azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

No you have bullshit masquerading as science Niels Harrits bullshit has been discredited more than once . It's actually the CSI .........It's incredible that you try and smear a society which had the great Carl Sagan , Issac Asimov , Martin Gardener , James Randi on its committee and to say it's not scientific is beyond hilarious About CSIThe mission of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. To carry out these objectives the Committee:Maintains a network of people interested in critically examining paranormal, fringe science, and other claims, and in contributing to consumer educationPrepares bibliographies of published materials that carefully examine such claimsEncourages research by objective and impartial inquiry in areas where it is neededConvenes conferences and meetingsPublishes articles that examine claims of the paranormalDoes not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but examines them objectively and carefullyThe Committee is a program of the Center for Inquiry, a nonprofit educational organization. The Committee was launched in 1976. The Skeptical Inquirer is its official journal.Some of the founding members of CSI include scientists, academics, and science writers such as Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Philip Klass, Paul Kurtz, Ray Hyman, James Randi, Martin Gardner, Sidney Hook, and others. A list of CSI fellows is published in every issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine.CSI, encourages careful, rational, critical examination of unusual claims. One of the best guides is a short piece by Ray Hyman, a professor of psychology at the University of Oregon, titled “Proper Criticism”.Skeptical Briefs newsletterYou are invited to subscribe to the Committee’s quarterly newsletter, Skeptical Briefs. Subscriptions to Skeptical Briefs are independent of your Skeptical Inquirer subscription. Subscribe today!Contacting CSIYou can contact CSI for more informationThe article i cited is from the National Inquirer and of course ithe site is run by yet another one in your ' conspiracy theory ' scenarios .
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

Listen you dummy you can continue ball licking Haririt but his claims have been destroyed more than once ....Harrit released his paper in 2009 and to date, no peer-reviewed refutation of his conclusions has been put forward by anybody, in eight years, and with his paper having received a comparable level of scientific scrutiny to Einstein's theory of relativity. You are an egregious liar and as such your sentences neither encourage or require rational responses.Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to show how nanothermite can slice through a large steel beam. The experiment was a total failureThermite has been used in demolitions since the 1930s. Nanothermite is simply an advanced military grade form of standard thermite.The Sky Ride was demolished at the conclusion of the fair. The west tower was brought down using 120 pounds of dynamite.[3] The east tower was toppled on August 29, 1935 using 1,500 pounds of thermite charges to melt ten-foot sections near the bottom of two of the legs.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyRideDo go away. I'm bored of reading your dishonest nonsense.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

I sent you the piece de-bunking this chancers nonsense ; what are you babbling on about I've rubbished your nonsense several times now ... away with you and lick your wounds ,after you finish with Hairlips balls 😂😂👌
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

I sent you the piece de-bunking this chancers nonsenseHarrit is a 30 year doctor of chemistry with a professorship at the University of Copenhagen. Calling him a "chancer" isn't going to make his qualifications go away, and your empty, rhetorical claims that you "debunked" him do not constitute a peer-reviewed refutation of his peer-reviewed scientific analysis.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

Harrits is a 'chancer ' and interesting that people with qualifications never lie or distort the truth ; I gave you the facts about his claims typically you ignore them as it doesn't support your narrativeBy the way demonstrate where and who peer reviewed him ? A chancer and a liar and his nonsense is seen as such except by loonies like you , read it and weep .... from International sceptics I came across a Danish interview of Niels Harrit today, from the program 'Good Morning Denmark' April 07, 2009.I could not believe the total rubbish that he was putting out there. Starting with a complete denial that the plane impacts and fires had anything to do with the WTC tower collapses !?! he behaved like a person untouched by reality.The most astonishing and disturbing statements he made were these: (according to the translation)'There has never been a forensic investigation of this event. (9/11)No evidence has been put forward. No one has been formally charged.The police and FBI have not charged anyone, and no-one is 'wanted'.So who is crazy here?' He asks in response to the interviewer's question.He seems unaware of Khalid Shiek Mohammed, who I think was at the top of the FBI's most wanted list.And oblivious to the trial of Zacharias Mousawi, the '20th hijacker'.He seems oblivious to a great deal of truth and reality. Must be nice being a leader in the 9/11 truth movement - you can just say whatever you like without any real evidence, and the truther cult laps it up like warm milk.There's not much truth in 9/11 truth it seems.Just for the record - Niels Harrit also believes that the Pentagon hole has a size of 4.6 x 5.5 meter and he recommends DRGs "New Pearl Harbor". Read his "9/11 - A roadblock or a shortcut to peace and democracy?" (can´t link it yet). In a german interview at gulli.com he also states that the bomb-sniffing dogs at WTC were removed two weeks before 9/11 and UL certified the WTC steel.Clearly an archetypal truther with a bunch of strange ideas.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

