BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion Dose more harm then good

Thanks for the response! ------------------------ I would like to note, that while it doesn't violate rules by bringing up new arguments, it's abusive to the Con for 1) I now have double the work to attack and 2) Who's to stop you from bringing it up in the last round, making my burden impossible? Not only does Pro bring up new arguments, he drops the original one. Maybe he doesn't like it? Maybe it's impossible to defend? Nevertheless, I will go on to attack his new arguments, but I ask that no new arguments be brought up and that you Vote Con for conduct. ------------------------- Inquisitions ------------------------- My opponent brings up the inquisition, but does not provide sources or evidence. All I get from this is speculated false knowledge. This wasn't brought up in the first round, so just disregard due to the abusiveness of bringing up new evidence past the first round. ------------------------- Division ------------------------- My opponent states: "In a poll in the UK 82% say faith causes tension in country. Religion also causes division in human society and just gives people more of a reason to dislike or even hate one another, and as we know hate can drive anyone to do anything. " I'd like my opponent to source this poll, because without a source it isn't credible, just what my opponent says. Also, religion brings people together, not separate them. I guess my opponent did not read my C1. "The collective and cooperative peaceful existence of large numbers of people was made possible in the first instance by organized religion. What is more, this large, organized and peaceful existence of a large number of people was what made agriculture, aqueducts, education, literacy and exploration all possible" [1]" ------------------------- 2012 ------------------------- As Pro, my opponent has the burden of proof to prove that this theory is true or that it will cause world distress. Until then, let's disregard. =). ------------------------- My Case ------------------------- DROPPED. He doesn't note any of my arguments, so we must extend them. So we can conclude that religion is not only good for societal health, but for personal health as well. Even if my opponent somehow miraculously proves his points, or properly extends them, you can see that the benefits of religion outweigh the harms.
Religion Dose more harm then good

I also would like the people reading this debate to refer and read (1) . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Now I realize that I posted only one (bad) occurrence of religion, but this is only one. What about all the inquisitions that religion has powered such as the Spanish Inquisition . (The Inquisition worked in large part to ensure the orthodoxy of recent converts, especially those Jews, Muslims and others coerced on pain of death to adopt the Christian religion). I understand that religion can do some good, but where there is good there is bad and when the bad is powered by religion it can be one of the worse things. In a poll in the UK 82% say faith causes tension in country. Religion also causes division in human society and just gives people more of a reason to dislike or even hate one another, and as we know hate can drive anyone to do anything. As people know the 2012 end of the world theory is coming close, and this may cause panic not now but as it gets closer, and simply because of the power of a belief or a religion. "if the view is held by millions of people, that gives it more reason to be true" which is exactly why religion is dangerous and dose more harm then good, let's say that people start saying that white men are bad people and millions of people believe this, this makes it true and right? So then we must go and destroy white men. (1). http://www.infidels.org...
Religion Dose more harm then good

(1)"A pig caused hundreds of Indians to kill one another in 1980. The animal walked through a Muslim holy ground at Moradabad, near New Delhi. Muslims, who think pigs are an embodiment of Satan, blamed Hindus for the defilement. They went on a murder rampage, stabbing and clubbing Hindus, who retaliated in kind. The pig riot spread to a dozen cities and left more than 200 dead. This swinish episode tells a universal tale. It typifies religious behavior that has been recurring for centuries. Ronald Reagan often called religion the world's mightiest force for good, "the bedrock of moral order." George Bush said it gives people "the character they need to get through life." This view is held by millions. But the truism isn't true. The record of human experience shows that where religion is strong, it causes cruelty. Intense beliefs produce intense hostility. Only when faith loses its force can a society hope to become humane." http://www.infidels.org...
Political Correctness is threatening free speech.

Freedom of speech does specifically protect someone's right to say ignorant or stupid remarks. Anyone who speaks is taking responsibility for their words regardless if you agree or not, and the fact that people have the freedom of speech is their platform on which they can say whatever it is they feel so long as it does not create a clear and present danger. But when people begin to be censored because of their ignorant remarks that is when their first amendment rights have been violated. Take for example certain universities across the u.s have banned certain words that may be connected with "microagressions". The fact that we are banning specific words to protect people's feelings is a clear violation of the freedom of speech.
Political Correctness is threatening free speech.

