BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A religion can be evil

Hey bud! I'll give this a go, first debate on here! I assume I let you go first, right? Do we agree on the commonly accepted definition of evil? e"vil G2;ēvəl/ adjective adjective: evil 1. profoundly immoral and malevolent. "his evil deeds" synonyms:wicked, bad, wrong, immoral, sinful, foul, vile, dishonorable, corrupt, iniquitous, depraved, reprobate, villainous, nefarious, vicious, malicious; More malevolent, sinister, demonic, devilish, diabolical, fiendish, dark; monstrous, shocking, despicable, atrocious, heinous, odious, contemptible, horrible, execrable; informallowdown, dirty "an evil deed" antonyms:good, virtuous (of a force or spirit) embodying or associated with the forces of the devil. "we have been driven out of the house by this evil spirit" harmful or tending to harm. "the evil effects of high taxes" synonyms:cruel, mischievous, pernicious, malignant, malign, baleful, vicious; More destructive, harmful, hurtful, injurious, detrimental, deleterious, inimical, bad, ruinous "an evil spirit" antonyms:good, beneficial (of something seen or smelled) extremely unpleasant. "a bathroom with an evil smell" synonyms:unpleasant, disagreeable, nasty, horrible, foul, disgusting, filthy, vile, noxious "an evil smell" antonyms:pleasant noun noun: evil 1. profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force. "the world is stalked by relentless evil" synonyms:wickedness, bad, badness, wrongdoing, sin, ill, immorality, vice, iniquity, degeneracy, corruption, depravity, villainy, nefariousness, malevolence; More devil; formalturpitude "the evil in our midst" a manifestation of this, especially in people's actions. plural noun: evils "the evil that took place last Thursday" synonyms:abomination, atrocity, obscenity, outrage, enormity, crime, monstrosity, barbarity "the evils of war" something that is harmful or undesirable. "sexism, racism, and all other unpleasant social evils" synonyms:harm, pain, misery, sorrow, suffering, trouble, disaster, misfortune, catastrophe, affliction, woe, hardship "nothing but evil would ensue" Origin
A religion can be evil

If we assume that individuals are in control over their actions, then the religion that they may follow has not caused the conflict. Is Islam the cause of the attacks of ISIS? Can a faith cause harm? I'd argue that as a faith is an idea, and as an idea cannot physically damage someone, the religion has done no harm. If i made a poster that told you to shoot you neighbour, would i have caused the death? Or would it be the individual wielding the weapon? It may be so that if there had been no religions in the world that the examples of harm you gave previously may not have happened. However, that does not make the religion to blame. Should a manufacturer of kitchen knives be responsible for a stabbing using one of their products? Should a car manufacturer be responsible if a man loads it with explosives and drives it into his ex wives house? Is that car or knife manufacturer evil because someone who used their products caused harm to others? If an individual has a choice to cause harm or to not, and they so happen to be in this position because they believe something, they can still chose to commit the harm or not. The individual gets to decide. This may have consequences for them, but they are still in control of their actions. Therefore i stand on the fact that a religion cannot be evil.
A religion can be evil

I think it is 100% possible for religion to be the cause of harm, and so if that is the definition we are using of evil.. then it can be evil as well. Religions are a particular systems of faith and worship, so if that faith and worship involves causing harm to others, then would it not be evil? Take the religion of the Aztecs. They had numerous occasions which called for human sacrifice. I think it's safe to say that is relatively harmful to those on the receiving end of the sacrificial implement. ISIS, not Islam in general, is following what it believes to be the tenants of its religion. They are committing mass murder and executions at the behest of their religious beliefs, would you not then consider their religion evil? I'm not saying they are true Muslims or that Islam in general is evil, but the skewed brand of Islam that ISIS follows is undeniably evil. Another example would be the Inquisitions and witch hunts perpetrated by the Catholic church throughout its history. Most certainly all of the followers of Christianity at the time were not evil, but a system that condones the torture and murder of non-believers should be seen as evil. Christianity has changed quite a bit since that time period, so I'm not saying Christianity in its current form is evil, but at several times throughout its history it has been. There have been numerous religions throughout the ages that have advocated torture, murder, human sacrifice, even child sacrifice. It could be argued that if the sacrifice was made willingly, then it wasn't evil... but that still leaves the sacrifices which were forced on captives or at least unwilling participants. If harm was caused to another without their consent, that is an evil action. I feel confident that the guiding force behind that harm is evil, and in the case of a ritual sacrifice that would be the particular system of faith and worship (religion).
There are Multi Universes

