azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

An argumentum ad hominem is defined as "the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack." A simple false accusation isn't an argumentum ad hominem.I'm not wrong, until you prove me to be so. Honestly, your understanding of philosophy is so minimal that it is, quite frankly, utterly embarrassing to even be discussing philosophy with you.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

Also, I am not impeding their freedom of speech in any way. I am saying that the Establishment Clause states that they cannot have special privileges for being religious. READ THE WHOLE AMENDMENT.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: no.

Please educate me about this clause that you are talking about.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: no.

Okay:This is what the first amendment says:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."Now the Establishment Clause refers to that very first part:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"....It can be argued, and has been, that giving religious organizations special benefits that similar, secular, organizations do not receive could be considered "establishment of religion". Hence establishment clause. And yes, the same amendment ALSO states: "or abridging the freedom of speech". HOWEVER, forcing the church to pay taxes would not stop them from exercising their freedom of speech. AND, this act would not put most churches out of business as most churches receive more in donations than their operating costs. Those that do not would have to close their doors if they could not appeal to a wealthy donor, but that is exactly what any non-religious organization would have to go through. Sounds fair to me, especially since most churches would not have this problem. In conclusion: making churches have to act like everyone else would not violate the first amendment because they could still say whatever they want. Giving them special rights that are unavailable to the rest of us BECAUSE they are religious institutions is a violation of the first because the government is helping to establish religion.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

I guess that is fair. I am sorry for being wrong .
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

No need to apologize.For the record, the good argument you could have made was something like this:"No religious organizations have to pay. That includes Christians, and Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc."The problem with that is the establishment clause specifies NO establishment of religion. Which could be taken to mean all religions just as much as any individual one. But it still would have been a good argument.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

This is true .
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

Okay, I will . :)
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

churches should lose their tax exempt status if they use their freedom of speechMost definitely. Freedom of speech is a right and privilege given by the government.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: no.

No, people and entities have the right to freedom of speech with or without the government.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

You're wrong. The freedom of speech is a right accrued to the people by the government.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: no.

No I am not wrong. People do not get their rights from the government.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

Have you ever read Hegel's Philosophy of Right? When Hegel discussed the idea of "right", he referred greatly to John Locke's work on the "social contract". This basically meant that social or political order is said to derive its legitimacy from its ability to uphold and protect the rights of autonomous, sovereign individuals. Thus, if a social contract is not respected, the government has no prerogative to uphold and protect the rights of individuals.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: no.

Tell that to people in Saudi Arabia .
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

What is your point? All you are doing is using pointless and unintelligent rhetoric.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: no.

And the same to you. I do not define myself by other people's opinions. Only God's judgement defines me. Have a nice day. ;)
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: no.

You are still wrong. People do not get their rights from the government. People naturally have rights with or without the government.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

Tell that to people in Saudi Arabia .
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

There is a huge difference in the right to free speech...and tax exempt status. The IRS code for 501(c)(3) exemption (church tax exemption) explicitly states:To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.Unfortunately....many churches and religions want to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities (i.e. gay marriage).Again, you cannot have it both ways. If a church wants to espouse their beliefs and turn their beliefs into laws or carry them over into the justice system, they cannot be tax exempt.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: Yes.

Thank you First Amendment of the Constitutional Bill of Rights and to Mr. TJ (Thomas Jefferson) for giving it a name.Sadly, it's not always enforced.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: no.

EDIT: Misinterpeted your post. Never mind what I said before....sorry...
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

That's quite alright, because I don't even know what you said! All I saw when I got on was your edit, so you're in the clear. ;)
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: Yes.

Yes, the two entities are combined in some instances .
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

I think your question needs to be clarified.Yes, there is a separation of church and state, but no it's not always enforced.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

Yes. Religion and politics should not combine. When religion and politics combine, civil rights are violated.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: no.

“Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.” ~ Gandhi
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

I am sorry, but comining religion with politics is just bad because civil rights will be violated. Besides, which is the lucky religion? Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Wicca, Zorastorianism, Kemetism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Sikkhism, Taoism, what? It is utterly illogical to attempt to combine religion and politics, and I don't give a flying fig what Gandhi said. I think for guess who, me!
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: no.

