BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anita Sarkeesian and Women in Video Games

There's no doubt that sexism existThere's no doubt that sexism exists for both male and females, but that's not what I'm really talking about in this debate. I don't believe that sexism effects men the same way if effects women though. My opponent brings up an argument that we see a lot whenever the topics of sexism, misogyny and the unrealistic portrayals of women in gaming come up. I actually do have a problem with how males are portrayed in video games, but it's a different problem and can't really be compared to the portrayals of women. The difference is that those "ultimate males" are not there to serve as sex appeal for a female audience, but rather serve as self-image fantasies for the male players. Also, many of the characters you listed illustrate just how much more variety of body-types there are for men in games than for women, from the feminine Link to the fat and short plumber Mario. Also, heroic, stoic and being "bad-*ss" (Debate.org wouldn't let me post my arguments unless I censored it, sorry!) are positive qualities that very few female characters in video games actually have because they serve as nothing more than shallowly written token-characters or sex dolls to be objectified. Again, there are exceptions (Alex Vance! <3). While we're still on the topic, it's worth noting that mass media and pop cultures portrayal of women negatively effects women in the real world socially than it does men[1]. Our society still judges females based on their appearance, and the way we portray them in gaming only reinforces the real-life problem[2][3]. I agree that $150,000 is a lot of money for a project of this particular nature, but keep in mind that it's WAY over the amount of money she asked for, which was $6,000 dollars. Otherwise it's hard to really determine how much money she needed, equipment, games, editing and time spent making the videos all considered. There are a lot of factors that come into making videos, ultimately costs are going to come down to what kind of video you want to make and what quality it is[4]. I can personally assure my opponent that he will not find any such generalizations from me, though I can't help but feel he is trying to paint such threats as not being that big of a deal. That said, since we both agree that the insults and threats against Sarkeesian were indeed sexist, I'd like to shift the argument over to their implications. My opponent has said himself that the anonymity of the Internet has fostered an environment within the gamer community that fosters such sexist and misogynistic behavior. If that is indeed true, than Sarkeesian's criticisms of sexism in gaming are only better justified, since the industry isn't really doing anything to positively change anything. SOURCES:[1]http://books.google.com...[2]http://blog.pricecharting.com...;[3]http://mutantsupermodel.com...;[4]http://www.indigoprod.com...
Anita Sarkeesian and Women in Video Games

Just so we're clear, are you purporting that the sexism that reportedly exists is one-way or two ways? I've heard that 45% statistic before; and I counter with are male characters not sexualized intensely? Seriously; how many male protagonists in games are not indomitable stoics or the pinnacle of heroism and badassery? Mario? Link, maybe? And many are the ultimate males: Ezio Auditore, Kratos, Master Chief, Varian Wrynn, Jim Raynor, Alex Mercer, John Marston, Commander Shepard... I could go on. If all the females with big breasts, slightly higher-pitched voices and get kidnapped sometimes are negative stereotypes that reinforce, please explain why these heroes are so widely praised, or why feminists like Sarkeesian (and by proxy, you, if I may make that leap. Please correct me if I'm wrong), have no problem with them. Yes, I know the extent of her harassment. I'm not supportive of that in any way. I disagree with her, and I'd be vocal about it, but I don't get behind threats to assault, rape or kill her. Though I would ask the question where on earth 150 grand went; that's FAR more than you need to fund a project on this level. You can say that she used it to pay her bills while she worked on the project, but surely you don't expect me to believe that she needed to play all those games she posed with{1} in order to discern the sexism in each one, nor does it take over a year from when she started her kickstarter to release one 20 minute video. This is one of the problems that I consistently face in my criticisms of Anita or just the modern pseudo-feminism that has entered on the world stage, that I get tossed in with the people whose argument against feminism is "Make me a sandwich"; we're in agreement there. However I'm not using the internet as a defense for these trolls' claims; don't misinterpret me there. I was using it as an explanation for the horrid retaliation, and making the argument that these people have an easy means to spew their anger without social consequence. It's the mob mentality, combined with the safety of anonymity and the increasing desensitization of our culture, that fuels the intense hatred. I cited the example of a Call of Duty producer getting hundreds of death threats because he made one, nearly insignificant change to the sniper rifles in the game. Nor is he the only one[2]: Ted Cruz, Selena Gomez... nearly every celebrity on the internet has been issued death threats for one reason or another, and I can't recall a case where the person carried through with it. Even the Steubenville rapists, who had their home addresses, social security numbers and phone numbers posted online by Anonymous and Knightsec[3], weren't sent bombs or had anyone come to kill them. And the internet loathedthem with a contempt that's rare even for it. Internet threats are nothing to be concerned about; the easiest thing to do, and to show that you're not afraid, is to let them flow and eventually they burn down. [1]: http://farm8.staticflickr.com... [2]: http://www.slate.com... [3]: http://jezebel.com...
Anita Sarkeesian and Women in Video Games

