BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Separation of church and state

When I was talking about religion I was referring to all religions but I used Christianity as an example because its most often singled out, for example the removal of the Christmas tree from the Connecticut state house was a big issue last winter. Therefore yes, you should have the right to express your Muslim beliefs as a member of public trust if that's what you're a follower of. I'm a firm believer that parents should be able to choose which public school their child goes to. And to answer you about teaching religion, yes all religions should be taught, I think that would be very helpful to my child if I were a parent. I think studying the Qur'ran, for example, would be very helpful in understanding the conflict in the Middle East. But at the same time the teacher should have to right to be open about if he or she agrees with what's in the Qur'ran. And to your question about a scenario where this could work, I've already explained briefly but I'll reiterate. Parents should have the right to decide where their kids go to school and if they think their child's teacher is too much of a bible thumper it should be their right to remove their child from that class. Also yes we should learn about other religions in school. But you're making this debate about morality and whether or not its right for religion to be in schools. I was making the case that there is nothing in the constitution that restricts it. So far you've hardly adressed the constitution and haven't done anything to prove it is in violation of the law, so please, let's stay on topic.
Separation of church and state

Thank you, Your Argument is very interesting. I would not wholeheartedly disagree on this definition of the "Church and State" rule. But in a previous statement you wrote: " I have concluded that expression and teaching of religion by public employees, such as teachers, are very much constitutional and efforts to restrict these expressions are unconstitutional. To give an example, I would say groups like American Atheists have no constitutional authority to do things like sue to have a cross memorial removed from a public 9/11 memorial." In response to this, I feel like when you say "religion", you are referring to Christianity and here are a few scenarios that might clear something up for me. say for example that I am Muslim, and Pretend for a moment that I had lost family on 9/11...well as we all know (may not all necessarily believe) that It was Due to the actions of Muslim Ideals and principals that caused this incident. So may I then, (having lost family and friends) place a symbol of my religion (like the QurF0;an) on or alongside the cross on said Memorial? It is as you say, my constitutional right, or does that only apply to one religion? And if we are to teach Religion in Schools, are we not going to need to teach every religion? because in the United States, we are shaped by every religion and culture. It would be our "constitutional right to declare our religion. We would need a class for each one. Christianity, Paganism, Muslim, Buddhism, Scientology, and the list goes on. Are you able to see a scenario where this might work? and if so please elaborate. These restrictions we have are placed for a reason. can you imagine what life would be like if religions all across the U.S. were able to simply make a rule saying that your child is now forced to learn about the atheist beliefs (or lack thereof)? It's a process we know as "imposing upon". I'm not quite certain that the very definition of the clause is being "misinterpreted" but rather, expanded upon to include the new age.
Separation of church and state

Nowadays the meaning of separation of church and state is often misinterpreted and thought to mean religion has no place whatsoever in areas of public office or domain, and public schools as well. But the fact is the separation of church and state isn't anywhere in the constitution, it was a term coined by Thomas Jefferson to describe the Establishment Clause and the Free exercise clause of the First Amendment which are as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." There's absolutely nothing said about expression of religion by members of public trust in either of those clauses. A cross on display in a public museum or a school is not a law respecting an establishment of religion, nor is it a mandate you be a follower of Christ. Is it immoral? Well that's an entirely seperate issue. But illegal? Hardly. http://www.allabouthistory.org...
Separation of church and state

I've stated that I'm for the separation of church and state, taking on this debate does not mean you're arguing against the belief in the separation of church and state, but to my interpretation. I have concluded that expression and teaching of religion by public employees, such as teachers, are very much constitutional and efforts to restrict these expressions are unconstitutional. To give an example, I would say groups like American Atheists have no constitutional authority to do things like sue to have a cross memorial removed from a public 9/11 memorial.
Storm Capricorn is the best beyblade ever

i think that Storm Capricorn is the best bey... And if you disagree with me, you must be a hater. Ever since Storm Capricorn was released around the world, in a bout a week it sold 1,000,000,000,000,000 copies. (I was the one who bought about 7/8 of that amount) The highest ever sold bey. The thing is you guys are just mad that Capricorn is so OP. You could even call it the "God" of Beyblades. And all those videos you find on the net showing you beyblade battles with capricorn losing are all fake. Haters just make that up. It really brings a tear to my eye when the best beyblade isn't shown what it deserves.
Resolved: The largest cause of violence in America is Cadbury Creme Egg deprivation during childhood

