azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Schools should indeed be only for learning knowledge. I never said though that science was the only form of factual knowledge that could or should be taught - history has facts, geography has facts, politics has facts, math has facts, and so on and so forth. Creationism and intelligent design have no facts.The search for "truth" that you refer to is generally a bullshit quest. People tend to have a desire to feel like their life has greater meaning beyond themselves and that they matter to the universe, and this is often satisfied with faith and religion. However, those desires and our proclivity towards answering them with faith are little more than evolutionary byproducts that allow us to be sentient entities conscious of our surroundings but capable of dealing with trauma and difficulty. People have a right to believe in whatever they want, so long as those beliefs are not forced upon others. The problem is that you cannot teach some students religious beliefs without forcing it upon every single other student. Teaching creationism and intelligent design alongside evolution as if they were factual is subjecting every student to a set of beliefs rather than knowledge at a point in their lives where they are susceptible to trusting those who tell them it is fact. Not only does belief have no place in an institution of knowledge and learning, but it has its own place in places of worship and individual households.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Once again, you're clumping "religion" into NON fact. AS IF, science (in its entirety) is FACT? I believe in MANY things science has to offer, however, I do not believe that what science knows is the end all, the only source of "facts". And so when I stated the fact that science is not the end all to truth, I also mean, science is not the end all to FACTS! I figured you would connect the dots, and so my apologizes for not spoon feeding you my points. Moving on, I digress... The search for truth is everything for the human being. And so you claim that because I believe that I'm within a "bullshit quest"? Fuck you and others that believe so. Considering the schooling and shoving down/forceing "truths". A parent can easily say "yes or no" to a student of their wanting, wishing whatever they want upon that person. And so in short, there is not problem when the schools state "we've got this class, and if you do not want your kids to take, let us know because you've got your right whether or not..." Do you understand this? People like you jump to conclusions stating, nah it's not good enough to teach knowledge. Why is it not good enough? You (among others) state because "it is not fact", and "there is no evidence for your theories." Science says it knows about something that is happening millions of light years away. HOWEVER, all that science knows (in particular to this situation) is what something perhaps did millions of years ago. Do you get this? Science is always chasing the tail of truth and its people will never know 100 percent everything that the universe has to offer. Therefore, there is room for other facts that science has not detected yet. And further, there is conflict because of this. Do you fucking see the mentally I've got compared to you and MANY others?
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Religion is not factual, nor is supported by reason. It derives its basis from faith, and faith alone. Science is based on rational and objective observations of reality, and arrives at its theories and knowledge from a foundation grounded in actuality. As I have said before, this does not make it the be all end all by any means. What it does is make it substantiated and more probabilistically accurate than faith based views. When you are advancing an argument predicated on faith and completely lacking reason or fact then of course you are going to have to connect the dots. I fail to see why your illogicality implies idiocy on my part.As someone who is human and also perfectly content not having to have answers for everything I must disagree that the search for truth is "everything for the human being." Sure, I would like to understand but I am not so desperate for a sense of significance that I mistake faith for a substitute of knowledge.Regarding public education, students are required to take certain classes and cannot be exempted because of the reason you stated. Nor should a student have to be forced out of a class where actual, legitimate knowledge is taught because someone else thinks that they should have to learn non-factual, irrational beliefs alongside that knowledge. I absolutely think it is good enough to teach knowledge in our educational institutions. That is not a conclusion that I jumped to, it is the express purpose of an educational institution.And I understand your mentality perfectly well (although I think you are actually in the majority contrary to your implication). You believe in something for absolutely no reason other than that you think it is a good idea, and you think you have an entitlement to force that upon other people in our public education system even though it is not an actual form of knowledge. You are incapable of living your life without having some form of explanation, so where science falls short you fill in the gaps with pseudo-explanations that have no provable or even reasonable basis in reality. You even go so far as to deny what science knows or probabilistically demonstrates in favor of your beliefs.On a final note, your excessive use of expletives and personal attacks are truly unnecessary. Are you truly incapable of having a civil conversation with someone who disagrees with you?
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Once again, people don't believe in X, Y, Z on faith alone. Faith is what brought them there to begin with, sure. However, it doesn't stop at faith. There are facts and concrete evidence for many believers in fact. And so these facts you would call them non-factual, why? Because you don't believe it? Because you do not see it as fact? That matters not, especially to someone like myself. I could give 2 shits about whether you believe me or not. That's not my goal. My goal right now, as I've said before, is to defend myself against people like you. I believe in the god I believe because of rationale thought, because it is logical, because I've got evidence. So when you claim my evidence is not good enough, thats when I start cussing. Do you get that? How life works? And so you clump me into a category, as I clump you into one, fair is fair. However, I don't say to you "you're delusional because you believe in science", thats absurd. What I do say is that I believe in science wholeheartidly, as well as believe in a god, and then you say i'm delusional, have no facts, ect. That offends me and puts me into a defensive mode simply because you yourself do not believe in it. To answer your question, I am VERY much capable of having a civil conversation. And so long as the other party is offensive, I will defend. And sure, when I defend I tend to use cuss words. Cry me a river.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

