BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion is a cultural and aesthetic preference

It seems so logical, so definitely undeniably true to support pro because if one were to look at the results it would seem quite blatant that the apparent truth is that religion is a cultural, social and familial product in its origin.Unfortunately, the easy option isn't the correct one here.Before religion existed, there existed societies, cultures and families. Religion came after it and was not at all a part of it, but rather a very strong coincidence.There are atheist Arabs, Muslim Americans, Hindu Pakistanis and Buddhist British. They are existing because culture, society and familial influence are merely forms of pressure that are resistible if one begins to care.This is the fundamental flaw in the pro case. Those who don't care about religion will form a false one that they merely know by name and identity as part of their cultural and/or social heritage. It is indeed then merely aesthetic that these women would wear a veil, men would wear a turban and parents would circumcise their innocent baby's penis. However, the dark truth of religion is only true when one fails to see that anyone who genuinely has a religion actually never got it by cultural means and most certainly as far deeper conviction to it than mere aesthetics.Pro defines religion as "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. Details of belief as taught or discussed." This has nothing to do with culture nor socialization, it is to do with personal belief and faith (two things this incredulous vessel abhors and hence why hatred for religion digs far deeper than that of culture, which are independent of one another).Iranians/Persians are often known to grease back their hair, let loose at night clubs and drink like there's no tomorrow. They are also under a fairly Shariah style law (based upon Islam). Clearly the culture and socialization and the 'aesthetic' religion are totally irrelevant and unconnected.You have 'Christians' from the Ghetto who want to burn down the White House and 'Christians' in Florida and Texas wit their white collar jobs, and their silver spoon lifestyle wanting to exterminate all blacks in the Ghetto. Both the same religion, totally different culture and aesthetic representation of it.Religions is in fact so unrelated to culture that there is simply so vast a topic to even bother going into.As Con, it is more a duty to rebut pro's case than to present one's own and thus I rest my case for now. Not much more to say.In conclusion, religion and culture often coincide as well as peer pressuring to believing in a certain religion often result sin one pretending to do so and mindlessly acting upon it out of the urge to fit in and not be rejected. Nonetheless, the only genuinely religious people would never be so out of cultural nor social reasoning.
Religion is a cultural and aesthetic preference

One's chosen religion is most often the result of social, cultural and familial influences. Many are born into their religion and never question it. Of course, there are some people who acquire religion later on in their lives after a degree of consideration, yet even they are making choices based on aesthetic preference. The icons, rituals and belief systems people chose to embrace are ones they find familiar, the ones they see themselves reflected in. Metaphysical beliefs are acquired through socialization processes and so with the exception of a few philosophical seekers, religious choice is not derived from careful thought but is a kind of "received opinion" that becomes internalized. In fact, "choice" is a misnomer for the acceptance of a culturally dominant religion in a given population group, as the majority of believers are uninformed and lack the agency to diverge from the paradigm that saturates their cultural topography. I am aware that such a claim equalizes religion as a local/cultural phenomena, even if the concepts it frames have universal characteristics. My position is that the framing of metaphysical concepts will always bear the marks of the culture that produces them. Contender agrees to the definitions: Religion - re"li"gion /riˈlijən/ Noun The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. Details of belief as taught or discussed. Socialization - so"cial"i"za"tion [soh-shuh-luh-zey-shuhn] Noun A continuing process whereby an individual acquires a personal identity and learns the norms, values, behavior, and social skills appropriate to his or her social position. Aesthetic - aes"thet"ic or es"thet"ic (s-thtk) Adj. Of or concerning the appreciation of beauty or good taste: the aesthetic faculties. Informal Conforming to accepted notions of good taste. A guiding principle in matters of artistic beauty, and refined taste in visual, auditory, kinesthetic, cerebral, and culinary experiences. Thank you for agreeing to debate.
Revelation 22: 18-19

This is an Etymological Fallacy. Bible is derived from the Greek word for book, but as such, that no longer applies. When the bible was compressed into a single book and edited throughout the years, if Rev 22:18-19 referred to only the book of revelations, it would be changed to maintain such meaning. Based on the fact that the bible has been altered time and time again, we can assume that Christianity is fine with minor edits. If not, then the holy book which Mormonism accepts already condemns them for editing revelations. You say that John wrote four other books after Revelations, however, this is unlikely the case. When pinpointing down the dates of authorship, all books were written in overlapping time frames. But based on the tone of writing in Revelations, it could not have been written before the other books of John, as in his "visions" his view of Jesus was dramatically changed. The only other explanation would be that they were written by different Johns, who did not experience the same things. You point to Deuteronomy 4:2 as an example, however it has been misquoted by you. "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you." The same with 12:32. "See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it." It does not reference the book, but the commands. I have addressed all relative points. Rev 22:18-19 says not to add to the holy book. Mormons view Rev 22:18-19 as holy. Mormons have added the BOM to it and as such, have contradicted themselves. Sources: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com... http://bible.cc... http://bible.cc...
Revelation 22: 18-19

