BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Patriotism should not be taught and enforced in all elementary schools in the USA.

First I will start of this debate by saying that it is not the matter of opinion or what is and isnt right, it is about the debate in itself. I personaly do not agree with the subject but it is not about that. Let us beggin. School was created for giving young youth tools for the future. One of those tools is love and devotion for his great country. I person is best spending there time devoted to there county in a patriotic spirit. Thousands have died in the same means because of there devotion. It is this devotion we want to instill in youth so that they to will grow up suporting the country that was founded on patrionism. Think back in history how the many American patriots, heros, brought us were we are today. Do we not want these kids to grow up in the same fashion? This is a free country like my oponent says but kids are not always free to make there own choices and though they do not see it it is usualy for there own good. This is nothing diferent. Schools do not make all the kids choices but they should teach these kids good moral values like love of ones country. Every American does have his own freedom but this country should teach our youth values that will benifit this country in the long run. If the child/parent does not like or suport this country then they should ethier live with it and reap the benifits or leave if they feel a devotion to another country. USA military has to respect the rules of other countries even if they do not like them and bear with it for the time being. My oponent defines patriosim as a forced love of that country and that country only. It is more then that, though. It is the spirit of service and devotion to the country you are in. Because our country does so much for us we should return our gratitude with a little patrionism and devotion. Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. A country should be more then a place were many live it should be a land were many work together, making sacrifises for the others in that country and serving/loving that country hole heartedly. that is patriosim.
Patriotism should not be taught and enforced in all elementary schools in the USA.

Before I start this debate, I want to ask everyone who is voting in this debate to vote based upon the debate itself, and not upon the positions the debaters are taking. Please do not vote in this debate based upon your own opinion. Vote based upon who did the better job of presenting and advancing their arguments and who rebutted their opponent's arguements better. Thank You Because 100 characters is not nearly enough for me to explain the topic, I shall do that here. Patriotism, as defined by Merriam Webster, is: love and devotion to one's country, in this case the USA. By "taught and enforced," I mean that children will be forced to love the USA, with no alternative. They would have to love the USA, and be devoted to the USA, only. By all schools, I mean all public and private schools. Every single elementary school in the USA. Now to my arguements: My first point is simple. Schools were created to teach and give children tools that they could use to their advantage later in life. One of these tools is the ability to make a decision on your own. No school plans everything for their children, and does not let them choose anything. If you are forcing them to love the USA, then the school is taking away this tool that they have given the children. The school would be depriving the children of somehting they all have a right to have. My second argument ties in with my first. Our country was founded on the principles of freedom, and with freedom comes the right to make your own choices. The Constitution is in place to protect our rights and freedoms, and to ensure that no one can take them away from us. If we force children to believe in something that they may or may not believe in, then we are taking away these rights. We would be doing exactly what we hoped not to do. I await my oppponent.
Bryan Mullins: After Doing Research, There will be no Christmas.

The Bryan Mullins logic is inherently flawed. Denial isn't a good way to win an argument, you've got to provide counterclaims and prove your point and stuff like that, or you're gonna lose. You're crazy. You must reside in some kind of mental institution. You once more posted a link that talks about December 2017 instead of Christmas 2017. None of your sources are legitimate. First, why not tell me, and everyone else, all about this new, insane law, that prohibits the existence of Christmas. Inform us about why it happened, if it will continue, and how it will be enforced. You said you did research on this thing. I don't see anything. Everywhere on the internet, there are sites that claim Christmas will happen, right here in America, anywhere you can think of, we're going to have Christmas. You accuse me for posting "fake" sources when you won't post any. Come ON, man. Give me something to work with. You're gonna lose. Tell us about this. Show us that it's real. Otherwise, you lose.
Bryan Mullins: After Doing Research, There will be no Christmas.

First, you have no real evidence to prove or suggest that "Christmas" has been there for thousands of years. You can search for it all you want but it is still fake news because it doesn't reflect America's point of view. "Tell you what, sir. Post a link that says it WON'T happen. You won't be able to, because every part of this is a big stinking lie." Your quote was irrelevant to the research I've done and the research you failed to do properly. Your link is still fake news because every time I search anything popular and industrial like television, Christmas doesn't really show up as real news or any news. NBC: https://www.google.com... Also, your links also reference to mostly British or fake articles. You have a burden of proof by asserting that Christmas will never be stopped.
Bryan Mullins: After Doing Research, There will be no Christmas.

