BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Public Schools allow Christian Clubs to pray against gay marriage? Yes or No.

Don't worry, this is a debate, and I know how you feel regarding this subject, I don't take any offense as you're just making a point.I agree they should be able to pray, I'm sure anyone would agree. And even as a group in school. However it gets out of hand and (in my eyes) detrimental when they begin "praying" when other people are around, or when they see someone they don't believe is acting as God wants them to (Gays).Allowing these groups to grow and exist can cause lots of tension in the school, especially if there are homosexuals that attend that school, as they see an entire group of people literally against them and their way of life. In no way is this beneficial - if anything, "praying" for people to change gives that school a negative image, and causes lots of tension between students in the school, and other schools will look down upon that school.You're right, it is intolerant and disrespectful. If you want to pray like this, you can go to church, school is for education.
Should Public Schools allow Christian Clubs to pray against gay marriage? Yes or No.

Hi! Thanks for bringing up a good debate topic.Considering there is a 1,000 character limit, I'll just leave this round as my acceptance and to clear up a couple things, and bring up one point.I'm all for freedom of religion. I believe anyone should be able to pray at any time, and I believe religious groups should be able to grow and pray in schools.However this is different. What you are describing is not simple prayer. Much like I believe it's fine to be racist if you're alone or even with a friend, as long as nobody else hears or sees your actions, I don't believe your prayers or beliefs should interfere with anyone who doesn't want to participate.The "freedom of speech" or "freedom of prayer" argument could be used here, but then I could easily counter that by "freedom of expression" - you don't want two people who are unrelated to you and who's actions will not affect you to get married. And I'm calling you out on it, as I consider it detrimental to society.Thanks, good luck!
Year-round education is not a good idea for student learning

Year-round education is a good idea for student learning. 1) Kids should only focus on normal education: It's what kids need in daily life. Instead of after-school activities, Kids can just go to those activities during the weekend. If kids end up with a lot of extra time, They would more likely spend it on unnecessary stuff. 2) The gap between rich and poor: Extra school doesn't cost extra money. Extra after school activities cost money because you have to pay more money. This is unfair because only the rich can afford after-school activities, And the poor can't. If everyone relied on after-school activities than the poor wouldn't be able to live a fair life. Con believes that we should try to close the gap between the rich and the poor. According to https://www. Oecd-ilibrary. Org, "Inequality affects economies and societies, With growing evidence that excessive inequality may be bad for growth. " 3) School brings health: Many schools have outdoor activities. Those outdoor activities help children release stress, Which is healthier for their body. When kids don't go to school, They would obviously stay at home. My opponent says that kids are not designed to spend much of their time inside walls, But that's exactly what home is. School actually forces kids to go outside, While at home no child can get forced to go outside. According to http://www. Dailytexanonline. Com, "One way that students can reduce their stress is by spending more time outside. Nature has not only proven to be a stress reliever but also it has proven to make the brain function in a better and healthier way. As students, We can use all of the brainpower, Vitamins, And relaxation that we can get. Many students retreat to their rooms to play video games as a stress reliever, But they shouldn"t" 4) The pro's sources are wrong: My opponent's evidence from Theedadvocate. Org is not reliable, Because that website also agrees on my side. Go check out https://www. Theedadvocate. Org/top-3-reasons-the-us-should-switch-to-year-round-schooling/. It also helps my side. This proves that theedadvocate. Org doesn't really believe in any side, So you should not consider any evidence that uses that website.
Year-round education is not a good idea for student learning

Year-round education is not a good idea for student learning. 1)It prevents kids from doing after-school activites. Many studies have shown that after school activites help a student out iin many areas. "Many afterschool programs offer structured homework help. Homework can often cause friction between kids with learning and attention issues and their parents. So getting it done during the program can make everyone"s evening more pleasant and relaxing. " - https://www. Understood. Org/en/school-learning/tutors/afterschool-programs/benefits-afterschool-programs-kids-with-learning-attention-issues This piece of evidance shows that, These activites release stress on a child, And if the child has the stress built up when they go to school, It could take a toll on their studies, Making them to poorly. By releasing stress, Students do well in their studies. 2) It does not help the school economically. When students are away in the summer, The school uses less electricity, Water etc. And can save up the money to put back into student's education. With the money taken away to pay the bills. It takes away istems that could have benefited the student in their overall learning experience. "The summer months are typically the highest ones for energy consumption. In fact, The average electricity bill for homeowners in the summer months goes up 4 to 8 percent. Having empty classrooms in the summer months means less money [for the school]" - https://www. Theedadvocate. Org/3-reasons-not-to-adopt-year-round-schooling/. 3) The final argument I present is that, It takes a hit on childrens health. "Some childhood development experts believe that particularly when it comes to younger students, Time off in the summer months is a vital component of healthy development. The argument follows that kids are not designed to spend so much of their time inside classroom walls and that the warmer, Pleasant weather of the summer provides a perfect opportunity to get outside and experience childhood". https://www. Theedadvocate. Org/3-reasons-not-to-adopt-year-round-schooling/. Year- round schools end school daily, Very late which means the student cannot go outside and play, Which could mean the child gets more unhealthy. Thus, I affirm
age gaps in a relationship does not matter as long as it works and they are happy

