BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Organised religion is the root of much evil

==Argument==I accept. I assume the BoP is shared. I must show Organized religion is not the root of evil, whereas you must show it is the root of evil.Let's start by defining what organized religion is."in which belief systems and rituals are systematically arranged and formally established"[http://en.wikipedia.org...]Now, how it's arranged AND where depends on it's effectiveness. Places in the middle eastare fine with organized religions (Islam and other Arabic beliefs). Even America(including the colonies) for a long time was under influence of organized religion. As early as 5,000 years, organized religions have existed. In the Mayan civilizations, the people of the tribe had worshipped deities in a formally established system involving rituals, such as removing one's heart and offering it to the Sun God. The people were fine with it. It was practiced as early as the classic period. [http://en.wikipedia.org...]In Egypt, similar sacrifices were done as well. One king, had voluntarily given up his life.In Pre-Columbian America, there is hardcore evidence of voluntary sacrifice. Marcos de Niza had wrote "they of this valley cast lots whose luck (honour) it shall be to be sacrificed"Or in otherwords, it was a great honor to be sacrificed. The people of this civiliazation were HAPPY to be sacrificed. [http://en.wikipedia.org...]Organized religion rituals have been around for a long time and still exist today. The Jewish for example...Bar Mitzvah! This celebrates the entry of a young adult to the Jewish community, still done today. This tradition has been around for 450 years. If one were to ban Organized Religions because they are "evil", Israel communities would lose their tradition, crush their spirits, and cause unhappiness. Ruining culture, is the ultimate evil, not religion.[https://www.jewishkansascity.org...]==Rebuttal=="in that it places all of it's followers and believers under one banner, and on many occasions fails to recognize individual differences in beliefs and opinions."The community doesn't have to be a country. The goal is to unite people with a common interest. A church, is an establishment of organized religion. If you don't want to go to church, don't go. See what I mean?"I respect that people with similar beliefs are naturally drawn to one another"Then like what I said earlier, church."as it can brainwash it's followers into the mentality of 'my religion is better than yours'"Every religion is like that. Even atheists claim they are better. Religious wars like that have been around forever. Ever heard about the crusades? What about the thirty years' war, the Catholics fighting Protestants?
Organised religion is the root of much evil

I believe that organised religion is a fundamental problem in our society, in that it places all of it's followers and believers under one banner, and on many occasions fails to recognize individual differences in beliefs and opinions. It is the core of many religious conflicts around the world, as it can brainwash it's followers into the mentality of "my religion is better than yours", and "everybody should follow my religion", which as we know can lead to fundamentalism. I respect that people with similar beliefs are naturally drawn to one another, however it would be beneficial for society if we each had our own view of what "God" is, instead of believing what others believe (so joining a organised religion such as Catholicism) and then adopting a defensive stance when somebody disagrees. Instead of the mentality "my religion is better than yours," I would prefer a mentality of "Yes I believe in a higher power, a God, but it is my God, and if you want to believe in something different, than that is fine." Yes it may be a bit idealistic, but I would like to hear what people have to say on the matter.
Organised religion is the root of much evil

==Rebuttal=="the long allegations of child abuse"Too bad you didn't provide a source to prove it."however I am arguing that this has led to many of the unnecessary conflicts in our society today."Your arguments and claims have caused "unnecessary" conflicts. When two sides of something disagree, conflicts will occur. No conflict is pointless or unnecessary."My main grievance about organised religion is how it simply creates violent conflict and division"My main grievance about labor unions is the fact how it simply creates violent conflict and division. My main point here is any conflict will create, or has the possibility to create, violence and/or division. However, they can also create peace and unity. Organized religion is one."Instead I wish that it was left open to our own interpretation"Many churches allow your own interpretation. I believe it is the Lutheran church(es) that allow(s) it."Organised religion has created many divisions and conflicts in our society throughout history"As mentioned earlier, they also create unity and peace.==Conclusion==Organized religion is."in which belief systems and rituals are systematically arranged and formally established"[http://en.wikipedia.org......]How it's arranged AND where depends on it's effectiveness. Places in the middle eastare fine with organized religions (Islam and other Arabic beliefs). Even America(including the colonies) for a long time was under influence of organized religion. As early as 5,000 years, organized religions have existed. In the Mayan civilizations, the people of the tribe had worshipped deities in a formally established system involving rituals, such as removing one's heart and offering it to the Sun God. The people were fine with it. It was practiced as early as the classic period. [http://en.wikipedia.org......]In Egypt, similar sacrifices were done as well. One king, had voluntarily given up his life.In Pre-Columbian America, there is hardcore evidence of voluntary sacrifice. Marcos de Niza had wrote "they of this valley cast lots whose luck (honour) it shall be to be sacrificed"Or in other words, it was a great honor to be sacrificed. The people of this civilization were HAPPY to be sacrificed. [http://en.wikipedia.org......]Organized religion rituals have been around for a long time and still exist today. The Jewish for example...Bar Mitzvah! This celebrates the entry of a young adult to the Jewish community, still done today. This tradition has been around for 450 years. If one were to ban Organized Religions because they are "evil", Israel communities would lose their tradition, crush their spirits, and cause unhappiness. Ruining culture, is the ultimate evil, not religion.[https://www.jewishkansascity.org......]Organized religion creates, or has the possibility to create, peace and unity. Some countries are great with organized religion. Other countries are not. Regardless, churches are well favored and they are organized communities and establishments and are great examples of organized religion.
Organised religion is the root of much evil

