azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: Yes of course

I believe the world would be a better place without religion. Religion often is able to act as a gateway in order to coax people into distrusting mainstream knowledge. For example, the majority of Qanon and Flat-Earth conspirators identify as heavily religious.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: Yes of course

This question is worded poorly, because it implies "would the world be a better place if everyone was atheist", when I think the better question to debate would be "would the world be a better place if everyone was the same religion as you". It would spark a better debate (more points of view rather than atheist against everyone else).I believe it would be, because there would be one less thing to divide people and one less thing to use to form prejudices.All groups of people want the same basic things in life (health, comfort, most want to raise a family, etc.), but religion is used more often to highlight our differences than our similarities.The question you have to ask yourself before you make an argument against the statement is not if the world would be better without your religion, but if it would be better without all the other religions. If you ask a Jew if the world would be better if everyone was Jewish and they would probably say yes, but if you ask them if the world would be better without all religion including their own of course they would say no to defend their belief.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: No

There is no problem with the title, it's a proper question. If the question were ''would the world be a better place if everyone was the same religion as you'', everyone would have differing opinions and no progress would be made because everyone looks at the world differently, has different morals and want different things.Regarding your claim that everyone wants the same things, I just want to say that you are partially wrong. We all have a basic guideline on what we should want for ourselves and the people around us, but this is not fixed. Most people share common desires for health and well-being. However, this does not mean that everyone wants the same thing. Even if people wanted to want well-being, some are being oppressed by their religion and system of beliefs.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: Yes of course

The question does not imply atheism. However, I believe atheism is a belief system in that the atheist believes in their perceptions (based on their perceived evidence/facts/truths/etc). Thus, the posed question is appropriate.Regarding the posed question I believe Existence could not even occur without the concepts of 'faith' and 'belief' (and inherently 'belief systems'). The very acceptance of the concept of Existence requires faith [i.e. to believe that Existence occurs is to inherently have faith in that belief (e.g. I have faith in my belief that Existence occurs)].Regarding your suggested replacement for the question posed, I do agree that is a good question (not a better one but just another good one). To answer your question, I agree with you that the world might indeed be a better place if everyone supported the same belief system.The sadness of it is that we are all emotional creatures and ignorance of one thing or another is a constant (too bad we are not the borg with a collective consciousness).
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: No

If you look at religion as a mere social construct, it is apparent that it is a necessary system of control. For the most part, the beliefs and values taught in each respective religion are important to keep people in a some what "moral" state of mind. Religion is most needed for ingraining these important morals in people in a way in which they completely believe them. Where you get into trouble is when radical religious zealous take it upon themselves to hate other religions for no apparent reason other than they are different in some way. However, if you actually take the time to study these religions or perhaps read their holy books, you will see many parallels in beliefs. Many of which, that actually contradict the hateful actions that many people take.Throughout time it seems as though religion evolves along with the knowledge of society. Our technological and scientific revolutions have brought about this new one, Scientology, which takes the relevant knowledge we know about the world along with previous viewings of religious quarrels and creates its own twisted reality for people to believe in. Even though there is much opposition to this new belief system, I don't think there will be any Jihads any time soon over it. The way it stands, I believe that religion is a necessary evil for the time being in the way of controlling the vast majority of immoral and unintelligent people; it just needs to be refined, which will happen over time.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: No

You must have never heard of the social contract. These "radicals" you speak of are not making the things they do up. They are simply doing what their religious text's tell them too; let's not forget the bible and the koran are two of the most violent books ever written.Religion is an unnecessary evil. The religious have been in control for thousands of years and jail populations are at an all time high; It's time for a change.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: No

Religion is an unnecessary evil.To say that religion is unnecessary reflects a misunderstanding of what "necessary" means. Also of what religion is. But we are not discussing "religion" we are discussing religions which perhaps we can come to terms and agree that we really mean "religious organizations" when we say "religions."To claim that (all) organizations of this nature are evil is an (albeit somewhat justified) over generalization.Compared to criticizing the specific principles behind particular religious sects, condemning religion as a whole is a cop out.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: No

