BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The study of religion should enter the educational curriculum.

"no your stupid. ok think about this. why is religion there? to control people, think about the people in the country you live in 60percent believe in a invisible man. so take that banana out of your buttocks and think about this without your wingdingaling. this idea seriously needs to take a shower. because it smells. THAT IS ALL." Well that was disappointing to say the least. I am in no way advocating any value judgement of the worth of any one religion. Perhaps you missed the part about being an educational facet on the facts of religious systems. It is in no way a system designed to 'push' any one religion. Its goal is the education of the populace about what religions entail; their cultural contributions, their historicity i.e. the facts, not the values. "As long as parents don’t teach their children anything that is likely to close their minds -- through fear or hatred or by disabling them from inquiry (by denying them an education, for instance, or keeping them entirely isolated from the world) then they may teach their children whatever religious doctrines they like." - Dennett.
The study of religion should enter the educational curriculum.

Seeing as how we appear to be challenge light at the moment, I thought I would throw this one out there. Resolution: The study of religion should enter the educational curriculum. Daniel Dennett is a Philosopher and Cognitive Psychologist, who argues that the factual study of religions should become part of the education curriculum. "Religion's influence over human behavior is precisely what makes gaining a rational understanding of it so necessary." - Dennett He argues that religions are a significantly important natural phenomenon and that we should teach religion i.e. the facts about different world religions - to every child in the country, the same way we teach English, American History and mathematics. Teach your children whatever creed you like at home, but make sure they have this basis in the factuality of religions. "No religion should be favored, and none ignored. And as we discover more and more about the biological and psychological bases of religious practices and attitudes, these discoveries should be added to the curriculum, the same way we update our education about science, health, and current events. This should all be part of the mandated curriculum for both public schools and for home-schooling." - Dennett I find the concept interesting and it certainly has its merits. Religion is as important aspect of culture as arguably any other factor. We teach history, why then do we not teach religion? This would not be the teaching of any value judgements of religions; its basis is on facts, history, cultural relevance, texts, music, and art. All major religions and any minorities that can muster an acceptable "portrait" can be included. Time and resources are allocated on the basis of relevance - that is, the percentage of adherents to a religion, form a basis for allocating the time spent studying that religion (though not the sole method for such allocations). This is not meant to be some "hard core" debate topic (though debate is definately welcome), but an expression of ideas. So comments are more than welcome.
You should all join Debatef.com

Rebuttal #1. PRO is clearly using the "moving the goal post" fallacy here as at no point does he specify that debatef. com is a great place to get debate tips IDEALLY in his first round. This addition arrived in his recent round. No matter though as even in the previous round, I still defeated his argument by pointing out that debaters could simply ask the top ranked debates on this site via Private Message or Wall about debate, rather than going all the way to another forum. After all, which are these debaters on the top 10 more likely to keep in touch with? Their PERSONAL wall and PERSONAL messages on the MAIN debate site or a forum which most of the members on this site aren't even using at the moment? My thoughts exactly. Rebuttal #2: Not necessarily. As noted previously, there is low participation and a shortage of topics. This forum is rather inexperienced at the moment. Rebuttal #3: Um . . . this doesn't refute my statement. This only acknowledges it (therefore concedes to it) and attempts to provide a non-denigrating reason (that the board only started a week ago) as to why the observation I made is true. As for my opponent citing his opinion, see my next rebuttal. Rebuttal #4: Interesting, so my opponent says that I have failed to provide factual information, yet in his previous rebuttal, he uses his OPINION as a refutation. Though even if we are to neglect such a contradiction, I cannot help but correct my opponent. I have provided factual information. Allow me to reiterate: 1) The forum which he wants everyone to join has a limited number of topics and is inexperienced (heck, even my opponent concedes to this). 2) There is no evidence to suggest that this forum would be an excellent means of becoming a far better debater and getting to the top 10 on the leader boards (which was the sole reason my opponent advocated that you should join in R1) 3) Debate. org shall be getting its official forum this month. 4) Users can easily communicate (right now) with one another on this website without hijacking a comment section and can have just as interesting discussions as they could on a forum. 5) Based on the information from someone in the very list of debaters he speaks highly of in R1, merely getting tips from other people won't help one become significantly better at debate. All of this sounds like factual information. If not, then my opponent should have rebutted these points rather than merely list my info as "non-factual" in one meatless statement as such a practice is not a means of winning a debate. Thus, I've negated my opponent's position on every ground. Thanks for the debate. :D
You should all join Debatef.com

