azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: No

I'm telling you that people i know are pretty damn far from settled on the ID debate and you are telling me that the brilliant scientific community has 'settled' it! iT'S always a poor argument to quote experts or to quote 'the experts.' Every person should only interpret things according to themselves and how it makes sense to them. It is a cop out to say 'oh well since the experts say this is true than it must be true'We look to experts because they are well-studied in a complicated, deep subject. We do not "decide for ourselves" because we are ignorant of biology, chemistry, and the evidence.To put it in a way that you might understand, when a surgeon is discussing the procedure with you, it is not in your best interest to decide how the procedure ought to be performed. Unless you have had years of experience cutting into people and know how the body works, you are ignorant of the subject.Creationism and Intelligent Design profit from making people like you distrust scholars and experts, they tell you to decide for yourself because they know that you're ignorant as dirt and will not research the academic papers, but only read easy-to-digest information that supports your conclusion. They you'll buy into their rhetoric.Telling an audience "don't believe me, decide yourself" is an old way to play on a crowd's common behaviour to manipulate them into believing you.
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: yes

Science actually doesn't know enough to be conclusive anyway. That's why the word 'theory' is still attached to everything. Don't get me wrong science knows a lot but the truth is that science does NOT know way more than it does know. Break thru discoveries always come along that make science throw out everything that they thought they knew and cause them to start over. To give a brand new example - Dark Matter. Now all of the sudden they are saying 'Damn, the rate at which the universe is expanding is inconsistant with the mass of the physical universe, along with the gravitational pull of everything. There must be some invisible force that lies outside of the physical universe. And they have the theory now that the answer is dark matter that composes 95% of the universe. Every field of science is still dealing with incomplete information! I was going back and forth with one guy in here and he kept going on and on about how certain he is about the exact state of the universe right after the big bang...We don't even know where the oil went from the explosion in the gulf!! We seriously overrate how much scientists know, there is so much more info that they don't know then there is info that they do know. And when you talk about evolution and hard coded morals i have no idea how you tie them together. Morals and evolution? Survival of the fittest is a good description for evolution. Why would evolution care about morality? In fact, why did evolution hard code us with an obsession to worship a creator that does not exist? And you're actually contridicting yourself, according to you the belief in religion has caused more murder and misery in human existance than anything else. Tons of people in here say it is the anti-morality. Well clearly evolution gave us the religion instinct because we are only products of evolution. But now all of the sudden evolution gave us the morality instinct. Which one is it? Did evolution hard code us with both morality and immoral religious beliefs? Why?
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: yes

The theory of evolution keeps 'advancing.' Since the days of Darwin it has become more precise and exact! Have you ever asked yourself this question, is it true that everytime an objection is raised to evolution scientists tweak it's definition? So why is it that evolution hard coded us with religious beliefs in a God that doesn't exist? Science suplies a brilliant sounding answer; you see this is how it works... But wait, what on Earth would morality have to do with survival of the fittest? Science supplies another impressive sounding addition to the way it works; well you have to factor in this detail of the microorganism... The more objections that get raised to evolution the more exact and detailed it becomes, and it always sounds so impressive and brilliant. No matter what objection you have to it science just say "Well yeah yeah see, that's how it operates..." Well what are they doing? Only thing they're doing is analizing how everything behaves and saying "Yeah that's how evolution works."And again with the talk about peer reviewed papers instead of the actual arguements. I don't want to hear the term peer review when I ask why the Cambrien Explosion had a ton of life forms appear all at once when your precious evolution is supposed to be slow and gradual. I don't want to hear about 'peer reviews' when I ask you why there is no transitional fossils when even Darwin himself admitted that if they don't start popping up by the thousands then his theory is wrong. You do what I used to do all the time, you totally overrate what "They Say", what "The Experts Say!" It's Bullshit! THe whole world has an agenda. The universe is not comparable to your 'expert physician' analagy. Do you really think anybody has the entire universe on an operating table right in front of them like an expert physician does? Evolution has yet to give a good answer for the origin of life ever. You can't compare that to an expert who has all his data sitting right in front of his face. You are really giving these scientist way too much credit (as i once did) they have SO much undiscovered information it's ridiculous. They might as well be philosophers not scientists. I repeat myself, they don't even know where the oil went from the explosion in the gulf, IN OUR OWN PLANET, but they know how life started, they have the universe figured out, they know life evolved yet we have about 4 questionable fossils they claim to be 'transitions' when their should be millions and millions! You need to think about the specific factors for yourself and come up with your own conclusions (or your best guess). You can't say 'They Say' 'They Say' all the time, because 'They' are full of shit!
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: yes