Science, venturing into stating its position on God, has come into the realm of religion. The atheist-scientific movement is vying for power in the highest ranks, touting their ability to be rational beings that base all they trust on what they can prove (which in itself is curious, because they cannot prove their own rationality).At the hands of science art will die, because how do you prove beauty? At the hands of science love will die, because as every good scientist knows, love is merely hormones designed for procreation. It is as if scientists in general forget that the true value of something is often lost in the analyses of its parts. Value is what rules society, the moment a scientist veers into defining values, he or she defines beliefs. The moment they do that they are creating a religious system because those beliefs will dictate the actions of the society they control.So should atheists and scientists get control of government, how would that be any different from religions (which, I might add have most certainly only feature by name in the White House and not by function)?As for violent books, go read something on the history of America and tell me there is no violence. Mankind is violent by nature, religion cannot be blamed for our lack of self control.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: No

The statement that scienctist's cannot understand beauty, because they connot prove it, they cannot love because they understand cause and effect is absurd. It's like your trying to say scientists are not human. What of atheists? are all atheists scientists? of course not. Lets stop and think what organization has destroyed the most art, burned the most books, and killed the most people for not thinking the way they should.I for one would like to think the people are who rule society, and the people should have a choice where their values come from. When you are raised in a religious home there is no choice, only brainwashing, and the illusion of choice
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: No

"The people"? They are the ones who want democracy. Democracy being a system that fools "the people" into giving up their power to change their nations by giving it up to a bunch of power-hungry, rotten-to-the-core politicians intent on destroying the very society that put them there. These are the same people who choose religion as a means to find hope where a godless government is giving them war, xenophobia and the lie that they are in constant danger.Please read what I wrote. I did not propose that scientists are incapable of experiencing beauty or love. I proposed that the "religious" system of science does just that (and no, not Scientology for those who want to misread me here).Not all atheists are scientists no, but not all Christians are priests either.So, the organization that destroyed the most art? The Roman government (which gave the Roman Catholic Church and subsequent movements their political savvy) destroyed empires along with all their treasures. That organization is in part what we use today to make laws, which dictate how we govern. See the resemblance?Art gets destroyed by those in power, not to destroy art per se, but to replace the social symbolism it represents. It is always replaced by the art of the new ruler. Except, what art does the scientific method have in its rigidity? I'd much rather be ruled by a lunatic than someone that calls themselves rational. At least the lunatic is honest about what they are.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: No

Your views are biased against science in many ways. Atheists may have been more vocal lately spurred by technological innovation which filters the religious talk out of most mediums due to a blatant delusional realization when written in black and white. This does not mean they will be any different than the current religiously biased majority in power.In a speech by Obama, he discussed how religion (argument also can be applied to science) can say anything it wants but we must place it in a logical and socially applicable context before we apply the rules to society. As with this ideology, scientific beliefs also must be properly re-worded before it can affect society. I oppose you because you seem to forget that science is based entirely on provable facts and is much more reliable than abstract words written in thousand-year old unverifiable books.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: No

I spot a couple of contestable claims within your argument.1) Science wants to determine what things such as beauty and love are.Prove it. Why would science want to determine what beauty and love are? To manipulate people? What do you think religion does? The farthest science could go is to see WHY and HOW we determine beauty and love. Science never imposes beliefs; it finds out how things work.2) Religion is the only thing that determines values.Wrong. Religion is probably the main way that people determine values, but it is far from the only thing that does. What about philosophy? How about culture? 3)"So should atheists and scientists get control of government, how would that be any different from religions (which, I might add have most certainly only feature by name in the White House and not by function)?"They would be different because the claims presented by science can always be contested, provided there is evidence to back up those assertions. Religious governments are based on assertions that cannot be proven and are fiercely protected, which means change usually only occurs with revolution.4) "religion cannot be blamed for our lack of self control."While this is true, religion can be blamed for sanctioning our lack of self control. The Inquisition? Sanctioned by religion. Stoning women who are raped? Sanctioned by religion. Sati (Where wives are burnt to death on their husbands funeral pyres)? Sanctioned by religion. Religion has too much power, because you can't argue against it. If you cant argue against it, then the people who claim to know the most about the religion can hijack it for their own ends. I would rather see religions abolished and replaced with philosophical schools of thought. At least those can be debated without fear of violence.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: No

