BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Girls are the greater sex

Again my opponent is failing to look at both sides of the situation. She is also misunderstanding my points. I was previously supporting my statement that men and women are equals by saying that the father is involved greatly in the reproduction of life as is the mother. I was not stating that the father figure is the most important. Now we all know that women can multi task but genetically there is nothing saying that men can't either. And I will use the same model my opponent has used. A man can be a father looking after his children, a worker in the work force (the fact that the woman is a teacher changes nothing), a friend no doubt to many, a man can also offer insight into relationship matters. This next role my opponent uses "a wife fixing up her husband" This role shouldn't exist as a role a mother balances. As we all know when two people get married they have fallen in love and are happy with the way each other are. Thus if you really love the person why try to change them? The idea is illogical. This idea is in my opinion one that shouldn't exist but I know it still does. Nonetheless the point remains. If you married the guy you are obviously happy with the way they are. Marriage isn't like a contract woman can use to change a man from the person they really are. Continuing on not only females have to deal with the task of multi tasking. A male can do many such things including nursing children, cooking ,working to support the family so they can eat. ,teaching children some lessons they may not learn at school,counseling (sorting out problems in the family, inspiring others including siblings, driving people places, showing compassion to good examples, doing things with their son or daughter things their mother might not like. Teaching them the ideals and polite things do to for women (opening doors for them). I could go on, but ill spare the voters their time. In conclusion, I the Con believe that males and females in a majority of circumstances are equal. They have the same roles as people in society. Similar roles specific to them in the role of parenting and history is our example that men and women can excel in areas of their choosing.
Girls are the greater sex

My opponent thus has said that the father is important in the figure of birth. But that statement is not true, the fact that some male donate there sperm because they don't want to have a real baby is unnecessary, and that also points to girls can get a baby with the donated sperm, they don't need a boy to raise or teach that child. Also Women are capable of not only doing the same things as boys, but are better because they have bastard the 'art' of multi tasking. Even though a man/boy 'can' be talented, the woman/girl balances many roles. For example, a woman can be a mother, looking after children, a teacher in the work force, a friend , to help out with relationship problems, a wife fixing up her husband. in the role of a woman her everyday tasks may consist of:nursing, cookie,cleaning,teaching,counselling, inspiring,organising schedules and driving, to name a few. I have clearly stated against my opponents rebuttal, but also have made a continuous list of how a woman is able to do many, whilst the man has to do 1. To you Con...
Girls are the greater sex

Firstly, rebuttal. My opponent has stated that women have to go through extraordinary things in their life, She also lists some of these things. "Knowing tat to have a family the boys must grow up and find a girl to continue on their family name" This example right here is actually one that in my opinion has very little to do with the topic. If anything it further supports my side saying that males are given the burden of carrying on the family name. Thus males are the greater sex. In addition, My opponent told us that "the mother is the most important because she has the ability to nurture, because they breast feed and children being close to the mother can bond." My rebuttal for this point is that the mother is not the only one which is able to nurture the spouse, it is a joint effort of both mother and father. You may say that the mother goes through more pain in childbirth but without the male giving his sperm to you, you would never have to endure that pain. Lastly, why is it that the mother is better because she can bond with the child. A father can bond, have fun, teach etc things to his son or daughter and for what? According to you. Nothing. There is no reason a father and son/ daughter can't bond. it doesn't have to be the mother. Seeing as I have refuted my opponents second case and have already presented two points thus far. Also due to the fact I am still a student on a busy schedule I am going to leave it at that for now. I look forward to a challenging third case from my opponent. To Pro...
Girls are the greater sex

Here my apponant has stated he/she in there opinion is girls and boys are equal. The things that women have to go through are extradianary. Knowing tat to have a family the boys must grow up and find a girl to continue on their family name. In a family it is important to have a mother and a father, the mother is the most important because she has the ability to nurture, because they breast feed and children being close to the mother can bond. To Con
Girls are the greater sex

