BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Parents should not instill the belief that Santa Claus exists in their child's mind.

Haha...":)"? Anyways, again, I will negate my opponent's points in the order that he is making them. 1) All discipline methods do not work, like my opponent states. You cannot tempt a 10 year old boy with a Barbie doll, so to say. Moreover, disciplinary methods never work for the moment, or else what is the point of them? What is the point of giving your child a spanking and time-out, only to have the punishment and consequence last for short term? Discipline should and always work for long term, unlike my opponent states. Therefore, why not choose the better disciplinary method, after I have already proved my opponent wrong because no discplinary methods last for short term? This second point that my opponent makes, again, is a viable disciplinary option, but not the best. Using this type of "positive reenforcement" will only end up in the spoiling of said children. Soon, they will realize that they will recieve no negative, but only postive punishment, and therefore, end up being spoiled. As posted in some of the comments on this debate, we can certainly disprove the existence of Santa Claus. However, we cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether or not we choose to believe or not believe, because we don't know its true. With Santa Claus, we know for sure that he doesn't exist, therefore, there is absolutely no reason to waste time in believing in him. 2) Its a fact if you believe. As I have stated in the above paragraph, we have proven Santa not to exist. Therefore, we shouldn't waste time believing in him. We can't prove nor disprove the existence of heaven. 3) I don't know if my opponent has read the link that I included in the first round of this debate, but it mathematically proves why Santa Claus doesn't exist! Perhaps my oppoent skimmed over the link that I posted, but it proves exactly why Santa does not exist. 4) "Probably"....They also may think that their parents were lying to them and feel that they wasted so much time, or just feel stupid and ashamed of themselves. The possbilities are endless. Vote Pro for this debate. Thanks to my opponent for debating this with me. :]
Parents should not instill the belief that Santa Claus exists in their child's mind.

I shall respond to my opponent's arguments in the order that they were rebutted in. 1) While it may be true that what my opponent states is a disciplinary tool, it is not the best one nor an effective one. The children will soon come to realize that no matter if they are bad or good, they will still receive Christmas presents from their parents. What kind of parents are cold-hearted enough to not give their children any gifts for Christmas? It is not an effective way to have children striving for non-existent goals, for soon they will only come to realize this and give up. This is the reason why better disciplinary actions are more common and in better use, such as proper punishment. In the situation presented by my opponent, "if you don't be good, santa claus won't get you anything for Christmas," a better punishment technique would be, "if you don't be good, I won't buy the Power Ranger toy that you really wanted to play with. " Direct punishment leads to direct results, and the child will learn to be better in order to strive for a more realistic goal rather than a non-existent one. Through this, you can tell that "realistic" punishments are more effective than the unrealistic ones presented by my opponent. 2) The example presented by me is the same presented by my opponent. You know that you will go to heaven (if you believe in God) the same way that you know that you will die if you jump off a 40 ft. tall building. 3) "You shouldn't go around criticizing people for their beliefs. Everyone has their own cultures and you should respect them for it. " Unlike my opponent says, I am not criticizing people's beliefs and disrespecting them. I am simply stating, to sum it up, that it is better to believe nothing than to believe in something false. Why should people go around believing in false things when there are more important things to be worrying about? 4) You wouldn't have to tell the children that Santa Claus didn't exist had you not told them in the first place that they did. And by saying, "By that age it won't really matter because they will probably be skeptical by nature anyway (being more mature and therefore more aware and questioning). ", my opponent is agreeing with the point that I have made above. When they do get older and figure out that Santa does not exist, they will realize that their parents have been lying to them all that time. For all the above reasons, I affirm the resolution. :)
Parents should not instill the belief that Santa Claus exists in their child's mind.

"After I have successfully proved that Santa Claus does not exist, there seems to be no reason in why parents should let their children believe in such lies. Why should they let their children believe something, then let them find out later on that it is just lies? Letting them believe nothing is better than letting them believe in lies. " Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, god, whatever. There's nothing wrong with having faith or hope that uplifts people and/or keeps them on good behavior. Faiths are a powerful tool to discipline people. Let's say your little kids won't listen to you and you want them to stop without making them upset (threatining or punishing them). You can just say "if your nice, santa claus will get you that toy for chrismas" or "if you don't be good, santa claus won't get you anything for Christmas. " They if they have a strong belief in santa claus and think that they'll get toys if they act good (or won't if they act bad), they'll listen to what you have to say without getting upset. "Letting their children believe in Santa Claus is the equivalent of letting a kid believe that they could survive a 40 ft fall off the top of a building. It's not true. " Well, not really. I don't think belief in santa claus would lead to a child's potential death. Those two beliefs are not of the same level. A better or more accurate example would maybe be belief that if you sacrifice your life to serve your country you'll automatically go to some kind of heaven or paradise. You shouldn't go around criticizing people for their beliefs. Everyone has their own cultures and you should respect them for it. "The parents bring out false hopes in their kids and get them all excited for nothing. This puts down their beliefs and might make the children skeptical over anything their parents say. " Shhh. Your not supposed to tell them that santa claus doesn't exist. You're supposed to let them find that out on their own. My god! By that age it won't really matter because they will probably be skeptical by nature anyway (being more mature and therefore more aware and questioning).
Parents should not instill the belief that Santa Claus exists in their child's mind.