Hmm, seems like you made up a couple of contestable claims as well.I never said science wants to determine what things such as beauty and love are. It is quite simply not a tool that can do so. So in that sense we agree. And yes, science does not impose beliefs, but scientists do because the moment they observe something, they interpret what they find within their mind's framework, which is always subjective to their value base.I also did not say that religion is the only thing that determines value. What I did say was that the moment you start systematizing values, you get religion. Religion is by definition as system of values and its implied activities. So if one asks the question whether the world would be a better place without it, then I answer that our world will never be without it.As for point 3): any statement can be contested, whether you use pure logic or the scientific method. Science is key to good governance, but it makes for a very poor government basis. If the scientific method is consistently applied then things like genocide could actually be proven effective is managing economies. You said it yourself: what about philosophy and culture?On the last point, religion is a man made system. If we blame religion, we blame ourselves. More importantly, science created the atomic bomb (if you want I can point you to horrid human experiments during the Nazi regime as well, and even more in the good old US of A), so be balanced when you want to villanize a system.People (not systems) have power because we give them power. It is very simple to say "it is their fault" and not take responsibility for our own willingness to submit to whatever we are being fed. Science and scientists have their place, and they have their demons. Science is by no means a stable, pure or precise thing (you just need to read scientific journals to see how much influence politics have on what e regard as "fact").As for your idea on philosophical schools of thought - science won't stand for that, because philosophy can not be empirically tested. This is so because empirical tests themselves are based on philosophical reasoning that is fallible.More importantly, and this may come as a shock to a thinker like yourself, people don't want to think much. They want to be told what to do because that way if anything goes wrong they can point a finger to the government, or scientists, or religion.What we need is a practical way to abolish the concept of liberal freedom sans personal responsibility and social accountability.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: Yes of course

At the hands of science art will die?!!!!!!!!!!and love will die?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!What absolute trash you talk! I am an atheist, scientifically minded, a musician, florist, artisan, creative entrepreneur, and an artist, and I am a fanatical lover of trees, flowers, nature and beauty! I am also not immoral, not a criminal, and I try to live a happy, worthwhile, and good life, in spite of all the illogical religious nutters that surround me! I try to ignore them, but pity them because they are blind to reality!There is no god! 20000% sure of that! God is an ugly way of describing all of natures wonders, and you are a blind fool to believe this universe and all within it could ever have been manually created by one evil maniacal being called 'god'!
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: No

The Bible and Koran are only the most violent books when one does not fully understand them and they are completely taken out of context.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: No

The truth is that if there was no religious books, there would be no misunderstanding of it.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: No

So stoning people to death, and honour killings are ok?Was a story on digg not to long ago about a girl who fell in love with an israeli soldier, when her father found out he promptly beat her to death. The man was held two hours then released without any charges filed. He was simply doing what the good book told him to.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: Yes of course

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." I'm not arguing that religious people don't do bad things. I am saying that religion instills good values in people and it is up to them to follow them. It is true that many people twist the words in order to feel better about themselves. And find me where the good book tells him to beat her to death, I am actually pretty curious to see where it specifically says that.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: Yes of course

I agree. Around 1/5 of all passages of the New Testament are about helping the poor, turning the other cheek, and being a pacifist [to a certain degree]. The majority of issues have with the Bible are in the Old Testament, and are small passages that only reference the position people were in when the Bible was written [170AD or so].Obviously humanity has come a long way since then, but why? I think if you talk to the majority of people about there morals, it'd be about "helping people" rather than "helping themselves". People talk about humans as being intrinsically good, but I disagree -- before we had a way or reason to "be good" [Heaven], people didn't think about their action's consequences. Now, whether or not you believe in God or Heaven [I don't believe in either], you must admit to some degree that the stories of these two fantastic literary devices do push people towards "good" actions. "If I kill my teacher for giving me a bad grade, I'll go to hell".
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: No