Thank you for this challenge and good luck For this debate we have been given the topic "Girls are the greater sex". Now my opponent has not been very specific on this topic thus I being the Con can lead it almost anywhere which is still in relation to the topic. Firstly I would like to state that I the Con believe that no sex is better than the other and I believe that each has their benefits and flaws like anything else in this world. The current reason my opponent is stating that girls are the better sex is due to a girls intelligence for listening and inspiration. Thus I will be focusing my first point on how both sexes can portray the same characteristics. My second point and my last for tonight will be examples of males that portray the same characteristics. Point #1 My opponent stated "girls are the better sex is due to a girls intelligence for listening and inspiration". I can tell you right now of about three different women from three very different walks of life that do not currently show these traits. Why is it that women are like this? Its because they are different. Unfortunately my opponent can't speak for all women when saying that girls are better because they are smarter and have better listening skills. And I know that I can't speak for a men when saying that they can show the same traits. Every person is different thus there is no reason that a male can't display the same traits of a woman, as in their intelligence or any other trait. If the human being really tries it can achieve great things. Intelligence being one of those things achievable. This leads me on to my second and final point for this round. Great historical figures that are males and are intelligent Point #2 Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, General Patton. All great figures who show aspects of intelligence and listening skills who later went on to inspire many others. Albert Einstein for one has not only given us very significant breakthroughs in the field of science but his teachings have gone on and continued to flourish in school class rooms and teach the minds of many others. Along with his great listening skills and determination he is still one of the top 50 most influential physicists of all time. Winston Churchill, led the Brits to victory with his political decisions and his ability to listen to his war generals and plot specific attack strategies. And finally General Patton. One of Americans finest Generals. A quote from himself that inspired many of his troops in their campaigns. "You don't win wars by dying for your country!! You win wars by making the other silly son of a b*tch die for HIS country!!" -General Patton To you pro...
It's time to send all Western Muslims back to the Middle East

I would like to start this round by going over how ignorant my opponent's statement is, and why it goes against the ideology of democracy and goodness in general. Muslims have no statistic which proves that they are any more dangerous than any other humans in the west. The amount of Muslims who are actually terrorists are so minimal, that this debate has nearly no reason for existing. Muslims come from a hard-working culture which supports an essential part of our economy. No one has any right to send them back to the Middle East. Also, the Western Muslims WERE BORN IN THE WEST. It would go again the American constitution to send rightful Americans to other countries. Secondly, Western Muslims have either gone through security checks or have been born in the west, proving that they pose no threat to the west. They have just as much of a right to reside in the west as anyone does. Simply because a nearly invisible amount of them are terrorists, does not mean we have to send the %99.999999999 of them who aren't todangerous nations within the Middle East. In Texas, there are hundreds of murders every year, and Texas was formerly part of Mexico. No one is suggesting that we should stick all Texans in Mexico, eh? Also, as I mentioned earlier, these Middle-Eastern nations are unsafe and currently under the power of cruel dictators. The Muslims could very well be punished in the Middle East, and that is something I hope my opponent doesn't wish on them. Concluding, Muslims pose no threat, and they have just as much of a right to live in the West than any other race does. They have either been born here in the west, or have been allowed into the west. Any objection to Muslims having a right to live in the west is simply an act of racism. Disallowing anyone simply due to their race is just a wrong thing. I sincerely hope that my opponent can see how how his proposition is, and how it defies democracy and the human rights code for that matter.
Pop music is not real music

As you can see, Lolzer2001 has forfeited round 2 of our debate topic "Pop music is not real music". I on the other hand will continue with this debate. Pop music might not be as fun and groovy as other types of music to some people. This topic we are discussing is a matter of opinion. Me? Well I like all types of music. Old, country, rap, and yes, pop. Going back to my opponent's first argument, all music was written for a reason, therefore there is meaning to all music. Beethoven wrote his version of classical for a reason, Taylor Swift switched her genre of song choices, and ACDC loved to just blurt out the words that came to mind. All these people wrote their songs from their experiences. Yes, sometimes songs were written for them (like Taylor Swift) but the people who wrote them obviously had meaning behind their word choice. Again, I disagree that pop music isn't music.
Santa Clause exists.

This debate has absolutely nothing to do with whether Bill Gates delivers presents, only whether he can. Con defined Santa Claus as: "the man WHO HAS THE POWER TO deliver presents to everyone that believes in him and 'existing' as having a tangible body." Thus, as long as Bill Gates has the power to deliver presents, he is Santa Claus. Con concedes: "Bill Gates has the capacity to send presents to every person that believes in him. Sure." Therefore, Con has effectively forfeited this debate.
Santa Clause exists.

Pro stated that Bill Gates has the capacity to send presents to every person that believes in him. Sure. However, the debate topic is "Santa Clause Exists", not "There is a possibility that Santa Clause exists." If Bill Gates were to have sent every present to every boy and girl that believes in him, by Pro's calculations his current net worth (if he had only delivered presents once) would be 40,000,000,000-39,250,000,000=750,000,000 Proven by the fact that Pro showed a source linking to Bill Gates net worth being $40,000,000,000; Bill Gates obviously hasn't spent the money to bring presents to every child that believes in him. My opponent also stated that to ship a 10 lb package internationally would cost 78.50. From Fed-Ex the cost to ship a 10 lb package from CA to Vietnam is 168.25 http://www.fedex.com... Please show me that Santa exists, not that it is possible that he exists.
Santa Clause exists.

