azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

My argument is simple, the chance of a Jesus fulfilling all the old testament prophecies is as likely as a person choosing a marked, yet undetectable quarter, if Texas was covered in two layers of quarters. Furthermore, the pharasies did not deny Jesus's miracles, at the risk of being stoned to death, but instead claimed demonic influence.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

if you have heard of Pascal's wager you know that he said that if you believe in God and atheism is correct, you lose practically nothing, but if you are an atheist, and God is real, you suffer eternal damnation.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

Pascal's wager is incredibly lame , you're a believer yet if you've picked the wrong God and Allah is the one true God he will consign you also to a lake of fire
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

Definition of atheism1 a :a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any godsb :a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods~~~~The important thing to note here is that the definition of atheism does not use the word "God" with a capital "G", but "god" with a lower case "g".Atheists who deny God with a capital G are absolutely foolish, because the God they are denying is by Merriam-Webster's definition, "The supreme and/or ultimate reality". To deny such an entity is preposterous. Little "g" god on the other hand is defined by Merriam-Webster as..."a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship"Without knowing how to recognize these beings, it would be very easy to dismiss these gods as nonexistent. Surely they do exist, but they are by nature created beings.Another definition from Merriam-Webster that might be easier to grab on to is..."a powerful ruler"It takes less discernment to observe the fact that there are "powerful rulers" in the world. In that sense, there are clearly gods, and atheism is the denial of these gods.So while atheism by definition does not in fact deny The One True God as most atheists themselves seem to believe, it does deny the existence of lesser created gods. The fact that these "gods" are created does not make them any less existent than whoever is making the opinion that those gods do not exist.Is atheism a logical stance? I would say that atheism can be logical, that is, coming from valid reasoning, so long as the atheism in question does not deny God with a capital G. To deny "God" with a capital "G" is to undermine the validity of any statement you make. If you do not believe in "God", that means that you do not believe in the existence of truth. If truth does not exist, none of the claims you make pertaining to the truth could be correct. It is illogical to deny the existence of God, but it can be logical to deny the existence of gods.  That all said, logic is not what determines truth. Theism is defined as "belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically :belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world"Theism, specifically the belief in "God" with a capital "G", is the most logical stance you could have on anything. In fact, logic ceases to have any value without God. You can build an entire tree of logic off of faulty premises, and all of the conclusions you come up with will be logical and reasonable. However, being built off of faulty premises, the entire tree of logic is flawed. To base an entire tree of logic off of the premise that God does not exist undermines the validity of the entire tree of logic. In fact, without God, logic is in itself illogical. God Saves. The Truth is what sets you free.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

It is easy to see that our universe had a designer. I mean, take Constance for example. earth is the only know place to support human, animal, and plant life. Also, the earth is in the perfect position and it has the perfect amount of gasses. Oxygen, there is just enough of it to keep us breathing, but not igniting. Another thing, going back to how perfectly placed the earth is. If it were and closer or further from the sun, it could not sustain human life.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Before I argue my case, pray tell the definition of 'corruption' in the context you wish to discuss and the scope of the corruption (ergo, only the leader; the highest placed members of government; or everyone).Without considering my inquiries, one possible answer I see right now is Marcus Aurelius.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

To clarify, corruption here means political corruption which is the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain. Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_(political) ) for further clarification.Also, what a co-inky-dinky!! I was just listening to a podcast about him. I'm not too hot on my Roman history so you'll have to bear that in mind as you make your argument. But I do find it very interesting so do pile it on as much as you like.Btw, so far I can't think of any good arguments nor have I seen any good arguments which would justify a definitive answer to this question one way or the other. I've been supporting the "Yes" side to bring it towards a tie which really does reflect my understanding. If you start posting on "Yes" I may have to start posting on "No".:-D
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Challenge:___________--|The wager: +- 1 point--|The requirement: summarize --|___your previous message in a --|___single line.___________Do you accept
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Lol. One line is a tad short, how about a few?A sovereignty needs a centralized principality with one leader, the Prince; the Prince must not anger the people, if he does, they must rebel. (Read Machiavelli, and I'm not suggesting a dictatorship in its purest form.)How's that?
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Upon glancing at this debate I noted that you had written what may be the longest argument heretodate on this site, and being creative, pursued to see if you could refine it as I had hoped. It was mereley for fun, and not a reflection on either my inability to, or, my lack of will to, read. You see, I am a big fan of Einsteins lesser known quote: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough," not to claim you don't understand what it is you write (being as you clearly do).
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

