BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should religion be taught in private schools? (I am against it)

You have the right to teach your religion, yes, as long as you teach other religions too. Your argument about indocrination is really bad. None goes out in the open talking about how cutting off the light is wrong or how colombus did not discover america. There are many people arguing against religion, though. Teach the children All religions, including yours. If yours is really true, then your child will obviously agree with you. It is not a parent's right to teach their children whatever they want. And schools must obviously be censored if you don't want children to learn that the earth is flat. Teach comparative religion, tell children about its relevance in modern day society, but let children lead their own spiritual path. You have not refuted a single one of my arguments.
Should religion be taught in private schools? (I am against it)

I'll also address my opponent, point by point. (Rebuttals for round 2) 1. My opponent's first argument is that it is wrong to teach you children your belief system, but this is absurd. It is a parent's responsibility to pass on their belief system to their children, especially if they believe it to be a belief system that will condemn a child to eternal torment if they don't learn it. A parent with that belief system has a moral obligation to make sure their child learns their faith. It is actually impossible not to indoctrinate your kid in some way. They will eventually cut off the light when they leave the bathroom, use a spoon to eat cereal or leave the toilet paper with the side that hangs down facing out. It will become the child's belief that those things are the correct way. It might be true, but that is beside the point. The point is that the child learned it through a system of indoctrination and that learning things through indoctrination is inevitable, even if you try to resist it. My opponent hasn't really mentioned what is wrong with indoctrination. I guess he expects us just to accept that, indoctrination is wrong. I can't accept that indoctrination is automatically bad. It is actually a short cut to learning. We don't often have the time to learn the ins and outs of how things work, but we don't need to. I don't need to know how electricity works, I just have to know how to hit the light switch. Most of the things we learn in school is also indoctrination. The facts may be supported by evidence, but we don't learn through examining evidence. We don't look at the documents that prove Columbus came to America, we just accept it through the indoctrination process. To say we shouldn't learn through indoctrination at school, would mean that we couldn't even attend school. 2. Religious beliefs can be extremely beneficial. It is common knowledge that religious people are typically happier, live longer and are more successful in life. Going to school should improve your odds of being more succesful, happy and live longer. http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://en.m.wikipedia.org... https://www.psychologytoday.com... I'd say a school that improves a child's life is superior to one that doesn't. (Counter rebuttals next round)
Ronaldo is better then Messi

I. Playmaking ability trumps all 3 of these superficial categories and Messi is the better playmaker. Soccer is not only about running, heading, and scoring. It's about moving the ball around, creating opportunities for yourself and your teammates. And, the best way to do this is to penetrate the opposing team's defensive line. And, in order to penetrate, you need acceleration. Acceleration as opposed to top speed is needed to constantly stop and go, move and dribble around. And, Messi has a body more built for acceleration. Taller soccer players like Ronaldo have a higher top speed but they can't penetrate as well as smaller players. That's why you see great dribblers like Maradona, Pele, and Messi are smaller players. What does this playmaking ability lead to? Goals. And, at the end of the day, it's about winning. Messi kills Ronaldo in every world record category. He's got countless world records. In 2012, Messi even broke the most goals scored in a calendar year with an amazing 91. What about Ronaldo? Do you know what Ronaldo's sole world record? He's the most expensive footballer in history. II. Assuming that Pro's categories are dispositive, Messi is the best in 2 of those 3 categories. Messi is a better scorer. Numbers don't lie. He's won 3 Ballon d'Or's while Ronaldo has only won one. Messi is a better runner. As stated above, acceleration is more important in soccer. Messi with a lower center of gravity is a better runner. Ronaldo is admittedly a better header due to his taller height but Messi is uncharacteristically a decent header given his size. So, even if we use Pro's superficial categories, Messi still comes out on top. III. Conclusion Soccer is more than just 3 categories. There is dribbling, passing, etc. which all contribute towards playmaking which in turns lead to goals. Messi is the premier playmaker and thus, the better soccer player.
Young people do not have good arguments.

