azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

Regardless of what my true opinion is, humanity needs God. Humanity needs something to believe in, something to live for, something to hope for, something to wait forI belive in myself.I live for my dreams and my loved ones.I hope for the human being to become less stupid.I wait for nothing, I go get it.Without a God, humanity would be meaningless, are lives would be meaningless, and the thing that truly defines humanity would be lost.Replace the word "God" by "inteligence" and it will make more sense. But still, no life is meaningless, regardless of it's beliefs. Are shrimps meaningless? I don't recall them having a god... yet they are what they are. And they taste splendidly. :DHumans are animals just as shrimps are. Yet inteligent and proficient animals. Without a god they would be just the same.Perhaps the Gods we worship on this earth today were created by those that came before us.At this point you were going in the right direction. You were almost there.... but you let it slip.I think not. Look at the bible, it's huge. Who would have honestly been bothered to come up with all that stuff. No-one is that boring.Victor Hugo wrote an even bigger and boring story called Les Misérables. Although it's a great story, it's damn boring to read. Many other people wrote even bigger and more boring stuff. Remember one thing, there was no TV at their age. I will pray for you.Dont' bother. I'd feel better if you take the praying time and do something fun or useful to yourself instead.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

I attend a school, which is partially run by Benedictine Monks, their faith is so real it is incredible, if you saw that, felt the power of the abbey during mass, it would be hard not to believe.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

...So you are believing in something just because you were intimidated by their process of mass, well sir you clearly got one logical argument there. Yup that makes perfect sense.(sarcasm)
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

I believe Marx had something to say on this, he said "Religion is the opiate of the masses".
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

yes god is true have faith ask him for anything in it done the bible is the true his always around even if you don't believe him he believe in you have faith is all you need just a little trust in him
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

Absolutely, faith is a major factor for us to have as Christians.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

who made us ? who gave us the hands to type? who gave these eyes to see? god!the almighty
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

who made us ? who gave us the hands to type? who gave these eyes to see? god!the almightySee, I always thought it was your parents who gave you those things through this process called heredity. I guess chromosomes cannot split themselves.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

God made the first itty-bitty organisms, and guided their evolution into our parents, and from our parents into us.And no, chromosomes can't split themselves. That's what spindle fibers are for.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

God made the first itty-bitty organisms,Why? It's simpler to assume that the organisms developed naturally.and guided their evolution into our parents, and from our parents into us.If we evolved then god didn't make us.And no, chromosomes can't split themselves. That's what spindle fibers are for.That was my point.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

Do explain, how did they develop naturally?And why can God not have made us through evolution?
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

"And why can God not have made us through evolution?" Because the Bible tells us that he created the world in six days. Evolution and Christianity contradict each other. Do not implant man's theories into the inerrant word of God.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

And every Catholic religion teacher pointedly states that when the Bible says "six days" it does not literally mean "six days." The Bible is not to be taken literally. Six days is symbolic. The Church does not ignore evolution, and Catholic schools actually teach evolution.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

