azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

I had to scroll to the top and see what we were debating. >: )Worse, feelings can lead us astray.Feeling do not lead us astray. Feelings divert and demand attention because what the person thinks is reality is wrong. Emotions do something that would drive the mind insane. Emotions keep track of the trillions of microscopic life forms and millions of virtual systems of the body. We do not give proper respect to the complexity and structure of, say, identity.The identity is a virtual creation. Almost like a computer program, it is coded. But the identity isn't solid, it's not a mass. It's virtual and easily hurt or damaged. If an event happens, say, someone calls you a liar, your logic side should be able to reject the statement as false. But deep inside of you, something has been hurt and the emotions tell us about that. You may launch into defense, (in the old days, might even kill someone.)As you mention, if someone is a craving a smoke, the emotions become involved. The mind doesn't care, that shit is bad for you anyway. But the body is in distress, the emotions are going to 'demand' your attention. We make it a habit to ignore the emotions when we can, but that can usually lead to trouble, and so can following them. Understanding them is a good thing.Emotions tell us of the condition of systems within us, that mind and logic would rather ignore.And this next part is pure speculation:Recently, there was evidence found of what has been dubbed the Temple of Eden. It is a temple found in the East, I don't remember where but maybe Iran or Iraq. The technology and design of this temple was very shocking to me and many others. It was dated back to about 17,000 years ago. About the same time some people believe the original Sphinx was, was dismissed merely because it was impossible.But one of the things that was very disturbing about this is the thousands and thousands of skulls piled up. These are thought to be sacrifices. I have pondered that perhaps humans were smarter then we think, but lacked good emotions. Much of the religion's message focuses on good behavior and love.Many want to blame religion for all of the "killing" and what not. But what if the killing and callous nature of man came before that? I don't think the Churches have actually incited people to kill. I think that people have killed in the name of the church. But the Crusades were not so much about religion as they were about spices. And the King's just used religion as means to rally the people.But is that any different then today? The new God is democracy. We invade other countries because of their unholy ways and we are going to bring "democracy" to them. Nothing but the names have changed.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Emotions tell us of the condition of systems within us, that mind and logic would rather ignore.They point us in a very vague direction. That is about it. Besides, there is a lot more to this universe than our own systems. The point is though, our emotions aren't going to teach us math, show us the shape of the earth or help us learn a foreign language. And giving into them fully is often a recipe for disaster.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

And giving into them fully is often a recipe for disaster.This is just because we don't understand them. The direction they is not vague at all. Our understanding of them is. Emotions are the true power. Our bodies were not built by the brain. Evolution is not about who is smartest, but rather who is the most adaptable. Emotions become rigid if the mind is rigid but usually because they must stay the course.And another thing: And I want to deeply and profoundly thank you for inspiring this in me. The emotions are massively powerful. People can wake up one morning speaking a different language. Savants that are sometime unable to speak can crank out math like a 600hp wood chipper. The limits of the mind are not truly educational, they are emotional. In my own mind, can see where evolution/creator intentionally shut down the mental powers. But, we probably are not going to agree on this.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

