BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution taught to Christian Schools

Genocide DefinitionThe deliberate extermination of a national, political or cultural group. When I say genocide, I don't mean that anybody is getting killed. I mean that it exterminates a group. Nobody is getting killed, but Christianity would be exterminated. I never once said that they are being forced to believe in it. In fact, I might like it if Christians are introduced to the idea of atheism and evolution. However, why is this being learned in a school? Why should they care? They don't believe in it. It isn't a part of their culture. It should be the parent's job to tell the child that other people believe in other things, not the school's. If the child wants to know more, she can ask his/her parents. If a child decides to not be Christian, then so be it. But why would you put something that isn't a part of Christianity in a Christian school?I don't care what the Pope says, Christianity and evolution are not compatible. Evolution is never mentioned in the Bible. You need to ask yourself "why?" If God created life using evolution, why wouldn't the bible mention it? Why would He lie to Christians? Why would He let Charles Darwin, an atheist scientist, solve a mystery that didn't need to be solved and destroy all of His credibility? He wouldn't. There are many verses that say that everything in the Bible is true (eg: Psalm: 12:6: The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver... purified seven times), so the Genesis account of how God created Earth and Life must be true. Christianity is an all or nothing thing: you either believe it all or you don't. As for the evidence for evolution, I don't want this to turn into a Creation vs. Evolution debate, so I'm not going to comment on that. Again, the child can learn about evolution, but not in school. SummaryWhen I say genocide, I mean the destruction of a culture, not mass-murder. Evolution gas no place in Christian schools, as it is not a part of Christian culture. It should be the job of the parents to educate the child about different beliefs, not the school. Evolution is not compatible with Christianity, as the Bible would mention it if life was created that way. God wouldn't lie to Christians and let Darwin solve a mystery that didn't need to be solved as well as take away his credibility. Everything on the Bible is true and this, so is the Genesis account of creation (to Christians).
Evolution taught to Christian Schools

"The schools wouldn't even be about Christians anymore and they could just go to public schools, which is genocide." Definition: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation. synonyms: Mass Murder. No one would be being killed or murderd in any way at all. Christians, I think at least deserved to be given both sides of the story's. They are not being forced to believe in it at all but only open to the idea of it. And yes you can believe in God and evolution. For example, Pope Francis of the Catholic Church highly accepts th idea of evolution and God going hand and hand. """Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve. Christians won't be forced to accept the theory at all but only expanding their one perception of it, making the students more open- minded to new ideas. Also their is countless credible proof of Evolution as well. "1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended". "2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another." "3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged."
Evolution taught to Christian Schools

Hello. I look forward for a great debate. "Evolution is scientific fact that's taught in all public schools."Drop. Irrelevant. "Christian schools deserve the same factual education public schools teach."PRO, what makes you think that Christians will care about evolution? They believe in Christ, not evolution. "The fact they don't teach it is denial of facts and evidence itself and we shouldn't have the next American generation denying facts because of their personal beliefs."I must admit, this is really quite arrogant, especially to a Christian. Do you think that they will want to be forced to learn the "facts" that go against their beliefs? Also, you are suggesting that we teach the "facts" and evolution in Christian schools. What is the point of Christian schools if their beliefs are just going to be changed (which is genocide)? They could just go to public schools along with everybody else. Anyway, it seems to me that PRO is suggesting that we convince Christians that evolution is real and God is fake. That is taking away our right to believe in and practice any religion we want. That is taking away their freedom. In fact, that is genocide. This is contingent on whether or not everybody in Christian schools believes in evolution after being taught about it, which is unlikely because they likely have Christian parents that will make them believe. I want to ask PRO a question: how does people being Christian affect you in your everyday life? Or any religion for that matter? Does it affect you at all? SummaryChristians do not want to learn about evolution, because they believe in Christ and not in Darwin's theory. Would you like to be forced to learn about something you don't believe in?It would be very arrogant to teach Christians about evolution and call it the "facts". In fact, if you are teaching Christians about evolution and the "facts", what is the point of Christian schools? The schools wouldn't even be about Christians anymore and they could just go to public schools, which is genocide. It seems to me that PRO is suggesting that we can convince Christians that evolution is true and that God is not real. That is taking away our right to practice any religion we want, which is also genocide. PRO, how does people bring Christian affect you in your everyday life?
America should require gun ownership and all citizens should be part of a national militia.

