azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

There you go again, only thinking of your self. I am talking about the other so called Gods. How do you know which one to worship? How do you know, that whilst your worshiping your God, the Hindu God(s) are watching your sins?! Honestly, there is no way f knowing, i see no point in worshiping figments of peoples imagination just so i can think to myself, that death isn't the end.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

I belive in it due to that it gives life more meaning. If we are just a natural thing then that, from what i understand, implies that when we die we are dead.By beliveing in afterlife it gives this one a little bit more, so when your old you don't get depressed.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

So I should go to my grave believing in God and an afterlife so I don't get depressed?Why not believe in Santa, then? Same concept except you get rewarded before you die and he updates every year.When do fantasies become more important than the truth simply because the truth is depressing to you?
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

Argument for someone who should believe: I'm 14 and live in the slums of [insert country]. My father died when I was young and my mother is sick. I work three jobs and barely am able to feed my two brothers. Some may ask why I believe in God. He put me in these miserable conditions, right? But it is all I have to look for. I can't make things change. I can't make others change. I can't just believe that things can never change. God will change them. I have to believe that he will.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

Originally I believed simply because I was raised that way, but things happened in my life that made me question it. Then research was done and yes it was probably biased but to me its because of the research I did.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

Well you see, the earth is old enough for evolution to happen once, yet the first micro organism somehow consisted of reproduction, why would any form of life think that it had to reproduce? It is like we know we are going to die. We know we are going to die, but did the first bacteria? There are a huge umber of other things a bacteria could have had but reproduction? It's so weird when you think about it. Again, why would any form of life have reproduction? It did not know it was going to die. I seriously hope I did not sound stupid. And we don't know what emotions are. I am not talking about stimulation in the brain, I am talking about the actual feeling, this is so mind-boggling.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

Reproduction is a characteristic of life, along with energy use, growth,response and adaptation to environment and homeostasis . One on it's own is not life, there needs to be all seven, each part could have different origins.If you think about what codes life contains, it all boils down to genetic material, i.e. Nucleic acids, DNA and RNA, it is the latter that is the most interesting, RNA, comes in several forms, and for the purpose of this argument the first most important RNA is cRNA, it is catalytic, in that it can catalyze it's own synthesisand also carry a code. There doesn't need to be life to have reproduction. Now think about the way, lipids aggregate in an aqueous environment, i.e. they form micelles, and bi-layer lipids form liposomes, again, non living, but freely observable, as above. In a primordial soup or some other harsher chemical environment, a liposome surrounded a cRNA, then you have a rudimentary cell, this cRNA will have a much better chance of survival than others, as it is kept safer from things that can denature it. So starts the explosive work of natural selection.Now we can talk about other RNA, such as tRNA and rRNA, both of these still serve functions in every living thing on this planet. Say for example you have high presence of amino acids in our early environment, there is nothing stopping the joining of amino acids to RNA molecules, there would be myriad forms of RNA in this world, what if in a catalytic RNA generation the wrong nucleotides were placed, this happens all the time, with DNA, whose synthesis is much more strict, so it's no stretch of the logic. These amino acid holding RNA and some ribosomal RNA could begin synthesis of short rudimentary but functioning peptides, from here it's quite obvious that those that make the most functional peptides will survive. These will eventually create the multitudinous proteins we see today and probably in the same place that makes their bilayer coats, this is your first cell.And we don't know what emotions areWe do
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

I think you misunderstood my argument i am talking bout the existence of reproduction itself, why is there? the idea is so random and out of the hat that I am going to divide myself so that life can go on. It's so frustrating to think about why? btw, your link linked me to google books.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

I fully understood you argument, I thought it pertinent to explain the possibility of how a life form could come about, to have the properties that are defined of a living entity, without any of these properties there is no life, like a virus. To ask why there is reproduction is to not take into account what life means, it can't be defined without it, but as I've shown it was possible before life. Reproduction is where natural selection can act, it is therefore why we exist.Sorry about the link, google "neurochemistry of emotions"
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

agreed, however this is based on chance (right?)and the chance is low
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

