azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Jesus Christ or prophet Muhammad, which one is more valuable?
Side: Jesus Christ

So you are as good as most people, better than many, and not as bad as some?That makes you innocent? In whose eyes are you innocent, and are they you judges? Are they the ones who can see all of the details of your life, in every word, thought, and imagination?Why can't you stop making mistakes? What is wrong with you? Is your guilty conscience enough punishment, and if it's enough, why should you die? Will your guilt ever end? What are you hoping for in death? How do you know you will get what you hope for? Who can assure you of your hope? Don't you deserve more time?
Debate: Jesus Christ or prophet Muhammad, which one is more valuable?
Side: Jesus Christ

It's justice for sinners to die. Our sin makes us ungodly, unholy, unworthy of being with God. We need mercy to be saved from dying. Death is separation from God. We are in the first death, dying, separated from God by our sins. If the first death is finalized and we are unforgiven, there is no place for us but Hell which we deserve as sinners, the same as we deserve to die. God loves us so much that He died in our place as the Son of God, given by the Father to make peace through the blood of His cross, to reconcile us with God in His resurrection. You can be completely forgiven and reconciled with God, and know Him as your Father and Heaven as your home. You can know. I would if I were you, but you have to decide for yourself, and if you say "I don't believe it", or "I don't need it", or "I can't believe it", or anything like that, you are choosing death over life and you will wake up in Hell by your own choice paying for your own sins. You owe God, and God will require it of you. You can't escape guilt in death. You can't change the history of your life, you can't undo the wrongs you have done....you can only pay in Hell if you will not believe God Himself paid for you when He died in your place as the Son of God, Jesus Christ, and offers you full pardon in His resurrection. It's good news, the hope of eternal life, you can face the trial of dying with joy in knowing eternal life is yours and heaven is your home.We recently said "see ya later" to a dear old friend of mine, 80 yrs old, struck by cancer which was stage 4 when found less than six months ago. He went through it with hope and joy which could not be quenched by the trial of his body, and never stopped loving the Lord or the people he was leaving behind, desiring all of them to know the love of God as he knew it.......and I want you to know God's love. You can know it for sure.I seem to sound harsh at times, but the truth is going to sound harsh if we don't want to concede what we feel is our right. We do not have the right to live on Earth as sinners, and we do not have the right to live outside of Hell in eternity after God Himself paid our price in death in His own body.There is no other hope than the hope of God in Jesus Christ.
Debate: Jesus Christ or prophet Muhammad, which one is more valuable?
Side: Muhammad

Since you seem to be listening, I guess God appointed me to be His spokesman as He tried to reach you before He runs out of patience with you and lets you propel yourself by your sins against Him into the fire of Hell like a moth to the flame, loving your journey in flight away from God.
Debate: Jesus Christ or prophet Muhammad, which one is more valuable?
Side: Muhammad

You seem very touchy for somebody who insists that God does not care. If God does not care about you, why does it bother you so much when I say he does? Why do you feel you have to go on and on trying to prove He does not care for you? You're fighting against God and it's a losing battle. You won't hurt me, it's only you who you are hurting as you reject God's love.
Debate: Jesus Christ or prophet Muhammad, which one is more valuable?
Side: Muhammad

If I could decide who goes to Hell, nobody would go to Hell but I'm not God. It's not me you have offended, it's not my law you broke. I can simply tell by your own words that you are turned away from and against God and there is no place for your way in Heaven, you will be turned into Hell if you don't repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. It's not my decision or my desire. If it were up to me, you would believe on Jesus in His resurrection and receive Him by faith as your Savior and be saved from Hell...but you won't, will you? That's your decision, not mine, you are making it and if you won't listen to be warned against what you are doing, then don't listen. Why in the world do you feel like you have to keep arguing?
Debate: Jesus Christ or prophet Muhammad, which one is more valuable?
Side: Jesus Christ

