BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion should be taught in schools.

ok i am still rather confused the system that you want is already installed in our schools and i cannot argue for other countries as i have no ideas but i presume that it is there in kost countries. but back to my arguement. This system is in place already in several countries such as my own and i have to say it is incredibily unsuccesful our country has a huge rate of teens commiting racially motivated attacks and religious etc and infact you will find that in countries were the system is not in place the attacks there will be much likley lower , you see the children here feel religion is being forced upon them and resent this so i belive ( apart from the drug taking and alchol abuse ) this is why attacks are so high here , not assualts but assualts because you are from a diffrent culture or race and quite often even if you are from that country and follow that countrys offical religion then you will still be attacked for this. The truth is kids dont want to learn these sort of things , im not saying all but most do not and haste it with a passion and belive that religion is nothing but hassle.you notice how racially motivated assults never were as high as they were today? you know why because back then if you didnt know to much about that person if they looked diffrnet you may look at them strange but you wont attack them for it . but yes its a fact religion is the biggest killer its not used as a scapegoat maybe on sevral occasions it has but no religion i belive kills hundreds maybe thousands for every person it may save.Religion alone is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths for example jsut imagine religion wasnt around , back in wwII the majority of those millions of jews may have lived because they werent picked out because of their religion . the only thing that can beaqt religion on the killing fields is disease even then religion is slowly catching up ...
Religion should be taught in schools.

i mean by my proposition a purely academic understanding of religions: an understanding of their fundamental tenets, major divisions or denominations, common history... that sort of content. i am aware that in many places there is religious education already in schools: i propose that where such study is already in the curriculum it should remain and where it is not it should added. though i don't know much about the scottish education system it sounds like the subject you mentioned fits the bill of my proposition. Counterarguments: 1) With regard to your anecdote about your own education i sympathize but i addressed that in my first argument. in this proposition i AM NOT advocating institutionalizing religious indoctrination. in fact the opposite is true. for a teacher to attack a student in the way that you describe is the antithesis of my suggestion because it is indoctrination rather than education. 2) I believe that an education system that provides people with at least a rudimentary understanding of the various belief systems in the world will help both in the long and short terms to weed out hatred (most of which is based on uninformed fear) and help people be more respectful toward each other. 3) I disagree that religion is the main cause of death and violence. Rather there are many causes of death and violence (disease, economics, war etc.) and religion is usually a misappropriated scapegoat when people try to hide behind twisted interpretations of a particular religion and play on others' misconceptions for control and domination.
Religion should be taught in schools.

im confused to what you mean ? religion should be taught in schools ? i would like to point out here in scotland it is a subject called religious , moral , philosopic studys or as we know it R.M.P.S which is required to be learnt as long as this pupil is still in highschool education. religion is taught in most first world countries at school from a young age it always has been im not sure about where you live but it is in the vast majority of schools. but heres why i think it shouldnt anyway i was taught it in school when i was young and my teacher was a very serious christian. She would ask me if i belivied in god or jesus or what religion i was . when i told here i didnt belive in religion i was an atheisit , i belive the theroy of evoultion . she screamed at me and tryed to get me excluded from school. i Thought to myself why? when kids learn about the religion they are suppose to be in school the vasg majority feel pressured by a teacher as if they were doing something wrong by not beliving in christainity and other religions. even in this day and age the teachers still say things like " if you commit a sing you WILL go to hell and spend forever there " now this is often told to young children etc forcing them to belive religion is the true meaning, if they wanted to teach them she could start off by saying something like " the christians belive ... " most teachers teaching religion are very biased because they are reiligous themselves , i accept a great amount are not but a large amount are. i know this world is full of hatered etc and people should learn respect . but have you ever stopped to think that religion is the main cause of death and vilionce in this world and in this worlds history excluding disease .
Religion should be taught in schools.

