BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The hypersexualization of little girls is a step backwards for feminism.

Hypersexualization: accentuating the sexuality of, making extremely sexualDefinition provided by Pro in comments. See there for further reference. Feminism: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. http://www.merriam-webster.com...My argument is clear and simple. In order for Pro to win, they will have to provide evidence that this hypersexualization is infringing of women's rights and/or opportunities. I will be arguing that this is not the case. Looking at the definition and the clarification graciously provided by Pro in the comments, one can infer that "hypersexualization" is the result of marketing and television. Since both of these require consent (either to be shown as such, or to buy a product) we can infer that the people buying these products are willingly making the decision to purchase said items. Even if it is a male buying the products, the girl must make a conscious decision to wear them. Since in no way is either of these actions forcing the girl to do anything this is not infringing of said girls rights. And since this is a consensual act, any loss of opportunity is a result of individual action. Therefore hypersexulization is not infringing on feminism.
The hypersexualization of little girls is a step backwards for feminism.

"Women face injustice all around the world"While this may be true for Middle Eastern and Chinese culture, this holds no truth for the Western world (the place where this hypersexualization is taking place). I see no relevance in this to the topic at hand."This unfairness may thus lead to a conscious or unconscious feeling of inferiority." This is an unwarranted and untrue claim. All throughout history woman have been treated in the most respectful matter, and this holds true today. Today, woman have more rights more rights, better education, and more opportunities than ever before(1). Part of this is the ability to choose how they represent themselves. This is how this "problem" came into being in the first place. The media has no power unless the watcher willingly chooses to do what it says."Today, both victims of and partially leading to the hypersexualization phenomena, women are, even though they get the illusion that they are making their own choices, for most influenced by existing authorities."My opponent makes this (arguably) drastic claim yet does not back it up with reasoning or argumentation of any kind. My opponent goes on to make many similar claims with the same lack of justification. Pro does not even state which "authorities" are oppressing women! Voters can disregard these due to lack of evidence.My opponent has not even rebutted how the hypersexulization of the girls is somehow limiting women's rights in any way. Since Pro has not challenged my definitions I must assume that they agree with them. Again looking at the definition, my opponent has not related to it. Instead they just went on a rant about how woman are oppressed in society which I have rebutted.As for the argument on the age, the parents should be held more responsible more than the media. My opponent even says that young girls look to their mothers more than anything else, so that would include the media. By that logic my opponent has created a self defeating argument.While I thank everyone for an excellent debate I see nothing but a Con vote.Sources:(1) http://www.avoiceformen.com...
The hypersexualization of little girls is a step backwards for feminism.

Con, thank you for your contribution. Women face injustice all around the world; in many cultures, even today, a male baby is preferable to a female baby to give you an example. Starting before their birth, women have to continuously deal with inequality. This unfairness may thus lead to a conscious or unconscious feeling of inferiority. Women have been told how to act, what to say, what to wear, more than men and so we can notice that a little girl is, more often, perfectly aware of her gender role, of the role of the feminine in the society than a little boy is of his. Imitating her mother, learning from her entourage, the little girl faces a stricter education. To reaffirm their existence, women started the feminist movement in the 1960s (women's fight against sexism can not be limited to this movement of course). Today, both victims of and partially leading to the hypersexualization phenomena, women are, even though they get the illusion that they are making their own choices, for most influenced by existing authorities. Buying a simple item of clothing because they want to doesn't mean that they are fully in control of their actions. We are surrounded by media messages,that offer women 'role models' they should look up to. Prejudices and the existing system in our societies push women to try pleasing men's expectations too. Even though it looks like it is getting better (and it is) and that women are in power, they are under pressure and unconsciously our consciously guided by authorities and media above mentioned. In addition to this, since we are debating on the hypersexualization of young girls, we should take in consideration their age, and the fact that they are, at their age (8-13) too young to make that kind of decisions without any guidance.
Bitcoin is a scam

For one, it is not open source, anyone can do anything with them, and they can make more indefinitely. I know exactly what Hitchin is and I do not like it, which is why I can tell you it is a scam. People are not anymore in control of their money with Hitchin than with dollars, the only difference in control, is that anyone can make more bitcoin, and it'd price fluctuates too much to ever work as a currency.
Bitcoin is a scam

