BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity causes many problems - Wrong or not, it's dangerous in big ways

Would you like to debate the morality we can have with and without God in another debate? For the earning Hell bit... Suppose you were granted the knowledge of my guilt. You don't need to judge if I'm guilty or not; God did that. You also know what God says about sin, and the wages thereof, as also His words about Hell. To you has been given the decision to determine what punishment I'll receive for my guilt. If you had a way to light me on fire and keep me alive like that for eternity, would you do it? Is that what seems moral and just to you, from what you know of me, know of my guilt, know of what God has said? In the opener, I said the following: "Whether its good qualities are greater than its bad qualities is also not the point. Con will have to defend the particulars of Christianity." I haven't said that Christianity doesn't give people hope, comfort them in trials, etc. I have said that at least one basic doctrine is psychologically damaging. And that other ones contribute to poor thinking habits and existential negligence. These ideas, some praising Christianity, some criticizing it, are not mutually exclusive; they can all be true. The truth of Christianity is a separate issue to be discussed elsewhere (if you'd like to :) ). I also said in me 2nd argument: "By all means, I understand if it's TRUE. If it's true, may we all believe it and do the best we can. But if it's not true, it's not merely mundane in its falsity, it is dangerous. It hurts people. I would implore you to stop contributing to that pain." Actually, I never said if it was true or not. So, I feel we are not actually disagreeing about this point, or at least, your argument isn't one that actually addresses my point. You're right about the guns and so forth. Some things grant power, to be used either for good or for evil. For example, Christian ministers have a pulpit from which to preach ideas and morals. If they use it well, they do good. If they use it for evil, they do bad. The influence itself is not good or bad. But doctrines are not like that. They're either true or false, either dangerous or not. And if the ministers use their influence to tell people that they'll be lit on fire for eternity, and that this is just, unless they repent and accept Jesus, they're teaching an idea which inflicts psychological and emotional damage to people. I believe it was Paul who said that if you have to frighten people into accepting Jesus, then go for it; it's better than them going to Hell. So the psychological effect of the idea is conceded by the Christian viewpoint, it seems... Of course, if Christianity is true, as I said before, let us accept the truth, damaging as it is, and do what we can with it. But that's a separate issue. Let the issue be settled: The doctrines of Christianity inflict psychological harm on people, teach them to avoid certain kinds of clear thinking, and to let God decide when the world ends instead of saving it themselves.
Christianity causes many problems - Wrong or not, it's dangerous in big ways

God made us, therefore we aren't to judge him. If he doesn't exist then feel free to do so, but not if He does, because then you would be earning Hell, and rightfully so. Christianity isn't damaging because it provides a ray of hope for humanity, tells us that God will save us if we just accept the love he is giving. You want to frame God like an evil monster, but without God, you wouldn't even have the morality that you are arguing with. You can't tell right from wrong, unless there is someone who OBJECTIVELY knows, and told you. God did that with humans to an extent, giving us his "spirit" or "breath", but it still remains for us to accept the truth when we see it. The truth hurts sometimes, but ultimately it is true. Saying Christianity is bad because Hell exists is pointless. Because Christianity is not a fairy puff, please everybody, cream puff, way of life. It is just there, and you accept it or not. If God exists, then this whole issue raised is a non issue. If he doesn't, it is still non important because what does danger even mean. How do I know? Why does it matter? Why does anything matter? How do we know what right or not? Those are the important question. Yours doesn't do anything constructive imho.... In terms of this debate specifically, no Christianity isn't dangerous. The way people apply it can be dangerous, but Christianity itself isn't dangerous. Very simple. A gun in a grocery with bullets can be dangerous if the store owner doesn't keep it locked up in a safe place, using it only in emergency. Of course the store owner is dangerous, but not the inanimate nonliving gun. This is because if you hid the gun forever, it wouldn't magically hurt innocent people. But if a criminal comes into the store, and the gun safely hinders the criminal either by injury or by stalling for police or extra help, then you can say it was safely used. It depends on the store owner.... Likewise, it depends on how you interpret Christianity, and I fail to see how it is inherently dangerous.
Christianity causes many problems - Wrong or not, it's dangerous in big ways