This is just because we don't understand them. The direction they is not vague at all. Our understanding of them is.Possible, but hard to support. It certainly isn't obvious to me. Our bodies were not built by the brain.Nor were they built by the heart. What is your point?Evolution is not about who is smartest, but rather who is the most adaptable.Intelligence increases adaptability. In our case, it may be the biggest thing we have going for us (along with social behavior and thumbs). Aside from being big and relatively strong, we don't have a whole lot going for us physically. Many potential predators and prey can out run us, out climb us, jump over us. We have no claws, our teeth aren't too sharp. Our senses are dreadful compared to most other animals. Yet we've emerged as one of the most successful and dominent creatures the world has ever known. Since our biggest advantage by far is our capacity for abstract thought, which allows for advanced learning, planning and manipulation of the environment, it stands to reason that that capcity for thought is why we stand so tall. People can wake up one morning speaking a different language.You are going to have to show me a verified example to get me to put stock in that. And what does that have to do with emotion anyway?Same with savants. Those folks tend to be emotional stunted often, but their brain wiring enables them to rock out certain skill-sets. This almost seems like an argument against your case to me. The limits of the mind are not truly educational, they are emotional.They are both. Both need to be developed and used properly. In the case of emotion, this leads to diminishing its effect on your decision making and analytical abilities.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Nor were they built by the heart. What is your point?Oh, I always for that points. Our Bodies were more or less built by stomachs, or rather the consuming and converting of energy..You are going to have to show me a verified example to get me to put stock in that.Ah, no I don't. I can quote it because seen the article in news and TV shows. However, I don't know the people personally. I accept things as a possibility and look for understanding. I have found, some times when you are looking for something that isn't there. . . . . you find other cool stuff. I love to riffle though stuff..Intelligence increases adaptability.Emotional Intelligence does. But IQ makes most people stubborn as hell. I can tell most people are pretty smart, or at least think they are. The is why I post here, I don't risk actually convincing anybody of anything.. It certainly isn't obvious to me.Yeah. . Ummmm, I'm just not going to touch that one.. In the case of emotion, this leads to diminishing its effect on your decision making and analytical abilities.Contrar, Monfrar. Emotional intelligent is far more likely to help analytical ability. Having poor emotion control in times of crisis is what gets you killed. And good analytical abilities do not over ride your emotions in times of need.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

This needs to be up-voted more. You said it in such a graceful, intelligent manner and covered all the holes.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Of course, I approve and agree. And thanks, I appreciate your thought.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

If you are a creationist a legitimate science class will likely offend your views. If you are a socialist a legitimate economics or history class will be offensive to your views. If you are fat and think your healthy and legitimate health class will be offensive to your views.The only reason I think they should have the option is because I don't think the government should be involved in education.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Creationism is not a science, it's not even a study. It's a collection of bronze age myths, nothing real.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

"If you are a creationist a legitimate science class will likely offend your views."Please point to the part where I said creationism is science.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

I was pointing out that it's not even study, it has no backing so it shouldn't be taught in schools. It's also impossible as a subject, there are thousands different creation myths most of them are very different from each other.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Even if it is a myth there is no reason why it shouldnt be taught in Philosophy, Religous Studies or History classes
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

We are still told the theory about the world being flat, why not creationalism?
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

If a private school wishes to teach it, that is their choice, not ours. Do I think it should be taught? Of course not. Will I use force to stop them, no, that's just wrong.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

It has been banned in Sweden all together with teaching Nazi and Communism.Children crippled by creationism will force their kid to creationism you will make a cult with thinking and ideology similar to medieval Britain. This would be a huge mistake very difficult to fix.You should check for Westboro Baptist Church, that's the final product.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

If a private school wishes to teach something (even if you don't like it) they should be allowed to.The final result is not always extremism.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Creationist teaches that "scientist" lie and are cursed by devil. Kids area intentionally leaded to be fanatical Christian refusing anything non biblical as a lie. Those kids will never be open minded.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Not all creationism. Most creationist believe in the story of creation (book book Genesis) it has nothing to do with the devil cursing science. And allow to explain something to you: having a different theory on how the Earth was created does not make you close minded, there are billions, actually, Trillions of other topics and ideas and concepts that they may have different opinions on.A Christians who kills non-Christian is a fanatic, a Christian who believes the Earth isn't billions of years old is not.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Creationism is a science and I do study it. So there. - - - - - - - - -
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God.It's not a science, it's laughable BS.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