In recent popular culture many social media sites are blocking or even banning users who are activist of unpopular opinions primarily supporting right wing views. It has become a social norm to accuse people who do not accept the use of modern labels such as the official 61 genders in New York. A recent example of this being Twitter drama in which Milo Yianopolas is banned from Twitter for "harassment" after posting a extremely critical review of Leslie Jones who recently starred in the new ghostbusters movie. In his review Milo refers to Leslie as a "attractive black man". Although Milo was extremely rude I believe he has a right to voice is opinions regardless of how offensive they may be.
We need more Representatives in The House of Representatives

I'm saddened to read that my opponent is forfeiting this debate; however, I look forward to debating him in the future.I believe that many of the points he raised could be easily refuted. First, I believe that the argument about having fewer representatives in the name of efficiency is a flawed argument. The most efficient form of government would be rule by one individual (like a dictatorship); however, a dictatorship cannot faithfully represent its people. Fewer representatives in government move the power away from voters and concentrates power to an even smaller circle of individuals. I'm not a fan of moving in that direction.Second, Con mentioned that government was controlled by special interest groups. This occurs because special interest groups can exert significant influence on a small number of individuals. Only increasing the size of the house moves power away from special interest groups, not the other way around.As my opponent has forfeited, I'll stop at this point. I hope that everything is Ok with my opponent and look forward to debating him again.
We need more Representatives in The House of Representatives

I'm not a troll, but I have to forfeit this debate. I will disagree with your second point about fixing campaigns, I think it would make it worse. It would increase the amount of campaign funds that get thrown around because more people would have to be "influenced". It's a cynical view, for sure, but an accurate one no less. My argument for reducing the number of representatives would be in the interest of streamlining the proceedings and increasing accountability. The fewer people involved, the less squabbling. Something along the lines of diminishing returns. With less people, there would be less money wasted on "insignificant" campaigns, as well as fewer people and offices to pay for. While the $174,000 yearly salary of each Congressman is insignificant, you have to include all of their offices as well, and the benefits related to that. I don't have solid numbers, but reducing the number of Congressman would be a significant amount of money wasted on their presence. Additionally, Congressmen are typically captains of industry. Very productive members of society, or so we should believe. If these same people weren't wasting their time making no difference in Washington, they would be in their home states making actual changes. All of this assumes that business as usual would run just as effective in Washington with less Congressman as it runs currently. It all is controlled mostly by special interests anyway, so why not let those people go back to their home states and be productive. We have to remember what exactly Congressmen do in Washington. They pass bills. That's it. That's they're only job. Since Congress is effected most by majority public opinion and media anyway, it doesn't really matter how many of them there are. They know, just as well as everyone, that if majority public opinion is against something, it won't function. Regardless of how many Congressman there are, they still will only work in conjunction with the public interest, or at least, public consent. So, if it doesn't matter... let's have less of them. With that, I conclude my entire argument and again apologize to my opponent for not being able to conclude the debate. My opponent, of course is free to rebut my arguments and I'll read them when I get a chance to get back on the internet, but that won't be for over a week. Cheers friends!
We need more Representatives in The House of Representatives

Hello everyone! I'm very new to Debate.org as well as debating in general. I figured I would give this a try. I'm interested in having a spirited discussion of the issues associated with Congress setting it's maximum size at 435 voting representatives for a population of over 313 million people. I will be arguing in favor of the resolution. Rules: Let's have a civilized debate. No biting and/or comparison of opponent's mother to various wild animals, please! :) Provide the sources for any facts introduced in the debate. 4 rounds of debate: 1st round is for introductions only. Last round is for conclusions/summary; no new material added in the last round. This is my Debate.org debut, so please forgive me in advance if I don't know all of the nuances of debate!
Cell Phones Should be Allowed in Schools

Let us note the key points of this debate. On the affirmation, we have that cell phones can be used for educational purposes and for communicating if need be. On the negation, we have hard evidence that this is to the contrary, and that cell phones are actually used for distraction. This point has remained standing this entire round. The contentions run by my opponent are undermined by several factors, such as the fact that cell phones can be replaced by things such as pen and paper for taking notes, and that almost all schools already provide phones for use for students. My opponent attempted to advance the notion that items like rulers can be used for distraction, but this too is flawed, as the phone's sole purpose is distraction--which it succeeds at handily. In conclusion, this debate goes to the negation as the negation has provided solid fact showing that the phone is a common source of distraction, while the affirmation has only provided that "cell phones can be used for educational purposes". Obviously, hard fact outweighs a minor possibility that is not backed by any evidence. You must look to the negation, as the negation has used hard fact and has all points standing, while the affirmation has his points falling. Vote Con. Thank you.
Cell Phones Should be Allowed in Schools