Using the Catholic Church as example, the long allegations of child abuse and the subsequent cover ups is corruption. If some (but not all priests) using their position of power to abuse vulnerable children and at the same time betraying any trust in the relationship, only for the Church to cover it up isn't corruption, the then I don"t know what is. However this is a completely different issue so I"ll save it for another time. Now back to the topic, I"d like to clarify that I am not advocating the banning of organised religion and the abolishment of hundreds of years of culture and tradition; however I am arguing that this has led to many of the unnecessary conflicts in our society today. My main grievance about organised religion is how it simply creates violent conflict and division, as followers are all expected to live by the beliefs of their religion (usually taught at a young age in school). Instead I wish that it was left open to our own interpretation, and that every individual has their own unique and personal connection to their god. For example, the Catholic Church and many other religions fail to recognize gay marriage, despite an overwhelming number of Catholics supporting gay marriage, and it is this issue that also highlights conflicting views within a religious group itself. Another example is the Islamic fundamentalists, who make up the minority of Muslims. In fact many Muslims have actually spoken out against these Fundamentalists and have criticized their extreme and often violent actions. How can organised religion work when within these groups we have major conflicts of interest, morals and core beliefs? Organised religion has created many divisions and conflicts in our society throughout history, however looking back, is terrorism, violence and wars worth it over a simple conflict in hypothetical beliefs? There are so many other real world problems right now that need solving, but are being ignored due religious conflicts over people"s interpretation of what "God" is. Being shoehorned into a set of beliefs because you are simply a follower of that group also prevents individuality and instead leads to labeling, and in the unfortunate case of the Muslim community, stigmatization after 9/11. I am tired of people using religion as a means to justify heinous actions because their God told them to do so, which develops through the mentality I mentioned before: "my religion is better than yours." This develops primarily through the strength in numbers found in a group and it is the main reason why organised religion is at the core of many problems in society. To summarize, organised religion often preaches love and tolerance, but instead breeds chaos and conflict. "I'm not into organized religion. I'm into believing in a higher source of creation, realizing we're all just part of nature." Neil Young
Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday

I am arguing that 'Vagina Day' a day that would celebrate women, honor all the accomplishments of famous women, and honor all women in society today of hanging in there despite all the crap they take from both men and nature, should become a national holiday where businesses and schools take the day off and everything Con is against this resolution - First round is acceptance only. - 4000 characters - No pictures of Vaginas are to be posted. Feel free to make as many Vagina jokes as you want though Now can be accepted :D
9/11 Was Not An Inside Job

9/11 was an inside job. It was done by the US government. I know this because I work for the US government. And specifically planned the 9/11 attacks. We outsourced some of the leg work to our contacts in Afghanistan that we had created back when they dealt with Russia. So, they also count as inside, because they were working with us in the 9/11 planning and execution committee. We then made everything classified, and hid all the evidence.
9/11 Was Not An Inside Job

