BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
bullying does not justify school shootings// change my mind

There should be no killing in the first place? You completely changed your stance. Let me give you examples of you saying there should be killing: "...if that person being bullied wanted to kill their bully why not do it separate..." "...i do agree they should be killed..." So which is it? You've been agreeing with me for the majority of this debate. We already went over parents trying to "get their kdis under control," and we've come to the conclusion that that's either been tried and failed, or the parents won't care enough to help their kids in the first place. So that isn't a possible option in this scenario. 1) My kid wouldn't be a bully, and 2) if he was so far gone that he hurt someone so much that his victim wanted him dead, I would probably understand why. I don't think we will continue this another time, there's one round left, c'mon LOL
bullying does not justify school shootings// change my mind

You say it's not only about the innocent lives, but I'm not really seeing what else there is. Let me ask you this: Would you consider somebody who dies for the greater good a "martyr"? Someone fighting for their country (assuming the war is legit and not to steal resources) and dying while defending it would be cherished. Of course the friends and family would be saddened and feel horrible, but they died knowing that their child died so others could prosper. Can we apply the same logic to situations like this? I think so. An innocent person losing their life in a school shooting is a martyr who died in order for hundreds, if not thousands of other innocent people to maintain their mental and physical well-being. If the families and friends can wrap their heads around this idea, they will feel the same way as if their child died fighting for their country - saddened, but relieved knowing that their child was an unfortunate loss in order to make the world (or at least a large area around the shooting) a better place. Looking at it at face value, the death of an innocent person is a bad thing. However in the grand scheme of things, the future and the well-being of hundreds if not thousands of similar innocent people being saved by the killings of these bullies outweighs the cons. The unfortunate thing about killing bullies in a secluded or secret area is that either a) nobody finds out and therefore nobody is scared of being killed by someone for bullying, or b) the gunman only kills one bully and is apprehended by police, so he can't get any more, and the likelihood of another vigilante doing the same thing is incredibly low. I also would like to say thanks for the incredibly fast responses, that's rare here especially by new members, so good on ya.
bullying does not justify school shootings// change my mind

well i'm not just talking about the innocent lives and i see in the comments that they agree but if that person being bullied wanted to kill their bully why not do it separate rather than kill other people and they will become the" hardened adult criminals" everyone in the world fighting against this agrees that the bully should have consequences of course but all i'm saying is either way peoples lives get lost and they shoot many other kids when they could just do it out of school and wouldn't it be better to go to prison for one death rather than multiple not to mention the angry emotional parent that would probably sue and the parents of the victim would be paying for it then these victims will go to jail and experience even more mental taunting by the other people in there
bullying does not justify school shootings// change my mind

Thanks, numbers. Now we get into specifics. Does the shooter target only bullies or just go on a rampage killing anyone he finds? Let's address both options. You say "we cannot control the bullying," and I completely agree. I already stated all of our options which never end well and either don't change anything or change things for the worse. This means something has to be done. And for the sake of this debate, I'm saying a school shooting is a justified response. Targeting Bullies I basically went into this in my first round. If the shooter only targets bullies and only kills bullies, it rids the school of horrible people, deters other bullies popping up in said school as well as others, decreases the amount of hardened adult criminals, and much more. There really isn't any negative aspect to bullies getting shot up, is there? I see you haven't argued against this point, and you even agree with me by saying "I do agree they should be killed instead of just thrown into a cell." Mindless Shooting I see this is your main argument - that innocent people can get killed if someone shoots up a school. Obviously this is a horrible thing. But since I've chosen to take the opposing side.... I shall bring up my points from earlier. Let's say a school shooter stops many bullies from any further harm inflicted on innocent people. This includes physical and mental trauma from assaults, muggings, even rapes and murders. And assuming the bullies would have lived out an average length life, they would be affecting dozens if not hundreds of innocent people in horrible ways throughout their lives. A school shooting on average will take the lives of say a dozen people. If half are bullies and half are innocent people, the only positive way we can look at this is in the long run - six innocent people die to save hundreds of innocent lives from mental and physical trauma endured at the hands of six bullies. It's a horrible, disgusting thing at the time, but in the long run, more peoples' lives as well as physical and mental well-being are saved thanks to a school shooter. So to recap - you concede that not only can we not do anything about bullies, but you also concede that they should be killed, so you're mostly on my side from the start. Your only argument is that innocent people die, but this is quickly refuted by the fact that a small amount of innocent people losing their lives is a small sacrifice for the greater good of humanity, in order to stop potential hardened criminals from destroying multiple times as many lives as the school shooter did. Thanks again and back to you.
bullying does not justify school shootings// change my mind