Welcome everyone. I'd like to present a well informed opinion about this serious topic we have laid out on the table.I'm going to be supporting a syllogism in this debate that will help me uphold the resolution.P1) Child maltreatment causes violenceP2) Cadburry Creme Egg deprivation is a form of child maltreatmentC) Cadburry Creme Egg deprivation during childhood causes violence.Supporting P1I hereby provide a quote from a digest about a book or something:"The authors provide evidence that the apparent negative effects of maltreatment on children's propensity to engage in crime are real and not simply artifacts of other features of dysfunctional families. They find that being maltreated approximately doubles the probability of engaging in many types of crime and that the effects are worst for children from low socio-economic status backgrounds" [1].This is really all I need in order to prove that my premise 1 is true.I mean look at that. It's true.That evidence should feel proud of itself. http://i.imgur.com...; />Supporting P2Here is a heretic's review on Cadburry Creme Eggs in the form of a video [2]. He is a heretic because he is not absolutely in love with these little heaven-filled eggs. Even still, I have provided what he has to say about them. As you can see, Cadbury Creme Eggs are the best candy a child can have. I would also like to point out that child neglect is a form of child maltreatment [1]. Now, if a parent neglects to give their kid rich, beautiful chocolate filled with actual heaven, then they're committing child maltreatment.This is a year wide problem for some kids. Easter comes, and what happens? No creme eggs. It's clearly a widespread problem.Conclusion: I'm right.Now taking a look at the whole word "largest" that I now have to support, we just need to realize how widespread this problem is. Most people suffer from this. Since it's kind of a seasonal candy, a solid majority of America suffers from Cadbury Creme Egg deprivation during childhood because they only ate like ten per year. Can you imagine only breathing ten times a year? Yeah, didn't think so.What if parents forced their kids to only breath about ten times per year? Wouldn't that be child abuse? Yes, it sure would. So why are Cadbury Creme Eggs any different? They're not.I thank everyone for reading this, and I look forward to an exciting debate![3]Sources:[1] http://www.nber.org......[2] http://www.youtube.com... The video[3] I'm the prophet of Morgan Freeman.
Resolved: The largest cause of violence in America is Cadbury Creme Egg deprivation during childhood

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a debate that is close to my heart. Cadbury Creme Eggs are the most beautiful little pieces of heaven that exist on earth. Or at least I think so.Format (me/my opponent):1st round- Rules/acceptance2nd round- Main arguments/arguments and rebuttals3rd round- Rebuttals for both4th round- Summary arguments for both
Jason Voorhees vs Michael Myers

It is true that Jason has a purpose of why he kills. It is to note also Michael too has a purpose: to kill anyone who has family ties with the Myers and anything or anyone related to the Myers. However, Michael [SPOIL ALERT] is cursed to kill his family and those that surround his family. I agree that Jason was bullied when he was young and that many people do not like him but Michael was more quite. He is disturbed and is mute throughout the film series. That's what also makes him creepier because he just lurks in the shadows and attack. He is also more intelligent and again realistic as shown in the [SPOILER ALERT] end of Halloween H20. He quickly switches his mask with the Paramedics man and breaks his vocal chords so the man would be unable to speak. Also, people would have hard time tracking down Michael than Jason because Michael just appears once a year during the month of October to make a killing spree. He doesn't have any visible wounds and he wears a tracksuit and a mask so if anyone who wears the same outfit as Michael would help hide the real Michael Myers. There are no any characters that wear the same outfit as Jason and also I find Jason mentally retarded. He fails to distinguish his own mother and the woman who wears his mother's outfit in the end of Friday the 13th 2. Michael seems impossible to kill like in Halloween 1978, when Dr. Loomis shot him, Michael still survives to return to the next film. I do not think that their weapons matter because they are both deadly in front of people. Except that knives are more common and scarier because of it being a popular weapon choice. I find Michael more unapproachable and strong so people cannot really wrestle him. However, on Halloween V, he was finally locked up in prison but Michael has one advantage: he has an ally. His ally helps him escape from prison by bombing it. Unfortunately, Jason does not.
Jason Voorhees vs Michael Myers

Jason Voorhees haves alot of advantages one thing Jason is undead Michael isn't also Michael key weapon is a knife as Jason have a machete Not only that although Michael is smarter and faster Jason can take more damage as he dish it out he been on fire shocked been slammed around and that's mainly why it was freddy vs Jason Jason always come back in the battle with freddy Jason won in the real world emerging from the water he won.
Pooh Bear is a jerk

Pooh Bear really is weird. Why on earth is he not wearing pants? That really suggests nudity and pornography. Also, do you remember our debate that Disney should be banned? I remember doing it a couple months ago. I can't believe kids love Pooh. They just want to watch porn and have sex from looking at a yellow guy with no pants. Also, he encourages gluttony. All he does is sit around and eat honey.
Pooh Bear is a jerk