You're crazy. Christmas is going to happen this year, no matter how much of a party pooper you are. It will happen, just as it has happened for thousands of years. Christmas is unavoidable, it happens all the time. Here's a link: https://www.google.com... GOOGLE verifies it as an event. You can say anything is fake, but saying something is fake doesn't make it fake. Donald Trump calls things "Fake News" just because they contradict with his point of view. Same thing here. It's undeniable, Christmas is going to happen. I have diligently explained this as best I can. I have researched it. You can't deny that. Tell you what, sir. Post a link that says it WON'T happen. You won't be able to, because every part of this is a big stinking lie. But go ahead, try to find your article or whatever. I'll be waiting. Have fun, ya lummox!
Bryan Mullins: After Doing Research, There will be no Christmas.

First, let me refute your link you showed me, I clicked on your link, I only found that the majority of these articles I'm seeing are only British, and rarely others are fake news. Christmas is no where near now or later in America. This argument is not fake. Apparently you don't really know what research is, here is it's definition: "1. careful or diligent search. 2. studious inquiry or examination; especially investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws. 3. The collecting of information about a particular subject." [1] [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com... You only explain what Christmas is and blindly assume that It will never be stopped. You can't just believe everything you see as "news" like the one about Portland and Disneyland. You have some capitalization errors, and irrelevant arguments.
Bryan Mullins: After Doing Research, There will be no Christmas.

Your argument is fake because the two links you provide are for DECEMBER 2017. DECEMBER does not necessarily correlate with Christmas. DECEMBER is a month, CHRISTMAS is a holiday that exists within December. Here's a link I found: https://www.google.com... Christmas is a world renowned tradition and it will not be stopping anytime soon. I think you might be insane. If you are insane, then all your arguments are invalid. if Christmas was stopped, there would be much more news about it, and there would be an international public uproar. Besides, it isn't preventable, people can celebrate if they want to. There can't be an anti Christmas police force. In addition, this i not fake news or from foreign countries. One is from Portland, and another is about Disneyland. this can't be fake news. It's 100% verifiable. You can say anything is fake news. It isn't.
Bryan Mullins: After Doing Research, There will be no Christmas.

I recently done some research that would prove my point, which is there will be no Christmas. These searches are very discrete and very honest. There will be no Christmas, here is the first source of research: https://www.google.com... Here is the second source of research: https://www.google.com... I would make one or two exceptions to the research I've done. First one, some of these that say "Christmas" are either from a different country than America or they're fake news. All in all, there will be no more Christmas. There will never be any Christmas in America. I win the debate in real life. There will be no more children being slaughtered or ignored. There will be true peace which is no Christmas. I await your next argument.
Bryan Mullins: After Doing Research, There will be no Christmas.

You're crazy and your gory prophesies are an indication of your mental condition. What the hell are you talking about, huh? You're sick in the head. https://www.google.com... It says, right there, Christmas in America. You can see that from the first google result that comes up, Christmas in America, from Google themselves. There will be Christmas this year, and we're not gonna slaughter any kids. You have a dark and twisted mind. Both links you gave are ones you made YOURSELF and, I'll admit, are mediocre art, but they don't prove anything. Voters, go ahead and vote for me. There is Christmas, and it's going to be the same, like it's been every year, and once Christmas does roll around, and if you voted for him, you'll be a real laughing stock, OK? Just vote for me. I'm the only one who makes any sense here.
Bryan Mullins: After Doing Research, There will be no Christmas.

