BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gender based income inequality

Let's start off with some statistics. Men spend more time working than women do by two hours on average, whether it be at work or in home. (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...) Men also make up 92.2% of all workplace fatalities. (https://www.aei.org...) . Seems to me as if the "wage gap" is close enough considering how much men work and how often they die while working.
Ross is the Main Character on Friends

Full Resolution: Given the storyline, if one of the characters of the tv sitcom Friends is to be considered the protagonist, the most fitting choice is Ross Geller. Friends is an ensemble comedy television series with six well-defined main characters [1]. That said, my opponent and I will both now argue in favor of a single character as being the most fitting protagonist, given their roles within the series as a whole. The burden of proof will be shared equally. I will argue in favor of the protagonist being the character Ross and my opponent must argue in favor of one of the remaining main characters: Chandler, Joey, Monica, Rachel, or Phoebe. Protagonist: the leading character, hero, or heroine of a drama or other literary work [2]Rules (stolen from RoyLathem. You inspire me, sir.)Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation. Anything contrary to the rules is to be ignored by readers judging the debate:1. I hate starting debates so Con will present their character choice and opening case in Round 1. Neither debater may present new arguments in their final speech, though they may rebut previous arguments using new evidence. For equality's sake, Con will pass Round 4. 2. All arguments must be made in this debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments or elsewhere are to be ignored.3. Source links and references must be included within the 6,000 characters per round limit of the debate. 4. No semantics. Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted. Any questions or issues with this debate should be addressed in the comments section before acceptance.References1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://tinyurl.com...
Beauty pageants

===Definitions===A beauty pageant is "a competition that mainly focuses on the physical beauty of its contestants, although such contests often incorporate personality, talent, and answers to judges' questions as judged criteria."[1]===Rebuttals===(A) Harm.Con's first point centers around the alleged harms that are incurred (by the contestants I'm assuming) as a result of beauty pageants. Unfortunately, Con didn't really go into what those harms were, except to say that young girls probably don't like the various aspects of beauty pageants (makeup, dresses, etc.). Of course, Con never provided empirical evidence of this actually happening so it's moot. But even if evidence can be shown that evinces at least a prevalence of attitudes like this among contestants, it wouldn't go to show anything wrong conceptually with the beauty pageants. Meaning Con's position would need to shift to opposition towards parental coercion rather than the concept of a beauty pageant itself (since we can clearly conceive of, and can empirically verify) the existence of beauty pageants only allowing children who elected to compete on their own free will. Con's objection is with a contingent possibility, not with beauty pageants themselves.(B) Intelligence vs. Beauty.The next point of attack alleges that beauty pageants focus unduly attention on beauty as opposed to intelligence. First, again no empirical verification was provided by Con. He specifically argues that 'half' of all(?) beauty pageants presumably focus solely on appearances. Second, (and this point is essentially the same as my second refutation of Con's first point) this would only be focusing on a contingent possibility rather than beauty pageants as a whole. We could certainly adopt this position while still supporting the existence of beauty pageants with a duel focus on intelligence and beauty. Third, Con hasn't even shown why this would be a bad thing. Con hasn't shown why there's anything wrong with focusing on beauty under specific circumstances. So Con's point is empirically unsupported, doesn't necessitates his conclusion, and the very nature of his contention is invalid and unfounded.(C) Competition.I hate to repeat myself here since Con makes the same mistakes in this contention as he does in the others. He provided no empirical support to his claim (that any emotional trauma is incurred by losing) and he fails to show why a winner take all function is conceptually necessary thus allowing one to accept this argument while still supporting a reform of beauty pageants.===Sources===[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Beauty pageants

I believe that beauty pageants harm young girls (sometimes boys). Wearing makeup, Getting your hair done, and buying $2000 dresses should not be any 6 year olds favorite hobbies. Another problem is that half of these beauty pageants don't have questions. The other half barely counts the questions for anything. They should judge on inner beauty. I don't think the number of sequins on your dress shows inner beauty as much as your views on cancer do. Also, only one little girl can win grand supreme, and that leaves a lot of girls sad and emotional.
People are too dependant on computers now a days

