BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Schools should not require their students to wear uniforms

My first contention is that uniforms improve schools overall-- Uniforms, according to a study done by Virginia Draa, assistant professor at Youngstown State University, found that uniforms in schools increased attendance, graduate numbers, and decreased suspension rates. What we can derive from this information is he following. Schools in which uniforms are institutionalized have students who are more academically productive, disciplined and good citizens of the world, and are studying in a safer environment. Children are the future. They are the future business, political, and social leaders of our world. It is absurd to call that a problem in any way. My second contention is that uniforms are the best solution to bullying-- Bullying is a large problem in schools all over the world. Bullying leads to depression, lower self esteem, academic problems, and in many cases suicide. A study done proves that most bullying incidents occur as result of clothing or apparel. The study shows that kids who may not be able to afford expensive designer clothing become easy targets. Instituting uniforms completely solves this problem. The result of This is a lower in bullying and crime in schools. This helps students focus on their academic, spiritual, and self goals without the distraction of bullies, or worry about their appearance. My third and final contention is that uniforms are good for the economy-- The popular assumption, as my opponent stated, is that using uniforms would give a blow to the textile industry. However it is absolutely incorrect. When uniforms are put in place families must spend money on the uniforms to wear to school. Each school, district, or state may have a different sponsor who provides the uniforms. That boosts those companies' sales. But, children don't only attend school all day, they also have outside activities or just daily wear. The market for textiles doubles! Uniforms and other after school wear. Not only this, but schools and families will result in a more disposable income. Taxpayers will get more out of their schools because the schools will be spending money on improving education, rather than disciplinary measures. All in all, taxpayers get tenant they deserve, and the economy is actually boosted. As my clear reasoning and evidence has proven, uniforms are indeed good for children, our economy, but most of all the world. It would be absurd to call uniforms bad.
Schools should not require their students to wear uniforms

We already have catholic and private schools - usually those schools require their students to wear uniforms to attend that certain school. Then we have public schools - which do not require uniforms. At the current state we are in, everyone has the CHOICE if they want to go to a private school and wear a uniform or go to a public school and don't. Ammendment 1 grants every american citizen the following freedoms: Speech, Press, and Religion. People dress to represent themselves as a person. Their clothing tells peers who they are through expression. How someone dresses is their freedom of speech, because they are speaking of themselves through their clothing. If all schools required students to wear uniforms - then our younger generation will have their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY. This is against the law and is not allowed - or puts a good name upon our country in question - USA. At least where we are at the moment, students have the CHOICE if they want to go to a school that requires them to wear a uniform or not. They CHOOSE if they accept the fact that if they go to a spacific school, then they may not have all of their rights while atttending. Where we are now is fair, everyone have freedom of choice, and the choise of what to do with their rights; and that is what being an american citizen is all about. Even if schools did want to require their students to wear uniforms - where would they get the money to buy such uniforms on manufacture them? You see, if this were reality then it would be a MAJOR financial, and constitution violation and issue.
There is not a valid religious argument against Gay Marriage

I will answer your question, but I hope that you will answer my question. So, the Book of Mormon speaks in favor of racism? Well, you could interpret it that way. Your interpretation would be wrong though. Because in your example, you commit the problems that you rail against. First, you sparingly quote the actual words. Second, you don't provide context either before or after the verse. Here are the actual words. "20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence. 21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. 22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities." The cursing was basically to separate the Nephites and Lamanites. The cursing followed disobedience, not their skin color. The first of these points that I would like to discuss is the partial reading of any scripture. For example, a single line in a verse could say that, "the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up". That is definitely in the scriptures. But the words "as if" are omitted. Without those words, you could interpret it as a prophesy telling people to commit revolution, or that rods would all of the sudden move without anyone there. But the scriptures aren't subjective. People may interpret scriptures in different ways, but saying that every interpretation is right isn't true.; So, if you believe that your book of scripture is perfect, all you have to do to find the truth is go throughout the entire book to find what it teaches. But, you don't hold the Bible to be applicable today. At least not entirely. So, you need extra authority to back up whatever claim that you may have. Now, once again, no one has an agreed upon authority, but certain religions do have prophets, other scriptures, or traditions. I don't know what you believe in. In summary, there is no one universal scripture or authority which declares homosexuality a sin, mainly because there is no universal authority. Each religion has its own truth, and its own viewpoint on gay marriage and homosexuality. But to say that they have no grounds for being against it is wrong. You have admitted that there are scriptures up for interpretation that condemn homosexuality, and that certain religious authorities are against it. I will now allow you to respond to any points that you see here. I have already said more than I wanted to, and I had to rewrite everything twice.
There is not a valid religious argument against Gay Marriage

