azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

1. Actually, your so called "evidence" supported me. Is there a problem?2. (A) My bad(B) You just picked out a random link, have you? Your very source was even more outdated than mine (yours was published in 2003, mine was 2008) and simply compares the health risks between public and private religion. And to add insult to injury, it even admitted that they need further studies.If you(C) And I suppose you can prove LiveScience wrong then?(D) Your first link was the crime rate of the worldSecond link discusses the rise of secularism and decline of religion in developed countries. How is that connected to anything?I understand that you need to find some articles to support your claim. But seriously, please read your own references before posting itWhy would I make your arguments for you?Its not an argument, its a fact. And you just failed the dare.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

1. Yes. The problem is you cannot read.2. (A) Yep.(B) I know your article was written in 2008, but its sources are all more than 15 years old.The study I cited does observe the relationship between public and private religion to health because this is what we are debating; I fail to see the problem. And the study observed that as a field more research needs to be done into actual causality; if this is true in the 2000s then it was definitely true in the 1980s and 1990s where your source draws its information from. (C) I do not need to disprove what has never been proven to begin with.(D)First Source Yes, because your source made a flagrantly false claim that "thanks in no small part to America’s rich religious culture, the nation has far lower crime rates". To be that glaringly incorrect discredits the author completely.Second Source No, it observed that secularism correlates to stronger societies more than religiosity which directly contradicts the assertion you have made and which your source also attempted to make. I understand that you need to find some articles to support your claim. But seriously, please read your own references before posting it.I am not the one with reading issues.Its not an argument, its a fact. And you just failed the dare.A "fact" which you have not proven. A "fact" that I have no burden to prove. I have not failed the dare, I have refused to engage it because it is idiotic. You have not proven any of your claims. Even if you had, they are widely off target from the initial question and do not remotely invalidate my argument because positives do not magically erase negatives. I am tired of being blamed for what is either your slothful application to the research or actual incapacity for reasoned thought, and decline to persist in this farce any longer. Expect no further reply.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

1. That's so cute of you to deny the fallacy of your arguments2. (B) Read your own source. Its references came from 1985What are you talking about? Your source merely compared the health of individuals between public and private religions- it made no further study about the health risks of being in a secular group. Pro Tip: Doesnt mean that the title said "religion", doesnt mean you can use it in a religious argumentP.SRule of science is that a hypothesis is false until proven true, which means that unless your source has finished the study, it is not complete.(C) Then you agreed with LiveScience, hence you admitted I won(D) What's incorrect about it? The guy made some valid claims about how religion maintains social stability.You have no idea how crime rates work, do you?There are many factors that affects the moral instability (e.g financial situation, political feuds,law enforcements, etc) your source spoke only of the presence of religion in such places. Only a fool will believe that religion alone dictates the well-being of a nation.A "fact" which you have not proven.The evidences are right in front of you. Denial can only get you so far.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

Most children are not intelligent enough to make such choices. Unless they're being abused, they follow the rules.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

I started making my own decisions about wherever God existed or not since the age of about seven. I agree Children should have to follow the rules there parents set like what time they go to bed, how long they watch T.V. etc. but it is stupid parent's have no right to force them follow their religion. You do not own your kids, they can choose for themselves. "They aren't clever enough" is not a good enough reason. Their are plenty of adults who are less intelligent than certain Children. Should they have less rights because they are unintelligent?
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

Of course children should be allowed to choose. However, that doesn't mean raising your child to be of a certain religion is child abuse.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

I support it mostly. I think it would be a form of neglect. If a person is so obtuse that they need a book to help them be a good person, they shouldn't be teaching anybody anything. They should be the ones being taught.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

But it is important to tell them that Bible is not encyclopaedia or textbook they need to know that it is purely based on mixture of bronze age myths.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

