azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Fatherless

I would rather be “fatherless” then having a “lousy father”, because a “father” is supposed to be the man of the house and set a good example so the rest of the family can look up to him. So if I look up at a lousy father I might then be a lousy person, but if I had no father then I’ll set the standards for my own self and step up and be the man of the house especially if I had younger brothers or sisters.
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Lousy Father

Children have two role models; mom and dad. Parents affect their child's behavior and personality so if that relationship is damaged then the child's character can be damaged as well. I would prefer to be fatherless because the damage of a lousy father would scar my personality far greater than being fatherless.
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Fatherless

People can say whatever they want, and throw out their opinions, but they will not truly know until they have been through the experience. I believe it is better to be fatherless than to have a lousy father. When you have a lousy father than you are hurt by him. You can not be hurt by something that is not there. You may wish you had a father, but you will be hurt more if you have one that is lousy and hurtful and doesn't care. It will make your life a lot harder. And, usually if you don't have a father than a man in your life will step and up and sort of play the fatherly figure.
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Fatherless

It is a lot better to be fatherless than have a lousy father. If you don't have a father he can't hurt you. Because to have a father who knows where you live and knows your phone number but never calls or comes by has to hurt. For example, my daughter's dad loves her but he acts like he doesn't have the time of day for her. He blows her off as if she is not there. Although you have to ask yourself questions like If he really cared wouldn't he pay attention to her. Wouldn't he acknowledge that she was there every time he saw her.
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Lousy Father

I think that the biggest hurt you can have is from someone not being there at all....
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Fatherless

Having a dad who doesn't give you the time of day is pretty much not being there at all.
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Lousy Father

I agree with that. You wouldn't want to have that eating you up inside with someone not there to support you.
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Fatherless

In my opinion, I believe it is better to be fatherless then to have a lousy father. I wouldnt know how it feel to have a lousy father but I have friends that there fathers are always drunk and never do anything to help them. They sometimes tell me they wish there dad wasn't around. Now if my dad was like that I would think the same because at least by not having a father you wouldnt know how it feels to be dissapointed by a father.
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Lousy Father

Or, you would always be dissappointed because you don't know what to think about him since you dont know him....
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Fatherless

I think if i had a dad that did nothing for me i wouldnt want him around because odds are you and him arent going to be talking 5 years down the line anyway, so why try and make it work out if you already know what the outcome is.
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Fatherless

I rather be fatherless to be honest with you. You might as well say im fatherless even though I have a father but he wasn't there. Having a lousy father is kind of like you being fatherless. Like really what are they there for if he not doing anything to benefit you but just being mean and hurtful toward you. Being fatherless is better because you wouldn't have some man there treating you wrong and being hurtful to you. Its a shame knowing that you have 4 kids out there but you can never pick up the phone and call to see how your kids doing. Thinking about it really makes me mad because my birthday just passed and he couldn't even call to tell me Happy Birthday. Why have kids if you not going to be there for them. Even though my father isn't there for me I still love him but I rather be fatherless....
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Fatherless

I believe that both are bad but I would rather go fatherless. What is the point of having someone in your life that is lousy? A father should set a good example for their children. If the dad is lousy then he is teaching his kids that it is okay to be that way and not do anything with their life. If I got married and my husband was a lousy father, I would tell him he better step up and be the dad I know he can be or get out the house a never come back.
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Fatherless

Although being fatherless is probably one of the biggest hardships, undesired by all. I would rather be fatherless, than to have to deal with someone who on a daily basis would frustrate me. At least when you have no knowledge of a father, you only ponder on it from time to time. On the other hand, a lousy father would be with you in your thoughts forever.
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Lousy Father

i would have to disagree with your statement. frustrating or not your dad will die someday leaving you fatherless anyways so why not be frustrated for the rest of his llife and go through your life they way god planed it, frusterteddadonitism.
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Lousy Father

I have a great father and he frustrates me everyday, no matter what your parents are going to frustrate you.
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Fatherless

