BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fox News is a propaganda network

Contingency 1 rebuttal"Contingency 1: As news stations with bias go, Fox news has more bias than MSNBC. Just because someones slogan is 'smart and intelligent' does't automatically make them that."Con provided no evidence to supporting that Fox News is more biased than MSNBC, therefore, that statement is false, until evidence proves it to be true. And I never said their slogan made them 'smart and intelligent', I was just showing you their slogan. "Likewise, high rating don't make something good. Just like how Justin Bieber has millions of followers- does that make him good?". I never said a high rating would make them good, however,I did say that if they were biased, and used slander, they would not have high ratings.Contingency 2 rebuttal"Contingency 2: There exists no news network with no bias. Bias of news networks in on a spectrum. Just because one network has bias, does not automatically make it worse than another network, particularly if it has more bias. That is illogical."I never said that Fox News was 100% clean, and bias-free. But like I said, CNN is a target with Liberal bias, Fox News, is not. Contingency 3 rebuttal"Contingency 3: The lack of diversity on Fox News should be a red flag. The amount of white men on that show drastically out weighs the amount of women/African American people. And the only women on there are white women with blonde hair. " This is completely irrelevant...It has nothing to do with the subject, therefore, I will not make any rebuttal on this statement.Sources; http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://deadline.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Fox News is a propaganda network

Since you did not source you definitions, They are not valid. However, I will take them because they suit my argument. I will be giving my argument this round, since rebuttals are next round. They will be based on 3 contingencies, which I will later sew together to for a seamless argument. Contingency 1: As news stations with bias go, Fox news has more bias than MSNBC. Just because someones slogan is 'smart and intelligent' does't automatically make them that. Likewise, high rating don't make something good. Just like how Justin Bieber has millions of followers- does that make him good? Contingency 2: There exists no news network with no bias. Bias of news networks in on a spectrum. Just because one network has bias, does not automatically make it worse than another network, particularly if it has more bias. That is illogical. Contingency 3: The lack of diversity on Fox News should be a red flag. The amount of white men on that show drastically out weighs the amount of women/African American people. And the only women on there are white women with blonde hair. I am now open to rebuttals, thank you
Fox News is a propaganda network

News.The definition of 'News' in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "Areport of recent events"Fox News does broadcast a report of recent events. Propaganda.The definition of 'Propaganda' in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "Ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc."Fox News's slogan is 'Fair & Balanced'. Fox News is also a very popular news network, with very high ratings. If it was biased, and had political slander, it wouldn't have high ratings, or many viewers. CNNCNN news, has actually been a subject of alleged Liberal bias."Writer Eric Altermanhas noted that many left-leaning criticsview CNN as more biased than most other corporate-run journalism, supporting business interests of its parent company and sponsors, and refusing to question official sources or present perspectives of leftist critics."
Fox News is a propaganda network

Sourceshttp://www.merriam-webster.com......http://www.merriam-webster.com......http://deadline.com......http://en.wikipedia.org......How do you not see these? Quit saying I did not explain my evidence, if you're not willing to examine the evidence, do not say anything like that.IrrelevantLike I said, the 'ethnic diversity' thing, is irrelevant, and does not have anything to do with propaganda. Actually, you never even listed anything with 'propaganda'NewsYou said you do not watch the news at all, therefore you don't know watch Fox enough, to say it's bias. By the way you have never listed any 'fox news propaganda'.
Fox News is a propaganda network

you have completely twisted my words. For your third statement, you said I called them racist, however, I never said such a thing. I said that a very popular man on the network said that racism was over. The people on Fox news have very little concern for civil issues regarding race. Next, Youtube is not a source your right. the news group who covers the topic however, is. However, you did ask for a scenario where Fox news may have been a bit racist, so I provided that as well. http://mediamatters.org... For your 1st statement, You did not explain you evidence in your argument. Therefor, it's invalid. Whether you included a link or not, is also irrelevant. To express my argument, I must know how you feel on the website, not how some author feels about it. For your second statement: I understand this, but I also understand that Fox news would never release an article on the downfall of conservatism. Overall however, the debate does not include CNN, mainly because I don't watch it. I don't watch News at all. Theres just too much bias that shows though regardless of where you watch. Now, you did not respond to my argument: "Also, you responded to my comment, "Likewise, high rating don't make something good. Just like how Justin Bieber has millions of followers- does that make him good?" I used this situation as a metaphor. "with very high ratings. If it was biased, and had political slander, it wouldn't have high ratings, or many viewers. " You implied that because they have high ratings, that they are not biased. This however, is incorrect." I'm assuming you agreed to it, because you did not mention it in your rebuttals, however I know that now that I have called it out, you will rebut it, so I'm making that clear. Finally, you have somewhat danced around the topic by mentioning CNN. As I've said, I don't watch CNN. I've seen snippets from all channels, and while I have seen bias in all channels, Fox news seems to try to fill your mind with subliminal messaging. Look for it the next time you watch it, because it's there. thanks, I am finished.
Fox News is a propaganda network