======================= Contention: Bill Gates is Santa Claus ======================= I will accept Con's definition of Santa Claus that he is: "the man who has the power to deliver presents to everyone that believes in him and 'existing' as having a tangible body." Con notes that 500,000,000 people celebrate Christmas. The cost to deliver a standard 10-lb package internationally is $78.50. [1] $78.50 * 500,000,000 = $39,250,000,000 Bill Gates's net worth is $40,000,000,000. [2] The world's 2nd richest man, Warren Buffet, has a net worth of $37,000,000,000. [2] Bill Gates is the only person "who has the power to deliver presents to everyone that believes in him." Thus, Bill Gates must be Santa Claus. Bill Gates clearly has a tangible body: http://www.microsoft.com... Thus, Santa Claus clearly exists. [1] http://ircalc.usps.gov... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Santa Clause exists.

I always thought that this would be fun to argue on. I would define "Santa Clause" as the [fictional] man who has the power to deliver presents to everyone that believes in him and "existing" as having a tangible body. So fully explain what I am saying, show that the single person known as Santa Clause exists and that he has the capacity to deliver presents to the millions of people around the world that celebrate Christmas. It is not physically possible for Santa to deliver presents to every child that believes in him--The relatively low estimate of 500.000.000 million people that celebrate Christmas each receiving 1 gift would mean that Santa would have to stop at, climb down the chimney of, and place presents under the tree of a house every 0.0001728 seconds. Prove that this can be done.
Santa Clause exists.

Well, my opponent has dropped all of his previous arguments and made a completely new one in the last rebuttal. However, he again has answered his own rebuttal for me. .. "Santa would spend less than $1.50 on each present. " Here's '15 Gift Ideas for One Dollar': . http://www.associatedcontent.com... As Pro says, Bill could send these to everyone and still have millions to spare. Thus Bill Gates is Santa Claus. His tangible body has been well-documented: . http://www.microsoft.com... Therefore, Santa Claus exists, and the resolution is affirmed.
Santa Clause exists.

All right. I made a mistake in my definition of Santa Clause, and Pro caught me. And maybe next time I will go over my definitions more carefully. Good job, and I hope that you enjoyed this debate. But no, this isn't a forfeit. My opponent used the argument that 78.50*500,000,000=39,250,000,000 I checked his source and that is completely accurate. However, while PRO paid for the shipping of the presents, he didn't account for either paying for or paying to manufacture every single present. So if (using Pro's calculations) the total cost of shipping is 39,250,000,000 and bill gates worth is 40,000,000,000 then Santa would spend less than $1.50 on each present. My neighbors daughter believes in Santa. She got a $300 bike from him. Therefore if Bill Gates gave each child a gift of that price, he could not afford to be Santa. And we can all obviously conclude that Bill Gates is not Santa. Con Wins. (By the way your Wikipedia link brings you to a page entitled Lis)
The LGBTQ is a legitimate organization

First your opening statement 100% contradicts your first argument when you said you have no problem with homosexuality. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe you said that it was natural. So if liking guys when your a guy is natural, then what makes wanting to be a girl so disgusting and absurd. You say if your born male your male if your born female your female; however you are completely dismissing the fact that THOUSANDS of individuals are born with both female and male genitalia. Allow me to inform you because, on this fact it seems you may be uneducated. They don't just slice off your dick in gender reassignment its an entire procedure when male genitalia is turned into a functioning vagina, the only difference is that they cant reproduce, neither can gay couples and you say that that's okay. You also fail to realize NO ONE CARES about your personal opinions so saying " I don't give a damn what gender one believes they are" does nothing to support your argument. I asked you for facts and all you've done is throw verbose paragraphs at me that never really address my points. Lastly I would like to mention your conduct is deplorable, calling us simpletons just because your an indignant fool with an opinion. Obviously your not actually 22 because if you were you would have broadened your vocabulary past the words simpleton, and disease. I don't want proof because there is none, I want fact which you have yet to provide. Also your reading skills are lacking my idiotic friend I said I had A family member, and many personal friends. You should tell your mother to stop sleeping with her dad because obviously your so inbred, your practically a sandwich
The LGBTQ is a legitimate organization

Transgender isnt a problem in itself. LGBTQ is making it a problem. These idiots are making children undergo hormone therapies which increase suicide rates so much, hospitals are refusing to go through with that. Also, I dont give a damn what gender one believes they are, you do not chose your gender nor sex. Its chosen for you. If you have male genitalia, you are a man. If you have female genitalia you are a woman. Doesnt matter how many operations you go through. If a man has his genitalia removed, he doesnt become a woman, he is a man with his genitalia removed. If so many members of your family are trans, you should stop breeding, as you obviously have a faulty gen. I do not understand how you simpletons need proof for any of this. Its basic reasoning. Or do you really lack reasoning skills so much you require tons of others to tell you how it is?
The LGBTQ is a legitimate organization

