BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morality comes from religion.

Despite Con's confident assertion that my arguments 'fall' due to my accepting his definitions, we can see two facts about his response. 1. He has dropped all his arguments against the resolution. 2. He has ignored specific points brought against him in my rebuttal. First, I would like to question my opponent. If somebody grows up a Christian and comes to believe through their religion that 'morality' is defined as 'what pleases God' or 'what God wills to be good or evil', where has has that belief originated? If the answer is in fact the religion, then you concede the debate. However, I cannot think of another possible answer. How could someone who is detached from religion possibly come to believe such a thing? Where has that persons 'own personal means of distinguishing right from wrong' come from, if not their religion? With that, I shall respond to my opponents arguments: 1) Con here makes a desperate 'retreat to the possible'. He claims that it is possible that religious morality could still have originated in the absence of religion. However, this completely disregards some of the definitions of religious morality I gave. There is simply no way that a non-religious civilisation would come to accept divine command theory, for instance. These are peoples ways of interpreting right and wrong, and they specifically come from the religions they follow. Con's next point is more interesting; he claims that the originators of religions do not get their morality from a religion. However, this is completely irrelevant. It may be true (although I have no idea how you would demonstrate it), but that does not erase the fact that once the religion has begun, people who then follow that religion use it to base their morality on. 2) Here, Con draws an analogy with an atheist believing homosexuality to be wrong, then finding that a religion reinforces that belief after they accept it. However, this simply confuses the products of a moral code that one might follow, with the moral code itself. It is true that an atheist might believe homosexuality to be wrong, but this is irrelevant. It does not change the fact that an atheist and a theist will have different supporting moral structures on which to base that belief. Structures that will change upon accepting or rejecting religion. Besides, how does he account for people whose moral sentiments DO change after accepting or rejecting a religion? What about people who believe homosexuality is wrong while religious, and then change their mind once they have rejected it? It cannot be said of a great deal of people that religion does not provide their senses of morality. It may be true of some people that religious morality simply reinforces what they believe (and that itself could count for the resolution), however there is simply no denying that a great many people drastically change what they think to be moral or immoral based on the religious beliefs they hold. With that said, I turn it back to Con.
Morality comes from religion.

By accepting my definition of morality as subjective and not objectively beamed into one's head from a divine power, your two arguments fall. 1) Your first point about civilizations being built on religious doctrines merely reinforces my previous statement that "certain religions may enforce certain senses of morality; however, that does not mean those senses of morality originated from those religions." What is to say that these civilizations absolutely WOULD NOT have formed their moral codes without religion? That cannot be proved and, therefore, we cannot definitively say that morality comes from religion; we can merely say that religion supports and reinforces moral codes that have been developed. For example, when an individual attempts to start a religion by writing and publishing a religious text, where are his existing moral codes coming from? In order to reasonably be called a religion, there must be at least some minimal form of social awareness and acceptance of its doctrines. But the doctrines only reside in the head of this individual at this point in time and so cannot reasonably be said to be a religion at all. This individual's morality, then, had to have been developed independently of a religion in order for anything to be written in the first place. A statement on Wikipedia strengthens this point by emphasizing the inherent sociality of religion: "'religion' is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘faith' or ‘belief system,' but it is more socially defined than personal convictions." The argument against this – that his morality was essentially bestowed upon him naturally and objectively by God – contradicts the way that morality has been defined for this debate, and therefore does not belong here at all. 2) Your second argument falls for the same reason – again, "certain religions may enforce certain senses of morality; however, that does not mean those senses of morality originated from those religions." The atheist's sense of right and wrong will not necessarily be altered upon converting to Christianity. The atheist may well already believe that homosexuality is wrong, but he did not need Christianity in order to come to that sense of morality. Upon converting to Christianity, he would obviously find that this religion supports his sense of morality that homosexuality is wrong. But supporting and originating are two entirely different concepts. His sense of morality did not originate or "come from" religion – religion merely supports and reinforces his sense of morality. Thank you. References: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Morality comes from religion.

