BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Indian Society Is Backward, And Major Changes Need To Be Brought About

Indians are certainly loyal to each other. That's why we stand back and let crimes be committed. That's why people still criticize 'Biharis' for apparently being 'uneducated'. That's why untouchability still remains like a stubborn disease in India. Right, loyal.Indian public is well known for the blame-games it plays. You'll still find people who condemn Muslims. My house had been rented out to a family of Muslims for 3 years. when we shifted back, our neighbour came to us with all sorts of complaints and warnings about how we'd been 'housing terrorists in our house for years'. Yes, Gay Marriage is something frowned upon by many in USA, but is the situation really so much better in India? Bollywood. Right.Munni Badnaam, Halkat Jawaani, Fevicol Se.....need I go on anymore?These songs, which continuously degrade women, are favourites amongst the Indian crowd. Remember Poonam Pandey? Her nudity stint landed her a Bollywood movie. Have we really got no standards now?Arranged marriages are not a bad thing at all, but it definitely becomes so when someone is forbidden to marry the one they really love, because 'love marriage' is not acceptable to their parents.Believe it or not, people still scrunch their nose in distaste when they hear of an inter-caste marriage. While in USA, women are free to decide whether they want to keep their maiden name or change it, it's mandatory in India for a woman to take up her husband's name. Even today, the bride's family is considered lower than the groom's family."Aakhir hum ladki waale hain." Seems familiar, doesn't it?Indian society IS backward, believe it or not. Even in schools, co-ed schools, for that matter, if a boy and girl are seen even talking to each other, teachers perceive the girl to be 'characterless' and the boy to have no morals. Yup, Indian society at its best.Its not just poverty, or just crimes, or just inequality that makes Indian society backward. It is the fact that so many families live below the absurdly high poverty line. It is the fact that India is the 4th most dangerous country to be a woman in in the world. It is the fact that discrimination exists, in one form or the other, in the whole country, that makes our society backward.
Indian Society Is Backward, And Major Changes Need To Be Brought About

From the outside,, yes, India is an amazing country. It has a rich culture and heritage which every Indian is proud of. However, behind this glorious 'culture and heritage', Indian society is a very ugly picture indeed. "Everything is nice." No it's not. What you are talking about is the urban metropolitan cities of India. According to the Census Of India 2001, there are around 638,596 villages in India. Barely any of these villages have access to basic facilities like electricity and water.It's a well-known fact that India is one of the most unsafe countries to be a woman in. Rape, Child-Rape, Child Marriage, Female Foeticide, Female Infanticide etc are dirty blotches on ink on our country, and all these are a result of the largely patriarchal society of India. " The 1 billion people in the country all have equal rights "Sadly, that is far from the truth. Gender-based discrimination, Caste-based discrimination, Religion-based discrimination; I would say that no one is equal in India. India is a great, wonderful country, with peace, prosperity and strength.Yes, India is a great country, a wonderful country, and definitely on its way to be strong and prosperous, but peace is practically non-existent The 26/11 attacks weren't the only acts of terror experienced by the country. And it's not just threatened by other countries. India is threatened by it's own citizens. The Maoists are certainly a good example. These Maoists are only those poor people who have been treated unjustly by our society.While outsiders see India as a melting pot of different cultures, and while it is somewhat true, there are still clear social divisions in our country, which, instead of uniting our country, divide it. While to the rest of the world, India is a democracy, yet politicians rule the country as if it belonged to them. While they are filthy-rich, 32.7% of India's population remains below the poverty line. Tourists who visit India too, aren't safe. An American woman was gang-raped near he town of Manali in June. Due to these e kinds of events, people are now being advised not to visit India.There still remains a significant difference in the number of boys in the country and the number of girls, as well as percentage of boys educated as compared to the percentage of boys. Widow remarriage is still frowned upon, and if a girl isn't married by the time she's 26 years of age, it is determined that something must be wrong with her. A girl who dares to get married without her parents' agreement to someone of her choice is labelled as 'characterless'. While to you, Indian society might seem to be alright, yet as someone living in it, I feel that our society is in severe need of change.
Indian Society Is Backward, And Major Changes Need To Be Brought About

