BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is the responsibility of the citizens to ensure that there is security in the country

I maintain a very simply principle. A principle that almost everyone agrees with. It is called assent. This is a term used in a contract to describe that both members of the party assent to the arguments at hand. Furthermore, without assent, the contract is not a binding nor a valid contract. Very simple. A citizen, like myself was signed into a social contract without my permission. I was unfairly assigned roles and responsibilities without due course to my autonomy. Surely it would be the case then that 'citizens', which does not distinguish between those who agree or those who disagree are forced into a set of obligations. I maintain that citizens signed into a social contract have no obligation to ensure the safety of a government or body of land they have not rationally assented too. It is therefore the case that it is false that all citizens have a responsibility to protect their country.
It is the responsibility of the citizens to ensure that there is security in the country

"And if you are a citizen at birth my argument still doesn't change, then it is your duty towards your motherland. " Again, your argument must necessarily change as the first instance was the free choice of the immigrant while the latter was not. I expect that in a distinction of citizens, the argument must be modified to suit it. So, we have not seen a decent argument for the 'obligation' to uphold responsibilities that were not agreed upon. Also, there are plenty of examples where intervention is a good thing. Dictatorships owe no 'responsibility' to be protected, nor ought any government system. You're example makes no sense. Again, we have seen no justification for why we ought to care. Since I have given a reason as to why the obligation needs to be grounded in assent, Pro ought to address that as stated. I never said you were forced, I simply denied the legitimacy of the obligation, but conscription is another objection that I would cite. Please present a direct response.
Any female wearing immodest clothing wants to have her rape fantasy fulfilled.

It's been quite a thought-provoking debate and, Honestly, A little unlike others I've seen on the site. I'll just quickly rebut and get this over with: the last round isn't that important and to my belief, It just rounds things off. However, Note that this rebuttal is the more stereotypically feminist Con's rebuttal: as such I'll apply the filter of a more authentically feminist Con as I'm sure a few of those reading this debate would want me to at least try to take such a stance on the argument. I am totally against bringing up new points literally at the end of the debate, But for the reasons mentioned in the previous round and in the above paragraph, I think it's necessary to bring in Con's stereotypical view of this matter regardless. Apologies in advance: though this won't provide me with any advantage due to my clear statement that this is *not my point of view*, I'd like to acknowledge the possibility that this may change the outcome of the debate. A) To the argument that men should be able to control their urges, You said that this is in fact true, And yet there are other things men should not do- like kill, Cheat, And deceive. However, This is different: both of the genders kill, Cheat and lie, And yet *only one* rapes. Males are more physically powerful; as such they should be more able to repel sexual assault from the other gender. Females cannot: males are therefore tasked with the responsibility, However powerful the pull of their nether regions may be, To suppress these urges. B) To the argument that women are encouraged to flaunt what they have, You agreed but noted that they had been warned about the unwanted attention that this may bring. I acknowledge that this is true but also would like to reiterate point A): Women should be able to flaunt anything, Really as men should have some extent of control over their sexual urges. C)To the argument that rape is not the victim's fault, You said that the woman still plays a role in that they exposed themselves and stimulated the man's sexual cravings. To this I'd like to express the outrage and indignation that I'm sure some may agree with: can't women just wear what they want without people raping them? Doesn't rape happen to more modestly dressed women too? Women can't rape, Can they? It appears I've gone past my self-appointed deadline of 2018: it really doesn't matter as most debates would have gone well past that period of time anyway. Your lightning-speed responses really kept the flow of the debate going and were very engaging too. I personally do not mind if, For any reason, Any of these arguments end up on Reddit; though I'm sure the Reddit community would pick apart my debate, Such professionals would also give me reasons to improve. The debate's given me a few minutes each day for the last few weeks to think: for that opportunity I'm truly grateful. It's been a pleasure as well, And I'd also like to wish you a happy new year.
Any female wearing immodest clothing wants to have her rape fantasy fulfilled.

