azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

I know there's theories such as the big bang but I believe it is more than mere coincidence that our planet is perfectly shaped and placed in just the right distance away from the sun for us to survive.Do you have any idea how many planets there are out there? Billions upon billions. The chances of the planet being in the correct position are pretty nice.Also, what about the planet's shape? It's round, like nearly every planet out there.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Do you have any idea how many planets there are out there? Billions upon billions. The chances of the planet being in the correct position are pretty nice.An what are the odds of one of those rocky planets hitting another rocky planet at a perfect glancing blow to both give the earth an oversized iron core necessary for a strong magnetic field as well as a very large moon in orbit to stabilize the planet's spin and seasons? Oh, an that had to happen in the habitable zone, and the planet had to later be bombarded with comets via another rare event, all within a time frame before the star burns out... Of course assuming you were orbiting the right kind of star and it wasn't in a binary system or too close to the galactic core.And after all that, some how amino acids had to magically combine to make life, something that mathematically should never happen.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

An what are the odds of one of those rocky planets hitting another rocky planet at a perfect glancing blow to both give the earth an oversized iron core necessary for a strong magnetic field as well as a very large moon in orbit to stabilize the planet's spin and seasons?1: It doesn't need to be a "perfect glancing blow"2: Plenty of other planets have moons and seasons. Also, the habitable zone is pretty large, and somewhat inaccurate too, as other forms of life could develop in areas that would be inhospitable to us.And after all that, some how amino acids had to magically combine to make life, something that mathematically should never happen.Yeah.. it's a little more complicated than that. Here's a good video on the matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg Also, just because we don't know everything, that doesn't mean we should stop looking for answers and claim it was all made by a deity. And not just any deity, your deity from your religion from your denomination.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

It doesn't need to be a "perfect glancing blow"Incorrect, if it hit straight on, both planets would have been annihilated and formed an asteroid belt. If the hit was more off center, the the core of the impactor would not have sunk to join the earth's core and the effects would not be the same. 2: Plenty of other planets have moons and seasons.  Oh? Which ones? Mercury; no moon, Venus; no moon; Mars, two tiny moons that have no effect on it; Jupiter, gas giant; Saturn; gas giant; Uranus; gas giant; Neptune; gas giant. I don't believe we have ever discovered an exo-moon. The only analogue might be Pluto-Charon but we don't know if that occurred because of an impact. Do I have to explain the odds of Pluto having life? Seasons or not having seasons not really the issue, the issue is the orbital stability that the moon provides. I'll watch your video when I have more time.Also, just because we don't know everything, that doesn't mean we should stop looking for answers and claim it was all made by a deity No Christian I know of has said "stop looking for answers" Even if I thought you were wasting your time the discoveries on the way are worth the effort and resources. Do you think the scientific community doesn't have any devout Christians among them? And not just any deity, your deity from your religion from your denomination. Well, for starters, my deity has the most scientifically accurate creation "myth" of all religions in world history.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Yes. For several reasons.1. The odds of our existence are so incredibly remote, it is logical to believe a higher power put us here. Of course we could be wrong, but it would be an understandable error.2. The apostles of Jesus at least saw something that had them convinced enough to leave their old lives behind and suffer brutal deaths for their faith in Jesus. This is not a natural thing. If a man runs up to a group of people, swearing he saw a purple flying elephant, so everyone decided to flay him alive, but he continued to talk about what he saw, you should be at least partially inclined to believe that he sawsomething strange... Now if twelve people do the same thing, you should really really start to wonder what they saw.3. Reading the bible has exposed truths to me about the nature of humanity that can't be found anywhere else. The author of the Bible knows mankind better than mankind.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

yes, there is. just think how could earth and space formedd? think.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Earth: Accretion model. Supported by cosmology, geology and physics.Space: Inflation, already assumed true, recently supported by even more evidence. While the actual cause of inflation itself is still up for debate, multiple theories in quantum-physics and cosmology have been proposed and are mathematically and observationally viable. Meaning that, at the very least, there are a few possibilities aside from God.The unfortunate thing about your statement is that you implore us to think...yet you take the side that requires the least amount of thinking.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

