BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Modern Feminism is Necessary

I think my biggest points for this argument will be the sexual objectification of women and their bodies women's bodies are treated as a commodity here in the west many ads show women in scantily clad clothing often in suggestive poses. I do believe this is necessary and acceptable in some cases such as lingerie for example but in many cases not such as music videos clothing ads and of course the famous Carl's Jr burger commercial. Sexual objectification dehumanizes women in both men and women's eyes a woman becomes just an object and not a person so a man feels free to treat her as one for an example of this i go to to women's nipples we have all seen that women have to cover their nipples on TV or in photographs whereas men do not have too and for what? there the same nipples there's no difference the only difference is a woman's breasts have become sexualized while a man's chest has not this is unfair and a product of sexual objectification. Women also have to deal with slut shaming while it is acceptable for a man to go out and sleep around a woman is expected to remain chaste if a woman does sleep around or work in the sex industry such as porn or prostitution she is deemed a slut,whore,skank so on and so forth as if somehow their sexual choices are a bad thing a lot of this comes from religious teachings but it has now become ingrained into our cultural norms. Even the concept of virginity was used to co modify women whereas a man virginity is seen as nothing a woman has extreme importance to her and even just the wording "lost her virginity" is used to shame her when you have sex you don't lose anything all you do is have sex but somehow for women they lose their "innocence". Now for my point this is still alive and well here in the west while attitudes towards women sexuality and sexual freedom are becoming more relaxed men are having a hard time giving up their old attitudes there is still a double standard when it comes to men and women and a lot of it comes from either religious teachings or cultural norms. There is also a prevailing belief here in the west that woman who are in positions of power are somehow intimidating pushy bitchy or bossy and of course there are women who are bad leaders but much of this is the fact that they are women. So in conclusion i do believe feminism is needed here in the west because while attitudes are shifting they are not where they could be and without feminism they could easily go back to the old ways.
Modern Feminism is Necessary

Dietorangesoda and I have talked before about the necessity of feminism in the west, and have happily agreed to have a debate about it! So here we are now.For the sake of this debate, we have agreed that we will only refer to feminism in America and Canada. I'm more than happy to agree that feminism (or a form of women's/human rights movements) are needed in many parts of the world, especially developing countries. But for this debate, we are talking about the necessity of feminism in USA and Canada.I don't believe feminism is necessary anymore, as women are treated equally (arguably better than men in many cases), and there is no systematic sexism/discrimination against them. Obviously Dietorangesoda disagrees with this.Let me point out that the definition of feminism has little to no impact on this debate, as it's the actions and reasons behind those actions that represent a movement/community.So without further ado, let's get on with this. I'll allow Dietorangesoda to present her opening arguments, I'll argue against them in R2 and bring up my own arguments, and we'll continue this all the way to the end.Thanks, Dietorangesoda, for accepting this in advance and hopefully we'll have a great debate! :)
Modern Feminism is Necessary

I'm afraid i can't argue all your points in this round as i'm in a hurry now to finish this poll due to lack of time but i will try to argue as much as i can. Firstly you say that women and men are treated equally when it comes to sports this is not completely true boys are still far more encouraged to go into sports then girls and girls are often seen as butch if they enjoy sports too much. Next gender roles are an actual thing and how society demands you to act you will often conform this is just psychology not even to do with feminism and while there are biological differences these wouldn't go away men and women would still be different just the gender roles would. Next all movements have radicals no matter who you join i am a huge advocate for the LGBT movement but i can admit we have radicals that go too far and feminism is no exception and also about egalitarian thing it's not up to me to change the movements name so i can't really decide that but perhaps in the future thats what it will be called And for my conclusion i'm going to keep it brief because i believe i have made all my points for feminism i do still believe it's necessary and while it's not perfect and i admit that women will probably always need it i do however think the feminist movement should shift their focus onto other problems then some of the ridiculous ones that they do like the shirt guy such as women's rights in 3rd world countries the Muslim sexual assaults in Europe and a variety of men's issues. But i will not abandon it simply because some radicals got into it instead i think we should fix it and bring it back to what it was before i really could on with more points but i think i'll let the other rounds speak for themselves thank you for debating me and good luck.
Modern Feminism is Necessary

