BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morality can exist without religion.

There are two basic lines of thought: Either there is a Creator God, or we came about as a cosmic accident (that is, we were not intended to exist; there is no purpose). In the line of thought with a Creator God, theists argue that humans were created in the image of God. Because of this, we are rational beings who can relate with one another, create new things with the tools of the earth, and we all have inherent value. Morality is objective in this paradigm.The other line of thought is that humans were not created with inherent purpose. The first philosopher to question a Creator was Protagoras (1). He argued that "Man is the measure of all things." This is the beginning of moral relativism, which is a logical consequence of atheism. What this means is that morality is just an illusion. Just as one person may like chocolate ice cream, he is entitled to his own opinion, and noboby else is wrong for disliking chocolate ice cream. Also, one person may think murdering is wrong, but that is just his own opinion, and anyone who thinks murdering is okay is not incorrect. Morality is objectively meaningless, and we create arbitrary values so that a society can function. So, one society is not wrong to make murder legal, and so also another society is not wrong to make murder illegal. One society has no authority to tell what another society ought to do.Atheists generally misunderstand this argument, and say that they can still be "good" without religion. But this is a problem. Under the atheistic paradigm, good and evil do not exist. They are merely arbitrary human constructs. What is good to one person is not good to another person. Because, if an atheist argues that they can be good, they acknowledge that there is evil. An atheist cannot acknowledge good and evil without there being a God. In an atheistic paradigm, things just "are". So, for an atheist to argue that they can be "good", in the first sense they are contradicting their paradigm by necessitating a God, and secondly, "goodness" is a meaningless term in that worldview. It is as if the atheist is saying "Chocolate ice cream is good, and anyone who does not like it is wrong or evil." But the atheist will still object and say, "I determine my goodness by the values that are set in my society. I obey the laws that my society sets, so I am a good person." Firstly, this is just begging the question; 'Why is following the law a good thing? I can say that it is bad to follow the law, and be just as correct." Also, this argument is an appeal to the masses; it is the bandwagon fallacy. Just because most people agree to something, it does not make it true. In conclusion, morality requires religion. If an atheist argues that there is "goodness", then he must also acknowledge "evil", and both of these concepts require religion. This is a counterproductive argument for the atheist.(1) http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Morality can exist without religion.

ArgumentsMorality is independent from faith and religion. Humans are born with a set of morals. They are not necessarily taught by the parents or caregivers. They are a natural part of this species. I will prove it using a source, which is neatorama.com. According to that site, babies prefer to interact with people that are of a good nature. Babies do not like interacting with people that are selfish or over-confident. This is a very crucial element to this debate. I will not be arguing against religion - I happen to be an Atheist - but this debate is specifically about the link between religion and morality. Morality may be an aspect of religion, but religion is not specifically a part of morality. According to greatergood.berekely.edu, "[t]here is a spectrum of views about how religion and ethics are related—from the view that religion is the absolute bedrock of ethics to one that holds that ethics is based on humanistic assumptions justified mainly, and sometimes only, by appeals to reason. These two extremes tend to be argued in a way that offers little room for compromise or pragmatic solutions to real issues we face everyday." The source continues with, "[e]ven though religious and secular ethics don’t derive their authority from the same source, we still must find a way to establish common ground between them; otherwise we’re condemning ourselves to live amidst social discord and division." They are not from the same source, but they do have commonalities. Religion is connected to morals, while morals are not necessarily connected to religion. In conclusion, morality is a natural human aspect that does not require religion. Religion requires morality, but morality does not automatically require religion. I hope my opponent considers this. Works Cited1. http://www.neatorama.com...2. http://greatergood.berkeley.edu...
Morality can exist without religion.

In this debate, I will argue that morality can exist without religion and faith. I have heard and seen many people claiming that religion and faith are what produce morality. I beg to differ. I wish to debate an individual that disagrees with my view. Round One: AcceptanceRound Two: Arguments, no rebuttalsRound Three: Rebuttals and conclusion Rules:1. There will be no forfeiture or concession. 2. Proper spelling and grammar will be used.3. Sources will be cited. I look forward to this debate.
Gay Marriage

