BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion plays a negative role in our society.

First of all, I would like to clarify some things. I did not mention which society I was talking about since I was obviously making a case against religion in general. In both my rounds I argued that religion influences people in a negative manner (i.e. all of the inhabitants of this world). I am afraid some of the information you included in your latest round is false, while the rest does nothing else but help my case, and not yours. I will begin with the falsehoods present in your second round. You said that religion contributed a lot to the social, cultural and economic development of most first world countries. This is an absurd affirmation, as all of the current world powers are strong secular nations, in which religion and religious personalities do not have any implication whatsoever in how the state is run. Obvious examples are the United States of America (a country based on a clear and well defined secular constitution), the People's Republic of China (being a communist state, the Chinese government is strongly against institutionalized religion), Russia, Germany, and so on. Furthermore, the majority of citizens from the Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are atheists, and these countries are well-known to guarantee some of the highest living standards in the world. Seeing how countries where religion plays a minor or non-existent role in their political systems tend to be the most socially, technologically, economically and political advanced ones, it becomes obvious that the absence of religion allows for all of that. You also said that third world countries are helped by religion, which I also feel is a gross untruth. As I said in my previous round, countries in the Middle East or South America, India, etc. are crushed by political and economical instability, civil wars, genocide and discrimination of all kinds (gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.). The rest of your argument was essentially an abstract of my first round. You asserted that religion is a tool that exploits the gullibility of the masses and it is used to maintain political dominance. That sounds an awful lot like the communist propaganda. Furthermore, you made my case by saying religion has been one of the biggest obstructions to scientific success. I could not agree more. My entire first argument was based on this very statement. Next, you said that medical science faced disgusting attacks from religious fanatics. And indeed, that is so. But do we take the side of bigots and not the one of medical doctors who save millions of lives every day? Finally, you close your argument by saying that religion is a cheap and effective way of controlling the masses, statement with which I would like to close my case as well. The truth is, religion today is nothing more than that. It serves no other purpose, it does no good to society. Controlling the masses isn't the answer, educating them is, and religion does nothing else than fight against that.
Religion plays a negative role in our society.

even if im am wrong in the whole science vs religion topic. i have only to prof that religion has a positiv effect some where. you have the burden of prof :Religion plays a negative role in our society. you didnt said what society so i only have to prof that religion has apositive effect on on society. religion has a positive effect on less developt societies that have more or less the same religion or juge majorites in a religion. Religion has contributed a lot to the social, cultural and economic development of most first world societies. Religion has also been used as an economic tool to exploit the gullibility of the commoners in favor of the elite.Religion has been used as a tool to maintain political dominance of the world order. Religion has been one of the biggest obstructions to scientific development and success. Medical science has faced some of the most disgusting attacks from religious fanatics hiding behind facades of morality and righteousness.Religion is now and has always been the cheapest and most effective way of controlling the masses.
Religion plays a negative role in our society.

Firstly, I will make mention of your attempt to counter my science vs. religion argument. The statement that a lot of scientists are religious is neither relevant nor correct. Censuses all over the world show that more than 90% of members of Academies of Science are atheists or agnostics. Even if that weren't the case, the personal beliefs of scientists have no effect whatsoever on how science and religion interact, since science is a concept, not a belief. Furthermore, scientists do not only disagree with religion on the matters you mentioned. Members of several Christian denominations refuse to vaccinate their children based on their religious beliefs, while others have strong opinions against blood transfusions or organ transplants. Finally, I would like to mention the fact that scientists are not taking a stand on abortion from that position, but rather based on their personal reckoning. You also mentioned that god's existence is not important for scientists, and they rarely argue his existence. While the first part of your statement is true, I am afraid the second one isn't. Scientists would rather choose never to discuss a god, but seeing that most of the population strongly believes in a supernatural entity they feel they have the moral obligation to try and spread what they believe is the truth. Most scientists whose research came in conflict with religious beliefs (Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, just to mention a few of the most famous) have often discussed and disproved the existence of god. The second part of your argument tried to prove that religion still has a positive effect today. Firstly, you talked about countries strongly influenced by religion. Examples of such countries are the radical Islamic ones in the Middle East. The Talibans and other fundamentalist groups have a history of torturing and murdering people of other faiths and beliefs. I would not call that a positive influence. States where religion has a strong influence on the leaders often undergo civil wars, discrimination, genocide, etc.. You also mentioned the caste system in India, which you were correct to state that it relies on religion. This system is one of the worst models of society in the world, because members of the lowest caste do not have equal opportunities as members of the higher classes. They do not get the chance to proper education, housing, nutrition, and so on. Because of this system, India has a very high percentage of poverty, and hundreds of millions struggle with famine. Finally, you talked about religion in South America. However, I do not understand why you think religion plays a positive role there. Many of the South American countries are poor, and the ones that are not (e.g. Argentina) are the ones in which religion plays a less important role than in the other ones. You still have to find an example where institutionalized religion, beyond the shadow of a doubt, played a positive role.
Religion plays a negative role in our society.