I know most of the conspiracy theorists who believe this stuff are busy on youtube but if I would love to see if I could find someone to give an intelligent debate on this. Rules:By inside job I am referring to the belief that it was actually forces in our government that planned, perpetrated, and covered up these attacks (with or without outside help), as opposed to the accepted version that we were attacked solely by outside forces. Being that the term "inside job" is very general, and that there are unlimited possibilities to what this could mean, it is impossible for anyone to prove that it was not an inside job. Therefore it will be my opponents responsibility to make their case and my responsibility to refute it.The debate will be won by my opponent if he/she can make a reasonable case that 9/11 was an inside job. The debate will be won by myself if I can prove my opponents case to be unreasonable. Please do not find a creative reason to challenge me if you do not believe 9/11 was an inside job.My Case:As I mentioned, it is impossible for me to prove that it was not an inside job so I will have to allow my opponent to make a case before I can respond.
9/11 Was Not An Inside Job

“Or C) Telling the truth for some debate victory.” I think I made it clear why it is in my opinion senseless to believe you. The purpose to my comments in point “A)” was to show that it is pointless for me to try to have a debate with someone who can just type anything he wants and then say “I was there” as his source. If you did not realize it, the title to this website is debates.org. So if you want to have a real debate then this is the place for you. If you want to tell people about your 9/11 story, go to the associated press. But since you came this far… “Though, I have said too much already.” Really? Here is everything of any significance you have said in this “debate”: “We outsourced some of the leg work to our contacts inAfghanistanthat we had created back when they dealt withRussia.” “We then made everything classified, and hid all the evidence.” “It originally was a minor government plan for some more anti-terrorism money, it was largely believed that the Afghan arm wouldn't succeed.” “Only the five of us were involved.” “…so we only needed to give them a bit to grease the wheels and make sure that things went off without a hitch and some of the early warnings fell on deaf ears until it got further along.” 5 Sentences through 4 rounds. Not one specific claim. Not one mention of how or why you got involved in this, what role you supposedly played in this, or how you managed to cover this up. You have not bothered to make a case. You are still stuck claiming you are telling the truth instead of giving anyone a reason to believe you. “…then I'll have to leave it up to the voters. But, agents of the government helped the 9/11 attacks along and planned out some of the more critical aspects.” Yes I guess we will have to leave it up to the voters. When the voters consider that through 4 rounds you have laid out 5 sentences that have any relevance to what you claim, none of them specific in any way, then I think they will see that the decision is clear. “If the best argument you can muster is that you think that it doesn't technically fit the definition of an inside job, then you're really grasping at straws.” If all you give me to work with are straws, then that is all I can grasp at. Conclusion:Voters… Do I seriously need to write one?
9/11 Was Not An Inside Job

>>"A) telling the truth, or B) lying, for the purpose I am assuming of getting a debate victory under your belt under some technicality" Or C) Telling the truth for some debate victory. Given A, you say I have no motive. Given B, you say that I have a motive for lying. You fail to consider that the motive for B, applies to A as well. Besides, there's hardly any down side because a lot of people wouldn't believe me. Though, I have said too much already. >>If it was an afghan arm then the US did not perpetrate the attacks. I specifically noted in my first argument that we used the Afghans for leg work. And frankly they already generally wanted to attack the US, so we only needed to give them a bit to grease the wheels and make sure that things went off without a hitch and some of the early warnings (like people learning to fly planes but not land them) fell on deaf ears until it got further along. It was a bit more like bending the path of a comet to hit the Earth than inventing a comet out of nothing. If you wish to conclude that that doesn't count as an inside job, then I'll have to leave it up to the voters. But, agents of the government helped the 9/11 attacks along and planned out some of the more critical aspects. If the best argument you can muster is that you think that it doesn't technically fit the definition of an inside job, then you're really grasping at straws. I mean why raise this debate if you wanted to try to win on a technicality?
9/11 Was Not An Inside Job

