BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religious Doctrine Preaches Altruism

Although the scriptures may condone peace and love, people don't necessarily practice what the preach. Or, in the case of the biggest offenders, practice what Jesus preached. He said to love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you, and to turn the other cheek. That would all be great most of the major churches in the world actually listened to their savior! If Jesus were to be resurrected once again in our modern time, there is no way that he would be a Catholic, Mormon, or any of the other sects that alienate anyone who's different, offer help only to those willing to convert, and do anything but turn the other cheek. Did George Bush, a very religious born-again Christian, turn the other cheek when he was attacked on 9/11 (an event where thousands of innocent people were killed in the name of religion) and decided to lie about to attack a country that had no connection? Killing more of his own soldiers than people were killed in the original attacks, and god knows how many innocent Iraqis? The fact is that in many cases the more religious (at least in terms of how their church says they should be) one gets, the farther from the message, which is usually good and peaceful, they get. It is organized religion that causes the radicalization that causes violence. There is no reason spirituality alone should necessarily cause the violence that organized religion does. In fact, a deep level of spirituality probably puts one at peace. But organized religion being shoved down children's throats causes violence and hatred, and strays people from the good intentions of the founders of their religion. While i do not agree that organized religion is a problem (religion has always been organized in some form in almost every culture since the beginning of man's history). I do agree that there is a lack of DOING the will of God, a proper heart condition, a show of piety but living false to the word of God, and as was already stated, a lack of listening to Jesus, and not to forget, interpretation. While the Scriptures contain a clear message from the Creator, it is WHOSE DOING THE PREACHING OR INTERPRETING that causes Christianity to falter in many areas. Jesus himself stated that "these people honor me with their LIPS, but their HEARTS are far removed from me". Even though he was speaking about a vast majority in the nation of Israel at that time, Jesus words ring all the more clear even today. In effect, Jesus says that a vast majority of US give him lip service. Even religious doctrine today is mainly lip service, and no true practicing of the love of the Christ. Jesus also gave a series of "Woes" to the religious leaders of his day. These religious leaders had a duty to unlock the scriptures to the people, but did not. But instead referred to them as "amharets" or people of the dust. In short, although the message of the Scriptures or religion may be of toleration, love, peace, etc. it is those who carry this message that are the problem. Not all, but quite a many.
Religion's Net Impact On The World Is A Positive One

So to say that its posistive your addminting that it does a lot of bad stuff but it still gives to charity. I'm not relgious and I give to chairty (in fact I am on the committee of one). As an American might say - 'Go figure!'. Your argument also suggest that the only reason people give to chairty is to prevent gods wrath. You may have stated that 'obviously atheists and agnostics are as capable of being generous and selfless' but, according to you, there is no reason for them to be as 'religion acts as a definitive authroity on morality'. They would have to accpet religion to accpet the morality as they don't accept religion they have a different take on morality. Just because 'religion acts as a definitive authroity on morality' doesn;t mean it is posistive or correct. It is totaly circular and falls into all the probelms of deontology. It is well noted that religion has done good for others in times of need, especially in times of crisis. But religions OVERALL RECORD has not been a laudable one. Even in Jesus day, it was the religious leaders of his day that instigated his death, thus setting a pattern for a long line of those who pretend to be religious, but cannot look Christ in the eye. And to say that religion also acts as a "definitive authority on morality" is to be putting itself in an even more dangerous position to be judged by God. For even God himself, in the book of Revelation partially holds religion or Babylon the Great (religious entities collectively, apart from obedience to God's true worship, represented by a harlot, because of the spiritual fornication committed by it. Religions involvement in war, government and various God-dishonoring industries) responsible for much of the bloodshed in the earth - Revelations 17-5,6, Revelations 18. Why don't we just say that it is the SCRIPTURES that acts as the "definitive authority on morality", that would be better. As for religion itself: rampant immorality, homosexuality, blessing war, various abuses just to name a few, goes on almost daily even among so-called religious people, is this the authoritative stance that religion is taking? No wonder so many people are becoming more and more turned-off by religious hypocracy. Scriptures and religion are both at odds with each other especially for those who do not hold the Holy Scriptures as the authority.
Religion & Science Are Not "At War" (Indeed It Is Logically Impossible)

Evolution is contradicted by Genesis given that Eve was created out of one of Adam's ribs, along with the genealogy of mankind stretching back to no more than 6,000 years. It is a scientific fact that homo sapiens (what we now consider to be human kind in its current form, its "wise" form), came to be between roughly 100,000 - 250,000 years ago. A large margin, to be sure, but in no way encompassing of the Bible's account.
This isn't even arguable: one valid "against" point destroys the argument.

