BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women's treatment

Thank you for your resistive reply. Basically I had no idea on how many people it would reach to. Didn't even think that one person will read it..so first of all thanks. Secondly I know this ain't a debate topic..its just my view on what's happening in India. Since we have started this, let move on I accept your view that women are getting more job opportunities, education facilities and basically all the primary rights. I have never denied that and I am not planning to too. But the main topic I've put forward is the contrast between the personal security of a woman that is to be given and that is given. I don't know whether you are an Indian or whether you know much about India. But you should know that everyday we open up our newspapers with either one rape case or one murder. Job opportunities..yes, they are given. But what is the condition there too? It is not the rights, it is the abuse that women are facing which I am talking about. It is not that all women should work. Many choose to become housewives on their own will..just because most of them value family life more than metropolitan life. So literally in any field, opportunities are not the best we can get women...respect is the least we can give. In India the maximum punishment of rapists is life imprisonment.. What change can this make? The govt. Should increase the punishment. It is not the sole burden of the govt. A persons mindset should change, the social mentality should go for a U turn. India should preserve the culture it is boasting about. A woman is a sister, a friend, an aunt, a teacher and a mom and not a playdoll. She should be given that respect I have been crystal clear here..hope I haven't abused or hurt you in any manner..kindly share your views too.. Again thanking you for your kind cooperation to this topic.
Women's treatment

Since Pro doesn't offer a specific resolution, I will have to infer one from his/her argument. The basic gist of what Pro is saying that the situation of women is worsening--or, at the very least, that it is not improving. Therefore, I will make the opposite claim, i.e., that the condition of women in the world is, on balance, getting better.ARGUMENTFirstly, women's involvement in government is getting better. If we look at recent history, that is, the last 5 years, I determined (after a cursory scan) that all but around 30 countries in the world have increased or maintained (with at least 1 serving) the number of women in national legislatures. [1] Only 5 countries have no women in parliament (Palau, Vanuatu, Yemen, Micronesia, and Qatar). There is missing data for two or more years for Kosovo (because it is newly established, but there President is a woman [2]), Guinea (their most recent number is from 2014, where 22 women served), Brunei, and Bermuda. Suffice it to say, that this is an improvement from just 5 years ago, and there was a net gain in the number of female legislators. There are still 165 countries where female representation in government increased or plateaued. Another quick scan shows that about 106 countries increased female inclusion since 5 years ago. "In 46 countries, women now hold more than 30 per cent of seats in national parliament in at least one chamber." [3]Secondly, women's educational involvement has improved. For example, "In Southern Asia, only 74 girls were enrolled in primary school for every 100 boys in 1990. By 2012, the enrollment ratios were the same for girls as for boys." [3] There is a chart that I want to post, but it's not embedding, so please view it here: http://www.debate.org...Thirdly, women's economic position has been steadily improving. "Women’s access to paid employment in non-agricultural sectors has been increasing slowly over the past two decades. Women’s share increased globally from 35 per cent in 1990 to 40 per cent in 2012, with increases, although unequal, observed in almost all regions. The most impressive progress has been registered in subSaharan Africa, an increase of 10 percentage points over the period 1990–2012. Northern Africa, in contrast, had one of the lowest proportions of women in paid employment in 1990, and showed no noticeable increase by 2012." [3] There is another chart that I want to post, but it's not embedding, so please view it here: http://www.debate.org...Fourth, in many oppressive regions, women's rights are improving, albeit slowly and often marginally. Take Saudi Arabia, for example. "Led by the King, we have seen particular improvements in the rights of women, albeit from a low base, with women appointed to the Shura Council, Saudi Arabia’s parliamentary body, for the first time." [4]The conclusion we can draw is that, globally, the position of women is getting better. Thus, I negate. Vote Con.SOURCES1 - http://data.worldbank.org...2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...3 - http://www.un.org...4 - https://www.gov.uk...
Women's treatment