I have no reason to think there is one, no sufficient evidence and/or reasoning has been provided to me to believe in a supreme being of some sort, or a being or ultimate origin.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Many ppl have stated they went to Hell & unlike the situation with alien stories,they've actually given great detail. Anyone who doesn't believe me can do any research they want to. If anyone hears their stories,they'll know they weren't dreaming or hallucinating. Plus there were too many witnesses to for it to be a dream or hallucination. Besides who's ever heard of someone having the same or similar dreams?If anyone thinks that ppl getting up from wheelchairs is a scam,you can have injured friend(s) or family member(s) go on the podium &,have them prayed for. If they refuse to,then you'll prove it's a scam. If they do pray for them, & they get healed you'll have something to be happy bout won't you? Either way you can't lose. You could also have a Pastor come over to your sick friend(s) or family member(s) to go over their hospital bed & pray for them if you like,so you won't have to spend any gas money.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

J. K. Rowling gave great detail about Hogwarts, I guess that means she's been there? You're claiming that because people told stories with great detail, it must be accurate? Because that's ridiculous. People can make up stories, and false stories and memories can be caused by mental illness.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Yes God exist. If God is not there we wont be living in this world today. War natural disaster all these things happens without limit but since God is there he saves those who believe in him. This world will no longer be there if God doesnt exist, he loves us and he always protect you and me. Even satan cant touch you but God can. There is a true God the only father that is in heaven. He love us that he sent his only son to save us .
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

there too many unexplained acts of the divine for there not to be anyone.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

like ?
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

I have one
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Actually that one has been debunked many times. This article covers many of the claims. If you just Google lady of guadalupe debunked you'll find many more articles.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

sighI have read much of those so called "debunked". All of them ended up as laughing stock in Christian forums. Hell, did you even read the comments below your source?All of them are mocking the writer primarily because:1. It ignored the fact that the tilma lasted for 500 years when it should have decayed in 5.2. It avoids the topics that NASA tested it and came to the conclusion that it was not painted with human hands nor made up of any known material.3. They forces the argument on lack of documentation or contradicting records. But seriously, do you really expect a 500 year old aztect tribe to write accurately?
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Hell, did you even read the comments below your source?That was not my source. I think you must have been looking at one of the other google links and got it mixed up. This was my source1. It ignored the fact that the tilma lasted for 500 years when it should have decayed in 5.My source already addresses that. See the paragraph with a large font. 2. It avoids the topics that NASA tested it and came to the conclusion that it was not painted with human hands nor made up of any known material.NASA is an aerospace agency, not a miracle verification agency. The claim that NASA verified it is misleading and completely false. Lets start with the misleading part. Philip Serna Callahan did some consulting work for NASA. He is the one that examined the image. He did it of his own time not in any way related to NASA. Now for the completely false part; here is what he found..."In 1979, Dr. Philip Serna Callahan, a biophysicist affiliated with the University of Florida, conducted an infrared photographic investigation into the composition of the image in the Basilica. His preliminary findings have interesting implications for the indigenista exegeses. Callahan (1981) has described numerous overlays of pigments upon a primitive (original) image, without an underdrawing, and has suggested the composition of the colorants. Among the "retouches" he finds are the moon, sun rays, sash, all gold ornamentation (including the stars and the Nahui Ollin figure), to mention a few. Dr. Callahan's research has already been translated into Spanish in Mexico and published with the support of the Archdiocese of Mexico (Callahan and Smith 1981). Callahan contends, like art critics before him, that the additions he identifies are simply (and rather obviously, to him) International Gothic ornaments typical of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Spanish paintings of the Virgin Mary (Callahan 1981:8). Callahan's monograph also raises the possibility that some or all of the decorative elements were painted some time after the original was produced, perhaps toward the second half of the sixteenth century, when the mass conversions of the Valley of Mexico had already attenuated (cf. Leatham 1982). Some indigenistas have responded by denying the validity of Callahan's methods (e.g., he had to estimate his camera apertures) and results. They claim that the "unity" of the "codified messages" within the image negates the possibility of motifs being added by humans (HernAndez 1987: 14)."So to sum that up, the painting was sketched before being painted, something that most painters do. Parts of the image were added long after the original painting was created and they are just typical gothic ornaments matching other fifteenth and sixteenth century Spanish paintings of Mary. Long story short, it's a fake.Source (page 9)3. They forces the argument on lack of documentation or contradicting records. But seriously, do you really expect a 500 year old aztect tribe to write accurately?The documentation is irrelevant since the painting is a fake.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Read the top of your source "http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4201"It was made by the same author. And I believe that the skeptoid link is the compressed one as it was published just 3 years ago.My source already addresses that. See the paragraph with a large font.sighYour link did not work. But dont worry, I know where it came from.Indeed, it has been admitted by the church that the painting has undergone several restorations but does that changed anything?It has survived 500 years of exposure to candles, weather, human hands and insects. Survived a bomb and acid exposure. Dont tell me you are going to force a simple argument and deny the bigger picture?P.SDr. Callahan is a devote Catholic and a supporter of the Guadalupe.The documentation is irrelevant since the painting is a fake.Suit yourself.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

