azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: SeaWorld Debate: Should SeaWorld be able to hold whales in captivity?
Side: Against whale captivity

no whales should not be held in captivity cause i think they could live a better life and these animal are the type that would always stick together and and from something i saw the are working together and love each other.
Debate: SeaWorld Debate: Should SeaWorld be able to hold whales in captivity?
Side: Against whale captivity

whales should not be held in captivity cause cause staying in the same tank for years and some whales make hurt and fight each other and that could make you go crazy
Debate: SeaWorld Debate: Should SeaWorld be able to hold whales in captivity?
Side: Against whale captivity

I believe that whales should not be held in captivity because of how dangerous it is to work as a Seaworld trainer. About 100 cases and more have been proven to be aggression from orcas, The trainers at Seaworld are just trainers mostly do NOT know how to care for an orca. Due to most treatment at Seaworld, Orcas tend to show aggressive behaviors because of how they are treated, and most aggression is from captivity, feeding, or behavioral issues.
Debate: SeaWorld Debate: Should SeaWorld be able to hold whales in captivity?
Side: Against whale captivity

Whales are wild and they should not be in captivity imagine how big is the ocean and compare it to the tanks they are put in very little space.Did you know that Orcas dorsal fin are tip over because they have no room.You rarely see Orcas dorsal fin bent in the wild.My point is that Orccas need freedom and need space no wonder why their are reported accident of Orcas eating people and hurting others.
Debate: SeaWorld Debate: Should SeaWorld be able to hold whales in captivity?
Side: Against whale captivity

Well at sea world whales should be release because 165 whales had died at sea world including 30 miscarried or still-born calve.So then those whales should be release to where they came from to go back with there parents.But sea world still holds 22 in it's different parks in the united states. So sea world should release there whales to be free.But at sea world 48 whales had died there. At sea world the whales are in a 600 feet pool and they stay there night and day.
Debate: SeaWorld Debate: Should SeaWorld be able to hold whales in captivity?
Side: Pro Captivity

They are way more safer in a pool that they were born in and that they know more than the wild where there are dangerous animals that can hurt it. I think they are way mire safer at SeaWorld than in the wild at the sea were there are horrible animals!
Debate: SeaWorld Debate: Should SeaWorld be able to hold whales in captivity?
Side: Against whale captivity

whales should not be held captive cause they need to be social with whales of the same kind cause each whale speaks a different language so not all whales speak the same language its been proven
Debate: SeaWorld Debate: Should SeaWorld be able to hold whales in captivity?
Side: Against whale captivity

I feel like this is like this is the proper side to be on because How will you like it if you where taken from your family and put in a whole new home of people you did not know. how would you feel
Debate: SeaWorld Debate: Should SeaWorld be able to hold whales in captivity?
Side: Against whale captivity

i am against the captivity of killer whales because they should have space to roam around just like they were when they were wild and free. Because of the cramped spaces they develop violent behavior and may even become psychotic, Which is another reason why captivity is bad. The orcas fight with each other because of the size of the pool from sea world. When orcas fight, it could get so bad to the point where they either have an injury or might even die. The tight space causes anxiety and tension and many more. The small space in the pool also makes their dorsal fin collapse and the dorsal fin is supposed to be 6 feet in the air.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

considering The orthodox church took over Belarus and Ukraine, Republicans are legal, the entire middle east, israel yes alot of countrie's governments, including but not limtited to US, are very influenced or completely run by religion.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

If you understand what a government, nation or state is, and what a religion is, you will be aware that what differentiates one from another is so thoroughly insignificant that they are practically identical. I contend that there are no differences less superficial then spelling. If there are, I should like them pointed out to me.<Further, the notion that religious concerns can be considered separately from national state or governmental concerns is as illusory as the notion that a government could be ideologically neutral. The statement: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is as hollow and meaningless as if one were to state that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a political organization"
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Further, the notion that religious concerns can be considered separately from national state or governmental concerns is as illusory as the notion that a government could be ideologically neutral.So our political representatives are literally unable to do their jobs without discussing the problem posed to us by the nuclear fallout of an ancient intergalactic war and how we have to purify our thetans because of it? My point is the religious get involved in all kind of silly, superstitious mumbo jumbo that the state (quite rightly) leaves completely alone.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

