BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A decrease in male population would be beneficial for society

I am arguing that a substantial decrease in the global male population (for numbers sake, let's assume a 40-60% decrease) would offer many societal benefits (I'll primarily be focusing on benefits in the Western world.) This is purely hypothetical, let's assume a disease pops us that permanently reduces the ratio of male to female births. Main points: Many societal ills would be greatly reduced. Our prisons would be less full (assaults and murders would take a nosedive), and the market for sex trafficking would be greatly reduced, seeing how it's clientï¿½le is composed of almost exclusively men. Conditions for women would improve. Due to a dearth of male workers, girls would have a higher likelihood to be prepped for higher paying math/science/technology jobs due to a need to fill them. This would give women more economic power and enable them to be less expendable, making conditions for ill treatment less likely. Men would have a larger pool of women to choose a one-night stand, lover, or life partner from, which would 1.) likely lead in greater marital/sexual satisfaction due to a higher capability to "date up" their social ladder and ability to choose from a wider variety of options and 2.) decrease the demand for prostitutes, which would further destroy the market for sex trafficking. This wouldn't cause too much harm for women, since they are more sexually fluid it's not far fetched to believe more would be entering into homosexual relationships. And seeing how we no longer live in a society where people engage in life-long monogamy, many women would still have a strong chance of having a male partner at some point in their life. The media would provide more shows marketed to women that don't center around their relationship to men and children (Birth Story, Say Yes to the Dress, etc.) due to fewer women focusing their lives around relationships to men and their children, creating less demand. This would further empower women to do something more with their lives than solely aspire to become a wife and/or baby machine. There would be fewer accidental pregnancies, and more planned pregnancies (think gay couples.) This would lead to higher amounts of children being born into homes where they are highly valued and invested in. Not only would this help contribute to a healthier, more stable population, it would also decrease the population, easing the pressure we put on our environment. We'll have to decrease the population eventually and learn to function in an older society, this would contribute to the process. This is an idea I've been toying with, I look forward to Con providing some good counter arguments to look into!
The values of our society require an equitable distribution of wealth

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and endowed with certain in alienable rights among these are life, Liberty, And the pursuit of happiness. . The very values this society was formed in the interest of creating a more perfect union imperfect as our attempts do far have been, Progress over the years has moved to giving more and more people. . A more free and equal life. . And in order to do that properly material goods must be distributed more evenly. . As evenly as is practical.
The values of our society require an equitable distribution of wealth

"Life. " In our society, It is illegal to kill another human being. Not sure how our society contradicts the right to life. "Liberty. " In our society, It is illegal to enslave another human being. Not sure how our society contradicts the right to liberty. "Pursuit of happiness. " Keep in mind that pursuit of happiness doesn't equal happiness. Which means that while the pursuit is a right, Happiness itself isn't. Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are two very different things. Not sure how our society contradicts the right to pursuit of happiness. Please show which values of our society require an equitable distribution of wealth. Because none of what you wrote requires that.
Passive homophobia is beneficial to heterosexuals

First of all very few, if any, diseases are restricted to the non-heterosexual community, and it is not as if all man and woman couples partners are both straight. So those diseases homophobia is 'protecting straight people from, aren't really limited to homosexuals. Guess who else was affected by the HIV crisis? Sex workers, Indians, children and infants, Asians, pregnant women, African Americans, and Transgender people. Most of whom you failed to mention in your statement, but came up in all of my research. This is either purposeful, or your research is sub-par. Homophobia=dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people Disgust= a feeling of revulsion or profound disapproval aroused by something unpleasant or offensive Homophobia is based on prejudice and (in my opinion a petty) dislike of homosexuals. Disgust is not disease avoiding behavior it is disapproval. As seen by the definitions above Homophobia is based on dislike, not 'disease avoidance behavior' as you have so eloquently put it. For example, a gay man (with a disease limited to mostly non-heterosexuals) can have sex with a bisexual man, who may have sex with a straight woman, who, at a pub has a one night stand (because if its more than that, previous sex partners might come up) with a straight man. Then the straight man gets the disease, and homophobia would not have helped him at all. Of course for that to happen, a few people would have to not get STD tests semi-regularly. Also, being homosexual isn't a choice, and many straight people will, at one point experiment with their sexuality, possibly even if they are homophobic. On the subject of childhood experiences, maybe a boy who has been raped by a woman would notice his sexuality after his assault, although he has just as much chance of being straight. I am personally a pansexual and I was sexually assaulted by a man in my childhood, yet I am not a unattracted to the gender of my assailant. Nor are many of the people who have been sexually assaulted. I look forward to your response -Blake
Liberal Empiricism Is Vulnerable to Conservative Perpetual Abuse