I have heard my share of totally brain washed religious people speak. People who are ridiculous at how rigid they are, who would never in a million years even admit that they question a part of their beliefs. Wow you are the scientific version of that. Bro, there are a lot of people out there who have serious problems with evolution who don't have a religious bone in their body. Lol, you would be screaming 'RELIGION!' at them and i would love to see the looks on their faces. I forget the name of the one guy, wrote a huge book trashing the theory of evolution, then he also wrote another book on how religious people are idiots. Like how on earth is the problem of irreducible complexity a religious rebuttle? Yes religious people point to it but you need to talk science with the non-religious people who have a problem with it. You can't tell those people to run back to church lol. Now suppose cold fusion is a total joke like you say it is but a bunch of people believe it. Would you not see a reason to throw it into a high school science book? Even if you're right and the reason to put it there is to shoot holes in it? But if any ID arguement is impressing people your reaction is AHHHHHHH, RELIGION!! Stay away from science classes! Do they not teach even dead theories from before Einstein and Newton for reasons of completeness and science history? Your reason to exclude ID from science class is totally political
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: No

I have heard my share of totally brain washed religious people speak. People who are ridiculous at how rigid they are, who would never in a million years even admit that they question a part of their beliefs. Wow you are the scientific version of that.Try challenging the germ theory of disease to a microbiologist, or gravity to a physicist. You speak from ignorance to someone who knows the field very well.Bro, there are a lot of people out there who have serious problems with evolution who don't have a religious bone in their body.I don't care. They are not scientists, and the uneducated masses buy into all sorts of pseudoscience.I forget the name of the one guy, wrote a huge book trashing the theory of evolution, then he also wrote another book on how religious people are idiots. Like how on earth is the problem of irreducible complexity a religious rebuttle? Yes religious people point to it but you need to talk science with the non-religious people who have a problem with it. You can't tell those people to run back to church lol.I already explained before, ID is a movement started by Christian fundamentalists as a way to sneak antiscience into classrooms. Try researching these things. Here's a hint for you:Go to the internet archive, archive.org, and type the discovery institute's URL into the "way back machine." The very old pages in the archives show that they are a front for attacks on science, what they call materialism.Now suppose cold fusion is a total joke like you say it is but a bunch of people believe it. Would you not see a reason to throw it into a high school science book?Let's teach children that curses cause illness as well as bacteria and viruses.Even if you're right and the reason to put it there is to shoot holes in it?You don't teach pseudoscience to children expecting them to shoot holes into it. High-school children are not experts and rely on accurate information from which to learn about their world. It takes seasoned scientists and careful readers to poke holes in the bunk that is creationism.But if any ID arguement is impressing people your reaction is AHHHHHHH, RELIGION!! Stay away from science classes!I'm sure that it never occurred to you that the point here is ID doesn't impress scientists in other words experts in the field of biology who know the subject.To you, a person is on equal footing with a scientist.Do they not teach even dead theories from before Einstein and Newton for reasons of completeness and science history? Your reason to exclude ID from science class is totally politicalBefore you go on a rant about politics, you'd better try reading up on the political plans of your masters:http://antievolution.org/features/wedge.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: yes

What does germ theory or microbiology have to do with the origin of life or the origin of the universe. I'm sure you're well versed in telling people 'Sit down I am the authority on this subject' but you really need to realize that 'NONE' have authority on the subject of origins. You keep calling ID pseudoscience, where is the ground breaking evidence to the contrary of ID. What is your theory, that particles just magically started spinning the right way and Bam, life? Where is your proof? You take your expert status to levels where nobody is an expert. When it comes to origins all of us are limited to analyzing the different variables and making an intelligent guess on what makes most sense to us. You need to give it a rest on 'peer reviews' and 'the experts' on this subject
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: yes

