BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Separation of Church and State in Public Schools

Hello and thank you for joining the debate. I appreciate your input. I agree on a few points in your argument. I agree that America should not have a national religion, as we are the "home of the free and the brave". And I also agree that required religious practice in schools is not acceptable, as we are a free nation. But these points also lead me to points in my own argument. That, as a free nation, we have decided to separate religious practices in public schools in America. This only supports our rights as American citizens to practice, without penalty, our own set of beliefs. I understand that an argument could be made that the Separation of Church and State suppresses our rights to practice religion, or that teachers cannot freely share their beliefs with the class. My rebuttal to this would be that The Separation of Church and State does not suppress anyone's right to their religion, as religion does not need to be advertised to others. A more typical example of this is the belief in the Christian god. Their religion is centered around a strong faith and/or relationship with their lord, and most Christians would say (and they have said) that their relationship with god is a very private one, and that they enjoy a special bond with their creator that does not need to be public. This goes to show that a persons religious practices do not need to be known by everyone, nor do they need to be advertised throughout the day. The important part of one's religion is upholding their beliefs, such as kindness, godliness, etc. Returning to your argument, I feel that we are not really afraid, and fear does not cloud our decisions. The Separation of Church and State is to protect the rights of every citizen in school, so that they may come to their own personal conclusions concerning religion and their beliefs. I also enjoyed the point you brought up about the study of the king james bible. Though not every school does, some do. The high school that I attended had employed an English teacher who taught a whole unit on the king james bible. Although many people object to this because of their beliefs, it was still being taught throughout my high school years. Which brings me to another point: many religious people are uncomfortable with studying religious books outside of their own faith. In a class that studied the Quran, many Catholic and Christian students were uncomfortable, and refused to partake in the class activity. This shows that, not only are non-religious students uncomfortable with being told to study religious texts, but religious students are also equally offended. However, history classes do in fact teach about the religious groups throughout history, and I was personally required to write about a randomly selected religion in my world history class. I believe my main point is that it is not the studying of the relevance of religion in history that should not be forced on students in public schools, but the beliefs and laws of religious groups. It is not about the fear of hurting someone's feelings, but the violation of the right to freedom of religion, or lack thereof.
Separation of Church and State in Public Schools

Hello i look forward to this discussion. This is a tough argument because it has no easy black and white answer. Should america have a national religion of course not. Should we require religious practice in schools? Again of course not these are not moral or necessary. But if we look deeper we have to ask the question how far do we go and how far have we gone. I believe the america focuses to much on the establishment clause Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. We focus on this clause and become clouded with fear of "hurting someones feelings" or oppressing religious or nonreligious vies. Fear clouds our decisions and we often overlook the Free Exercise Clause Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. We must tread carefully we are becoming so scared of religion that we are oppressing it at some levels. Schools are so fearfull they wont teach world religion classes. I believe that the study of the kings james bible is just as important as shakespear if seeking to understand the English language it has arguably effected it equally. We must also look consider the relevence of religion in history. To understand decisions and actions taken by people throughout history we must understand the religious factors of the time.
Separation of Church and State in Public Schools

Since my opponent has forfeited the previous round, I will state my closing argument. It is my opinion that Separation of Church and State should continue to be enforced in public schools. 1. Private Schools Private schools are founded solely for the purpose of including the religion of a certain group into the education of the students. These schools are independently funded and upheld because of the Separation of Church and State. This option of "private schooling" is exactly where any religious persons should enroll their children if they wish that their religion be included in their child's schooling. Otherwise, a state funded and employed public schools should abide by the Separation of Church and state, allowing for complete religious and spiritual freedom among their students. 2. Variety of Religion Although the phrase "America is a Christian Nation" is widely accepted, many believe it to be false, as well as myself. Our founding fathers left England to create a nation that was free of government upheld by the church and king. People such as Thomas Jefferson opposed the mixing of religion and government, as the religious government of England had destroyed human freedom. A majority of the founding fathers, in fact, were deists. (Deists hold a view that there is a god, but that he does not have a place in human interactions). America reflects the people who founded it: We are diverse as a nation, and will continue to be conflicted when it comes to spirituality. For this reason, the absence of religion is necessary to allow school-aged citizens to arrive at their own conclusions concerning the "meaning of life". 3. Distractions From Education It's plain and simple: Everyone has their own religious or non religious beliefs, and they all have different standpoints. What should be taught in school is factual information. If it hasn't been proved, it shouldn't be taught. Refraining from incorporating information that has not been proven will allow the children to learn at school. Education would become a much cleaner process, and allow for bountiful knowledge. For these reasons, as well as my argument from the previous rounds, I stand by my opinion and original stance that Separation of Church and State is beneficial to the public school system and the student's private lives.
The history of the gay movement, sexual misconduct, and pedophilia are inseparable.

