azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is evolution true or false?
Side: True

Bill Nye is a science communicator and a good one at that. We are all in the great ape taxonomic family. Institute for Creation Research, ICR.org has very low factual reporting. Ken Ham is a huckster.
Debate: Is evolution true or false?
Side: False

Oooh more arguments that are invalidated. You will be avoided and dodged, denier of truth. My words are absolute. Cry about it.
Debate: Is evolution true or false?
Side: True

Does this sound like the words of a moral good God? "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."Read the Bible. A Christian can either deny the Bible or read and accept that God is immoral.
Debate: Is evolution true or false?
Side: False

More invalidated arguments from a snowflake who doesn't know facts. Cope about it."Tell me, do you bleed? You will." - Batman to Superman in Dawn of JusticeYour arguments are invalidated and I've won.Knocks out "sciencerules" and puts him in Arkham Asylum once againFor one who professes to defend truth & justice, you sure don't, "sciencerules" because all I hear from you are off topic accusations and a bunch of subjective made up opinions from your head. For someone who claims he supports democracy, you go on and support corrupt democrats who are nothing but selfish hypocrites, conning the people for money. For someone who is anti-Trump, you are the pinnacle of why people like me stand up to people like you because of all of that hypocrisy. You don't stand for justice. You stand for corruption, lies and a totalitarian regime which you call a utopia when it is really a dystopia. Darwin's Evolution was always just a theory. It was never proven, but ignorant snowflakes like you love to claim you are oppressed when it is people exactly like you who oppose facts DIRECTLY FROM SCIENCE ITSELF. You dehumanize babies, women, men and support the "trangenderism" lie of hypocrisy, sexism and racism. "Sciencerules", you are declared as an opponent with an IQ below 0 because once again, you DO NOT HAVE THE FACTS ON YOUR SIDE!!You support:Your own vanity, hubris and ignorance, calling it "knowing more than God" which the Bible predicted you would because God knows you and me well. He knows I am loyal and that you are one of those ignorant fools.Pride paradesBill Nye the Liar GuyAbortionPedophiliaBiden & the Corrupt DemocratsDehumanizing Theory of Evolution from Darwin which was disapproved tons of times while God is realYou deny:That you are imperfectDNA does not support Darwinian evolutionary theoryHumans and animals are separate and do not share a common ancestry; Comparisons between a fish embryo and a human embryo in the earliest of stages are VERY DIFFERENT. Evidence that I have provided supports this claim in an absolute manner, destroying your claim. Ken Ham won the debate with pure factsGod & Jesus who are realBiological factsOther facts that will neve rchangeThere are only 2 gendersTrump did nothing wrongLgbt has done more harm than good AIDs/HIV comes from homosexuality/bisexualityMy words are all absolute and correct. Your arguments are destroyed by the flames of truth. God prevails. Atheism debunked. Darwinism debunked. Lgbtq debunked and are denied special rights. Freedom of Speech will continue to destroy the leftists' agenda of globally dictating everyone. Evil has lost.
Debate: Is evolution true or false?
Side: False

Evidence has come in that there are now bomb threat from lgbtpedos towards Target and any store that removes pride items that are dangerous towards innocent children. Parents reserve the right to protect their children. "Sciencerules" is declared an enemy of humanity and will be shot with full prejudice with a condition of impaling him alive.
Debate: Is evolution true or false?
Side: False

DNA does not support evolution: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/evidence-does-not-support-the-theory-of- evolution-1.318354#:~:text=DNA  and other genetic evidence,as its pioneers believed . . .Opposition has zero evidence to prove that marco-evolution aka Darwin's evolution ever occurring. I will say once again, there is a large difference between the two.
Debate: Is evolution true or false?
Side: False

Evolution is still debated today and that is a factual event ongoing. People who deny this are blind and are not true supporters of science. For example, "sciencerules" is such a snowflake.https://www.quantamagazine.org/neutral-theory-of-evolution-challenged-by-evidence-for-dna-selection-20181108/ Viewer discretion is advised because this contains sensitive truths which exposes a hypocrite who knows nothing except to simp for a false scientist named Bill Nye.
Debate: Is evolution true or false?
Side: False

More research is being done by the real scientists today:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220112121512.htm
Debate: Is evolution true or false?
Side: False

More evidence to suggest that DNA has all the answers:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2879385/
Debate: Is evolution true or false?
Side: False

