azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Do You Believe There Is Any Form Of Life After Death?
Side: Believe It

You don't need to evaluate or logically infer the afterlife to believe in itThen the belief would be arbitrary and unjustified.  I asked if you believe in the afterlife.And I answered why I don't, both to the concept in general as well as particular representations of it. You basically came in here and wrote a paragraph...How pointless.It was two sentences that directly address my perspective on the issue, but ok...
Debate: Do You Believe There Is Any Form Of Life After Death?
Side: Believe It

It was two sentences that directly address my perspective on the issue, but ok...I died laughing.
Debate: Do You Believe There Is Any Form Of Life After Death?
Side: Don't Believe It

I died laughingI don't think that's true. I think you need help. That's what I think.
Debate: Do You Believe There Is Any Form Of Life After Death?
Side: Don't Believe It

Then the belief would be arbitrary and unjustified.All beliefs are arbitrary and unjustified because that's what makes them beliefs, idiot.
Debate: Do You Believe There Is Any Form Of Life After Death?
Side: Believe It

I believe in the inherent reliability of reason and logic, but such a position is neither arbitrary nor unjustified. For starters, you acknowledge the virtues of logical axioms just by communicating(portraying the laws of identity and non-contradiction). As far as your second response,Question: Do you believe AAnswer: NoWhy: there is no way to evaluate or logically infer AThe implication of the why is that beliefs should be tailored to evidence and reason. I’m unsure how you interpret that to be dissonant from from my answer to the prompt.
Debate: Do You Believe There Is Any Form Of Life After Death?
Side: Don't Believe It

I believe in the inherent reliability of reason and logicSo do I, but my belief is that you don't understand what these things actually are or how they should be applied, and are merely using them as word garnish. Indeed, you were kind enough to provide some evidence to justify that belief, so thank you.there is no way to evaluate or logically infer ABefore we even get the logical problems with your hypothetical conversation, the statement here is not even true. Of course there is a way to logically infer God. God was inferred thousands of years ago and has remained inferred ever since. Hence, your statement flies in the face of thousands of years of documented history and is clearly just flat out wrong. How do you feel about that?What I sense here is a variation on the good old fashioned No True Scotsman fallacy. That is, unless I believe it, it isn't logical.
Debate: Do You Believe There Is Any Form Of Life After Death?
Side: Believe It

The god question is a separate issue, which is amusing because you accuse ME of being dissonant to the prompt, but it’s nonetheless a topic we can discuss. Absent an understanding of biology, I can infer demons are causing sickness instead of pathogens. Such a conclusion lies a series of unsupported assumptions(existence of demons, agency of said demons, etc). With a sufficient understanding of biology, I can observe/evaluate the presence of pathogens and logically infer their relation to sickness. God is the demon in this scenario, unless you specifically define god per deism or an otherwise non-anthropomorphic version of the concept. It otherwise falls into the same failings of fallacious presuppositions.
Debate: Do You Believe There Is Any Form Of Life After Death?
Side: Believe It

I believe in the inherent reliability of reason and logic, but such a position is neither arbitrary nor unjustified. For starters, you acknowledge the virtues of logical axioms just by communicating (portraying the laws of identity and non-contradiction).What do you mean by "reliability"? Similarly, by: arbitrariness, justification, acknowledgement, and virtue. I'm fairly certain that I disagree with you here, but it's possible that I don't depending upon how you're using these concepts.
Debate: Do You Believe There Is Any Form Of Life After Death?
Side: Believe It

I'll delve into each specific term:Reliability- I am referring to reason/logic's continued success at providing an actionable means by which I interact with the world around me. They provide a topology by which I can take information from the senses and pair it with deduction and inference to navigate reality. As I point out in my response, the very act of discourse and communication as a whole exhibit an acceptance of base logical axioms; that the parties involved do in fact exist, that the responses contain concepts that are identifiable by their unique properties, and that they can not respond to me and have not responded to me at the same time. Arbitrary- Without observation and without coherent theoretical argument. That which is asserted absent of reason or evidence can be dismissed with equal reverence to both. Justification- articulately warranted by the reason and evidence. Acknowledgement- in this context the term refers to an acceptance or application(of logical axioms). I acknowledge the validity of the boat when I use it to get me across a body of water. Virtue- in this context the term was used as "the capacity of". I drove here by virtue of a motor vehicle, for example.
Debate: Do You Believe There Is Any Form Of Life After Death?
Side: Don't Believe It

