BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You can be a Christian and believe in evolution

Thank you for instigating this debate 4God. I shall rebut my opponent's arguments, but first must make a couple points:(1) You can be Christian without interpreting the Old Testament in such a literal sense.(2) Having contradictory views do not mean that you cannot hold those views, it just means that holding those views is illogical.R1) Genesis 1Con does not quite specify here exactly how the first chapter of the Bible shows that evolution cannot be compatible with Christian teachings. The Bible does not state how God created the plants and animals, it only states that he did. Since the Bible does not say how God created anything, it doesn't make sense to say that he for sure didn't do it a certain way. Many Christian evolutionists believe that evolution progressed to the point that neanderthals were human enough for God to introduce the human spirit into them. In other words, when the Neanderthals' bodies had evolved to the point that the homosapien could exist, God created Adam by "breathing into his nostrils the breath of life" that uniquely made him the first man. This is not all contradictory to the Genesis account of the creation. R2) ReproductionCon demonstrates a misunderstanding of evolution. A frog does not reproduce with another frog to create an entirely different animal, the original animal evolves over millions of years to do natural processes to the point where they become different. A frog cannot biologically create a different animal, but over an extensive period of time when the frog has changed, it is no longer what it used to be. Evolution doesn't happen overnight, it happens over millions of years, and in periods that are way more extensive than any of our lifetimes.R3) ResemblanceThe fact that humans and apes are so similar shows that it is likely that the two could share a common ancestor. The genes of humans and apes have been found to be 96% similar[1], showing that the belief that a common ancestor occurred somewhere along the line millions of years is not something bizarre.http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
You can be a Christian and believe in evolution

I will start my this round by providing sources from the Bible(NKJV) to support my argument. 1. God created all animals that walk on the earth and then created man separately in His own image with the intent that man would have dominion over every other living thing on earth . This is clearly stated in Genesis 1:24-28: 24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." 2. The Bible states that everything created by God was given power to reproduce its own kind. (Genesis 7:14) No one thing could break this law and produce any other kind. A sponge is still a sponge and has not become an oyster, a turtle, frog, fish or crab. None of these have reproduced anything except their own kind. The crossing of an donkey and a mare, for instance, will produce a mule which cannot reproduce itself. No ape has ever produced a man and the "missing-link" is still missing and always will be. 3. Evolutionists say that man evolved from apes because we are so similar, therefore, we have to have come from the same ancestor. Resemblance proves nothing but resemblance, just as similarity proves nothing but similarity. So if you"re a Christian and believe in evolution you are contradicting yourself, the Bible, and God"s word.
on balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the united states

In Round 3, my opponent did not reaffirm his points, nor did he refute any of my points. My opponent merely posted a piece of evidence citing public disapproval of unions, which, if anything, merely supports my own case. Therefore, I urge a vote for the CON, for the following reasons: 1) I have shown the immense costs associated with government employee labor unions. 2) I have shown that these unions lead to an increase in under qualified workers. 3) I have shown that public sectors already have better working conditions, so unions are not necessary to improve them further. 4) I have shown that these unions lead to the weakening of the private sector, hurting the US economy. On the whole, it is clear that government employee labor unions have a vast negative impact on the United States, while only providing a few selective benefits. Therefore, the resolution has been negated.
on balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the united states

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup finds organized labor taking a significant image hit in the past year. While 66% of Americans continue to believe unions are beneficial to their own members, a slight majority now say unions hurt the nation's economy. More broadly, fewer than half of Americans -- 48%, an all-time low -- approve of labor unions, down from 59% a year ago. These results are from the 2009 installment of Gallup's annual Work and Education survey, conducted Aug. 6-9. The 48% of Americans now approving of unions represents the first sub-50% approval since Gallup first asked the question in the 1930s. The previous low was 55%, found in both 1979 and 1981. Public reaction to labor unions is one of the longest-running trends The Gallup Poll has maintained. Gallup first asked "Do you approve or disapprove of labor unions? " in 1936, a year after Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act establishing the right of most private-sector employees to join unions, to bargain collectively with their employers, and to strike. That first poll found 72% of Americans approving of unions and only 20% disapproving. While approval of unions has declined since 2008 among most major demographic and political groups, the biggest drop has been among political independents.
on balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the united states

