BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All schools shouldn't have uniforms

Contention 1:"While ... Does that mean teachers should wear uniforms too? " My opponent makes a non sequitur. Firstly, a dress code, a strict one might I add, is present in all formal establishments for the people that work there. Additionally, the repercussions for dressing in an immature or unprofessional way for a teacher can be very detrimental to their financial life. To state that a student's role in the school is equatable to the teacher's role, and that both have the same responsibilities and expectations is an absurd statement indeed.Contention 2:"Also... and do not affect the school at all." If parents are not able to procure a uniform for their students, than the state can pay for it at the taxpayer's expense. Additionally, it's much cheaper to buy 1 full set of a uniform that the student wears for the remainder of the year than to buy multiple sets of clothes that are switched out. Note that I have shortened the statements in the quotations due to the lack of room to write.
All schools shouldn't have uniforms

Those rules seem fair enough. While uniforms do give off a professional atmosphere for the children, I do not see how normal clothes can be distracting. Does that mean teachers should wear uniforms too? While I understand that we certainly don't want students coming to school in a bikini or a banana costume, a respectable dress code with no uniform should be reasonable for all schools. Also, parents shouldn't be forced to pay loads of money for uniforms which cost much more than regular clothes. Uniforms are simply not needed and do not affect the school at all.
All schools shouldn't have uniforms

I accept my opponent's aforementioned propositions and will debate them willingly.As per the rules of debating, I shall create a set of axioms that should be followed.However, I would like to mention that it is direly unfortunate that my opponent has restricted the character count to something so small.Rules:1. No plagiarism2. No trolling3. Stay on topic4. Try to stay away from Anecdotal evidenceThe rest of the rules are implicitly stated, as it's self-evident that some things will not stand in a debate. Due to it being a 3 round debate, I will give some of my propositions here. Assertion 1:I would find that school uniforms facilitate unity in composition and also faciliate learning, as it's quite evident that certain styles of dressing can show signs of a lack of intelligence, manners, and will distract other students from learning as well.Additionally, I would propose that uniforms can be chosen by each school's administration as to if the dress code will be relaxed or not.
All schools shouldn't have uniforms

Uniforms waste money, there was only ONE shop which sold uniforms for my school. The ties, I kid you not, cost 10 pounds! That's robbery! Also, due to my First School's strict uniform, there was this kid who was a Sikh, for those who don't know, Sikhism is against having their hair cut. EVER. Because he never cut his hair, his fringe covered his face. The school forced him to have his hair cut! Children should also be allowed to express themselves so it's easier to find friends with similar interests. For example, Timothy wanted to find someone who liked 5SOS, but couldn't because the uniform won't let him wear band shirts! It's even worse in Secondary school because when we are teens our need to express ourselves is through the roof. My school forced a girl to bleach her hair because it went green from THEIR swimming pool!
Most Christian denominations are Psuedo christian, or Athiestic Christian churches

Most churches, most church denominations and most preachers, teachers and likewise are afraid to even openly practice the faith of laying of hands for deliverance of spirits/demons, sicknesses and illnessses due to the liberal media portraying all churches who practice and conduct this manner to be all fake, greedy, or great actors with no real effect of evidence for the faith that they claim they practice. As well it is stated and obviously known that most churches who are openly known for this practice are doing it in such vanity and obscenity that these type of churches i would state wolves in sheep clothing are the key culprits of why such christian orientated practice has been discouraged, stopped and argued against time and time over for stopping any such practice anywhere near what it should be going on and doing today. These circumstances and failed ability to properly weed out the fake, the villaineous, the vanity and the obscure have produced a fearful spiritual phenomena where spirits and demons feel free to roam around on this earth, especially in a spiritual church setting where the church leadership would much quicker in nature prefer to turn to man's understanding of psychiatric treatment of medicine and eletrical or any other man-made concepts versus turning to the scriptures directly for the HOLY SPIRIT's guidance and direction of what to do for resolution of the problem. And regarding the Holy Spirit? It is just a figment of your imagination that was set-up but no longer valid today, because today's churches can't speak of demons and spirits taking place today without acknowledging the Holy Spirit... and the requirement of healing and deliverance from anything evil in the sight of GOD. If churches actually did believe such things you would see all Churches (without exception) practice and openly offer to do laying of Hands for healing and deliverance like this website's organization https://flames-of-fire.org... and more written testimonials like this https://flames-of-fire.org... going on world-wide without accepting the simple, its all scientific anyways, or its just circumstantial because of some situation you don't understand and similiar type psuedo christian arguements. Churches really are nothing more than for the majority portion, Athiestic, or psuedo christians growing, creating and harboring more of the same from their leadership that is growing because it is easier to grow when churches do not have the Holy Spirit moving inside of them for healing and deliverance of spirits and demons. For everyone who doesn't acknowledge JESUS CHRIST already has a diety of power in them, and if they can control the powers that JESUS CHRIST really has to offer then they can limit their potential to be required to leave the souls they possess.
Atheism relies on the belief that nothing is needed to have anything occur.

