azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

Because Lucifer was an ignorant asshole, that’s why.You can't chalk this up to ignorance. Lucifer was one of Yahweh's top angels, if anybody knew it would have been lucifer. This is a double-point, because God must have known that Lucifer would rebel and lead humans astray (according to your mythology) when he created him.And I stated that whilst it does not always follow from insult, it does often, and that is one of those times.Based on?? A hunch? A gut reaction? Your feeling? Do not think your bald assertions hold weight here.You clearly didn’t comprende. Time is different to Him therefore when you act indignant that He did not come sooner, you are again talking in the language of time.I heard you the first time, It doesn't address the problem that I've pointed out with your explanation.YES or NO question: Does God's perception of time impair his ability to 'save' mankind?-If YES, then he is not omnipotent.-if NO, then you cannot use it as a reason.Said/believed, same difference.No. No, it's not.Either way you implied something false.Based on?? A hunch? A gut reaction? Your feeling?The example you give is not a very good one as the author of this book is aware of how evil Satan is and is not in agreement with him, so obviously does not believe what Satan does.Authors you mean. It also doesn't follow that because he (Lucifer) is evil, that he is unaware of Yahweh's Power.Furthermore, you said "authors", this is plural yet you gave one example.The other example, I've stated many times: the great Deluge.If you could see the future and never made mistakes, you would never need to fix those mistakes. You wouldn't need an eraser, but that's precisely what the deluge (the flood) is. If God knew he was going to have to wipe out humanity and restart with Noah and his wife, then not just start out with Noah and his wife in the first place?They say he can do anything. That is enough, surely. An omnipotent being can do anythingYet we are told that he cannot sin, cannot deny himself, cannot lie, and cannot create a being greater than himself.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

Why thank you for the correction in my error of grammarIt wasn't meant to be a grammar correction, but one of factual pertinence. oh and by the way it is 'irrelevant', not "irrelevent". Two can play that game, mister smart Alec.Excuse me, if my Spanish is not up to par, it's been a long time since I took any formal Spanish classes.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

Bohemian, regrettably, I just don't have time for our debate at the moment. I have a job and family to be getting on with and my social life is hectic right now. I have enjoyed parts of our discussion but I think it is safe to say it was never really going anywhere as we are both firmly sticking to our guns and will not be moved. I predict you will say something along the lines of "I win" or "by definition of your post, I win" and feel free to do so but I just don't have the time to continue here - and lets face it, it was kind of dull! God bless you.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

If you were to quit in a fit of anger, then yes I would (and did) accuse you of losing the debate. If you say you don't have time to finish this, I will take your word for it. This time that you quit without the anger, tells me you are getting better at this. So perhaps you have learned a little something from our discourse, that is good.I can understand how CD can become a huge time sink. If you ever suddenly find yourself with more time, you can always finish the argument when you are ready.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

Well I will let you think that if it makes you feel better... we can have a debate elsewhere or perhaps even here if you like but we will just have to make it shorter and focus on one or two points only so that each post does not take so long to put together.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

I don't understand how we can't have perspective on our own religion and you assume that you are the smartest person on any given debate? Don't hide behind your over inflated self ego when you don't have an argument to make. I am not saying this because I agree with what the other guy said, he was clearly out of line and he barely made a coherent argument to any of your points. Maybe you do know more about Christianity than I do but that doesn't mean I have nothing to contribute to the argument, even if that is just a new perspective on the argument.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