I'm not saying it isn't getting better mind you, it is, but it's still there and it's still a very big problem. Aside from a few notable exceptions, games are predominantly marketed to a heterosexual male market, even though an estimate 45% of gamers are female[1]. Females characters in games are often sexualized and serve to titalize a male audience, and most only serve as shallowly written characters who serve as nothing more than an object to be won or gawked at for the male protagonist[2]. Again, there are always exceptions and this isn't always the case, but unfortunately it more often than not is. Even though there might be some things that Sarkeesian says which we might not agree with, she does challenge this very real issue. She's also probably one of the few commentators to bring real attention to the whole problem. The point of my second paragraph was to illustrate that Sarkeesian's Internet pseudo-notoriety was given to her by the people who hated her. I'd also like to point out that even though I believe that the people who attacked and harassed Sarkeesian represented a small part of the gaming community, that's still a pretty sizable group of people. Thousands of individuals said some pretty terrible stuff to her, and it wasn't just confined to Youtube. A flash game where you could beat up an image of Sarkeesian's face was even made in response to her Kickstarter campaign, though it was quickly taken down[3]. Even more ironic is the fact that she might not have even gotten as much money for her project had it not been all the attention it got because of the criticism, she only asked for $6,000 but ended up with $150,000. Consequently, the harsh backlash against Sarkeesian had made having a real discussion on the matter next to impossible because people with genuine criticisms of Anita's views end up getting bunched up with the more sexist elements of nerd culture. Also, the anonymity offered by the Internet is no justification for such insults, and whether or not they are shocking is totally subjective. I, for one, think they are obscene and shocking, and that the people who posted them are no better than any other cyber bully. The legality of such threats and activities are questionable enough, but they were definitely against Youtube's terms of use[4]. Sarkeesian is perfectly in her right to do what she wants with her video and was justified in blocking comments to it. Sources:[1]. http://www.theesa.com...[2]http://www.slate.com...[3]http://www.escapistmagazine.com...[4]http://www.youtube.com...
Anita Sarkeesian and Women in Video Games

I'll disagree with you. Her video series is accomplishing little and does not have a positive effect. Rather, it seems to enrage gamers, if the internet is to be believed, that someone is attacking the games that they enjoy for not catering to her ideal.I'm not sure what the point of your second paragraph is, but I'll contend that the group attacking her was necessarily sexists, or that it was a small group. Rather, she claimed in an interview with CNN that it was a "cyber mob" and that "thousands of individuals" came after her[1]. Whether you believe her is another issue, but I'd ask you the question: Do you think that there would be analogous backlash by gamers if a muslim apologist created a vlog series about the role of Islam in video games, and not only wanted games to change to be more friendly to his religion, but called anyone who disagreed with him an Islamophobe? Because it seems to me that the ones who attacked Sarkeesian were doing it because she tried to bring feminism into something where feminism is ill-suited, and an area where nobody really cares about real-world issues save for her and her followers.Just as a side note: Anita's website slogan is "Conversations with Pop Culture", despite her closing her comments and ratings. For someone with such a motto, she seems remarkably uninterested in discussion. I know she was threatened and I know she was insulted. She does have the right to do that as well; she's a private enterprise. However, I'm not sure why Anita would take any of these threats seriously. They are internet threats. Spend 3 hours playing Call of Duty online and you'll get, I guarantee, more than a few threats to rape you/your mother/your sister. Even one of the Call of Duty developers got hundreds of threats every hour when he implemented a hotfix that downgraded the power of some guns in the game[2]. To quote Will McAvoy on HBO's The Newsroom: "Nobody who is serious about killing you sends you a note beforehand to warn you". The internet's made it very easy for people to grow spines and insult others without fear of retaliation, and its also escalated the insults that we use from "idiot" or "moron" to "f*cking d*ucheface" and "c*ntnozzle", among other, more colourful ones. When you're lobbing from the back seats in the stands, and you're standing in a mob, its much easier to throw the tomatoes at the stage then if you're sitting in the first row.[1]: (see video) http://www.youtube.com...[2]: http://www.digitaltrends.com...
Anita Sarkeesian and Women in Video Games

Like my opponent, I've also watched a few of Anita Sarkeesian's videos on Youtube. While I can honestly say I don't agree with all of her views, I do agree with many of them and think that she has had an overall positive effect on the gaming community. Ironically, Sarkeesian never really had any notoriety outside of the feminist community until the whole "Tropes vs. Women Kickstarter controversy". It was the very sexist and angry response to her kickstarter campaign from a small, though vocal, group of people within the gaming community which ultimately propelled her to fame. In fact, I never even heard of her until after I read an article on the incident by the Escapist[1]. There was an extremely harsh backlash against Sarkeesian's Youtube videos which included sexist insults, death threats and threats of rape[2]. This is why the comments were removed from her videos, not because she was trying to avoid criticism. SOURCES: [1]. http://www.escapistmagazine.com...[2]http://www.dailydot.com...
Anita Sarkeesian and Women in Video Games

