BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is a Wage Gap Between Men and Women in the Workforce

To win this debate, I must simply prove that there is a wage gap amongst women and men, in the United States. I must prove that women make less money, then men, because of the fields they chose to work in. I will not be arguing inequality, or sexism, but just the fact that women are paid less (sometimes for the same job) because they work less hours, than men. In 2015, a study had found that women make .77cents less to the dollar, than men. A Harvard professor responded to this statistic, by saying [1] “"That is possibly the case in certain places, but by and large it's not that, it's something else." That "something else," is choice — in the careers that women take, the hours they work and the time off they take. It is a fact that women get paid less, due to choices in the workforce, and what jobs they decide to take. So, what are some of these reasons why, women make less? Women in the workforce are less likely to work full time, compared to men. The graph below demonstrates the amount of men, and women, who work full time, it is clear that more men chose to work full time, compared to women working full time. Even if a man and women work in the same field, if a women chooses to work part time, she will earn less. We can also see that it is more common for women to choose part time jobs, compared to men.Part time, and full time workers by gender (C:\Users\User\Pictures\time-spent-working-by-full-and-part-time-status-gender-and-location-in-2014.svg) [2] Your salary depends are you major. It should also be known, than women get paid less, because men chose to work in more dangerous and hazardous fields. They also chose jobs that require continuous physical activity. Here is a list of the most male dominated majors. [3] Petroleum Mining and Mineral Engineering: 90% Mining and Mineral engineering: 90% male Chemical Engineering: 72% male Now, here is a list of women dominated majors. Early Childhood Education: 97% female Social Work: 88% female Communication Disorders Sciences and Services: 94% female [3] Now, let’s take a look at how much a chemical engineer makes, annually. According to Wiki, “Median salary: $96,940 USD (2014)” [4] Now, let’s see how much a social worker makes, annually. According to Occupational Lookout, “The median annual wage for social workers is $44,200” That is a $52,740 difference, in annual salary. As we can see, it is statistically proven, that men chose to work more dangerous, and hazardous jobs, than women. This is why men earn more, than women. According to the definition I have provided “The gender pay gap (also known as gender wage gap, male–female income difference, gender gap in earnings, gender earnings gap, gender income difference) is the difference between male and female earnings.” I have simply proven, with facts, that there is indeed a wage gap, because there a income difference between the 2 genders, due to my arguments above. Vote Pro. Sources: [1] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com... [2] http://www.bls.gov... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.bls.gov...
Opposites debate: socialism.

Pro says: 1. Workers become more productive because they work for themselves. I say: this is true in some cases, but often not the cases. In giving the government the power to decide who pays what taxes, we allow them to over reach in other ways too. For instance: socialized medicine: the government has too much control over healthcare. They decide the who what where and such. I am using this example to show the fallacies of socialism. Pro says: Unlike the American capitalist system workers would reap the full rewards of their labor, rather than the paltry share allotted them by big business. I say: This is often not the case. In many socialist countries, overtaxation happens which drives up the cost of everything and creates a perpetual welfare state because as people are taxed more, and more, they can afford less and less, and eventually need welfare just to survive. It is a never ending cycle. Pro says: 2. All provided for regardless of ability. I say: a lofty ideal, and I do support some level of welfare for those who truely need it, but only in that sitaution, and not another. If drug testing and contraception were required for welfare recipients, as well as job training, that would go a long way. There are no promises made in life and making people dependent on welfare as a career as well as extending too much to illegal immigrants creates a poor system for everyone. Notice that I have no problem with legal immigrants and asylum seekers who's lives are in danger. Pro says: In a Socialist society, no person is cast off because of a legitimate inability to contribute to the collective. In fact, Socialism is the purest example of loving and caring for others as yourself. Each person shares in the success of his/her nation and therefore contributes what they can, and is provided for according to their need. I say: many socialist societies are now having economic troubles. Think Spain, Greece, South American countries. We need to take another look at how to do things. Pro says: 3. The elimination of a ruling class. I say: not so. In giving the government too much control, the government becomes the ruling class. Or rather, the official government, because the people are the government. Pro says: Socialism reinforces a "we are all in this together" mentality. Because resources are equally divided amongst the populace, no person exercises privilege of class or status over another. We truly are a brotherhood of man. In the deepest sense of Christian ideals we are our brothers keeper. I say: i totally concur on being my brother's keeper: that is why I want him to be as independent as possible, because I will not always be there to help him. This is why we need to look at building families, not the federal government, because a loving Christian family lasts forever, not the federal government. As a disabled woman, I am terrified at being dependant on the government. I feel out of control. While minarchy and anarchy are not my cups of tea, neither is statism. There has to be a check and balance.
Opposites debate: socialism.

