BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Feminism is no longer about gender equality

Feminism is the belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. Unlike Women's Rights which is focused exclusively on the rights and freedoms of women, Feminism is about gender equality, the civil rights of women and men. ...Or at least that's what its suppose to be. The egalitarian First-wave of feminism was killed by the radical Second-wave feminists of the 60's and 70's. Unlike the First-wave feminists who were concerned with equal legal rights and opportunities for women, Second-wave feminists instead launched a gender culture war. The feminist movement became dominated by angry women who questioned whether a man could be a feminist, and began limiting male participation in the movement because of their "patriarchal tendencies". Men could only be "pro-feminists" at best, but not a "real" feminist. This shift led to feminism becoming gynocentric, misandric, and dogmatic. Ever since Feminism has had a complete disregard for equality, and is only concerned about status and well-being of women and girls. For Example: Girls are outperforming boys in school and are enrolling in college and university at significantly higher rates than males (among Americans ages 25 to 34, 34% of women now have a bachelor's degree but just 27% of men). [Kay S. Hymowitz: Where have all the good men gone? http://online.wsj.com...] "In the United States, a proposal to do something special for boys usually gets plowed under before it has a chance to take root. In 1996, New York City public schools established the Young Women's Leadership School, an all-girls public school in East Harlem. The school is a great success and many, including The New York Times, urged then Schools Chancellor Rudy Crew to establish a "similar island of excellence for boys." Crew rejected the idea of a comparable all-boys school. He regarded the girls' school as reparatory for past educational practices that neglected girls." "[In] Prince George's County, Maryland, just outside Washington, D.C., to help boys, the county organized a "Black Male Achievement Initiative." Beginning in the early nineties, approximately forty young men met two weekends a month with a group of professional men for tutoring and mentoring. The program was popular and effective. But in 1996, it was radically restructured by order of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, which found that it discriminated against girls." ...So the boys continue to struggle, while the girls get more support than they actually need. The Feminists lobbied for the success of girls in school, but they could not care less about the boys struggling and the academic gender gap. [Christina Hoff Sommers: The War Against Boys http://www.nytimes.com... and http://www.theatlantic.com...] Whatever the goal of Feminism is, it's no longer equality of the sexes.
Feminism is no longer about gender equality

Although we are at odds over the nature of feminism, we both agree that an ultimate goal of equality between the sexes is paramount and deplore the rise of misandry amongst so-called feminists. To conclude, then. Feminism is indeed about women. It is about the affirmation that women are not inferior to men; that women should be equal to men. My opponent has narrowed his definition of feminists from the sum total of feminists to Western feminists; and then from Western feminists to 'the majority of feminist organizations, academic feminists, and feminist media'. It is unsurprising that examination of this subset of feminists reveals misandry; few would undertake a dedicated career in feminism without passion, and thus a tendency to radicalism or even extremism; this is hardly an unbiased strata. This, however, does not apply to all feminists; as my previous statistics revealed, the majority of women who consider themselves feminist support their own gender in claiming equality as opposed to inferiority. They do not support misandry. An overwhelmingly female society of course cannot support or equally represent men. This is because it is not intended to. Feminism counteracts misogyny; Masculism counteracts misandry. Feminism is as much about gender equality as Masculism, and vice versa; both are movements intended to counterbalance inequality based on gender. Anyone can be both Masculist and Feminist. The reason that single-gender organisations can be genuinely essential, however, are twofold. First, emotional support. No matter how sympathetic the parties involved are, there are some experiences that simply do not cross genders well. Especially with sexual issues, there is real discomfort involved. This is why it is possible to request a male or female doctor; or a male or female counsellor. Then as well, few women understand on an instinctive level the stigmas, demands and assumptions the male psyche labours under; the reverse is also true. Second, self-representation. To combat inequality, to organise a response representative of those suffering that inequality affirms the purpose of those doing so; in effect, to say, 'We are doing this ourselves because we are capable of doing so. ' Failure to do this has undermined many causes. The empowerment of a gender involves demonstrating that it's members do not require the other gender to oversee their political movements. Closing remarks, then. Feminism counters female oppression; Masculism counters male oppression. A society can suffer from both; indeed, both are present in varying doses in Western society. This does not make the individual gender movements any less valid. Feminism is and remains a movement intended to restore balance where inequality for women exists; the presence of misandry and inequality for men does not violate it's validity or necessity.
Feminism is no longer about gender equality

