BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Society would be better off without religion

well, first off intelligent design wouldn't be crammed down one's throat. You teach both. You say that one is based on faith, the other on fact. If you don't teach it a kid wouldn't be well rounded on the idea. You need both sides before you make a decision... that's all I say. Also, you say you can deny where morals came from. You say it wasn't religion, so please provide an answer, an alternative so we can see where you stand instead of just denying it. Over the past decade, considerable research has emerged that demonstrates the benefits of religious practice within society. Religious practice promotes the well-being of individuals, families, and the community. Of particular note are the studies that indicate the benefits of Religion to the poor. Regular attendance at religious services is linked to healthy, stable family life, strong marriages, and well-behaved children. The practice of Religion also leads to a reduction in the incidence of domestic abuse, crime, substance abuse, and addiction. In addition, religious practice leads to an increase in physical and mental health, longevity, and education attainment. Moreover, these effects are inter generational, as grandparents and parents pass on the benefits to the next generations. America's Founding Fathers understood the vital role that Religion plays in a free society. Far from shielding the American people from religious influence, the Founders promoted the freedom of religion and praised the benefits that it brings to society. George Washington articulated this in his farewell address to the nation: Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness-these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Society would be better off without religion

It's not a question of restricting freedom of religion, it's simply a question of whether or not society would be better off without religion. Of course it can be denied that religion was needed to make the first morals. Morality is essentially an instinct derived from our tribal origins. It behooved us as a species to cooperate, and so the groundwork was laid for a system of mutual reliance which comprises what we now call "morality". I agree that the issue of when life begins is a debate for another time. As for the issue of whether or not evolution should be taught in schools, I do not advocate censorship of proponents of intelligent design, I simply think that in order to be taught in schools, something ought to be scientifically sound. You can teach people all about intelligent design anywhere else, but you cannot force feed it to children via the public school system, as it has no legitimate scientific basis. I agree that people should be free to believe what they want to believe, but that is not the question we're debating.
Society would be better off without religion

Ok, I didn't copy and paste from that article, but skimmed thorough it and many other sites because i don't know much about atheism, Islam, and Jewish customs. I needed to be educated before making a good response. There are many moral atheists and i agree. But if religion never existed most of these morals wouldn't be i place. It was the ten commandments that laid out the frame works for the rest of these morals. So yes atheists and religious people have the capability of being good and bad, but we needed religion to make the first morals, this cannot b denied. And it's stay out of saying life at conception is a myth, we can debate about this later if you please. How is teaching both sides absurd? Just because one has scientific evidence and the other one doesn't do what. Should we outlaw people who say the earth isn't warming? Science proves that t is, but why outlaw their teaching? And b0th are taught in schools. I think one needs both sides to understand their history. So people should teach both. Morality would still exist today, well yes. Once again I will state, morality will always exist, bu with out religion people may have a totally different mindset. Which could be good or bad. All I am saying is that religion makes morality more efficiently, and sometimes this is good or bad. So in conclusion, religion should stay because people should be free to believe what they want to believe.
Society would be better off without religion

First of all, I'm pretty sure you took the entire second half of that argument from a USA today article. As to your claim that without religion there would be fewer moral values, I find that utterly absurd. Religion is not the sole provider of morality. Religious doctrines often provide moral guidelines, but most of these are outdated and irrelevant. Morality is a social construct, not the result of religious faith. You say it is not religious people impeding stem cell research, it is pro-life advocates. This may be so; not all religious people oppose stem cell research. The claim that the fact that life begins at conception is scientifically sound, however, is ridiculous. Consciousness is not possible before the third trimester, and most likely does not occur until after birth. True, intelligent design is not usually taught in schools, yet there is a pervasive movement to change this. Teaching "both sides" is absurd, because only one side is scientifically sound and therefore only one side should be taught in schools. I don't understand your point about contraception-would you mind rephrasing that? As I have said before, morality would exist just as abundantly as it does today without the existence of religion. Many atheists are generous, kind, noble, moral people, just as many religious people are morally corrupt and lacking in values.
Society would be better off without religion