Well okay lets start with the basics. I would be using the Ancient Texts as a great deal of help Imagine we have a fabric of space, literally okay. We have black holes in these, you see lets take black holes as extreme depressions in this fabric. They do lead up somewhere, as we know, all that "swallowed up matter" has been sent somewhere. It cannot be kept in the small compact area with an extreme high density or it will be like a supernova explosion(though that's how the black holes mostly form) SO there has to be a deposit ground of this material. Also if you do not mind I would like to include Hindu Mythology. You see the Vedas has specified that there are different Lokas in this huge universe called an ocean where Vishnu Rests. Also this debate is not religious but if you see the information in the Vedas, they describe many massive scientific discoveries such as the aeroplanes(Vimanas) which was invented by Shivjar Bapuji Talpade.http://en.wikipedia.org... and http://oldphotosbombay.blogspot.in... A bit more into Hindu Mythology, The Universe is said to have had been a bindu(a small spot in Sanskrit). This is now proved in The Big Bang Theory as the universe begun from a small atom packed with all the matter and it was extremely dense. The rest of the Hindu-Scientific Mythology would be explained in another debate which I am doing. Back to where I was, if there is all that matter where does it go? Have you ever thought about an exactly virtually parallel universe as you see our universe is made up of matter and there has been a discovery of anti-matter. So it is theoretically possible for an exact opposite universe of ours to exist. Over 3000 years ago, the Indians knew that the earth was NOT in the center of the universe while the Europeans were in their dark ages. They thought that the earth was in the center of the universe and that the earth was the biggest thing in the sky. But the Indians knew about the galaxies. Now we know that galaxies exist and that there are many of them in space. So why cannot there be many universes just because we do not have the technology to find this out. This is my possible thesis for how is there is a possibility of multi universes.
It is wrong to teach children that Santa Claus exists

My opponent is playing games to try and change the nature of this debate to one of a utilitarian nature but this debate is meant to be straightforward. The lengths at which parents go to convince their kids that Santa is real can be astounding. This is not a simple story that parents often admit to when their kids question it. They reassure them he is real and chastise the other children who know better. Some people invoke Santa to get their kids to behave, and while this often works it doesn’t mean it is the only or best solution. For one thing teaching them not to lie and leading by example is good, being a role model is one important aspect of being a parent. A parent could threaten not to buy presents if the kid is bad, it would have the same effect and also not be deceptive. My opponent questions whether a lie has the same effect on kids as it does on adults. Kids innately have trust in their parents; from the time they are born so a betrayal of trust with a child is likely worse than with an adult. [1] Why is this trust so important? Because children rely on their parents for essentially everything, they are the primary caregivers. It is true some kids are unaffected later in life but that can hardly be applied to all. If you are trying to teach your kids not to lie and they find out that you lied to them about Santa, what kind of message does that send them? In that case it goes beyond lying and become hypocrisy. If there is even a chance that lying to them about Santa does long term damage wouldn’t you want to err on the side of caution? [2] What makes it worse is that it is so taboo to tell kids the truth that everyone else, not just their parents is seen as having lied to them. If can also teach them that believing lies gets you rewards while believing the truth may not.[3] One other way lying to kids about Santa could be potentially dangerous is the whole reason we tell kids not to talk to strangers. What if a man dressed as Santa offers a kid candy if he gets in his truck? I have seen many kids mistake older overweight men with white beards for Santa especially if they are wearing red. I want to bring in religion one more time for a different reason. If you are a Christian and teaching kids about the birth of Christ (never mind the whole Dec. 25th not being the real date, we don’t know the real date we can tell kids that) then if they are taught about Santa then learn later that he didn’t exist, and then they may question the Christmas story as well. Remember the parent’s intention is that the kids believe in Jesus their whole lives and the parents truly believe it to be true. Don’t turn this into a debate about the existence of Christ but I am bringing it up as an example of something parents want to instill in their kids that is damaged by the Santa myth. I thank my opponent and look forward to his closing arguments. 1 http://gillsie.hubpages.com...2 http://articles.businessinsider.com...3 http://gillsie.hubpages.com...
It is wrong to teach children that Santa Claus exists

