BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Parental consent would create two 'classes’ of pupil.

A big problem with the proposal is that it is not black and white. ‘If Parents Consent’ sounds like a nice qualifying phrase, after all we all want parents involved and their permission for something like this. However this will almost certainly lead to problems where some will consent and others will not. If this occurs what happens then, are the teachers still not allowed to punish anyone so leaving everything how it was? Or can teachers only be allowed to use physical punishment for those pupils whose parents agree so creating two types of pupils with differing rights. Having these two different classes of pupils will likely cause extra difficulties rather than solving problems. Now we have a situation where pupils are obviously not equal. Some will get the stick if they misbehave while others will not. This may well make those whose parents have not given consent more willing to disrupt rather than less because they will see themselves as having a kind of immunity. At the same time the teacher will have difficulties because s/he will have to treat disruption from different members of the class differently.
We shouldn't even have to go to school.

School gives us knowledge, otherwise we remain ignorant Be thankful of School 1) you don't have to work I used to say school was terrible then I started working trust me school is paradise compared. 2) without education we would be ignorant of so many things and therefore wouldn't improve our society we wouldn't even have improved society this far if it wasn't for school when school was introduced to the masses we progressed leaps and bounds compared to the years before. 3) school is enforced so that young people cannot be taken advantage of by employers or even parents. 4) you wouldn't even know how many points I've made let alone understand what I've written if it wasn't for school, illiteracy was common before free education
We shouldn't even have to go to school.

School is a falsity. REPLY: You are totally wrong about that. We at least progress the best when we do what we do in life voluntarily. School is abysmal and if it should exist at all it should be optional. That would make people a lot happier. It's an abomination to dogmatically make young people go to school for no reason let alone hit them! Only disgusting adults who have personal problems would hit children and coerce them into doing things they don't want to do. So-called "education" is a hollow word used as a smokescreen to con people. School is enforced because of scum that desire to oppress their fellow human being and because they know there's no real reason to go to school so the only way to make people go is by coercing them. Using coercion on people is a abominable. Especially on vulnerable and defenseless young people. School is not responsible for your 4th point so you can't say that. And I definitely don't think that school has bettered us. Something so totally oppressive and demeaning cannot be helpful. I am utterly NOT grateful for school and you can be dead sure of that. It only served to leave me with emotional wounds. Looking back on it I can say that if I'd had the choice I would have certainly said no to it. And we learn the most when away from school. There are people who think the same as me on this matter. We need to respect people's right to say no to school. School is a big spurious lie and being introduced to it at age 5 is a horrifying experience. I'm wondering just how many hints people need to realise that school's a bad thing.
Sets a terrible example to students

Before I discuss this point, I would like to point out that the last point made by the proposition is almost entirely irrelevant to the motion at hand. Yes, school is a place of learning- but learning what? That we have the right to be violent towards others? Teachers are meant to be mentors and role models towards young, impressionable school children. What kind of example are we setting if teachers can physically punish students? Do the proposition WANT a generation of wrongly influenced, violent children???
religion is not necessary

there is no scientific evidence to either say that there is a god or that there isnt a god? what i do believe though through personal experience is that there is something that explains it all but religion is not the way for us to find out . i had a near death experience that proved to me that an afterlife exists but to get there has nothing to do with religion of any denomination? these religions are giving people teachings that were man made to control people and to scare them, all they exist for is financial gain full stop. following catholic, church of england and other christian religions will get us knowhere the bible was fabricated by king constantine the great in 325 ad, he along with others saw an opportunity to control his subjects by inventing stories to make a bible? at the time hardly anyone could read or write so the stories were passed down by word of mouth. jesus did exist but his life has been totally exagerrated to hype up the strength of the man made bible. there is no proof whatsoever that it is the word of jesus or god. we do not need religion ? all we have to do in this life is to be honest, kind and have love for our fellow people, if we are compassionate also we will go on to live again. when we see the pope drinking out of gold jewel encrusted chalices we should tell him to give it to the poor along with all the vaticans other wealth, all the religions are doing is milking the gullible people out of their hard earned cash? the churches have billions of pounds stashed away in bank accounts that they have taken from the people, they make me sick with all their brainwashing. religion isnt necessary at all and the world would be a better place without it, at least there would be world peace. think of a religion that doesnt take money from us, and then you will find a true one-one that doesnt exist.
This is why we believe in God: -

