azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

I don't think any publicly funded school should be allowed to enforce any type of worldview.Then what is it supposed to teach, exactly?
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Then what is it supposed to teach, exactly?What is supposed to be.Something that'll help humanity irrespective of an individual's personal opinions, something that actually can give them jobs to earn money, something that you and me have learnt till date, only that it probably might be better in the future.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

Why is that what's supposed to be?
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Why is that what's supposed to be?Because practically, it isn't doing harm, at least not as much as the contrary would.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

So? Why does that mean it's supposed to be?
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Because it's better . As it isn't as harmful as the other possible conditions could've been.And the better side is what we choose to pick, which obviously is practical to do.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

This presumes that preventing harm and optimizing benefit for the social collective is the better thing, but that's not necessarily the case. Why shouldn't individuals come first? Why is there any value in the well-being of the social collective? Perhaps more importantly, how is the idea of a "greater good" coherent in the first place if we can't agree on what constitutes it? The very thing in contest around indoctrination is what is of value and worthy of being taught, so to suppose there's enough agreement on what's good for the collective isn't sound.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

"Something like question everything" - That's philosophy. You can take that optional course in university. There is also religious studies which is optional in universities as well. It's not forced upon. I also agree, you can definitely be a Christian, republican, atheist in peace. I will tell you who are not acting peacefully though, those lgbt snowflakes. They need to be banned pronto. They are an issue to adults and to youth alike.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

In my opinion, schools should be neutral on this, it is not their right to tell others to pick on religion or atheism, however I wouldn't mind debates, as that'll get the kids thinking, when we talk about schools, we are talking about people getting education and knowledge, what they(students) want to believe in should be none of their business. People from different religious beliefs come to study and we expect a school to be just as secular as egalitarian.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

Why isn't it the school's right? Why is the expectation that schools be egalitarian reasonable?
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Why is the expectation that schools be egalitarian reasonable?Egalitarian:believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.I think that should make it clear, it is reasonable.Why isn't it the school's right?A school is where people get education, on particular subjects, if religion was a subject, I have no problems with atheism and and religion posters being put up everywhere in the school.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

Defining egalitarianism doesn't prove that it's reasonable, anymore than defining hierarchy proves it's reasonable. You've only established what egalitarianism is, but I'm asking if you can warrant your belief that it's reasonable. So, can you?Similarly, defining a school as somewhere that people learn things isn't an explanation for why schools cannot teach certain things. So, again, why can't schools teach that either theism or atheism is wrong?
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Defining egalitarianism doesn't prove that it's reasonable, anymore than defining hierarchy proves it's reasonable. You've only established what egalitarianism is, but I'm asking if you can warrant your belief that it's reasonable. So, can you?I wouldn't have to, if you would have made sense of the definition. If not for egalitarianism, certain kids will not be given opportunities , with some being given opportunities. That means all kids won't get the same kind and quality of education, which in turn leads to untapped potential, which might end up being harmful for the nation, do I need to go on?Similarly, defining a school as somewhere that people learn things isn't an explanation for why schools cannot teach certain things. So, again, why can't schools teach that either theism or atheism is wrong? Little bit of logical reflection would be appreciated, I don't have any problems with math, or science or sports being taught in school, they don't cause any damage to people's personal opinions, and clearly, we are talking about kids here, who haven't reached their complete mental maturity to reflect upon what is supposed to be deep andsubjective. It's their choice after all, and talking about schools, you are referring to a place with a specific purpose, to learn. Keep religion and atheism as another subject, and It will come under what a school should cover. Schools trying to impose their ideology on a kid, seems crazy to me, so according to what you've said, why should terrorism not be taught in schools?
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