My opponent has been pressing this point that cell phones can be used for educational purposes that benefit the student. This is true--cell phones can be used for this--but the problem is not that can be used for distraction, it's that they are widely used for distraction, an effect that is--and has been--observable. My opponent points to objects, such as calculators and rulers, that can also be used for distraction, but there is a key difference between rulers and cell phones; rulers are meant to measure objects and have a primary purpose centering around education, while cell phones have a primary purpose of distraction. This undermines the bulk of what my opponent has been pressing--yes, it can be used for good, but that's not simply not the case in real life and that is not the cell phone's purpose. In that case, why should we allow something that only provides distractions, and can be simply be replaced with items provided by the school, that are meant primarily for education? Look at the sides in this debate. On the affirmation, we have allowance of a device that offers distraction and no large benefits for the student. On the negation, however, we cut out a device that inhibits students and allows for better education and student productivity--which not only benefits the student, but society as a whole. For these reasons, I urge you to vote in favor of the negation, of "Con".
Cell Phones Should be Allowed in Schools

Even though cell phones may provide a distraction, it depends on how it's used from each student. A phone is no different to any item/equipment used to enhance learning from education. For example, calculators, rulers, pens can provide a distraction to students by playing with them, but it shouldn't be banned because it can be used as a distraction but at the same time it can also be beneficial. Phones offer a variety of benefits if used correctly and can be a valuable asset to education for it's technology. Removing phones generally puts students who intend to use it for it's educational purposes at a disadvantage.On another point, there's no stopping for parents/teachers to block distracting websites if concerned with learning, as they do with most computers at school. Also, asking to put student's phones away or take it from their possession can minimise distractions without the ban of phones.
Cell Phones Should be Allowed in Schools

I negate the resolution, "Resolved; Cell phones should be allowed in schools." I will lay out my contentions in this post, before offering refutations to my opponent's contentions in my second post and further refutations and final statements in my third round post. The biggest issue dealing with cell phones/"smartphones" in the classroom is that they distract students, which is a very common problem. A study from the University of Haifa in Israel [1] found that 60 percent of high school students used their cell phones in the classroom for accessing non-educational sites such as Facebook and tasks like sending an email. This clearly is a distraction, and detracts from the educational experience. Several teachers [2] [3] [4] are on record as stating that cell phones provide distraction in the classroom and should be removed. Students can still communicate with teachers with school-provided phones, should the need present itself. The Pew Internet and American Life Project found [5] that thirty-one percent of students send or receive a text every day during class time, and that twelve percent of students make or receive a call on their cell phones often in class. Clearly, cell phones are a major vehicle for distraction in the classroom. For these reasons, I urge a ballot in negation of this resolution. Sources: [1] http://www.thedigitalshift.com... [2] http://teacher.scholastic.com... [3] http://www.dailyrecord.com... [4] http://voices.yahoo.com... [5] http://www.pewinternet.org...
Cell Phones Should be Allowed in Schools

I will arguing pro for the topic of phones being allowed in schools. Using a cell phone correctly can bring benefits to both the child and their learning throughout school. It can be used for researching, learning aids through the use of educational applications, and a planner to keep important dates and store notes. It also provides internet connection for convenience on studying. A mobile phone can also be used as communication to others outside of school for emergencies such as assignments being left at home or for the use of calling parents for important meetings such as dentist. As well as that, it can also hold important contact information. The use of a phone for a child can teach them from a whole range of responsibilities by being helping them become organised and prepared for the digital world and citizenship. Sources: 1.http://theinnovativeeducator.blogspot.com.au... 2.http://cellphones.lovetoknow.com... 3.http://voices.yahoo.com...
Aliens constructed the Egyptian pyramids, and Egyptians found them there.

And so my opponent has now forfeited his second round. Let us see if he might just pull through some final words in the last round. Just for clarification, I dont believe that aliens built the pyramids. My belief, however, cannot be used against me because my opinion does not count if aliens truly did build the pyramids. So, no 'you admitted you're wrong' arguments Vote Pro, and LONG LIVE THE ALIENS!!! XD
Aliens constructed the Egyptian pyramids, and Egyptians found them there.