I quite enjoyed it. Though there are several variants of feminism, the Feminist establishment, that is the majority of feminist organizations, academic feminists, and feminist media, is well organized and quite monolithic in their views and objectives. As my previous arguments have illustrated, the feminist establishment is not very found of dissent, and that rogue feminists find themselves ostracised from the community and marginalized in the public forum. The independent feminists that do exist are a small disassociated minority and are no where near enough to influence the general public perception of feminism. Of course feminists don't self-identify as misandrists, their ideas are laced with often subtle, and perhaps unintentional, misandry or female chauvinism: They imply that in all areas where women dominate it is due to merit while all the areas that men dominate is due to a legacy of patriarchy and discrimination. If women are better at some things than men and men are better at nothing, are women not superior to men? They might not say that all men are rapists, but many do believe that male sexuality is inherently exploitive; objectification of women (because men are visually simulated) or physical aggression and domination of women (because of a man's sexual role as penetrator, and social role as the initiator of sex). Effectively attacking men for their heterosexuality. How can it be possible that an overwhelmingly female organization can equally represent men. How can it be possible that such an organization can give equal consideration to men's issues. How can it be possible that such an organization can not have a strong female bias. Is it possible? Do you honestly believe that contemporary feminism is as concerned with men as it is with women? Or is that not necessary for an organization to be for equality of the sexes? As Warren Farrell puts it: "There should never have been a women's movement that blamed men for the ills of society. There should not be a men's movement blaming women. There should only be a gender transitional movement that encompasses both genders. Sadly, he says, 30 years of feminism have made the men's movement necessary. "But as soon as things get anywhere near balanced -- if I live that long -- when men start blaming women, I will be on their backs just as hard and as strong as I am now that it's the other way around. " (. http://www.salon.com...) Feminism is no longer about gender equality because it couldn't be, it's only about women.
Feminism is no longer about gender equality

Now that Pro has redefined the sphere of debate to feminism in the West, which I am happy to accept, I feel that I must shall begin by reiterating the difference between feminism and misandry. Feminism is the belief that women are not inferior; misandry is the belief that men are inferior, and conversely that women are superior. A misandrist often suffers failure of logic through generalisation. For example,Some men are rapists.Therefore, all men are rapists.Therefore, all rapists are men.Pro is unfortunately falling into the same pattern:Some feminists are misandrists.Therefore, all feminists are misandrists.Therefore, all misandrists are feminists.Statistically, many women dislike the term 'feminist' because of it's association with misandry. Only 27% of women would term themselves feminists in the U.S. (http://www.cbsnews.com...) and yet 65% would describe themselves as feminists when the term was specifically defined as 'interested in equality between the sexes' (http://www.cbsnews.com...). Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that every woman who openly terms themselves a 'feminist' in this particular set of polls is a misandrist. (Not true, but simply for the sake of a rough figure here). Let us also assume that every woman who defines themself as a feminist when the non-misandrist definition is offered them, but would not like to be termed a feminist due to the association of the term with misandry, is not a misandrist (Again not necessarily true, but more likely to be so since they are specifically disassociating with the term through it's hostility). That makes it 27% of females who are misandrists; and 38% who are not but who would call themselves feminist. I feel this displays clearly my own contention; the majority of feminists, women interested in equality between the genders, are not misandrists. This of itself is a skewed proportion, since I sincerely doubt that all women who would term themselves feminists are misandrists.As an anecdotal piece of evidence towards that; I woke up this morning and turned the laptop on to check updates, emails etc (something I often do to wake myself up). On considering this debate I turned to my partner and asked, "Love, am I a misandrist?" He laughed, and answered, "Of course not." Yet I have considered myself a feminist all of my life.Further to that, the feminist movement is questioning the misandrists in it's ranks (http://www.feministcritics.org...) and arguing against misandry (http://sexademic.wordpress.com...); as I do myself. However, as long as some Western men consider women inferior, there will be a need for Western feminists to make the case that women are not inferior, separate to and apart from misandrists.
Feminism is no longer about gender equality