Actually, I keep arguing because I keep finding arguments in my profile. I keep seeing the suggestion that I go to hell. I keep seeing things that say I "hate God", I'm a sinner, I don't deserve to be breathing Gods air, I should burn in hell! No, I DO NOT HATE GOD! I don't like hate. I CAN NOT hate something that doesn't exist (even if it seems to be a very cruel and pompous entity). All I ask is that this entity show up.....preferably without a vicious show of hatred, and prove to the millions of OTHERS that don't believe he exists, that HE is real. I don't think that's TO MUCH to ask! Simply make an unquestionable appearance, hopefully explain WHY HIS LOVE is necessarily so cruel so often, THEN HE will justifiably, I guess, have reason to send HIS CREATIONS to hell! I REFUSE TO GO, without reason!How is it that Jews believe in the same GOD, but do not believe HELL exists?See? There is so much confusion in religion, and everyone "believes" that THEY are correct, that, well, What IS one to believe? I can't believe YOU, there are too many who say you are wrong. (millions of ....creations.) Jews, Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, etc.etc.. How can ANY divine entity "rule" under such confusion? How can a supreme ruler allow such confusion....and expect ALL to believe?? I have read that a very wise man named Galileo once said: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same "god" who endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." (A translation, of course). So WHY should this God punish ME for using those gifts, rather than listen to unsubstantiated, human writings of what HE, supposedly, decreed?? I think that is a reasonable use of "His Gifts"...if that is truly what they are. Please do not accuse me of "hate" that I am NOT guilty of.
Debate: Jesus Christ or prophet Muhammad, which one is more valuable?
Side: Jesus Christ

You keep arguing because you are obsessed with convincing yourself that you have the right to exist outside of Hell as a sinner, and you are obsessed with convincing yourself that right cannot be denied in death, but rather you try to tell yourself that death confirms your right to exist outside of Hell as a sinner. You got it backwards, your death proves you do not have the right to exist in life as a sinner, and Hell is the only place God has to confine sinners, where the fire burns against their sin the way their sin burns in passion against their Creator who they hate for allowing them to be in an existence with suffering. Your whole problem is that you hate God for bringing you into a world where evil is present. Instead of thanking God for Creating you, you hate Him for Creating you so He cannot show you mercy because you are too obsessed with hating Him....you can't see that HE IS BEING MERCIFUL WITH YOU IN HIS PATIENCE AND HIS PATIENCE WITH YOU IS WEARING THIN. HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU HAVE LEFT?You're throwing your time out the window as one foot is falling into your grave and the other is on thin ice melting over the fire of Hell, and God who loves you so much that He died for you is pleading with you to reason with Him and believe on His Son in His resurrection to be saved from Hell.You can have it your way, but you won't like it in Hell. I guess you don't want what is good for you, God's mercy, and that's why you are cursing Him and dying.
Debate: Jesus Christ or prophet Muhammad, which one is more valuable?
Side: Jesus Christ

God showed up, as the Man Christ Jesus, to die for the sins of man. He paid your price in death so you can be pardoned in His resurrection. You are asking Him to do what He already did. You will be left in Hell and face Him as your Judge when He forever banishes evil in the Lake of Fire, and purges His creation of sin as you accuse Him of not being able or caring enough to do.God is giving you time, because if He ended evil in the world now, you would be burning in Hell as an anti-Christ sinner getting what you deserve from your Creator for going against Him.The way you talk about God, it really amazes me that He gives you more time at all.
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: agree

I understand that everyone has the right to eat whatever they want, however the school boards need to understand that obesity and diabetes are not small issues.Having junk food available to children at school is only encouraging the growing problem Americans already have, simply offering only healthy choices would force kids to begin a healthier lifestyle.
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Disagree

you say a few interesting words there..."needs", "encouraging", and "force"...these are all words that i assume you are using very annoyingly(my opinion) to state you and others understand that there is a problem and just have to force a better way onto kids for the betterment of a healthier lifestyle...i saw Jamie Oliver on tv trying to get healthier foods to schools and give the guy credit he really cares and is trying to do really good for the young generation of todays youth...that being said he was forcing himself and his ideals on people who just wasnt ready for this fast swift change....it takes time not force
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: agree

(my opinion)I am glad it is your opinion, because I could honestly care less.My opinion, and fact is that your grammar makes your run on sentences hard to understand.force a better way onto kids for the betterment of a healthier lifestyleWhat you must not understand is that kids need to be forced to do a lot of things or they never will. Tell them to clean their room or no television, they will most likely clean their room. However ask them politely to clean their room, and a good chance is that with no real reason to do it, than only please their parents, the job most likely will not get done. It requires some sort of force in order to get the kid to act on the task he/she is asked to do.So if you force the ideals of a healthy lifestyle on a child, he/she will most likely lean towards a healthy lifestyle. Basic psychology.
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Disagree

The problem with your argument is that in the example, kids aren't being forced to clean their rooms, the parents are giving them a punishment, but there still isn't any forcing going on.I am glad it is your opinion, because I could honestly care less.If you could care less, then that means that you actually do care.
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: agree

