azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

You answered your question, by the way. This is why personal accounts are almost never accepted as scientific evidence. Way too unreliable.No, I did not. I stated that people will remember different things about an object/person - but not that those memories are wrong.I don't think I'm crazy. I may maintain contrary perspectives at the same time, shout at myself, and laugh in public places spontaneously, but that's eccentricity not craziness.That's not what I meant. In my opinion, everybody and anybody who is not me is crazy. I should imagine that you find even the person most similar to you to be slightly 'whacky'.I know eccentricities; if you actually did those things they'd be mild compared to me.I used to save EVERYTHING. I had drawers filled with scraps of cardboard! I've advanced since then, but I remain eccentric.mainly because they disagree with me and I'm usually right.Arrogant, too. I'm never wrong, and if you always disagree with me, you therefore must always be wrong.I would guess that having a view of reality that is inconsistent with reality is the sign of a start towards insanity. I could be wrong however.Who is to say that the common view of reality is the appropriate one? This is why I've never been for institutionalization unless they have killed somebody, and demonstrated the likeliness of doing so again. Other than that, they should be in prison.I believe insanity would be the point when he makes a replica of his deceased daughter and dotes over her,That could be construed as a sign of fatherly affection, or out of respect for his daughter.We can't fault a genius for being exceptional, it's the breaks from reality that are disturbing.What is reality?P.S. This quote by Jung goes well with most of the argument:"If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool. "
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

No, I did not. I stated that people will remember different things about an object/person - but not that those memories are wrong.It's not about the wrongness of the memories, but the utility of the reports in a scientific paper when they contradict each other.I used to save EVERYTHING. I had drawers filled with scraps of cardboard! I've advanced since then, but I remain eccentric.How about collecting harddrives because you fill them up with music, video, and photos you never watch but can't delete. You meticulously organise data, always looking for a better scheme, but because you have terabytes you always evolve your scheme faster than you can apply it.You collect everything that has to do with knowledge, spend hours a day just reading facts and numbers trying to soak it all in. Languages are a collectible like figurines. And did I mention that you never can finish a project because your mind works faster than your hands. You stay up nights because you have all these idea you can't keep up with, stuff like that. Great fun.Do you collect genetic samples of your animals for storage using a meticulous file set? What about your friends and family, do you collect genetic samples from them and ponder how you're going to ask a new friend if he'd mind letting you take a drop of blood or sample of skin/hair for a genetic library in the event of his death (you have to clone him one day after all)?And that's what gets you weird looks I guess. Ah well.Arrogant, too. I'm never wrong, and if you always disagree with me, you therefore must always be wrong.But you know you're wrong when you say you're always right, because -I- am always right.Who is to say that the common view of reality is the appropriate one? This is why I've never been for institutionalization unless they have killed somebody, and demonstrated the likeliness of doing so again. Other than that, they should be in prison.Well for this we use science, because then everybody's yelling at each other over reality with no answer to settle it.That could be construed as a sign of fatherly affection, or out of respect for his daughter.That's true, I was just using it as an example of strangeness that leads people to ponder insanity, however.What is reality?P.S. This quote by Jung goes well with most of the argument:"If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool. "Reality is what is objectively true. Being ephemeral humans it can be argued that we never see reality truly objectively, but at best have tools to get an idea of it, such as science and logic.For example we have no idea what an atom looks like, and never will, but we can use indirect information to make a model of it.I try not to assume people are fools. It's just that some people are really really good at insisting that they are, despite you best intentions to give benefit of the doubt.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

