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

If I understand you correctly, my interest in being accurate makes me a "fucktard." Truly though, I appreciate your very intelligent response to an idle observation.You cannot "retype" evidence that you have never provided. Evidence is also not something you believe in, it is something that you know. If asking for you to actually warrant your claims makes me an "asshole" then so be it, but I think it says more about your own insecurity than it does about me. I have never claimed to be superior or special. I have only ever claimed that your argument has no evidence and that consequentially I will not believe in it. I have called you and other believers ignorant and deluded in a purely technical sense, and as you have still not furnished a single fact or reason to the contrary my point stands as being factual. Regarding what is right and wrong, I consider the "right" perspective to be the one that is actually substantiated by reason and knowledge to one that lacks either. I note that you did not at all address my distinction between insulting and offending someone, and so my point stands that while I offended you I was not the first to throw insults in place of actual argument (nor have I ever actually done so in this conversation). The onus for that is squarely on you and has been since your first posts when you began swearing unnecessarily. You were defensive and sensitive on this issue long before I came into the picture.I have never once indicated that I hate people who are religious. I disagree and I think that belief in god is ignorant and contrary to reason and knowledge, and I will challenge people on that point so long as no one gives me any reason to reconsider my stance.In closing, I know exactly what I am "fighting" for (reason), about (arbitrary belief), and why (because ignorance and denial of fact and reason has tangible harms to individuals and social progress).
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

YAWN. ENd of Story. Period. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Call it whichever you please. ;) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

I think beliefs with no logical proof behind them should be left to the parents to try to sway their children to believe.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Unfortunately, that is an all to easy task for parents who exist in a position of considerable authority and power over their children... which is why I remain perplexed as to why the religious think they have to use schools to spread their message as well.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

As soon as creationists can come up with some credible evidence to support their claims, then they can teach it in schools, but since they have failed to do that it has no business in the classroom.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

That doesn't include intelligent design. If evolution can come up with evidence unique to evolution, sure. Don't use "lack of evidence" as an argument because they have the same evidence!
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

I see a couple of different ways to interpret what you said, and I want to make sure I have a clear understanding before responding. Can you please clarify?
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

I apologize for being unclear. Simply saying that evolution has evidence. To clarify, both conclusions of creationism (the form of creationism needs to be clarified as well. Is the debate holder referring to the fundamental young age or ID bases old age?) and evolution can be verified by "the evidence". It just depends on your beliefs or lack of it that determines your conclusion.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Yes, yes, and yes. But not really, sorta, sorta, sorta at the same time. If you assume that God is the designer you must include all the deities attributes, which is being eternal. You are adding natural characteristics to a deity and then expecting the deity and nature to act the same. Its not neccessarilly a logical fallicy to allow a deity be a deity. Many evolutionists misunderstand the concept of intelligent design. Its is not that it can't happen, just not in the time allowed or given.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

If you assume that God is the designer you must include all the deities attributes, which is being eternal. It's still special pleading by saying that god can have those attributes, but other things can't. If an all-powerful being can exist without a creator, then why can't something that is far simpler? I could just as easily say that whatever triggered the big bang is eternal. Maybe it was triggered by a god. Maybe it was aliens from another universe. Maybe it was some strange phenomenon that is so complex it will make our heads explode just to think about it. We just have no way of knowing, and until we find some kind of evidence to support a hypothesis the best answer is we don't know. If people want to believe that the big bang was triggered by a god, I'm okay with that as long as they understand it's pure conjecture and not supported by any credible evidence, and because of that it has no business in a science class. If they want to talk about it in a theology class, I'm fine with that.Many evolutionists misunderstand the concept of intelligent design. Its is not that it can't happen, just not in the time allowed or given.I'm a little confused by this statement. It sounds like your saying intelligent design can't happen unless given a certain amount of time. I don't think that's what you mean, so can you please clarify?Did you mean to say that intelligent designers think that evolution can happen, just not in the time given?
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

http://www.dalemfg.com/creationevolution_013.htm The link above might help. For your firs point its simply because your putting God in a box and nothing outside is allowed. Its not special pleading, your applying human restrictions of capability on a deity.The second is because the process is slow, how slow? Maybe its too slow. Example with the eye thing. Why did the cells in the cup form an eye? Why was an eye needed? Why is their a cup? How many years did it take? Probability has proven many species (I think humans were one if them) shouldn't exist if evolution ran its course. Evolutionists say with evey generation an evolution occurred to dispute it, then why did this stop?
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

