BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Don't be lazy

Every "no" point i've read relates to people fussing about doing a dead-end job for low pay. suck it up! If the bills need to be paid, they need to be paid! It might suck that you just graduated college and are handed into such a low job, but if its all you can do right now, then do it! Its better than nothing. It shows employers that you are dedicated into working regardless of the work. If i were an employer and i had to choose from 2 different recent graduates, identical to one another and one had a job, the other didnt, i dont care what the job was, he'd clearly have it over the other guy because it shows his dedication to 'want to do something'. This Dead-end job, remember, is not signing your life away, its to wait until you find something in your field. Dont rely on other people to pay your bills because you put yourself higher than a dead end job, because that person had a dead-end job once too! Stop being selfish and go make your own money!
Can leave you financially worse off.

Taking council tax into account and assuming you are eligible for a reasonable amount of benefits, a job on minimum wage is probably not going to be as much money as full benefits unless you work very long hours. On the other end of the spectrum, students from families that can financially support them for a while would be advised to put off finding employment in order to look for a better paid job. Taking any job only works for those actually in financial trouble. People being paid wages aren't self-sufficient, they're just dependent on an employer rather than the Government. You don't have to be paid to benefit society, you can volunteer. Many voluntary jobs help far more people than paid jobs that could just have been created to keep people in employment. Presuming you care about your role as a cog in a machine.
Practical considerations.

A menial job is exhausting and takes up long hours if you want to make enough money to live on. It can also be demoralizing,unrewarding,demeaning and positively unbearable. watch Charlie Chaplin's 'modern times' a satire on Ford's assembly line. People need an aberration, a break from the mean to work/achieve/enjoy anything. For a student looking for work that will last them out until they find a better job, they need to consider whether the job isn't taking up all the time they need to spend looking for the better job. Other practical considerations that would make someone turn down a job apply to students, such as whether the job is too far away to travel and whether they can really do the job.
Effects on morale.

People need their dreams. A graduate coming straight from University will feel elated at their achievement, hopeful about the future and will have been bombarded with advertisements about the high-flying graduate careers available to them. To then ask them to do any old job will make them feel less enthusiastic, degraded as a person, if they are financially motivated in studying, will wonder why they took the degree. Students will also find it difficult to adjust to life outside University. They will not want to be thrust straight into an atmosphere where there is little intellectual stimulation and good thinking, which is often the case in menial jobs, especially when the job is not physically close to the University. They need to have a period of time to gradually phase between their University and work life. Counter: Landing a job that is temporary/menial/in-the-gutter leads to high stress levels, not only due to the fact that you want to get out of the temp-menial job the moment you get in and therefore are constantly stressed about finding a job you like during your few free hours:very taxing. You also are in constant fear of being let go given how you know you're dispensable because anyone can do these jobs.
Some jobs genuinely need higher qualifications.

If the job you are aiming for is one that you know is very highly skilled and requires specialist knowledge and where you won't be accepted without very specific qualifications, such as high-end medical and scientific careers, there is no use distracting yourself doing jobs that eat into your time that you need to study and prepare. The qualifications needed for these careers will be specifically tailored to them, as most students taking the course will be going for the same jobs, so they will include vocational training.
Degrades education.

Students are not all just looking for ways to earn a higher wage. Learning should be a goal in itself. Students should go into postgraduate study because they enjoy their subject and want to learn more about it, for the joy of intellectual stimulation or for their pride in academic achievement. They should not be seen as failures or scroungers if they don't make money out of it and don't land a job straight away. Why aren't people with good jobs but less education made to feel like failures for wasting their life accumulating money when they could be furthering themselves as human beings? Why is the work put into a PhD, which will hopefully be available on the market as a useful academic paper for someone in the same field, less important than the equivalent amount of dedication put into a job? At least a PhD student couldn't be replaced by a machine.
Work experience.

