azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Yes, because certainly you of all people have proven yourself to know about logic. Do you know the difference between an invalid argument and an uncogent argument? This is a rhetorical question. Any answer you give to me will be the result of a google search.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

And nobody knows google better then the man that googles everything. Still hunting for excuses Bohemian? I'm surprised you didn't yell fallacy. Invalid and uncogent must be today's words for the day. I'm sure we will all see them used in other debates throughout the remainder of the day. Can't wait and see what is tomorrows word.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Of course Google comes in handy when you're providing sources and evidence for an argument.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Or when you run out of BS, as it is in your case .
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

BS = Anything Thewayitis disagrees with
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

To say that BS is anything I say, classifies as ipse-dixitism. Were is the proof? Are we just suppose to take your word for it? Please provide a link for all the world to see. I have nothing to hide. Can you say the same?
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

2 things here:1) Just a post ago you said "When you run out of BS..." committing the very thing that you accuse me of now. Can YOU prove that what I say is BS? Fucking hypocrite.2) What I said is that BS is that which you disagree with, not that which you say. Note the difference.Regards, _Bo
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

You probably do believe whole heartedly that BS cannot be found by searching google. Talk about blind faith.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Did you read any of my last post or have you chosen to strategically ignore it? That's probably a good move.;)
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

I read it, and it said nothing. "What I said is that BS is that which you disagree with, not that which you say. Note the difference."To say that BS is that which I disagree with you on, is merely stating that you think your views are better than mine. I say BULLSHIT, not bullshit. Note the difference.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

To say that BS is that which I disagree with you on, is merely stating that you think your views are better than mine.They are. Your views are almost almost entirely based on anecdotal or sentimental factors and have very little if any research to support them. 9 times out of 10 your arguments are just a slur of personal attacks. Take for instance the anti-religion debate, or the evolution debate, where your arguments consist of attacking atheists, instead of arguing the actual topic. Atheists are not the only people to accept evolution, nor the only ones to be anti-religious. You've made several statements which I have disproven by citing statistical facts to the contrary. How many times have you done that for statements I've made? You don't seem to use sources at all.So yes, my views are better than your views.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

As far as you providing links, that's a joke. Where is the link on Christians believing in evolution?When it comes to copying and pasting someone else's words I leave this to you, I can think on my own. Experience will always triumph over the lack of it. You claim to be superior, that is a true sign of inferiority. To claim victory here is pathetic, this site is but a pimple on someone's ass. There is no victory here to claim, because the only one that fired any shots is you.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

As far as you providing links, that's a joke. Where is the link on Christians believing in evolution?"16 percent of born-again Christians, compared to 43 percent of Catholics and 30 percent of Protestants, believe in Darwin's theory of evolution."http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/11/29/us-usa-religion-beliefs-idUKN2922875820071129 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States This means there are about 45 Million Protestants who believe in Evolution, 32 Million Catholics, and 4 million born-again Christians.Total 81 Million Christians who accept the theory of evolution. There are only 35 Million non-religious folks so even if every single non-religious person believed in Evolution, they would still be the minority amongst evolutionists.I predict a No True Scotsman to follow....wait for it....
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

In these surveys, who decided if these people where in fact Christians. I would bet that it was the same person that answered these questions. Most people cling to an idea of what is the right thing to say, whether it is true or not. For example, how many of those that claim to Catholic actually are? To be considered Catholic by the Roman Catholic Church one must meet these requirements:1) Be baptized2) Have completed conformation3) Be a member of a Catholic ChurchWho verified that these requirements were made? Nobody. Because of this, these surveys are meaningless in regards to religious people. The only valid results that can be obtained from a survey like this, is when people are asked a question they responded in this way. No factual information can be obtained without facts.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Even if EVERY SINGLE self-identified catholic was lying, Christians would still constitute a majority of Evolutionists.You are in denial, my friend.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Are you just dense or just plain dumb? You have to do this for all religions that are Christian. (Methodist,Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, etc.)I didn't say anybody was lying. I'm sure these people believe they are what they said they are. I said, one cannot be classified as something they are not. If your grandmother told you, you are native American; Does this mean you are? No, you have to have an actual family member that is native American to be one. One must be one to be one. When are you going to pull your head out of your ass?You my friend is the only thing illogical here.Let me put this in terms that even you can understand. What makes one a citizen of the USA? If one merely says they are, does this make them one? According to your logic there are no illegal aliens in the USA. To be a citizen you must meet the criteria, the same has to be done to be a member of a religion.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