1. Debatef.com is an ideal place for suggestions regarding debating, you have a community of debaters from debate.org who have all had their ups and downs. Which also deams this forum "a great place to start" (I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to debatef.com, you being LogicalMaster and everyone interested.) 2. For those new to the forum world, it would help provide some forum experience in a very easygoing environment. 3. To defeat my opponent statement: "Having taken a quick glance at the debatef.com forum, I really don't see any pressing reason to join it as there is a shortage of topics (none of them interesting) with the highest amount of post on a single topic being no more than 37. The forum didn't begin until mid-last week. We have 232 post (currently, Sept 02, 08 at 10:31pm est), In my opinion we have a very active forum for its age. 4. My opponent has failed to show us with factual information that you all shouldn't join debatef.com.
You should all join Debatef.com

Debate.org has a growing population. Debatf.com is the "Official Unofficial" Forum of debate.org Some of the Sites "Top" Debaters now call this forum home! And a note to everyone new to debate.org: If you are having trouble winning debates on this site and desperately want to climb to the top of the leader board, Debatef.com is the place to start! You can ask questions and have them answered by real debaters! What more could someone new to debate.org want? I know if i had this opportunity i would have taken it! Join Us!
God is Real.

By connecting the Big Bang Theory and Evolution to God, I am assuming you are speaking of the Abrahamic God. Since you seem to only want to refute arguments and not actually prove to me God is real, I will start out on the argument why he is not real. For something to be real it must exist. For something to exist it must either be composed of matter and energy or it must be something that if it is or is not matter or energy then it's affect must be physical. Two examples would be a block of wood, and a philosophy such as Hedonism. A block of wood is there; it is composed of matter and can cause energy. A block of wood exists. Hedonism exists because it's ideas such as whatever makes you happy, are an affect on us. Sex gives me pleasure, and that is part of Hedonism. Hedonism might not be an object, but it's philosophy has physical effects because me having sex is physical. Hedonism is man created. It is for man, by man, it exists. God does not exist. God is not composed of matter or energy. God as an idea, does not affect anything. It is God. It does not exist. Next, the Bible which is God's word is full of contradictions. For something that says "God is real" but then has a multitude of contradictions, is not a credible source. For example: In the Ten Commandments it says "Do not kill". Contradicting that point is Exodus 22:17, "You should not let a sorceress live." Same as Isaiah 14:21, "Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants." A Bible of contradictions that says "God is real and exists" is not a credible source. Then we have the reason people might want to believe in God in the first place. Fear. People feared what would happen after life. People feared that there might be this unknown source of power somewhere that would rip-off there heads and burn them in a fireplace if they disobeyed him. And society itself conditions many people to believe in God for the threat of death. Now, respond to my claims, and at least make a good argument on why "God is real".
Homework

Homework is causing more problems in the educational system than it is good. Homework shouldn't be assigned to anyone in the fact children no longer have time to be children. If you did your homework wrong and repeated the wrong act over several problems it is doing more damage than it is doing good, causing that said child to fall behind because that said child now needs to relearn and redo. If they were only told to study what they have learned in class then they would be fine and also given a chance to go do what they want such as sports and have the time to be with family and friends.
Homework

Okay so I shall first specify what exactly this argument is about. I am against homework being in any school system. Instead I feel school should be 8 hours a day and no homework after. In this point of my argument I will use facts and evidence to prove homework is not an asset to the Educational System but instead a pitfall. Now I won't say some homework is bad like what isn't finished in class is taken to be finished at home, but I will say the education system has not done that. Instead they overbear children with 3 or 4+ hours of homework a night. In doing so children lose a great deal on daylight outside, family planned events, sports, and the overall experiences of being a child. ,"too much homework may diminish its effectiveness or even become counterproductive,"writes Cooper in his latest research review [Harris Cooper, The Battle Over Homework, second edition, page 26, and Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement? A Synthesis of the Research 1987"2003, the Review of Educational Research (Spring 2006)]. Most teachers do not take courses specifically on homework during teacher training. In fact, research shows that the great majority are unaware of the research on the problems with homework [Stephen Aloia,"Teacher Assessment of Homework," Academic Exchange Quarterly (Fall 2003)]. That"s why, as Cooper told the authors of The Case Against Homework, when it comes to homework,"most teachers are winging it." I feel to avoid the situation of what is too much or too little we should merely just lose homework altogether. If children went to school eight hours a day they wouldn't have anything to bring home for homework anyways. Then they have all the time in the world to do as they please, like being children.
The Automobile