While your argument about masculinity has some valid points i believe you are too stuck in gender roles for instance the athleticism pressure on boys yes it great when a boy is athletic and pursues this and i don't want to stop it however the problem lies within our culture of taking sports and physical ability to seriously. If a boy is scrawny or small he is often bullied by other boys for being weak and not being able to play sports and even worse is when a boy is athletic and muscular but isn't interested in sports not only is sometimes bullied by peers but even ridiculed by coaches and adults for not wanting to join out for a team. With feminism boys don't have that kind pf pressure if a boy wants to join a sport then great but if he doesn't that's fine too I am indeed aware of that whole shirt incident and i too thought it was ridiculous but like every other group your going to get some radicals in your mix and the feminists that were upset about it were more misandrists then anything none of the feminists i know cared about it and same goes for your links and Facebook petition all those women are radicals because women do have to minimize risk sadly they are caught up on a perfect world where men never rape and while i agree that boys should be taught to respect women and that they should stop if a girl says no there will always be men who rape. I'm going to keep this brief i am not aware of any feminists groups that go around trying to end any types of men's problems because as i've stated earlier the examples you gave were not very good ones and not really issues that need protesting for. However the things i listed have been looked and fought for by feminism so i would say feminists are helping men even if they don't go our and scream about it i mean where would we go protest anyway? I am aware that men have problems and are not perfect however feminism much like the BLM movement LGBT movement and others are about the minority and the downtrodden and for centuries men have been in power and not kept down. However this doesn't mean feminism is about man hate it just means of course were going to focus on women's issues primarily so men can't get angry about this if they want a movement for their own join the meninist movement or create a new one.
Modern Feminism is Necessary

i actually agree with my opponent on the word objectification but for lack of a better word this is what i'm using and yes i'm quite aware that men can and are sexually objectified my issue isn't that women are dressed in bikini's to sell a burger it is that woman are in so many instances made to dress like that to sell things. Women by far are used more often then men for advertisements and more often then not there is some kind of sexual innuendo involved well to a young boy growing up seeing this bombardment of women in a sexual nature he is going to develop an attitude about women rather then seeing them as people he sees them as sexual beings only to better prove my point here is a link describing sexual objectification in the mind http://www.scientificamerican.com... this link will explain it all, As for the slut shaming thing while men are often perceived as players they are never subjected to the ridicule a woman will face for having lots of sex eventually they go on and often marry and forget it while many women especially if they live in a small town find it hard to find a man if they are a perceived "slut" women still by far are looked down upon for having lots of sex something women in the sex industry know too well in many cases and i have witnessed this personally a porn star will give an opinion on something and be immediately shot down with the old attitude of your just a slut so who cares what you think? It is a wrong attitude as "sluts" don't actually exist and as women become more relaxed sexually men will have to get over this attitude. My next argument will actually be one for men and that is the very widespread idea of male masculinity that men are supposed to be tough never show emotion or do anything perceived feminine. Even to the point to where men's sexual assault is taking lightly because "he must have enjoyed it" or he was raped by a man so "he must be gay" The feminism movement is set to combat these attitudes and strict gender roles and little boys are already seeing the advantages of it it is becoming more acceptable to play with dolls dress up as female characters like pink and show emotion. All of these is because of feminism and while i agree that there are some man hating feminazi's real feminists want equal rights for both and women and not just women and this is my conclusion for this round.
Atheists believe in mythological concepts

Pro:"All I need is to prove an atheist believes in mythological concepts."False. My opponent's presupposition was "Atheists believe in mythological concepts". Grammatically, this implies "all atheists" since he put "Atheists" in plural. If his presupposition was "An atheist believes..." or "Some atheists believe...", I would've conceded that point. Pro:"But it does. To those who believed in these mythological concepts in the past, they were synonymous. They believed the planets were gods. Con believes in these planets that the Greeks and Romans said were literal gods."This might be the case. However, the people my opponent mentioned were not atheists, since they believed in gods. I do not believe in what those people believed. My opponent erroneously comes to the conclusion that if I believe in Jupiter the planet, then I also must believe in the Jupiter god the Romans believed in. This is untrue and my opponent failed to prove otherwise.Finally, I would like to state that I mentioned my own atheism only in response to my opponent using my beliefs for his argument in round 2. I do not pretend to represent the entire atheist community.Pro:"(Bronto scampers off into the weeds)"Thank you for the debate, Brontoraptor. If you find any lilacs while in the weeds, can you bring me some? I love that flower. Thanks.
Atheists believe in mythological concepts