do people worry about age gaps in a relationship?? if so why?? i know lots of people with older men its just the thing these days im happy with mine he,s awsome and its 20 yrs age gap.If people could have been with who ever in the older day,s i bet they would have its just some thing that happens more these days you cant help who you full in love with.I know guys with older women too there aint nothing wrong with it????
Banning guns in the U.S.

First off you never made a point about college kids buying guns there is no point to address because you did not make one. Secondly when you say "few people want to kill" who are you to speak for millions of Americans how could you possibly know who is willing to murder and who isn't. Also when you talk about murders the most destructive killers don't care about getting caught the mass murderers care about how many they can kill. Many kill themselves after they have done their sick deed. My argument is a valid one and sensible one. We need to be able to protect ourselves, for as I have said the criminals will always find a way to get guns the question is will we let them rome free with guns or let us have a chance to defend ourselves and our loved ones.
Banning guns in the U.S.

1. When I say kids, it includes university students. And who says that some kid didn't nick a gun or two? You didn't address my second argument. What about the killings caused by brothers or best friends because they took a gun from daddy's/mommy's gun collection? 2. Few people actual want to kill, and for those that do, guns are inconvenient. A knife makes no sound, nor does poison. Just because of self defence doesn't mean we takeout the war flag. With that as an argument, we might as well as kill each other which is equal to committing suicide.
Banning guns in the U.S.

I will take the side that the banning of guns in America would be a huge mistake. First off when you say kids buy guns from stores I hope your not serious because in reality that does not happen. Secondly when you say without guns we are safer I strongly disagree if someone is determined to kill make no mistake they will find a gun just like a drugee will find their next fix. And to address your point on why do we need police if we are able to defend ourselves. I would just like to point out just one case in which the police may arrive a little to late. In all of the middle school and high school and colleges there is atleast one officer required to be on campus. But there is no requirement of police officers in elementary schools. Sandy hook was a elementary school therefore no police were present to defend the children and the the faculty may they rest in peace. So as you can see weather we like it or not the police are not always there to protect us.
Banning guns in the U.S.

Did anyone read about all the shootings at school? Does anyone remember stories of kid accidental shooting each other with their dads gun? All those kids got guns from their parents gun collection or bought it at a store. And we aren't helpless without guns, it actually safer. Less guns = Very expensive = less criminals with guns = targeting rich people to cover guns expense. So being defenceless is incorrect for most people. And why do we have police if we can protect ourselves??
Banning guns in the U.S.

Banning guns in the states would be a huge catastrophy. I ask you this isnt weed illegal yet kids at ages 13 and up somehow smoke it on a regular basis. It would be the same for guns. Criminals reallistically will always have guns and my question to you is wouldnt you like to have the right to protect yourself from criminals or would you rather just let them have the guns and the rest of us law abiding citizwns be helpless.
Resolved: Some type of creator outside of the universe exists.

My opponent claims that I lose this debate today because I never directly prove that a God exists, merely that we can assume that a God. Lets remember that in a debate it is not the affirmatives resposiblity to prove without a reasonable doubt that a resolution is true, merely that the affirmative case is more proble than the negative case. I have proved this through my 3 three contention which my oppenents has yet address. I would like to address my oppoents contentions now. One my oppoent claims that Animalistic instinct is realible to morality but this is fallacy. The Theory of Evoultion shows us quite quickly that this is not the case because any survival of the fittest argument directly interferes with biological altruism. If anything instinct is egoism and egoism is largely rejected by the majority of philosophers. Lets move on the voters: You should vote for the affirmative today because the affirmative did a better job of proving the existance/nonexistance of God, Took the debate seriously, proposed a value to undermine the case, laid out simple contentions, and last had a point by point attack on the neg. case.
Resolved: Some type of creator outside of the universe exists.

