azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: No

Not really. Time and space didn't exist before the Big Bang, so whatever preceded it was beyond space and time, the creator of it. Your clan can't use that answer. It needs magic.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: Yes

You aren't going to listen to reason. Do you really want to have a debate?
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: No

Not particularly. I think I'm going to go drink some beers. Toodles.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: Yes

I drove you to drink. Dang, I am on fire today.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: No

Perhaps. And it's good stuff too. I'd buy you some and share, but you're a minor and don't have your big boy pants on yet. Talk to me in a few years. I'll pass you the Jack.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: No

-----I am not intimidated by words.-----That's weird. You are the easiest one to trigger on the site.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: Yes

Is that why you have been triggered to ban me all the time? You get triggered as much as I breath. I just have to use a four letter word to set you off.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: No

This thread is about domestic violence. My clan doesn't use violence to shut up liberals. I also don't yell or scream, or shout down my opposition with "slogans". I'm actually rather laid back and very calm. Then liberals in real life get mad at the calmness.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: Yes

Domestic violence has nothing to do with silencing conservatives it silencing liberals.. I also don't yell or scream, or shout down my opposition with "slogans".You personally do. I'm actually rather laid back and very calm. Except when I rip apart your worthless arguments. ;) Then liberals in real life get mad at the calmness.Why do you act so different on this website if you know how effective it is in real life?
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: No

-----I'm actually rather laid back and very calm.Except when I rip apart your worthless arguments. ;)-----I'm still waiting for that to happen.-----Then liberals in real life get mad at the calmness.Why do you act so different on this website if you know how effective it is in real life?------Well, you can either accept that I'm a great troll, or you will have to stick with the calmness claim. You pick.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: Yes

I'm still waiting for that to happen.How many times does it need to happen? Well, you can either accept that I'm a great troll, or you will have to stick with the calmness claim. You pick.You may be a great troll in real life, but you abandon your tactics on this website. Why? Your calmness claim is part of you being a troll.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: Yes

Liberals live in Never Never Land, where a woman, a Muslim, and/or a gay person can do no wrongI think this statement is contradicting, as a person who thinks so, wouldn't come under liberal idealogy of liberty and equality..and thus, he wouldn't be a liberal..
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: No

What does that mean, "equality"? If a man works harder than another man, he shouldn't make more and have more?
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: Yes

by "equality", I am referring to the point of having a biased opinion on the basis of gender, religion, according to you, which was, liberals think women, muslims ... can never be wrong.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: Yes

And equality in general has a different meaning altogether. It focuses on how a person belonging to a certain group, (which we classify) is treated. So, irrespective of how much a person earns, he should be treated the same as another, in his/her social life.In other words, respect that person.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: No

It is contradictory. That's why we look at Democrats like they are bat crazy. Consistancy doesn't seem to be a part of their game.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: No

Are you stupid? Liberals are not know for denying domestic violence against men.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: Yes

You almost got through a sentence for once that was in the English language... (and without any insults) but alas, you could do neither in the end....
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: Yes

Absolutely it is real. Just like a man can be a victim of rape he can also be a victim of domestic violence.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: Yes

do·mes·tic vi·o·lencenounviolent or aggressive behavior within the home, typically involving the violent abuse of a spouse or partner.Violent or aggressive behavior within the home, typically involving the violent abuse of a spouse or partner.By definition a man could be attacked within the home by his spouse/partner, therefore domestic violence on men is by definition real.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: Yes

Yes. But it doesn't get reported because they're too tired from orgasm. ...............................................
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: No

If the question had read;- is domestic violence on 'real men' real?, the answer would have been no.As it is, the answer unfortunately is yes.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: No

No, it never happens. Even when women hit men, men are to blame for making them unhappy and creating an environment of violence.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: Yes

Are you being sarcastic. ?
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: No

To be real, it must be composed of physical information.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: Yes

What is physical information; and what is non-physical information? Which one applies to domestic violence against men?
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: Yes

What is physical information; and what is non-physical information? I could have just said information, but that would have been hard to understand. There's no "non physical information", and the "physical" is more of a determiner than a quantifier. Which one applies to domestic violence against men?This question is based on the shaky assumption that the previous one was valid. Therefore, it makes no sense, especially when we add what I said.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: No

