BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Parents should not push religion into their kids

"Religion can't be proven right nor wrong so lets not assume because you believe in something it means its true." If you believe something is true than it's only rational to act as if it is true. So if believing in a Christian God is something you do, than you have a moral obligation to save your kids from a path you believe will lead them to eternal torment. "We all know that just because you believe in something, it doesn't mean that everyone does." This is irrelevant. Put your feet in the shoes of someone who believes other religions are a path tho hell. If that's you than nothing anyone else believes in that respect matters. You can't save everyone, but you should be able to at least have some influence on your child's fate. "What if your kids don't believe in that? You're making them believe something simply because you do." Some of these statements from you are irrelevant. What if your child doesn't believe shooting himself in the head will kill him? Do you respect his beliefs and let him do it? Sure he may be right, but why risk it. Just go with your beliefs and stop your kid from putting a bullet in his head. "Why don't you show them multiple religions instead of one?" Because allowing your kid to pick the wrong religion is like allowing them to put a gun to their head. The stakes are your kid's soul. You don't just let your kid play Russian Roulette with his soul. "You said its about pushing religion into them in order to save them. Does that mean only your religion can save them?" Obviously, if their fate was inevitable be it heaven, hell or nothing then clearly it wouldn't matter too much what religion they pick. You'd still push other beliefs you have on them though. One belief you might push on them would be; if you thought murder was wrong you'd push that on them to hopefully prevent your kid from killing people. "I am NOT against religion, I just think they should be allowed to think for themselves before you push your ideas into them." But you're pushing your ideas into them. Your belief being that you shouldn't push beliefs into people is being pushed into them. Do J have to point out how hypocritical that is.
Parents should not push religion into their kids

Religion can't be proven right nor wrong so lets not assume because you believe in something it means its true. We all know that just because you believe in something, it doesn't mean that everyone does. What if your kids don't believe in that? You're making them believe something simply because you do. Why don't you show them multiple religions instead of one? You said its about pushing religion into them in order to save them. Does that mean only your religion can save them? I am NOT against religion, I just think they should be allowed to think for themselves before you push your ideas into them.
Parents should not push religion into their kids

I'm going to show that parents have a moral obligation to push religion onto their children. Particularly if the parents are Christian. I'll keep my arguments short and elaborate on them as necessary. Body Christianity teaches that in order to reach heaven, you must accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior. The alternative is Hell. If a parent just sits back and doesn't push his beliefs onto his kid than he is taking a wait and see approach. This wait and see approach might be fine with other things, but with something as precious as your soul, you're not going to want to take any chances. As a parent you have a moral obligation to do whatever it is in your power to insure your kid avoids burning for eternity in a lake of fire. If you aren't pushing religion onto your kid than you are playing a very dangerous game with your kids fate. Conclusion Parents have a moral obligation to insure their kids don't burn in hell. I look forward to my opponents arguments.
Parents should not push religion into their kids

Religious parents typically push their religion into their kids when they are young. They take them to church, show them books about the religion (bible is the common one), and tell them stories that their religion says. I believe parents should not do that but instead show them the different religions or simply give them the books of multiple religions but let them decide. Have them explore religions at an older age in order for them to understand it not just believe in anything they are told which kids usually do. In the other hand, most atheist (non religious) parents do not show religion to their kids. My parents are not religious but allow me to look into other religions and if I believe in one of them they will support me without a problem. My sister goes to church with her friends and we even bought her a bible when she decided to look into religion.
Sandy hook is a hoax

Last line of the link below "Although the state's murder total was 146 that year, only 110 of those deaths were assigned to specific local jurisdictions in the FBI report. The statewide tally of 146 includes the 27 victims of the Sandy Hook massacre. " This site was in fact the hoax, almost as much as this argument is. The latest update shows that the deaths were in fact real and the FBI takes them into account. No arguments are being put before me as of now and I see no evidence coming forth. The real hoax is the affirmative of this debate.
Sandy hook is a hoax

Sandy Hook was and is still a tragic incident which affected many lives in a very negative way. Although I see no evidence that this was in any way a hoax, it is appalling to think that this is said by uniformed people. How could a whole class of students and their parents agree to be involved with this. Relocating this many students and families would not only be a very difficult, almost impossible task to hide. But also, this would not reflect well on the government when it was found out. Yes any hoax with this big of a story would be found out and debunked immediately. Thank you
The Working Mans Eventual Rebellion.

