azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Does a animal have the same value as a human
Side: no

In the case of BF/GF, you would choose to save him/her because you have spent loads of time with him/her and you would also know that his/her family would get back at you/be upset if you let him/her die. However, squirrels won't hate you or get super upset over the death of their family member/friend, so you would be negatively affecting fewer lives.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Faith in science is like evidence of god. It's an irrational sentiment and a non-starter for debate. A more apt question would be, "Would you sooner believe in science than have faith in God (and his established teachings)?"
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

I will answer on behalf of the revised question here. And I would sooner believe in science. Scientists have been building on the same ideas for thousands of years. Religions are too diverse. If I were to go with God, I'd have to first decide which version of him to accept. And that's a wholly impossible decision. How can a person decide which religion is telling the truth, and which ones are wrong? Should I go by the dominant religion of the place I grew up? That seems rather arbitrary. Or which version I agree with most? That seems a little too biased.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Agree with you 99.9% Whoever stated this, were you tyring to start an argument of science vs religion?
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: God

You don't think faith factors into belief in science? Do you believe that a water molecule is composed of 2 hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom? If so, why? Have you personally witnessed a water molecule and personally determined its composition? If not, how do you know? If the answer is that someone you trust told you that this was true (such as a teacher, writer, or scientist), I would ask you to explain how this is not a demonstration of your faith in a person and a process that you deem authoritative in the realm of physical phenomena. This is the exact same epistemological basis on which a theist puts his faith in God. He trusts his priest and his church for the same reasons that you trust the author or scientist: You trust his or her method, and you trust that her or she has authority in this realm. The fact that science is empirical does not logically factor into your argument.The epistemic justification is identical. Hence, this debate is well worth having.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

There's two types of faith: belief in something without evidence to support that belief (EX: Faith that God exists), and trust in someone (EX: Faith that my mom'll pay the bills). The "faith" that we have in scientists is the second kind of faith. They've proven that they're right time and time again, and they've shown that if they're not right, they'll correct themselves. The evidence that they're right is the entireity of civilization. To quote Thunderf00t: "Civilization is simply a monument to science."The fact that we can cure most diseases, the fact that I can go from raleigh to chicago in less than 2 hours, the fact that we're even having this conversation is proof that scientists are right most of the time and that their method works. Religion, on the other hand, and faith in religion, has no more evidence than that which is based upon confirmation bias and intuition, which is hardly worth calling evidence.The confusion between these two definitions is the cause of a lot of time consuming and pointless arguments, and it's something to watch out for.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

yep.. obviously a pro-God/anti-science person starting this one..
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: God

You cannot read minds...That is anti-science and pro-metaphysical
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: God

Give up these mind games. Get REAL.We can speculate for ever but are INFINITELY short of the necessary knowledge to form a valid judgement re the nature of it all.All Gods are home grown entities generated by early ignorance & fear of the future. That fact is so obvious, it shouldn't need to be stated.The use of common sense & research (science) is our only means of getting by. We must ALL use it!
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

I need to correct my previous post that tags the argument as for God. I've tried to edit it but I get no response; bugs have crept into the program somehow. I wonder who allowed them access?It's just got to be apparent to anyone who is prepared to think - ALL gods are purely Man-made.The absract subject of Religiosity is the realm of dumb intellectuals who should know far better than to treat it seriously. It's obvious tosh. They surely must realise that the mind is naturally prone to the generation of illusions & arrive at the common sense conclusions that any sane person would!Transcendental tripe is definitely not for me!
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Being raised a Roman Catholic for my entire life, I have always been told to turn to God for help. I was Confirmed as a Catholic a few years back. Within the past few months, I have begun to question my religion, and their teachers.Why should I believe in something I cant see, or touch? How do we know the Bible writers weren't just lying? Basically, the entire Roman Catholic religion is based upon the bible. I still have not made my decision of whether to stick to my faith, or become an Atheist.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: God

