BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Considering Everything, Religion has had a Good effect on the world

0 === What are we debating again? Some religious people are bad; some non-religious people are great. Some religious people are great; some non-religious people are bad. This debate is NOT about your clear hate for Christianity. We are arguing about the overall effect of all religions thru time. 3 === Effects of Religion My position is that religion has done more good than harm. A wise man recently said that religion exists "to make bad men good, And good men better [great]. " Stories abound of terrible non-religious people becoming good/great religious people. No one has been made worse by becoming religious. A === The Crutch and Its Replacement I think you make a reasonable point about crutches: it "ceases to help and starts to hurt" when used too long. How do you know when this time comes? For people, It is when the body heals itself and the broken bone is fused. But what about for humanity? Has the brokenness of humanity been resolved? I point to modern wars, And to common rape, Murder, And violent crime as evidences that humanity is still broken. So, The point of putting off the crutch has not yet come. I submit that it will never come--humanity will always be "sorry" as per Einstein. Many people think that religion is no longer needed because we have a functioning moral society governed by laws and governments. In effect, Institutions like schools, Welfare services, Courts, And community centers can fill the roles that religions have done thru history. This is an attractive position for religion-haters, But a number of studies shows major flaws in this thinking. One example is the book "Liars and Outliers. " It investigates ways to get people to behave and obey laws. Its fourth conclusion is that people still need external morality. While these modern institutions have a place in creating a moral society, The book says "moral and reputational pressures" (which religions do best) are "still responsible for most of the cooperation in society. " C === Non-religious Wars You said, "try to name wars/conflicts which do not have religion as a root cause. " Here is an effortless list of modern wars that are not religious with the [real causes] in brackets: --- Iraq War [politics] --- Rwanda Genocide [ethnic] --- Gulf War [economic] --- Korean War [communism] --- Vietnam War [communism] --- WW2 [power] --- WW1 [politics] --- US Civil War [union/slavery] --- French Revolution [politics] --- American Revolution [politics] With a little help from the internet, Here are other non-religious wars: --- the Napoleonic Wars [power] --- First Sino-Japanese War [politics] --- War of the Roses [power] --- Norman Invasions [power] --- Roman Expansion [power] --- Peloponnesian War [politics] In ancient history, I think it's very easy to claim that most battles were tribal. Since most/all religions have been larger than tribes, It is not likely that tribal conflicts were religiously based.
Considering Everything, Religion has had a Good effect on the world

First let me clarify, The reason for the lack of rebuttals, Was I needed to state my point, Before answering to yours which I have done down below. It has nothing to do with me agreeing or disagreeing with any statements or view. If that is wrong please let me know. and as to your request for rebuttals. . . Here they are: ===They clearly provided benefit for 5000+ years. Try to name wars / conflicts which do not have religion as a root cause. There are a few, But the majority of conflicts in human history have for their genesis a difference in religious beliefs between the warring. This is exactly the same as one child hurting another because he perceives the action as one in which his invisible friend approves. While religion was not the only cause, It was the primary cause, If not, Then it played a huge role into the war. === Mandatory These religions are giving people teachings that were man made to control people and to scare them, All they exist for is financial gain full stop. Following catholic, Church of england and other christian religions will get us knowhere the bible was fabricated by king constantine the great in 325 ad, He along with others saw an opportunity to control his subjects by inventing stories to make a bible? At the time hardly anyone could read or write so the stories were passed down by word of mouth. ==== Religion was used to persuade adults to follow "moral" behavior Religion was used to punish "immoral" behaviors I've noticed truly moral people regardless of being religious or not will do good or the right thing just for the sake of doing it. Religion teaches the exact opposite. . . To do good and receive a reward or do bad and receive punishment. All in all, Belief in what we don't know isn't the problem, It's making things up which we already know and continuing with the immoral teachings. ===Religion may not be needed to make people good NOW. Religion may not have been the ideal way to make people good THEN. Religion may have been used as a COVER for mundane (ie, Not supernatural) power interests. Your statements here cancel each other out. Either way religion was not the right way to discipline human. Feeding one fear and false beliefs for one or a group of people to gain power is (being blunt) stupid. ==="religion is a crutch. " The only problem with any crutch is when it is used beyond the point of health, In which case any crutch ceases to help and starts to hurt. So, Do some people use religion TOO MUCH, To the point where it hurts their mental and psychological health? I'd argue that anything has its abusers. We need only look at religious extremists to know that sometimes, Yes, Religion does cause great harm. In conclusion, Based upon moral view religion has had more of a negative effect upon people, Because while humanity is broken, One must understand, Religion was one of the things that pushed it to the ground in the first place.
Considering Everything, Religion has had a Good effect on the world