"Wow!...Really?... you don’t say… uh huh"(1)Sorry, that is what I was saying to myself as I was reading your statement. Anyway here is the problem. You are either A) telling the truth, or B) lying, for the purpose I am assuming of getting a debate victory under your belt under some technicality Problem with A): If you really were somehow involved in this then why are you here talking to me about it? Especially considering that this would not be a difficult place for anyone who wants to keep this thing a secret to find you. There are many places out there that would really care about what you have to say. Places that would document your experiences and keep track of you so that no one would want to come after you for fear of drawing attention to the matter. Debates.org is not one of them. Problem with B): First of all I did not issue this challenge to get into some meaningless back and fourth on some technicality you think you found so that you could improve your win ratio. Second and more importantly, your case still does not even succeed in doing so.“The debate will be won by my opponent if he/she can make a reasonable case that 9/11 was an inside job.”Some guy coming out and saying “hey I was involved” in a debates.org debate is not exactly a reasonable case. Unless or course you care to make one…“But, I contend that because we worked for the government and got approval for a vague propaganda scare campaign, that it certainly does count as an inside job.”A “vague propaganda scare campaign” in itself is not exactly a reasonable case. You have provided no specifics. This demonstrates the same tactic that pretty much all 9/11 truthers use; If you do not provide specifics your argument can never be proven wrong, therefore you win by default. That would be like me and my friends challenging the New York Yankees to a game of baseball but not allowing them to bat. By not allowing them to bat they can not score, and therefore they can not win. So obviously my team would never loose but that does not mean we are better. Of course none of this matters because if you cared to read the rules…“By inside job I am referring to the belief that it was actually forces in our government that planned, perpetrated, and covered up these attacks”Your case does not fit into the term “inside job” as it was clearly laid out before accepting this challenge. If you need further explanation…“But, in the end the plan went perfectly and actually happened (oddly unlike was planned).”I didn’t think I needed to point out that when I said “planned… these attacks” I needed to say that the plan was to succeed. I thought this would be common sense. Guess not.“it was largely believed that the Afghan arm wouldn't succeed.”If it was an afghan arm then the US did not perpetrate the attacks. Care to try another story?(1) Chris Rock
9/11 Was Not An Inside Job

It originally was a minor government plan for some more anti-terrorism money, it was largely believed that the Afghan arm wouldn't succeed. That they would show themselves to be a threat and thereby require additional funds to be sent to the anti-terrorism units that Bush was largely defunding at the time. But, in the end the plan went perfectly and actually happened (oddly unlike was planned). So we classified the program and hid the actual evidence (rather than filing it). I think Jeff might have even burnt it. The reason other people in the government don't talk is because it wasn't a massive conspiracy. Only the five of us were involved. But, I contend that because we worked for the government and got approval for a vague propaganda scare campaign, that it certainly does count as an inside job. There's an old saying, three can keep a secret if two are dead. The more massive the conspiracy, the less chance it has of succeeding. But then, I've said too much already.
9/11 Was Not An Inside Job

"So since you say you're right, my personal experiences are to be ignored and I'm to be pilloried as a liar?" 10 years and not one person has ever came out and talked about how the government pulled off this massive conspiracy. All of a sudden, in 2011, a 3 year debates.org member who was a 20 year old government operative involved in the planning of this massive operation, sees a question online and has an epiphany to get into a 5 round debate explaining the whole thing. Yea... ok."We then made everything classified, and hid all the evidence."Really, so our government leaders planned and executed the murder of 3,000 of their own people... the biggest crime of the century that would be sure to get them the death penalty... and kept all the documents proving their guilt by making them classified? And where exactly did they "hide the evidence"? In the closet?But I'll tell you what, since you have all the inside info why don't you go ahead and spill all the beans. Why don't you explain to us the thing that no conspiracy theorist has ever been able to piece together... How was this massive plot actually pulled off? What is the real story here? I am obviously at a disadvantage in this one. "Source?... I was there." No way I can refute that can I? But I'll try anyway.I look forward to gaining access to top secret info that I am surely gana be killed for finding out.
9/11 Was Not An Inside Job

If Con was a part of planning the 9/11 attacks then he would be better off talking to the Associated Press then discussing it here on debates. org. Needless to say his comments are obviously false statements and thus fall short of the intelligent discussion I was curious to see if I could find on this subject. In the future I would ask Con to take this website seriously and respect all other users regardless of whatever personal feelings he may have about the subject. If Con wishes to contribute an intelligent case on the matter I will still welcome it although round 1 has already been wasted. Of course part of what I wanted to see was if I could actually change someone’s mind on the subject, so if Con does in fact agree with the subject line then I ask that he not bother. In light of this and further thought, I think that asking for an intelligent conversation on this subject may be asking too much. I will change my subject line to adapt to the talking points of the 9/11 truth movement as they have evolved throughout the past decade in a new post.
As a parent you should NOT punish your kids.

I will say that looking back over the debate, it is clear to see that my opponent cannot point to any sources that support her as many of hers supported me. My opponent counters that by saying her view is "new and radical. " This is hinting at an appeal to novelty fallacy. Just remember the definition of "punishment" from the opening round and we can see that there are cases when you should punish your kids. Thank you.