a) There is no scientific evidence that there is a God (why believe in something that might not exist?). There is no need for scientific evidence that god doesn't exist only that he does. b) We don't need to have 'religious' people to get advice from...anyone can have their own personal experiences and give advice to anyone. It is also completly subjective and is a total lack of proof c) This is not necessarily true. Many religious believers have fallen deeply into religious believes that they actually donated hospital bills that was saved for onee of their family members. What I can definately promise is that not only religious believers are 'better' or 'good' people. Everyone in this world could be 'better' or 'good'. They are only better if you: 1) assume the existance of a god 2) take what you think he, or a proxy, 'says' to be the definition of good 3) do it And there you have yourself a fully circular argument
This is why we believe in God: -

In answer to the question at the top of the page: a) There is no scientific evidence that there is NOT a God (and it would be ridiculous to expect there to be any anyway). b) Because of religious people's own personal experiences, the word of holy books such as the Bible, and observation of the beneficial effects that religious belief has on believers. c) Because it makes religious believers better people. d) Religion is not something that can be completely supported by fact. Believers in God and religion rely more on faith, such that there is a greater being and that our actions have consequences after our death. e) I don't like the motion for referring to God as an 'it' f) Why do people believe-in/postulate/opine/assume/suppose/support/side-with anything? Because there isn't sufficient proof that there exists a tautology on either side/facet of any dispute; all opinions on all disputes/arguments/debates/ideas/discussions become equally objective/valid when there is no way to prove-without-doubt any one side's assertion. Whilst the existence of God cannot be proved, the non-existence of a deity cannot be proved; also. Ideas can be fabricated while believers try to twist scientific fact to their approval; atheists attempt the same turning known 'deists' into Christians/Muslims/atheists(in the common no creator sense not in the true sense of not being theists)
Religion gives people a reason to live

We dont need religion as a way of life. There are too many denominations arguing and opposing one and other. Without religion we would care for each other more by making more use of the money we would of donated to each church, the money these churches have should be taken from them by law and put back into the communities of each country thats poor? What is the good of hoarding all the wealth that they have? helping the deprived people of the world and buying hospital machinery to save lives etc. is far better than leaving it in a bank account. Why do the churches ask for money in the first place? Doesnt this prove that religion is purely money orientated? If they cared about people the churches would of distributed their wealth long before now. They simply do not follow the teachings quoted by Christ and are nothing but hypocrits the lot of them. Many children have to go to church from a very early age allowing the church to brainwash them into their way of life, its the same with every church - forcing their doctrines upon us uninvited purely for control. Talk about satan and us going to hell is simply to scare everyone there is no hell and no satan, God was too perfect to make such a mistake as to create an angel that would rebel against him, to say he did would mean he was imperfect and God is perfect. If he could create the universe then he wouldnt of made a silly mistake like satan. we are given a free will by the creator and if we do wrong then we are to blame not some devil if we do good in our lives its because we have made the right decision not because God has helped us. If people want to talk to god it should be done in privacy, rather than going to a church to pay ones way to heaven. the kingdom of God is within us all if we live right and be good to each other, it wont be found inside a church or in any religion. Thus many athiest people are better citizens that church goers. For those that want to learn about God or Jesus then all they have to do is listen to their conciences and do the thing that is right in life not support religions that stop 25% of their wages, and filling collection plates with money when more desperate needs are awaiting that money.
Religion gives people a reason to live

Religion is not just a set of rules in an old book it's a way of life and it merges into people's culture and their everyday routine. If religion were not there many people just wouldn't know what to do with their lives....there are so many cultures who look to holy books as inspiration for their day to day activities if you took that away from them they would be lost. Suicidal people discover religion as something to worl towards in their lives and people who have suffered abuse find comfort in the words of something omnipotent who might somehow take away their problems. Religion gives people hope and a meaning or purpose to their lives so you cannot for one second think that we would be able to funciton without it. Sure many people are able to, hence atheists, but not all, the majority of people depend on a higher being to give them hope and who are we to deprive them of this.
There is evidence that god exists.

