BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Public schools should offer education in world religions both historically and in religious beliefs

I think no religion should be taught in schools for several reasons: Firstly, the concept of 'neutrality' and 'non-biased' teaching of religion is impossible considering religion is so subjective. You will always upset someone in teaching Christianity, for example, depending on what version of the Bible you choose, or what interpretation you choose to take.( Islam is not better as there are many different interpretations of the Koran.) Secondly on the issues of neutrality, religions have some serious issues that need to be addressed, are we to teach about female circumcision , child abuse, terrorism and anti-homosexuality in a neutral way? Is religion beyond criticism? I would suggest that it is not. Thirdly, religion in the modern day is saturated with problems in justifying itself in the face of science and philosophy. Many religious beliefs are out dated, ridiculous and damn right evil. For the the good we are told religion does we cannot ignore the devastation it has left in its wake . Young people should be aware of these issues and they should be able to debate them. I think it is unethical to teach that religions are all about peace and love, when religion has been the main cause of violence, intolerance, bigotry, racism and ignorance in the world. To assume that by learning about the range of different religions a young person will understand the 'other' and be a peace with other faiths is daft. Most religions teach contempt for other religions and non- believers. When one is a loyal follower of Christianity, one cannot help but believe all other faiths are wrong and misguided. ( They will of course think that only they have the 'true way'.) There are so many schisms in Christianity alone, that we must be free to question and doubt the validity of it all. We must remember that Religions are not all saying the same thing. They are competing ideologies with conflicting practices and cannot, and will not, ever live in peace with each other. The only thing religions all have in common is that they are all man made. No more wishy washy rubbish to be taught in schools, let's teach philosophy, morality, ethics, science. Let's give young people truth.
Public schools should offer education in world religions both historically and in religious beliefs

Adolescents should have a vaster knowledge of other religions other than the one their family believes in. I present two main conjectures. Education of religions in a neutral perspective will help society in its corrupted views of hatred on others, because of difference of religions. After education of other religions, if the adolescent chooses their previously chosen denomination of their parents then that would be a stronger and more personal relationship with their religious beliefs. Which both would help the individual. In a non-biased and educational view of other religions, the adolescent would be able to develop an understanding for the reasoning behind others religious related actions, that would otherwise confuse them and not allow them to accept the actions and individuals differences. Making the adolescent believe in a religious denomination because he is ignorant of other options, is not ethical, for it takes away his ability to freely choose his personal belief.
Challenge me

You are the con party. Your initial argument is that I will forfeit all rounds. Being con this means you believe I will NOT forfeit all rounds. Meaning if I forfeit all rounds you lose. I hereby forfeit all rounds using this round not to debate, but to point out what you have done only, thereby not adding any new information or making an argument. In other words I have not debated this round. Again I hereby forfeit all rounds, including this one, wich I have only used to state the obvious and declare my forfeit. Thank you.
You, "Draxxt", are not an anarchist

I support the country itself for the mere fact that it is one of the few and largest diversified countries. I don't agree with it's government, however. Basically, I like the country, not what it represents. Make sense? Also, The death penalty represents justice to me. If you murder, you deserve to die (Murder being killing in cold hate or without reason. ) The death penalty somewhat justifies that.
You, "Draxxt", are not an anarchist

I am satisfied with your response, I suppose. I back down and concede. I would like to ask a few more questions though... You seem not only to admit to the government/establishment...but to encourage the full working of it. For instance, the death penalty. It seems to me that an anarchist would want there to be as little buearacracy as possible. You, however, seem to believe in war and such. Also, it doesn't make sense that you would put that you support the united states. Sure you can't do anything against it, but that doesn't mean you believe in it... I have always perceived that section of beliefs to not be US specific, because this of course would be very limiting and biased. I treat that sort of thing as fundamental...the ideals, not as courses of action. And to end I ask: why are you an anarchist?
You, "Draxxt", are not an anarchist

In no way am I lying about my Anarchism. I will prove to you that simply because a few of my beliefs may SEEM to contradict, they do not. "I will now make a list of why you are not an anarchist:..." I will leave that be as it is too long to copy. In the sense of my page and my beliefs, I had considered the possible hypocracy as well. My deduction led me to this logical conclusion that I'm fairly certain will suffice: I have always (Rather, since seventh grade) believed that the world would be better off without a government and that lie, political scandals, and war were the product of those in office. And they are. But as long as America is a democratic/republic country, I will have an opinion based on what is best for that demo/repu state. I still believe we'd be better off without a government but if there is anything that can at least help the country the way it is (As I see no way citizens of America would lead it to an Anarchy.) "In your debate "Should laws outlawing blasphemy be introduced across the United States?" ( http://www.debate.org...... ), you say thus:..." Yes but simply because I debate something does not mean I believe it. I could debate "Spinach is tasty" on the Neg. I personally LOVE spinach but to win, I would have to debate that it is not tasty. Tough, but it is a debate. In order to win that debate, I would first have to put myself in the shoes of one who would want (Or not want) the blasphemy laws in place. Therefore, I assumed a role not befitting of my beliefs. I hope this has cleared up any confusion and I in no way take offense. Thanks, -EG
You, "Draxxt", are not an anarchist