Catholics are wrong to believe in evolution. And they are wrong to repent to a man (priest) when you are to repent only to Jesus Christ. "The Bible is not to be taken literally." Are you insane? The six days is literal, yom means day not a symbolic time. 2 Esdras 6:38-54 "I said, “O Lord, you spoke at the beginning of creation, and said on the first day, ‘Let heaven and earth be made,’ and your word accomplished the work. 39 Then the spirit was blowing, and darkness and silence embraced everything; the sound of human voices was not yet there.k 40 Then you commanded a ray of light to be brought out from your store-chambers, so that your works could be seen. 41 “Again, on the second day, you created the spirit of the firmament, and commanded it to divide and separate the waters, so that one part might move upward and the other part remain beneath. 42 “On the third day you commanded the waters to be gathered together in a seventh part of the earth; six parts you dried up and kept so that some of them might be planted and cultivated and be of service before you. 43 For your word went forth, and at once the work was done. 44 Immediately fruit came forth in endless abundance and of varied appeal to the taste, and flowers of inimitable color, and odors of inexpressible fragrance. These were made on the third day. 45 “On the fourth day you commanded the brightness of the sun, the light of the moon, and the arrangement of the stars to come into being; 46 and you commanded them to serve humankind, about to be formed. 47 “On the fifth day you commanded the seventh part, where the water had been gathered together, to bring forth living creatures, birds, and fishes; and so it was done. 48 The dumb and lifeless water produced living creatures, as it was commanded, so that therefore the nations might declare your wondrous works. 49 “Then you kept in existence two living creatures;l the one you called Behemothm and the name of the other Leviathan. 50 And you separated one from the other, for the seventh part where the water had been gathered together could not hold them both. 51 And you gave Behemothn one of the parts that had been dried up on the third day, to live in it, where there are a thousand mountains; 52 but to Leviathan you gave the seventh part, the watery part; and you have kept them to be eaten by whom you wish, and when you wish. 53 “On the sixth day you commanded the earth to bring forth before you cattle, wild animals, and creeping things; 54 and over these you placed Adam, as ruler over all the works that you had made; and from him we have all come, the people whom you have chosen." Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy."These are six literal days of creation. There is no "interpretation" here, it is written in historical narrative not figurative.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

And you ignore scientific proof?Catholic priests ordained by those before them. This line can be traced all the way back to the Apostles, who were ordained by Jesus Christ. Jesus allows us to forgive.If you don't mind my asking, what religion are you, and who are you arguing for? You're argument is tagged "no, god is not true," however, you appear to believe that He exists.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

"If you don't mind my asking, what religion are you, and who are you arguing for? You're argument is tagged "no, god is not true," however, you appear to believe that He exists." I had hit dispute instead of support. I am a Protestant and an Apologetic Christian.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

"And you ignore scientific proof?" What proof is that? The proof that secular scientists (who deny there is a God) interpret to support their ideology, and excluding the evidence that contradicts them. We confess our sins to Jesus for he is the only one that can forgive us. 1 John 1:9 "But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all wickedness."
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

Not all scientists deny God. In fact, a whole load of them are quite religious.Okay, I can understand someone arguing that there is no proof of religion, at which point I inform them. However, arguing that there is no proof of evolution was unexpected. I assume you have some amount of education? You can find proof in a seventh grade science textbook, not to mention more informative sources.We confess our sins to Jesus. And Jesus created the Eucharist, and lives in all of us. And Jesus taught us to forgive.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

Look at the evidence of evolution. Most of it is 'artwork' not evidence. A severe lack of transitional forms and flawed dating methods are not evidence. "You can find proof in a seventh grade science textbook, not to mention more informative sources." If the limits of your education are that of a 7th grader, then their presented evidence should suffice. "And Jesus taught us to forgive." We are to forgive those who trespass against us. But we can't forgive the sins of those who trespass others. And the redeemer of all sin is Jesus Christ.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

"God made the first itty-bitty organisms"or, rather than believe that some ultramegapowerfulmysterious person made life, you can take a look at iron sulfur world theory.There is experimental evidence that suggests that iron sulfur particles are capable of setting up a lipid bilayer and self-sustaining metabolism given enough heat, such as in a volcanic vent.Iron and sulfur are both very common, and an iron sulfur particle is simple enough to form spontaneously. So, G-d did not need to make itty-bitty organisms when they can, indeed, form from the earth spontaneously.and if you argue that G-d made the iron sulfide particles, I would ask where G-d came from.and if you say that G-d does not need a creator, I would ask why the universe needs a creatorand if you say that G-d does not follow the laws of the universe, I would say that he is in trouble with the physics police. If you can make up an argument that is free of logic, then you are not being logical.goodness, these arguments with the blindly faithful are becoming so predictable I can have one all by myself!
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

But who created the processes to reproduce. It was God who created them.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

Why does some intelligence had to have made us? The watchmaker argument is logically untenable...non sequitur. Much, Much, MUCH more evidence supports evolution than creationism.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