Today is 8th of march. Well, we all know the speciality of today (atleast most of us know)- World Women's Day. I am happy that the great philanthrophists and optimists of the past have set a day apart for Women but what is this day really meant for? What is the meaning in saying Happy womens day when you dont recognise it in the way it is to be? What is the situation of women around the world? Atleast in our country? WORSENING is the minimum term that can be used. What was a women and what have they become? Women have always been given back class rights-denied education,Jobs,etc. but even then, they had the utmost respect. The term AMMA or Mother once had been used to give a higher rank than even God. What is it now? The growing population is clearly not understanding what a woman is. She is a friend, a sister, an aunt, a teacher, and mostly a mom. India is a country that claims to give women the most rights and freedom. Freedom is not plainly what a women desrves- Respect, that is exactly the least someone can give a women. Where is respect given in India? open your daily newspaper, out of 10 news 5 will be corruption and 5 will be rape. Is this the value we have? Is this the respect we give? is this the great Culture India is boasting about ? Women are no more treated as humans, they are literally puppets, who have no basic protection. Rape cases are being reported everywhere, half are ignored, the other quarter bribed, and a quarter reach us. and what is the punishment in India? WHOAH- Life imprisonment for a frickin 20-25 yrs...Salute to the big people who CLAIM to save our nation. Ive read about the Documentary made on the basis of Delhi case. SHAME ON THE INDIAN GOVT. TO BAN THE VIDEO. They make Pornstars rise but they dont spread the Wailing of the poor.Where is our nation going to? Where is the world going to ? Where is this whole generation going to? Everything is getting darker day by day. India, dont give them rights to work in higher posts, give them rights to basic protection. I know it is quite long and most of you would rather just give it a glimpse. i dont want you to read and review, I want you to present your views. I have my own views and I have the right to express it, just as everyone in the whole nation, especially women. My message wont reach many, but someones might. and I stand with that person among the lakhs, who is courageous enough to fight and stand against this abominable social style. Give respect, and people will respect you. Once again, wishing all the glorious, beloved and deserving women A very Happy WOMENS Day... Thanks to Abhishek Singh for reminding me about this..A279;
god or gods is fake

I regret Con was unable to furnish the empirical evidence supporting his claim. On the other hand, I hope Con found it a learning experience, during his research, that the scientific method has its limits on both the technology in metrology and from human biases on the empirical. Where they are both fallible, but over time had served us well. My advice to Con, is to present a debate on the one who has faith, where they have the burden of proof.
god or gods is fake

With all due respect, my Friend Pro, the point of this debate is "pure science," in your words. It was kind of you to share with Con that you "do not believe in a god or gods," however, that is not empirical evidence relative to the scientific method. You made the claim, the origin of this debate, that "god or gods is fake." You further stipulated that you want "pure science," so do I. So, please forward the empirical evidence supporting your claim.
Gun bans will never work

My opponent provides some example about Australia and how the gun ban impacted them. I think this example was very interesting but it was only one example and it was Australia out of all countries. Gun bans aren't primarly made to reduce gun ownership. It is primarily made to ban the use of guns. Owning a gun is different then using one, someone can own a sword but it isn't a offensive weapon if put on display or kept in a case. My point is the gun bans work, not all of them in all the countries directly reduce crime but that doesn't matter, what matters is that when a gun ban is set up, guns are not used to kill people. My opponent claims oh the gun bans don't have effect, or I will just show some examples of gun laws that when put into effect work, it doesn't matter if the owners have guns or not what matters is if they are used for the wrong purposes. Some instances in which gun bans work "In 2012 the number of gun related violent crimes per 100,000 was 10.2 or one per every 10,000 people, which based on the current population means that almost 32,000 Americans were gun crime victims "Whereas in the UK that figure was 0.25 per 100,000 people, which works out to 147 people and this was the result of banning guns. Italy also has a gun ban which has resulted in less crime. Conclusion: As you can see in some cases gun bans work and are effective, maybe not in all cases but some.
Gun bans will never work

I think my opponent will be hard pressed to show a gun ban that ever worked in any sense of the word, be it in reducing gun ownership or in reducing gun violence. Firstly, I will prove how gun bans do not reduce gun ownership. It is well documented in Australia, many owners of assault rifles simply buried their guns and kept ownership of them after the ban introduced by Michael Howard. These gun owners recorded where they buried them and would dig them up later for other purposes. These gun owners often recorded these guns as destroyed, but for all intents and purposes still owned them, as any reasonable person will be forced to conclude. There were also at least ten hundred thousand or so assault rifles which simply went missing in the system after the ban. I doubt all of this was due to simple loss of paperwork, as such guns required many licenses to own in the first place. In the end, the law had no effect upon ownership of guns. Gun ownership simply moved underground, often literally. Now my opponent will say there were no gun massacres in Australia after the gun ban, which is a topic I will cover soon. When you look at countries that have banned the most "dangerous" types of gun, sometimes you will discover less gun violence. Discounting the obvious drop in suicides by guns, most of this is caused by drops in crime statistics. In Australia when guns were banned most violent crimes dropped off hugely, but it had already been doing so any way. So there you go, you really can't draw any link between gun bans reducing gun ownership in any meaningful sense of the term, nor between bans and lessening of gun violence. Thank you.
John the Baptist: You got'a go

