azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: false

This argument basically boils down to the following statements:1. People will only fight in wars if said wars are supported by their fundamental beliefs,2. Religious beliefs are fundamental beliefs,3. Therefore, all wars are supported by religious beliefs.For the sake of brevity, I'll skip the formal logic (the problem here is pretty obvious to those familiar with it) and cut straight to the point: this argument falls under the fallacy of hasty generalization. In short, this argument assumes that because religious beliefs are fundamental beliefs, they must account for all actions supported by fundamental beliefs. This disregards the fact that other fundamental beliefs than religion exists; ideology and nationalism come to mind regarding the basis for historical wars.
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: true

. In short, this argument assumes that because religious beliefs are fundamental beliefs, they must account for all actions supported by fundamental beliefs. This is the position I am arguing. Thank you for taking the time to understand it. I still dont see a fault in my reasoning. Thank you in advance if you can help me find one.This disregards the fact that other fundamental beliefs than religion exists; ideology and nationalism come to mind regarding the basis for historical warsRather is asserts that the most fundamental beliefs/values ARE by virtue of their status in a personal system of priorities, by nature religiousPeople will not fight for any cause (nationalistic or otherwise) that is not seen as serving these more important underlying values.
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: false

"Rather is asserts that the most fundamental beliefs/values ARE by virtue of their status in a personal system of priorities, by nature religious"So, because, in your opinion (you've yet to provide any substantiation), religious beliefs are the most fundamental ones, no others can be used to support a war? Even if this were universally true (which is absurd; think of the ancient Romans, for example, who were bound more by politics than their religious beliefs), who's to say that other beliefs are not strong enough to allow someone to engage in a war? Ever heard of World War II? You know, the one where Hitler united Germany under the banner of National Socialism (as it was called before the term "Nazi" was coined), a purely secular doctrine?Going back to the example of ancient Romans, if their wars were motivated solely by religion, then why would they allow their conquered nations to continue practicing their own religions as they saw fit? Not to mention the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, both of which were purely ideologically motivated, along with countless other conflicts all over the world that were based in economic and/or territorial gain, nationalism, retaliation, independence, proactivity, or any other number of reasons. Why you're focusing on religion and disregarding any other cause is beyond me.
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: true

So, because, in your opinion (you've yet to provide any substantiation), religious beliefs are the most fundamental ones, no others can be used to support a war?Its not that peripheral beliefs cant play a role, but any justification must be seen as tied to and serving these core values.Even if this were universally true (which is absurd; think of the ancient Romans, for example, who were bound more by politics than their religious beliefs), who's to say that other beliefs are not strong enough to allow someone to engage in a war? Ever heard of World War II? You know, the one where Hitler united Germany under the banner of National Socialism (as it was called before the term "Nazi" was coined), a purely secular doctrine?To many, membership in a powerful group is a sacred valueGoing back to the example of ancient Romans, if their wars were motivated solely by religion, then why would they allow their conquered nations to continue practicing their own religions as they saw fit?I dont assert that other reasons dont factor in, I am saying without a clear appeal to what a population holds sacred, no effective support for war can be drummed up. As far as conquering states allowing religions to persist so long as they agree to be subordinate, I dont find tbat surprising at all Not to mention the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, both of which were purely ideologically motivated, along with countless other conflicts all over the world that were based in economic and/or territorial gain, nationalism, retaliation, independence, proactivity, or any other number of reasons. Why you're focusing on religion and disregarding any other cause is beyond me.When you talk of whats worth fighting for you talk of what you hold sacred, when you talk of what groups hold sacred you are talkimg about religion. If this way of looking at it is absurd. I don't see how.
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: false

"To many, membership in a powerful group is a sacred value"A trait it shares with religious beliefs, which means said religious beliefs are not necessary for effectively engaging in a war, therefore causing your argument to fall apart."As far as conquering states allowing religions to persist so long as they agree to be subordinate, I dont find tbat surprising at all"My point was that, if war has only ever been started for religious reasons, and one of the goals of any religion is to spread, then wouldn't the nation(s) engaging in the war necessarily stamp out all opposing belief? How does the existence of historical acceptance of religious belief in spite of conquering fail to contradict your central argument?"When you talk of whats worth fighting for you talk of what you hold sacred, when you talk of what groups hold sacred you are talkimg about religion."But religion isn't the only belief that's "held sacred", as you acknowledged in your previous statement.
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: true

