BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Womens in India should avoid using the dress showing their body parts outside.

Personal response: Wut.-----------------------------Contention I. Women and Moral Causation.I would first like to point out that my opponent dropped my refutation of his C1 wherein I showed that there was no obligatory moral connection between a woman wearing a dress showing her body and being assaulted by a man. The obligatory moral connection lies solely with the person either ignorant enough to get angry at such a display or animalistic enough not to be able to control their sexual urges. My opponent's argument rests on the presupposition that the irrationality of some men in their country obliges them to change their style of dress. He takes an immoral action and traces the cause to Indian women showing skin when they go out. However, as I clearly showed in my R1 refutation (and which my opponent has dropped) is that there is a difference between moral and generic causation. Women who are raped may be said to have some sort of generic causation in their rapes. However, they absolutely do not have any moral causation. The moral causation lies with the agent who willfully decides to rape someone and thus the immorality of the action in question passes on to them an obligation to refrain. The obligation lies with the rapist, not the victim.To explain the difference let me explain. If my opponent has added the conditional "if they do not want to get raped" at the end of the resolution then my opponent might be able to make a sufficient case. The case would move out of the ethical realm and into the practical realm of how to avoid being raped in India. However, since there is no such condition in the resolution we must abide by a naked, common sense reading of the resolution and hold Pro to his BoP in establishing a legitimate moral obligation on the part of Indian women. This naked reading states that women have a categorical (i.e. moral) obligation to dress differently. And my opponent has not defended this.Contention II. Women and Gender Domination.My opponent's defense of his second contention is a bit confusing, most likely due to the language differences between him and I. I assume English is not your first language. But anyways, from what I can tell my opponent equivocates ethically justified actions with the reality of social conditions. For instance, in my last refutation I argued that men have no legitimate dominion over women vis a vis their being men and women respectively. My opponent shifts strategies and moves to the practical realm in which he tries to change the scope of this debate to deal with practical considerations regarding the avoidance of rape. However, as I explained in my C1 refutation, the resolution reads as arguing for a categorical obligation on the part of women. We are not dealing with practical considerations based on the best way to attain a goal, but are dealing with legitimate or illegitimate obligation on the part of women.
Womens in India should avoid using the dress showing their body parts outside.

I am so proud of you, that you are a person of 17 years old. you just realised that, i am saying about the whole womens. I am not. I am saying about Indian social womens. In western countries, womens are individuals. But till now 90% of Indaian women are not so. Still there is no equality between them. In my home state, Kerala, the Gods own country, there is no equality between men and women. many rape cases and other exploitation of women are still reporting daily. Even 6 months baby were also killed at a rape attempt. As the political leaders didnt take any methods, it is difficult to change mens mind. But inorder to decrease this we can imply my method of using dress. Another factor is, in western countries, if one girl wearing sexy dress, she will be appreciated by atleast one. but here women can wear such dress, someone also doing now, the whole society will realise that she is a sex interested girl. some men will try to rape her, if he got chance. Another type of girls, wears attractive dress and says"I am not actually mean to wear that, it just happened." Any way, if you want to defeat me just make some arguments or if you want to know more just visit our country, not just towns villages too. Thank you.
Womens in India should avoid using the dress showing their body parts outside.

My opponent argues that my analysis only applies to American women and that his argument rests on the application of it to Indian women. I fail to see however how Indian culture or society refute my points. Let me summarize them below:(1) There is a difference between generic and moral causation.(2) Legitimate obligation only applies to actions in which one creates moral causation.(3) Women only create generic causation by wearing clothes which show skin.(4) It is the men who rape them that create moral causation.(5) Therefore it is men who have an obligation not to rape women and not women who have an obligation not to wear clothes showing skin.The resolution also implies a categorical obligation as opposed to a hypothetical one. A categorical obligation refers to one that someone has regardless of their values. A hypothetical obligation only applies to someone with specific values e.g. If one wants to survive THEN one ought to eat something. The resolution however doesn't provide any implication of a hypothetical obligation and thus based off of a naked reading we must assume categorical obligation from the word 'should'.
English will become the world language by 2100