Pro has told us *why* he thinks lying is immoral but still hasn't argued coherently for the position. For instance, I could say that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural but this justificatory proposition isn't obvious enough to not warrant further explanation (as in why is betrayal of trust wrong? ) or justification. Pro has claimed that betrayal of trust is prima facie immoral. And of course, even if we accept this, my statement still remains. That "lying isn't wrong when its purpose is to arouse merriment and joy in children and when there are minimal negative repercussions resulting from said lie. " Certainly the existence of multiple contingencies as Pro pointed out also lends credence to the existence of such a prima facie plausible exception. (2a) Pro's examples of supposedly negative consequential effects of lying about the existence of Santa leave one wanting. For instance, the Piaget evidence serves no tangible purpose in this debate. Really all it proves is that children would be more susceptible to belief in Santa than adults, something that I have no intention of disputing. Furthermore, Pro hasn't given evidence to suggest that believing in Santa would lead to believing in any other false or negative propositions (a la domino effect) so I fail to see the relevance here. On my religion counter, Pro is guilty of either mis-interpreting or mis-representing the scope of my point. The point isn't that parents are lying to their children about religion. It's that belief in false propositions (even if they are outlandish) isn't necessarily a bad thing. The mere fact that some religions must be false (owing to mutually incompatible propositions propagated by different religions) shows that believing in a false religion doesn't always mean that one must incur negative psychological effects, even in the case of children. Therefore, even though parents are propagating a clearly false belief to children, they may still turn out to be perfectly rounded adults in the future, as most of them do. (2b) I should point out that Pro is on this point relying completely on a sort of a priori assumption of how children react to learning that Santa Claus doesn't exist as well as with the future effects of such experiences. He's assuming that children cope with lying and falsities in the same way that rational adults do. Now obviously some children get upset when they learn that their parents lied to them. However, rarely do we see things like estrangement or anything close to a high level of mental anguish resulting in the long-term as a result of this. More often than not when children get older they look back and laugh. It's akin to something like circumcision. Whether it's a legitimately compassionate way to treat an infant isn't important here. The point is that the acts long-term negative repercussions are almost nil even if they might be bad in the short-term. The same can be said of things like white lies about a fat man who annually breaks into your house on the eve of a winter holiday.
It is wrong to teach children that Santa Claus exists

Lying is bad because it betrays the trust between two people. The reason I brought up the exceptions was to preempt an effort to try to demonstrate how lying is good. These are exceptions specifically because lying is bad. I made the distinction between doing it to protect someone and what parents do when they tell their children about Santa Claus. Can a child distinguish between fantasy and reality my opponent asks? Sometimes, but often times no according to Piaget, children have trouble with the distinction up until about age seven. [1] Presenting Santa as a reality as opposed to a fantasy makes it even harder for them to make the distinction. It is try playing pretend with your child is good, just be sure you make it clear to them that it is not real. My opponent points out how a child who believes in Santa Claus continues to function normally. This is true for the most part, but they have this obsession with telling Santa what they want for Christmas when it would be so much easier to cut out the middle man and tell their parents. My opponent then brings up religion but it is not entirely analogous. Even if the religion being taught is false, it is not a deliberate lie. Now if the parents actually themselves believe Santa exists, then it would be analogous, but that is far from a regular circumstance. My opponent rightly points out that children should learn not to believe everything they hear. However, parents are people who a child needs to be able to trust. A parent can teach their child to distrust by teaching them not to talk to strangers. When children find out Santa Claus doesn’t exist, it doesn’t merely prove their parents were wrong as my opponent suggests but that their parents in fact lied to them. The belief in Santa Claus can be compared to a belief in Superman. If a parent tells a child Superman is real, most would look at them weird but he is just as unreal as Santa Claus. [2] I pass it back to my opponent.1 . http://shine.yahoo.com...2 . http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au...
It is wrong to teach children that Santa Claus exists

(1) Pro has failed to justify his foundational proposition i.e., that lying is wrong. He even posted a bunch of counter-examples of when it isn't wrong (also unsupported) so why can't I just insert my own exception to the rule? I propose that lying isn't wrong when its purpose is to arouse merriment and joy in children and when there are minimal negative repercussions resulting from said lie.(2) On the supposed negative side effects, Pro has again failed to substantiate. A)-- For instance, where does Pro get the idea that children will not be able to understand the difference between reality and non-reality? Children who believe in Santa don't necessarily lose all grip with reality do they? More often than not they continue to function normally. It's like belief in Jesus/Christianity. Even if the religion turns out to be false, we don't see such extremely negative psychological effects as Pro is describing. The same can be said of holding any other false belief.B)-- Also, I would even venture to suggest that this skeptical attitude which Pro suggests will come as a result of this lying (which he also failed to substantiate beyond mere conjecture) is a rather good thing. People shouldn't accept whatever they here from an authority figure just because of who it comes from. When children learn that Santa Clause doesn't really exist, it proves to teach them an important lesson, that even their parents can be wrong sometimes.
It is wrong to teach children that Santa Claus exists