I am sorry, but comining religion with politics is just bad because civil rights will be violated.As if they had ever really been, or ever really could be seperate.  Besides, which is the lucky religion?Generally which ever one is most popular in the region It is utterly illogical to attempt to combine religion and politicsMANY are too naive to notice that religions are political organizations, and that keeping politics and religion seperate is an impossibility. If you are up to the challenge of exposing the faulty logic of my thinking, create a challenge debate and I'll answer your questions until the contradiction becomes apparent. Or if you'd rather have me expose the faulty logic I think you use, pop in to this debate and I'll show you precisely where it fails.I don't give a flying fig what Gandhi said. I think for guess who,me! Just because I think Gandhi had a better understanding of what religion is than you do, and that I respect some of what he had to say on the subject, doesn't mean I don't practice critical thinking or that I believe it simply because he said it.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

As if they had ever really been, or ever really could be seperate. Right, let's go back to rape victims marrying there attackers, stoning unmarried female nonvirgins, stoning gays, stoning people who worked on the Sabbath, forbidding the following: certain foods, mixing fibers (no polyester for you), different crops together, men marrying their brother's wife, polygamy. You are a special kind of stupid if you equate religion with politics. Generally which ever one is most popular in the region And that would violate the rights of the nonreligious. One does not need to have religious beliefs to have rights. Save your theocracy for Saudi Arabia. MANY are too naive to notice that religions are political organizations That is the problem. Religion and politics need to stay seperate, or do you want to go back to burning witches? You seem like you like it hot. ;), and that keeping politics and religion seperate is an impossibility. I disagree. America is a multiwhatever country. If you are up to the challenge of exposing the faulty logic of my thinking, create a challenge debate and I'll answer your questions until the contradiction becomes apparent. It's 12:07 AM here, can I do it tomorrow? I promise on the Constitution that I will keep my promise. Or if you'd rather have me expose the faulty logic I think you use, pop in to this debate and I'll show you precisely where it fails. Just because I think Gandhi had a better understanding of what religion is than you do Appeal to authority fallacy. Experience or authority does not make one right. I would say this right to Gandhi's face. I question everything including God, so what makes this Gandhi fellow so special?, and that I respect some of what he had to say on the subject, doesn't mean I don't practice critical thinking or that I believe it simply because he said it. I disagree with you because of your position on the subject, not why you have that position. Ima get at you tomorrow, okay? It's a date.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: no.

I'll be waiting .
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: no.

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ 4Real versusAtypicanIsitpossibletoseparatereligionandpoliticsorgovernment
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

The thing is, even though church and state are not to combine, somehow, someway it happens all the time doesn't it? We have been to court, we have made Amendments, we have took the 10 commandments out of courthouses in Alabama, but it's always some crazy, unwilling person not wanting to do the right thing, hard headed!! For some reason, "I can't figure it out to save my life" why people insist on trying to push their ideas off on others. Im glad it's a seperation of church and state, not everyone practices the sameway, if they practice a religion at all. I wouldn't want my child to go to school and have someone preach to them, when they're there to learn an education, not go to church, it's a difference and it should be made to stay that way forever.May 8th, it's an amendment one vote coming up, I am gaginst it totally. It's to ban same-sex marriage, but that's not all. It also affects straight couples who aren't married but live together, it's more to it than they want to admit, to try and get enough votes by homoscardiacs. It will affect childrens insurance, domestic violence laws for women in straight unmarried relationships, how sad is that?Yet the only issue that they care to get out there is that this will not recognize gay marriages in this state, just a man and woman. Sound familiar? It should, many years ago blacks and whites were not allowed to get married, women were not allowed to vote, this sounds like a civil rights issue to me also. Our country split into two, because man thought it was okah to have a human for a slave. I like to think that our way of thinking has evolved, i know it has to a degree anyway. It's still those people out there that wont to push their "Bible thumping" ways off on pople, who might even be an Atheist. When they learn that everyone is different and nobody is the same, we might get along a little better in this country!
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

I personally have no problem with the 10 Commandments as long as Church and State remain separate. I am Christian saying this.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: No.

No, because people who want to shove their beliefs down other people's throats won't let there be.I can't come up with something logical, sorry, I'm tired and stressed. lol
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: no.

You did a good job in my humble opinion. I agree .
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

You realize that the main culprit is the Christian Establishment...right?
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: No.

No, there is no solid separation of church and state .
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

There is a solid separation of Church and State, but it's interpretation and enforcement is where the lines are blurred and grey.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: No.

no, there is no true separation of church and state. this can be seen within topics such as gay rights and marriage, which Christianity has quite a bit of power over.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

If you want to argue that, you can also argue that there is no "true" freedom because of the limitations we have put on ourselves.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: no.

No there is no seperation of state church. Most states still will not legalize gay marriage. This is because religion is told it is wrong
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: No.

It's virtually impossible to have total separation of church and state while a very large majority of the populous is religious. The religious usually want to impose their rules on everyone else. Whether that is good or not is a different debate.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

It's virtually impossible to have total separation of church and state while a very large majority of the populous is religious.That's enforcing a generalization. The way you make it sound, is that if religious people exist that there is no total separation of church and state. People can be religious and believe in the Separation of Church and State idea.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: no.

