BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity and Brainwashing

Well, Christain brainwashing can always be avoided if you don't buy into it. However, if you do fall for it, and immerse yourself in the Christain mind set, they can manipulate your political beliefs, your thinking, and even your actions. It is harder if you were born in a Christain family (like I was) to to break free sometimes, however I will get to this point later. Christians trying to indoctrinate others into their cause will usually try to convince them by using faulty and bias information and flawed evidence that has been proven wrong (such as the evidence you Creationists use against Evolutionists.) They will also mix with the concept of eternal punishment after death, being hell, in order to frighten the individual into worshipping god, and trying to please him. Sometimes, the Christain will take advantage of fear, usually the fear of death. People who fear death will sometimes join a religion to escape that possibility that nothing happens after you die, preferring the comfort of knowing that there is a afterlife. These people will follow the laws of the religion blindly, suppressing any doubts out of fear. Children who are raised into a Christian family are often forced to take part in religious activities, depending on how open minded the family is. Children grow up, with their parents teaching them that the bible is the absolute truth, their impressionable little minds grow up believing in this lie. The bible itself tells it's followers to submit themselves to god, they do this, they will follow every law that the bible tells them to. They will take their doubts to a preacher or religious figure, and those figures will only manipulate them more. The difference between an author and a religion, is that a book is often a tool used to spread literary ideas... A religion requires practice, and strict rules which can really effect your life.
Christianity and Brainwashing

first i would disagree that persuasion is brainwashing everyone uses persuaision in some way or another and christianity doesn't use coercion propaganda or force aslo you say use motivating or inspiring music where the preacher uses manipulative tactics, such as telling sad stories, or yelling passionately about his belief. The church will guilt trip you into believing, inspire you, or scare you into believing using the concept of hell. people use these kinds of persuasion alot and nobody calls it brainwashing for example authors use illustrative or emotional storie alot to persuade people of their opinion but nobody ever calls it wrong people like presidents for example yell passionatly about their beliefs when their making an important speech does it mean he's brainwashing the country no and their not trying to scare you or guilt trip you by talking about hell the its not like their using hell just to get more followers its because they believe in it themselves persuasion is not brainwashing.
Christianity and Brainwashing

Before I start with the juicy center of my argument, I shall lie the meat of this croque-monsieur on the soft bun which is the definition of brainwashing. Brainwashing: "(v) brainwash (persuade completely, often through coercion) "The propaganda brainwashed many people" •S: (v) brainwash (submit to brainwashing; indoctrinate forcibly)" Source: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Religious organizations of all kinds are known to use persuasive tactics in order to recruit new members. Some congregations shall use motivating or inspiring music during their sermons to manipulate the emotions of the observers, I myself have been a victim of this. I have seen such inspiring events during church sermons, where the preacher uses manipulative tactics, such as telling sad stories, or yelling passionately about his belief. The church will guilt trip you into believing, inspire you, or scare you into believing using the concept of hell.
Resolved: The US would be justified in taking military action against Iran.

My opponents brings up many good points but has obvious flaws in his case. His first contention is clearly negated by my first two contentions. I would redictate these points but it would be pointless due to the following information. Continuing on, his case is structured so that if any part of his second contentions is proved wrong, his case must fail. So I will keep it short and take out only one of his incorrect subpoints. If by some stretch of the imagination, Iran threatened the United States other options would be more appropriate. Here my third contention comes into play. I accept diplomatic efforts will bring allies into the picture just as war will. However, an economic struggle between two alliance systems would be less harmful to the US than war for one main reason. Both scenarios , war and economic struggles, will bring economic hardships. War adds violence to the picture. War brings two struggles as opposed to one. Additionally, only isolated nations are not part of the global economy. Therefore, big Iranian allies that can affect us (such as Russia and China) would not attack our economy becaus it would hurt theirs. This has been seen in China when their stock market dropped because the US market dropped. This proves economic pressure would be more appropriate and simply better than military action.
Resolved: The US would be justified in taking military action against Iran.