I accept this challenge and look forward to a spirited exchange. Socialism, despite the negative connotation of the word in the modern American press, is the fairest, and most humane form of government. Unfortunately the word is sometimes abused, for instance the "National Socialist German Workers Party" (the NAZIs) mixed socialist ideals with eugenic and nationalistic ideologies, resulting in the obscenity of the Holocaust. "So what," the thoughtful reader will ask "is the socialist ideal?". Unfortunately we have no pure example of socialism in modern times. If we did, the negative stigma would fall away almost immediately. The Socialist ideal: 1. Workers become more productive because they work for themselves. Unlike the American capitalist system workers would reap the full rewards of their labor, rather than the paltry share allotted them by big business. 2. All provided for regardless of ability. In a Socialist society, no person is cast off because of a legitimate inability to contribute to the collective. In fact, Socialism is the purest example of loving and caring for others as yourself. Each person shares in the success of his/her nation and therefore contributes what they can, and is provided for according to their need. 3. The elimination of a ruling class. Socialism reinforces a "we are all in this together" mentality. Because resources are equally divided amongst the populace, no person exercises privilege of class or status over another. We truly are a brotherhood of man. In the deepest sense of Christian ideals we are our brothers keeper. I await my worthy opponent's rebuttal.
Opposites debate: socialism.

Okay, this debate is simple: I am a socialist, and my oponant is not. We have challenged each other to properly debate against our own beliefs. I have taken the con position to debate against socialism, my own belief. My opponant will take the pro position against his antisocialist beliefs. Pro has the opening statement, then rebuttals and such. Be prepared for warfare! Dun, dun, dun. >:)
Sugary Drink Tax

I see I can't make rebuttals until Round 3. Then here are my arguments: Reduction of ObesityAccording to the Obesity Action Coalition, in ages 2+, people get 52% of their added sugars through sugary drinks. So it stands to reason that a reduction in the consumption of these beverages will reduce obesity. And again according to the Obesity Action Coalition, a 10% increase in the price of a sugary drink will reduce its consumption by 10-12%. So a SDT will reduce obesity [1].More evidence comes from a study done by the University of Harvard, where they show a 1% tax on each ounce of a sugary beverage reduces consumption of said beverage by 20% [2]. So it stands to reason that these taxes will reduce consumption of sugary drinks, thus reducing obesity.And why is obesity so bad? Well, according to the CDC, obesity costs the nation nearly 150 billion in health care costs yearly. It also costs us nearly 6 billion in lost productivity each year [3]. My conclusion? SDTs will reduce obesity, which will then have a positive impact on the economy, as productivity increases and Americans have more spending money, further boosting the economy.Increased RevenuePhiladelphia needed cash. Why? They wanted to pay for universal preschool in the city. So they passed a small, 1.5 cent tax on each ounce of a sugary drink. And the revenue generated from this tax was massive. Philly is set to make 90 million dollars from the tax. Yes, 90 million. I did some basic math, and found that each person generated 57 dollars in taxes from this tax. If we were to apply this bill nationwide, the revenue would be over 20 billion dollars. Think of all the amazing things the government could fund with this tax. I just read this recently: Oklahoma, in facing a gigantic deficit due to the state's foolish management of funds and tax policy, has had to cut the school funding, meaning the kids only go to school for 4 days in a week. This tax would stop that. [4]Also, in Berkeley, California, a city you mentioned, implemented a 1 cent per ounce tax on sugary beverages. The tax was an enormous success, with consumption of sugary beverages plummeting. Even better, grocery stores, corner stores, and the like didn't lose revenue from the tax. Why? Consumers just switched to buying healthier beverages like milk, water, and natural fruit drinks. [5]So that's my argument. I know it is short, but I only really had two points. Sources:1: http://www.obesityaction.org...2: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu...3: https://www.cdc.gov...4: https://billypenn.com...5: http://www.berkeleyside.com...
Sugary Drink Tax

I am against sugary drink taxes. This means that you are going to be pro and will support sugary drink taxes. You can include anything that can help you, so you are NOT limited to only just health issues. Here's how this debate will go. Round 1: Acceptance. Don't start your case, just say you accept and then we can start making our arguments in round 2. Round 2: Make arguments. Round 3: Rebuttals on main arguments. Do not make any new arguments unless absolutely necessary to make your rebuttal. Round 4: You can respond to your opponent's rebuttals, but sometimes, it can backfire on you! Additionally, you should also state why you are the winner over the other. Good luck! NOTE: I may not respond until 2-3 days after each round is over.
Mafia is a dumb game.

