azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

Sanity is a legal/social term, not a psychological one. Also, having a disorder does not make one insane this is a flawed misconception.A bunch of perfectly normal people, whatever term you want to use.No one is forcing churches to marry them, but businesses (like bakeries) are being sued for refusing to bake a wedding cake for them. Small businesses can't survive a civil suit even if they win and that is surpressing someone's ability to exercise their first amendment rights.Bakeries aren't religious establishments. There is nothing in the Bible that says you shouldn't do your job for a sinner. Selecting the homosexual sin as a basis for not doing your job doesn't make any sense. But this lawsuit crap does suck. Furthermore if these suits fall in favor of the homosexual couple, it often forces the state to recognize those unions- sometimes against that state's constitution.The state is unconstitutional and you are upset that they have to change? Even if you agree with their "marriage" you must understand that ends do not justify the means.Agreed, I don't like these tactics.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

I am glad we've found some common ground and can agree on some points, that is the mark of a good debate. I agree that, to continue our example, a bakery is not a religious institution. But protecting the exercise of free religion goes further than that. While the Bible does not say that one must refuse service to homosexual persons (in fact, I daresay it ENCOURAGES it), it does prohibit homosexual relations. Consider that baking a wedding cake has a lot to do with that union. If it were a McDonald's not providing service, I'd understand the outrage because they has nothing to do with that union, but wedding vendors are essentially pledging their support for that union though their services and therefore encouraging it. Honestly though, if my wife and I encountered a company that was against our marriage, we wouldn't be keen on using that vendor. Or how about marriage counselor. Some services are directly related to the furtherance of those unions and businesses like that must have their rights guarded. Christianity calls its followers to hate the sin, not the sinner. I think Iran's wrong for any religious person to have to do something their faith condemns. Though we have strayed pretty far off topic- mostly by my doing an for that I apologize. I should like to see evidence of widespread denial of rights to homosexual persons.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

If they wanted McDonald's to cater the wedding it would be a problem that McDonald's turned them down. Does every person served by the bakery or florist get checked for being sinners? If not it is discrimination. I hate the lawsuit aspect of it. I wish it was more like the boycotts of the civil rights movement. The lawsuits are unfair and I hate how effective they are.The only rampant discrimination against homosexuals is not recognizing their union as marriage by the government. It is easy to interpret the Bible to accept gays, so not recognizing gay marriage by the government violates the religious beliefs of gay people. So, there is still a reason for the gay marriage movement. I don't think there has been rampant discrimination in other places.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

3) No one is forcing churches to marry them.It is just a matter of time. http://www.charismanews.com/world/40685-millionaire-gay-couple-sues-to-force-church-wedding http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on/
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

1. Prove that sexual orientation is a choice. 2. We also practiced legal slavery and denied women the right to vote when this nation was founded. Tradition does not make something correct.3. Legally recognized marriages would not and never have forced any religious institution to marry couples against its beliefs. 4. The APA does not consider homosexuality a mental disorder because it is not a mental disorder. Reproduction has nothing to do with a mental illness diagnosis. Your source substantiates none of your claims.5. Prove any of that.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

This is so misguided that it borders on trolling. But that's what I expect from the privileged majority of straight, white human beings.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

Haha, should we be made to apologize for being privileged? I'm sorry nature makes us capable of reproducing, having stable relationships, having gender aspects that complement each other, and that homosexuals choose to reject all this. Oh if only there was something I could do to make it all ok.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

Oh if only there was something I could do to make it all ok.Leave them alone.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

Leave them alone.Did you not get the sarcasm in my post?
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

I wasn't actually talking about what you said. I was talking in general. You can deal with gays by not bothering with them at all.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

Leave them alone.Ok, so I assume if the position of the gay community is that they should just be left alone, they will leave the christian community alone right? ... not suing them if they don't want to do business with you are hire you... right?
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

Are you complaining about the definition of marriage or that gays are suing? You guys started a war and now it has gotten out of hand. The lawsuits are ridiculous, but they are a direct result of you people not leaving them alone.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

I'm a white person who wants liberty, truth, and justice for all, not just for heteronormative cisgendered white conservative rich males age 20 and over. Im pro I don't care unless someone is hurt. I just wanna live and afford the same right to others. I give so little a shit about skin color that it doesn't even register on my give a fuck radar because I believe that we are all one human race.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

whiteWhites only have privilege in countries made by, ruled by, and/or occupied mostly by whites.A white person has no privilege in, say, Japan, or China.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

Yes there is. Gays have the same rights as other people. Stop forcing your religious opinion on other people.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

The dilemma has been solved.It is now 2015 and the U.S. Supreme Court has declared Gay Marriage to be the law of the land.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

There can be no meeting of the minds, where the mind is not considered.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