I'm aware of this, I was demonstrating the sheer numerical discrepancy, it would actually take for your argument to hold water. A point which has evidently eluded you.Literally 1 out of every 2 Christians would have to be lying, in order for them to NOT constitute the majority of Evolutionists. That's a pretty big leap.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

I clearly showed that the poll was biased and the out come was made to be in favor of evolution, those rendering the entire poll null and void. And yet you still attempt to claim victory for a loss. Talk about miracles.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

You haven't shown anything, you've simply said that it's biased. You are actually trying to argue that the poll is inaccurate, which is not the same thing as being biased. The reason it is not inaccurate for the reasons you give, is because the poll only claims to represent self-identified religious affiliation. Unless you have good reason to believe the number of self-identified Christians differs from the number of actual Christians by 50%, then you are only digging yourself deeper into this hole of denial.Most evolutionists are Christians, just admit it already and move on.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Christians believe in the Bible or they cannot be Christians. What chapter does one find evolution? None. Does one find creation in the Bible? What do they believe? Read Genesis and get back with me.If a Christian can believe in evolution, than it must be possible for an atheist to believe in God. Admit it, you know God exists.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

So now you've decided to back away from your argument over statistics (because that is an argument you will never win) and have instead begun insisting your opinion of what a christian is, excludes belief in evolution. You neglect the fact that not all Christians interpret the Bible quite as literally as you do. Your argument then begins to look a lot like a No True Scotsman argument.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

I already proved that the poll is invalid and you believe that an invalid poll has correct statistics. To date this is the dumbest argument you have ever posted. Knowing you, I'm betting this won't be the dumbest for long. Since you have been on a down-ward spiral for sometime, I'm looking forward to reading what comes out your mouth next. I'm sure whatever it is that mentally challenged will still deem you their idol.In case you haven't noticed I don't take the Bible literally, but I can tell you do.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

You saying the poll is invalid, does not make it invalid. You have no reason to believe that the number of self-identified Christians deviates from the number of actual Christians by over 50%, none whatsoever, thus Statistics clearly show that Christians constitute the majority of evolutionists. Desperate ad hominems won't change that, and it's clear to me that this fact upsets you. When you think you can provide a challenge, feel free to come back. Otherwise your argument is done.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

You want proof? I'll give you just that. You believe that all information produced on the Internet is infallible and so I'll give you what you worship. (See link)No Christian believes in Secular Evolution. Now if you were to say that some Christians believe in Theistic Evolution, this is possible. Also, do take note the difference of those that are active Christians and those that merely say they are Christians that believe in theistic evolution.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

38% of 54% is a Majority, you imbecile! The article you posted clearly supports what I've been saying the whole time.According to these statistics 54% of Americans believe in evolution and of those people, a majority (38%), believe in God-guided evolution aka, theistic evolution. Read the article. And because we know something like 81% of American theists are Christians, we can conclude that the majority of Evolutionists are Christian. This in addition to the the stats and statistics I've already provided which also confirm this.Now if you were to say that some Christians believe in Theistic Evolution, this is possible.Don't even try to back-peddle. Theistic Evolution is still evolution which you plainly said Christians could not believe. I find it amusing that you are suddenly changing your tune.You cannot squirm your way out of this. You were wrong; Factually and objectively wrong! I have provided statistics in support of this and you have provided statistics against yourself. Admit your error, something you are not known for doing.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

54% is a majority. 38% is not. One cannot declare a majority on a minority.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

