BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Children should not be brainwashed with religion

From an early age, most children are raised in religious families. Those families have been part of that certain religion for most likely decades. It should be a parents right to choose whether or not they want to expose their children to religion. We force other beliefs onto our children anyways and religion is not a huge deal. We force our kids to believe in Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny, and plenty of other things. We force our kids to go to school and to do certain things, because children at that age are not mentally mature enough to make certain decisions. Parents are supposed to make sure their kids are grown up correct. If a parent wants their child to be religious, then they should have the power to choose that. It's like abortion, who is the government or any of us to tell people that they can't have their child be told to believe in god at a young age. Especially when we "brainwash" our children to believe in Santa and other fictional characters. Another point that I would like to make is that schools are not supposed to use god in school, so therefore the point that religion is brought into schools after being taught at home is a fallacy, so therefore that point is not true.
Children should not be brainwashed with religion

From a very early age, children raised in religious families are immediately taught about their families beliefs and view of God, and when they enter school, this exposure to certain religious beliefs and symbols is continued. The child's brain is still developing at this point and due to this early exposure, religious culture is ingrained in them from such an early age. The official term is religious indoctrination, but I prefer to call it brainwashing. They are not allowed to think for themselves on a spiritual level but must instead conform to whatever their family and school tells them God is.
Children should not be brainwashed with religion

I disagree with your point that the bible is a reliable source. You can't say that the bible isn't a source, when your only sources are your atheistic views and the atheistic views of the people that you cite. Therefore, if you say my source (the bible) is not reliable, then your source (atheistic views) are not reliable either. When you say things like go loves everyone and has a commandment... I agree, that that's not entirely what we should be teaching our children, but don't you think that theirs worst things to teach our children. What children learns from the commandments? Children learn from seeing and doing as their parents do. Unless your parent is a serial killer, I don't think your point is really valid. I'm not saying that all parents have to impose religion on their children. That's the kind of points you're saying I'm making. That is completely not true. I said that a parent should have the right to choose if they want a religious family. If a parent want their child to be guided with religion, it should be their choice. Not ours to make, saying that they can't have a religious family because we're "brainwashing them." What proof do you have that religion is a bad thing. Just because you don't believe in religion, why should parents not be allowed to teach their kids religion. Does religion create serial killers? Does religion create rapists and pedophiles? What's the harm in religion, if they don't create these types of human beings?
Children should not be brainwashed with religion

"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" " Christopher Hitchens The Bible is not evidence that God exists. You cannot put your faith in a book written thousands of years ago, which was written by people who disagreed about the actions of their "Gods" anyway. The bible is not a reliable source at all and is not evidence for the existence of a higher power. Sorry if I got confused over the abortion point, I just saw you were "con" on abortion, and most people who are pro-life say that parents don"t have the right to kill their foetus, the opposite of what you pointed out. Yes I am an atheist. I have not had a traumatic experience with religion, but after years of being made to go to church and pray, I slowly began to realise that nobody was listening apart from this God, a product of the human imagination. God didn"t stop my family members becoming ill, nor did he prevent a family member dying after a near death experience. Things just happen, it is part of nature. But since you do point out the bible, what about the section were God "loves everyone" and has a commandment saying thou shall not kill, but then precedes to kill every Egyptian first born? Is that the behaviour that children should be taught? Yes, you are correct in saying a parent does have a right to choose, but I do believe that children should not be indoctrinated, but simply taught about the different religions in the world for general knowledge. The idea that children cannot think on a spiritual level until 16 is inaccurate on a variety of levels and generalises people as a whole. I think children are quite capable to think about these things as young as aged 10. Are you suggesting however that because they can"t think this way until aged 16, we should let religion guide them until this point? Also, I didn"t actually say that 34% of extremists were violent. I said based on the stats you provided, that out of all Christians and Muslims, 34% were extremists and it only takes ONE to cause violence. I never assumed that extremism ultimately leads to violence at every instance. I think we are going slightly of topic however into an atheism vs religion debate. Back to the brainwashing issue, I will conclude by saying that: Children should be encouraged to think freely without being confined to the dogmatic and medieval views of religion. They should not be taught fables that tell them what to believe, how there is only one God etc., but they should be taught about actual concepts relevant to the real world, not relevant to our society thousands of years ago, that due to a lack of scientific knowledge, placed their faith in a higher power. By suggesting to people that they should not force their religion on children, I am not converting them to atheism, I am reverting them back to common sense, and just as I started this round, I will conclude with another Hitchen's quote: "Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important"
Should Stores Be Open On Thanskgiving

