azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, Adam and Eve....Do you believe in fairy tales?
Side: Yes, it is the word of God

Can humans create it? Nature tends to go to simplicity not complexity. Everything we see in today's world except nature is said to have a creator... why doesn't nature? It would appear logical to make the judgement that since nothing can be here unless created it would require a creator. What doesn't have something come before it? The fact that something cannot come nothing is a scientific fact along with nature has a beginning and an end. Therefore, what could have created the cell? No scientists knows.
Debate: Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, Adam and Eve....Do you believe in fairy tales?
Side: No, it should not be believed

Can humans create it?Highly unlikely. Nature tends to go to simplicity not complexity.If you're referring to the second law of thermodynamics, I believe several people have now pointed out why this is wrong. But a quote that I recently stumbled across seems relevant here:The second law of thermodynamics argument is one of the hoariest, silliest claims in the creationist collection. It's self-refuting. Point to the creationist: ask whether he was a baby once. Has he grown? Has he become larger and more complex? Isn't he standing there in violation of the second law himself? Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen - PZ MyersEverything we see in today's world except nature is said to have a creator... why doesn't nature? Nature is not a physical thing, it is a state of being. In the same way personality is not a physical thing.Secondly, who said creation necessitates a creator? Unless you can prove that creation necessitates a creator, your argument is based on an unproven premise.Thirdly, that would form an ad poulum, which is fallacious.Finally, it is no more likely that being is the Judeo Christian God than it is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.It would appear logical to make the judgement that since nothing can be here unless created it would require a creator.See above. Also, virtual particles. Observable phenomena that prove creation ex nihilo is possible.What doesn't have something come before itEternity, which the universe could possibly possess.The fact that something cannot come nothing is a scientific fact along with nature has a beginning and an end.None of these things are facts, I suggest you read some science, or at the very least, my attempts at explaining it.Virtual particles are observable examples of something from nothing. And nature having a beginning and an end is not fact either. Because energy cannot be created or destroyed, and thus has no beginning or end. How can this be?Simple: this universe is merely a manifestation of energy that has existed for eternity. Therefore, what could have created the cell? No scientists knows.Apart from the Nobel Prize winners that dedicated their lives to finding that the cell could have arisen via abiogenesis.
Debate: Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, Adam and Eve....Do you believe in fairy tales?
Side: Yes, it is the word of God

I think that the second law of thermodynamics and increased entropy in completely valid. Increased entropy is something that has been proven. Brian Cox made a demonstration of it with a sandcastle, and the fact that our universe is always loosing energy and never gaining it is a large point for that. There may be people who do not consider it to be correct in it's purest form - it's more complex than that - but the principle that everything will eventually deteriorate still stands. Your example of how a child will grow is irrelevant as a child may grow, but, through the arrow-of-time theory, that child will also eventually wither and die. Proving that the second law of thermodynamics is still valid. Thermodynamics is valid.
Debate: Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, Adam and Eve....Do you believe in fairy tales?
Side: No, it should not be believed

Oh boy, you appear to have misunderstood quite massively.Of course I believe the second law of thermodynamics is true, all I'm saying is that it has been misapplied by creationists. The quote is showing how the creationist application is retarded, and isn't what PZ Myers actually believes.And your definition is horribly wrong too.
Debate: Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, Adam and Eve....Do you believe in fairy tales?
Side: No, it should not be believed

Then that means he created viruses, bacteria and parasites. ISN'T THAT AMAZING?
Debate: Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, Adam and Eve....Do you believe in fairy tales?
Side: No, it should not be believed

Here's an interesting article with references concluding that; based off recent genetic research, a Biblical Adam and Eve never existed. (Also that the Noah's Ark story cannot be taken literally). http://biologos.org/blog/does-genetics-point-to-a-single-primal-couple Basically, it shows that the human population could not have originated from a single breeding pair, nor has the breeding population ever been below a few thousand, based on 3 different genetic studies. It seems to me that, if the Adam and Eve story must be relegated to being an analogy or myth, not to be taken literally, than the entire foundation of Christianity is on very shaky ground. It would appear, based on the evidence, that this is exactly the case.It is also interesting to note this article is found on the Biologos website- an Evangelical Christian apologetics site, dedicated to reconciling scientific discoveries with Christian scripture. Of course, they have yet to make an official stance on the matter.
Debate: Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, Adam and Eve....Do you believe in fairy tales?
Side: Yes, it is the word of God

