BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pro-Female Affirmative Action

"Could you specify 'woman is obviously preferrable[sic]'? Does it include stereotypes, physical limitations, etc...[?] Please set a more discreet bound around the exception." I'm talking about things like filming. We wouldn't want a guy to play Vesper, now, would we? "Pro-female affirmative action should be supported because male-dominant systems undeniably favored males in many social systems." I deny it. My opponent claims that society is male-dominant. As men are the ones who typically have salary-paying jobs, this is, in a way, true. However, how does it favor males? Is there any incident in which a woman is not promoted while a man who deserves the promotion less receives it? Does such a situation exist? On what basis does this favor males? "Not supporting pro would be a discredit to females and their potential, perpetuating the male-dominant system in subtle ways. (Disproportional Systems based on Gender)" There's always the option of equality. Could you please explain how this system is male-dominant, and why that means that women are being disadvantaged? Now, to my arguments: The only real reason that there is a difference in the wages of men and women today is because of the traditional family style. The woman usually stays at home, perhaps with children, while the man works. However, this does not warrant a claim that women are disadvantage. For one thing, a study revealed that single men made less than single women. For another, women usually only have a part-time job because they usually assume the role of housekeeper, so they can't make as much money as a man or woman who doesn't. Finally, between a husband and wife, it doesn't matter who makes the money. They both spend it equally. In fact, the wife usually makes about 80% of the purchases between the two of them. Arcita, I have a question: in what situation should pro-female affirmative action be practiced? Without marriage, women make more than men, and with marriage, the woman makes less than otherwise and the man makes more than otherwise, but it doesn't really matter, because they share the money. I hope that my opponent answers my question. I'll just play a card face-down and end my turn. My source is "Economic Facts and Fallacies," by Thomas Sowell. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Pro-Female Affirmative Action

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for this debate challenge. The brevity of your round 1 hopefully sets a friendly mode for a new debater. Excuse me on format errors. Feel free to correct me. Questions: Could you specify "woman is obviously preferrable"? Does it include stereotypes, physical limitations, etc... Please set a more discreet bound around the exception. Definitions: I'm going to go off the definition of affirmative action in Wikipedia. Resolution: Pro-female affirmative action should be supported because male-dominant systems undeniably favored males in many social systems. Not supporting pro would be a discredit to females and their potential, perpetuating the male-dominant system in subtle ways. (Disproportional Systems based on Gender)
gay marriage

Rebuttals"previously you said that god does rule this country that is funny i don't see him making the laws for this country god does not rule this country god does not rule anybody it is a choice whether you want to follow him or not and another thing you cant bring a religious belief into a law in america ever heard of freedom of religion? as long as we have that we cant base a law off of a christian belief and besides gay marriage does not effect you why are you against it?"Alright.The GOVERNMENT legislated laws based upon the morality standards THEY accept. If you decide to visit America, you must follow their laws. HOWEVER, like said, WE HAVE TO ASSUME that God exists to rationalize our arguments. So, if he exists, his moral laws would apply here. They are INEVITABLE. If justified (Moralized), that doesn't affect your possibility of eternal punishment in hell. If not, it will.I now leave it up to the voters.
gay marriage

I will be playing devil's advocate, meaning that I will argue for what I, in reality, am against. By the way, having established the fact that you have already presented your argument in this round, I guess I can too.Rebuttals"its pretty sad even if you believe its wrong because of god that's to bad because god does not rule this country you cant bring religion into a law"Oh, God does indeed rule this country. In fact, he rules EVERYWHERE! According to our accepted definition of God, he is the creator, the sustainer, AND the RULER of the UNIVERSE (Capitalization to exaggerate words)![1] So, his moral laws (Which, obviously, were legislated based upon absolute morality (If he exists)) also apply here. And if not followed, you reap the consequences. And according to the bible, gay relationships are an abomination[2].Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] Leviticus 20:13
The steady growth of the Swedish Democratic party - Indicative of a growing displeasure with society