Opening ArgumentThis argument is going to be quite short, apologies in advance. The issue with closing all stores during Thanksgiving is that not all Americans actually celebrate Thanksgiving. This is due to a number of reasons such as immigrants may not want to celebrate a purely American custom or maybe people don't want to 'give thanks' when there is nothing worth giving thanks for. In fact, 13% of Americans say that they do not celebrate Thanksgiving [1]. While in portion to the rest of the population may not need to go to stores due to the holiday, it would be unfair to close down the entire country when 13% of the people don't celebrate the holiday. Another problem is that the origination of the Thanksgiving holiday was not so cheerful after all. In 1637 about 700 Pequot Native Americans gathered so as to celebrate their local Corn Festival. English and Dutch mercenaries surrounded the Natives and shot and clubbed as many as they could to death. The next day the Bay Colony governor called a 'Day of Thanks' because of the ruthless murder of almost 700 unarmed Native Americans. During this day of thanks the English colonists raided and kidnapped as many Native Americans as they could. On that day large numbers of ships with 500 newly captured slaves left Boston Harbor. Therefore, it is clear that Thanksgiving is neither a particularly well understood holiday as often people consider it as a long fest between Native Americans and Colonists. This is completely untrue. Thus one could argue that stores have the right to remain open due that they don't want to be forced to respect an honestly barbarous holiday. Sources[1] http://www.newspolls.org...[2] http://www.manataka.org...
Coporation should be allowed to donate money to political campaign

All of these arguments could be used to say that anyt other group of people should not be able to donate to campaigns.For example:"Women shouldn't be able to finance any part of any politician's campaign, since their influence on the making of the advertisements could be used to persuade the public to accept a "candidate's political ideology" that's really meant for their own benefit, and not men's.""Black people shouldn't be able to finance any part of any politician's campaign, since their influence on the making of the advertisements could be used to persuade the public to accept a "candidate's political ideology" that's really meant for their own benefit, and not white people's."You do know a corporation is just a group of people like any other right?
Coporation should be allowed to donate money to political campaign

Corporations don"t give their money away for nothing. There is an understanding (rarely made explicit) that large campaign donations buy political access and favourable consideration in policy development and legislation. Why else would a corporation, which is bound by law to pursue profits, make these donations? Interestingly, many businesses give money to both sides of the narrow political divide; sometimes different amounts, sometimes exactly the same amount. In the lead up to the 2013 federal election in Australia, for example, Inghams gave Labor and Liberal parties each $250,000, Westfield gave them each $150,000 and ANZ gave them each $80,000. By my count, over one third of donors (excluding individuals) gave to both the coalition and Labor during 2012/13. This is not unique to Australia but occurs in all democracies, just indirectly in those places where direct political donations from corporations are illegal. Corporations shouldn't be able to finance any part of any politician's campaign, since their influence on the making of the advertisements could be used to persuade the public to accept a "candidate's political ideology" that's really meant for their own benefit, and not the people's.
My opponent will lose this debate if he or she does not follow these rules.

[I concede that I broke the rule, but I will in turn point out a rule broken by my opponent. In his 2nd rule above, he uses the term "whaling", which, having checked the dictionary, is verifiably a noun. It was not plural, and he therefore broke my third rule in round #1, therefore I lost, and then afterwards you lost. We have now both lost the game, according to foundation rule #3] -Whaling in Japan may be described with this adjective: lame. -Whaling in Japan bores. -He looked at that whaling ship in Japan.
My opponent will lose this debate if he or she does not follow these rules.

In the last round, rules 1, 2, and 3 all used the word "is", a violation of rule 1 from round 1. Therefore, the debate is won by me. 1. Whaling activities in Japanes countries don't not effect whales. 2. Japanese countries aren't not against whaling. 3. "Napan" never didn't rhyme with words like Japan, which incriminates whaling acivites.
My opponent will lose this debate if he or she does not follow these rules.

1. The guy who started this debate is limited to saying things pertaining to the whaling activities in Japan. 2. The year that the Japan whaling association was founded (1959), minus 1946, is the maximum number of words that the guy who started this debate can use per obstruction. 3. The guy who started this debate must have at least 1 obstruction that rhymes with "Japan", the country that is a member of the international whaling commission.
My opponent will lose this debate if he or she does not follow these rules.