In the vast majority of cases they are not just sharing their views with their children. They are telling their children that their religious beliefs are absolute and incontrovertible truths, at a point when their authoritative relationship with the child imbues these views with a false air of legitimacy. In most cases, the child is also informed repeatedly that if they do not adopt the same views they will live in eternal suffering. This is an abuse of authority, and it is harmful to the emotional and cognitive maturation of the child.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

Religion being abused by the majority doesn't mean that it is wrong.I can use the gun laws as an example here.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

Religion being abused by the majority doesn't mean that it is wrong.Forceful indoctrination into religion is the subject of this debate, not religion generally. My statements were that those instances are child abuse, not that this makes religion wrong (though I consider it so for other reasons).I can use the gun laws as an example here.You could, but it is not a very good one.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

No its not. The subject of this debate is right on the title: "Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?" From which I claim that guiding a child in spiritual views is part of parenthood.You're the one forcing indoctrination into the argument.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

Yes it is. The debate explicitly frames the issue in the context of force.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

Again, it does not.How can a child be forced when he never resisted in the first place?
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

The existence of force is an implicit assumption in the debate question; if you do not like that then make your own debate and stop arguing on this one. Besides which, you are assuming the child never resisted.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

The fact that they are a child, the fact that parenthood tackles nurturing, the fact that parents desire their children to be like them, and of course, the fact that religion in itself is but a mere social organization of believers.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

The fact that they are a child, the assertion that parenthood tackles nurturing, the assertion that parents desire their children to be like them, and of course, the assertion that religion in itself is but a mere social organization of believers. Care to substantiate your "facts"?
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

Care to prove me wrong?
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

No. You made the assertions, you can back them up.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

It's pretty much common knowledge among pediatricians. But since you asked: Here
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

This has nothing to do with any of the claims you made in this instance. As a reminder of what you said:- parenthood tackles nurturing- parents desire their children to be like them- religion in itself is but a mere social organization of believersThe StudySince you shared it, here are my thoughts on the article on the study. Firstly, it is not the study itself and does not specifically cite it so critical examination is limited. Secondly, the article indicates that the conclusions were reached not upon actual, observable behavior but on parents' subjective opinions on their children's behavior; this could lead to any number of problems in the data, not the least of which is that parents may have different understandings of what constitutes good and bad behavior, may be more or less observant than other parents, etc.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

sigh-parenthood tackles nurturing-parents desire their children to be like them-religion in itself is but a mere social organization of believers Firstly, it is not the study itself and does not specifically cite it so critical examination is limited.Click the blue texts- it's their referencesSecondly, the article indicates that the conclusions were reached not upon actual, observable behavior but on parents' subjective opinions on their children's behaviorI believe you have a research that proves them wrong?
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

Raising your sons to believe it is ok to be gay when it increases your odds of getting HIV 50 fold is child abuse.Valuing dual income over having someone there for your children is child abuseThinking divorce is ok and raising a kid without their father is child abuseRaising your boys to be something other than a man, or raising your girls to be something other than a woman is child abuse.Raising your children to be open to influence from a world without respect for life, decency, or honor is child abuse.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

Fallacy 1: Indicating other instances of potential child abuse does not prove that forcing a child to be religious is not child abuse as well.Raising your sons to believe it is ok to be gay when it increases your odds of getting HIV 50 fold is child abuse.Fallacy 2: Teaching respect and acceptance to children does not predispose them to be homosexual. Fallacy 3: Being homosexual does not increase your risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Engaging in risky behavior (e.g. promiscuity, unprotected sex, etc.) increases you risk of contracting all STIs, and this is true for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. The reason risk behavior is likely greater amongst homosexuals is because safer sex education has not been equally accessible to this demographic, in part because parents reject their childrens' orientation and fail to educate them and in part because social stigma has failed to provide equal information and access to homosexual persons.Fallacy 4: Transmission rates for other STIs are actually higher in heterosexual populations than in homosexual populations. Picking one STI to defend your point provides an incomplete picture.Fallacy 5: Not all religious indoctrination condemns homosexuality. Religious persons can force their child into religious practice/belief while also teaching acceptance of homosexuality. Valuing dual income over having someone there for your children is child abuse.Fallacy 6: Homosexual couples do not place dual income over supporting their children any more than heterosexual couples. Homosexual couples can also have a stay at home partner, just as heterosexual couples can both be working partners. Thinking divorce is ok and raising a kid without their father is child abuse.Fallacy 7: Divorce can be damaging to children, however in some contexts divorce can actually be the better choice for a child. Examples include instances of domestic abuse, child abuse, and domestic unrest from bad marriages. Raising your boys to be something other than a man, or raising your girls to be something other than a woman is child abuse.Fallacy 8: Whether you are referencing "traditional" gender roles or transgender identities, you have no basis for your claim. Fallacy 9: Actually, raising children to conform to "traditional" gender roles is harmful (not the other way around). For instance.Raising your children to be open to influence from a world without respect for life, decency, or honor is child abuse.Fallacy 10: Religion is not the only source (nor even the best source) for raising a child with respect for life, decency, and honor.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

