BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The wage gap is bull crap

When I said it was bull crap I didn't mean it didn't exist, I mean it is bull crap because of the way it is presented, The observed wage gap is based on comparing the average income of men to the average income of woman without considering any variables, Sometimes when the wage gap is brought off they add woman get less paid for the same jobs but that"s crap, Asking woman why they get paid less is like asking why men are more likely to die in the workplace than woman, It"s because men and woman tend to work different jobs and just like some jobs are more dangerous than others some jobs pay more than others and since men tend to work higher paying jobs such as those in STEM field men tend to make more money and even when you are comparing men and woman working the same jobs there are things which factor into why men get paid more than woman such as the fact that men are more likely to work overtime, Are more likely to ask for raises or promotions, Are less likely to take time off, Are more competitive, Are more likely to take risks, Prioritise more than woman, Retire at a later time than woman and all these other things studies have found, With all these thing taken in consideration it"s no wonder why men get paid more, Men work more and really I hate to point out this obvious, Bit of common sense but if company"s could actually get away with paying woman less don"t you think they would just hire nothing but woman to save more money, Do you honestly think corporations are such boy clubs that giving advantages to men is more important to them than their profits and shareholder interests,
The wage gap is bull crap

WASHINGTON—An American Association of University Women (AAUW) analysis of newly released U. S. Census Bureau data indicates that women working full time on average still make 80 cents compared to every dollar men make. At the current rate of progress in closing the gap, Women will not receive pay equity until the year 2119. Prior AAUW analysis found that even when accounting for education, Occupation, Hours worked, And other factors, Women still earned seven percent less than men. Gender discrimination is a significant cause of the pay gap. “The minimal change to the average pay gap doesn’t surprise me at all. While there has been recent progress, In fits and spurts, In states across the country, Our landscape has been the status quo, ” said AAUW Chief Executive Officer Kimberly Churches. “Women and families can’t afford to face another day of the financial insecurity caused by unequal pay. That’s why AAUW is taking the fight for fair pay to every level of government, Employers, And employees and backing it up with our in-depth research and practical solutions for closing the gap once and for all. ” AAUW will be compiling a pay gap analysis in its forthcoming research report, The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap, Which will demonstrate how much the pay gap impacts women, Families, Businesses, And the nation’s economy. Families increasingly rely on women’s wages to make ends meet. A majority of mothers are in the paid labor force, And a growing number of them (42 percent) are responsible for supporting their families. Due to the pay gap and lower wages women who complete college degrees are less able to pay off their student loans promptly, Leaving them paying more and for a longer time than men. All of these setbacks compound over a lifetime and can lead to families’ financial insecurity. The pay gap is a multipronged problem but there are also solutions to address it. “It’s easy to look at these numbers and instantly become depressed, ” noted Churches. “But AAUW will continue the drumbeat of equal pay even if Congress and the Trump administration take steps backward on this issue. We’re logging win after win in states by challenging and collaborating with policy makers to take steps toward strong equal pay legislation. Additionally, We are empowering women to expertly negotiate their salary through our salary negotiation workshops along with working with private and public sector employers on how to ensure women are better represented in positions of leadership. At the end of the day diversity is not only the right thing to do, It’s good for a company’s bottom line and our economy as a whole. Without action to close the gender and racial pay gap unequal pay will be a stark reality for women and families for the indeterminate future and that’s a scenario we refuse to accept. ”Source: https://www. Aauw. Org - Gender Pay Gap Remains at 20 Cents
NASCAR ought to implement right turns

http://www.youtube.com...Fair enough, a lot of people don't seem to realize it even though there was this really awesome finish a few years back at Watkins Glen. I'll go along with this for now.Contention 1 is an interesting contention, but is flawed in several respects. First off, the best part of a NASCAR race is not the wrecks. Instead, it is the actual, side-to-side racing that dominates the majority of the race. Unlike in open-wheel, road course series races like the entirety of Formula 1 or 2/3s of the IndyCar season, NASCAR races generally feature extended battles for lead - in fact, battles for all positions, because unlike in Formula 1, where only the top ten are awarded points, all spots are awarded points. This encourages competition throughout the race because every spot gained is worth more points. And as another flaw, it assumes oval racing requires no talent. If that is the case, why has Juan Pablo Montoya, a champion of the Monaco Grand Prix who finished in the top ten in each of his six F1 seasons, managed no greater than an 8th place finish in NASCAR's highest division?[1] Simply put, oval racing requires a skillset that many road racers simply do not master. Why is that? Because, unlike in F1 where contact is usually illegal, contact in NASCAR is perfectly legal in most cases, and contact frequently occurs at speeds in excess of 180 mph. Similarly, the cars do not have nearly as much downforce, meaning drivers have to be much more talented at braking and steering through the corners, something that becomes immensely harder as tires wear down.[2] These factors combined mean the skillset is much different and very hard to adapt to for road course racers.My opponent's second contention is also flawed. Drunk spectators are a fact of life at any sporting event, and NASCAR is no exception, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few - many people want to watch NASCAR races, and ovals allow more people to watch them than road courses. In fact, at many tracks you can see virtually the whole course! This is much more fun than having sold old guy in a booth be telling you what is happening. You paid a lot of money to see the race, who not be able to see all of it? Any sun-related issues could be solved by giving free sunscreen to all people at the event, but no other sporting event has to deal with this so why bother?References:1. https://en.wikipedia.org...2. https://sites.imsa.edu...
NASCAR ought to implement right turns