But it cannot be denied that there is a hefty amount of people who would gladly start a revolution, even for the heck of starting hell. Though this is not the point that I am trying to prove. I am simply saying that there will be a rising of society from the lower-class towards the one in higher classes in America. The government may "provide" these things that are supposedly needed to live, and I am far from saying that the norm would rather live without than with the luxuries that they have, but America could easily operate without such a clinging government. People can also produce things they do now, with or without a government. Most people, no matter how many types of communication there are available, try to generally avoid other people by the way.
The Working Mans Eventual Rebellion.

Firstly, if you are contemplating suicide, seek medical attention immediately. On to the debate. The core problem with modern day work and schooling is the sense that one is not contributing to something. People have become interchangeable parts on the assembly line of a more efficient economy. By the same token, this is the same economy that delivers indoor heating and A/C, refrigerators, and cars. These are all recent inventions. Most consider these basic necessities of life. Problems at work are actually very low on the list of risk factors for suicide. Mental health problems and social factors top the charts by a wide margin[1]. This brings us to the silver lining in a depressing cloud. Social interaction has never been at a higher level. Texting and telephone have brought new life to moments of downtime. Television should also be categorized as a social activity, the social parts of the brain activate when seeing other humans interacting with other humans. The "midlife crisis" is the more common response to an inanely boring lifestyle. Not aggression. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Working Mans Eventual Rebellion.

Before the actual debate, the common man is simply the most diverse and ingenious social rank that is currently present. I, being one of them, feel trapped in a continuous flow of problems and worry. Look at plain evidence, people avoid the daily atrocities in every way they can, 30,000 people commit suicide each year, 22 million Americans are currently abusing a type of drug, and even more have violent thoughts. Slightly under 60% of American citizens have blamed both government and society at large for every day problems and thought violently about it. This may seem ill thought out, but to a person who is pulled through the same dregs every day... With a routine similar to: go to work, eat, go home, sleep, wake up at 5:00AM, rinse and repeat, there is an entire reservoir of hatred compiling. This is happening to children too, it may just seem to those who have children of their own that it's just a matter of him or her not wanting to go to school. Honestly though, whether they want to go or not is irrelevant, they are going. Not because you, as a parent is saying so, but because the common parent is being played like a harp by a stronger system then they. Even though the idea of a school system does keep children out of box shops and horrible jobs with minimum wage, the constant process that repeats itself ingrains into the child's mind, creating a festering hatred (much like the working man of today) for the system and for the government. In conclusion, even if the current generation doesn't rebel, there will be a generation that does.
The Working Mans Eventual Rebellion.

The Red Scare was caused by WWI and WWII, the fear was larger than the actual problem. We have the same thing today with Muslims, fear of Muslims but this fear is far more in hand than the fear of Communism in the First and Second Red Scare.This example you cite supports my point: the general populace supported the United States government.In summary:The risk factors for suicide are as follows, most important listed first: 2.1 Mental disorders 2.2 Substance use 2.3 Problem gambling 2.4 Medical conditions 2.5 Psychosocial states 2.6 Media 2.7 Rational My opponent's figure of 30,000 suicides each year does not support his position.The effects of the most commonly used drugs support the oppositite of my opponent's position. Marajuna is known for its calming effects, used by 14.8 million of the 22 millon stated by my opponent. Perscription drugs such as pain relivers and anti-anxiety pills make up 7 million of the 22 million stated by my opponent.The goal of these people is not military action against the USA, it is to remain calm, mellow, and rational.Thinking of violent crime is completely different than actually commiting a violent crime. Everyone has thought of a bank robbery, who wouldn't? But actually robbing a bank is a different matter.Note that the FBI reports that the estimated volume of violent crimes in 2010 dropped 6 percent compared with the 2009 figure. Crime is going down, not up. There is no cause for alarm.Who is the target of violent crime. Not the United States government, as my opponent contends. This would be akin to attacking an army base with a handgun, or a police station with a knife.Also, nothing is happeneing on the scale my opponent's contend. In 2009, the estimated rate of aggravated assaults was 262.8 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants.To even contemplate the idea of a phisycal attack on the United States Government is ubsurd.This is the only way out of the current two-party system.Note the lack of popularity of Ron Paul. He is the political way out of the two-party system, and was shot down in short order.
The Working Mans Eventual Rebellion.