"You're saying that gay people make bad parents because they're incapable of naturally producing a child. Good parenting is not something inherent to only fertile heterosexual couples. Many more fertile heterosexual couples are awful parents in comparison to gay/lesbian/infertile couples because they can suddenly be in the situation that the woman is pregnant and not be prepared for parenthood." No, they are naturally worse parents because it is not their child so they do not have any Oxyyocin directed toward said child. "You're basically saying that adoption/surrogacy is not the same as being a parent, no matter the sexual orientation of the mother(s)/father(s). By saying that gay couples make bad/less-loving parents because they cannot reproduce, you are saying this is true for infertile heterosexual couples too." No, you are straw-manning me again, if it is their child, they ave Oxytocin directed toward said child, if it is not, there is none. "Quite frankly, I think that is very sad. Hetrosexual marriage is the union of a man and a woman in love. Gay marriage is the union between two men/women in love. Hetrosexual marriage is the union between a man and a woman who find each other attractive. Gay marriage is the union between two men/women who find each other attractive. Hetrosexual marriage is the union between a man and a wife who feel they want to be together for the rest of their lives. Gay marriage is the union between two men/women who feel they want to be together for the rest of their lives." No, it s not in "love", heterosexual marriage is a natural thing, and it is in love. Homosexual marriage is unnatural, it is simply a vulgar distorted version of marriage, it is corrupt, and perverse, it is done over nothing more than perverse lust which they develop out of habit. "All that is different is the amount of brides and grooms that attend that wedding. A gay wedding will have 2 grooms or 2 brides. A hetrosexualwedding will have one of each. That's it." Reasoning, hetrosexual mairrage is actual marriage, homosexual marriage is a corrupt, perverse, distorted version of marriage which they are passing off as ACTUAL MARRIAGE.
Gay Marriage

You're saying that gay people make bad parents because they're incapable of naturally producing a child. Good parenting is not something inherent to only fertile hetrosexual couples. Many more fertile heterosexual couples are awful parents in comparrison to gay/lesbian/infertile couples because they can suddenly be in the situation that the woman is pregnant and not be prepared for parenthood. You're basically saying that adoption/surrogacy is not the same as being a parent, no matter the sexual orientation of the mother(s)/father(s). By saying that gay couples make bad/less-loving parents because they cannot reproduce, you are saying this is true for infertile hetrosexual couples too. Quite frankly, I think that is very sad. Hetrosexual marriage is the union of a man and a woman in love. Gay marriage is the union between two men/women in love. Hetrosexual marriage is the union between a man and a woman who find each other attractive. Gay marriage is the union between two men/women who find each other attractive. Hetrosexual marriage is the union between a man and a wife who feel they want to be together for the rest of their lives. Gay marriage is the union between two men/women who feel they want to be together for the rest of their lives. All that is different is the amount of brides and grooms that attend that wedding. A gay wedding will have 2 grooms or 2 brides. A hetrosexualwedding will have one of each. That's it.
Gay Marriage

You justify your argument by stating that homosexuality is 'perverse', yet you fail to expand on this issue. How, exactly, is it perverse? Because of what the Bible said it is (not Christian but, from my interpretation, yes; the Bible is homophobic)? The Bible is an ancient text written by humans which, as Christianity states, are imperfect. How can we rely on this information from a book written by imperfect, presumably heterosexual men? If we look at the argument of the four law arguement developed by Aquinas, we can assume that the Bible is not an entirely true representation of God's ideals as the Bible is only Divine Law, noot quite the same as God's eternal law. The Bible is just not reliable. Homosexuality is natural and actually beneficial to the survival of the human race; it has been found in 1,000+ species and gay couples are much more likely to adopt than straight couple,s because why would a fertile heterosexual couple go through the strain and emotional turmoil of adoption? Not many. A recent study even suggests that gay men are better parents than both straight and lesbian couples. Straight couples can conceive without meaning to, leaving them only 9 months to prepare physically, emotionally and financially for the arrival of their child. Lesbians, too, can conceive fairly quickly through the use of Artificial Insemination by Donor, and can rush into parenthood as well. However, gay men have to get past all sorts of obstacles to become fathers from screening to finding a surrogate mother. This means they get plenty of planning and preparation before actually being responsible for a child. As for marriage, I see little point in it anymore- so many people are atheistic or take a liberal stance on their religion, I don't see why it's still so common. If your religious and you want to be united in God's prescence, go ahead; I just don't understand why people who don't believe in a god get married because they really don't need to. Marriage is a religious ceremony, so why is marriage so important to atheists too? You can still love each other and be together- a wedding is just a waste of money. If you don't need to united by God, why bother? That leads me on to my last point. If atheists can marry, why not two Christian lesbians or gay guys? They have more of a need to be joined in matrimony than atheists, don't they? It's important to them. Sources: http://www.yalescientific.org... http://www.medicaldaily.com...
Gay Marriage