I agree. Facts can be rerun, checked, compared to others' facts. Faith can not. It has no logical basis, it has no surety of it even existing. I mean the faith probably doesn't even exist. How are we, the fact users, supposed to know you really believe what you, the faithful people, say you believe. I won't name names, but after prolonged debating with religious people I feel an urge to give up because I feel like I'm being trolled.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Evidence always wins .
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Tooth fairyis_real
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

True! I also would have accepted "There is no room for reason in faith".
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Definitely acceptable considering if there is no room for faith in a debate, then no reason to have faith.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

Having faith is not necessarily unreasonable. Calling upon it in debate is unreasonable.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Faith is unreasonable because believing in a invisible entity is completely irrational.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

There are more categories and types of faith than what you are describing.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

True, though almost all religions worship some sort of entity inherently founded on imaginary only.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

It is reasonable to believe that your new theory won't be refuted.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

True, but not for the reasons you'd think..... no one seems to take me seriously around here? I don't know why?
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

haha, no I meant that it is reasonable for a person to have faith that their new theory won't be disproved. But evidence trumps faith.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

Faith is not necessarily belief without evidence. Faith is simply believing in something with or without evidence. However, I digress, belief in God is not unreasonable. The only problem I would see is that I believe that the ontological argument, when looked at carefully and understanding the premises, actually says that God is a belief-properly-so-called. That means that is equivalent to asking whether logic or reality exists. When looked at carefully, one realizes that God is necessary if logic and reality are real. That, then, reverts in belief for everyone.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

This debate isn't saying that belief in God is unreasonable, its saying that faith based debate is. If you believe something with or without evidence, you still need evidence to convince another. The evidence must be objective or it will not be accepted. Thus, the bible works as evidence amongst Christians, but has no place in debate with infidels.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

And I'm saying that a belief in God is a belief-properly-so-called, which means every debate that revolves around whether God exists is a belief around faith
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Most faith based arguments are not about whether God exists. They are about more particular things based in the Bible. To go back and forth about simply whether God exists, is like arguing about if there are multiple universes. There can be no debate.The ontological argument may be the best one for the existence of God, but still has little to do with faith. The NATURE of God is the problematic aspect.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

The ontological argument proves the nature of God: omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, all-modal, all-logical, etc. There is only one God that has ever fit that criteria: the Abrahamic God (especially the Christian version because Jews and Muslims deny crucial aspects of this nature)
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

The ontological argument proves the nature of God no, no, no, it DEFINES properties of god, it does not proves it existence in any way.There is only one God that has ever fit that criteria Not true, Zoroaster does same, there are also plenty tribal religios in central Africa that are monotheistic.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

It is not true that ONLY the Abrahamic God fits the ontological definition. Countless non-religious people believe in God in a way that fits this definition but has nothing to do with the bible. The guy who came up with that definition was called an atheist by many.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

The only God that fits the criteria is the abrahamic God. It cannot be a deistic God because that would not fill the role of being all-good and all-loving and etc
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Spinoza created the ontological argument and was exiled from the Jewish community, and attacked by Christians. He is to this day occasionally called an Atheist. I am not certain that the ontological argument holds the greatest of beings as all-good or all-loving.Your assertions that God hates the non-elect is not consistent with an all-loving God nor is the belief in predestination.An all-good God is not consistent with an omnipotent God unless one adopts the contradictory perspective that bad things must really be good things.Only belief without evidence can find consistency in contradiction.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

Your assertions that God hates the non-elect is not consistent with an all-loving God nor is the belief in predestination.All-loving does not mean that one cannot hate. You are equivocating "all". All does not mean everyone; it simply means being loving maximally.An all-good God is not consistent with an omnipotent God unless one adopts the contradictory perspective that bad things must really be good things.That is not contradictory at all. God allows bad things in order for good to come about.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Faith: "Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." That is the definition of faith, can you please stop using your own definitions and go with linked ones. Ones we can all look up, and have a central agreement on. So that way, when everyone argues with you, it won't be about which definition was used, it'll be about the points you addressed.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

when looked at carefully, one realizes that God is necessary if logic and reality are real. Haha :D Why? How is god, Harry Ptter or Frodo related to evidence?
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

1. Maximal greatness is defined as being maximally excellent in all capacities (Definition applied).2. If a being with the predicate of maximal greatness is not applied to all possible worlds, then it is not maximally excellent in modality (Premise 1)3. Maximal greatness means that the being that possesses such a predicate must be applied to all possible worlds (Premise 2)4. Every possible world includes the actual world (Modal logic necessity)......... 5. It is possible that a maximally great being exists (Assume for conditional proof)......... 6. A maximally great being exists in every possible world (Premise 3 and 5)......... 7. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 4 and 6)8. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world (Conditional proof from Premises 5-7)9. Impossibility is equivalent to not possible (By definition)10. If something is not impossible, then it is not not possible (Premise 9)11. Everything is either possible or impossible, though not necessarily necessary for possibility (Modal logic necessity)12. Everything is possible unless impossible. (Premise 10 and 11)13. Maximal greatness has no contradicting features (Premise 1)14. Maximal greatness is not impossible (Premise 13)15. Maximal greatness is possible (Premise 12 and 14)16. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 8 and 15)
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

simply definition of god (falls apart at 5), not proof of god.Tooth fairy A fairy supposed to leave money under a child's pillow in place of a baby tooth that has just fallen out.-does it makes her real?
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

