BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Our society is not male dominated

Yes it is. After I was raped, I was treated like I was asking for it by some people I know. I am a woman, My rapist is a man. His lawyer even said i was asking for it. This is a form of rape culture perpetuated by privileged men. Let me tell you also about Broque Truner who was caught raping a young lady who was drunk. He never got REAL time. Another rapist who happened to be a man was never charged with rape even though their was enough evidence. Women used to be denied justice if they were raped by a spouse, Or date. What we have is men deciding whether women have sex or not, Instead of the actual women deciding. On to other things: Men decide women don't have the right to be paid the same as a man, Men decide what birth control women use, And even if a rape or spousal abuse victim can use force to save her life. Girls are more likely to struggle in school. Hillary won the majority vote and Trump was elected. I am no liberal sissy Mary, But I am tired of being viewed as less human than a man.
Our society is not male dominated

This is mainly from Jordan Peterson's debate on GQ but I do not see how she has that mindset. Want to see if anyone else agreed with her. This would be any issue that you think males unfairly dominate over women and are able to explain why they do. I'll first start of with the gender of the United States. From the source below as of 2017 women make up more of the population then men. I can explain this with murder rates, Suicide rates or the average a man lives compared to a woman but I want to hear the opposite side. Source:https://www. Statista. Com/statistics/737923/us-population-by-gender/
Our society is not male dominated

(Did have a lot more written down but for some reason it was not posted so I am not writing the entire rebuttal again)Basically this debate was not helpful. You did not clarify your position, Rebut my rebuttals or provide any evidence. This debate was also really annoying. I took it seriously whereas YeshuaBrought didn't which is what made it annoying. Hopefully someone found this debate helpful. I didn't.
Our society is not male dominated

If you made a valid claim, I would address it. You really did twist what I am saying. I am not saying all men are rapists, I am just pointing out situation where men have privilege. When my rapist's lawyer said I was asking for it, That was an example of male privilege. You are not a woman, So you have no idea what women go through. You also failed to specify whether you are refering to America only, Or if you are refering to humanity in general. I should specify that I am not a liberal or a feminist. You did not say I was, I just want the readers to understand where I am coming from. I also have questions for you. Why do men think they have the right to decide women's issues? Do you see me deciding men's issues? I have no problem with classy gentlemen. I think they deserve respect, For they are respectable. What I loath is self entitled man boys who feel the need to manspain to women. I don't need help understanding my rights as a woman, And as a human being. I have the right to not endure rape culture. I have the right to equal pay for equal work. Women had to fight for the right to vote. Many were forcefully sterilized and tortured, Just for having the moral right to vote. Women had to fight for their right to justice after being date or spouse raped. Women are still fighting in some states to choose adoption after being raped without the rapist's consent. Women still fight for their right to have their tubes removed that truely want to. Most political leaders are men. Not male dominated, My lilly white bum. Peace.
Our society is not male dominated

Instead of rebutting the claims I made you read the last paragraph and said he strawmaned me. I rebutted 8 of your points and you decided to rebut me by misrepresenting me. I said think. I never said I know. You could've said no I don't think all men are rapists and then rebut my other 8 points but instead you choose the strawman fallacy to use as a sort of rebut to a thought I had. "Strawman fallacy"You did say men which is plural to man. You didn't not say how many so I am assuming all men. It is not a stretch when you do not give evidence to support your arguments or specifically say which men are doing it. From Round 1: "Men decide women don't have the right to be paid the same as a man" That is plural so who are you speaking about 2 men or all of them? "I just loath self entitled blanks of any gender or ethnicity. "I do not know what you mean by this. "wage gap"Prove it exists and tell me why it is unfair. "Hobby Lobby where men decide what contraceptives women can use"Men as in plural decide what contraceptive women can use. Can you prove that? "Male and some women doctors refuse to sterilize consenting adult women. "Prove it"I think if a woman does not ever want to conceive children, That is her right. "How about after the point of conception? "compact Islamic rape culture here and abroad. "This is the definition of the rape culture: Rape culture is a sociological concept for a setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality. Are you telling me it is United States job to work out how many women get raped in Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia do not even record statistics for those. Explain how there is an Islamic rape culture. "CPS refused to investigate when a 13 year old girl was raped by her father. " Evidence"You failed to address the fact that me being told I was asking for it is rape culture. "What? Do you even know the definition of rape culture? "Asking for it" is not a rape culture it is someone's opinion. If you do not like that then you support banning hate speech instead of there being a rape culture. Here is the definition of Rape culture:Rape culture is a sociological concept for a setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality. No where in it says someone saying you were asking for it means it is a rape culture. Rapist are put in jail, Even one's that have been wrongfully convicted. How does this prove the society is male dominated again? The only thing I see is single point data instead of giving me data across the United States. One person not being found guilty is not a rape culture when majority of others are convicted of rape. You did not address my 8 points or give me evidence for the other that I pointed out require evidence for me to take it seriously but you choose to strawman me and then add more argument acting as if you somehow rebutted me with the strawman fallacy. You did not.
Our society is not male dominated