Con: "My atheism cannot be used as an argument because even if I am an atheist, and let's say I do believe in mythical concepts, doesn't mean all atheists believe in mythical concepts - which is my opponent's claim." I didn't say all Atheists believe in mythological concepts. All I need is to prove an atheist believes in mythological concepts. Con has eluded to the idea that he might. In a debate with Jedd(an Atheist), Jedd admitted he was an Atheist, and he admitted that he believed in the above concepts. Our mythology believing Atheist population is going up. http://www.debate.org... --- Con: "Conclusion: Brontoraptor is a fork This is a fallacy called Faulty generalization." I am a fork. Con drops this point. Prove me wrong Con. -- Con: "Believing in one's existence does not imply the belief in the other." But it does. To those who believed in these mythological concepts in the past, they were synonymous. They believed the planets were gods. Con believes in these planets that the Greeks and Romans said were literal gods. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... (Bronto scampers off into the weeds)
Atheists believe in mythological concepts

However I don't see any argument proving atheists believe in mythical concepts. My opponent's main burden of proof hasn't been addressed. My atheism cannot be used as an argument because even if I am an atheist, and let's say I do believe in mythical concepts, doesn't mean all atheists believe in mythical concepts - which is my opponent's claim. Example:- Forks have teeth- Brontoraptor has teeth- Conclusion: Brontoraptor is a forkThis is a fallacy called Faulty generalization [1]I would also like to point out to my opponent that two very different things can share the same name. Going back to his example, Jupiter:- Name of a planet- Name of a Roman godThese two very different things share the same name. Believing in one's existence does not imply the belief in the other. [1] = . https://en.wikipedia.org...
In the Bible, God is Actually Worse than Satan(not debating religion, just the stories in the Bible)

In the Bible, you more about God than Satan. This makes sense because the Bible is supposed to be about God's Almighty Powers and why he rules our world. But does it truly make sense? In the Old Testament, God ends up killing billions of people, while Satan only kills a few. You may say, well, God killed people who had done wrong, while Satan killed innocents. But that is not true. Who can truly say that, out of all of mankind, only one guy, Noah, was not evil. No one can. Because it is not in the least logical. So God kills a lot of innocent people in this great flood of the Earth just because they weren't true to him. Well, if we are all about equality nowadays, and that you shouldn't judge someone based on their religion, why isn't the Bible told out for being insolent against other religions? Another example of why God isn't better than Satan is this: In Job's story, God ALLOWS Satan to torture and punish his most faithful servant so his pride wouldn't be hurt. God made that decision to protect his hurt pride. I have more examples of why God isn't better than Satan, but I will save them for later.
In the Bible, God is Actually Worse than Satan(not debating religion, just the stories in the Bible)

Since no argument has been given, i will just add some of my evidence I had left over. 1. During Noah's time, everyone was actually evil except him and the animals. The Bible enlightens you with details of their sins (won't go into it because of the long list, but one of the sins was cannibalism.). 2. The Devil also corrupted and led many souls to their deaths further on in the Bible, so just one of those events prove that Satan is much eviler than God. 3. Satan tried to corrupt Jesus himself, so that screams many layers. I thank all who read this debate thoroughly, and I hope you will vote to whoever you think won this debate.
In the Bible, God is Actually Worse than Satan(not debating religion, just the stories in the Bible)

Wow. This is a lot of stuff to debunk. Ok, since you first started with Eve eating the fruit, let me start with that. Yes, Humans have curiosity. No, she wouldn't have eaten the apple. Here's why; In the Bible, Eve specifically says that she cannot eat it because it will make her die (take away immortality and allow her to sin). She may have been curios, but she listened to what God said. Satan says it will not make her die, but make her more like God, hence causing her to take the fruit and eat of it. So, to reiterate, she would've never taken the fruit if it wasn't for "the serpent" Satan. Secondly, that technological advancement thing isn't so good because of all the problems it has brought. Online stalkers, hackers, terrorism, etc. Technological advancement Plus, wisdom comes at a price, and a VERY high one at that. thousands of people die every day because of war, old age, disease, animal attacks, accidents, suicide, poison, abuse, and many, many more, horrifying, violent reasons. If Eve had just not eaten the fruit, NONE of this would've happened, not even death. We would've been in blissful immortal paradise, and we would've known it, because the bible tells us they were. Also, happiness is a sensation from worldly pleasures. Joy is different, and much, much better than happiness. That is what Adam and Eve were feeling... That is, until Satan came. Finally, of course God can't convert people into Christians. That's our job. When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, They were PHYSICALLY with and of God. Now it is a very different story, so it is much harder for God to connect with the people of the earth, especially since instead of listening, people make random accusations of God's actions, and insult the Bible and God's name.
In the Bible, God is Actually Worse than Satan(not debating religion, just the stories in the Bible)