Yes, but are those things are not consequences of religion as a system of belief, they are consequences of someone acting in the name of religion in a very un-religious way. The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill", so right there any Christian or Jew acting properly by their religion should not kill at all (though I'm sure many Christian and Jewish theologians would say that in some extreme situations it may be justifiable), let alone injustly. It would be stupid to say that evil things have never been committed in the name of religion, but those evil things are against everything that the world's major religions stand for.
Some organised religion does inevitably cause some evil

It is difficult to argue with much of the reasoning opposite, save for the fact that it somewhat misses the point. Obviously a lot of evil has been committed in the name of most religions, including the Roman Catholic Church (to take the example cited opposite). However, to say that something evil has been committed IN THE NAME OF something is not the same as saying that that something CAUSED the evil. The main crux of the argument opposite is that "organised" religion (rather than religion itself) is a faulty concept, as individuals hold power over a number of others and are thus capable of influencing them to evil. Disregarding the fact that an evil individual does not need to hold an official position in order to exert a negative influence over others, the conclusion at the foot of the argument opposite shows its basic fallacy. It says: "while none of this implies that organised religion is necessarily evil, it does mean that it can be evil, therefore it is not "purely positive"". This fails to take into account the fact that, seeing as evil is inherently contradictory to the most basic religious teachings, an evil act cannot possibly be religious.
Religion Does NOT Cause War.

Though it is true that religion has been used as a pretext for countless wars throughout history, that does not mean that it is in itself warlike or malevolent. Many people believe that the USA and Britain invaded Iraq for oil, for example, but I imagine very few of those people believe that oil is therefore "evil". Even if they do, it's unlikely they'll go as far as to give up their cars and all plastic items because of it. To use another analogy, labelling religion as "evil" because of supposedly religious wars is like saying the entire sport of football - from the Premiership right down to little kids playing in a park - is "evil" because of football hooliganism. The football is the excuse for the violence, not the cause of it. Furthermore, the fact that religion is used as a pretext for so many wars is actually proof that it is inherently benevolent. I'll explain that seemingly converse assertion like this: If a war leader were to justify violence by saying "We're going to war because I want to conquer the world and satisfy my megalomania" it is unlikely he would get much support, because people aren't willing to sacrifice their lives to please a bloodthirsty maniac. People would be much more likely to support his war if he justified it by saying "We're going to war to defend our country" because people value their country and their freedom and are more likely to fight and die in a war to defend them. However, what matters most to a religious person, more than their country and their earthly freedom, is their religion, so this hypothetical war leader would be able to whip up maximum popular support by saying "We're going to war to defend our religion". In answer to the counter-argument opposite, if everyone were acting for their own interests we would have anarchy (and therefore violence). And yes, people do like to go to war for a higher cause, but they will also go to war for personal gain as well. People will fight to defend themselves for example, and in a less civilised and peaceful society people would fight to enrich themselves (as indeed mercenaries still do). Besides, people do not commit violent crimes for a higher cause (and this includes war crimes); they do it for personal gain. Next I would like to address the argument that religion is used as a pretext for war and if there was no religion fewer wars would occur. I suppose you could say that (though if there was no religion warmongers would simply use a different pretext), but what if you substituted the notion of religion with the notion of nationhood? Countless wars have patriotic motives, so by the same logic you would be arguing for the dissolution of government, which would lead to anarchy.
Religion Does Not Condone Destructive War

On top of all this, no religion advocates war, especially not those two most accused of starting conflicts, Christianity and Islam. Jesus of course said that if any of his followers was attacked they were to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-42 and Luke 6:27-36) and to be merciful even to their enemies, a message reinforced by the parables of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) and of the Unmerciful Servant (Matthew 18:21-35). As for Islam, much is made of that religion's supposed tolerance of warfare, summed up in the doctrine of Jihad. Jihad in itself is a twofold doctrine, with one form (Greater Jihad) referring to the inner war within oneself against temptation. The other form of Jihad (Lesser Jihad) does admittedly take the form of physical warfare, but it must be strictly defensive (i.e., to evict a physically invading army) and its limits are strictly defined. Damaging farmland or residential areas is outlawed, as is the execution of prisoners, and any harm to civilians (whether Muslim or non-Muslim) is strictly forbidden. Thus the 9/11 attacks, to take a famous example, could not claim the status of Lesser Jihad as they were carried out with the explicit aim of killing civilians. To take the alcohol analogy, alcohol is a drug, which can be enjoyed responsibly or irresponsibly. Obviously the manufacturers ask people who buy their products to drink responsibly, but if you strip them out of the equation alcohol is a drink. Just that. Whereas religion's very nature is benevolence; you can't be an evil person and simultaneously be religious because to be religious is by definition to be good. Whereas being a drinker does not mean necessarily that you are a responsible one. In a nutshell: You are still a drinker whether you're responsible or not; you are not still religious if you simultaneously (and wilfully) do evil things.
Religious Doctrine Preaches Altruism