You did not rebut my opening arguments at all. I take that to mean that you agree with them. Please see my rebuttals to your Round 1 & 2 Points. A === Einstein Quote I submit to Einstein's wisdom and confess that yes, "we are a sorry lot. " I stated in point 2 of Round 2, "Populations do not follow moral codes spontaneously. " All the wars (economic, Political, And religious) support the "sorry" designation of humanity. Many individuals are naturally good, But there are enough who aren't making external morality needed. For most of time, Religion has provided this moral framework. Others say "religion is a crutch. " Humanity has always been broken, So we NEED a crutch. It is idiotic to reject a crutch if your leg is broken. Still, I do not agree with this saying because "a crutch" suggests small, Slow, And individual support. Religion has been more like "a train, " providing huge, Rapid, And society-wide support. B === Comparing Institutions It is relevant to compare religions with corporations. . . And families, Governments, And science. But your points are dubious. --- B1 --- "Harming society" as a "survival strategy" Institutions do not need to create problems because the world is already full of them. The true test of an institution's benefit is geologic time. Over centuries, Useless institutions are relegated to the waste bin of history. Only those that consistently solve problems pass the test of time. The Roman Empire is a good case study. At first it was beneficial. That it fell apart suggests its benefits dried up or was too hard to maintain. The institutions we have inherited must have continued to be beneficial to survive. Even if you feel religions are horrible now, They clearly provided benefit for 5000+ years. That sounds like an overall positive impact to me. --- B2 --- "In the end, Religion is a messed up form of monarchy driving us apart" Your Round 2 points do NOT lead to or support this conclusion, And false on all points. Religions are very organized. Religious power usually has been diffuse. Religion mostly brings populations together (see next regarding war). C === Religious Killing It is necessary to distinguish between 2 kinds of religious war/killing. --- C1 --- Specific religious direction, Including Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Etc, Demanding war/killing early in their founding. Religion is FULLY responsible for this. --- C2 --- Claimed support, Including most "religious wars": Moors, Crusades, Conquistadors, Etc. Religion is only PARTIALLY responsible for this. The Moors and Conquistadors "converted" conquered peoples, But that was secondary to the conflicts behind wealth. The Crusades were outwardly religious, With a large covert interest in power and riches. While both categories count in the negative column, They are minuscule in our consideration of "everything. " D === Morality can exist without religion I agree, But this is not relevant to this debate. This is about the effect of religion, Not its necessity.
Considering Everything, Religion has had a Good effect on the world

We can debate whether prosperity and peace lead people to be less religious or vice versa. Indeed evidence supports the view that religion thrives on existential anxiety. But even if this is the case, There"s good reason to suspect that the connection between religion and malfunctioning societies goes both ways. Think corporate personhood. Religions are man-made institutions, Just like for-profit corporations are. And like any corporation, To survive and grow a religion must find a way to build power and wealth and compete for market share. Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity"any large enduring religious institution is as expert at this as Coca-Cola or Chevron. And just like for-profit behemoths, They are willing to wield their power and wealth in the service of self-perpetuation, Even it harms society at large. In fact, Unbeknown to religious practitioners, Harming society may actually be part of religion"s survival strategy. In the words of sociologist Phil Zuckerman and researcher Gregory Paul, "Not a single advanced democracy that enjoys benign, Progressive socio-economic conditions retains a high level of popular religiosity. " When people feel prosperous and secure, The hold of religion weakens. As it is, It is sickening and amusing how people are turned against each other and forced to contempt view which lead to corruption and dishonor between systems as well as people. If religiosity is the key to the understanding of human nature and our place in the Universe (or wherever we are), Then this is particularly troubling to the skeptic. Yes, "Why does God let bad things happen? " is a well-worn and simplistic argument, But the fact of the existence of numerous bloody religious conflicts throughout history"including those between differing sects of Christianity"combined with the aforementioned Biblical references to the many types of offenders that should be put to death, Cannot simply be waved away. Not only is killing for any reason obviously morally wrong, But there"s a direct conflict with the First Commandment, The Christian doctrine of turning the other cheek, And the simple truth that religion and politics"that other great cause of violent conflict"should not be mixed. Indeed, Even those who do not believe in a deity should still be able to agree that the core values of most religions"respect for one"s fellow human beings, Striving to be a good and worthwhile member of society, An agreement not to steal, Cheat or murder"are basic human values that it is the responsibility of every parent on Earth to instill in their children. This does not, However, Necessitate the existence of a Creator who enforces these values upon us; nor does the atheist assertion of a lack of said creator imply that we do not have a duty to lead moral lives. Such in the end religion is a messed up form of monarchy and ruling driving us apart as humans and people.
Considering Everything, Religion has had a Good effect on the world