[Side note (allowed by foundation rule 4): Pronouns are not nouns. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu... ] 1. CON cannot determine which words that PRO cannot say. 2. Anyone not PRO cannot use any of the following words: person, people, user-name, user, name, wjmelements, Harlan, words, word, letter, count, total, rules, rule, any, no, not, can, will, void, may, mammal, illegal, legal 3. CON cannot make rules that do not concern whaling activities in countries that mainly speak Mongolic languages.
My opponent will lose this debate if he or she does not follow these rules.

1. The person with the user-name "wjmelements" may not limit the ability of "Harlan" to speak English, exempt any rules already set forth. 2. The person with the user-name "wjmelements" may only make rules in the form of double-negatives, from this point forth. 3. From this point forth, all nouns used by the person with the user-name "wjmelements" must be plural.
My opponent will lose this debate if he or she does not follow these rules.

0. This debate poses off of another debate that was quite comical to me. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. 4. A player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannnot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an oppportunity to not break each rule. 8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. (End Foundation Rules) 1. CON cannot make rules that use the following words: a, an, it, my, your, is, am, I, me, you, opponent, instigator, PRO, CON, resolution, win, lose, are, can, or, if, then. 2. CON cannot limit PRO's ability to speak English. 3. CON must us proper spelling and grammar.
Marxist teachings should be more focused on in high school curriculumns.

Yes, it is true that Communism is a economic ideal, as well as a philosophical ideal. My opponent's detailing of the idea of groups being defined by a 'leader' group, and that leader group sets the world view of the entire group, is interesting. Though, it really doesn't refute my argument. I don't feel like I need to prove anything that my opponent has said, wrong. A lot of what he said might have some merit to the conversation of Marxism, though it doesn't give insight into possible flimsy components of Marxism, or Marxist pedagogy in school systems.
Marxist teachings should be more focused on in high school curriculumns.

Examining the Paolo F. model of interaction: we already have a science of how computers communicate which is readily adaptable to human communication by allowing that humans may be in several networks simultaneously. A network of two is not very effective. One party will have an advantage over the other. Multiparty groups such as a moderated Yahoo! group might be the best way to go. Robert's Rules of Order provide an excellent paradigm of communication in re dispute resolution, at least in comparison to the present situation. Behavioral Cognitive Science I think is where the study of the dynamics of communication would fall. We need a classification system for classification systems.
Marxist teachings should be more focused on in high school curriculumns.

I don't know if you want to do that. To study Marx requires a study of Hegel. That requires a study of Confucianism, Taoism and Chiang and Zen Buddhism. Marx also wrote about mathematics: http://www.marxists.org... So did Hegel: http://www.marxists.org... OK here is your homework assignment: How could Marx say what he did about religion being the opiate of the masses if he knew anything about Eastern religion? Contrast and compare the views of Marx and Hegel on calculus with those of modern calculus. Now wouldn't you rather study Marx on your own without some teacher's idea of what is important?
Marxist teachings should be more focused on in high school curriculumns.

Recently, within the year, I was introduced to the Communist Manifesto by my English teacher. From reading the Manifesto, examining the core beliefs and speaking to a professor of philosophy who has given Marxist seminars, I have concluded that if more people were to be open-minded about the idea of communism (in it's true form) that education could be improved with teaching styles like those of Paulo Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed). First one must look at the belief system in it's simplest form and if it's achievable. To address the latter, yes, I do believe it is achievable. As to the former, my interpretation of Marx's and Engel's is as follows: 1. The distribution of wealth (monetary value) should be controlled, by the people, not the government (more on that in a second) for the reason that money in all societies has dictated who assumes positions of power and influence and those who were not so fortunate to be gifted with the ability to ascend others in intelligence or conveying of it (biological determinism, sort of) are inevitably doomed to be subservient the the people of the former. If society as one, could agree that one must contribute to society in the best way they could, that money would not need to be centralized on more 'important' jobs such as a lawyer, dentist, doctor, politician etc. 2. All man is equal in their state of being, no one person should rule over the other, or else tension will be emanated from a class struggle (ties closely to first core principal). 3. Government need not to exist. Once, from the observation and learning of history, man understands the negativity associated with a ruling entity of any kind, government will be abolished and will wither away because of people's ability to cooperate with one another without the need for someone to dictate how they should go about it. (i.e. Old Major's preached society within the farm. Animal Farm, George Orwell) Although there are many more intertwined issues within these two very very general but solid and core principals, I believe these to be the most important aspects. Any who wish, and hopefully so that I may learn, to refute my argument, DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT, use China, Cuba, or the Bolshevik Revolution as examples to diminish the ideals of Communism. Those were only the exploitation of the proletariat by demagogues wishing for power (i.e. Mao, Stalin, Castro, Lenin, etc.). EDIT: To fix any unclarity of my argument, I am demonstrating my basic understandings of Marxism and argue for its merits so that it may be seen as acceptable in the school system, and the merits of the effect it could cause. It is a dual argument if you want to look at it that way, though without one , the other really would be dependent.
The minimum wage increases teenage and minority unemployment