Before I begin let me note that by defining morality, for the purposes of this debate, as an entirely subjective construct Con has curtailed any attempt at a dialogue between a theist and an atheist. No informed theist would bother arguing that subjective morality comes from their religion - instead, they would argue that OBJECTIVE morality is grounded in their particular supernatural entity. Also, it's important to get clear the contentions that each side is defending. I will be defending the view that subjective morality comes from religion, and Con will be arguing its negation - that subjective morality does not come from religion. In other words, I will have won if I can present a single instance of subjective morality coming from a religious source. 1. Civilisations and cultures have been built on religious morality. It must be true that some religions are false since many are mutually exclusive. Therefore, it follows that the moral codes they espouse are subjective - i.e. the authors/inventors way of interpreting right and wrong. Therefore, the followers of those religions are following a subjective moral code based on their religion. 2. Peoples views on morality can change so drastically along with religious beliefs that they can only be attributed to those religious beliefs. For instance, the mainstream view of ethics in Christianity is that morality is entirely defined by God - if God claims homosexuality or murder is wrong, then that makes them wrong. In Islam, pretty much the same principle applies. When people are atheists or non-religious, their views on morality will almost certainly be completely different. What happens, then, when people convert from atheism to Christianity or Islam or the other way around? (examples - http://onscreen-scientist.com... http://www.pbs.org... ). Their views on morality will completely change, and this change can only be attributed to the religion they converted or de-converted from; proving that there are brands of morality that come from religion. Pro's arguments are as follows: 1. Religion is not needed for morality. 2. Morality does not necessarily come from religion. 3. Non-human animals have developed morality. (1) and (3) I can actually agree with, since I am not required to argue that all morality comes from religion. I can simply argue that given the vast amounts of interpretations of morality people have, it is extremely likely that many people base their understanding of right and wrong on the religion they were raised in. (2) Only works if Pro can demonstrate that nobody's subjective moral standard in founded on their religion, a proposition I think is absurd considering the number of people who base their rights and wrongs on their particular holy book(s).
Morality comes from religion.

Hello all, I noticed a previous debate with this same resolution (http://www.debate.org...) but took issue with some of con's arguments, so am proposing the resolution again. I feel that debate got unnecessarily complicated and went off on some tangents. Con proposed there that all religious texts and therefore all religions are complete fabrications. I do not feel it's necessary to assert that in order to convincingly argue that morality does not come from religion. Therefore, I will not assert here that religions are fabrications. They may well be entirely true, but that is outside the realm of this debate. What I will assert here is this definition of morality: one's own personal means of distinguishing right from wrong, or a culture's means of distinguishing right from wrong. In this sense, I am defining morality as a subjective rather than objective construct. And I will define religion as a collection of practices that supports belief in a divine power. I will propose three arguments for why morality does not come from religion: #1) an individual does not need religion in order to develop their own sense of what is right and wrong. #2) certain religions may enforce certain senses of morality; however, that does not mean those senses of morality originated from those religions. #3) certain non-human groups have developed identifiable senses of morality. --- #1) an individual does not need religion in order to develop their own sense of what is right and wrong. That individual's personal sense of right and wrong may be entirely contradictory to most peoples' sense of right and wrong; however, that is immaterial based on this debate's definition of morality. Although an atheist renounces religion, he may still have his own personal code for what is right and wrong. Hitler and Stalin may have renounced religion as they committed their war crimes, but that does not mean they had no morality. Rather, they had developed their own morality – their own personal sense of what is right and wrong. #2) certain religions may enforce certain senses of morality; however, that does not mean those senses of morality originated from those religions. Let us take the example of an individual who converts from atheism to Christianity. They may not necessarily find that they have been introduced to moral principles that they previously disagreed with; rather, they may find that many of the moral principles held by Christianity simply reinforce what they had already believed, completely independent from religion. #3) certain non-human groups have developed identifiable senses of morality. Primates, for instance, have been proven by anthropologists to display observable codes for what they think is right and wrong. These animals would not be able to function and co-exist without their own unifying sense of morality. And it goes without saying, of course, that animals do not ascribe to any sort of religion. If morality comes from religion, then, how have these animals been able to develop their own sense of morality? Thank you. References: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wiktionary.org... http://worldofweirdthings.com...
Iron Maiden is a better band then Metallica