Organized religions are not necessary because they created religions as institutions where God is worshiped through praising and pleasing practices and expecting God will forgive our sins. God by definition does not need any praise and appeasement. Sins can never be cleared by God alone. Sins can only be forgiven by person whom you caused damage in any capacity. This kind of worship simply takes human being away from their moral responsibility toward fellow human beings. Excessive praising and pleasing God give us a pleasure which is more a kind of immediate gratification but does not give us a long lasting satisfaction. Organized religions are based on emotional attachment/feeling to God, even cruelty to human being is justified in the the name of God. Organized religion makes us more self-centered people. Personal religion is relationship between individual human being(no need of organized religion) and God and is based on individual human being commitment to other human being on moral ground. True worship of God is implementing moral values and is personal rather than institutional. We are used to see God only connected to organized religion. When we see immorality by organized religions then we automatically turn to believing nonexistence of God. We typically do not associate practicing moral values as part of worship of God but rather something human can do on his own without need of existence of God. Why God is needed to be existent in personal religion?. God is kind power to which we feel humble to and seek courage in our struggle while implementing moral values toward other human beings. Implementing moral values does not give us any pleasure of immediate gratification in nature but it requires struggle and painstaking process followed by long lasting satisfaction. Personal religion is based on empathy I.e. we feel others' pain and suffering. Life is the most beautiful thing when we human beings feel others' pain and suffering. When it comes to respect of human life, personal religion is the religion of logic/rational and reasons. In nutshell, God is present, there is no need of organized religion, there is personal relationship or religion between God and human being where God is considered existent as a symbol of humbleness during our struggle while implementing moral value to others.
There is evidence that god exists.

I would disagree with your assumed point and say that there is eviddence of the existance of god. There is the mere fact that we exist. When you consider the millions or billions or possibly more things that have occured throughout the history of the universe without which life as we know it could never have evolved. If the planet was much smaller it could not retian it's atmosphere. Our planet just happens to have a natural magnetic field to shield us from the suns gamma and x-rays. We happen to be in exactly the right place between the sun and jupiter so that the world neither cooks nor melts. Sentient life managed to evolve on this planet with billions of years left until our sun dies. No asteroids large enough to cause and apocolypse have hit the planet since we evolved. No supervolcanoes have erupted since we evolved. We have the ozone layer to filter out leathal amounts of UV radiation. The list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. How could all that have possibly happened by coincindence???
Out of town malls offer a better shopping experience. It is easier for shoppers to visit an out of ...

Out of town malls do not serve shopper interests well. It is time-consuming for shoppers to visit out of town centres because of their distance from population centres and the tendency for their access roads quickly to become clogged with traffic. This can eradicate any time saving from the convenience of having shops or retail categories clustered in a single geographical location. They also marginalise parts of society. For example, people without access to cars are effectively excluded from actively using them. This especially affects some social groups, e.g. the poor and the elderly. Ultimately, if out of town malls reduce their town centre shopping options, they will have less not more shopping choice.
Hypermarkets and malls promote competition and so serve consumers well. Because of their huge purch...

Out of town retail developments actually reduce effective competition because smaller urban outlets are not able to compete with them on price. After a while the urban shopping centre will become 'hollowed out', with most stores shutting and only a few niche retailers or stores catering to poorer and less mobile social groups remaining. Once this competition is removed, the out of town stores can put up their own prices, especially as malls and other out of town retail centres are actively planned to reduce direct competition within particular retail sectors (e.g. only one large food retailer, only one Do-It-Yourself store, only, only a few shoe shops, etc.).
Out of town shopping centres represent a sensible, efficient land use. Large-scale shopping does no...

Out of town malls damage town centres. Because the out of town developments are remote from the town centre, shoppers go there without passing the urban shops, which eliminates the opportunistic purchases which form a large part of many small shops’ custom. They also damage the sense of community spirit. Out of town centres are typically managed by national firms and house chain shops, whereas the town centre will normally have a larger proportion of locally owned and run shops. Not only does this encourage a net outflow of money from the local community, it also reduces local involvement in the town centre, which can have a negative knock-on effect on civic pride and municipal participation. Finally, they remove a sense of local diversity. Because out of town centres are typically nationally run from outside the community, they all look alike and are less sensitive to local shoppers’ needs. They are more likely to focus on homogenous product and service offerings across their sites.
Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often b...