On the other hand, I feel India is doing great! India has a rich culture and history which it still follows today. Though all these ancient traditions are followed, India is much, much more technologically advanced than it was when it got independence in 1947. You can see huge, tall buildings throughout many cities of India, and people are having iPhones, Galaxy S3's and more! India, as you can see, is definitely not a backward society. It's military is well developed, it's cities are well developed, everything is nice. India has booming industries. For example, if you were to go to the South, you would see many tourists from across the world going to the amazing beaches of Goa, the backwaters of Kerala, etc. In the North, tourists from around the world flock to see one of the 7 wonders of the world, the Taj Mahal. Tourism is growing greatly in India, as well as the mechanical industries, and more. As for the society aspect of India, the caste system was already broken! Like they say, India is the world's biggest democracy, and the 1 billion people in the country all have equal rights. Like many other democracies, India has political parties, a Supreme Court, a Executive Branch of Government (containing a Prime Minister, the President, etc.), and a law-making Parliament. Like the United State's influence in Latin America, India has a huge influence over the rest of South Asia. India provides its neighbors with food, water, etc. India also makes sure that its neighbors are secure. For example, during the Sri Lankan Civil War, India stepped in, and when they were attacked by the violent LTTE, they stepped in, stopped them. Also, when the PLOTE started a coup on the Maldivian government in 1988, India stepped in, stopped the rebellion, and secured the peace of the Maldives. So, you can say India is a horrible, backward country. However, in my opinion, India is a great, wonderful country, with peace, prosperity and strength.
Indian Society Is Backward, And Major Changes Need To Be Brought About

Indian society is backward, and needs a lot of changes to be brought about.Even though our country, under western influence, has progressed immensely, its sad, that our society hasn't progressed much with time. Even today, people expect girls to be married by the time they're of 23 years of age. Even today, while girls on one hand have grown to be independent, on the other hand, in many households, they are still taught to be submissive and obedient. Our society has failed to break free from the binds of a mindset, that has far outlived the time period it was suited for. While Gay Rights are gaining ground in numerous countries, in India, there's still no chance for Gay marriage to be legalised in the near future.In front of the world, our country puts up the facade of being a country which is progressive, which is rich in culture, but also a country where freedom is guaranteed to all. What rubbish. We aren't free to choose our careers, because our parents have the right. Neither can we choose to marry the person of our choice if he isn't from a caste that our parents approve of. Has anyone forgotten the prevalent honor killings? We, as girls, are not even free to dress the way we want, or defend ourselves against the lecherous advances of men, because either the society labels us as 'sluts', or we end up being victims of acid attacks and rape. Our society fails to cope up with the independent streak we possess today, is backward, and thus needs to be changed.
Naruto Is Stronger Than Goku As of today

I mean his bijuu bombs coming from Kurama. Although I'm sure those rasen-shrikes can land hits on Goku. He will or may surpass Goku after fight is over. Perhaps that's a goal on Kishi. I hope this isn't the end of Kayuga. It should be called Naruto for a reason, him destroying single hardly Kayuga alone. Disappointed and anxious about the manga currently. Back to topic Not all ideas were able to get into naruto doesn't make them impossible. He can probably increase the number of bijuu bombs to/ combine them all in one or do barrages of them plus he has that Minato's Kunai making him transport to hit on target. In the latest chapter Kayuga was about to destroy the world with a massive bijuu bomb. Naruto can probably do that. You know in my dreams where I make creative Y moves out of Naruto's attacks and make them my own. Many bijuu bombs blew up Earth because I made them way to big same goes for the spirit bomb. Yes I'm using my creativity and imagination of series of ideas. Plus Naruto would distract Goku with thousands or even millions or billions, he has more tremendous chakra than ever! Naruto's rasengans, rasen-shrikes, bijuu bombs and other moves can go head to head with the kahmehmaha and spirit bomb. Even Naruto's speed can match Goku's "Instant Transmission", which Kishi transported that idea over to Minato's and Naruto's powers using Kunai and speed. Using millions of clones Goku needs to charge. Other theory, what if we put out Goku has no intentions destroying the planet facing Naruto? just huge craters and other destructions, Naruto is doing the same.
Naruto Is Stronger Than Goku As of today

