azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

.Prophetic fulfillments are often met with bogus defensive barriers that truth resistent unbelievers raise to close the door to any real review of challenges, of real truth to their comfortably familiar deceptions. Truth resistent unbelievers often raise unrealistic expectations in applying prophecies to their historical fulfillments. Empty arguments based soley on unrealistic under-whelmed attitudes. Not any real value rebuttals raised to any of my argument points of Bible prophesy. No logical explanation of the differences frpm prophesy and its fullfillment. How details how it doesnt apply, or historic value, or to my many points of evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt." Yet somehow, these mumbo jumbo arguments are raised based on how the truth resistent say they "feel under-whelmed at the evidence presented." And that's the only lame argument? ..... Really? These are empty arguments by any measure when we take in consideration the many rare and unususual biblical events. Biblical history often following the least likely course of direction, through the most unusual sequences of events, with the most unpredictable fantastical, supernatural outcomes. Accuracy of biblical history is confirmed through linguists, historians, and archaeologists, and validated through more recent digs which uncovered many artifacts notably in an order of occurrence of events, in expected locations, lwith artifacts and many findings of biblical proportions. Against all odds and probability, land mark events in biblical history seem to follow an atypical chain of events. Taking the most unusual course of direction, each history least expected outcome that one event, let alone many events found in fantastic biblical historical accounts, as documented per account found in the Bible. Natural progression would be low unlikely to follow of the sequence in chain of events and outcomes, in combination of 1000s of prophetic of know fulfilled prophesies of men and nations. Circumstances and landmark events following patterned against all odds outcomes in land mark biblical events, against all odds key movement through every generation took unlikely improbable often impossible odds, but as if fatefully outcome had a known outcome. .
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

Then why argue with non-believers? It's not like you're going to change their minds.
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

What would you think of people of faith, if we are correct and didn't tell you?
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

You told me about it. Thank you. You're off the hook. Whatever happens next is on me, not you or people of faith. If there is a God, I'll just say, "Look, I had Jehovah's Witness, Mormons, Christians, etc., trying to tell me about you. How was I supposed to decide which one is right? Besides, aliens make a lot more sense." ;)
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: Just try to be good.

That is not what I asked you!What would YOU think of people of faith, ....I didn't ask you your feelings about being told, I asked if in the end you weren't told by people of faith, what would you at that moment think of all those who passed you by, and didn't tell you?I'm never off the hook, because if one doesn't hear it one way, it doesn't mean they won't hear it another. I don't give up on people, I think there is hope for most people, and I don't assume because people reject today, that tomorroe they also will again reject. God works on people, we shine light in the darkness, sow seeds of truth, water it, others sow and water it, but Jesus reveals Himself and saves, He works through His people, His Word, and His Spirit. But the buck stops with our shining light, and that's where His Spirit begins. For those He knows will be His, He works, and works, sometime for hours, days, months, and even years. .
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: Just try to be good.

I think people of faith are just like everyone else. Their belief system does not impact me. So why should I care what they think?BTW, you would have a better chance getting a Muslim to believe you. At least they too, unlike me, believe in a mystical, magical, being. ;)
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

I thought you said you believe there is a god just not one that cares enough to communicate with us
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

I believe in aliens.BTW, did you notice that the picture you chose, when it is small, it makes you look like the late JC? ;)
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

That is not what I asked you!I didn't ask you your feelings about being told, I asked if in the end you weren't told by people of faith, what would you at that moment think of all those who passed you by, and didn't tell you?
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

No, I would not think about all those people who passed me by and didn't tell me.
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: Just try to be good.

Many have changed their mindExamples - most are short videos, a few minutes longhttps://youtu.be/sCi3a_-48lo Atheist investigator convertshttps://youtu.be/sEsdySUjffg Son of atheist leader convertshttps://youtu.be/UvSo6WfLFxU funny atheist looses debate with a roar of laughter, LOL!The son of the late atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Murray played a significant part alongside his mother in the ending of mandatory prayer in public schools in 1963. He later converted and the loving atheist mother decided to end her relationship to her son, by declaring a statement of a post natal abortion. "Mad O'hare" and her son and nice were missing and murdered, I wonder what she said as she was confronted by her kidnapper and murder, since she was kidnapped then murdered, I imagine there were many moments of a variety of emotions, outbursts, accusations, and begging from this prominent famous atheist, I wonder how strong her faith in atheism was when death her death by murder was imminent ?.
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: Just try to be good.