It is indeed the domain of political representatives/religious leaders, to choose a more or less bullshit narrative, that appeals to a demographic of followers/constituents in such a way that their position is protected. While these leaders are responsible for more than just selecting a suitable narrative, without a popular narrative that people are willing to rally around, the political organization/religion disintegrates.If you think that the state is somehow less prone to accepting and cultivating myths, just because certain divisions of it (quite rightly) leave a certain other ones (like the example you gave) completely alone, you are mistaken.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

It is indeed the domain of political representatives/religious leaders, to choose a more or less bullshit narrative, that appeals to a demographic of followers/constituents in such a way that their position is protected. While these leaders are responsible for more than just selecting a suitable narrative, without a popular narrative that people are willing to rally around, the political organization/religion disintegrates.This goes for pretty much any organization. This parallels between religion and state you made could easily be applied to musical groups, certain businesses, and social clubs. If you think that the state is somehow less prone to accepting and cultivating myths, just because they (quite rightly) leave a certain ones (like the example you gave) completely alone, you are missing my point.My point is that the myths they cultivate are not generally religious in nature, or at least they're not supposed to be, and they certainly don't have to be. And lets not shy away from this. You said it's an illusion the government can be separated from religious concerns. Well, the example I gave is a religious concern. How is the government not able to operate without considering the status of thetans?
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

How is the government not able to operate without considering the status of thetans?Well just speaking of The North American continent alone, how many governments do you think there are?, and would you deny that organizations regarded as religious are also forms of government?Sorry if I've opened up a rabbit hole for you, but is it not proper to think of all governmental organizations collectively as "The government"?Since each religious sect (including Scientologists) is by nature part of "The government", then while it's true that certain divisions of the government may ignore the issues of a particular sect, the governing officials of at least that sect are charged with maintaining a narrative that serves their interests. Since even the smallest governmental unit is part of The larger government, The government inevitably must evaluate the concerns of every religious sect.Please note: I made a correction to the wording of one of my previous statements that you quoted...
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Well just speaking of The North American continent alone, how many governments do you think there are?Generally one per country. and would you deny that organizations regarded as religious are also forms of government?Are you talking about, like, Sharia Law, for example? I'm not understanding this one. Sorry if I've opened up a rabbit hole for you, but is it not proper to think of all governmental organizations collectively as "The government"?I do think of them like that. Since each religious sect (including Scientologists) is by nature part of "The government", then while it's true that certain divisions of the government may ignore the issues of a particular sect, the governing officials of at least that sect are charged with maintaining a narrative that serves their interests. Since even the smallest governmental unit is part of The larger government, The government inevitably must evaluate the concerns of every religious sect.You've loosened up the meaning of "government" to mean the running of a country of political state to just running something in general. But "government" specifically refers to running the political and economic system of a given country. You wouldn't call the people running the church the church's government, you would call them clergy. Which, if I remember correctly, was one of the differences between other systems of belief and religion I listed. Yes, governing and clergying are both forms of running things. But being the leader of a recreational knitting club is "governing" things in that sense, and I don't think you are also trying to assert there is no difference between state and recreational knitting clubs is spelling. My point is if the parallel you are trying to draw is that both governments and clergy have groups they rule over, you can draw that parallel between government and any organization or group or band or club of your choosing. And your point kind of loses significance, I think, when it can be applied to everything.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Generally one per country. What about localized governments, they don't count huh?Are you talking about, like, Sharia Law, for example? I'm not understanding this one. I am making the point that all interpersonal organizations with officials who administer rules for people to follow are forms of government. Therefore all organized religions are by nature governmental entities, that are part of a large body of various sized governmental entities, some of which are thought of as religious and some not. When these are considered as a whole, these are what constitutes "The Government" or "The State"But "government" specifically refers to running the political and economic system of a given country.So supposing an authoritative organization arises that runs the political and economic system of a group of people irrespective of territorial boundaries it would not be properly regarded as a government?You wouldn't call the people running the church the church's government, you would call them clergy.If I wanted to make a meaningless distinction.Which, if I remember correctly, was one of the differences between other systems of belief and religion I listed.Any institutionally established interpersonal organization has the equivalent of clergy. They are called administrators, officials, etc. If you are talking about individual personal religious/philosophical/ideological systems of belief, these only depend on one administrator...the individual themselves.Yes, governing and clergying are both forms of running things. But being the leader of a recreational knitting club is "governing" things in that sense, and I don't think you are also trying to assert there is no difference between state and recreational knitting clubs is spelling. So all sorts of human behavior is governed by officials. Those most proficient in the craft of governing religious belief are the most powerful government officials of all.My point is if the parallel you are trying to draw is that both governments and clergy have groups they rule over, you can draw that parallel between government and any organization or group or band or club of your choosing. And your point kind of loses significance, I think, when it can be applied to everything.Thank you for sharing your opinion
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