I just love it when someone takes less than two days to respond to an argument. Wow, That was a quick response. I'm quite unsure of your first piece of critique of my arguments. You justified your opinion that my first point was wrong by saying that there are 'other effective ways that do not involve wearing skimpy clothing', Then follow up with a statement that observes that the method of resisting harassing is in fact encouraging further harassing. The issue here is that those two were literally in my arguments. Among the ways that women decided to combat aggression, I pointed out just one (in saying 'an interesting way', The used indefinite article basically alludes to the fact that there is more than one; 'this is *a* way to solve the puzzle' would draw the assumption that there would be more than one way to solve the puzzle; if I said 'this is *the* way to solve the puzzle' you'd think there was only one way, Because that's what it means). This means that there would be other ways that they combated aggression; I'll acknowledge the possibility that what I wrote was unclear and move on to the next point. What's unjustifiable is this; I observed the fact that the way women choose to resist harassing in fact increases harassing (". . . To discourage harassment, This ironically being the cause of harassment and rape"), Which happens to be what you alluded to as well when trying to rebut (". . . In fact, The pretense of resistance by wearing revealing clothing, And thus further attracting more attention and arousing more males to rape her"). I've found it difficult to see how this would have been a mistake on my part, And as such I'd like to let this stand. I also said nothing about a society which does not wish to shame others; I in fact said something which was the opposite, And pointed out that through the media, Society has become encouraged to shame those who wish to catcall and generally harass others, And even though it's not necessarily through the media, The rise of internet trolls which do everything they can to call out people incoherently also denotes a society which encourages shaming others, Albeit anonymously. I'd also like to dispute your definition of 'shaming'; I think that calling some one out- whether it's a fact or not- online is shaming as it reveals something private to the public. I stand by your concurred definition from my debate; people calling others a slut, Fact or not, Is still shaming. Could I ask about the whole 'conscious and unconscious rape fantasy' thing? That is, Might I request some clarification in the form of a definition of 'unconscious rape fantasy'? What is it, And how can you prove that even the most outwardly uptight of women, As you happen to say, Have an unconscious rape fantasy, Even if they don't *think* that they do? I'll go back to substantive matter in the next round. Looking forward to more input.
Any female wearing immodest clothing wants to have her rape fantasy fulfilled.

Hello, Anonymous03. Thank you for participating in this debate. It is true that words and phrases such as "misogynist", "patriarchal society" or "male privilege" does not have any meaningful implication. Anyone that uses such terms in order to win a debate only demonstrates their lack of intelligence or full of lying. The first point of your argument is that there are reasons for women to be walking around in revealing clothes other than expressing their unconscious wish to fulfill their rape fantasy. One of those reasons, You mentioned, That women were tired of being "harassed" for wearing skimpy clothing, And as a backlash, They started wearing more of such kind of clothing. However, There is a severe flaw in this argument. If they wanted harassing women to discontinue, There are other effective ways that do not involve wearing skimpy clothing. In fact, The pretense of resistance by wearing revealing clothing, And thus further attracting more attention and arousing more males to rape her, Actually brings about the very opposite effect the females' resistance backlash was hoping to achieve. At the same time, It is true that females may claim not to have any rape fantasy on their part. However, Such claim is made on their conscious level; since their rape fantasy strongly resides on their unconscious, And thus females do not express or are not even consciously aware of its existence, We must disregard their words which are generated and expressed on their conscious level and instead must carefully examine their behaviour and act of walking around wearing such clothing that demonstrates what truly exists on their unconscious. It is acts that honestly show what is going on in one's mind, Not their words. It is true that "feminist" movements always purports to "hate" rape and wishes to "prevent" rape, While facilitating much more opportunity for males to rape females, By facilitating an environment in which females visually stimulate and arouse rapists. This is no surprise, Considering feminism is a collection of lies and hypocrisy. One can try to remember when feminism did not lie or commit a fallacy, And one can find out feminism has always lied or committed more fallacies. You mentioned about society that does not wants to shame others. While it may on the surface sounds good, But it is in itself hopelessly problematic. If a female unconsciously wished to receive rape, And did all the things to make her rape come true, And thereby fulfilled her rape fantasy, She got what she needed and deserved. Now, Pointing out what she wanted and what she got is thus not shaming; it is merely discussing the fact about such females. So, The entire claim about "shaming raped women" or, As I have discussed in my original post regarding "victim blaiming" is irrelevant and meaningless when it comes to talking about females in immodest clothes that consequently got them to fulfill their rape fantasy. Again, Thank you very much for your input.
Hot Chicks should be in every Horror Movie for now On