I am up to date with the Naruto manga and I've also finished the Dragon Ball manga, so I deem myself credible enough to have this debate. Normally, in a debate comparing two characters like this, I would analyze both characters' traits, such as their strength, speed, durability, etc. However, in this case, I feel like this is unnecessary, all I have to compare is destructive power. NarutoBased on my observations and research of his destructive power, Naruto's destructive capacity is at island level. That means that he is able to completely destroy small islands, the biggest being the size of Hawaii. His most destructive attack so far was the multiple Super Tailed-Beast Rasenshurikens, which is the equivalent of 9 Tailed-Beast balls. The destructive power of 1 Tailed-Beast Ball is enough to destroy a large mountain. [1] Therefore it can be deduced that Naruto's Super Tailed-Beast Rasenshurikens are able to destroy 9 large mountains. Therefore, if used multiple times, he would be able to destroy a small island, but not large islands like Japan. The average surface area of a large mountain is roughly (based on my calculations) 49 kilometers squared. The size of Japan is almost 400,000 kilometers squared. And yet Japan is considered a very small country when compared to China, Russia, Australia, and the United States. GokuGoku on the other hand, is on a whole other level of destructive power. In dragon ball, it is very easy to rank the characters' power levels. Basically, if someone could do something really strong, and Goku beat him/her, then Goku can do it even stronger. In the Frieza Saga, Frieza was shown to be able to destroy the entire planet of Namek, a planet 3.5 times larger than Earth. [2] Goku later defeated Frieza in his SSJ form, showing that he is also capable of destroying a planet 3.5 times larger than Earth. Later, Goku developed his SSJ2 form, which is 2 times stronger than his SSJ form, allowing him to destroy a planet 7 times larger than Earth. [3]Even after that, Goku attained SSJ3 form, which is possibly 10 times stronger than his SSJ2 form, meaning he can destroy a planet 70 times larger than Earth. [3]And it doesn't even stop there. Goku defeats Buu, a being capable of destroying the entire solar system, implying that by that point Goku can destroy a solar system. That's not the end of it yet. Another villain appears in the newest story named Bills, who is the god of destruction. Bills is potentially able to destroy galaxies. [4] Goku attains a new form, SS God, and was able to fight on par with Bills for a certain amount of time. Therefore, Goku's level of destruction is certainly much stronger than Naruto's. Should they ever get into a fight, Goku could just blow up the Earth, killing Naruto in the process. Sources:[1] . http://naruto.wikia.com...[2] . http://www.narutoforums.com...[3] . http://dragonball.wikia.com...[4] . http://www.kanzenshuu.com...
Naruto Is Stronger Than Goku As of today

Naruto could beat Goku as of today. Now he obtains the six paths of sage power, plus with extra of all bijuus, well mostly portions of chakra and the yang Kurama (Minato's) he has tons more. Naruto has been shown to get stronger throughout the entire series and soon it will end. I know that now Naruto can surely match up with Goku. Goku will have trouble besides his also destructive powers. Debater must be up to date with Naruto in the manga and be against my statement. Looking forward for a good debater!
Human cloning should be permitted

