azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

This is the internet, you can be as brave as you wish, but when the predicament strikes most people will fend for themselves. It's human nature.In absolutely no circumstance should a perfect Christian put a member of his family before pleasing God. Irrespective of whether atheists sometimes put themselves before their family, a Christian should never put their family before their faith. This is the evil that Christianity creates. Thankfully there are Christians that aren't very good Christian that would put their family before their faith but they are not as good a Christian as they should be.Their morality is their own, the same as your own. Your views on what's right and what's wrong are subjective. Same for Christians.I'll try and explain how they are not the same. Child A is raised a Christian. Child B is raised an atheist. Child A is taught that homosexuality is wrong. Child B is left to form his own opinion. Both children met homosexuals throughout their lives. They see that they are good people and that there is nothing about their sexuality that causes harm to other. Child B assimilates all of his experiences and forms a view based on his observations: he wants gay people to be happy and sees no harm in what they do. Child A experiences the same things but his morality develops differently. Irrespective of the fact that he himself wants gay people to be happy and sees no harm in their acts, homosexuality is immoral to him. He campaigns strongly for limits to the rights of homosexuals. His justification? Because the Bible, his church, and his parents told him so. Both children learn from their experiences, that is true. The difference is that child A MUST not follow his own feelings and justifications for gay relations. He MUST follow the Bible. Or else he is not a Christian. By forcing a child to be a Christian you create an self-identity that directly conflicts with the morals they may develop. Interactions with other people? No. You obtain morals by what has been written by past humans. The laws they have set you live by. Christians do the same. Again, doesn't constitute abuse.On the first day of law school they asked us all to raise our hands if we have committed any crimes this week. Most of us should have raised our hands as there are many small things that we do everyday that are probably prohibited. Personal morality and law is not the same. There are many things that are legal but immoral (being generally a prick to people is one example) and there are many things that are illegal but moral to society at large (laws on copyright and certain frauds, for example).An atheists morality is not bound by law.So how does that relate to teaching a child a religion as abuse? You have yet to do so and are getting off topicIt was not off-topic. It was a rebuttal to your original statement that it cant be abuse because the child does not cry. A child does not always cry at abuse.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

Yes they do refuse, scream and ignoring it. That why you deny them desert if they do not do some rituals. Scaring them with infinite suffering in hell if they don't do another ritual .Lying them, telling them that Bible is like a real textbook...This is core thing of all religion, scaring kids to make sure that you will have enough drones in future.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

Show me an instance where someone was teaching their child their religion and the child was screaming in fear and pain. Please link me to some evidence to support yourself. Scaring them you say? How so? Can a religious child not grow uo to be an astronaut? Doctor? Athlete? Lawyer? Police officer? Scientist? What scaring will occur? It's no different from me telling my child that when he dies he will no longer exist and everything will blow into oblivion with nothing left in existence.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

We have atheist astronauts doctors etc... so there is obviously no need to scare children with imaginary la la land full of pain if they reuse to do idiotic rituals over and over again...
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

Okay? So a Christian can pretty much have the jobs that Atheists do. So obviously there is no abuse. The child is not being harmed. The child doesn't run away scream for help when you tell him the story of Jonah and the whale or Daniel and the lions. There is no scaring. You would most likely give your child a Christian coloring book or kids book. Im sure Atheists don't want to scare their children either with other worldly applications such as war, disease, famine, etc.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

Child can develop in something like you, a deluded zealot that does not difference between bronze age mythology a real world issues, being against gay marriage because some stone age moron wrote it down, or being against stem cell research, abortions, evolution, astrophysics etc... it can fuck up kids with nothing to balance that risk.Christianity is useless in its best... so there is no gain in it.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

I see. Well, I haven't given you my personal views and I shall not since they aren't any of your business. So trying to define me is futile.  it can fuck up kids with nothing to balance that risk.What's wrong with having a different opinion? Also I do not agree with these things you posted.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

What's wrong with having a different opinion? Also I do not agree with these things you posted.It is not different opinion it is a dogma with violent past based of bronze age fairytales
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

A dogma based on bronze age fairytales? Ah so like modern America with a horrible past and is based on those bronze age fairytales then? I guess just about any country that has committed a vile act is "wrong".
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

A dogma based on bronze age fairy tales?Yes that is exactly what Christianity is.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

So America is a wrong place then? Along with most other countries? Then they are equal to the religion itself in measures of wrongdoing? That's fine with me.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

This is core thing of all religion, scaring kids to make sure that you will have enough drones in future.Religion must really be a problem where you come from.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

But you will teach them about evolution and other science-y things. That's kinda the same thing. Instilling in them a mindset. Otherwise they won't know anything. They need a foundation to grow as a person however they want.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

But you will teach them about evolution and other science-y things. That's kinda the same thing. Instilling in them a mindset. Otherwise they won't know anything. Teaching children objectively probable truths is not remotely comparable to teaching them subjective, unsubstantiated opinions.They need a foundation to grow as a person however they want.Yes, but some foundations are objectively better than others.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

