azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Religions remain heavily prejudiced, and christianity/islam are the most obnoxious of them all. We do not need religious ideals in government, or religious hate. We need original and useful thought to get the world out of the pit it's in now.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Religions remain heavily prejudiced, and christianity/islam are the most obnoxious of them all.People in general are heavily prejudiced. My concern isn't who is most obnoxious, but who is actively causing the most harm.We do not need religious ideals in governmentAll people have religious ideals (even if they don't call them that), and you can't have government without people. To have a government without religious ideals would require a government without people. A government is just another religious organization trying to enforce it's doctrines., or religious hate." Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach" ~ StalinHating people is a waste of time, and most harm done to people isn't due to hatred toward them but rather indifference. If you think that organizations you regard as "religious" promote the sort of indifference toward the well being of others (like what we see in war) more than governments do, you're deluded.We need original and useful thought to get the world out of the pit it's in now.We need widespread agreement on the true nature of the pit we're in.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Religion still has no place in the government! It's archaic and teaches primiative stories. It's not necessary.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

That's no wiser than saying "politicians have no place in government". Religion and government are different names of the same beast.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Government is about how to rule a country efficiently, not how to make people believe in the same thing. The only way this would work if all religions were involved.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Government is about how to rule a country efficiently, not how to make people believe in the same thing.For a government to efficiently rule a nation, it must insure it's citizens have an adequately identical value/belief system (religion).The only way this would work if all religions were involved.The only way what would work?
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

For a government to efficiently rule a nation, it must insure it's citizens have an adequately identical value/belief system (religion).Ensure! And that is called fascism. 21st century here! Freedom of religion!And that would be the only way religion and state together would work without conflict.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Ensure!Please see definition #2 here! then tell me how I misapplied it, or if you dare, just admit that you were being pettyAnd that is called fascism. 21st century here! Freedom of religion!There is freedom of religion only so long as no religion seriously challenges the sovereignty of the state. This is nothing new in the 21st century. "Think what you like, do as we say" is the loud and clear message of every government.And that would be the only way religion and state together would work without conflict.A state, fascist or otherwise, is just a type of enforced religion.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

So your religious preference is the only one that can be used to govern us all... That makes a lot of sense.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Completely false.Religion does not need to be organized to be religion.Therefore religion and government do not need to be synonymously interconnected.This isn't to say it doesn't happen, obviously; organization is popular for some religions.But this is to say that separation of church and state is very possible, and by no means a fantasy or myth.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

The practice of religion does not require an organized political institution (which is what a religion is). We should be careful not to mistake a religion (a sect) with religion (core belief/Value system) in general which can be practiced by an individual who need not associate or identify with a particular institutionalized religious sect.However a state cannot divorce itself from matters of religion in either sense, for the state is a religious sect, and states will always be run by people who practice religion in more or less the same manner.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

A religion is not only defined as an institution. A religion is also defined as a specific cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith; an idea noun. Such a thing does not necessarily require humans to form a governing body, nor does it even necessitate order, for the same reason you can be, say, a communist, without living within a communistic society.Because of this branch in definition, Separation of Church and State is not a fantasy or myth because religion is not necessarily connected to the state. It is not a prerequisite for an idea that is shared by multiple people to be organized into a governing body.How is the state a religious sect? What state? A state, in the context I can assume you are using it, is an organized political community. Since a religion does not necessitate being organized and connected to an institution, a state is neither necessarily dependent upon being connected to a religion.Just because everyone believes something doesn't mean everyone's beliefs are apart of a religion or religious view. This also doesn't mean that politicians are supposed to make decisions based upon their beliefs; if elected, they are supposed to make decisions that reflect upon either what's best for the people whom elected them, or, upon what the opinions are of the people whom elected them.Since this is so, as long as politicians are doing things in this way (which is arguably the way it's supposed to be done), then they aren't necessarily making any decisions based upon any beliefs or religious beliefs they have, but rather based upon what is objectively better for the people being represented.In other words, politicians can separate their faith from the state. Thus Separation of Church and State is not impossible, mythical, or fantastical, even if it's not guaranteed to happen during the creation of a government and state.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