Any citations from Christian organizations that are reconciling creation to science can be pretty much thrown in the trash. Most learned Christians are embarrassed by these oddballs.
Debate: Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, Adam and Eve....Do you believe in fairy tales?
Side: No, it should not be believed

Yeah, I think I can agree with this sentiment. This doesn't invalidate the actual research however, which is published in scientifically peer-reviewed papers. http://www.genetics.org/content/147/4/1977.full.pdf+html http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/4/520.short and here's more recent one: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/08/09/molbev.mss175.abstract
Debate: Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, Adam and Eve....Do you believe in fairy tales?
Side: Yes, it is the word of God

"Basically, it shows that the human population could not have originated from a single breeding pair, nor has the breeding population ever been below a few thousand, based on 3 different genetic studies."Doesn't that also destroy the theory of Evolution? For a species to maintain a breeding population, thousands of creatures from another species would have had to evolve at the same to do it?
Debate: Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, Adam and Eve....Do you believe in fairy tales?
Side: No, it should not be believed

Hahaha upvote for you! Believe in FAIRY TALES Nice. No, no i don't! I would explain but am currently in the middle of a religious dispute with someone else, an quite busy! Check it out!
Debate: Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, Adam and Eve....Do you believe in fairy tales?
Side: Yes, it is the word of God

What's the point of joiing in a debate if you're 100% convinced that everything the opposing side will say is completly false an wrong?
Debate: Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, Adam and Eve....Do you believe in fairy tales?
Side: No, it should not be believed

Nobody joins a debate if they even agree a little with what the other side says. Its the whole point of a debate. One side who is 100% convinced they're right VS another who thinks the same. Debates aren't for the debaters. Its for the people who are undecided reading each side to make their own choice based on which side presented the best argument. Best arguments which only arise when the debater is 100% committed to his or her side. Also in this case, the other side IS completely false and wrong. Its not like one presidential candidate vs another. In that debate both could be right on things and wrong on other things. It varies greatly. In this one, there's indisputable FACT, reason, logic, science and history VS a few ridiculous fairy tales. This debate shouldn't even exist.
Debate: Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, Adam and Eve....Do you believe in fairy tales?
Side: No, it should not be believed

I'm quite sure scientists have already disproved Adam and eve. Found that Noah's arch told the story of the black sea over flowing and I'm pretty sure that if you were in a fishes stomach then the stomach acid would deteriorate your body.
Debate: Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, Adam and Eve....Do you believe in fairy tales?
Side: No, it should not be believed

You do not know where it came from. do not believe others sweet talking. I guessed the person who came up with those stories had a big mouth. Adam and Eve? Who would be alive? Adam and Eve only. Who will know that?
Debate: Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, Adam and Eve....Do you believe in fairy tales?
Side: No, it should not be believed

There are certain stories in the Bible that do equate to being fairytales. This is why questioning of the Bible is necessary.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

Exactly how does eliminating non vegan food mitigate world hunger? I am confused. Seems to me the profligacy of many food sources would be the deciding factor.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

I think what he meant was that if there was a ban on non-vegan foods, and farmers continued to harvest the same amount of crops and food that they did to feed their harvested animals, we would be more then capable of putting an end to world hunger. This idea may not be entirely practical but that is just one of the many points for veganism.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

The original poster didn't think this through all the way. He said animals suffering is cruel because they are sentient. Okay, I will buy that. So now we must ban hunting also, which can be considered cruel. What will happen when there is no hunting? The deer population will eventually explode beyond the supply of food that is available to them. We now must feed the deer with all that food that was going to go to the human population. If not, then many deer will starve to death, which is more cruel than hunting. If we don't feed them the excess food for human consumption, forests will die off and we have an even bigger problem. With an abundance of deer, they will turn to the farmers crops and eat the food that the vegans want to go to the poor people around the world. This is not to mention the massive problems people will face when deer are all over the place in suburban areas. I know of some rich areas in my city that deer can be spotted every single day now. With 100 fold of deer, the consequences will be disastrous for the environment. Here are two articles. http://wamu.org/news/11/05/23/deeroverpopulationyieldsdisastrousresultsforforests.phphttp://www.deerworlds.com/deer-conservation-efforts/ It was not a well thought out argument about no killing of animals.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