If you could care less, then that means that you actually do care.Me caring is only me caring in the form of hardly caring, if I cared less I wouldn't of gone any further in his/her argument.The problem with your argument is that in the example, kids aren't being forced to clean their rooms, the parents are giving them a punishment, but there still isn't any forcing going on.Kids can still bring junk food from home as a school lunch, just not having it available to the general public will reduce the intake of it.
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Disagree

Children spend about 6.5 hours at school. The other 17.5 is spent at home. The children are only supposed to eat once at school for lunch. Assuming that all kids only eat once, then banning junk food for that one meal will not help very much if they go home and snack all afternoon and night.
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: agree

17.5, with more than half of that number sleeping.so more than 50% of the time they are awake, they are at school. I know many students that eat school breakfast as well as lunch, so if one meal is left at the end of the day then it is up to the parent to feed their children right.banning junk food for that one meal will not help very much if they go home and snack all afternoon and night.Thats like saying not to ban meth because if it can't be regulated everywhere why regulate it at all.Whether or not they have the choice to eat what they want at home, at least the 50% of the time they are awake can be spent with meals that are consistently healthy.
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Disagree

You can't compare meth to junk food because you can regulate it anywhere. Although it is harder to regulate what someone does in their home, if they are caught doing meth, then they will get into trouble. If junk food is banned at school, and only at school, then the principal or teachers can't go to your house and tell you not to eat it.
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: agree

So are you agreeing to every other point?
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Disagree

Like I usually say to people when talking about banning things, they should teach kids about the dangers and teach them how to make healthier snacks. If you ban something in one place, then it won't help very much to just go home and "eat up the entire kitchen." I would say yes to banning junk food if it would actually work, but I just think about the amount of trouble that the educators would have to go through in order to keep the kids away from junk food at school. Would it really be worth it?
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: agree

Don't make it available at school and it reduces the intake. If a child eats breakfast and lunch at school, he/she isn't going to skip two meals just to eat chips at home. They will succumb to hunger and eat what is available, and if it is healthy food then they will begin a healthy eating habit. Whether or not they have a choice to. All educators would have to do is change their school lunch menu.
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Disagree

Its not a healthy eating habit if its not a choice. Their just consistently eating healthy because its all thats available. When they leave school, go to college, start working etc they likly would start eating the cheaper, better tasting junk food. Even if Banning junk food in schools stops childhood obesity and diabetics it would only be shifting the age which problems start making it less noticeable. Banning junk food in schools isn't a solution, its a cover up.
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Disagree

Clap Clap! That's great! The schools are kind of saying "well...we banned it here so it's not our problem anymore." Great job =)
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: agree

Your body starts desiring junk foods less as you slowly ween yourself from them, so by the time children have developed into adults they already don't have as big a taste for junk food as a child who has been eating it five days a week every week since kindergarten.Banning junk food in schools isn't a solution, its a cover up.No it's a step in the right direction.
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Disagree

Alternatively It gets old. Having chips everyday, the same type or a variety for awhile gets old. Its why you switch to cookies for awhile :) Coke tastes sweeter if you haven't had it for awhile and it becomes kinda bland if you have it everyday for a long time. Its why you have super sugary sweet tea instead! If you never have sweets or junkfood though, when you finally get a chance your likely going to gorge for awhile on it. Now replaced you with I and you'll have my experience of it. Admittedly most people don't have my metabolism and can't eat whatever they want, most people probably have less juice, milk, fruit,whole-grain and vegetables as me to. The trick is to find the right level of moderation for your body and activity level. This is best done by the individual and not by an external authority. Individuals start doing this for themselves with proper education.Junkfood acquires a "fruit of the forbidden" appeal by banning it, making it more desirable.
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Disagree

Chips everyday? Why not trail mix or a granola bar or a fruit or a protein bar etc etc, junk food isn't necessary.Coke tastes sweeter if you haven't had it for awhileIf you haven't had it for to long it becomes overly sweet.If you go from whole milk to 2% then to 1% then to skim, whole milk tastes disgusting after gradually going down the cycle.If tobacco wasn't illegal to minors it wouldn't be such a big problem, kids like to break rules ;)
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Disagree

It's not what they eat at school. Its the quarter pounder cheese burger they eat at the end of the day when they get home.
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: agree