Some workplace skills that are valued by employers can only be learned by practical experience. 'First of all, many of the young people entering the job market have a great many workplace-related skills to learn — from when to show up and when to leave, to how to dress and present themselves, to how to approach a job, to knowing how to work with others, to setting and working toward goals incrementally. These involve deeper values that cannot be taught theoretically. And although there may be some rude awakenings in the workplace, on-the-job learning is likely the fastest and most indelible way to acquire the values and skills and work ethic that will carry them to their ultimate goals.' (Hara Estroff Marano, http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/is-any-job-better-than-no-job/) Work is also likely to lead to more work. Most jobs these days require at least some prior experience.
2. An active member of a community

It's a middle class indulgence to be able to entertain the thought of turning down a job. We often have the resource (whether financial, familial or educational) to hold out for a job that we think suits our talent and our 'hard work' and will benefit us personally, but I would argue that carrying out any job, whilst not fulfilling your personal dreams, can still have great meaning for the wider community. I think that Western society could benefit from realigning their idea or what work is and should be - shifting from an individualistic to a communal vision. Being part of the workforce can mean being part of community - a small yet valuable piece in a much larger eco-system - and for that reason, people should consider taking up any job offer. People avoid certain jobs for many reasons: some are considered 'menial', others don't meet expectations for enjoyment or fulfilment, many won't give them a leg-up in the career ladder, and still more won't earn them enough money for the type of lifestyle they aspire to. And in the modern world, most of us seek a job that expresses who we are to the wider world. I would argue that if we reconstruct our view of what 'work' is, seek to actively change conditions in the workplace, and collectively reasess our negative judgements of certain jobs (collecting rubbish or being a checkout operator for example), we can actually be content and even happy in any job. Taking on a job shouldn't be about developing skills that can be used in the next one, or making enough money to 'live' in the hours outside 9 to 5. A job should be about forming relationships with people, and feeling fulfilled as a human being. People need contact with other human beings in order to thrive (some who share our views, and others who challenge us), and I would argue that these people can be found in any workplace. People also need to feel that their life is self-determined: that they have control over the tasks they do and the way they do them, are recognised for their efforts, and are valued within and without their work community for the contribution they make (it is in this aspect that most workplaces need to change in order to allow us to feel 'human' again!). It is a very narrow view of work, and indeed what it means to *live*, when one feels justified in describing certain jobs as 'dead-end': there is no such thing. We should all be wary of judging those who collect our rubbish, clean our houses, and scan our groceries - for it is these types of jobs that underpin the Western lifestyle we all value so much.
Christianity is not decietful HUMANS are

This debate talks about winners writing the Bible. Much of the newtestament was written by Paul, who was by no means a winner. He was thrown in Jail by the romans, for teaching about Christ. The debate talks about the throne that Jesus supposedly stole through fraud. Some throne, some majesty. A cross was his throne, a crown of throns, they even mocked him dressing him like a king and then beating him. Humans have used Christianity in the past as a means of justyifying terrible actions. But the Bible never condones any such thing. Christianity is not the deception, the only way we can be decieved is by men deceiving each other.
Deception conveniently lost in translation

If the basis of your argument is laid out,evry religion in this world is a deception. why to bug about history,live your life on simple rules,that is the best path to god When Jesus said "I am the bread of life" he was appealing to the ethnic Israelites. During the exodus in the wilderness, the jews held a service in their mobile tent called the sanctuary. In this tent was a table on which were 12 pieces of bread, each representing one of the twelve tribes. It was God's purpose that Israel should be "a light unto the gentiles". The jews could have fulfilled this, but rejected Christ. Jesus knew that rejection would occur so he prepared the 12 disciples that they might take the gospel into the whole world. The bread was/is very important because it was part of a ceremony that cleansed the people of their sin. When Christ came he fulfilled the roll (role) of the bread, as well as the role of the sanctuary service because he cleanses us from all unrighteousness. A sweet potatoe has no place because it does not represent anything. Jesus is the lamb because lambs were sacrificed. He is the water because the levitical preists would cleanse themselves in a laver. All of these things that point to Christ do so for a reason.
A deceptive cocktail of human problems resulting in self deception

The idea that christianity is about people in high positions controling others through the threat of eternal pain and damnation is rediculious. There are a large number of churches throughout the world that are based upon everyone being his own priest, having no higherachy at all leaving only self deception. This leaves only self deception leading to people feeling they owe something to God... is this really a bad thing? (assuming it is deception at all, refer to my faith point below) I cant see how it is, in reality these people dont owe anything to the higher power (God) and the forgiving Christian God is most unlikely to demand more than a reasonable normal good life. If He exerts some neulious moral pressure on people who believe in Him then this helps to keep society stable and everyone happy. When debating Christianity, it is important to understand which parts exactly one dissagrees with. Today's Christianity is very different from the early christian church. Doctrines have been added which were not present before, it has been exploited through politics, and manipulated through money. With the advent of Constintine's nominal conversion in the 4th century from solar worship, a plethora of pagan practices penetrated the purity of the church. The most obvious difference may be that early church kept the bible sabbath (saturday). Many solar worshippers became christians, hanging onto their day of worship. Other pagan practices include: - Christmas/Santa Claus - Veneration of Mary - Image worship - Infant baptism - Lent/Easter - Purgatory - Papal succesion - Arm Raising - Immaculate Conception (as opposed to the virgin birth) - Indulgences - Salvation by works - and the list goes on Much of christianity is corrupted. Please try to understand the difference between what the bible teaches and how men act.
Read between the lines

