BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Faith schools are immoral, children should not be indoctrinated.

Yes, I meant to say that indoctrination and brainwashing are kind of the same thing. And I should have mentioned in my first paragraph, I am referring to all religious indoctrination of children in all schools, not just faith schools.In your argument, you appear to assert that because faith schools produce a lot of atheists, the indoctrination wasn't very effective. That is not what I'm saying. I am arguing against indoctrination on principle that it is wrong to brainwash children when they are too young to decide on their religion themselves. After all, would you think that it is ok to send a child to a communist school, where they are indoctrinated into communism and told that communism is equivalent to being a good person?I say this, because that is what I experienced as a child. I did not go to a faith school, but an ordinary state school in which Christianity-based indoctrination was part of the everyday routine. I was taught that believing in god makes you a good person, so when I had doubts about god's existence, I thought that I was a bad person, because that's what was drilled into my head from the age of four. Is that a healthy way to bring up our children?You also seem to equate morality with religious teachings, in the example you used, Catholicism. Now I personally think that Catholic morals are some of the worst around, but that's a different debate. Can we not just teach our children to be moral by helping them empathise, and teach them that morality is relative, giving them the tools to decide what is moral and what isn't, or should we just save them the bother of thinking, and tell them this is wrong and this is right because god said so? Children can have morals without being brainwashed into whatever religion their parents feel like.And I am not against teaching religious stories and morals in school, but the key word is teaching. Religious beliefs should be taught in context, as beliefs, rather than facts, as they are in many faith schools. Beliefs belong in Beliefs lessons (lessons are no longer allowed to be called Religious Education in England for these exact reasons, and are instead called "Beliefs" or "Religious Studies").Also, an additional point is that faith schools are discriminatory, another reason they are immoral. Would it be ok to make a white school, where only white children are accepted, and they are taught that whiteness is tantamount to morality, with the implication that people of other colours are somehow less moral.Conclusion:Giving children a knowledge of their parents faith and a set of morals does not require indoctrination. It only requires education.
Faith schools are immoral, children should not be indoctrinated.

Rebuttal:"In your acceptance, you stated that you also felt indoctrination of children is wrongFalse:"I will argue that children should not be brainwashed, but the indoctrination that children are exposed to within faith schools is not immoral."I never said, nor is it the subject of the debate, that faith schools do not indoctrinate children."So it seems like indoctrination means teaching a particular ideology with a specific point of view."Good.. that's how it should seem... It seems that my opponent's opening statement is devoid of debate.Opening StatementFaith Schools are not immoral:In faith schools, children receive basic moral teaching. They are exposed to (for ex.) the Catholic take on life, and are taught some basic bible stories. They still have the ability to decide their own philosophy and theology.I accepted this debate because of personal experience, and so I'll share two stories:MeI was indoctrinated into the catholic faith at birth, not through school but trough mass, Children's Liturgy of the Word, and Age Based Catechism. This served to give me a basic knowledge of the Catholic Faith, the Bible, and Catholic morality.Now, at about age 8, despite all this indoctrination, I did not beleive in God.He was, to me, just other story that adults had cooked up like Santa and the Easter Bunny. Praying to God was like making cookies for Santa. A silly pretend person who we did stuff for.So what had indoctrination given me? Knowledge and morality; my faith was still my own.(What happens later is a different story, one I'm sure you all would love to read, but is not relevant to this debate.)For the next portion, I will talk of a friend of mine... let's call him... "Red"RedRed is a "cradle catholic." He has, to the extent of my knowledge, attended Catholic school since Preschool, and yet, he is atheist, coming to a conclusion of his own. Yet, he has an indelible moral compass and a working knowledge of the faith so that he is able to hold philosophical conversation and form his own, educated philosophy. Conclusion:Faith schools indoctrinate children, giving them a working knowledge of their parent's faith and a set of morals. Children are then capable of forming their own faith, with the benefit of perspective. Faith schools give without taking, and are thus completely moral.
Faith schools are immoral, children should not be indoctrinated.