Your arguments dont hold water In terms of hard sciences and engineering, you cannot have an opinion without the knowledge If you dont have a masters or PhD, then you cant argue facts about it You say I lost the debates on hydrogen and Collidal silver and other science topics simply based on BS "votes" from novices with NO CLUE what they are talking about I could ask you a number of questions, and you couldnt answer any of them, yet you still have the nerve to say "hydrogen is not a good fuel" ie what is a fuel cell? what is the carnot efficiency? how do you calculate combsution efficiency? what is the total energy needed for the transportation sector? In terms of collidal silver, you say "I was destroyed" by Bearcat Nothing could be further from the truth I produced PEER REVIEWED articles proving the effectiveness, and she produced nothingbut government propaganda about an irrelevant and nonexistent condition "argyria" which is total BS Furthrmore, I saw her propagandizing against nuclear energy- with an 18 year old who coulndt effectively counter her- I challenged her to a debate on the FACTS AND TECNICAL ASPECTS- she chickened out and declined Bottom line: people without science and engineering background are in NO WAY qualified to debate topics of science and engineering By thinking you can andn that you are so smart, when you are NOT, YOU LOSE YOU LOSE becuase you DONT LEARN- for example, by not listening to me on CS, you will be dependent on expensive and less and less effective sulfa- and other drugs that are NOT as effective at maintaining your health. and then you say nonsense like this "Al Gore does not say the sky is falling, he says that global warming is real and the science is very much on his side." WRONG. MOST SCIENTTISTS DISAGREE ACTUALLY, especially those not PAID to propoagnadize the latest scare - this is case in point Here are some REAL SCIENTISTS http://www.friendsofscience.org... next point Young people are not fed anti-conservative propaganda Oh please Public schools are populated by liberals who constantly propagandize against conservatives and republicans the marxists moved into the colleges years ago- read horowitz' book the 100 most dangerous professors - this is a simple fact http://info.interactivist.net...) next point Liberalism is has a good amount of logic behind a good number of ideas. name one good liberal idea- see ya
Young people do not have good arguments.

I am going to center my argument in this case on two points, where young people are clueless , and still they are making cogent arguments the fact that I have lost all debates here is actually a dage of honor, becuase the voters here are typically kids who are not voting on logic , but simply emotion The level of attack that I have received is really quite funny to me, and yet it is I wh ohave been reported and order of magnitude higher than anyone else, because only liberals can be offended- conservatives, who are typically older and wiser, have much tougher skins Here are my two points (1) Science and Engineering (2) Politics and History In both of these areas, it is clear that the younger crowd (especially not yet out of high school and in college) are absolutely clueless, or maybe a bit knowlegeable but essetially ignorant, but willing to spout nonsense and try and sound smart I know what it is like being young- you think you know everything But let me tell you , you are a TOTALLY different human being after you have gone through your 20s and enter your 30s OK (1) Science I have started at least three or four debates about energy policy, hydrogen, collidal silver and other topics I attempted to start a debate with dreaming bearcat, who had repsonded nonsense about nuclear energy, arguing with an 18 year old who didnt have the facts , and she chickened out. In each case, I was trying to debate with kids who have NO CLUE what they are talking about. One supposed engineer (self proclaimed_) started trying to talk about fuel cells and the carnot efficiency, and when I quizzed him on both - he had no idea what they were. One other 22 year old tried to tell me that philosphy was actaully superior to real science and engineering- with a bunch of bloviating nonsense that I simply call mental masutrbation What this says to me is what I already know, kids these days, and espeically on this site, have not or are not willing to study hard subjects like Chemistry, Physics, and engineering, and become fodder for fools like Al Gore , who come along and tell them the sky is falling. (2) Politics and History I have started and have been in many debates on the role of religion, on the threat of Islam, on Bush Derangement syndrome, the war and many other subjects Typically young folks are fed a bunch of anti-conservative propaganda and buy it hook line and sinker There is no logic in liberalism- it is all feelings And futhermore there is a unwillingness on the part of young people to try and learn on any subject- they refuse to read the links I send along, dont send any in return, or in the case of one rude young person- send along pornographic references, and think that is funny I can go on and on, but I will be wasting my breath since most young people already know it all and are not willing to learn. (especially liberals) Happy New Year a mature debater
Young people do not have good arguments.