I rather be fatherless then have a lousy father. In both cases you really don’t have a father but as a fatherless kid its better because you don’t get judged for your dad’s decisions or actions. Plus you don’t get to look at the disgrace of a so called father every single day of your life till you can’t look at him any longer. Either way you look at it you’re fatherless no matter what.
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Fatherless

It's better to be fatherless. Having a lousy father creates a bigger gap in your life than being fatherless. It is a proven fact that if you're a girl, you'll look for someone to be your other half that's similar to your father. Having a lousy father, for a girl, would mean having a lousy boyfriend as well. By having no father you don't have to worry about how terrible they are and all you have to do is ponder how amazing your dad could have been. Wondering what could have been is better than wondering how much better it could be.
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Fatherless

It can be either way, but I think being fatherless is better than having a lousy father because sometimes they get on your nerve and they make you do things you don't wanna do. But hey that's the way fathers' are. You still have other peoples to look up to even though your dad is not around.I'm used to being alone with my mom without my dad there because he passed away when I was six. So, I really don't have a favorite side.
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Fatherless

I think it is better to be fatherless rather than having a lousy father.Yes, having a father would be great, but one that would care for you, that would demonstrate with actions what he feels for you, and how much he feels that. It is better to be around people who you know love you, than to live your life knowing that there is a dad wondering around without caring of how you're doing. It would hurt much more knowing that your dad is somewhere around this planet, than knowing that u dont have a father period. A father is that one man that cares for you, from day one, until he or you is no longer there
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Fatherless

I thinks its better if you be a fatherless than a lousy father because your lousy father would give you bad influence. Maybe you might follow your father as he is. But if your a fatherless is gonna be ok but not good either because you might not like being a fatherless. As long as you a lousy father or fatherless so they can encourage you to success in life and also help you correct your msitake that you had made.
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Fatherless

Many people struggle with being fatherless. It is a challenge but it allows them to be tough and dependant on themselves. Being fatherless is hard but when it comes down to it, it is better to be fatherless than to have a lousy father. If you had a lousy father, they teach you the wrong things and don't allow you to expand.
Debate: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless?
Side: Fatherless

I don't really care about having a lousy father or to be fatherless. I only have one father, thats my grandpa but he past away when i was twelve years old. I don't really care about my bilogical father because growing up for ten years & two months without him put me through hell. But he calls once in while but i don't give a fk, i don't care if he dies, that's how life is for me. If he was to visit me i wouldn't care. My family lived in the streets, my moms second older sister helped us because my moms father kicked my mom out. When my grandpa was alive hes the only one that took care of me my mom use to go out, & my real dad left me and sister because my mom & him always fight. Then being raised for five years with your moms boyfriend always wanted me to fight him for no reason. Then my aunty took care of me & sister when we was young. I hate my real FN dad every time he calls i always tell him why you call. What i do in the past im doin the same shit like right now.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

Hello M:Of course it's ok... Schools are there to TEACH, not PROPAGANDIZE..excon
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Hello again:I'm an atheist.. I believe in NOTHING.. I've said repeatedly on these pages, that you can't promote NOTHING.. If you're TRYING to promote something, it ISN'T atheism..Upon further reflection, I thought these posters were pro science, rather than pro atheism.. But they certainly might be trying to convert people.. And proselytizing ISN'T something a REAL atheist does.. So, I changed my mind. Public schools should not teach science by promoting atheism. excon
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

If it's worth anything, I appreciate you taking the time to further reflect on this. If it had been a poster about science or about evolution, it wouldn't matter to me but the saying in that poster isn't meant to further science; it's a mocking commentary with no educational value. Personally I like his "By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out." quote.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

i'm an atheist.. I believe in NOTHING.. I've said repeatedly on these pages, that you can't promote NOTHINGBut you do promote something. You promote that anyone who believes in God is crazy and believes in a "skydaddy".Secondly you can promote not helping someone, which is promoting nothing. The promotion still has a consequence.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Yeah. That made sense... *
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