So, from what I got from your argument, you say that Satan is eviler than God, because told Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge, which caused us to no longer be able to live in bliss. To refute this point, I will give a couple of arguments... First of all, because of human nature, there is no way that we could, for eternity, withstand the curiosity of eating from the tree of knowledge. Before Eve got convinced by the snake to eat from the tree, human beings were immortal, for, as it says on Bible Gateway, after God found out that they disobeyed him, he cursed Adam that he would return to dust at the end of his life (in other words, taking away his immortality). So, if they hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge because Satan convinced them to, they would have anyways because of human nature. Second. If Eve hadn't taken the fruit from the tree of knowledge, we would never have gotten to the level of technological advancement that we are at today. In fact, if we didn't have wisdom, we never know that we live in bliss/paradise, because we never would have experienced any other sensation. It is like emotions... If you have never experienced any negative emotions, so you are always, technically, happy, you wouldn't know you are happy because you would think being "happy" is normal, and not a good thing. So, we would think that paradise is normal and that our lives are not actually perfect. Oh, and one more thing. You say that Satan is still at work today. Well, if Satan is corrupting these people, why isn't God there stopping him and making people have faith in him?
Blake Griffen is the best college basketball player this year!

Thank you for posting this debate. Now here are some facts. Blake Griffen is not the best college basketball player. If this were true that would mean he is the best in every area. I shall show you players that are better in each category. Points per game: Stephen Curry with 28.6, where as Blake's is 22.1 Rebounds per game: Blake is actually tied with John Bryant at 14.2 (You cant tie to be the best..) Assists per game: Johnathon Jones with 7.8 While Blake has 2.4 Field goal shooting: Shane Johannsen with 72.7% while blakes shoots 63.4% Steals per game: Chavis Holmes with 3.4 Blake with 1.2 Blocks: Jarvis Varnado with 4.6 Blake has 1.3 Note: Stats are averages for all games this current season. Blake Griffin is not the best in any category. Statistics provided by: http://sports.espn.go.com... Your turn
Ignorance Is Bliss

First of all.. "What is the meaning of life?" Can be considered a question of higher thinking. Who are you to say it's not? Higher thinking depends for all individuals. Secondly.. Ignorance is misery. When you are a child, you don't really understand the world. You only understand and know what's directly around you. When you get older, if people retain the same sense, that is ignorance. That is miser, even if a person doesn't know it. Their subconscious is miserable because they don't seek out information. Their human desire to be curious remains unsatisfied because they don't seek out new information. They sit there in a world that they have created in their own minds. So yes it is misery. It's misery because they don't know what they are missing. To an extent, yes I see why you may think ignorance is bliss. It can make a person feel better if they suffered an emotional trauma. But philosophically, they way you insist on discussing it, no. If a person doesn't push themselves to find out their purpose and their own personal meaning in life, then that will give them happiness to know what they are meant to do. And no I don't really care because it is a debate about "philosophical 'ignorance is bliss'" with a person I will never meet. It is a debate that is pretty irrelevant to real life. If you wanted to debate fundamental "ignorance is bliss" then yes I would care a little more because that has something to do with reality a little more than philosophically. Not many people actually ask themselves what they are supposed to do after they find their purpose in life. Stop commenting on my other debates. I did not ask for your input on them. I understand that you see yourself as very intelligent and abstract and profound. I know you see me as someone you need to instruct and show what I'm doing wrong. But you aren't smarter than I am. I just have no interest in philosophy. I don't care if you don't think my response is good enough or profound enough. I don't. Stay off my other debates.
Ignorance Is Bliss

Well since my opinion is apparently not good enough, here is my response. I still believe ignorance is NOT bliss, in any way whether it be philosophical or fundamental. If someone does ask themselves those questions, I would still say they have a different happiness from those who don't. Say the question was "What is the meaning of life?" Say someone asked themselves this and found the answer. It was an answer that was relevant to them so it made them happier. It's not going to make someone else happier by knowing that information because it doesn't matter to them. So I guess what I'm trying to say in a roundabout way is that people who ask themselves questions like that can be happier because they can find the things that will have a big impact on their lives and maybe find what "completes" them. People who search for the meaning in their own lives are happier because they may find the meaning and the importance and worthiness of themselves. I'm sorry if you don't think that's an adequate response. I don't really care.