Thanks for clarifying. I can now say with greater confidence that I do disagree with your position, and better articulate why. I believe in the inherent reliability of reason and logic, but such a position is neither arbitrary nor unjustified.The reliability of reason and logic is predicated upon the further reliability of sensory perception; one can only conclude that reason and logic provide actionable means to interact with the world by relying upon one's perception that they function in this way. That this perception is itself reliable is not obviously true. The perceived success of reason and logic in providing actionable means to interact with the world also grounds that reliability in one's subjective realm of experience. This falls well short of establishing that reason and logic are inherently reliable. There are at least some cases where reason and logic obviously fail at providing actionable means with which to interact with the world around us. The Problem of Induction (Hume), for instance, suggests that we cannot reasonably or logically engage in casual thinking. Given the above, I think that believing in the inherent reliability of reason and logic is both arbitrary and unjustified. There is no coherent theoretical reason to trust perception and it cannot logically be invoked as proof of itself. The evidence for the reliability of reason and logic being arbitrary and unjustified, that conclusion is likewise afflicted. I don't see that as a reason to reject or personally devalue the seeming reliability of reason and logic. But I do think it makes any greater claim overextended, with the consequence that we even become overly committed to reason and logic in practice. For starters, you acknowledge the virtues of logical axioms just by communicating (portraying the laws of identity and non-contradiction). & I acknowledge the validity of the boat when I use it to get me across a body of water.  Although one may engage certain logical axioms as though they were true I do not think that engagement necessarily entails a further acknowledgment of those logical axioms as true. I don't see a necessary connection between acting as though something were true and believing that that thing is true. I actually do not believe that boats exist, yet in my everyday behavior I do not carry this epistemic conviction around at the fore of my thoughts. When I use the boat I am not acknowledging that it exists, but enacting an impression of a boat existing as though it did. If I seriously reflect on the matter my epistemic nihilism repudiates the boat even as I experience myself as being upon it.
Debate: Do You Believe There Is Any Form Of Life After Death?
Side: Believe It

The reliability of reason and logic is predicated upon the further reliability of sensory perceptionSince individuals humans are subject to biological reality, one can absolutely have a compromised means of perception. This is partly why I make reference to the topology of logic and reason, wherein subjects can benefit from layers of evidence, inference, deduction to be more likely to come to correct conclusions. But even if everyone hypothetically suffered from the same degree of sensory malfunction, a priori truths like 1+1=2 would still be correct, which to me represents one example of inherent reliability. The Problem of Induction (Hume), for instance, suggests that we cannot reasonably or logically engage in casual thinking.Can you expound on this for me as this doesn't seem to quite match my understanding of the problem?There is no coherent theoretical reason to trust perception and it cannot logically be invoked as proof of itself. An argument can be coherent without being correct, which is why I wouldn't call all incorrect positions arbitrary. With that said, would you still assert that no coherent argument can be made to trust perception? I do accept that logic is itself a presupposition, but I don't see any scenario where I have a discussion without applying that which logic entails lest we have no capacity to even communicate. I don't see that as a reason to reject or personally devalue the seeming reliability of reason and logic. But I do think it makes any greater claim overextended, with the consequence that we even become overly committed to reason and logic in practice.This is perhaps where some of the broader discussion on this prompt comes into play, particularly in regards to my use of the word believe. I believe in the inherent reliability of reason and logic would seem to me to just be a rewording of your above statement of it seeming inherently reliable(barring the fallibility of the senses). I specifically use the word believe to reflect a level of confidence in a position for which a claim of absolute certainty would be hubris as I am certainly fallible. I am curious about your statement about the potentiality of being over-committed to logic and reason, and wonder what that entails in a practical setting? Although one may engage certain logical axioms as though they were true I do not think that engagement necessarily entails a further acknowledgment of those logical axioms as true. This is where I get quite dissonant with your perspective. Are you debating with me? Are you making arguments? Are those arguments themselves and not other arguments? Yes to any of those would seem to me to entail the truth of base logical axioms by definition. I'm sure I just inadequately comprehend you on this issue.I have some contentions that I withheld barring my rereading of a couple particular works, I mostly just feel the need to get a better understanding on your perspective here.
Debate: Do You Believe There Is Any Form Of Life After Death?
Side: Believe It