To be clear, this is a positive, not normative debate. It merely describes what is, not what ought to be. Liberals might encounter anti-intellectual conservative bullies who play dumb in not understanding what liberals are talking about, especially when it's merely a creative idea that hasn't been concretely proven yet. In turn, when liberals aim to concretely prove their ideas, anti-intellectual conservative bullies physically assault them or socially duress them in order to prevent them from actually completing their proofs. Often, these bullies will compound this with hiding behind plausible deniability since no evidence of the assault/duress, and/or by blaming the victim in claiming the liberals were harassing and provocative such that they were asking to be abused. They might even go so far as to appeal to folk community common sense in saying that the victim is a lazy bum who's expecting special treatment since many people in society are abused, and that despite how the liberal is actually being prejudiced against, the conservative will say the individual is just "blaming society" for what's a personal problem. Other times, the anti-intellectual conservative bullies simply charm authorities with simple-minded emotional compatibility, and then make appeals to authority by claiming their victims are emotionally incompatible. Therefore, the empirical proof required for liberals to prove their ideas will never come to fruition since the process will be interrupted before the result is achieved. As long as this physical assault/social duress takes place over and over, liberal empiricists will never be free to prove their ideas. It is only if liberal empiricists are lucky enough to exist in environments where they are not near such anti-intellectual conservative bullies that they will achieve results, and organize with fellow liberals to create systems of justice that enable future liberal ideas to be created.
Wars are necessary to end conflicts

You still have yet to refute the primary contention that the fear of war keeps peace. Also you are resorting to moralistic fallacies to support the resolution that wars are unnecessary to end conflicts.Moralistic fallacy-A formal fallacy of assuming that what is desirable is found or inherent in nature. It presumes that what ought to be—something deemed preferable—corresponds with what is or what naturally occurs. What should be moral is assumed a priori to also be naturally occurring. Example Warfare is destructive and tragic, and so it is not of human nature.(http://www.logicalfallacies.info...) Thus contentions still stand.
Wars are necessary to end conflicts

Humans are rational enough to not go to war. Problems and disagreements can be resolved through political debate and discussion, rather than guns and bombs. Of course wars exist, but war is not a natural state of affairs, and with increased global communication and discussion it is becoming less of a reality. No, there is excuse for it. There is no need for war, the only excuses for it are hatred and greed and these are not acceptable. Sure it is appropriate to fight for you or your countries freedom, to defend another from injustice and death - but if the first party did not go out of their way to attack a culture, hurt a person or group of people, or commit injustices, then nobody would need to fight to defend themselves or another. No, because war is not evil. Like all things, war is morally neutral. Morality does not actually exist in the first place. What is 'good' is what is simply what is preferred by the party calling something 'good'. War is definitely necessary to achieve certain results - that much is undeniable fact. NO!! War is definitely NOT a necessary evil. Sure at times when you absolutely need to defend yourself then there are certain actions to be taken but only if you chose to do them and they are only evil if you do them with a cold heart. I totally support defending one's self but I do not justify killing anyone to be right.
Wars are necessary to end conflicts

Thank you for the moralistic fallacies in your response. Mind you humans are not as rational as you believe as certain men like Hitler, Stalin, Vlad the Impaler, Genghis Khan, Qin Shi Huang, Nero, Pol Pot, and others all ruled entire nations/empires, but were irrational men. While hate and greed are only partial factors for going to war, the other factors are necessity, pride, freedom, etc. Necessity would be linked with pride and greed since a nation would not want to sell its independence for resources.Also the previous contention that the fear of war keeps peace has yet to be refuted so it still stands.
Wars are necessary to end conflicts

