azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Nope, it's not okay. I completely agree with the sentiment of the posters; but school is not there to try and promote one religion over another, or promote lack of religion over religion, it's there to teach.They don't need posters to promote one thing over another, just a focus on teaching Critical thinking and logical analysis and everything will come out in the wash.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

Teaching is the promotion of one thing over another (well, really of many things over many other things). Why is it okay for things like critical thinking and logic to be preferenced, but not a religious or areligious view? Or, for that matter, why isn't it okay for illogicality and unreasonableness to be preferenced themselves?
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

I usually defend non-believers but I see no valid basis whatsoever to display pro-atheist propaganda in a publicly funded school.By the way though, I notice that was in New Zealand. I don't know what laws or legal precedent or constitutional principles dominate in that country. I'm speaking from my own experience and opinion based on the USA.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

NoBecause school is a neutral playing field. Schools should not postulate one way or the other whether or not a God exists. Teachers should only present the evidence and let the chips fall where they may. I don't believe schools should allow biblical teaching but I also don't think they should openly state that there is no God
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

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

No!!! Children should choose their own religion so if they choose the wrong one it's their fault no adult pressure
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Agreed. Consequences always come with actions. Individuals will soon realize his or her mistakes. Actions aren't without consequences. Christianity is and always will be absolutely justified. But immoral content? Absolutely not! Especially drag queens and perverted twisted ideas of what love really is about.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

a school should be a place were your ideas, NOT innocent values, are challenged, if you can put up pro-atheism posters, pro-theistic posters should also be allowed.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Exactly, tsun. Exactly. Double standards kicks in. Best for public schools to have normal education. No atheism, no biblical content. I believe that religious schools are needed more than ever for kids who want to learn about God and for those who have grown up that way. There is too much sin in this world. On the contrary, there are those who would promote immoral sinful content, therefore biblical content is justified. Religious studies should be taught by real professionals not biased subjective anti God promoters such as feminazis who hold no license nor knowledge of the Bible but subjective opinions. You are correct that it is individual's ideas that are challenged not moral innocent values such as Christian ones. Law school is all about debate and also around absolute objective truths. How a law student is able to find absolute truth is through the objective test. The three steps are to Think, analyze and finally resolving the given case. In law school, you will always find yourself debating on topics that you do not like nor feel comfortable about such as things like "Should we have neutral bathrooms" or "should gender reassignment occur if an individual' doesn't feel like a male or a female". Those are ideas that can be challenged because of morality itself; right vs wrong. Yes there is a fine line in law school and man, I am looking forward to taking a course in that.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

No it is not okay. Is evolutionists promoting hatred of creationism okay? Never. Is upholding morality righteous? Yes because it is objective and absolute.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

No because whenever Christians put up pro Christian posters, it's also complained about. However, Christianity is 100% justified. Atheism has been debunked 1000 times and will be another 1000 times. God is real.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

I will say this, if it is a private religious institute, pro atheism should be banned on sight. All religious schools should be on it's guard about atheists disturbing the peace for those who have faith in God. In public schools, there should be a balance. No pro sinful content means(That means all lgbt content will be banned. Zero exceptions. The moment you bring in lgbt content, there will be Christian content. Kids are better off learning about the bible than sinful content that will twist their minds inappropriately. So best to keep that stuff out if you don't want religious people to get involved. Public schools are meant for education not for propaganda of the left extremist side. Snowflakes can't accept it but they should be expelled as well. "Sciencerules" is amongst those screaming snowflakes who supports such abominations) no pro religious stuff. Just basic courses, math, science, history etc etc. As one of the people here has stated, you should not promote faith in public schools nor say there is no God. A public school should be neutral in that and not involved. But these days, we do see promotion of sinful content such as "transgenderism" and lgbt content that are not appropriate for kids. Ban that and you won't see religious promotion as well. Morality exists whether you like it or not.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