Tooth fairy isn't maximally great.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

but it's equally possible ...and gives you $$$ .
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

If you think its equally possible then you don't understand the above argument.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

I do. It's simple definition of properties of god. on 5 it's become logical fallacy. Exactly same thing can be used for Frodo or Batman.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

The ontological argument is probably the most compelling evidence for God. People that have attempted to disprove it, in what I've read, have done so quite successful but they have used whole books to do it. The reasoning in the argument is pretty sound. I think you'd really to study it to be able to criticise it fully. I know I can't.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

The ontological argument has hole right in the middle.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

If you've studied it then I respect your view. If not, I'm afraid I don't - in much the same way as I don't respect blind faith :P
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Who says? Any figure that can enter a room and leave money for a tooth is pretty great.Why can't we say it is maximally great for being able to do those things?
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

You know full well that a tooth fairy is not a perfect being :/ I'm not even going to debate that. Its silly.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

It does actually. If the tooth fairy is "one who leaves money in place of lost teeth" then whoever fills that role is the tooth fairy.The ontological argument says that whatever is the most great thing, is properly called God. That does not say that the most great thing will damn you to hell for stepping out of line.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Yes, it's just an empty definition of something. It does not offers any evidence for it's existence
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Why don't we sum up the ontological argument? God by definition is that which is most great, therefore whatever is the greatest thing is God. There must be something that is greatest, therefore there must be God.That argument is more in line with Pantheism than Christianity, and it says nothing about the nature of God. Anything that does talk about the nature of God tends to be faith based when perhaps it should be science based.It's one thing to say God is, and quite another to say God wants, hates, loves, etc.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

1. Maximal greatness is defined as being maximally excellent in all capacities (Definition applied).in other word Abrahamic god, stone issue2. If a being with the predicate of maximal greatness is not applied to all possible worlds, then it is not maximally excellent in modality it rules everything or nothing3. Maximal greatness means that the being that possesses such a predicate must be applied to all possible worlds (Premise 2)same meaning as part 24. Every possible world includes the actual worldobviously It is possible that a maximally great being exists (Assume for conditional proofpointless, no proof, logical fallacy.6. A maximally great being exists in every possible world (Premise 3 and 5)Fails because of error in 57. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 4 and 6)It does not, it has not been proven in any world nor all possible world8. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world (Conditional proof from Premises 5-7)Failed as 79. Impossibility is equivalent to not possible (By definition)Obviously10. If something is not impossible, then it is not not possible (Premise 9)screwed definition of possible11. Everything is either possible or impossible, though not necessarily necessary for possibility (Modal logic necessity)yes12. Everything is possible unless impossible. (Premise 10 and 11) No it's not. this thing works both ways.13. Maximal greatness has no contradicting features (Premise 1)it does have contradictions, lifting stone issues for example.14. Maximal greatness is not impossible (Premise 13)requires proof, fails on 5 and 1215. Maximal greatness is possible (Premise 12 and 14)fails on 5 and 1216. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 8 and 15)fails on 5, 12, 13It's just useless and very dentition of god
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

I understand why you say 5 is fallacious but reconsider it this way. Whatever is the greatest being, is God. It doesn't even matter in religious arguments because a Hindu will say its Brahman and a Christian will say its the Trinity. Then Jews will say that they are all poly-theists. The point isn't whether or not there is something really great out there (the definition could be filled by the king of an alien race), the point is about reasonable debate about real things. You can't invoke scripture to convince the un-faithful.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

You can't invoke scripture to convince the un-faithful. No, you cannot, because the unfaithful will ask for evidence :D
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

5 breaks your whole thing. You can't assume the conclusion.Being not impossible is not a contradicting feature. So 14 does not come from 13.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

5 is a conditional proof. It proves the "if...then" statement. That's what conditional proofs do: you assume to prove the conclusion.Logically impossible is the only requirement for impossibility
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

It is logically impossible because the only way for it to be logically possible is to say that God exists is the reason God exists (Premise 5).
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Either way, being not impossible is not a contradicting feature. So 14 does not come from 13.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

Yes, it does come from it. If a being is not contradictory, then it is logically possible.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Haha, you don't understand this part. You are missing something. I know what it is.If a being is not contradictory, then it is logically possible.This is not a true statement. You have established that something is either possible or impossible.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

What I said is a modal logic necessity. You are challenging the logical form, not the argument.