Nothing in the definition establishes reasonableness; that's not actually what definitions do. Now you've shown what the absence of egalitarianism might look like, and even ignoring the obvious deployment of an alarmist slippery slope you're still making a number of assumptions that aren't proved. Firstly, that not harming nations is reasonable. Secondly, that an absence of egalitarianism is requisite for healthy nations (and this is resoundingly contradicted by thousands of years of governments not only existing alongside inequality but thriving off of it). Finally, the soundness of every causal connection you claim exists.That math, science, and sports don't harm anyone is entirely your opinion and not a matter of objective fact. It constitutes an inegalitarian preferencing of your own ideas about what constitutes a harm or benefit, at the expense of any and all competing conceptions of the good. You're contradicting your own value here!To say simultaneously that it's their choice and that they're too immature to make choices isn't even the least bit coherent. Either they can make their own choices and this isn't an issue, or they can't so we have to choose something to teach them at which point we're necessarily preferencing some conception of value over others. Why is the purpose of schools to learn, as opposed to indoctrinate? Just because you feel that's what they should do that doesn't mean they must be about that.There isn't any objective reason that terrorism shouldn't be taught in schools. In some schools, arguably, it is. The only thing that keeps it from being taught is anti-egalitarianism which treats terrorism unequally be preventing it from being taught. That's really quite obvious I should think. If you're being a consistent little egalitarian, then you should insist that terrorism be given equal opportunity in schools!
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

You make a very good point here ......There isn't any objective reason that terrorism shouldn't be taught in schools. In some schools, arguably, it is..........It certainly is taught in some schools and it comes under the guise of freedom fighting when it's taught , the subject came up daily and was normally part of our ' History class ' . I went to a strictly Catholic school in the Republic of Ireland and we were left in no doubt as to what our duty was as so called ' Irishmen '
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

I don't have much to add in response, except that I appreciate the added perspective. I hadn't actually thought of it in that particular context, and didn't realize that that point of view was actively taught in that way (makes sense, though). Thanks for sharing.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

You're welcome Jace ............................................
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Nothing in the definition establishes reasonableness; that's not actually what definitions do. Now you've shown what the absence of egalitarianism might look like, and even ignoring the obvious deployment of an alarmist slippery slope you're still making a number of assumptions that aren't provedIt certainly does, if you actually make sense of what the definition conveys and not just read it the way it is. Assumptions that haven't been proved?those are what could possibly happen, because neither you nor me, know what is to come in the future.That math, science, and sports don't harm anyone is entirely your opinion and not a matter of objective fact. Well done, you choose to stick to calling it subjective rather than sticking to practicality, so in that sense everything is subjective and you have just proved that there cannot be any objective effect, something common for everyone... good luck with the subjective lounge, does it have a buffet?To say simultaneously that it's their choice and that they're too immature to make choices isn't even the least bit coherent. Either they can make their own choices and this isn't an issue, or they can't so we have to choose something to teach them at which point we're necessarily preferencing some conception of value over others.Kids change opinions over candies. Let's just say you're not the biggest fan of practicality.Why is the purpose of schools to learn, as opposed to indoctrinate? Just because you feel that's what they should do that doesn't mean they must be about that.Wow, so according to you schools are meant to indoctrinate, is it?They are for educating children, not indoctrinating them.The word school refers to a place where people get educated. Oh wait, it must be different for everyone isn't it? since because you believe everything is subjective..There isn't any objective reason that terrorism shouldn't be taught in schools. In some schools, arguably, it is. The only thing that keeps it from being taught is anti-egalitarianism which treats terrorism unequally be preventing it from being taught. That's really quite obvious I should think. If you're being a consistent little egalitarian, then you should insist that terrorism be given equal opportunity in schools!this is exactly why I choose to quote definitionsegalitarianism: the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.egalitarianism is based to giving opportunities and equal rights to peopleit does not refer to ideologies.you might say that by not providing opportunities, we restrict people from becoming terrorists, the opportunities are just the same, it's just that whether people are accessible to it, if you look for an electronic gadget in a store that sells clothes, you are definitely not going to find it, however, I would have to clear myself on what I mean by egalitarianism... , I refer to it in the more practical sense, rather than anything completely by the name of it, provided the debate title is raising an issue within practicality.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