when they have enough and finally shoot they don't just kill the bullies, teachers and other kids end up getting hurt because we cant control the bullying sometimes its not just kids who have been bullied it could be people that are mentally messed up and one comment could trigger them and they shoot up a school. not even god himself could justify someone shooting up tons of children ,although i do agree they should be killed instead of just thrown into a cell but my point here is that no matter what someone says or does you have a choice and people say that " you didn't have a gun to your head " well even then you can choose to refuse and do the right thing and die knowing you didn't do something bad or you can choose to give in to the person holding the gun just like your thoughts and feelings you can keep fighting and keep trying to get someone to help you or you could grab a gun and go shoot the bully's and accidentally taking a random innocent kids life when they could've grown old and lived a great life you always have a choice , therefore bullying cannot justify school shootings
bullying does not justify school shootings// change my mind

bullying can cause kids to go two different ways they either kill themselves or kill others just because you were called names and maybe pushed around does not give you the right to take their lives, they certainly didn't take yours. i mean kids who actually take the time and think before doing something about it end up committing suicide or they attempt to tell an adult . school shootings happen when nobody will take the time to listen or help that kid so they snap and figure if i shoot these kids ill get revenge and ill be noticed for once. yet we have a "gun problem" .... no we have a people problem , we have a bullying problem .guns are just the scapegoat so we don't wake up and realize hey!! KIDS ARE BEING BULLIED. the most they do is make them talk it out that is the worst way possible and if you are really that deranged to bully someone and make them feel like they don't deserve to live you should be put in jail for life so our children don't continually commit suicide
Gay Equality vs Racism

I don't believe that Christians should stop serving shrimp at Red Lobster, because that's a silly thing to do. The question is though, why would the bible make such a big deal over something as tiny as eating Shrimp? The answer is the the context in which the very bible was written. Consider the time period the bible was written in, especially the first half, where we find most of the anti-gay passages. This was a period where people died all the time from disease due to hygiene related issues. In this event, it would be essential, since the people in this time lacked the proper equipment to look at shrimp and lobster properly and clean it correctly, to ban the food altogether, because many people were preparing it or cleaning it incorrectly since most of the shrimp/lobster/crab is inedible. Then, in a world without condoms, STI's that spread through anal would have no good side to them, since a child wasn't produced during intercourse. Additionally why aren't you killing off the gays then? You just said it's clear how god feels about homosexuals, they should be put to death. Who cares if you get the electric chair, god will reward you in the afterlife for your murderous rampage. Anyway though, this has really strayed off our initial point of whether bigotry is similar to racism. The Christian bible has loads of passages that support slavery, "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you" Leviticus 25:44 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ" Ephesians 6:5. Why then was slavery ever outlawed? The bible makes it clear that slaves should serve their masters and god will smile upon them both. This is why, because bigotry and racism are equally stupid. The bible didn't just drop out of heaven one day, it was written by humans, humans with racist/bigoted values. If you want to respect everything the bible has to say, fine. But you don't, no one does.
Gay Equality vs Racism

I personally do not care about AMA or APA. I have heard all of the arguments from people with your viewpoint and you have not said anything that I have not heard. For you to say that people are born gay with a "Gene for Homosexuality" in the chromosomes of the DNA makeup, you must also think that God created it that way. Afterall, He created everything. I am telling you, God makes everything perfect. How would God make something sinful? Sin is a result of blatantly choosing to go against what God says... nowhere in the bible does it say that God does make things sinful. People and freewill make things sinful. I do not care for what either organization says, because I know what marriage was meant to be. Secondly, how is a praticting a set of beliefs an act of discrimination? I could see if there was nothing in the bible to go against homosexuality, but that is not the case. Here is some scripture Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a man as a woman; it is an abomination". Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them". I just gave you two verses that clearly state how God feels about homosexuality. He describes it as an ABOMINATION. I feel like that was a pretty strong word to use. Homosexuality is a sin. The point of marriage, a gift that God gave, was to reproduce. Tell me, how would a same sex couple reproduce? Same sex couples do not contribute to the population of a society. If anything, they are a detriment to it. There is no discrimination here, just a set of rules that we have always gone by. Gays should know that they are going to be denied service in a place that holds true to these boundaries. Now what you mentioned about eating shrimp, well, I do not have a comment for those people. The verse that you are referring to is also in Leviticus. You know about that verse, but not what I mentioned? Interesting..its in the same book.
Gay Equality vs Racism