Let's not get side tracked by your misunderstanding of the nature of information.Basically, you said that for domestic violence against men to be real, it must be composed of information (leaving out the unnecessary "physical" qualifier).So what does it mean for real domestic violence to be composed of information?
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: Yes

Let's not get side tracked by your misunderstanding of the nature of information.Ah, yes, let's not get side tracked by your misunderstanding of the nature of information.Basically, you said that for domestic violence against men to be real, it must be composed of informationYes, that'd be right. So what does it mean for real domestic violence to be composed of information?I don't think it can be simplified further. Unless you want examples of things being composed of information, so let's give you the benefit of doubt on this one. The simplest example would be a block of wood being composed of the information, in its molecules which are mostly organic, and which in turn are composed of smaller bits of information.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: Yes

And also it's dimensional coordinates, among all the other things about it.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: No

We should debate information in another thread, because it unfortunately bears on your presentation here.Your original post amounts to "domestic violence against men can only be considered real if domestic violence against them really happens". A tautology not worth posting except in the hopes of appearing smart. Unfortunately, while failing to say anything on this topic, you said something wrong about another topic.You can start your argument about info in a different thread from the following: Material things are composed of matter as such. They are independent of that which is outside What they are composed of. Information is not information until it is conveyed. Nothing is composed of information. That which a thing is composed of provides information to other things that interact with it. Information requires relation, composition does not. If you would like to challenge my correction to your understanding of information, challenge it elsewhere. Let's keep this debate about domestic violence.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: Yes

So that means that the question you asked has a more obscure interpretation. Yes, this isn't the right place to handle your rigid misunderstandings. I've said that already. That's why I included physical there, because I won't be arguing over the nature of information if it's hard for you to understand. But you...are not so smart.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: No

Ah, there I let it go right off the rails. Back to the topic at hand.Your original post amounts to "domestic violence against men can only be considered real if domestic violence against them really happens". A tautology not worth posting except in the hopes of appearing smart. If this is incorrect, go ahead and post whatever point you meant to convey.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: Yes

tautology not worth posting except in the hopes of appearing smart. Not a causation worth hoping to me, though. I wouldn't have even considered it that way. . If this is incorrect, go ahead and post whatever point you meant to convey.Since the head terms "violence" and "domestic violence" does not correspond to something which is real, it can't be real. (You can use your simplistic non-physical things, though.)
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: No

Since the head terms "violence" and "domestic violence" does not correspond to something which is real, it can't be realWhen you said that domestic violence is only real if it really happens, what you meant to say was that no violence is real, including domestic violence. I think we are probably done here.
Debate: Is Domestic Violence On Men Real?
Side: Yes

Your original post amounts to "domestic violence against men can only be considered real if domestic violence against them really happens". If this is incorrect, go ahead and post whatever point you meant to convey.When you said that domestic violence is only real if it really happens, what you meant to say was that no violence is real, including domestic violence.Hmm... I think we are probably done here.At least one reasonable thing from you. Considering how stubborn you are about your poor comprehension, yes, we're done here.
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: No

Darwin said if his theory be true, there should be transitional fossils.Where are they?
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: Yes

In reality basically every fossil is a transition fossil, but what you are probably looking for are these:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listoftransitional_fossils
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: No

Why is it Progressives are upset about apes being in zoos and not evolving into humans ?
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: Yes

If Americans came from Europeans, why are there still Europeans...?Dumb, da dumb, dumb
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: No

Why haven't apes evolved into humans ? Why have apes in zoos could they not evolve ?
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: Yes

why haven't all Europeans become Americans?
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: No

There are still apes in zoos why haven't they evolved ? If man evolved from apes why are apes still around ?
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: Yes

If man evolved from apes why are apes still around ?Is this a serious question?
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: No

evolution and paleantology are full of fraud with no-names desperate to make a name for themselves, the list of transitional fossils is full of proven frauds such as "the feather imprints of the London Archaeopteryx fossil specimen were forged. Evidence for this is thatthe feather impressions appear only on the slab, not on the counterslab.the surface texture is different between the feathered and unfeathered areas;slightly elevated "blobs" appear which are not always matched by depressions on the counterslab;the feathers show "double strike" impressions.Hairline cracks which pass through both bones and feathers could have formed by slight movements to the slab after the cement was in place.Under magnification, the limestone appears different in fossil and non-fossil areas of the specimen.Unknown material appears within the matrix in the fossil area.An x-ray chemical analysis showed chemical differences, including silicon, sulfur, and chlorine in the fossil area that were not present in the non-fossil area.These points indicate that the feather impressions were made by someone impressing feathers in a cement-like matrix that was added to the stone. Without the feathers, Archaeopteryx would be identified as the dinosaur Compsognathus, not as a transitional fossil."In spite of frauds, they still are listed as true transitional species. Your religion is like a cult pushing lies strongly to keep it's followers buying whatever they sell
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: Yes