I would really love to continue this, so I guess you could wait and simply take a shot at my arguments. Also, in the first post you said that there are worker payment records, spaning a width of time long enough to construct the pyramids. Since I'm technically supposed to refute your arguments, here we go... First off, I'd like to point out the complete lack of cources in that statement. True, it was just an opening, but I couldn't find anything after looking online for quite some time. I'm not really sure where you got that from, so any sources would be a big help. Next: what I DID find is that the Egyptians really didn't bother recording how they built the pyramids. In fact, there aren't any artifacts that prove that the Egyptians did it. Egyptians, despite closely identifying and recording all of their wars, pharaoh's, and other constuctions, never have provided any record of building the great pyramids. (http://blog.world-mysteries.com...)
Islamic State is good.

Time have got me in this oneLike i said in the previous round, i won't respond to anything now, i will post my last words and finish, to finish the great debate i had with my opponent.---Islamic State and what do you know what's Islamic State, covered daily by media, yet no one knows its true form.Yes it has done mistakes, yes it has some bad things i don't agree with, but compared to FSA, SAA, USA, Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and many more, Islamic state is very, very good.It got the dignity of people living under it back, no more ignorant people with tribal ways of living, no more revenge killing or fighting for land.It got rid of all sorts of corruption, there was no more bribe and go, there was no more letting someone go just because he is in the army or he knows someone important, there was no more 'high' and 'low' people, like the Hadith said:"There is no difference between an Arab and non-Arab except in faith", race, sex, age, doesn't matter.It guided people life's by the right path, no complete strict, yet no complete freedom, just perfect.What army in Syria and Iraq right now is doing what IS is doing, uniting people under one banner.What army revenged for the raped women, for the killed men? right now the Islamic State is fighting in Deir Al-Zor airport in Syria, almost controlling it, they took down an airport just because it killed 200 people living in Raqa.It must be easy for you typing behind the screen in that comfy chair of yours, cursing and blaming IS, and said they should live by 'modern society' and 'human' rights and the UN.You have a right to do that, because you are cared about (maybe), the UN knows you are there, if you die, someone will care for you.In Syria and Iraq, no, no body knows you are there, no one cares about you, if you are lucky you would at least be a number on a screen, if you are extremely lucky you might get a picture of your dead body.Once you got your sister raped, parents killed, and you almost died, and there is no more light in the darkness.And then you see your last hope, the Islamic State, the actual army in Syria that is still killing SAA forces and taking justice for the poor.Would you say "No they don't follow human rights code! i want to first court the person who killed both of my parents and tortured them, court him for 20 years then let him out for some reason because he knows someone high"No you wouldn't, you would want his head out of his body, even more.The actions of SAA and other armies are already mentioned in a previous round, you can check it out, maybe your will blood will boil a bit (probably not, after all they are 2000 kilometers away from you right?)---That is all, this has been a great debate with my opponent, i put my best, i hope he did as well.one last thing,When voting, please don't vote for him immediately just because i support IS, don't be that kind of a person, read the debates, see who actually wrote better, then decide.Peace!
Islamic State is good.

First of all:I do not accept main sources as proof, when you prove something it must be in pics or videos only and not links from BBC, CNN, etc..., i will also do the same and will prove myself in pics to make it fair.Now time to get this going.I am sick and tired of the lies and the tons of bullsh*t that has been going on it for days by people who don't even know what IS probably is these days, i will be clearing its name today of the many false crimes and accuses it has been accused of so far.Islamic State kills civilians and childern.That's false, IS didn't kill a single innocent man, anyone it kills is either an armed man, or a spy, spies are not civilians, don't confuse the two.Islamic State kills non-Muslims and those who don't agree with it.That is also lies, the IS does a option with all non-Muslims, it gives them a choice of 1- convert to Islam. 2- Pay a tax. 3- Leave the state.many of them don't agree with this and they pick up arms and fight, which leads to them getting killed.Also those who don't agree with what IS is doing (and are Muslims) live with all their rights in the State, a proof of this is Vice news coverage of IS, where he announced he doesn't pledge allegiance to the Caliphate and they didn't do anything to him, and he visited their prisons and it showed the prisoners not allowed to pledge allegiance because the pledge doesn't become forced.Islamic State does mass murder.It does, and its proud of it, why?Look at what the Assad forces did, what Iranian militia did in Iraq, what Hezbollah did, Rape, Kill children, and many more, don't you think they deserve this? a person who raped your child wouldn't you want his head gone?these are my primary debates, in the next round i will show the pros and good things of what IS did in the areas controlled, and i will respond to more debates if my opponent posts any.