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state, Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait... The Earth began to cool, The autotrophs began to drool, Neanderthals developed tools, We built a wall (we built the pyramids), Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries, That all started with the big bang! "Since the dawn of man" is really not that long, As every galaxy was formed in less time than it takes to sing this song. A fraction of a second and the elements were made. The bipeds stood up straight, The dinosaurs all met their fate, They tried to leap but they were late And they all died (they froze their asses off) The oceans and pangea See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya Set in motion by the same big bang! It all started with the big BANG! It's expanding ever outward but one day It will cause the stars to go the other way, Collapsing ever inward, we won't be here, it wont be hurt Our best and brightest figure that it'll make an even bigger bang! Australopithecus would really have been sick of us Debating out while here they're catching deer (we're catching viruses) Religion or astronomy, Encarta, Deuteronomy It all started with the big bang! Music and mythology, Einstein and astrology It all started with the big bang! It all started with the big BANG! Anyways my opponent loses todays round despite his three contention because he never directly proves that there is a god, he simply just says we can assume there is one. But, if he was truly real, then there would be thousands of different interpretations of him. He mentions the ideas of morals but think about it. A pack of piranha's knows not to attack each other, they have morals and so do all other animals, but do they believe in a god? It is a natural animal instinct to know what is right and wrong, and less born with sociopathic diseases. He mentions that everything in the universe is constant, but thats only the case in mass and energy, not in the way society has evolved. From the beginning of time until now, society has changed dramatically, and it has not been constant.
Resolved: Some type of creator outside of the universe exists.

My opponent has stated the contention that "Barney says no don't convict children". I would like to refute this if I may. My opponent states that Barney(either a big purple dinosaur or a 1800 Labor Union activist) claims not to convict children and normally under regular circumstances we wouldn't claim Barney has really a valuble say in our every day lives. But my if my opponent is talking about the the dinosaur then he must concede that he is talking about a figure that primarly represents the moral standards of the world for example Barney claims that we must clean up after ourselves and love one another( or at least tolerate) but Barney was created for Children to teach morals therefere my opponents arguement is self refuting. He has not adressed my contentions so we must assume he accepts them and he has avoided the value clash. Therefore I can urge only a vote in the Affirmative today.
Utilitariansim is a better ethical theory than Kantianism (Deontological Theory)

To start off, I believe Utilitarianism is a better ethical theory primarily because unlike Kantian theory it doesn"t judge whether or not a decision/action is moral by societal or personal rules/guidelines. Therefore making it difficult for a society to decide which actions should be considered immoral and moral. However according to Utilitarianism, with everything being equal, though people have many different and conflicting moral beliefs, an overwhelming majority of people agree that pain/sadness is bad, and pleasure/happiness is good. For example, Imagine if you lived in a home in Germany during the Holocaust, you were the head of your household and were hiding 15 Jews in your basement but you or your family considered lying immoral. According to Kantian philosophy if a group of Nazi soldiers came to your home and asked you if you had any jews living within your domain you should tell them the truth because lying would be immoral while Utilitarianism promotes that lying in this situation would be morally permissible since you most likely saved the lives of 15 humans. If you followed Kantian philosophy chances are you, your family, and whoever you were hiding would be dead because your only options would be to lie or withhold the truth by not saying anything thus raising suspicion and prompting a very thorough search of your home. That is my primary issue with Kantian ethics. Kantianism would prefer you make "subjective" moral decisions even at the cost of human life. Kantian philosophy promotes doing what you or society considers moral even at the cost of human suffering and death. Many actions in our society are not always strictly labeled right or wrong, moral or immoral. Actions like murder. Murder is sometimes permissible depending on the motive and "consequence" or end result. If a terrorist was about to detonate a bomb and kill hundreds of people, would it be wrong if a civilian killed him? Most people would say no, especially if that was the only option for survival. But once again, according to Kantian theory, if murder is considered an immoral act then you should keep the terrorist alive and allow the death of hundreds of civilians. Or what if you lived in poverty and you had a child who had diabetes but needed insulin but you could not afford it and your only option was to steal medicine for your child, would you steal in that case or let your child die? Kantian theology fails to address how people are supposed to cope with choosing the death or suffering of loved ones for the sake of laws, societal rules and norms. And I can say with confidence that the majority of humans will almost always agree that "life" is more important than "rules" or "morals".
Utilitariansim is a better ethical theory than Kantianism (Deontological Theory)