This is my first debate on this site, so here goes... The topic is: that the study of religions should be a part of all schools' curriculum. In this proposition i am not advocating any form of religious indoctrination be including in public or private education. though religious myself i am fundamentally opposed to indoctrination of youth into any religion, including my own. I propose that the study of religions, particularly but not limited to the major world religions, should be included in the curriculum as a matter of the social sciences in order to empower students with information to make better informed judgments about the world around them. it certainly isn't a new development that religion plays a role in much of what happens in world affairs and domestic politics. excluding studies of religion from schools handicaps students ability to understand their world, its people and the issues confronting it at any given time. That same lack of knowledge contributes to prejudice, discrimination and hatred in society.
Children's Beauty Pageants

Well I'd say 15 is a good age because by that point they would have developed somewhat and wouldn't be brought up learning that looks are all that matters. They're too young and impressionable when they are little kids, if they are high school level they will have at least partly dealt with pressures and can handle things a bit better. I don't think that pageants are beneficial to toddlers and middle schoolers because they have no concept of anything. They are being exposed to something they don't fully understand and it could result very badly. I know for a fact that pageants are not the best way to teach your child confidence and help them to develop an outgoing personality. Besides, what is the need for toddlers to perform anyway? There has to be some ulterior motive of the parents, maybe hopes to win some money- more than they put out. Or to live the dream they never had the chance to live. My arguments are as follows: 1. Beauty pageants are detrimental to the proper growth and development of a child's abilities 2. Pageants create competitive and unfriendly surroundings 3. Children are taught false values and are harmed psychologically 4. Children are not old enough to understand that this is not the real world 5. Shows on this (ex. toddler & tiaras) glorify children's pageants - the money is used in the wrong places Sources: http://psychologycorner.com... http://abcnews.go.com... http://www.bsu.edu... http://puc-web01.calumet.purdue.edu...
Children's Beauty Pageants

Beauty pageants should have an age limit set on them. Its sickening that parents are able to enter babies into pageants to be judged. These children are taught to be shallow and vapid as well as narcissistic. This is an unhealthy way to raise your children and it should not be allowed. This is a serious flaw in our society today that has resulted in generations that are completely consumed by material possessions and personal image. Beauty pageants teach nothing useful that can't be learned somewhere else, the proper way. This will be 5 rounds, good luck!
Public School Students should wear School Uniforms

Thank youEvidence is only to be presented when asked forI will first be presenting my arguments, then refuting my opponent's arguments. First, some definitions. Public School- K-12 Schools run by the US federal government1. Makes people equal in the eyes of others, thus stopping bullyingSome schools when they add uniforms it changes the way the students act, for example on the kimatv news the school system in yakima started to use uniforms. After each school started to use uniforms the bullying rate when down by 50%. People may be poor or rich. Income disparity is a huge problem in today’s public school system. People are bullied and teased based on the type/condition of their clothes. With kids, there would be none of that. No one will tease or bully anyone because everyone is wearing the same uniformThe impact that will come from this discovery will be huge, this is because kids a tormented by name calling and other types of bullying everyday and it ruins their lives. Bullying can cause suicidal and traumatic problems which is detrimental to students. 2. Stops Inappropriate clothes to be worn to schoolCEPI says that uniforms stops gang colors This is good because gangs won’t be able to communicate thus keeping gangs from committing crimesThe Impact is that because gangs won’t communicate, they can’t commit crimes making the world a better place Less people die from gang related crimes, saving lots of lives3. Kids can be readily identified in outside activitiesIn a field Trip, if the whole school is wearing a uniform, then if the kid wanders off, the teacher will recognize him/her in a huge crowd because of his/her clothes. US Department of Education says that the uniforms can help teachers identify their students easier. This will keep the students from getting lost and thus keeping them safe. If the school has uniforms, then the kids will be safe. They cannot wander off and get into trouble or danger. This is especially beneficial for younger kids. Now, to my opponent's arguments My opponent talks about how it violates rights. However, some things, you need to give up for a better life. I would rather feel safe and give up a few rights. In fact, I would rather stay alive instead of dead with the ability to express myself. Obviously, life is much more important than the right to express oneself. Limiting the right to express oneself is not going to kill every child in the US.
Public School Students should wear School Uniforms

They limit rights Yes the good old constitution the foundation of america and this debate Some opponents claim that uniforms are not a fix-all for the problems that plague schools, but instead, violate a student's right to express themselves, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. In a school in california, 73% of the students claim that their first ammendment rights were violated. After they signed a pettition the school went back to the old ways. The case Tinker v. Des Moines decided that students in a public school have a constitutional right to use their clothing, in this case black armbands, to express their opinions on controversial topics http://everydaylife.globalpost.com...
Public School Students should wear School Uniforms