GREETINGS! First, let me say thank you for your service and thanks for your thoughtful reply! "Statistic analysis is geared to show favor to the one conducting the study. " Sure, data can be used to skew perspective in order to support one claim over another. But, if you look closer at my sources you will find that some of this data is collected from within the medical community in trauma and emergency clinics and hospitals. They are fairly unbiased as they are collecting data (victims) as they come in - NOT trying to prop-up a claim to endorse one side or another. Its more-or-less raw data. Much of this data suggests that there are far more gun related shootings that don't end with death - which is even crazier if you account for those numbers! "You show me an unbiased media station or politician. .. and I will die happy. "Academic and medical journals and publications aren't media or political sources. "The People. .. should not need the government. . "I like certain Conservative principles too - but I thought we were discussing the motion at hand. .? Are you suggesting that guns in the public would make the government fear the people. .? Don't we already have the right to bear arms. .? hmmm. .? ". .mentally jacked persons. . "No, this is NOT true! In fact MOST mass and simple shootings have been carried out by people who would be classified as sane! Not only that, their firearms were purchased legally! "All citizens should own up and take responsibility for each other in times of need and strife. . "Sure, but then you also said, "Criminals should not be given a chance to flourish. .. they will always obtain guns to kill. ." And, ". .they never make the distinction between Gang banger. .thug. ." - which doesn't sound very "pro-community" to me. . "Don't blame the spoon for making someone fat. .. .don't blame the pencil for writing a word wrong. .. .don't blame the gun for shooting someone. . "I like poetry too! You're a poet and didn't know it!
America should require gun ownership and all citizens should be part of a national militia.

I served because I wanted to. Never went to college...never did it as a job. I joined before 9/11. I joined because I love my country. Now....public safety IS a concern...and while it IS true gun related violence increases once more firearms are introduced. Statistic analysis is geared to show favor to the one conducting the study. 50% more guns introduced raised gun related violence by 40%....hypothetical figures mind you...they never make the distinction between Gang banger shoots thug...or home owner shoots a robber threatening his children. They are both violent events which involved a fire arm. the polarized media... http://www.bostonmagazine.com... You show me an unbiased media station or politician...and I will die happy. Let's face the facts about all the studies we could or could not bring up...mine will be for...yours against. If public safety was the real reason...there is a major underlying fault of everyone not trusting everyone else. The People...should not need the government, nor fear it...the government needs people and SHOULD fear them. Criminals should not be given a chance to flourish...they will always obtain guns to kill...every citizen should be armed and capable. You bring up Sandy Hook and Columbine....both cases were mentally jacked persons with members of the family with firearms who never used common sense security. Gun safe for rifles...quick access combination safes for handguns...then monitoring children through interaction and engagement. My carry gun stays loaded...never once shot anything until I pulled the trigger. Guns are tools...people are evil. in essence...media and politicians...are calling citizens lazy and untrustworthy. Too lazy to do for themselves in times of tragedy...and too untrustworthy to own guns save those THEY choose. our 2nd amendment was given to us so that we...the individual. ..could defend ourselves. If strict gun control is what you wish...look up crime rates for Chicago and New York City where it is extremely hard to legally own a gun. militaristic training helps everyone better themselves.... furthurmore... All citizens should own up and take responsibility for each other in times of need and strife...not just when you know what hits the fan. so...in closing I will say this...warning...it may stray a bit but my point on guns should be clear... Don't blame the spoon for making someone fat....don't blame the pencil for writing a word wrong....don't blame the gun for shooting someone...don't blame me for having to defend my family from a criminal.
America should require gun ownership and all citizens should be part of a national militia.