religion is still has postive advantages to societiy. First lets desmiss the science vs religion debatte a lot of scientist are religius.science and religion onlu defair on three big questions: _word creation -the origin of specis -abortion goods existens isnt important to scientist and they mostly not argue it exsitenz. more un civil countries benefit from religion mostly from issac relions(islam,judaism and christianity) countries in sud america are well influenced by religion countries were there is more than one religion .religion isnt fromany use. proven in the middel east and india(cast sistem) but you said:Religion plays a negative role in our society. you didnt specifie what countrie so i just have to prof that it still has use some where in the word and I did in sud america religion works great.
Religion plays a negative role in our society.

Religion has probably existed for as long as our very conscience. It has allowed us to look at life with less fear, believe that we can somehow alter natural events, understand death and be able to deal with it properly. Since the dawn of human-kind there have been gods by whose principles we lived, and to whom we sent our prayers. Surely religion had a positive role when we arrived on the scene. We were frightened by everything around us, and we hardly knew anything about what was going on. Faith allowed us to ignore the things that scared us, and focus on surviving and creating a civilization. Under no pretense will any logical person ever deny that. However useful religion might have been until just 600 to 2000 years ago, I am here to argument that it is not anymore. Physics, medicine, geology, cosmology, chemistry, biology, and so on, gave us perfectly sound explanations for what is going on around us. Things like death, disease, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, etc. do not frighten us anymore, because we are now able to understand them. While science has been pushing us forward, religion is dragging us back. The irrational beliefs that an almighty being/a number of almighty beings created everything there is, and is/are the explanation for everything science can not yet describe are ruining an awful lot of minds, that may otherwise one day find alien life, cures for various diseases, create interstellar means of transport, etc. The institutions of religion teach their youngsters never to look into any matter. The children are taught that if they do not understand something, they should look to god, and find meaning in him. While this particular reassurance has been of great help in times when surviving was of the utmost importance, the human civilization has reached a stage in its evolution where its individuals are no longer required to fight for their survival, and the one of their species. We can now ask questions and find answers. We can look up at the night sky in awe, and dream of one day being able to understand how our universe works. Religion used to be a great tool for us, but just as the steam engine replaced the water-powered wheels, we now have better tools for understanding the world. Religion is now fighting against these tools, trying to maintain its place in the human mind. This means that not only will a person INFECTED by religion be unable to use the modern tools they are presented with, but they are a danger to anyone around, threatening to keep them from moving forward, and dragging them back to a dark age of the mind.
shrek has lots of violence

First of all you really think this isn't meant to be a debate but your just trying to make a point that Shrek is teaching kids to get drunk and be violent. Although Shrek does contain a lot of violence the main message is not to go out be violent towards other people, it clearly make sthe point about accepting people for who they are and teaching about friendship and never giving up. If you think about most kid shows tend to have violence in because it leads to a bigger audience. Just because you seem to not enjoy the actual movie, does not mean that it is all about sending bad messages. So in an argument I will just basically outline the one of the biggest messages in the movie. Shrek is an outcast, because eh is an ogre, and everyone thinks that he is mean and evil. But after he ahs to go save the Princess, she at first thinks he is disgusting because he is an ogre, even though she is partialy one. After the whole movie she stops judging and likes him for who he is, because at heart he was a nice guy. So basically the main point of the movie is to not judge a book by its cover.
shrek has lots of violence

shrek has lots of violence which can teach kids to be stupid try and drink beer and other bad things and its not giving any important messages of my interest or anyone's Else's for example pulling of a wrestling move or drinking beer is not a good example for children and plus it makes kids act retarded by the time u see the movie they'll be a stupid kid right behind u ogre orgeer yay yay can u imagine if every kid wanted to paint himself green that would be absolutely ridiculous its like yu gi oh it the most babbiesh thing ever only meant to be watched once only meant to be famous once let it go.
chevy is better than ford

www.streetdirectory.com says, " Ford Pickups are available in a variety of sizes from small trucks to large work trucks. The Ford F-150 is their basic full size truck, but they have smaller models, such as the Ranger, and larger models like the F-850 for super heavy duty hauling. Chevy has several of them as well. The safety ratings for Ford are slightly better though when several of the same style of pickups were compared to each other.
any action not based on a natural need is evil