As a rebuttal: The Bible was not written by "The Church" as we know it today. It's old testament was penned by prophets who wrote God's word down, it's new testament was written by the disciples of Jesus, paul in particular, so know, it was not written to fit the Churches agenda. If we are arguing about deceit, HUMANS are to blame for misinterpreting the Bible, not the book itself. The true teaching of Jesus have not been lost as Christians universally agree on Jesus and his ways, because of the Bible. The Bible was only translated into so many languages, to unite Christians all over the world. Even Paul, who travlled from the Middle East to Eastern Europe, had to preach in Macedonian, Polish and other languages to be understood. The universal teachings have not been lost in translation.
It isn't christianity that's the deception, organised religion is!

Blackwell argues that Christianity is not a deception in it self but the way people observe Christianity creates the deception but one generated by organised religion. By following the established organised religions through the church or not religious people make the mistake of putting mysticism in place of genuine spirtualism. Because they are doing something in the name of God instead of living in the world by god's teachings they are not living as Christians . [[ Blackwell Steve http://www.indywatchman.com/2008/06/22/religion-satans-greatest-deception/%5D%5D
faith

If the question had christianity as the greatest deception in history then I might agree. However it is difficult to think of christianity as a deception today. Christians admit that believing in christianity is a matter of faith, if someone has accepted that faith are they really being decieved? They have all the arguments of atheists avaliable too them, they accept a lack of solid proof and still they believe. In the past there was little choice but to believe, there was only christianity, no rival meta theories about the creation of the universe, what happens after death etc. Christianity and religion more generally were needed to explain these questions. Moreover while christians may ultimatly find that their faith was misplaced (i.e. a christian dies and finds that there is no heaven) there has still been no deception because the people carrying out the also believe. There is no decite involved, the pope believes in christianity and so is not tricking anyone when he proclaims that god, heaven etc exist. If he is wrong he is wrong, but will not have been deciteful.
the basic tenets haven't changed

the basic tenets of Christianity such as belief in God and following fundamental moral laws such as 'Love Thy Neighbour', haven't changed. if they had, it would be a different religion entirely. the different variations of Christanity are only different embellishments on the fundamental laws and it is perfectly possible for someone to be a Christian with only these laws. it makes no sense to say that Christianity is defined by its latest version any more than it does to say that the concept of Linux is marred by one of the latest distros having a few bugs. if the basic tenets themselves are flawed, then Christianity has always been a deception, it isn't a 'deception of today'.
Christianity is not decietful HUMANS are

Agreed; humans have used Christianity as an excuse to perform horrific crimes against humanity. However, to counter your argument that the "Bible never condones any such thing," you should read the Old Testament. The God of the Old Testament is a jealous, bloodthirsty, vicious God that mercilessly commanded horrific attrocities like, for example, killing every human on the planet except the handful that went with Noah. Other examples are Moses commanding his people to shed each others blood as atonement for creating and worshiping the golden calf (see Zodiac, Bull). Others include the genocide of the people in the promised land when the Hebrews finally ended their 40-year stay in the dessert. Under the command of God, they wiped out whole cities, killing every man, woman, and child. All this because of racial supremecy dictated to them by God through is prophets. Another counter to your argument is that the origins of Christianity seem a bit shaky. Regardless of who wrote the New Testament, the very large number of descrepancies between the Gospels suggest, at the very least, a broken and disjointed compiracy to create something that the governors of the ancient world could use to gain political control over people. If political control was not the objective, they certainly didn't promote any other. The strangle-hold that the church held over Europe was the very cause of the dark ages, and the church was all about power and greed. Example: selling absolution of your sins for a sum of money. Why did the church fight so fiercely to prevent the Bible from being published in a current language? Because they knew the would lose control. Once the Bible became available to everyone, the dark ages ended and the church's power subsided dramatically. Today, dozens of Christian churches dot cities all over the world. Not all of them are seeking power, but some are. However, every last one of them seeks your money. Why? Because there are only two objectives of religion: extracting money from people and controlling their lives. In all of the last 2,000 years, nothing has changed. So, yes, Christianity is the biggest deception going.
Deception conveniently lost in translation