If you believe that the laws of logic are true, then you believe in something that you cannot see or touch. If you believe that you have a mind, you believe in something you cannot see or touch.If you believe in honesty, justice, tolerance...If you believe in numbers and letters...All of these things are immaterial,yet very real.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

"If you believe that the laws of logic are true, then you believe in something that you cannot see or touch."The laws of logic, like most of your other examples, are conceptual, abstracted, theoretical. The laws of logic don't actually "exist" in any real sense. They are merely rules derived from a few self-evident first principles.God, you might argue, is real in the very same "theoretical" sense. I would agree, but that is a very non-substantial form of existence that no one denies: obviously the concept of God exists, or else we wouldn't be having the conversation. Implicit in your idea is the ontological argument which has been refuted.Similarly, numbers and letters exist as 'ideas' which are useful in describing the universe. Likewise, no one denies the "idea" of God exists.Furthermore, frameworks like math and logic can be tested. Does 2 + 2 indeed make 4? Try it yourself, and that will prove its axiomatic consistency.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Both

The bible was put together years after its writers had died when the Romans decided to become Catholic. I myself was Catholic, but now I believe in my own beliefs. Science has evidence to support it, God only answers the last two questions, how the universe began and what happens after death. I say combine science with faith. For example, I believe in evolution. I think that when humans evolved, God gave them souls because He saw that they were the first creatures that could question and think. See? A happy compromise.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Wow, about a year and a half ago I was in your exact same position. I too was raised Catholic but I felt questions about my faith. I eventually chose to become an atheist.I will not try to influence your decision, because ones own personal beliefs are just that: personal. Whether you choose to remain a Catholic, or become and agnostic or atheist I hope you will remain tolerant of others beliefs.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Like you, I have been raised Catholic. I became athiest simply because if there is a god, he must be some asshole on a high throne too good to step in and help. However, I can concede that something must have caused the big bang. Maybe God, maybe he caused evolution. Rest with science, but accept the possibility.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

If you can't confirm the existence of God (a metaphysical being), then how can God, directly or indirectly, confirm the existence of a man (a material being)?
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: God

Please don't turn away from God. I've just joined this forum and read your response and it concerns me, and Him, I assure you.Do you believe in love? In hate? In truth? You cannot see or touch these things? You only see and touch the results of these things. God is the same. I used to believe as you (reversed—I started out as an atheist and wasn't raised in a Christian home). Let me ask you this: Do you feel in your heart of hearts that the writings in the Bible are lies. What is untruthful about them? I used to think, when I was a know-it-all adolescent, that some where in the universe, three guys were laughing "They bought it. They bought it! Got the whole world to believe it!!" But of course, that's a very childish, cynical and typical-of-a-teenager view. The truth is three persons did write it, through man, with purpose and with love and IN TRUTH.What will becoming an atheist do for you? Really? How would losing your faith help you in any way? It would turn you away from TRUTH, and that's the worst thing in the world. Talk to your minister. Or another one, if you're not happy with the Catholic church. Talk to HIM. I'll pray for you. Peace.Oh, and for everyone else: God and science don't have to be opposed. There would be no science without God? God created scientists, too. There are many scientists who believe in God, so we shouldn't box them into a category of "unbelief."
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Both

But you should always question. Having doubts leads to better understanding. If you blindly believe, you are simply a slave to your religion. But if you question and search for answers you may find a personal understanding of God.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Science is understandable and predictable. God is his/her own person and thus not easily understandable or predictable. You can expect science to do certain things, but God can get mad and smite you out of nowhere! :)
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: God

I will remember that...........................................................I meant to support you. :(
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: smite

I'll remember that...................................................I meant to support you. :(
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Science doesn't require faith. Science is based on evidence.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Al Gore

I BELIEVE you...................................................
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

The is no blind faith in science when it is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU!But I'll support science over religion any day.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