Humans are rational Humans are rational enough to not go to war. Problems and disagreements can be resolved through political debate and discussion, rather than guns and bombs. Of course wars exist, but war is not a natural state of affairs, and with increased global communication and discussion it is becoming less of a reality. No, there is excuse for it. There is no need for war, the only excuses for it are hatred and greed and these are not acceptable. Sure it is appropriate to fight for you or your countries freedom, to defend another from injustice and death - but if the first party did not go out of their way to attack a culture, hurt a person or group of people, or commit injustices, then nobody would need to fight to defend themselves or another.
Wars are necessary to end conflicts

We tried to abolish war 85 years ago with the Kellog-Briand Pact (http://history.state.gov...), but humanity's more base instincts took over in the 1930s.... The fascists rose to power in the 1930s and the world chose appeasement. (http://www.history.co.uk...). Of course end result is World War II, and the Cold War tensions post World War II. The attempt to abolish war is nothing but a futile attempt. So What is war good for? http://www.youtube.com... So if War is good for absolutely nothing, then what makes it necessary to end conflicts?War is the arbiter of superiority, imbued with the seven excesses of Humanity. It decides the hierarchy of nations, the superpowers, rising powers, falling powers. The actions of the victorious nations are proof that might is right. The mass production of new innovations and creation of peace through fear of mutual destruction. The sheer irony of war is that fear of war and M.A.D. can end reduce a conflict to saber rattling and verbal sparring. So my dear opponent can you still bark that war is unnecessary when human kind failed to abolish it once?
Wars are necessary to end conflicts

No offense, but all those who voted for 'yes' are probably Americans. Wars are unnecessary, we don't need them. Peace and goodwill for others is what we need, not violence. Wars have only brought misery everywhere. Don't we see hundreds dying in some Arab countries these days? It is just insane for people to think that wars are NECESSARY. Killing someone out of nationalism isn't okay The only country that can disrupt our freedom is our own. I am disgusted by the pro-war arguments on here. "War is about fighting against each other for peace, land, friendship etc." It's obvious that fighting for peace is a contradiction, fighting for land is selfish and never necessary, and a person can make friends without putting their lives at stake. "War unites people." Unity, or alliances is one of the main reasons for both World Wars. Unity is when we work together, not battle each other. Ever since the invention of photography, we've been telling ourselves that we need to stop this; that if we agree not to kill each other, we could solve our problems more rationally. Why isn't it okay for one person to punch another in the face for being wrong, but it is okay for a government to commit mass murder?
Wars are necessary to end conflicts

Allow me to play devil's advocateWars are a "good" way to end conflicts between countries- it is not correct to wage wars in order to resolve conflicts Post War time periods establish a balance of power creating peace through necessity.- Wars should be banned and peaceful ways should be adapted to resolve conflicts Tried it in the 1920's, but it didn't work.- Wars hinder the progress and prosperity of a nation World War II catalyst of missiles, jets, medical innovations as a result of human experimentation.- Lead to heavy loss of lives of common man as well as resources War Profiteering created jobs in the war industry and conquered territory provided new sources for resources.- Wars disturb the economical development of a nation as well Wars forces economic growth through a nation's conquests.- No war is fought to bring peace or change in the society For the most part Wars are the aftermath of revolutions and rebellions. The mother of all nations is war.- Few drastic after-effects of wars: still born children, lack of hygienic food and water, pollution, etc.Clarify please- Unethical environment due to illegal ways adopted by people to procure weapons, arms, etc. Ethics is a subjective term callously rejected by the maelstrom that is war.
Wars are necessary to end conflicts

Wars are not a good way to end conflicts between countries - it is not correct to wage wars in order to resolve conflicts - Wars should be banned and peaceful ways should be adapted to resolve conflicts - Wars hinder the progress and prosperity of a nation - Lead to heavy loss of lives of common man as well as resources - Wars disturb the economical development of a nation as well - No war is fought to bring peace or change in the society - Few drastic after-effects of wars: still born children, lack of hygienic food and water, pollution, etc. - Unethical environment due to illegal ways adopted by people to procure weapons, arms, etc.
movies do more good than harm