When we send our children to school, why do we do it? To educate them. I believe that when you tell children things, they will believe them for the most part unquetioningly.Take for example, Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. I think that it is unfair to "get them when they're young", and teach them faith based belief as if it were fact. In your acceptance, you stated that you also felt indoctrination of children is wrong, but what are faith schools if not indoctrination? Lets have a look a the definition of "indoctrination":in·doc·tri·na·tion  [in-dok-truh-ney-shuhn] nounthe act of indoctrinating, or teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view: religious indoctrination.So it seems like indoctrination means teaching a particular ideology with a specific point of view. That sounds remarkably simlar to the way faith schools are run. In fact, it is how faith schools are run.Often in faith schools, only one ideology is taught, and the rest excluded, for example in a Plymouth Bretheren school, they usually ban the chldren from learning aout different religions, being taught good sex education, and most importantly, large areas of science education availible to most other chidren in the UK (probably because when they get taught how science works they begin to question things).I believe this is wrong, and children should all be entitled to the same education regardless of their parent's beliefs.
There Exists Either Irrefutable or Reasonable Grounds for Believing in the Existence of God

Ex Nihilo/Ex Materia The problem you face is that all examples Pro can give of things beginning to exist are ex materia. Thus the principle of beginning to exist requiring a cause holds for ex materia creation. However, the beginning of the universe is ex nihilo (as there was nothing material for it to come from). The principle applies to objects within the universe but not the universe itself. I don't need to argue that the universe did or didn't come into being. I have to argue that the type of coming into being of the universe (ex nihilo), is not the type for physical objects (ex materia). I will concede that ex materia creation requires a cause. However, Pro needs to demonstrate that ex nihilo creation requires a cause in the same way ex materia creation requires a cause. As the creation of the universe is the only ex nihilo object, it appears to impossible for pro to do this. Minds and causal powers I will reply to the minds and causal powers thing mentioned in the comments here. Pro said: "Since abstract objects have no causal powers, a mind must of caused the universe's existence." I was asking why Pro would think that minds have any more causal power than abstract objects. We have no reason to believe minds have causal powers any more than abstract objects.
There Exists Either Irrefutable or Reasonable Grounds for Believing in the Existence of God

I already lost this debate, but I just wanted to correct Pro on something. The KCA states that everything that begins to exist has a cause, not just everything that begins to exist ex nihilo has cause. Also, I caused something to begin to exist today; a monster cookie for my little nephew. All I had was a bunch of dough and no monster shaped dough, I pressed the cutter down, and the monster shaped dough began to exist. Here is William Lane Craig's definition of begins to exist:"e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact."This would apply to things that begin to exist ex nihilo, or ex materia. Thus, there is no fallacy of equivocation.
There Exists Either Irrefutable or Reasonable Grounds for Believing in the Existence of God

Definitions By 'irrefutable' I mean an inescapable conclusion from a set of true premises, i. e. a philosophically sound argument. For example, a standard deductive argument that fits the bill: Premise 1: All men are mortal Premise 2: Socrates is a man Conclusion: Socrates is mortal By 'reasonable' I mean a situation where the best conclusion is the one that is being argued for, i. e. the best explanation is a given hypothesis. For example, inductive arguments have reasonable, but not inescapable, conclusions. "All swans we have ever seen are white. Therefore all swans are white" Note, a reasonable conclusion can be argued against by demonstrating that, though reasonable, it is false (e. g. the discovery of black swans) or by showing that there is a more reasonable conclusion exists. Both types of conclusion (irrefutable and reasonable) need not be formulated in terms of premises and conclusions. By 'God' I mean the widely accepted God of the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) and other Gods which have similar characteristics. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, transcendence, immanence etc. As such, it is insufficient to argue for the existence of a deistic God (one who has had no greater involvement than creating the universe). One must argue that God exists and that God has the basic agreed upon qualities. It is permissible to argue from within the workings of a specific religion (e. g. arguing from historical incidents of a religion). However, these arguments must stand on their own merit; they may not rely on assumptions from the religion. Similarly, it is permissible to argue from personal experience etc. but these arguments must lead reasonably and logically to the conclusion. Burden of Proof The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim (i. e. my opponent). It is my opponent's job to present arguments for the existence of God (as defined above) and my job to refute them. As the burden of proof lies with my opponent, Round 1 WILL be used for arguments. In order for both debaters to have equal footing, my opponent will skip his Round 4 (to compensate for my loss of Round 1). As such, there will be 3 full rounds of debate. Changing the Definitions/Burden of Proof If you wish to debate this topic but find the terms unreasonable, feel free to message me directly such that the terms may be changed to a more agreeable state.
The Big Bang Theory Is Unsound