Chance is only a probability, if something happens it's probability will have to change with it.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

It is based on necessity, are you aware of cellular automation? John conway's version is based on some really simple rules, and yet displays complex behavior depending on the initial state. Play around with this: http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/Most initializations display something interesting.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

No reason to .
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

That's kind of debatable ....................................................................
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

Is that not why we are here ?
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

"Is that not why we are here ?"Exactly. So make a real argument. (Preferably longer than a sentence.... )
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

Like you've just done, right?Why don't you take your advice and shove it up your hole mate.I'll make longer arguments when they're necessary but in this case of why do I disbelieve, "no reason to" needs no expanding.I find it telling that, you respond to this, instead of reading any of my other arguments on here.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

"Like you've just done, right?"No. Because my original argument was much longer. I wasn't referring to responses to other peoples arguments. It shows weakness if your main original argument for a debate is only a sentence long. That's only Factual in the debate world. And it doesn't matter how long it is because you didn't give much reason anyways. So any way you spin it it, it's a cheap very easy argument that children make. I'm not trying to be a jerk here these are just some of the fundamentals of debate. ..mate....
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

No. Because my original argument was much longer.Which one is that now?I wasn't referring to responses to other peoples argumentsOf this, I am well aware.It shows weakness if your main original argument for a debate is only a sentence long.How so, is the point not to get your message across as clear and concise as possible, I think I did that quite well.What exactly is the point of fleshing out an argument that can be condensed into a sentence that is clearly understood.The debate question was why do you believe/disbelieve in God?, my answer to this was that I had no reason to, if I had a reason, I'd be on the other side, if you have a reason, why not offer it as a rebuttal, instead of your pissy pedantry.That's only Factual in the debate world.What is only factual in the debate world? That you must construct long boring arguments to appease.And it doesn't matter how long it is because you didn't give much reason anyways.Because there is none, how are you not getting this?So any way you spin it it, it's a cheap very easy argument that children make.Well if you actually construct a dispute to my argument, I may be able to explain to you why your particular reasons are not in fact reasons to believe. If i was to go through each and every reason people believe, then my post would be a longlaborious read.I'm not trying to be a jerk hereI don't think you need to try.these are just some of the fundamentals of debate. ..mate....No, this is the ridiculous ramblings of a person that took issue with a post on an internet website, if you wish to debate me, feel free, if you wish to annoy me because i don't conform to your flimsy definition of debate, well.. then you can lick my balls.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

"Which one is that now?"... You shouldn't have to look that hard. "How so, is the point not to get your message across as clear and concise as possible, I think I did that quite well.What exactly is the point of fleshing out an argument that can be condensed into a sentence that is clearly understood.The debate question was why do you believe/disbelieve in God?, my answer to this was that I had no reason to, if I had a reason, I'd be on the other side, if you have a reason, why not offer it as a rebuttal, instead of your pissy pedantry."What part of "I Don't believe because" Don't you under stand? You completely ignored the word because. Did you not? Really answer the question; did you not? "What is only factual in the debate world? That you must construct long boring arguments to appease."No. The idea of a post being boring is completely new to our discussion. Why bring it up? Interesting. "Well if you actually construct a dispute to my argument"I'm the one with an actual post talking about what this debate is about. You dispute me. Bring it on. "If i was to go through each and every reason people believe, then my post would be a long laborious read."lol. "Laborious" if it's such an effort, such a chore, what are you doing on this site?"this is the ridiculous ramblings of a person that took issue with a post"What do you mean "took issue"?
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

... You shouldn't have to look that hard.Strangely enough, I don't follow you around, if you wish for me to read something point it out, this is an old debate.What part of "I Don't believe because" Don't you under stand? You completely ignored the word because. Did you not? Really answer the question; did you not?Oh my word you are retarded, I don't believe, because I have no reason to, is that better?Let us discuss this for a second. Exactly what reasons can one come up with not to believe, the Burden of proof is in the hands of those making assertions. I'm the one with an actual post talking about what this debate is about. You dispute me. Bring it on.I'll have a rummage around later and formulate a dispute for your other post.lol. "Laborious" if it's such an effort, such a chore, what are you doing on this site?Are you stating that if I went to the bother of researching every claim made about God, and tagged on a argument, that you would read it all? Give me a break, barely anyone reads long posts on here, best to first engage someone, then you can hash it out.What do you mean "took issue"?Got your panties in a bunch.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