To add, in most universities and not grade schools, elementary nor Jr High nor High schools, there are optional courses that revolve around religion or philosophy. For students who want to understand the Gospel of Christ and religion, religious studies is such a course. You do not have to take it, however it is there for those who are interested. For students in university who are interested in philosophy, of course there is an optional course for them to take that as well. I took both and I will say, a toxic feminazi took over the religious studies one, causing students to learn nothing useful from it. She only taught propaganda and subjective opinion about the Bible and promoted such things like Christophobia, Truthphobia, pro baby murder aka abortion etc etc etc. She was the worst professor of religious studies I have ever encountered. She lost every debate and even promoted Hinduism which is a false religion and very messed up. As for philosophy, there were many debates about right and wrong. University is all about finding the right class and going towards your desired career so both philosophy and religious studies are optional courses. It's no big deal because it isn't required for you to take those. But if pro atheism posters were to be posted to target those who have faith in God, well I would say that's Christophobia aka irrational fear towards Christians. Public schools is for learning not for indoctrination into ideologies nor philosophies that go towards targeting and brainwashing people. Philosophy isn't what you think, subjective ignorant atheists. It is all about peaceful discussions, not violence and protests to force views down peoples' throats. Truth be told, God nor Jesus never forced their views onto anyone. People chose to follow Christ and some chose not to. Actions bring consequences. The wicked will lose. Snowflakes will melt mentally in a figurative way. Atheists have already been debunked. Christians aren't bothering people. Catholics are a nuisance. The pope is a joke. I am Batman. End of discussion.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

The separation of church and state is the best we can do. I'd be much more worried about the biology teacher sneaking in a few creationists or Intelligent design arguments. I also think a weak argument for slippery slope could be made. Satanism and Buddism don't have any all powerful God, and I'm not even sure of Satanism is a religion. You don't want pro-Satan posters in the school?
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Oh really? So you are saying people are allowed to hate God while people cannot love God? Your hypocrisy exposes yourself. I would rather have teachers sneaking in creationist and biblical content than have corrupt drag queens expose nudes in front of minors. You are a criminal in society and your argument is invalidated.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

American atheist here. As long as a school is willing to put up posters of any and all religious points of view- be it Christianity, Atheism, Hinduism, Mormonism, Islam, Satanism, etc, etc, etc, then there's no reason it shouldn't be allowed. And frankly, I would love to see an American public school put up Satanic posters, just for the novelty of it. But, back to the poster at hand. Assuming that the only posters in the school are anti- theist, I would say no, it shouldn't be allowed. This is promoting only one ideology, no different than a school teaching only the political virtues of capitalism or communism. If the objective arguments are all provided in school, and the students are allowed to draw there own conclusions, then there is nothing wrong with that- but they shouldn't be goaded in one direction over any other.Now, this is not an argument against science, or other objective truths that religion may reject, and do not want taught in schools. If a religion has a problem with a poster that has some sort of display of evolution (as is the most common example), they can get bent. Evolution is a fact. A poster that says "god doesn't exist" is most likely also fact, but that is a matter of religion or direct rejection thereof and not science.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

You are a false Christ and you have already been invalidated. Prepare to be judged by the real God of Israel through His Son, Jesus Christ.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

A false Christ I may be, but I assure you, I am one sexy son of a Mary.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

I am a Child of God! I am a spirit Son of God! I am a Child of the Convenant!You are no son of Mary, you liar. The real Jesus is the ONLY SON OF MARY. You are not the real Jesus.THOU SHALT NOT LIE!!Your argument is invalidated because you are no child of God, false Christ. You are a son of perdition.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

Made an error of siding with the "okay side". My bad. Nobody's perfect.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

Oh, you're a special kind of mentally ill, even for the standards of this website. I suggest you speak to a licensed psychologist, but while you're not doing that, I can tell we're gonna have a lot of fun together.Everyone's damned by the standard of someone else's religion, so I remain unworried. But the fact of my objective sexiness stands, regardless of whether you believe my mother's name is actually Mary.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Hypocrite, speak for yourself. You are the mentally ill one claiming to be Jesus. How dare you because 1. Jesus never was an atheist, 2. He debunked all non believers, 3. He forgives all who come unto Him, that includes me, 4. He is the Son of God, 5, He disapproves those who impersonate Him and Heavenly Father aka God Himself. Therefore, the only "special mentally ill" one is you, impostor. Knocks out the false impostor named 'sexyjesus' with seven punches and puts him in Arkham Asylum for life. My sanity is 100% fine compared to your snowflakeism. You've got zero evidence to support your claims. Check yourself before you wreck yourself again, you might want to look in the mirror to just how screwed up you really are deep deep down. You entitle yourself to be special? Ha! Everybody's special in God's eyes. But you? Judging from your hostility and endless nonsense, you are the pinnacle of insanity itself. Making mistakes don't make you mentally ill, but your delusional state unfortunately proves you otherwise. You are what you say others are. Your argument is invalidated.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