The first part of your argument hinges on the staple of the fact that being gay is, in fact, a choice. It's not. Ask the American Medical Association or the American Psychological Association, or simply look up "Studies on whether homosexuality is a choice," and you'll find overwhelming evidence that being gay is neither the consequence of illness or choice. According to both live science and the International Business Times, "Using DNA from gay man and their pedigrees, a gene for homosexuality seemed to be maternally linked and found on the Xq28 stretch of the X chromosome." So no, gay people do not choose to endure a more difficult lifestyle than black people did during the times of segregation or even today, and while one may claim that they still have the option to conceal their sexuality, this is the reason that hundreds, if not thousands of people take their own lives every year. Also, while religious freedom is one of the most important matters to America, today, and during its founding, I was of course referring to the recent spew of bills and acts allowing discrimination against gay people on the basis of religious freedom. This is not something Americans should be standing for. I hate to 'toot my own horn' but on account of the reasons I just provided for gay not being a choice, it's reasonable to say that people are being given the right to deny services to someone on a basis the consumer has no control over. Nowhere in the bible did it say "Thou shalt not serve the homosexuals, for 'tis a sin," so people shouldn't even be allowed to use Christianity as a reason to discriminate. You can't provide a good reason for why gays can't be served by Christians. The bible said not to consume shrimp, but a Christian that works at Red Lobster will still give someone the plate of scampi they ordered, even though, according to religious freedom, they should be against it.
Gay Equality vs Racism

I am new to debate.org, but I will find and post the link to what you said. I still do not understand how you are comparing the two. They are completley different subjects. Gay people choose to live out a life that is harder than what it should be. Black people, in times of segregation, had no choice. That is the HUGE difference here. There are solutions that can be taken to fight the confusion of sexual orientation. Living out a difficult lifestyle because it "feels" right is a hard life brought upon by the individual, not by society. People can run their businesses however they want to. It is a right. If you choose to live a certain way, if you choose to wear the rainbow colors, if you choose to chant equality, if you choose to end supporting statements with #LoveWins, if you choose to be gay, then you are choosing to subject yourself to what opposing people think. Secondly, why are you talking about religious freedom as if it is something new? Last I checked, there is an amandment in the constituition for religious freedom. It has been around for a long time.. where have you been? Our rights are being taken away from us in the form of forcing us to marry and do business with gay couples. You say its the rise of religious freedom? This is more like the fall of religious freedom.. specifically for people who believe in Christianity. Church and state should stay seperate, it is better that way. What we have practiced our beliefs for years, and it has never been scrutinized by the government, so what makes the difference now? Why force us to go against what we believe in when there are places that accept this behavior and lifestyle choice?
Gay Equality vs Racism

You should post a link so I can see what I posted, it's been a while after all. Anyway, however, although gay people did not endure the enslavement, segregation, and overall terror of racism, that's not to say they aren't similar. Obviously racism is a more extreme issue, but with the rise of "Religious Freedom" laws and the discrimination gay people face in public, in their homes, and at work, it should be easy to see how closely the gay discrimination timeline follows the racism timeline. Both endure/endured reduced chances to work, less respect in public, especially in southern states with strong religious ties, and overall a greater sense of guilt and hate for their own lifestyle. I don't know the specifics of what I said, but I do know that I never said the gay issue is more important than racism nor is it a greater threat to the stability of the nation or the people who live in it. I did not say anything about the character or ability of black people, nor did I try to insult them, if they took offense, I can't see why since I'm sure I was only using the events of their history to show anyone who might be anti-gay a situation with similar events and policies that would hopefully make them look at the whole topic of gay marriage in a different manner.
Gay Equality vs Racism