Okay, so I was unaware that NASCAR already has right turns. I'm not too awfully familiar with NASCAR so this is really the reason as to why I did not know this; however, I would urge my opponent to try and actually argue with the presupposition that there are only tracks with left turns. As this is a website meant for actual debate, I find it disconcerting when one tries to win off of a technicality in the actual wording of the resolution that was made ill-informed. If my opponent does not wish to do this, fine, but do keep in mind that he has not demonstrated that he was/is a better debater.
NASCAR ought to implement right turns

NASCAR has already implemented right turns on a full-time basis at a select few courses, including current ones such as the Canadian Tire Motorsports Park, the Mid-Ohio Sports Car Course, Road America, Sonoma Raceway, and Watkins Glen International.[1] The introduction of right-turns into NASCAR has thus already happened, rendering the contention of this debate moot.References:1. https://en.wikipedia.org...;
NASCAR ought to implement right turns

My opponent's responses here are flawed. In response to my arguments noting the wrecks are not the best part, so basing your argument around it is faulty. In response to my skill comments, my opponent suggests that ' right turns only increase the competitiveness of the sport and actually allow for more opportunities for over-taking other opponents, meaning that it's even more of a toss-up'. This is false, because from all indications right turns inhibit overtaking. Talladega, an oval course, has frequenly led to races with over 80 passes for lead.[1] Because F1 has so little passing, they have had to turn to video-game gimmicks like DRS to encourage and promote passing. If right turns encourage passing, why does F1 not have 80 passes for lead (let alone 80 passes) a race?In response to my arguments on issue one, my opponent now agrees it takes skill to race on ovals but that it also takes skill to race on road courses. I agree with this, of course, but the superiority of road courses to ovals has not been proven, and in fact some points (such as right turns boosting passing) do not actually have a basis in reality. I would in fact agree that points would be more evenly spread out than in other sports, but this isn't a symptom of road courses, it's just due to NASCAR having a points system that encourages competition even from backmarkers.To my second point, he argues that NASCAR tracks are different from other events because there is no shade. What? Has my opponent ever been to a football stadium, particularly one in the deep south? Heat is going to be a factor anywhere. NASCAR is already suffering from attendence problems anyway, a natural decrease in the number of people. He also asserts NASCAR is the only sport that has to deal with sun issues (ever heard of cricket or golf, anyone), but rejects my idea of the racetracks offering free sunscreen to solve skin-cancer issues. To conclude - my opponent has not proven that the introduction of right turns will have a tangible impact on the fans or sport itself for the better. I have disproven several of his points entirely (passing, drunk fans, oval racing requiring skill) and other points simply aren't enough to do anything. I urge a vote for CON.References:1. http://espn.go.com...
ex felons should be able to vote

I'm just going to respond to my opponents speech. Unless he can substantiate his claims, I just need to rebut his claims since they're baseless. My opponent has the full burden of proof. I'll provide one source, and I will have destroyed my opponent's opening statements. My opponent opens with his opinion. Opinions can't be substantiated. He says we need more people voting, but somehow it doesn't make sense that felons should be the ones filling the polls instead of law abiding citizens. The proper solution is to get more law abiding citizens to vote. He assumes that all felons committed their crime a long time ago. That's an assumption used as a blanket statement. Blanket statements only need one example to be destroyed, and here I can provide a standard that breaks his statement. The minimum punishment for a felony is 48 hours [1]. He says that they're still citizens so they should vote. Something about committing a felony is that they're forfeiting certain rights by damaging the American public. Voting is one of those rights. I await a response. ------------------------------------------- Source: [1] http://www.cga.ct.gov...
The mentally handicapped people don't promote to society, so they should be eliminated.