It's too bad my opponent forfeited his round – I had lots of good refutations. Perhaps he didn't realize that so few people currently speak English (11.6% of the world). In case he wants to continue debating in round 3, I'll continue. My opponent provides an anecdotal example of "everyone" speaking English when he traveled to Germany. This is a logical fallacy called "proof by example" or "generalizing from too small a sample size." The places he traveled in Germany were more likely to be big cities, where more German people speak English. However, in the country overall, only 56% of people speak English as a primary or secondary language. [1] In addition, you cannot generalize the experience in Germany to the rest of the world. Germany is an advanced, industrialized economy that has strong relations to English speaking countries, particularly the United States, because of its post-World War II legacy. Most population growth will come from Third World/developing countries by 2100. Consider that in China, with the world's largest population, only 0.77% of the population can speak English. China's numbers are going to be more predictive of the world by 2100 than Germany's. My opponent next says that English is the third most prevalent language. This just proves my point – English speakers are more likely to have to learn Chinese, Hindi, or Spanish if they want to compete in the new emerging economies (namely China, India, and Brazil) since these languages are more prevalent. Only American arrogance can lead us to believe that the much larger non-English speaking world will adapt to us, not the other way around. My opponent says English is spoken in 115 countries. However, it only takes one English speaker in a country to be listed as a country where "English is spoken." This tells us nothing of its prevalence in those 115 countries. My opponent last says English will grow because of the expansion of communications technology and the internet. However, the vast majority of recent growth in both technologies is happening in languages other than English. Pew Research says, "the nations where internet growth will see the most progress in the next few years are situated primarily in Asia; the expectation is that China will have the world's largest internet population within the next five years." [3] This rapid growth of internet websites in Chinese leads communication technologies researcher Mark Poster to conclude: "Chinese might be emerging as the new lingua franca [world language]." [4] [1] 2006 Eurobarometer survey [2] Jian Yang (April 2006). "Learners and users of English in China". English Today [3] http://www.pewinternet.org... [4] Ibid
English will become the world language by 2100

As the instigator and affirmative, my opponent has the burden of explaining why we will see a dramatic growth in the rate of English language learning worldwide. Where do we stand now? According to the New York Times, currently 400 million people worldwide speak English as their primary language and about 400 million more people speak English as their secondary language. [1] The World Population Clock says there are currently 6.88 billion people in the world. [2] So today, 11.6% of the world population speaks English as a primary or secondary language. My opponent thus needs to prove that the number of English speakers will rise by 38.4 percentage points, which is an increase of 430% in the number of English speakers. So the number of English speakers in the world would need to roughly quadruple, as a percentage of world population. Most population growth is in non-English speaking countries The world population is expected to grow by 2.53 billion people in the next 40 years. [3] Nearly all this growth will be from developing (and thus non-English speaking) nations. The U. N. writes that "by contrast, the overall population of the more developed countries is likely to show little change over the next 41 years, remaining at about 1.2 billion. Fertility is below replacement level (2.1 children per woman) in all 45 developed countries. "[4] So nearly all world population growth is occurring in countries with few primary or secondary English speakers, which is why, according to a study published in the journal Science, "The share of the world's population that speaks English as a native language is falling. " [5] In fact, MSNBC writes that there is an increase in bilingualism in English speaking countries to adapt to expected increases in the share of Spanish and Chinese speakers in the world. [6] The English speaking world will be expected to adapt to the growing non-English speaking world by 2100, not the other way around. Incentives must change in order to change behavior Kevin Lang of the University of Chicago does a study called "The Return to Knowledge of English in Non-English Speaking Countries" and finds that the economic gains from learning English are consistent with historical levels. So if learning English has not become more economically lucrative, why will a larger percentage of people suddenly decide to study it? People always respond to incentives. If incentives don't change, the number of English speakers worldwide will stay stuck at 11% of world population. I reserve my refutations due to character constraints. ==CITATIONS== [1] . http://www.nytimes.com... [2] . http://www.census.gov... [3] . http://www.unfpa.org... [4] Ibid [5] . http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
English will become the world language by 2100