Harrits is a 'chancer 'Do you have any tricks other than making demonstrably false allegations and then repeating them over and over and over to try to get them into people's heads and brainwash them?and interesting that people with qualifications never lie or distort the truthInteresting that you are now comparing your own empty, infantile rhetoric with peer-reviewed science. By the way demonstrate where and who peer reviewed him ?So you can randomly accuse all of his peer-reviewers of being "chancers" too? Sounds legit buddy. I'll get right on that for you.A chancer and a liarRepeating the word "chancer" over and over and over like a retarded Nazi propagandist does not constitute a peer-reviewed refutation of his analysis of the composition of the WTC dust. Please try to understand that you are psychologically unwell.I could not believe the total rubbish that he was putting out thereBut you are purposefully throwing emotive words around like "rubbish", "chancer" and "liar" because you are a mentally ill Nazi with no logical refutation to anything Professor Harrit says. Empty rhetoric and personal attacks do not constitute a debate. They constitute you being mentally unwell. Starting with a complete denial that the plane impacts and fires had anything to do with the WTC tower collapses !?They demonstrably had nothing to do with them, and this is supported by other peer-reviewed analysis. For example Professor of Physics Stephen Jones released a detailed paper in 2006 which explicates poignantly why your conspiracy theory defies basic Newtonian mechanics. You may read it here:-http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf Alternatively, you could simply keep using purposefully emotion-driven rhetoric and words like "fires", "impacts", "chancer" and "liar" to help people forget that your completely unproven conspiracy theory defies the laws of physics and simply did not happen. I suspect that is what you will do because you are an infantile neo-Nazi liar who believes he can make wildly assumptive claims about "fires" and "impacts" and then throw the burden of proof onto other people to disprove them. And then, when they do, simply call them all "chancers" and "liars".In closing, you are mentally unwell, you have no argument other than smear, logical fallacy and personal attacks, and I frankly have no idea why you are still replying to me given that you cannot produce any scientific (i.e. peer-reviewed) refutation of Harrit's paper.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

The truth can hardly be called a 'trick ' , though self deception as in what you do would fall under that description. Incorrect again Harrits lies were exposed on Danish television, again who peer reviewed Harrit?Bet you won't 'get right on it ' Repeating the words 'peer reviewed ' over and over and over like a retarded Nazi does not constitute debating print your sources up you Nazi troll Refer to above Stephen Jones has been discredited with the Chancer Haritt and your constant bleating about being ' peer reviewed ' for both these chancers is hilarious 😂😂😂In April 2009, Jones, along with Niels H. Harrit and 7 other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'.The editor of the journal, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, an expert in explosives and nano-technology,resigned. She received an e-mail from the Danish science journal Videnskab asking for her professional assessment of the article's content.According to Pileni, the article was published without her authorization. Subsequently, numerous concerns arose regarding the reliability of the publisher, Bentham Science Publishing. This included the publishing an allegedly peer reviewed article generated by SCIgen (although this program has also successfully submitted papers to IEEE and Springer , the resignation of multiple people at the administrative level, and soliciting article submissions from researchers in unrelated fields through spam.That's gotta hurt buddy 👌Read it again and weep , a pair of fucking chancers 🙀🙀🙀 In closing , you are mentally unwell , you have no argument other than support a chancer who's lies I posted up in my last de -bunking of your nonsense ; you cannot post up who peer reviewed the chancer and like a typical ' truther ' you accuse those who de -bunk your nonsense of being conspiracy theorists
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

The truth can hardly be called a 'trick 'Repeatedly calling a 30 year professor of chemistry a "liar" and a "chancer" when you have provided precisely no evidence that he is either is not "truth". It is more of the same transparently false rhetoric which defines your disturbing and intellectually empty posts.Incorrect again Harrits lies were exposed on Danish televisionYou are making a complete idiot of yourself. Either provide a peer-reviewed refutation of Harrit's analysis like you were asked to do three days ago or shut your lying neo-Nazi mouth.The editor of the journal, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, an expert in explosives and nano-technology,resignedIf Professor Marie-Paule Pileni is "an expert in explosives and nano-technology", then please explain to us why she claimed the paper "lies outside my field of expertise"?The editor in chief of the journal where recently the paper: "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" was published, resigned, claiming she wasn't informed of the publication. She proceeds to provide not a single solid scientific rebuttal, only administrative bickering and personal political bias against, well.. inconvenient science. One particularly notable comment attributed to Ms. Pileni is this one: "Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.".http://911blogger.com/node/19963Like I have said from the beginning, all you have are political smear attacks and guilt by association tactics. You have no scientific rebuttal and are simply an absolutely massive liar on the scale of Adolf Hitler.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