I often get a good laugh from Creationism. And likewise from what people call science.The God of Abraham is not the only creator.The Gods and Creators of cultures often reflect their understanding of the world.We are down the line about 2+ billion years of successful life. To laugh at how the previous generation survived is not only disrespectful, it is extremely arrogant. Truth Happens. By whatever path we got to where we are, is the path that works.The concept of evolution is that the "success life forms survive." All major cultures have a strong religious base, whether it be Greek, Egyptian, Chinese, Christian, Muslims, Native Americans, etc. I cannot think of a single great culture that did not have Gods and Creators.The Russians and Chinese treated to ban them, but people wanted it back.You cannot really have Gods without a Creator. And in the end, people really want Gods. For thousands of years, people have tried to throw off the yoke of God. And where are those people now? What people? Exactly? What people. People's without God don't survive long.Whether God is a fable or not, evolution has declared it a necessary one. God is our moral compass. I know that people can be moral without God, but A PEOPLE cannot. If you want history, culture, etc, you need God.And I invite anyone to prove to me otherwise.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

"All major cultures have a strong religious base, whether it be Greek, Egyptian, Chinese, Christian, Muslims, Native Americans"They also believed in Sun spinning around flat earth, that ill people are cursed, thunder meant that god/s were angry and many other funny stuff...In countries with the highest living standard are very few believers, countries like Sweden, Norway, Czech, Finland, Japan... has the number of believer bellow 15% and it's decreasing.Only poor and uneducated people want's gods. It's also supported by governments because poor farmer who beliefs in some sort of awesome afterlife is much less likely to riot than farmer aware of reality that he is what he is ...and he does not like it." People's without God don't survive long." it used to be true, because they were simply massacred by religious people for not following their fallacy. ...like philosophers in Alexandria massacred by early Christians.Because of Christianity we had 1500 years of "dark age" so without it now would be year 3513, I would be in a spaceship heading to distant galaxies but instead of that I'm arguing against story that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree....
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

They could just teach creationism in Church?
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

It has a place there. In government funded public school, not so much....particularly not in a science class. It amuses me that people get so worried about whether or not creationism is getting taught in schools when it is plastered all around their children's lives in church, at home online, etc. They don't just want to argue with evolution, they want to erase it entirely.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

(I'm doing good here.) LOL. Yes you are. I certainly appreciate all of the thought you put into this all, and I learned a few things along the way.From my perspective though, this doesn't really say anything about creation, but more about our ability to adapt to changing times. Perhaps God did create a cure for every ailment (although re-growing limbs is still impossible for us despite the fact that other animals can do it). But it seems just as likely to me, more so actually, that this is all an effect of everything coming into being within the same set of parameters. The same universal laws effect everything differently, yet still play their role. I want to go on more into depth on this, but later. We've both been typing a lot at each other lately. One last thing though.But evolutionists obviously want to erase creationism. Which is suspicious to me. This is not universal. It seems to describe Banana Slug, but not me. For the most part, we are just saying that Creationism (and in this case I am specifically referring to the Biblical Literalist approach) is demonstrably wrong and should not be taught as the truth. For me it is no more than that, and I don't really want it erased or even ridiculed. I just want people to look at it realistically and recognize that the evidence for it just isn't there. The less specific you get with it, the less I battle against it. Really, that is how my approach to all spiritual matters basically goes.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Just a few points here:According to many scriptures, when people get wealthy they forget about God. But God has a powerful influence in struggling communities that are fighting poverty and crime. When people are struggling with alcohol and drugs, one of the most powerful aids is spirituality and God. God can pull people out of the crap, but doesn't seem to be good enough for the smart, rich folk.Really, I think its a matter of trying to place their hope in something when there is none immediately present, not unlike the cliche "there are no atheists in foxholes". Many people just have a really hard time accepting that life is really crappy, that we might actually just be worm food when we die, that there might not really be a meaning for us or the events that happen to us. To me, this shouldn't be applauded. Religion just becomes a crutch. There maybe is something to the placebo affect sure. But is it worth it. If people could just accept reality, work their best to improve their situations and become at peace with death before they face it, I think they would normally be better off. And faith in these things rarely stops at that, it often becomes entwined in these spurious histories and this denial of science and logic in favor of...feeling better. Is it not used in much the same ways that drugs are?So many cultures oppress their women because of this. I think you've got your cause and effect backwards on this. The reason that story was written might have been to keep women down. You see this all around the world, throughout history, supported by most religions. It has, historically, been at least as much a part of human nature as religion has. And both misogyny and most religious practices get shown to have no real use upon logical inspection. Why are we not making treatises with whales and elephants? Lots of reasons, including the inability to communicate deeply with them. I don't see how this lends any credibility towards creation with intent.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