I would like the affirm the following definitions. This debate is in no particular format; rather I shall give definitions and give reasons why I support the resolution. -Definitions- Instill: To introduce by gradual, persistent efforts (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Belief: Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Santa Claus: The personification of the spirit of Christmas, usually represented as a jolly fat old man with a white beard and a red suit, who brings gifts to good children on Christmas Eve. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Claus) Exist: To have actual being; be real (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) After defining these terms, we can already assume that Santa Claus is not a real being, but just to further instill this fact, I would like to include this following source: http://www.amusingfacts.com... Now continuing on to my points. After I have successfully proved that Santa Claus does not exist, there seems to be no reason in why parents should let their children believe in such lies. Why should they let their children believe something, then let them find out later on that it is just lies? Letting them believe nothing is better than letting them believe in lies. The parents bring out false hopes in their kids and get them all excited for nothing. This puts down their beliefs and might make the children skeptical over anything their parents say. Parents shouldn't let their kids believe in lies. Letting their children believe in Santa Claus is the equivalent of letting a kid believe that they could survive a 40 ft fall off the top of a building. It's not true. Sources: www.thefreedictionary.com http://www.amusingfacts.com...
Parents hovering V's. kids never grow up

"The Tethered Generation." This term, first used in HR Magazine, refers to young people who have to be in constant contact with their parents and each other via cellphones and Instant Message. A teen"s life becomes a continuous voice recording to Mom and Dad. The conversations are completely trivial and never-ending: "I"m getting out of class now and I"m on my way to the cafeteria." "Dad, can you do this job application?" "Mom, what should I do about my crappy roommate? Today she wouldn"t empty the garbage." so yes i would have to say that you do need to hover and become and ore and better parent and have your kid be a young adult.
Parents hovering V's. kids never grow up

Did you seriously just say "kids are learning how too be more dependent and grow up like they should" I think that you must firstly understand what dependence is.Dependence: the state of relying on or being controlled by someone or something else. http://oxforddictionaries.com...However, what do you actually gain from being dependent? THE FORTUNE OF BEING A CHILD FOR LONGER IN A STATE of immaturity! If anything, this is the opposite of growing up, growing up is a burden, it's not a choice orphans get. Have overbearing parents builds a mentality in a child that "It's okay, I don't have to think, I'll just trust in authority" but an adult is supposed to have opinions of THEIR OWN and to manage with THEIR OWN ability to structure their lives, I agree that having overbearing parents is a privilege if they're rich and dish out tutors to you but it is not going to ever teach that spoilt brat to grow up. In essence, an overbearing parents is a child's getaway ticket from having to ever really grow up in the first place.
Parents hovering V's. kids never grow up

ok but oprpahns have to be also always hover because they are not yet old enough to take care of them selfs and have to be aable to be 18 before they can go on there own and become a young adult and grow up too be a strong young adult. New York Times said that "More kids may be learning Mandarin, but fewer know how to look an adult in the eye, write a thank-you note, empty the dishwasher, handle a snow shovel " or cope with disappointment and grow stronger after failure." this was said by Denises Schipani she was saying that kids are learning how too be more dependent and grow up like they should, and become young adults.
Parents hovering V's. kids never grow up

So my argument is Parents Hovering V's kids never grow up I am arguing a pro because I believe that kids should be hover to make sure that they do the right thing in life and there parents will help them they get older and it is time for them to do there own thing and be able to grow up and be strong but according to Lecher Henry she said " Yes my baby s spoiled wrong or spoiled right, but I will always hover because I feel like I cant let my kid down For not being successful in life and I am going to make sure of it.' so yes I do believe that they should be offering for the sac of the kids life and future.
Should Juveniles Be Treated As Adults In Court