Initially, I would like to point out the obvious flaws of my opponents case. Duplicity is completely irrelevant to this debate. As cruel as it may be, the US government has no obligation to the Egyptian or Uzebekistani people. The social contract obligates that the US government does whatever is in the best interest of the American people. Alliances with undemocratic, immoral nations that are beneficial to the American people should be made in an effort to promote the well being of United States citizens. However, Iran threatens the American people. The social contract mandates that the US government protects its people from foreign and domestic enemies. Building upon this foundation, all US government officials take an oath which affims that they will do all in their power to protect America "against all enemies foreign and domestic." My oponent also argues that military action against Iran would be in opposition to the US charter. This would only be true if the United States was unprovoked. Iran gave 250mm rockets to terrorist groups. In turn, these rockets were used to kill several American soldiers. Aside from sponsoring terrorism, Iran provokes us in many other ways. My first contention, which I will later re-explain,clearly lays out acts committed by the Iranian state which provoke US action. Therefore it is irrelevant whether or not this resolution is duplicitouts. Continuing on to my opponents second contention. I do concede that President Ahmadinejad has little to no policy making power in Iran. However he is an elected official and therefore represents the views and opinions of at least a majority of Iranians. Since Iran is a democracy, the majority opinion is the opinion of the nation. This proves that Ahmadinejad in pronouncing radical speech against US and its allies is representing the views of the Iranian nation. This means that Iran threatens American interests by being radical and by threatening US allies. Now I will turn to my opponents third contention. The alliance system will come into play regardless of action taken. If we placed economic sanctions on Iran, its allies would take actions against the US as well. Therefore it cannot be considered at all important to this debate. Now moving to my conentions. Here I will simply point out unrefuted points and points I have not yet addressed. Iran is threatening the US interests by creating nukes. Additionally my opponent has not refuted my second contention (no alternatives exceed military options). Therefore the point must be accepted as truth. I believe it would be useless to repeat myself here. Since this contention remains and Iran has provoked the US, the US would be justified in using military opions against Iran.
Hillary isnt a good person

Secondly, your point has no actual basis on fact. First off, I fully agree with you that she is hiding her emails and made a bad mistake about that. Those killed in Benghazi are not her fault, (. http://www.cnn.com...) and people sooner or later die. She did not laugh at the 12 year old rape case, as that has been proven fake as well. That man did rape the kid and everyone knows it, but that wasn't Hillary's job. She was a LAWYER. Her job is to protect her client, and she did a good job on that. That is a point to show that Hillary Clinton does know what she is doing. She has NOT given money to ISIL as that is our enemy, and money given to Saudi-arabia also has explainations. Your beloved GOP candidate who is at war with the party also supported Iran. The ideals of Islam may be hard on gays and Christians, but does this give you meaning to nuke em'? So let me ask a question? Are you Trump or are you truthful?
Hillary isnt a good person

Hillary Rodham Clinton a very controversy person.She deleted 1,500 classified emails putting national security at risk.Proven liar under oath about the email server.Let 4 Americans die in a terrorist attack on a US embassy after several pleas for help letting one of the 4 cattle pronged,raped,tourted,and burnt to death.46 people who are tied with The clintons both bill and hill have mysteriously died.Hillary has freed FALN terrorist just to get more voted in the New York senate.Defended a rapist calling the 12 year old victim she wanted it letting the criminal go back on the streets and later in a interview Clinton laughed and said she new he did it.Hillary has broke her oath of secretary of state by not defending the Americans in Benghazzi Lybia. Hillary has also armed isis through giving money to terrist supporting countries like saudi arbia and quatar (this was found out by leaked emails) .Voted for a war that made isis rise to power(the Iraqi war).Lastly she has been described rude by foreign leaders except once again from her biggest supporter Saudi Arabia( also a place she arms )which beheads you if your gay chops your fingers if you read the bible and if a women isn't wearing her clothes right they beat the woman almost to death. Does this sound Presidential?
Scientists say that Pluto is not a planet.

"Firstly, I would like to point out that my opponent has assumed that I am male. If he went to look at my profile, as I have done, he might have found that I am female." ----> My sincere apologies. I did not bother to look up your gender, and I use male pronouns for convenience. ~Counterarguments~ "Why cant there be two or more planets in one zone of orbit?" ----> As I've explained, the IAU laid down three fundamental criteria for a planet's definition; the first time this has ever happened. Clearing the neighbourhood [1], as I've stated before, is for a celestial body to become gravitationally dominant. IAU laid down these definitions, because when new bodies of mass were being discovered, it was unclear whether one can name it a planet, a dwarf planet, or any other type of classification. The new IAU definition lays to rest most confusion that had plagued the astronomical community for quite some time. "www.ASK.universal My opponent seems to think that Planet X MUST mean a planet affecting Neptuneï¿½s field of gravity, but in this case it means the un-named planet. As I have said before, X is the signature letter in science and maths for something otherwise unknown or unnamed." ----> I would love to see my opponent's link, but unfortunately it's either not typed correctly or dead (especially when Debate.org doesn't automatically make it a link). Even if they do name it "Planet X", it has no relevance to Pluto's status as a planet. "Scientists cannot prove the Pluto is not a planet. You can prove that gold is a metal, you can prove that plants are life, but you cannot prove a belief. And thats all this is, a belief. Because deciding whether Pluto is a planet or not doesn't change the actual mass of rock itself in any physical way. Its just deciding that you don't think that it is a planet." ----> Technically, now they can. With the new definition, Pluto is no longer considered a planet by definition. You can GIVE REASONS for a belief. ~Conclusion~ What my opponent doesn't seem to understand is that the IAU's decision to make a clear definition of what constitutes a planet is only for the sake of the astronomical community. They do this so in the future when astronomers need to name planets or dwarf planets, they can use this as an operational definition of sorts. My opponent's only option now is to contend the technicality or the science behind such a definition, otherwise arguments such as "I still believe Pluto is a planet" is empty and moot. ---References--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Scientists say that Pluto is not a planet.