The injustices that the women of the Middle East and parts of Africa currently suffer are not that different from that which women historically endured in the west. These feminist movements outside the West are just beginning and are merely in their First-wave Feminism phase, thus they are pure in their egalitarian pursuits. My augment however is that Western Feminism has evolved far beyond these budding movements from the goal of gender equality to exclusively female advocacy. Hence the motion: "Feminism in NO LONGER about gender equality". Western Feminism not only fails to be equal to men, but it also fails its sisters suffering outside of the West. "Feminists are tied up in knots by multiculturalism and find it very hard to pass judgment on non-Western cultures. They are far more comfortable finding fault with American society for minor inequities (the exclusion of women from the Augusta National Golf Club, the "underrepresentation" of women on faculties of engineering) than criticizing heinous practices beyond our shores. The occasional feminist scholar who takes the women's movement to task for neglecting the plight of foreigners is ignored or ruled out of order. Take psychology professor Phyllis Chesler. She has been a tireless and eloquent champion of the rights of women for more than four decades. Unlike her tongue-tied colleagues in the academy, she does not hesitate to speak out against Muslim mistreatment of women. In a recent book, The Death of Feminism, she attributes the feminist establishment's unwillingness to take on Islamic sexism to its support of "an isolationist and America-blaming position." [...] The sisterhood has rewarded her with excommunication. A 2006 profile in the Village Voice reports that, among academic feminists, "Chesler arouses the vitriol reserved for traitors." "The Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF) has been intelligently fighting the mistreatment of women in the Muslim world for several years. In 1997, in a heroic effort to expose the crimes of the Taliban, [...] created a vital national campaign complete with rallies, petitions, and fundraisers. The FMF, working with human rights groups, helped to persuade the United States and the United Nations to deny formal recognition to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. It helped convince the oil company UNOCAL not to build a pipeline across Afghanistan, and it brought the oppression of women living under radical Islamic law into clear relief for all the world to see." "It was a good example of what can be achieved when a women's group seriously seeks to address the mistreatment of women outside the United States." However, this was criticized by the other feminists as "imperial feminism." (Christina Hoff Sommers - The Subjection of Islamic Women: http://www.weeklystandard.com...) Western Feminism has proven itself useless and counter-productive in many respects, but most of all a failure to be equal.
Murder is not right

Im christian and even i realize that some people are never to have the chance. its one of the many mysteries but its like the many people that die in africa that will never have the chance. But thats just it, nobody everyone was supposed to get a chance. i know its brutal but so was the second world war. The explanation behind the rationale behind this is that humanity is the architect of its own suffering. The ability for men and women to come to god is purely through our own acts which promote it that are really our own honest effort or inadvertently. In summary murder is a by product of the human condition (Architect of our own suffering) and can not be changed, people being doomed to hell through not hearing it is purely because of the failure of human free will to choose the right side right from the beginning. we have the ability to find the path but its purely of human action or inaction. The path was also provided but we still have to find it through another human, or of our own efforts. That what people need to understand. You can pray but god doesnt answer all prayers if you do not act. he may answer your prayer to eat, or your prayer to get a job, but sometimes your own motivation is the way to answer that prayer that remains unanswered. God has a reduced role in our lives due to our free will and the fact we made the wrong choice with adam and eve. this made all the suffering possible. understand this and move on
Murder is not right

no in a society with 7 billion people in which only about 1.5 billion are truly tried for their actions against another murder is unstoppable. even if it was stopped normal person ways it would still be put to the test militarily. War is necessary murder in some cases to make things better and to prevent more murder.. it is unsolvable. and besides one murder unless its pretty out there in scope doesnt matter to the news. they want the extraordinary. even awareness doesnt stop it. what do you not get about that?
Murder is not right

it doesnt matter im not saying its good. im only con because of this stupid website. but im saying that humanity causes all of its own problems, some people are just inherently bad. its like if some people werent so greedy then they would be able to feed and clothe africa with their own fortunes. if people were so selfish, then 60 million people wouldnt have died in a second world war that ultimately brought us closer to destruction than we shouldve ever gotten to. I WILL CLEARLY ELABORATE THIS, MURDER IS NOT GOOD, BUT ITS A NECESSARY EVIL THAT WE BROUGHT UPON OURSELF WHEN ADAM AND EVE TOOK A BITE OF THE APPLE. THEN CAIN KILLED ABEL OUT OF HIS SELFISHNESS. MURDER HAPPENS WHETHER ITS GOOD OR BAD AND CAN NOT BE STOPPED PERIOD. EVEN WITH THE MOST DRACONIAN DICTATORIAL GOVERNMENTS (NORTH KOREA) MURDER IS NOT STOPPED. THE STATE HAS TOTAL CONTROL, AND PEOPLE ARE STILL KILLED REGARDLESS. MURDER HAPPENS DEAL WITH IT. Its Ignorant christians like you that give the rest of us a bad name... yeah stop..
Gay Parenting