Bitcoin is not a scam because: 1. Scams require hidden aspects. Bitcoin is a 100% pure and open source. 2. The only people calling this a scam are the ones who don't know anything about it. Is it risky to invest your money into? Yes. Does that make it a scam? No. 3. With Bitcoin, people are in control of their own money. It allows for less dependency for third parties.
Bitcoin is a scam

What is bitcoin: Bitcoin is a digital currency, it is made by people called miners. Basically, miners own computers which can make bitcoin, they then sell these bitcoins to the public for real money. Anyone can make more Hitchin, you just need a bitcoin miner, anything from your tablet to smartphone to home computor can be turned into a bitcoin miner, the more powerfully the computer, the more bitcoins it can make. Why bitcoin is a scam: 1. Anyone can make more, and there is no limit to how many they can make. Supposedly, only 21 million coins can exist, but this is obviously untrue. There is nothing stopping them from making more, as long as their bitcoin miners are working right, they will simply continue making bitcoins. What's stopping them, Hitchin is decentralized, there is no law enforcement making them unable to, there is no app making them unable to make more. There is literally nothing preventing them from making more. 2. Bitcoin acts more like a stock or a bond than a currency. This is why it keeps failing, you see, the price of a stock and or bond is decided by demand, people buy more, they are worth more, people sell more, they are worth less, currencies behave a little differently, there is more in circulation, they are worth less, there is less in circulation, they are worth more. Keep in mind, when people buy Hwitchin, they are buying new bitcoin, newly made. So if people start to buy more, bitcoin miners make more, causing there to be more in circulation, this keeps on going, keep in mind also, the price is going up even though there is more in circulation, so, the price continues to go up, until the numbers are so much, that the markets notice that there is no way that Hutchins are worth their current price, so the price comes crashing down. Hitchin miners make less bitcoin, bitcoin is in deficit, the price as a currency goes up due to low numbers, investors see it and start buying, causing the price to go up, causing more Hutchins. So this is why Hitchin goes up and down repetitively. 3. It is completely anonymous, anyone can sell anything and nosebleeds to know. There is a public leisure for all Hitchin transactions, the catch is that when they are recorded the identities of those involved in the transactions. And their oscillations of transactions every second, and there is no oversight over the ledgure, so the leisure obsolete.
Solve the riddle 2

Okay, I'm not very good at riddles, but I find it helps when I draw the scenario out. So, here's my opus magnum ms paint depiction of the riddle; It's only one guy, but I'm putting him on both sides to represent each village. Now, this guy either always lies, or always tells the truth. If he's from village B always tells the truth, and that's also the village I'm trying to get to. So, to help me figure this out, I'm going to work backwards and assume I already know the answer. I'll assume village B is to the right and village A is to the left; Okay, so I need a question for which the answer has to give me definitive knowledge of where the correct village is. If I ask him "which village is village B", then if he's from village B he will point to the left... but if he's from village A then he'll point to the right. Hmm... If I ask him which village is NOT village A... then he'll just give the opposite answer which doesn't help me at all. =/ I've got to switch things up.I could ask "which village is the opposite village of the one you just came from?" person B would point towards village A because he just came from village B, and person A would point towards village... A... because that would be a lie.Holy guacamole, I think I've made progress. Okay, since they would both point towards the same village, I know that the village they point to much be the... hold on. Villager A always lies, so if he just came from village A and I asked him to point to the opposite village that he just came from... no he would point towards his own village nvm just double checking =p So all I have to do is go the opposite direction that the guy points.Hmm... Do I have to get him to point towards village B? I don't want to give my answer and fail on a technicality... I guess if asking him "which village is the opposite" gets the negative answer, then asking him simply "which village did you come from?" should give me the positive answer? Test time!Me: "Which village did you come from?" If B: "The one to your left" (truth)If A: "The one to your right" (lie)Both are pointing towards village B! I'm worried I'm missing something, so I'm going to do a syllogism test to make sure:P1- This person always liesP2- He just came from the village to my leftC- He will point to the village to my right if asked where he came from, since that would be a lieP1- This person is always honestP2- He just came from the village to my rightC- He will point to the village to my right if asked where he came from, since that would be the truthIn both cases, the villager points towards village B, which is where I want to go.Okay, that's enough proof for me. If I wanted to find out which village is village B, my question would be: Which village did you just come from?
Solve the riddle 2