Firstly, I would like to point out that my opponent has assumed that I am male. If he went to look at my profile, as I have done, he might have found that I am female. ï¿½This isnï¿½t a debate about whether or not my opponent believes Pluto is a planetï¿½ I am not saying that specifically I don't trust the new planet criteria, but that nobody actually checked with anyone other them themselves whether they agreed with the criteria for being a planet was correct. In my point of view, being the largest celestial mass (which includes stars so isn't very accurate) in its zone of orbit shouldn't define whether something is a planet or not. Why cant there be two or more planets in one zone of orbit? ï¿½My opponent needs to give me a link...ï¿½ www.ASK.universal My opponent seems to think that Planet X MUST mean a planet affecting Neptuneï¿½s field of gravity, but in this case it means the un-named planet. As I have said before, X is the signature letter in science and maths for something otherwise unknown or unnamed. ï¿½...then what other scientific proof do you need...ï¿½ Scientists cannot prove the Pluto is not a planet. You can prove that gold is a metal, you can prove that plants are life, but you cannot prove a belief. And thats all this is, a belief. Because deciding whether Pluto is a planet or not doesn't change the actual mass of rock itself in any physical way. Its just deciding that you don't think that it is a planet.
Scientists say that Pluto is not a planet.

My opponent has pointed out that the title was not well written, and yes, he is correct. My arguments are: 1. The IAU may have released the criteria stated by my opponent for a mass in spaceto be a planet, but that does not mean we have to accept those criteria. The IAU is not the most well known space organization, and I am sure that that decision was not democratically decided. The IAU, in my opinion, does not have the right to come forth and tell us that Pluto is not a planet. 2. If there is no Planet X, than what do you call the recently found planet on the edge of our solar system? It is named Planet X because it does not officially have a permanent name, and ï¿½Xï¿½ is a maths and science signature letter for ï¿½unknownï¿½. 3. If Pluto is not a planet, then obviously the criteria for something to be classified as a planet hes changed, for Pluto (yes, permanent name I would like to point out) has been classified as a planet for many years. In conclusion, my veiws have not changed that Pluto SHOULD be classified as a planet. Because it is officially said to be a dwarf planet does not mean that it IS.
Scientists say that Pluto is not a planet.

Scientist say that Pluto is too small to be included as a planet. Pluto has been recognized as a planet for many years. It can be seen through an average telescope, has a regular orbit around the our star, and has two small moons. I think that this is enough to be a planet. Some people say that ï¿½planet Xï¿½ is more important than Pluto. ï¿½Planet Xï¿½ may be bigger, and have more moons, but its not even properly named yet! Its been known as, first, C.O.T, then Planet X, for two years! And, its not even in our solar system! It does not orbit a star, just floats in the void on the edge of out solar system, caught in its gravity but not moving. I do not see, other than size, any reason for Pluto to not be a planet. Do you?
Abortion is Immoral

No, abortion is not immoral. It is not a happy thing, but it should not be prohibited. I feel that women should not be bombarded by the government when making these hard personal decisions. You can't justify for it to be wrong when there are so many factors that can go into why an abortion is needed. I DO NOT SUPPORT THE KILLING OF FETUSES, I SUPPORT WOMEN'S CHOICE WITH THEIR BODY. I feel that at the end of the day, if a woman cannot support her child, she should not give birth to it and have the baby live a terrible life full of torture and neglect. It is better to rid the fetus then than for it to suffer a painful death for years. I also believe that mothers should be more responsible while of having intercourse. Eliminating the right to having an abortion would not only hurt women but victims of rape. You can't blame a child or any female of that matter to an abortion when it was not chosen upon her. I would always consider other options before hand, but at times abortion of a fetus whom can't feel pain is better than slow death and torture of a child that is not cared for.
The Nintendo Wii is the best video game console.

