BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should there be a class in school just for religion.

If you would read the sentences after this sentence then have no reason at all for writing this. Imagine how they would feel if they would have to miss out of class and had to do a class that they didn't need to do. Actually, they would have enjoyed the fact of participating in a class that have others that are part of his religion or are part of one that is in common with his religion. Yes, but what if they don't know their religion. They would have to take a class that they don't need, or they would have to take a religion class because the school make them. Like I said if I had to take a Jewish class when I am not Jewish that would make me mad. I also think that his feelings would be even more hurt if he couldn't get any thing from classmates from different periods in his class. First, in a debate to help people use his/hers so you are not sexist. Also " I also think that his feelings would be even more hurt if he couldn't get any thing from classmates from different periods in his class." That is just you it does not hurt my feelings. Having a class where everybody gets to have anything that someone passes out would make them feel better than having a class where they can't have anything. Yeah, that would make them feel better but that won't help them in the long run. I am in 7th grade and in algebra 1, and almost everyone in my class hate the fact that we have homework every night and she does not let us get anything we want so that is an opinion. Conclusion: If you're wondering, my statements above basically declares that someone should have religios classes because their feelings would be more hurt when they can't recieve anything from their classmates because of their religion. Yeah, but if there is a religion class more people would be bullied. Because 6% of cyber bulling and 9% is because of their religion ( like a cross neckless) at school. Website http://www.theguardian.com... I rest my case
Should there be a class in school just for religion.

Rebuttals: "Imagine how they would feel if they would have to miss out of class and had to do a class that they didn't need to do." Actually, they would have enjoyed the fact of participating in a class that have others that are part of his religion or are part of one that is in common with his religion. I also think that his feelings would be even more hurt if he couldn't get any thing from classmates from different periods in his class. Having a class where everybody gets to have anything that someone passes out would make them feel better than having a class where they can't have anything. Conclusion: If you're wondering, my statements above basically declares that someone should have religios classes because their feelings would be more hurt when they can't recieve anything from their classmates because of their religion. I rest my case
Should there be a class in school just for religion.

By the way the reason I will leave spaces is because I am giving you a change to respond to each one The reason I believe there should not a a class just for religion in school is because if people want that they can go to part of religion school. I believe that it would hurt friends that are different religion being in different classes just because their religion. I know for a fact that 38.88629366% of kids ages 12-18 does not have religion. Imagine how they would feel if they have to miss out of a class and had to do a class that did not need to do. Or try to think about the people that are forced to take a class they did not believe in. Also if the don't have religion and forced to take a class that they did not believe in like Christianity. Their homework would be to read certain parts of the bible, but they don't know if the bible is true. Also during class they would read the bible and that could make someone feel weirdo because they don't know if that if true. Also what about the teachers. What if they just need money so they teach the and they make other kids uncomfortable. There would be a lot more people drop out of school because they are uncomfortable. I rest my case.
Should there be a class in school just for religion.

Actually, my whole passage states that children should have religious classes. In the topic title, it declares that there should be religious classes. But you were the con. So if you are the con, that would mean you are against the idea of a class all about religion. But since I was aiming for the defense of actually having a religious class, you were the one who was against it. So I didn't prove your answer at all. I rest my case.
The first generation of Pokemon is the worst.

Argument I: Pokemon Designs.While it's true, they don't appear original, it's important to remember many were original, like Bulbasaur, Charmander, Nidoran, Diglet, Abra, and the evolved forms of each...(1) It's more important to remember, however, that each generation has unoriginal Pokemon.Gen 2: Furret, Ladyba, Crobat, Sudowoodu.Gen 3: Lotad, Tailow, Wingull, Clamperl.Gen 4: Starling, Stunky, Rotom, Rotom, Rotom... Rotom.Gen 5: Purrloin, Munna, Pidove, Tympole, Cottonee, Dwebble, Vanillite.Lets look closer at some... Furret is simply a ferret. Starling is nothing more than a bird. Vanillite is literally a freaking ice cream cone... Rotom is... Rotom. Originality can be found in each Generation. One benefit of the first two generations was that the Pokemon appear plausible. They came with a touch of being organic an and natural in design. You could almost imagine seeing them in nature. The simplicity of their designs also made them a lot more memorable.But on one note... The first Generation doesn't have Rotom or Vanillite...Argument II: Relative Preference.Whichever generation was better depends on what the player likes... Some like the 2D gameplay, and some like the gym leaders more... Some like Pokemon that resemble animals and some like Pokemon that resemble ice cream cones.Which ever Generation is best depends on what you are looking for in a Pokemon game.
The first generation of Pokemon is the worst.