Yes, without religion there would be peace in the middle east, or would there? Without religion we you have fewer moral values, many of the things you think of morally wrong today would maybe accepted because religion made those laws over the years. Also, i don't see how religion has slowed stem cell research. The reason people are against it is because their pro-life. They think that conception is the beginning of life, which it scientifically is. So it isn't religion, it's pro-life people, like me. You say intelligent design is being taught in schools. This is only sometimes true. most schools only teach evolution, unless you take a Christianity class. The schools that do teach it in their science class are trying to show both sides. In 6th grade I was taught and let us choose which one is right. Yes contraception would still exist. Because I think that people would think that a fetus is a human life no matter what. So you can't blame that all on religion, especially my catholic faith. Why religion? In the face of pogroms and pedophiles, crusades and coverups, why indeed? Religious Americans have answered the question variously. Worship is one answer. Millions gather each week to acknowledge their higher power. The chance to experience community is another. Healthy congregations are more than civic clubs. They are surrogate families. The opportunity to serve others also comes to mind. Americans feed the hungry, clothe the naked and house the homeless largely through religious organizations. Yet as important as community, worship and service are, I am convinced that religion's greatest contribution to society is even greater. Religion prevents us from being carried away by the tides of the times,because a true religion has an eternal value-system. Religion guides our actions in life, putting a check on criminal tendency in human nature. Religion helps to regulate our conduct and behaviour in society by providing a set of morals and value-system for human existence. As this is a philosophy debate, I will refrain from using sources like I do in political ones
Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

I, in turn, thank you for accepting :) I hope this will b fun and informative.I'll state my contentions below.I recently did a very similar debate topic, so my contentions will be virtually the same.By the way, if there are a few letters missing here and there, I apologize. For whatever reason, my computer does that ONLY on this site :/ It is not my fault, nor am I dyslexic. (In that sentence, I had to correct 4 mistakes). Contention 1: Carbon content in the atmosphere is increasingThe evidence indicating the increase in carbon content of the atmosphere is overwhleming and undeniable. According to NASA's best estimates, 1950 was the first time in 650,000 years that the carbon content of Earth's atmosphere climbed higher than 300 parts per million [2]. And over the past 4 years alone [1], the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere jumped from roughly 385 to 394.29 and, judging from the linked graph, the rate of CO2 increase will continue to climb. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the greenhouse effect is well known and ell documented. It's why venus has become so hot that, unless I'm mistaken, gold melts on its surface. In the past 50 years, the atmosphric ppm has been growing exponentially [3]. From a scientific stand point, 450 ppm would make the earth so hot, that there will be periods when the arctic is completely ice free [6]. It's why the US government has made it their pledge to keep the earth from capping out at 450 ppm even though oil and gas companies lobby much harder than the renewable resource industry [5].Contention 2: Why we're to blame.Using models tracking only natural sources of CO2 output and heat generation, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently failed to accurately described observed changes in temperature over the past century [4]. Only by factoring in human carbo output have scientists been able to effectively describe observations about climate change. Over the past century, an increase of 1 degree Celsius has been observed with the majority of the increase being in the last 20-30 years [again, 4] which lines up perfectly with when the majority of CO2 increase occurred. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov... http://climate.nasa.gov... http://www.intmath.com... xDhttp://www.ipcc.ch... http://www.opensecrets.org... http://www.securegreenfuture.org...
Gun control is an effective way to reduce the impact of violent crime

