azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

Yes, but a werewolf didn't write this response to you, did he?I take my examples from paintings, sculptures, architecture, and other works of art. They didn't make themselves. Something or someone acted upon them, and in a specific way. There was an artist. Granted, that example isn't quite the same as willing the universe into being, but I see a creation, so there must be a creator. You are free to believe otherwise, but I believe it is true.As for my belief lying solely on 'irrefutable proof', I'm not 100% what you mean by that but I'm pretty sure it's an ad hominem, so long as we're bringing logical fallacies into play. Whether that was your intention I don't know, but it seems personal to me. My belief lies on the fact that I exist, and so does everything and everyone else around me. There is no way the Great RNG (Random Number Generator) is the sole cause of it all.A fairy didn't create me, and neither did a werewolf. One can believe in a divine being and not something so childish as a bump in the night.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Yes, but a werewolf didn't write this response to you, did he?I am a werewolf. There is no irrefutable proof that I am not. Therefore you must believe I am a werewolf. The former statement is the logic you have displayed with your "there is no absolute proof god does not exist, so I will continue to believe". To clarify, there is no good evidence that suggests that I am a werewolf, and there is no good evidence that suggests god exists. So why do you believe in god, and lack belief in werewolves? This is a hypocritical position to hold. Granted, that example isn't quite the same as willing the universe into being, but I see a creation, so there must be a creator. You only assume one possibility though. That this "creator" was a being of some sort. Why are you so certain that it could not possibly have been some "higgs boson" like particle? The higgs boson gives particles mass. It is possible that there is some unintelligent particle "existence" that creates universes. There isn't any evidence for this, but neither is there evidence for God. And yet you still assume the latter...As for my belief lying solely on 'irrefutable proof', I'm not 100% what you mean by that but I'm pretty sure it's an ad hominem, so long as we're bringing logical fallacies into play.Clearly you do not know what an ad hominem is then. It is not. If you think otherwise, google it and show me. And anyways, you said the phrase yourself: Until such time as I see irrefutable proof that there is no such creator, I will continue to believe it.It logically follows that your belief in god primarily lies on there being no 'irrefutable proof' that he does not exist. What you fail to realize is that there is not irrefutable proof of a lot of things, not existing. Zeus, Apollo, Mithra, demons, vampires, the loch ness monster, all of these beings/creatures lack "irrefutable proof of their non existence". There is no way the Great RNG (Random Number Generator) is the sole cause of it all.If you're talking about "all of existence", the best answer at the moment is "I don't know". Your answer does not depend on evidence, therefore your answer is just as valid as the wildest imagination of a 6 year old or a schizophrenic patient. All of your answers would lack evidence, making them roughly equivalent with validity being deduced from "who's claim is the least nonsensical". If you're talking about evolution, then it certainly wasn't "random chance" at all. Given the starting conditions, life would have been expected at some point or another. Scientists have already been able to synthesize organic molecules from non organic material, in the Miller Urey experiment. One can believe in a divine being and not something so childish as a bump in the night.To me, your beliefs look like childish things that go bump in the night. There is no evidence for monsters under the bed, and neither is there evidence that a God created all of existence. And yet you still believe in the latter.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

Then I suppose we're at an impasse. I can't explain things very well and you won't listen anyway. I'm not faulting you of course, even I had a hard time believing it at first. I still have my doubts.But tell anyone something unbelievable and their first reaction is 'prove it'. So you have a perfectly valid reaction, even if I feel it's made in error.As to your... first paragraph. That's not how my thought process was, really. It's a reason I give but it's not why. It's just what would be required to shake my belief in God. Does that clarify it a bit?Either way, I think I'm going to move on to a different debate. I don't like going in circles.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Then I suppose we're at an impasse. I can't explain things very well and you won't listen anyway.The problem is your argument rests on a logical fallacy. The argument from incredulity. You cannot think of any other way in which the universe could have existed, therefore it was God. But this doesn't explain anything though. All it says is that a God did it somehow. So now all we have is this vestigial appendage called God, and we are no better off than where we started. Namely, how was the universe created? I say "I don't know". You say "I don't know, but it was God". See the problem? It's not that I won't listen, it's that your argument is fundamentally flawed, useless, and lacks evidence for the vestigial appendage that is God. But tell anyone something unbelievable and their first reaction is 'prove it'. So you have a perfectly valid reaction, even if I feel it's made in error.That first reaction is a very valid reaction, and is certainly not made in error. If I had never seen the sky before and you told me it was blue, I would likely say to prove it, probably with a picture or something. My initial skepticism of the sky being blue is not in error at all, I am simply not going to blindly believe your claim until you provide valid evidence for it. It's just what would be required to shake my belief in God. Does that clarify it a bit?That effectively means you will believe in God forever, because irrefutable proof of god's non existence is fundamentally impossible. Just as irrefutable proof of werewolves' non existence is impossible. How can you prove the non existence of something? It would benefit you a great deal if you got rid of this "I will believe in god, until irrefutable proof comes out that he does not exist". Do not hold that position on anything. Dealing in absolutes is ridiculous, because we cannot be absolutely certain of anything. Instead, realize it for what it is, humans deal in degrees of likeliness that we "pretend" are absolutes. And if we look at the likeliness of God, we find it to be minimal to the point that seriously entertaining god's existence is like seriously entertaining the existence of any mythological creature that I previously mentioned, or perhaps the god's Apollo or Zeus. It becomes silly.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

