BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion being taught in Non-Church Schools

Please let me clarify, I am not American, and when I refer to "State" I mean a sovereign country. My argument is set in a global context and when I refer to State schools I refer to public schools not private schools . I accept that in some countries there is little freedom of choice, if any, and that the practiced religion is usually enforced upon its subjects and is so pervasive and all encompassing, but that can change. I am glad my opponent supports my argument that students can go on to become law abiding citizens without religious teaching or conformance, this is supported by statistics supplied by the Federal Bureau of Prisons where 99.7% of inmates state a religious affiliation. Therefore if religious teaching or practice has no bearing on the behaviour of citizen's, in fact it would appear it has the opposite effect and that atheists are proportionally less likely to offend, it therefore has no value as part of the public school education. I would argue that the figures my opponent stated are based on estimates drawn from census figures, and that in completing census figures a declaration of a particular faith isn't necessarily a declaration of a religious practice. In the USA, I would argue that certain US states have a higher proportion of a particular faith whilst the majority of others have a more balanced representation and therefore "pushing" of a particular faith or any faith in public schools is undemocratic. I would argue that the continuance of pushing a particular faith or indoctrination in public schools comes from a historical background that has no relevance in an enlightened and progressive modern world. Maybe my opponent would care to highlight some of the benefits to society to be gained by the continuance of religious education in public schools in support of their argument?
School Uniforms

1. You can express yourself in other ways than cloths or pants 2. If you have a uniform the special someone would like you because of your personality not just what your wearing 3. You can wear your cloths on the weekend so you can't get I worn out if it's worn out it would look worse than the uniforms 4. If the uniform is really itchy well cloths are not itchy you should check your personal hygiene 5. You can be used to it 6. Kids won't be able to pick on you because of your cloths because they would be wearing the same thing
School Uniforms

What if you could never wear your choice of fashion to school ever again? You would never hear compliments on your shirt because every one is wearing the same thing. Clothes helps you express yourself, sometimes, you can tell a person's personality with their choice of fashion. Rips in your jeans can mean your reckless. Skirts or dresses show your inner sweetness. Baggy shorts can mean your a gangster. Your choice of fabrics may not always express yourself, but, what about shopping? School is almost everyday. Those shopping freaks cant do what they love. What if there is that special someone? You won't impress them with an everyday drag uniform. My point is that school wouldn't be half as fun wearing uniforms. Also, if everyone is wearing the same thing you might not be able to tell your friends apart from your enemies. You buy clothes for how they look on you, but also if their comfortable. What if your school uniform is really itchy? What if your usual daily wear is a comfortable sweater. You won't be used to the change. Your skin might be damaged. I'm kind of dragging on now, so ill finish.
School Uniforms

I meant less confident, and I don't like the way you responded to that, Keep it friendly or I will report it. I don't really know how to use this website. I don't really debate. This was a school project, and I didn't expect someone to debate back, but I will keep going. For two, In this generation people tend to pay attention to what the opposite sex is wearing. (Leggings, Snap backs) It's just how school works. For three, weekends are two days out of seven. There is barely any time to wear your own clothes. Parents would have to buy the uniforms instead of buying clothes that their kids actually want. You will loose your individuality. At our school, friends tend to wear similar things that way people will know that they are in their friend group. Bullies would just find something else to bully about. (Hair, acne, shoes etc.) And, no. Kids don't get used to them. Waking up and wearing the same thing every day? I've been wearing them for years, and I am still not used to them. Do you have experience with them? Everyone at my school hates them, and that's about 600 people. Also, I do actually know the difference between school uniforms and dress codes. You don't know me. Don't push it. It makes you more self conscious because you would hate what your wearing. Even if people are wearing the same thing. If you don't like the look on you, you automatically hate it, even if others are wearing it. The parents would complain about the uniform, because the kids would complain to their parents and some of the parents would want to talk to the office about it, and possibly get into a disagreement or a fight. Yes, they do draw more attention to yourself. Seeing yourself in the mirror wearing something you hate everyday. People want to express themselves, School uniforms will result to an overdose of makeup. Buying expensive shoes, and possibly tattoos or piercings. I don't think you are reading my debates carefully. You keep bringing up the same point, which makes your argument a weak one.
School Uniforms

More confident? that's what you said. 1. It does not make you more self conscious it makes you less self conscious 2. Why would the parents complain about the uniform? 3. It doesn't draw more attention or stress because everybody is wearing the same thing 4. I don't think you know the difference between school uniform and school dress code 5. You still haven't rebutted my comment on my number 2,3,and 5 are you dropping those arguments if so you automatically lose
School Uniforms