I agree that religion is not the predominant source of child- abuse and yes, much of what you say is true e.g. fallacy 2 - divorces, values are what matters but I must disagree with Fallacy 9: traditional has much credibility, it was formed over generations for a sound reason - it is not to be mistaken as 'the out-dated and suppressive way'. It wouldn't do well to simply ignore the fact that your ancestors and many generations preceding you followed this 'traditional' way of life.  Everything is subject to change and a very definite example is our VALUES.I believe you should not condemn homosexuality and that there is ALWAYS more than one side to every story. Yes, not all religious doctrines condemn this, but isn't religion ultimately how we perceive it? Why is it that when Islamic religions ( as an example) are in favour of world peace and honour there exists who attribute their actions to religion- the 'extremists and terrorists?' They can be deeply religious and no less a part of the faith as anyone else despite the fact that the actions they engage in are treated as if they are inexplicable.Really, the biggest fallacy of all is saying we can all agree where to draw the line for abuse and our personal beliefs.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

Fallacy 9: traditional has much credibility [...]I placed "traditional" in quotations for a reason. Contemporary, western conceptions of gender roles actually have a very shallow history. Even if that were not the case, I disagree that tradition has "much credibility". Human beings and our actions are illogical at least as often as they are sensible. The moment a tradition (or something viewed as tradition) is established as being more harmful than beneficial it loses its credibility. I contend that this is the case with gender norms, not as a matter of assumption but of fact. Human identity is diverse and multifaceted, and to force it into (arbitrary) boundaries is a consequence not of function but of social power dynamics dysfunction.Everything is subject to change and a very definite example is our VALUES.My point precisely. Glad you agree.[...] They can be deeply religious and no less a part of the faith as anyone else despite the fact that the actions they engage in are treated as if they are inexplicable.I do not think anything I said contradicts that observation. I fully acknowledge the diversity of perspectives that exist concurrently within faith groups (and take that as further evidence against their legitimacy). What I do think is that, to varying degrees, all of these views are damaging and constitute abuse when children are indoctrinated into them. Really, the biggest fallacy of all is saying we can all agree where to draw the line for abuse and our personal beliefs.Then it is fortunate that I never said either of those things.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

It is fortunate then. I do acknowledge the fact that you did not contradict my observation when I said They can be deeply religious and no less a part of the faith as anyone despite the fact that the actions they engage in are treated as if they are inexplicable... but if you ask most religious children or people who were indeed religious from a very early age, you will find that the majority did not have these supposedly 'legitimate' views of a particular faith sprung upon them or in your words 'indoctrinated' in them. (If I may bring some scientific observations into this argument) during puberty/ maturation, the child has already a 'mind of their own', we already question and form our own opinions, so it is true that they may be pushed or nudged in a particular direction, but ultimately, it is their choice. -hyperlink-To varying degrees, all of these views are damaging and constitute abuse when children are indoctrinated into themIf I may say, I do disagree, though I do appreciate this precise outlook on the matter. You could say that believing in
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