At the end of the day, I really don't have to prove a thing. I'm just the messenger, after all. If you believe, or if you don't believe, well that's your choice I suppose.But like I said before, I hate running around in circles. And that's all this debate is right now.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

At the end of the day, I really don't have to prove a thing.Then why are you on a debate site where the purpose of this site is to argue and defend your position? You haven't defended your position, I've thoroughly refuted it as irrational. And only after I've done that, do you stealthily toss in the towel by masking it as "well, I don't have to prove anything". Yeah, okay.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

This is actually part of the theory that nailed the coffin in my Catholisism/ Christian (born again daughter of baptist preacher gf aaaaalllll through high school) indoctrination. Where'd it come from then? After all everything has to come from somewhere right? So, something outside of something made it... ignore then that this outside thing would be allowed to work from a different set of laws where this creation was not necessary.Somewhere a small seed in my mind, some rebellious wonderful thing in my 18 year-old indoctrinated head said, "Yeah but, wait, why does something have to have been created? Maybe things just were? Why not?"Seemed a silly random thought, but then I was like..."Can you think of anything that has truly been created? Like a pile of stuff just appearing? I mean, I was born but I came from an embryo and sperm, in a body, which consumed things and added to my body. I was a combination of things that already existed."Then..."Isn't everything a combination of things that already existed?"And I thought long and hard.My conclusion, albeit mostly cerebral and common sense free-thought, is that, everything has always been.Things are not created, nor do they need to be. It is all combinations, subtractions, changes yes, but all the stuff is still there.End and beginning are alien things. Weird. Odd. Stupid some non-dying thing might say. We come to the idea of ending and beginning in a complete sense, one that would lead to this ridiculous theory of a god, because our heads so bad want not to die.Hope that makes sense.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

This argument is invalid. Do you not believe in the big bang? The universe was created this a fact accepted by all scientists. Space and time were created with big bang. To create space and time, or the universe as we know it, spontaneously is absurd. Its impossible. Something existing and not bound to the spacetime continuum must create the spacetime continuum. This is God. There is no other rational explanation.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Well, I mean, first it was god was the sun then they figured out the sun. Then it was god was the stars, then they figured out the stars, then it was god is an invisible force, then they figured out the universe, now god's the thing before the universe.My personal theory, and one that is actually becoming popular, is that creation is not necessary. Everything just is. It changes, shifts, combines, splits, but it was all there. No creation necessary. That makes sense.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Existence of matter only proves matter exists. I don't understand how people can infer anything else from that and fail to detect their fallacy.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

well i believe that there is no creator, i think energy having existed eternally is the answer, i think we are living in an infinite existence, and the only "creator" is the underlying conscious web of existence that keeps everything moving and it has always been, it just is
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

I think you are completely wrong. But I think you are also right in another way.I have a friend who is a genius, and he has told me that everything is made of "data".I am positive he's a genius, but I don't really agree with him about that. I don't disagree either, I am just not smart enough to understand how everything can be made of data.I suppose it's like how the chair you're sitting in is made of mostly nothing. Even the atoms take up almost no space. It's only electromagnetic forces that let you sit on it without falling through. Same with light. It bounces A LOT of light off, so it looks solid, but it's actually rather transparent. Most matter is made of almost nothing, so perhaps that "almost nothing" at the core of it all isn't physical, but actually purely information. I dunno, this goes over my head, but I think you are looking for that word, rather than "web of consciousness", because I don't think that rocks or fire or things like that are conscious or alive, but they are certainly ...something.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