I don't think I'm the smartest on any debate. I do know that this new crop of Christians, who come in waves every month or so, have no new arguments.If you can debate me use logic and don't make assumptions of my argument based on nothing but what you imagine one who is no longer Christian must feel - no offense to you personally, but this is a rotating door.The fact is I can and have made better arguments for Christianity than any Christian on this site, but I did it only as the "devils advocate" (and apologies for that specific analogy) of how a Christian on a particular debate should have made their point.I won't waste my time though with juvenile arguments I used to make when I was 10.Perspective means one understands multiple point of view. I, having been raised Christian, points out perspective - that I understand that point of view; while the one I'm debating does not seem to understand much of anything.- bold for emphasis and not a quote-You do not have to have experienced multiple religions or to have ever been an atheist to have perspective, as a direct answer to your argument. Some lack the capacity to hear what others are saying unless they at some point have said it them self though.Without a doubt that the brightest professor I've ever learned from was Christian. He taught Biblical Theory and could answer nearly every argument I could put forward. His ilk apparently does not populate this site though, it's all preaching and self-righteous indignation. I say that to point out the base of Christianity is not utterly meritless and lacking the capacity to make a coherent point to the rest of the world, they just don't on this site.I would love a coherent lively debate from a theist. Maybe the internet only attracts a particular breed of the religious, or maybe I simply have not run into them. You seem level-headed. If you want to debate me, learn your religion and something about debate and philosophy, and we'll have a good time (if you like to debate, which is why I'm on this site, I like to debate).Posting on a debate site for the sole purpose of preaching makes little sense. The title debate itself assumes those here would not be interested in simply hearing sentences without explanation.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

I do agree that it was stupid and against the general idea of this site for him to point out a very slight grammar mistake you made. Just thought I would say that not every Christian on this site needs to act like a 5 year old to validate their points.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

you may know alot but that doent mean you are worthy to judge christians only god should do that
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

repost, site frozeThe minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

Eh ?
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

I don't believe Jesus ever livedI'm Agnostic and I believe the man lived... he wasn't the messiah of anything, but the man most likely did exist.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

What proof do you have that would lead you to say "most likely"? There is no evidence from the time period and not a word was written of this person until nearly 200 years after. That's a long time to remember something without the internet, television or even newspapers.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

I don't need any proof as there really isn't any one way or the other... it's a matter of opinion. I wouldn't expect anything to be written about someone who wasn't considered to be that important at the time... as for 200 years? That's not that long, it could have been accomplished within 3 or 4 generations at the time.... things got passed along from generation to generation... the really story probably changed a million times but that doesn't mean that some of these people weren't real...
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

thank you even if you dont believe hes messiah at least you have enough common sense to know he existed
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

It is established historical fact that Jesus lived, the thing really up for dispute is whether or not he was a divine being. And you assume that because someone is a Christian they won't understand a direct reference from the bible? I agree that many Christians today are the modern version of the pharisees, they are not true Christians. Don't try and act condescending because you believe you have a higher intelligence than all Christians because they believe in something you don't.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

Religious belief requires a certain type of unconscious intelligence, perhaps an instinct is a better word for it but it shows a great deal of sophistication, for in it one finds a masterful self-deception; where needs are meet despite the lack of resources. The mind creates a conviction out of thin air, and from it fuels a life. The men whom find religious convictions unfulfilling , require more than a set of mere propositions to fuel it. They need an argument, with propositions made from earth and stone. Where else is intelligence as employed, than amongst a labyrinth of logical relations which comprises valid arguments? The nonreligious may lack the aforementioned instinct, and at times starve because of it; but that is because a more conscious intelligence has consumed it out of them...and spat it out. Not always, but in general; the non-religious are consumed with an intelligence which require more than a religion can provide. Well nearly always, if not always, you will find the same instinct amongst the religious which requires of them nothing but an unfounded conviction.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

So what about St. Augustine? A man who by his own admittance suffered from this need for reasoning you are talking about, yet when he worked through the logic of God he came to the conclusion that he is in fact real. I am also a believer in religion, but I don't do so blindly as it seems you are saying I do.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

If I may interject. Religious convictions encompass more than the mere existence of God, while some may use logic to come to the conclusion that God exist, no set of self-evident premises or line of deductive reasoning would cause someone to conclude that the totality of some religious doctrine is true. Only through faith can someone come to that conclusion.As Mr. Benjamin Franklin once said "To see by faith is to close the eye of reason".
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

Sorry it took so long to respond to you, I didn't notice you even posted :D But although you may be right in saying that you cannot prove an entire religion through logic, I have yet to hear a Scientific explanation that satisfactorily proves where we came from with evidence of their logic throughout the entire theory. I believe it is insulting that most scientists refuse to even acknowledge creationism as a distinct possibility. It just isn't good scientific process, unless you have fully disproven a hypothesis or theory, you cannot just write it off. At least that is my understanding of the scientific process. Again sorry it took forever to respond and if you never even see this then no hard feelings :D
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