I've also claimed to be the devil on this website, with about as much credibility. But I also never claimed to be anyone's path to salvation or torment, and is that not what's important? Or is every Mexican named Jesús going to hell too?
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

You are not Jesus, you are hereby denounced once again and whatever you say is invalidated 100%. Begone demon! You have zero power over my spirit. My testimony in the real Jesus Christ stands unbroken.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Oh, you're adorable. What makes you think I want power over your spirit? You're plenty entertaining as is.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

I am a Child of God! I am a spirit Son of God! I am a Child of the Convenant!You are no son of Mary, you liar. The real Jesus is the ONLY SON OF MARY. You are not the real Jesus.THOU SHALT NOT LIE!!Your argument is invalidated because you are no child of God, false Christ. You are a son of perdition.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

He's absolutely right. You make the lunatics who use this site seem like pillars of sanity.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

I am absolutely correct. You and him are both invalidated and hypocritically, you are delusional as you are. Sucks that you've lost this argument because I just debunked and denounced your deception.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

Abuse: treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly.I used the definition of abuse as a prelude to my argument so that anyone who opposes my argument is, by definition, advocating child abuse.---No, it is not okay to use an abusive vehicle as a means to correct undesirable behavior. #1: Corporal punishment is not necessary. There are multiple techniques for correcting misbehavior, none of which constitute child abuse (physically harming your child). The most effective being positive reinforcement.#2: The effects of corporal punishment, be it apparent or unapparent, are always negative. The parent may find the child's conformity to be positive, but the physical and psychological consequences of such abusive actions, most would argue, are negative.#3: If you know of no other way to correct your child's misbehavior than intentionally harming him or her, then you are not fit to be a parent. It should be monumentally counter-instinctual to find solace in hearing your child scream in pain and agony and to not wish to help; and what makes the situation even more wicked is that you are the negative stimuli causing their pain and agony--with intent...
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

Your arguments when you aren't attacking people are superb. It is so weird.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

But I am attacking people? I'm attacking those in favor of corporal punishment by asserting that they are irrational, incompetent child abusers whose nurturing instincts appear to be arrested when administering such violent and abusive discipline vehicles when there are more effective, nonviolent alternatives...
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

But I am attacking people?No, you are putting up an argument against a practice and not actually attacking people. I'm attacking those in favor of corporal punishment by asserting that they are irrational, incompetent child abusers whose nurturing instincts appear to be arrested when administering such violent and abusive discipline vehicles You barely did any of that. You made no such assertions. That's what made your argument so good. The one part where you clearly didn't take the point of view of the spanker while trying to pretend you were was the only bad part of your argument.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

No, you are putting up an argument against a practice and not actually attacking people.Now you are telling me the intent behind my arguments? You barely did any of that. You made no such assertions. That's what made your argument so good. The one part where you clearly didn't take the point of view of the spanker[sic] while trying to pretend you were was the only bad part of your argument.Premise #3 is the where the attack becomes clear, and most of what you claim I did not say is manifested in that premise. If you truly lack the comprehension skills I will point out each sentence that implied each claim you dispute, respectively.As per your claim that I was not charitable to the opposition by not considering their perspective: When one is spanking their child their aim is to hurt them (or inflict pain), correct? And when one is administering such discipline it usually follows is a vocalization, or manifestation of the child's pain, right? Though, the parental instinct elicited when you hear you child in pain is, or should be, to alleviate that pain, right? So in the event that the parent is directly causing that pain which is manifested by the child's screams, it would stand to reason that such an action can be counter-instinctual (as it is the parents goal to prevent their child from being harmed, and console & aid them in the event that they are harmed). The only way that you can coagulate your argument is if you claim that parents become deaf and blind when they are spanking their children, and that they do not know that they are hurting their children, which would be manifestly false.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