1) Mormon's accept the bible as the Holy word of God. 2) from 1) Mormon's accept Rev 22:18-19 as the Holy word of God. 3) from 2) If Mormonism is accepted, it beliefs itself false. 4) If Mormonism is not accepted, it is believed false. The only logical option is for the book of Mormon to be accurate with the Bible being incorrect, however, this will also invalidate the Book of Mormon. There is no logical way that the BOM can be accurate and consistent. Sources: http://www.jefflindsay.com...
Revelation 22: 18-19

I heard from a friend of mine this scripture that his pastor told him. He argued that because this scripture clearly states 'If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.' that the Book Of Mormon is in fact fake, because it is an 'addition' to the Bible. I thought this was interesting and I'd like to hear more about it. I will be arguing con, or against this scriptures influence on the BOM authenticity. If their is anybody out there that has heard of this scripture and believes that this is evidence against the BOM, I'd like to challenge you to a debate. This is NOT a debate on weather or not the BOM is a true book, this is simply a debate about the scripture's influence on the BOM. I hope Pro will refrain from bringing in other methods of disproving the book, as it will be completely off topic.
Sex education in schools should be mandatory

It is very short and only covers one point, which is not proven. Because of this short argument, there is not much I can refute. "The thing I don't agree about, and what you should have been focused on, is forcing children to attend these classes. They are supposed to be optional. " In this quote, my opponent is talking about how we should not force children into these classes. Has he not read my argument? I talked about how if children are not exposed to this information, they will not know and will be uneducated about the topic. Looking at my argument, one can see that there are clear downsides to not teaching it. Furthermore, I am aware that they are supposed to be optional. The fact that they are optional now is irrelevant. This debate is about whether they should be optional or not. As this is all there is to refute, I will leave it at this.1. . http://dangerousminds.net...
Sex education in schools should be mandatory

You spent too much words to tell kids should have an option to learn about sex. I fully agree, that sex is not gross and that there should be classes in the school. The thing I don't agree about, and what you should have been focused on, is forcing children to attend these classes. They are supposed to be optional. Sex has many dangers, but if someone wants to risk their health, it is their right. No one should try to stop them by force. When someone decides they will have sex, they are accepting possible consequences.
Sex education in schools should be mandatory

IntroductionI would like to begin by thanking my opponent for responding. I will begin with my rebuttals, though there will be short. There is not much for me to refute, for my opponent has written very little.Rebuttals"I don't think it is morally permissible for person to force others to do something they don't want to do, just because person thinks it is good for them."Morality is subjective. You cannot prove that it is not morally permissible. Secondly, my opponent apparently thinks students should not be forced to take math, science, history, or English in schools, for he doesn't think is is right to "force others to do something they don't want to do.""Majority of your government officials think they know what is good for you better then you do. And some of them really do. Does this mean it is morally permissible for them to force you to do things you don't want to do?"No, it does not. Why? Because morality is subjective and morals only exist psychologically. "I am suggesting that parents should present arguments for educating about sex to their kids. And leave it up to kids to decide if they want to go. I claim that everyone will learn more if they are willingly attending classes."1. Sure, parents should teach them. I concur. Unfortunately, parents tend to neglect that obligation.2. No, the kids should not decide whether they want to learn the truth about life. Instead, it should be obligatory.3. So people will learn Algebra better if they attend it willingly? Maybe, but what about the people who don't want to go. Will they just not learn Algebra?ConclusionAs that is all my opponent wrote, there is nothing else to refute. I will leave it at this. I patiently await my opponent's rebuttals.
Sex education in schools should be mandatory

I don't think it is morally permissible for person to force others to do something they don't want to do, just because person thinks it is good for them. Even if this person has good arguments, it still just an opinion. Majority of your government officials think they know what is good for you better then you do. And some of them really do. Does this mean it is morally permissible for them to force you to do things you don't want to do? - I think it is not. I am suggesting that parents should present arguments for educating about sex to their kids. And leave it up to kids to decide if they want to go. I claim that everyone will learn more if they are willingly attending classes.
A privately owned business should be able to legally choose who it serves.