Nintendo Wii - http://en.wikipedia.org... Home gaming console - http://en.wikipedia.org... Best - excelling all others (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) It is my opinion that the Wii is the best home gaming console. For this debate, my opponent will choose one (1) other home gaming console to be compared to the Wii. From there, we will both present facts about either console, and try to defend or attack the pros and cons of each other's gaming systems. To start, I will present some of the pros of the Wii: - Low price: the Wii is one of the more inexpensive game consoles, going for usually $249.99. (http://www.articlesbase.com...) - Game controls: The Wii Remote (Wiimote) has pointer and motion-sensing functionality, as well as the ability to use a variety of accessories. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) I await my opponent's responses. Please, no comments with any facts that may help either debater.
Agricultural Taxation

I agree to my opponent's definitions and clarifications, but reserve the right to contend them later. Attack on Farming as a Negative Externality: First, farming waste pollution should be considered a point source because it comes from a "defined and discrete conveyance." EPA laws state this: "Discharges of waste from point sources into navigable waters are regulated through a permit system known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Permits are issued either by EPA or by the state under a program approved by EPA. It is illegal to discharge waste from point sources into navigable waters without a permit or in violation of the terms of the permit." [1] These permits cost money to receive, so in essence, farmers are already paying for water pollution. Next, animal waste is reused by farmers as fertilizer, so this waste has no negative impacts on society. Finally, CO2 is not a huge contributor to global warming, so 24x more lethal is not that bad of a feat. Attack on Taxation of Farming: If it is the government's duty to prevent citizens from being taken advantage of by businesses, then the government needs to outlaw our current economic system. CEOs whose jobs it is to sit at a desk and manage the work of others get paid huge sums of money as compared to the much harder working employees that they oversee. Under my opponent's logic, the government must protect these workers from exploitation by CEOs. In fact, it is virtually impossible for an employer to employ an employee without taking advantage of him--the employer would not employ this employee if there is not a net gain to the employer, yet this net gain is rightfully the employee's. Next, as my opponent says, farming is already subsidized, indicating that the business, although necessary, cannot exist without help. Further harming the economic abilities of farmers will not only lead to an increase in food prices, but also an eventual decrease in food supplies. Much of the world is in hunger, and farming is a necessary profession for humans to survive at all. If we take away and then tax farmers, they will not have the economic ability to run their farms. These "technologically efficient" forms of farming are going to be highly expensive--if they weren't farmers would be using them now to avoid pollution laws already in place. Many farmers may go out of business, reducing food supply. The other farmers will see an increased demand and food prices will rise even further. This will lead the country--and the world--into hunger and malnourishment. Footnotes: 1. http://www.nasda.org...
Political Correctness has been taken too far.

Sorry, what I meant was that it's incorrect to assume African Americans celebrate Kwanzaa the same way Christians celebrate Christmas. But that's beside the point. In your original post, you were criticizing schools for doing things like changing the name of a Christmas dance to a winter formal. That has nothing to do with students expressing their religious views - that's something officially coming from the school. I agree with you that when it comes to students expressing their own views, schools should remain neutral. However, I do think that schools should err on the side of being non-religious when it comes to things like the dances you're talking about. If a school hosts a Christmas dance, don't you think that there may be at least a few students who think they can't come if they don't celebrate Christmas? Christmas isn't a 100% Christian holiday - it's been commercialized and secularized more than any other holiday I can think of. But that's not what I said - I said that some people associate Christmas with the birth of Christ as the Lord and Savior. That doesn't mean they don't associate it with other things as well. For those people, being told "Merry Christmas" is a religious thing, and they may feel uncomfortable that idea, just like a lot of people are uncomfortable with evangelism (though I'm not directly equating the two.) I'd like to close with a general note about being "sensitive," and not just as it applies to political correctness. I absolutely hate it when someone tells me to "stop being so sensitive," when I'm offended by something. Most of the time the person doesn't truly understand the motivations for why I'm offended, but let's assume they do, and they think it's a stupid reason. That's great that you think it's stupid for me to get offended, but I'm the one taking offense, I'm the one that actually cares one way or the other - it doesn't matter to you either way. Why is it such a bad thing to make a conscious effort to offend as few people as possible, even if we think those people are overreacting? The way I see it, it's no skin off my back to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," and if I can avoid skin off someone else's, then it's a good thing.