BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Feminism is Wrong

Feminism is NOT about trying to be superior over men. Feminism is based on trying to gain respect and earn what we should have had a long time ago. The power to be paid like men are, and the power not to be judged by the fact that we are WOMEN doing MANLY things. Women are treated like they are only good enough to take care of their husband (boyfriend or lover as well) for their sexual needs and their hunger. No. Women are so much more than that . Then, on top of that women are paid WAY less than men. For example I did some research and I looked on this site www.iwpr.org it says " Women, in 2015 were paid 80 cents for every dollar made by men . " No. That isn't a huge difference, but it adds up.
Being a stay at home mom is one of the most important jobs a woman can do.

< > As I already addressed in my first rebuttal to you, just because every woman does not stay at home with her children this does not belittle or prove it unimportant. Also, just because not all women are mother's prooves in no way my being a stay at home one invalid or worth less.In this logic, no job would be important, because every woman cannot do every job in existence. < > The con states that my husband is more important than I. How does this prove my job in unimportant? < > By mentally and physically nurturing my children, I am teaching them to be responsible, independent, and secure people. All the people around them will have the pleasure of their influence. When they reach adulthood, the job's they hold will put them in contact with peers, and whatever job they'll be doing will emulate my raising them as they do it with diligence and care. All the good deeds they do will effect those around them. Also, when they have children the skills and good disposition they were raised with will seep over, and so on it goes. These people I'm readying for life will have an impact on much more than you could imagine. The young people of this country are of the utmost importance to nurture, and raise to be strong and intelligent. How does influencing society ITSELF, not help society? < > The school system doesn't hug a crying baby. The school system doesn't get a child past a fear of the dark. The school system doesn't potty train. A maid won't read a bedtime story, or sing song's. A teacher won't cuddle with a child who needs affection. There's more to being a mother than cleaning. < > I have in every argument shown why I think being a stay at home mom is important. This country benefits from stay at home mothers. Shaping the minds of people is no small task. Perhaps my children will one day be helping you. Perhaps they will become a Doctor, or psychiatrist. Perhaps a Senator, or a Marine. Whatever my children become, they will do they're job well because I'm teaching them to be responsible and efficient. Don't you want caring, positive, and decided people helping you? The job of a stay at home mother will always be important, however society learns to live without it. I'm grateful to be home with my children, and they are happy for it to. America should be proud of it's stay at home mothers. Being a stay at home mother is one of the most important job's a woman can do.
Being a stay at home mom is one of the most important jobs a woman can do.

<<1) Not all women pursue (or are even capable of pursuing) motherhood (and given the problems our planet is having with overpopulation, ALL women should certainly not be encouraged). >> Not all women run for president or are encouraged to. I'd still say that that is one of the most important jobs a woman could do. Just because every woman doesn't do it… doesn't mean it's not important. <<2) Not all women have a supporting husband who can insure their family's financial stability (incidentally, even my opponent brings this up).>> Just because all women cannot financial be able to stay at home, it doesn't mean that being a stay at home mom isn't important. <<3) Not all women follow the typical idea of "the men going to work while the women stay home and insure the stability of the household.">> Just because a woman doesn't want to stay at home with her children, doesn't mean that this makes the job worth less. These reasons the con stated do not in any way make the job of a stay at home mother less important. He proved that some women do not wish to become mothers, and some mothers cannot stay at home with they're children, or do not wish to. Should it belittle a stay at home mother because another mother does not with to be so? I don't want to be a doctor, but I think that they're jobs a pretty important. Yes, my husband does "bring home our bacon" well, I do the shopping… but you get the point. My husband is a marine, and has a very important job. My husband also see's me as an equal contributor in this family. Raising children to become comfortable, independent, intelligent people who will one day be the leader's of this country is no light task. My husband is happy he has someone who takes such diligence and care raising the two things that are most precious to him, and I. When he's gone he knows who's with his children, and that they're not only being loved but nurtured as well. Money doesn't mean everything. Just because I do not make money does not mean that keeping a happy home mean's less. Women should also not be ashamed of being at home. Who are you to say my husband is more important than me? We are in a situation that allows me to stay at home. So, we take advantage of it. I don't believe this answer has weakened my case. Please, opponent… don't think that trying to bate someone emotionally about something you know mean's a lot to them is fun. Furthermore, I will not object to a woman taking any job. Many job's are important. I challenge my opponent to really start this debate and tell me why being a stay at home mother is not one of the most important job's a woman can do. Thank you for acknowledging that there are other jobs. I believe the readers of this debate will have already known this fact. Why is my job as a stay at home mother NOT important?
Being a stay at home mom is one of the most important jobs a woman can do.