Currently what my opponent has stated in his previous argument is true. ( https://www.legalzoom.com... ) That is not the debate, the debate is weather or not a privately owned business should be able to choose who it can serves based on any criteria the business chooses this includes religion. I believe if a private corporation choose for any reason not to serve someone that should be their right. It is then the job of the free market to both deal with the business in question and find a alternative business for those who were denied service. If such a business does not exist then congratulations you have found a perfect place to create a new business with high probability of success.
A privately owned business should be able to legally choose who it serves.

If you were to murder someone it would be a infringement on that persons rights. However a person does not have a right to the property of another person nor does anyone have the right to force someone to provide them with a service. If a person is denied service from a private company in no way has their rights be taken away. It is for this reason that I believe that if a business were to be forced to provide a service for anyone it would be a violation of the rights of the business. For example a Christian bakery refuses to make a gay wedding cake. Legally that is the baker's choice and if you were to force the baker to make the cake you are then infringing upon the rights of the business by forcing them to go against their religion. The gay couple however offended they may be have not had their rights attacked and can simply go to a different bakery. https://www.archives.gov...
A privately owned business should be able to legally choose who it serves.

It is my belief that from all legal stand points a private business should be permitted to choose who it serves by any criteria they see fit weather that be racially motivated, religiously motivated, or any other personal belief. For example say for some reason IHOP no longer wants to serve asians then they can do this with no legal actions against them. Now let me be clear I do not support this behavior and should IHOP make this decision then I even though I am not Asian will no longer go to IHOP. This is how the free market works once the public learns that a business discriminates against a group of people the public will begin to no longer use said business forcing the discriminatory business to close. I support a businesses right to deny service legally not ethically.
A privately owned business should be able to legally choose who it serves.

I will be arguing that the statement presented in the title is true. Please allow for the first round to simply be acceptance and no new arguments in the finale round. As for the middle rounds, well anything goes. Definitions: Privately owned business: a company or business with private ownership. Legally: permitted by law. Serves: perform duties or services for. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.dictionary.com... http://www.investopedia.com...
my mom shouldn't put me in the cage

ok, so what if your ugly bitch mother took you, slapped you across the face, then through you into a cage where everyone can see you being gabbed with a stick. huh, i dont think you would be having fun playing with your Zuzu pet toys. u would be crying. i dont follow the rules because i watch caillou and he teaches me to scream, stomp, yell NO, and scream and cry when i dont get my way. and i DO NOT think she has the right to put me in her backhoe and throw me against the ground repeatedly until my bones are broken. what if you mom did that, again, you would just get up off the grould after getting smashed up with a backhoe and go play on your little tikes swing set. i think you would get slapped across the face for crying and then get put back into the cage and this time, be gabbed by a tv remote then take a vase and smash it across your face.
my mom shouldn't put me in the cage

I will defend the position that your mother should put you in a cage. "mummy should not slap my bottom and then put me in the cage. sure it feels good and tingly, but the kids in school always ask what the big red marks are when i take off my underwear in math class."The marks do not result from the cage, so this is irrelevant. "mummy slaps my behind when i dont finish my homework, don't colour in all the white spots on my dinosaur or when i dont say good morning the right way. then she locks me in a cage that dangles from the roof in the living room and pokes me with a stick. people always come over and ask why im in the cage and she says im just a bird who needs to stop squaking."This is a good parenting technique. Since your mother tells you why you are being put in the cage, it is your fault for not following her rules. Since she owns you and the house you live in, she has the right to do this. "then she takes me outside and grabs her backhoe, she then picks me up in it, and throws me on the ground again and again."Irrelevant."please help. I NEED SEX"Ask your father. He can help.
my mom shouldn't put me in the cage

mummy should not slap my bottom and then put me in the cage. sure it feels good and tingly, but the kids in school always ask what the big red marks are when i take off my underwear in math class. mummy slaps my behind when i dont finish my homework, don't colour in all the white spots on my dinosaur or when i dont say good morning the right way. then she locks me in a cage that dangles from the roof in the living room and pokes me with a stick. people always come over and ask why im in the cage and she says im just a bird who needs to stop squaking. then she takes me outside and grabs her backhoe, she then picks me up in it, and throws me on the ground again and again. please help. I NEED SEX
my mom shouldn't put me in the cage