Telling children to believe in Santa Claus is wrong for one simple reason. It’s a lie. There are times when lying can be justifiable such as when those who hid Jews from the Nazis denied it because admitting to it would have cost the Jews their lives. Also trying not to be direct when talking about sex to children because they are not yet ready to hear about it is understandable, however telling them the stork brings babies is along the same line as the problem with Santa Claus. However, telling them about Santa Clause isn’t protecting anyone from anything. Some might claim it is simply make believe, but if that is the case why not start with the premise that Santa isn’t real but tell the kids to pretend he is. That is different entirely. To a certain point kids may not be able to tell the difference between reality and make believe but why make it even harder for them by insisting it’s reality? When the kids become old enough to realize that Santa doesn’t exist, they may feel betrayed that their parents lied to them for all those years. They may begin to wonder what other things their parents lied to them about. You can also replace any reference to Santa Claus with the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny and my argument is still. I await my opponent’s response.
It is wrong to teach children that Santa Claus exists

I will argue that it is wrong and sometimes even harmful to children to teach them that Santa Claus exists I will also extend this to the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. As pro I assert this and my opponent as con will argue that it is not wrong to do so.First round is for acceptance only. DefinitionsSanta Claus: the Jolly fat man who comes down chimneys and hands out presents and not the historic character known as Saint NicholasEaster Bunny: A large magical rabbit that may give out eggs, but not a normal small lagomorph that may be either domesticated or wild with no powers other than the ability to hop and eat plants.Tooth Fairy: A magical entity that takes a child's tooth that has been hidden under a pillow and exchanges it for money and not anything else that word could possibly be conceived to mean.With that out of the way let us proceed and good luck to my opponent.
we should respect islam

I AM NOT JUST SAYINGDON'T BE A HATER ANYMORE!!!!! Therre are some variations of Islam where it tells them to "kill all those who don't believe." or something like that. And while nobdy likes that, you shouldn't show it to clearly. I bet there are allot of Islam people whoare embarrassed by I.S.I.S. and don't like what their doing. So, okay don't respect Islam if you don't want to, but please, don't show it.
we should respect islam

"Yeah, I understand that Islam has had some bad times" 'has' implying past tense the atrocities committed by ISIS also known as Islamic State arguably the most literalist viewpoint on the Quran and Hadith; this is a problem we face today not in the 'past'. I really wish someone else would have agreed to this debate so as I could have had my ideas challenged; thought provoking and an intelligent debate. literally the only argument you presented was and I quote "Don't be a hater" when I never mentioned or implied we should 'hate' the religion I said we should not have to respect it and I made that distinction clear in my opening paragraph. I dont mean to be rude but I'm rather disappointed.
we should respect islam

I never said that we should hate the religion I said we should not have to respect it, also as I previously stated we can accept that that is what someone believes but we don't have to respect that decision. I accept that you believe dreamcatchers work but I certainly do not respect that view, and to tell me that I or anyone should respect that idea to tell me how to think; this is totalitarian and its somthing I or anyone else should not have to put up with and it is a disgusting and immoral idea. Now I shall talk about the level of respect Islam demands of us, remember the 2006 denmark cartoon riots that lead to over 300 deaths worldwide, and the recent charlie hebdo massacre, this is islamic blasphemy law been forced on society and we are been told to respect these views and infact respect them over our own civil liberties, this is a direct encroachment of theocratic dictatorship that must not be 'respected'.
we should respect islam

Okay you make a point, but just because we don't like something, doesn't mean we have the right to make other people hate it. We should respect Islam along with every other religion. and there doesn't have to be facts for you to believe in something, i.e.. I believe that dream catchers work, there is no real evidence that they do work, but I haven't had a bad dream since I hung it. No real evidence, just pure belief. Don't be a hater
we should respect islam

Thank you for the acceptance opening argument Ill start by stating no religion deserves respect this view is held not just to Islam. There is a common idea in society in this day and age that all religious belief is due respect because it is a belive often times people hold them dear. It should be noted that respecting someone's views is quite different from accepting and/or disrespecting, and we are talking about respecting. Religion is the only idea on this Earth that asks for respect on issues they may very well not be true and I cannot see why this is the case. Do we respect views on mathematics, medicine, astronomy e.t.c.? No, we respect the provable facts. Islam makes claims about the universe and humanity that are just completely and scientifically proven to be untrue (like most religions), however the Islamic community demands more respect than any other religious communities and that has been proven time and time again; and this demand to respect a belief just because it's a belief is ludicrous.
Government should get out of the marriage business

Those who oppose gay marriage believe deeply that marriage is sacreda divine, a blessed sacrament between man and woman as ordained in the Bible. If they are right, then the entire concept of marriage has no place in our civil society, which recognizes the separation between the sacred and the secular, between church and state. The state is, of course, concerned with the secular rights and responsibilities that are currently associated with the sacrament of marriage: the financial consequences of divorce, the custody of children, Social Security and hospital benefits, etc. The solution is to unlink the religious institution of marriage — as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union — from the state. Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.