Now my opponent basically said two things. The first, that bullying can still be thereSecond, regular clothes still cost moneyFirst, a mjority of the bullying comes from clothing. There may be other bullying factors, but stopping a majority is one step closer to stopping bullying, which is a great benefit. They next talk about money. Lets put it this wayAltogether, lets say without uniforms, you need $5 per day of the week for clothes average. Thats $35. Uniforms, average lets say cost $20 altogether for 5 days. Then, only $10 for the weekend's regular clothesThus, only $30 for the week. My opponent has not given a number of how much uniforms will cost families more, therefore, you have to vote CON. Lastly, to summarize all the arguments. All these arguments, cost and bullying is nothing compared to HUMAN LIVES. Without uniforms, kids could be lost or kidnapped. Without proper oversight by teachers, children could DIE. You have to vote CON because we stop bullying, save money, and SAVE LIVES.
Public School Students should wear School Uniforms

Thank You for those arguments but No matter what you dress students in, they will always find a way to pass judgement upon their peers; there are many other ways to judge people and form cliques, some of these things are: hair style hair color height weight accessories (ie necklaces, watches and etc. ) odor (type of perfume/clone and etc. ) the way one walks smoking habits . http://everydaylife.globalpost.com... This can lead to forms of bullying. also They cost more than other clothes Even with uniforms, parents would still need to purchase "regular" clothes for when students are not in school, thus creating an additional expense. A 2012 presentation by North Brunswick Township Public Schools in New Jersey reported the average cost for families to purchase uniforms would be about $300 per student each year PLUS clothes for after school. People don't stay in uniform all day. Then there is summer. People who wear uniforms have to buy the same amount of clothes PLUS their uniforms . http://everydaylife.globalpost.com...
The technology world would be completely different without Steve Jobs.

What you did in the first sentence is called "Cherry picking". In case you genuinely don't understand, I'll point out I could quote you: "I. .. forfeit". I believe Conduct should go to Con for your violation. "Mp-3 devices were taking off just fine" unsupported by either a source of yours or the evidence to available me, and contradicted by: "apple over shadowed other companies" ". .. the online music store wasn't Jobs' idea exactly, the company he put together started Itunes. " The company that he controlled started it. Point stands. ". .other big companies were doing just fine with the Mp4 concept and Microsoft's Zune. " Zune, released 5 years after, is dead. "I'm not saying that Wozniak did everything, i'm only saying that he made a greater technical contribution than jobs. " We aren't debating whether Steve Jobs made ADVANCEMENTS, only whether things would be DIFFERENT without him, and that has been shown to be true. Jobs chose direction with his decisions.
The technology world would be completely different without Steve Jobs.

"I can't defend the concept that the technology world is "completely different" ". Theoretically, you just forfeit but moving on, Mp-3 devices were taking off just fine but what happened was the apple over shadowed other companies doing the same thing they were doing. Metaphorically, Microsoft was taking the torch to the stadium but apple grabbed the torch and took it themselves, not crucial for the technology side but that's what made them money, which is totally unrelated to the technology side. Also, you should know that the online music store wasn't Jobs' idea exactly, the company he put together started Itunes. When I say that apple stole the torch, I mean that other big companies were doing just fine with the Mp4 concept and Microsoft's Zune. Apple only beat them to the punch, and Steve jobs was mostly a great businessman promoting Steve Wozniak's great triumphs. I'm not saying that Wozniak did everything, i'm only saying that he made a greater technical contribution than jobs.
The technology world would be completely different without Steve Jobs.

"I don't think you understand. Surely, the world would be difference but when i say "technology world" I mean the existance of certain popular concepts and devices that Jobs developped and made major contributions to." I can't defend the concept that the technology world is "completely different", if the difference must be that computers do not exist, or that phones must have remained "dumb". But I feel that he has made a huge and demonstrable IMPACT, and that's enough to support the position that the technology world would be completely different without him. Mp3 devices took off and became as popular as they were in no small part because of the IPod. Would another company gave come along with a similar idea? Perhaps. But they might just as easily have fizzled the technology, as well, a la Betamax. He also created the first viable online music store, in an era when piracy was hitting its stride. Apple has been a trend setter in form factor, and form factor can dictate technology.
The technology world would be completely different without Steve Jobs.