Opening Arguments 1 === Cultural Morality "Morality" (1) has not been exactly the same everywhere and forever. However, There has been significant commonality across centuries, Continents, And peoples (2). But for this debate, The exact morality in question is not relevant, Nor is it relevant whether you or I agree with its tenets. Each time and place is allowed to establish its own cultural morality, And then to maintain it. Further, Every society HAS defined and enforced a cultural morality. 2 === Mandatory Populations do not follow moral codes spontaneously. Some mechanism is needed to establish and maintain "moral behavior. " This is self-evident. To argue otherwise would be to say that laws and police forces are unnecessary today. 3 === Primacy of Religion Religion has been the primary mechanism for establishing and maintaining the moral mandates of each time and place. Religion may not be needed to make people good NOW. Religion may not have been the ideal way to make people good THEN. Religion may have been used as a COVER for mundane (ie, Not supernatural) power interests. Nevertheless, Religion WAS IN FACT the primary style by which people were made and kept GOOD across the centuries: --- Religion was used to teach children about right and wrong --- Religion was used to persuade adults to follow "moral" behavior --- Religion was used to punish "immoral" behaviors --- Religion was cited by everyone (clerics, Civil leaders, Parents, Other kinship relations, Etc. ) to encourage moral behavior 4 == Summary #1 For almost all of human history, Religion was the tool used to engender (coerce? ) people to behave morally. By this, Religion has had an overall GOOD effect on the world. (1) By "morality" I mean an overall code of conduct put forward by a society (2) A common morality can be found by an internet search of "golden rule equivalents. " Or you can review "The Abolition of Man" (1943) by C. S. Lewis for a good review of common morality, Which the author calls "the Tao. "
Considering Everything, Religion has had a Good effect on the world

If people are good only because they fear punishment, And hope for reward, Then we are a sorry lot indeed. " ~Albert Einstein The term religion is used here to refer only to the dominant, Especially Western, Dogmatic, Organized religions, And does not imply the esoteric religious traditions that do have a positive impact on the world. The term negative- the negative ethical views and values of religion upon today's society
Considering Everything, Religion has had a Good effect on the world

=== DISCLAIMER === This debate is not about whether there is a God, Whether Jesus is God, Whether Christianity is the best religion, Whether Eastern religions are better than Western religions, Etc. , Etc. Neither is it about any particular religious texts or doctrines. Please allow me to further restrict the scope of this debate to the Earth and to non-fiction (yes, Religion and religious texts are found under the 200 section of the Dewey Decimal System for non-fiction). === End DISCLAIMER === Round 1 is to accept and discuss the thesis and it's definitions. Other rounds are for arguments and rebuttals. === Official Debate Thesis with definitions === Considering everything, Religion has had a good effect on the world. --- "EVERYTHING" --- I refer to an expansive outlook that takes into account all times, Peoples, Places, And events. --- "RELIGION" --- I refer to deist, Theist, And non-theist faith traditions that pronounce moral mandates (like "do this" or "don"t do that") on individuals, Families, And society. --- "GOOD" --- I refer to a positive ethical valuation of the practical effects (outcomes, Behaviors, Results) of religions and their mandates.
Objective morality exist, Top Down (God) vs Bottoms Up (Natural)

PhiloTheist, I wish you hadn't forfeited the debate. Thought we had a decent debate going and would've liked to finish it. I guess I will have to repost the debate at a later time and hope to get someone who will see it through. With that being said, I will free lance on the subject a bit and then sign off. I think the Moral Argument from the theistic side is fundamentally the God of the Gaps argument, which is a well established fallacy. It seems the theist wishes to get you to a point were you eventually say, "I don't know." It is then they wish to slip god in as an explanation for whatever the "I don't know" is referring to. Admittedly, grounding morality is a objective source isn't an easy thing to do. Maybe I've accomplished this with my argument, maybe I haven't. But, simply putting god in the stopping point, concerning morality, isn't really any different from the stopping point regarding the universe and putting god in there. The Morality Argument is little more then a God of the Gaps argument. Before I sign off from this debate, I would like to point out why I think a bottoms up approach is a superior approach. If we allow moral decrees from any authority, we remove our ability to evaluate that decree. This places us in a position in which we are simply following order, or rules without knowing to what degree they are just. That isn't morality. That is just obedience. If we take a bottoms up approach and use harm as our guide, we gain the ability to evaluate directives from all sources, including a god, or what we may mistakenly believe to be a directive from a god. By simply asking, "where is the harm" and then basing our choices on the choice that does the least amount of harm, we have a path to objective moral standards. Is it immoral for a women to wear a short skirt? Based on some religions, the answer would be yes. But why is that immoral? Because god said so? That teaches us nothing. Gives us no information. It is just a rule. But lets apply harm. Does wearing the short skirt harm anyone? No. If it doesn't harm anyone, then there are no grounds to prohibit it. If no harm is done, then that means it isn't immoral. Conclusion, women should be permitted to wear a short skirt if the wish. We can go through may different examples to illustrate this difference, but that isn't necessary. Lets just look at this example. With the top down approach, we don't even know why something is wrong. Which means it may not be wrong. We are adrift without a paddle just following arbitrary rules. If we apply the bottoms up approach we can actually answer the question. We can learn why it is wrong or it isn't. The bottoms up approach gives us more information. It allows us to evaluate a given situation. It gives us a method to question authority when given rules. It has much more to offer than any authoritarian system. I would like to thank Pro for this debate, but thanks isn't deserved when a round is forfeited. So I will just thank the readers and the voters.
Objective morality exist, Top Down (God) vs Bottoms Up (Natural)