We are already required to carry vehicle insurance( not knocking it ok..I like auto ins) we are required to have health insurance now...we are required a lot of things. Why not add to our lengthy list of state and federal requirements house security...aka firearms and training to go with it. http://www.freerepublic.com... the militia section. http://www.barefootsworld.net... American military is less than 1% of the population. I served myself... so I understand what you are saying. But...most join the military for 1) to get a job. 2) to be able to afford college. 3)to get away from where they live. There are remarkably few that join for the sole reason of defending their country or due to patriotism. Why else would they have to recruit so hard? Then you have the fact our nation is one of the fattest nations in the world. If we had to maintain a certain level of fitness we would live longer and be more active by design. I am NOT saying folks with HONEST health issues should be required to maintain such a level...but they could contribute in a way. The deployment during times of crisis could be handled on the local level. Why should first responders, police, so on and so forth be the only ones dealing with after tornado devestation...or hurricane...earthquake? All military trained personnel are required to take basic first aid classes, furthurmore they are trained to think clearly during times of stress. It is everyone's responsibility to keep our country and ourselves safe. Not the government. The police are a great thing...but let's be realistic...when seconds count...they are only minutes away. The regular armed forces should fight the wars overseas that defend our...OUR freedom...from enemies from without...us citizens should defend our country from enemies from within. All of us should be responsible for keeping our communities safe and residents aided in times of need.
America should require gun ownership and all citizens should be part of a national militia.

To require anything - even firearm ownership - is still to require something - which infringes on freedom(s) to a degree.To require and mandate also means to force.So first, let me just say there is something very un-American about your belief.Second, our current armed forces are kept as a "volunteer army" ...no one is forced to serve in the military and this is a good thing. Many would argue that voluntary military service is precisely the reason why our military is so well kept - because only the people who want to serve do. No one serves in the United States military against their will. If you want to see poorly regulated armies with low morale, take a closer look at armies where service is required or forced onto their citizenry.Third, your idea about non-deployment of a national militia is probably the best idea you have - but then go on to say that this militia would still be deployed in times of need.. so I'm assuming that this group would still be deployable - just not by the federal government(?) Which then brings up a bunch of other issues like: who gets to control this national militia if not the States or Federal government, etc. (?)
America should require gun ownership and all citizens should be part of a national militia.

I believe all citizens (who can legally own a firearm) should be required to own a firearm. I believe every citizen should be able of carry a handgun (with current chcl restrictions) without a permit. I believe all citizens between ages 20 and 50 should be required to train in a militaristic capacity (physical fit tests, fire arms qualifications, etc) and required to participate in atleast one firearm training/competition per month to keep skills sharp. The citizen militia should not be deployable like the armed service, but required to function like the national guard in times of need and tragedy.
Prostitution