You still have yet to convince me with apparent logic as to how this absolutism even remotely makes sense, considering you can form order and community, and thus a state, without the incentive from a religious belief.It's all about getting as vague as possible in his definitions. He basically takes one part of the definition of religion, ignores the rest, and compares it to one part of the definition of "ideology" or "philosophy" (ignoring the rest) and declares them the same thing. It would be like me looking up the definition of a dog and the definition of a whale and saying the only difference between a whale and a dog is the spelling because (according to the definition) whales and dogs both have lungs. It makes sense, if you completely ignore all the things that make a dog a dog and make a whale a whale and only focus in on one consistent similarity. In this case, it's "systems of belief."
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

I actually read some of your back and forth with him after I wrote the above wall of text and I soon came to the conclusion that wording was the biggest issue I was having with him.In that regard, I agree with you. You can be a philosopher, thus having beliefs of any severity, but not be religious. Categorizing 'religion' and 'belief in general' as being the same thing strikes me as confusing, and while I understand the possible of him wanting to be politically correct in every sense, he at least has to make his language understandable from the start.Saying something like 'Separation of Church and State is a myth' and then basing your arguments with others on a basis of a difference in how we view the word 'church' and 'religion' is... I won't say deceptive, but if not deceptive, then I don't really know how to describe it... other then it being bizarre.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Haha we've debated this subject at least 3 times prior, and it came down to wording every time so I thought I'd save you some time and try to explain his terms. then basing your arguments with others on a basis of a difference in how we view the word 'church' and 'religion' is... I won't say deceptive, but if not deceptive, then I don't really know how to describe it... other then it being bizarre.I agree. It seems almost deliberate. Like it was his intent to be as vague and ambiguous with his terms as possible so that they could fit into his argument and support his point. Except he doesn't seem that malicious.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

I see. That sounds like quite the chore, so I appreciate the heads up.Ultimately, if this is his wording, he's completely correct. But he's correct in a manner that is blatantly obvious and completely stupid. It's obvious to everyone, even mongoloids, that people do everything based upon what they know, and what they believe about what they know. This isn't rocket science.This wouldn't even be a debate if he hadn't redefined the word 'religion' to fit this very simple fact into something confusing. I don't WANT to say it's intentional, and deceptive, but if it's not, what is it? Stupid? Idiotic? Philosophically bizarre as fuck? I'm not sure. Maybe he wanted a laugh? I truly cannot guess with any accuracy.This is only a debate because everyone is confused and not even speaking on the same idea as he is. I'm not sure how I feel about it. Is it supposed to be a stupid test? Because if he wasn't changing the meaning of the word religion in his argument and in his debate, everyone would pass this over as common sense truth, because how he means it, it is. But what religion usually is defined as makes this debate thrilling and crazy. His absolutism is correct in the term he is being absolutist, but the problem is that his term is different from the norm.Surely he knows this, yes? You cannot debate unless both people debating know what the hell is being said at every turn of the debate. So the very creation of this debate is misleading because he made it on a premise that a minority of people would interpret it. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh, my brain. ಠ_ಠ It dun went broke.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Very true. If this debate was titled "separation of systems of belief and state is a fanciful myth" it wouldn't be as interesting or as inflammatory. And people would probably unanimously agree with his position. I'm pretty sure he's aware; we've talked about the differences in our terms quite a bit. The problem is neither side is really willing to give ground when it comes to terms so we never really get anywhere or conclude anything. His absolutism is correct in the term he is being absolutist, but the problem is that his term is different from the norm.He feels his definition of religion allows for a more complete and logical understanding of the concept. I think it makes the concept indistinguishable from several other concepts, "state" being one of them, which is kind of the point of the debate. It's tough when it's such a fundamental difference in definitions and when he feels he's doing what he's doing for humanitarian reasons.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