Greetings. First, I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. Second, I'd like to thank the readers for reading it. With that said, let us proceed carefully. Now my opponent makes a pretty bold claim. Her entire case can basically be summed up as: 1) Ideally, mothers take care of their children. 2) Ideally, mothers also keep their households in working order (cooking, cleaning, etc). 3) Therefore, being a stay at home mom is one of the most important jobs a woman can do. If my opponent feels that I should go into detail on her round one speech, I will do so. However, I must warn you that most of what she has stated is unnecessary to the argument at hand. In any case, looking at what her argument boils down to, it is clear that it suffers from the "non sequitur" fallacy. Her conclusion doesn't follow for a few reasons: 1) Not all women pursue (or are even capable of pursuing) motherhood (and given the problems our planet is having with overpopulation, ALL women should certainly not be encouraged). 2) Not all women have a supporting husband who can insure their family's financial stability (incidentally, even my opponent brings this up). 3) Not all women follow the typical idea of "the men going to work while the women stay home and insure the stability of the household." For these three reasons, the PRO's case falls apart. However, there is an even bigger reason as to why her case is faulty. The Resolution: Being a stay at home mom is one of the most important jobs a woman can do. Upon reading it, one word stands out; take note of the word "can." She advocates that being a stay at home mom is one of the most important jobs a woman CAN do, but is it really? I have my reasons to doubt. There are far more important jobs a woman CAN do than merely being a stay at home mom. My opponent speaks of how her husband is a marine. Since she confesses to being a stay at home mom, I can only conclude that it is her husband "who brings home the bacon." In the next round, I'd like my opponent to tell me whom she believes has the most important job when it comes to a comparison with her husband. I assure you that no matter how my opponent answers, her case will weaken considerably. But I suppose that bit of fun will have to wait until my next round. For the time being, I'll point out that women are capable of just as many jobs as men are. Most specifically, insuring our national security is merely one of the many career fields which women are involved in. Given the objections my opponent is bound to make, I'll provide more clarification in round 2 (in accordance to the objections. Your move. =D
Being a stay at home mom is one of the most important jobs a woman can do.

As a mother, of two very young children (and 7 month old a 22 month old to be exact) I consider myself to have a job. My job is to raise two healthy, happy independent people. My children are not just babies to me. They are people I'm shaping, and preparing for this world. What you do while your children are in your home effects them when they're out of of your home. When did being a stay at home mother become some kind of a let down for women in the eyes of society? The aptitude of a female isn't only calculated by the high profile jobs we hold. It's in the way we revere ourselves, mentally nurture ourselves, and those around us. Especially our children. Stay at home mother's keep the environment in which children grow up in nice (or at least they should), and create a since of consistency and safety. Not that a mother that works does not, please don't take any of what I'm saying a down to working mothers! Take my situation: my husband is a marine, and is often gone for long period's of time. I try to make things as smooth, and normal as I possibly can for my children. Even though stay at home mother's don't earn money(although some do), they still contribute in keeping the household healthy, wonderful and functioning. There aren't very many things I can think of that are more important than actually shaping a person, and making their lives good and readying them for the world. During the day, I clean, feed 3 meals a day and snacks, breat feed my youngest, give naps, change two sets of diapers,baths when needed (which is frequent with a toddler) go to the park, work on the alphabet, and numbers, play with both trying to make each feel loved and not jealous of the other, Cook dinner, get everyone ready for bed, read a story, then go to bed untill the youngest wakes up for another feeding. That's when there's no Doctor's visits, trips to the store, or anything else to do. You'll hear no complaints from me, I LOVE what I do, but don't think stay at home moms sit at home and watch soaps! Everything I do, I try to do well. It just so happens I'm a stay at home mom. This to me is important, and should be revered as such.
Science students are better than art student