Thank you for debating me. Con has failed to answer my attack on their case. And since the rule is silence is compliance, the obviously agree. EVERYTHING HAS TO COME FROM SOMETHING. My opponent has stated that matter just expanded. The big bang is a theory of origin, and since there was already the matter that was expanded upon, the big bang isn't even the beginning. The whole idea of the big bang theory is a violation of the laws of science. Which are never broken or violated. So this proves the big bang theory unsound.
The Big Bang Theory Is Unsound

Okay- 1. Going back to the argument about the Law of Conservation- matter cannot be created or destroyed. According to you The definition of the big bang theory is the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe. So my question is Where did the matter that was expanded upon come from? Since matter cannot be created or destroyed everything has to come from something else. SO WHERE DID THE MATTER THAT STARTED THE BIG BANG COME FROM. According to this simple logic, the big bang theory is unsound. 2. You stated "Straight from NASA: "The predicted abundance of...lithium depends on the density of ordinary matter in the early universe...given a precise measurement of the abundance of ordinary matter, the predicted abundances of [lithium] becomes highly constrained..." Constrained means highly restricted- so You agree with me, and therefore your 1st Rebuttal Falls. 3. Your second rebuttal- the picture you showed was just guesses of the size of the galaxy's. Since we have no ability to time travel, there is no proof of that. 4. Now I like to go back to what I said about probably, and also mention the index card theory. The probably of this explosion is so low it is almost impossible. Now on to the Index card theory. Lets say that I got into an airplane, overhead Kaufman Stadium, and Dropped 20,000 note cards. According to the big bang theory it should spell put World Series Champs: 2015! on the baseball diamond. But that isn't going to happen. The note cards are going to go everywhere, because of factors such as wind speed and gravity. This proves the big bang theory to be on sound. I have just proves all of my opponent's arguments wrong.
The Big Bang Theory Is Unsound

Sorry about the shortness of my previous argument, my laptop was about to die and I didn't have the charger on me. The first thing that proves the big bang theory is unsound is that if it had happened then There whould be more lithium. The Big Bang theory unequivocally predicts certain amounts of light element, including lithium, helium and deuterium, must be produced in the explosion that is hypothesized to have started the universe. For lithium, the prediction is 400 lithium atoms for every trillion hydrogen atoms. However, astronomers have measured the abundances of lithium in old stars in our galaxy and they have not found the Big Bang predictions to be correct. They know the stars were formed very early in the history of our galaxy, because they have very tiny amounts of iron and other heavy elements that are produced by previously-existing stars. In most of these stars, the lithium abundance is only 160 lithium atoms per trillion atoms, far below the Big Bang predictions. In addition, as more data became available over the last few years (as described by many researchers, including, for example, Sbordone, Bonifacio and Caffau) it became clear that the older the stars, the less the lithium. By now, eight stars have been discovered with less than one tenth the amount of lithium predicted by the Big Bang, and all are of the type of star that would not have destroyed any lithium. The star with the least iron of these, born in the very early days of the Milky Way galaxy, has less than 3% of the lithium predicted. (Ippfusion.com) The second thing is- Structures Too Large to Form in the Time Since the Hypothesized Big Bang The Big Bang theory hypothesizes that the universe came into existence with an almost perfectly homogenous " even"distribution of matter, and that structures built up gradually from stars to galaxies to cluster to superclusters. But larger and larger structures have been uncovered at earlier and earlier times. To cite just one recent example of many, last year a team of observers, Roger Clowes, et al, discovered a huge collection of quasars over 3 billion light years in extent, existing billions of years ago. This was, in their view, too large to have been created within the hypotheses of conventional cosmology. (Ippfusion.com)
The Big Bang Theory Is Unsound