Well i kind of already made my main points, but lets start with the Pokemon designs. People often say that the 5th generation in particular, has the worst, most unoriginal Pokemon designs of all time. And yes, while some of them are kind of wacky, like trubbish and vanillite, you can't say that these designs are unoriginal. Gen 1 Pokemon are really unoriginal. Rattata is a purple rat. Pidgey, Spearow, and there evolutionary families are just birds. Farfetch is a bird with a leek. Execute is just six eggs. Voltorb and electrode are just pokeballs. Ekans is a snake. Muk is a pile of slime. There were some really cool gen 1 pokemon, but mostly it was just a bunch of earth animals. I mean really. Gen 5 and 6 should not be getting hate for unoriginal Pokemon when gen 1 was just as bad.
Free Will is a Cop-out Explanation; The Brain Is Just To Complicated To Explain

I had some error with my last post so I could not post what I had computer are made by man so there goes evolutionthe Brian is more complex than any computer we have or ever will be one http://curiosity.discovery.com... We can't explain why humans do what they do yes we can there are people who are looking into every day mapping the brain what each part does Just because there is no way to predict exactly how humans will behave the part of the brain that controls free will could be cut out or some could be born with brain damage that could prevent free will and there is drugs that can change someone mind but most people like this would be in a hospital That's why free-will is as much of a cop out explanation for human behaviour, as it would be for a dumb rat to explain the behaviour of a computer as "the result of free will. this makes no sense I work with computers what does rats have to do with any thing and the Brian is more complex than a computer as pro burden of proof was needed and my post did not go through I feel could not reach the conclusion warranted I would like to debate this again so I could have a through conclusion
Free Will is a Cop-out Explanation; The Brain Is Just To Complicated To Explain

I'll just state concisely what my point is for this since the last round was forfeited.Computers are made of logic elements, both analog and digital. However the computer is easy enough to understand. If you were a lesser intelligent mammal like a rat however, you might confuse a computer for a sentient being since you are not intelligent enough to understand how the computer works. Since you the rat, cannot explain why the computer does what it does, you decide the computermust have free will.The we are analogous to rats trying to understanding computers, when it comes to us trying to understand our own brains. We can't explain why humans do what they do, but that does not prove that it can never be fully explained. Just because there is no way to predict exactly how humans will behave, doesn't mean that it will always be impossible to do so. That's why free-will is as much of a cop out explanation for human behaviour, as it would be for a dumb rat to explain the behaviour of a computer as "the result of free will.Free will is a cop out explanation for human behaviour.
Free Will is a Cop-out Explanation; The Brain Is Just To Complicated To Explain

If you agree that the Adam and Eve creation story, then you agree you have no reason to use it as the historical milestone where mankind gained free will.Just to add to that: with evolution, each offspring looks similar to its parent. I use that fact to support what I was getting at in the diagram above. Since the child of a rat looks almost identical to its parent, and the child of a human looks almost identical to its parent, and a tree or plant looks almost identical to its immediately preceding generation, it's impossible to draw a line between a parent who had volition, and a child who didn't. By analogy it's just as ridiculous to try and draw the line between black and white on this picture: (anywhere you draw a line, the colour in front of and behind it will be indistinguishable)But I didn't even need to go into detail, you already admitted that you don't think the Adam and Eve story is historically valid. So you have yet to provide me with a point in time where free will would have arisen. It's impossible to do this anyway, any attempt you make will fail as I have explained.---I'm sorry I don't know what you mean by "ok so some kidnapps 200 something girls and no free will comes to what?". Please perform a spelling and grammar check before submitting, thank you.---Yes, free will, determinism, and the brain are all the same "can of worms". If you have anything to say about either of them it will be relevant. I'm saying the brain is deterministic, to state the resolution with brevity, if you like to think about it that way.Even though there is an area of the brain that makes decisions, that doesn't mean that the decisions were made through free will. A computer also has a place in its microcontroller where it chooses whether to add numbers or subtract them based on whether an input is high or low respectively, for example. Would you say that the computer has free will? I would say that it does not because the computer is entirely predictable. The computer can't decide to override the decision to add numbers even though the control input was low, so it's obvious that the computer has no free will.The brain is more complicated. But who is to say that this control area in the front of the brain that you mentioned is not just a bigger, fractal design of the same kind of logic elements found in computers? In other words, why must there be a spooky, unpredictable source of volition in the human brain?
Free Will is a Cop-out Explanation; The Brain Is Just To Complicated To Explain