I suppose I see your argument, and I apologize for not including other aspects of Religion. Let me combat your hypothetical question with a question of my own. During the Civil Rights Movement, there were many people who used The Bible to condone slavery, a practice I think we can both be in agreement is horrible and a huge violation of Human Rights. They often pointed to the verse "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." (Peter 2:18: ). There are also verses in the BoM that point to people of African descent being inferior such as: "dark skin is a sign of God"s curse, while white skin is a sign of his blessing. When the Lamanites displease God, "because of their iniquity".the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them" (2 Nephi 5:21). The point I am making, is just because there are places in the Bible or BoM that support racism and enslavement, does that make them ok? I am not refuting the fact that they are places in Abrahmic Scripture that could be interpreted as anti-gay, but that does not make them any more correct. The other aspect of the argument is that some of the stories and verses used to support homosexuality and delegalization of gay marriage are up for interpretation. You can find verses in the Bible to condone incest! If you are basing your views on a subject off a scripture written thousands of years ago, than you are operating on a very low moral level of reasoning. Using this logic, you could interpret a Mormon, Islamic, Christian, or Jewish verse in ANY way you wanted to, and according to you that makes it valid because it is someone's interpretation. For instance, going back to the incest point, the Bible explicitly states: Abraham said, "Because I thought, surely there is no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife. Besides, she actually is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife; and it came about, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said to her, 'This is the kindness which you will show to me: everywhere we go, say of me, He is my brother."" The point I am making is that while there may be many interpretations of verses in different scripture that condone Homosexuality, (especially in Mormonis, you have a whole webpage https://www.mormon.org...) but that does not make them correct, logical, or even universally accepted. My point being that it is interpretation, which is personal. Denying people their happiness is a violation of Human Rights and is wrong. Worry about your own sins and atoning for those before you interfere with someone else's lifestyle and choices.
There is not a valid religious argument against Gay Marriage

I will be arguing that there are valid religious arguments against gay marriage. Now, I am a libertarian. I'm am not for the banning of gay marriage. But, saying that no religion can call gay marriage a sin is a lie. First, let me respond to the tirade about hating people. There is a phrase that says "love the sinner but hate the sin". Sin is sin. It as simple as that. If in its interpretation of scripture a religion finds that homosexuality is a sin, than it is a sin. Now, to claim that sin gives you grounds to hate someone is a lie. I'm not here to defend those people. Here is a hypothetical question. If someone steals from their neighbor, what should happen? Should the members of the church hate that person? Should they change their beliefs so that the thief is made to feel better about their sin? Neither. Sin is sin, no matter who does it, or whether they have done good elsewhere. Justice demands that if a law is broken, someone must suffer the punishment. Nothing more than that, such as having people hate you. And nothing less, such as having your sin be erased from the doctrine of the church. Hate does not factor into this question whatsoever. This is whether there is scripture which is against gay marriage. Now back to the question. In my religion, which is the LDS religion, we have continued revelation. And we have received revelation explicitly stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, my religion has a valid argument against gay marriage. Please note that I have proved that a religion has grounds for being against gay marriage, therefore winning the debate. Now, I realize that when you said religion, you meant something along the lines of the Catholic Church, so I will continue to debate you based on the grounds of the bible alone. And, although there are still fallacies in your argument, I've spoken enough and reclarified the debate, I will end this round and allow you to respond.
There is not a valid religious argument against Gay Marriage

I am extremely socially liberal, and one of the things that drives me bonkers is when people use Christianity to condemn gay marriage. It is absolutely shocking how backwards this is, the same type of logic was used to condone slavery and the mistreatment of women. For a religion that is supposed to be about love and forgiveness, Christianity has spawned and awful lot of hate. Besides the fact that no person with any sort of moral compass would prevent a gay couple from being together unless they were completely blinded by their faith, there isn't really even a valid religious argument in it. For starters, there are 5 verses in the bible that "condemn" homosexuality (they don't really, but I'll get to that in second) and over 2000 about being performing acts of love and charity in the name of God. For whatever reason, people choose to ignore those other 2000 and instead choose to go to anti-gay rallies and chant how God hates fgs. This is also completely irrational. These people must be reading a completely different book when the read the Bible. Some of the most important ideas of the Bible are these: "God loves ALL his children". This means exactly what it said. If you be believe in an Abrahamic God, you would most likely believe the idea that he created every human being in his image. Therefore, he chose to make these individuals gay. Please do not use the excuse that gay people are sick or faking it or confused, why would anyone put themselves in a position to be discriminated against? One of the biggest proponents of tolerance of gay marriage in the Bible is Jesus' Golden Rule. It states "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". If you had something wrong with you, would you want to be treated the way some people treat people who are homosexual? Unless you are a perfect person, you are in absolutely no position to judge somebody for their sins. Telling someone who is gay that they are going to hll is a completely subjective argument. I find it hard to believe that someone could be gay and spend their whole life doing good works in the name of God, and go to hell. Even if you think they are you are in no position to judge as no one is not a sinner. Finally, the story of Sodom and Gommorah; IT IS NOT ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY, I HAVE THE VERSE RIGHT HERE!!! "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Read it and weep. Just for good measure, I would like to add that Pope Francis said If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge? We shouldn't marginalize people for this. They must be integrated into society." So there you have it, the highest figure in the Catholic Church is completely tolerant of homosexuality. I would like to add I was raised Catholic and attend Church weekly.
Should you believe in miracles pt. 2