I'll rely on the discernment of the audience to distinguish between what seems to me to be clear wording versus sly wording. In either case, the wording refers to the same idea. God made Hell. God judges us. God tells us we need a Savior. Why? Why do we need a Savior? It's obvious. To try and hide from it is...I don't know, but it's not being upfront about Christian belief. Without God's action, none of us would go to Hell. With God's action, whether you go to Hell depends on YOUR choice. But never forget that even the POSSIBILITY of going requires that God act: as the starter of the flames, the setter of the punishment, the judge of the crime. And Christianity tells people He's just and right for doing so, and if they end up in Hell, it's THEIR fault, and they can't complain against their executioner. I suspect this is not really necessary. You can reword things to make it sound nice, but pretty much everyone knows about the Christian Hell, it's a pretty basic doctrine. They'll know independently of whether you admit it in public or not. Also, Christians are taught not to doubt, a careful system of not-thinking that bleeds over into other areas of life and keeps them from confronting uncomfortable truths, and from enjoying the sweet fruits of accepting them. And they are prone to neglect resolving sufficiently serious dangers to the world, since they expect it to end anyway, according to the will of God. Since you've dropped these other arguments, and just said that it's more important to know if it's true than if it's nice, I'll just finish up by reminding everyone of the terms of the debate by quoting my opener and title. If you'd like to discuss the truth of Christianity, just say so and we can do so in another few debates. "Whether Christianity is true or not is a separate issue to be discussed elsewhere." "Christianity causes many problems - Wrong or not, it's dangerous in big ways"
Christianity causes many problems - Wrong or not, it's dangerous in big ways

You are begging the question. Consistently. You say that people go to hell because of what they do. No, they go to hell because they don't accept the truth, simple. Now, i have not much to say but, If God as Christians believe does indeed exist, what actually are you arguing? Alot of things in life are terrible, but sometimes we have to deal with it. So the real question is, "Is Christianity the right way?". A question that I, even as a Christian continually ponder... Christianity is a belief system that I use to view the world, and I am convince that it is true. However, if something happens, I may change my mind, and thats perfectly fine, because then I am searching for truth. We all are. Now, on to your points, yes hell is terrible, but no one is forcing you to attend. If hell exists and the bible is true, then guess what? Yup. But if it doesn't, then who cares right? Christianity is true, at least in my opinion, and I think that is more important than whether or not the details are appealing to me. The world doesn't revolve around our personal opinions, it exists on its own. Our job is to discover, not to imagine. That said, on what basis should I even consider your claim that Christianity is detrimental. Who cares? Is it true or not? The truth hurts sometimes, but it shall set you free.
Christianity causes many problems - Wrong or not, it's dangerous in big ways

Allow me first to say, that I hold no hatred for people of any kind. I don't even think I would say I hate the dangerous doctrines of Christianity. I disagree with them, and worry about their effects, is maybe how I would put it. Perhaps my...use of vocabulary gave you the hatred impression, though I would it was otherwise. This was not the intention. Now. That being the case, my points are sound. You've used a little bit of sly wording to manage to not say outright what Christianity most CERTAINLY teaches. Tell me which of the following is NOT a Christian teaching, or a logical conclusion of the same: 1. Without God, a man will go to Hell (lit on fire for eternity) 2. This is his just penalty for his sins. Therefore: 3. Without God, man deserves to be lit on fire for eternity. and then: 4. What this man has done (whether it be jaywalking, or something more serious, like yelling too much) makes him deserve to be lit on fire for eternity. Plain as day, my friend. I regret the need to dwell on such ugly topics, but it is for the sake of those in pain because of them that it is necessary to expose their nature. As I said with clarity before, to believe that one deserves to be lit on fire, DESERVES it! As a JUST recompense for their own "wrongdoings" can hardly be healthy. "in order to go to Hell, you must reject Christ. This seems incredibly exclusive, unless of course Christ is the only legit way to salvation." Oh, sure, that makes it inclusive, does it? Let's not forget that it's the same person DECIDING that He's the only legit way to not be lit on fire. Or that he created the blessed land of fire and puts you there. And did you not catch that my "the best of your works are filthy rags" line is right out of the writings of Paul? I used some expressive language, but that was partially because I was using the Bible's OWN TERMS to describe people. Is it not written that no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God? Because He hates sin? That those who God "knows not" are to be cast into everlasting fire? Right. So just repent. Does this not include abasing one's self before God and admitting that one is a sinner in need of salvation from Hell? Acknowledging that that is what you deserve, for the wages of sin is death? And most churches will teach that this is a continual process, always remembering to beg again for your latest transgressions. You can say "His righteousness becomes theirs," but it's not enough to keep them from having to return to this again and again, remembering again that they're worthy of hellfire and damnation. Reasoning - A scripture that says "Go reason, yay!" does not change that Christianity encourages people to be as undoubting as little children, and that this has consequences. Christians believe the world is destined to end. God would never let it, unless it were His plan, in which case it's SUPPOSED to happen. So, if the world's ending, either that's good, or God will stop it. So we can just watch
Christianity causes many problems - Wrong or not, it's dangerous in big ways