It's tough when it's such a fundamental difference in definitions and when he feels he's doing what he's doing for humanitarian reasons.You can't know how to help starving Africans if you don't understand their word for 'food'. ;PBut to each their own.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

It's all about getting as vague as possible in his definitions. He basically takes one part of the definition of religion, ignores the rest, and compares it to one part of the definition of "ideology" or "philosophy" (ignoring the rest) and declares them the same thing.I simply don't think illogical concepts like god, supernatural, spiritual, are fundamentally definitive of religion as there are sects that don't specifically acknowledge these concepts as valid within their doctrine. I agree that most mainstream sects do, but I don't think it's fair to use the acceptance of these concepts as a litmus test for whether or not an organization should be regarded (especially legally) as legitimate religious organizations.It would be like me looking up the definition of a dog and the definition of a whale and saying the only difference between a whale and a dog is the spelling because (according to the definition) whales and dogs both have lungs.Not really because I could logically distinguish the two in a way that doesn't fall apart under scrutiny. For instance: Whales are not ambulatory like dogs are. See how easy it is to produce an irrefutable difference between the two? Notice how there are no words with meanings under dispute in my articulation of the difference?Just give a go at making such a distinction between a philosophy and a religion and you'll see that you must use poorly defined terms to draw the illusory distinction. Unless you are ready to come to terms on the meaning of all the controversial terms basic to the fundamentally illogical (albeit popularly accepted) definition of religion, you're chances of getting me to accept it are slim.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

I simply don't think illogical concepts like god, supernatural, spiritual, are fundamentally definitive of religion as there are sects that don't specifically acknowledge these concepts as valid within their doctrine.Like? Every "religion" I've seen absent god, etc, could better be discribed as a philosophy or ideology. I agree that most mainstream sects do, but I don't think it's fair to use the acceptance of these concepts as a litmus test for whether or not an organization should be regarded (especially legally) as legitimate religious organizations.When we're dealing with upwards of 350,000 religions and you can only produce a handful that don't deal with god, etc, and most of them could better be described as philosophies in that case, I think it's safe to say religions have those aspects. Just give a go at making such a distinction between a philosophy and a religion and you'll see that you must use poorly defined terms to draw the illusory distinction.Okay, sure. MW:Religion: : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance Philosophy: a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology b (1) archaic : physical science (2) : ethics c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology So what's your point?The definition of philosophy doesn't even touch god or the supernatural; the definition of religion lists it right off the bat. Therefore you can logically distinguish between a religion and a philosophy in a way that doesn't fall apart under scrutiny because religion has things in its definition that philosophy doesn't, and it works both ways around. To give you an idea of what it's like arguing with you: dogs and whales are the exact same thing because they both have lungs and "ambulatory" is a poorly defined term. Unless you are ready to come to terms on the meaning of all the controversial terms basic to the fundamentally illogical (albeit popularly accepted) definition of religion, you're chances of getting me to accept it are slim.Just because something is fundamentally illogical doesn't mean it's definition doesn't make sense. Psychopaths are not logical, and even though that may be encompassed in their definition it doesn't make the definition illogical, it makes the psychopath illogical. Similarly, our definition of religion must encompass illogical things because religion is a system of belief that deals with the unknowable and belief without evidence, but that doesn't make the definition of religion illogical, it makes religion illogical.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Am I right in saying that the only difference between liberalism and conservatism is spelling because they are both systems of belief? Because they have some similarities, are they the same thing?
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

If a logical distinction can be made between the two, that holds up to scrutiny, then it makes sense to have separate terms for the different type of belief system they correspond with.Liberalism errs to the side of desiring to modify standards too quickly, and conservatism errs to the side of not allowing modification of standards quickly enough.Do you disagree with this distinction? If not, then between us we can agree that there are greater differences than spelling. Try that with me and my supposition that states are just churches who enforce their doctrine. :)
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