It is fortunate then. I do acknowledge the fact that you did not contradict my observation when I said They can be deeply religious and no less a part of the faith as anyone despite the fact that the actions they engage in are treated as if they are inexplicable... but if you ask most religious children or people who were indeed religious from a very early age, you will find that the majority did not have these supposedly 'legitimate' views of a particular faith sprung upon them or in your words 'indoctrinated' in them. (If I may bring some scientific observations into this argument) during puberty/ maturation, the child has already a 'mind of their own', we already question and form our own opinions, so it is true that they may be pushed or nudged in a particular direction, but ultimately, it is their choice. - see hyperlink-To varying degrees, all of these views are damaging and constitute abuse when children are indoctrinated into themIf I may say, I do disagree, though I do appreciate your precise outlook on the matter. Especially: Human identity is diverse and multifaceted, and to force it into (arbitrary) boundaries is a consequence not of function but of social power dynamics dysfunction. Yet, I still dispute the 'indoctrination' part, most of what we know e.g. the most fundamental principles of right and wrong can be attributed to our upbringing and therefore, our parents, but much abuse can come from within that person's base personality/ traits. Each person is unique in the way that they have their own way of thinking and reacting to stimuli and (this also depends on their EQ.) Not that parents cannot abuse/ don't abuse children, but psychologically, a child is influenced by their exposure to other people and experiences. In Japan, most groups are structured hierarchically. Individual members have a designated rank within the group and responsibilities based on their position. Seniority has traditionally been the main qualification for higher rank, and socialization of young people in Japan emphasizes respect and deference to one’s seniors. This is 'indoctrinated' in Japan's young people from a very early age. Now, you can call this 'culture' and at the same time, this could even constitutes abuse, but is this actually just a different way of living by western standards/ practices? The definition of abuse = using (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse/ treat someone/ thing with cruelty. Is this abuse, when the parents are trying to teach the children the best they know how? If they believe this is what is best for their development?
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

but if you ask most religious children or people [...] - see hyperlink-Not only is your citation outdated itself, its own citations are woefully obsolete (some are more than half a century old). More importantly, none of the research in the development section indicates an element of deliberate, willful choice. Quite the opposite actually; the stages of development into a religious young adult parallel those of indoctrination. To trust self-reporting on the subject would be like taking the word of someone suffering from Stockholm Syndrome that their captor never did anything wrong. [...] most of what we know e.g. the most fundamental principles of right and wrong can be attributed to our upbringing and therefore, our parents, but much abuse can come from within that person's base personality/ traits. Each person is unique in the way that they have their own way of thinking and reacting to stimuli and (this also depends on their EQ.) Not that parents cannot abuse/ don't abuse children, but psychologically, a child is influenced by their exposure to other people and experiences.I have never disputed the influence of other factors; indeed, I would contend that the infrastructure of organized religion is a strong influence on religious development. Notably, parents are introducing and repeatedly subjecting their children to that influence. More importantly, however, the existence (and even extent) of other influences in no way negates the reality of the influence parents bear upon their children. In Japan[...] The definition of abuse = using (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse/ treat someone/ thing with cruelty. Is this abuse, when the parents are trying to teach the children the best they know how? If they believe this is what is best for their development?The distinction I would make between the Japanese seniority system and religiosity would be along lines of consequence; if the seniority system is more detrimental than harmful then I would contend it is also abusive.You do raise a potentially interesting distinction between willful and incidental abuse, but I think both fall well within common legal understanding of the term abuse: "Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation." (source) Notably, in your own definition you speak to either bad effect or bad purpose... indicating your own implicit understanding that consequence is of concern at least as much as purpose. Basically, intent is not necessary for abuse to occur, though knowledgeable abuse would generally be construed as more egregious by most people. P.S. I recognize that this is a quite belated response. Feel free to disregard it if you like; it will not be construed as concession in any way.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

At least you realize your fallacies
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

At least you realize your fallacies fallacy singular, I confessed to one out of the ten he tried to claim...............................