So now you're supporting suicide? I find this a difficult argument to stomach. Tens of thousands of people a year commit suicide, many with severe mental illness that could be treated.[2] Those lives could be saved and lived well. That's not to mention that thousands of teenagers are among the people doing so.[3] I have no problem with the idea of euthanasia, but I don't think we should be supportive of an individual's right to end their own life when they are not in their right mind.Sucide is wrong but benificial. What if a mass murder came to a school and shot up to 20 kids and commits sucide. There wold be a benifit because when the guy kills himself we dont have to see him anymore. I mentioned this before, but knife wounds are far more likely to be treatable as they are usually more shallow (kind of hard to beat the force of a bullet entering your body). If you need support, I can provide some:[4] It talks about how most forms of suicide with a knife are unsuccessful. Even wrist slashing is not a very effective means of committing suicide, since most cut laterally across the wrist, which results in limited bleeding and damage. Even if they cut longitudinally, it's not a sure death, since the flow of blood and still be stemmed and their lives saved.You can survive a bullet so the same concept goes with knives which makes knives easy to kill yourself withHence I am for universal background checks and registration, regardless of the gun type. They're still not as dangerous as assault or semi-automatic rifles. Yes they are it is just that it is not fastly pace but it is accurate and can kill in a shot. Even in some video games handguns are strong.Again, bombs are completely banned, and acquiring the materials puts normally puts you under intense scrutiny from the NSA. They're also usually more expensive and difficult to make. I'm not sure where they'll get these "bots," but they sound awfully expensive if they're going to break down doors, not to mention difficult to build.You can get bombs in other countries why do you think a terrorist tried detoning bombs during 2010. And sochi olympics can have terrorist and terrorist can get bombs from other countries. People in Al- quda have bombs and are thougt to get one.ArgumentCitizen have there rights to own a gun and it is there right. People wont obey the laws and they wont listen they would either try to assisnate the person incharge of gun control. But the second amendment gives them a right for their possesion. Lets say if there was a murder and he had a knife you would not even be able to trigger your gun. Gun control wont help crime rate will go up and crime ate wont go down. Crime still roams around.Ok next round I will explain my citing. What was I thinking after hearing all your arguments it quite persuaded me.
Gun control is an effective way to reduce the impact of violent crime

This is a relatively common topic, I realize, but I'll try to provide a spin to it. I am a supporter of some methods of gun control, and I feel they're worth defending. As such, I will take the Pro side of this debate, and argue, as the resolution states, that gun control is an effective way to reduce the impact of violent crime. Rather than define the terms, as that would make this a broad debate about all forms of gun control and thus allow me to invite and then avoid a great deal of arguments, I will explain what I support in terms of gun control. This would not include a gun ban. Rather, this would include the extension of current national regulations on automatic weapons to assault rifles and semi-automatic rifles. Purchases of these weapons would require the submission of fingerprints and photographs to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, going through an FBI criminal background check, and paying a $200 tax. All of these weapons must be registered with the federal government, and currently owned weapons will be required to be registered within a 5-year period. The tax would also apply to the transfer of such guns, though in this case it would be paid by the person transferring the weapon rather than the receiver. The receiver, however, would have to go through the remaining processes in order to legally own the weapon. Obviously, this means I'm supportive of registering guns. This would be a general requirement. Any new guns purchased will be registered automatically at time of purchase, and any weapons transfers would also require registration of the weapon. Again, those who currently own their weapons would be given a grace period of a few years to get their guns registered. I am also a supporter of universal background checks, effectively closing the gun show loophole that currently allows private gun sellers to avoid this entirely. I would, however, subsidize these background checks for private sellers, making the process as cheap as possible in order to make it simple for them. I invite anyone to debate these. I would argue that this policy is net beneficial. You may disagree with all or part of it, but anyone who does so must provide citations for their arguments, as baseless assertions will not be enough to win this round. If there are any questions about the case, I would prefer that they be posed in the comments section so that we don't waste time in the debate itself. I have set it to 5 rounds, 8,000 characters a round, with 72 hours for us to make our arguments. The structure of this debate will be as follows: R1: Acceptance only R2: Opening arguments and rebuttal R3: Rebuttals, new argumentation R4: Rebuttals, new argumentation R5: Rebuttals and conclusion
Wanda Woman vs. Wonder Woman.

Hmmm... as long as the fairies don't have their wands, they can't do anything but fly around. The whole point of a Fairy Godparent is to make their master (in this case, Timmy) happy with their terrible life. Timmy would tell Wonder Woman that he wants her to fight Wanda, and Wonder Woman can steal the wands. Also, look at all Wonder Woman's powers! She's smart, strong, can fly fast, heals quickly, all that. Wanda's only limited to her wand. Wanda - wand = helpless. Wonder gets powers from gods.
Wanda Woman vs. Wonder Woman.