So starting out, I feel it is important to point out that I am a fan of neither Iron Maiden nor Metallica. But really just love debating these kind of topics, and felt I could compose a good case against Iron maiden's supremacy. I want to present a few truths that we must look at when debating an issue such as this; First we cannot compare apples and oranges, and as my opponent points out both of these bands have very different writing styles in their songs. So in that area we cannot compare them. Second, Musical styles are completely subjective. For instance, Rebbecca Black's song "friday" [1] has been considered good enough that more than 17 million people have listened to this song. I think it's absolutely awful. especially the part where she goes "we we we so excited, we so excited" I think it's awful. Whereas I absolutely love Joy Electric's [2]"Red will dye these snows of silver" I feel that the lyrics are more thoughtful and the melody is better sounding. However this video only has some-odd 41 thousand views (more than half are probably from me XD), so apparently others would disagree with me. Now I am I wrong for liking Joy Electric more than Rebbecca Black? Not at all. Is another person wrong for liking Metallica more than than Iron Maiden? not at all, it's entirely opinionated. In fact I was just talking to my mom, an avid Rock and metal fan; she thought it was ridiculous that any-one would think Iron Maiden was better than Metallica. Now my Older Brother, a Lucid Metal-head absolutely adores the band Metallica; he also adores Iron. so we can also see that they can be valued on the same level. Now going to the Pro's arguments; He claims that Iron Maiden is better than Metallica, by saying that he prefers the lyrics to Iron Maiden more than he does the Lyrics to Metallica. This is however only a personal opinion which he does not warrant with any kind of proof, or logical analysis. Now given we still have three rounds for my opponent to give us some kind of proof other than his opinion, but at this point by opponent does not meet his burden of proof to show that Iron Maiden is better than Metallica. Vote Con :D Sources; [1] . http://www.youtube.com... [2] . http://www.youtube.com...
Iron Maiden is a better band then Metallica

I would like to begin by saying that I am personal fans of both bands, however, I believe Iron maiden is better. I would like to start with song writing. Iron Maiden and Metallica have very different song writing styles. However, the styles are not so different that they can not be compared. The most immediate and noticeable different between them is that Iron Maiden has more of a story-telling and poetic style. In music (especially metal music), this is significantly more desirable. I can verify this on the grounds that I have personally been a metal-head and have been connected with many others for my entire teenage life, and still am, and going to remain. I have heard all of the opinions in my countless in-depth conversations with many other metal-heads about song writing styles, and I can conclude that Iron Maiden's style of songwriting is more desirable. Metallica has a much more typical metaphorical style of song writing. They never really tell what is exactly going on, however it is implied with enough evidence that the listener can make an accurate conclusion as to what the song is about. For example, the well known song "Enter Sandman," I am sure my opponent is familiar with it, is a metaphorical way of speaking about dark thoughts in the human mind. . http://www.songmeanings.net... The link will provide more input from average metal-heads, as well as the lyrics, if my opponent is looking for more. It is a great song, however the way is it written, in that metaphorical style, without ever talking about any specific dark thoughts, is not as desirable. A typical intense music listener will want to explore the dark thoughts and hear what the band has to say about their own. In comparison, I would like to reference the Iron Maiden song "The Trooper," another well known tune. This song is the quintessential song to portray Maiden's song writing. It is a story. It is a story, of a soldier's journey through a horrific battle scene during a war. The actual war and battle are described in this article; . http://en.wikipedia.org... The lyrics of the song are extremely vivid and tell every detail that the soldier is experiencing on that battle field. From the charge in, to the point of being wounded and feeling death. Lyrics here; . http://www.elyrics.net... I would like to leave round one with this, and hear my opponent's argument.
technology should take place of teachers at school

yes i agree computers cant violate rules but that is a fact that neither can they impose any and the free will given to a student will make him study less and concentrate on useless things much more than they will ever concentrate on studies. when we talk of studies, socialism is one of them and once a student gets on computer they would never bother looking above the screen and they wont even realize how much of the society they are missing in which they have to fit if they want to lead a happy and successful life. family and friends are not given anytime and with the passage of time it causes addiction that can even result in death and as far as only studies are concerned a student will be the one to control it and they would not mind having more fun on it during class instead of studying. punishments are really necessary for a teenage especially because all they care about in this age is having fun and they dont care about studies at all and no rules and punishments would create no fear of anyone and they can ruin their whole lives staying behind the computer screen. raising your opinion is no crime, everyone has their own opinion and if some one wont raise their opinion in front of students how will they be able to get an opinion of their own even in all the researches that have been done on history for example, archaeologists are giving their opinion and are they are mentioned in every thing that a student might search for. then their are certain activities that a computer might plan but without the supervision of a human teacher the student will never bother doing those activities. a computer has to be programmed by a person and that person might make some sort of mistake or the students themselves may do experiments on the computer making it get stuck or simply useless, a supervision is always required which a computer is unable to do.
technology should take place of teachers at school