Hunting game and banning food products are different issues. The way to solve deer overpopulation is natural predators including wolves."Thus the forest management personnel feared that overgrazing might lead to mass starvation. Since the area was too remote for hunters, the wildlife service decided to bring in natural predators to control the deer population. It was hoped that natural predation would keep the deer population from becoming too large and also increase the deer quality (or health), as predators often eliminate the weaker members of the herd. In 1971, ten wolves were flown into the island. " [1]If you look at the graph, the wolves were very effective at controlling the deer population, without causing the deer to become extinct. 1. http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/ predator preygraphing.html
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Do you know how many deer are harvested every year by hunters? Just over six million. There are nowhere near enough wolves in the wild to make even a miniscule dent in the deer population. Deer do not have hardly any natural predators other than wolves so that point is mute.Do you support hunting? If you do, then what is the harm in shooting a cow and eating the meat like we do deer?
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Lol foratag not sure if you agree or disagree with the resolution, Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.The problem of wolves and hunters is another problem, and is off-topic. No I do not support hunting for sport. The harm in eating meat other than to prevent starvation it is unhealthy. Meat has too much fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein. Eating meat displaces healthy fruits and vegetables that have antioxidants, fiber, and phytonutrients.Too much fat accumulates as intramyocellular lipids which can increase insulin resistance.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Yes arteaga34 is correct. If everyone was vegan we could feed more people."If everyone in the world ate like people in the U.S. do, only 2.5 billion people could be sustained. The current world population is 6.3 billion and is expected to be over 9 billion by 2050. If everyone ate a Vegan diet, at least 20 billion people could be sustained. "http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/HelpingStarvingPeople.htm
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Where is this food going to come from? There is only so much land in the USA that is suitable for agriculture and most of that is being used for that purpose. Or do you propose cutting down all the forests to feed the rest of the world.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

The food will come from the same land used for feeding livestock."Meat is less efficient because we eat the animal that eats the grain instead of eating the grain ourselves. It takes about 15 pounds of feed to make 1 pound of beef, 6 pounds of feed for 1 pound of pork and 5 pounds of feed for 1 pound of chicken, the Department of Agriculture estimates. For catfish, it's about 2 pounds of feed per pound of fish." [1]Let's use the example of beef. It takes about fifteen as much grain to feed a person on beef compared to grain. If a person ate purely beef, they are eating the grain of fifteen people. Instead, have the person eat purely grain, and 14 others could be fed. No more land would be needed for agriculture. No additional forests would need to be cut down. Links.1. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2009-04-21-carbon-diet_N.htm
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Now we get to the heart of your argument. You are a global warming alarmist. That article from the USA today seems more concerned about greenhouse gases than anything else. What about all the people in the world who will have to give up meat. How are we going to make up that food shortage? The best way to solve world hunger is to stop having kids when you can't afford it. Minus that, the situation is only going to get worse as the worlds population increases. I guess you want the USA to solve all the worlds problems, don't you?Your comment about 20 billion people could be fed is from a vegan website. Please show me some information from a non biased site that backs this up.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

One more thing. If we all became vegans, all the meat that we gave up would have to be replenished by eating the food that you advocate going to feed the hungry people in the world. So it is a zero sum gain. I would argue that we would be eating much more food without meat so we may have a shortage of vegetables and fruits for all Americans.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: No, I reject the resolution.