In recent polls, it is becoming steadily apparent that the xenophobic party "Sverigedemokraterna", henceforth referred to as SD, are here to stay. In the election of 2010, they won a seat in the Riksdag, the Swedish Parliament to the surprise of many. The party strives for conservative immigration laws and have become an umbrella party for many radicalist right-wing, groups that have often been publicly condemned for what they stand for. Despite, or perhaps because of long-standing actions in educating their population of equality, fairness and tolerance, Sweden now finds almost 10 per cent of their adult, voting population placing their trust behind a party that by many definitions defy these values. It is my firm belief that a large group of those who vote for SD do so not because of a specific dislike or mistrust for foreigners, but are rather young adults feeling disenfranchised and abandoned by their government. The vote for SD would therefore be done to show their mistrust and disappointment with the current ruling government. It is also my belief that with rising unemployment figures amongst the young, it becomes easier to blame this downturn on non-natives and outsiders, an explanation that seems more tangible and easier to grasp than the current global economic situation and its effects. I'd be happy to debate this with whomever wants to.
The steady growth of the Swedish Democratic party - Indicative of a growing displeasure with society

That is apathy, not displeasure. If someone wants a change, democracy gives them the tools to enact that change. If I understand your somewhat bare-boned argument, you're saying that the people who voted for SD did so not because they were displeased but for some other reason that you didn't specify? Why then would any kind of change occur in a modern society? Why do we vote if we're pleased with how things are? Why would republicans vote against Obama in the 2012 election? Why not just 'not vote'? I'm quite certain several of them were at least moderately displeased with the changes, as meager as they were, he implemented, not to mention those he intended to implement. It is my opinion that you have failed to present any sound argument against my theory.
Ban islam

Civil Law limits religious interference with government but it also limits government interference in religion. At numerous times in history it has been proven that the government has always abused its power when it has decided which religions are good and which ones are "bad" and should be persecuted. In fact our country was founded by people the English Government decided were from "bad" religions. Banning Islam is government tyranny and if they ban Islam who knows what the government in power in the future will ban next? I'd like to end with some quotes from some of our founders on this topic: "Every new and successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance." ~James Madison "In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced, and both by precept and example inculcated on mankind." ~Samuel Adams "[he] says neither Pagan nor Mahometan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion." John Locke, Copied by Thomas Jefferson "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" -1st Amendment
Diversions of the republic

My, My, how you do go on and ramble about like a hunting dog trying to pick up the scent of a half promising trail adnausea. The first efforts you make is to attack the messenger since you don't much like the message delivered. Con's retort, " Not only do you reveal your inability to make a proper sentence,...." I understand your frustration and why you are thrashing about trying to find something to hang your hat on in attempting to prove your point. " If You Don't Like The Message, Attack The Messenger," apparently this is your Miotus opra randie. The first efforts you make is to attack the messenger since you don't much like the message delivered that i delivered. Quote, " If you don't like the message..." "An early literary citing of "shooting the messenger" is in Plutarch's Lives states: "The first messenger, that gave notice of Lucullus' coming was so far from pleasing Tigranes that, he had his head cut off for his pains; and no man dared to bring further information...." Quote above from Wikipedia Then you go on to regale us with a resitation of American history , this taken from your reply, " ," America was founded July 4th, 1776....."....") that should be common knowledge of any American school pupil,who had gone beyond the third grade if the student had attended public schools during the 1940s, that is, not todays students. CON: "....If we lived by your reasoning, we would still be "riding horses to school and slavery would not yet have been abolished. ...." ) I acknowledge change but there are some people who refuse to recognize that life, since the life styles period you describe," riding horses to school and slavery....," in your rebuttal to me has evolved and are willfully blind to these facts. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan There has been a .."technological revolution...major source of light, for example, would change from candles, to kerosene lamps, and then to electric light bulbs. They would see their transportation evolve from walking and horse power to steam-powered locomotives, to electric trolley cars, to gasoline-powered automobiles" Quote Above from, " RISE OF INDUSTRIAL AMERICA." LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.. There has been a " evolution," in the lives of all Americans , the black minoritie's lives changed as well in America. The black race for example has had one of their own race elected to the office of the presidency by the American voter and there are many black representatives in elected office in this country. Change , for the most part has been for the good of mankind but not all changes have been beneficial.
Diversions of the republic