Speaking in generalities here is as important as specific events. The red scare, for example if you need one, the people of America converting to communistic ideals. Another, the aftermath of the great depression, president Hoover was spending too much money on government programs, some that didn't even work, when the country was in economic hell. There were multiple accounts of American citizens threatening to take the whole thing into their own hands at the time. My claims have complete substance. My opponent is stating that jail is not fearsome, this is irrelevant, I have only mentioned that there are people out there who would watch America burn. This is not my point in the least bit, I am not saying that there will be a criminal uprising, though it is possible that criminals may add into this revolt. My opponent is somewhat of a hypocrite, are you then saying, sir, that you have always been proud of your country, that you have NEVER thought that you could do a better job in political office? That there are smarter people in the common world that would excel in places the president has failed? When you think about it, people collectively would make better leaders, because no one man is good at everything. Man itself, in comparison is quite good at a significant amount of things, don't you think?
Human life should be preserved as much as possible

Obviously, if dealing in legal matters, such as murder and whether or not to use the death penalty, the legal definition of a word should be used. This would be used in cases like murder or in trying war criminals, since they also go before a judge. The legal definition of the word Proof is, "The establishment of a fact by the use of evidence..." (1) This also means that outside of a court of law that a different definition could be used. In those, outside of a court of law, cases, I agree with CON that proof would require almost absolute knowledge of a situation which cannot be achieved, unless one is right there at the incident. This would imply, under my belief, that taking matters into your own hands and killing someone yourself, is practically never okay. Really, the only time would be in the case where you are at a place where someone is currently in the process of killing, like at a school shooting or something. If we simply say that you only need "reasonable belief" as an individual, that leaves open a loophole for vigilante justice. (1) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Human life should be preserved as much as possible

I welcome Pro to DDO and hope she has an enjoyable first debate. I do not raise objections to the majority of Pro's OP, I agree that human life should always be preserved unless that preservation of an individual is going to cost more human lives. The point of disagreement is whether that utilitarian practice should be employed at the point of belief or the point of proof. Believing is done in measures of degrees and even mathematics, the field usually held as the bastion of proof, cannot always prove it's propositions[1]. We can never know with absolute certainty what results preserving life will result in. As that knowledge is required by Pro for her decision criteria, we can never realize the goals set forward of maximizing the preservation of life. In order to maximize the preservation of human life, the goal of both Pro and myself, Pro's judgment criterion of proof must be discarded in favor of an appropriate level of belief. [1]http://www.google.com...
Human life should be preserved as much as possible

My opponent has forfeited her round. I hope she enjoyed the time she was able to spend on the debate and wish her the best of luck in her future debates. Please extend all my previous arguments. Per the guidelines on this website, a forfeit is a valid voting consideration: "Forfeiting a round destroys your credibility and makes it less likely that voters will vote for you.[1]" [1] http://www.debate.org......
Girls are pretty

Girls are not pretty. Girls are not pretty. Instead, boys (and girls) find them alluring because they are 'wired' to do so. Female humans, or of any species, are not intrinsically 'pretty', it is just that the beholder is wired to respond in a positive way. So if the perception is in the eye of the beholder then it is not the 'girl' who is pretty, but rather the observer who finds them 'pretty'.
The God Of The KJV Bible Is Purely Moral

*No acceptance round; just start debating.*Definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate.Full ResolutionThe god of the KJV bible is purely moral.ProHas 4 sets of 10,000 characters with 3 days to post per argument to AFFIRM the resolution that the god of the KJV bible is purely moral.ConHas only 3 sets of 10,000 characters with 3 days to post per argument to NEGATE the resolution that the god of the KJV bible is purely moral.Definitionsgod - the alleged creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...KJV (King James Version) - an English translation of the Bible made in 1611 at the order of King James I and still widely used.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...bible - the Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...purely - entirely; exclusively.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...moral - concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
The God Of The KJV Bible Is Purely Moral