I choose science for some areas since there are evidence in front of my eyes :]
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Science explains everything, Religion is fairy tales and whr=en you ask a logical question, you are killed for blasphemy
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Science will always perside over everything. You don't see religion been taught in school as fact, only belief. Science on the other hand is factual, black and white, with no shades of grey.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Gods are more likely to be wrong.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

One cannot have faith in science. Faith isn't allowed in science, so if you subscribe via faith, it means you're not adhering to science. And faith is easily demonstrated to be a non-starter in every respect. One need only look at the thousands of proposed gods over the course of religious history, and the fact that most people of faith today, insist that most of those gods never existed. And yet they adhere to faith in support of their own god, demonstrating that they haven't learned from faith's horrendously bad record. Follow science, but don't just accept the conclusions. Wherever possible, learn about the evidence and how it supports (or fails to support), the conclusions. And never allow yourself to be so incredibly gullible that you begin to subscribe to the current cult spin-off of Christianity - Flat Earth.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

My faith is in science, since science is just figuring shit out.hell, science can lead to God if it turns out God exists, or maybe not. maybe that's philosophy's role.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Al Gore

Moron,... please read the arguments on the other side.They clearly describe why you are sooo far in error; erroneously supposing that science is just another arbitrary belief system which one must abandon ones own observation and rational capacity to believe and follow, when in fact it is an attempt at rational, consistent, and fixed set of principles that describe the knowable universe. Furthermore, science only tries to tell you what is, not what to do about it, or any moral judgment.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Hahaha Pyg I agree with your logic, and I also put my faith with science
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

How about we look at the contributions of each to society?Science:Modern MedicineCarsComputersAirplanesTelevisionsetc...Religion:A list of reasons to hate your neighbor
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

well, what about Jesus preaching forgiveness?
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Sure, Jesus preaches forgiveness and sometimes Christians forgive other Christians, but religion only works if everyone is the same religion, or if people are indifferent to each others religion. Otherwise it is divisive. Christians kill each other (the European wars of religion). Christians kill Muslims (the crusades). Christians kill Jews (all of medieval Europe). And Christians kill "heathens" (the conquest of the Americas). So people only are willing to forgive others if those others share their own beliefs.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

yes, but that's people's fault, not religion's.Stalin, one of the worse genocidal maniacs of the modern era was an atheist who killed under Marxism. Hitler killed under belief that the human race must be cleansed, and that he was pissed off at the Jews taking all of the jobs. He even later made rants about how religion was evil and shit like that.And most communist dictators are responsible for committing genocide.Religion is a belief that was just used as an excuse. It didn't cause shit.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: God

Stalin didn't kill because of his atheism, though.Hitler didn't kill because of his atheism (although most people say he was Roman Catholic), though.People kill because of religion, though. Examples: Crusades, Salem Witch trials, hell, your own religious book has your god telling the Israelites to commit genocide against seven nations.To quote Voltaire "As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities"
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

Crusades was actually a greed thing. a lot of fuckin' gold was at stake and the Catholic Church was corrupt. Greed played way more of an effect than religion did in the crusades.Stalin killed because of Marxism, and part of Marxism was wiping out religion. My point was that religion isn't responsible for murders, people are. Stalin committed some of the worse atrocities, and he wasn't religious at all. He killed people who expressed any form of religion.Salem Witch Trials was for the belief in witches. The people didn't read the bible and say "lets kill some witches". They were just fuckin' retarded.and My God? I don't have a God.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: French Huguenots