Heres the thing..to me religions are alliances of people based on what they hold sacred.So it is what you hold sacred that constitutes your religious beliefs.I think my view on the nature of religion is more carefully thougbt out than the overly simplistic one that allows people to think of themselves as not religious. This is why when I ask "anti-religion" folks to describe what religion is they cant. They can only cite the dictionary definition because they cant look at the broader phenomenon for what it is.If you would (as I would) agree to have your view on the nature of religion scrutinized via socratic questioning I believe I could reveal an underlying logical contradiction. If you could explicitly show me where my logic contradicts itself (using socratic questining) I will paypal you $10Alas it seems all we are doing here is talking past each other, if war has only ever been started for religious reasons, and one of the goals of any religion is to spread, then wouldn't the nation(s) engaging in the war necessarily stamp out all opposing belief? Only those that are seen as a serious threat need to be stamped out How does the existence of historical acceptance of religious belief in spite of conquering fail to contradict your central argument? If the group accepts being politically neutered, and refrains from challenging the authority imposed on them they are allowed to live, its that simple
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: false

Those that need to stamped out are Muslims and they are a serious threat but you are a Muslim defender so how can that be stamped out......
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: true

Oh look an argument advocating genocide. Now you have something in common with the worst representatives of Islam and the West.
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: false

I highly doubt DBCooper was advocating for mass genocide. Most likely he was just advocating for the idea that we should end Muslim terrorism.
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: false

Muslims are not politically neutered they are religiously driven. Talking in circles is all your doing just to try and justify your opinion of a faith you will never understand.
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: false

"Heres the thing..to me religions are alliances of people based on what they hold sacred.So it is what you hold sacred that constitutes your religious beliefs."Perhaps including your unique definition (which has absolutely no relevance to the actual definition of the term, which loosely refers to the belief in a supernatural power) in your original post would have been helpful."If you would (as I would) agree to have your view on the nature of religion scrutinized via socratic questioning I believe I could reveal an underlying logical contradiction."By "Socratic questioning" are you referring to Socrates' unique style of argumentation via asking questions which lead his opponent to agree with him, or some other, more esoteric function? "If you could explicitly show me where my logic contradicts itself (using socratic questining) I will paypal you $10"Your logic (excepting a particular statement) does not, in this context, contradict itself, it just falls apart; your original argument (using the common usage of the term "religion", which I think is fair) falls under the fallacy of hasty generalization as previously clarified, and altering the term "religion" to something it has never meant and using it as a qualifier to make your argument sound falls under the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, which is fallaciously misdefining a term and then abusing said term to apply it to (or, more commonly, exclude it from) another term to validate a false claim."Only those that are seen as a serious threat need to be stamped out"Who's to say that all other religions aren't a "serious threat"? Ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition?"If the group accepts being politically neutered, and refrains from challenging the authority imposed on them they are allowed to live, its that simple"That's not a religious basis, that's a dictatorial one.
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: true

"In your conceptualization of religion, do you really think " higher power" is specific enough?"Given the broadness of the term, I believe it's appropriate."If my defining religion as "Group classification according to shared sacred values" and further that sacred means " of the highest value" is circular, as far as I can tell, it is only in the sense that all definitions are circular."Defining religion as "a group of people who share 'sacred values'", then defining "sacred values" (in part) as "the views religions hold" is circular, as the concept of "religion" can only, with those definitions, be expressed in terms of itself."I am wanting to challenge this common view with a less common view that I think is superior."Yet you have done nothing whatsoever to substantiate your conclusion, other than point out that you hold that opinion."I think if you were being fair, you would say..."If that is what religion is taken to mean then yes all wars are religiously motivated""I've done so, though perhaps not terribly clearly, when I pointed out that, using your terminology, your argument falls solely under (the inverse of) the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, which is an issue with the soundness of a premise, not the structure of the argument."Since you consider yourself religious I am very surprised you hold that some people are not religious."While I would argue that not all people are religious (as evidenced by anti-theists, who subscribe to the inverse of religion), it would seem, in my experience, that everyone holds faith in something or another (an example being anti-theists, who hold faith in God's nonexistence [which, being belief without basis, is by definition faith])."The most popular interpretations are not always the most optimal. I think if you take me up on my challenge to seperate socratic interviews you will at least see the untenability of your view, even if I can't convince you of the superiority of mine."Challenge accepted."Why you won't say something like..."according to that unorthodox definition..sure" I only have my strong suspicion."As previously pointed out, I believe I already did."You really don't think that group has its own "brand of intolerance"?"An all-inclusive group, by definition, is incapable of intolerance.
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: false