Statement 1 I did support my argument with evidence, it's in the sources...Statement 2That article was written by a contributor of CNN, not everyone in CNN will be a liberal. But a majority of employees are. Statement 3It's not relevant, and youtube is not an official source. There can be edits, changes, and of course, there's bias. List a real source of Fox News being racist, then I'll listen.Sources; http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://deadline.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Pushing Christianity Onto Children is Emotional Child Abuse

I shall accept this challenge. Since Christianity means different things to different people I feel it should also be defined. I'll define it simply as belief in the Holy Trinity: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and belief in the necessary miracles including the creation of Adam and Eve and the original sin, virgin birth, and the crucifixion & resurrection & following ascension into heaven. Since some people argue for Christianity being literally true and others argue for the Bible as a book of mere metaphorical fictitious stories, I'm choosing to go with defining Christianity by just the core beliefs (because "is the bible literal/metaphor is a debate in itself albeit one easily settled via the scientific method).
Pushing Christianity Onto Children is Emotional Child Abuse

Emotional Child Abuse: Any attitude or behavior which interferes with a child’s mental health or social development. This includes yelling, screaming, name-calling, shaming, negative comparisons to others, telling them they are “bad, no good, worthless” or “a mistake. ” It also includes the failure to provide the affection and support necessary for the development of a child’s emotional, social, physical and intellectual well-being. This includes ignoring, lack of appropriate physical affection (hugs), not saying “I love you,” withdrawal of attention, lack of praise and lack of positive reinforcement. . http://www.childhelp.org...; I kindly ask "Roylatham", and "Mikal" to refrain from voting. Thanks.
Pushing Christianity Onto Children is Emotional Child Abuse

That video makes a good point. Again though, I can use the ridiculous idea summarized in the video, to support my argument. My argument is children should be taught to think and question things for themselves. The idea that we need to be gullible enough to believe in God without evidence, and if we don't we get sent to Hell, is preposterous. This could be a motivator for children to start questioning their faith. And once a child does make it to the "atheist" stage, the idea of Hell is no longer a reality and merely a fairytale. A child need not fear a make-believe story, and would not be abused by it. Often children are taught not to question their faith however. And as we agree in this debate, abuse is abuse whether it's intentional or not. If children DO think all of the Christian Heaven and Hell mythology is true, they can escape Hell by doing what the religion says. It's not easy to do everything the religion says is necessary to avoid Hell, but the religion doesn't want it to be easy. Christianity wants people to work for their reward in Heaven. I see what you are getting at, when you say "You don't get to make a free will choice with the threat of eternal torture for the wrong choice"; you are saying "who in their right mind would choose Hell? Since no one would, there's really not a choice." There IS a choice, it's just a no-brainer - eternal punishment or eternal bliss. We all know what one we'd choose; being a "God-fearing Christian" is the hard part. --- It would seem a valid conclusion that if a child is taught traumatizing beliefs, they are being abused. However, if the child doesn't fully understand what's going on, it might not be abusive. Children can be naive. They may hear about Hell but they might not come to the realization that they could actually burn alive for all eternity there; they might not put it together that Hell is for literally every person. For all they know, it could be something the grown-ups talk about but it isn't actually real. I'd argue that the children smart enough to put together the religion and see the big picture (and realize that the religion says if they have disbelief, they burn in Hell), are the ones smart enough to figure out it isn't real. Maybe the child is smart enough to realize that the religion says they are literally going to burn in Hell if they don't believe it, and they do not drop their religion. They would also be smart enough to figure out how to be a good "God-fearing Christian". --- So to summarize this, Christianity teaches children confusing and messed up beliefs. You see this kind of teaching as abusive, and I see it as a doorway for children to question their faith and write off the religion as a fairytale. If children do believe it, then they know how to avoid Hell by following the commandments and fearing God. And thank you for the debate.
Pushing Christianity Onto Children is Emotional Child Abuse