How about collecting harddrives because you fill them up with music, video, and photos you never watch but can't delete.Don't listen to [most] music.I am almost identical to the second paragraph; my arguments may seem incoherent because my mind works faster than my fingers.(and I almost did that third paragraph).But you know you're wrong when you say you're always right, because -I- am always right.If this is how the arguments are going to continue for this debate, it'd be best to end it now.That's true, I was just using it as an example of strangeness that leads people to ponder insanity, however.Insanity is not always as it seems.For example we have no idea what an atom looks like, and never will, but we can use indirect information to make a model of it.Never will? How come?
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Never will? How come?Atoms can't be seen. They, like their constituent particles are too small. We can detect them, however. There is a difference. It has to do with wavelengths.If this is how the arguments are going to continue for this debate, it'd be best to end it now.It was a joke.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Hmmm I guess that's true. But then that just means that theists are accepting a claim....I would agree, in some cases. There are many theists who simply accept the claim - out of habit, expectation, tradition or whatever other justification they use. But, I would wager that most also believe the claim, especially its theological underpinnings (on which the very claim is made).
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Well if theists are happy with their decisions then does it really matter that they haven't turned every single fucking stone?Believe it or not most people in the world don't have so much time to spend thinking about themselves. Is it so hard for you to accept selflessness?
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Well if theists are happy with their decisions then does it really matter that they haven't turned every single fucking stone?Why am I being cursed at (-_-)? And how does this address my response?
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Lol soz.Can't remember now....But it was something to do about how people are willing to accept God and live their lives as it is.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Well if unicornians think unicorns exist.. they have more proof than aunicornians saying they don't.So you'll be happy to provide me one unicorn.Athiesm relies on belief. You BELIEVE there is no God. You have no proof.You're just asserting. I already told you: I have no belief in god like I have no belief in unicorns or fairies.Tell me, is bald a hair colour?
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Iunno nothing about unicorns.So you have no belief in God? Like I don't have belief in Islam or Christianity.They exist though.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

So you have no belief in God? Like I don't have belief in Islam or Christianity.They exist though.The Brothers Grimm book of fairy tales exists but that doesn't mean The Frog Prince existed.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Theists: I don't have a way to demonstrate, scientifically, that God exists. I believe that he does.Atheists: I don't have a way to demonstrate, scientifically, that God exists. I don't believe that he does.Both rely on scientific proof. Thing about theists is they look beyond what is scientifically testable. Beyond what's right in front of everything in existence.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Theists: I don't have a way to demonstrate, scientifically, that God exists. I believe that he does.Atheists: I don't have a way to demonstrate, scientifically, that God exists. I don't believe that he does.Both rely on scientific proof. Thing about theists is they look beyond what is scientifically testable. Beyond what's right in front of everything in existence.You're doing it wrong, like Kinda.This is about Burden of Proof. When you make a positive claim about reality, it is expected that you defend that claim using either logic (this is where mathematical proof comes in, but it only applies to logic) or through evidence. If you lack evidence the default position is "negative."Think of it like "Innocent until proven guilty" only we're talking about claims and "unconvinced until evidence is provided."The burden of proof exists because without it, any claim no matter how absurd would be on equal footing with its denial.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

This is about Burden of Proof. When you make a positive claim about reality, it is expected that you defend that claim using either logic (this is where mathematical proof comes in, but it only applies to logic) or through evidence. If you lack evidence the default position is "negative."Very very wrong.First, the burden of proof is on the person that makes a claim. Not positive claims, but claims. Even negative claims must be proven.Second, logic, as well as philosophy, is as good as proof as scientific evidence. Denying logic as a valid proof as you did is mere scientism.Third, if you lack evidence, the default position is 'non-belief,' that is, you neither claim to be true, nor you claim it to be false. Demanding the default position to be negative is denialism.Fourth, evidence has been provided, both philosophical and logical ones. What you are demanding is scientific evidence, so let us at least be clear about this.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