I intend no malice in this, I'll have you know, but, with a quick glance at your profile, I have determined that you are not truly an anarchist (as your profile claims). Truthfully, I am only trying to help you...to realize that you are not an anarchist. I will make this brief. Here are 3 definitions of anarchism: "1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. 2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists. 3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: "He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity" Bertrand Russell." Any of these, or a combination of them, will work in my favor. I will now make a list of why you are not an anarchist: -The most obvious piece of evidence is that it says on your belief chart that you support the United States of America. This is pretty self explanatory, but here is some simple logic. Anarchy means no government. The United States...is a government. -You are in favor of the death penalty. To punish (and kill) people as punishment for breaking a law would imply a government with laws...and enforcement of said laws. -You are also in favor of flat tax. This also implies a government. There has to be a government to collect these said taxes. That is the point of taxes. -You are also in favor of social programs. You need a government to supply these programs. -You also support the war on terror. An anarchist would by default be opposed to the wars caused by confliction of different countries. -In your debate "Should laws outlawing blasphemy be introduced across the United States?" ( http://www.debate.org... ), you say thus: "The only way to keep us from clubbing one another to death is by upholding morals that are beneficial to society as a whole...If you were to take away these laws which have become widely known as fact, We see our government would become somewhat resemblant of an *Anarchy*. While that might please certain members of the voting community, we see that the laws you surmise as "(having) no need for) then you are promoting a lawless society...Will you vote for the debator who sides with lawlessness and antiesteblishment? Or will you vote for the debator who is keeping firm the beliefs as well as the politics of blasphemy laws." I have provided sufficient evidence to make it obvious to the reader of draxxt's hypocrisy in saying that he is an Anarchist. PS. Please do not be insulted, this is all in the spirit of agressive debate -Harlan
Government controlled lunches and mandatory daily physical activity in schools

Daily physical activity or DPA as I am going to call it for the duration of this debate is essential for students health. 18% of children ages 6 to 11 were obese in 2012. 1 third of adolescents were obese or overweight in 2012. If we have DPA mandatory in schools we can keep those 2 thirds from getting obese and try to regulate the body weight and save a life. Healthy students ill be more attentive in schools. It is also essential for the proper growth and development of students. It is also preferred by students because it gives them time to play and not have to do work. DPA will keeps students healthy and improve the focus of children in schools. Balanced government controlled lunches are nothing but good. They keep kids eating because you know that they won't on their own or at home. Students are becoming fatter with the empty calories and fatty foods that they are serving them now. Government controlled lunches will give students their five food groups that they most likely don't get on a daily basis and teach them the importance of healthy living. Balanced student lunches will regulate their body weight until it is a healthy weight. It will improves their mood and control people getting sent to detention and bullying. It combats diseases and will keep our students healthy. It boosts energy so our students will be more attentive in classes. It boosts longevity so our students will live longer and have the future we are preparing them for. http://www.cdc.gov... https://www.peelregion.ca... http://www.healthline.com... So now you are going to tell me your opening statements and how DPA and government contoled lunches shouldn't be mandatory. Make sure you site your sources so we know you are not just making up facts. Have proper grammar and punctuation or voters may not vote for you. There is your first lesson good luck and let the best man win.
To be suggested by the contender

This will be a three round debate. The debate will work in this manner: 1A: First Post Instigator: This explanatory post. 1B: First Post Contender: Contender suggests a list of 3 topics, phrased in valid format (ie. not in question format) Topics should be legitimate, and varied. 2A: Second Post Instigator: Instigator responds with his choice of the three. 2B: Second Post Contender: Contender then chooses a position on that issue and has the choice of whether to go first or second. If the contender chooses to go first, he effectively becomes the instigator and makes his opening statement immediately. If he chooses to do so, he must forfeit his last round response by typing "thank you for the debate" until the character count is satisfied. Otherwise, he types "I will allow my opponent to make the opening statement" until the character count is satisfied. The rest of the rounds act as the rounds of a typical debate.
Disney Movies Rhyme Battle