I Beg to Differ because even in the old Slashers such as Friday the 13th or halloween the teens are always having Sex in the woods and jason comes and Kills them also read this and http://www.complex.com.... I Like to watch Hot Chicks get chased by the Monster it has nothing to do with Porn also Why would someone make a List if Hottness and Nudity didn't matter????
Separation of Church and State Should Be Absolute

sorry about the dropped round. i don't always get on the computer daily. and it's the end of the trimester at school, i had three finals given today. i apologize. i further apologize, i hope to god that my argument wasn't THAT confusing. sorry. basically where i disagreed with you was that the government should continue to keep religion out. i believe (at least in a democracy) that since the government is for the people, that the people should decide how incorporated religion is in a government. it may be a "ridiculous position" to have the people decide how they are governed, but that is my position. on your rebuttal to my candidate example: you said this would ultimately be decided by the supreme court, but that has nothing to do with whether it SHOULD happen. It has everything to do with IF it could happen, not SHOULD. i was focusing on SHOULD, as the resolution said. and the fact that the founding fathers set down the constitution for this purpose is irrelevant according to the resolution. Basically what i am saying boils down to this: after an initial government is set up, it should be the people's decision on how incorporated religion is in THEIR government.
Separation of Church and State Should Be Absolute

Your arguments are about as confusing as the logic of the Westboro Baptist Church, but I'm confident I can handle them. First, a little history lesson. The founding fathers shaped the constitution of this nation on the philosophy of John Locke, a famous English philosopher. According to Locke's social contract theory, government lacks the authority in the realm of the conscience, and this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain inviolable by any government authority. When the founding fathers set down the constitution they did so to prevent any sort of national church from being established and also to protect civil servants to any sort of Test Act legislation. The most important thing to remember for this debate was the first part of that, no government sponsorship of any sort of religion. Empirically, when the government steps in to support one kind of religion, the others are systematically stamped out (England under Queens Mary and Elizabeth, the 30 Years War, and modern day Islamic states to name but a few). Despite what you may think, the government has much more power over your day to day life. Countries like Sweden and Denmark, who are truly more free than ourselves, are among the most secular states in the world, and they do not have the crippling arguments over state sponsorship of any single church like we have in the U.S. I totally agree that any candidate should run for office and if voted in should try and shape the country as he sees fit. But when it comes to the separation of church and state the Supreme Court will have the final say on whether or not his attempts to create a more religious state are justified, and we have seen time and time again how the Supreme Court has trounced any such legislation. As for your "obligation" argument, the state has every right to defend itself against the advances of the church in every form. It is a ridiculous position that the state should not have this power because, after all, the state's first goal is always the preservation of self, and a functioning democracy cannot and should not have the influence of the church upon it.
Separation of Church and State Should Be Absolute

well, to a point i agree with you. in fact i'm not exactly sure where i stand on this issue, but i am debating a point of view i've advocated in speeches before. Good luck to you, alexrich, i hope this is a fun debate. Basically, the idea i am advocating is that Church and State should be separated only to a point. Basically that Church and state are separated but religion and politics should not be. Please do not say that simply because you could quote me as saying "church and state should be separated" i must concede the round because i'm agreeing with you. I'm just partially agreeing. and i am arguing against part of it. And i will be using america as an example and the area for parts of this debate. Okay, so to explain the previous confusing paragraph, here's what i am trying to say: in a democracy, the original form of the government should separate Church & state. But after that, all guarantees are down as to that separation enduring. Basically, the "founding fathers" of a nation should have the democratic government separating church and state. Once that form is laid down, the democracy is open to continually change in shape and nature. For example, one idea i have heard in this topic of debate is that if a candidate for president (or any office) has radical ideas, they should be prevented from running. I disagree strongly, and this is where religion and politics should mix. Say this radical candidate advocates a certain religion and says that anyone who will not join that religion should be disadvantaged. That candidate should be able to run, and hold office if elected. The responsibility in a democracy to keep this separation of church and state should lie with the people. The people should not elect this candidate, but he should be allowed to run. This way he still has his rights, and the government's principles are upheld. A person's religious views very often affect his political views. basically what i am saying is that the government should not limit the church/state relationship, but the people should do so by careful elections and voting. A candidate has every right to bring any skewed or radical views to his office if elected. He may attempt to bring legislation to enact those views. In that case, the people must not elect him. He has every right to try and pass the legislation, and the people have an obligation to keep him from actually passing that bill. I think what i am trying to say is that after an initial "wall of separation" is made, religion should have every right to the opportunity to influence legislation to its advantage. And citizens should have the responsibility to stop that legislation from passing, or that candidate from being elected. After the original form, democratic government has no right nor obligation to separate church and state. The people and their representatives have that obligation. Thank you and i hope that made sense... i'm a little tired.
Should all guns be banned