I accept and look forward to this debate however I cannot say it will be a challenge as culture is what shapes science and it was culture that shifted people to look away from god and to pursue scientific thought. Using the bible as an argument for science is a bold move if you could use it correctly to back your point up however you fail in this as using a source often regarded as a fantasy book in the scientific community not to mention the backlash that famous thinkers got for questioning the holy text and yes I am referring to Darwin himself. It is the culture of the world that allows for science to grow and flourish to make a quick, simple and often used point for my argument certain periods and advancements were because of cultural shifts which are usually the result of artist, thinkers and philosophers as art is a incredible broad term. Art students create art to promote the culture they seek and as such it can create a following which thus can lead to scientific minds coming together to outdo whatever said culture is facing example: The Cold War.
Science students are better than art student

Yes,science students are better than art students and i say so without missing words.This is because the world today revolves around science.Take a good look at your surrounding,bet me you can pinpoint at least 10 things science had made.For example, the system you're on,your phone, your fan,AC,TV, internet,your generator or powerplant were all made by the work of science. Permit me to use the bible,GOD was a scientist, he dealt with facts and figure because he created all bodies in space before light knowing that this light would come from a source which is hydrogen thats present in all stars.Adam was also a scientist because he practiced biology on Eve before she concieved,Food and Nutrition when he ate the fruits from the sacred tree because it was nutritious,and many more. Think about it we have history on our side.
Should YouTube be a good idea for a job

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but YouTube isn't really a feasible job. I wish it was, but the statistics don't back it up. YouTube has over 4 billion video views per day, and YouTube's global advertisement revenue is $4.28 billion/year (http://expandedramblings.com...), so a quick calculation shows us that the average video view gets less than 1/3 of a cent per view. In reality though, that is even less. Only 17,000 YouTube users have more than 100,000 subscribers. If we say that you need 100,000 subscribers to make a stable income, that means that 0.0002% chance of being a YouTube star. 0.0002%. That means one in 412,000. You are seven times more likely to be kidnapped by a stranger (http://www.snipeme.com...), and twice as likely to be struck by lightning (http://lightningsafety.com...). Sorry. I honestly wish there was a higher chance, but unfortunately, the numbers don't really back it up...
war on terror

I agree with you then on what we are fighting for.....why would you take on this debate? surely you could see the opinion I hold by my opening statements. All I am suggesting is that our leaders try to justify this war more ways than one, including the "war on terror" argument. I think it is a worthless reason to call it that, because if thats what they say the war is all about, than they are feeding us nothing but lies because you cant win a war when what you are supposedly fighting is fear.
Eternal punishment by the god of the Bible is immoral.

Here's the thing, man: Humans are given endless chances to accept God, but they just don't. You can't tell me you've never met a Christian, never heard a Christian song mentioning the birth of Christ, never seen a church, never seen a Bible, and never rejected Christianity. To take the verse you presented, the sheep are His flock, those who believe in Him and entrusted Him as their Lord and Savior. And those who remain are those who blatantly rejected Him. The Kingdom has been prepared for all those who believe. Here's another thing: God does punish sinners. Temporarily. And still now. There are negative consequences for negative actions, and that is God's way of punishing you. If you (for example's sake only) were to kill someone, you would be thrown in jail if you were caught. If not, you would live with the guilt of that murder until you can't take it anymore and you confess what you did (or die before you can). You can't say that God doesn't punish sinners temporarily, because that's what negative consequences are. And eternal punishment is not immoral; it is justice for rejection, and a consequence of unwillingness to turn from sin. Also, Krsna? How can he be the "Cause of all Causes" if he himself was caused? According to Hindu mythology (From which that god was created, by the way) Krsna/Krishna was born to Devaki and Vasudeva. How, then, can Krsna be the creator if he was created? It doen't work that way.
Eternal punishment by the god of the Bible is immoral.

(For the record I am a theist, a Vedic Presupper) Let's just start with your first point. "1) What is your source for this belief? If it is the Bible, I am pretty sure that it never said that." My source of knowledge for the eternal punishment of the god of the Bible. Matthew 25:31-46 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." . . . Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. . . . And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." The god of the bible punishes souls for eternity, causing them eternal harm, when the god of the bible could have punished sinners temporarily and achieved a positive result by his almighty power, but the god of the bible chooses the worst of all solutions which produce a negative result, an immoral result, and therefore the god of the Bible is immoral. And as the god of the Bible is immoral, he is not god at all, the true god is not immoral punishing souls with eternal harm, but is the ultimate foundation of morality, that is Krsna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead, The Cause of All Causes, The Supreme Absolute Truth from Whom everything has come into existence.
Eternal punishment by the god of the Bible is immoral.

