BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morality does not come purley from religion

My opponent reluctantly argues that religion does not shape culture but rather culture shapes religion, this cannot be so simply for the reason of human perspective. When dealing with the human perspective, we also deal with human comprehension which as we all know depends on the exact religious aspect of the individual. My opponent without knowing this actually agreed with me when he defined religion "dogma that concern the human condition within the universe"; we must look at this comprehensively and understand that the human condition within the universe is actually the believes of the individual which shapes there morals. Many might argue that free will does not exist but in my view free will does exist; however this is not the point of this debate, the point is that with free will, the individual is able to choose what type of morals to follow. Whiten the time continuum as to present and past, we find that many people often refer to religion when trying to make good moral decisions. My opponent uses law as his proof towards this topic however when looking into the law especially the constitution, it is often interpreted by the text of the bible; for instance when looking at the judicial branch, the judge in many situation makes his or her decision by looking at how it harms the citizen as well as the morality or immorality of the crime based on the bibles interpretation. For these reasons, i urge that you vote for con simply for the reason that i provided a better argument as well having a full comprehension of the subject at hand. Thank You
Morality does not come purley from religion

For the first part of his argument, he states that religion forms culture. This cannot be because when we look at culture, there are many aspects that have very little to do with religion, especially in American culture. For example, law in the US is, largely although some laws could be debated, completely secular. Copy right laws, for instance deal with a kind of ownership that is not conceptualized in any religion; yet we still conceive that there is a certain aspect of right conduct within it. Religion can be a fundamental part in one's life; however, much of his/her morality is shaped by other forms of culture. When we look at an issue (global warming, immigration, etc.), how we conceive that issue is based on the media (culture) we consume. In short, our reality and our judgments pertaining to right conduct about reality are shaped by the forms of cultural production we consume (science books, history books, art, movies, TV shows etc.). His second argument is quite ludicrous. There have been plenty of secular philosophers who have produced works in morality and ethics. Socrates is a big name, and many of his teachings require no religious belief. Today, many modern human rights laws are based on utilitarian and humanist philosophies, of which have no foundation in any religion. Where does America's form of governance come from? Jerusalem? No. Bethlehem? No. Maybe Athens and a place called Rome? Yes, Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic. Governance is not really covered in the Bible, so we need another form of culture to turn to when conceptualizing right conduct within it. A couple notes: I did not not use too many sources because they are not available for free online. For further reading about cultural studies I recommend Raymond Williams and Stuart Hall.
Morality does not come purley from religion

Contention three: Religious clash vs. Moral view My opponent argues that religion is part of culture and its text are forms of culture; however, he filled to realize that this is actually the other way around. culture is based upon religion thus creating a situation in which religion becomes the foundation to all human way of living (culture). Although culture helps shape religion in some aspects, it is the religious believes of the residents that actually create the Morals obeyed by believers. As i mentioned in my previous contention, humans need a higher power in which they could create a base of comprehension of the world and its residents. The people cannot function properly if they do not have some sort of believe and as i also mentioned earlier in my previous speech, these believes been religion helps influence the Morals and culture itself. We must look to a . http://www.exampleessays.com... article which stated that "Religion has existed with and for mankind since almost the very beginning of humanity itself. Nothing would last for such an immense stretch of time if it did not serve some valuable purpose. All these years, religion has served as a guide and control of human behavior, dictating right from wrong. The most important aspect of religion however, is it's capability to shape honorable human personality and value". My opponent stated that " are always affected by the culture that surround us (media, literature, art, etc. ). For instance, I view the world in a certain way with certain assumptions, values, and judgments that are founded in the culture that I consume (science books, art, media, etc. )"; however, he failed to realize that non- of these play a role in morals and values. if i must, i will define the meaning of morals according to a dictionary. com definition "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong". Contention Four: Atheists There is no such thing as atheism when talking about cultural production. Atheistic individuals do not apply to morals simply because they do not belief in any religion thus does not have any culture or morals of there own. The morals acquired by atheists is influenced greatly by other religious groups and although they do not belief in any religion, they are easily influenced by other religious groups and the morals. Morals are found within the preaching of priest, monks or other religious characters as well as text from holy books.
Morality does not come purley from religion