"Sexual conduct is a societal norm" is not a subjective claim. It is born out by anyone who researches societies and cultures around the world. You yourself seemed to assign what you considered to be misconduct, in your very challenge. What is misconduct? An illegal act? Something you find offensive personally? It is ambiguous, to say the least. If you would like to provide what you are qualifying as misconduct, perhaps it would help. Most research such as the study by Groth and Birnbaum (1978) indicate a much higher rate of sexual molestation by heterosexual men and to a lesser extent, bi-sexual men. Their study found no homosexual child molesters. The Dr Carole Jenny study found only 1% of child abuse victims were abused by a homosexual. The Freund study had similar results. Any linkage of the gay movement to pedophilia comes from those who seek to deny homosexuals basic civil rights based upon their orientation or those too ignorant of the science of sexuality to know linking the two is, to put it politely, spurious, at best. As to your comment; "It is literally impossible to teach about the history of the gay movement without mentioning pedophiles and sexual predators because pedophiles and sexual predators have been instrumental in driving the gay movement", I can attest this is categorically untrue from my own personal experience tutoring Sociology in graduate school. I suggest most people would no reason to link them at all. In addition, I must ask, upon what statistics and facts do you base this assertion? I am aware of some studies that try to link pedophilia and the gay rights movement but also am aware many have been thoroughly refuted. Certainly, if I am mistaken, I look forward to you presenting research by reputable scholars to correct me. You have provided no such evidence.
The history of the gay movement, sexual misconduct, and pedophilia are inseparable.

"The gay movement is one of civil rights for homosexuals" This is a red herring fallacy and it is irrelevant to my claim. Your claim does not change the fact that the gay movement has been profoundly driven by many pedophiles and sexual predators. " Sexual misconduct is a societal norm". This is a subjective claim. Pedophilia and sexual misconduct are more prevalent among the drivers of the gay movement then any other movement with the exception of the pedophile movement. "In every culture it is different and yes, society said homosexuality was misconduct but that does not mean it morally was" This is a straw man fallacy. I never said homosexuality is sexual misconduct. I said the gay movement, pedophilia and sexual misconduct are inseparable because of the prevalence of pedophiles and sexual predators who are significantly instrumental throughout the history of the gay movement "That same society also said it was misconduct for blacks and whites to marry, a concept most of us have trouble seeing as misconduct, let alone immoral" This is a faulty analogy and a tu Quoque fallacy. It also has nothing to do with pedophilia and sexual misconduct
The history of the gay movement, sexual misconduct, and pedophilia are inseparable.

I accept this challenge. The gay movement is one of civil rights for homosexuals. Sexual misconduct is a societal norm. In every culture it is different and yes, society said homosexuality was misconduct but that does not mean it morally was. That same society also said it was misconduct for blacks and whites to marry, a concept most of us have trouble seeing as misconduct, let alone immoral. I look forward to a challenging and informative debate.
Gun bans would not be very effective in the U.S.A

As Con, I will be arguing that a firearm ban in the United States would be effective. We will not be arguing that the government would not be effective in implementing a gun ban (e. g. the people won't concede to it, etc. ), we will be arguing that once the gun ban is effectively implemented, it will not be effective in achieving the desired result. The desired result I will expand upon in my opening arguments in R2.
Gun bans would not be very effective in the U.S.A