Not to long ago my opponent had this vile resolution on offer. I commented on how disgusting the notion is, and how perverse someone would have to be to buy into such a notion. Mr. Fernandito agreed to debate the topic with me ( I know, I don't know what they were thinking either) and asked to keep in initital intro he started the last debate with him. Who am I to deny the man tickets to his own funeral. So below is the intro that Pro set out with when last debating the resolution. And don't worry, I am not going to let him get away with peddling this crap. Pro intro:"I haven't participated in any debates recently, and the last 3 that I created, I was unable to attend to in the required time due to personal reasons. For this topic, please keep in mind that this is not against the physically handicapped, but mainly the severely mentally handicapped. I will save my reasoning for the next round, as this is just an agreement between me and the contender of this argument that he or she accepts my debate request. The rules to this debate are pretty simple: -No trolling -Cite any sources used to prove your point at the bottom below your argument (including images), and state specifically where this source is being used in the argument. If you do not prove any points with specific evidence, I will not view you as a worthy opponent and I will forfeit the round. -Do not stray from the main topic, so if you start ranting about how some random subject relates to this that is a completely different matter, I will forfeit the round. -Do not accept this debate if your just going to state a very brief argument, I see many do this on this site, and I don't want to be debating with someone who wont take the time to make a long durable argument. Other than that, there's nothing else to explain.
Medical Coverage (Insuance) For Genetic Disease

A major provision of The Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) [healthcare.gov] is to establish 'guaranteed issue'; issuers offering insurance in either the group or individual market must provide coverage for all individuals who request it. The law therefore prohibits issuers of health insurance from discriminating against patients with genetic diseases by refusing coverage because of 'pre-existing conditions'. ACA further provides additional protections for patients with genetic diseases by establishing that certain health insurance issuers may only vary premiums based on a few specified factors such as age or geographic area, thereby prohibiting the adjustment of premiums because of medical conditions.
Medical Coverage (Insuance) For Genetic Disease

The average person lives until about 80. life insurance is about $350 a year. So one person will give 28,000 in a life... sounds good right? Back on the subject on the children, if they die before they are five, 28,00 dollars becomes $320 from kids parents. Money will come in very slow. Investors will demand and the economy will fail. So 499,680 dollars are given for each kids death considering the 500,000 required to be given, multiply that by the amount of kids who die a year from genetic disease. which is equivalent to 242,429,245,920 dollars a year. The world in itself has 1.2 trillion dollars total. Divide the two the WORLD will go bankrupt in 4.9 years!
Medical Coverage (Insuance) For Genetic Disease

On February 8, 2000, Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 13145, prohibiting discrimination in Federal employment based on genetic information. The Executive Order prohibits federal employers from requesting or requiring any genetic information from their employees, or the use of genetic information in any employment decision. (At the time of releasing this executive order, he expressed support for a federal law prohibiting genetic discrimination by private employers or health insurance issuers.)
Medical Coverage (Insuance) For Genetic Disease

Allow me to throw some math at you: On average there is about 13 deaths a second. 13 x 60 4 a minute 4 x 60 276 an hour x 24 6646 a day x 365 2425846 a year. divided by 20% 485169 disabled kids die a year. Lets say an insurance company has 100,000,000 dollars. and they give 20 dollars a death. 485169 x 20 = 9703380 dollars a year given. Now unless that company makes over 100,000,000 a year, the company will go bankrupt in about 10 years.
Medical Coverage (Insuance) For Genetic Disease

On October 14, 2003, after years of negotiations, the U.S. Senate passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2003 (S.1053) [thomas.loc.gov] by a vote of 95-0 after the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee had passed the bill by voice vote in May 2003 with no major changes when the bill came to the floor. Allowing for medical insurance to cover genetic disorders.
Medical Coverage (Insuance) For Genetic Disease

Probably one of the main points of this side of the debate is the FACT that 20% of all deaths in America are infants who die because of a genetic disease. 30% of all the adults in hospitals are there because of genetic diseases. Over 10% of babies are born with a disorder. Now 30% of hospitalized adults, 10% of all babies, and 20% of all deaths in America are babies. If insurance covered just the deaths, they would be targets of giving money away 1/5 of all children deaths in America.
Medical Coverage (Insuance) For Genetic Disease

In many cases, insurance companies will cover genetic testing. Though this is not coverage for curing genetic disease, it allows people to be aware of the chance of having a genetic disease. A person's health coverage price may raise if the insurance company finds out that they have a disease. The total amount of coverage may also go down. In a way, an insurance company may be saving someone money if that person has a genetic disease. So in reality it is smart to not even have the insurance company pay for the test due to the chance of price going up, and coverage going down.
Poptarts are better than toaster strudels