Ah, I forgot all about how you hate Pooh Bear. Very well, let's get into it. Pooh Bear is not a jerk. I'm not a big fan of the cartoon. I like the original book by A.A. Milne better. But I'd watch the Pooh cartoons if I absolutely had to. I think they're fine entertainment for kids. His diet consists of honey because he's a bear and cartoon bears like honey. So do real bears, I'm sure. Honey is a crucial running gag in the Pooh Bear universe. It is not inappropriate for him to go around without pants, because he's an anatomically incorrect cartoon. Real bears don't wear pants. Why should he? Most cartoon characters don't wear pants. Bugs Bunny, Porky Pig, Donald Duck. Are you going to accuse all of them for being indecent when they don't have any genitalias and animals don't normally stroll around in long trousers? Wearing pants isn't inappropriate if you're a cartoon character. His fur is yellow, that is not the color of his skin. He is in no way meant to be Asian, although I'm sure he's probably popular in Asia. The man who invented him, A.A. Milne, was British, and his trademark voice was provided by Sterling Holloway, an American. I don't think he's meant to be an offensive stereotype of Asians. If he had buck teeth or slanty eyes, he'd be racist. I don't know why you call out racism, since you're a racist. His yellow color does not mean he is Asian. He's a yellow colored bear. Lots of animals are yellow. Tweety on Looney Tunes is yellow. He's not supposed to be Asian, he's yellow because he's a yellow bird. Same with Pooh.
Creationism should not be taught in schools

Now I will begin refuting my opponent's counter-arguments. On a side-note, I also wish to have a fun and civil debate. The first argument of my opponent's was, A, "The lack of evidence supporting macro-evolution is far too great to be taught as fact. " There is actually quite a large amount of evidence supporting macro-evolution. Just look at modern-day humans. Coccyx: There is evidence to suggest that the coccyx was once the base for a tail in humans. And yet we have no tails. Wisdom teeth: Early humans ate a lot of plants, and they needed to eat enough of them in one day to get all the nutrients that were needed. We had a third set of molars to make the mouth more productive. This was quite essential as early humans could not efficiently digest cellulose. Over time, our diets, courtesy of evolution, changed, and our mouths became smaller, and our third molars became unnecessary. Now, save for a select few human populations, almost all humans develop wisdom teeth. Now they usually just serve as a very painful thing to remove. (I would know. ) My opponent's second argument, B, was that much of macro-evolution has been proven false. While some parts of macro-evolution have not been completely proven, can you please tell me a theory that has more evidence? It is important to remember that, even though evolution is not perfect, it is the best theory we have. The third argument was, C, that teaching students something that was not a proven, was indoctrination, and thus immoral. It's not indoctrination if said theory has large amounts of evidence supporting it and is accepted by most major scientific institutions worldwide. You want to talk about indoctrination, you talk about all the children turned into extremist Christians or Muslims by the spewing nonsense of their elders. The final argument, D, was that teaching creationism and evolution along-side each other would give students a well-rounded education. That would be true in a perfect world, but let's say that the teacher in question is a fundamentalist Christian. He/she may just neglect to mention evolution every once in a while. You have to take the human factor into account whenever discussing education.
Creationism should not be taught in schools

While my personal belief is that the subject of origins should be left out of our educational system, I will attempt to refute Pro's claims that: A) Creationism is blatantly false. B) Has no proof attached to it, and C) is simply a way for the fundamentalists to inject their dogma into the scientific community. In refutation, my position will be that A) The lack of evidence supporting (macro) evolution is far too great for evolution to be taught as a proven fact. B) Much of what is taught as proof for (macro) evolution in our schools has been proven false. C) Teaching students a theory that have not been proven as fact is indoctrination, and thus immoral. And D) teaching creationism alongside evolution (regarding origins), will give students a well-rounded education, allowing them to be open-minded, providing a healthy atmosphere in the scientific community of objective minds. Definition of macro evolution: "Evolution happening on a large scale, e. g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups. "-biology-online. org I await my opponents arguments!
Lower the drinking age