I will make no arguments in this round, as that would give me an extra round. I do ask my opponent to elaborate on the resolution, so that I may have a better understanding of his view. I hope this debate will be insightful, and enjoyable for us both, and the readers as well. The burden of proof rests on Pro in this debate, and my objective is to give reason why juveniles should not be treated as adults in a court of law. Since we are both from the U. S. , I assume that we are arguing American law. Thanks again, and good luck.
Atheism is self-delusional

Atheism is defined by it's three roots,"a" meaning "no", " theo", meaning "God" (capitalized as a proper noun in this debate, since a lesser god would be irrelevant for any objective discussion) and "ism" meaning " This ROOT-WORD is the Suffix ISM. It means DOCTRINE, SYSTEM, MANNER, CONDITION, ACT & CHARACTERISTIC.". Merriam-Webster's full definition of "ism" is : Full Definition of -ISM 1a : act : practice : process b : manner of action or behavior characteristic of a (specified) person or thing c : prejudice or discrimination on the basis of a (specified) attribute 2a : state : condition : property b : abnormal state or condition resulting from excess of a (specified) thing or marked by resemblance to (such) a person or thing 3a : doctrine : theory : religion b : adherence to a system or a class of principles 4: characteristic or peculiar feature or trait In this debate, I will show how atheism is self-delusional. My opponent will attempt to show how atheism is realistic and rational and not delusional. By accetping this debate, my opponent agrees to abide by the following simple rules: The definitions given here will be accepted and used as the established English definitions. The three root words which form the word "atheism" are agreed to be accurately defined in this challenge opening argument. In this debate, the word "God" will always be captialized as a proper noun. The word god may be used, but it will be agreed to be understood as a god who is lesser than the God referred to by the proper noun, God, who would be the God over all. No cussing. My opponent may simply accept the challenge on pass on giving an opening argument or post his or her opening argument. I say you can't win againt God, maybe you can win this debate against me. The points are not as important as the topic.
Atheism is self-delusional

Ok, I am not going to teach you how to make an argument, here. I am contender, I do not have to prove anything, or put a counter-argument. All I need to do is just to show that your premises are false, and they do not support the conclusion (conclusion being topic of the debate).You can ask many time for an argument which shows atheism is not self-delusional. My only argument is I see no reason for atheism to be self-delusional. Now, prove that my subjective opinion is false, which obviously you had to do from start, by proving your topic.And if you base your basic premises on Hell and existence of God, then you have to prove them, because without God, you are self-delusional.And you do not know what (Philosophical) Idealism is. Google it.And I didn't call you stupid (It would be insult against ........... ), rather I said your argument was stupid. There is a difference.
Atheism is self-delusional

This is supposed to be a debate. My opponent is putting up no argument. Saying my statement is nonsense and is poor English is not making an argument. I did not ask for proof that is atheism is not self delusional, not self-delusional. I asked for an argument trying to show why it is not self-delusional. The statement my opponent seems to want to pick on the most without making any kind of counter arguement is: "Nothing but the atheist's existence while alive has any objective value," The sentence is logical and grammatically correct. It is not me who needs to study English, and it is not me who is failing to put up any arugment in support of my position. I'm asking my opponent to put up a counter arguement or forfeit the debate. s " And why for somebody thinking he/she has the right to exist outside of the ice of Hell is self-delusion?" and then demans "provide an evidence" Again, my opponent is making no argument. This is the basic point of my arguement, saying atheism is self-delusional in believing one has the right to exist outsid of the fire of Hell. In atheism, a person believes they have the right to live outside of Hell now, and if they are wrong and they find there really is a God when they die, they believe they have the right to continue existiing outside of the fire of Hell. An atheist does not have the right to exist outside of Hell any more than he has the right to live forever. This is the basic self-deluding point of atheism, believing things they have no evidence of untill their death is finalized. The debate here is not about proving the existence of Hell, or proving the existence of God. The debate is about the self-deluding aspect of being an atheist or Atheist, whatever my opponent asserts is the difference between the two and can be discovered by Googling. My opponent again avoids showing how atheism is not self-delusional by simply saying my statement about having the right to live is stupid. It is a fact that we do not have the right to live or we would not have to die. The fact that I have to die does not mean I can kill you. If I were to say that because I have to die, I must kill everybody, then that would be psychotic. We all have to die because we do not have the righ to live. If you have the right to live, why can't you sue somebody when you die and your right to live is gone? My opponent did not offer any argument to show why atheism is not self-delusional, he only called my statements stupid. Who is being stupid here? Idealism is objective, not subjective. If you try to make idealism subjective rather than objective, it is nothing more than your own feelings and is not ideal. I don't need to google George Berkeley. My opponent needs to put up an argument showing why atheism is not self-delusional or forfeit the debate. Again, my opponent does not have to prove atheism is not self-delusional, but he could at least put up an argument and do more than sit there and call me stupid. I have made an argument, and am ready to make more if I could get an arguement from the Con position. At ;least he seems to have abandoned trying to play semantics games.
Atheism is self-delusional