First, the burden of proof is on the person that makes a claim. Not positive claims, but claims. Even negative claims must be proven.Negative claims must be proven when the positive claim has substance behind it. For example, the birthers who insist that there is no birth certificate must prove their case that Obama isn't a citizen by showing positive examples of negligence in his background check before entering a political career/being sworn in. Whereas Obama's legitimacy is substantiated by the national security involved in screening and monitoring political figures.Second, logic, as well as philosophy, is as good as proof as scientific evidence. Denying logic as a valid proof as you did is mere scientism.Looks like you made a categorical error. Logic is deductive, science is inductive. Logic is immutable when the premises are correct and the syllogism is consistent. Science cannot prove anything in the formal sense, but can give us very good certainty.Third, if you lack evidence, the default position is 'non-belief,' that is, you neither claim to be true, nor you claim it to be false. Demanding the default position to be negative is denialism.You're just trying to make a semantic argument dashed with some hyperbole. If a person makes an audacious claim with no evidence, we don't believe it, and we deny is until something of substance is put forward. Quibbling over this point is just a subtle way to lend legitimacy to unsupported claims by attacking the people who don't accept them as somehow being in denial.Fourth, evidence has been provided, both philosophical and logical ones. What you are demanding is scientific evidence, so let us at least be clear about this.No, I am demanding evidence that can pass the rigours of academic and scientific scrutiny. Every major claim about reality must do this, but "god" is immune to this requirement in the minds of most people for some reason.There are no logical arguments for god that stand up to scrutiny, they typically make the following errors: erroneous premise(es), non sequitur, emotional appeals or appeals to consequences, lack of consistency.Philosophy isn't a form of knowledge, it's a means to interpret knowledge, a perspective, and it can be a way to obtain knowledge.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Negative claims must be proven when the positive claim has substance behind it.The Burden of Proof states nothing like this. The Burden of Proof states that the person that makes the claim has to prove them. This rule is solely your. Keep in mind that making a negative claim is different from claiming that a claim is wrong. In fact, if I made a claim, and demanded you to prove me wrong, you would be correct to say that you are only under obligation of doing so if there is any "substance behind" my claim.To return your example back at you, assume that I insist that Obama is not American. This is a negative claim, since a negative claim is defined as a claim where I affirm that something (Obama) does not have a certain property (American citizenship), even if I word it affirmatively (Obama is a foreigner), but even if it is a negative claim, I am only under obligation to disprove it if there is a reason to believe your claim (Obama's parents are imigrants).Therefore, we can conclude that it does not matter if the claim is positive or negative, all are under Burden of Proof, and please do not confuse making a negative claim with demanding negative proof in the future.Science cannot prove anything in the formal sense, but can give us very good certainty.True. Science cannot prove anything in the formal sense, formal sense being defined as mathematical proofs that are beyond doubt, but what is your point, really? Are you arguing for a position of existencial nihilism or are you just arguing that if something cannot be proven beyond doubt, then it is not proven at all? Sure you've heard of the Theory of Justification, right?If a person makes an audacious claim with no evidence, we don't believe it, and we deny is until something of substance is put forward.Wrong (or maybe you really act like this, I am now not that sure anymore). You simply do not believe the person. There is a difference between not believing the person and claiming the person to be a liar, by affirming the opposite to be true until evidence is presented.No, I am demanding evidence that can pass the rigours of academic and scientific scrutiny. So, no, you are not demanding scientific evidence, you are only demanding scientific evidence? Is it? Because I see no difference between 'scientific evidence' and 'evidence that passed under rigorous academic and scientific scrutinity.'There are no logical arguments for god that stand up to scrutiny, they typically make the following errors (list)I'd like to review all of them with you, then. I think they stand to a lot of scrutiny.Philosophy isn't a form of knowledge, it's a means to interpret knowledge, a perspective, and it can be a way to obtain knowledge.Good, then we agree that one can accrue knowledge that one can affirm to be true solely through Philosophy? And thus, demands for scientific evidence, in detriment of philosophical reasoning is mere scientism?
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Mathematical proof is what you want. Here you go: visit http://www.ctmu.org/
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Mathematical proof is what you want. Here you go: visit http://www.ctmu.org/That provides a thesis, not a mathematical proof.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Yes, that is right. Believe or not believe that is depend on the thinking and belief of everybody. I don't care anymore, but in mind mine, i have a belief
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

To say that something is a belief is not to say it is beyond factual corroboration. Someone can say that the Holocaust never happened, but the fact of the matter is that we have certifiable proof that it did indeed happen.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

I never said it was.I don't really understand your point.Both theists and athiests believe (or KNOW) that God does or doesn't exist. Your point is valid against both.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

You insinuated that they were on equal terms as both are beliefs and that "going beyond what can be seen" somehow gives an advantage to theism. Such an insinuation is non-sense.We should consider only evidence, when evaluating which is better (if either). Atheism or Theism.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

I never insinuated nothing. Only the difference between the two.Theists are wiser than athiests. Just because something isn't right in front of your eyes or tangible doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or have an extreme influence in everything.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Just because something isn't right in front of your eyes or tangible doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.The fact that it cannot be measured or demonstrated is good reason to believe it does not exist. We do not need faith to know magnetism exists even though we cannot see it, because we can measure magnetic fields. That you postulate the existence of an entity that you cannot show even exists, is not a sign of wisdom.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Theists use faith to believe in what they cannot prove. Atheists believe that evidence is the logical basis for believing in something. It's not so much "what's right in front of our eyes" as much as any hint that God has ever existed. Example: Why would He damn people to hell for not believing in him if He hasn't given conclusive evidence that he exists?
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