"Strangely enough, I don't follow you around"That's good. (:"Oh my word you are retarded"rofl. You wanna talk about panties in a bunch? "I don't believe, because I have no reason to"The point of a this debate is to discuss reason if you don't have reason than you can't make much of an argument. You technically can and you did. But it's weak. Like I originally said. "Exactly what reasons can one come up with not to believe"That's what this debate is asking you. "Are you stating that if I went to the bother of researching every claim made about God"Stop there. Who ever ever said that you would have to do that? "that you would read it all?"No. "barely anyone reads long posts on here"lol are you sure? Speak for yourself.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

rofl. You wanna talk about panties in a bunch?Maybe in a different debate, this one is about God, or have you forgotten that.The point of a this debate is to discuss reason Are you debateleader?if you don't have reason than you can't make much of an argument.If there's no reason to believe, that is a reason to not believe.That's what this debate is asking you.Oh my, here we go again.Stop there. Who ever ever said that you would have to do that?This would be the logical way of explaining why I had no reason, it would entail refuting all reasons, instead, it is easier to state that there is no reason, and then dispute reasons people give, simples. No.VS lol are you sure? Speak for yourself.Now why would I point this out?
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

"Maybe in a different debate, this one is about God, or have you forgotten that."The debate that me and you are having right now isn't. But you're trying to change what we're talking about because you're losing. "Are you debateleader?"No. ? "Oh my, here we go again."Yeah.. circles. I know, another sign of losing. You got backed into a corner and now you're repeating your arguments more than once. "This would be the logical way of explaining why I had no reason, it would entail refuting all reasons,"No it wouldn't! That's stupid. Again nobody ever suggested that you'd have to list every single argument in existence. "it is easier to state that there is no reason, and then dispute reasons people give, simples."I get that you wan't to work from the outside and dispute this debate. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just that your original post is weak and lacks substance. "No.VS lol are you sure? Speak for yourself.Now why would I point this out?"Good question. My not paying much attention to weak debaters has nothing to do with you trying to speak for everyone. I read long posts all the time. It shows immaturity if you're not willing to.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

Either stick to the topic or start a new debate, please, your entire argument here is based on your arbitrary definition of debate.You still have not come up with one reason why I should believe in God, why is this?I'm also not trying to change the topic we are discussing, we have already moved quite far away from the debate topic. I think it's funny that you believe you have me backed in to a corner and that I'm losing. Losing what? My original post has more points than yours. This is gone beyond ridiculous.Furthermore, your definition of a weak debater is also arbitrary, I'd say that within a debate, sticking to the topic is fundamental, which is something I see you are unable to do. I have only engaged you in this in order to explain to you that long winded arguments do not make good arguments just because they are long.If your only goal is to nit-pick then please piss off. If you wish to get back on topic fell free, I shall engage you in debate.It was not my intention to give you the impression that I do not read longer posts, I do, especially when they are relevant. What you have told me in summary is this:1,I am a weak debater, because, by your definition my post was too short.2,If I did construct a longer argument you wouldn't read it simply because it was mine.3, I wouldn't have to refute all arguments for reasons to believe in a God, even though I've stated I've no reason to, because obviously that would be stupid. 1 and 2 contradict each other, and 3 contradicts itself.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I don't believe because....