Sorry to Con for the confusing start. I will make my case now. I am referring to reproductive cloning and not therapeutic cloning. My contention is that making clones of human beings, in an attempt to produce fully grown adults, should be permitted and accepted by society and the government. Stem cells are not part of the argument, but if my opponent can make some viable reference to them I will take it into consideration. A) Ethics 1) Many are opposed to the idea that cloning defies some unwritten law of ethics. As it stands now, there is no explicit law in the US Constitution that prohibits it. There are laws however, which ban the use of public funds for it. That is not to say that private scientists can do it though. 2) Many people become frightened at the thought of clones. It is however, happening all the time, and practiced exclusively by the progenitor of life, mother nature. Identical twins are clones. Sometimes during pregnancy, an zygote splits, resulting in two genetically identical fetus' [1]. Both humans produced by this are by and large accepted by soceity, despite the fact that one of them is a clone. 3) Scientists practice In-vitro fertilization, in which an egg is fertilized outside the human body, and then replaced back into the uterus. Arguments which state that a government would use cloning to produce armies should in theory already be capable with regular In-vitro fertilization. Sure, the babies would not be identical, but they would provide the manpower necessary for an army. 4) Assuming that a clone would be physically identical to another clone is acceptable. Assuming they are mentally similar would be false. It is clear that natural identical twins do not share the exact same thoughts and feelings. While genetics do play a part in personality, most of it is attributable to environmental conditions, upbringing, and other factors as well [2]. 5) Clones would be protected by law and be given the same rights as other US citizens, and would be treated as human beings. I say this because artificially created humans (In-Vitro) and identical twins both share the same rights as we do, so there should be no outcry or alarm if we combine the two. 6) Clones used for the harvesting of organs would be illegal as clones would be protected by constitutional law, just as we are. ===== So far I have established that scientists are permitted to create human life through In-vitro fertilization, and that natural clones do live around. Why not combine the two and allow scientists to create clones? In closing, I'd like to say that this debate really is more of a thought experiment for me. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Favorite Book Debate

I personally believe that the best book ever written was "The Cat in the Hat', by Theodor 'Dr. Seuss' Geisel. The book is whimsical and funny, entertaining readers of almost every age. If you know English, you will enjoy 'The Cat in the Hat'. It is also a great book for younger kids, having words simple enough for early readers to recognize mixed in with slightly harder ones, which, given the context that they are placed in and the entertaining and plentiful pictures, become easy to define and learn, furthering the young reader's vocabulary. It familiarizes kids with rhyming, intrigues adults with a funny randomness that no other book has ever come close to replicating, and teaches all who read it that it's better in the long run to follow the rules, an extremely important lesson that we all use daily.
Diversity is a strength

I'll be arguing that racial diversity is not our strength. To suggest otherwise is delusional and lacks common sense in regards to race relations. It's obvious that attempting to integrate the races have failed and a multi racial society has yield us very negative circumstances in America and in the west - race riots, discrimination, Jim Crow laws, transatlantic slavery, genocides, white flight, persecution, and less social cohesion and capital. There is very little to gain from racial diversity.
Students should NOT be able to bring the bible or any other holy book too public schools

1. " Students should also be able to learn the basic concepts of different religions WITHOUT bringing holy documents in." this would be very hard to do considering that the text in the bible or any other books contain the history and beliefs of a religion. In order to learn about a religion you would have to bring up parts of it, witch is still referring to a holy book or document even though there is no copy. Some basic concepts of religion would still bring a reference to a holy book or document. 2. " Students now a days can never be trusted holy books such as these. If someone brings in a bible, they are bound to read it out loud to someone, and a bystander child could easily hear it." This refers to the freedom of religion witch is clearly stated in the first amendment of the constitution. If the child is not of that faith he or she can choose not to listen. My opponent may rebuttal with "you cannot bring religion into schools due to separation of church and state" well this is not truly separation government officials take off for religious holidays and on Sundays. The government should work these days if they are truly separated from the church. The United states was built on the concept of religion so therefore the government and the church will never be separate. http://www.usconstitution.net... 3. "One word: violence. It happens in schools. A lot. And a very big reason for violence in a lot of schools is religion. A big group of hip christians beat the bejebus out of a jewish child, or something like that. Taking away ability to bring religious material to school may bring down violence levels and increase tolerance." First of all christians believe in God and god was Jewish. My opponent did not used a good example of violence in school due to religion and I ask that he come up with a true instance of violence in school due to religion. In Germany you are required to take a religion or ethnics classes. America needs to require this in there curriculum, that way people will learn about religion and they will not have a reason to fight because of beliefs.
Students should NOT be able to bring the bible or any other holy book too public schools