1. "they are required to be checked on a weekly and/or monthly basis for certain STDs. Condom usage is also mandatory and this is advertised by the brothels so that customers know beforehand. Finally, sex workers are able to examine the customers before any services are given to make sure there are no signs of visible STIs. " The tests don't show positive until many weeks after an STD has occured. Also, even though contraception is used, it is not uncommon for it to fail. 2. "Legalizing prostitution will offer opportunities for sex workers to work in a safer environment like brothels that give both the customer and the prostitute protection, security and a pleasurable time." Making prostitution legal won't make it safer in all cases. Yes there are safer places to PURCHASE A WOMEN(or man), but that is only a small fraction of prostitution businesses. 3. "They started by saying that the negotiation process for sex workers in Nevada requires the use of an intercom during the process so that workers will not betray the business owners and so that owners can know if the customers are putting the workers at risk." That may be how some prositution businesses are run, however, most are run by sketchy people in run-down motels. In these businesses women do not have security guards nor do they use intercoms. There is an overwhelming amount of criminal cases where prostitutes have been raped by customers and in many, murdered. It is a dangerous business whether it's legal or not. 4. "Prostitution is a dangerous job if it is not legalized. They will be more prone to rape, murder, STDs and human trafficking if they don"t work in a brothel. Legalizing prostitution will offer sex workers rights, a safer and secure environment like brothels, fair wages, and the government will also earn more tax money." Prostitution will be dangerous legal or illegal. Anything involving sex, money, and human trafficking with put the participants at risk. Also, do we really want our roads and public schools funded by tax money from prostitution? 5. "I would also argue that men and women have the right to their body, so sex workers are not giving up there rights and you also don"t have any evidence of prostitutes using their salary to buy drugs." I agree that men and women have the right to their bodies but not in this way. They should not be allowed to sell their bodies for money. There have been several studies showing the link between prostitution and drugs and they use their 'paychecks' to buy drugs. Yes, we have a right to our bodies. However, selling your body as a service is not at all the same. Prostitutes are prime targets of human trafficking, rape, STDs, as well as unwanted pregnancies. Prostitution is a disgustingly harmful act that needs to be stopped, not legalized.
Prostitution

1.STDs "Even if a prostitute is being tested every week for HIV, she will test negative for at least the first 4-6 weeks and possibly the first 12 weeks after being infected.... This means that while the test is becoming positive and the results are becoming known, that prostitute may expose up to 630 clients to HIV. This is under the best of circumstances with testing every week and a four-week window period. It also assumes that the prostitute will quit working as soon as he or she finds out the test is HIV positive, which is highly unlikely." Jeffery J. Barrows Health Consultant on Human Trafficking for the Christian Medical Association "HIV and Prostitution: What's the Answer?" The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity website Sep. 9, 2005 2.Not a Legitimate Business "One needs to completely rid oneself of the voracity for cash to see that prostitution, although legalized, can never be a legitimate business because it will always be associated with crime, corruption, class, mass sexual exploitation and human trafficking." Virada Somswasdi, JD President of the Foundation for Women, Law and Rural Development (FORWARD) Speech at Cornell Law School Mar. 9, 2004 3.Violence "Regardless of prostitution's status (legal, illegal or decriminalized) or its physical location (strip club, massage parlor, street, escort/home/hotel), prostitution is extremely dangerous for women. Homicide is a frequent cause of death.... It is a cruel lie to suggest that decriminalization or legalization will protect anyone in prostitution. It is not possible to protect someone whose source of income exposes them to the likelihood of being raped on average once a week." Melissa Farley, PhD Founding Director of the Prostitution Research and Education "Prostitution Is Sexual Violence" in the Psychiatric Times Oct. 2004 "Legalizing prostitution will make prostitutes more professional and safe. They will practice only the safest forms of sex." How does legalizing something make it safer? Just because it's legal, prostitutes won't completely change to a safer and more professional way. Prostitution is a dangerous job(if it can even be called a job) and that will never change. Anything that has to do with sex and money will result in disgusting circumstances. "Legalizing prostitution will give the women rights and work in a safe environment." All prostitution is harmful. Making something legal doesn't magically make it safe. Legalizing it will not by any means give women rights because that is exactly the opposite of what prostitution is. Prostitution is women selling themselves to men for sex. That is a women giving up their rights so they can get money ( usually used to buy drugs ).
Prostitution

It is extremely ridiculous to say that prostitution is harmless. How is a woman being beaten by a pimp because she doesn't bring him enough money right? IT'S NOT!!! A prostitute is a prime candidate of STDs and she can easily become pregnant and never know who the father is. Her baby will grow up fatherless and live a horrible life as the mother is likely a drug addict and will not have child support. How is prostitution right? A woman is forced to have sex and gets beaten afterwards. It is a sexist act as well as a gruesome crime. Prostitution needs to be stopped, not legalized.