I do not consider religion to be anything but faith-based because I have never ever (not once) been presented with a single piece of remotely factual evidence. Definition of a fact: a thing that is indisputably the case. Give me a single, actual fact that actually proves either creationism or intelligent design and I will reconsider my statement.When you assert you have rationale and evidence but then never present me with either can you really blame me for saying you have neither? You keep saying you evidence. Lets see it then.It is absurd to call someone delusional for believing in science, since by definition it is not delusional. The definition of delusion: a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. A scientific perspective is significantly more receptive to adapting to new knowledge than is faith. A scientific perspective is based upon a process of reason and derived from actual fact.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Look back on the thread. I did not make a personal attack on you directly. My comment was about the quest being bullshit, and was not a personal insult or strawman fallacy as it was addressed at the issue itself. As for my general comments (directed generally and not specifically at you, though you are included) about those believing in creationism and intelligent design being delusional or idiotic, I use those terms in a strictly literal sense. By definition they are accurate assessments, and I have no qualms about applying them when they fit. I cannot help it that the terms fit, and in my opinion if something is accurate then it is not an attack but an observation. If you find it personally offensive to have your belief system associated with words that are correctly applied then that is your prerogative I suppose, but I think swearing is a less effective approach than actually demonstrating why those terms are not accurate (and asserting that you have fact and reason behind your beliefs does not counter my points).
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

There is evidence yet you choose to not accept it. THAT is the point. The "evidence" does not suite you well, and so you do not believe it, fine. However, just because you do not believe it (among others) does not make it not true.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