Now you are telling me the intent behind my arguments?No, you tried to claim your intent was actually said. I was discussing what you actually wrote, not anything about your intent. You talked about corporal punishment, and negative stimuli.Premise #3 is the where the attack becomes clear, and most of what you claim I did not say is manifested in that premise.It isn't there. If you truly lack the comprehension skills I will point out each sentence that implied each claim you dispute, respectively.I said you didn't say it, not that you didn't imply it.When one is spanking their child their aim is to hurt them (or inflict pain), correct?No, their aim is to prevent the bad behavior.And when one is administering such discipline it usually follows is a vocalization, or manifestation of the child's pain, right?Not necessarily.The only way that you can coagulate your argument is if you claim that parents become deaf and blind when they are spanking their childrenThe phrase "this hurts me more than it hurts you" comes to mind. The parent knows it has to be done.and that they do not know that they are hurting their children, which would be manifestly false.Many of them don't think they are hurting the child in the long run.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

It isn't there.So the problem is lack of comprehension skills, got it.No, their aim is to prevent the bad behavior.By doing what? Physically harming their child, right? Not necessarily.Okay, so children do not express signs of pain when being spanked? Moreover, I would argue that even if a child congenital analgesia, an extremely rare condition in which a child can feel no pain, the parents disciplinary tactics would not be to 'spank' their child since it has no effect. Yet, I did not need to to explain this.The phrase "this hurts me more than it hurts you" comes to mind. The parent knows it has to be done.Is a parent screaming and crying when they are spanking their child? And to base your argument on an unfounded, irrational claim does not solidify your position.Many of them don't think they are hurting the child in the long run.I'm not arguing about long-term effects; in the moment that they are spanking their child they know that they are hurting them. Moreover, their intent is to hurt them.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

I apologize for giving you a compliment. There, you win.By doing what? Physically harming their child, right?Many don't want to harm the child.Okay, so children do not express signs of pain when being spanked?Yeah, sometimes.Moreover, I would argue that even if a child congenital analgesia, an extremely rare condition in which a child can feel no pain, the parents disciplinary tactics would not be to 'spank' their child since it has no effect. Yet, I did not need to to explain this.They can still be trained to believe that the next spanking will hurt much worse.Is a parent screaming and crying when they are spanking their child?Internally, yes.And to base your argument on an unfounded, irrational claim does not solidify your position.You don't understand my position.I'm not arguing about long-term effects; in the moment that they are spanking their child they know that they are hurting them. Moreover, their intent is to hurt them.The intent is to teach a lesson. They don't believe they are hurting the child.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

If you're only way to teach your child what to do is by threatening them, you may want to reevaluate your parenting strategy.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

#1: If you find that the only way to effectively teach/discipline your child is to physically abuse him or her, you should reevaluate your competency as a parent. One must also note that studies have shown that Positive Reinforcement is the most effective method to get your child to behave 'desirably'. For example, instead of beating your child senseless for taking a cookie out of the cookie box, after you told him or her to not do so, you should reward your child with an extra cookie(s) when they do not do so.#2: Why is your position presupposing that the only disincentives for child misbehavior is either corporal punishment, or ineffective threats? #3: Lastly, why did you post on the "No" side implying that you disfavor abusive punishment (when clearly you are advocating child abuse)?
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

#1: I'm not quite sure what you're responding to, as I I agree with most of what you wrote here. Did you assume that by "threat" I meant "empty threat?" Because that was not my intent. I fully agree that positive reinforcement is much better. I do not support spanking. #2: Why is your position presupposing that the only disincentives for child misbehavior is either corporal punishment, or ineffective threats?How does my position suggest this?Edit: Also, I never said anything to suggest the effectiveness of the threat. Whether or not spanking is effective is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is "ok." Lastly, why did you post on the "No" side implying that you disfavor abusive punishment (when clearly you are advocating child abuse)?How does my position advocate child abuse?