And you had something to do with that? ;)
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will know them by their fruits.21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

At this point you have apostasy in many main stream churches as well, the wolves are in the house of the Lord. And the Lord is staying outside knocking. Judgement begins in the house of the Lord. Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

The apostasy of the church (many even most mainstream churches considered Christian by "Google") -- Jesus will spit them out for being Luke warm 14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:15 ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. 16 So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. 17 Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, 18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. 19 Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. 21 He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. 22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

.http://www.wayoflife.org/database/howrevelation17_pictures.htmlRomanism has ridden through church history upon the back of kings, is clothed in gorgeous robes and decked in expensive attire, is full of abominations, has a golden cup, is drunken with the blood of the martyrs it has slaughtered throughout its bloody history, and sits upon the seven mountains of Rome. The inhabitants of the world are indeed drunk with the wine of her fornication. Countless multitudes of deceived people from practically every nation blindly follow Rome’s errors and glory in Rome’s religion.Following are some of ways the harlot of Revelation 17 is identified with Rome: Pope rule is historically clear antichrist Today Catholocism likely hide their deals of curruption.Their doctrine remains a heretic doctrine.There is Biblical truth in Catholocism through the mere knowledge of God through some basic principles of Christianity, some Christians find Christ, but that is an independent work of the Spirit in the lives of individual people, despite doctrine and heresies of Catholocism. .
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

The "saint" says NO! Isn't that enough for you!!:<) OOPS! forgot the 50!
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: Just try to be good.

I find it ironic to try and be looking for a single selective religion that would be deemed as the 'right' one from the plethora that exist, mostly due to the fact that nearly every religion mandates itself as the 'true' religion and requires that one is faithful to the deity(s) of this religion. I think that it is best to look at every religion separately and pick out the positive aspects of each, and try to live accordingly to those, therefore just trying to be good and the best person that you can possibly be. Many religious people act overall better and in a kinder way than non-religious people, meaning that there is definitely something important and good within religion, and it shouldn't be denounced in any generalized way.
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: Just try to be good.

There is no "right" religion. Nor is there any way to be "good" so there's not much point in trying.
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: Just try to be good.

I think the main point of just about every religion is to be good. Regardless of what you believe the main tenet in most religions is the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It's in this regard that I don't care what you believe, you could believe in God or Buddha or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it doesn't matter. Be a good person and your reward comes to you according to your belief.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Since we are human beings, and things can actually harm us in various ways (especially ourselves), I would say there is such a thing as objective morality. By this I mean there is actually a better and a worse way to interact. This doesn't mean that objective morality is known or has been discovered by each or any person. The various codes of conduct adopted are highly subjective, but this doesn't negate a "most effective" alternative. Which ever potential code is most effective in upholding, protecting, enhancing, and prolonging human life is the objective standard that all subjective interpretations measure against.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

If a way of behaving is necessary for survival then it would be called instinct. Also, IF morals are being practiced for survival, then it is a contradictory factor because an objective moral would cause, as you said, "prolonged human life" with prolonged HUMAN life there are negative corresponding factors(overpopulation, starvation, use of earths resources needed for survival, global warming.) which will basically destroy not only human life, but all life.Lastly, humans can interact naturally(e.g. reaction off of emotion, male dominance etc.) without morals and would still survive. Why?; because it is instinctual. Name a species that has taken itself out because its moral system failed? Better yet, give me empirical evidence of a species with moral practices (not including human.)S.N Clarifying my point on the prolonged human life there is a positive correlation of life span and overpopulation.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