Generally, a child's religion is determined by the parents by default. With that model in mind, there's loads of ways to look at this:1. "Child abuse" refers to going against the child will and forcing him/her to do something the child would not want to do. According to the model, the child's religion is decided the very moment he/she is born, and at this point the child is a little too young for this planet to imply that he/she has an opinion about something as complex as religion. So if the child has free will, parents hold the right to decide what is good and bad for the child, and it is in the proposers' interest to believe that parents will be sane enough to do the right thing.2. Say the child grows into a 9 or 10 year old, maybe even a teenager. He/she will not have the required maturity to decipher which religion echoes his/her internal thoughts. Instead, they'll like a religion that is less demanding in terms of time and energy rather than one that defines them. I believe that a decision based on practicality and ease cannot be the best decision to make when choosing a religion, not only because the teachings of the religion and what religions stand for is more important, but also because choice of religion sends out a firm message of how somebody thinks and a carelessly chosen religion will, therefore, have detrimental effects on a person's image in society.3. Most religions preach the same thing: to be good human beings. Yes, the ways are different. But the idea is the same. The differences in religions, therefore, are too minute for children to decipher. When they grow old, they certainly have the freedom to change their religion because that's when they have the mental maturity to understand the slight differences in the various religions.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

I know that it isnt right, but I dont think it can be considered as child abuse.The responsibility of the parent is to guide their children towards the right path. They are only sharing to their children what works for them. But of course, children should have the rights to refuse
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

I believe sharing is different than forcing. I can share you some food but I can`t force you to eat it, you`ll have to eat it willingly. This analogy may apply to the case presented. I can share to my children my beliefs and if sometime they grow weary of it, then I think it would be alright for them to follow their own.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

There is forced indoctrination and there is expression of personal belief, but there is also a coercive in-between. Most religious indoctrination is not outright forceful, but is coercive as a consequence of the assertion of religion as an absolute and incontrovertible truth by parents/guardians who by nature of their relationship with the child exert incredible authority. This imbues religion with a false legitimacy, and persuades vulnerable children to believe in something which is harmful to their emotional and cognitive maturation.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

I believe that is already part of the system in a religion. As mere individuals in a family we can only do so much as to prevent or assert these influences in our child. Probably when the child gets older then he may dispute such authority from his parents. Children are too young to understand such doctrines anyway and not realize such kind of abuse until they grow of age.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

That is not a refutation of my point, nor is it even correct. That children are incapable of distinguishing between actual truth and what their parents tell them is true only underscores the abusive nature of religious indoctrination. A parent/guardian can do more than oppose or support the influence of religious institutions and ideas upon their children; they can teach their children how to think and evaluate ideas rather than asserting that something is true or false. A child taught to think can reach their own conclusions; a child taught that any thing is an absolute truth likely cannot.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

Children are too young to comprehend such beliefs even if they are taught by their parent. A 3 year old child for an example would find it difficult to comprehend the such concepts thus it would only be a burden to both parties if explained.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

You cannot legitimately reduce the scope of a debate on all children to include only children three years and younger. Even if we look only at children who are too young to grasp ideas your argument is seriously lacking; it is far less burden to not teach any ideology until the child is old enough for comprehension than to teach them any particular ideology.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

When the child is ready to make his own choices, then he can just simply change his beliefs and leave the religion. Teaching an ideology to a child is`t necessarily forcing it to them but rather a form of introduction.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

Firstly, this is entirely non-responsive to every point I made. Secondly, it is incorrect. Indoctrination into any ideological perspective, but especially one which teaches subjective faith as objective fact, is not something one simply sets aside.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

Indoctrinate (v): to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs. It is exceedingly rare that religious parents present their faith to their children as an "introduction" that is only a possibility and which could be incorrect. Religion is, by necessity, taught as an absolute and incontrovertible truth. Consequentially, not only are children brought up to reject alternatives offhand, but they are taught that shifting their ideology will lead to eternal damnation. This means that they cannot "simply change beliefs and leave the religion".
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

Well, they can always leave the group when they grew up.I see no problem in parents nurturing their child to be someone similar to them
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

Well, they can always leave the group when they grew up.1. I think you miss the point of indoctrination: it prevents people from developing the critical thinking abilities they need to leave the indoctrinated perspective. 2. Making that argument is like saying that some children can still have better lives after being physically abused; it may be true, but it does not change the fact of the abuse.I see no problem in parents nurturing their child to be someone similar to themThe problem is that it is not nurturing, for the reasons I expressly observed.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

1. So how was that supposed to change anything? Religion, by definition, is but a mere group of believers. It is different from a cult of madmen such as Westboro and KKK.2. No it's not. There's no problem in joining any congregation that violates no law.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

1. Religion does not have to be extremist to be close-minded. 2. This is an unsubstantiated assertion, and is also non-responsive to my point.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

1. Tell me more of how religion was close-minded in the founding of civilization, invention of code of conducts and keeping people united during tragedies.Hell, 51% of scientists are believers (41% atheists, 8% agnostics). Are you going to say that they are frauds?2. Explain how, please?
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