Children, children lets hear a story but it must be ridden of all its glory Careful, careful think thoroughly you know what could be hidden another meaning. Not even Rapunzel's hair will cure you when your innocents has failed you Tip toe, tip toe everything we say could very easily be taken the wrong way Let not the loveless prince be seen for what he is The act of nature animals children can't handle Don't learn to sow for if there is a spindle then you know your life can dwindle A dream is not a wish your heart makes cause when the pumpkin is squished your heart breaks Reindeers are better then people for people are all evil don't let them sleep tight let the frost bite, bite Abandon their grin through it in a bin For now we all know the storys that stow away in Disney we know it is fishy When animals talk and dishes walk A loss, a loss to miss out on the meaning so much it will cost when you let the negatives be intervening Children, children hear, hear the moral, the moral has it been said in too confusing a metaphor in this quarrel it has been said with feelings so sore that nothing should be said in a metaphor
Disney Movies Rhyme Battle

From bestiality to incest, you've really advanced It really makes me question your moral stance. The way lion prides work is they have one alpha male who is supposed to mate with every single female. So Simba and Nala were half brother and sister, so their love story is one big incestuous snafu. And when Simba won and took back over the pride, he'd have to bang Nala's mom, and Nala'd have to take it in stride. But at least Simba wouldn't have trouble with in laws, cuz her dad is his dad and her mom is putty in his paws. And the Circle of Life doesn't hold a candle to Frozen, Let It Go, Let It Go.... this song was the one that was chosen, by the Academy Awards, for the best song of the year. Top that! You'll really have to kick it into high gear, in your next round, you just won't be able to top that, the singing is so beautiful -- much better than a giant cat. That moment when Elsa throws away her white gloves, symbolizing the shackles that bound her powers just cuz her parents were too afraid to let her show her true self, she had to conceal her emotions from everyone around her, and lie to her sister so she wouldn't flounder, and let her powers get out of control, but at last she could finally just go with the flow, and do anything that she could conceive or desire, cuz her power was ice, but she was playing with fire! Because her power eventually took over and caused major damage, which was only undone with a true and unselfish act, from her sister who truly accept her regardless of the fact, that she had hidden in her for so very long, and done things that were not quite to form. But her true unselfish act of true love, transcended all and let her gain perspective from up above.
Disney Movies Rhyme Battle

Why make such a tragedy out of a simple children's story The folk lore is only that of metaphor It's what is on the inside that counts A moral also taught by Wreck it Ralph But if the beast is not to your liking let us talk of a great Lion King King of the jungle not just a bungalow but Pride Rock Simba's Destiney was locked into a life of humility Hakunamatata had not enough responsibility to be a life style fit for a king In this story we see John Lenin taught us to sing of The Circle of Life What a learning opportunity it would be
Disney Movies Rhyme Battle

My opponent the zoophile Has done nothing but defile The sacred name of Disney With the wretched memory . . . of bestiality. The dirty Beast and the beautiful French maiden some would say was a match that was made in... Heaven...But, it's just really inter-species breeding That's something that little kids just won't be needing.... To see... While they're learning "ABC" .... and "3+3." The best Disney movie was Wreck It Ralph about a "bad guy" finding his sense of self. And a cute little girl named Penelope. Nope, in this one there's no bestiality. You even get to see Sonic the Hedgehog, and a bunch of minor characters that are just a cog, in the machine that is a well-running game. But after Ralph messes up, things will never be the same. A giant group of bugs escape and invade the "hub" and there's no controlling them, Ralph sure did flub.... and screw that one up by putting EVERYONE in danger, But Ralph didn't care, he was tired of being treated like a stranger, in his own freaking game, not getting any recognition. People worshipped Felix like it was a silly superstition that Felix would fix everything and Ralph would screw them up. When the villagers saw Ralph, they wouldn't even say "whazzup." But Ralph -- in the end -- managed to fix it all, When things went wrong, he didn't just crawl into a ball, and wait for the bugs to destroy the world, instead he was willing to sacrifice everything for that little girl. A true love story doesn't have to fit some archetype of boy meets girl or something of a similar stripe. Like Disney said in Frozen with Anna and Elsa, sisterly love can transcend all, and that's my final answer.
Disney Movies Rhyme Battle

Does anyone even know what my opponent's last round meant? It's seems like he's out of Disney movies, his argument is spent. He only knew two movies -- Beast and Lion King. It's kind of sad that that's it, guess this just isn't his thing. My opponent's been crushed by a conquering force, just like the crazy British who veered far off course, and came and destroyed Pocahontas' homeland, with syphilis and malaria blankets, yet she was still a fan; of John Smith, her hero, he was her kind of man. My opponent is trying to put on a front, just like Mulan, trying to pretend there's more to his prose, when really there's none, if you think you'll make a man out of her, you're sorely mistaken, you better realize she's not "Ping" if you want to get to baby-makin'. Yet, she's also a fearsome warrior who broke down major barriers, got her troops cross-dressing and doing her bidding like little terriers.
Abortion