Quite simply, all religions advocate the doing of good deeds. To take some examples from three of the largest and best-known religions: Christianity: Jesus said: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic also." - Luke 6:27-29 (the same is also recorded in Matthew 5:38-42) A similar message is contained in the Parable of The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), and the Parable of The Unmerciful Servant (Matthew 18:21-35) teaches Christians to always be forgiving to others. Jesus summed up his teachings in two commandments: to love God and to love others [literally: your neighbour] as you love yourself [i.e. to do unto others as you would have them do unto you]. (Matthew 23:34-40 and Mark 12:28-34; also Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18). Islam: Of the 5 Pillars of Islam, the five everyday duties of Muslims, four (Shahada, Salah, Sawm and Hajj) are to do with acceptance of God, prayer, fasting and pilgrimage, the day-to-day acts of religious devotion. The other, Zakat, consists of the giving of wealth (2.5% of the Muslim's wealth) to charity. It should be noted that this is only a base amount, and that Islam condones charity and selflessness. Buddhism: The central teachings of Buddhism are summed up in the Noble Eightfold Path, which consists of Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood [meaning that a Buddhist should not be employed in a job which cause harm to others], Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration.
Private Accounts Would Primarily Benefit Wall Street

Another point the proposition could have made but did not is that Wall street is pushing for privatization of pension funds: The opposition's answer:The only reason the U.S financial services industry has favored private pension funds is because Wall Street can make huge brokerage fees(incl. premiums) on the billions of dollars that will be invested in private accounts. The N.P.V(net present value) of payments of financial fees to private companies in the case of privatizing securities will be a dramatic profit of $940 billion over 75 years. [[Austan Goolsbee, "The Fees of Private Accounts and the Impact of Social Security Privatization on Financial Managers", pdfsmall.gif PDF, 8 pp, September 2004.]] However, such funds can never benefit the ordinary citizens of the U.S and other market-based economies. For the sole reason that it is too risky. While and we have said this before; for economies that are largely bank-based the market and thus private pension funds play a rather unimportant insignificant role in terms of citizen welfare. As companies/schemes/funds rise and fall based on their relations with prominent banks and not on the ups and downs of markets; in a market economy once pension funds are privatized wall street benefits, the public is duped and most(if not all) of us are victimized by financial scams of the kind noted earlier. The market is unpredictable; we the citizens of these nations are not equipped with the financial expertise required to handle our own finances. Wall street is wary of the tricks of the trade and how to bend the rules to favor finance gurus. Betting on two opposite future outcomes is one such tactic. If everyone was taught finance in school things would be different; however, that is not presently the case. We can not set the public up for disasters it has faced in the past, that too not at an old-weak age; knowing that the factors contributing to the dismal effects of free Marketisation/Marketization still exist.
Private Enterprise is more suited to long-term planning and sustainability

Victor Kiam Entrepreneurs are risk takers, willing to roll the dice with their money or reputation on the line in support of an idea or enterprise. They willingly assume responsibility for the success or failure of a venture and are answerable for all its facets. Private Enterprise can cope with the need for long-term planning. The interplay between the different managers and stockholders works to instill a strong sense of self-preservation in such enterprises. Private enterprises, when regulated properly, work to ensure their own long-term survival. Unlike the government, their survival is (a) not guaranteed and (b) dependent on efficient running of the business practice. They are forced to make attractive yet sustainable proposals to consumers, who as responsible individuals are allowed to choose from a wide variety of schemes within a market framework that is liberated from government intervention but still supervised to ensure competition. Allowing for the flourishing of private enterprise aligns incentives with efficient, sustainable and long-term minded practices. The way government schemes function act creates a pension time-bomb. The system works by the current generation of workers providing the pensions for the previous generations. Given the aging population this creates a time bomb that most developed countries are facing. [[http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/can-states-fix-their-pension-problems]]. Chronic failures of this system coupled with public mismanagement leads to an unsustainable situation.[[http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_61.htm]]. Private institutions gather contributions from workers which then form the basis for their pension which is more sustainable. Moreover, given proper regulation, private institutions will be adverse to excessive risk as consumers will choose to move to other providers. Private corporations are better suited in the long-run than the government allowing for sustainability.
Government pension schemes are not a viable or sustainable option.