I think this could be interesting, see what comes about. Hopefully my opponent will have some fun with me on this topic which I don't think could be very vicious. I wanted to start this debate with my own anecdotal evidence. I recently went on a trip through Europe, which included a stop in Germany where I am conversant in German. There I found that many of the people I tried to speak German to, went right away to English. First, I want to acknowledge that I do not believe that all languages will be gone by 2100, but that English will be spoken by the majority of the world. (50%) Right now, there are according to http://www2.ignatius.edu... there are around 330 million native English speakers, making it the number 3 language in the world, behind Mandarin Chinese and either Spanish or Hindi, depending on whose numbers you believe. However, the crux of my argument is also from http://www2.ignatius.edu... where English is spoken in 115 countries, with French ranked 2nd with only 35. That same source also lists English as the most influential language. I believe this can be extrapolated over the next 90 years with the further shrinking he world due to advances in communications, and the growth of the internet, English will become the world language by 2100. Just one definition then. "World Language" I would like to define as a language that is either a primary or secondary language of half of the world population I welcome all challengers. We'll see where this goes.
atheism=a religion, like an opposing religion

First, I would like to congratulate you on such an interesting view point. Now on to what we are here to do: debate! First, I have to say that your logic is honestly confusing, so I'll try to make sense of it as best as I can. You claim that "one can believe in the Christian god without disbelieving in the Muslim god" This would mean you would believe they are the same god. This would simply not make much logical sense, but yes you could. You also claim that atheism has an "opposite god. " I have never heard this term before so the opposite of a god, it seems would either be: 1. No god, which means you admit that atheism isn't a religion, or 2. A demon, which contradicts the definition of atheism (not believing in any supernatural being, which a demon is. ) As you can see, Pro has used confusing logic, has used incorrect spelling ("eksample"), has not used correct grammar (he didn't capitalizing his words nor use punctuation), and has made little attempt to prove me wrong.
atheism=a religion, like an opposing religion

So your logic is that as atheists don't believe in the other gods, they fit your definition of theists? Theists believe in a religion and a god. But what God does atheism have? From what I understand you say one's self. Well that's completely wrong. The term for this is self religion, coined by Paul Heelas. Also to find out what religion is we need to find out what religion (this is assuming atheism is not a religion, just to make it easier to compare atheism and beliefs that are widely accepted as religions.) Creation ministries international made a list like so: 1. Narrative 2. Experiential (An experience before the creation of the religion) 3. Hierarchies and a power structure 4. Doctrinal (Beliefs and doctrines) 5. Ethical 6. Ritual 7. Material Narrative: Atheism definetly has a narrative. An oversimplified version would be this: The big bang occured and life started, later resulting in us evolving into homo sapiens through thousands of years. Again, this is a highly oversimplified version. Experiential: There isn't really a moment where atheism was formed, but modem atheism could be said as starting when Charles Darwin embarked on his voyage on the HMS Beagle. Social: Atheism, as far as I know doesn't have a definitive and obvious hierarchy (like how Catholics have the Pope, preists, cardinals, etc.) It could be said that Marxist and Stalinists countries had an atheist hierarchy (the government) but this is a bit of a stretch. Doctrinal: Atheists usually follow the humanist manifesto and other secular manifestos so I would say yes, we would have some doctrines. Ethical: In most cases atheists are moral relativists or utilitarians but really there is no mutually agreed upon morality system (like the Christians 10 commandments or pastafarians "8 I'd rather you didn't") Rituals: As far as I know we don't have any rituals... That would be weird. Materials: This refers to objects or places created for the religion (many of which are considered holy or sacred, such as temples, mosques, churches, synagogues, etc.) So.. Let's just to a quick run down: Narrative? Yep (Y) Experiential? Ehhh.. Kind of. (Y) Social Hierarchies? No. (N) Doctrinal? Yes. (Y) Ethical? No. (N) Rituals? No. (N) Materials? No. (N) And.. It's a tie. As it doesn't meet all of them (which religions do), it would be hard to see atheism is a religion. Are they similar? Yes. Are they the same? Definetly not. Reference: http://creation.mobi...
atheism=a religion, like an opposing religion

To come to the conclusion whether or not atheism is a religion, we must first have the definitions of both atheism and religion. I will be using the Oxford dictionary for my definitions. Religion: "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." Atheism: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." As you can see, both aren't compatible. How does one not believe in a god or goddess but yet believe and worship a metaphysical being? Also you say that it is an "opposing religion." Could you clarify that after your rebuttal? And as always, good luck.
The 2nd amendment is good