Con ignored my points on the external benefits of cars. He said it's the same as if "5 people in the room is eating a cake, it doesn't benefit just them". This is true because most people in the world use public transit instead of a car and so it's as if 5 people are eating cake and 10 people are eating pie, the pie-eaters and the cake-eaters should be glad that the others are eating something else. I should be glad there aren't more people on the road and people who use public transportation should be glad there aren't more people on the bus. Further more, since the negative impacts of the automobile on humanity are superceded by the positive impacts, the total impact is positive. Con's argument is akin to saying that the two story home is not beneficial to humanity because not everyone has one, or that cake isn't beneficial to humanity because not everyone has it, or that electricity isn't beneficial to humanity because not everyone has access to it. Something doesn't have to be used by everyone in the world in order to be generally beneficial to humanity. The fact of the matter is that two story homes, cake, electricity, and cars are beneficial to humanity as a whole merely because they have an overall positive impact. Not to sway from the topic but, under communist regimes that use Con's logic that if everyone can't afford something it is not beneficial to humanity and what winds up happening is that the general standard of living falls (ironic, right?). If I drive a car, and I am being positively impacted by this fact, and I am apart of humanity, isn't that enough to say that it is helping humanity? There are nearly a billion active cars, so I would say that is impacting a good enough portion of humanity that it is generally creating a positive impact. Thank you for the debate it was very enjoyable, hope it was for you too.
The Automobile

"Of course in some settings only a certain amount of people can own a car but that doesn't mean it only benefits them. " Uhm yes it does mean that it only benefits the drivers? Like what you're saying is because 5 people in the room is eating a cake, doesn't mean it only benefits them. Well, uh, it does mean it only benefits them lol. "But like I said before, this works both ways and so both systems benefit eachother. If we just had public transport then a tempoetry delay could cause widespread problems because nobody could get anywhere." Yea, I don't see how this is suppose to show that personal automobiles benefit humanity as a whole. You're saying that this mixture benefits humanity as a whole. "Since this debate is about whether or not the car is beneficial to humanity as a whole, and not about if busses are MORE beneficial, I have clearly won." Bold statement, considering I didn't mention anything regarding that. I said that personal automobiles would not benefit humanity as a whole. Considering that Pro just totally ignored all my rebuttals, it's amazing how he concluded with this statement. Simply, amazing. Let me do the same. Ahem. Since this debate is whether or not a PERSONAL automobile is beneficial to humanity as a whole, and I've shown that personal automobiles would not benefit humanity as a whole in our current situation, nor in a hypothetical world that everyone owns a car, I have clearly won." Coming back to my first point in this round "Just because I own a car, doesn't mean others would benefit from it. You would've won if the statement we're arguing is "Automobiles are beneficial", instead of saying "personal automobile is beneficial to mankind." By bringing this to the extreme and saying that it benefits humanity as a whole, just because a small population of the world uses it, you've already lost the battle. Since you're in the pro side, you got to prove that the personal automobile benefits every human being, where else all I have to do is to prove that it would not benefit one person. "I have proven that the car allows both users and non-users to get places faster by lowering the pressure placed on the transit systems and by moving faster and more efficiently." Ah, this doesn't prove anything lol. So we should all be thankful for beggars, since they chose not to get a job, and spared another employment chance for another person? Yea, sure.
The Automobile

Of course in some settings only a certain amount of people can own a car but that doesn't mean it only benefits them. Don't get me wrong, I understand that public transportation is beneficial to those who drive because it allows for more room on the road. But like I said before, this works both ways and so both systems benefit eachother. If we just had public transport then a tempoetry delay could cause widespread problems because nobody could get anywhere. With our current balanced transportation system, there isn't too much weight on either form of travel. Since this debate is about whether or not the car is beneficial to humanity as a whole, and not about if busses are MORE beneficial, I have clearly won. I have proven that the car allows both users and non-users to get places faster by lowering the pressure placed on the transit systems and by moving faster and more efficiently.
The Automobile

Let me start by saying that I do see Con's point that we lack the current infrastructure to support a world in which every person owns a car. However, more investment in public infrastructure could remedy that situation. My opponent did not realize that the hypothetical scenario he made up to prove his point also works in reverse. The automobile has improved the living conditions for those who own one and also for those who don't. Think about how much more uncomfortable and inefficient busses and trains in metropolitan areas would be if every person who drives began using public transportation instead. The system couldn't handle it, it would fall apart. Think of the changes in supply and demand. Sure, gasoline usage per person would decrease but would fares? No. Fares go up when ridership goes up, and so does the wear and tear on the entire system. You see, a bus or metro system is centrally controlled and so maintenance is done with the consent of the authorities, and is typically not done well. The entire concept of public transit is designed to haul a relatively low number of people. An example of overload can be seen in northern California where the B.A.R.T. system operates. Ridership has increased steeply in the last 3 years and thus the system is falling apart. Large stretches of tracks have to be replaced every few months and the trains themselves have not been replaced in many decades due to the massive amount of inefficient planning that occurs when control of transportation is centralized. Air quality concerns are real (though not as bad as many seem to think) but are caused by many factors, of which automobiles is one. Thus, many choose to purchase more efficient vehicles that save money and save the environment. I don't care about the environment so I drive a normal car but there are a lot of people that do so it winds up being less of a problem. Thus, the automobile benefits greatly those who use it and benefits to a certain extent those who do not. In general it is beneficial though.
The Automobile