The reliability of reason and logic is predicated upon the further reliability of sensory perceptionYou idiots are infuriating. Why do you write so much twaddle when you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about? One plus one equals two is not "predicated upon the further reliability of sensory perception". That is because one plus one equals two is logic, as I have already explained if you'd bothered to read the thread, and predictions and/or interpretations of reality come about through experience (i.e. use of the senses).
Debate: Do You Believe There Is Any Form Of Life After Death?
Side: Don't Believe It

And I answered why I don'tNo you didn't. You answered that you don't, then proceeded to give an explanation with no relevance to your decision.
Debate: Do You Believe There Is Any Form Of Life After Death?
Side: Don't Believe It

There is some form of life after my death, insofar as what I regard as my body will decompose and convert to other forms of life, but that life is nothing to do with my conscious self which is annihilated in death.
Debate: Do You Believe There Is Any Form Of Life After Death?
Side: Don't Believe It

No, I believe that once I die, all life will die with me.I will make sure of it, von neumann style :)
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: Yes

I don't see what else the fetus will inevitably grow up to be. I've yet to hear of a human mother birthing, say, a litter of kittens.
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: Yes

It is an human organism with human dna made by two humans. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that qualifies as human.
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: Yes

Upvote for logic. .
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: Yes

Considering that it was made by a human being, then the answer is obvious
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: No

So, cars are human?
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: Yes

sighAllow me to rephrase that to "Human DNA". Happy now?
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: No

I'm 40% satisfied... I'm doing that now, percents for things <_<.Anywhoozle My point was simply that there are exceptions. We produce waste all the time, is said waste human, let alone a human being?
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: Yes

2 human DNA combined to produce a single cell that has its own DNA that is different from its mother. Hence, its already a human and not a tissue. Now, could you please stop the nitpicking?It does more harm than humor
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: No

2 human DNA combined to produce a single cell that has its own DNA that is different from its mother. Hence, its already a human and not a tissuethe question is not if the embryo/fetus is human, but a human being. There is a huge difference here. Your fingernail clippings are as human as you are, yet you are a human being and the fingernail clippings are not.
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: Yes

Now, I see a reason to Dispute.the question is not if the embryo/fetus is human, but a human being. There is a huge difference here. Your fingernail clippings are as human as you are, yet you are a human being and the fingernail clippings are not.My fingerclipings, hair and skin cells has my own DNA,sure. But a fetus is cell which was produced by combining 2 genes to form a being which has an independent string of DNA from its mother.An egg or sperm is a mere extension of the human body. But a fetus is not. It is a human being in its first stage of life
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: No

Your fingernails, hair, and skin cells all are result of the combined genes of your mother and father no more or less than that of your organs and brain. ALL human cells in a particular persons body are the result of those mixed genes.
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: Yes

sighThe characteristics of a living being are1. Knows how to organize2. Knows how to acquire energy3. Responds to their environment4. Has the ability to reproduce5. Has the ability to adapt6. Contains genetic information.What differs a fetus from a normal cell is the fact that it came from a single cell that has learned how to reproduce itself by acquiring their mothers energy. They know how to respond to their environment and adapt to it. And they know how to organize their still growing organs.It is a stupid argument to compare an ordinary cell with a developing human being
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: Yes

1. All "human beings" are the young of the human biological parents who created them.2. Likewise, a human child - even in the first days of their life is the biological young of the parents who created them.So, they (prenatal children) are what their parents are. They are human beings as well.
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: Yes

Yes. There is no proof that the fetus inside of the woman is any other species.
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: Yes

It has the genetic code of a human. I don't know people can deny this. The only things I can think of are extreme ignorance and extreme self-centeredness, which has psychologically blocked one from accepting that abortions kill innocent humans. What else is it, if not a human? Is it a giraffe? Is it a penguin? Is it ant? Is it ocelot? Is it a hippopotamus? Is it a rhino?
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: No

I don't believe people are on the no side because of those two options given. A human is defined as "1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. 2. A person 3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans 2. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals 3. Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans 4. Having the form of a human. 5. Made up of humans." In the early embryonic stages, many animals look the same. A human embryo looks like a chicken embryo that looks like a whale embryo. So you can't really distinguish it from another animal. And as for the "subject to the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans," and "Having the form of a human," it can't have the weakness, imperfections, nor fragility of a human because it technically can't. It also doesn't have the form of a human. Where are the arms? The legs? The face? It doesn't look, act, or have the same flaws like us. Our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, has a 96% DNA match with us. Even humans have a DNA difference. We have a 99.9% DNA match with eachother. So whos genetic code does that embryo have? Mine? Yours?
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: Yes