Thanks, RicheyWentz for instigating this challenge. As instigator and Pro, my opponent has the burden of proof in this debate. I'm not required to prove that toaster strudels are better than poptarts. As per the phrasing of the resolution, if I can show that Pro's arguments fail, that both poptarts and strudels are equally good, that neither is better than the other, or that the question itself is meaningless, I win. C1. The resolution does not express a proposition A proposition is a type of statement that has a boolean truth value ie., it must be either true or false. Not all utterances express propositions. For example, imperatives like "go jump in a lake," or interrogatives like "what color is the sky?" are not propositions. Propositions must be declarative, such as "bananas are yellow," or "Barack Obama is the current President of the United States." But not all declarative statements are propositions. For example, the statement "The King of the United States is black" is meaningless because America doesn't have a King. Similarly, aesthetic judgments, or statements regarding personal preferences are not propositions.[1] "Apples are delicious" is not a proposition, although "I think apples are delicious" is a proposition, as it can, and must, be either true or false. The resolution "poptarts are better than toaster strudels," like "apples are delicious" is purely a matter of subjective preference. It is not a proposition; it is not truth-apt, and thus it can't possibly be affirmed. C2. I think poptarts taste awful If we're just going to argue over our subjective preferences, I think poptarts are terrible. They're dry and crumbly and taste like WWI surplus bread rations. Strudels are moist and flaky with a delicious filling. See? I've just matched Pro's level of analysis. That means I win. A1. Toaster strudels admit to plagiarizing poptarts Irrelevant. This is a fallacious argumentum ad antiquitatem. [2] Just because poptarts came first doesn't make them better. Moreover, the definition of plagiarism is "the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."[3] In the advertisement, Pillsbury openly credits Poptarts as originating the toaster pastry idea, thus they have not technically plagiarized. A2. There are more flavors of poptarts Also irrelevant. Thirteen delicious flavors are better than 29 awful flavors.[4] A3. Poptarts are always nice and warm while toaster studels always taste cold inside This just means you're retarded and don't know how to use a toaster properly. Turn the temperature down and leave the strudel in longer to allow the heat to become evenly distributed.[5] References: 1. http://www.iep.utm.edu... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com... 4. http://www.mugglenet.com... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Poptarts are better than toaster strudels

I was enjoying a delicious cookie dough poptarts with cold white milk when this came on the telly: http://www.youtube.com... What a punk. In the commercial it states, "like poptarts, only better." That's right, toaster studels admit to plagarizing poptarts. Poptarts also came first and toaster strudels were just uber jealous. Also poptarts influenced toaster studels! "It was developed by a young business man whose father reportedly first had the thought to make a flaky treat whilst eating a cherry filled pop-tart." There are also more flavors of poptarts. They have 29 flavors compared to only 13 toaster strudel flavors. Finally, taste wise, poptarts are always nice and warm while toaster studels always taste cold inside.
Computers in charge of the world

I still see a computer failing to control the world. The idea of a perfect computer seems good but it's going to be too expensive to make and maintain. And who would be allowed to maintain them? People? If people can maintain them, then what stops a computer maintenance from opening up the system and reprogramming it to be the way they want it? My argument can't be long because the things that need to be gotten around are small. A computer needs to be able to adapt to the morals of everyone in the different regions of the world. Hell, they'd have to be able to get around Americans. Conservative and Liberal values clash constantly. It would have to be completely neutral and it would have to be created by an equally neutral computer. How would that happen? Most scientists who would work behind a computer have (American) left wing values. Personally, I am an American left wing, but that would not be fair to those who are not if a left wing created it. Who would create it? There are too many variables to make a leader out of a computer. The perfect computer would have to be created and maintained by the perfect computer. According to my opponent, there is no human that can't be corrupted so the perfect computer can't be made and maintained.
Computers in charge of the world

It wouldn't be smarter, just less single minded. Instead of a group of leader, each wanting the best for THEMSELVES, a conclusion would never be a compromise. Witha group of computers, all wanting the best for EVERYONE, would eventually come to a better conclusion. A computer in charge would take away all singlemindedness(not a word either) from power. If we made a computer smarter that us, it would be able to alter its own programming, and would be able to do anything it wanted. Plus, it would be more one computer. Each culture perceives morallity differently, so there would a computer per culture, or something of the sort. Humans would still be able to vote on how they wanted it programmed, so they wouldn't need to program it themselves. Your last statement "I think and uncorruptable (not a word roll with me) human would be better." Of course it would. They would be able to see emotions and things a computer can't. But as I said before,people can still be corrupted with out power. They would use bribery, blackmail, and sabotage. But a computer is immine to those things. A human is not.