It certainly does [...] know what is to come in the future.If you are doing anything other than reading the definition as it is, then you have stepped outside the definition itself and are bringing external ideas to it that the definition itself doesn't support. I told you which assumptions these are; they were the series of three identified with 'firstly', 'secondly', and 'finally' (you've addressed one). That something is possible does not mean it is certain, which is why the onus is on you to warrant your claims that those things happening is actually probable. Well done, you choose to stick to calling it subjective rather than sticking to practicality, so in that sense everything is subjective and you have just proved that there cannot be any objective effect, something common for everyone... good luck with the subjective lounge, does it have a buffet?Your opinion about what is practical is a subjective belief, based upon what is subjectively practical to you. Any opinion about anything is subjective, but it isn't logically entailed from there that everything is therefore subjective. Incidentally, subjectivity doesn't scare me; why do you think it's a problem?Kids change opinions over candies. Let's just say you're not the biggest fan of practicality.To the contrary, I place great personal value on practicality and nothing I've said actually suggests otherwise. Not that speculation about my preferences is a responsive argument to my point here. If you believe that kids change opinions over candles, then they don't get fixed ideas so indoctrination shouldn't even be possible on your own account and this is all a non-issue.Wow, so according to you schools are meant to indoctrinate, is it? [...] you believe everything is subjective.No. I don't believe they are meant for anything in particular. Their function has varied across time and place considerably. I'm asking you why you think they are meant to educate and not indoctrinate (presuming that's a real distinction, of course). egalitarianism is based to giving opportunities and equal rights to people it does not refer to ideologies.It does if freedom to expression is considered a right. If you don't believe that people should have equal access to expression in public institutions they have to help fund, then there's no basis for you to be opposed to indoctrination since by your own reasoning now that's not in-egalitarian.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

If you are doing anything other than reading the definition as it is, then you have stepped outside the definition itself and are bringing external ideas to it that the definition itself doesn't support.Understanding and applying the definition to the context of debate?Your opinion about what is practical is a subjective belief, based upon what is subjectively practical to you. Any opinion about anything is subjective, but it isn't logically entailed from there that everything is therefore subjective. Incidentally, subjectivity doesn't scare me; why do you think it's a problem?Science would be subjective then, wouldn't it?But we have an aim through which we use the subjectivity, that is to use it for certain purpose, for understanding and making sense of something, this case makes subjectivity not so subjective to a considerable degree, which is in turn called practicality.To the contrary, I place great personal value on practicality and nothing I've said actually suggests otherwise. Not that speculation about my preferences is a responsive argument to my point here. If you believe that kids change opinions over candles, then they don't get fixed ideas so indoctrination shouldn't even be possible on your own account and this is all a non-issue.Well said,Of course they change opinions over candies, that's what proves to us that they aren't mature enough to pick sides, (which has it own consequences if indoctrinated), as kids have their own way of responding to issues, and when we know that they don't get indoctrinated, why try in the first place? which again leads me to believe that a school that is secular is better, as they don't waste resources and time on any particular thing(theism and anti-theism, in this case).No. I don't believe they are meant for anything in particular. Their function has varied across time and place considerably. I'm asking you why you think they are meant to educate and not indoctrinate (presuming that's a real distinction, of course).The most common purpose and reason to schooling is education, be it in today's world or in the past, that was one thing common in all the other things schools have done. Indoctrination was not the case throughout, and as I have mentioned earlier, the word school as we use it refers to place that is meant to educate. It does if freedom to expression is considered a right. If you don't believe that people should have equal access to expression in public institutions they have to help fund, then there's no basis for you to be opposed to indoctrination since by your own reasoning now that's not in-egalitarian.Indoctrination, leads to certain groups believing in something and that causes drift between them and other groups..(not necessarily in all cases, but definitely a difference in opinion), and when certain groups want to impose their ideology onto others, egalitarianism is threatened.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