First, you still have the burden of proof that Christmas will happen in America. I counterclaim that you are seriously losing this debate because you failed to prove that Christmas is going to happen in America. My next counterclaim is that you have no comprehension of research, as I defined in one of my arguments, one of the definitions is a "careful and diligent search" you made a clumsy search and tried to counteract my sources with sources that are mostly fake or posted just because they're desperate for Christmas. You believe in these fake news articles, with your gullibility, you still fail to fill your burden of proof. How it will be banned is after all the Christians have died by being bombed for slaughtering kids for not believing in Christmas. Christmas will not happen because Americans believe that children deserve life and not to be slaughtered. Here are a couple of video links: [1] https://m.youtube.com... [2] https://m.youtube.com...
RoyalPaladin is Awesome

So that we both have 2 main rounds of debate, this will just be conclusion/extentions. Conclusion:Pro drops my last six, count em, SIX contentions, all of which individually negate. Contentions 5-10 in my last round all went unanswered. They may not have been apparent at first glance, but they're clearly visible by highlighting everything under my "good luck" quote in the last round, or visiting this link - http://tinyurl.com...As you can see, they were hidden with invisible text. I figured I'd do something crazy like this to get my opponent back for all the babies she's killed in Uganda. Its sad. Nevertheless, all 6 of those contentions were completely dropped and thus should be extended as legit arguments against the resolution. This pretty much outweighs any previous arguments Pro might have had an advantage on, so the victor is clear. And remember, its true because Izbo said so. Thanks to Royal for a cool troll debate.(Btw, we agreed that this will end in a tie since its a joke, anyone's vote giving net points to one side should be neutralized).
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The superiority complex.

The only real religion that will destroy humanity is Islam, which means "submission." The Koran as many things written about destroying those who disagree with it. For instance, Koran 8:12 states: "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip." Every major terrorist attack committed against the USA has been committed by a Muslim. Christianity is fine. You never hear about Christian attacks.
the catholic church has never contradicted itself

i admit i had to ask someone else... isn't this a contradiction of papal teaching? Pope Pius XII addressed the issue of evolution in a 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis. Here he makes plain his fervent hope that evolution will prove to be a passing scientific fad while attacking those persons who "imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution " explains the origin of all things." He wrote: "Fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences." is it that one could argue encyclicals are not necessarily infallible documents? they could be, all depends on the intention of the pope writing it? what evidences are there in this case, pro and con? i could i think find some quotes of popes saying evolution is true. but i am assuming it's scientifically validated, evolution. perhaps i shouldnt be so quick to think this? This seems more so linguistic confusion then anything else. Pius XII rejected evolutionary theory which attempts to usurp God's role as Creator. He did not reject an evolutionary theory which recognizes the hand of a Creator. From Humani Generis, paragraph 36: Quote For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question. con is going to have to find other examples. specify the quote etc. he cannot just list something like heliocentricity cause people may have misunderstood the quote etc.
A ban on sex between men should be introduced in order to help prevent the spread of AIDS

We all know that there is no cure for AIDS and that the disease kills millions of people every year. We also know that it is primarily spread through the exchange of bodily fluids and by far the most common way of contracting AIDS is through sexual intercourse between men. http://www.lifesitenews.com... Incredibly, however, in many countries, the 'right' of men with unconventional sexual preferences to pursue "the love that dare not speak its name" to its ultimate physical conclusion takes precedence of their victims' right to life. Seemingly, if someone becomes infected with AIDS as the result of these men's perverted promiscuity, that's just too bad because most politicians would rather see innocent people die than confront the gay mafia and their powerful friends in the media. It's not too late to stop the spread of AIDS but the politicians must act now and ban sexual intercourse between men before this reckless recreation causes any more needless deaths. Thank you.
Video Games Cause Bad Behavior