First off, thank you for this opportunity to have this amazing debate with you! I hope to have a fun, and challenging session with you, good sir. Let us begin! Yes, I do believe automobile has come a long way, defeating many of its adversary, and finally standing at the top, overlooking the corpse of its enemies. However, do I believe private automobiles benefits humanity as a whole? No. To make something beneficial for humanity, it means everyone has a share to the pie. So, to be able to debate on such a topic, let us imagine a world, where everyone owns a car, and let us see whether humanity as a whole benefits from it. For your sake, and the sake of continuum, let's assume even the rural areas have roads. Also, for the sake of the argument, since everyone owns a car, who needs train and buses, right? With this scenario in place, let's see what'll happen. In Jakarta, jams have hit the worst it can ever be. At peak hours, traffic jam can last for hours and hours. Oh, did I mention that the population owning cars in Jakarta is only 21 percent? 48 million cars. Travelling 10km takes 3 hours. Let's imagine, 229 million cars. 4.8 times more cars. Would the jam last even more longer? Surely it will. So, with a much worst traffic, would it benefit those stuck in the jam? Hmm. Next, petrol cost. Supply and demand. Laws of economics work on every goods. In this case, petrol. As petroleum usage increases, the price would naturally increase with it. Would the hike of petrol price benefit humanity? Well, now I hope cars was limited to selected individuals. Carbon Emission. Okay, one can say that "But FieryNyan, carbon emission affects the environment, not humanity in general!" Well, it kinda does. Bad air quality = more sickness. Plus, it'll hurt the environment a lot, and promote pollution. All in all, I would like to say that automobile does not benefit humanity as a whole. Sure, it does benefit many people. But benefit everyone? No. I believe the current mixture of transportation, this diversity, benefits humanity as a whole. So, to me, no, personal automobile does not benefit humanity as a whole.
having sex is wrong

Using your system of numbering I all lay out my case:1) Infertile people can have sex.2) Fertile people who have sex might do so at the perfect mentrual moment and not concieve children.3) All mammals have sex, thus it is clearly an inehrent undeniable part of our nature which is unhealthy to ignore. 4) Sex can feel so good, thus not having it is denying ultimate pleasure.5) Sex is the only reason that pro was born.
having sex is wrong

1) If it's sometimes moral, it is not always wrong meaning you fail to meet your BOP as pro but I have diminished BOP as con to this since I just have to disprove it being 'wrong'2) Stupidity is relative because IQ of 100 is always in middle of normal distribution. http://www.iqtestexperts.com... Sorry but you lose that.3) Still failed to counter moral nihilism4) Look at number 25) Insults me and can't deny that he denied himself being born being right meaning pro shouldn't have existed in first place.:) I win.He admits to being a troll, conduct mark lost for also calling me stupid I think definitely!
having sex is wrong

1) Just because it's not always immoral doesn't mean it's always moral. 2) a. I'm sure that there's someone out there who knows what their talking about, b, the results that come from stupidity aren't relative, even if stupidity is. maybe the human race is immoral overall. 3) I meant that proving something is part of our nature doesn't prove it's moral. 4) 'look at number 2' 5) My existence isn't relevant. anyways, your stupid, same as me. by the way, this was a troll debate more or less.
having sex is wrong

In response to your arguments, as they where written: 1)granted. 2) fertile people might not have a child, but they still might. And allowing any chance of more stupid people to come into excistence is to great a risk. 3) mammals kill each other, rape each other, and sometimes practice cannibalism. I wouldn't consider them a shining example of moral perfection. 4) Still, stupid people are more likely to act on what feels good then what is logical, making it even more likely that more stupid people will be born. 5) I'm stupid just like everyone else, so this only reinforces my original point.
This is a troll debate

Troll: A person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with on the internet over extremely trivial issues. Debate: Arguing because we friggen can Thus a troll debate would be arguing over the dumbest things known to humanity. This debate is one of the most worthless things in human history, thus this is a troll debate. Blankets are very soft Babbons enjoy bannanas bannanas are worthless benches are I if I was imabench boring Bad people bring bad presents Brah! Bing sucks, I prefer google Believe and you will find your way!