If it is the school itself putting up the posters, then it is acceptable only if it also puts up pro-theism posters. If it is teachers or students putting up the pro-atheism posters, it is acceptable only if teachers and students are also allowed to put of pro-theism posters. I don't believe that avoiding the expression of positions is desirable, or even possible, in an educational institution. Avoiding exposing students to controversial ideas doesn't equip them to navigate controversial ideas. It leaves them unexposed to different ideas, and inexperienced in navigating disagreement. So long as there is equal opportunity for expression, I don't see an issue.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

An interesting idea, but then you would have to represent each religion and denomination equally. Since there are about 4,200 religions and 45,000 denominations of Christianity. Estimating that each religion has the same number of denominations that's approximately 189,000 combinations.I don't want to see a science room with all the 189,000 combinations of religion and denomination. There would be no room for anything else including the periodic table. Furthermore, which religion gets placed where? The competition for the prime spaces in the front center part of the room. Do we place the Fundamental latter day saints? The Satan worshiping poster? Or a picture of Thor? In conclusion, your proposition of equal opportunity is impossible.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Schools should not be used as market places to promote any form of ideology or dogma, beliefs or disbeliefs.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

I don't agree with it as we had enough of this from the religious and now some atheists use a tactic they condem the religious for using .You're absolutely correct to ban anyone that says Atheism is a religion an argument that a lot of the more idiotic type of believer insist is valid
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

My sentiments, exactly. NO religious posters, NO Atheistic posters, at least in public schools (and public places). Believe what you wish but keep it from being propagandized! If I still wanted to believe in Zeus or Neptune, etc. I should have that right. Putting that belief out in public would make me look a little crazy, wouldn't it?? (O.K. Outhouse60, I gave you an opening no 7th grader would pass up ... waiting for your 7th grade response). ;-) We shouldn't have to be showered with anyone's crazy beliefs, if everyone kept them to themselves, we might finally achieve world peace ..., nice!
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Don't worry Outhouse won't disappoint 😊Why do people have to keep publicising their beliefs ? Over here no one ever really talks about their religious beliefs and it's seen as rude to do so , that's from a country that's steeped in the Catholic tradition You're correct if people just kept to themselves that would have the desired result
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

Biographical InformationName: Joseph BrownGender: MaleMarital Status: MarriedPolitical Party: IndependentCountry: ItalyReligion: AtheistEducation: MastersWhy are you publicising (as you spelled it) your beliefs ? Religion:Atheist
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

You've lost me buddy , I never filled the religion part of my bio in
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

Your bio is a lie just as Joe Brown is now who would have figured that.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

Whatever makes you happy buddy ; so tell me why when you thought you were right did you try and use my bio against me ?
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

Why should you have that right to belief? Why shouldn't you have to be showered with others' beliefs? Is it strictly predicated upon the social outcome you predict? I'm just curious.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

"At my public high-school in New Zealand the science department has some posters up which support atheism."Crazy AL the poster is talking about New Zealand public high school did you pay attention to the subline of the heading ? Or is it you just wanted to rant as you normally do ?
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

Thank you, I agree completely. If one wants to suggest they are better for their belief (or non belief) then they should act better and not fall back on the same actions they mock others for doing. That's for both/all sides. If you hate how one side presents itself, don't go about doing the SAME thing to prove your own point. Ya know?
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

Did we have enough of it from the religious because it was indoctrination or because it was indoctrination disagreeable with our own values and beliefs? It seems to me that "indoctrination" is just the word that gets used to refer to instruction one disagrees with whereas "education" is used to refer to sort of instruction one agrees with. I'm dubious that it's even possible to not indoctrinate so long as we're committed to instruction in some form. It's just down to a matter of opinion what is agreeable and what isn't.Further, if condemning others for using indoctrination is useful to advancing one's values and using indoctrination is also useful for the same end... then why shouldn't one do both? I don't see that consistency necessarily has any value in its own right.Very much as an aside... Atheism isn't a religion by most definitions of the word, but it can be a belief system if it goes beyond the singular claim that god does not exist. And just as with theism, there are various ways to be an atheist. If it's Dawkinsian or Harrisian atheism, then the only remarkable difference is that the truth valence for the proposition god is reversed. While that's not religion per say it's nevertheless fairly indistinguishable (and a significant part of why some theists claim atheism is a religion).
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