Unnatural? Not sure if you read my lat argument, but I made sure to state that thousands of people are being born transgender with two different reproductive organs. It is not a disease it in no way impairs you. Also to re iterate as much as it may seem like a choice and I guess in a way it is but when people get surgery to change something like that it is not done lightly it is done, because they honestly and truly believe that they should be the opposite sex. Not to mention the babies born with both organs whose parents choose for them whether or not they should be a certain gender before they are old enough to form there own opinion. To address your claim that media and publicity of LGBTQ is whats making people up and chop there penises off I think thats absurd (in the most respectful of ways), but who in there right mind would mutilate there body without a justified cause. It is not a band wagon kind of thing. People wouldn't saw their legs off just because their television said they should. Your point seems more personal than logical, give me any facts that prove transgender is a "problem".
The LGBTQ is a legitimate organization

Homosexuality is natural, I have nothing against it. Many other animals have homosexual tendencies. But transsexualism is ridiculous. Its mental illness called Gender Dysphoria. Its impossible to be born in a "wrong body". Gender is defined by your reproductive organs, not your state of mind. Its this rotten and despicable society that in its stupidity pushes people to believe that its okay to change your gender just because you "feel like it".
The LGBTQ is a legitimate organization

LGBTQ is a big part of all communities whether you choose to ignore it or not, there is no control over it it is not a choice. Feelings are natural reactions in the body signals from nerves that tell your brain whether you like something or hate something whether your sad or happy. So tell me how the gay community is supposed to suppress natural bodily reactions. How about you try not to urinate your whole life see how easy that is. Love is natural no matter if its same sex different sex or both. The fact that you say transgender is an abomination and wrong shows that your education about the human body is severely lacking, thousands of people are born transgender every year, and thousands more become transgender to that they have the ability to experience intimacy the way their body craves. You need to consult the dictionary on the definition of abomination, because LGBTQ is not mentioned in the sample sentence.
a nation can only be a super power only once

I stand by my assertion that there a no such "super powers". Economically, countries help each other out. If one country is producing and someone is buying, then they both are benefiting. However, if one country is producing, but no one is buying, that country is not doing well. Other countries look up to the US and China, because they are the first few to set the new "stage". When armies where using superior iron weapons while other where still using inferior bronze, they wanted to use iron to be more powerful. Conclusion The world is either doing good or bad. If one country is prosperous, everyone else benefits as well.
a nation can only be a super power only once

Definition of superpower: A very powerful and influential nation The U. S. is currently this due to the fact that they had one of the best economies, and most money, influencing many other nations to be like them. China is doing it to well, with their population and economy going up, they have made many nations starting to want to be like them, leaving the U. S. in the dust. They get alot of power world wide these nations, being able to do much more than a non-superpower country like mine which is Sweden. They can help in alot, fight against terrorism alot better only because they get other nations support.
a nation can only be a super power only once

I will disprove PatCam's assertion that a nation can be a super power more than once by proving that there is no such thing as a "super power", and if there is, it would be irrelevant. By disproving the existence or ability to be a superpower, I will prove that one cannot be something no-existent more than one. Progression does not happen in isolation. By studying world history, it is evident that the world goes through stages. These stages being: pre-history, development of agriculture, the development of state and complex society, the development of social distinction. Another way to look at these divisions would be Neolithic, Paleolithic, Imperialistic, Classical, Exploration, Industrial, Modern. Once a group of individuals, better known as a civilization, reached the next stage, the rest of the known world would quickly follow. Example; after the discovery of iron, those who possessed the knowledge where dominant over those who did not, but by conquest they exposed the new technology and the knowledge spread until everyone knew about this discovery. It is no coincidence that the French revolution took place shortly after the revolution of British Colonies (American Revolution). When the world approached the industrial age, it was a chain reaction. To keep up with demands for goods, a country would have to industrialize to meet these needs. As America became industrial, so did Europe and Asia. There are no "super powers", because as a country reaches a new stage, it drags the rest of the world with it, weather it is good or bad. PatCam mentioned that if Germany conquered Eurasia, it would have become a super power. If the world because one large country, wouldn't that mean that there was world peace? By being united, the world would not be under one group's control. If we world did come to world peace, then it would come back from whence it came, and start the cycle all over. By demonstrating that there is no such thing as a "super power", I have negated Pat's argument.