Understanding and applying the definition to the context of debate?But that's not what you're doing. You're adding multiple assumptions to the definition that it doesn't contain, and then claiming that those assumptions are a part of the definition when they plainly aren't since they aren't ever mentioned in it.Science would be subjective then, wouldn't it?The belief in the value and soundness of science would be, yes. Whether science itself is subjective isn't knowable, and that's rather the point here.But we have an aim through which we use the subjectivity, that is to use it for certain purpose, for understanding and making sense of something, this case makes subjectivity not so subjective to a considerable degree, which is in turn called practicality.Pragmatism doesn't make something less subjective at all. You don't transmute the nature of something just by assuming things about it and acting as though those assumptions are sound. And at any rate, "we" don't all have a singular aim so what's practical won't be consistent be between all people. That's why indoctrination exists.[...] Of course they change opinions over candies, that's what proves to us that they aren't mature enough to pick sides, (which has it own consequences if indoctrinated) [...]You haven't followed my point and your analysis here isn't coherent. If they aren't mature enough to pick a position and stick to it, then there can't be any consequences to indoctrination because indoctrination would be impossible. To be indoctrinated requires a capacity for holding a fixed position, which you've claimed kids don't have. The most common purpose and reason to schooling is education, be it in today's world or in the past, that was one thing common in all the other things schools have done. Indoctrination was not the case throughout, and as I have mentioned earlier, the word school as we use it refers to place that is meant to educate.Can you found this through reason or evidence in any way? It's also very vague; what constitutes "education" isn't necessarily consistent across time and place. It's very rare that anyone overtly calls what they're doing indoctrination, and they'll almost always call it education or instruction instead (and may even believe that's what it is).Indoctrination, leads to certain groups believing in something and that causes drift between them and other groups..(not necessarily in all cases, but definitely a difference in opinion), and when certain groups want to impose their ideology onto others, egalitarianism is threatened.This is non-responsive. Whether egalitarianism is threatened by indoctrination is immaterial to whether it is a contradiction to egalitarianism to oppose indoctrination. It's a dilemma for precisely this reason: egalitarianism cannot advocate for itself or oppose indoctrination without invalidating itself, but is weakened by indoctrination that disagrees with its outlook. The only way egalitarianism can serve itself is by invalidating itself, so it cannot serve itself.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

That is a little too much. I'm an atheist and seeing a religious poster in school would tick me off a bit, so for a religious person to see a poster encouraging atheism or promoting it at the least would be very offensive. It's okay to not have the same beliefs and live different lifestyles, but you cross a line when you start disrespecting people's beliefs
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

I agree that the posters shouldn't go up (and I am an atheist too), but I'm not sure it's about disrespect, so much as it is about a public school to be supporting a certain position in these matter. I have no problem with religious posters going up, even ones that make fun of atheism, so long as they're aren't in any way supported by the government. "you cross a line when you start disrespecting people's beliefs"What exactly is wrong with disrespecting people's beliefs, especially if you think you have good reason to do so? With the classic extreme example; I see no problem with disrespecting a Nazi's beliefs. In fact I think it would be wrong to respect a Nazi's beliefs if you are against them.(Note: I'm not trying to outright disagree with you here, just trying to understand what your opinion is, also note this not a question regarding the right to have the belief (I think they should of course have that right), rather, it's about whether people should have the right not to have their beliefs disrespected)
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

No, I believe that schools (Catholic and secular or no) should remain ideologically neutral, and only fulfil their purpose - being a centre of education and learning. You can't do that when you're propagandising an ideology, especially one that slams religion for doing that exact thing.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

If the school is religious, it's not even okay to promote anti God content. If it's public schools, you obviously already have non believers who just want to finish school etc etc. So yeah, agreed, public schools should remain neutral. Lgbt content should be banned because it is sinful and immoral for kids regardless of religion or not. It's just common sense. Public schools are for normal education such as history, sciences, social studies, math etc etc etc not for immoral sexual subjective toxicity nor religious studies unless it's university where it's an option for those who want to understand God and the Gospel of Christ better.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

I would not support allowing putting up pro atheism posters unless the school allows pro religion posters. They should have the same rules as religious posters.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

If the school is private and religious, anti God posters are not allowed. Those are the rules. In public schools, neither side should be allowed because it will just drive everyone off the main goal of finishing their education and achieving a degree or diploma.