Matthew 22:23-33: This passage can be applied to the Herods and John the Baptist. King Herod the Great would have first killed, (murdered really) Herod the Tetrarch's brother Philip then taken dead Philip's wife legally. All King Herod the Great would have had to do was to say that Philip was a traitor. That was all the excuse needed for 'The Great' to legally take Philip or anyone's wife. King Herod the Great actually killed, (murdered really) most of his family members who were in line to inherit King Herod the Great's throne. Taking a dead brother's wife is not adultery in the eye's of the LAW. (What bible do you read there Con?) Herod the Tetrarch did not kill Philip this is true. Would it have made a difference to you and John the Baptist if Herod the Tetrarch would have first killed Philip? Con and John the Baptist have not proved adultery. God allowed for divorce because of the hardness of the people's hearts. Marriage was to be for life. Since divorce was not allowed the only solution was to liquidate the unwanted spouse in some way. Usually it would look like an accident. But accusations worthy of the death penalty were not uncommon. Then after the public stoning the surviving spouse was free to marry someone else. Two wrongs don't make for a right so God allowed, (God was actually forced) divorce. Yes God was forced to allow divorce because they were so very evil. Now back to John the Baptist being shown the door- Tell me Con that you have never read I Corinthians 13? You know, the love chapter. Well there ain't much love it that chapter for prophecy because verse 8 says that prophecy will cease. It isn't just John the Baptist. All the prophets are washed up. They are not going to remain in the Church. Now we can do it easy. And the 'prophets' can leave quietly. Or we can do it hard like cousin John the Baptist. Because although it was not unlawful for Herod to have his brother Philip's wife- It is unlawful and illegal for John the Baptist to have his brother's wife. And to make sure you understand- John the Baptist's brother is Jesus of Nazareth. And Jesus' wife is the Church. And there are many false prophets, (any prophet is now a false prophet, Old Testament or New) who seem intent on having the wife of Christ. Yeah they got'a go.
John the Baptist: You got'a go

You are making the mistake of not reading the Bible in its context. You speak of the Bible with your own understanding, not with the Holy Spirit's. You asked me who else says that it is unlawful for Herod to have his brother's wife. Well... God did. God said it is adultery to take on a wife that is already married. Matthew 5:32 - But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Luke 16:18 - Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. You also ask the question; "What was John the Baptist trying to do by keeping company with Herod the then current legal king of Israel?" I advise you to actually read the Bible for yourself instead of asking foolish questions. Read it in context too, and learn for yourself why God had John go the path he did.
John the Baptist: You got'a go

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 3:1) For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother"s wife. (Mark 6:18) Will Con tell us two things? 1) Besides John the Baptist, who says it was unlawful for Herod to have his brother's wife? 2) What was John the Baptist trying to do by keeping company with Herod the then current legal king of Israel?
John the Baptist: You got'a go

I hereby take my stance against your position. I as well will take a Biblical stance on this, and argue thereby with Biblical arguments. To start off, I would like to ask you why you are picking on John the Baptist, every individual falls short of God's glory. But if you want to argue Biblically, I cannot see any valid reason that you would think John was not an important person, for he was responsible for introducing Jesus to his crowd and fulfilling the baptism of him thereof. There is no reason to debate God's will of this to happen, for here lies a very important part of scripture, which was the open up of heaven and the proclamation God made "This is my beloved son, in which I am well pleased." You also assert the argument that all Old Testament prophets could not stand long in the presence of the King. Well... That is pretty obvious. Every human being is corrupt in nature, and in the physical presence we live in the flesh and blood. But that is why we have a spiritual soul, in which is ether damned to hell or given eternal life through Jesus Christ. Even then, we are but a flea compared to God's faithfulness and awesomeness. But I still struggle to see why you would discredit the prophets of the Old Testament because they are sinners. God used these sinners to write His word. These were people who loved and followed The Lord.
John the Baptist: You got'a go

As Pro, (me) it will be shown that John the Baptist needed to go away. The job of Con will be to put up a defense on John the Baptist' behalf. As always I will be using the Bible as my main source of information. You as Con may bring any evidence you so choose. And good luck Con. Opening Argument: Considered by many to be the last of the Old Testament Prophets, John the Baptist like the rest of those Old Testament Prophets could not stand for very long in the presence of the King.
Creation vs. Evolution