While your statement can be valid - people can be religious and still believe in separation of church and state - history tells us that this cannot be. 50-60% of America is, in some way, affiliated with the Christian religion. Thus, we have had multiple instances of biblical beliefs crop into the justice system. Look at the various Islamic nations, where religion is forced upon people. The United States fought for their freedom from oppressive religious laws that were declared in England. Unfortunately, the same thing is slowly happening in the United States. The religious majority will always impose their views, because they believe they are doing the world a favor in doing so. That they are somehow 'saving' the rest of us. We don't want to be 'saved', thank you.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

While your statement can be valid - people can be religious and still believe in separation of church and state - history tells us that this cannot be.History tells us that people don't try to be or that they don't care to be. Not that it's impossible. I didn't say that it commonly happens. I simply said it's possible by using the word "can be". I have a religion and I firmly believe in separation of church and state, for a multitude of reasons, which I'm sure any supporter would have as well. Even if the government wanted to implement my religious beliefs as law, I would vehemently protest their plans to do so.That was all I was saying by my post is that it is possible for people to be religious and believe in the separation of church and state.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: No.

There is not a lot of transparency between religious affiliation and electibility. At least in the United States, it seems every presidential election has had moments in which it became fixated upon the candidates' religions. Many politicians, particularly Conservatives, stress the role of Christianity in guiding their policies. --Rick Perry or Rick Santorum for example.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: no.

Articulate a distinction between what a church is and what a state is and I'd be surprised if I couldn't quickly show there's essentially no difference.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

Church = Religion.State = Governing laws and authorities. There is a difference. If people want to attempt to mix the two, that is a statement to argue, not one to concede to.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: no.

Church = Religion.A church is to a religion as a state is to a countryState = Governing laws and authorities. Both a state and a church have governing laws and authoritiesThere is a difference.Then explain itIf people want to attempt to mix the two, that is a statement to argue, not one to concede to.The state enforces the dominant religion as it always has and always will. Tell me why I'm mistaken.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: yes.

A church is to a religion as a state is to a countryAs a tv is to a house. All of which are very common, but not guaranteed or required. So? There is no correlation.Both a state and a church have governing laws and authoritiesAnd? Schools also have governing laws and authorities. Does this mean religion and schools are also the same? Or is our schools our government?Just because you can connect them doesn't mean they're synonymous; as you said "essentially no difference".When I specified governing laws and authorities, I mean of a country, city, country, etc. Where citizenship and diversity ensues. In the United States, we have three governing branches aside from the public vote, which creates, interprets and enforces our laws. That is what I mean by a governing authority. Some religions act as a governing authority of their own followers. Doesn't mean they're the same as the actual government.The state enforces the dominant religion as it always has and always will. Tell me why I'm mistaken.And if they are, as I said before, is something to argue not something to concede to.Not all governing bodies enforce religion, in the United States, while there is many things to argue that ARE enforced which are specific-religion favored, doesn't mean that it all is. There are many cases where the state enforces the separation of church and state as described in the First Amendment and I am thankful for those right choices. They protect everyone's freedom.This is why you are mistaken.
Debate: Is there really seperation of church and state?
Side: no.

As a tv is to a house. All of which are very common, but not guaranteed or required.So? There is no correlation.Your statement was "Church=Religion". Each of these two words has multiple usage definitions which makes it a challenge to establish when someone is committing the fallacy of equivocation while using them in logical argumentation. I introduced the analogy hoping to avoid hashing out each definition then pinning down which one you were referring to in your equation. I will grant that a certain usage definition of "church" is synonymous with a certain usage definition of "religion". This is the case when both terms refer to a "religious sect". But a religious sect or "church" is not the same thing as religion itself.And? Schools also have governing laws and authorities. Does this mean religion and schools are also the same? Or is our schools our government?They don't just have governing bodies, they are governing bodies. They are branches of the same tree.Just because you can connect them doesn't mean they're synonymous; as you said "essentially no difference".If you were to list differences I could reduce them to what would clearly be a commonalities.When I specified governing laws and authorities, I mean of a country, city, country, etc. Where citizenship and diversity ensues.Churches and governments are interpersonal organizations who define more or less imaginary boundaries, which they attempt to secure through whatever means they have at their disposal. Neither will tolerate diversity beyond an authoritatively established standard. Both have members who are only so conditionally.In the United States, we have three governing branches aside from the public vote, which creates, interprets and enforces our laws. That is what I mean by a governing authority.So if a church were to emulate that, would it thereby cease being a church as long as it fits your definition of a governing authority?And if they are, as I said before, is something to argue not something to concede to.All contention is over belief/value system (religion) issues. One can vie in the interest of their religion, or against belief/value systems (religions) that are contrary to their own but attempts to separate religion from government are flat out illogical. As illogical as trying to keep government and government separate. Come on dig in, attack my logic.Not all governing bodies enforce religion, in the United StatesYes they do.There are many cases where the state enforces the separation of church and state as described in the First Amendment and I am thankful for those right choices.You are thankful while religious values you identify with prevail.They protect everyone's freedom.Including murderers as long as they are doing the murdering for an approved cause.This is why you are mistaken.Hmm try again. Dig dig dig or give up. I am used to the latter :)