The only "evidence" I've seen for creation is based on ignorance of science or one of these logical fallacies. Special PleadingBurden of ProofBegging the QuestionTexas SharpshooterPersonal IncredulityIf you know of some credible evidence that doesn't use one of those logical fallacies, please point me to it, because I am genuinely interested in hearing it.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Ignorance compared to whom, to what? As if humans know the end all of anything OTHER THAN DEATH to life...ENLIGHTEN ME. None of those matter. What matters are the testimonials, feelings (emotion towards their X, Y, Z god(s), actuality of reality (the fact that there is something beyond what "we think we know", the indifference of good men, the unbelief of men, the complexity of nature, the fact that we're alive to begin with; (to be existent, it must have first been given life before it being existent.), there are MANY facts to be taken not in consideration by those whom do not believe. Yet, those whom do believe have their reasons. And people like you consider those reasons to be false. Why? Because YOU have not experienced it? What about those whom have? Are you considering their values to be less than yours?
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Ignorance compared to whom, to what? Compared to the highly-educated scientists who have dedicated their life to understanding how things work. Many creationist arguments are based off a lack of understanding of the scientific explantions that exist to explain the things creationists claim are impossible.None of those matter.I assume you are referring to the logical fallacies I mentioned. If so, are you serious?! They matter A LOT. They show that the logic being used is flawed.What matters are the testimonials, feelings (emotion towards their X, Y, Z god(s), actuality of reality (the fact that there is something beyond what "we think we know", the indifference of good men, the unbelief of men Testimonials are not a very reliable method to determine truth. We have testimonials for nearly every crazy belief, such as alien abductions, fairies, and lots of different gods. Feelings are also not a reliable method of determining truth. Countless people in the world that belong to conflicting religions have strong feelings that their god is the true one, so clearly feelings are not indicators of truth because all of those religions can't be true. How do we determine truth from the actuality of reality, the indifference of good men, and the unbelief of men? The complexity of natureThe complexity of nature can be explained by science. Science may not have the answers to every single thing yet, but it has a lot of them and every day we learn more.the fact that we're alive to begin withIs god alive? If you think he's alive, then according to your logic he must have a creator, and that creator must have a creator, and so on.to be existent, it must have first been given life before it being existent Does god exist? If something can't exist unless it is has been given life, then god can't exist unless he was given life. So according to your own logic, god can't exist unless something created him, and the thing that created him can't exist unless something created him, and so on and so on. Yet, those whom do believe have their reasons. And people like you consider those reasons to be false. Why? Because YOU have not experienced it?I was a VERY DEVOUT believer at one point in time, so I understand their reasons, but I've looked at the logic behind those reasons and they don't stand up to scrutiny, which is why I no longer believe them. You never answered my questions or addressed the arguments I made, so here they are again. Please don't ignore them. What are some other sources of truth, and how do you determine if they are true? If no evidence is required to teach something, then how do we determine what we should teach? Do you think schools have time to teach kids all the things in the world that are not based on evidence? Lets say schools do decide to teach creationism. Here is how the class would go. "Today we will be discussing the hypothesis that the universe was created by a powerful being. Let's start by going over the evidence for this hypothesis. Um......well.........that concludes class for today."
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

make a new debate proposing evidence for creationism, every single argument you can come up with will necessarily fail in some aspect due to the nature of creationism.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

In the beginning everything was dark. Bumba was a pale and sickly looking god who was all alone, and surrounded in darkness. He was growing ill from millions of years of unbearable solitude. His stomach grew larger and began to rumble, and with a great moan he vomited out the sun. Then the whole universe lit up as he vomited out the moon and the stars. Then with one tremendous heave, he vomited out the planet Earth. With one final spew, he emitted nine animals and an assortment of humans. Then Bumba, felling much better now, sat back and watched his three sons Nyonye-ngana, Chonganda and Chedi-bumba added a few finishing touches. Then the nine animals and the humans evolved into the world we know today. Thus the world was made, spewed forth by Bumba. Bumba spoke a few kind words to his wonderful creations before he ascended into heaven to watch over them for all eternity.If story like this one seems to you equal to evolution then you are an idiot and you shouldn't have siblings
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

HAHA! How cute Nox0. How special you are, with a "K". Your story actually sucks, BTW. There are millions of others much better than that, maybe try again? If you think "creationism" and "intelligent design" has value of that similar to your lame ass story, then so be it.Creationism and intelligent design both have far more rationale and logic and is "deeper" (more in depth) than how you put it. The logic behind it is not far off from the logic behind evolution. What's funny is that evolution is still but a theory, and is taken by fact (me including) by many people. Creationism is a theory and is taken by fact (me including) by many people. If you can't see the similarities in particular-theories-being-taking-by-fact-by-many-people, then I shall not discuss logic and philosophies with you.You're the fucking idiot for not reading between the lines. And I have siblings, thank you very much. And I guarantee me, and my siblings are much more creative and intelligent than you. Fuck you very much.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Story I've sent you is African creation myth which is pretty similar to you preferred myth. They are perfectly equal.By creationism I assume that you mean the Jews myth of creating with talking animals and flat Earth am I right?
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