You must be completely insane if you think nobody pays attention to our government. Not a day goes by where Donald Trump isn't criticized. Not a day goes by where major political decisions aren't challenged. And CERTAINLY not a day goes by without somebody thinking we could do better. I'd like to start my argument with a quote from your second paragraph. "Many people in today's society no longer live their lives as has been the traditional way in this country since it's founding fathers." Not only do you reveal your inability to make a proper sentence, but you also express your inability to comprehend evolution. America was founded July 4th, 1776. If we lived by your reasoning, we would still be riding horses to school and slavery would not yet have been abolished. We'd be fighting off the native Americans with single shot muskets, and countless people would be dying from smallpox. I think our distractions are minor compared to what people went through "back-then." Our evolution of technology has allowed us to share our opinions with the world in the blink of an eye. The moment you dislike something you can send a ping to America's entire population. You are mentally ill if you think America and it's quality of life hasn't improved. In your fourth paragraph, you somehow come to the topic of narcotics. Legalizing one of America's largest cash crops improved the economy and creates jobs in the formal market instead of the illicit one. Local and state governments will receive significant income growth through the tax on marijuana, and that funding can be put elsewhere to improve quality of life. Public servants, like officers, can direct their attention to more prominent issues. Also, with the legalization of marijuana, we can start to better inform addicts about the risks and harms of narcotics. Also, in your fourth paragraph, you state that schools do not differentiate between right and wrong. That is a fat lie you pulled out of thin air. You provide no example, so it can be waved away as quickly as it appeared. A majority of public middle schools and highschools have public safety officers on campus everyday, and occasionally have talks with students about the consequences of their actions. To act like the line between good and bad is blurred in schools is ludicrous. According to the Bureau of Justice, (bjs.gov), in 2006 there were roughly 100 million court cases held. 100 million cases of people taking interest in their rights and, more importantly, our nation's government. You cannot argue against facts, and the facts are that an overwhelming amount of people pay attention to our government.
Diversions of the republic

People in todays society are overwhelmed with distractions so that they are no longer capable of directing their attentions to important issues affecting what kinds of world that they and their families will live in. People in todays society are overwhelmed with Diversions and distractions so that they are no longer capable of directing their attentions to important issues affecting the kind of world that they and their families will live in.The reason that the government is out of control today is because the people who the politicians are supposedly required to answer to are too busy, distracted by diversions, to pay much attention to the conduct of those they voted for to look out for their interests. The people who are presently living their day to day lives have been Inudated with many personal choices that weren't available to them previously but now are. These diversions /options, that people have available to them presently to select from are there for them because the long established traditional patterns of lifestyles are now considered irrelevant and left to personal choice. Because of this liberalism many people in todays society no longer live their lives as has been the traditional way in this country since its founding and are now free to experiment without society demanding little if any responsibility on their part if the living experiment fails. The welfare perks available if such a living experiment fails to last makes the decision to flaunt the traditional rules of society easy for people to co-habit without so much as a second though as to the consequences nor the right or wrong of the experiment. Another diversion from concerns about government and the conditions of life is narcotics which have flooded the country and the leagalization of Marijuana usage, if your high on narcotics or legalized Marijuana, your concerns most likely aren't on how government is being ran or what condition the country is in. Schools in America now teach the young under the educators charge that there is no Right or wrong, that everyone has the right to decide for themselves what is right or what is wrong, don't be judgemental, "relativism, is the modern philosopy drummed into the children's head. Having been indoctrinated not to be judgemental, how can anyone judge a politicians motivations. I argue that citizens of today are too busy with their diversions to even worry or consider how government is ran nor to worry about the condition of the country. this is why we have the government that we have today because people don't really think or take the time to tend to government.
In accordance with the law, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should not be found guilty of the Boston Bombings*

He was a follower of Anwar al-Awlaki . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.rawstory.com... Anwar al-Awlaki is a Al-Qaeda linked terrorist leader Dzhokar Tsarnaev followed his magazine, made a bomb and murdered civilians. Trust me he wasn't following following our government.
In accordance with the law, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should not be found guilty of the Boston Bombings*