1. "Also considering the fact yes eighteen year old teens can become addicted to alcohol but it has been shown you can still get addicted to alcohol at any age; it will slowly develop at any age, alcoholism has no age limit, it's a disease." Like I previously stated you are now allowing this addiction to occur at an even earlier and more critical age. A teenager's brain is still developing at this age and alcohol has more dramatic effects on a still developing brain of a teenager than a developed brain of a young adult. (http://www.learn-about-alcoholism.com...) 2. "We keep looking at teenagers that they have all this peer pressure but yes okay peer pressure is said to affect teens, but peer pressure can still happen when your older! " As a teenager you experience, more peer pressure and are even more prone to it. By the time you are a young adult you have dealt with these things and are now becoming more used to them. A teenager is at the center of everything and cares more about his/herself socially than in any other way. (http://www.teenhelponline.com...) 3. "Lowering the drinking age makes teenagers think about their next step; we have them thinking about their future, showing something that can risk it as well as damage them might make them think a little harder - especially when they have the right to make their own decisions." Why give them a decision where they can make the wrong choice and still have it be legal? We can have them think about what college they want to go to or what career they want to have because there are no negative effects of that. But if we give them the line "Get drunk tonight?" how is that going to help them in any way. In the end lawmakers are simply trying to do the best they can for their youth. Preventing drinking while someone is still in high school or still in development is just going to harm their lives, cause them to have alcohol dependencies, and ruin the future for them. They are not ready to drink responsibly.
Lower the drinking age

Yes I do agree that drinking is conveyed as "fun" through the media, but in all of these commercials they have adults portraying the "fun" that could come. Drunk driving incidents are happening now, with younger adults and adults that are over the age of twenty-one as well. Also considering the fact yes eighteen year old teens can become addicted to alcohol but it has been shown you can still get addicted to alcohol at any age; it will slowly develop at any age, alcoholism has no age limit, it's a disease. We keep looking at teenagers that they have all this peer pressure but yes okay peer pressure is said to affect teens, but peer pressure can still happen when your older! At any age you can egg a person on to drink another beer, or go to a certain place, hang out till a certain time. So my final point is peer pressure as well as becoming addicted to alcohol, is not defined by any age. Lowering the drinking age makes teenagers think about their next step; we have them thinking about their future, showing something that can risk it as well as damage them might make them think a little harder - especially when they have the right to make their own decisions.
Lower the drinking age

You argue a very intersting point. Preparing for the future and getting a job are excellent preparation for teenagers. Drinking is conveyed as "fun" by media, and that is why they want to do it. Also, by lowering the drinking age we are increasing those drunk driving incidents you speak of. Not to mention that to a developing body alchol can cause brain damage and the teenager to become addicted to other substances. Also, "Except don't twenty-one year old individuals who are considered "adults" abuse the right of drinking legally anyway?", don't you think that teenager of a younger age would be even more willing to abuse due to peer pressure and binge drinking which results in them becoming addicted much more quickly.What you are basically arguing for is for a human being to have the chance to start doing something bad earlier and suffer harder effects later.
Lower the drinking age

If teenagers are to young for responsibilities, why do we push them to get out into the real world? We urge them to get jobs and learn responsibilities as soon as they turn of age. We also make them start planning their future as soon as they hit ninth grade. They abuse drinking now, but what about all the adults who abuse drinking as well. Is it allowed since they are twenty one or older? Teens have been involved in drinking and driving accidents, but what about the adults who have caused them as well. The adults who risked their children's lives as well as their own and others on the road? Also if you are interested in the army all you have to do is ask for information, and they will be knocking on your door trying to recruit your children. If your child decides to follow that they can leave in a month or so after signing up and begin training - after training if needed you can be sent overseas; and if not overseas you are sent away from the base and are trained in weapons or a speciality but as soon as your needed you can be sent to fight. Especially with everything that is happening today in the world. So I'll leave you with this question, you give teenagers the responsibilities of working, and planning their future as soon as they learn what a future is, and yet you're saying teenagers are still immature to have the responsibility of drinking at eighteen because they will abuse that? Except don't twenty-one year old individuals who are considered "adults" abuse the right of drinking legally anyway?
Lower the drinking age

The fact that you can join the army at such a young age is another argument. Therefore I shall begin as follows: 1. Teenagers are too young for the responsibilities. The reason the drinking age is past 18 is because by the time a person would have become more accustomed to the responsibilities of being an adult. If the teenager is given the rights earlier they will automatically abuse the right. 2. Drinking is a different situation from war. Teenager have a quicker access to alcohol than they do to war. It is quite simple for a teenager to get drunk and die in a drunk driving accident. This can be done within a manner of hours. How long will it take to register as a soldier, train, and work properly, then die in combat? Much longer. It is a matter of making the right choices.
Lower the drinking age

You can join the army and fight in war, and yet you can't even have a beer when you come home. The drinking age use to be 18 in America and the young adults didn't feel the need to go out and get "wasted". All over the world the drinking age is lower for Example in parts of Europe the drinking age is 16 even lower in other parts of the world. I feel with the drinking age being lowered you give the young adults the sense of responsibility we once had.