I accept, and anticipate a great debate! To clarify, I will be arguing that Kantian deontology is a 'better' ethical theory, by which I mean it is more pragmatic and veridical than utilitarianism. Judging by Pro's definition of utilitarianism, I presume he will be advocating Classical Utilitarianism. However, I will argue against all consequentialist utilitarian theories.
Utilitariansim is a better ethical theory than Kantianism (Deontological Theory)

In this debate I intend to discuss which ethical philosophy (Kantianism/Deontological Theory vs Utilitarianism) is better to live by. I would also like to "share the burden of truth". Therefore, my opponent will be arguing why "Kantianism is a better ethical theory than Utilitarianism" . I wish to take this debate very seriously, anyone that is knowledgeable on the subjects at hand and is confident in their debating skill, should accept immediately. DEFINITONS: Utilitarianism - 1. A doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically : a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Kantianism - 1. A type of ethical theory that maintains that some features of actions other than or in addition to consequences make the actions right or wrong. A major postulate is that we may not use or mistreat other people as a means to our own happiness or to that of others. Deontological theories guide action with a set of moral principles or moral rules, but it is the actions themselves and their moral properties that are fundamental. RULES: First round is acceptance only. Second round will be for arguments only. Third round and on is for arguments and rebuttals. A forfeit is an automatic loss. By accepting this debate, you accept all the definitions and rules. If you would like to question a rule or definition, please specify in the first round. Thank you and happy debating.
Resolved: That the Bostrom Simulation argument is likely correct.

My opponent has not taken the opportunity to provide a solid argument and as he has not been online for a week it's hard to know if he's lost interest in the site altogether or just in this debate. I think my opponent's forfeiting and lack of argumentation should concede the debate in my favour but I will briefly attempt to summarise my position using the maths involved. I accepted a 55% chance that we would not survive long enough to become 'post human', in the interests of easier maths, I'll adjust this to 50%. Assuming we do become post human, I have posited a 0.02% chance of us developing a significant number of computer based 'ancestor simulations'. By my calculations this leaves a 0.01% chance of both of these occurring. I think the chances of such an artificial world having the minute detail and complexities of the world we experience are extremely slim. The variations in sensory experiences such as taste for example or the complex range of emotions we experience would simply not be necessary for an accurate simulation. If posthumans were to design such unbelievably complex artificial worlds, I see no reason why they would need to do very many. I would say a thousand would perhaps be the maximum. If there is a 0.01 chance that ours is one of a thousand different worlds, only one of which is the original, then I believe that would still equate only to a mere 10% possibility that we are living in a virtual world (0.01 x 1000 = 10). My opponent's assertion that there is a 99.999% probability clearly doesn't add up. Resolution negated. Due to the forfeits by my opponent, this debate won't show up on the front page. As I can't vote on the site myself, I request any one reading this, to kindly take the time to vote for whoever they think won the debate according to DDO guidelines. Thanks.
Resolved: That the Bostrom Simulation argument is likely correct.

Thanks to Haezed for his last post in this most confusing of debates. My opponent has made no clear argumentation of his own, merely providing links to Bostrom's arguments rather than explaining why proposition 3 is logical himself. Bostrom's argument seems to me to be at it's core, a mathematical and probability based one. My opponent should be giving us the numbers, according to our revised definitions of the rather vague probability terms in the three propositions. My opponent presented us with three lengthy videos in his first round. While these are all fascinating (apart from Glenn Beck's contribution) they make no reference to Bostrom and his simulation theory and provide no evidence or even suggestion that we are currently living in a computer simulation. ______________ My opponent also misrepresents my position: Pro: "If you concede that we will reach posthuman status and that it is likely we will run ancestor simulations, it is virtually certain we are in later iterations." As agreed, I have posited that the first two propositions are false but this does not mean we will certainly reach a "posthuman" stage or that "posthumans" will necessarily conduct a large number of ancestor simulations. As my opponent has not disputed my interpretations of "very likely", "extremely unlikely" or "almost certainly", I can only assume that he accepts them. Careful reading of my round one will reveal that I have not "concede[d] that we will reach posthuman status". On the contrary I have suggested that it is "likely" (more than 50%) that we will NOT. Similarly I have not even nearly conceded "that it is likely we will run ancestor simulations." I have placed this probability as slim as 0.02%! My opponent's attempt to misconstrue my arguments and shift the burden of proof to me, saying that I must prove we are in the "original" universe is entirely baseless. ________ Remember my opponent needs to prove that we are not just possibly living in a virtual world but that it is a near certainty, with at least 99.999% probability. I await some solid argumentation from my opponent. Until then: Resolution negated. Con.