True. It takes much greater understanding to explain something simply and early explanations are always very complicated because much of the understanding has yet to develop. Also, we shouldn't mistake simple for easy. Simple means calling on the fewest concepts where the concepts themselves could be anything from immediately transparent to requiring years of training to grasp. Just think of something like quantum theory. The equations are often very simple but you still need plenty of schooling to appreciate the simplicity.Considering the length of some philosophical treatise and how little understanding is actually conveyed, I get the distinct impression that philosophy has become the collection of questions which humanity has made virtually no progress with. As soon as some progress is made with a topic then it becomes it's own subject.Without offending any philosophers, but some philosophers do seem to want to obstruct the development of any understanding on a topic because they don't want to lose the ability to speak authoritatively on it. There's something quite archaic about someone who advances himself as an authority on all of the unrelated topics we know almost nothing about.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Simplicity is key to understanding any concept, but human nature as it is we adore complexity to make it more exclusive. Learning something that require years and great understanding versus a subject even a child can learn is a show of authority.Take being physically healthy, the concept is to eat right and exercise. Break it down into smaller bits and you have a nightmare.My long argument was an attempt to answer any why?'s before they occur. After years of political philosophy study I've arrived at the conclusion any sovereignty can be prosperous iff, if and only if, it follows the dogma of growth, strengthen, and maintenance in that cyclical order.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

My central dogma is maintenance, growth, and development. All three need to be served simultaneously. If you don't maintain the population and the physical structures then the society collapses in less than one generation. If you don't grow the population then the society collapses after one generation. If you don't have any scientific, technological or cultural developments then the society's ability to maintain and grow itself is limited to it's initial circumstances.I don't want anyone disputing this. It's my dogma. And as we all know, we should always respect other people's dogma especially when it's utterly ridiculous and they intend to take political action based on it. ;)
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

I'm not sure I'm satisfied by that definition of corruption; a more coherent definition might be the use of authority against the consent or interests of those subject to that authority.The reason is that corrupt acts or policies might cause no private gain, or may even cause public gain. For instance of the former, an authority may create economic policies known to worsen economic conditions for the whole of the population it governs, including those in authority. For instance of the latter, an authority may engage in a war of conquest against a foreign population, but share the spoils with the population it governs.I think both are clear cases of corruption, but not necessarily with clear private advantage.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Your alternative makes no sense. You'd be waiting a long time for a convicted murderer, subject to the authority of a judge, to actually consent to the sentence handed down.Absence of corruption largely pertains to private neutrality i.e. officers stand neither to make private gains nor incur private losses through the exercise of their powers. Once we have private neutrality, we can discuss whether the officer is displaying competent exercise of those powers.1. public loss/neutrality with private gain is corrupt;2. public loss/neutrality with private loss/neutrality is incompetent;3. public gain with private gain/loss is untenable;4. public gain with private neutrality is the ideal;We're disputing #3. I argue that gain/gain and gain/loss should both still be considered corrupt as they readily lead to corruption. Either because the officer maintains the decision even after the public no longer gains or because the officer changes the decision to avoid a personal loss even while the public would still stand to gain.A good example of private losses incurred in the exercise of power is the matter of travel expenses. These should always be reimbursed in full. This is common practice. The asymmetry in common practice is that private gains are not declared and surrendered to the office. Without that, all officers always have an ulterior motive for taking office.Neutrality is the ideal situation and is what I'm driving at by the phrase absent of corruption.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Governments without corruption can exist. As long as they listen to the people, don't support the corrupt corporations and don't except their demands. They can exist
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: Yes

Governments without corruption can exist.Ok. How?As long as they listen to the people, don't support the corrupt corporations and don't except their demands.But is listening to the people and ignoring the corporations sufficient to preclude corruption? Well, it's easy to ignore corporations when they don't exist and they didn't always exist but corrupt governments where still seen. I'm sure corporate corruption contributes a fair amount to government corruption but I don't think it is the only cause.Also, it is possible to listen to the people by pursuing popular projects while simultaneously giving project sub-contracts to the company tied for top rank in the industry which is also offering the largest bribe. In that situation, you would be listening to the people and making illegitimate personal gain from exercise of your legislated powers.They can existI agree. But I dispute that your suggestions would be sufficient to bring that about. Please provide a fuller explanation for me to get my teeth into.Thanks for posting.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Yes IF the elected leaders are not corrupt.I still believe that these people exist in the modern day society.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

No. Having power always leads to corruption. History has proved that.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

The only thing history proves is that most do not learn from it. Power does not lead to corruption, mis-management of power leads to corruption; just as knowledge is not power but potential power.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

People in government are elected officials, which means they care more about getting re-elected than doing their duty.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Politicians get elected into their respective offices by popular vote, and to obtain these votes they must please the people. If they fail to do so, they would not be re-elected. The way to pleasing the people is to do as the people want. Since they are being re-elected clearly they are doing their duties.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