Thanks to my opponent (Con) for a well worded and thoughtful response and debate.I (Chuz) took the "Pro" position and I accepted this challenge, because I believe that video games can and do cause "bad" and even "violent" behavior in some of the people who play them.As we have four rounds to this debate and I honestly will not need that much time for my own arguments, I would like to ask my opponent (Pro) a couple of simple questions that will set the premise for my position. Please complete the following saying; 1. "Garbage in equals ___________ out."2. "You are what you ______."MY opponent answered; "To answer your questions, Garbage in equals garbage out and You are what you eat."Thank you.My opponent asked me to list specific games and seems to want to get into the specifics of the "cause and effect" aspects of playing violent video games. However, this debate (challenge) was not worded that way. This debate simply said "Video Games Cause Bad Behavior." Essentially, either they do or they do not. The news is repeat with incidence where video games HAVE been the root cause of violence in our societies [1] and I believe that when one considers the two questions that I asked my opponent earlier (garbage in = garbage out & you are what you eat) the relationship becomes increasingly clear. And I would like to add one other perspective to be considered. Anyone who follows the Super Bowl in football knows that businesses will spend MILLIONS of dollars for a 30 second spot halftime advertisement during the Super Bowl.Why else would businesses be willing to spend that kind of money, if they didn't think that 30 Second ad would have the result (effect) of enough people buying their product as to make the investment worthwhile.30 SECONDS.Let's think Logically for a minute; If a 30 second commercial on TV can have the effect of so many people buying a product that they would not otherwise buy,... what sense does it make to hold that the violence and such that a viewer plays an INTERACTIVE role in for HOURS at a time will have absolutely NO affect on that "viewer" at all?Obviously, statistically it CAN have an affect and this is evidence by many of the stories found in my search. [1]My observations are made from a logical and realistic perspective. I hope my opponent will not take my observations as a want to further regulate or to ban violent video games. As I am not trying to do so. I am only trying to keep it real."Video games CAN cause bad behavior"Please vote Pro if you agree.[1] http://www.bing.com...
Video Games Cause Bad Behavior

To answer your questions, Garbage in equals garbage out and You are what you eat. If I am wrong please address them in your rebuttal. Now as I said before you must get in significant trouble to be counted as bad behavior. So what games would be included to this list? I would say a game all my friends play would be GTA IV, the MW series, and some fighting games such as Tekken and Soul Calibur. My friends don't go around shooting people or trying to cut people in half with a crystal sword, we are "normal" I use that loosely since normal is a generalized term. Now here is where I stand, people who use the "The game made me do it" excuse are stupid people who don't deserve to play games. They are misusing the games to get what they want. I also say if the parents think the kids aren't ready for it they shouldn't buy them the game in the first place. I mean anyone who has played MW knows how annoying they can be, and if I am not mistaken a grown man actually chocked a kid(didn't kill him) because the kid made fun of him. http://www.youtube.com... Now saying that does necessarily causes bad behavior but then you can't call one incident a "oh my gosh you just lost your case". That is wrong. This is an isolated case. Now going back to the MW series. It is probably the most frustrating game ever created, and people who hate Halo that might be the number 1 to you. How do people say games cause bad behavior? They say it because of violence. Repeating myself, the parents bought these games, and if they didn't they sure know they are playing it! If you don't want your kids "being mean to kids" because of this game, STOP THEM FROM PLAYING IT! Who says they aren't being mean because of the parents, because of bullies, or even because they are just trying to get attention and ruin games for kids. If one kid, this is just a random scenario, kills a kid from playing GTA IV I am pretty sure the parents will stop the kids from playing this game. Now having this so called "bad behavior" is a bad generalization for kids. The parents may think their child is this perfect angel of a kid when they may actually be a bully ruining a kids life but when they finally notice it they will blame the game! If this is true isn't TV evil as well. Football makes adults to some crazy things and things that kids are watching today such as Adventure Time and Regular Show, which use choice words that aren't allowed in school. So games in general can't cause bad behavior they don't even promote bad behavior, they depict bad behavior such as killing people but for some people games are actually a release or escape from the real world. I shall leave my arguments at this and if you can't get the video I shall repost it in my next argument. I also know Thanksgiving is this week so I hope that won't get in the way.
Video Games Cause Bad Behavior

Thanks to my opponent (CON) for the chance to debate this subject. As I posted in the 'comments' section, I have some observations that I would like to make. Cons claim and argument is that "video games can not or do not cause bad (violent) behavior."I take the "Pro" position and I accepted this challenge, because I believe that video games can and do cause "bad" and even "violent" behavior in some of the people who play them.As we have four rounds to this debate and I honestly will not need that much time for my own arguments, I would like to ask my opponent (Pro) a couple of simple questions that will set the premise for my position. Please complete the following saying; 1. "Garbage in equals ___________ out."2. "You are what you ______."
Video Games Cause Bad Behavior

I was looking through debates and saw this one occur a few times. I looked into them and saw about two that actually went to the final round, even though one of the two had a forfeit. I want this debate to be a mix of facts and opinions to show what we feel and what a wide range of people feel. I stand that video games don't cause bad behavior. This is an acceptance round and I hope you will stick around the entire debate.