Resolved: On balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United States. Introduction The April Public Forum topic deals with the topic of whether or not unions of government employee laborers have a net positive impact on the United States. Before examining both sides of the resolution, let's break down some basic terms. In this context, a "union" is generally understood to be "an organization of employees formed to bargain with the employer; "you have to join the union in order to get a job". When employees are part of unions, the union negotiates on behalf of the collective group of employees/union members and to negotiate salaries/overtime and benefits (health care, vacation time, pensions, etc). A "pension" is essentially a salary that an employee draws for the rest of his or her life once he or she retires. The resolution specifically refers to pubic employee labor unions. This specific reference is important because there is a large conceptual difference between a union of public employees (employees that work for a level of government – federal, state, or local) and a union of employees that work for a private company. The difference is that employees of a private company know that they can only ask for so much in wages/benefits or those will start to threaten the viability of the company. Government employees, however, can ask for almost anything that they can get, knowing that the bill will simply have to be paid by the tax payers. The issue of public employee union wages and benefits being payed by taxpayers is what gives rise to this resolution. A declining economy/tax base is giving rise to growing government deficits that are being compounded by large obligations on the part of governments to pay (high) government employee union wages/benefits. This growing fiscal gap is increasing animosity toward public employee unions, and it is what likely gave rise to this topic and makes it timely. The final important concept/phrase in the resolution is "on the United States." This is important to highlight because it keeps the question macro/large – what is the net impact of these unions on the country as a whole, not necessarily on individual states or counties (though these collective smaller impacts are what determine the "on balance" impact "on the United States."
Young children should not be forced into religion.

Firstly, onto your arguments. I agree that it is a parents right to bring up a child whatever way they see fit however that does not make it morally right. Young impressionable children are being fed religious teachings from a very young age, especially through school and community. I do not feel it is right to shove all these teachings down the throat of a child who is too young to think rationally. All these ideas are being sub-consciously formed in the child's brain which is blatant brain-washing as they cannot possibly know any better because they are being pulled into religion at such a young age. As the saying goes "there is no such thing as a religious child, only a child with religious parents". Would it not be so much better and moral if a child is taught that religion exists and what it consists of but is not blatantly and helplessly forced into it. That way when the child is old enough and is able to think rationally on the information in which they have received, they can then decide which path to follow, whether it be religious or non-religious. And in response to your second, point, the truth is that the more a child is forced into religion, the harder it is for them to rationally decide on religion as they grow older. They will end up having a biased opinion. This is why I feel it is better that a child is taught that religion exists and what it consists of rather than being forced into following it. I also feel that children should not be forced into religion because it can cause them harm. If a young child is told that there is a place called hell and that if they are bad in their life they will go to it, not only is this immoral but it also in no way can be good for the child's pshycology. It is brainwashing an innocent child who cannot think for themselves on the subject. Religion also teaches children that it is okay not to question anything as there is already a supposed explanation and that "God" will take care of everything. This is teaching kids that they are basically puppets and that such ownership is okay. Creationism is taught in many elementary schools. This is filling children with ideas that we know are just not true and how can you say that teaching children false information is not causing them harm? Maybe it isn't directly causing harm but it certainly is mentally causing harm. I look forward to your response.
Young children should not be forced into religion.

I hope although for some this can be a sensitive issue I will try my hardest to avoid making any offensive comments. I would like to begin by stating my first point. What this issues boils down to is that in the end it's the parents choice. If a parent or guardian would like to expose a child to religion at a young age it is their choice. Most parents believe that their religion is true and therefore they want their children to be exposed to the joy and abundance of blessings and opportunities they feel their religion provided for themselves. If a parent doesn't want to bring their child to church or the mosque or other religious gathering places it is also their right. My second point is that the child when he turns 18 can cease associating themselves with their religion. When a child is old enough it is their choice if they want to go to church. or not.
Young children should not be forced into religion.