It is what they eat at school.Many children eat 2 meals a day at school, which mathematically constitutes for two thirds of their daily intake of food ( hypothetically ).Now if schools only offered healthy choices that would make that "quarter pounder cheese burger" an essentially fine thing to eat once in awhile. I don't know how many people you know personally that eat out every night, in all honesty the painted picture is that every single family eats out every night. Which isn't the truth, especially now with the economy as it is.So if children are subject to junk food at school and home, compared to junk food at home and healthy food at school. Would you really say that the first option is the better?
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: agree

Helps reduce obesity and unhealthiness.A lot of chemicals that reside in junk food are also responsible for hyperactivness, lack of concentration etc. and can be attributed to an increase of ADHD or w.e it is.
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: agree

I think it should be banned becausetoday most health classes discourage junk food.Now, why have junk food in schools, if junk food is being discouraged???If coaches want there athletes healthy, banning junk food from school willhelp athletes not eat junk food. . .If schools care about their students, not just mentally, but physically...they will contribute to lowering obesity, even if that means just taking chili cheese fries of the menu or vending machines out the hallways.....It mightsound ridiculous but the little changes help make a big difference
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Disagree

Eating healthy is not the responsibility of schools. It is the responsibility of the parents and children.
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: agree

I should say it is the responsibility of the school as well.Given that many parents are working (not at home for most of the time), they are less likely to mind what their children are eating. So schools should play their part in ensuring students eat healthily, through lessons, lunch breaks etc.(They can try making veggies look appetizing?)
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: agree

School is a place where students are taught what is right and wrong for them. The Biology classes in school teach us about the adverse affects of junk food on our body. So it's necessary that thing's should be implemented right from the basic level.Ofcourse, children can take it when not in school but something is better than nothing.I say, Junk food should be banned from schools!
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: agree

Sure, you can ban junk food from public schools, but you cannot stop them from bringing junk food into the school, which most likely originates from external sources, i.e supermarkets. But I do agree that public schools should ban junk food.
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: AGREE DUH

YAH KIDDS IN MY SCHOOL THROW AWAY THEIR OWN HOME LUNCH FOR A BAG OF CHIPS OR ICE CREAM
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: agree

all i half to say is childhood obesity !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Agree

I think kids like me should not be obeace by junk food shouch as chips, candy, and sugary snacks. ( I gotta atmit a hersys bar isent enought for me(; )
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Agree

I strongly agree that junk food should be banned from school because it is bad for your health if you don’t eat healthy food and eat junk food instead you will be fatter than a elephant and won’t move fast like all the other kids can. Do you think anyone will like to play with someone who can’t move much or someone who is really slow?
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: agree

yeah i think junk food should actually be banned from schools this would help in reducing the growing problem of obesity in many countries because our stomach takes a long time to digest junk food making us fat
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: agree

i don't know many people who like their fat and obese figure
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Disagree

i know alot of skinny anorexic head cases as well...they look overly happy...lol
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: agree

To quote something I think pertains to your "rebuttal"and.................so whats your point rambler???.....lol
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: agree

I agree that it should be controlled, in England they tried to do it (check out Jamie's school dinners, link). The problem is in trying to change a huge system, this documentary gained massive support, it even went as far as Jamie Oliver having a meeting with the then Prime Minister Tony Blair. Like everything else it was only a matter of time before money was the deciding factor.I believe it is the cheap mass processing of food that is the problem, it is easier and cheaper to buy frozen crap and serve it up to people that want it and not something more nutritious. I also believe that there is a huge problem in how children are educated about food and how junk food is viewed as an alternative rather than a treat.Stopping it outright will only lead to people bringing their own junk in or slipping out to get it.
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: agree

Did I say it was completely the responsibility of the school? No, there is a problem with a lack of education where food is concerned and everyone responsible for a child's welfare needs to get involved. Healthy eating is about balance and things like burgers and pizza and fries when made freshly are not nearly as unhealthy as processed foods which contain a fair amount of Hydrogenated fats and chemical stabilizers, flavorings, colorings, salt inhibitors, and preservatives as well as sugar and salt.What I would like to see is a move towards educating children how to cook, and the same for parents and the professionals that are in charge of their welfare when not at home. This I would hope would lead to a more food conscious public, if schools had days where they offered burgers others with pizzas, etc, and these were interspersed with days where the food was more "healthy" then no one would be losing just sacrificing a little.What I would like to ask you is why should schools not be responsible for healthy eating in kids? not as responsible as a parent I agree, but schools play a big role in preparing children for the world.