I agree that evolution is science, it is the very detailed examination of how living organisms function and change. Then there are other fields of science and they too are very detailed at taking us down to the smallest basement level details of the physical world. I agree with you that I have no more than the casual reader's knowlege of evolution or perhaps any field of science. But I guess we just don't see eye to eye. I will never understand how me attaining a master's degree level of information on how these things work will possibly help me to discover what is below that basement level. If it is a power source or just random mutation. We are all taking a leap of faith my friend whether we are theists or atheists. Surely you must know that there are people out there who do have masters degrees in biology and also believe in God. In all fairness can you really come back and say 'Yes all the theist scientists are idiots who think they know their field, but any scientist who has a clue would never believe in God.' I don't want to put words in your mouth but you have to know that such a statement is not true
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: No

I agree that evolution is science, it is the very detailed examination of how living organisms function and change. Then there are other fields of science and they too are very detailed at taking us down to the smallest basement level details of the physical world.This is correct.I agree with you that I have no more than the casual reader's knowlege of evolution or perhaps any field of science. But I guess we just don't see eye to eye. I will never understand how me attaining a master's degree level of information on how these things work will possibly help me to discover what is below that basement level.Suppose you lived in the very early 20th century, you are a normal 20s' man. You heard that men were flying with this thing called the flying machine.Now, you're no scientist or engineer, but you know that wood and metal and humans are heavier than air... they couldn't levitate above it. It must be a hoax. So you laugh at it, mock it for being so obviously wrong. After all if humans could fly they would have wings!Imagine you arguing with an engineer decades later about how absurd this flight is, how the planes now being made must be hoaxes, things held up by invisible wires as a farce.This is where you are with biology. Yes it seems ridiculous, a leap of faith that random mutation can make a dog from a wolf but that is only a part of it. We are dealing with a complicated field spanning over a century of research in chemistry, genetics, fossils, cladistics and phylogeny, and taxonomy and ecology and population studies. I've been studying this for the past few years and I still haven't memorised all the taxonomic branches, the phylogenetic relationships, etc. I'm still discovering new fossil lineages in papers, and I'm still learning subtle but important details in genetics at the molecular level. There is a lot to know.When you learn a lot about biology it becomes clear that it could only be this way through common ancestry, it becomes obvious that life continues to change, that it isn't static and defined but transitional. Then it becomes less ridiculous that a wolf with certain mutations and special selection could look like a chihuahua.Surely you must know that there are people out there who do have masters degrees in biology and also believe in God.Yes, I do. However if they're good scientists they won't let that affect their research, they won't bias their results to prove god.In all fairness can you really come back and say 'Yes all the theist scientists are idiots who think they know their field, but any scientist who has a clue would never believe in God.'I never made this argument. What I would point out is that evolution doesn't negate a god but seems to make a god unnecessary.
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: yes

If you asked me why i think that Jesus was supernatural i would probably have to gather my thoughts for a little bit, and give you a fairly long and detailed explaination (although not ridiculously long) on why i believe it so. So if someone asked you 'why is it that it is clear that it can only be this way thru common ancestry', what would be your semi-detailed explaination?And by common ancestry you do mean that we all go back to one 'first' life form right? I'm pretty sure you don't believe that there were say 1,000 original life forms completely unlinked to each other and they all evolved into 10,000,000 life forms. That's what I believe, I don't believe we all can call the ameba our great ancestor, if you believe that then that is the explaination i would like to hear from you (and I'll research your response because I don't like to run away from view points that disagree with mine). I'll tell you what has me locked into my denial of macro evolution. Years ago I watched the movie 12 Angry Men and I remember one by one the jurors changed their minds to not guilty except 2 'guilty' jurors were left. So they asked the one guy for his thoughts and he said 'The woman saw him do it! That to me is IMMOVABLE evidence.' With evolution the lack of transitional fossils has always been immovable evidence for me, i just can't get around it. Every now and then they will come out with such and such a fossil that is the 'missing link' between A and B but it just makes me shake my head because the amount of transitionally minute changes a species would have to go thru to go from A to B is a lot, not one link! The fossil record would have to at least somewhat resemble Optimus Prime transforming into a truck (many inbetween stages). And this is where my debate with people at work usually ends because i simply don't know what else to say, I am genuinely very unimpressed by the fossil record
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: yes