The direct physical mechanism of life becomes multifaceted with complexity. The extent to which an animal can think long range and choose between alternative (think rationally, is the extent to which it looses instincts. Humans still have some instincts, and monkeys are not entirely instinctual. Morality becomes more required the more rational an animal is. an objective moral would cause, as you said, "prolonged human life"...overpopulation, starvation...which will basically destroy not only human life, but all life.wow, Seems that wouldn't prolong human life after all...That wouldn't fit the definition then would it. Name a species that has taken itself out because its moral system failed?Humans are the only ones capable of this. Off hand Easter Island comes to mind.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Animals survival rationalizations are no different from humans, they just do not rationalize about thing unnecessary to their survival(I said that twice to make clear if one did not understand the first way.) "Morality becomes more required the more rational an animal is." I disagree.I would just say an animal thinks more logically. Complex logic does not consist of 'it is wrong to kill someone' which is sufficient for morality, complex logic would just allow to rationalize by determining whether it is necessary to do something. Make the distinction between 'necessity' and 'morality' then you can conclude that morality is not essential in survival. But sure morals would make people "comfy" everyone practiced them, but that does not mean end of humanity if they don't."wow, Seems that wouldn't prolong human life after all...That wouldn't fit the definition then would it."By human life I meant in an individuals lifetime. If you prolong numerous amounts of human life(now and into the future), in a corresponsive way over time, would cause an eradication of human and a significant amount of other life. Aside from the meteor, humans have been the cause of all animal extinction. And that is with just hunting and deforestation. Imagine when the atmosphere becomes unlivable for humans and other species. See where I am going with this?
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Humans are smart enough to know that we can't account for all factors required to know what is "necessary"(which implies a value structure btw). Intelligent life developed codes of conduct because, just like any concept, it allows us to categorize information. In this case the information is proper action under various circumstances. Morals aid in decision making. Some decisions are objectively worse than others, just like morality.Because humans live in a world of space/time, we create morals that span time and generations. Though it is possible that we can't think long range enough to stop our own demise, it's unlikely.Aside from the meteor, humans have been the cause of all animal extinction.I don't know why you don't know that this is just false. Climate change is a property of this planet, even without humans (and this isn't a statement about current conditions, it's just historically true). Climate change has likely been the cause of most extinction since the meteor. Last I heard they could account for something like 4 mass extinctions on the level of that meteor, which was the most recent. Currently there is a higher number of species dieing out than before. This could be because there are more species now than there have ever been on earth by our best estimates.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Our species caused 322 animal extinctions over the past 500 years, with two-thirds of those occurring in the last two centuries. As of today 99% of threatened species are a result of humans. Which means in that 1% climate is the causation."Though it is possible that we can't think long range enough to stop our own demise, it's unlikely." - that in itself is incoherent, if it is unlikely that we cannot think long range to stop our own demise then why are we causing it, or, if it is likely that we can think long term to stop are demise then why are we doing everything but? We just keep inventing or immensely using things that are detrimental to the atmosphere and I am sure you know the corresponding factors with destruction of the atmosphere. Basically suicide and genocide. An example of such genocide and suicide is hurricane Katrina. Katrina would not have killed as many species as it did if humans did not cause all of the factors of global warming. Humans= global warming = immense storms = destruction + habitation = immense loss of lives which consist of humans and other species. Causation of the genocide/suicide are humans. So either decrease human intelligibility and rationality, or eradicate your notion of objective morality correlating to the 'expansion of generations'.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Our species caused 322 animal extinctions over the past 500 yearsI bet that's a low estimate, but my point stands. The meteor was quite a bit more than 500 years ago. Today there are more species dieing than at any other time in human history. There are also more species than at any other time in Earths history according to our best estimates. (Does history get to exist?)On our demise: why are we causing itI took you for a Nihilist, not an alarmist. Even considering global warming, human demise has always been right around the corner. I don't understand this trait, but people want to believe it. If it wasn't Jesus returning it was the Russian Nukes. And now that I have considered global climate change (we use the proper lingo for these things), I heard a compelling theory that human beings developed our intellectual capacities to deal with a rapidly changing climate. It would kind of make sense if climate change made us so smart that we cause climate change. Must be good times ahead.eradicate the your notion of objective morality correlating to the 'expansion of generations'.That was your notion of my morality remember? To date the most affective population control has been material progress (this includes China's policies). An objective morality would indeed make us more "comfy", which would in turn reduce population growth, just as it has reduced among the "comfy" people of the world.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

" There are also more species than at any other time in Earths history according to our best estimates."No, more species have been discovered throughout exploration.(use your head) Unless you mean the time(different context) periods such as Precambrian or Jurassic etc. "I heard a compelling theory that human beings developed our intellectual capacities to deal with a rapidly changing climate." How so if we keep failing to survive effects that are results of our own cause? Katrina killed thousands in New Orleans. If humans had intellectual capabilities wouldn't they have survived? You say "to deal with" but yet the walls they built to deal with it collapsed. Why? Because the storm was too strong. Why? Because global atmospheric increase(warmth hence global warming) has a positive correlation to more immense storms. So the breakage of that wall showed that humans did not have the "intellectual capacity" to deal with climate change.Also I am pretty sure comfort is not a positive correlation to reduction of life. Actually a lot of people/animals would think it reproduce more. A pride lions, for example would not have a growth in population if there is immense competition for food, water and hunting grounds. Females need food to produce milk for their cubs. Also, they need water for hydration. So in a distressful population(AKA not "comfy") population growth will be reduced. Comfy = food being plentiful = less deaths = prolonged life = more reproduction. The longer one lives the more chances that they get at reproducing.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Every person will die. Human beings make mistakes. This doesn't mean that human evolved intelligence so that no person would ever die. It means that humanity can deal with an ever changing environment. That still means people will die as we learn how to deal.Other species of animals may breed more the more comfy they are, but humans are different. The comfy nations of the world have significantly slowed their population growth. This is because people want to go out and enjoy the entertainments of modern life without the "burden" of children. Increased material wealth and education will save the world :)
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

You used intellectually capable in a sense that meant intellectually able. If so, for instance, Katrina miscalculations was not a simple mistake. People knew that by what would normally happen the walls would not have broken. But, because our "intellectual capabilities" could understand that our 'prolonged life', corresponding to, our 'objective morals' would cause the hurricane to be so intense. Mistake would be a loose screw or old wall.This is because people want to go out and enjoy the entertainments of modern life without the "burden" of childrenShould not objective morals prevent these feeling? Do not you think that way of thinking can be problematic if persist throughout our generations? Animal and/or humans inherently thinking of their offspring as something that causes them hardship and grief backfire your plan completely. And one may argue that people seek those entertainments to get away from their problems (non-comfyness.)
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Answer my question on the other debate. If the fetus is not a human being, what species is it?