Ok so if I haven't won your vote by now, I'm not sure what to do to get it. I'll try anyway. We can take a look at the popularity of the game. Recall from R2 that there were 165 communities in this year's Mafia Championship. Now think about how many communities didn't send a rep. There are hundreds of communities across the internet, but we'll use the 165 figure. Let's suppose that each of these sites has a measly 20 members that play and enjoy the game. (It's much higher. Mafia Universe, for example, regularly has games with 60+ players. ) That's 3,300 players who disagree with my opponent. Additionally, one of the only rules of the debate was no trolling, which is clearly the reason my opponent accepted.
God is dead

Point 1: We only see the universe we see, you can't judge and say it's way too complex; probably there are other universes that are much more complicated than ours, and there are universes that have no sky, but they also have no habitants to notice the lack. "A designer designed this or that" is a bad hypothethis because it raises a more difficult question which is who designed the designer. However, If God did design the universe, it would be very different indeed: Meteorites have been falling on earth, galaxy orbits brings you near supernova and kill everybody on the surface, one way the universe will wind down to obivion, the sun gives us skin cancer, why would god need so much space, thats a bad design , there is too much destruction in the universe, like exploding stars, that's"s a bad design , the heat death of the universe is a bad design the sun is going to be red giant and incinerate us, that's a bad design. So God is either malevolent or impotent. Or simply, the universe wasn't designed Point 2: What do you mean science is better at disproving things when proving them? Do you mean that evolution and the big bang are false? This argument for me is just bizarre "The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But It Is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.""Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D. Director of the National Institutes of Health Former Director of the Human Genome Project (BeliefNetcom interview, Aug 2006)
God is dead

The largest sum of proof theists can provide is the probabilities, our universe is just too complicated to have been an accident. Though the majority of people who acceding themselves to this idea are theists, this is not the case absolutely. George R Price, for example, was an atheist with a biased to believe that there is no God, and yet when he assessed the numbers, he was convinced that there was. This is the largest chunk to poin, but I am not done yet. Point 2: Science is better at disproving things than proving them, this is because if you see something, it is an absolute that it exists. But if you do not see something, it does not necessarily mean that it does not exist. What we know, is that there are many things which scientists push of and say is untrue, when in reality they are wrong. For example, in the 1950's people considered the black hole to be science fiction, "Oh it is just a theory made by some guy in the 1700's, we have no proof." But now the black hole is a accepted fact. Every form of science we have today was at one time a "Fringe Science", just because you are terrible at looking, does not mean it is not there.
God is dead

"Can you actually reply to my rebuttal? You copy pasted what I said and I didn't reply to it. All my points prove a bad design. If the universe was designed by god it would be very different. The hypothesis of a designer is a bad one anyway because it raises a more difficult question which is who designed the designer." You keep saying the same old rebuttal, anyway, your arguments are not even a paragraph long, if you want to learn how to make a real debate here you go; http://www.debate.org... "Because the universe created itself. God is not necessary for the creation of the universe. You haven't replied to my rebuttal for the single argument you made" Hmm, all these new "expert" guys are real idiots, sure they come up with some whacky theories, but that is not an indication of intelligence. When is the last time Steven Hawking"s invented something like AC current, or the death ray, or wireless transmission like tesla did. When is the last time Steven Hawking"s came up with anything which benefited humanity in any way? He made a theory about particles coming out of thin air then disappearing as an alternative to the big bang theory, it is perfectly sensible, that is, if he was referring to the Federal Reserve"s money schemes. Anyway, the point is, your arguments are gibberish so I ignored them. Also, tesla was way smarter than all the lunatic "scientists" that atheists praise today.
God is dead

Can you actually reply to my rebuttal? You copy pasted what I said and I didn't reply to it. All my points prove a bad design. If the universe was designed by god it would be very different. The hypothesis of a designer is a bad one anyway because it raises a more difficult question which is who designed the designer. "How do you know that the universe does not need a mlre advanced than itself" Because the universe created itself. God is not necessary for the creation of the universe. You haven't replied to my rebuttal for the single argument you made
God is dead