This debate has nothing to do with whether abuse is "intended" or not.The debate is whether pushing Christianity onto children is emotional child abuse (intended or not).My opponent claims you get to choose Heaven or Hell. That's laughable. You don't get to make a free will choice with the threat of eternal torture for the wrong choice. http://www.youtube.com...As of Dec, 2012, 77% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. I would call that "most" who don't escape the brainwashing.http://www.gallup.com...My opponent claims that "No one is teaching children that Hell is inescapable" Maybe, but they are being taught that hell is the default position. Unless they do "good" and "believe", they will go to hell.That's a constant burden the child has to deal with. Again, my opponent claims that hell is "not a concern for someone who lives a life believing in Christianity and following it as best they can". In other words, a child must maintain the pressure of Christian rituals and beliefs. The moment they give up and become atheists, they are on the path to hell.This constitutes emotional child abuse.My opponent asks, "why should either of them love an invisible man even more?" I already answered that. The Bible says so. In order to avoid hell, one must obey the Bible. Questioning faith is also not permitted. Yes, it leads to confusion which is, again, a form of emotional child abuse. Thanks for the debate.
Pushing Christianity Onto Children is Emotional Child Abuse

Abuse is abuse whether it's intentional abuse or not. A parent may give a child a spanking thinking it will do them good, but it's still abuse.Of course Christianity teaches people that they are worthless without god. That's the whole point of Christianity. How does one have free will if they are dictated where they came from, why they were put on earth, and where they will go when they die? Sounds like it's all planned out already. Some free will.Atheism has nothing to do with nihilism, and even if you could somehow make a point that atheism was a form of abuse (which would be impossible), that still doesn't prove Christianity is not abusive.My opponent is just using atheism as a straw man.You can have meaning in your life without a god. Just because some people are able to get away from the brainwashing of Christianity, doesn't mean they all will. Most don't.My opponent says "They (Christian children) are taught that good people go to Heaven and bad people go to Hell."Yeah, and they are also taught that they are bad, born with sin and will go to hell unless they are "saved". There's no way of getting around it."Hell isn't a threat to them." LOL...then what do you call it? A reward?"Christians think Hell is real and they are doing what"s best for their children, in their minds."Doesn't matter...it's still abuse."Are you saying that children have to compete with Jesus for parental affection?"Matthew 10:37 says ""Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."Christians think Jesus is REAL and they can talk and interact with him because they are in a RELATIONSHIP with him.They are taught that Jesus comes FIRST. So, yeah, children have to compete with Jesus for parental affection.Children are taught to NEVER question their faith. And just because Christianity isn't the only religion, still doesn't prove it's not abusive. Bringing up Islam and Judaism is just another straw man argument.Thanks for the debate
Pushing Christianity Onto Children is Emotional Child Abuse

Under Christianity, children are taught that they were born with "original sin" and that they need to be "saved".This is the equivalent to telling them they are “bad, no good and, worthless”. It is also a form of shaming.Christian children are also taught that they deserve to burn in hell for those sins, which is also the equivalent to telling them they are “bad, no good and, worthless”.Not only that, but they are taught that Jesus is to be loved first and most over anybody else which is a negative comparison to others. Christian children must compete with "Jesus" for the love and affection of their parents, which often results in lack of appropriate physical affection (hugs), not saying “I love you,” withdrawal of attention, lack of praise and lack of positive reinforcement.All this is constantly re-enforced on a daily basis. Before a Christian child can think for themselves, they have already been convinced, through indoctrination, that they are worthless and deserving of eternal torture. This destroys their self esteem and confidence as a human being, while supplying severe fear of something they can't even see or prove exists.Such abuse follows them into adulthood and very few are able to rid themselves of this type of brainwashing, so that they must live believing this their entire lives.
100 Debate Challenge 14: THBMothers should stay at home and look after their children.

Mothers should stay at home because they are mothers. There is no such person in this world whom we can compare to "Mother" for their children. A mother should stay at home for the wellbeing of her child. From the very first day of birth a child starts to learn about his/her environment. He/she subconsciously or unconscious ly learn day by day language, behavior, values, culture etc. He/she learn most of it from his/her mother because they deserve to be with their mother most of their time. If mothers are not supposed to be there for their children and if the babysitter or housekeeping take their place as mothers, then children must learn babysitter"s or housekeeping"s culture . Is it good for the child of that mother? So for the sake of the children, mother should stay at home. Not only for the children,also for the family maintenance mother should stay at home.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