I'm ok with making a couple of digs at each other. You can take a few digs at me as well, I don't mind, but please refrain from using unoriginal profanity. yea I fine too we are men and no big deal and did you make me to say it or because of my free will? The Adam & Eve creation story is fictional is debate able but too answer you question is when did mam kind frist have free will that is when it would be or when ever the space taco made man If everything we could ever know about free will could be found on google i think it is at least when i google it "Free Will" is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.) Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible for one's action. (Clearly, there will also be epistemic conditions on responsibility as well, such as being aware"or failing that, being culpably unaware"of relevant alternatives to one's action and of the alternatives' moral significance.) But the significance of free will is not exhausted by its connection to moral responsibility. Free will also appears to be a condition on desert for one's accomplishments (why sustained effort and creative work are praiseworthy); on the autonomy and dignity of persons; and on the value we accord to love and friendship. (See Kane 1996, 81ff. and Clarke 2003, Ch.1; but see also Pereboom 2001, Ch.7.) 4 Free will is one of those things that isn't understood. ok so some kidnapps 200 something girls and no free will comes to what? That's why the resolution I'm arguing in favour of is "free will is a cop-out explanation for a grander process than humans can currently model/understand scientifically" ok i thought this debate is Free will vs Determinism but it not it is about the brain "The area of the brain responsible for self-control"where the decision not to do something occurs after thinking about doing it"is separate from the area associated with taking action, scientists say in the August 22 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience" Free will, or at least the place where we decide to act, is sited in a part of the brain called the parietal cortex, new research suggests. "What it tells us is there are specific brain regions that are involved in the consciousness of your movement," so this part of the brain would control free will so how would this be a cop out Read more at: http://phys.org... http://www.youtube.com... http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...
Free Will is a Cop-out Explanation; The Brain Is Just To Complicated To Explain

I'm ok with making a couple of digs at each other. You can take a few digs at me as well, I don't mind, but please refrain from using unoriginal profanity.The Adam & Eve creation story is fictional, you can't use that in this debate. We are going to have to side with modern science or there is no point in having this debate. If you want to debate Adam and Eve, please do that somewhere else. And you are right, it doesn't matter whether it was a God, or a Space Taco in the fictional story, the effect is the same either way.---If everything we could ever know about free will could be found on google, then there wouldn't be so many debates about it. Free will is one of those things that isn't understood. That's why the resolution I'm arguing in favour of is "free will is a cop-out explanation for a grander process than humans can currently model/understand scientifically".---Above all, please stay on topic. I will respect what you say for the duration of this debate, but only because I agree with the idea behind the website and wish to follow the rules. I ask that you do the same.
Free Will is a Cop-out Explanation; The Brain Is Just To Complicated To Explain

I am impressed by your debauchery of improper grammar. Unfortunately the end result is not enigmatic, it is just low quality, so I will make sense of what I can and humbly ignore the rest.---So what you are trying to say in your first point seems to be that since growing itself is an undeniably desirable action, to say that free will has any impact on growing is nonsensical. Of course, when the cells themselves grow it is a chemical reaction, and since a chemical reaction follows the laws of nature there is no choice in the matter. It is just as senseless to say that objects fall when dropped because of free will and not gravity, as it is to say an organism grows because of free will. I agree with that, but that's not what I was getting at.The reason I brought up bacteria is because bacteria have much less intelligence than humans (it's just an obvious fact). The bacteria, certainly with this lesser intelligence, does not have the ability to make choices with the depth a human has. And it is this depth of the power of choice that is called "human free will". So, it necessarily follows that at some point in history the life on planet earth gained this power of choice, as the free will lobbyists are so happy to point out. As I explain through this graphic: It is unclear at what point in history we reached these stages. When did matter stop being predictable? When did life stop being predictable. I argue that it never has, but to be able to predict what life will do is curently beyond human capacity. That's why saying "humans have free will" is a cop-out.---The second intelligable point you made was that free will is the ability of a human to control their actions. You then postulated that a corrupt dictatorship may take away this free will by making people "too stuped" to think for themselves. Free will DOES NOT require that people act on their choices. Free will is merely the ability to foresee that it is possible to turn a vision into an action. A dictatorship would thus not remove free will.---Your third intelligable point (congrats for making it to three) is actually in favour of the resolution. It appears that you have conceded defeat already in your first argument.---The other debate you had has nothing to do with this debate, nor has your other debate even finished yet.I am generally offended by your lack of interest in this debate, your poor communications skills, and your inadequately explained points.
Free Will is a Cop-out Explanation; The Brain Is Just To Complicated To Explain