It was made by the same author. And I believe that the skeptoid link is the compressed one as it was published just 3 years ago.The content of the two articles is not the same. Indeed, it has been admitted by the church that the painting has undergone several restorations but does that changed anything?Yes, it means they lied about it not fading, so they can't be trusted. It has survived 500 years of exposure to candles, weather, human hands and insects. Survived a bomb and acid exposure.They lied about it not having any paint on it. They lied about NASA testing it. They lied about the actual findings in Callahan's report. They lied about the canvas being made from native cactus plant fibers They lied about the pupils dilating when exposed to light. They lied about the temperature of the painting always staying a constant 98.6 degrees. They lied about it having a heartbeat when a stethoscope is placed against it. They claimed all of those things were true at some point in time and now they keep backing down further and further and admitting they aren't true. They clearly have no qualms about lying their asses off to try to make it look miraculous, so why would I believe any of their other claims.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

The content of the two articles is not the same.One is unreviewed, the other is compressed.Yes, it means they lied about it not fading, so they can't be trusted.Theres a difference between lying and not speaking. They are ready to answer any questions but it is not their loss if you wont ask.They lied about it not having any paint on it. They lied about NASA testing it.sighTechnically speaking, it was the crowds who caused the misinformation not the Church. You cannot just lie about a persons report as it can get you arrested for Defamation. All the reports are readily available online. All are approved by scientific agencies and all you can do now is to deny the findings. Not that it concerns me, though.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

One is unreviewed, the other is compressed.You would be able to explain, the reasoning within the article that shows a god existing, no? Or the reasoning on why to believe a god exists, no?Theres a difference between lying and not speaking. They are ready to answer any questions but it is not their loss if you wont ask.So they weren't directly lying, they were being misleading, by leaving out key information. either way, it's dishonest isn't it?Technically speaking, it was the crowds who caused the misinformation not the Church. You cannot just lie about a persons report as it can get you arrested for Defamation.All the reports are readily available online. All are approved by scientific agencies and all you can do now is to deny the findings. Not that it concerns me, though.First of all, there is a different between a scientific agency supporting the facts, and a spin off of those facts. I did read the article, and a logical reason to believe in god was not presented to me. If everything in it was true, that just means a painting was really well preserved beyond our understanding, that just means we need a better understanding, not that a god had anything to do with it.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

You would be able to explain, the reasoning within the article that shows a god existing, no? Or the reasoning on why to believe a god exists, no?You did not read the research, have you?So they weren't directly lying, they were being misleading, by leaving out key information. either way, it's dishonest isn't it?A persons inability to ask questions is his own fault.The answer is readily available. You just have to ask, it's that simple. If everything in it was true, that just means a painting was really well preserved beyond our understanding, that just means we need a better understanding, not that a god had anything to do with itIf its just age, i wouldn't find a problem in your argument. But the thing is, the test results show that not only was the painting impossible to be done by human hands, but also practically inexplainable due to how intricate it is, to the point that not even modern technology can imitate it.Only denial can get you out of here.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

You did not read the research, have you?I read the article if that is what you are asking.A persons inability to ask questions is his own fault.The answer is readily available. You just have to ask, it's that simple.Why didn't they put that knowledge out there to begin with? It obviously was something, that could make what they are saying questionable, thus it's of course going to seem dishonest, when they don't acknowledge it in public writing.If its just age, i wouldn't find a problem in your argument. But the thing is, the test results show that not only was the painting impossible to be done by human hands, but also practically inexplainable due to how intricate it is, to the point that not even modern technology can imitate it.And how does it follow a god exists from this? Why not fairies? why not spirits?
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

I read the article if that is what you are asking.I can see that you did not raise any argument about the research done and the credibility of the scientists. Gee, I wonder whyWhy didn't they put that knowledge out there to begin with?Simple: no one's asking.And how does it follow a god exists from this? Why not fairies? why not spirits?Because if fairies and spirits exist, then so does the rest of the paranormal world. And that includes God.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

