azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: Yes

I agree with Chad again.Do you know how slavery was justified?With religion. You know how witch burning was justified?Religion.You know how anti gay marriage is justified?Religion.You know how an anti science attitude can be justified?Religion.Guess what the BEST way to justify something is.They might find other reasons, but I can't think of any. Even you seem to be extremely vague."Other reasons". As if that meant anything. Name another reason besides the ones that augment war, such as desire for power and control or money and land.Name something that would motivate, not the KING or RULER, but the SOLDIERS to WANT to FIGHT and DIE for a cause.If the soldiers know that there is no god or afterlife, on BOTH sides of the field, I do not think they would fight except in extreme circumstances.There would still be violence and hate and even murder, but war?Warfare between countries or cultures?No. I think that would be reduced 70% or more.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: Yes

There would still be hate in the world, yes, but we would be absent religious hatred taught to children before they can think for themselves, and absent religious motivation to maintain prejudice and hate, and absent much of the will to so nonchalantly kill yourself for your religion. Without these things, people would be able to express any hatred they feel in a less catastrophic and deadly manner, instead of having religion stoke their hatred into a homicidal zeal.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: No

People have an inherent tendency to form groups, to divide the world between us and them. If they didn't use religion, they would find some other way of dividing people, and it would be just as effective.I think we evolved this tendency because it aided in our survival. In a world without birth control, there will always be more people than there are resources, and you can better compete for those resources if you align yourself with a strong group. Religion, and having a shared set of rules to live by, can allow you to form larger and more stable groups, and larger groups can lead to larger conflicts, but they don't cause the conflicts.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: Yes

The brainwashing hatred towards nonbelievers is not present in all groups of people, but is a key element in all of the most popular religions. Conflict is an inherit part of religion; it's taught by the holy texts and dogma to be found in those religions. Conflict is not an inherit part of all large groups of people. So while I agree we might remain just as divided in the absence of religion, there would be a decrease in violence, as it is hard to wage a "just" but pointless war without god on your side.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: No

The brainwashing hatred towards nonbelievers is not present in all groups of people, but is a key element in all of the most popular religions.Good argument, but let me counter with another idea. Which of the "most poplular religions" contain this "brainwashing hatred of nonbelievers"? I ask because it seems to me that it's mostly the Abrahamic religions that have this characteristic. Would it be fair to say that only the Abrahamic religions promote war? I'm not aware of any wars justified by Hinduism or Buddhism.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: Yes

I was hoping that first paragraph would show up in bold, because I've seen other posts do that when citing text from a previous post, but I guess it didn't work. Can someone tell me how that is done?
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: Yes

Use the asterisk symbol. Two asterisks on either side of a section of text gets you bold, and one on either side gets italics. When you go to reply or post, there should be a "show help" or "hide help" option right below the "Submit, Preview, Check Spelling" buttons. Toggling this option will also show you how to get bold and italics. But I understood what you were trying to do with my quote =pTo answer your question, yes this characteristic is common in the 3 main desert dogmas of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. However, Christianity and Islam together account for some 50-60% of the world population. Abarhamic religions are the "most popular religions" in the world today. I don't know as much about Hinduism and Buddhism (not as philosophies but in regards to their past and present atrocities, if any) because Hindus and Buddhists don't try to invade my life with their beliefs, and thus don't concern me. So yes, to the best of my knowledge it's the three desert dogmas that promote war, and this is not a trait readily found in all other religions, just the most popular ones, like I said.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: Yes

This. I'm sure if religion had never been invented, there would still have been war.Yet, why would you fight if death meant death? A king could issue orders from a high tower, but the people fighting might not obey unless that king was a god. A king can't say "Fight! Fight to bring me wealth and power. I want more land and more power!"That would not ever work, except in some extreme cases.What if that king said "Fight! God, the god we all believe in wants you to fight! Bring glory to God! God wills it! If you fight today, you honor God and will be rewarded in life and in death with pleasures beyond anything you can conceive of in life."And of course, he can go on and on inventing as many benefits as the king wants to convince people to fight.Now, if those people didn't believe in god at all, it wouldn't be as effective, but when you strongly believe with all your heart, if god is important to you, then a king, a person with authority and power, or rather, The Church, back in those days would have supreme authority over what god says. They could make up anything they wanted.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: Yes