I see your point(s). But am I going to lay my personal views on the table and see i that clears up anything where I am going with this. I personally have nothing against evolution. It is the use of it to say there is no use for God, that I am against. I personally believe that God used evolution and the Big Bang to create the universe. Evolution itself does not mean there is no God, same thing with the Big bang. To me it is like saying a hammer drove a nail into the board. While this is true, it was a man wielding the hammer. This is a bad analogy because it assumes a "who", but I hope you see my point that evolution does not mean the non-existence of God. To me science has not advanced far enough to even comprehend a "wielder of the hammer". This is also touched upon in Romans.Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.Thank you as well you your civility. As you can tell, I only recently joined this site and am already getting annoyed by it.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Evolution itself does not mean there is no God, same thing with the Big bang. I agree with you completely, although I think it's unlikely that a god did it, I have no problem accepting it as a possibility. However, since there is no credible evidence for it and it defies all natural laws we know of, it belongs in a theology class for now, not a science class. As you can tell, I only recently joined this site and am already getting annoyed by it.Welcome to the site. I'm sorry you've received such a harsh welcome and hope you don't let the rude atheists on this site make you think we're all like that. There are some very friendly atheists on here, but the obnoxious ones make the most noise so they stand out more. I sick of all the petty bickering and rude behavior on this site, so very soon I will be creating a private CreateDebate community that will be troll-free and will be moderated to filter out the rude people. Once I get that community up and running I'll send you an invite.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Evolution is a scientifically derived theory supported by actual evidence. Creationism and intelligent design are unfounded beliefs held on faith without any proof whatsoever; their only place in schools is in classes on theology not in science classes alongside evolution.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Absolutely not. It is a religious teaching for one so therfore it CANT be included in public school cerriculum. And even if it could its absolutely 100% wrong, unscientific, and just plain retarded. Yeah, i said it. Retarded. Anyone who genuinely believes it is a retard. Its trash and needs to be thrown away like every other myth in history.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

The word intelligent in "intelligent design" is an insult to the word intelligent if you ask me.The question here is "should we teach the Christian version of creationism in schools", because like some other post by "Nox0" said if we teach creationism we should also teach the other 12000+ myths about creation as well, why stop there lets teach the newer forms as well, like Scientology and how all humans came from a volcano millions of years ago. Here is a fun link you you guys, "6 wacky creation myths around the world" link below.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Only mentally retarded may think that we are outcome of magic .
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Actually, research indicates that humans are evolutionary developed to have a greater predisposition towards faith as a psychological coping mechanism for trauma and difficulty throughout life. It is a natural, albeit unfortunate, byproduct of human neurology.Also, I object to your use of the term "mentally retarded" as an insult. There is nothing wrong with being mentally handicapped (or whatever the most recent PC term is now).
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

I want to see evidence from that research.There is nothing wrong with being mentally handicapped ? so it's just a cool label? :D
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Thank you for asking, and here are a couple of evidential examples per your request (there are more if you just google search):http://www.colloquydowneast.org/~colloquy/snp_files/D00707-Myers021910_Bloom_Is_God_an_Accident.pdf http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=nKRphq7s7x0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=genetic+predisposition+to+believe+in+god&ots=mcVvkz3o20&sig=eNWbQVCTtonmnhWK9poAzXhH5Wg#v=onepage&q&f=false  No, mental handicap is not a "cool label" it is a technical term used to describe those with lower than average cognitive functioning. The condition is either naturally occurring from birth or else a consequence of disease or accident later in life. There is nothing wrong with being mentally handicapped, other than that imposed upon the condition through social stigma. Using mentally retarded as an insult is rather a lot like saying someone throws like a girl or calling them crazy because you disagree with what they say. Is that clearer?
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Nice try, it's an essay, no research no data. Religious people have shorter lives in general they believe that some wizard will stop bullets,praying in church instead running out from flood and so...
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

My apologies, those were incorrect links that I pulled from an earlier post. I should have shared the following instead:1. Article summarizing research up to 2009. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains-god-spot-1641022.html 2. The research the above article is referring to. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/12/4876.full.pdf+html 3. Also of interest as it highlights some additional research and the direction the research is beginning to take. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/science/scientists-investigate-if-atheists-brains-are-missing-a-god-spot/article4313359/ If you would like I could try to do some additional digging, but I think that these demonstrate at least a preliminary basis in science and reason to consider religion and faith to be a consequence of human biological evolution.Although, I will revise my earlier critique of your initial correction regarding the relative intelligence of the religious since #3 references research indicating that atheists are on average more intelligent. I always suspected it... but who would have thought someone actually did the research to prove it!
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

1. Article summarizing research up to 2009. --- free of any reference2. The research the above article is referring to.--- not about religious people chance to survive at all3. Also of interest as it highlights some additional research and the direction the research is beginning to take.--- not bad but pretty much Philosophy.I did some digging to, there's never been done any research in that particular area. There are just some "alternative" interpretation of data done by creatards.Atheists are generally smarter and better educated. Your 3rd link talks about it too.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

1. It does not give a proper citation, but it gives enough information to identify the research to which it refers which is the document I linked you to in #2. Unfortunately, most of the research has not been well publicized and is difficult to track down and so much of the information (or ideas, if you would rather) exist primarily in news articles and the like.2. No, that would have been in the links that I provided earlier. That is the more theoretical aspect providing conjecture as to why a propensity for faith would have developed in the human species. If I am wrong let me know; I appear to have muddled my resources somewhat. 3. I agree. That link I mostly included because the ideas were interesting.I am inclined to agree that the current research and hypothesis leave something to be desired, but I also think that the idea merits consideration (and tenuous as it may be it is more supported than alternative views). Dismissing religious belief and faith offhand as simple "stupidity" has always seemed an inadequate explanation of the phenomenon to me. That it is so widespread and universal between cultures (although not between all individuals) indicates that it is more than socially constructed. That it is unique to the human species, as far as we can tell, would also seem to imply something evolutionarily unique. The extent to which otherwise rational individuals cling to and defend religion also indicates to me that there is something more profound than stupidity going on, particularly when one considers that there are (a few) otherwise highly intelligent theists. In light of that, the argument that faith/religion either served a direct evolutionary function in bolstering psyches against difficult or traumatic events or else was a byproduct of the development of the human conscious and capacity for higher thought makes logical sense to me (particularly when considering the alternative: "they're just stupid").
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