The French Huguenots, the first Protestants in Catholic France, sheltered thousands of Jewish children from the Nazis in the tiny village of Le Chambon-sur-lignon. So religion was a humanitarian force here.Now,....Please find an example of a person or a group of people who act with such a degree of humanitarian altruism because of their atheism.You won't find them. Why? Because atheism is not a positive, but a negative ideology; It is the objurgation of religion, it is not a positive set of moral values.Humanitarian values and moral behavior may exist outside of religion, but they do not stem from atheism.Neither do atrocities stem from religion. It is merely the convenient tool at hand, the embodiment of ideology of justification for violence, just as modern day ideologies of Communism under Stalin or Mao, or of Fascism under Hitler or Mussolini.“…it becomes apparent that those who make the claim ‘religion has been the cause of more wars than any other factor in history’ may speak from ignorance or have ulterior motives for the assertion. Further, this type of assertion seems rooted in anti-religion posturing…Men and nations have a history of warfare and the root of conflict is power and gain…Occasionally war is fought over religion, as is perhaps the case during the reformation period in Europe. More often than not however, the cause of war can't be laid at the door of religion.”-Maj. John P. ConwayUnder War's Bloody BannerBy Carl Teichribhttp://www.forcingchange.org/under_war's_bloody_banner
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

(I feel weird favoring, but you started it so w/e)I never claimed religion was the only cause of evil, and I never claimed atheism makes you a saint (how ironic). This quote actually sums up my views point pretty well:With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven WeinbergThe fact is there are assholes in the world, and they will do asshole things. However, religion is often used to persuade others that being an asshole to others is the "right" thing to do, because it says so in a holy book. If people feel justified in their actions, they will commit all sorts of atrocities. Just look at the Muslim extremists blowing themselves up. They think that they are doing what Allah wants. If instead of listening to their religion's dogma, they thought about their actions and empathized with their fellow humans, then they might not kill others. They would see the "infidels" they are killing are actually real people. As I said before though, some of them might just be assholes who like to kill others, and with or without religion this is going to happen.Really the underlying problem is extremism as a whole. Religion (like nationalism or any other powerful ideology, you used communism as an example) merely encourages extremism and that is what makes it dangerous.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

well, that's what i said in the first place, it's extremism and the people exploiting an ideology that causes evil, not always ideology. Plus, it doesn't really take religion to make good people do bad things, man is naturally naive and able to follow any orders presented. Religion was supposed to make man not give into temptations, but the leaders have exploited it into being something that will always haunt you unless you do this thing this way.but back to the good people doing bad things. There was a study done to see how many people would actually kill a man just because a superior told him to (Milgram Experiment). 100% technically killed the guy. (although, they didn't know the shock was enough to kill a man, but 66% continued shocking him even after he stopped responding, just because a college professor told him).Religion is really just the excuse, but good people do evil things mainly because they're stupid, not because they're religious.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

I agree with you. The goal would be to get people to start thinking for themselves. How? I'm not sure I have an answer, but getting rid of institutions that suppress individual thought might be a decent solution.(Please note that I am not advocating the abolishment of religion through any kind of violent means, but merely saying we should encourage people to question their assumptions)
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: French Huguenots

The French Huguenots, the first Protestants in Catholic France, sheltered thousands of Jewish children from the Nazis in the tiny village of Le Chambon-sur-lignon. So religion was a humanitarian force here.Also, the Nazis were not Christians vs Jews; they killed Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, communists among other political prisoners. Their motivations were racial and political, not primarily religious. That is why they targeted German citizens with mixed blood: those that had some degree of Jewish ancestry; Being Christian was no help.Question your assumptions with evidence.
Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: Science

I never claimed that the Nazi's were Christians vs. Jews. Obviously there are other factors that cause people to do terrible things besides religion. No one is arguing against that.As far ass your example of French Huguenots, do you think that those people wouldn't have helped the Jews were it not for religion? Don't you think it's more likely that these were good people who also happened to be religious, rather than people that were good because they were religious? In our society, religion attracts good people, but I suspect that the majority of them would still be good without religion there.In addition, Germany, before the Nazis came to power was a mostly Christian nation (as in most of the people in Germany were Christian). This being the case, why did all these Christians allow these atrocities to occur without saying anything? Shouldn't their religion have caused them to speak up?Now there are some notable examples of brave Christians that did speak up, however, they are the minority by a long shot. Even the pope did not speak against the atrocities that were going on at the time.Once again, I am not implicating religion as the cause, merely stating that it was ineffective at aiding people's moral judgement.