Wow..talk about cherry picking!You are the master!Thousands of documented Transitional Fossils including hundreds you can see for yourself in museums all over the world. And like a good little Christian you cull one spurious case and use it to condemn an entire decades long opus if scientific work and Discovery.Shame on you.It's a pity you guys don't apply such discrimination to your Bible. When we point out fast examples of contradiction and stolen fables from earlier superstitions...er, religions, you blithely dismiss it.Why is that?Oh yeah, that's right...you guys are blinded by delusion and indoctrination. SShttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listoftransitional_fossils
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: No

That one case of fraud which is still commonly held up by leaders in evolutionary propaganda should be enough for an honest person to disown association with anybody who uses a fraud to support their program. Paleontology is as corrupt as politics with people working on grant funding trying to make a name for themselves so they get more grants or more recognition to add value to their name......and it has to be comparable to bribery in politics the way the fraudulent "discoveries" continue to be upheld as real in museums and textbooks and taught to unaware children....and you want to tell me there is no conspiracy in it? It's just a circus show for suckers, with a lot of money floating around, and no real scientific value, no use in applied sciences.And along with that is the continuing upholding of propaganda like "the backwards optical nerve" which real scientists have discovered is not backwards at all but rather is the way it has to be for our vision, and somehow Dawkins gets paid big money in a university to sell it to students. The same with "vestigial organs" and all kinds of pseudo-science in evolution which is discounted by real science. And there is no conspiracy with an agenda to push this garbage without shame, refusing to acknowledge how scientific advancement has left old assertions of evolution in the dust yet they are still upheld like the flat earth society holds onto flat earth? And there is no conspiracy to push evolution down the throats of kids from pre school up?
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: No

Those are not transitional fossils.Those are historical findings.However, a fossilized trilobite shows that a human foot stepped on it.
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: Yes

They are, actually, transitional fossils. Just about all fossils are "transitional".Transitional fossils can be historical findings if, you know, they were found in the past.
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: Yes

"I unhesitatingly assert that this is not a footprint. I have observed and collected a number of types of footprints that meet all the critical requirements, and I have had no qualms about describing these in print even though some were totally new. The Meister specimen is the result of a natural break, which happens to resemble a footprint. This type of fracture is called spalling and the part which breaks out or is detached is called a spall.The specimen was in no sense faked, and I am sure it was found exactly as reported. But I, along with my geologist friends, are equally sincere in my belief that it is an accidental natural product and not a footprint.One might think a difference of opinion such as this could be solved by appeal to impartial judges or by a more thorough investigation of the field of evidence. But from the time of discovery, the specimen has taken on a religious significance that makes a friendly solution almost impossible."1981, Dr. William Stokes - http://ncse.com/cej/2/4/tripping-over-trilobite-study-meister-tracks Bachelors and Masters from BYU, Ph.D in geology from Princeton University in 1941 and Professor at the University of Utah for more than 32 years (headed of Department of Geology for 13 years). Additionally, a Mormon who tried to convince other Mormons that evolution was compatible with scripture.
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: Yes

There are more frauds making fake fossils to back up God.
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: No

Hilarious. You didn't address my argument at all and you are going to say I don't know what I am talking about. It is you who doesn't know what I am talking about.
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: Yes

I seriously hope you are trolling and don't really believe that all those museums if natural history are frauds. Like there is some sort of big bad worldwide conspiracy out there.This thinking would officially make you a member of the tinfoil hat club!I always knew you were deluded, and very mistaken on aspects of evolution, but to go so far as to call all of our museums of natural history and the Smithsonian institute a fraud is....well.....on the level of psychosis. I am sorry to inform you.Meanwhile, you believe in a book that tells you unicorns exist and read carpenters come back to life and a sky god stops the sun in the sky and parts rivers? And kills children for revenge?Wow.I am officially speechless.
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: No