I don't think you understand. Surely, the world would be difference but when i say "technology world" I mean the existance of certain popular concepts and devices that Jobs developped and made major contributions to.I believe that the "technology world" would be no different from how it is now, without Jobs, we'd still have computers, tablets, smartphones and super thin laptops. (my main argument)You can take it from here.
Children Behavior in this generation has gotten worse then before? Yes OR No

Unfortunately my opponent has seen to fit forfeit (or was perhaps unable to continue the debate for some other reason), a decidely unfortunate first argument for the both of us. Regardless, I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate him/her, and wish them luck in future debates. I once again extend all arguments posted in Round One, and close the debate on whether the behaviour of children has gotten worse in this generation than those before.
Children Behavior in this generation has gotten worse then before? Yes OR No

Taking the side of Con in this debate, I intend to show that child behaviour is not worse in this generation than those before, and at the very least, is not demonstrably worse. Let's begin with the use of explicit words. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the use of profanity has become more prevalent, but there are a few objections that can be made to that. The first, and most obvious, is that it is simply anecdotal evidence. I'm sure that my opponent is familiar with the concept of "Rosy Retrospection", a common memory bias whereby a person is more likely to remember things as being better than they are now. With no real documentation on the general behaviour or swearing of children in previous generations, all we have are the lamentations of teachers and parents who may be susceptible to such a bias. The second objection concerns the perception on the morality of swearing; how is it indicative of deteriorating child behaviour? Despite a long-held view that swearing is for the less educated and articulated part of society, they are perfectly valid words in the English language, serve particular purposes, and carry unique connotations and expressions that other language may not be able to express as coherently or with enough conviction. A child using offensive language is no different from a child using language considered to be "not-offensive" with the same intent any any way other than different effects on our sensitivities. Finally, an objection to the three examples of behaviour presented towards the end of Pros' paragraph: A First-grader telling their teacher to "F-off", a Kindergarten boy poking his hand up a girls' skirt, and the same boy holding scissors to the neck of one of his classmates. The reason I don't class the first instance with my first objections is due to it being more about the intent of force behind the language, rather than the language itself. In regards to all three of these instances, these could more easily be attributed to cases of human behaviour, rather than child behaviour specifically. Children as just as varied and unique in the personalities as adults are, and as such there are those who display less favourable traits. This, however, does not indicate a general decline in the overall behaviour of children. Furthermore, and particularly in regards to the last two instances, these actions could be more indicative of the naivety of the child, especially considering that the child was in Kindergarten. At this age, a boy sticking his hand up a girls skirt could mean any number of things other than the intentionally negative behaviour implied by Pros' argument. Simple, but misplaced curiosity on the boys' part, or imitation of behaviour from an adult without understanding the full implications or repercussions of such an action. In the last instance, and without any extra information about the event given (whether it was done in a way where intent and proper cognition of what he was doing on the boys' part), it can easily be boiled down to naivety and a misunderstanding the actions' full implications and potential harm.
Children Behavior in this generation has gotten worse then before? Yes OR No

This day and time we have children of all ages using explicit words. In elementary schools in the past teacher would phone parents to let them know that their child was acting inappropriately, or expressing himself or herself in a inappropriate way. "He told me his friends say "F" word and the "B" word." (Chareumthasouk) a concerned parent in Janesville said to the Gazettextra. A teacher even stated that she was never had a first grader tell her to "F-off before. (Schultz). It is not only language that has gotten worse in children"s. We also have kindergartens who have done unimaginable things then they have before."A boy was seen poking his hand up a girl"s skirt. The same boy held scissors to the necks of his classmates, one witness told Janesville police."(Schultz) When have we ever heard this happening in kindergartens FRANK J. SCHULTZ (2012) Children behaving badly: Has it gotten worse? Retrived from; http://www.gazettextra.com...- badly-has-it-gotten-worse/#sthash.z8h8qt1y.dpuf
Should Trump win

No I do not think that he should become president for one reason only he is trying to put up a wall between mexico and america and that in and out of itself is against the law. He said that if all the people who were in Paris when that shooting was happening that there would have been a lot less people harmed. No that is not true. You have to look at it is a way that if everyone had a gun and were shooting at random things then there would be even more people dead. SO therefor on my end he should not be president.
A society's values are more important than the policy of that society's government.

Value " The regard to that something which is being held to deserve. Policies " Prudent or expedient conduct or action. Policy is the greater importance as it is addressing the Governing of the political body which forms Government. Many values can say the same things, different ways, at the same time. It is policy which characterizes and groups values, so we as a people do not waist significant amounts of time and money identifying redundant tasks.
A society's values are more important than the policy of that society's government.

Values held by society, and policies implemented by that society's government, have interaction with each other... the values feed into the policies, and the policies' results, in turn, have an impact on peoples' values. Both are deserving of attention; the position here is not that policy should be ignored and values given all the attention.However, between values and policy, values have a greater impact on the success of that society than does the selected policy of the government that is representing that society's interests."Value" or "values" in this thesis is intended to represent "a person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life.""Policies" or "policy" is "a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government"