I'll post a riddle in this round. Con gets one guess. I reveal the answer in round two. If Con gets it, he gets all points. If he doesn't, I get all points. Riddle: There are two villages, village A and village B. Village A contains only liars, they ALWAYS lie. Village B contains only people who tell the truth. There is a large forest between the two villages and you are lost in it, but then you see a person who could be from EITHER village A or B.You get to ask him only one question. You want to get to village B. What do you ask him?
Hate Speech is Constitutionally Protected

I apologize for not being able to post my argument, the application process went longer than expected. While it is true that the First Amendment does not prevent states or localities from setting up their own speech restrictions, the Fourteenth Amendment, and equal protection under the law does prevent this course of action. In regard to monitoring of terrorists, it is important to remember that the US Constitution is only applicable to Citizens of the United States, most terrorist suspects are foreign, and thus are not entitled to the same rights and privileges as an actual US citizen. But for the small number that do happen to be US citizens, it should be noted that no arrest may be made against American citizens based solely on what that person said. There has to be substantial proof of links to hostile groups, as well as an actual crime attempted because of the person's words. I also take issue with my opponent's assertion that, due to the wording of the amendment, the executive or judicial branches is not bound to the Bill of Rights. While it is true that Presidents have acted on their own accord in regard to policing of speech, the relative hesitance for the Legislative Branch to do anything about it does not make such actions protected under the law. It is also important to realize, that the Constitution only officially allows for the Legislature to make laws. Executive orders were not yet a concept, and the role of the President is to essentially 'enforce' the Congress's rulings. Obviously, this is not the case today, but many aspects of today's federal government are not found in the constitution. I agree with con that a person is not bound by the Constitution on their own property, but that was never the argument I was making. The Constitution exists to put limits on the power of the federal (and, as per the 14th Amendment, state) governments, not individuals in their private lives.
Hate Speech is Constitutionally Protected

Let us pay close attention to the wording of Amendment 1 of the Constitution,Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. While this amendment restricts Congress, abridging free speech is within the jurisdiction of the rest of the government. The FBI and DHS act with the Constitutional authority of the Executive Branch as defined in Article II, and are free to anticipate hate crimes and terrorist attacks based on speech and whatever other evidence they obtain. They are held in check by the Supreme Court and lower courts, who can issue warrants to search, seize, or otherwise apprehend potentially dangerous individuals based on threats these individuals make, as long as these actions are subjectively reasonable as required by the fourth amendment. So of the three federal branches of government, only one is unable to respond to hate speech. The first amendment additionally does not restrict state legislatures and governors, city and county authorities, or property owners. Can a property owner not legally require you to leave the premises based on what you say, for no reason at all? And if so, can he not create rules that define when he exercises this right? With the same rights, a school can create and enforce rules of behavior including those against hate speech. Hate speech is perhaps protected from Congress, but if it were “Constitutionally protected,” it would be legal in any location under any circumstances. I look forward to learning more on this complicated topic from Pro!
Sinless Perfection (Christian topic)

But a newborn baby cannot say that it hasn't sinned! It can't talk! I revert to my innitial point; to be sinless, you only have to be in a state wher you have never sinned, which requires you to do something. You cannot be guilty of sin from the moment you exist, you have to have some ammount of time with which to commit it, which means that there is some period of time between spawning into existance and sinnwhere a baby has never sinned, thus, a perfect sinless state. You cannot say that we were all "born in sin" because Ezekiel 18 clearly states that the righteousness of the righteous is upon him and the wickedness of the wicked is upon him; everyone shall die of their own sins. Myonent is buying into the false parable 'the fathers eat sour grapes and the childdrens teeth are set on edge.' G-d himself declaired that everyone will die for his own sin; the iniquity of the fathers will NOT be upon the sons, just like the iniquity of Adam is not carried on to us.
Sinless Perfection (Christian topic)

Closing Statement: As much as I respecially my brother in Christ I would like to say, that he has failed to show that we can become sinless in our human life. 1 John 1:8 says it all. 1 John 1:8 - If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Scripture is very clear, we will not reach a full sinless state until we reach eternal life. Even the Apostle Paul Struggled with sin. Romans 7:19-20 (ESV) - For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. I will close by quoting Romans. Romas 3:23 - For all have sinned and all fall short of the glory of God.
Sinless Perfection (Christian topic)