Evolutionary teaching is an organized brainwashing. There is an agenda behind it. Why in the world did they think I needed it pumped down my throat when I was five years old? Why did they want me to believe it? I was always suspicious of whoever was behind it, and still am. Why do they want me to believe in something that makes life meaningless, purposeless, with no objective morals and no objective undeniable value? You have bought into it, sold your soul to the devil I guess. You can have this messed up world, I'm going to heaven. The promises of evolution are lies.
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: No

I don't believe in evolution. I understand the science and how it is used to illustrate belief in evolution. You don't have to believe in evolution to appreciate or pursue scientific discovery. You only have to believe in evolution if you reject objective morality...evolution gives you an excuse in your mind to make up your own standard of morals for situational ethics.
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: Yes

I understand the science and how it is used to illustrate belief in evolution.No, you don't. This has been demonstrated multiple times, not the least of which was you saying so yourself. ..Saintnow: "There have been no sworn testimonials of anybody claiming to actually have seen monkeys morphing into people"Saintnow: "Nobody really knows what evolution is or how it works..."
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: No

If you wake up in Hell, unable to escape the fire, will you believe it is forever?
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: No

I check responses to my arguments and I see the faces of five fools who think they have the right to exist outside of Hell and I"m leaving them in the dust, I tried to tell them how they can be saved but they think they are better than God........idiots.
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: Yes

You didn't address my argument at allThat's a funny complaint coming from you. You never respond to my arguments. Instead you seem to obsess over the fact that I'm not a Christian, and bleat on about hell. Something tells me that you live a very sheltered life where you don't come into contact with non-Christians very often. You want me to respond to your argument, fine, I'll responded but then I'm going to need you to start responding to mine. Otherwise you surrender all right to complain. Sound good?It is you who doesn't know what I am talking about.I don't think anyone does, yourself included.
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: Yes

You want me to respond to your argument, fine, I'll responded but then I'm going to need you to start responding to mine. Otherwise you surrender all right to complain. Sound good?
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: No

No I do not want you to respond. I'm trying to ignore you for the reasons I stated. All you do is act like a jerk insulting me, I gave up on you. I tried to tell you how you can be saved from Hell because I don't want you to go there, but you are determined to get proof of the reality of Hell the hard way so enjoy yourself and take a hike.
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: Yes

All you do is act like a jerk insulting meI must have missed the part where I called your mother, sister and wife a whore.
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: No

You believe that we came from rocks! Don't step on grandpa what ever you do!Technically you believe in a fairy tale that a princess kisses a frog and the frog turns into man.You try to make it science by just replacing the kiss with time!We Creationists believe God created the world. God existed in the beginning.You believe that the big bang created the world. Dirt existed from the beginning.Did it ever occur to you that you as a human being can know that God does not exist? Lets say you know half of everything. If God exists, He could exists outside of what you know!
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: Yes

You think we came from dirt. Don't act all high and mighty.Technically you believe in a fairy tale that a princess kisses a frog and the frog turns into man.False.You try to make it science by just replacing the kiss with time!Only you believe that princesses and frogs always existed together.We Creationists believe God created the world. God existed in the beginning.That's theism.
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: No

Hey new meat.I probably should not waste my time with you, since if you don't know about all the transitional fossils then you are pretty clueless about the topic.But never let it be said I did not try to enlighten!Here is a partial list.Hope you have some time to read? LOL.There are thousands of Transitional Fossils!!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listoftransitional_fossils
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: Yes

NO ONE ASKED YOU SLAPSHOTITEYTOY!!!*
Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: Yes

Randomness did not create, you need information to make DNA.Evolution takes more faith in nothing and Randomness then faith needed for belief in God. At least you can prove God with common sense and reasoning. Evolution is ridiculous!If evolution were true we would have life forms sprouting out of nothing all day. What is it like hair dye, it stopped after it evolved so far because nothing is intelligent?And aside from changing properties for adaptation there is only things growing with an intelligent designer. Scientists putting together to make. That's still not random nothing!Look at the Giraffe. How did evolution work backward from a dead body? Their long neck getting water needs a valve that would necessitate it's survival. A valve it would be dead before knowing it needed. There are many animals that evolution could not be possible. Because of the process, unless you can evolve from dead and from nothing!