Thanks for starting this topic. I will be arguing that Morality does not come purely from religion but was firmly based on religious beliefs. Contention one: foundation When analysing the foundation and history of morals, we must take in consideration of its foundation been religion. know my opponent argues that Morality does not come purely from religion which I agree on however; he failed to realize that the soul purpose of morals is to abide by personal believes which in primarily every case is controlled by some extent of religion. We must also look into the fact that without a unified or scattered religious view, there would be no culture thus creating a chain link that also involves the moral beliefs of people. without this foundation of firm bricks, the unstable cultural production will fall. "For the believer, what is right and wrong is very simple: whatever God says is right is right, and whatever God says is wrong is wrong. And the scriptures or the prophets can tell you what God says. So, the believer does not steal simply because it is a sin; he does not lie because it is a sin; he does not work on the Sabbath because it is a sin; he does not eat pork because it is a sin, etc. There is no examining why some of these things are bad or wrong, they just are, because someone in authority says so" (http://home.teleport.com...) Contention two: Human perspective Just like what was seen during the Medieval period, humans need some sort of higher power in which they could belief and stand by. This higher power is seen as a god that provides them with riches and blessing thus making it a sort o religious figure. We must find that this religious figure plays a huge role on what is right and what is wrong does commanding morals in general. Another issue we must look upon is the fact that the human mind does not work on its own but of the surrounding. The way humans live is mainly based on what there religion says and how there religion tells them to live. "These are all things which Jews and Christians have debated and have disagreed upon. These are all things which any fair appraisal of the situation would force one to conclude that society has have just as much of an influence on people's thinking as religion. Indeed, religion is inseparable from society, culture, class, race, etc. People like Dennis Prager can claim that moral absolutes come from their religion" (http://atheism.about.com...) In conclusion, we must look into the fact that within the human beliefs and morals, there is a simple but significant foundation firmly built solemnly to support it.
Morality does not come purley from religion

Before the arguments, definitions must be made clear. First, morality is simply right conduct. This could mean any process that deals with right conduct. There are several dictionary definitions from dictionary.com to Kant's definition, but all relate to right conduct. Secondly, religion can mean many things, but lets keep it simple. Religion is any set of beliefs that are practiced through dogma that concern the human condition within the universe. In the US, religion usually means Christianity (70-80% are Christian). Finally, culture will be defined as any tangible object and abstract idea used by a society. First argument: Religion is usually sited as the foundation for a society's morals (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The argument is not that religion does not shape morality; it is that morality does not purely or necessarily come from religion. Our morality is shaped by, at least at minimum, forms of cultural production, of which religious texts are a part of. Cultural productions would include anything that forms culture. However, lets simplify it and say that Cultural productions are essentially media, entertainment, and literature. Media are simply, for this argument, any news source read on a regular basis. entertainment can be any activity for pleasure (sports, video games, movies, etc.). Literature includes really any kind of book from scientific writing to poetry. All these things at a minimum form our reality and our judgment of that reality. Through social interactions with cultural productions, we conceptualize the world. It would be impossible to only utilize one form of cultural production because we are surrounded by these objects and affected by them regardless if we consume them willingly. Our concept of morality, being a judgment of reality, therefore, is based upon forms of cultural production, not religion. Second Argument: Because morality is based on forms of cultural production, it is subject to our interpretations of those forms. If I read the Bible, my interpretation will be different than others. That alone, will influence my morality in different ways. One reason why my interpretation might be different is because I consume and am surrounded by different forms of cultural production. Because of that, my morality cannot be formed by one piece of culture; therefore, it cannot be formed by religion alone. Third Argument: Place the US Constitution (or any modern constitution) next to the commandments of the Old Testament. The morality within both documents will be different from each other. You will see different values, meanings, assumptions, and judgments. That is because they both come from different times and geographical locations. Because Christians have held many of the same core beliefs, not practices, and morality varies between Christians, morality cannot be formed by religion alone.
Public school is the best, most fair way to bring education to all those who want it.