But although you may be right in saying that you cannot prove an entire religion through logic, I have yet to hear a Scientific explanation that satisfactorily proves where we came from with evidence of their logic throughout the entire theory.This is faulty reasoning. For the sake of argument, lets say that all of the scientific explanations lacked evidence, this would in no way lend more support to your position because it also lacks evidence.But I digress, I believe there is plenty of evidence for both the Big Bang and Evolution (I assume you were referring to). What would constitute "satisfactory proof" depends on the person. If such satisfactory proof were ever provided and it undermined that person's sense of morality and purpose in the world, then of course they are going to have an impossibly high standard of what constitutes "satisfactory proof".I believe it is insulting that most scientists refuse to even acknowledge creationism as a distinct possibility.Scientists don't exclude creationism as an Explanation out of some prejudice, Creationism is excluded because the nature of it's claims are beyond the ability of scientific methodology to test and verify. Science by definition is a systematic study of natural phenomena. Because creationism deals with supernatural causes, it cannot be tested scientifically. You can always assert that the supernatural is ultimately behind some natural process, but this will only ever be conjecture.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

A single example does not disprove a general trend. I, for instance, know of many idiotic atheists. However, as a general trend, atheism and religious conviction are inversely correlated. The article I cited found a R^2 value of 0.6, meaning that there is a 60% correlation- which is highly significant.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4SD1KNR-1&_user=10&_coverDate=02/28/2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_ sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ae750d9100eeb3ef20018c305fc98891&searchtype=a I understand that this is only the synopsis- it was all that I was able to access as well. Luckily, it gives the information needed for a statistical inference
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

Sometimes that need for reasoning is held hostage, it becomes infected with the instinct previously mentioned; and turns against itself. If st Augustine would of actually found a logical proof for god, then I'm sure it would be quite popular. All religious believers do such blindly, because they do such by faith; which is always "blind",or without evidence, by definition.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

Unless you come to the conclusion that God is the only logical explanation for how we came to be. Many scientific theories nowadays that explain our origin, I find easy to disprove, or at the very least find a problem in their reasoning.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

That you find fault in them perhaps, but to disprove a scientific theory is another matter entirely. That you see the existence of God as the only logical reason for how we came to be, perhaps influences your perception of the before-mentioned theories. I sincerely believe that God isn't the only logical explanation for human existence. The only logical conclusion I see that one could come to in regards to God's role in origins, is that where God works with or as the natural laws that we study everyday to create what we now have. To evoke the supernatural, I think would be a defiance of logic.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

Logically, you can only claim a first cause as a possibility. You can't then extrapolate that out into an entire religion, not without further logic and evidence at least.ultimately the universe is absurd, either something always was, something came from "nothing", or another incomprehensible thing; why would someone choose one absurdity over another?Scientific theories don't really explain our origin(and I would contest that something can), they just tell us what the evidence seems to entail. What may be coined the "big three" scientific theories are:The "BigBang",which explosion is a bad metaphor for, comes from the Doppler affect(which you can experience at a racetrack), It also finds evidence among other phenomenon. Abiogenesis, I don't know much about I'm more into physics then chemistry, but I do know various experiments have lead credence to life or proto-life being able to come about by different conditions which may of occurred on earth many years ago. Evolution, Is really just "natural selection" over a long course of time.Abiogenesis is probably the weakest of the three, but then again I'm the most ignorant of it out of the three above. I would say the weakest idea, that is the least logically supported and the one with a complete lack of empirical evidence(by definition really), is that of a supernatural creator. Its really an untestable hypothesis, and I know of no logic which strongly supports the existence of a god, especially a particular god. I'm always willing to listen to new arguments, but most of them I have heard before. Religion seems to me to be primarily of a emotional nature, a good number of people I know became religious or more open to it after a loved one died or another tragedy. A few I know are religious because of some properties of their lives.For example, inadequate parents which fail to provide for all their needs and hence religion is a substitute, . It seems religion is a complex coping mechanism, which I am fine with...usually.However religion can create problems, and there are simply better ways to cope(like acceptance).
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