So really your point is, the only difference between (insert any organization) and (insert any organization) is spelling. Talk about a meaningless distinction. Why is this even a debate?
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

So really your point is, the only difference between (insert any organization) and (insert any organization) is spelling. We can make valid distinctions between various organizations, I just don't think the secular/religious is one of them.Why is this even a debate?Because I am interested in it
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

If we remove the current religious ideologies, and look at the religious texts from an allegorical perspective, as they were supposed to be, then we would have a significantly different government. Society, in general, would be much different. Literal interpretations of religious texts, the Bible in particular, has led to a screwed up system designed for corruption to flourish.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Lots of big words... Poorly put together. The establishment clause is not "empty and hollow". It has prevented the government from making an American analogue to The Church of England for over 200 years. Two different things (religion and government), which may function in similar ways, but have completely different purposes and goals, are not "identical".
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

True.A. It never once appears in the constitutionB. What was going on in government in the early 1800's would appall atheists today. (Like regular church services in the Capitol building)C. If any state was told before joining the union "Oh by the way, we have a rule against making laws based on the bible". They never would have entered the union.D. A politician should not be expected to abandon their religions beliefs, and yes a lack of belief counts. All you atheists are trying to push is "Our religious preference is the only one that can be used to make laws that govern everyone." E. Most of our laws are based in Christianity anyway.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

In many democratic countries done ages ago, this is problem only is shitholes and sadly in US.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

would you mind rephrasing that argument? I'm not getting your point.Is your contention that separation of church and state has already been achieved everywhere else except in "many democratic countries done ages ago", "shitholes" and in the United States?
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