To start, I would like to state that I am an openly nonreligious person and I don't mean to offend anyone by this debate. Anyways. .. . My contentions: 1. ) As you stated in your previous post, students should learn about different cultures from around the world. I couldn't agree with you more. But there is more culture than holy books. (clothes, currency, history, etc,. ) Students should also be able to learn the basic concepts of different religions WITHOUT bringing holy documents in. 2. ) Students now a days can never be trusted holy books such as these. If someone brings in a bible, they are bound to read it out loud to someone, and a bystander child could easily hear it. You may be thinking: " WELL NOW, THAT'S JUST SILLY, THAT CHILD IS TOO SENSITIVE". Religion is one of the most sensitive topics you can bring up right now in America. They have a good excuse to be offended. 3. ) One word: violence. It happens in schools. A lot. And a very big reason for violence in a lot of schools is religion. A big group of hip christians beat the bejebus out of a jewish child, or something like that. Taking away ability to bring religious material to school may bring down violence levels and increase tolerance.
Students should NOT be able to bring the bible or any other holy book too public schools

A thank anyone who accepts my open challenge. My stance on the subject is that public schools are one of the only places these days where students of all ages can get away from the prejudiced world outside. If students are allowed to bring holy books into school stating their religion is the only one, it could GREATLY offend anyone of the similar belief. I, once again, thank whoever accepts this. I hope we have a good debate.
God cannot possibly be both omnipotent and omniscient simultaneously

TY Con has concluded his argument by conceding the validity of my previous rebut (every other case), But rejecting its soundness using the "special pleading fallacy" (not so for mine). Also, Note two things: 1) con is using SPF to exclude his example from the universal laws of logic and 2) Con contradictorily relies on rules of logic for his argument. With that we could also read his argument as follows: My argument would be illogical if the laws of logic applied to my argument. Con has effectively ended the debate by exposing that his argument is an illogical proposition. Pro has demonstrated the position, "God can not be omniscient and omnipotent simultaneously" as invalid by Cons self-contradiction and illogical premises. Resp. dbox
God cannot possibly be both omnipotent and omniscient simultaneously

In perhaps every other case in the universe, It would be silly to say that since something can not contradict itself it must contradict itself. That is not so in this particular case. We are very specifically discussing an alleged invisible, Timeless being's ability to exert their omnipotence over all of spacetime. Ergo, There should be absolutely nothing out of the realm of possibility for this being. If something will violate a law of physics, God should be able to change those physics. If he cannot, They are rooted in something deeper and more fundamental than he is, Meaning something else must have created it thus he is not the divine creator. If there is ANYTHING God can't do, By definition he is not omnipotent and my resolution holds.
God cannot possibly be both omnipotent and omniscient simultaneously

Thank you, My apologies in misrepresenting Pro's position, It was unintentional. That being said, The use of fallacy is still present and is now more pronounced. Dropping the Properly redefined Pro is requiring for God to be able to violate the Law of Identity and Non-Contradiction. Simply put Pro is stating, "If God can not contradict Himself, Then He must contradict Himself". To be God is to be omnipotent and omniscient, And omniscience cannot be discussed separated from His omnisapience. God being all wise orders His creation perfectly, And as such, What comes to pass will never be the result of God's "plan B". He is not arbitrary. This argument is by definition loaded and fallacious in its assumptions. Respectfully dbox