People will also fight for resources. People might call this greed, but you need resource to keep your people strong, and they need to be strong to be able to fend off enemies that might try to conquer them. In the U.S., where we really have a historically large supply of resources, this may not seem obvious, but in a lot of poorer countries, I think that is a very strong motivator to fight.The Roman Empire didn't go to war to for their gods, they conquered other nations so they could collect taxes from those nations. The Mongols didn't go to war for their religion, Genghis started to fight to regain the nation that his father lost, continued the war in to China as revenge for atrocities that the Chinese had committed against the Mongols (at least according to a PBS special that I saw), and I would imagine that they continued to take over the world because of the wealth that plunder brought, and so that Genghis's sons could have their own territorials to rule (the PBS special ended with the attacks against China, so that last part is just conjecture).On the other hand, the Viking religion (I'm not sure what it was called) did foster a warrior mentality because it rewarded those who died bravely in battle with an afterlife in Valhalla, so even though they didn't fight for their religion, it is arguable that their religion drove them into battle.As for Christianity, although it is certainly cited as the reason for a lot of atrocities within Christian nations in an attempt to purge themselves of other religions, these aren't really wars. The only religious wars that I can think of that Christianity has inspired are the Crusades. Even the conquest of the New World was more blatantly motivated by greed. There was a lot of trying to convert the Indians to Christianity, but Christianity, at that time, usually tried to spread through conversion, not conquest.Certainly early Islam spread through conquest, and I think early Judaism used religion as a force to unite its people against its enemies. And then, of course, there is the modern conflict in the Middle East, which probably wouldn't be there in the first place if it wasn't for religion.I was going to use this as an argument against the original proposition of this debate, but I just re-read the question. It didn't ask if religion was the only cause of war, just whether or not is caused war, and I think there are definitely cases where religion has been the cause of war, so I just switched sides concerning this debate. However, I would also maintain that there are many other causes of war, and not all of them could be considered invalid.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: Yes

I swear I clicked the "switch side" link before I posted the last entry, but it's still showing my side as 'no'. My only excuse is that I'm still a noob on this site, so I'm still trying to figure out the interface. :(
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: No

The Norse religion of the Vikings today is called Asatru.And there have always been gods of war.However, you are right, I suppose.Resources can fuel a war very well. I think you are right in many ways, however, in today's world, it is mainly religion that is propagating wars. There is more to the start of a war than "Attack for God", but the belief in these modern religions can certainly cause a stir.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: No

War are caused by people who thinks that power is control over others. War has no religion, sometimes you should fight for your religion but this doesn't mean is the religion that causes war.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: Yes

has no religion you said? how about Moslem war? they maintain their argument. but, sometimes religion causes war. i think im pretty right to give this article to hold mind about it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: No

Religion doesn't cause war, politicians cause war. Perhaps they've different religious views, and that adds to the tensions, but I find most often members of one group - be it a religious group, or nigh anything else - will get along tolerably well with the members of another group until those darn politicians start to meddle and get everybody hatin' each other. Without politicians - without politics - there may be more outbreaks of minor violence, but nothing which would compare to the violence of international warfare.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: Yes

Without followers to politicians, without obedient police or obedient soldiers, a politician has no power.You only give authority as much power as you want it to have.You say God has ultimate authority over your life, and so it does.You say you have authority over your life, and so you do. Politicians can make suggestions, but it's up to you to pull the trigger and kill someone.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: Yes

Who is teaching people to think in terms of us vs them. It's not only politicians or only religious leaders, I can tell you that. I don't think there is any significant difference between a politician and a religious leader. I think you are deluding yourself if you think politics and religion can be considered separately. A persons religion pretty much defines what they are willing to fight for.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: No