When a gunman opened fire on a crowd of thousands from his Las Vegas hotel room Sunday, he was using guns and ammunition that appear to have been purchased legally. The Las Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock, who killed 58 people and wounded almost 500, had no serious criminal record, and a local gun store said he had passed a background check before buying some of his guns. Nobody saw any red flags. Nobody thought anything was wrong with him, t"s not enough to just limit the kind of people who own guns. You have to go after the guns themselves. Guns are the problem So here are some more gun facts for you to chew on Americans own approximately 270 million guns, which gives America the highest rate of gun ownership with, 89 guns for every 100 people. Approximately 20% of gun owners own 65% of the guns. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms reports that about 9.3 million firearms were manufactured in the United States in 2015. More than 36,000 Americans were victims of firearm-related deaths in 2015 As of January 1, 2017, 19 states and Washington, DC, go beyond federal law by requiring background checks for all handgun sales. Gun-related deaths are now the third leading cause of death of American children. Every day, 7 children are killed and 12 more are injured with a gun. 44% of Americans say they personally know someone who has been shot with a gun, either accidentally or intentionally. According to DoSomething.org, even though young people are disproportionately affected by gun violence, 85% of young people say they feel silenced in the debate over finding solutions. 27 people were killed by guns in America on Christmas Day in 2015, which is equal to the total number of people killed in gun homicides in an entire year in Austria, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, Estonia, Bermuda, Hong Kong, and Iceland combined. The last stat should be enough for everyone in the world to realize only backwater rednecks with grade 8 education would think that guns are a good thing. case closed (mic drop) Only in America
Should all guns be banned

First, please cite all of your sources. I have a hard time believing that crime rates in Canada are 90% lower than the US. Even if they are the population in Canada is 36 million and the population in the US is 325 million so that might explain the percentage difference. You stated that crime rates are lower in states that don't allow guns. First, I would like to know the source for this because there are so many different studies saying different things. I could give you 3 sources saying guns deter crime: 1. www.gunowners.org 2. American journal of Public Health 3. NCDSV.org There are so many ways that you can implement biased statistics on whether or not guns deter crime, there is simply no way to know. My opponent also said that guns kill people. CARS kill people but does that mean that we should get rid of all cars. Of course not. We need cars for transportation. Same thing with guns. We need guns for our self defense. If you are not armed and a criminal walks into your house, who wins? Guns are the best use of self defense and is the only way citizens will be able to stop them if they walk into their house. If we abolish guns we might as well just abolish murderers. But it's just not that simple. If we banned guns criminals can still use the black market as a source to purchase guns. It doesn't matter what we do. All of my opponents statistics are based of of the fact that guns don't exist. But they still will. Because there are still guns in the equation, my opponent can't promise you any benefits whatsoever, it is pure speculation at best.
Do you think gaming systems should Shut off after a few straight hours of being used

Okay, I would like to remind my opponent that I have not disagreed with you that sitting down for too long can kill us (as I have stated in the previous round). What I am against though is the resolution and your beliefs on the topic which are that, video games should turn off automatically after a few hours. The key words in this situation are: few hours. As I have demonstrated. Somebody survived playing constantly for 22 days. They ate whilst playing and only stopped for toilet breaks. A few hours isn't harmful and it can be extremely frustrating when you are playing a video game and it just turns off before you've saved your progress. This would decrease sales in that particular console and the major flaw in your argument is that the person could essentially just turn the console back on again. Once the console is off it has no power working and it would need to be using power in order to stop them from turning it back on again and then it would technically on. Anyway, you get the point that this would raise many technicality issues and would be extremely expensive to make. You have a good idea although it would need to be improved and realistic in terms of cost to even allow a games company to consider doing this and the idea you have now just isn't good enough as I have demonstrated throughout the rounds. https://www.google.co.uk... https://www.google.co.uk...
Do you think gaming systems should Shut off after a few straight hours of being used

So people game as a living, I know, cool that they make money doing what they love, but I am more concerned with their health. Go ahead, play the games, as do I, but we have to know when to put the controls down. Sitting for too long will eventually kill us.. http://www.livescience.com... ..none the less, make us more at risk for disease. http://abcnews.go.com... I'm not saying for everyone to stop playing for good, i;m just stating that maybe it is a good idea to put a timer on thing, you know, take a break and walk around. Thank you for taking time to read this.