where is the ground breaking evidence to the contrary of IDthere will probably never be any because ID doesn't make any testable hypotheses which is why it is NOT science. It just proposes that everything is so complex there must be someone behind it - which is silly, and untestable, and not scientific.What is your theory, that particles just magically started spinning the right way and Bam, life?the theory of evolution is that more complex and better adapted life can come from lesser forms and the evidence is everywhere - from drug resistant bacteria to evolution from wolves to dogs (which we can basically replicate ), etc.the Miller Urey experiments prove that simple elements water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen produced 22 types of amino acids going from inorganic matter to organic.The only way to test ID is to find a hypothesis where if ID is true X will happen and if it is untrue Y should happen and then find out which one happens - that is science.There are other debates on ID - this discussion should go there.
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: yes

A teacher in public school would get straight up FIRED for saying a prayer before classif he says a prayer to himself before the schoolkids show up, he would not get in trouble - if he is a government employee (like a teacher) proselytizing to other people's children - why wouldn't that person be in trouble? If that teacher was trying to teach your kid the Qu'ran, would you want the teacher to be in trouble? Neo Nazis can march anywhere and practice their freedom of speechand christians who are against abortion can protest right outside abortion clinics, etcentertaining the possibility of intelligent design (in a scientific way)that isn't possible because science deals with how things happen and repeatable experiments, etc., but intelligent design deals with why things happened - and is a philosophy.P.S. - we are a bit far from the topic of the debate
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: yes

All that liberals and actual small gov conservatives are saying is - you can say Jesus at Christmas all you want - just don't take tax dollars to do it, and don't have the government teach my kid religion even if the majority says so.
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: Hell NO

Build it elsewhere. Building it there is a slap in the face. But hey, we Americans are getting used to being slapped and not reacting, right?
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: No

62% do nothttp://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2010/many_more_now_following_mosque_controversy_and_don_t_like_it
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: No

Of all places... OF ALL PLACES WHY THE BLOODY HELL WOULD THEY CHOOSE TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO???If anything they should build a memorial, but not a mosque. Radical Islam is Islam none the less, and it would be disrespectful not only to the families who lost loved ones in the destruction, but the victims as well.
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: No

while i support the right to the peaceful gathering of people to worship their deity, why don't people ask Muslim nations why we cant build on their land. Islam is a one way street. they build mosques and Muslim universities here in America but we are rejected and not allowed to build churches or Christian collage classes in most Muslim countries. also it is illegal in most Islamic counties to go to their country on the grounds of being a missionary that is not Muslim. and to continue my point it is illegal for most people to publicly display religious activities that are not Muslim. that means preaching publicly, carrying a bible, and going to church is illegal under law.so why do Muslims hark intolerance at us but yet don't talk about what their parent counties do?
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: yes

So should we emulate those countries and block it, or be a freedom loving America and allow it?
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: No

Someone should open a bar and grill close to the mosque sight. You cant build a place of worship close to a bar.
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: No

Serve BBQ, let the smell of the cooking swine waft their nostrils.
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: No

I disagree with the placement of a mosque next to ground zero in the same way I would oppose a gun shop next to Columbine High School. Do all Muslims kill people? Of course not. And neither do all guns. But the connotation is still there, and it shows a lack of respect for those affected by both tragedies.
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: yes

Interesting analogy - I wonder how many who say No would have protested the NRA holding its meeting 15 miles from Columbine high school less than 2 weeks after the shooting...http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/05/02/nra/index.html
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: No

The NRA should not have held a meeting at that location so soon. I can't answer for everyone else on the negative side of this debate, but I say, just like the mosque, they ought to have their meetings elsewhere.
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: No

No..... wait.... Hell no.... wait.... Hell, shit no.... wait.... Hell, shit, fuck no.... OK...., that's better.... but mainly because it pisses someone off ;)
Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: No

The mosque should be built, but not as close to Ground Zero.