(Notice that I have categorized "atheism" under Religion not because it is a religion, but because it is related to religion and religious topics.) My opponent has stated that "Atheism is the belief that nothing is needed to have anything occur" on his profile. I negate this statement. It is possible that my opponent was joking, but this is America, and we can debate about whatever we want! Atheism: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...) God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe (Merriam-Webster) I will allow my opponent to make the first argument.
Atheism relies on the belief that nothing is needed to have anything occur.

On minuses and pluses: Pluses look too spiny to me. Minuses are better, but they're too small. I like equals the best, then asterisks. If I had to choose between minuses and pluses, I'd say minuses. "My opponent claims that the argument that not everything requires a cause is a concession. " No it's not. If I claimed that not anything requires a cause, that would be a concession. "my opponent's reliance on an argument that some things do not have a cause clearly affirms the resolution. " It is necessary for PRO to win, but is not all that is necessary. PRO must show that nothing is needed to have ANYTHING occur. (I really wish I could do italics right now. ) "because all causes are essentially also effects, these causes must be tracable to some original cause. " Yes, but the effects of the first cause did not come from nothing. They came from the first cause. "Something existing "forever" and then suddenly changing would require a cause. " 1. I do not think this point supports my opponent. 2. It's still false, assuming that my opponent is referring to the big bang. The big bang did not exist forever; before it existed, there was no time. Its expansion was the first event. "(1) If atheism relies on the argument that at one point the universe spawned, then this action requires a cause. [. .. ] (2) Yet atheism relies on the argument that the universe spawned. (3) Therefore, atheism relies on the belief that the universe and essential existence had no cause. " That does not follow. According to (2) atheism relies on the argument that at the universe spawned, therefore the universe requires a cause according to (1). (1) would be a sound premise if we assumed that time existed before the universe. But since time did not exist, (1) is flawed. So (3) is both invalid and unsound. "If the universe and essential existence had no cause, then no effect should occur. " This does not make sense. One, there clearly ARE effects, so it is ridiculous to say that they cannot exist. Two, the universe under atheism could have been caused; see hypotheses 2 and 3. GENERAL RESPONSE It is false that "nothing is needed to have anything occur". According to (admittedly limited) human knowledge, only the first cause required nothing to have it occur. The second cause(s) required the first cause. The third cause(s) relied on the second cause(s). Since the second and third causes are included in "anything", the resolution is proven false. To clarify, I will give an example. According to my case, the universe does not necessarily need a cause. But if I spontaneously fall over, there was a cause. Maybe my legs could not support me; maybe I tripped; maybe someone pushed me. There had to be a cause. This disproves the resolution. I thank my opponent for this fun and astereotypical debate. Interestingly enough, we did not make a single reference to God or theism.
Atheism relies on the belief that nothing is needed to have anything occur.