I don't see the point in school uniforms. They don't make you less distracted, or confident. In fact, they make you more so. School uniforms make you focus more on what your wearing because you might hate the choice of style. If you do (which most of the kids do), you will be focused on how to improve it. Since they have no choice in what they wear, they will try to improve every little detail to draw away from the clothes (Acne, makeup, etc.) I know this from experience. School uniforms may also cause kids and parents to be unhappy and complain to the office (I know that from experience too) which would cause even more trouble. There will be no more color. Everywhere you look people wearing the same thing, that's a nightmare! Why on earth would anyone want that? The whole "purpose" of school uniforms is to draw attention away from clothes and your appearance, but as I already explained, it draws more attention, and more stress. You choose your clothes on how they look on you. School uniforms look good on almost no one. Also, If you have to buy your own uniform (Grey bottom, white top) for instance, kids would still be picked on. In this generation, if you wear the same style of clothes, but if one costs more, the other will get picked on. I am in middle school, and I also know this from experience. And yes, by the way some kind of fabrics are very itchy.
We should stop giving money to charity and give it to bethesda for more fallout 4 content

Pro is obviously trolling, but since it wasn't clarified that this was a troll debate then I have no choice but to take this seriously. On that note, let's examine Pro's case. It is filled with bare assertion fallacies, non-sequiturs and personal bias that in no way actually fulfills the BoP that Pro holds.Happiness1. Pro claims that charity has been wildly ineffective. However, his reasoning for this isn't sufficient. Of course there is still hunger and crime existent, but charity work has reduced that and has helped the cause by showing. Bill Gates, founder of an effective world charity, dispels the myth that foreign aid is a big waste. He states that because of help from other countries, "by 2035, there will be almost no poor countries left in the world." [1. http://www.gatesfoundation.org...] He gives examples of how foreign has benefited third-world countries such as that a vaccine campaign in southern Africa eliminated measles as a killer of children. Polio has been mostly wiped from the world and is only prevalent in the countries of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Nigeria.[1]2. The assertion that video games cause happiness is both subjective and unfounded. Most hildren in Africa don't even have access game consoles, and there's no way to determine that they would become "happier" from playing it versus being cured of malaria and taken out of poverty which charity is working to do.3. Fallout 4 has not even been released yet, so it is complete speculation to say it will cause happiness. It's release date is thought to be sometime in November 2015 [2. http://www.idigitaltimes.com...]Culture1. Just because Fallout 4 is supposedly about nuclear war doesn't mean future generations will dislike war in the future....again, unfounded assumption and complete lack of evidence.2. Not everyone will be "too busy" to cause climate change because we don't know how many people will abandon their important jobs to play the game. It could be a huge failure for all we know.3. Violence and unwanted pregnancies aren't going to decrease. Not everyone will be playing it, and we certainly don't know how many will. Same reasoning as above.4. Mod tools do not increase intelligence. Unsubstantiated claim.5. Jobs may or may not be created. No way to know for sure, and even if there is it cannot compare to charity work.World peace1. Pro asserts that everyone will be united by Fallout 4 but this argument is completely theoretical. Pro is wishing this would happen, but gives no reason for us to believe that it actually will.2. The rest of this argument is so ridiculous it's not worthy of a response. Everything Pro says will happen is 100% unsupported, thus should be dismissed.
We should stop giving money to charity and give it to bethesda for more fallout 4 content

The furry Varrack wil laccept. (Look bro aint nothing wrong with dressin up like a pony and gettin f*cked all haters are just jelous they not gettin f*cked) Im sick and tired of people giving their "Money" to charities that "Help" " children" and try to fund "cancer" research. Giving african children water, sending doctors "to" foreign countries for doctoring patiatns needs to STOP. Fallouit 4 been anounced & sh1t. We need to give the munni to bethesda to improve the game and create more dlcs. It will be better than giving to any charitiy. I will prove why. Round one is for acceptence only. Post argue in round and you will feel my rath.
autism is not an epidemic

My comments on your writing were not on an affront on your intelligence nor on your premise of debate. Just that at times it was difficult to ascertain the point you were attempting to make. In conclusion, I feel that insufficient evidence on your part has been submitted to enforce your position that autism is not an epidemic. Only a single source has been referenced. On the statement made that those with autism are made out to be puppets, this is hardly the case. Depending on where individuals are on the spectrum, they are taught skills designed to meet their specific needs that will enable them to learn and function in society. Educators are not trying to make them normal, but work within the sphere of the individual"s abilities not inabilities. This approach has been a significant move forward from their treatment 40 years ago, where such individuals were institutionalized, shuttered from the public and family life. Personally possessing a Master in Education and have worked with children with autism, I have found they do enjoy life. But maintain that rates have increased significantly and its occurrence is beyond genetic familiar lines. Whichever set of data you may choose be it 1 in 150 or 1 in 68, the frequency of occurrence if it was the flu or other viral outbreak by comparison would be categorize as epidemic.
autism is not an epidemic