1. I sacrificed my earlier nuance for the sake of brevity; allow me to (re)clarify my earlier point: religion creates ideological close-mindedness, necessarily rejecting anything that contradicts whatever it asserts as the absolute, incontrovertible truth. People can be ideologically close-minded and still invent the wheel because the wheel does not undermine God. People can be scientists, and still be ideologically close-minded on matters not pertaining to their field of study (or else bend their research to promote their ideological agenda). 2. Um... it is unsubstantiated because you did not substantiate it? And your argument that religion existing does not make it wrong does not actually engage with the rationale I provided explaining why religion is problematic.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

1. Yeah right, like ive never heard of that edgy generalization before. Now explain how Charles Darwin remained a theologist despite the fact that his discoveries disproves the Genesis. Even Einstein condemned atheism. What's your excuse now?2. sighYou claimed that teaching religion is not nurturing but all your reasons are some copy-paste complains about creationists and extremists while trying to avoid the contributions of religion in the advancement of civilization and philosophy of the society.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

Yeah right, like ive never heard of that edgy generalization before.If you have heard of it before, then you should know how to refute it by now. How about giving that a go? Or, you know, just keep sidestepping the main argument instead.Now explain how Charles Darwin remained a theologist despite the fact that his discoveries disproves the Genesis. Even Einstein condemned atheism. What's your excuse now?You misrepresent both Darwin and Einstein, as both were self-described agnostics who rejected organized religion at least as much as they did atheism. (Source 1, Source 2)More importantly, that otherwise intelligent individuals were ultimately fallible in an area of knowledge they did not specialize in does nothing to undermine my argument.You claimed that teaching religion is not nurturing but all your reasons are some copy-paste complains about creationists and extremists while trying to avoid the contributions of religion in the advancement of religion and philosophy of the society.You mentioned extremists and creationists; my argument has never been premised upon either. I presented what remains an unrefuted rationale demonstrating the harms of religion generally. This in no way denies that religion has also exerted some positive influences, and I never made that claim. Stop putting words in my mouth, and address what I actually have said instead. Thanks.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

1. There was no misinterpretation. The fact that they despise atheism rings a bell about the fact that your beliefs is of no different from every single religion available.2. Do not deny the obvious. Your argument was copy-pasted from the ideas posted on each and every debates about the Vatican, Islam, Creationists, and Religion in itself.Here's a dare: Why not stop using extremists as an example and start admitting the advances done by religion?
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

1. Yes, there was. And no, that does not follow.2. Seriously? The arguments I am making are in direct response to particular statements you have made. If they were copy-pasted they would not flow naturally into the course of the debate. Even if I had copy-pasted the arguments that does not make them any less legitimate, or your avoidance of them any less marked.Regarding your dare: I already have.This "debate" is a farce which I am quite done indulging.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

1. Prove it?2. Not really. My arguments are about how there's no problem in parents sharing their religion to their child. Your arguments on the other hand, is but mere complains about extremists.To judge the majority over the acts of the worst side is not only cliche, it is also stupid.I already have.Where's your list?
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

1. I already did. With two sources and an explanation. Go back and read.2. No. My argument is (and always has been) that all religion, moderate and extreme, is harmful to children. Go back and read.Where's your list?What list?
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

1. Your two sources were about Darwin and Einstein's belief. Both of them says that despite their excellent knowledge in the field of science, they shun upon atheism.Guess you know what that means2. Too bad the researches says otherwiseWhat list?Stop embarrassing yourself, you know what I am talking about.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

1. Can you read?2. What "researches"?Actually, I do not know. That is why I bloody well asked.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

1. No, she can't. I have actually proved it in a previous debate. Don't put anything past the first sentence.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

1. Yes and I know well that Einstein and Darwin shuns upon atheism. 2. The overwhelming researches that proves religion brings benefitsI was daring you to stop using extremists as an example and list down all the advances contributed by religion throughout history. You may start at how advanced science and medicine
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

1. You do not know it. You believe it contrary to evidence that has been presented to you. I am done "debating" this with you.2. In order as presented: (A) Bad link, directs to Frobes landing page. (B) When this source actually backs its claims with source citations they are inevitably 15 years or older. This is terribly outdated, and has been countered by more current research (e.g. "Our results suggest that further work is warranted to explore the causal mechanisms by which religiosity is protective for adolescents. Needed is both theoretical work that identifies mechanisms that could explain the different patterns of empirical results and surveys that collect data specific to the hypothesized mechanisms.")(C) Most of the benefits in this source are conditioned by uncertainty, inconsistency,non-uniqueness, lack of definite/probable causal relationship, or off-setting drawbacks like obesity and less confidence in career prospects. The rest tend, again, to reply upon vaguely referenced studies without citations.(D) This is flagrantly false. See this and this, for starters.I was daring you to stop using extremists as an exampleFor the final time, I never did. Period. Done.and list down all the advances contributed by religion throughout history. You may start at how advanced science and medicineWhy would I make your arguments for you? Please.