Out of town retail developments are bad for the environment. They encourage pollution because they are further from town centres than traditional retail units and encourage the use of cars for fairly short, environmentally harmful journeys. They also frequently involve the destruction of large areas of countryside, not only to accommodate the retail development itself, but also the parking, access roads and secondary development that usually follows. This is made worse by the standard one or two story design of modern malls, which results in wasteful sprawl. Efficient urban development, by contrast, tends to go upwards (or downwards) in multi-storey buildings, often with parking below and apartments above retail space.
Out of town centres bring development in their wake. As out of town centres are often built on aest...

Out of town centres distort urban growth patterns. Because they are not organic growth, out of town centres often warp local infrastructure provision. So, while (for example) they may have good access roads built, there will be fewer amenities built at the same time, and subsequent residential development which follows in the path often grows too quickly to incorporate the sort of planned town infrastructure which developed in more traditional, carefully planned town centre environments. Because out of town centres often do not clearly serve a particular residential area, they distort growth as it means that, rather than responding to a residential area’s needs, the centre is built and attracts residential development around it for convenience, regardless of whether this is the most appropriate planning approach for local communities. \ They also damage local communities’ identities. In addition to the damage they do to local trade and civic identification, out of town centres are often far enough out of town that they are not clearly regarded as forming part of the local community. Frequently they lie outside the jurisdiction of the urban council, and so contribute nothing to the local area in taxes. As they start to attract residential building nearby, this can “hollow out” the community identity and economic viability of the original town.\
Out of town malls offer a better shopping experience. It is easier for shoppers to visit an out of ...

Out of town malls offer a better shopping experience. It is easier for shoppers to visit an out of town retail development than an urban or town centre shopping area. Typically, out of town malls offer access roads which are not crowded and plenty of “free” car parking. This is welcomed by shoppers and is in contrast to many city centre or high street shopping areas. It is also convenient for shoppers to be able to make their purchases under one roof. In an out of town shopping centre, shoppers are typically able to complete their purchases in one covered mall, and perhaps even in one giant store. This is less time-consuming and less stressful than the more traditional experience of needing to visit multiple different shops. In addition, the interiors of shopping centres are actively managed and so are typically clean, relatively safe and may offer their own entertainment (e.g. skating rinks, cinemas, live music). This is typically less true of more traditional shopping areas, where for example at night poor lighting may be off-putting to some shoppers.
Hypermarkets and malls promote competition and so serve consumers well. Because of their huge purch...

Hypermarkets and malls promote competition and so serve consumers well. Because of their huge purchasing power and economies of scale, large retail chains with huge outlets such as Wal-Mart, Tescos and Carrefour can offer products much more cheaply than smaller high-street rivals. The convenience and greater enjoyment offered by out of town malls can also push urban shopping centres into improving their own provision for consumers. This can be seen through improvements in the urban environment, better policing, cheaper parking and more ease of access, and the provision of entertainment and special events (e.g. farmers markets, foreign markets and street festivals) to draw shoppers in from a wider area.
Out of town shopping centres represent a sensible, efficient land use. Large-scale shopping does no...

Out of town shopping centres represent a sensible, efficient land use. Large-scale shopping does not sit well with residential behaviour. For example, early morning deliveries and late-night shopping can create a lot of noise. In a traditional environment where shops are immediately beside residential areas, this is a nuisance to local residents; this is not the case in out of town sites. Only out of town locations offer the retail industry the space it needs to function. To run an efficient modern shop, large amounts of space with particular planning needs often have to be used. This is often incompatible with densely populated, built-up areas where retail units are largely unable to be altered significantly to meet modern needs.
Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often b...

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.
Out of town centres bring development in their wake. As out of town centres are often built on aest...

Out of town centres bring development in their wake. As out of town centres are often built on aesthetically unappealing “brownfield” sites, the injection of large investment by a retailer is a vote of confidence in the area and this has a knock-on effect in the local economy. The out of town centre acts as a magnet for further positive development locally. Other amenities and housing will typically start to congregate near the shop and the centre creates a boom for the local economy. This is not only true in the initial construction stages, it will also apply once it is up and running, as retail staff will typically be recruited fairly locally.