Solarman, you've made repeated arguments that youths are inherently unable to make good arguments and that more-over they do not have enough life experience to competently defend a position. 1) Regardless your age, you are unable to make a cogent argument on any subject. 2) Young people quite often have cogent arguments. 3) Attacking people on the grounds of their youth is simply an ad hominem attack. For example, you are apparently born in 1969 making you nearly 40. You've had a number of debates on this site and outside of one where your opponent stopped replying, you've lost every single one via incoherent rants about Muslims, the ACLU, communists, or some nonsense or other. I contend that as Instigator, this debate should be decided not on merit but rather on the grounds that Solarman1969 presented *some* cogent argument in favor of the premise.
Religion should be outlawed

The Pro has kept his arguments extremely short and very limited in scope, Just the way I like it ;D The Pro's entire argument rests on a single statement " Given the modern circumstances of our society, we should be intelligent enough to safeguard against such influence for the sake of ensuring personal safety from the onslaught of social violence and mental instability that always ensues." This all rests on the idea that religious belief always leads to social violence and mental instability, and that is flat out not true. Religious belief has spawned charities that help those who are abused or less fortunate, religious belief often helps people deal with dramatic events in their own lives, religious beliefs inspire people to have faith in themselves. Religion does not always cause social onslaught like the Pro claims. On another note, banning religion goes completely against the Constitution, banning religion would be impossible to force both within our borders and outside our borders, and people have a fundamental right to believe in what they want to believe without the government saying they cant believe in anything.
Religion should be outlawed

By definition: religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies. Granted it is supported by the original law of the land; however, those laws are, and often should be amended for the good of the citizens as a whole. Given the modern circumstances of our society, we should be intelligent enough to safeguard against such influence for the sake of ensuring personal safety from the onslaught of social violence and mental instability that always ensues.
UKIP is a racist party.

My opponent states UKIP is racist,he provides evidence in the form of comments made by other's. These comments, although controversial, are NOT racist but are sexist. He has said that all parties have racist member's, and agreed they do not reflect the view's of the party which he suggests by the thesis. He also makes the link of UKIP's immigration policy, which in addition to being NOT racist, but also fails to be factual as UKIP wish to ban immigrants to claiming benefits for 5 years, the Tories' want to make it 2. I argue the manifesto is the best way of judging. UKIP received 4m votes in the Euro-Elections - it is ridiculous to suggest all voters are racist. Read Comments for more.
UKIP is a racist party.

I would firstly like to pint out that when talking about how evil Israel is, it is to shed light on the government, not the people. The government of Israel is evil because of the murder they are performing on Palestinians. It's true that all parties have racist members but Ukip, of course due to their far right wing policies, have managed to attract more. I could fill my word count with quotes so I will state them here: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk... As for policies on immigration, Ukip are out to see a dramatic fall in immigrants even if it's bad for the economy. Last year they proposed a ban on immigrants for five years! This would destroy the economy
UKIP is a racist party.

Well, starting off with the leader of Ukip, Nigel Farage. In May he said in a BBC interview, "I was asked if a group of Romanian men moved in next to you, would you be concerned? And if you lived in London, I think you would be." This is debated whether this was racist among major UK political parties with Ed Milliband criticising the comment heavily saying "He is clearly a racist." Earlier in Nigel's career, he said "We will never win the nigger vote. The nig-nogs will never vote for us". Ever wondered why they won't vote for you? Maybe it's because of those sort of comments. Of course, we can't forget the Ukip councillor who said that the reason why England has suffered floods was because of the gays and immigrants. The list goes on...
THE EARTH IS FLAT

You claimed that < > Gravity and atmosphere blow your theory apart because if centrifugal forces were acting on us, without gravity and atmosphere, we'd be flying off into space. Unfortunately, this is the last round. I think I did a sufficient job and proving that the Earth is not flat, but round. Also, you didn't take the opportunity to address any of my points in your argument, which you could've done without my explanation of how your argument fell apart. Thank you very much for this debate, sadolite. Have a great weekend!
The meaning of life is happiness

Happiness from taking someone else's life may not be natural, but I don't see how it would still apply as the meaning of life. I'm sure that not all drugs are harmful, but I used it as a general example to illustrate that some drugs are harmful even though they release chemicals in our brain to make us happy. Using hardcore drugs can destroy the person physically and rip families and friends apart. You would still consider this the meaning of life if it made the drug user happy. I'm not talking about a sexual love or desire but just a profound sense of seeing the good in everything and everyone, willing to put your own selfish desires second and the other person first. This is why I believe that love is the meaning of life. This kind of love will always increase our well-being and simultaneously make us very happy in the process.
The meaning of life is happiness