I'm affraid any evidence from social media or online accoutns is still supificial with regards to his guilt.Since starting this debate it appears from news sources that he seems to be cooperating with investigations and that he had admitted his role in the bombings. That being said, we are still hearing this through second hand sources.I am glad that his due process righst have been preserved, but I guess it is still to be seen if his defence will try to argue prejudice by the actions of the FBI.All the information that is circulating on the internet which suggests his guilt could simply be the irratic actions of a person who knows that he has been set up. He may very well hold certain views, and have made those views public, but that might be a reason for him being framed rather than evidence of his guilt.I'm not humoring any sort of conspiracy theory here or anything, i'm simply demanding that all the facts - and his testimony is known, before people start claiming his guilt.The reason why the media have to use the word alledged is because his guilt is only suspected and is not proven until it is found in a court of law.Having said all that, it is still possible that he is guilty of the bombings, and, in accordance with his rights to due process, he may not be found guilty, on account of the reasons I gave in my original post.The two things that are at stake here are a guilty man walking free, and a justice system losing it's integrity. For the sake of sticking to my guns, and the points made in my first post, i'm still going to state that I think he should not be found guilty, as long as his defence team can argue that the jury of his peers are prejudiced by media reporting. Really this debate is about preserving the integrity of the justice system.
In accordance with the law, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should not be found guilty of the Boston Bombings*

Djohar Tsarnaev said on his Vkontakte page that his world view is Islam and his personal priority is career and money, according to the Moscow newspaper. http://www.theatlanticwire.com... He definitely has a Islamic view despite being American so odds are 1. A radical from a Islamic country influenced him 2. A Islamic radical influenced his brother, who then influenced him. Therefore, he will be found guilty
In accordance with the law, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should not be found guilty of the Boston Bombings*

In your argument you link to a source which claims that the rights of a speedy and public trial of U.S. citizens are infringed as a consequence of the Patriot Act. After extensive fact checking, it appears that this source is misleading. In it's analysis of the Patriot Act back in 2001, the ACLU talks about how Section 412 of the Act "permits indefinite detention of immigrants and other non-citizens" [1]. The scope of this section does not extend to U.S. citizens.That being said, Section 802 of the Act creates an offence of "domestic terrorism", and can be applied to U.S. citizens, as is applied to immigrants and non-citizens in Section 412, in cases where the guilty party is considered an enemy combatant.In Ex Parte Quirin - 317 U.S. 1 (1942) [2] the term enemy combatant was first classified. In this authority it is held that if a U.S citizen, at time of war, is under the direction of a nation at war with the United States, and is charged with committing or attempting to commit ... hostile acts ..., then they should be subject to the law of war and tried by a military court; denying them Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections.In considering the circumstances under which the President has authority to construct military tribunals, the Quirin court did cite Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) [3], relating to a U.S. citizen during civil war. It concluded that in such circumstances, conditions necessary for a person to be treated as an enemy combatant are not met, and so the above provision could not apply.Further, in considering the above cases, a legal analysis in the American University Law Review finds that the Patriot Act and President Bush's related Executive Order, if applied to U.S. citizens, would "not pass constitutional muster" [4].Under the Patriot Act, for a U.S. citizen guilty of domestic terrorism, to be denied Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections and tried by a military tribunal, they would have to be acting under the direction of an enemy nation state. In all other cases these protections are preserved. I submit that more recent Acts; namely the 2012 and 2013 updates to the National Defense Authorization Act, presents a more realistic threat of the outcome you mention. Although Section 1021 of the 2012 update grants Obama these powers, at the time of signing, he made a signing statement promising not to use them [5].As the Patriot Act does not apply, and it is yet to be seen if Obama will renege on his promise, we should assume that Dzhokhar will be tried in a civilian court and that he will enjoy Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections. My point remains valid, that the FBI have jeapodised any chances of a finding of guilt.There is already evidence available to the public which creates a reasonable doubt to his guilt, even given the evidence made public by the FBI.References[1] http://goo.gl... [2] http://goo.gl... [3] http://goo.gl...[4] http://goo.gl...[5] http://goo.gl...
In accordance with the law, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should not be found guilty of the Boston Bombings*

Our rights have been forever changed due to 9/11, as a result of 9/11 the U.S. passed the Patriot Act (the Act made to battle terror) http://911research.wtc7.net... Right to a Speedy and Public Trial: Government may jail anyone indefinitely without a trial, including US citizens, which means we can indefinitely jail him without trial even though he is a U.S. citizen. I thank you for your argument and look forward to round 2