I don't think there is any significant difference between a politician and a religious leader.They are, in some regards, very similar. They hold the people's confidences and wield much power over their followers. However, the type of power is very different; the religious leader's is influence: he tells his congregation that homosexuals are sinful wretches that deserve neither life nor limb, and they will often follow blindly. The politician's power, however, has evolved much from that point: he can tell his subjects, just like the religious leader, that the homosexual is a sinful wretch who deserves neither life nor limb, but he has a collectively mindless army who follows through with his orders. Whether one individual or every individual involved disagrees with their mission, they will follow through with it, assigning the blame from themselves to their leaders. So long as the politician has an army to back up his dictates, then he has not just influential power but power from threat of physical violence.I think you are deluding yourselfThink that if you wish.if you think politics and religion can be considered separately.Explain yourself and, if I feel it is deserved, I shall attempt to counter you.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: Yes

They are, in some regards, very similar.not just some, most if not all. The politician's power, however, has evolved much from that point: he can tell his subjects, just like the religious leader, that the homosexual is a sinful wretch who deserves neither life nor limb, but he has a collectively mindless army who follows through with his orders. Whether one individual or every individual involved disagrees with their mission, they will follow through with it, assigning the blame from themselves to their leaders. So long as the politician has an army to back up his dictates, then he has not just influential power but power from threat of physical violence.lol. Politicians are the most successful religious leadersThink that if you wish.I'd rather think you were well informed.Explain yourself and, if I feel it is deserved, I shall attempt to counter you.I'll try giving an explanation you find worthy of countering later if I suspect your response will be worth reading.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: No

Religion doesn't cause war- people cause was. In the crusades, god never declared war on allah. The people were extremists and made a war FOR their religon. Religious wars are caused by extremists who wish to kill others for their beliefs. Gods or beliefs don't make war.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: Yes

Religion doesn't cause war- people cause was. In the crusades, god never declared war on allah.of course he did'nt why would he declare war on himself?
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: Yes

Well said, my man!======================================
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: No

I menat christian god and allah the muslum god cuz these two were the two gods that were worshipped by crusaders
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: Yes

Allah is the Arab name for god. The Christians who attacked Jerusalem were the crusaders the Muslims were not crusaders.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: No

The war-like tendencies of officially atheist regimes such as North Korea, North Vietnam, Communist China, and the Soviet Union prove for a fact that religion isn't necessarily a cause of war, sometimes atheism is...
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: Yes

Disbelieving in god is the cause of war? Which wars happened because of a lack of belief in the supernatural?
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: Yes

The wars fought by the forces of International Communism. My main point is that religion may cause some wars, but it does not necessarily CAUSE war every time.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: Yes

I agree. I also think a lot less people would be so easily convinced to get themselves killed in a holy war if they didn't believe they would reap endless rewards in the afterlife for it.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: No

It would be fair to say that religion caused war if war was a religion's only onjective or one of religion's objectives. Religion in itself is very ambiguous. Some wars are started over religions but in reality these religious wars are only started as a right for one to defend themselves. Although i am not saying every religious war is an act of self defense. Some are started for selfish reasons e.g. land and thats not the religion's fault ( or not always); its just the human condition to be selfish. I rather think it is unfair to pinpoint on the crusades because when the crusades are looked at one can see that it does fully line up with the doctrine of Christianity and i would only agree with someone on that arguement if christianity permitted and ENCOURAGED this act of violence. Otherwise the arguement is weak and without backbone.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: No

War is death. No matter what you are fighting for. How can be religion causing wars? Do not hide behind old rocks, guys. Man is guilty. We all are, on a different quality level; especially when we do not understand that if throughout years populations fought for religions, those people, those religions were fake. Religion itself asks no war. Man does, in order to get what he wants to: money, slaves, women, colonies. So he uses religion to give common people stronger reasons to move their asses and march thousands miles away to fight who-knows-who, for an after-life reward. I'm feeling ashamed for all those who answered "No", justifying themselves saying that sometimes it is correct for men to fight for their religions. War has nothing to do with religion.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: No

Religion doesn't cause war. Its the feeling of being dominated or oppressed by an alien or different group of people be it ideology(capitalists & communism), race ( Blacks,whites, native americans, east Indians),ethnicity (Hutu and Tutsi violence), religion (Muslims and christian or Muslim and Jewish violence) that causes war War is also caused as a strife for power eg,between two rich groups or between the rich and the poor(eg.Farmers and landlords) as seen in the revolutions.In every case its evident that threat from a different group/community stimulates war.eg, A person will fight for his religious, his racial, his communal, and professional cause if anyone from his group is attacked or targeted specifically because he/she belongs to that group. So its not religion that causes war, its the people's personal sentiments(race,religion, profession) which when threatened brings out a self defense or attacking mechanism which leads to war.
Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: No

