denying him while also saying he was a great teacher.Was this ever identified within the Bible?I didn't say this was identified in the Bible. I would be shocked if it were. Do you think the people reading the Bible at that time could comprehend such a concept? I was merely using it to point out the fact that the verse in question could easily be reconciled with an Earth that is rotating at a steady speed along a fixed axis.I've done a fair amount of that. It isn't my only method, but sometimes it is the easiest one I have available for these online debates. It can certainly be said that this method provides just as many attacks on Biblical quotes as support for them.This is correct. As with searching the internet for anything, you have to stick to the more reputable ones. The best way to understand some of the perceived differences is to actually listen to what the Biblical scholars have to say. I would highly recommend Normal Giesler on the subject of Biblical inerrancy. He claims that there are absolutely no contradictions or inerrancies in the Bible and in many of his books goes through and explains why he thinks that.
Debate: Is quoting the bible a good argument for Christians?
Side: No

You have to use some common sense as well. Which is precisely why discussions of Heaven and Hell, or anything intrinsically reliant on the concept of an immortal soul are difficult for me to take at face value. Common sense tells me that there is little reason to believe things that are unprovable or have no quantifiable affect on the material world. I'm not saying that they definitely do not exist, but rather believing in them without proof goes against common sense. Further, common sense, combined with my knowledge of human nature, indicates that these concepts are more likely to be propagated primarily as an engine for promoting equally unprovable concepts that appeal mostly to our need for answers, and our desire to believe that death is not the end. Basically they attempt to satiate our fears, as well as to serve as a form of societal control. I believe the are other ways to achieve these affects, and that those ways should have observable, quantifiable results so that we can change our methodology if needed. If you don't believe in Christianity, then your only option is to take the teachings of Jesus as that of a crazy person.Which does not necessarily invalidate their usefulness or wisdom. Also, some his teachings actually predate him, such as the so-called Golden Rule. Do you think the people reading the Bible at that time could comprehend such a concept? Comprehend? Sure. Work the math behind it to find the proof for themselves? Probably not, but that wouldn't be necessary in this context. One thing that would really help increase the authenticity of the Bible is that if specific scientific statements were made that would not be known to the people of the time but could be verified well into the future. Things like all matter being composed of tiny bits of matter which themselves are composed by tinier particles that do not immediately appear to behave with the same set of physics that larger scale things do. Or maybe a basic description of how disease is caused by microscopic organisms, and that basic cleaning and cooking precautions can help reduce the spread of disease. Something like that. Do you have any examples I could investigate?As with searching the internet for anything, you have to stick to the more reputable ones.Or better yet, look for outside corroborating evidence. In many cases, this is not possible because many Christian concepts are not provable. However, when people use the Bible to support the claim that all life was created simultaneously or that the universe is only a few thousand years old, or anything related to the Ark or the Great Flood...that can be investigated, and there is so much damning evidence out there, that if the Bible is telling the truth about these things, then somebody, presumably God, mucked with the evidence to such an extent that we could call them a liar. And Bible Scholars tend to be perfectly willing to rationalize or speculate on the contents of the Bible, but rarely are they willing to accept the possibility that it can be wrong, thus it is hard to consider them reliable.