My opponent claims that my question is irrelevant. Truly, it is. In the end, this doesn't really matter as to whether or not the resolution is proven or disproven. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (minusses) He misunderstood my question. I hope I have made it clear. I personally prefer plusses, but I was simply asking my opponent's perspective. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ (plusses) CONCESSIONS My opponent claims that the argument that not everything requires a cause is a concession. However, my opponent's reliance on an argument that some things do not have a cause clearly affirms the resolution. My opponent further concedes: "It is not logically possible for everything to have a cause, as there would be an infinite regress. So at least one thing must not have a cause. " ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My opponent claims that "to go from 'something' to 'anything' is an unjustified leap". However, because all causes are essentially also effects, these causes must be tracable to some original cause. My opponent's case that there is no original cause effectively denies causation. By removing the second line of the universe's detachment sequence, my opponent effectively argues against everything. I will explain this further at the end of my argument. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My opponent concedes that 1 of his great universal causes requires no reason and indirectly claims that the other relies on no cause as well. Something existing "forever" and then suddenly changing would require a cause. Something existing forever in the first place must have a reason. The claim that no reason is necessary is ignorant of causation. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ THE "END" OF MY ARGUMENT (AS SAID ABOVE) If every cause is an effect, then there is an infinite sequence that continues backwards in time for eternity (from an atheist perspective). If atheism relies on the argument that at one point the universe spawned, then this action requires a cause. If atheism denies the existence of a cause, then atheism is denying that at one point the universe spawned. Yet atheism relies on the argument that the universe spawned. (See my opponent's first contention). Therefore, atheism relies on the belief that the universe and essential existence had no cause. If the universe and essential existence had no cause, then no effect should occur. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ P. S. "nothing" is defined as "not anything" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). CONCLUSION: Because "something" is required to have anything occur, and atheism denies that something was required to have anything occur in the first place (from which everything can occur from through causation). I await a rebuttal.
Atheism relies on the belief that nothing is needed to have anything occur.

"I would like to ask my opponent whether or not plusses look more optomistic than minuses. " I don't really see how that's relevant. I don't see either as more "optimistic" than the other. They're just symbols to represent addition and subtraction. "My opponent dedicates an entire paragraph to concede the debate. " I admitted that it is possible for some things to not have a cause. In addition, at least one thing HAS to have no cause. But I do not see how this is a concession. "While saying that theism relies on the belief that nothing is needed to have anything occur" Was that supposed to say atheism? Because I am certainly not trying to argue that "theism relies on the belief that nothing is needed to have anything occur". "my opponent trying to defend atheism forced him to rely on the argument that nothing is needed to have something occur. " "Something" and "anything" are not the same at all. It is not logically possible for everything to have a cause, as there would be an infinite regress. So at least one thing must not have a cause. But things don't come out of nothing. At some point, there was a first cause that has existed forever, because it is outside of time. This cause could be any of the four possibilities I mentioned. To go from "something" to "anything" is an unjustified leap. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "My opponent claims that the original 'singularity rapidly expanded and the universe was filled with matter and energy. ' However, this argument again relies on the belief that nothing is needed to cause this. " That is something without a cause, yes. "He proposes that there exists a quantum field that can create or destroy matter at will. This contradicts the Law of Conservation of Mass. " The Law of Conservation of Mass only applies within the known universe. "Further, this proposed field itself has no cause. " It has existed 'forever'. "This membrane, again, has no cause. " It also has existed 'forever'. "4) . .. there is no cause for matter and energy. " The cycle has continued 'forever'. The cycle can only be looked at from outside of spacetime, in which time does not exist. " 'Simply because we do not know what causes something doesn't mean the cause has to be God. ' This is irrelevant. Again, I wish to avoid a stereotypical atheism vs theism debate. I urge my opponent to stay on topic. " I thought my opponent was implying that since there is no apparent cause for the big bang (which there is), it has to be God and is therefore causeless. If this is not what my opponent is arguing, then I will forget this point. "So, his source (. http://www.existence-of-god.com......) concedes that atheists use the argument that 'not everything has a cause' to battle causation. " I wasn't getting all my information directly from that source. I was using it to get an idea of some of the counter-arguments to my arguments.
Atheism relies on the belief that nothing is needed to have anything occur.

Also, I intend to keep this from being a stereotypical debate. I accept my opponent's definitions; however, I reject his definition of "god", and propose the following definitions: god- a supernatural being, worshipped as the controller of the universe or some aspect of life or as the personification of some force . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... rely- To be dependent for support, help, or supply . http://dictionary.reference.com... If atheism relies on the fact that nothing is needed to happen, then a causation argument would contradict it. The resolution means that atheist beliefs rely, or depend, on the lack of causation. Causation is the fact that in all properties of the physical world have a cause. For example, we are currently on Earth because the molecules that our bodies stem from have been bound to earth by gravity. This "Problem of Causation" can be held against atheism in that the universe requires some metaphysical force to exist that would cause the beginning of the existence of matter and energy, which has no cause. Atheists usually rely on scientific principles that they then use to disprove the existence of some metaphysical "god". These scientific principles are also defiant of causation: -The Law of Conservation of Mass -The Law of Conservation of Energy -Gravity -Chemistry -etc. There is no cause for gravity. We don't know why mass bends space. We don't know why certain chemicals tend to act a certain way. There is no cause for the great "big bang". So, indeed, atheism defies causation, and is illogical when put to arguments of causation. So, atheism relies on ignorance of causation. I await a rebuttal.
Modesty is outdated and has no bearing on gender relations in modern societies