José Piñera A specter is haunting the world. It is the specter of bankrupt state-run pension systems. The pay-as-you-go pension system that has reigned supreme through most of this century has a fundamental flaw, one rooted in a false conception of how human beings behave: it destroys, at the individual level, the essential link between effort and reward--in other words, between personal responsibilities and personal rights. Whenever that happens on a massive scale and for a long period of time, the result is disaster. The impact of decreasing birth rates and improved medical care which has increased life expectancy is burning holes into public finances.[[http://247wallst.com/2010/05/20/state-pensions-face-1-trillion-shortfall/]]. The fact of the matter is that in addition to the fact that government handling of pensions is inefficient, short-sighted and in many cases corrupt, the very model governments use, taking funds from one generation to give to the other, is not longer feasible. Private enterprises employ savings accounts. Workers are responsible for their pensions and are reliant only on themselves for it. This model allows for sustainability and is safer in the long-run than the time-bomb in public finances created by continuing public pensions.
Germany,france and Italy: economies where privatisation works because Unions and banking trump over risky finacial markets; the most unreliable being the Stock market that both the U.S and U.K depend on in private funding ventures.

We welcome the opposition's concession that privatization works in Germany, France and Italy. We see this as an indication that our arguments regarding the suitability of the private sector over the public are, at least partly, conceded and their main objection lies in the difference between the financial systems of the UK, the US and the rest of Europe. The related definitional challenge brought forth in the introduction intrigues us in that: (a) Germany, France, Italy and most of central Europe still have state pensions ergo the debate is relevant to them as liberal democracies. We're not trying to prop the status quo. (b) The UK and the US have smaller government sectors with more developed private pension provision than most of central Europe, [[http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/5/39524851.pdf]] If anything this makes them more suitable for privatization not less. While the transition would still be gradual it would come more naturally than elsewhere. As regards the issue of financial stability the survival and development of private pensions because of the opportunity given by the relatively limited state pension in the UK and the US is evidence against the argument made by the opposition.[[Ibid.]] Indeed, if the opposition concedes that: Opposition Federal Reserve Board records of the last 100 years prove that the best investment by far is in stocks. In comparison, these investments make bonds, treasury bills appear meaningless. Then why shouldn't it be used, with various regulatory protections (eg. reserve ratios), to increase the amounts available for pensions? The opposition has provided two examples our of an entire century and put them forward as evidence of the failure of markets, without considering the decades of prosperity they have brought and the fact that both of the crises mentioned were caused, one way or another by inadequate or excessive government intervention.[[http://www.essortment.com/all/causeofthegre_rbtv.html]]
Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea

We shall only address arguments raised within the 2000 characters. We see a difference between further substantiating points with references and referring to a source for an entire argument (or 12 as the case may be). So, here goes: -Superior reliability/dependability of public funds Unsubstantiated assertion. State pensions are unsustainable (see last argument). In the US "when Social Security began in 1935, the contributions of 17 workers paid for the benefits of one retiree. In 2035 the estimated ratio will be 2.1 workers per beneficiary."[[http://socialsecurity.procon.org/]] -UK/US are market based They have relatively smaller government sectors and among the most developed private pension systems in Europe. "Around half" of UK citizens have voluntary private pensions, the highest in Europe.[[http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/5/39524851.pdf] Being more market-oriented is not as devastating for pension schemes as the opposition would have us believe. -Self-Interests of Corporations Yes, their search for profit leads them to compete with each other to attract consumers and government regulation ensures competition. This is how mixed economies work. Governments don't have this incentive as they are focused on the short-term (see our 1st point which has not been denied by the opposition). -"There is no money in the public sector" and privatizing will aggravate this Exactly. This is partly caused by the fiscal burden of pensions and shows the system isn't sustainable. The opposition are suggesting pension funds are sources of government income. This is the government short-sightedness we talked about (arg 1), spending money they don't have because they won't have to deal with the consequences in 20 years. -Less money for greater risk. Unsubstantiated assertion. See example of Chile (Piñera quote) and next rebut. Lastly, we remind the opposition that the right of definition lies with the proposition. As clearly explained in our 2nd rebut, we firmly stand by ours