HAHA! NO. You don't even know which religion(s) (singular or plural) that I speak of, so fuck that noise. Your "myth" means nothing more than a person (YOU) trying to formulate reasons (using this so called African myth) why you do not believe. By creationism I mean the philosophical logic that it is possible for something that is in existent to have been created. In other words, we're here now because of something that happened in the past. Whether that be through evolution or creationism, or some other form that no body knows yet. And so, since it is logically possible to have been created, creationism (in general) being taught in schools would be nothing different than science teaching evolution. Do you fucking understand? LOL.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

There is no logic in creationism, it's all about magic.. ..
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Evolution is taken as a scientific theory taken as fact based upon a preponderance of factual evidence. Creationism is a theory that is taken as fact without any actual factual basis.Also, nice ethnocentrism buddy.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

The evidence that is provided to you is not enough. Not that evidence is not given. Nice closed-minded-ness buddy. Ethnocentrism? LOL! You're kidding right? You think what I wrote is particular and not broad ranged? What are you assuming here?
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

It is enough to qualify as a scientific theory, which is quite certainly more than can be said for creationism and intelligent design. Being objective and going with the theory that is most substantiated and logical is not being close-minded, it is being objectively selective.I called you ethnocentric because you dismissed another creation myth as being "lame ass" and because you thought it "sucked". Your expression of that sentiment towards an actual spiritual belief held by another cultural group is ethnocentric; you assume only your creation myth is valid or legitimate simply because you hold it.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

False, you used a so-called "African-Myth", as a means to what? To make my beliefs sound or be X, Y, Z? I say "lame ass" because you're being inconsiderate, just like many other people whom do not believe in much of anything. I considered your example as a poor example. Why? As I've said before, you claim it's "just like every other religion" and eff you for stating "why should people believe n you versus Bamba.."or whatever the fuck you called it, and " almost claim [that nothing is true.]" However, I've emphasized to you that your example is lame because you're pulling out an example of those whom believe in X, Y, Z versus giving me an example that X, Y, Z does NOT exist. Perhaps you're not open to the possibilities yet you're open to merely scientific theory, and/or, evidence being backed by PHYSICAL claim. My point to you, as well as others like you, is that you're not allowing yourself to other possibilities; you claim science is the end all. EVEN THOUGH you claim, others whom believe are not open to possibilities; yet those that do believe, they claim they believe something beyond what science can't "officially detect."
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Firstly, it was not my example so back off.Secondly, it is not a "so-called" African creation myth. It is a creation myth. Your eagerness to dismiss it with an excess of pejoratives is ethnocentric for the exact reason I provided (which you have not actually refuted).Thirdly, the argument from the example given was never that your god and creation myth are incorrect because there are other gods and creation myths but rather that if you are going to insist that your beliefs belong in a classroom then other beliefs such as that given in the example have just as much reason to be taught (because they are equally unfounded). The point is that there is no reason or basis for claiming your creation myth is more valid beyond your own belief (which is hardly proof).Fourthly, I am absolutely open to considering other possibilities but only if there is a reason (factual or logical) to believe in them. It is not closed minded to consider a possibility and then reject it because there is no evidence or reason to believe it. There is a word for holding a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. That word is delusion.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Once again, you're not calling me delusional and you wonder why I use "bad words" towards you. Stop insulting me and I will stop cussing. It's easy. And so since I believe that without using words like "delusional" or "not factual based" or "illogical" you cannot express yourself in how, why I am "delusion" ect ect. In other words, your selection of words to describe my faith insults me, and I am at a defensive mode, using cuss words as well to emphasize my annoyance and frustration with people like you. I see it all of the time on this site. The evidence and reasons given to you are not enough, I'm fine with that. I am in a constant defensive mode on this site because people like you continue to bash others whilst acting like you're "debating". So you back the fuck off.