I'd also like to mention that, seeing as your profile says you're from Manitoba, we're both Canadian -- I'm just further east by a pretty decent margin. And now on to the debate; best of luck to you. The first thing I'd like to mention is that my opponent didn't really seem to provide much of an argument that computers are, indeed, more of a burden than a convenience, and that society is "too dependent" on them, which kind of puzzled me a bit. . .. anyway, here's a quote from my opponent which interested me: <"Approximately 74% of the American and Canadian population has Internet access, which allows us to read books, articles, find cooking recipes, chat with friends and learn new facts and many millions of other things. "> The above quote, if anything, seems to play into the hands of my side of the debate. Not only is an abundance of new information now available -- but it's all at our fingertips. The internet allows us to access and study things which interest us much easier than any previous method. I see that as a fantastic thing -- we're capable of educating ourselves much easier than we ever were. Computers also make it easier to keep in touch with friends, family, and people you know who moved away. It even allows you to interact with people from different countries, cities, states, provinces, etc. , which is exemplified by this site -- you get people from the UK, all over the USA, and even small Canadian provinces such as Newfoundland. Anyway. .. my second point: <"But what ever happened to the old school ways? Did books fade out for the use of the Internet and did pen and paper letters die and turn into instant messaging and writing on your face book wall? "> Thing is, just because these ways my opponent speaks of are "old school" doesn't necessarily make them better. The "pen and paper" letters just aren't anywhere as convenient as taking 15 minutes, for example, to write up an e-mail, which will likely reach the sender in mere minutes, rather than the weeks it can take for a person to receive a hand-written letter sent by the regular ole method of mailing. E-mails are much more efficient. I see instant messaging as a positive, as well. IM'ing makes it much more simple to keep in contact with people you're close to. To summarize, while I can appreciate my opponents nostalgia, she doesn't seem to put forth an argument which would convince any readers that people depend too much on computers, and the complaints and criticisms which my opponent did bring up either played into the hands of my position in this debate, or were more of an appeal to nostalgia than anything else. That's all for round one. .. The following has no relevance to the topic whatsoever -- but I figured it wouldn't be an issue if I said it: 1: I'm used to the informal, mud-slinging type of debate, so this is a change of pace for me; 2: I think I read that people are tossing around the idea of a team debate tournament, or something along those lines; if so, then myself and someone I know would be interested.
People are too dependant on computers now a days

I feel that people have become way to dependant on computers in the world today. Every where you look there is a computer located, you go to the doctors and there is a computer sitting in his/her office, you go to school and have whole computer labs dedicated to time you spend learning about them. Then to top it off almost every house hold in America owns a computer in which you go home and "play" on everyday. Approximately 74% of the American and Canadian population has Internet access, which allows us to read books, articles, find cooking recipes, chat with friends and learn new facts and many millions of other things. But what ever happened to the old school ways? Did books fade out for the use of the Internet and did pen and paper letters die and turn into instant messaging and writing on your face book wall? The ways we were raised are starting to drift and the new generation of computers are merging into our world. Nothing can get done without a computer today and can you imagine what the future is going to look like with all this computer technology? And what about all of us people out there who happen to be computer challenged? What will happen to us?
Does the future (and past) exist? Metaphysics 101

First off, i would like to reply to your question "This begs the question: Are you talking about existing in our universe or another universe? And how could existing in another universe constitute existing here? " I am not saying they exist 'here', but I am saying that they exist now. I am also saying that there is not such thing as 'here' as there is no special property of 'hereness' that a particular place has. Likewise, there is no presentness or some property that only the present has. Also, you gave alot of well-put rebuttals against me, but you did not explain what you propose the truthmaker to be. What do you think makes that statement that "world war two occured", true? Ill list my premises for my argument. .. P1- truth depends on existence P2- We think statments about the past and the present can be true conclusion- Because statements about the present and the past can be true, they must exist in some way that acts as the truthmaker.
Does the future (and past) exist? Metaphysics 101

So something must exist in the present to be real. You premise is that since the past is real, ergo, exists, so must the future. But the past doesn't exist. Existence is contingent being a present moment. Since the past isn't present, it doesn't exist. And since the past doesn't exist, how can the future? You mentioned various multiple theories as to why World War 2 could be existing. However, you haven't elaborated on why these other universe's World War 2's would be the same as this universe's World War 2. They wouldn't be out World War 2, but another universes. Our World War 2, the one you mentioned, would've been past, and no longer existing in this universe. This begs the question: Are you talking about existing in our universe or another universe? And how could existing in another universe constitute existing here? Also, what is this obvious logic about the past being real meaning the future is real? If you want a debate, you need to give all of your reasons. Else, how can I debate you? In space, everything exists at the same time. You don't have to wait for space to exist, it already does. In time, the future doesn't exist yet, while the present does. If you need any clarity on what I've said, then please tell me.
Does the future (and past) exist? Metaphysics 101