Animal SentienceYour references frequently conflate emotional process with conscious awareness of emotional process. That an animal experiences and responds to emotions does not mean they are aware doing so, and that awareness is a critical component to sentience. If we adopt the looser standard you introduce through your reference, then we must also conclude upon available evidence that plants are also sentient. [1] [2] [3] Certainly, then, veganism is no better. And what are we meant to eat?Moreover, if it is wrong to kill and consume a thing because it suffers then would it not follow that the lion is immoral when it hunts? It seems absurd to suggest that it could be wrong for a lion to be carnivorous, because that is its nature. Yet by your reasoning we must. I suggest instead that suffering and predation are both part of nature, and that they are also necessary to nature. If it is in our nature to eat meat, as is certainly suggested by our physiology and archaeological evidence, then why should it be wrong to be as nature made us? Certainly, it can be no more wrong than the lion?SufferingThis is an argument for better husbandry, not against husbandry altogether. It is also subject to the same objections I raised against animal sentience.HealthYour observations hold true for unbalanced consumption of red meat only, not for all animals. Your reference is a personal blog lacing citation to actual research.EnvironmentAgain, this is argument for better husbandry and not against husbandry altogether. Even if we could not raise fish and cattle sustainably this does not mean we could not do so with other animals, particularly insects a number of which also consume human waste.World HungerAgain, this is an argument for better husbandry and not against husbandry altogether. The criticism is of current animal based models, not against animal based models categorically. Cattle are inefficient. Insects are not.Unacknowledged HarmsBanning all non-vegan foods would seriously destabilize the global economy, which is necessary for developing a sustainable vegan infrastructure. You would also incur the anger and wrath of the majority of the human population, polarizing them against your cause rather than inspiring them to favor it. There is also no global mechanism for imposing such a ban upon everyone, and doing so would therefore necessitate some use of force against the sovereignty of nations which would destabilize the entire geo-political system leading to conflict, death, famine, etc. It is imply impractical and counterproductive to ban non-vegan foods. P.S. Instead of pasting links, which is what is causing everything to underline afterwards on the thread, use the hyperlink coding - [hyperlink text] (url), without the space between the two bracketed bits - which will turn whatever text you enter into a hyperlink.
Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Jace,As for your argument on plant sentience. The key factor is that plants cannot feel pain. Yet, as I've proved above animals can. "As far as I know no reputable study has ever shown that plants can "feel pain". They lack the nervous system and brain necessary for this to happen. A plant can respond to stimuli, for example by turning towards the light or closing over a fly, but that is not the same thing."1As for animal deaths, the least amount of harm is caused by a vegan diet. "Figure 1: A diet of plants causes the fewest animals to be killed. Leaving chickens and eggs out of our diets will have the greatest effect on reducing the suffering and death caused by what we eat. " 2Any informed vegan knows that some animal deaths are sadly unavoidable. "There is also no fundamental moral difference between any other animal killing and consuming another animal and a human doing it. " JaceAnimals eat meat for survival, humans don't. "Human ancestors were herbivores so it is no surprise at all that we retain many physiological attributes of herbivores, which is really all your reference suggests. " JaceHumans not only have the physiological attributes of herbivores but fare better on a vegan diet. All those antioxidants, fiber, and phytonutrients. While avoiding excess fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein. "with roughly two billion people eating insects worldwide (28% of world population) compared to one million vegans (0.0001%)," JaceI skimmed your links couldn't find the two billion people number. This is a comparison between people eating a few bugs versus no animal products at all. I doubt those two billion people ate insects as their only source of animal products."Entomphagy is also more accessible, healthier, and efficient than veganism. A healthy vegan diet is reliant upon nutritional supplements which are produced in laboratories, whereas insects are commonly accessible to basically anyone and compliment the deficits of an otherwise vegetarian or vegan diet. " JaceI saw a salad at a local restaurant and several other vegan dishes. There was no Entomphagy dishes. As for insects being healthy, there seems to be a lack of scienfic research. I did find this though, and apparently subjects reported nausea. 3As for supplements being inefficient, its pretty clear that methane from cows is a bigger environmental problem. As for vegan receiving enough nutrition b-12 seems to be the only concern. "Microorganisms are the only natural sources of the B12-derivatives” 4.“Vitamin B12 synthesis by human small intestinal bacteria” 5."B12 From Fruits And VegetablesAll fruits and vegetables contain some B12, but it's often in small quantities. Organic fruits and vegetables contain significantly more, however.Why?Bacteria eat decaying organic matter and excrete complex nutrients into the soil, including B12. This is then absorbed by plants, with some staying in the roots and some making its way into the leaves for us to take in.” 6.Vegan diets are healthier than the nauseating dishes of insects.