Errr. I think the answer of alofRI is the best so far. Very neutral and true. So i need not write another version of the same bible.
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: false

How can you say that? war is absolutely normal, necessary and inevitable. Wars are caused by the conflicts in the development of things. Everything is developing continuously, and conflict is absolutely inevitable. Conflict exists in even lifeless things. Where there is no conflict, there is no world.
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: true

That's another argument...but I ask you..Is it possible that we could conduct our wars in a manner that doesn't involve mass violence and bloodshed?Welcome to CreateDebate by the way
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: false

All wars are the result of greed, self-interest or hatred. And I can name several wars that were the result of atheism. Atheism has killed hundreds of millions of people in the last century. Sorry, but you are an idiot. Sucks to be you.
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: true

All wars are the result of greed, self-interest or hatred.ie the result of valuing too highly (holding as sacred) things which perhaps ought not be held sacred.And I can name several wars that were the result of atheism.People fight for whats perceived to be of value, not to force others to share their doubtsAtheism has killed hundreds of millions of people in the last century.Atheism moreso than greed self-interest or hatred? Sorry, but you are an idiot. Sucks to be you.~runs off crying~
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: false

So which modern war is it that you are claiming was "done in the name of religion"?
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: false

I guess you think you're clever, or even funny. Hate to burst your bubble but it just ain't so.
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: true

I was hoping to clue you in through sarcasm that you were wasting your time trying to berate me. I was also hoping you might actually challenge me.
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: true

But he kicked your ass with his arguments you've yet to make one ,whys that ?
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: true

One doesn't need to be rather clever to dismiss you, so yes, you guessed it right that his argument there wasn't a too clever one.
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: true

I thought he was quite funny. He also met your argument.
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: true

Sorry, but I have sent my words to a wrong person. Please forgive me.
Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: true

What a mental retardation... Not knowing 'Survival of the fittest'? Please go to die if you think the world deserves to be without struggles!!!!
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

It’s astonishing otherwise rational beings go absolutely nuts if one sugggests a ban on guns ; normally one hears the bullshit mantra trundled out as in “ guns dont kill people , people kill people “ a statement so inane only an idiot would spout it .Of course this sacred “ right “ cannot be tampered with why ?One of the most used arguments is the pathetic fear of a hostile government taking hold of power as if an untrained populace would be any match against the American military suddenly becoming hostile and taking over .Surely Americans have to ask themselves why their society has a need for guns ?How are guns a sign of a progressive civilized society ?The really hilarious thing is when one hears mostly American Christians throw a temper tantrum at the thoughts of not being allowed to bear arms ; Jesus no doubt would have Carried a “ piece “ if they were around back in the day .Also the amount of near injuries from guns yearly in the U S is truly staggering ; and of course there’s no gun problem any one that thinks that must be an anti American socialist mustn’t he /she 😂There’s no arguing this with American supporters of gun rights it’s akin to attempting to feed an Infant with Beluga caviar , pointless and a total waste of time Gun violence in the United States is a major national concern that results in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually. In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens), and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens).
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