In the early embryonic stages, many animals look the same. A human embryo looks like a chicken embryo that looks like a whale embryo. So you can't really distinguish it from another animal.So becaues a fetus doesnt look like a human it cannot be human? Even though it comes from a human? It doesn't look, act, or have the same flaws like us. Again. Looks determine what can be human? Is that moral?Even humans have a DNA difference. We have a 99.9% DNA match with eachother. So whos genetic code does that embryo have? Mine? Yours?I do not see why you would ask such a question. The fetus shares DNA with the parents. The fetus is born as a combination of the mother and father's DNA.
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: Yes

"In the early embryonic stages, many animals look the same. A human embryo looks like a chicken embryo that looks like a whale embryo."Wow, you still believe that lie spewed out by Ernst Haeckel which was disproven 100 years ago? Click the attached link and scroll down and you'll see pictures of a human and a chicken embryos.
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: Yes

Supporting Evidence: Embryo Fraud (creation.com) 1 day 12hrs ago Great find. Very interesting.
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: Yes

The Law of Biogenesis: that which "is" is from that which is the same. Therefore, if the parents are human, then the child too will be human. It doesn't matter what it looks like or acts like, otherwise you could do the same for deformed already born humans. Under your own logic, then army veterans who have been deformed from bombs and do not function properly are, therefore, no longer humans.
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: No

If we judge things by what they evolved from, we should have the moral rights of star dust.
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: Yes

Yet we didn't evolve from anything. ;)
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: No

Well of course we did my dear primate. I don't care what kind of delusional rationalizations you use to reject the what the empirical sciences say, but whether we are made of star dust is not a question of evolutionary biology. That's a question of astrophysics. So unless you want to be nonsensical, you have admit that we originated from star dust.
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: Yes

You do know that chromosomal fusion had to take place for humans to be here, correct? Let me ask you this then: how did that first organism reproduce? Evolution is not empirical but entirely fictional. It is common sense ad empirical sense
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: No

"Evolution is not empirical but entirely fictional"Is this a self-explanatory-logical-truth, or do you have logically sound arguments to support this claim?Also, please tell me why the evolution / creationism debate is relevant to the fact that the atoms in the human body stem from stars exploding.
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: Yes

I already rebutted evolution by asking one question for one event that evolution uses as evidence to support itself. That is my sound argument: you can have millions of years of evidence to support something but if one thing comes and falsifies it, then it cannot be true, regardless of how much "evidence" has been used to support it.It is relevant because you brought it up by saying we evolved and because of that, then they too deserve the life. Moreover, everything, in all debates and in all categories, comes down to one simple question: "Is God real and if so, which one?"
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: No

1) So you are saying we have a piece of evidence that contradicts evolution. You say that if one piece of evidence contradicts evolution then evolution is falsified. I agree with the second premise, but your first is decidedly not true. We have no evidence that shows that sexual organisms couldn't have evolved. If I am wrong, I would like you to refer to a scientific source supporting your claim that there is evidence that contradicts evolution.2) It is not relevant because even if we evolved from or were created from star dust, we are still made of star dust. Your argument appears to be that since the fetus comes from a human being it is a human being with all its inherent rights. Since the first human (if you are a creationist) or the first single celled organisms (if you are an evolutionist) is made up from star dust, the rights of the first human should be the same rights that are assigned to star dust. So the truth value of what I am saying is independent of which position is true. So you can argue all you want, but no matter how true creationism is, it won't contradict what I am saying. That is to say; your argument is irrelevant to the point I am making.
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: No

not all organism have sexes ;)
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: Yes

You do realize that this had to happen for organisms that reproduce sexually, correct?
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: No

how did that first organism reproduce from asexual state, gradual change as anything else in Evolution.
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: Yes

You don't understand the argument..... not all primates have the same chromosome count. Actually, if I am correct, I believe that only humans have a different numbers than all other "primates". Therefore, along the path to homo sapiens, just starting the logic from primates, you would not be able to reproduce. Look up facts, please.
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: No

Have you heard about mutations? What about people with Down syndrome?
Debate: Do you believe the embryo/fetus is a human being?
Side: Yes

And beings with that disease cannot function. And it is still a pointless question because that first organism with a new chromosome count would not be able to reproduce because of the different number of chromosomes.