ok debate on now there is something to point out about you frist post what does bacteria have to do with anything all bacteria is eat and grow that all anyone wants to do any way (think do trees want to grow or do they not) it point less human has free will somehow makes more sense yes it does even in the support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will so we had free will with the constitution and with worship 2 points free will is to say that the agent has the capacity to choose his or her course of action. But animals seem to satisfy this criterion, and we typically think that only persons, and not animals, have free will. Let us then understand free will as the capacity unique to persons that allows them to control their actions. the gray spot is could some people be too stuped to under stand freedom like people in china tiwon ectDeterminism is All events are caused. All our actions are therefore pre-determined. There is no free will or moral responsibility. this debate is Free will vs Determinismalso check out my other debate. http://www.debate.org...
Free Will is a Cop-out Explanation; The Brain Is Just To Complicated To Explain

My argument elaborated: Free will has been debated for as long as anyone can remember. Asking if a bacteria has free will is a confusing question, because we aren't sure how do define free will. But asking if a human has free will somehow makes more sense, even though we are still asking about the presence of the same thing: free will. Suppose you say free will came along somewhere in the evolution of man. .. well at what point did we gain free will? Suppose you say life has always had free will, well how do you define life; at what point after a universe made of nothing but hydrogen did life come into existence? I argue that we never had free will at any point in time in the known universe. Since the brain is too complicated to predict, we use "free will" as a cop out explanation as to why humans do the things that they do.
President Bush was a good president

My opponent says that it was just for Bush to basically try and steal all the oil in Iraq at gunpoint. This is just another reason why Bush is a bad president he goes into other countries, which by the way did absolutely no harm to us and steals whatever he wants a gun point. Also concerning the Chemical weapons, we are not the world's policeman, it is not our job to inforce international law. Whatever happens it the perpitrader's fault. Whatever Iraq does is their fault. Bush went into Iraq with the motive of stealing oil, and killing whoever stood in his way. This would not be tolerated on a national level, and should not be tolerated on a international level. The only people Suddam killed were those who betrayed their country, we ourselves kill traitors should we be invaded and sucked dry for it? 3. The Kurds were rising up in rebellion against their country, they helped the Iranian army when they attacked Iraq. Traitors are killed in every country even ours. 4. The job of a leader is to lead and he was taking vacations every month. How is that a good leader? 5. My opponent says that Bush care enough about us to try and rob another country of it's resources. I would like to ask my opponent and the voters a question. If your friend gave you a diamond ring, and then said 'I killed a person for it' would you be happy? Is our happiness worth the lives of other people who have little? Apparently Bush and my opponent does. Vote Con! http://en.wikipedia.org...
President Bush was a good president

Why use facts when its common since oil is worth money which is good and getting rid of Saddam is good that it was a good idea sure we could have stood by and did nothing while Saddam killed his own people with weapons that no one is supposed to have like chemical weapons which were found in Iraq we just needed to take the oil and the war would have been profitable because Iraq has 112 billion barrels of oil at $70 a barrel that's $7,840,000,000,000 that's a lot of money sure we could have sat around and done nothing while Saddam used that oil money to buy chemical weapons and drop them on his own people ( chemical weapons are illegal for any country to own ) and just keep to our business then get blamed for the genocide years later because we did noting like in Rwanda or we could go in their get rid of Saddam save lives and make some cash. Huh tuff. So we went in fought our war one tried to drill but then the Liberals like John Kerry say we were stealing the oil got everyone all riled up over nothing saying we should pull out even though Kerry was the person who first suggested it to Bush to invade 3 we should not have to trade blood but Saddam should not be bombing the Kurds 4 he was not lazy he was just showing our country wont go nuts without a leader for a while 5 no bush cared enough about us to spill blood for us. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.brookings.edu...