It is incredible that of all places, we find ourselves on a planet that supports life? For if earth did not support life, we would not be here to argue how amazing that simple fact must be, yes?But life does appear here, incredibly, and this life happens to be the right sort of life for the environment on earthAnd how amazing it is how the Icecube tray, forms itself perfectly around the shape of the ice cube?Being that the earth is much more static than the life which inhabits it, is it not more reasonable and likely that Life adapted to the earth, rather than the earth being refined to accommodate life? After all we have discovered mechanisms by which this can occur.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

It is incredible that of all places, we find ourselves on a planet that supports life? For if earth did not support life, we would not be here to argue how amazing that simple fact must be, yes?That is arguing that because we exist we must exist because of your reasons. I say it is far more likely that we exist because of God. I am not arguing that we do not exist, because I think.And how amazing it is how the Icecube tray, forms itself perfectly around the shape of the ice cube?Not at all, because it doesn't. How this adds to your argument, I do not know. Unless you are suggesting that the Earth formed perfectly around it's inhabitants. This is preposterous. Besides, the ice cube has no specific shape. It is merely the shape of the container it was in before it froze. As the icecube tray is this container, it will obviously be that shape.Being that the earth is much more static than the life which inhabits it, is it not more reasonable and likely that Life adapted to the earth, rather than the earth being refined to accommodate life? After all we have discovered mechanisms by which this can occur.Here's a little bitty thing. You're a living being, right? So, if I throw you into a room with no air, water, or food, but with chlorine gas, acid pools, and rock, will you adapt? No, you wouldn't live long enough to have even the slightest possibility of adapting. If I threw you in with a load of other folks and you bred really quickly to try to evolve, it would still not be fast enough for you to survive it.Sure, life might have slowly adapted to different climates or whatever, so long as they start out in a survivable place. But the fact that Earth had any possibility of supporting life is quite incredible. I'm not saying the Earth ever had to change to support life. I'm saying that's how it was made, and the purpose for which it was made.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

That is arguing that because we exist we must exist because of your reasons. I say it is far more likely that we exist because of God. I am not arguing that we do not exist, because I think.How you came to this conclusion based on what I said, is beyond me. I wasn't arguing this at all. Perhaps you didn't understand. let me phrase this in another way.There are billions perhaps trillions of planets, maybe more. For the sake of argument let's say that the conditions on every planet are completely random (they aren't). Now if we pick a planet at random, that chances of that planet supporting life are very slim. Increase the pool of planets, and you increase the chance of finding one that supports life. Considering the sheer number of planets, surely you will find at least one that could support life, yes? Your argument assumes that we were "destined" to live on this specific rock.Here's a little bitty thing. You're a living being, right? So, if I throw you into a room with no air, water, or food, but with chlorine gas, acid pools, and rock, will you adapt? No, you wouldn't live long enough to have even the slightest possibility of adapting. If I threw you in with a load of other folks and you bred really quickly to try to evolve, it would still not be fast enough for you to survive it.First of all, we are not speaking simply of Human life, we are speaking of ALL LIFE. Evolution began with the simplest of microspoic single celled organisms, which are vastly more resiliant and more diverse than human life. They can survive in conditions we never could. Second of all, adapatation does not spontaneously occur within a single organism, it occurs in a population over multiple generations.The idea is that whenever you present a new condition, there will be individuals within that population who are suited to survive in it. These individuals will then propagate, while those who weren't suited are eliminated from the genepool.Of course you still need to have the conditions for the most resiliant of life to survive in, but this really isn't as "precise" as you may think. Some organisms can thrive in temperatures exceeding 248 Degrees Fahrenheit. Some can survive in extremely acidic substances. Others can survive under extreme hydrostatic pressure.But the fact that Earth had any possibility of supporting life is quite incredible. I'm not saying the Earth ever had to change to support life. I'm saying that's how it was made, and the purpose for which it was made.Except earth's current conditions have not always been so.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

Even the most resilient of microscopic organisms requires something. And yes, I am aware that adaptation takes place over multiple generations. This works against you, as later generations are meaningless if the first cannot survive.Yes, Earth is not the same as it has always been. Yes, life is not the same as it has always been. Still, we can agree that the Earth adapting to life is silly, right?
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