Interesting fact, current spending per student in the public system is around $13,000 per year. When adjusting for inflation the amount per student in 1975 was only $6,400. Regardless of doubling the money spent teaching students, learning has remained stagnant, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. I think we have tried the public education model for long enough.
Public school is the best, most fair way to bring education to all those who want it.

Indeed, public schools are more common, but this is simply because it is the default option. Around 10% of school-aged children attend private schools. But that is not the stated argument. Just because a government program exists and has existed for a long time doesn't mean it needs it continue to exit. It is true that the number of students is directly proportional to the budget of the school, but how much money does it cost to teach each student? Here is some data from the National Center for Educational Statistics: http://nces.ed.gov... This data comes from the mid 90s but the figures are proportional and demonstrate the difference between private and public tuition and fees that exist today. In essence the price per student for public schools, that the government pays (or better put, the tax-payer pays) is triple the cost of the average private school. More expensive private schools approach the same cost per student that public schools are operating at. Through voucher programs parents are able to move the money attached to their children (tax money) to private or charter schools. More and more families are choosing to do this because there is a higher demand for less government involvement in education. Conventional wisdom suggests that private schools out perform their public counter-parts, but recent studies have shown that public and private schools that represent similar students from the same socio-economic level perform similarly. This just shows that the private institutions are able to achieve the same product as public versions for a third of the cost. Give the money to those programs that produce the same results for a fraction of the cost.
Public school is the best, most fair way to bring education to all those who want it.

I wouldn't be entitled to that opinion for too long , but maybe you didn't know this that the government gives double the money that he does give to private schools to public schools. This money or you could call funds is what creates education so it better and fairer to bring education to all those who wish to receive this but to make it the best. Lets link back to the idea that funds create education and for schools the funds come from the students. The more students their are in a school the more education so then we can say that the most common schools are the best most fair way to bring education to all those who want it. Now when we create a comparison about if public schools are not as common as private schools I am sure you cannot with the fact that public schools are more common than private schools. I rest my case.
Public school is the best, most fair way to bring education to all those who want it.

Public schools are truly terrible. Not only are they extremely wasteful, but being the public utility they are, bureaucrats, not education professionals, dictate policy and standards. Many claim that privatizing the education system would further disadvantage poor families into even worse situations and worse schools. This is unlikely as so much more money would be available to "poor private schools" by cutting out all of the wasteful spending that our current public schools wade through.
Iraq should form a federation

Sano, in conclusion I fail to see where a federation would work.You have not shown how it would work other than separation. On to my next thought You did not and could not back up why we should form a federation in Iraq.You talked about separation of state and talked about the UN knowing previously that the United Nations was against the United States when we went into Iraq. The United Nations would never back up the United States or any other country.Sadam Hussein had killed thousands of Kurds including women and children with chemical weapons.Our president Bush had gone to the United Nations and asked for help with this problem to go into Iraq but was denied help. How is the United Nations going to help for three states in Iraq when they wouln't help the United States to invade Iraq. The United States had to go alone.To my next point Now we are cleaning up the mess in Iraq from Saddam Hussein and for the first time the Iraqi people are not going to have dictatorship but a free government thanks to the United States.They don't need to be separated but brought together to help support their government.It is imperative that we finish the job that we started.My next point We have lost less men here than we lost in the vietnam war, we are winning against the terrorists why should we stop. We either fight them overseas or fight them here.We must continue with Iraq until it is stabilized. We have never stopped fighting for what we beleive in but why now.Separating people or groups does not solve the problems.Would you separate the United States into three groups no then why Iraq?To the end of the argument. You have not proven or back it up in detail why we should separate these groups of people.Thanks for the debate it was fun.
Iraq should form a federation