I'm physicist, so my ability to distinguish presentation of "hard data" in Neuroscience and same data "enriched" by someones personal feeling is very limited but I know that this is quite common in Physics where creatards makes "alternative" descriptions of laws of physics also supported by their "different" understanding of word "Theory".I will ask someone from Neurosci to read it :) Just for sure...I don't think so that "religiosity" has actual background in our genome, simply because there are pretty much whole atheistic nations. Sweden, Estonia, Czech Rep... so they have to miss some genes.I see it more like part of some bigger failure of personality's development. If we look on countries with more than 90% of believers we can clearly see that they form perfectly dysfunctional societies unable to advance from stone/bronze age. Literacy close to zero. No development for centuries, So I see i more likely a dysfunction or retardation. Evolutionary dead end.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

No it shouldn't. It has no place in a science class and a public school. It can be taught in a church, at home, or at a private school, but religion needs to stay out of public schools. Theology classes at school are okay, but creationism should not be taught alongside evolution
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Neither should be taught in public schools, actually .
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Creationism is NOT science. Therefore, unless extra time can be found (afterschool clubs anyone?), it should not be taught alongside evolution. Besides, it is not a choice of creationism/evolution. There is NO evidence supporting creationism.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

It's like asking to be only taught science and some form of Christian religion. Which is practically asking for bible lessons in a public school. How offensive is it to assume everyone wants that type of religion only? It's not science. That's what bible school is for.
Debate: Should Donald Trump build a wall
Side: Yes

He should build a wall. The Chinese did, and their civilization just keeps getting better and more powerful. You don't see a lot of illegals or jihadists crossing into China.
Debate: Should Donald Trump build a wall
Side: No

Well, it seems we can add history to the list of things you're prepared to lie about? You obviously have some serious intellectual issues given how far from reality and critical thought you are.While you may freely believe thousand year old technology will deal with 21st centrury problems, and you may believe that military fortifications against armies and hoards are equally effective against individuals, you still forget that the cost, man power and other factors required to make such a wall effective; and forget that the amount of Chinese border on which there is a wall is about 0.But obviously, it appears thinking is not your strong point. Im not entirely sure what planet you're living on; but the comprehensive denial of reality and rational thought makes it easy to understand why you voted for and still support a charlatan and clown: Emotionally Desperate and angry people like yourself are easy to exploit and manipulate.
Debate: Should Donald Trump build a wall
Side: Yes

Well, it seems we can add history to the list of things you're prepared to lie aboutLet's look at my points.1)China built a big wall. True2)China has no open border policy for illegal aliens. True3)China has no problem with illegals flooding its borders. True4)China does not have an Islamic jihadist problem. TrueYa see, for me to "tell a lie", I have to actually... tell a lie or be incorrect. Would you like the definition of lie? I can provide a link to the dictionary if you need.
Debate: Should Donald Trump build a wall
Side: No

So history, geography and critical thinking.The lie is you claiming 2,3 and 4 is because of 1.I pointed out why it is a lie: and the fact you sit realise that what you just claimed is refuted by history, geography and basic common sense really speaks volumes about your idiocy
Debate: Should Donald Trump build a wall
Side: Yes

5) China has good sushi.
Debate: Should Donald Trump build a wall
Side: Yes

I think that's Japan.
Debate: Should Donald Trump build a wall
Side: Yes

Emotionally Desperate and angry people like yourself are easy to exploit and manipulateNot really. I'm not an emotional person, nor am I angry. I also decimated Bush, McCain, Graham and Romney in past debates.
Debate: Should Donald Trump build a wall
Side: No

You're denials are relatively meaningless as you lie about pretty much everything; your behaviour clearly indicates you have issues significant anger and emotional issues.
Debate: Should Donald Trump build a wall
Side: Yes

While you may freely believe thousand year old technology will deal with 21st centrury problems, and you may believe that military fortifications against armies and hoards are equally effective against individualsWhat, do you think illegal aliens will be flying Stealth bombers and Apache helicopters?
Debate: Should Donald Trump build a wall
Side: No

Ummm. No, that's the opposite of what I'm saying! Did you read anything?
Debate: Should Donald Trump build a wall
Side: Yes

We want a wall to keep out border jumpers and illegal drugs. Your implication was a wall wouldn't work in the modern era. Why not? Like he said, are these migrants going to use catapults and parachutes? Army tanks? What Ramshutu? Why wouldn't a wall work? Are Migrants magic?