Yes, You summarized my position correctly. America would be a safer and more just society if private citizens did not possess firearms. I do make an exception for government officials, As their job is to maintain order. Like I said, I don't advocate for the elimination of the 2nd amendment because I don't believe it is realistic. I do think that in a hypothetical version of America where citizens don't possess guns/no 2nd amendment would be preferential to what we have today.
The 2nd amendment is good

This is my first debate so excuse any mistakes I may make in terms of format or anything like that. First and foremost, What are the reasons for this claim that we would be better off without guns in our society? Do you mean that we would be better off if private citizens did not possess firearms, But it is acceptable for government officials (police, Army etc. ) to possess them? Second of all what means do we have to produce a gun free society even if it were a good thing? We have what is supposed to be a drug free society and we all know how that turned out. All that a ban on guns does is take them away from law-abiding citizens. (I know that I didn't exactly address the second amendment this round, I'm just trying to unpack what you are saying about a gun free society)
The 2nd amendment is good

Police brutality would not be nearly as big of an issue if police officers were not afraid that every citizen they approached were armed. We trust the government with many aspects of life, I don't anticipate an armed insurrection any time soon. Is the small chance of a revolution worth the millions of deaths from gun violence. I would rather be alive now, Than worry about some tyranny that doesn't exist. Why can't you trust your government? , Do you find yourself in shootouts with government often, If you do than I understand your argument.
The 2nd amendment is good

I would counter and argue that that only works if you assume that people (including government officials) are good and should and can be trusted to make good decisions. We know that that is clearly not the case considering we have such a problem in this country with Police brutality as well as the fact that we had to leave a country (England) that did not respect our rights. The core purpose of the Second Amendment is to defend against the government and to be able to protect yourself if the government were to become tyrannical. It has secondary applications, Such as defending against assault or forming a militia against foreign threat but that is its core purpose. So that being said it doesn't at all make sense to strip all people of guns except for government officials because that is the exact thing that it was designed to protect against. It seems you have an inaccurate view of what the second amendment is designed to do. I for one would be fine to have to a world where guns were not even needed and I could trust my government to both protect me and my rights, But that is not the world we live in. So, That being said I suppose your hypothetical sounds good, But it doesn't actually challenge my stance very much.
Should the electoral college be abolished in favor of a national vote

I know we don't really discuss this but I think just to give the voters a basic guideline this debate should be judge on a cost-benefit analysis meaning you should be weigh each point and then vote for the side who demonstrates the most decisive impacts. If pro has any objection to this I ask her to address it in the comments. With that in mind I would like to give the voters a quick summary on all the major points in this debate. 1) The Electoral College increases deliberative democracy. As I clearly show you in my first contention the Electoral College increases deliberative democracy because of its very controversial nature. The fact the people question whether the Electoral College is a legitimate method drives them to become more informed and therefore contribute more to the electoral process. The only response pro makes to this is to misinterpreted the definition of deliberative and then claim I don't substantiate any of my claims despite multiple pieces of evidence. Therefore you can clearly see this point will be flowing to the con in today's debate. 2) The electoral protects against fraud and reduces possible dangerous delay's Pro drops my first two impacts in this debate on majority and minority fraud so you can see those will clearly be flowing towards con in this debate. In fact these are the most important issues to today"s debate because if we allow fraud to corrupt the election process then it losses all legitimacy. Therefore you should be casting a con ballot just on those two issues. Sub point c) the Electoral College prevents dangerous delays in the electoral process. Pro decided not to address this point and instead decides to simply straw man it and claim I talk about close election. In fact I see absolutely no problem in close elections as long as it reflects a popular will. The only problem that arises from these close races is the possible of recounts which in Electoral College are isolated to local states but that in a NV may have a crippling effect on the legelitaive process due to dangerous delays. Pro's only response to this is that in a NV we have less close elections but as I clearly demonstrate these elections are not close because large cities will not accurately represent America a clear negative impact. Therefore this point will also flow to the con. 3) The Electoral College reduces polarization- Pro accepts that a NV will polarize America and only focus on cities but attempts to justify this with unsubstantiated claims that big cities better represent America than swing states. Yet when confronted will empirical evidence to the contrary pro fails to mount any response. Thus this point also flows towards the con.