RebutallsR1: SuicidesCon makes a good case on the suicide rates of gun ownership. It is true that gun ownership may correlate to a higher chance of gun suicide, but Con is forgetting what the intent of a gun ban actually is. I mentioned earlier, the purpose of banning guns, is on balance will reduce the overall crime in the United States. So, for Con's argument to be effective, he needs to prove that suicide rates are higher than the amount of times guns have been used for self defense by Americans, which is 800,000 to 2 million defensive gun uses. If the total murder rate by guns was only 8,855 deaths, then the number of gun sucides is far less than the defensive gun uses. Let me take Japan for example, Japan has a 18.5/100,000 sucide rate, while the U.S has a 12.1/100,000 suicide rate. The only difference, is that Japan has one of the strictest gun control in the world. So, there isn't a clear correlation between banning guns and reducing the suicide rate, because banning guns would only reduce gun suicide, not suicide overall. Like I mentioned before, For Suicides to be a strong case on Con's behalf, he needs to prove that they out weigh the defensive gun uses by Americans.(1)R2: HomicideSo, this is very similar to R1. I'd like to mention again, that in my resolution, I mentioned "on balance'. What that really means is that overall, the gun ban would reduce crime. Not just one instance of it. So, technically speaking, banning guns would definitely reduce crime, but I showed that guns are used for defensive purposes nearly a 1 million times a year, and states that enacted CCW had witnessed drops in homicide. So guns serves as a strong detterent, and it outweighs the homicides prevented if you banned guns. Keep in mind though, 93% of homicides were committed by illegal firerms.R3: AccidentsWhile I'd personally believe that gun accidents are horrific, this can't really be used as an argument, because it is highly subjective. Some guy might say it's horrible, while the other guy will say it's not a big deal. You can't measure how horrific some murder is. I don't believe this is a good enough reason to ban guns.To conclude, I believe that banning wouldn't on balance reduce the overall crime rate in the United States. I'd like to stress that there is evidence that 93% of gun homicides were committed by illegal guns, and banning guns wouldn't only technically impact that 7% committed by legal firearms.Thank you Hayd for this debate, and may the best debator win.Sources:https://en.wikipedia.org...
Job Interview: Advertising Sales Executive role. Apply in comments.

28K totally sucks dude. Thats barely more than flipping burgers at McDonalds. You are looking for quality candidates but candidates like this are going for the 40-60K jobs because the average salary for sales people is 42K. The pay you are offering is in the bottom 20% in terms of pay. https://www.payscale.com... In addition I don't understand what month 18/05/2018 is. Your requirements are far too general and most people have done well in at least one project. Maybe you should hire someone with prior sales experience or experience in the product they will be selling. I am also wondering what are the annual pay increases and are there bonuses?
Job Interview: Advertising Sales Executive role. Apply in comments.

My name is Dave Taylor CEO of CHI and Partners. We're an advertising company involved in a number of multimillion dollar contracts. This job interview is held for an open Advertising Sales Executive position held within our company, where the successful candidate will be responsible for advertising throughout DDO on behalf of clients who have requested our services. Role- Advertising Sales Executive Hours- Part time/ negotiable Pay- £28,000/ Negotiated after interview Job description- -Responsible for the innovation of advertisement material for the use of a diverse range of clients and their products. -Speaking with the company or client to set goals, provide updates, receive feedback, and present the final campaign. -Conducting research to better understand brand objectives, target markets, and industry trends. Candidates are to apply in the comments section. Their application will be based on a competency based criteria, structured as shown below. [1] The candidate must give examples of instances where they have met and exceeded deadlines posed on them by their line manager, while maintaining a quality product. [2] The candidate must give examples of instances where they demonstrated independence and initiative while working on a project, in order to reduce the need for managerial assistance. [3] The candidate must give examples of times they have proven reliable and trustworthy upon being given a task to complete. If candidates pass the initial shift, they will be informed by PM and in turn, will be invited to attend this interview. The interview will be an assessment of the applicant's knowledge and capabilities of advertising, skills related to the role of 'advertising sales executive' and questions relevant to the nature of the role. The deadline will be 18/05/2018
furries should be legalised

Stated under "Nolo" it states what is illegal to discriminate. "Federal Law prevents discrimination of the basis of race, gender, pregnancy, national origin (including affiliation with a Native American tribe), religion, disability, citizenship status, genetic information, and age". As we can see here, the law of discrimination does not apply to the Furry community in any way. In my first argument, my opponent did not see that I stated: "Technically, anyone has the right to search up images of Furry's without it being illegal; and can choose to wear a fursuit in public on their own accord". It does not state that no one can be a Furry, which means that it isn't illegal. As well as if we look at the constitution, we clearly see "Freedom of Speech and Belief". So anyone can technically be a Furry without any legal attacks. As well as my opponent has failed to provide any facts, failed to keet his conduct, with the quote in this round: "First of all furries ARE illegal r u stupid", and has made fatal grammar mistakes within this short debate; like given in the quote. The debate is clearly easy to determine who has won, and I wish my opponent "Good Luck" for any future debates. Also I did do Speech and Debate in High School, and won numerous tournaments for "Lincoln-Douglas".
furries should be legalised

this is absolutely appalling. how dare u. first of all furries ARE illegal r u stupid? did you even go to debate school? discrimnate = ILLEGAL. God. how many times do i have to say it. my point here is that furries should be legalised. much like how black people are discriminated against, they need to be legalised too so that they aren't discriminated anymore. same with furries.
furries should be legalised

