BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People should be free to express their religious views in schools.

I agree with the Con's definition of school. I will now begin my argument. According to the 1st Amendment of The United States Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or "prohibiting the free exercise" thereof; or "abridging the freedom of speech" or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." By not allowing people, both students and teachers, to express their religious views in school, the United States government is going against the amendment they put down. "Americans are being denied the right to express their religious speech in the public square." Ralph Reed, Christian Coalition. Because of religious in-tolerance in schools, grown people are afraid to express their religious views in any public setting. Having freedom of expression about religion in schools will, at an early age, lessen the fears of being discriminated against by others. Also, by allowing people to freely express their religions in schools, more people will become more tolerant of other religions and allow them to have a better grasp of the religions of the world. "Nothing in the First Amendment converts our public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the school house door." President Clinton, 1995-JUL-12. I believe that his quote explains itself. I cannot continue further until I no the Negative's argument. http://www.usconstitution.net... http://www.religioustolerance.org... http://www.religioustolerance.org...
People should be free to express their religious views in schools.

I'm not exactly sure how all this works on the website, as I've only ever participated in my school debates, but after reviewing other debates by other people, I have a better understanding of how these things go but if I do something wrong, please tell me and I will make sure that I rectify my mistakes. The terms of the resolution are pretty clear but my opponent may make any notes or clarifications in the first round. The debate will start with my opening arguments in R2. We will each have 72 hours to post a round and R2 will be used strictly for our opening arguments. Rebuttals in R3 and the debates conclusion in R4. I wish to thank whomever accepts the challenge and I look forward to having an exciting and educational debate. Good luck!
Capital Punishment

Topic: Theoretically, the death penalty is morally permissible for the mentally competent. Note: Viability of implementation is not relevant to this debate, and as such financial costs should not be posited as arguments. I would like us to focus on the theories and ethics behind the death penalty, not necessarily on the fact that it is practically difficult to administer. The fallibility of the death penalty is fair ground for debate, just to make that clear. Note Two: Let's assume a mentally competent person is someone 25 years or older who understands the wrongness of his action, but yet engaged in it anyway. This person was not mentally insane at the time the crime occurred, or during the trial. BOP is shared. Rounds will go as follows: Round One - acceptance only Round Two - cases (no rebuttals) Round Three - rebuttals Round Four - rebuttals and closing statements.
Is hell forever? (Christianity)

First off, this is just an opinion, i honestly dont think a MERCIFUL God would let people suffer forever, nobody deserves that. i am an annihilationist Ezekiel 28:19 "All who knew you among the peoples are astonished at you; You have become a horror, And shall be no more forever." " "" This verse does not say "and you shall suffer forever" it says "you shall be NO MORE forever" the way i look at this is that you, your memories, you consciousness will be forever destroyed. you wont be conscious you don't exist. Isaiah 47:14 "Behold, they shall be vas stubble, The fire shall burn them; They shall not deliver themselves From the power of the flame; It shall not be a coal to be warmed by, Nor a fire to sit before!" This verse also suggests that they will just be burned, till nothing is left over. 2 Peter 3:10 "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up." It says all these things will be burned up, works are one of these. The problem is the bible is a very hard book to understand. it has many contradictions.
King Joffrey Would Have (Eventually) Become a Good King

** This debate will contain massive spoilers about the HBO television series "Game of Thrones". If you do not wish to read about the series before watching it, then please do not read this thread. **This debate is impossible to accept. If you'd like to debate this topic, please leave a comment or PM me, thank you.ResolutionKing Joffrey Would Have (Eventually) Become a Good KingThis resolution is a hypothetical based upon assuming that Joffrey did NOT die at his wedding and would continue to be king in the foreseeable future, let's say 20 years time.This speech by Tywin Lannister at Joffrey's funeral bed gives an overview as to exactly what constitutes a "good king": ()I understand I'm taking an extremely unpopular position. I aim to be as convincing as possible in defending what at first glance will seem to be the indefensible. =)RulesThis debate is a "no scoring" debate with the exception of egregious conduct violations -forfeits, flaming, seriously sidetracking the debate, plagiarism, and cheating the character limit are some examples - both debaters find this to be highly unlikely to occur. If you wish to leave an opinion about which position you found to be more convincing (i.e. an RFD), offer constructive criticism, and/or simply discuss the matter, there is a forum topic set up for this specific purpose here: (http://www.debate.org...) Given that this resolution is a hypothetical, burden of proof (BoP) is shared. Both PRO/CON must present a convincing hypothetical case for their respective positions.4 rounds1st round: acceptance2/3 rounds argument and rebuttal4th round: closing arguments, rebuttals are ok, but no new sources.5000 character roundsFinally, this debate is about the television series and not the books. I understand there are significant deviations between the two, and so sources will primarily consist of TV series clips as opposed to book references. In regards to pre-Game of Thrones (GoT) history, I will refer both debaters to these video references from the DVDs: ()()()()If there are any inconsistencies in GoT history between the books and these videos (and I doubt there are any), these videos will serve as the authority, fully mindful that like the books, they involve a first-person narrative and may themselves not be fully reliable.
Ncfl Pf Topic To Long