That's just absurd.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Matter did not exist first. It was energy. Energy can be converted into mass. In the vacuum of space, the vacuum has it's own under-lying energy. A massive 'event' caused this energy to convert into matter, creating the Universe we see today.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

and yet energy is but the movement of atoms, which we all know are made out of matter, so theoretically speaking, wouldn't energy be moving matter? kinetic energy is an example, kinetic energy is the movement of matter, and kinetic energy can only exist when matter is in motion, same with heat and every other type of energy
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

You'd need a large amount of energy to create matter. Energy comes from the motion of matter, meaning that it is a part of it, it has a relation. If converting mass into energy is possible, the reverse would be possible but not as easy.So far, Scientists have only been able to convert energy into tiny pieces off matter- basic particles of the elements.FYI matter is but super-ultra condensed energy.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Energy is not the movement of atoms. Electrons and protons have energy in them, and empty space (without particles, without radiation, without matter of any kind) still has energy that can create matter, and still has weight.Go on youtube and look for a video called A Universe from Nothing by the astrophysicist Laurence Krauss. He's much better at explaining this than I'd ever be.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Er, no. The existence of matter proves the existence of energy and mass.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Whatever metaphysical force that originally created matter and energy is not necessarily intelligent, and therefore isn't a creator.Whatever the case, this person on youtube was unwise to assume that he knows how the universe works as a matter of fact. Scientists don't know, and creationists do not know. Creationists simply believe. They do not believe in facts, and if they mistake their beliefs with facts, they are in the wrong to do so.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

Creationists do not simply believe--that is your assumption because they disagree with you. Do not assume that.Everything physical thing had to have a creator. Scientists are imitating the natural world in a plethora of ways, but with less than natural results. No airplane can change direction as efficiently and quickly as a bird can.Creationists are using logic and reasoning upon things that already exists.It is evolutionists who assume too much, for the ulterior motive of disregarding responsibility. You just admitted that scientists don't know how the universe works.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Everything physical thing had to have a creatorHow do you know? And even if you were right, must I ask "what created the creator?"Creationists are using logic and reasoning upon things that already exists.And they've still failed to provide evidence, or arguments based on logic, that prove god or a Creator exists. It is evolutionists who assume too much, for the ulterior motive of disregarding responsibility.No, evolutionists support evolution, which is not based on a plethora of assumptions, but it is based on a plethora of experiments and facts. There is no evidence refuting the fact of evolution. You just admitted that scientists don't know how the universe works.Scientist's don't know everything. Sorry if that's a bit too humble for you.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

Baloney. See the article in the other column for scientists and facts.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

The only one posting nonsense here is you. The scientist you wrote about is a christian fundamentalist, he has already decided that christianity is true and now he is looking for evidence to confirm it. This is not how you perform science. You look for evidence, and draw conclusions from that. You haven't posted any facts yet. All you're doing is appealing to authority here, in which case your expert isn't even an expert. He is in disagreement with all other people in his field.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Evolution lol believe in the lord he will be there for you not some scientist............
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

I believe that everything has always existed, in one form or another. Such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch the Big Crunch theory. If a 'Creator' ever did exist, it would most likely have sacrificed itself to make the universe, by the argument that a creator did make the universe, applying to the law of energy conservation. I.e. if God dod exist, and created the universe, it is dead.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Matter cannot be created or destroyed = God cannot contain matter = non-existence
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

To summarise an immensely complicated concept, I theorise that if every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and the Universe is in fact cyclic, then it could be said that all actions balance each other out, and this means that nothing has actually taken place. It negates the need for a 'Creator'.P.S. That is merely my own speculation, I do not wish to bring anyone round to agreeing with me, I'm just contributing.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Cosmological arguments will never work. Who created the creator? And why does it have to be limited to a single Creator? Perhaps there are a long line of creators, having created each other until one creates the universe. And if the Creator is outside the universe then he can't be made up of matter/energy and therefore would not have a "true form" in the first place, which means that proving his existence is impossible and such a being would be extremely alien to our human understanding. All theories and religions, from Christianity to Hinduism to Pastafarianism, all based on our mere primitive and futile attempts to understand this being outside our universe, might be all equally false or equally true in describing whatever is the true form of this creator.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