I do not have to prove that atheism is not self-delusional, simple reason is "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat," - means, proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies. And proof is based on evidence, and evidence ought to be assessed, first. And also, you do not present any valid chain of premises, which support the conclusion (topic).Now, let me analyze your round 4 argument:(A) "Nothing but the atheist's existence while alive has any objective value, and" - PRO. It means "non-sense" and study English first.(B) "Atheists delude themselves into thinking they have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell," - PRO. You take so many things as granted, and give 0 (zero) evidence, to support them. "Fire of Hell" - first prove Hell exists, then prove it has fire, then I may consider thinking about what your statement means. And why for somebody thinking he/she has the right to exist outside of the ice of Hell is self-delusion? Provide an evidence.(C) "Nobody has the right to be alive, or we would not have to die," - PRO. It is stupid statement, if nobody has the right to be alive, then killing anyone cannot be considered as crime, except maybe killing zombies.(D) Rest of argument is just non-sense.(E) ""Subjective Idealism" is an oxymoron....again, incoherent," - PRO. Google "George Berkeley". Or contact Rational_Thinker9119 on this website.
Atheism is self-delusional

The most "rational" claim was made by Pro is -- "Atheism asserts that there is no God. In so doing, the atheist deludes themselves into thinking that they have the right to exist as long as they are alive and nothing else has any objective value. The atheist's own existence then, in their own deluded thinking, has no objective value. With belief in no God who can love them, the atheist has no hope other than to prove in death that he is correct. The meaning of life then is nothing but confusion, because the atheist exists in a delusion of their own making." Let's analyze it.A) "Atheism asserts that there is no God. In so doing, the atheist deludes themselves into thinking that they have the right to exist as long as they are alive and nothing else has any objective value." -- And it is very fallacious argument, because I can say same thing for Christians (Christians asserts there is Trinity, in so doing, they delude themselves .....) or for Jews and Muslims (Jews/Muslims asserts that there is One True God, in so doing, they delude themselves .....) and etc. Only way to prove this statement for atheists is to prove existence of deity (or deities). And this debate is not about existence of deity (or Deity).B) "The atheist's own existence then, in their own deluded thinking, has no objective value." -- Well, (let me play devil's advocate) what has an objective value in its existence. Does muons existence have an objective value?! If particles we made of has no objective value, then why we (Homo Sapiens) made from those particles should have an objective value?!C) "With belief in no God who can love them, the atheist has no hope other than to prove in death that he is correct." -- God can love them. And also, you have ho hope other than to prove in death that you are right.D) "The meaning of life then is nothing but confusion, because the atheist exists in a delusion of their own making." -- If we assume Subjective Idealism to be true, then it is not a big problem.Even in 3rd round Pro still makes claims without giving evidences for those claims. At least give me some evidence to deal with. And what Hell has to do with it, leave Hell alone.
Atheism is self-delusional

1) "I believe my opponent is trying to say he is not atheistic and is not an Atheist," - Pro. No, It is not what I was trying to say. Atheist vs. atheist - There is actually difference. Google it.2) "So far, my opponents only attempt at making an argument has been to say my position is non-sense," - Pro.I haven't made an argument yet.3) Let's first define atheism (in correct way), it is not the denial of god or gods, rather it is a lack of belief in deity (or deities) simply because a person in question doesn't see any (rational, empirical or etc.) evidence for it. I do not understand the reasoning of Pro, by saying "Atheism asserts that there is no God. In so doing, the atheist deludes themselves into thinking that they have the right to exist as long as they are alive and nothing else has any objective value," at the end everyone (everyone who exists) has a right to exist, and I can say same thing for Christians, by changing few words. And next three sentences does not fit into grammatical pattern of English.4) The last paragraph is about what I will or won't do. And some cheap statements.5) Atheism is not belief system or way of life. Rather it is a statement (lack of belief in deity) which serves as a basis for worldview of people individually. Each atheist may have different interpretation of atheism and can have different worldviews or philosophies (empiricism vs. rationalism, idealism vs. realism, LOTR vs. Harry Potter and etc.) and all of this is not "fault" of atheism, rather it is part of being human being (Homo Sapien).