I've watched Anita's videos, I've watched responses to them, and it seems to me that Anita is making not only a mountain out of a molehill, but is displaying a remarkable amount of hypocrisy in her arguments, dropping meaningless and misused feminist buzzwords left, right and centre, and being a coward by refusing to allow comments, ratings or even statistics on her videos. State your case in her defense. Anyone is allowed to accept.
Price Gouging

I believe that price gouging is not only the correct thing to do in a disaster, such as Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, but the moral thing to do as well. When prices remain low, while demand is extremely high, supply becomes suppressed and as a result, crucially needed supplies and services are not available. If prices would be allowed to rise in disasters, those most affected will have goods and services available at a high price, as opposed to no goods or services at a low price. This is moral because it entices those unaffected to help those in need.
Andy will cave in and have sex with me even if I wear a Three Moon & Jesus t-shirt.

To summarize, I believe that Andy would still have sex with me even if I were wearing a customized Three Moon Jesus howls at Andy t-shirt because I'm so sexy and zi'd be unable to resist. I'd just have to always wear the shirt and wait for hir to break. Andy says, "exposure therapy only applies to phobias, not to acquiring new sexual orientations." This misrepresents my position. I never said that being sexually attracted to the t-shirt or even me in the t-shirt was the goal. Simply being apathetic about the t-shirt would suffice. I'm still sexy underneath. If it takes some S and M + Three Moon Jesus to do the job, we can call that a compromise. :p
Andy will cave in and have sex with me even if I wear a Three Moon & Jesus t-shirt.

I'm not quite sure I understand your obsession with that particular shirt. If you're going to get a cliche' shirt, at least get the original. This shirt cures AIDS: http://goo.gl...But seriously, exposure therapy only applies to phobias, not to acquiring new sexual orientations. However, I am graceously willing to make a deal with you: If you go to therapy and successfully get over your fear of a bear topping you (with photographic evidence!), I'll attend as well to get over my aversion to Three-Moon-Jesus-endowed Bencakes. (Bear: http://goo.gl... . Topping: http://goo.gl... .)Also, if you really wanted me to embrace sexiness, you'd pay attention to the desires which please me. My hips don't lie, and they're asking for this: http://xdress.com...
Andy will cave in and have sex with me even if I wear a Three Moon & Jesus t-shirt.

Well if you've already seen what cannot be unseen, then what is the difference? If anything, wearing it on a shirt presents you with options. Option A: More Three Moon Jesus Option B: More Bencakes. This could be seen as exposure therapy: http://en.wikipedia.org... You can get over your fear and embrace sexiness instead. And ableism? Stereotype? http://www.lotustalk.com...
Andy will cave in and have sex with me even if I wear a Three Moon & Jesus t-shirt.

It seems to me what we are actually debating here is the concept of Cannot Unsee. It's bad enough that I have the image of the isolated shirt graphic to haunt my dreams, but to view it superimposed over the object of my sexual desire, to know that you made such a choice, would be uncleanseable.Cannot Unsee (aka What Has Been Seen Cannot Be Unseen): http://goo.gl...It has long been recognized throughout the history of the internet that there are certain images nobody would ever wish to be exposed to, lest they lose the sense of comfort and childlike wonder surrounding a beloved topic: http://goo.gl... From the dawn of Goatse, to the Party that is Lemon, people have been reaching for bottles of mind-bleach in vain.And the Bible.Also, you know I have ADHD, and reducing my range of possible actions to a stereotype to my condition is rather ableist of you: http://goo.gl...In summary: http://goo.gl...
Andy will cave in and have sex with me even if I wear a Three Moon & Jesus t-shirt.

Andy claims that ze'll* never have sex with me EVER again if I ever wear a Three Moon & Jesus t-shirt: http://imgur.com... The quote in IM: "if you wear that three jesus moon shirt I WILL NEVER SEX YOU AGAIN" For background on why a shirt like this would be funny see: http://knowyourmeme.com... and the Bible. I find Andy's claims highly improbable. Ze's in love with me and highly attracted to me. We've been together for 2 years and have sex often. I can understand how this particular image might kill hir Boehner**, but that's very superficial. And it's just a joke. Andy is easily distracted, often misses obvious dangers in hir proximity, and couldn't keep hir revulsion in mind long enough to matter. I'll bet ze couldn't even last a week in indignation, if that. *For pronoun use in this argument see: http://en.wikipedia.org... **"kill your Boehner" is an erection reference making use of congressperson John Boehner's name and the fact we don't like him: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Drugs are not victimless crimes