That's what they want you to think. Politicians are liars and will say anything to get elected.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Let's say politicians are liars--they say anything to get into their offices. They want to stay there so they will say anything to get re-elected, and they get placed back into their offices.If they failed the people the first time, why did the people allow them back in? Are the people insane as defined by Einstein? or just plain stupid? If the people are insane, what politicians do won't really matter to the people; and if the people are ignorant, what politicians do, again, won't really matter to the people as they are unable to tell the difference between positive and negative policies. Either way, it's a moot point.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Do you ever watch the news? Haven't you heard all the political scandals and lies? John Edwards, Nicolas Sarkozy etc. You think presidents keep their promises from their campaigns? Politicians know what people like to hear.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Of course I watch the news, this is a debate forum though, the whole idea is to debate. So convince me I'm wrong, or prove you are right.You say politicians are liars, that they are corrupt and their only objective is to enter offices of power and remain there long as possible; to achieve their objective they give empty promises to the people for votes.So any promise given by a politician is empty. Thus nothing gets done, and the time they are in power, which is always, nothing gets done? What exactly are they doing then, and things government related, such as public education, social security, welfare, roads, utilities, etc., ought not be there, so why are they there?On a different note, politicians are liars and the people know they are liars with empty promises of hope and a better tomorrow, why elect them to be politicians? Unless to lie is to be a politician, this way the people should always vote for the best liars with the best empty promises, because what they want is an organized and systematic group of soothe sayers to offer them hope and salvation. Isn't that churches are for?
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

So any promise given by a politician is empty. Thus nothing gets done and the time they are in power, which is always, nothing gets done? What exactly are they doing then, and things government related, such as public education, social security, welfare, roads, utilities etc, ought not to be there so why are they there?I not saying there aren't any good politicians . There are some.Currently our public education system is failing, social security is turning into a pyramid scheme, welfare is costing tax payers millions, not just roads, but our whole infrastructure needs an upgrade, but we don't have the money, and our grid needs an update to be able to handle new green energy, but it's too expensive.I see your point, but you seem think politicians are good people who set aside their own agendas to serve the people. Even when they are in office they put themselves first. It's human nature to be greedy.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Currently our public education system is failing, social security is turning into a pyramid scheme, welfare is costing tax payers millions, not just roads, but our whole infrastructure needs an upgrade, but we don't have the money, and our grid needs an update to be able to handle new green energy, but it's too expensive.Some things are meant to profit, others to lose, and others to break even. Not everything is about profit. The American dollar loses value at five per cent per annum, or a half life of 13.5 years, but about 90 years for a dollar to lose all value. The current system is similar to a zero sum game, but it's not quite so because of inflation, importation and exportation. If there is more exportation, it would result in a positive sum game; if more importation, a negative sum game; to have a zero sum game, we need no importation and no exportation.Let's examine the US Gross Domestic Product, the government uses faulty accounting to suggest the nation is fine, but in fact it is not.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Now you are arguing your own point. You said the government wasn't corrupt. Now you are saying they deliberately create things to lose profits? That is not like them. They want to keep the money flowing. We can't have a zero sum game because our economy is based on growth. So we need more exportation and less importation.I agree that the nation is not fine.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Where did you get the perception I thought the US government isn't corrupt. I maybe arguing on the side of possible existence of a government without corruption, but I've never argued for no corruption of US officials. I was just trying to convince you that you were wrong.Okay, some examples: fossil fuel is a depleting resource, so it's meant for loss, and it's negative sum; agriculture, proper management can increase or decrease a population and also non-profit; acts such as war and taxation are for profit, also positive sum.Our GDP is base on zero-sum. To determine GDP, either add up all expenses of households/consumers or all gains of producers, this essentially means zero-sum. But it's just bad GAAP.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

So we both agree that the government is corrupt and also agree that capitalism is good because it makes profits.I see what your saying. We have positive and negative sums so we have a zero sum. We also tend to have more positive sums so we can make profits.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

I see your point, but you seem think politicians are good people who set aside their own agendas to serve the people. Even when they are in office they put themselves first. It's human nature to be greedy.I never said I believe politicians are good; I might have lead you to believe so, but I said no such thing. Human nature is not greed, our nature is to create. Money is just a mean to an end. If your only objective is money, the easiest way to amass it is by robbery and counterfeiting.As stated above our money does rot, maybe slower than flesh but it does. Any person who wishes to survive with some standard of living must obtain a store of value of five per cent annually compounding. There are many ways to go about this.The concept of the invisible hand by Adam Smith states that every person ought to act out of self interest and this will benefit society as a whole. Of course this is base on the assumption everyone in the economy is rational.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Greed is only part of human nature. The easiest way to get money is not to commit robbery- too many security cameras, the vaults in banks are really strong. Not counterfeiting either- money is increasingly becoming more difficult to counterfeit. Special inks and dyes, special paper, tiny patterns and security threads.Adam Smith described a key principle of capitalism. Of course not everybody is rational
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Say greed is a part of human nature; if so: "...greed, for a lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA." Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas), Wall Street, 1988.The saying "crime pays" exists for a reason. I didn't say rob a bank (you can though, just send a hundred pounds of C4 to a hospital fist; not that you should, just hypothetical), there are plenty of methods for stealing money. Ever heard the words Ponzi or boiler room? And if you make funny money, they don't need to look real, just have to convince people they're real; ever receive bank's savings account interest? Governments are the first counterfeiters anyhow, heard of gold certificates?Everyone is rational, act to receive the best payoff for themselves, just not logical, act to receive optimal payoff for everyone or the nation as a whole.Let's play a game, a person gives you ten dollars to split with me, if I accept we get the money, if I reject we get nada. How much would you offer me?