First of all, we cannot be 'born into sin due to Adams curse' because Ezekiel 18:19-20 states:"Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."I don't really know how much clearer it can be; we, decendants of Adam and Eve, do not bear any of their guilt because 'the sons shall not bear the iniquity of their fathers.' Deuteronomy 24:16 states:"Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin."Jeremiah 3:30 states:"But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge."So- your verse from Romans has been completely debunked altogether, now we must address Psalms, which, it turns out, actualy says:"Behold, with iniquity I was formed, and with sin my mother conceived me."Only one word was different, but that chnges the entire mning of the verse.
Sinless Perfection (Christian topic)

Rebuttal:So my main argument was that we could not just stop sinning.My brother here said: "a newborn baby that was just born 5 minutes ago- it is in a "perfect sinnless state"I wouldn't say that Babies are born sinless, I think it is biblical to say that when we are born we are under Adam and we are born into sin.Psalm 51:5 (NET) - Look, I was guilty of sin from birth, a sinner the moment my mother conceived me. Romans 5:12 (NET) - So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinnedAlso, I was arguing that once we become Christians, we cannot stop sinning until we are in our glorified bodies. There is no one I know of that was sinless (other than Jesus). So if you can demonstrate someone that was sinless (other than Jesus) then sinless perfection would not be possible.References/Sources:http://biblehub.com...http://biblehub.com...
Sinless Perfection (Christian topic)

Alright then, I will be arguing that it is possible for someone to never sin Genesis 4:7 says:"If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”So here the Tanakh says that we can rule over sin. But now let's take for example a newborn baby that was just born 5 minutes ago- it is in a "perfect sinnless state" since it has never sinned before, how could it? Almost none of us can resist sinning for our whole life, but we can manage to commit no sins whatsoever for 5 minutes.
Sinless Perfection (Christian topic)

Rules and Format -This debate is for Christians. Round 1: Should be opening statements, Round 2: Is the rebuttal and Round 3: Is the closing statements.What is Sinless Perfection? Sinless Perfection is the Christian idea that we can reach a sinless and perfect state in this lifetime.My Position - In this debate I will be against sinless perfection and will argue that we cannot reach a perfect/sinless state.My Opening Statement -So as we look throughout the scriptures we see that even people like David and Abraham sinned. We see that David was "a man after Gods heart" but we still see David sinning we Bathsheba. Sadly we are all born into this sinful nature, Jesus gives us a new nature but we struggle with sin everyday. The reason Jesus died is because we couldn't be perfect. The only person who was sinless was Jesus Christ because he is the Son of God, you cannot find anyone who was sinless other than Jesus.1 John 1:8 (KJV) - "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."In Gods word we see that only God is good. And according to 1 Jn 1:8 if we say we are without sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. Many sinless perfectionist deny this scripture. In 2 Timothy 3:16 it says that all scripture is inspired by God. Ultimately at the end of the day, it is God's word that is the ultimate authority. The only person who was sinless was Jesus Christ because he is the Son of God.Grace and Peace to all of Gods saints through the Lord Jesus Christ.References -https://www.biblegateway.com......https://www.biblegateway.com......https://www.biblegateway.com......You might want to read -http://www.abideinchrist.com......http://www.ligonier.org......http://www.gotquestions.org......
god didnt build plants, because they are natural, plants dont need a mechanic

I don't exactly get what you're trying to say. You say god didn't build plants, but what do you mean by "God"? Some would say it's the force that made everything in the first place, or a great helper somewhere. Some would even say God is everything, as pantheism says. That said, it depends on your concept of a "God". You say nature flows in the path of least resistance. Naturally, yes. But who said "God" is not what is natural? If all natural and unnatural things come from a God, them plants come as well. Even if you use "God" as the Christian one, God created all that is natural and human beings twisted his creation with the help of the "Devil". Your claim is only true if you say God makes things that are out of nature/physics, which is contradicted by the Bible and even post-modern definitions of "God", like "he who makes the laws of physics". The whole discussion is flawed, though, because of the great amount of definitions that the word "God" can have.