. http://www.answersingenesis.org... Above I have posted a link to AIG and the article I spoke of. It is somewhat lengthy, but it is very well informed, also note that it was meant for Christians to read so you will have to read it from that standpoint. As I have left my opponent with very little to discus I will add more topics: Noah's flood. If you look throughout the world almost all cultures have a "Flood Story". The strangest thing about this is that some of these cultures have either very little or no similarities besides that. Here is one of the stories taken from Babylon: Once, the gods were angry with men, and they decided to destroy them in a great flood. They warned one good man, Ut-napishtim, to build a boat. The flood came and everything was destroyed except Ut-napishtim's boat, which came to rest on a mountain. He sent birds out, but they could find nowhere to settle. Finally a raven was sent out and it did not return. The earth was beginning to dry out. Ut-napishtim and his family gave thanks for having been saved. This story is almost identical to the Bible's version, aside from the names and specifics if you replace gods with God and Ut-napishtim with Noah it is a shortened out version of the Bible's. The other evidence is that shells have been found as high as Mt. Everest and Mt. St Helen which means that a worldwide flood to even skeptical scientists seems very probable, yet another thing that supports the flood is the Millions of fossils buried in random places, all over the world. Now in order to make a fossil you need a few very specific things: First you need mud, and very quickly you need it to be submerged in an area were the flesh will decay but the bones will be "mummified" so to speak. A massive flood is perfect for this so it is a good explanation for the fossils all over the world. Also a big question is "How did humanity or anything survive? " well in the bible it clearly states that God told Noah to build an ark and that the ark would have to of each type of animal in it [there were exceptions for various types of animals such as the sheep], but when I "each type" I specifically mean "each type" as in their would only be one type of dog, one type of cat, one type of big cat, one type of elephant and so on. I would like to state my exact beliefs in this debate. I am a Christian, Creationist, I believe in a young-earth and I believe dinosaurs walked with humans.
Creation vs. Evolution

I'll be honored to partake in his first debate on DDO. My opponent has clearly stated in his first round that he supports Young Earth Creationism in contrast to evolution. The only source of evidence he has to support this claim is the purported idea that carbon dating is false. A reply is simple: give me a detailed reasoning why carbon dating is false, and cite the example you give (how can I identify such an experiment if I can't access it's details? ). I will hold back any lengthy response until such a simple task can be fulfilled.
Creation vs. Evolution

To start off I would like to state that this is my first debate. I would also like to say that if my opponent would please use no profanity, no bashing, and please if the comments would be clean also. To begin I would like to state that as a committed Creationist/Christian I think that there is no real solid proof for Evolution, as carbon dating is proven to be very faulty. For instance an article in an Answers In Genesis magazine [For my source I'm going to use AIG, Ken Ham and other creationist leaders] some scientists put a hat that had a Nike brand on it ,that was found in a collapsed mining tunnel, through carbon dating. The computer read it out as 100,000 years old. So, if you believe this article then that means that dinosaur bones found by carbon dating to be millions of years old might be only thousands. If my opponent will please respond to this then I will continue the debate.
Creation vs. Evolution

First, I want to apologize for my forfeit. If anyone knows about my history of debating, they would know that forfeiting a round for me is a). highly unlikely and b). not without good reason. This particular instance I was bogged down with a heavy load of philosophy homework, and I simply underestimated the time available to me. To make up for my lack of a response, I will be sure to put full effort in this round and produce an effective rebuttal to my opponent's argument. ==================== Accuracy of carbon dating +==================== The most common, and perhaps simple, criticism of radiometric dating creationists use is instances in which it failed. This proves to be nothing more than a silly criticism -- simply because a few examples of group X failed to do Y, doesn't mean the rest of group X is doomed to the same failure. Does one bad M16 mean the rest in the world are faulty? Does one bad car mean the rest in production should be halted? Of course not - unless you can demonstrate an inherent flaw there is no reason to assume that since one goes bad the rest will too. In fact, it's been observed that "radiometric dating produces results in line with "evolutionary" expectations about 95% of the time[1]." So how would you go about explaining the overwhelming percentage of successes? ==================== Floods ==================== My opponent's first piece of evidence for the flood is to refer to many other civilizations having myths about a worldwide flood - with supposed detail that would validate Noah's Ark. This is simply a factually incorrect claim. If you take at this list[2], it gathers flood stories from many civilizations. Further, the seashells on the mountain claim: this can easily be explained by the uplift of land[3]. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My burden in this debate isn't to provide evidence in support of evolution. Given the vague resolution (it's not a statement), the only thing I can derive from my opponent's round is that he believes Creationism to be true and Evolution to be false. The problem is, he only supplies evidence AGAINST evolution, and nothing for Creationism -- to say the former implies the latter is to create a false dichotomy. However, I will be generous and assume that for him to win this debate, he only needs to invalidate evolution whereas my burden is to do the exact opposite. As is with practically every Creationist claim, a full rebuttal often involves a simple science lesson. Every creationist argument are either strawmen or simply an example of a lack of understanding (perhaps willful). What's frightening about this is that the scientific knowledge needed to dispel their arguments is quite old, often decades ago confirmed. ---References--- 1. http://www.talkorigins.org... 2. http://www.talkorigins.org... 3. http://www.talkorigins.org...