With this argument, your god also created poisons. Easy, pick five deadly nightshade berries and feed to victim. How convenient.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Yes its really up to the person's choice if they want to be taught about creationism.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

I'm back, again.Yeah, I am on the same page with you on this. Purely because I think that, at least where education is concerned, giving students more choice as to what they can study is better.We have to remember two things, though:1. No everyone who wants to learn about creationism necessarily have to agree with creationism.2. Creationism has no place in a science classroom, unless the sources and teachings are backed up with peer-reviewed scientific theories, experiments and pieces of evidence.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

1. No everyone who wants to learn about creationism necessarily have to agree with creationism.Yeah just like evolution which I am currently studying in biology and the whole thing is so confusing. And I don't agree on it. 2. Creationism has no place in a science classroom, unless the sources and teachings are backed up with peer-reviewed scientific theories, experiments and pieces of evidence.Actually it can be because I have a book that explains about creationism in scientific terms and they aren't using the Bible and they are using eternal sources. If you want to read in on it the book is called : I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Hey, the guy came to my school and I asked him a question about Intelligent Design that he completely dodged and didn't allow for me to rebuttal.Seriously, the book uses old arguments that have been debunked. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not support Intelligent Design what-so-ever, especially since once you put the other two laws into motion intelligent design has no place in Thermodynamics.My question was: If it takes someone intelligent to design a watch, and that intelligent person was formed through natural means, does this mean that the intelligent designer that formed nature also came from nature? He answered "well, it's a HIGHER intelligence" and moved onto the next question. Even if there was a good answer for my question, his answer sucked and he knew that he couldn't actually form one for my question so he dodged me.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

"Yeah just like evolution which I am currently studying in biology and the whole thing is so confusing. And I don't agree on it."...So because you are to stupid to learn biology, you are going for mythology?There is no evidence for Creationism never was, unlikely ever be.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Yeah just like evolution which I am currently studying in biology and the whole thing is so confusing. And I don't agree on it.Just because a topic is confusing that is why you shove it under a rug and/or completely dismiss it as untrue or illogical? That is academic dishonesty. When some one wants to make a stand on whether he/she agrees or disagrees with an academic theory, he/she must necessarily give sufficient logical, sound, valid and binding reasons to justify their opinion.explains about creationism in scientific terms and they aren't using the Bible and they are using eternal sourcesReally? Enlighten me. Give me concrete, peer-reviewed pieces of evidence.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

I did a brief search of quotes by Norman L. Geisler, the author of the book that you've raised.One of the quotes I found is this. Norman said, “A skeptic once said to me, 'I don't believe the Bible because it has miracles.' I said, 'Name one.' He said, 'Turning water into wine. Do you believe that?' I said, 'Yeah, it happens all the time.' He said, 'What do you mean?' I said, 'Well, rain goes through the grapevine up into the grape, and the grape turns into wine. All Jesus did was speed it up a little bit.” Well, all I can say that there is absolutely no credible evidence that supports the ability of Jesus, or anyone, to "speed it (turning water from rain into wine) a little bit", to the rate that Jesus did (i.e. immediate transformation).
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

There never were and never will be any evidence for bronze age mythology.This way deformed children may want for they children(if they survive for so long to have any) ...for example cut out mathematics ...or physics ...what is it even good for?... Yeah?Does it sounds good?Whole world is advancing but US goes back into the dark age...
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

There never were and never will be any evidence for bronze age mythology.And I agree with you, so I have no idea why you are trying to dispute my argument.And the rest of your statement is thoroughly convoluted, so I have no idea what I am supposed to rebut and/or clarify.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

sent to wrong person.... sorry . .
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Small children are not able to recognize difference between idiotic bronze age myth and reality, so NO.