I'm going to argue like you do for this one.Do you disagree with this distinction?Yes, I do. "Desiring to modify standards" is too vague, so I reject your distinction. Liberalism and conservatism are both political ideologies, so they are the same thing.Try that with me and my supposition that states are just churches who enforce their doctrine.I've been trying. I've listed dozens of things. But it's hard when you reject all of these out of hand because they would refute your point if you accepted them.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Yes, I do.really? or are you saying that just to illustrate how you perceive my tactic.I've been trying. I've listed dozens of things. But it's hard when you reject all of these out of hand because they would refute your point if you accepted them.I'm arguing as a means of refining my thoughts, how involved you want to get is up to you, but I am not just telling you that I don't accept the distinctions just because to do so would be conceding a point. I actually believe that I see deep logical flaws in how some pretty important terms are commonly used, and I feel like I am challenging long established orthodoxies of thought. This makes me a ripe candidate for ridicule and dismissal. On this create debate platform I have ran into less than what I have come to expect from my experiences in other forums, and I really appreciate being taken seriously, by exceptional people such as yourself who can refrain from resorting to insults as a tactic of rhetoric.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

In the U.S. we have one..............................................................................
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

No we do not when the religious right dictates womens reproductive choices.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

64% of women who have an abortion feel pressured to have one by family or partners. Choice is kind of a bitch when you are being forced to make the wrong one.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

I know, and I oppose forced abortion. To me, forced abortion is the antinym of prochoice. Maybe if women had other children and her life was in danger I could support that, but otherwise no.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Just one of the many secondary effects of roe v wade liberals failed to recognize. What about sex selection abortions? What about abortions to cover child sexual abuse? At the end of the day, the world would be a better place if people put as much effort into self control and family life... Women especially would be in a better place.Another good example is pornography. When was the last time you saw a feminist talking about how wonderful and liberating modern pornography is? But during the sexual revolution, easing regulations on porn was a cornerstone of the feminist agenda.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Abortion is matter of the pregnant woman, bible freaks do not have vote on it.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Haha... You are just going to love sharia law when it comes to the UK in 4-5 years.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Sharia law is pretty much like Church law from medieval . You should love it.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Oh Ill be be far far away from what you'll be going through... Find me a case in church history of them executing a rape victim because the rape counts as adultery. Find me a provision in the gospel for Christians to take infidel women as sex slaves.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

rape victim = whore = unmarried mother = lynched, "evicted" from village. This was not uncommon scenario, even in 19th century. In your community it is probably still same.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Source.... Or even a name? ..........................................
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Ever heard about the Pope's pear?Sweet name, served with non-sweet reality. The torture occurred during the persecution of heretics, and it was the Catholic Church in punishment for adultery, fornication, the dissemination of heresy (as well - a warning to others). "Pope's Pear" - hand, often intricately inlaid, metal device with a shape reminiscent of pear. Unfaithful women "pear" plugs into the vagina, for men in the ass, and the heretics - in the mouth. Torturer click the device handle, and then "pear" to extend blooming flower and cut the victim's stomach. Man suffered time, until all bleed.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Oh sonny boy, the Bible supports rape victims being forced to marry their attackers.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

The old testament yes. Jesus's teachings on the law can be summed up as, "compassion supersedes the law". The punishment for adultery was death, what happened when Jesus was given the opportunity to condemn an adulteress? Old testament law is mostly irrelevant.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Liberals dont support a theocracy. The whole point is liberalis, which means liberty in Latin.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

That was irrelevant to her comment. .
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Probably, but it is of more value than the mindless crap she said.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Probably, but it is of more value than the mindless crap she said. is not a Christian or logical way to debate. Christians are supposed to be like Christ.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Jesus called people a generation of vipers and called another group they were sons of the devil. Why do you even list yourself as a Christian?
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Slippery slope fallacy. Liberals do not support covering crime. Liberals do support a rape victim's right to choose not to be traumatized by having her rapists baby. If you would force someone to have a baby by her rapist, you are disgusting.