[q] As previously stated, when it comes to studying science, miracles should be excluded due to the potential dangers. [q]However, outside of the scientific world this is not the case. [ri] The Straw Man that you have created argues against miracles being included in scientific research. [s] This would be a fine argument, but unfortunately no one is making that claim. [i] With that being said not much of your argument is left for debate. [i] You have failed to address the rest of our points and only chose to discuss one we were not even making.
Should you believe in miracles pt. 2

[q]Miracles are not reliable, ones who have "encountered" miracles do not provide others with sufficient evidence unlike science. [ri]When miracles happen it is likely for one to just say "I don't know", when that occurs in science, scientists simply take that phrase acknowledge it and make it possible to answer why they don't know and they will find the answer. [s] Hypotheses are created to lead to an experiment and the experiment leads to data and sufficient support to what the scientist did not know. [s] Miracles cannot be hypothesis, they cant be tested because they cannot be recreated and do not provide adequate confirmation.[s] "As a scientist you are trying to determine through study and investigation what the course of nature is. Suppose the miraculous interventions occur so that some of the phenomena are natural and others the result of supernatural intervention. As scientists, we exclude the supernatural cases from our database because they go against the course of nature." (Gomberg) [s]Since miracles are supernatural, we are not able to use them in scientific research. [q] If we do include them, then we are admitting we know the course of nature, and if we know the course of nature than there is nothing to be learned.
Should you believe in miracles pt. 2

[i] "Believing in miracles only gives one hope," this was your opening statement in your previous argument. [q] Prior to that, here was no discussion of the idea. [ri] As far as the belief providing "false" confidence, and consequently hurting them, that is not the case. [q] You have provided no evidence to prove that. [q] However, imagine the man stuck on the cliff, he is in a situation which he has never encountered and his only way out is to jump. [s] In this case, he must believe the miracle of him making the jump is a possibility or he would just sit immobilized by the decision of whether or not to take the risk. [s] By the time he realizes the jump is his only option, he will be too fatigued to make the jump, if he has not already fallen. [ri] You claim that believing in miracles inhibits progress, but "not every belief on insufficient evidence is equally likely to corrupt the social process of inquiry and communication. [s] Scientists falsifying their data out of laziness or professional ambition, or policemen letting their prejudices rather than evidence dictate whom they charge with a crime, are doing more vital harm to social processes of inquiry than an old person clinging to a superstition they were taught as a child" (Woods). [ri] Therefore, even if there is no evidence to support all beliefs, miracles included, there is not always harm in holding said beliefs.
Should you believe in miracles pt. 2

reference to http://www.debate.org... The question at hand is should one believe in miracles.[q] The answer is no.[ri] You say that miracles provide the believer with hope but miracles only provide someone with a false sense of hope and confidence.[s] When someone believes in a miracle they are simply lying to themselves.[s] This lie serves as their false sense of confidence.[ri] Without valid reason, this lie has no substance and will in return hurt them.[s] You cannot put reason to a miracle.[ri] When one believes in a miracle or anything without reason they only perceive.[ri] One who wants to believe in a miracle creates reasons to believe in it.[s] Those reasons are nonsense and make miracles just a perception of what the person wants to believe.[s] When you say that acting based on sufficient evidence will never entertain new experiences you are not correct.[ri] The opposite is true.[ri] Miracles go against the laws of nature.[s] For that reason, nothing can be learned from them.[ri] In the case of a disease or illness, if we include miracles as a solution to them then we are admitting we know the course of the disease.[s] If we know the course of the disease then we cannot gain knowledge through research.[s] Also your point of one"s belief in being successful in something that they do has nothing to do with miracles, therefore it is irrelevant.[q] P.S. thank you! Subordination for 2nd round : 1. Re 2. S 3. Ec 4. Re 5. S 6. Q 7. S 8. S
Religion is bad

It is disappointing that my opponent didn't post a reply nor did he engage any of my points as I tried to engage all of his points. The fact still stands that his main point about Religion being bad because it impedes progress is nullified unless he can prove that progress is a good thing good and therefore the impediment of said progress is bad, which he didn't do. The burden of proof was on my opponent and all he did was supply claims without any backing, therefore he did not meet his burden of proof and regardless of your personal opinion on the matter, you should vote for me.
Religion is bad

Any social construct that promotes and exalts willful ignorance puts its members in a reproductive disadvantage to the rest of humanity. Mankind's want for religion should have faded out of our cultures a long time ago with the rise of modern science and the scientific revolution. For most of the religions of the bronze and iron age this was the case. Unfortunately when it comes to established religions the opposite has occurred. In these religions the idea of faith, the act of canceling reason in order to believe in something, has been viewed as a positive attribute to its members and thus the idea has been forced onto them from an early age. This actually stops the process resulting in de-evolution and societal advancement comes to a halt and results in a strict culture based around ideas that can not be proven but are acknowledged as "facts". Why do people believe things that were told to them that have no facts to support it? isn't that the definition of stupidity? Religions is nothing more than a crude form of oligarchy which imposes social structures and rules around thoughts which trigger emotions. These forays are unfortunate in that they are are based on fictional premises, and therefore are meaningless and incomprehensible in the world of reality.