Ok, I read one of your comments and I was confused.. how is it that you can compare years of enslavement, brutal fights for equality, segregation laws and everything else that happened to the AA community for all of those years to gay marriage? They are nowhere near the same thing!!! I cannot even imagine how many people you probably offended with that comment. How many linch mobs that are specifically after gay people do you see? How many public places do you see with signs out front saying "No gays allowed"? Where are the segregation laws the are set to single gay people out of society? I know you do not have an answer to that. Secondly, we are talking about apples and oranges here. Since when did racism and sexuality choice become the same thing? They are not even close to being simiilar! How are you comparing to unlike things? You do not make any sense.. your comment made no sense and you pissed alot of people (black people) off. Try not to be so rude and have a little tact when debating on this forum.
It is good to be religious but not blindly

Well, it's not completely invalid because if a valid answers exists then it would satisfy the challenge. You're focusing purely on the term "moral" and ignoring the term "ethical." The only possibility is that there might be certain acts that only theists would recognize as being moral." ---Can I have an example please? "Atheists can be as good or evil as believers." ---This is not the point. An atheist has never flown a plane into a building because of his/her atheism. An atheist has never spread lies about polio vaccinations because of their atheism. An atheist has never interfered with a woman's reproductive rights because of their atheism. You've failed to fulfill the burden of proof of your original statement.
It is good to be religious but not blindly

The challenge itself is completely invalid when proposed by an atheist because, logically, it could never be answered to the satisfaction of an atheist, even if valid answers exist.Nobody is stopping atheists from doing moral things. So why might an atheist not be able to do something moral that a theist could do? The only possibility is that there might be certain acts that only theists would recognize as being moral. Atheists, not recognizing those acts as being good, would not attempt to do them as moral acts.Coming to your second challenge,Atheists can be as good or evil as believers. Some religious laws are immoral from the perspective of equality, freedom, and improving the human condition. We would be better without these.
It is good to be religious but not blindly

I accepted this debate to argue the following: It is NOT good to be religious. I want that to be perfectly clear. I am NOT debating that it is good to be religious but you should follow blindly. Blindly following anything is absolutely wrong. To my argument, that it is not good to be religious. I will begin my argument by proposing to you what has become known as the "Hitchens Challenge." The challenge: Name one moral or ethical statement made, or one moral or ethical action performed, that could not or have not been uttered or done by an nonbeliever. Next, name an immoral or evil statement made, or an immoral or evil action performed, that was said, committed, or carried out in the name of God. Happily awaiting your response.
It is good to be religious but not blindly

It is good to have faith in god ,to be religious but to be blind follower of god .In the era of technology and science there are still people who believe there every thing to god and for god. It is true that every thing in the world is beyond the capability of a human .this means god existing in every thing ,but some people are having a kind of mentality that says ... that this is restricted to this and this to that , they always find out some or the other thing and would relate to god .Such people do not try to use their minds in scientific way and the ones who are curious to know and learn everything on the basis of a reason these blindly religious people always pull such people down and do not let them enhance their ways of thinking .
Should woman work or stay at home

I think women should do whatever they want to do... personally... I'd like to work. I don't think women should sit at home and let her husband support her. if some want to do that fine. but i think that women should work and support them self be independent not have to depend on there husband. why doesn't he stay at home and take care of the kids and run errands all day. women & men are equal. its there own choice who works and who doesn't. but don't assume women are the ones staying home. I consider that there are a lot of factors that state that women should work. The first one is that housekeeping, sitting at home and watching TV in the mean time leads to degradation. Housewife's education becomes useless because all the knowledge obtained at the university is getting lost witout practice. Also sitting at home leads to relationship problems with husband. Housewife may think that her husband doesn't pay her enough attention and appriciate her hosework. Housewife doesn't feel that society needs them and sometimes they feel a lack of companionship.
Should woman work or stay at home

The best reason I can think of for staying at home is to enjoy being with your children while they are young - they'll be grown up and leave home soon enough. Also, so many kids these days are out of control because there is not consistent discipline... It can be acquired when one parent is home monitoring the kids Next best is if you stay at home you don't have to wear yourself out 'juggling' (dread word) trying to manage job and home and kids. The next best reason is you have plenty of time to do things that interest you, reading, watching TV, pursuing hobbies etc, and you are not stuck in some dreary office all day. Another good reason for me is that they will not loose their beauty in pollution or after stressful work. After she will have more time to cook delicious food for their family. Another one, work inside the home is as hard and as contributing to society and in many cultures women are expected to do all or most of it. Why should women do double work (outside and inside the home)?