I proved he's a liar and I'm still waiting for you to prove who peer reviewed him , bet you won't answers again 🙀No , I'm making an idiot of you are you denying his lies were exposed on Danish tv ?Who peer reviewed him , bet you won't answer again 🙀Your Copy and paste attempt at waffling your way out has failed .... miserably Who peer reviewed the chancer , bet you won't answer again
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

I proved he's a liarNo, you proved that you are a liar. Proving Professor Harrit is a liar requires you to debunk his peer-reviewed scientific analysis of the composition of the WTC dust, not call him mean names.I'm still waiting for you prove who peer review himWhy don't you simply research this information for yourself? are you denying his lies were exposed on Danish tv ?I am saying you have called him a liar approximately 12 times over the past three days and provided not a single shred of evidence that he has lied about anything, at any time. This is the second time you have claimed "his lies were exposed on Danish TV" and the second time you have failed to support your accusation with anything at all, let alone anything of substance. Your rhetoric is transparently false.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

Incorrect again , he lied on Danish TV proving he's a liar , where was he peer reviewed? That's 8 times I've asked you .... respond please Where was he peer reviewed ..... that's 9 times .... respond please I proved he's a liar 10 times now please re -read his lies on Danish TVWhere was he peer reviewed ? That's 11 times now .... respond please It's obvious you're a lying troll .......
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

Incorrect again , he lied on Danish TV proving he's a liarThird time. Same accusation, supported by absolutely nothing. I have just Googled "Niels Harrit Danish television" and found only these three videos:-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOkC19Ho4Jk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tf25lx3ohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuyW0I16jw I have watched two of them already and he does not lie in either.That's 8 times I've asked you .... respond pleaseI believe you are asking me this question because you know that the scientific peer review process is anonymous unless the peer reviewers give specific permission to have their details released. It is another in a long line of your poor attempts to misdirect people.However, one of the peer-reviewers did get a little bit annoyed that pathological lying bastards such as yourself kept insisting not knowing who the peer reviewers were means the paper was not peer-reviewed, and kindly provided his full details:-The reviewer's name is Prof. David L. Griscom. Among his impressive credentials, Prof. Griscom is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and a Fellow of the AAAS. I quote a brief excerpt from his blog and encourage you to read all of it:The 2009 publication in The Open Chemical Physics Journal (TOCPJ) of a fabulous paper by Harrit et al. entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” Some disparagers of the 9/11 Truth movement have alleged that TOCPJ is a place on the web where anybody can buy a publication without peer review. Absolutely false! I know this because I was one of the referees of the Harrit et al. paper. The editors asked for my opinion. And after about two weeks of studying what the authors had written, checking relevant references, and gathering my thoughts, I finally provided my advice to authors in 12 single-spaced pages, together with my recommendation to the Editors that they publish the paper after the authors had considered my suggestions. Still, some skeptical readers may ask how anyone can rate a scientific paper as “fabulous.” Well, I am the principal author of 109 papers (and a co-author of an additional 81) in peer-review journals. And have refereed a least 600, and possibly as many as 1000, manuscripts. So you would be right in calling me an aficionado of articles published in scientific journals. And I found absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper! Apropos, twelve of my own publications have appeared in the American Institute of Physics’ Journal of Chemical Physics (an old fashioned paper journal), so it is accurate to say that chemical physics (of inorganic materials) is my main specialty."http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-02/peer-reviewer-active-thermitic-materials-paper-identifies-himself-great Since you obviously have no scientific refutation to Harrit's analysis I am claiming victory in this debate.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