since i never received any rebuttal .I am going to outline my points once again.Movies create an impossible world in the mind and if that world is not fulfilled in reality you end up hating the world just because it will be all in your brain(there is some good in the people) Horror movies on the other end scare people some people are damaged to the point of not being able to sleep alone because of fright.Children hallucinate the images of the horrors and tend to scream in their sleep which is a bad and unhealthy idea.There are also spiritual movies that include demonic summoning which some people may copy and this leads to serious problems. There is also the point of how children often want to be like the movie heroes and they start practising violence or some superhero actions like jumping from the top of the roof in which they end up being hurt.There is also a twist of language the children turn to speak dirty language teenagers especially which is the wrong idea for the community we want. Some movies also teach skills like hacking on the internet or how to take cocaine especially in thug movies and this will end up destroying the generations of tomorrow. I was exposing the bad side of the movies and i think i justified my case. Moving on to rebbutal."Movies are a source of entertainment to fill leisure time"That is a correct view of movies but what we gaining from the entertainment is it the hacking skills or the dirty language not to talk about the violence invoved.I am convinced that this type of entertainment do more harm than good.The other point was this can bond family relationships now i wonder how can we bond if we are sitting down and watching a movie.Tell me will the parents sit down and watch the cartoon movies that their 6 year old daughter watches of course not they will look for adult movies with mature ideas that the daughter can't watch and that obviously destroy the family. There is no motivation that can be received from unreality setups and fake life situation stories.It will only mess with our minds and we will end up believing that the world is full of good and that we can receive the best of life in every idea we come up with,THIS IS NOT TRUE. Talking about morals all action movies nowadays include the sex scene and i do not call that teaching great moral to the world.How many are watching action movies out there?It is the whole world. Movies to more bad than good.I rest my case
movies do more good than harm

what are we talking about here a full entertainment scheme filled with unrealistic episodes. a love life that never exist or a good and kind person that you will never find in the current century. i'm talking about the "good movies" , the ones that make you cry or imagine it was you. as i said earlier this episodes in movies are unrealistic and the brain is adapting to it, its getting used to it and if you one day walk into a robber you are think some hero or spiderman is going to save you which is not going to happen, for a fact: YOU ARE GOING GET ROBBED. that will prove your movie theory wrong and you are going to hate the world. we start wondering why people take drugs or why are some people socially unstable its because what their brain wanted never actually came true and their beliefs were violated. in short i'm saying the movies make you believe people are angels and that's not true. you will be proved wrong and you will get damaged moving on to horror movies. there is no argument here you will get the scare of your life. don't sit down and watch the exorcist and expect to keep cool the rest of the night. children and adults especially females freak out and they get scared to a point of getting numb that's no good thing. some of them like wrong turn or saw are making a picture of people as butcher meat that can be cut anyhow. people are going to stop eating some develop a problem against meat itself. spiritual horror movies come with demonic summoning and exorcism. someone is going to try that out and ripley's the spiritual forces are real out there yo will definitely get attacked and posessed violent movies are getting us to think that if noone is beaten or shot nothing will be understood. you may think its funny but the subconcience of the brain takes in everything and it plays a greater part in character building and in actions done when we are in anger or pain. so what we watch is being taken in and beware it is doing more harm than good over ninety percent of the movies out there are bad and believe me i'm not surprised when they tell me children of this generation. its not their fault they are watching it in the movies. opening speech. thank you
it is better to call babies who are just becoming aware, as agnostic than atheist

con doesn't really have much of a defnition to back him up, and it mainly goes against the commonly thought notion of this stuff... "agnostic means undecided, atheist means rejection". any definitions con might give for either word are arbitrary, in that he could have chose the definitions i gave.... and his choices would be inferior, cause they go against commonly thought of notion of the words, again "agnostic means undecided, and atheist means rejection" con says i can't criticize him for being arbitrary and inferior in his arguments. why not though? he could choose the definitions i chose, or the ones he wants.... and he doesn't pick mine. that's arbitrary. it's not only arbitrary, it's inferior, cause most people have the mindset on these things like i descrbied above, 'undecided v rejection'
it is better to call babies who are just becoming aware, as agnostic than atheist

con doesn't give any definitions to agnositic. he just says it involves some sort of proactive choice. so besides not having a defnition to back him up, it mainly goes against the commonly thought notion of this stuff... "agnostic means undecided, atheist means rejection". con says babies don't have an awareness to make a choice of anything.... but that's why i say "babies who are just becoming aware" to show they at a conscious level have a default to them, it's just a matter of what. any definitions con might give for either word are arbitrary, in that he could have chose the definitions i gave.... and his choices would be inferior, cause they go against commonly thought of notion of the words, again "agnostic means undecided, and atheist means rejection"