I hold staunchly that my unnatural desires are awesome seem ro be that the qualifier natural is judgmental, and no one has a right to judge me twice. Pro is simply seeking to impose an artificial and indefensible morality what is evil about inaction for no reason at all. Who defines natural here. Why should we be condemned for just doing what we want to do when we want to do it. Surely not for the Planet , The planet is just a car park if we want it to be.
any action not based on a natural need is evil

I have no need to engage in this argument. I do not hold myself to be sinning on account of that ven though I could do something like make a pizza, upgrade the security of home, sleep, use the toilet. I could be extend the range of my needs taking heroine cocaine a smoking more cigarrettes might be a good idea however it might distract my core needs like indiscriminate sex.Reading of course should be a thing of the past. I'm wondering whether I should allow my ex girlfriends to live if they say or do anything to harm my craving for non-commital and far out sex. I have the reproductive sex handled by giving religiously to a sperm bank under an of course fictitious identity. I prefer adulterous sex to casual indiscriminate sex that way I can get a handle on how well they will be raised.As most of my needs are short term if like to lie to get my way or use emotional/physical blackmail. It is after all better to feared than loved. My Job pimp and moral hero please vote for me I needed to feel valued.
any action not based on a natural need is evil

So far we have one categorical moral imperative one should not harm/kill others and of course we could gain a few more from protecting the planet as a shared resource in order to ensure the survival of our species. In terms of Maslow's hierarchy of needs these come pretty low. If people are to be sanctioned for doing things that are not natural like the Chernobyl firefighters who prevented meltdown at the cost of their lives then Pro needs to show that it is natural to give up their lives something the fighters considered to be a no brainer.
Hitler should go to Hell

Even though you say you are christian you can still be Evil or a better word corrupt. If you kill people based on their religion which is against the bible. You said that Jews were corrupting Germany but you also said he was a Christan so why if he was a christian why did he kill all these people FOR BEING A JEW! None of this shows that he is a christian or fallowed his way so he clearly shows that he did not fully believe it with his heart soul and mind therefore not a christian. Please tell me what version of the bible you are reading because none of mine say that.
Hitler should go to Hell

I would like to begin by stating that my opponent has just agreed completely to my argument. He says "Please don't get me wrong I do not he deserves a place in hell unless he did not accept Jesus Christ as his savior" The whole debate was whether or not he should go to Hell and my opponent is now saying that he shouldn't't unless he failed to accept Jesus Christ. Hitler was a Christian who openly praised Christianity in public. He was raised in a Roman Catholic home and received baptism. Seems to me that he accepted Jesus Christ as the savior and that is part of the reason he persecuted Jews, they did not accept Jesus Christ. According to my opponent, Hitler is now a step above Jews spiritually. He accepts Jesus, the Jews do not. How then, can he be evil? You say he murdered all these innocent Jews. We're they so innocent? Most of them were, I will give you that. However there were about 15,000 Jews Hitler believed to be "Corrupting Germany" They urged surrender and submission, something Hitler saw as extremely cowardly and despicable. Also, God, according to the bible, "killed" 3,000 men for their worshiping the golden calf at the foot of Mount Sinai. God is right in the middle of carving the Commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill" And he turns around and tells the men worshiping the golden calf to strap swords to their sides and kill each brother. Then he [Moses] said to them, "This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. – Exodus 32 This seems like murder on account of religion to me. And in response to your comment about whether I would defend a person walking down the street and killing a person while claiming they were saving the world, I would ask the question "Do you really believe that?" They would most likely say no and it would be murder only to prove the point of whether or not some person on debate.org would justify it.
Hitler should go to Hell

Please don't get me wrong I do not he deserves a place in hell unless he did not accept Jesus Christ as his savior. I still say that he is evil though. He was the one who was trying to take over the world so I think that that puts him on the offensive not the defensive. In addition he killed innocent people based on their religion and for no other reason, I think that that also is the offensive not the defensive. the alliance that he had with Russia and he turned on them and tried to take control of their country. paying the ultimate sacrifice, he committed suicide!!! If killed some random innocent person walking down the street and said that I thought that I was doing the world a favor would you justify that?
Hitler should go to Hell