I can see that you did not raise any argument about the research done and the credibility of the scientists. Gee, I wonder whyBecause it doesn't matter whether or not what is being claimed it true, I would figure you could use common sense to figure that out. Because if fairies and spirits exist, then so does the rest of the paranormal world. And that includes God.How would one supernatural claim being true, prove every supernatural claim? It doesn't follow.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Because it doesn't matter whether or not what is being claimed it trueSo you recognize the research as valid but you still deny the existence of God?How would one supernatural claim being true, prove every supernatural claim? It doesn't follow.One undebunkable proof is enough to change everything, apparently.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

So you recognize the research as valid but you still deny the existence of God?I don't know if the research on it was valid, you didn't provide me any research to investigate. However even if what your article claimed was true, a painting that survived something that we don't understand how it did, I don't see how that logically follows that their is a supreme being whom caused the universe...One undebunkable proof is enough to change everything, apparently.Could you elaborate? I get the feeling, you are not understanding what I am telling you.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

I don't know if the research on it was valid, you didn't provide me any research to investigate.I already gave you oneCould you elaborate? I get the feeling, you are not understanding what I am telling you.Its easy. The moment that science start to recognize the existence of the paranormal is the moment that the definition of logic will change.Notice how NASA tested the Guadalupe but they never wrote the reports on their homepage. But when asked for its credibility, they would rather stay quiet.Alot of the scientists who failed in explaining the Guadalupe has converted. And all of them were rejected in the scientific community. And why is that?Admit it. It's all a matter of denial.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

I already gave you oneThat's not research, that is an article... there is a difference, it didn't give me a study, or a reference to an experiment. Regardless though, again, even if it was true, it would mean nothing for you. How does it follow that a painting that had been well preserved for a long time, to a point where we don't understand how lead to the conclusion that their is a god.Notice how NASA tested the Guadalupe but they never wrote the reports on their homepage. But when asked for its credibility, they would rather stay quiet.Alot of the scientists who failed in explaining the Guadalupe has converted. And all of them were rejected in the scientific community. And why is that?Where did you get this from?
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

That's not research, that is an articleIt is a researched article that provides enough references to suit your every needs.How does it follow that a painting that had been well preserved for a long time, to a point where we don't understand how lead to the conclusion that their is a godSimple:1. It has a background story2. The painting itself is an icon of a religious figure3. It is inexplanableIt all matches the requirements that every single atheist demands in a miracle. You know that any further arguments will not last. Why struggle to keep up?Where did you get this from?Research mate. Ive made alot of research in Guadalupe. All those who claim to debunk it are limited to 2. They condemn the science as flawed or the scientists as bribed.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

It is a researched article that provides enough references to suit your every needs.Does it cite the research, give links to the studies and what not on the painting?It all matches the requirements that every single atheist demands in a miracle. You know that any further arguments will not last. Why struggle to keep up?What is your definition of a miracle? something incredible happening, that seems highly unlikely and is nice. I think those miracles happen, I just don't think it is evidence of a god. Something that was caused by a god? Well I need a reason to conclude that, or evidence.Research mate.Ive made alot of research in Guadalupe. All those who claim to debunk it are limited to 2. They condemn the science as flawed or the scientists as bribed.If you want to convince me of these things, then show me your research.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Does it cite the research, give links to the studies and what not on the painting?Oh so thats what you are asking. Try this thenIt is complete with enough researches done by Harvard University and Oxford. And it is approved by scientistsWhat is your definition of a miracle? event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agencyStop running in circles, already. It hurts me more than it does to youIf you want to convince me of these things, then show me your research.Done
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

She has tried same on me. I did checked those "scientists'" background.NASA scientist J. Smith does not exist nor there is any evidence that anything to do with that picture.Dr. Callaghan hoaxer with formal backgound in bugs, most of his papers are on worms and ants, the rest is on healing rocks. By the way he also "detected" Tachyons (theoretical particle faster than light) by connecting simple multimeter to a ficus... Centifolia eve accidentally send me link to a web page satirically mocking that idiot (she thought that they are supporting him).Dr. Aste Tonsmann employed by "Mexican Center for Guadalupe studies" ...so... :DPicture was also examined by random dentists and eye doctors (I don't know why...) who stated that it is magic ...?? ...Centifolia is deluded religious zealot, later she may try to get your actual name... I would be careful ...