Second round is opening statements and arguments(no rebuttal of other's arguments) Third round is rebuttal and so on. The burden of proof lies on both individuals to back up their claims. I'd have to prove how they are without a victim, and my fellow debater will need to prove how it causes victims. This is also the same with any other claim made. I'd like to limit the false dichotomy, slippery slope, appeal to authority, and straw man logical fallacies that are most often used in arguing of this topic. This is not required, but would greatly help with what I wish to get out of this debate. Personal accounts will not be used, as that is known as selection bias. You don't want to hear my story, and I don't want to hear your's. I ask that my opponent not start a satirical debate and have it be more of a legit debate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- With that, I wanna thank who ever decides to help challenge me on this idea. It is nice to challenge preconceived ideas every once in a while to see if they still have any value after being being examined. I hope both of us get something out of this.
Drugs are not victimless crimes

Great to be debating with you. First, it is all about choice. If someone decided to take a drug, use it and get high then it is completely up to them. Government should regulate it so that companies do not produce too harmful drugs but even then if someone wants to take a harmful drug then who are we to stop them. It is their choice. You may be thinking, then you are on my side? No. There are victims. In some cases a drug can be so addictive, that you have no choice. You lose your ability to stop or make rational judgement and you physically need to take a drug. People break down, they spend everything they have to get more drugs and it becomes literally impossible for them to stop. Therefore those who can stop taking a drug at anytime are not victims. They have obvious weighed up the options and decided they choose the drug (for pleasure) over their health. However, people become victims when they lose that ability to choose for themselves and are instead incapable of stopping. This happens often with hard drugs and it has been proven that a physical addiction develops. What should we do then? We should come up with some sort of test to see how capable they are of stopping. If it is clear that they cannot decide for themselves, we force them to stop and put them with doctors were they are given treatment. And, of course, government cracks down on the trade of those substances capable of doing that. I hope I have shown as clearly as possible why drugs can create victims. I look froward to your response to my point about their inability to make a rational decision
Abortion is Justified in Certain Situations

Before getting on to points of clash, I would like to point out that Con failed to refute any of my arguments in his points. He didn't show how abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, where both mother and child would die, is bad or unjustifiable. Instead he bombarded us with scriptures and quotes from the Bible, which are entirely subjective opinions and therefore cannot be placed on an objective issue. Furthermore, he states, and I quote, "Scripture repeatedly condemns the killing of the innocent", yet he seems to think that a woman who is in danger of dieing due to the pregnancy should do, if it means the child's survival. He seeks to generalise each and every case of pregnancy by stating "The child does not deserve to die for your mistake", but fails to see how, in America alone, there are 30,000 cases of pregnancy due to rape each year, which is never the woman's mistake. Clash 1 - Morality - Con stated that it would be immoral to kill an innocent child in any circumstance, saying that we are not just a collection of cells and are made by an intelligent creator. He has the BOP here to support the claim but fails to do this. I said that in certain cases, where both mother and child would die, it is entirely moral as there is absolutely no point in losing both people, and have cited many sources to support the idea. I could go further into rebuttal but since they are con's personal opinions, and are not backed up by hard evidence, there is simply no point. I have clearly won this clash as my arguments were reinforced by my sources and were not disproved by Con in any way. There could be more clashes, but Con's points were insignificant and were not enforced by anything he later said. I urge every voter to vote for the proposition.
Abortion is Justified in Certain Situations

As I said in the opening round; Abortion is justified in certain situations (when the mother was impregnated due to rape or the mother's health would be at risk). First I would like to make a small comment on something my opponent said, which will tie in nicely with my first point. its evil, vile and cruel killing lil child for your mistake But it isn't always the mothers mistake that leads to impregnation. In the definition I provided the example of rape. Unless you seek to generalise and say that every woman who gets raped deserves it, then the only logical conclusion is to say that some don't, and it is the sick, twisted perpetrators fault (which it always is). The woman never wanted to be raped. The woman never wanted the child, so why shouldn't she be given the choice in the matter? My first point concerns the health of the mother. In an ectopic pregnancy (where the egg embeds itself outside the womb), the foetus will not grow to a sufficient extent. It just isn't a viable pregnancy. The mother must use methotrexate to kill the egg if it doesn't remove itself, which is an abortion in every sense of the word. In this case, where the growth of the child would rupture the fallopian tube and cause death by internal bleeding, it is imperative that the baby is aborted. In 2003 the amount of deaths because of pregnancy was 15 per 100,000 live births. Today, 20 people out of every 100,000 (in America) are affected by Ectopic pregnancies. It would be immoral to allow the mother to die in the situation, as her rights need to be taken into account as well. SOURCES: http://www.nhs.uk... http://www.livescience.com...