A liberal I can see, well I will have you know that there is a difference between love, and- that. Love is a conviction which causes you to have concern for another human. Gay Marriage is not that, it is "ooh that guy's hot", this is just vulgar, not love. They cannot just be perverts and pass it off as marriage, it is not marriage, it is sexual perversion and the is a difference. As far as political correctness goes, I couldn't care less if they are offended, this is expected whenever you offend peoples pride. Plato's story of the cave.
BoJack Horseman is the Best Netflix Original

BoJack Horseman is one of those few animated shows that can truly change your perspective on life, it is one of the most human shows I have ever watched... ironically. This show is so incredibly powerful in its presentation, it demands you take good long, hard look at yourself and think about why you are here now; are you happy with where you are and if you aren't can you change and get out; and choices did you make to get you there. It is depressing, painful and real but it is also witty and extremely satirical. This shows commentary on guilt, depression, fame, addiction and existentialism needs to be watched and understood, and its philosophy and humor makes it my favorite netflix original ever.
Morality: Herd Instinct in the Individual (2)

You did a poor job a clarifying your position you took so many different stances it was hard to figure what direction you where coming from. In your opening argument you proposed simply committing crime and in round 3 you became a hero advocate to the poor. If I have wronged you to the point in which you state I have I do apologize for the inconvenience I have caused. Might I suggest If you are going to propose this argument another time please take a clear position and defend your point with some sort of fact or reassuring statement that was absent from this debate.
Morality: Herd Instinct in the Individual (2)

OK, I guess I'm going to have to put it up again. You fail to understand the argument and respond accordingly. I have postured a reasonable idea. Why should I follow moral rules if I can avoid the consequences and benefit from it? You haven't answered. My position is actually the more reasonable one. We shouldn't blindly follow other-regarding prescriptions when they hinder our cause. You should restrain yourself from such personal attacks next time and stick to the issues. Normally, answering an argument involves logic, not just saying "Well thats stupid!". You should try and overcome your maturity level and make cogent args next time. Anyway, extend all of the analysis that hasn't been answered in the previous rds.
Morality: Herd Instinct in the Individual (2)

At no point in this debate did my opponent make a clear case nor did he support any of his statement by facts. He did not even give a reasonable statement. He first stated he should have the right in order to live his life as he saw fit. In round two he stated that he should be able to go by being immune from laws, just to change in his following round to the position in which he states he wants to be able to elude law enforcement issues. Since his will is too do as he pleases he can continue to debate this issue as long as he wants. I feel sorry I debated this issue because it has made no sense from the beginning. My opponent has compared himself as a batman and robinhood type figure who did as they pleased for good. This is to draw in votes but what he doesn't state is that batman, robinhood, spiderman and other fantasy characters put the will of mankind before their own. Spiderman often complained that he wish he was not cursed with his strengths. Roobinhood robbed from the rich in order to give to the poor but with your mind set on yourself first, I am really unsure how much money would make it to the poor. Batman lived as almost as a hermit helping the wronged. Like I stated you can post anything you feel necessary it is not my job to stop you but if you continue to post the same argument I am sure your going to come up with an opponent that has the same arguments as myself.
Morality: Herd Instinct in the Individual (2)

Are you even reading the argument? How do I have to change the rules? I argue that I would only act unlawfully if I believe I could get away with it. People get away with crime all the time without changing the law. There is no way my action induces this kind of societal breakdown. I don't change the law. I act while avoiding its consequences. This is possible, I assure you. Pursuing my own self interest can ceratinly bring about good things. Look at batman. He pursued his own self interest which happened to be helping the helpless. Who says I wouldn't be stealing from corrupt corporations and giving it to the homeless or something equally robin hoodesque? Despite your personal attacks and lack of response, I am not suggesting I live in some fairy tale. I am simply asking you, is there some reason to follow the law or other moral rules if I don't suffer consequences (get away with it) and it satisfies my personal interests? To put it simply, I think the only value or weight these moral prescriptions have is consequential. That is to say, they are only valuable for their consequences. So, if I can avoid getting punished, what reason do I have for following the law? Certainly, my stealing a purse doesn't lead to societal breakdown. So, other than the fact that you think i am a crazy drunk, what reason do I have to follow the rules of society if I don't get punished and it benefits me (and perhaps others)? Please respond cogently next rd or I'll have to put this up for a third time.
Morality: Herd Instinct in the Individual (2)