38% of 54% IS a majority. 'Sigh'You apparently lack the ability to comprehend this. Let me break it down for you. 54% is the percent of ALL AMERICANS that are evolutionists. I didn't make a claim about all Americans, I only made a claim about Evolutionists. I stated that the majority of Evolutionists are Christians, which statistically is true.The 38% is the percent of ALL AMERICANS that are theistic evolutionists, in other words it is including Creationists in that figure, so when we look at evolutionists exclusively theists (the vast majority being christian) do constitute a majority. Atheists are a minority of evolutionists. So when people characterize the evolution debate as "Christians vs Atheists" that simply isn't the case, and it is a gross oversimplification.I really shouldn't even have to explain this.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

The bible is logical... I mean the world had to be created by some intelligent being. I mean our body it works all together and everything in our body fits in. The big bang is not real jesus is real and if anyone disagrees i don't give a shiz you beleive what you beleive and i shall beleive what i beleive.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

you sound like a christian. "if anyone disagrees i don't give a shiz you beleive what you beleive and i shall beleive what i beleive."
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

i do not believe in God, but i think that religion is great thing to control society and avoid chaos. Bible or Koran is perfect book to develop human abilities: patience, life without bad habits, etc. Also religion gives power, hope, patience to go through problems, bad times.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Whether you believe it is used in a good or bad way does not address the bible's coherence and logic.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Whenever someone quotes the Bible it always tends to be out of context. First, picking up a Bible and simply reading any passage sounds nice but a problem exists even in those days on how to interpret the texts in its FULL meaning. That is with the full intent of not only the one who wrote them but also of the Holy Spirit. Christians believe that the Bible was written by men and divinely inspired. So, of course you can expect parts of the whole text to be easily read and understood and others not. Which is why someone is necessary to translate/ interpret the scriptures with respect to the overall message of the Bible itself. I invite the person who started this debate to look into ACTS 8:30 & 31.To anyone else interested in bashing the Bible ask yourselves why? It seems like most of the conclusions from this debate, arguing that the Bible is illogical, is not from an intellectual conclusion but from a series of premises that never end. Always reasons not to believe or prove that its illogical because of a few sentences but not because of its message.The Bible is logical, for divinity is the fullness of reason. If we define logic as reason and divinity (i.e. God) being the fullness of reason (by definition he would have to be), then the text by which man was inspired by God, would also be logical. It doesn't matter, in fact it hardly ever mattered the types of men who composed it because the Divinity behind the messenger of the Bible still delivered the all perfect Word. The logic follows.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

First off, its hard to decide things in this world as either completely logical or completely illogical. However, the bible is a complex collection of recollections and poetic aspirations, and within it contains various types of metaphorical references and deep abstract comparisons. The important to realize is that the bible needs to be treated as a symbol for something greater. The bible was written by "man", and it must be expected as imperfect. Finally, we must respect the bible as an articulated attempt for the "Word of God."
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

The Bible is logical because it teaches us about God. God is pretty important.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

It isn't going to mean anything to someone who does not have the Holy Spirit. So to all you Christian, Christianity haters.....it is what it is, something you will never get.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

"something you will never get"I really don't know how you arrive at this conclusion, the reality is that most people including myself were indoctrinated into beleiving in Christianity during the early part of our lives and if it wasn't for our inquisitive nature would still be in its clutches so its something that i actually did get, and subsequently chose not to get when i realised it was completely untenable, its makes more sense the worship the sun than some fictional figure that only exists in a book some men wrote a few thousand years ago.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Also just realized this article/debate thingy is over a year old, if not 2. Yikes! So you are no longer 13 and I feel silly for bringing this back up. But I guess i found it on a good night where I was debating logic. Helped me clear things up in my mind anyways. Thank you!
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Since the Bible was written by man, the Bible is prone to error.
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: true

True. I don't know what people who down vote hope to gain. Is it like, "You don't agree with me so I'm going to down vote you until you do." What's it all about? ;)
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: true

I agree, more importantly, downvoting is prone to abuse and either should be harshly limited in usage (No more than one downvote a day allotted, requiring more than 100 points prior to voting, and should deduct 10 points from the downvoter), or simply done away with all together. Many users will be forced to express their disapproval by actually typing out a response, rather than just hitting a button.
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: true