Thanks Pro for that...sentence about the conservation of mass and that other sentence about possibility. 10,000 characters is clearly not enough to contain the vast depth of Pro's argument. Sarcasm aside, the big bang theory is *sound*, and Pro has not given any reason for us to believe that the big bang theory is unsound, instead, Pro has squandered 10,000 characters on two sentences with little impact on the resolution. *The Big Bang Is Sound* With the right radio telescope, even you can see that the space between the stars above us isn't just black space, it's filled with microwave radiation. http://science.nasa.gov... All of this Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, which is a "black body" as it absorbs all intercepted electromagnetic radiation, is nearly a uniform glow between stars across the universe, and is a proven indicator of an expandable hot dense state such as the Big Bang being the cosmos' origin. http://www.mpg.de... The small variations in the microwave's uniformity, show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of a fairly uniformly distributed hot dense state that has expanded to the current size of the universe; this is called inflation. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk... Using the WMAP, which is an anisotropy probe attached to a space shuttle that measures variations in the otherwise uniform CMB radiation, we can get a massively accurate picture of the universe's origin. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... *Definitions* The agreed to definition for Big Bang, in this debate, mentions the origin of the universe, and Pro found that to be troubling. Pro mentioned: "The law of Conservation of mass from Laviosier states that matter may neither be created or destroyed your definition hints that matter was created." My response: The definition does not mention that matter was created, rather it mentions that the universe had an origin. The terms "creation" and "origin" are not the same thing. Creation is a temporal process that necessitates a series of events, one after the other, to go from Creator-->Created. An origin is a point, not a series of points. The universe had an origin, not a creation. So origin and causation are not the same. origin - the point or place where something begins http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... causation - the action or process of causing something http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... The origin of time is the origin of the universe, therefore no temporal processes or actions, such as creation, could have occurred without the universe, and this speaks to the universe's demonstrated ORIGIN not creation. The origin of the universe therefore does not violate the 1st law of thermodynamics...matter wasn't created or destroyed at the big bang.
The Big Bang Theory Is Unsound

*No acceptance round; just start debating.*Definitions below are agreed to by accepting this debate.Full ResolutionThe Big Bang theory is unsound.ProHas 4 sets of 10,000 characters to AFFIRM that the Big Bang theory is UNSOUND and refute Con.ConHas only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to NEGATE that the Big Bang theory is UNSOUND and refute Pro.DefinitionsBig Bang - the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...theory - a system of ideas intended to explain something.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...unsound - not based on sound evidence or reasoning and therefore unreliable.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
In Scientific Terms, Evolution is Illegal.

Ok I GUESS that it makes more scence now, however my arguement still stands, that is merly a play on words, if anything I would say that evolution does not conform to a law of science. Furthermore, evolution is NOT a theory because it is proven. That is all I have to say because you are obsesing over dead point when I am telling you that your stupid wordplay doesn't work, now are you going to listen or are you going to present a decent agreement.
In Scientific Terms, Evolution is Illegal.

So basically, from what I understand your argument is merely a slight of words and that "Evolution is a theory, and sense a theory is not proven, and sense its not proven its not science therefor not conforming to a rule." I'm not sure if you where meaning something else or this is petty wordplay but this is still the case; there is and has been very much undisputed proof of evolution and the way it works.
Same sex marriage should be legalized in the entirety of the United States

Second Round: 1st Constructive (Arguments are presented and refuted. ) Third Round: 2nd Constructive (New arguments can be presented but old arguments do not drop unless conceded to. ) Fourth Round: Rebuttals (Final rebuttals and a summary of debate are presented. Voters MUST be provided! ) Same Sex Marriage: This debate will be about being For or Opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage and nothing else. All citations must be noted ([1]) inside the arguments after quotation marks if necessary. Definitions of words that may be argued specifically must be provided before using said words. If you use a word for a specific reason that word must be defined. If it is not, and your opponent infers it differently and presents a definition, you must use that definition. Conversely, if you would like to present a counter definition, you must explain why you meet it, and whether or not you meet the opponents definition as well. Spelling and grammar will be voting issues and are valid arguments in this debate. Good luck to Con, I look forward to an educational debate.
Derek Carr is the best young QB in the NFL

Derek Carr is not the best player on his team ether. Amari Cooper has made catches for all of the bad passes he throws. He is one of the best wide receivers on their team. Dak Prescott had 4 interceptions this season compared to Derek Carr's 6 interceptions this season. This might be because of their running game, but he also threw threw the ball a lot. Dak got the team really close to getting a touchdown, then they ran the ball in to get a touchdown. Dak Prescott did really good with having a bunch of good players on his team. Here are their stats: https://www.google.com...;* https://www.google.com...;*