We had enough of it because we were never given any choice in the matter ; education could hardly be called 'indoctrination ' as one is learning mostly factual agreed upon information as in Geography, language , Math etc,etc, non of theses subjects are down to a matter of opinion.I first started hearing Atheism is a religion from American believers and it was always used in a sneering way as if to imply ' well you're down on religion but you guys are a religion also 'For me like most Atheists, Atheism is a position on one question and that's it , nothing else .
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

Learning geography, language, maths, etc. wouldn't be a choice any more than learning religion. The absence of choice seems significant only when not having a choice is concurrent with things being decided in a way one doesn't like. Which returns us to "indoctrination" being ascribed to instruction on the basis that one finds it disagreeable. That geography, maths, etc. are mostly agreed upon explains why their inclusion in curriculum doesn't tend to be controversial. But it doesn't prove that their inclusion is fundamentally different from what's being regarded as indoctrination, and it doesn't prove that they're correct either. Their soundness is absolutely a matter of opinion, as none of them are actually proved at any point.Most atheists might just take the singular position, but that doesn't undermine my observation. There are people to whom atheism is a belief system, particularly in the US where Dawkins, Harris, and similar ideologues gained traction. To the American theist, then, the condescending observation of similarity is actually somewhat founded since that usually the atheism they're referring to. It's no more sound for the atheist to say "well, they're not really atheists" than it would be for a theist to say that about other theists.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

Jace I've attempted to explain several times what indoctrination is regards religion you obviously have never been religiously indoctrinated, I'm not going on with this any longer . Most atheists do take the singular position if others wish to turn it into a belief system , fine , I'm happy enough the way I am
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

No, I haven't been religiously indoctrinated (at least not to notable or direct extent). But I have been indoctrinated, nevertheless. I don't know why you don't want to acknowledge anything else as indoctrination, but your experience alone isn't logically sufficient to support your exclusionary view on indoctrination (because I could appeal equally to my own). You're obviously not obliged to continue the discussion, but those were final clarifying thoughts I wanted to add.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

I don't acknowledge what I do not believe is correct , the universally accepted meaning of the word now suddenly becomes my' exclusionary view ' according to you which I find unfair commentary to say the least .
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

The commonly accepted meaning of 'indoctrination' does not "suddenly" become your exclusionary view. Firstly, because there is nothing sudden to a line of argumentation. Secondly, because that isn't even my argument. My position remains that the commonly accepted meaning of the word is neither relevant in context nor actually the same as your view anyways. Further, as your view excludes a class of beliefs from prospective inclusion under the concept of indoctrination it is necessarily an exclusionary view by definition; that's a matter of fact, not of judgement. If you should care to identify what in particular about my analysis is unfair and explain why it is unfair, then I would gladly receive that argument. However, misrepresenting my argument and asserting that it's not fair is not a repudiation.
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

I said .......I don't acknowledge what I do not believe is correct , the universally accepted meaning of the word now suddenly becomes my' exclusionary view ' according to you which I find unfair commentary to say the least .......How did I misrepresent your argument ? I claim it's unfair for the reasons I keep stating
Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's not okay

I have already explained at length how that statement misrepresents my argument. If you care to actually address any portion of that analysis and explain where I am incorrect then I would be glad to observe that argument. As it stands, though, you've merely evaded the matter through bullheaded denial. What reasons are those, precisely? To the extent that your preceding commentary ever constitutes argumentation, it doesn't touch on fairness in the least. Asserting that earlier rationales which never even alluded to fairness somehow establish unfairness is evasive. Can you actually point to any particular statement of mine which was unfair? If such statements do exist, then identifying them really shouldn't be as difficult as you're making it.