Instead of rebutting your already rebutes statements I will just add onto my case. C1: teenage unemployment rises due to minimum wage: http://www.americanthinker.com...min wage=bluered=teen unemploymentI love how when the minimum wage increases unemployment begins to rise. this explains itself. I will show more graphs This goes with my second contention, minimum wage increases, teen unemployment has a slight rise, and so does the minority kids. Also these are both from goverment sources ie the first one is nancy pelosi. The both show hikes in unemployment.C2: raises minority unemploymentgraph aboveMinimum wage workers are not well educated. About 40% don't have a high school diploma, and a third have only a high school education. Just 3% of those working at the minimum wage have graduated from college. [1]About a fourth of those working at the minimum wage are married, and 80% of them are women. It's reasonable to assume that most have working husbands, so their earnings probably don't affect the family's standard of living very much. [1]ALso the first source shows that if you raise it buisness lay of teenagers and minorities forst. http://www.forbes.com...;[1]
Communism is good

Communism doesn't apply human rights, as the government controls EVERYTHING. If communism is so good then why did all the countries who had a communist government have people wanting to get out of their countries. For example, their is a reason that East and West Germany reunified, and it was because people didn't like their government. The government controlled everything in East Germany. People didn't like it so they protested until the communist government stepped down. We saw this all over the globe in the 80's and 90's. Communist countries split up (Yugoslavia, Solviet Union) and had governments crumble (Poland, East Germany). Like I said in Round 2 communism sounds good on paper, but the problem is the government controls everything.
What is your opinion on climate change

Before I start my argument, I want to say that I don't deny climate change, I just disagree with some points made by people like Deeznutsisreal. Some research shows (https://climate.nasa.gov...) that our greenhouse gas emissions could be exacerbated by solar irradiance. The earth also goes through natural warming phases (https://www.theccc.org.uk...) and that could make what we are producing worse. In Round 2, I hope to see Deeznutsisreal's sources and better grammar.
What is your opinion on climate change

I think climate change is a bad thing because it is warming the globe and it is destroying ice burges and is changing anamails habits like for example poler bears there homes are getting melted by the increasing temps and its bad because the poler bears are losing there homes. AND do you want to know why climate change is happening. Its because green house gases and fossil fuels and airshol fresheners. The bad cemaciles are going up and destroying this thing called the ozone layer. The ozone layer is like a layer around the earth pretecing us from the suns deadly rays and the stuff that goes into the air goes to the ozone layer and makes it weaker and that's why there is globe warming and climate change
Mathematics ends in meaninglessness

My opponent...Parrots the same arguments with no added substance. Then he uses the work of a "dean", unsourced, that really adds nothing to the debate.In response to the dean's quote, I will say that just because we do not comprehend everything about math does not mean that it is meaningless. Just because we cannot comprehend a number .999 [to infinity] and distinguish it from 1 does not mean that it is indistinguishable from 1. I tried to show this, how the numbers are in actuality not equal and just because some professor (an appeal to authority) says that it does in fact equal 1, doesn't mean that it is actually so in the real world. Again, a contradiction does not beget meaninglessness in a field as broad as math.A contradiction in math usually means a lack of understanding or outdated comprehension.And math could not work and still be meaningless. That is a contradiction in itself. In conclusion...Besides parroting a vague theorem that may or may not be true, one that really has no bearing on actual mathematics and can be easily comprehended as false, my opponent has failed to meet the Burden of Proof for this debate and show that the entire field of mathematics ends in meaninglessness and has therefore lost the debate.Thank you.
Mathematics ends in meaninglessness

you say "They do not respond to my point about how Math is still useful even if I concede his point about his theorem. " just because it works has nothing to do with mathematics ending in meaninglessness dean notes "mathematics EVEN THOUGH IT WORKS- it is philosophically absurd and ends in meaninglessness. It becomes a mystery-that needs to be solved- as to why maths works in the practical world when it ends in meaninglessness ie self-contradiction" con does not tell us the answer to my question is the mathematical proof correct or wrong if correct them mathematics proves a finite number =a non-finite number ie 1= .999.. this is a contradiction thus mathematics ends in meaninglessness