Although Australia Day has virtually no symbolic meaning, it reflects the conteparary Australia. It origins are traced to a desire of egalitarinism that much of the worlds countries strive for and which arguably no other country has achieved as succefully as Australia. Australia day is a day promoted as a day for national unity. It shows our diverse society and landscape, remarkable achievments and is a day of opportunity to reflect our nations history. The small issue of Convicts still proved somewhat problematic when it came to acknowledging and celebrating the history. The solution was to simply erase them from history. For example, at a 1938 re-enactment of the first fleet"s arrival, there were Aborigines and British soldiers but no Convicts.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

Australia Day tends to divide Australia instead of uniting all of us together. The reason behind this is that the date chosen was that the day it falls on 'celebrates' the date the Europeans came and invaded indigenous territory. America didn't choose the day Christopher Columbus settled the land as their national day, so we shouldn't have to keep our date and all the anger it causes, just because it was the day that the British claimed their first land. Finally, a new date would refresh our country. It would remind us of all the good we"vie done and all that we can continue to be. If the date was changed, it"d be a day of harmony, peace, acceptance and happiness for people of all cultures and races, where we can all celebrate our differences together. What date would we then choose? A significant date from the past would be okay, such as the following: 13th February- The day in which Kevin Rudd apologised to the aboriginals. 11th April- The day the White Australia Policy was abolished 27th May- The day Aborigines were finally allowed constitutional rights However, instead of choosing a day of the past, which may be significant for some but not others, I"m suggesting that we choose a fresh new date, which can mean something to people of all races. To choose this date, a plebiscite could take place, asking which dates would be preferable, giving people of all different races their say, after all, we"re all equal and deserve to celebrate Australia Day together, in peace.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

Australia day is arguably one of the most unique national days in the world. Rather the unite it seems to divide Australia into two different view points. It is celebrated on the 26th of January as it marks the specific event of the arrival of the First Fleet of 11 convict ships from Great Britain and the raising of the Union Jack at Sydney Cove by the commander Captain Arthur Phillip.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

How is it important for new citizens? The date on January the 26th is a day of British history, which has little to no meaning for new members of Australia. Changing the date could be a fresh start for all of the new migrants who've come to Australia in search for a home. We remember the White Australia Policy, where only people of European backgrounds were settled into Australia. Now, Australia Day is a reminder of those times, of White Australia, of British rule. Australia as we know it today has a very large variety of cultures, and we settle and accept people of different races. Australia Day is marked on a British historical date, which doesn"t mean much to people of different backgrounds! It doesn't celebrate the coming together of our nation, or the backgrounds of the multicultural society which we now have. We have so many refugees settling in Australia, where they"re hoping for a new home. Australia Day should be a day we should all remember and be proud of, for us to be proud of our accepting country. Changing the date would create a new meaning behind the words of Australia Day, instead of just being a repetitive reminder of the exclusive society Australia used to be.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

Australia day is a day we come together as a nation to celebrate whats great about Australia. Australia day should not be changed as its a day to reflect on what we have achieved and what we can be proud of in our great nation. It is much more then barbeques and parties. It is pride and excitement of new citizens who call themselves Australian for the first time on the 26 of January after being conffered Citizenship.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

Thirty years ago, a debatable decision was created to mark January 26th as Australia Day. A day made to originally celebrate the settlement of British colonies on indigenous soil. The date upon Australia Day was placed was the date Captain Arthur Phillip raised the British flag for the first time in Sydney Cove, taking possession of New South Wales. This day is acclaimed a public holiday, many Australians from European backgrounds spend the holiday with mates, celebrating the day off work, spending the time with friends and family. "Australia Day" as the name suggests, should be a day to bring harmony and peace and to bring people of many different cultures together. However, not everyone celebrates the day as it should be. Also called "Invasion Day" or "Survival Day" as it is a day of loss, mourning and grief for many Indigenous Australians. The date of January 26th marks the date that Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders" ancestors were murdered, kidnapped and stolen. This is the reason of many protests, riots, violence and anger. "If your ancestors were dispossessed, slaughtered and had their land and their children stolen, would you celebrate the date on which that all began?"
The United States should conquer Africa

He never adresses the argument that we can win a money war (I.e. Buy out all of Africa before some other country) and "conquer" it that way. It fulfills the definition impose on me in round one. And since I'm giving the poor Africans more money, they'll be able to live longer, thus giving us more sex. This argument was also never responded to, and it proves why I'm best fulfilling the value of sex that my opponent and I have agreed upon. Without giving money to the poor Africans, my oppponent is making them live shorter lives filled with less sex than in the affirmative world, where we give them the money to buy food and water so that they can live longer, more sex-fulfilled lives. Thus, te affirmative best meets the value. So you affirm off of wanting sex. Because, really, who doesn't want sex?