All of the sudden you care about the semantics of this website. Right.I never stopped."A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward."Where does it say here that an argument can not be one sentence long? Go back to sleep buddy.Your "argument" was not formal. So to make it formal I would need some empirical evidence right? And as I said it was weak. Well it's a good job I have your amazing intellect around to keep me on the straight and narrow This is what we're talking about. I know you don't like it. But who cares. (: What don't I like, mate, I don't care.A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong."I gave you a reason, but you don't think it is one, yet you don't dispute it.  By this definition you literally had no argument. Ouch.I gave you a reason. Like Laplace said to Napoleon, when quizzed about why he wrote a book about the Universe and included no mention of God, "I have no need for that hypothesis" Really?..Explain.This argument that you dislike has 8 points, how many has yours?"barely anyone reads long posts on here" -you. That's a little misleading then.It's not misleading at all, I didn't include myself, and as I've been using this site for over three years, I've come to notice things like this.1. It doesn't have to be my definition.Yes it does mate.2. Oh come on now. I love reading your arguments. (; This isn't personal! Ok I did say no when you asked me if I would read it but it was a joke. (;OK then.The thing is that a proper argument would be stating why you have no reason to.There is no reason to disbelieve outside of no reason to believe, the point of the matter is that presenting scientific data doesn't matter a bit, as none of it is out to disprove God, it may contradict known dogma but that doesn't really matter either, as it can be explained away through some form of logical loophole that has no real empirical ground, and faithful listen to what they're told, not what they're shown.Heck it doesn't even have to be a long post(well... longer than a sentance but you get what I'm saying)Sighjust give reason for not having a reason.Nice.I have no reason to go to the grocery store because I have food in my refrigerator. Get it?I have no reason to believe in God, because there is no reason to believe.-and there could be lots of reasons. That's just a tiny example. Notice how I didn't have to list every single argument in existence why going to the store isn't necessary.What you are doing is showing something verifiable, it has reasons to do something or not do it, going to the shop is an observable act, God is not, there can not be a reason with out something concrete to match it to, I could if I wished talk about one God, but there are many, and none with any evidence outside books. So without something substantial there really isn't much claim.If however you have a reason why I should believe then that's a point to begin arguing.
Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

"Where does it say here that an argument can not be one sentence long?"Where did I say that an argument had to be more than one sentence long? "So to make it formal I would need some empirical evidence right?"No. You'd just need to explain your little statement. "Well it's a good job I have your amazing intellect around to keep me on the straight and narrow"Thanks but is it working? "What don't I like, mate,"Fighting a losing battle. But who does? "I gave you a reason, but you don't think it is one, yet you don't dispute it."What did I not dispute? "I gave you a reason."Okay we're talking about when you said "No reason to" or however you said it. Do you get that? You have yet to give reason to your lazy a$$ argument. Or lack thereof. "Like Laplace said to Napoleon, when quizzed about why he wrote a book about the Universe and included no mention of God, "I have no need for that hypothesis""But you weren't writing a book (I'd be a short one (: ) You were answering a question. ..by saying you had no reason to answer it.. which is fine but I wouldn't show up to a discussion about a topic that I didn't have reason to discuss. Would you?- oh...yeah "This argument that you dislike has 8 points, how many has yours?"I don't know but I'm pretty confident with my arguments I don't feel the need to count. Why do you ask? "It's not misleading at all, I didn't include myself, and as I've been using this site for over three years, I've come to notice things like this."I wasn't playing gotcha. I'm simply saying it's misleading because the reader has to assume that you're in the barely anyone category. It would be human nature to assume that the majority does or doesn't do something because one usually does or doesn't. -Bit I do realize that is not necessarily the case. In other words I believe you. "Yes it does mate."Why? "There is no reason to disbelieve outside of no reason to believe, the point of the matter is that presenting scientific data doesn't matter a bit, as none of it is out to disprove God, it may contradict known dogma but that doesn't really matter either, as it can be explained away through some form of logical loophole that has no real empirical ground, and faithful listen to what they're told, not what they're shown."Now this is what would have been a much stronger argument rather than the one we've been talking about. "I have no reason to believe in God, because there is no reason to believe."K that's fine but it's just simply weak not to expound. You clearly have that ability because you've done it. What I'm saying is that you could have started out with a stronger argument. "going to the shop is an observable act, God is not"Believing in God is an observable fact. Infact some of the arguments you have made are observations about christian people. "If however you have a reason why I should believe then that's a point to begin arguing."That has little to do with anything. This debate as a whole is not about convincing anyone to believe anything. Let alone our conversation.