In you're list you said people with well you forgot to mention that those were the people diagnosed yes the number of people diagnosed has been climbing but as said in this website http://www.sciencealert.com... the number of people with autisim symptoms have been staying the same proving my theory that autism is not growing and is in fact genetic the numbers you showed are a result of more people being diagnosed which I'm sure can be summed up to people caring more about autism over time. Since the numbers are staying the same so you're oh so precious Marian Webster definition of an epidemic holds barely any help in proving that autism is an epidemic
autism is not an epidemic

Please carefully review my previous comments. In no manner did I state or imply that autism is a mental illness, because it is not. It is a neurodevelopment disorder that ranges from mild to severe. It is believed to have its origin in brain development; the different regions of the brain have deficiencies in the ability to communicate; neurons (synapses). So yes, it is a difference in brain wiring as you stated. Scientist have statistical evidence that there is a genetic component to autism along family lines. But the true cause of autism is yet to be uncovered. Besides heredity, environmental factors are seen to have effects on gene function to a degree greater than previously thought. This factor is seen as a contributor to the significant increases of autism over the past few decades. Studies prove that when familiar lines are not factored, autism still occurs. Older parents have a statically higher rate of autistic off spring than younger parents. Women who have taken to antidepressants before or while pregnant also follow the trend. Yet other research indicates spontaneous gene mutations are taking place once egg fertilization occurs, where specific genes are over produced. Gene mutations are also suspected to occur in utero and postnatally (after birth) altered by chemical agents; though specific agents have not been pinpointed. Rates of autism over time: 1980: 1 to 2 per 10,000 children 1990: 1 in 500 2000: 1 in 150 2004: 1 in 125 2006: 1 in 110 2008: 1 in 88 2010: 1 in 68 Using the uncontested Merriam Webster definition of epidemic, I will conclude that autism is an epidemic due to its excessive prevalence within the population over time. As viral and bacterial diseases spread and grow to a point where its occurrence is atypical, the neurological disorder of autism follows with the same reasoning. http://www.ninds.nih.gov... http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.healthandenvironment.org... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.webmd.com... http://brighttots.com...
autism is not an epidemic

I noticed that you calleed autisim a mental illness WELL OBJUECTION!!!!!! autisim as a whole is not a mental illness it is unproper wiring of the brain . Oh and also i think that you chose incredibly specific parts and the parts you did choose do not apply to autisim autisim is not forever growing it stays in the few familys who have it so autisim is genetic so only members of one side of a family have it proving one flaw wrong causes all the other ones to be shown faulty to
autism is not an epidemic

Autism spectrum is a neurodevelopment disorder that can affect communication, behavior, social interaction, motor skills, and cognitive focus. Individuals can exhibit some or all of these behaviors defining it as a spectrum condition. As of 2010 the frequency of autism as risen to 1 in 68 births from 1 in 150 births recorded in 2000. An epidemic defined (Merriam Webster): 1. affecting or tending to affect a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time. 2. excessively prevalent The CDC's official definition of an epidemic is: "The occurrence of more cases of disease than expected in a given area or among a specific group of people over a particular period of time." The CDC doesn't have epidemic thresholds for every disease. But Autism is not considered a disease due to its occurrence is not due to a virus or bacteria. For the sake of this debate the Merriam Webster definition can be applied to prove autism is an epidemic.
autism is not an epidemic

The charity organization autism speaks treats autism as an epidemic and while it is true and affects the lives of many I do not believe it is an epidemic as I believe that for autistic people it is a way of thinking and once they see the right people they can live every day life with only the occasional ...... they have the ability to live life like any other person with traits that make them special but autism speaks treats them as puppets controlling them and trying to make them normal by doing this and telling them that they are well weird can seriously affect someone who is autistic and can seriously harm them if people acknowledge that autism is not an epidemic they to can know that life is awesome!!!
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God

It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from GodDefinitionsQur'an- The holy book of the religion Islam. God- AllahRevelation- The divine or supernatural disclosure to humans of something relating to human existence or the world. The BOPThe BOP is shared. Pro must establish that it cannot be shown that the Qur’an is a revelation from God. Con must establish that it can be shown that the Qur’an is a revelation from God. StructureRound 1Pro: IntroductionCon: Opening ArgumentsRound 2Pro: Opening ArgumentsRound 4Con: Closing ArgumentsRound 5Pro: Closing ArgumentsCon: ForfeitureNo additional arguments may be introduced in the Closing Arguments. Also, no "Shotgun" Argumentation.
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God