What is evil? Who can define evil? I believe Adolf Hitler was not evil because he felt he was responding to an immediate threat to himself and his country. He, as well as his whole country was embarrassed and humiliated because of the outcome of the treaty of Versailles. His country was left nearly powerless and dirt poor. Inflation was out of control; his country couldn't build an army under the treaty. Hitler was angry, as he had every right to be. He began to hate Jews because of their relatively high standing in society. They were the rich, the influential. He saw them as taking over the country. He was responding in what he saw as a fitting punishment for the "conquerors." He was starting anew, rebuilding for a future generation of pure, non Jewish Aryans. He believed he was doing the world a favor. Paying the ultimate sacrifice for the survival of the human race. That is why I don't believe he is evil and does not deserve a place in Hell, nor does anyone who had ever existed. (I'm not a racist or a religious discriminator, I have nothing against Jews, or anyone else.)
Hitler should go to Hell

Hitler should not go to Hell because evil is a point of view. I could see Hitler as evil because he indirectly murdered millions of Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies, among other types of people. Or I could see his actions as justified. He was trying to improve his country (And the ones he annexed) through the removal of undesireable persons. In his mind he was removing a blight to his country, much like removing a stain from clothing. Would the cleaner be evil because the stain is being treated unfairly?
Resolved: The International Community should ban nuclear powered spacecraft.

As I am sure my respectful opponent has a valid reason for forfeiting his final round, as occurred previously, I will keep this statement brief. I would like to thank my worthy opponent for creating this debate, as well as the readers and voters who perused our discussions. I extend all of my previous arguments and will use my summary from the fourth round as the summary for my viewpoints on the scoring of the debate. Thank you once more.
Resolved: The International Community should ban nuclear powered spacecraft.

My opponent first says that the article i present is outdated and vagueHowever, my opponent has to prove that a non nuclear powered spacecraft HAS ALREADY taken us to Mars. Here is the Charles Choi article ( . http://www.space.com...;)My opponent says that a nuclear spacecraft launch will be expensive. However, we are not talking specifically about NASA, or the price. We are talking about whether we should ban it or not as an International Community. My opponent says that Curiosity was not run by nuclear power. Unfortunately, Curiosity is run by nuclear fuel, which by my definition is a nuclear powered spacecraft. My opponent says that there is no evidence about asteroids. However, I have provided evidence, and it is always better to be safe than sorry. My opponent gets it wrong. Breaking national soverignty is a HUGE issue, unlike my opponent's analogy. I agree the shootings were horrid, however, we are talking about countries not people. Countries have more protection than people. This is a completely different issue. My opponent says they do not have to prove that WMD have been made under the cover of a NPS. However, they do and they give no reason why not. If they cannot prove even the effect of a possible WMD, there is no impact on the PRO side.
Resolved: The International Community should ban nuclear powered spacecraft.

Once Again, I am incredibly sorry for the forfeited round.I had a conflicting event, and I hope it is all right.So, First, I will refute my opponent's argumentsFirst, framework. They talk about how generaters providing electricity are exempted. I assume this means they are not nuclear powered spacecraftsFirst they talk about how nuclear propulsion is not needed. However, my opponent seems to disregard ALL the benefits my case provides. Unfortunately, a chemical propulsion system is not viable in stopping an asteroid attack, and therefore, their first argument falls.Second, they talk about how nuclear propulsion is dangerous. However, one nuclear reactor exploding is nothing compared to the magnitude of an asteroid attack which will create 700 Hiroshima bomb's damages. This is a net harm of the harms of 699 nuclear bombs. Obviously, the CON's harms outweigh the PRO's. Again, any harm my opponent presents HAS to be more harmful than an asteroid attack. Their third argument is the possibility of a nuclear weapon being made.However, People have made nuclear spacecrafts for a long time, yet North Korea nor any other potentially harmful country has not developed nuclear weapons by claiming that they are making nuclear spacecrafts. If my opponent cannot provide a case where nuclear powered spacecrafts have acted as a cover to build WMDs, then you have to vote CON. Lastly, my opponents talk about how it depletes rescources. They talk about how Nuclear powered spacecrafts use plutonium which is used by probes. However, does this mean that these probes and satellites are ALSO nuclear powered spacecrafts as they are using nuclear fuel, as we stated in our definitions? Obviously, my opponent's argumentcan be turned to the CON side. For all these reasons, please vote CONOnce again, sorry for the forfeit..