MATTER ca be Destroyed and Created ...it's just a concentration of energy
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Existence of matter proves that matter exists :)ToK at it's best :)Wait... how do you know that matter exists?
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

There would have to be a Creator of a Creator, so, the existence of matter does not necessarily justify this statement.
Debate: Factory Farms - Good or Bad
Side: Good- Cheap and Efficient

A little over 300 Million human beings live in the United States. We, as a society, have found a cheap and efficient way of feeding the massive amount of citizens in the US. Factory Farming provides a cheap, cost effective way of producing mass amounts of food with more revenue than expenses. Many argue that these are a bad thing, but currently they allow everyone in America to buy food for cheap and affordable prices. These large factory farms also invest into the community that they are near, and help benefit our community in various ways. There are undoubtedly certain inequities involved with the treatment and handling of the animals that are used to feed our nation, but sacrifices must be made to ensure that our nation doesn’t starve or go bankrupt. If we still depended on small family farming to supply our nation, food prices would be much higher and we probably wouldn’t be able to thrive as a nation and community. In conclusion, if you have ever eaten off the dollar menu, and you’re against factory farming then you are a hypocrite. Bam.
Debate: Factory Farms - Good or Bad
Side: Bad - Pollution and Cruelty

The costs you mention aren't anywhere near making the nation "bankrupt". Take for instance a switch from battery to free-range eggs. This would significantly decrease the harm suffered by millions of chickens and only cost the average citizen about $0.74 extra in eggs per month. This is based on data produced by a pro-battery (pro-factory farming) report.If We, as a society, can send men to the Moon, we can feed our citizens and avoid torturing millions of animals. We as a nation have the capacity to address animal cruelty, environmental, and economical issues when it comes to food production.Animals aren't machines. Our aim should not be to only make them more efficient and more profitable regardless of the non-monetary costs. (Source: http://www.unitedegg.org/information/pdf/Promar_Study.pdf) )
Debate: Factory Farms - Good or Bad
Side: Bad - Pollution and Cruelty

Additionally, feeding the world with meat is not the way to go. Think about it-- around 10% of the energy contained in plants is made available in the meat of the animals who eat it. No matter how "efficient" meat production is, 90% of the energy that could have been available to hungry people nationwide and worldwide is lost. The taste of meat could never be worth such a sacrifice to starving humans, tortured animals, and the damaged environment. http://ffacoalition.org/media/
Debate: Factory Farms - Good or Bad
Side: Bad - Pollution and Cruelty

So Weldon what you are saying that cheap is more beneficial than you health. If this was the case just eat paper if your hungry What difference does it make as its cheap. Family farms have been feeding America until large corporations started forcing them out of business. Now we get food from all over the world and from factory farms. Food that is laced with injections of antibiotics where we now cannot fight illness because we have built up a immunity to medicine. Food that is raised in polluted water such as fish and shrimp in Asia that is raised in the same water that their toilets drain into. Animals at factory farms that are slaughtered even if they can't walk through the doors. We eat produce that is grown with pesticides and herbicides already in the seed that transfers to the produce as it grows. But according to you this is okay because it is cheap. I would have to ask to support your statement as food is not cheap and if you follow the rising cost you would see it. So in truth we are paying more for food with less quality. How do large corporations invest in communities other than throwing big bucks at the politicians in lobbyist money. Go search Monsanto and its contribution list. Sorry I am not going to do your =homework for you. We have a President that his wife promoted healthy eating in our schools but he himself supported Monsanto and got the contributions to do it. So what you are saying is we should devoid ourselves of all ethical qualities just to support the corporate community. Maybe when you die from eating the laced food we just toss your carcass in a community grave and bulldoze you over. I mean if you want to throw out ethics why not even for you.
Debate: Factory Farms - Good or Bad
Side: Good- Cheap and Efficient

yes and also the cows are very yummy and good and it is insane if you dont eat meat at some time in your life it is ethier meat or paying lots of money or taking health pill you know
Debate: Factory Farms - Good or Bad
Side: Bad - Pollution and Cruelty

Although, not all dollar menus are meat. And if you want to die of diseases go ahead and make more factory farms.