"If you look at my ARIS numbers it proves that today more the 540000 americans have become atheist and are aganist any religion" Once again, this is not proof that the constitutional right of freedom of religion has wrongly evolved into freedom from religion. "this have evolved from the fact that each of the 13 colonies had there own religion and everyone in that colony had to pratice that religion." Each colony had its own religion and everyone had to practice it? That sounds like an establishment of religion, which is specifically what the First Amendment prohibits. "More and more people are becoming atheist and are moving away from praticeing a ceritan religion." This still is not proof that freedom of religion has wrongly evolved into freedom from religion. "Thats all because freedom of religion has evolved into freedom from religion" You need to prove that freedom of religion has WRONGLY evolved into freedom from religion, not just that freedom of religion has evolved into freedom from religion. Also, I do think that there has been any sort of evolution from freedom of religion into freedom from religion. The freedom from religion has always been there, it is just that more and more people are becoming aware of it and exercising it.
Ncfl Pf Topic To Long

yes i understand how one goes into each other but lets look If you look at my ARIS numbers it proves that today more the 540000 americans have become atheist and are aganist any religion this have evolved from the fact that each of the 13 colonies had there own religion and everyone in that colony had to pratice that religion. More and more people are becoming atheist and are moving away from praticeing a ceritan religion. Thats all because freedom of religion has evolved into freedom from religion
Ncfl Pf Topic To Long

"You cant say that you have no proof and you hardly explain how each go hand in hand." Let me try and explain better. If one has to practice a religion, no matter what, even if one does not desire to, one does not have freedom of religion. To have complete freedom of religion, you have to have the right to not adhere to a religion. Compulsory adherence to a religion is not freedom of religion. Also, since you are the one making the claim that the right of freedom of religion has wrongly evolved into freedom from religion, you have the burden of proof. "According to the ARIS 85% of 540000 americans are now atheist and 40 million americans have no religion or do not believe in a single religion. So there is hard proof that more and more people are turning to freedom from religion" Okay, what's your point? You still have not offered any proof that freedom of religion has wrongly evolved into freedom from religion.
The nuking of Japan was justified

The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an undeniably atrocious act there is no debating that however the dropping of nukes was a necessary decision of the United States. World war 2 was and is as of today the darkest time of war in the modern era of life, And at the point that we decided to nuke Japan we had already suffered almost 500, 000 lives lost by the United States itself. The decision to drop the bombs was one made in an attempt to reduce casualties of Americans, Yes it sounds bad but in a war you can't really have a regard for life of the other sides of the war, Sooner or later we were going to have to invade Japan whether it be an airborne attack or on foot and there is no doubting that we would have lost many more American lives in the process of an invasion rather than in the process of dropping the bombs.
Space

You are my son... and always have been. My son - well, my former son... I have a final confession to make to you before my departure. You are my son. All men born on this planet are my sons, and all women are my daughters. I have final proof of God's existence... for I am the holy Lord God... I am sorry if this information displeases you, my son, my eternal love. I created you, I've raised you, and I've bread you to become something more than this. If you will not believe in and worship me... then I can do nothing more than condemn you to damnation, my beautiful son
should girls have bofriends under the age of 18

I think that girls should not be dating if they are under the age of 18. You have stated that it would be alright as long as their parents are monitoring their relationship but the truth is, is that not every second can be monitored by their parents. For example, in high school, which I am currently attending, I see teen couples all the time kissing on each other and telling each other the love that they share when they might not even know the true meaning of love.
we were born naked therefore clothes are an unnatural part of society

1. You can only argue the resolution, rephrasing is a cheap shot :D. 2. Are you admitting that clothing is a natural product of human development? Also, clothing dates back to 30,000 B.C. (1) My argument is not that we ought to cover our bodies because they are shameful. My argument is that our innate faculty of self-preservation inevitably leads to clothing our bodies for protection from weather and other environmental factors. Do you not agree? http://en.wikipedia.org...
we were born naked therefore clothes are an unnatural part of society