Onto your first point. Parents can facilitate children's behaviours and teach the m what is good and bad but the church can certainly reinforce it. "I'm sorry but where is the proof that children who grow up in a religious household and go to church on a regular basis are less likely to turn to crime? Please don't make such a bold accusation unless you have evidence to back it up." The book of Crime Correlates by Lee Ellis (http://books.google.ca...) says that according to multiple studies children who are raised in religion are far less likely to turn to crime. "This is completely a superstitious idea therefore how is it right to tell a child potentially false information" You say Hell is purely a superstitious idea how come it is a widely accepted theory worldwide? The fact of the matter is nobody can know for sure whether or not hell exists. Please do not make claims like that without backing it up. You also stated that:Hell is harmful because it renders children in in a mode of fear and worry. This is not necessarily true depending on which religion we are talking about many do not introduce the concept of hell to children they simply wait until they are old enough to grasp the concept I will use the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as an example. They do not even mention hell to their younger church goers the concept is not even touched upon until the children are about 12 years old. You stated that when I said "Hell is not simply a dead end or the end of the road. It is a place where those who have not even tried to follow god or rejected him are taught about him not simply the end." "You have provided no evidence of religions that teach this or where this idea can be found." The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints believes this (http://www.lds.org...) Believes that if you repent that those who go to hell can become good again. I feel that Parents have the right to have their children attend church. And should be taught if it is the parents wish.
Young children should not be forced into religion.

Although children cannot fully form their own opinions yet church helps them become better people and learn how to become good people it children who grew up in a religious household and went to church on a regular basis less likely to turn to crime this says that if a child is introduced to religion at a young age they can learn to make good choices and that they make you happy. You say that If a child actually does do good deeds because they are told that they will go to hell if they don't, then this is teaching a child to be good solely out of fear, nothing else. I have to disagree, if a child is told to be good to reach heaven they will have a true desire to be good people because they can become good individuals. You stated that: "children should not be forced into religion because it can cause them harm" you said the idea of hell causes mental harm what harm does this cause. Religion does not teach people to be good or else you will go to hell. Although this is one of there teachings they encourage individuals to be righteous and good to be good and because it is the right thing to do not simply because you will go to hell it isn't that simple. You also said "It follows no sense of morality". As a matter a fact it does. Religion teaches that you should be good people because that is the right thing to do. According to many religions hell is a place where you will be taught the gospel, and sometime following their repentance they will be resurrected to a degree of glory of which they are worthy. Those who will not repent, but are nevertheless not sons of perdition, will remain in hell throughout the Millennium. After these thousand years of torment, they will be resurrected to a telestial glory. Therefore Hell is not simply a dead end or the end of the road. It is a place where those who have not even tried to follow god or rejected him are taught about him not simply the end. I may I ask how creationism is causing kids harm: it is a belief and is not necessarily incorrect. Many theories suggest creationism is the correct theory.
Young children should not be forced into religion.

Thank you for your response. Now onto my argument, You said" Young impressionable children are being fed religious teachings from a very young age, especially through school and community. I do not feel it is right to shove all these teachings down the throat of a child who is too young to think rationally." Although a child may not be able to think rationally. Should we be allowing our children to do what ever they want or whats best for them. Our should I choose whats best for them. You also stated that: "Would it not be so much better and moral if a child is taught that religion exists and what it consists of but is not blatantly and helplessly forced into it". A simple solution which many parents employ is to have their children attend but do not force them to believe the teachings. this is beneficial to both parties it allows the children to for thier own opinions which they can make when their older and it does not put pressure o nthe parents to FORCE their children to believe. You also said they will have a biased opinion. This will not be the case if they are not forced to believe. They can be taught about the principles of the religion but encouraged to form their own opinions on what is right or wrong. You said that: "I also feel that children should not be forced into religion because it can cause them harm. If a young child is told that there is a place called hell and that if they are bad in their life they will go to it, not only is this immoral but it also in no way can be good for the child's psychology" I don't see how this is bad. it teaches children that your actions have consequences and are therefore taught that if your good and make good choices you will be rewarded and vice versa. You said: Religion also teaches children that it is okay not to question anything as there is already a supposed explanation and that: "God will take care of everything." Many religions actually encourage inquiry and questing in order to increase their understanding. And lots of religions don't teach that god will take care of everything they teach that you have to work and that if you are righteous that god will support you. I look forward to your response
Charles Wanless should be banned.