Claims of Rule Breaking Again, as I already pointed out, in my opening statements, I did not address even a single claim that Con made. I was merely addressing a common line of argumentation that I encounter in debates of this nature. Also, my arguments didn’t try to argue about the validity of Con’s claims. For, after my opening statements, Con’s claims still stood unchallenged. It’s my personal belief that the only reason Con is pursuing this argument is because they view it as a real threat, and thus want to remove the merit it has by claiming that it’s a violation of the rules (which I have already shown that it’s not). Speaking of Rule Breaking… In the rules, I also stated that, in the closing arguments, no new arguments would be presented. If one would notice, in Con’s closing arguments, they provided a section dedicated to the rebuttal of my arguments, and introduced many new arguments (which I won’t address, as I would have to break my own rules in order to do so). Thus, I ask the reader to penalize Con for this disregard of the rules, and in order to maintain a fair debate, disregard the rebuttals they presented in their closing arguments. For the purpose of the closing arguments are to reiterate main points made in the debate, and not introduce new ones. In Conclusion I will keep my conclusion short, as I believe the rest of the debate speaks for itself. A main point that I would like to reiterate on is that of claims made by religious texts in regards to “revealing” certain facts that were unknown at that time. What I want everyone to ask themselves is, given ONLY the verse which apologists claim reveals something previously unknown, ask yourself this: could you have come to that same conclusion given only that verse, and nothing else? Of course not, as I have shown in my arguments above. Also ask yourself this: of all the religious texts out there claiming to be true, which is more likely? That none out of all the mutually exclusive texts are true, or that a divine being (whose existence wasn’t even established by Con in this debate, as I say previously) just picked one text out of all of them? Obviously it would take quite a leap in logic to believe the latter, rather than the former. Now, while I made many more arguments, these are the ones I would like to draw specific attention to, as they address not only The Qur’an, but also any other religious book any apologist claims are “true” or “divine”.
God does not infact exist

As I said prior I am talking about the Christian god "The almighty god who created us and brought us into being" I am not referring to the definition of the word I am specifically talking about the Christian god and you are not him/her because he/she doesn't exist on this world according to the Christian religion. I was really hoping to get a Christian believer in this debate as con so I could have a real outlook on this situation because I can guarantee you that this debate would be going a lot different and actually talking about religion which this debate is about. You have not touched on the situation that I have tried to bring upon a believer in Christianity to hopefully clear ones outlook on the world and how being happened.
God does not infact exist

I don't know if I can say it much clearer. I am god. I am a person or thing of supreme power. If you were to go back 1000 years and show people what I can do today they would consider me a god. I can fly around the world in a few days. I can go to the moon. I can talk to someone in Europe. Immediately. I am god. Also it does not matter what I believe, it matters what is being debated.
God does not infact exist

As you make a valid point I am particularly referring to the Christian God or Lord as some may say. I have never seen any proof referring to gods existence and am 100% sure that the bible we know today was not the original bible and no one really knows the true version; there have been many historically documented cases where the Christian Bible has been changed many were thought to be as ways of manipulating the believers into doing the whim of others. I have one question for you. Do you believe in magic? the thing about god is what is he/she more than a group of people's way of interpreting the creation of man and the world of those intimidated by science who make up a man to fill that spot with a bunch of conjuring magic. before anyone brings it up I would like to point out I believe in extraterrestrial life but god for me does not fall under that description.
Should prostitution be allowed.

"If it is also the other person who is buying the escorts body, I am sure they know the risk they are taking when spending that amount of time with them"The fact is, they don't always know the risk they are taking. 67% of people lie about and STD, and pimps are probably more likely to lie about their prostitutes having an STD; which means that any person could get an STD in what they thought was STD-free sex. http://www.dailymail.co.uk..."If the majority of prostitutes have been raped, then if prostitution was legal then they could report them so that that sexual offenders can receive the punishment they deserve."1. Odds are, the pimps won't let them report rape even if prostitution was legal.2. Even if it is reported, that won't stop the rape. Sure, the man may be arrested, but odds are, another man will rape her.3. There isn't really a way to stop a rape in a prostitution place..."If they want to leave prostitution, they shouldnt have chose the career?"Not all of them really had a choice. Some of them chose the career because of poverty, others were kidnapped and forced into it. And some just plain didn't know what they were getting into.