1) okay, ill rephrase that then , "it is an unnatural part of life " 2) i agree with your point that most of our lively functions are developed after we are born. including clothes, but this is because society has changed, thousands of years ago, in countries of the right climate, kids were left to spend most of their time naked. dont you think that if our bodies were something to be ashamed of we would have all been born with a protective layer of concealment 3) and i dont even know why i am arguing this against you because 1) you are obviously amazing at getting your point out, 2) i dont even agree with the statement i made up and 3) its just a bit of fun, which ive had cos someone actually agrued a very good point which i didnt think anyone would :) over and out.
we were born naked therefore clothes are an unnatural part of society

(1) My opponent's conclusion that it is unnatural to wear clothes in society does not follow naturally from her premise that we are born naked. What is natural in society is quite apart from the nature of our births. What must be shown is that wearing clothes is not a natural part of SOCIETY. (2) My opponent's confusion notwithstanding, what is natural is not unilaterally defined by what (in terms of current possession) we are born with. Because we are not born with the ability to walk, talk, control our bowel movements, or see properly. Our motor skills and capacity to reason are undeveloped. Many of the basic faculties in humans are things that we develop over time, and not something we are necessarily born with. (3) We are born with certain innate proclivities. One of our innate faculties is self-preservation. Since clothing works to protect the body from harmful U.V. rays and chilling weather, it stands to reason then, that clothing, as a byproduct of self-preservation, is a completely natural phenomenon.
Capitalism is better than Socialism/Communism!

I would first challenge the accuracy of the source you are using for your definitions, Socialism simply seeks government control over companies that are so large that they could have disastrous effects on the economy. Something that was shown to the United States in the 2008 Economic Crisis. With socialism individuals have many rights, including what type of job you want, which car you wish to buy, or really anything you seek to buy. All that a socialist helps to control is corporate greed so that everyday citizens do not suffer. I cannot challenge the things you say under a communist rule, but that is not even close to control in a socialist country. There is no travel restrictions in countries like Sweden, Norway, Canada, Ireland, Belgium, which are all socialist countries.
Capitalism is better than Socialism/Communism!

That's fine. I know the difference between Communism and Socialism. Communism is when all land and property is controlled by the government. Socialism is when all land and property is owned by the community. This sparks a big problem and this is what I will be covering. With Communism or Socialism, it is not liberating at all. You basically have no control over your life- the government/ local community has. Since Communism controls all goods and services, the individual is at the total mercy of the State. You have no rights except those granted by the State. The old Soviet Union was a police state, with total control over its citizens. Freedom of travel is restricted in a Communist State because they control who gets what and for how long. If you were lucky enough to get a car in East Germany, it was usually a worthless piece of junk. This too goes for Socialism. Under Capitalism, individuals own and control land, capital, and production of industry. Individuals are free to purchase and own their own homes, cars, furniture, and other goods such as TV, radios, computers, boats, or any thing else you might want. You have total freedom to live where you want and what type of job field you want to pursue. If you have an idea for a new business or invention, you are free to pursue this without government interference. Under this system you have the maximum number of choices in life. This is the 'pursuit of happiness' from the Declaration of Independence. Source: http://www.culture-war.info...
Capitalism is better than Socialism/Communism!

Canada is a socialist country, as is Sweden. For those that fall in between, I would argue that they all far on the more socialist side of things than capitalist, even the United States. As for us not trusting anyone to be that selfless, that is the largest flaw of Capatalism, that it puts all the trust in business owners with no safeguards. in a socialist country the government does not own everything, you again confuse socialism with communism. With a socialist country there is ownership over some things not everything, so individuals still have the opportunity to own their business, and this checks and balance prevent government tyranny.
Capitalism is better than Socialism/Communism!

I'd be glad to name some successful Capitalist countries: United States- Canada- United Kingdom. Australia. New Zealand. Austria. Ireland. Sweden Though they're not entirely Capitalist, they mostly are and none of them have fallen to cripples, plus I live in the UK and we have one of the strongest economies in the world and the pound sterling being the most valuable currency. I understand that Socialism has good intentions. It wants to assure that the rich do not oppress the poor and I totally get that. But a Socialist society would not work because no one can be that selfless. Let's face it, we're all greedy. And besides, since in a Socialist society the government has ownership of basically everything, it seems a bit unfair that no one gets to own anything. This could lead to tyranny just as much as Capitalism can; the government could one day decide that they want to stop people using a certain thing. I'm not saying that Capitalism is flawless because both Socialism and Capitalism have pros and cons, but Capitalism has more pros than Socialism.
Capitalism is better than Socialism/Communism!