What I meant is that in most of developed countries religious people or groups do not have any effect on legal system, research, education or army.In USA are areas where teaching evolution is banned, stem cell research and abortion banned for religious reasons. Can you imagine a president who is not practicing Christian? It getting worst not better.by shitholes I meant countries like Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, SAE where is legal system based just and only on religious values where human rights and freedom of speech are second to it. This countries are extremely undeveloped, no research for more than 1000 years. Unable to produce or manufacture anything. Each single thing that isn't from wood has to be imported. After they run out of oil they turn back into dark age.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Religion should not control politics. That just means no gays or shrimp.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Religion should not control politics.This is like saying that politicians should not control politics. It fails to recognize religions as being by nature political organizations.That just means no gays or shrimp.WTF?
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Once again you've made your "all religions are ideologies but not all ideologies are religious" mistake. I agree that all religious organizations are by their very nature political, but not all political organizations are religious. So politics should be allowed to control religion, as they always have, and in that regard trying to separate church and state is a "fanciful myth." But not all governments are religious in nature, so religion should not control politics. All medical doctors could do the work of EMTs, but not all EMTs could do the work of doctors. Don't think that because both doctors and EMTs are in the medical field their jobs are one in the same and interchangeable every which way.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Once again you've made your "all religions are ideologies but not all ideologies are religious" mistake.I can certainly see how you think I am making a mistake in thinking of all ideologies as being religious in nature or are rooted in religion so to speak. Though of course I disagree with you, I'd be pleased to dig and dig on this subject until either I am swayed by your arguments or vice versa.As I see it, a persons religion consists not only of their ideology but also the habits or traditions they adopt. I understand that you do not see it this way, but I hope you can understand that if your definition of religion is based on illogical theistic or supernatural concepts, I cannot accept or use it, and I will argue that neither should you. I view religion from an atypical atheistic perspective as being fundamental to the ideological development of all humans. If there is, as you say, such a thing as "non-religious" ideologies I suppose these are ideologies merely being pondered, and thus are not yet adopted. They are simply Ideas being entertained.I agree that all religious organizations are by their very nature political, but not all political organizations are religious.And I suppose the reason you believe the second part of that statement is true because your litmus test for whether or not an organization should be regarded as religious or not, consists of whether or not it officially makes claims about "supernatural" beings. Is this the case?politics should be allowed to control religion, as they always haveDespite what you say, I still think the god of the state isn't worthy of worship. Frankly I'd rather folks worship the god of their imagination.All medical doctors could do the work of EMTsI'm not as sure as you are about thatDon't think that because both doctors and EMTs are in the medical field their jobs are one in the same and interchangeable every which way.If you admit that religious leaders and politicians specialize in different areas of the same field, you seem awfully close to understanding my point. If you really believe, as you say, that politics should and always has controlled religion, you have pretty much conceded my point. A religion is a political system. People may be fond of claiming not to be political, claiming not to be religious, and claiming not to be biased. But these claims are naive.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Though of course I disagree with you, I'd be pleased to dig and dig on this subject until either I am swayed by your arguments or vice versa.Haha we've already had a few debates on this exact subject. The problem it terms. We can dig all we like and we won't find common ground unless we can agree on terms. But if you really want to go there again, I offer a challenge: tell me how and why I am a religious person. As I see it, a persons religion consists not only of their ideology but also the habits or traditions they adopt. I understand that you do not see it this way, but I hope you can understand that if your definition of religion is based on illogical theistic or supernatural concepts, I cannot accept or use it, and I will argue that neither should you.My definition includes all of those things. Ideology, habits, tradition, the supernatural, theism, ritual, church, dogma, and more. We have other words for belief systems that lack aspects of the supernatural and theism, like "philosophy" and "ideology." When they start talking about the afterlife and spirits and tithing, you know you're no longer dealing with a philosophy and are instead dealing with a religion. your litmus test for whether or not an organization should be regarded as religious or not, consists of whether or not it officially makes claims about "supernatural" beings. Is this the case?Like I said, among other things. Making a claim about supernatural beings would be a surefire way to assure whatever you are talking about is religious in nature, but it's not the only way to do this. Despite what you say, I still think the god of the state isn't worthy of worship. Frankly I'd rather folks worship the god of their imagination.Where did I say we should worship the state? I'm not as sure as you are about thatI'm in the field; EMTs are not as highly trained as you might think. I probably should've compared them to GPs, as a chiropractor is technically a medical doctor and probably couldn't do an EMTs job, but I hope you got my point anyways. If you really believe, as you say, that politics should and always has controlled religion, you have pretty much conceded my point.What is your point? My point is that that relationship works one way. Politics can control religion, religion cannot control politics. All religious systems are political, not all political systems are religious. You can have the state without the church but you can't have the church without the state.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Christianity is against gays and shrimp. Religion doeas not change it's doctrines, only how they are viewed. Is the bible ever edited? All the thou shalt's and thou shalt not's which do not fit into modern society or reason?
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Christianity is against gays and shrimp.There are Christian sects who are not. And there are non-christians who are. So this is not definitive of ChristiansReligion doeas not change it's doctrines, only how they are viewed.That's changing the doctrine. Jews aren't stoning people, Blacks can attain priesthood in Mormonism now, and there are Female priests in some Christian churches. And now even Pat Robertson is openly refuting the creationist idea that the earth is 6000 years oldIs the bible ever edited?The Bible has been being edited all along. In the biblical tradition, picking and choosing what content deserves emphasis and what should be generally ignored is business as usualAll the thou shalt's and thou shalt not's which do not fit into modern society or reason?I can think of a couple that are certainly not being taken seriously in modern society and oddly enough they are the ones that, if followed, would make the world a better place. in your book Which thou shalts do YOU think deserve emphasis?