I shall continue. Computers will not violate rules: On the off chance a teacher may break the school rules, or classroom conduct E.G Teaching the wrong module or giving out inappropriate punishments. A computer would not break such rules, and would ensure that the school had an excellent teacher conduct record. Computers could be programmed to act like a human teacher would: con has argued that "the glorious personality of a teacher cannot be replaced" However a computer could mimic human behaviour to the point of being able to communicate and sustain conversations with students, the computer could be programmed to become as fluent as a human teacher, just without the annoying disciplinary lectures, or the excessive ramblings about their personal life (as far as I know computers do not have personal lives) A computer would not interject their own opinion into lessons: I have witnessed on numerous occasions teachers inputting their own point of view into topics, supply teachers especially. A computer would be programmed to teach very specific lessons, and since a computer runs what is has been programmed to run there would be no such interjections. It would not be environmentally unfriendly: As opposed to a human who would use a car, which would damage the environment and pollute the air significantly more that a computer using electricity would. On the other hand computers are able to run off solar energy as seen here http://www.pcpro.co.uk... The solar power would make for a better carbon footprint and would use less resources than a human. Sources: http://www.pcpro.co.uk... http://www.christenseninstitute.org......
technology should take place of teachers at school

A computer is a devise devote of any feelings and passion, how exactly would it convince a student to come and study o it? whereas on the other hand we have a sentient being that can convince and motivate you for choosing wisely and giving you a fear of not doing certain things such as misbehaving in the class room, guiding and preparing you for your future. A computer though being the main source of knowledge to men is also the most distracting machine men has ever invented and as far as the internet is concerned i think that there as certain sites such as Facebook and Twitter that are great distractions to a student while they are studying and without the supervision of a human eye on them they would never bother searching for knowledge as the age when we are students (esp teenage) is the age when we are least interested about our future, it is the teacher that helps you realize that what you are doing is completely wrong. Computers are electronic devises, the will consume electric energy and none of us ever wants to run out of electricity, the less we consume, the better. A teacher can make a student work harder when they are strict where as a computer can never make you do so, a teacher is not annoying, what we feel annoying today will be for the betterment of our future and some day we will realize that a teachers annoying voice or feeling was for our best and as far as the distraction of a teacher is concerned, a teacher can easily bring you back on track but what about a computer? can it do that? A teacher's talk after lesson can also make you relax but the computer can only make your head feel a burden on your shoulders, hence i believe that the inventor of technology (teacher) can not be replaced by its own invention.
technology should take place of teachers at school

I am not even sure what this is but I think con is arguing that teachers should not be replaced with technology. I am not sure whether I am pro or con for this issue as I have never really come across it before, but for the sake of arguing I shall accept. My arguments: Teachers are annoying: Not really a good argument I know but nevertheless I shall use it. During my adolescent existence I have never once met a teacher that was not annoying, I have come across children who's learning has been disrupted by the teachers, not themselves. Teachers possess many qualities that could be described "annoying" to a pupil, such as an annoying voice or bad breath, a computer on the other hand would not possess such tendencies and would not distract pupils from learning. Teachers are biased: This is true, many teachers have personal preferences, they often pick out children who have misbehaved in the past and always assume that they are to blame for the present situation, however if a computer was to take control then it would not have personal preference like a human teacher would. So all disputes and problems would be resolved, and not one guilty individual would go unpunished. Computers have the internet: The internet is the biggest source of information on earth, it outranks the human mind significantly and would be able to give much more in-depth and correct lessons in the process. Having the internet in computers to teach children would be a lot easier than researching things from textbooks. Teachers could become sick/Quit/spontaneously die: A human teacher could call in sick (Or lie about being sick) Or a teacher may quit, or a teacher may get hit by a bus, a computer on the other hand would do none of these things (The worse that could happen would be that a computer might break, but they are easily repaired) With a computer there would be no need for supply teachers, or lessons being cancelled. Sources: http://www.christenseninstitute.org...
technology should take place of teachers at school

no i dont think that a teacher should be replaced by the latest technology that has made human life easy. a teacher at school is not just preparing you for some sort of small examinations such that we give at school instead they prepare us for the world we have to face ahead. the term teacher is a very meaningful word and we should not consider a teacher only teaching bookish knowledge but they are also our spiritual teachers and no matter how advance the technology becomes the glorious personality of a teacher cannot be replaced.