1) What is your source for this belief? If it is the Bible, I am pretty sure that it never said that. 2) Eternal punishment by God is a punishment and an eternal separation from God and Heaven, not merely eternal harm. 3) If God is going to do something immoral, then He cannot be God. Psalm 18:30a says, "As for God, His way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless." God is perfect, therefore casting people into Hell is not immoral. As for the person in the comments, (I forget exactly what you said but it was something along the lines of how a righteous/loving God would not condemn people to hell for not believing in Him) in Revelations, we are told that there will be a Rapture, where all believers, dead and alive, will be taken to Heaven. Those who remain will continue to live out their days here. However, people are given endless chances to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior. If you tell yourself, "God can't be real. There's no evidence!" or ,"This world is all there is" or anything related to that, you are not only not believing in God, you are blatantly rejecting Him. Thank you, and please fell free to point out any discrepancies in my argument and I will try my best to address them.
The recent changes to the Minecraft EULA should be reverted.

Hmm you saying cheap servers are 50 a month? Says who? I found cheaper Minecraft servers that cost only $10/month for a 50 player slot. If you look at youtubers they also offer cheap minecraft hosting! I have nothing to conclude because you have just repeated the facts again in a different way. Bai Bai, Your thanks, Mr DefineRich
The recent changes to the Minecraft EULA should be reverted.

Final round! You want me to talk about bigger servers? Ok. You should talk about smaller servers as well. Small-community, 50 dollars a month, small servers. Large servers do rack up loads of money. But Mojang is restricting features of Multiplayer. If little kids are complaining, then stop donating? Mojang can't prevent us from selling perks, with how much money they make a day.
The recent changes to the Minecraft EULA should be reverted.

I'm surprised that you replied that quick. Smaller server owners pay for the server to start up. What you're saying is that people have to donate before server comes online! That is an invalid fact and from what I said before I take it all back. Some small servers may become one of the major servers in the world. Lots of people donate to the server because they find it really fun! There is a word called "Cheap" minecraft servers that only cost a few dollars, which is cheap enough to barely need to receive donations! Lots of servers had prepared for the Eula server and have enough money to last 3-5 years! Thats the reason why everything was in discount. Not all servers are compelety Eula because I joined a prison server since last year and still recieves donations by people buying ranks and ign names! In conclusion you are only referring to smaller servers! I used to join a cracked server, it was a really good server consist of survival and pvp. Now this server barely receive any donations but it still was online for 6-8 months! And as asked state more facts instead of talking about one topic.
The recent changes to the Minecraft EULA should be reverted.

I doubt there are any more facts towards why Minecraft Eula should be reverted because all the websites, videos both share common facts and therefore all the same! The reason why Minecraft Eula was created was because kids were complaining of not getting a refund which in terms of server owners. .. Money Whores. Not all the major servers need people to donate because some are youtubers which earn money by posting videos. Only newly created servers don't stand a chance.
Gay Marraige should be legal and accepted in all USA states.

Cindela First, thank you and this has been an entertaining debate. "The reason that it is not legal is because society does not want there to be gay marriages. "-CIndela So you are saying it isn't legal. If society is a majority (which it is) they have a most important call, so that is saying it should be illegal. "Why does the Bible have to tell us all what to do"-Cindela If you read your previous argument, you say that some forms of Christianity accept gay marriage. There is 1 bible for all forms of Christianity. That quote came directly from the bible saying that if your Christan, you can't be gay. The ability of having a natural baby is very important. That's something that an average person living from paycheck to paycheck can do for society. IT's the life cycle, Birth, reproduce, and die. Can a homosexual couple have a baby? No. They could adopt a baby, but so couldn't a regular couple and that baby came from a regular couple. "A gay person cannot marry someone of the same gender. Other people can. "-CIndela Huh? That makes absolutely no sense. You have just made theories. I have used facts. This proves your argument is flawed.