My last few attempts to debate this subject were taken on by non-serious debaters, so I'd like to try this again with a minimum 15 debate requirement. If you would like to debate this and do not meet the requirement, please let me know.Many arguments against the legality of gay marriage include the sanctity of the family. According to social conservatives, gay people are deranged, perverted or otherwise unfit to provide a safe, functional and/or loving family environment in which kids can be raised successfully. At the very least, they argue that a proper home is strictly defined by having both a mother and a father. As such, despite the fact that lesbians can still get pregnant and gay couples can adopt, many people are opposed to same-sex headed families and think they should be discouraged if not outright illegal.In this debate, I will be arguing that gay and lesbian couples do on balance raise children just as well as straight couples. For all intents and purposes, just as well will essentially be defined as according to the same standards of wellness and success under similar circumstances. For example, if Con argues that kids with straight parents are likely to attend college, Pro will have the burden of proving kids with gay parents are also likely to attend college (or provide an otherwise equal measure of success). This is not meant to turn into a debate about semantics or trivialities, but discuss legitimate concerns regarding same-sex parenting.My opponent is free to make opening notes in R1, as I intend to start the debate and make my affirmative case in R2. However if he or she would like to post first, they may do so.Thanks and good luck.
Gay Parenting

I ask the voters to vote fairly--do not vote for me or my opponent merely due to ideological reasons. I will not rebut, as I began the debate with my argument. I will only summarize my case extremely briefly and not address Pro's final points, though most of them were dealt with elsewhere. I must note an X-factor: I only had one round of rebuttals because of the way Pro posted her arguments (rebutted instead of writing a case R2), which made it extremely hard for me to have an equal amount of rebutting argumentation. This should be factored in (also note Pro had less case-building, but more rebuttals, do whatever). Here is my short summary: 1. 30 years of sociological research supports the notion that both fathers and mothers are unique and both are essential for child development. 2. The homosexual lifestyle harms children, and in countries (e. g. Netherlands and Scandinavia) which are extremely progressive, the harmful lifestyle persists, indicating social pressures are not the cause of homosexuals' lifestyle choices which harm child development 3. A huge amount of research supports the idea that children are adversely affected by homosexual parenting. The NFSS, Potter, Allen, Allen et al. , Sarantakos 1996, Sirota 2007, and Sullins 2014 all support my case. They all (except Sarantakos and Sirota) use randomized datasets which are nationally representative--and Sarantakos and Sirota both use better methodology than their other non-random counterparts which claim no difference (Lerner and Nagai 2001 say Sarantakos is the best in their survey, for example). Pro offers some counter research, but as noted, those studies are not strong enough to scientifically prove her assertion. I will not say anything else, except.
Philosophy and logic: Abortion rights equality

You're correct in the point that there can be exceptions, such as a broken condom or even rape, but generally, more often than not, when a woman gets pregnant it is either through a planned conceptual intercourse or in a situation where the male, who is in control, decides to emit inside the female. You see, these aren't just "what-if" situations valued equivalently to other "what-if" situations, which I agree that blanket regulations wouldn't be the wisest. These are general situations as opposed to exceptions, which in case, I believe regulations should revolve around what usually and generally happens, and the general case is that the male usually has control of where he decides to emit, and thus has more control of the conception of a child more so than the mother. Historically and biologically, men are superior as opposed to women(This isn't what I believe, this is what I have observed through research). Men have been granted more opportunities, physically are more capable, and are the predominant choice in the workforce. Thus, to see that equality should be given to women would be of altruism, however, to see that equality should be given in favor of men when men are already predominant would be of self-indulgence, thus, I believe it would be of good that society would require of men to contribute to the nourishment of their child, not only on their behalf, but also on the behalf of this society and its next generation.
Philosophy and logic: Abortion rights equality

Thank you for the challenge, good luck to you. To preface; I believe in, and this stance operates under, the notion that all human beings have the sovereign right to decisions regarding their own body. Firstly, the points you bring up have relevance, but in my opinion lack in scope. The circumstances you listed surely happen, but do so along with an infinite number of other possible scenarios. Every case is different, with responsibility falling differently depending on the circumstances. Blanket regulations cannot be built on "what-ifs" that don't apply to every situation they cover. Thus, determining which party is directly responsible for the conception is arbitrary, and should be irrelevant to the way the regulations are built. So then, we must take the situation at face value, with no biased blame attached to either party. The pregnant woman has the right to choice over her own body. She has the option to choose whether she wants to be a parent or not. The father has absolutely no say in the decision to abort or not to abort, as consistently held by the courts. Another way of putting it: ""the courts have properly determined that a man should neither be able to force a woman to have an abortion nor to prevent her from having one, should she so choose. Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support " autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice." - Karen Decrow, former President, National Organization for Women Logically, I liken this point to a historical principle that sparked our nation: "Taxation Without Representation". The colonists were fed up with being forced to pay taxes by the British government when they had no say in the matters related to that tax money. This was such an appalling infringement of rights that it helped lead to the American Revolution. While not a perfect comparison, I believe it serves as a precedent. It is unjust to hold a person financially responsible for a decision they did not make, nor have the power to.