Although natural selection has quite a bit of evidence, I do not dispute that we are not the same as we were when God first created us. But I find it very hard to believe that we evolved from single cells into what we are today. When you think about something that we take for granted every day like our eyes, it is hard to believe that something so complex could ever just simply happen. The first thing that would have to happen was that an organism would have to grow a sack of fluids and complex cells in order to even begin to see. But then it has also has to grow a second for depth perception and then even more complex cells to see different colors and distinguish them. And theoretically the first "animal" to develop these eyes would have to at the very same time develop brain mechanisms to interpret the information the eyes would send. The odds of any one of these things happening are beyond astronomical, but all of them? and thats just one piece of our bodies. I admit I have never heard of this Abiogenesis but I will definitely look into what it entails. When it comes to the "Big Bang Theory" I don't think you are correct in saying it comes from the doppler effect, but we use the doppler effect (with light) to determine where and how fast the planets are moving. So from evidence provided by the doppler effect they have extrapolated that all the planets are moving outwards from a single point of origin. But in the end I feel like we do not know nearly enough about our own solar system let alone the universe to make these complex theories trying to explain what we see. I do agree that there is very little empirical evidence to support God. The only instance I can truly think of is when miracles have been performed but seeing as everyone refuses to accept the bible as viable source it is impossible to prove one way or another. I feel like miracles are evidence of God because they are by definition things that shouldn't be possible according to our scientific laws.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

Evolution isn't blind chance or something simply happening, its natural laws working in concert. Keep in mind that evolution has occurred over a long time span as well, and every day there is an astronomical number of changes in an "complex" organisms DNA. So the more "complex" a species becomes, the more variability and diversity it has to draw on to evolve. The more evolved, the more evolution(well in some situations).Also, in "simpler" organisms symbiotic and parasitic relationships are more common, the sponge is less one organism and more of many in that it can be cut into pieces and survive(and reproduce that way, so long as two of its cell types stay together)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge#Asexual. Even though it is classified as an animal.  A simple eye might be able to be created by having bacteria sensitive to light communicate and form a symbiotic relationship with another form of bacteria not sensitive to light. From here adjustments and improvements can be made. Nature is often surprisingly elegant, and we shouldn't restrict what it can do without evidence.Although, I must state I am simply spinning ideas to show how evolution isn't so very unlikely; I'm not a biologist so the exact details of the evolution of the eye I'm just guessing at but the general theory of evolution I believe I grasp quite well. Abiogenesis is interesting, I wish more people has heard about it, since it is often confused with evolution. The "Big bang" come from a multitude of things, but the Doppler shift of stars and other galaxies set it off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Motivation_and_development Also, technically; ah... this might sound weird, but its not so much that the planets are moving but rather that the space between them is expanding. What more specifically do you think we need to know? Perhaps miracles would be good evidence for god, if they could be repeated and verified as such, but if they could be repeated then they could probably be explained as a natural law after some refinements were made to scientific theories. So miracles are actually in a tight spot as evidence.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

1) which very academic university, might I ask?2) Pharisees- a sect of Jews rather than christians- DO exist today, as Rabbinic Judaism is the progeny of the pharisees of the roman period. And although your assumption that (most) people would not understand your reference may or may not have been correct, generally debaters try to clarify their statements.For those who are interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: yes

1. Gonzaga2. I was talking to Christians... are you saying most Christians don't know who the pharisees were? I wasn't trying to confuse anyone tiger. I was talking about their boisterous insistence on their own holiness while plotting to undermine the actual message of Jesus - how they are portrayed in the bible, which I guess was confusing to someone. The point was, Christians are the same today, they insist on some holy high ground they hold while consistently pursuing social policies that make the earth a grimmer, darker place.A very simple comparison, not a riddle. Anyone who had actually read the bible should have been able to understand it within my context without looking up a single thing.
Debate: Remove "In God We Trust" from pledge and U.S. Currency
Side: No

i am a high school freshman i know what you mean and i am a christian. please get your facts straight plus christians are just trying to serve their nation