Yes, but I was addressing your argument that the earth must have been "designed" to support life because of certain life-forms fit their natural habitat so perfectly.Regarding the chance of life starting at all, I stated earlier that the chance of life starting 'somewhere' actually isn't that improbable because of the sheer number of planets. We also know that at one time earth wasn't so hospitable to life. Early in Earth's history it was a violent and unstable planet, it would not support the life that is on it today.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

I'm afraid that life existing "somewhere" is not enough. It must exist in a place that supports it. And yes, Earth was not always so hospitable top life. That's why there wasn't life on it back then. The fact is, and this may be shocking to you, Earth has changed since then, and life is now on it.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

I'm afraid that life existing "somewhere" is not enough. It must exist in a place that supports it.Life being "supported" is a prerequisite of "life existing". If life exists it must necessarily follow that life is supported. My question is this: Why do you assume that Earth is the only planet that could or is supporting life? The position that you are arguing against, life forming not as a function of design but from as function of chance, does not have the restraint (that your belief has) that Earth is the only planet that could support life.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

I do not assume this. I say only that the fact that we have life here is extremely unlikely, and we know that it actually is here.Watch this. Please.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

Hate to break it to you, but Darwin disproved his own theory.There is a point when something is so complex that no part of it could be removed for it to still work. Basically, it can't have come about through natural selection because it couldn't have worked to provide any benefits until all of the parts existed simultaneously. Unless they all just randomly popped into existence at the same time, then there is no way that natural selection could have known to keep the useless individual pieces.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

'Darwin disproved his own theory' - how? when? What you're describing is a theory known as 'irreducible complexity', and, as of yet, no one has managed has provided a an irrefutable example of it.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

in fact, irreducible complexity has strong evidence against it.consider, for a moment, that 98.5% of the Human genome does not actually code for ANYTHING.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11236998 it seems that evolution has, indeed, acquired a vast amount of vestigial baggage over the course of time. Much of it can be reduced.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

No matter how unlikely an occurrence appears to be the fact that it happened shows that it was in the realm of possibility.You are saying that because the earth exists, God did not create it. I could just as easily say that, because the Earth exists, God did create it. I understand the thought behind that argument, but it is a useless argument nonetheless, as it may be equally applied to either side and proves nothing.As for chance, I agree (more or less). But you must see how vastly unlikely it is that Earth just popped into existence. I don't like using this argument, as it gets loads of eye-rolls and is seen as scratching the bottom of the barrel, but, where did the atoms to cause your chemical reactions come from? Also, can you prove that it is in fact possible to actually create life from lifelessness? I am not referring to a few simple chances, like steps. I am referring to something like the chance of a monkey writing the complete works of Shakespeare, times a couple million. The size of the universe makes little difference. Say you fill two bags half with white beans and half with black beans. Assuming they are mixed evenly, removing the beans two at a time (one from each bag) will result in approximately 25% black-black pairs, 25% white-white, and 50% black-white, regardless of the number of beans or the size of the bags, so long as the number of white beans is equal to the number of black beans and they are divided evenly. The Bible is not to be taken literally, and you must take in to account that the Old Testament was written several thousand years ago.Also, I was not talking merely of chance. There are some things that are obviously thought through, and no amount of coincidence could have allowed for them (If it were one or two things, it would slide, but the sheer number of unlikely coincidences should be convincing. Even the structure of the atom is very mathematical, and does not appear to be coincidence.) It is not mere complexity that makes me feel this way.For instance, when a man is dead, it is generally easy to tell the difference between a murder scene and death by natural causes. Even murder disguised as natural death leaves traces of planning. When watching a chess game, it is easy to tell who is playing with strategy and who is playing randomly.I must make a comment about this arguing. It is easier to come up with counter-arguments than actual arguments. In other words, I come up with a reason why God exists and you do your best to shoot it down. however, you have given me no reason why He does not exist. You have told me you do not believe in him, and you have told me that he does not have to exist. But you have not given me any reason why He has to not exist. Please do so, and this will become a real debate, not a senseless argument.