1). Why must it require statitive time? And all time doesn't really exist. 2). When did quantum fluctuations start? Some random point in history? It never did. God to make his existence explainable to us inspired the bible. Ancients wouldn't understand psychics. He had to go with seems legit for us mortals. If something finite wants to understand something then that thing must be finite. You can't describe infinity with finite numbers. 3). Circular reasoning, Matter occupies space. Space came first. And if it was all jammed into a golf ball sied ball then how was there not space? 4). "These quantum fluctuations are a property of no energy and have been confirmed on a macro physics scale." Your point. It is linked to energy. It requires energy. Lazer. Yeah have effect but need energy. And energy can turn into matter. 5). Wait, wait, wait. The laser existed for quantum fluctuations to affect it. The matter came before the fluctuations. Useless again. And they used multiple lasers. Or beam of some sort "beam". "By laser cooling a mode of the beam"s motion to close to the quantum ground state, and by using a technique borrowed from ion-trap physics [2], they were able to clearly detect the quantum nature of the beam"s position fluctuations." "Beam", sorry. 6). Why does it require statitive time? The god of the KJV bible isn't matter based. It is immaterial. //////////// Likewise numbered rebuttals. 1). Yeah, but we aren't arguing that. Irrelevant. Problem with that statement? 2). Do you know what he means by council? Not his will. 3). Yeah, he does. (assuming it exists) 4). CAN but did he really? It could have just been a placebo. 5). There can be no free will without evil. Living things have the potential to be stupid. Free will is a choice between good and evil. It would be dumb not to give creation free will. He created you (assuming it exists). He created me. We are both evil. Was it immoral to create something that would pollute itself? It is immoral to sell a car and that person decided to drink, drive and hit a person? Can the car company possibly be blamed? No. 6). He probably means legally property. And "property" is probably a bad translation. Wording, wording, wording... Well is it immoral to punish you child if they act up? No. They must be corrected. 7). "Council" and "plan" are not at all like in definition. Why do you treat them so? //////////// Next section rebuttals. Restraining the ability to commit evil is exactly the opposite of free will. Lets look at a car again. A terrorist wants to run someone over with his car. He can and the car company gave him his car but the act of running someone over comes with incredibly heavy consequences. The guy with the car has free will. If the car company installed anti run some person over systems then this restricts his will to run someone over. He doesn't have free will. The car can't fly. Say he wants it to but it doesn't. His will is restricted but by the car's capabilities. We can't just want something and have it then say we don't have free will. We don't have the ability. Already broken. Back to you Con.
The God Of The KJV Bible Is Purely Moral

Thus debate shall be a legendary battle. Known in DDO history. (mine at least) Let it commence! //////////// Preemptive Argument: God letting bad things happen. He gave man free will. He would violate free will if he didn't allow bad things to happen. And if no bad things happen then people would be forced to believe in him because of it. But we would become robots in this.
Sports are so Borring

" I think watching sports is so borring" Unfortunately, your thoughts are not sufficient to alter reality, or provide evidence for it. "Why would anyone watch someone else play a sport." "Sports are sooooo borring! you are just watching people kick a ball around. who cares! its just a ball. " It's just a ball that, as it happens, people are making optimum use of their bodies and minds to move past someone attempting the opposite. The entertaining part is seeing HOW they use those minds, along with what limits the body can be pushed to. By your arguments, debating must be boring, after all, it's just "People pushing words around." And yet not only do you engage in the activity yourself, but you clearly enjoy watching the activity, or you wouldn't have singled out me of all the people on this site to specifically challenge you for this debate. Thus, for you to defend this resolution on the grounds you have attempted, unless you can show some fundamental difference in the boredom potential of balls and words, you would have to be engaging in a performative contradiction. And few sports consist of "Just" kicking. "I think stupid men just wanna play war so they invented sports so they wouldn't get in trouble. " Clearly, you are correct on all but the "Stupid" part. Sports did indeed originate as proxies for war according to anthropological evidence. War is no doubt more entertaining than sports, at least when it happens in easily watchable, fast-paced segments (which is rare)... but there are obvious reasons for limiting war to... special occasions, no? In the meantime we have to make do with the somewhat diminished, but still present, entertainment value of sports. " i hate it when my boyfriend makes me watch sports." I hate it when anyone "Makes" innocent people do anything, as any civilized human would, which would mean perhaps your disdain at sports today is aimed in the wrong direction, an unfortunate case of guilt by association. I suggest you dump such a coercive man immediately, and then go watch some American football when your head clears (it is the most entertaining sport available, as it contains such a heavy dose of mental challenges, creativity, to justify the brute strength.). Perhaps you'll rethink the resolution when you are no longer being forced to. "And soccer is the most borrring." It is more boring than some sports, especially when played poorly, but there are more boring sports out there... track and field, curling, etc. Such sports are boring because they are monotonous, you will never see anything new done, just see it done better. This is not entirely true of soccer, but it frequently is at all but the highest levels. American football, however, requires constant creativity, infinite possibilities for very distinctive plays to attempt. Since it too is a sport, and I need only defend one sport to invalidate your resolution, I think I'm in good shape. :D