Unfortunately the world is far from perfect and some people born with mental defects or raised a certain way may only find happiness at the expense of another. However, these defects and tendency's aren't natural and are considered an imperfection (despite the fact that no one is perfect anyway). I'm not saying that those kind of people are always bad or deserve to die, but taking someones life for pleasure or happiness can not be natural. Con has also stated "Using drugs would release a large amount of seretonin and dopamine in his brain making him feel happy, but at the cost of destroying the happiness of others around him like friends and family." There is a reason that these chemicals are created and released naturally in our brains. Of course there are external substitutes like marijuana and similar drugs but they aren't necessary in the release of these chemicals due to the fact that they occur naturally in our body. Also, con has generalized the term "drugs" without being specific and stated that drugs (in general) will destroy the happiness of others around, like friends and family. First of all i think that the friends and family should be happy because the individual taking the drugs is happy too. Second; there are only certain drugs that can, perhaps, lead to the destruction of another persons happiness. Drugs like methamphetamine, speed, cocaine, heroin and drugs similar can easily cause these things to happen, whereas safer drugs like marijuana have nearly no negative side effects and are simply used recreationally. Also the con believed the meaning of life is love when in fact love doesn't always suit people. True love is a rare thing that doesn't always come to everyone as some people are happier to live individually. We are now past the point in evolution where reproduction is no longer necessary for every human, leaving them with the freedom to choose weather or not they decide to have children. Love never lasts forever as spending that much time with a person can cause life to become boring as you basically know almost everything about your partner. Happiness is the end result of each satisfying moment when we finally achieve what we have set out for (big or small in size). Also, love is just a result of two people making each other happy, thus returning to the conclusion (that i choose to believe) that happiness is the meaning of life.
The meaning of life is happiness

Thanks Pro. Mainly, the reason I believe love is the meaning of life is because love is inherently good and I'll give a context to the love i'm talking about. Happiness on the other hand, may not always be a good thing. Here's what you've said:" . . .I meant that is IS the own persons happiness so thank you for pointing that out."So just to be clear, you are saying that the meaning of life is whatever makes the individual happy. "Taking the life of another is completely horrible but unfortunately that is the only way some people can be happy."As you can see, what makes an evil person happy might be murdering someone else. Let's stretch this argument. If one superdictator became ruler of the world and blew everyone in the world up except for himself because it made him happy, under your definition, this is the meaning of life because it made him happy.In another example, you might think of somebody using drugs to make them happy. Using drugs would release a large amount of seretonin and dopamine in his brain making him feel happy, but at the cost of destroying the happiness of others around him like friends and family.What i'm arguing, is that love is the meaning of life. Let me give you a context of the love I'm talking about: 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseverves." This kind of love is selfless and builds other people up. If everyone loved each other in this way, I believe life would be much more meaningful.
The meaning of life is happiness

Thank you for accepting. I would like to begin by pointing out a statement made in the comments that hematite12 made; i meant that is IS the own persons happiness so thank you for pointing that out. This may be down to a matter of opinion but we all know the tingly sensation we get when things go right. When we get a gift from someone, make an accomplishment, hear a funny joke, eat a tasty food or just think about things that make us happy, out brain releases a chemical known as serotonin which gives us a warm, gentle pleasure. Why do we get this feeling? Because i believe it signifies we are doing things right. Everyone has their own things that make them happy, and since we can all control what our bodies do (most people) it is almost a waste not to do these things. I believe that if we live our whole lives worrying about others and devoting our existence to the convenience of an other then we may as well be throwing our lives away. Human life is the most beautiful thing that exists because it allows a short chance true existence. All we truly know in this world is that we like to be. We like to exist because we strive each an every day for that one time when we are finally happy. Many people take this for granted and unfortunately many more people treat human life like a commodity or expendable thing. Each and every thing on this planet is beautiful from a mentally challenged quadriplegic to an evil dictator. That last comment may have sounded harsh and that is one of the only problems. Taking the life of another is completely horrible but unfortunately that is the only way some people can be happy. Sadly some people are born without the ability to feel emotions or only feel happiness at the expense of others and it's sad for me to say but this is just part of life. No one has all of the answers and the world is far from perfect, which is why you should cherish each moment as it comes knowing that you won't live forever so make the most of your life. One last thing: My opponent believes that love is the meaning of life. I believe love (true love) is just an extremely advanced and even more beautiful form of happiness.