A Christian should indeed believe that they are better than they deserve, since they by no means control all of their fate by willful choice. In regards to Christian doctrine and scripture, man was created " In the image of God". (Genesis 1:27) This refutes your point that Christians believe that we are lower than the dust of the earth. Also, you stated that Christians believe that your deserved destiny is to be lit on fire for eternity. This is not true. Many Christians are divided on this issue, but the Bible is clear that in order to go to Hell, you must reject Christ. This seems incredibly exclusive, unless of course Christ is the only legit way to salvation. But your point on CHRISTIAN doctrine here falls apart, mainly because it is not based in Christian teaching, ie, the word of Jesus himself, and the Bible. For example, Christians do not believe that babies go to hell. Your point is disproved. "Are you loved? Oh, sure, your family and friends and so on. They think well of you because they don't know what you're REALLY like. Or alternatively, they themselves are too wicked to be properly horrified at your licentious state. God knows. Only God has the knowledge of how full of poison and depressing worthlessness you are. Only God is righteous enough to be properly repulsed by it. And of course, only He is still loving enough to love you anyway." The Bible does not teach this, I do not know what kind of Christianity you are attacking, Christians believe that Christ"s righteousness becomes ours, through salvation. We aren"t perfect, and we should acknowledge this and repent. In doing so, we become righteous through Christ. Your point stands disproved. "Poor patterns of reasoning: The standard Christianity is one of faith. It lauds the beautiful faith of children, who never question, never doubt." Correction, it lauds the beautiful innocence of children. (See Mark chapter 9) Also James 3:17 states "But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere" Open to reason, not blind faith. Your point is, disproved. This is just one example, there are many more places, in which Christians are called to reason. You are correct in stating that Christianity teaches a system of beliefs. Unfortunately, that is the only thing you are right about. We believe that God created the world, but we aren"t wont to neglect real problems. This is not a debate, it is a foolish hate filled rant. Be objective and unbiased, and good luck in life.
Christianity causes many problems - Wrong or not, it's dangerous in big ways

Emotionally damaging Instills poor patterns of reasoning with practical consequences Existential negligence Emotionally damaging: How are you? "Better than I deserve" comes the classic Christian response, an expression emerging from one of the most basic Christian doctrines: You are lower than the dust of the earth. Without outside intervention, your deserved destiny is to be lit on fire and then be kept alive like that for eternity. The finest of your efforts are filthy rags. The worse ones are so repugnant that the most just of responses is to light you on fire. In the depths of that infinite agony, scream for pain, but never for relief, never in protest, it is only what you deserve. Take away the flames, the state we are in now. But always remember that you deserve nothing better. Peer into the depths of your very essence and know that it is corruption to the core, awful wickedness, repulsive. Are you loved? Oh, sure, your family and friends and so on. They think well of you because they don't know what you're REALLY like. Or alternatively, they themselves are too wicked to be properly horrified at your licentious state. God knows. Only God has the knowledge of how full of poison and depressing worthlessness you are. Only God is righteous enough to be properly repulsed by it. And of course, only He is still loving enough to love you anyway. They love you. He loves you. But His love counts for extra, since only he can properly appreciate how little you deserve it. Do we really want people to believe this about themselves? Can it possibly be emotionally healthy? By all means, I understand if it's TRUE. If it's true, may we all believe it and do the best we can. But if it's not true, it's not merely mundane in its falsity, it is dangerous. It hurts people. I would implore you to stop contributing to that pain. Poor patterns of reasoning: The standard Christianity is one of faith. It lauds the beautiful faith of children, who never question, never doubt. We are implored to be like them, the "little children," are we not? In this way, Christianity contributes to a stilted maturation of critical thinking skills. It teaches a SYSTEM of thinking. By teaching people not to doubt, it allows them to keep beliefs which do not stand up to doubt. What starts as a pattern of thinking which defends Christian belief spreads. Humans cannot contain safely to one part of their mind such patterns of thought. They become susceptible to not doubting ANY comfortable beliefs. The greatest opportunities for progress, in our own growth, and in that of our relationships, often lie on the other side of some uncomfortable realization. This progress is, not totally, but still substantially, denied to patrons of Christian thought. Existential negligence: Christians rely on God to save the world. They are wont to discount any threats to humanity at large. This affects government decisions and increases our vulnerability to extinction-level events.
abortion, responsibility, and analogies