It’s astonishing otherwise rational beings go absolutely nuts if one sugggests a ban on guns ; normally one hears the bullshit mantra trundled out as in “ guns dont kill people , people kill people “ a statement so inane only an idiot would spout it .Exactly. It's circular reasoning. If people kill people then it's a really stupid idea to give them guns. It's like saying: "Now look see, there are a lot of people wanting to kill ye, so we've gone right on ahead and made it as convenient as possible for them."One of the most used arguments is the pathetic fear of a hostile government taking hold of power as if an untrained populace would be any match against the American military suddenly becoming hostile and taking overI know. More backward reasoning. Aside from what you mentioned, there's also the fact that no civilised leadership has had to use force to maintain control for decades, or perhaps hundreds of years. The Nazis ushered in a new era of lies, propaganda and disinformation. Ever since then, manufactured consent has been the method despotic governments (such as, ironically, the current United States government) use to get their own way. Trump wasn't sending out troops to press-gang people into voting for him because he was too busy paying people to retweet bullshit on Twitter and upvote it on Reddit.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

It is indeed circular reasoning but one idiotic commentator recently said well “ why don’t you ban knives and forks then “ I still cannot make head nor tails of such an idiotic statement It’s absurd to think the unorganized American population could even challenge the might of the American military , this retarded reasoning demonstrates such individuals should not have access to arms as they’re mentally unwell as they do not even realize they are ignorantly following a misinterpretation of their own constitution which the meaning of a 4 year year old over here easily comprehends
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

It is indeed circular reasoning but one idiotic commentator recently said well “ why don’t you ban knives and forks then “ I still cannot make head nor tails of such an idiotic statementYes brother, false equivalences like this gain massive traction despite being overtly fallacious, because they are spammed out en masse by the American gun lobby. America is a culture of salesmen, and one of the tricks salesmen use is to encourage you to feel mockery or pity towards those without their product. Every object in existence is potentially dangerous, right down to a rubber pencil. But obviously the point is that, in designing the rubber pencil, a man has not purposefully tried to find the easiest, most effective way to kill other people. You should ask these buffoons whether they would feel comfortable if their military was armed with knives and forks instead of guns. In fact, ask them if they would like to swap their own guns for a knife and fork.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

Its astonishing they love their military and proudly drape American flags from their porches yet their biggest fear is ......a tyrannical government take over ; talk about mixed up The thoughts of the American military armed with knives and forks is hilarious and worth of a python sketch 😂
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

Its astonishing they love their military and proudly drape American flags from their porches yet their biggest fear is ......a tyrannical government take over ; talk about mixed upOn every occasion the American government has used the military against its own people (for example during the Kent State University student Vietnam War protest, where four people were shot dead) the people have done absolutely nothing. It's silly. I don't want to lump them all into the same basket, but a lot of them really do have their own version of reality over there. One based on advertising slogans and highly questionable logic.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

As I stated before all rational conversation goes out the door when dealing with the gun nuts
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

A rational conversation is impossible as long as one point of view is anything but. I will settle for a civil and polite discourse. I take no offense but I refuse to resort to name calling while engaged in some good debates!!
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

The substance of my postings has being based on rationality , I too prefer civil and polite discourse .If you refuse to resort to name calling that’s fine why are you seemingly upset ?
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

Oh, no. Far from it!! I thoroughly enjoy topics that I care about. Being an American first and a Texan second make me immune to insults. The only bad thing I can say about Britain or Australia is that the people allowed their elected officials to take away a fundamental right.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

I don’t live in either of those countries but please tell me how they took away a right they never had ?
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

I find your train of thought absurd. Even the unorganized and mentally unwell armed force of citizens is preferable to defenseless mensa members. It's easy to forget the fact that most servicemen have friends and family all over the country who are likely armed as well. Putting aside a theoretical conflict with domestic forces, the future may have a foreign invasion in store.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

Well you would wouldn’t you as 30,000 gun deaths a year are meaningless to you aren’t they ?
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

No as meaningless as a culled and defeated caged animal that didn't fight hard enough against rulers afraid of armed citizens and now adore the harmless citizens. Just cawing over and over...30,000...30,000, 30,000. Do have a statistic of innocent victims who were saved by a gun? How bout the number of deaths by guns in countries supposedly gun less?
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

Just cawing over is a most unusual way of dismissing 30; 000 gun deaths , so tell me guns are now necessary to save lives from others who have ..... guns , is that your argument ?So you’re now interested in deaths by illegally held guns in other countries why’s that ?
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

@NomenclatureWhy not just use your main account instead of TX43 and all the others? (although Quantumhead has been perhaps just as involved in CD as your current account)