My opponent clearly is confused on both the meanings of "illegal" and "discriminate". I will happily define both terms:Illegal: Contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal lawDiscriminate: Recognize a distinction; differentiateAs we can see, they both are completely different on what my opponent refers to on whats "illegal". One is for a wrong action, and the other is for a wrong attitude. So given the topic, and my last argument, Furry's are not illegal, they are just discriminated. Also, I asked my opponent to provide me with evidence to prove that Furry's are illegal, and he has failed to compromise. As well as my opponent did bring up one thing,quote as: "I would know because my father was sent to jail for crossing the border". First off, don't you hear yourself talk. I'm sorry your father was sent to jail, but he did an illegal action that threw him in jail. No one just simply "crosses" the border, without doing it illegally. It was not because of being a Furry, it was because of his decision of actions.I still stand upon my argument that Furry's are technically not illegal because anyone can dress up in a costume, or look up images online. Discriminatory yes, but that isn't the topic when we clearly see the topic being: "Furry's should be legalized".
furries should be legalised

Given the topic for this debate, my opponent must share facts about how being a "Furry" is illegal in any way. Technically, anyone has the right to search up images of Furry's without it being illegal; and can choose to wear a fursuit in public on their own accord. So I ask my opponent, how are Furry's illegal, when it is clearly seen that they can express their beliefs? If the debate is about Furry's not being discriminated, then I would be for "Pro"; but the given topic is assuming that Furry's are illegal, even though there are no illegal actions of dressing in a costume.
Should Cody be in the hall of fame

Listen here, Degenerate. I know what is worthy and what isn't and Cody is worthy. However, Someone with the likes of you aren't. Cody has bee in the main event of WrestleMania 8 times in a row, Winning every match. He's even scuffled with Kenny Omega at Wrestle Kingdom 12! He has been in the World Series 9 times, And won all of them, And has been in the Super Bowl 3 times. He's a white belt in karate, And has over 300 trophies. He's even had a karate match with the rare deepwater jew! You can buy a trophy of Cody at the Dollar Tree for. 50! With a price like that you cannot argue with that quality.
Should Cody be in the hall of fame

I fully understand your point. But he has witnessed more than most people have in their entire life in less than 13 years! He is what we call infinitely strengthened and simply his power levels can't be graphed on human levels, Yes he is worthy, But he is simply too worthy for us to put him there, Where will we put him you may ask? We will not put him in the hall of fame, But rather we will re purpose the good-year tire blimp to just say Good Job Cody, That is about as good as we can repay him for his service that he has done to protect us and the entire human race. More people will see this blimp because we will 1. Enlarge it 2. Get a c-17 with mid air refueling to accompany the blimp so that it will never land but rather spread the word without landing and just continue to fly and promote Cody's great achievements. Also for my plan to work I believe it should be mandatory to own a copy of "Cody The Leader Of All Success" written by Cody himself because we don't know all of the things he has accomplished so we will have him write it so we can furthermore understand what all he has done. There will also be classes put in all schools regardless of grade/year/age of students that will teach Cody-ism (the study of Cody) and if you are to fail this class you will not be forced to repeat the grade, You will just simply be executed on the spot as Cody would have wanted.
Should Cody be in the hall of fame

Ah! Why so I have. I am quite sorry. Cody should be in the HoF. Why? He is the ultimate sub-human. If he was a tier list in SSB, He'd be an S tier. If he was in Rainbow Six, He'd need to be buffed over and over because of how OP he is. He's also a notorious baby killer. He's a mean green karate fighting boy and isn't afraid to use his pee wee baseball team powers on a poor soul such as someone like you.
Should Cody be in the hall of fame

Ever heard of the GOLDEN GOD known as Griffin? No. I bet you haven't. He deserves it more because of his fighting ability and how fast he can run. It is CHAD TIER! He once ran across the entire universe in thirteen seconds, And ran across America even faster. You dare say Cody is a man who deserves the Hall of Fame more? You disgust me! Be gone you vile man, Be gone!