ICR research has discovered reasons behind "Why Evolutionary Origins are impossible". Science is about facts. Theories are theories and it is absolute fact that Darwin's evolution was flawed from the very beginning. He obviously did not know any better. https://www.icr.org/article/few-reasons-evolutionary-origin-life-impossible/ I have won every debate even from the scamevangelist debate. "Sciencerules" will be banned on every site henceforth.
Debate: Is evolution true or false?
Side: False

Fun Fact: One day I was waiting by the bus stop and I saw ants attempt to carry their dead into the grass. But then, is this signs of evolution within God's creations; the insect kind for now? It's unknown eh? Anyways, fun thing to know is that there are no signs of evolution within humans right now too.
Debate: Is evolution true or false?
Side: False

As many already stated, evolution is a theory. The question is whether evolution is a supportable explanation of the scientific evidence, and if so whether it is the most probable one.The term "evolution", in its most commonly understood form, is adaptation from one genus to another via the cumulation of naturally selected mutations. Most proponents of evolution also submit that the same environmental pressures on otherwise random chaos are responsible for the conception of the first proteins.Science is the only communicable tool available to test a theory's validity. Evidence must be repeatable and reproducible before the scientific process considers it as usable. A theory is judged on whether A) it accounts for all current evidence, and B) it accurately predicts future evidences. If only one theory satisfies those conditions in an abundance of evidence it is considered scientific "law". However, if multiple theories equally satisfy those conditions they remain theories until new evidence is found that eliminates all but one option.Much has been said about the improbability of evolution. Nevertheless, incomprehensibly small odds do represent a possibility. Thus, anyone using this argument must then show that an alternative theory is more likely. However, evolution runs into more fundamental problems. As previously suggested, the probability of a theory is irrelevant if it fails to explain the evidence.All observed cases of natural selection represent the net loss of genetic diversity. At best preferred adaptations out compete the rest for resources until the less specialised population is extinct. At worst, environmental shifts cull all but small specialised sections of the population. This fits with information theory, and with the theory of entropy. Literally no evidence exists of a natural mechanism which generates additional information, order from chaos, or increasing chemical or energetic instability. Only one mechanism has been observed that is capable of organising random information in beneficial ways. That mechanism is intelligence. The theory of evolution excludes intelligence, yet by definition it requires the creation of, and organisation of, increasing amounts of information. If the statements in this argument are true, then evolution does not fit the scientific evidence.Arguments based on evolution being "the best guess" are irrelevant, as are demands for functional alternatives. Even if it was the only guess available, it could still be wrong. "We don't know," is a perfectly valid scientific statement.I propose that we don't yet have enough evidence for the scientific process to conclude on our origins. Perhaps future evidence will prove the law of entropy wrong. Perhaps future evidence will show repeatable, reproducible evidence to the contrary. Until then, all science can say with certainty is that evolution is not supported by today's evidence.
Debate: Is evolution true or false?
Side: True

Evolution only reassembles information and connects cells to form paths based on potential energy, it doesn't create new information.
Debate: Is evolution true or false?
Side: True

Hi Dan_Blayde"Literally no evidence exists of a natural mechanism which generates additional information"There is a mechanism, it is called random mutations or mistakes when copying genetic material. This is how additional genetic information is generated. Too many mutations is why cancer exists.
Debate: Is evolution true or false?
Side: False

You are weak and invalidated. You as always do not hold the truth. Dan blayde is a hypocrite just like you are. Both of you are offended by facts. Darwinian Evolution is not supported by science, especially DNA. Ken Ham has disproven bill nye on infinite levels. Bill Nye is in fact a snowflake and a fraud. You are a definition of a hypocritical snowflake who is infinitely ignorant on all levels. Not only do you support child abuse, you support pride, lust, greed, sin and anti Christ views that are Satanic. You are hereby charged with treason and executed on sight. Transgenderism does not exist. Transgender individuals do not exist. They are just males and females who refuse to be who they were born as. Men are men. Women are women. Boys are boys. Girls are girls. All of your arguments are sickening, insane and criminalized in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. You are a degenerate and you will be destroyed on all fronts. Your trolling has gone far enough to the point where there is no more tolerance for retards such as yourself. You have zero evidence to support your claims because your claims are inferior and subjective.
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: football

I think any team sport is more challenging than an individual sport because you must work well with your teammates. As an individual, it is all riding on you so you don't really need to try your hardest for the sake of others.
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: motocross