"First off, the notion that someone who writes an apology, therefore he wasnt the one who wrote the original offensive content, is absurd. The easiest reason i can think of, is Buyers remorse; that is, Charles did it on purpose, and now he regrets doing so. " This is an interesting point. However, it still supports the Con case. If Charles feels remorse, then it is unlikely that he will repeat the behavior, in which case there is no reason to ban him. "-If it was his friend who went on posing as him, it is still his responsibility. He should not have been so careless in choosing the same password, a password his friend is also aware of. This is akin to a beautiful woman walking naked in the slums of New York. He was asking for it. " It is more akin to not locking one's door in a friendly neighborhood. The neighbors are trusted, so it is not necessary. If the neighbors breach their trust after years of trustworthiness, that was unfortunate, but no one could have seen it coming. The case is similar with Charles. He had no reason to think that his friend would abuse the account. On most days, Charles probably stays logged in; I do that too, and so do many other people. On that day, however, a malicious entity took advantage of his perfectly normal habit. "-If it was a hacker, again, too bad for you. Although id say that is a very small possibility, as someone who hacks into another persons account would most likely create a post that is purposefully obscene, instead of one that can be interpreted both ways(Such as using swear words and/or other inappropriate words directly into the topic). However, again, it is still his fault. This is why passwords are recommended to be long and ubiquitous. " My opponent does not back up this claim. How could it be Charles's fault if he gets hacked? If he chose a bad password, sure, but there are many ways of hacking besides trying to guess the password. My opponent's attempts to give responsibility to Charles are inadequate. In every case he was either acting as expected, or there was nothing he could have done about it. Charles is not to blame for the misuse of his account. Resolution negated.
Charles Wanless should be banned.

I would have to disagree. First off, the notion that someone who writes an apology, therefore he wasnt the one who wrote the original offensive content, is absurd. The easiest reason i can think of, is Buyers remorse; that is, Charles did it on purpose, and now he regrets doing so. Secondly, again, it is absurd to think that just because someone has acted promptly, that he was not simply faking his behavior, or otherwise got bored and started to fool around. However, both of these points are irregardless. Even if i were to acknowledge that this was not Charles, but someone else who did it, it is STILL his fault. -If it was his friend who went on posing as him, it is still his responsibility. He should not have been so careless in choosing the same password, a password his friend is also aware of. This is akin to a beautiful woman walking naked in the slums of New York. He was asking for it. -If it was a hacker, again, too bad for you. Although id say that is a very small possibility, as someone who hacks into another persons account would most likely create a post that is purposefully obscene, instead of one that can be interpreted both ways(Such as using swear words and/or other inappropriate words directly into the topic). However, again, it is still his fault. This is why passwords are recommended to be long and ubiquitous. Charles may or may not be the one who created the inappropriate content. But he is still responsible.
Charles Wanless should be banned.

Charles Wanless: owner of Charlie_Danger http://www.debate.org... Banned: Not allowed to create an account on debate.org. The basis for banning Charles was originally that he created an inappropriate debate. However, I argue that this is not enough basis to ban his account. He wrote a public apology [1] in which he explained that his friend probably created the inappropriate content. This is believable for several reasons: -If Charles had created the inappropriate content, he would not have written an apology. -Charles has been on DDO for about two months, and behaved appropriately during this time. He actively participated in debates and on forums. Since Charles is probably not responsible for creating the inappropriate content, his account ought to be reinstated and he should be allowed on DDO. [1] http://www.debate.org...