I have no problem with the down vote system but I will agree with one thing you said.... one should be required to have at least 100 (or some number) points before they can DV, that would discourage people from making fake accounts just to DV and I think Andy has said in the past that he is on board with that.
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: false

I am sometimes too thick to accept a disapproving argument. I can simply ignore it by assuming what is being said is stupid, or engage in sophistry which helps no one, certainly not myself. A downvote though, that's not so easy to reject. If I know someone disapproves of me, but I don't know why, I start to wonder. It makes me self-analytical, making me more likely to discover why I am wrong.
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: true

I am sometimes too thick to accept a disapproving argument. I can simply ignore it by assuming what is being said is stupid, or engage in sophistry which helps no one, certainly not myself.I've never seen you do this. In fact, I think that most people here refrain from doing this most of the time.A downvote though, that's not so easy to reject. If I know someone disapproves of me, but I don't know why, I start to wonder. It makes me self-analytical, making me more likely to discover why I am wrong.Most people (myself included) will not do this though. I will usually message the person, (if they're not Dana) since me getting downvotes from someone other than Dana is a bit outlandish, and it's easier for me to figure out where I went wrong by talking to them. I feel that arguments will occasionally take the place of what would've been a downvote, and like I said discussion is more effective, and it's not like even a sizable fraction of people here message each other over downvotes, it ends there. I will sit and think over a response, but a downvote simply demonstrates that I got someone upset (normally Dana).
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: true

I think it is okay to downvote abuse, but I do not understand all of the fuss over this feature.
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: false

You don't just downvote abuse...
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: false

By downvoting a non-abusive comment you have just made my point. Thank you. Maybe you just downvote anything that doesn't have nude indecent images of children in it. :)
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: true

I down voted you because you are abusive and you slandered me. I will never forgive you for lying. Go fuck yourself.
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: false

I has a sad :( go fuck yourselfWhat sexualised language :S it must be all that looking at indecent image of children.
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: false

LOL. That doesn't sound very Christian .
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: true

I have the right to stand up for myself. .
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: false

So? The lawd Jebus has decreed that you turn the other cheek and to forgive the transgressions of your neighbors. After all, you don't want to wind up in the ooky spooky inferno land.
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: true

I do not have to tolerate abuse. .
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: false

Sure, but that does not mean that you can insult and curse your neighbor.
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: true

I have the right to protect myself from abuse. I will not tolerate abuse.
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: false

You don't tolerate abuse unless that abuse is targeted at small children and then you post nude indecent images of them. I see.
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: true

I posted the picture to prove that abortion is murder. I am trying to protect the lives of children.
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: false

It is NEVER okay to post nude indecent pictures of children. They are not your object to use. Fact. They have a right to their own body. fact. You don't own them. fact.
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: true

It is also wrong to abort them, not that a proabortion statist like you gives a shit.
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: false

Oh and I also.. statist? Seriously? You realise that without the state you would personally be dead.
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: false

Yes it is wrong to abort them. It is also wrong for people like you to use their nude pictures for their own gratification. You sicko.
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: false

You do realize that "pro-life" is general considered more statist than "pro-choice", right?
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: true

The unborn child has the right to live. .
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: false

but not the right to privacy of their own body???????? To not have indecent images of them used for debate????? You madam are the queen of hypocrites.
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: true

Go fuck yourself. People need to realize that abortion is murder. I have done nothing wrong in proving this fact. Leave me the fuck alone. After what you did, I do not have to speak to you.
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: false

I'm sick of you pervert. You think just because you want to make a point you can post nude images of children all over the net. You need to fucking stop.
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: false

Well, guess what? That still requires a regulation to uphold, a regulation by the state.
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: false

That's irrelevant. If you fail to forgive him, then you've committed a sin. Plain and simple.
Debate: The downvoting feature is not helpful at this site.
Side: true

Luke 17:3 says to forgive people IF THEY REPENT, not before.