Agreed. When they say "Should your eye cause you to sin, tear it out" They do not literally mean tear it out. They mean get rid of things that cause you to sin to stop yourselves from sinning.And to all of you who think so ignorantly that Fundamentalist Muslims are the same as their normal Brethren, stop listening to news broadcasts and do your own research. The Muslims were not the first wage a war in the name of God. There were the Crusades. And the Crusades were not waged "in the name of God" It was because at the time the Catholic Church was politically very active, and they felt threatened by their Muslim neighbours. The Church has not denied that the Crusades happened, but they have changed. Perhaps you all should research on your subject matter before posting what you saw on TV and believe to be the truth.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: Yes of course

You had me until you started talking about Scientology which is a defamation of religion as it is simply a guise for a successful money making scheme.Real religions, most which are peaceful and good, when taken upon by average and sane citizens overall improves the conditions of man as they dictate standards of moral judgment.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: No

False Premise: Religion betters a sane human.Sane people, which I trust means "Reasonable" people, can figure out why things should and should not be done. Religion is like a cheat sheet for ethics and morals, and it's outdated. Now people sign up and proclaim that the rest of the world is evil.Why do you think this is? Because the world of intelligent and non-religious people know about religion. We are all waiting for religious reign to end, and people to start thinking on their own. If religion changes again, without an obvious reason, to better fit our age, it will collapse. It's like santa clause. You can lie about his existence until the child reaches a certain age, but it'll require more and more and more to keep him believing... Dressing up like santa, flying animals pulling a slay on the roof, and so on... until there's no fooling him, and then what? He finds out the truth and stops believing and wonders why in the hell he believed such a crazy thing for so long, etc.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: Yes of course

Scientology is nothing more than a bunch of lawyers waiting to slap 13 lawsuits on you for defamation, and none of them are good cos they are just hoping you will give up in face of all the redtape you have to clear, and its also nothing more than performing abortions with a clothes hanger. It sure as HELL aint religion.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: No

To me, your statement exemplifies all that is wrong with religion. It is this type of thought that is the premise for this entire discussion. Every religion MUST believe that all others are false and then proceed to making it a mission to show the world why. All of this is usually done while ignoring the similarities inherent in there own beliefs that they are so adamantly against. While I'm no religious scholar I do think that the bible has a CLEAR message that all followers are obligated to give 10% of there wealth to the church. Where is the distinction that makes your religion any different from Scientology. Is this not a reason in support of the absence of religion? Hypocrisy is a dangerous game. Just about every "Christian" based denomination I can think of is a "successful money making scheme".
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: Yes of course

Touche.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: No

The world would be better without stupid people. The Muslim religion doesn't create Jihadists. Stupid Muslim clerics do. Oh what; is there a fatwa out on me now?
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: No

You hit it right on the nail. That's exactly the misconception that people who don't research more about something before going on hate campaigns have.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: No

I was going to argue for the other side, but while I was typing my argument I realized that taking religion out of the equation wouldn't actually change anything. People would just find another excuse not to think. If it isn't religion that works people into a mindless mob, it will be politics. Or maybe economics. Take the whole communist "scare" for example. The problem isn't with religion itself, it's with humanity. Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: No

Religion in today's world is a complex thought that entwines social values, ethics, and personal spirituality. Taking away these things would do no good to society. Humans are hardwired for religion and need the comfort of an organized, predictable world. However, there are ethics, values, and spiritualities outside of 'religion.' So one can be ethical, have high morals and values, and deeply spiritual without being a religious nut. So it's not the beliefs, its the actions and leaders who instigate (or fail to prevent) harmful behavior that are wrong.
Debate: Would the world be a better place without religions
Side: No

The world would be pretty much the same if all of the religions were to vanish tomorrow because all of us would still be here. Greedy people would still be greedy and unreasonable people would still be unreasonable. People who now commit murder for religious reasons would still murder; they just wouldn't have a religious excuse.