Not true actually. You do in fact have a team. I have done both sports and frankly football is not more challenging i mean sure youre memorizing plays but those plot where u coarse is headed. The track which after the track has been riden a lap it is hell. It is never the same. Imagine
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: football

everybody who's arguing for football is giving valid points but they're leaving out important stuff. And everybody arguing for mx is also giving equally valid points. One thing supporters of mx are doing though, is they are simply thinking of the conditioning aspect. They are saying mx is more physically demanding because they have to be able to participate at high levels of endurance. While physical condition is part of what it means to be physical demanding it's not the only thing. In football you have to be quick, strong, and fast. You need agility, great eye hand coordination, a willingness to hit and get hit. You need to be fearless and be able to concentrate and remember plays and coverages and routes after you've exerted all you've got physically and mentally. I am going to give the upper hand to football but only slightly
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: motocross

I play football i love it i want to be pro one day. I have also raced a motorcycle. Yes I agree I have trouble remembering my place in football and where to go but and motocross there is so much more. For instance where t where to squeeze where to put you where to put your feet w where to position your body but remembering wha right wha your bike set set up is like suspension tires tire pressure engine set up rebound and clutch and brake position. thinking 1 turn I I head while concentrating on wha on what obstacle yo you are crossing and body positioning but back to thinking 1 turn a head. You must up 4 the nex the next turn complete it the fastest you can. Sometimes so you you must take of at an angl thinking quickl reactin reacting quickly is need mo is needed more so if 1 mistake is made it can be fatal because off you are are traveling there i is more then just sitting an and twisting the throttle. i is hard no no doubt I have almost quit because I w was hit so hard. The physical insurance is extremely difficult and strenuous but people let le because the they pushed their their bodies too too far for too long on motorcycle.
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: motocross

I play football i love it i want to be pro one day. I have also raced a motorcycle. Yes I agree I have trouble remembering my place in football and where to go but in motocross there is so much more. For instance where to squeeze where to put you where to put your feet where to position your body and remembering what your bike set set up is like suspension tires tire pressure engine set up rebound and clutch and brake position. You must be thinking 1 turn ahead while concentrating on what obstacle you are crossing and body positioning but back to thinking 1 turn a head. You must set up 4 the next turn to complete it the fastest you can. Sometimes jumps are curved so you you must take of at an angle. thinking quickly and reacting quickly is needed more so because if 1 mistake is made it can be fatal because of the speed in which you are traveling (up to 70). there is more then just sitting an and twisting the throttle. Football is hard no doubt, I have almost quit because I was hit so hard. The physical indurance is extremely difficult and strenuous but i know people who have died because the they pushed their their bodies too too far for too long on motorcycle. Plus the falling from +10 feet is hard on the body.
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: football

Ok u dont need to be fearless in Motocross?. being committed to jump a 100 foot double or a 120 foot table doesn't take a fearless personality? I play both and the training and Detacation to Motocross is way more challenging than Football. I even play Offensive Tackle so thats a big guy hitting me and me hitting a Big guy. I argue trying to control a 200-+ pound bike going 50-+ and trying to jump 100 or more feet for 30 minutes 4 times which is 2 hours with a half an hoour break inbetween is tougher. Sorry to say. In my books, Motocross wins
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: motocross

Oh my god. Couldn't have said it better myself. Yes I'm a girl but my dad dies mx and got me into it, never been in so much pain. My dad also does football. He say riding is way harder than football on so many levels.
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: football

okay so ive read all of these and ive played football for 9 years and raced moto for 4 ive always thought motocross was easy cause id only go to the dunes but on a track people dont realize how hard is really is you do have to stay focused and control your breathing now im not saying moto isnt hard cause it took me forever to breathe get rid of arm pump all of that i thing there equally as physically challenging but talent wise i think football is alot more challening mentally than anything. also i would love a "pro" moto rider thats probly 5 11 160 lbs to go get hit by a middle line backer or lineman that is 6 5 280 its not fun... skill wise there pretty equal, i think it personally thought it was alot harder learning to play football compared to learning how to ride. so im gonna give football the upper hand on all around harder sport but physically demanding i think there pretty equal, one thing i will give moto over football i like that you cant blame anyone but yourself if you loose.
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: football

football is more challenging, because of the fact that when you are on the field you are working 100% to make your team have the advantage
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: motocross

On the MX track the riders endure many obstacles that they have to constantly do for 30min. and from the beginning of the race to the end they have a max heart rate between 177-185 ( THROUGHOUT THE WHORE RACE) and its trully not just sitting down or twisting the throttle, in fact most of the race the riders stand up and have to deal with pressure going throughout every muscle in their body. if u were doing what pros do u wouldnt even last one 2min lap.
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: motocross