Round 1 is attached to the proposition as clarification of the proposition. In this debate both Pro and Con will argue that there is objective morality. Morality will be understood in a general sense. A choice between two specific actions, the better choice is more moral, the worse choice is less moral. Objective morality would mean we can know which choice is the correct choice. Pro will argue that Objective Morality can only exist if a God exists. Con will argue that Objective Morality does exist from a naturalistic perspective. Both opponents must argue for their position and against their opponents position. The winner should be decided based on who has the best arguments and which system offers us the ability to determine which choice is most likely the most moral choice. Don't accept this debate if you wish to make simple, short, statement arguments. As Con I will be putting forward full arguments for and against. If Pro doesn't meet this bar, Pro loses the debate by default. With Con simply typing "Pro hasn't meet debate expectations." I'm looking for someone who intends to put forward strong arguments. If that isn't you, don't accept. Round 1. Con, clarification of debate, Pro opening arguments Round 2. Con opening arguments, Pro rebuttal/arguments Round 3. Con rebuttal/arguments, Pro rebuttal/arguments/closing Round 4. Con rebuttal/arguments/closing, Pro types "agreed no comments in this round." Once again, Pro is arguing Objective Morality exist due to the existence of a god and cannot exist otherwise. Con will be arguing that Objective Morality exist in the absence of a god. Happy Debating
African-Americans are victims of systematic racism in the modern day US.

As JDiamond is the instigator (which usually implies Burder of Proof) but took the con position (which usually implies not having to meet the Burden of Proof), I'm assuming that it's shared BoP. If this is incorrect please let me know, but regardless I'm assuming that R1 is just for acceptance and we'll both be putting forward our arguments from R2 onwards.
African-Americans are victims of systematic racism in the modern day US.

I had typed an entire refute to PRO’S arguments, a feat which took me approximately 45 minutes to an hour to complete on my iPad. I briefly opened another tab to acquire a source, and when I returned, my entire argument was gone. I now realize that I should have backed up my argument on Microsoft Word. I do not have time to rewrite my entire argument, so I do not expect to meet the deadline. Given that this will now be my second FF, I fully expect PRO to win this debate on pure conduct (which, admittedly, has been lacking on my part). On pure principle, however, I will post a rewritten argument in the comment section within 24 hours, and our debate may continue from there.
justice delayed is justice denied

First I would like to congratulate you on an excellent point. This goes both ways. They both pay lawyer cost. Normally, if a case takes that long, they don't normally have enough proof, or he would be convicted in the first 2 years. I have proved through this debate that: Cases need to be long so people can get money for lawyer costs Cases need to be long so judges and the court can get authorization. Cases need to be long so the accused and the accuser can communicate with their attorneys. Cases need to take long for an organized and proper case. My opponent failed to refute any of these facts while I refuted all of his facts. I would like to commend him for an excellent trial and good luck.
justice delayed is justice denied

The big reason. INDIA IS NOT AMERICA! The judicial system in America is a lot different than India! The court cases consist of this http://www.azcourts.gov... This may leave the accused being clueless about what it all means and how to do it. That is why they need a lawyer. An experienced veteran that got his degree in that field is going to better understand it than a civilian. I also extend my arguments from the previous rounds. Reasons why cases should take long: Proper authorization To let both the defendant and plaintiff become prepared To complete the process. To make sure we get a fair and decent trial. If cases are quicker, those things would either really lack, or would not be done at all!
justice delayed is justice denied

I would first like to correct an error last round. My auto correct changed high to low literally I meant to say lawyers have high rates.I don't know why it did that. Here are my arguments for this round: 1. It is very important that all people in the matter get a fair trail. I extend my arguments from last round. 2. One's perception maybe way different than another. What seems important to one person maybe nothing compared to someone else. The public news covers the trail after the trail takes place, and gives you all the details. This makes people think it is important. Crime is wrong, that's why it will always be important. Everyone past the age of 10 knows the judicial system takes time. I refute your previous statement stating that the public would view it less important