Your lies I've exposed several times yet again here are the lies from Harrits own mouth on Danish TV I came across a Danish interview of Niels Harrit today, from the program 'Good Morning Denmark' April 07, 2009.I could not believe the total rubbish that he was putting out there. Starting with a complete denial that the plane impacts and fires had anything to do with the WTC tower collapses !?! he behaved like a person untouched by reality.The most astonishing and disturbing statements he made were these: (according to the translation)'There has never been a forensic investigation of this event. (9/11)No evidence has been put forward. No one has been formally charged.The police and FBI have not charged anyone, and no-one is 'wanted'.So who is crazy here?' He asks in response to the interviewer's question.He seems unaware of Khalid Shiek Mohammed, who I think was at the top of the FBI's most wanted list.And oblivious to the trial of Zacharias Mousawi, the '20th hijacker'.He seems oblivious to a great deal of truth and reality. Must be nice being a leader in the 9/11 truth movement - you can just say whatever you like without any real evidence, and the truther cult laps it up like warm milk.There's not much truth in 9/11 truth it seems.Just for the record - Niels Harrit also believes that the Pentagon hole has a size of 4.6 x 5.5 meter and he recommends DRGs "New Pearl Harbor". Read his "9/11 - A roadblock or a shortcut to peace and democracy?" (can´t link it yet). In a german interview at gulli.com he also states that the bomb-sniffing dogs at WTC were removed two weeks before 9/11 and UL certified the WTC steel.Regarding being peer reviewed here is the truth of the matter Harrit and Jones both caught red handed lying ..,.....In April 2009, Jones, along with Niels H. Harrit and 7 other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'.The editor of the journal, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, an expert in explosives and nano-technology,resigned. She received an e-mail from the Danish science journal Videnskab asking for her professional assessment of the article's content.According to Pileni, the article was published without her authorization. Subsequently, numerous concerns arose regarding the reliability of the publisher, Bentham Science Publishing. This included the publishing an allegedly peer reviewed article generated by SCIgen (although this program has also successfully submitted papers to IEEE and Springer , the resignation of multiple people at the administrative level, and soliciting article submissions from researchers in unrelated fields through spam.Since all your claims have been rubbished victory you have to admit is mine ..... the crowd rise as one to applaud the winner 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏��👏
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

You haven't ,, merely repeating yourself is not an argument  Who reviewed Harrit ? You still won't answer , whys that ?He did , I posted up his lies you admitted this in your last post , the link is in the article You're the Nazi as in you're a holocaust denier Where was he peer reviewed ? You gave no answer you attempted to spoof your way out .Where was he peer reviewed ?Well you would say that , but you're avoiding the fact that Jones is a Mormon and a climate change denier and Harrit is mentally unbalanced bwawahahahahahahahaha 🙀No , Harrits paper was shit , where was it peer reviewed ? Where was Harrits paper peer reviewed ? An obscure science journal against dozens of peer review papers that support my claims 😂😂😂Dozens of peer-reviewed papers have been written that support the official hypotheses, but those are dismissed as well. Both Gage and Griffin do, however, point to the movement's own peer-reviewed paper, published by former BYU professor Steven Jones and Danish scientist Niels Harrit. Because traditional controlled demolitions would have been audible throughout lower Manhattan had they actually occurred on 9/11, conspiracists have been forced to posit a very obscure scientific explanation for their central thesis: that the demolitions used an incendiary chemical called nano-thermite. Jones and Harrit argued in their paper that they found traces of a thermitic reaction in particles of dust found at the World Trade Center.Griffin and Gage hold this up as mainstream validation of the movement's work, but the peer-review process of the paper is suspect. (The editor of the journal resigned over the paper after it was published without her approval, for example, and one of the paper's peer reviewers is a 9/11 conspiracist who has speculated that the passengers on the four flights are actually still alive and living off of Swiss bank accounts.) At a certain point, though, debating science and theory and ideas is an exercise in futility, because the hypotheses of conspiracy theorists are not grounded in any kind of a larger understanding of the real world. "This sounds really mean," says Erik Sofge, a reporter on the original Popular Mechanics piece and an occasional contributor to Slate. "But really, it's like arguing over the marching speed of hobbits."Haritt describes his own work as expert thus using your logic he's just stroking his own ego , basically saying don't question my bullshit .Haritt the liar exposed on Danish TV writes a piece in an obscure journal and announces he been ' peer reviewed ' 😂😂GIVE ME THE NAME OF THE PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL AND THE PEOPLE WHO PEER REVIEWED THE GENIUS FROM DENMARK ,THEN GIVE ME A REFUTATION OF THE DOZENS OF (AUTHENTIC )PEER REVIEWED PAPERS THAT SUPPORT MY CLAIM LIKE YOU WERE ASKED THREE DAYS AGO YOU HOLOCAUST DENYING LITTLE POISIONIOUS DUMMYHARITT WAS NEVER PEER REVIEWED YOU DUMMY 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

No you have bullshit masquerading as science Niels Harrits bullshit has been discredited more than once . The article i cited is from the National Inquirer and of course ithe site is run by yet another one in your ' conspiracy theory ' scenarios .