I am so tired of hearing the argument, that taxes kill the incentive to be rich. Are you saying you would rather make 50,000 a year because you don't want to pay more in taxes? There is nothing that suggests that higher taxes kill incentives to work hard. Socialism leads to high tax rates for people who can afford it, unlike capatalism where the rich pay the same as poor people, but the difference is that poor people just cannot afford 10-20% of their income when they are making minimum wage. And this country should not be under the control of a very few rich people. Should we not tax them because we have to keep them happy? No, they are citizens here too and they will pay their share. Soviet Union and China were not socialism, they were communist, which is a big difference. Name one successful capitalist state. That is my challenge, and back up your explanation. And again you have to consider that socialism is not complete government control over production. It is government ownership on certain things that get so large that if they fail they could cripple a nation. My greatest flaw with capitalism is that each company will lead to a tyrannical leader, that being the CEO. The policies in a socialist state are put in place to protect people from those who own a lot.
Capitalism is better than Socialism/Communism!

I get you point. Capitalism can lead to greed which I think is a huge disadvantage of Capitalism, but Socialism is no better. It just doesn't work. #1- Socialism leads to high tax rates- in a Socialist society, citizens will have to be bigger amounts of money to provide for the considerable public services.When a large percentage of an individuals income is taken by the state, incentives to work are diminished, particularly when the public services are poor in quality. When socialists are questioned on who pays for the "free stuff", the answer is always the same " "the rich". In a graduated income tax system, the richest pay a much larger percentage of their income, which seems fair. However, at a certain point these rich people simply leave the country, taking their wealth with them, that would have otherwise been available for the public services. As a result, less money is available for the state to spend and public services suffer. Evidence of this can been seen in France, who adopted a 75% super-tax on the super-wealthy. French President Hollande was eventually forced to drop the tax as the richest either left the country or threatened strike action. #2- Socialism leads to Tyranny " The main reason why socialism fails is because it gives over too much power to the state. Not only is the socialist state substantial in size, having large amounts of control, but it is also coercive and incompatible with freedom. The simple fact is that man is corruptible by power, and power is what the socialist state most certainly has. Socialists commonly argue that the socialism we have seen in the Soviet Union, in Communist China and so on, is not "real" socialism. This maybe true, however the fact is that these "not really socialist" countries certainly set out to be really socialist. At some point somewhere along the line, these socialist regimes where corrupted and became tyrannical, resulting in the deaths of millions and millions of people. It is a pattern that we have seen time and time again almost wherever socialism has been tried. Whenever a state has substantial power, it almost always abuses that power. Which is why true and functioning socialism is simply unattainable. and #3- Socialism causes economic calculation problems " A fundamental flaw within the socialist centrally planned economy is the lack of rational economic calculation that can take place. In a market economy, there is a profit and loss system that provides signals based on consumer satisfaction. If the business is making a profit, we can assume that the consumer is being satisfied. However, if the business is making losses, then the consumer is not being satisfied and the business needs to change their strategy. A centrally planned economy, in which the state owns the means of production, does not have a functioning price mechanism, therefore information about desirability and abundance of a good is unavailable, which can lead to shortages of desired goods, and surpluses of unwanted goods. This ultimately has disastrous economic consequences. source: https://quillpigz.wordpress.com...
Trump has finally gone to far

Your voting Con in this debate for 2 reasons 1. They concede that Dems won't let Trump be impeached 2. They concede that Trump is willing to start wars to stay in power look someone who is willing to start a war to stay in power won't willingly resign. Even if you don't buy what I am saying the Pro themselves prove that Trump won't. They talk about how he treats women terrible and how he is evil then they say that Trump is suddenly a noble person and will resign to save his family. Hold the Pro to what they have said, And that is that Trump is not a great person My clash with the Pro was their statement that Trump's Days are numbered meaning that he would leave office early because he had gone to far. He has not gone far enough to have to leave office early the dems won't let it happen. Even if his family are indicted the dems will make sure it is after the 2020 election meaning Trump won't leave office early. Trump in office helps them in the 2020 election the Pro is just wrong Trump will not leave office early. Look even if you don't agree with what I have said about Trump leave your personal bias out and judge this debate on what was said in the debate and not your personal opinions.