Are u saying riders arent giving 100%? The average heart rate is +177 in a race for 30 minutes straight. U obviously have too much pride in football with no experience in motocross.
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: motocross

your drunk! indervidual sports you can not rely on other players what do you do when your teamates on the othert side of the feild have the ball? stand there? and motocross you cant give up becuse you have sponsors pushing you to win!
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: motocross

yeah working a 100% for maybe 5 seconds try working 100% for 30 minutes or more while on a rough terrain going 50 mph plus
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: football

NRL is the most challenging out there, I dont know about American Football though.....
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: football

Heck yeah football is SUPER hard. if you think motocross is more phisicly challenging then your just as weak as a freakin fly like " my back herts"!!!! idiot freakin workout and be a man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: motocross

Im sorry but ur a meat head and u obviously dont know anything about motocross. i could guarantee that if u step on a dirtbike and do the shit that pros do, u wouldnt even finish a 2min lap. And u think football workouts are hard? omfg if u ever seen a MX pro practice u would shit urself. oh and if u see one fat guy on a dirtbike let me know ok. learn facts before u can talk.
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: motocross

I see what you are saying about people only talking about motocross's physical aspects, but watching motocross and doing it is a very different thing. I would know, I've been racing motocross for over 5 years and rode for 7, and when I watched it on tv before I raced, I thought that the only thing that was hard was physicality, but I was wrong! Upon being introduced to the amateur ranks, I quickly realised how scary it is to come out of a corner and have a 80 foot triple that 3-4 guys have broken bones off of earlier in the day and be expected to do it. I have also played football, and to be honest no one I have ever known has been afraid to hit someone else, including me, I played football for 2 years and I can confidently say that if I wanted the easy, cheaper way I would have chosen football. I chose motocross, like every pro out there has, and you can't consider football more physically demanding. If you would like to see for yourself search "Most physically demanding sport" on Google and see what pops up.
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: motocross

I agree with you very much. My uncle races pro supercross and motocross and when he tells you his routine you would never believe it. And seeing a fat guy on a dirt bike is dangerous to everyone else on the track.
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: motocross

motocross is hard. these guys just jump in the air no problem your a little bitch if you say its easy.
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: motocross

How can some people say soccer is more physically demanding when some bike riders have to ride with broken bones I have never seen a soccer player do that and they say that riders ride for themselves and don't have to push it to the limit for their team but they have to do it for their sponsor so motocross Is by far more demanding and if you still don't think so I would like to see you do it coz anyone can play soccer but only a hand full of people can ride a motocross bike
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: motocross

U are very ignorant. U dont know what a race is like look i have something for you.
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: motocross

You apparently have never raced or even rode a dirt bike... You should realize that there is a lot more to motocross or supercross than there is to football. My uncle races supercross for a living and it is definitely more dangerous than football.
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: motocross

Un an idiot. Try going out there one time you little puss bag. Motocross is more money too.
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: motocross

In football, you only need a good cardio, if you'd race a motocross race you would discover muscle in your body that you never knew existed before.
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: motocross

BULL I would like to see your a out on the track going full out where the track is different every lap. and tell me your not sore. ive done both sports and football is a walk in the park compared to motocross. Yeah football you need to take a hit but no where near the mental and physical expectations for motocross. All you see is people going fast around a dirt track on bicycles with motors jumping jumps and looking cool but im hear to tell you if it was easy why arnt you doing it why isnt everyone doing it?
Debate: Is football more physically challenging than motocross?
Side: motocross

You are saying football is hard and all that BS. But, did you know that every year around 12 people die playing football, but I bet you didn't notice that about 7 times that amount of people die a year racing dirt bikes that is about 80 people a year. And you know people that race motocross aren't easy to give up, they can be a lap behind the leader and ride their hearts out. In football people tend to give up easier, like at the end of the game the losing team that has the ball knees it for the last bit of the game.( Not saying all teams do but a majority of them do ) And you know even a lot more people die from motocross we still don't give up we still love our sport it is not a hobby it is much more it takes emense concentration, skill, strength, endurance, independence, courage, faith and much more the list goes on and on. I'm not saying the following doesn't apply to football just not as much. Can you explain when half of your football teams weigh over 200 pounds (the line men) how you guys call that being fit or healthy. The pro racers that wiegh the most are only about 175 lbs. and most of their weight is muscle. I just don't get how people have the nerve to say that motocross is easy just because it is not as popular. I have just had it with people saying that motocross is easy, all the time people underestimate it, all I gotta say is get on a bike and do what we do and we'll see how "easy" it is then!