"wel, buddy. thsi is NOT my fault. my mother is showing child abuse to me. actually, yesterday while i was in the cage, she came home with a snapping turtle! she tossed it into the cage and i got attacked! i have marks all over me." This wouldn't have happened if you were good. "than she took a spactula and whiped it across my face. then, there was two big bumps on my face, (my profile picture) and made me post it on twitter, facebook, and debates,org!" This has nothing to do with the cage. "she bought an airsoft gun, and now everytime i make a noise, she shoots me with it!" THEN DON'T MAKE A NOISE. "she made me go naked with my brother (is also being abused) and put it on pornhub! it re3ally hurts me and my dodo bird :'(" I'm really tempted to ask for a source but I won't because I'm a nice person.
my mom shouldn't put me in the cage

wel, buddy. thsi is NOT my fault. my mother is showing child abuse to me. actually, yesterday while i was in the cage, she came home with a snapping turtle! she tossed it into the cage and i got attacked! i have marks all over me. than she took a spactula and whiped it across my face. then, there was two big bumps on my face, (my profile picture) and made me post it on twitter, facebook, and debates,org! she bought an airsoft gun, and now everytime i make a noise, she shoots me with it! she made me go naked with my brother (is also being abused) and put it on pornhub! it re3ally hurts me and my dodo bird :'(
my mom shouldn't put me in the cage

"ok, so what if your ugly bitch mother took you, slapped you across the face, then through you into a cage where everyone can see you being gabbed with a stick. huh, i dont think you would be having fun playing with your Zuzu pet toys. u would be crying." Appeal to emotion. Not everything is sugary and nice. " i dont follow the rules because i watch caillou and he teaches me to scream, stomp, yell NO, and scream and cry when i dont get my way." That's your fault. " and i DO NOT think she has the right to put me in her backhoe and throw me against the ground repeatedly until my bones are broken. what if you mom did that, again, you would just get up off the grould after getting smashed up with a backhoe and go play on your little tikes swing set. i think you would get slapped across the face for crying and then get put back into the cage and this time, be gabbed by a tv remote then take a vase and smash it across your face." This isn't even relevant.
Black Entertainment Television

Since I have admittedly never bothered to watch BET more than twice, I cannot accept that there are constant racist comments, neither do I know if these comments are pro or anti-black. I'll assume pro, because of the Alicia Keys comment. I believe, in respect to this comment, that the way Keys meant to describe "us" was how blacks are viewed often. Strong, independent, and bold. Similarly, if a white were to say that everyone wants to be white, it is just interpreted as the color of their skin. It makes sense that a person has pride in their ethnicity, but unfortunately minorities have and still are being treated too unfairly for anyone to accept pride for whites, because it sounds too negative. What is considered white television is Standard television here in America, mostly because whites are a majority and therefore more stations are aimed towards them. I did say that black centered shows were outside of BET, and many of them are. BET is only for this Type of entertainment, because it is not as common as white, and therefore it has a channel. If course they're not going to show "Friends" on that channel any time soon. Even if typical television was not white, but it is, there are still many channels focusing on American themes alone. Unfortunately, these ideals do not include black culture, so they are just as racist as you claim BET is. I believe this is all I have to say on the matter. Thank you very much for the debate!
Black Entertainment Television

I do see what you mean, sort of. Yes they are their own type of American culture, but I don't see how that automatically gives them the right to have a television network. I am not sure if you have even watched the channel, but there are constantly racist comments! That is not right! I would understand if it was composed of shows similar to Roots, but it is not. Alicia Keys at the BET Awards even claimed, "Everyone wants to be like us!" (black) Think about that coming from A popular white celebrity, like if Celine Dion said "Everyone wants to be white!" Exactly. Anyways, Why is are typical television shows considered WET? I can name a plethora of shows featuring black families! Sanford and Sons Meet the Browns Fresh Prince The Cosby Show Family Matters The Jefferson's Webster Benson Sister, Sister My Wife and Kids Good Times Are We There Yet Girlfriends There are so many more! If normal television (Nick at Nite, ABC, TLC,...ex.) Has shows specifically centered around black families why are you calling it White American Television? Does BET have shows about white families? NO, and as you can see by the list I just created there are PLENTY of black television shows, and I don't see a need for a specific channel just to prove something, and add racist comments. Thank-you.
Black Entertainment Television

Of course, there's not any point to television as a whole, in my irrelevant opinion. Anyways, since black culture is its own unique type of American culture, it gets its own channels, just as Hispanics do. That being said ,black television is available on other channels, but BET is just focused on this form of entertainment. White American television is generally just accepted as typical television shows, American television. And there are plenty of All-American television networks, so an explicit channel for whites isn't needed. In short, because African American culture is so distinguishable in America, it gets its own channel, mostly to appeal to a particular audience.