I say Wonder Woman could beat Wanda. Wanda has not much free will. In fact, the only way these 2 could meet up is if Timmy Turner wished Wonder Woman there. A list of wonder woman's powers: https://en.wikipedia.org... Anyways, what does Wanda have that Wonder woman doesn't have? A wand? That and Cosmo's wand can easily be stolen with Wonder Woman's whip. The character limit on the debate is thin, so good luck refuting everything!
I will not win this debate

My opponent shall indeed win this debate, but only temporarily. For as you know, whenever someone votes on a debate, they are listed as having won the debate when reading one's profile. My opponent will be listed as having won this debate immediately when I vote for him. Thus, for that small time frame, he will have WON this debate. However, there is no guarantee on whether or not he will be listed as having won this debate any tiime in the future. Thanks for the debate. :D
Evolution is Fact

In science, a theory is not an idea. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts. " Jaime Tanner-professor of Biology at Marlboro. A scientific theory is a factual compilation of evidence used to support a natural occurrence. Evolution is a fact. It can be seen in nature and there is a countless amount of evidence for it. Claiming that Evolutionary Theory is false is like claim Gravitational Theory is false. However all the evidence and facts prove that both of these things are true. Here are five arguments that prove Evolution, I ask you to disprove these facts and give a counter argument about how life occurred on Earth. 1. There is a universal genetic code that can be seen in all cells and all life on Earth. This is proof for a common ancestor. 2. The fossil record shows how animals have changed over time. We can witness evolution. Claiming that " we have not found all the fossil records and that you can not prove it without them" is incredibly wrong. It is impossible to get the entire fossil record. We can still witness evolution with what we have. 3. Genetic comparison. By analysis genes we can see that organisms are related to each other. Humans have 96 percent of genes in common with chimpanzees. This proves a common ancestor. 4. Embryology shows how we were once related to a common ancestor. 5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics shows evolution occurring right in front of our eyes. These all prove evolution. Try to disprove them. If evolution is false, how did life come to be?
Evolution is Fact

False. Evolution is a theory, and as such has not been proven. The definition of theory is below. . the"o"ry G2;THēərē/ noun a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. "Darwin's theory of evolution" A supposition. As in, a guess. An educated guess, perhaps, but a guess nonetheless. The theory of evolution is also full of rather large holes, which I will save for round two. The argument you presented implies that you have something else to back yourself up, so I'll leave you to it. Also, when you say "has been proven" who proved it? How? When?
A military divided into separate branches is better for the Republic than a more consolidated model.

Ok i am dearly sorry i must interject to this topic for a few main reasons . 1. one whole branch would be shown far more power than if it was seperate there would be more troops in a single branch making it have more power. 2. if we were to combine all the branches into one branch or whole military it would be far less complicated the money systems would be the same, the ranks would be the same, the branch would have all of navy air force and ground force access making things quicker and just far more easy, this all can go back to the civil war or even the revolution back then between states they all had different money systems and it was far more complicated and they also had their own militia in each state which made it more dis organized which is one reason confederacy was banned but came back in the civil war and again failed their central government was not strong enough now this may have sounded a bit off topic but read it and realize this ia how our military is we have all these small branches some stronger in some ways than others if we were to combine all of these than they would have one central command (mission command) and would be one militry system pay for troops would be more easily tracked and now commanders between platoons can operate better with the other platoons. 3. With one central command giving out important orders will be faster and more efficient Remember form follows function. What is easier telling a story to someone in 5 different languages or in one way every time the answer the same story with one language, it is easy to give orders to one group or people rather than many others people tend to get confused and fail, now i am not saying that our military is failing but i feel like our branching system is now out dated and obsolete to our standards today i feel that in a few more years our military branches will fail to hold the weight of americas wars on its shoulders it will collapse without unity it is true to say there is safety in numbers. and this is why i oppose your subject to have a stronger military makes a stronger republic.
A military divided into separate branches is better for the Republic than a more consolidated model.

Keeping the branches of the US military separate is better for the Republic than consolidating them. Republic: The United States of America under the Constitution of the United States. Military: The US military, in all it's branches Military branch: an individual uniformed service of the United States under the DOD, which includes: Army Marines Navy Air Force (The Coast Guard is now part of the DHS. Sorry Coast Guardsmen.)