Saifullah makes an explicit point about Christianity "...[Christians] can't make up their mind on the translation of their scripture as much as the actual extent of their scripture. For example with a phrase "I am the bread of life" which was and is the staple food of poor people in the middle east ,it can be interpreted to say for example in Papua New Guinea "I' am the sweet potato of life" as an equivalent thing making Christianity more inclusive than it is. Had Christ said "I am the food of life then Christianity would be more universal then it is [[M S M Saifullah "Conversion to Christianity : A Missionary Deception " Islamic Awareness http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/deception.html%5D%5D Further more missionaries have engaged in deliberate acts of deception by translating text from the bible and reinterpreting it in a way designed to gain converts and that may well not be what the bible says, for example in 1975 christian missionaries operating in America deliberatley twisted words and removed parts of the bible so that they would gain converts from a tribe of Parana Indians by blaming them for the killing of Jesus rather than the Romans. Unsurprisingly they gained a large amount of converts [[http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/deception.html]] If this kind of deception is going on by missionaries in the name of their religion it implies that because they don't believe strongly in the strength of Christian theology they think it's a deception themselves
A deceptive cocktail of human problems resulting in self deception

Christianity is a deceptive cocktail of human problems including over imagination, bad conscience a delight in causing suffering whether it be for the person or for themselves. Let's look at these elements in the order that they appear. Bad conscience or where the soul wages war on itself creates a sense that a person owes something to a higher power when in reality they don't. The sense of cruelty allows people in higher positions to assert themselves in a position where they can control people through the threat of damnation and eternal pain. [[ Otto Weininger "Christianity Self Deception and more on Buddhism" Heterodoxia http://www.hugoholbling.org/heterodoxia/?p=73%5D%5D
Read between the lines

The "good book" which so many Christians have claim to have read and follow earnestly, was written hundreds of years after the time of Christ. If this book was written so long after Christs life, isn't there the possibility that the real meaning of the teachings of Christ were lost, seeing as no one was around that was alive and knew him to recount what happened when the Bible was written? Isn't there the possibility as well that when the book was written, that perhaps there was some personal bias of the time thrown in? And is it possible that the Bible has been edited to fit the church's agenda, and not the peoples? Christians of today maybe need to reread the bible (or read it for themselves if they have just been listening to others), and instead of following it religiously, no pun intended, need to instead read between the lines and look at the overall message that is being presented instead of just all the details. I don't believe that Christianity is the greatest deception of today, but definitely one of the major ones.
is christianity the greatest deception of today

yes it isthe greatest deception of today, although jesus existed in those days and was the true messiah. the churches though have jumped on the band wagon to deceive the people for one thing control and the main reason money. the christian churches of today get 25 % out of some peoples wages , this is not the way -jesus told everyone to give what they had to the poor but the churches have billions. we get mormons and jehovas witnesses door knocking for to convert others when them religions are just a few years old, started by two untrustworthy men in charles tate russell and joseph smith, nothing of what they say is true and both of these men were known perjurors in the american courts, there only aim was to create wealth. jehovas claim jesus died on a stake, also other scriptures changed by both religions to try and take over from the major religions who also doctored the scriptures, they were on to a good thing and still are preying on the gullible in our society. jesus may of cured the sick with their own self belief, certainly he was a good man but the very people that crucified him are the same descendents who reign in the roman catholic church. king constantine in the year 325 decided on creating a bible one that he and the romans would take notice of , it is highly exagerrated and total trust in this man made book is foolish, god wont be found in churches he is to be found in our own conscience and judgement .
Christianity may be a deception but it's not the "greatest" one

Christianity may be a great deception but it's not the only deception out there that can be considered great or the greatest. Whether something abstract or for that matter anything is the greatest is relative to the person who thinks it great. For example being the wool wearing liberal that I am I could say that John Stewart Mill is the greatest philosopher that ever existed where as some of my more conservative friends could say that Burke or Hobbes are. Also how do you define greatest in terms of deception? some disabled person could define the idea of independence as the greatest deception as there is a school of thought that says we are not truly completely independent from each other and are interdependent. They could argue that that is greatest because it leads to society "trying to eliminate a swathe of humanity" through cures or establish an effective dictatorship of the parent through their unwillingness to let disabled people make their own decisions as much as humanly possible . Where as other people could argue albeit without much evidence that there has been a great deception committed by big pharmaceutical companies. In the end it all comes down to what a person thinks is a deception what criteria they use to quantify it as being greater or lesser than other deceptions