Yes! Because you never give a prove that people who wear modesty clothes it self can safe and women never be seen as sexual objects. You never explain how it will success if women wear modesty clothes. And you can't believe 100% because like what I said before, it's depends to their behavior. Maybe they wear modesty clothes, but their behavior is make man thinks horny it's just vain. They still make their self be seen as sexual objects. But different things will happen if women be given freedom to choose what clothes that they will wear but their attitude not make man thinks horny. The main thing is you can't say that make women be seen as sexual objects because 'modesty clothes' BUT THE TRUE IS BECAUSE THEIR ATTITUDE.
Modesty is outdated and has no bearing on gender relations in modern societies

For me, modesty has 2 means : 1. Behavior and 2. How to dress. Well, because you didn't give me the define and limitation of modesty it self for this debate, I will give you a limitation in modesty about dress. I really disagree with you because this is the personal right to choose how to dress and not all people have same think about this. So, you can't force other people to wear modesty dress. You said "Modesty can never be outdated in society and if it was then women would be seen as sexual objects." but other people will said this is not true. Because who make women seen as sexual subjects is their behavior. Behavior give more influence than what dress they wear. Maybe they wear dress who let their chest open and they do this not for do a sex but just proud of their chest, it's no problem. Because they don't care what man think about them. They don't care with man horny thinks. Because do sex is not their purpose. And about work, it's really disturb them. You don't think what will happen with their job if you force all women without exception wear modesty dress. What will happen with fashion model that very need to wear dress which shows their sexy body? This is not justice for them. You think that they must wear modest dress whereas just little part of people that interest with this and more? They want models who shows their body. This is their right to choose. So it's very clearly that modesty in dress be outdated in society especially.
Creationism and Evolution are BOTH right.

Think of it this way: Yes...there is no proof right now that a higher power of any kind exists. But just because we have not found any evidence yet does not disprove the theory of a higher power entirely. And no matter how far back you trace the energy, it all had to have originated from one source of energy. But that, once again, leaves the question of where the originally energy source that caused everything came from. You claim that a higher power is not likely compared to a pocket of energy. I also find a pocket of energy that magically that just happened to come into existence one day to also be unlikely. I say "suspend Logic" because some things just do not work (both figuratively and literally sometimes) when we think about them (we call it "The Centipede Dilemma"). Logic and Higher Powers don't really fit together...if you apply them both 100% Like I have stated before, my theory is that a higher power started the first ball of energy or big bang or whatever; then let science take over the rest. Science is still at work, animals still evolve, etc. The Higher Power has little to do with most of it. I am just saying that the higher power set the ball in motion.
Creationism and Evolution are BOTH right.

You specifically say you have to suspend your logic in order for it to make sense. I should be able to rest my case after that point onward. You seem to make the assumption that people don't want to believe in a God, they would much rather believe in their logic... I would actually much prefer to believe in a God. Knowing that he will take care of the worlds problems one day, or at least the knowledge that my life would have some kind of purpose, that would be really nice. But it doesn't make logical sense, and it can't be proven, so much like dragons, I don't believe in God. Alright, so if we had to suspend our logic in order to believe that there WASN'T a God, do you think anybody would believe it? Do you think anyone would decide to suspend logic in order to believe that there was no God? Obviously not, the only reason there are people now that don't believe in God is because they reasoned that God must not exist, even though it isn't really a popular belief to have. The only reason they actually went against society is because of that reasoning. Like I said in my previous post (which you are obviously ignoring points from that you don't like) there are other options for things that could have started the Big Bang. Like a packet of pure energy existing in a single point, for instance. A much more likely candidate then a God, who's complexity would be far greater than that energy. Where did that energy come from? I could also ask: Well, where did God come from? The first thing ever to exist was more likely to be a random energy packet, much less likely to be a sentient omnipotent God. You mention how no one believed the platypus existed when reports "rolled around". Where are these "reports" of God? We have religious texts, nothing else. You have not shown me any scientific evidence for a God, or really any evidence whatsoever. The difference between the platypus and God? People proved that the platypus exists. Nobody has proven anything about God. You know what? I think you're right. I think I'll suspend my logic and believe in dragons now.