I extend my arguments. Since this is the final round and my opponent won't have the opportunity to post again, I'll end with a closing statement to conclude this debate. I'd like to stress that a woman has the right to bodily autonomy. This means that no one can take or do something to your body that you don't want. The government has no right to tell us what we have to do with our bodies. Some people will argue whether it is justified for the fetus, but I think I've already demonstrated that removing the fetus is as inconsequential as removing a tumor and it can't be considered "life" when it has not yet lived. As for any moral qualms, it is not right to impose your beliefs onto other people. If your religion tells you that you can't dress a certain way, that doesn't mean everyone can't dress that way. Only you. We live in a world where people can get ridiculous amounts of plastic surgery and tattoos to the point where they barely look human anymore. But when a woman wants to get a procedure that protects her from health risks, financial burden, and the responsibility of raising a child that she can't support, people suddenly draw the line. This simply begs the question: why? And if your answer falls in the lines of: abortion is murder; it is against my religion; or a fetus is a person; I hope my argument has helped you reconsider your position. I realize that this debate is of a controversial issue, so I ask the voters to remain impartial and give a fair judgement to both sides, regardless of their position. Thank you for this debate.
abortion, responsibility, and analogies

con would have been better off providing some analogies of his own, as i requested. and i do not wish to get into the 'personhood' debate, though it is very much relevant for the purposes of the abortion debate in general. i am sticking with analogies and arguments that have to do with the responsibitlity fo the abotion, in general. we must simply disagree about the car accident point. im sure your view would hold up in a court of law, but if you are the cause of someone else's dying, and taking from your body is the only way they can survive, i would insist it is your obligation to do it, and it should be recognized by our laws. the burglar point perhaps i wasn't clear about. my point, abortionists want to say the conception is like a burglar. but if you take this analogy to its consequence, why isn't the newly born child still a burglar? it's a burglar and can be aborted up to birth? i know there are restrictions generally late in pregnancy, but the point still remains. the mother could argue she was just being nice to the burglar, and not killing them. when the burglar left, the mother wants to forsake all responsibility.... so why can't she, if we follow the burglar logic? and it isn't even like a burglar, cause the mother took too many proactive steps to faciliate a pregnancy, and 'caused the accident'. the purpose of intercourse is pregnancy. that is what it is designed for. it should be of no surprise, even if there is an accident, that soemone gets pregnant if you are taking all the otherwise proactive steps to cause it. plane analogy. so you blame the pregnancy on the man? that's a new one. maybe i'm missing you and you just insist the pregnancy was unwanted. but how does that not make it her fault? is it not at its essence an accident that was caused by teh parents? failed contraceptives doesn't mean it isn't the parent's fault. it doesn't eally seem like you addressed the island accidet scenario, specifically, how isn't it like causing a plane accident and the victim falling onto your island? you seem to just say 'i simply disagree and my counter is the mother didn't want the pregnancy'. well duh, neither did the person who caused the plane accident want the person falling on their island. how are you really making any distinctions? kidney analogy. i didn't use the violinist analogy. i modified it, if you read it again. in this case, someone is driving a car, causes an accident, and the victim is then some how phsyically attached to the person that caused the accident. this analogy is only slightly more bizarre than the original violin argument you posted. isn't it the person who caused the accient's fault? so how could any sane person say the wrong doer should be able to kill the victim, espeically when it is not ven close to a permanent attachment?
abortion, responsibility, and analogies

this debate focuses on analogies to getting pregnant, and abortion. the analogies should involve whether the woman assumed the risk of pregnancy by having sex, or whether the conceived is uninvited and has no rights to the mother's body. i will be arguing analogies against abortion. you must do opposite. there are some beginning anaologies for foundation by Thomson involving burglars and violinists. a lot of that stuff gets pretty bizarre and beyond reality, but they make points and give fodder for thought. the responsibilties in getting pregnant are like causing an accident, and rupturing someone's kidneys and causing them to lose blood. couldn't it be said that the wrong doer should be forced to give that person blood, and maybe even a kidney, at least as long as the wrong doer would not die? many insist on absolute bodily autonomy, even in an accident situation, and so would reject that. but i would argue the moral obligation is there. and what makes birth the magic point that changes the parents responsibitlies? a person could argue... the child was a burlar in my house. i let the burglar stay until he was ready to leave. then i let him leave. why am i obligated to take care of them... they were burglars to begin with and i was going a nice thing for them letting them stay. society might have laws that frown on this thinking, but if you take the burglar analogy to its consequence, it was still a burglar at birth too. you just happened to let him live awhile instead of legally killing him. why should mother's liberty continue to be hindered due to someone who came as a burglar to begin with? someone causes an accident in while planes are in mid air. the planes crash on the island of the person who caused the crash. the person who caused the crash should not be able to evict the victim, by tossing them to sea, or killing them. you could replace planes and islands, with cars and the wrong doers home. it is also like. and this is bizarre but it is not much more bizarre that that 'well respected' (really a joke of a publication) violinist debate. you cause a car accident. the victim is caused to be attached to you kidneys. they are sustained by your kidneys and need them for awihle to live. hardly no one would say the person who caused the accident should be able to kill the victim.