The history shows us that religion is not a reason of war. Because the first and second world wars weren't caused by any kind of religion. WWI was the unfortunate culmination of dangerous levels of Nationalism. In WWII Hitler used nationality and ethnicity to motivate his group to take what he wanted. He wanted what other people had and tryed to be only one king of the world. So all wars in American history from the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, and the World Wars didn't have any connections with religion.War is when people fight with each other for a bit of one territory or desired resource. One country wants something which another country has.Consequently the leader of this country do anything to destroy and take another countries resources.Then he may find different counterfeit reasons like religion,nationality, ethnicity and etc.
Debate: Does Technological Progress Do More Harm Than Good?
Side: Technological Progress is Good

Technology has made a positive impact to our society because it has helped many people with their health, education, communication, etc. We can communicate with people in almost any country and help the ill with our technology today. Many teachers started using many different forms of technology to teach students that will be the adults of tomorrow. For example, teachers use PowerPoints to present information, math teachers can teach more information using calculators, and more classes are being created to use and understand computers. Technology has also made people think differently and express their true emotions and opinions. "The number one benefit of information technology is that it empowers people to do what they want to do. It lets people be creative. it lets people be productive. It lets people learn things they could learn before, and so in a sense it is all about potential" (Steve Ballmer). Technology is advancing and changing the way people live their lives and is improving our potential to accomplish so many new goal with our lives.The quote from this argument is from the link below.
Debate: Does Technological Progress Do More Harm Than Good?
Side: Technological Progress is Good

Yes You are Right. Your Argument is right and accurate. Your Answer is up to the mark.
Debate: Does Technological Progress Do More Harm Than Good?
Side: Technological Progress is Good

Technological progress is more good than bad. Being more technologically advanced makes our lives easier. In the medical field this is extremely important so that certain diseases and sicknesses can be treated with ease. For transportation, we will be able to travel to places quicker and easier and maybe produce less harmful gases for the environment. For learning this is extremely important as well, students will be able to learn in many different ways and the teachers can let the students learn the way they want because they have so many options. For military purposes we will be able to protect our country better and save more lives.
Debate: Does Technological Progress Do More Harm Than Good?
Side: Technological Progress is Good

Technological progress is good, because it allows for new inventions that can better help those who need it. For example, there are robotic arms that connect to amputee's nerve endings and allow them to control it as if it was their own arm. There are also advances in the way of safer cars and motorcycles that can protect a human when they get into a crash. While technology can be used to harm other people, at its core technology is simply how humans progress. At one point, sharpened sticks used as spears was technological progress. but the same thing goes for aqueducts, roads, wagons, sundials, pens, and phones. technological progress is not just weaponry and electronics, it is 'the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry'. Technological progress does more good than it does harm.
Debate: Does Technological Progress Do More Harm Than Good?
Side: Technological Progress is Good

Technology progress is very beneficial for our world. It is a resource that allows us to expand our knowledge on everything. The web is a great example, so many websites contain information that is useful to our everyday lives. Another thing that advancements of technology has done to citizens is that it makes everything easier. Every day something new is made that is technology based,simplifying our daily tasks. Lastly, technology has helped our military. The inventions made allow us to send technology to war instead of our soldiers; saving more lives. Weapons too have been improved by technological progress; they are becoming easier to use and more effective. Overall, technological progress provides us with more resources, it helps make things easier, and it helps save the lives of our country.
Debate: Does Technological Progress Do More Harm Than Good?
Side: Technological Progress is Good

I think that technological progress is good because there are machines that can help save lives. Technology can be used to give arms and legs to those who have lost them, start peoples hearts back up, or give people back their hearing. There are some people that wouldn't be able to talk without technology. When i was younger, i had fluid in my ears and had to have surgery. Without that i wouldn't be able to hear.