Hi- this debate will be whether or not the future (and past) exists or not. I will attempt to argue that the future does, indeed, exists, while Con will argue that only the present exists. If you accept please argue rationally as this is actually a somewhat serious debate, though feel free to use whatever tone you want. Definitions: Exist- To be real in the present. Present - Existing or occurring now. Past- Something that occured that is not in the present. Future- Something that has yet to occur. Argument 1- I think that the future exists because we need a truthmaker of statements such as "World war two occured". If the past did not exist, that what would make the statement that "World war two occured" true. Because truth depends /supervenes on existence, the fact that the past exists would be the truthmaker of such statements. For example, if I say that "grass is green" that statment would be true because a thing called 'grass' EXISTS, and has the property of green-ness. If grass didn't exist, the statment "grass is green" could not be true. Likewise, if i make the statement that unicorns are purple, that statement cannot be true because unicorns do not EXIST. I hope these two examples show my opponent and anyone reading that for something to be true, something needs to exist to make it true. The only exceptions for this rule are definitional truths, such as all bachelors are unmarried, and 1+1=2. The statement "World war two occured", is true because I think World war two DOES exist, right now in the present. There are thousands on explainations of how World war wo can exist now, like in the Possilbe worlds theory, multiverse theory, 4 dimentionalism, and much more. But if the past is real, that also means that the future is real, because obvious logic (if you think this needs explaining tell me, as i am currently to lazy to type it all out) I would like to draw an analogy between time, and space. In space, there is not such thing as 'here'. 'here' is just the name we give to the space we occupy. There is not property of 'hereness'. Similarly, in time, here is no such thing as 'the present'. The present is just the name we give to the time we occupy, there is not property of 'presentness' It is for all of these reasons (and more!), that i think tha past and the future exist
Communism is a better system than capitalism

Discarding ,of course, the quote by Bertrand Russell which I feel addressed more Marxism than communism. After all Russell was a self declared socialist. I would like to first begin by first addressing once again the definition I provided as I believe it encompasses some of the greatest ideas in political thought we have, as a race, come up with. Democracy and meritocracy are both compatible with this definition and in fact the latter is in encouraged when it states 'each person contributes and receives according to their ability and need'. This is also addresses one of the weaknesses of a meritocracy, that it does not cater for those who may have some sort of mental/ physical disability. I will now go on to discuss the issues with capitalism. Inequality in America has been and is on the rise(1)(2). The proclaimed utopia of capitalism seems to fail to cater to the poorest within its own system, this is endemic of the problem with capitalism: it rewards the rich and leaves the poor to fail by making the system so toxic that to prosper you have to undermine either social or human capital to achieve monetary gain. As shown by the capital triangle(3). I will leave this debate short as I do not wish to set a precident of long answers seeming as we both as upcoming exams. (1) . http://upload.wikimedia.org... - 2013 (2). http://upload.wikimedia.org... - 2007- these sources show an increase in inequality (3) . http://static.squarespace.com...
Communism is a better system than capitalism

Since forfeiting is apparently a bad thing on debate.org I will just post something, although I don't really have time to do this debate due to exams coming up. In the words of Bertrand Russell, "In relation to any political doctrine there are two questions to be asked: Are its theoretical tenets true? Is its practical policy likely to increase human happiness? For my part, I think the theoretical tenets of Communism are false, and I think its practical maxims are such as to produce an immeasurable increase of human misery."
All Abrahamic religions are equally bad

The resolution of this debate can be interpreted in two ways. The first is the interpretation my opponent has decided to focus on, namely the accuracy of the religions. The other interpretation, which is the one I thought we would be debating, pertains to the influence the Abrahamic religions have had on humanity and are likely to have in the future. I will show that in both cases, it is unreasonable to think that all Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) are equally bad. In order to prove that all Abrahamic religions are equally "bad for humanity", my opponent must first quantify "badness" e.g. the amount of human suffering, the number of rights violated. Then he must show that all Abrahamic religions are responsible for an equal amount of it. That's not going to happen, as everyone knows. My opponent's first mistake is to assume that if humans cannot grasp something, it cannot exist. This merely elevates the human mind to god-like status, thus undermining his own argument. Indeed, if nothing is allowed to escape our mind's grasp, then by what right do we have to say that our mind is NOT infinite? Infinite means without limits. If our mind is able to understand EVERYTHING that could exist, then it has no meaningful limits. Moreover, if anything can be comprehended by the human mind, then omnipotence is limited to only those actions that we can understand, which again, undermines my opponent's already feeble argument.His argument also fails for the simple reason that it refers to omnipotence in the course of declaring it meaningless. That is problematic for obvious reasons. My opponent doesn't understand that omnipotence, although it permits an infinite range of behavior, does not itself require an infinite description. It is therefore possible to talk about "the ability to do anything" (omnipotence) without specifying all that it enables, just as it's possible to talk about Pi without writing it all out (which is impossible anyway). We live in a highly complex world. Religions are huge, intricate social structures, involving sometimes billions of people. It would be quite a miracle if any two were exactly the same in any respect. Religions are not just the God concept. All have a rich history and lore that could have strains of truth even if they were not divinely inspired. My opponent must prove that all religions are historically inaccurate to the same degree. That isn't going to happen, as he knows.
All Abrahamic religions are equally bad