Hello james Thanks for your comment on my arguments but i believe i make sense. You have not proven anything because you just keep saying it is better for them to be united but you have never shown how is that possible under the current status quo. I have shown you that thousand of people have lost their lives in Iraq and we still have more fighting and violence going and you have not said anything about that. Secondly I have told that even the US supports this idea. we have senator Sam Brownback calling us to support political settlement in Iraq based on federalism and even the former defense minister of Iraq supports it. You should also know that a federation is completly different of a separation of countries and i have clearly defined this earlier. You also mentioned that the US were welcomed when they first went to Iraq. Could you then please tell me why they are not welcomed now. It is been more than five years and it is now necessary to do so something good for the iraqis people. I have shown you how your election process is not gonna work in the first place and how the iraqis wants the US to leave at the end of the day. Even people in America want the US to leave. It is like you have not been clashing with me in this debate. You kept talking about the terrorists groups or alqaeda which does not really makes sense here. America didnt go to Iraq to fight al-qaeda. They went there to remove a dictator who they believed had missile of mass destruction which was not true. So when we talk about america leaving Iraq, that should not have anything to do with Alqaeda Finally, James you need to show that the status quo is fine and people in Iraq are ready to be under America. You also need to show me the harm of a federation. In case you are confused about that, the United States is a federation of states that means each states will have its own governor.. that is what i want in Iraq too. Have a nice day. Thank you
Iraq should form a federation

Sano I find that your comments are misconstrued. I also find that the federation would not work because these three groups do not need to be separated. Iraq does not need three different countries they should stay as 1. The Shiites,Kurds and Suni's will work better together when Alqaeda and terrorist groups are eliminated out of Iraq. On to my next thought. If you recall when we first went into Iraq the U.S. was widely accepted by the Iraqi people. They liked the concept of being free ,and being able to form their own government.
Iraq should form a federation

Yeah james thank you for your response and am sorry for the wrong spelling.. it is a typing error i guess. Alright first of all you should ask yourself why do we have so many terrorists groups right now in Iraq? Al-qaeda has nothing to do with the suicide bombign going on in Iraq my dear and that was even why the Interim government asked the insurgents groups to sit and talk.Those terrorists groups being formed are the iraqis my dear and that is just a fact. These people right now believe that America gave them false promises and that is why they want the US out of their country in the first place. These so called terrorists groups are being formed by almost every group or race. They fighting among each other too because they believe some of them support the us. Secondly thanks for your point on how the kurds were killed, tortured and so on. That is the main reason why the kurds who are the minority will not in any way support a government that is not from them. They have always wanted to be free and have their own autonomy.America has failed in Iraq and even President Bush and his government have confirmed that. They have also proposed this idea too because they think it is the last solution. Thirdly about election, as i mentioned earlier the shiates are the majority and even if US is trying to organize an election in Iraq, do you think that the US will in any way support a shiate government? I dont think so. It is a good idea to have an election even if you have different groups but when it comes to Iraq my dear it is completly different. The sunnis who were once in Power and had all the good things do not want to lose that power anymore or be under anyone. In addition to that they will never let them being led by a kurd or shiate. we have also seen attack on the government officials and that is because those people there are being chosen by the US. Anything done by the US will not appreciated now in Iraq.. In brief, we should all know that the Iraqis are fighting among themselves because no one wants the other to govern him. secondly they want the US out and i believe that is good for both of them. We have lost enough American soldiers there and Iraqis too. On Alqaeda, even if it is true that alqaeda is there, i dont see how we will give them power when America leaves.. because in that case Alqaeda has no one to attack. A federation will bring peace and stability because they will all have their own administration. I chose UN to do this because they are neutral and even many countries can contribute to help the UN but that will not be possible if America is there. Than you James. Sano
Iraq should form a federation

first of all iamsano you have mispelled the word dictator look on my spelling and you will understand.With Sadam Hussein regime the kurds was beaten and killed by chemical weapons.After the United States had eliminated sadam Husseins regime Iraq is in the process of being free. The Iraqi people had to vote for a new president, while there lives were at stake.They had to develop a new constitution that would include the kurds,shiates,and sunis in the government.The next point. The reason why our soldiers is being attacked is not from iraqi people but from the terroist groups within the country.We are at war with the terroist not with iraq this is what our general is working on is to eliminate the terroist. The reason it cannot be three states in separation is that the three groups need to brought together to work within their government.By voting all three groups will have a process of being elected in the government which is forming there own congress and senate like we do. A due process.To my next point The Alqueda would love to see us leave so they could take over the country.We as Americans have a duty to finish the job that we started.And this is to stabilize the country.If we leave now the terroist made come over here is this what you want or have you for gotten about 911.In all context my argument is the country needs to be brought together not separated.