"A study done in 1996 (looking at the number of meteorites found in deserts over time) calculated that for objects in the 10 gram to 1 kilogram size range, 2900-7300 kilograms per year hit Earth" 10 grams, really? That"s not even the size of a chocolate bar! So what if a piece of ash falls from space. "All my points prove a bad design which prove an impotent or malevolent designer. The hypothethis of a designer is wrong anyway, because it always raises a bigger question which who designed the designer" Again, you are thinking in this box of yours, if you want to sit in a box your whole life and say "oh no, there is no outside, it"s a myth!" then fine by me, just don"t come here to debate.org acting like you want an intelligent argument. "Now I know what you mean by this argument. But no, its totally false. What science has discovered to this day, preclude a creator. Science makes God unessecary, science can explain the universe without the need of a creator You're right , science doesn't disprove something. We can't prove there is no God but we can prove there is no reason to think there is a god " God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance and it's getting smaller and smaller as times goes on" Neil deGrasse Tyson" So first you say that god would need a more advanced creator than himself, but now you say that the universe does not need a more advanced creator than itself?
God is dead

Your argument from design: yes meteorites have been falling on earth, somwtimes meteorites are get passed the magnetic field"A study done in 1996 (looking at the number of meteorites found in deserts over time) calculated that for objects in the 10 gram to 1 kilogram size range, 2900-7300 kilograms per year hit Earth" http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...All my points prove a bad design which prove an impotent or malevolent designer.The hypothethis of a designer is wrong anyway, because it always raises a bigger question which who designed the designer2. "The point is, how do we know that we don"t have any proof of god, not because he doesn"t exist, but because we are not advanced enough to get proof. The more science advances, the more we realize that there really is nothing that is truly impossible" Now I know what you mean by this argument.But no, its totally false. What science has discovered to this day, preclude a creator. Science makes God unessecary, science can explain the universe without the need of a creatorYou're right , science doesn't disprove something. We can't prove there is no God but we can prove there is no reason to think there is a god" God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance and it's getting smaller and smaller as times goes on" Neil deGrasse Tyson
God is dead

Ok, I had other things to focus on, but now I am undistracted and will now destroy your debate. "Point 1: rule number 1, you don't say an argument is stupid without addressing it You replied "there are no creature on other planets". So what A lot of stars are exploding, meteorites falling on earth, the sun is going to be a red giant an incarnate us. You're main argument was from design but all my points prove a bad design. Also, the hypothesis of a designer is a bad one because it raises a bigger question which is who designed the designer." Actually, there are no "meteorites falling on earth"- why, because fore one we have a magnetic field, strange, mars doesn"t have a magnetic field, neither does Venus, mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto- in fact there is no other planet with a magnetic field like ours. Now that I think of it, everything is perfectly calibrated, we have a ozone layer to protect us from radiation and excessive UV rays, a magnetic field that protects us from meteors, and an extra line of defense- the gas giants, the whole solar system is so perfectly calibrated that there is no point where we are not shielded by them. "Point: Uhmm, is this an argument? What did you shove in my face? The nonsense that science is better at disproving things? That's nonsense and I don't even know what you mean by that. I quoted you a christian saying "The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But It Is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.""Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D. Director of the National Institutes of Health Former Director of the Human Genome Project (BeliefNetcom interview, Aug 2006) I guess this debate is fairly over unless you have new arguments" As I was saying, history has many incidences where humans deem something to be not real, when in reality it is very real. For example, In the 1950"s the black hole was considered science fiction, "Oh, that"s science fiction, there is no proof, and some guy in the 1700"s had a theory bla blab bla blab." Well it turns out that they didn"t have any proof not because it didn"t exist, but because they were not advanced enough to detect them. In the early 1900"s people considered going to the moon to be science fiction, they were proved wrong in 1969. Once again, it wasn"t that it didn"t exist, or that it was impossible, it was that they were not advanced enough to understand it. The point is, how do we know that we don"t have any proof of god, not because he doesn"t exist, but because we are not advanced enough to get proof. The more science advances, the more we realize that there really is nothing that is truly impossible.
God is dead

Point 1: rule number 1, you don't say an argument is stupid without addressing it You replied "there are no creature on other planets". So what A lot of stars are exploding, meteorites falling on earth, the sun is going to be a red giant an incarnate us. You're main argument was from design but all my points prove a bad design. Also, the hypothesis of a designer is a bad one because it raises a bigger question which is who designed the designer. Point: Uhmm, is this an argument? What did you shove in my face? The nonsense that science is better at disproving things? That's nonsense and I don't even know what you mean by that. I quoted you a christian saying "The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But It Is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that. ""Francis Collins, M. D. , Ph.