In order you you to live in your own little dream realm rules would have to change allowing for you to commit the many crimes you have intended in order to gain your self satisfaction. When those rules go many other humans that may have been deterred from crime would go and do as they please. So although the whole world would not turn to crime a large portion would. The only way I do not see world wide chaos from occurring is if you where the only person except from rules and if that is so this is possibly the weirdest debate I have been a part of. Your position contradicts itself over and over. I have a hard time distinguishing whether your intoxicated, coherent or insane. You are able to satisfy many charities needs without living in some magical world in which you and you alone are able to break the rules while all us "common folk" are stuck in the real world. You need to state a clear position before you go on some sort of magical tangent.
Morality: Herd Instinct in the Individual (2)

First, you argue that everyone acting like this would lead to societal chaos. How do you get here? I don't advocate everyone acting like this. Myself, as one person, acting as a rational egoist, wouldn't cause everyone to act as I do. I would be one person acting outside the construct of external moral prescriptions. Thats not the world I would like to live in, which is why I don't advocate it. Next, you argue that religion makes people act selflessly. This may be true. But, my framework indicates that I act within my own INTERESTS, not necessarily selfishly. So, if I value a religion, it would serve my interests to honor it and reap the benefits of being religiously just. But, say that isn't the case with me personally. Why do I have reason to honor its rules if I don't believe in it? You feed the voters and myself all of these terrible scenarios of rapists and murderers. Again, this would not be the case. I would be ONE person acting this way. Furthermore, rapists and murderers get caught by the law. My framework assumes that I can get away with whatever immoral action I am performing in my own interest. If I can't get away with it, punishment and prison time isn't in my interests and therefore I wouldn't do it. Your pedantic interpretation of my argument is hardly accurate or concise. Let me clear things up for you, as I don't advocate a society with no laws or me getting away with everything or anything else similar to that. First, I think my actions should serve my own interests. This can include helping others and other charitable acts if that is what I value. So, don't confuse persuing self-interest with acting selfishly. Second, moral actions are sometimes serving those interest and sometimes impeding them. Punishment is generally not in my self-interest as I do not want to be punished. Therefore, I shouldn't follow moral prescriptions if they impede my self-interest and I can get away with it. I can't really provide facts that pertain to moral framework. Reasonable people should actually see the opposite. That these moral prescriptions are simply an impedance on my self-interest. Frankly, personal interest should be pursued. While this debate is soley about me, as one person, your arguments for society collapsing don't really hold relevance. But, if you would like to debate me on that scale I will send you a challenge sometime. If you can provide me some reason that I should follow moral rules when they interfere with my interest and I don't have to worry about negative consequences, because I won't get caught, than please do. But, please don't turn this into another "well this is stupid" type of debate. Thanks.
Morality: Herd Instinct in the Individual (2)

Although I have a great deal of respect for my fellow man and my opponent does have his right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but what about the rest of the world's estimated 6.8 Billion people do they not also deserve the same rights as you. If you would like I can keep it on a smaller scale and look at the United States estimated 310 million. Now if I were to accept your way of living every one of these people could do whatever they want with no regards to their neighbor. Are you sure that is the world you would want to live in. I am bound by societal law in addition to the morals I choose to follow due to my religious believes. It is much harder to follow moral beliefs and often times it can lead to a person putting themselves second and delaying their own aspirations. Now think of the world without police officers where murders, rapist and other felons can do what they want and their would be no consequences. So would you feel alright letting a rapist who goes around forcefully raping young children? I mean of course he has the right to do as he pleases without his self-interest being hindered right? Or how about murderers we should allow them to kill without any concentrates too? I am fairly certain you were killed by someone you have angered it would stop you from living your way. I will conclude this first round with this shorten concise statement because honestly you have not presented any facts supporting your issue other than I want to live with no rules because I want things my way. This juvenile reasoning is something that couldn't win an argument with your parents and hopefully other reasonable minded people will see that their is no way this would ever work.
Morality: Herd Instinct in the Individual (2)

I see no reason why I should be bound by moral action when it impedes my own self-interest. I;m not disregarding all morality, but, when it hinders my ability to pursue my own well-being or personal interest, it should be cast aside. If you can prove to me some reason that I should follow rules of morality like "Do not steal" or "Do not kill" and prescriptions like the 10 commandments when they interfere with my own interests, please do so. Thanks in advance.