I suggest to save yourself the time you look down to the final section. "Murder is the UNLAWFUL killing, killing that CANNOT be justified. Abortion is NEVER justified. " Okay, then you're saying absolutely nothing here then. You've just re-stated the Con position. This is not an argument at all. I would certainly disagree with abortion be labeled "murder" in the sense that "murder" means never justified. a) The point still stands that the mother has a right over her own body and the human attached to it is taking her resources and threatening her livelihood and independence. It would be unjust to deny this woman freedom over her own body. She never even asked for this duty. I ask, would you still support this principle of the pregnancy took 9 years? b) Read Below 1. This is irrelevant as we're arguing abortion in the absolute. Therefore, I pick the battles in attacking the premise. I could easily bring up the case of a woman who is raped and who's life is threatened and you would have to defend that abortion is definitively wrong in that case or forfeit the argument. You never specified that abortion was wrong except in X, Y, and Z. I'm actually going to skip ahead here as my opponent has seemed to have conceded the assertion that "abortion is wrong." "The Fetus May Pose a Direct Harm to the Mother "In a case where the fetus poses a direct harm, then that is the ONLY time when abortion can be justified." I have won this debate. This was not a discussion about to the extent that abortion was wrong, only that it is "wrong" in the absolute. If Con had exceptions to this rule, he should have made it clear in the premise. I wish Con good luck in future debates.
Abortion

I shall use the same opening arguments I used before. Contention 1: A logical reason why abortion is wrong. I would like to begin with this quote:"To prevent birth is anticipated murder; it makes little difference whether one destroys a life already born or does away with it in its nascent stage. The one who will be a man is already one. " Tertullian (160 - 220)1. Murdering a human is wrong2. Abortion is murder3. Therefore, abortion is wrongAssertion 1: Murdering a human is wrongMost sane people would agree with this assertion. Assertion 2: Abortion is murderBy definition, murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. We need to determine why the fetus should be under this protection. Evidence 1: A fetus can dreamMany pro-abortion activists say that a fetus cannot think. However, we have discovered that they can, in fact, dream. Therefore, the fetus must be conscious. I encourage any pro-choice activists to read the article Baby's First Dreams following this link. http://www.sciencedaily.com......;Evidence 2: A fetus, by definition, is a human! Many pro-choice activists argue that the fetus is not a "human" until it is born. Let me ask you this question, what makes a human fetus any different than a dog fetus? Is the dog fetus not a "dog" because it is smaller or because it is not yet born? No. Then what makes human fetuses different? Furthermore, whether you agree with that argument, I want to ask you and any pro-choice activists this question: "Why isn't a fetus a 'human? '"Contention 2: Abortion is morally wrong because of the emotional side effects. There are major consequences to ones actions. Abortion is no different. Here is a list of some of the emotional side-effects to an abortion. Regret Anger Guilty feelings Shame Impared self-confidence Depression Anxiety Lonliness Souce. http://www.americanpregnancy.org......In fact, abortion INCREASES the risk for cancer! 8 medical organizations in 2006 RECOGNIZED this fact. For more information, go to this link . http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com......All experts recognize first risk that abortion denies women an opportunity to reduce their risk for breast cancer through childbearing! (also from same pageContention 3: There are better options than abortion I contend that adoption is a better option than abortion. This is because adoption allows the fetus the right to life and it also allows the mother to be relieved of raising the child if she is unable to.
Abortion

Pro C1: Medical =/= moral. This contention is irrelevant. Pro C3: Pro does little to support his assumption that the unborn baby deserves no rights. Pro does nothing to support his claim that the mother deserves all rights over the child's life. If she's allowed to kill the baby before it's born, why shouldn't she be allowed to kill it shortly after it's born? Why not a week after? Abortion can include killing the baby seconds before it's born. For pro to win he must show why a child should go from being worthless one moment to being legally protected seconds later. I support my side by appealing to the value of human life and the scientific fact that fetuses are growing humans. My opponent has simply stated his unsupported opinion.
Abortion

Responding to Pro C1 : The harm that is caused from the abortion is what's supposed to be done as to perform the abortion. This can not be considered a Medical reason because the risks of an abortion are explained well before hand, and the choice to perform the abortion is completely optional. Responding to Pro C2 : agreed Responding to Pro C3 : While the Fetus is still inside the womb and is apart of its Mothers life. All rights concerning rather it is allowed to be born belongs to its Mother. While from a biological point of view it may be considered alive. Between the two lives obviously only the Mother is capable of making decisions concerning both their health and lives.