Postulate: All things which are indistinguishable must be judged the same. This is clear: treating equivalent things differently means basing one's treatment of the things not on any of their actual qualities, but rather on nothing, for no qualities are different between the things so as to give rise to a basis for these different treatments. If, then, one thing is judged as bad, then all equivalent things are equally bad. I must, then, show that all Abrahamic religions are equivalent in every way. This is incredibly easy to do and takes little time. The concept of any God is a contradiction in terms, for omnipotence and infinite power in general cannot be defined; the infinite cannot be grasped by the finite, for, to grasp the nature of the infinite, one must be able to transcend it and look at it in its totality, which requires an escape from the grasp of the infinite. Any professed knowledge of the infinite must, then, be nonsense. The proposition "An omnipotent God exists," then, is impossible to uphold. All tenets of Abrahamic religions follow from God. If their common basis is irrational, so too must everything which follows from it. For it does not matter how true a conclusion is if its justification is nonsense; a conclusion is only meaningful if it is tied to reality at its root. Sense: 1. All men are mortal 2. Socrates is a man C. Socrates is mortal Nonsense: 1. All ducks are red 2. Socrates is dead, and we have killed him C. Socrates is mortal The conclusions of both rely on and are inexorably linked to their premises, and it can hardly be said that they both hold the same relation to reality. For when a conclusion is spoken, all prior groundwork is implied. If everything which follows from the premiss of an omnipotent God is nonsense, and if all Abrahamic religions follow from the premiss of an omnipotent God, all Abrahamic religions must be nonsense. What is nonsense? Nonsense is that which has no sense, sense being what a proposition pictures. If, then, a nonsensical proposition pictures nothing, it cannot be distinguishable from other nonsensical propositions. Nonsense is simply the lack of sense; there are no other qualities which can be ascribed to it, for, if there were, the nonsense would be sense. Therefore, all propositions of nonsense are equally empty and have no differences except in arbitrary linguistic form. If the totality of Abrahamic religions is, then, nonsense, then they must all be judged equally; there is nothing which sets any individual nonsensical proposition apart from the others. Ergo, all are equally bad. Q.E.D.
Crime and mental health are linked.

I disagree. It is known mental health can cause behaviour that hurts others. People are not their true selves when associated with a mental health issue and many people forget their purpose on earth when their mind is distracted and influenced by something else. This is why crime can be committed because of mental health issues. Since people's minds can be so intensely associated with a thought or emotion in their head, Violence, Theft or other crimes may be committed since it allows escapism from their mind. In Australia, 8% of males in prison are recorded to have a metal or psychotic disorder and 14% of women according to the AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT. This is proof we cannot rule out mental disorders as a cause of Australian crime and mental health definitely can cause people to harm others.
Crime and mental health are linked.

Crime is linked to mental health and is caused by people who cannot cope with emotions and difficulties. In particular, Strain in a person"s life is the major cause of crime in our world. A strain is what fear and anger stem off and this causes all sorts of violence and impulsive actions. Strain can result from losing something of value, Such as a career or marriage, Personal relationships went wrong or from failing to get something of value. Strain into someone"s life leads to negative emotions such as sadness, Depression, Anxiety or anger and when a person has a negative emotion from the strain they become unable to cope with their difficulties. Violence and crime by adults is a childlike response to a frightening world that they believe has been unfair to them and is deserving of punishment. Also, Anger from not knowing how to cope with difficulties is associated with violent acts, Including homicide, Aggravated assault, Rape, Domestic violence, Child abuse, Bullying, Torture, And even terrorism according to leading criminologist, Dr Robert Agnew.