I have faith in God's existence.Faith: " firm belief in something for which there is no proof"I also believe that it is nearly impossible for us to prove God's existence until we are dead. It is then that we either find God exists, by going to Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory (or some other form of the afterlife), or that He doesn't exist, by losing every form of sense perception and consciousness and rotting in the ground. The only way I can fathom proving His existence is if He shows Himself to the world and proves that He is, in fact, God by performing miracles or something. But that's probably not going to happen. ;)
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Tell me, do you believe in the tooth fairy also? Why should the "god" concept get a special place in your mind that requires no evidence? Everything we believe is scrutinised on some level.I think you know god doesn't exist but just want to believe he does for some reason.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Well I don't believe in the tooth fairy because I have somewhat strong proof that she doesn't exist. I know that my parents were the ones who put money under my pillow for each tooth (the most I ever got was $1 or $2, so I've always been jealous of the kid who gets $20! lol). However, for all I know, the tooth fairy could exist. Maybe not in this dimension, but maybe she exists in another dimension along with Santa, the Easter bunny, etc.We can never know everything. And there are even some things we rely on blind faith for. Perhaps God was made up long long ago, but my belief in Him has brought me nothing but peace of mind, good hope for the future, and a figurative ear to tell my secrets to. If He isn't real, then that doesn't bother me. Nobody can change my opinion because my belief in God is part of who I am. If that makes me less of a person in some people's eyes, then so be it. Because those who judge me to be less of a person for that sole reason are, themselves, poor in character themselves. :)
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

You are more powerful then your beliefs. I know when someone incorporates a belief into their identity then I immediately have some power over them, I just simply have to decide weather I'm going to use it. When I hear that someone believes in god, and know its strongly incorporated into their identity; I Instantly know of a few ways to manipulate them. The scary part is, I'm not the only one which knows. These processes of manipulation are open for more then just petty conmen to use, bad memes get passed around because of them. Their bad because of their detrimental effects. These things include: abstinence only sex education, us and them mentalities, "Obama is a socialist": which causes attention to be diverted from real issues and good opportunities to be blacklisted cause of their false association, I can go on. If I was to try to gain the most amount of control over you, the hardest challenge would be to revive god for you. God is already dead, you admit that in one of your counters to aveskde.  I pray as if everything relies on God and act as if everything relies on me.  This is good, but you still live with in his shadow. Most people are like you and This causes problems on a large scale. You might not be manipulable. god might just be like a baby blanket for you: carrying it around for comfort, so long as you don't trip on it you won't get hurt or hurt someone else by falling on them. Alot of people do indeed trip though, and that is a problem.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

I don't think less of you because you believe in god, I do however feel sad for you because you make something into a part of yourself that has no basis in reality. That seems messed up to me.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Don't feel sad for me. Am I living your life? No. So back off and stop trying to make me feel bad about being spiritual.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Don't feel sad for me. Am I living your life? No. So back off and stop trying to make me feel bad about being spiritual.You shouldn't expect people to give you a wide berth or automatic respect for beliefs you can't justify.My sympathies go out to people like you because I was once like that and know how wasteful such a life is.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

What's so wasteful? I don't rely on God's guidance to get me through my troubles. I pray as if everything relies on God and act as if everything relies on me. I'm not asking for your respect; to be honest, I don't even want it. What you think is "wasteful" may not be the same for everyone, so next time you make generalizations like that maybe think about people who are exceptions to your opinion.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

If a life spent believing in God is wasteful, then explain these people to me:Robert BoyleJohann Wolfgang von GoetheWilliam James SidisCarl JungIsaac NewtonGalileoMichelangeloJuhann GutenbergJames WattBlaise PascalAlexander FlemingBeethovenMendelBachBaconPasteur
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

If a life spent believing in God is wasteful, then explain these people to me:Robert BoyleJohann Wolfgang von GoetheWilliam James SidisCarl JungIsaac NewtonGalileoMichelangeloJuhann GutenbergJames WattBlaise PascalAlexander FlemingBeethovenMendelBachBaconPasteurThat's a supreme argument from authority. It doesn't vindicate you.Besides the fact that many of those people were religious in ways that the commonfolk would deem heretical, I must wonder how much more some of them might have achieved if they weren't obsessed with apologetics and theology.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

I must wonder how much more some of them might have achieved if they weren't obsessed with apologetics and theology.Who is to say that they would have achieved as much as they did?ORThe did achieve an extreme amount - what makes you think they'd have achieved any more?