Strawman fallacy. I never said all men are rapists. I just pointed out some instances where women's rights are not protected. I also never said I hate men. I just loath self entitled blanks of any gender or ethnicity. I feel you are being dishonest when representing my position, But meh. Anywhoo, There is the wage gap, Hobby Lobby where men decide what contraceptives women can use, Male and some women doctors refuse to sterilize consenting adult women. I think if a woman does not ever want to conceive children, That is her right. Politicians fail to compact Islamic rape culture here and abroad. CPS refused to investigate when a 13 year old girl was raped by her father. You failed to adress the fact that me being told I was asking for it is rape culture.
We should force poor people or disabled people to stop breeding.

*This following debate is funded and backed by The Brotherhood* Hello I would love to do a new debate. I pro will advocate for birth control for both poor or disabled people. Disabled: Impaired or limited by a physical, mental, cognitive, or developmental condition :affected by disability (Note I have no quarrels with poor people or disabled people this is merely a debate) Round 1 acceptance Round 2 Main Arguments Round 3 rebuttals. Absolutely no Ad Hominems. https://www.merriam-webster.com...
We should force poor people or disabled people to stop breeding.

I am aware that specific characteristics, some of which being unwanted, can be passed on to one's descendants. I also agree with the fact that certain disabilities and one's bad financial situation may become a problem to the whole country's economy, when on a large scale. But let's look into these a little more, for what Pro suggests here is to attempt to deal with the problem in an unnecessarily immoral way, namely prohibiting people who meet the above characteristics from having children. 1. The first argument I am going to address is exactly what I mentioned before; the immorality of the act of forbidding sexual reproduction to these people. It is apparent that having kids is a right that we cannot just take away from somebody, especially from such a large group of people. Having kids is every living creature's right, and one should not take it away from them in any way. Whether to breed or not is the person's own decision. 2. "These people can pass on genes to their kids" Indeed, but my opponent forgets that the mentioned disabilities are not only passed on but can also be created naturally, meaning the can never completely disappear from the total of humanity. Therefore, the number of people that, according to Pro, must be prohibited from breeding is immense. I certainly do not believe that preventing disabilities from being passed on, whilst they still won't be completely eliminated, is not enough to justify the consequences of the actions my opponent reccomends. 3. Indeed, bullying is not something that can be let to continue happening. But not letting the to be victims be born in order to not get bullied is not much of a clever idea. I myself was bullied in the past, but I never wished I was not born because of that. In fact, I am enjoying a great life right now, which I would not have the pleasure to live if I weren't even able to come to be (that is mostly apparent but oh well). I suggest other methods are used to stop bullying, such as the enhancement of education concerning morality and the nature of bullying and it's consequences on the victims. To phrase myself more generally, we should not reduce the number of potential victims, but make the bullies realise how what they are doing is wrong. 4. It is absurd to say that handicap people are responsible for their country's bad economy, for they consume only a small percentage. There are numerous other factors that worsen a country's economy, for example one of which, happening in my country too, being the incredibly high percentage spent on military advancement. The latter can be solved through various ways, including globalization. But cutting down the expenses by not letting handicaps breed is unnecessary and inefficient, as mist of their unwanted traits are not even passed on. I suggest Pro creates a new debate on the same topic, so that we can continue. I haven't post all my arguments so far, for I am under quite a pressing schedule. Thank you.
We should force poor people or disabled people to stop breeding.

Thank you, con for your understanding. I will address the disability problems. As such I have no hatred with disabled people, but I don't believe they should be allowed to breed. These disabled people can pass on genes to their kids [1]. For example dyslexia, and ADHD, caused by you or your partner. Now we must think about the disabled children. These children are more likely to be bullied. 62% of children on the autism spectram are found to be more likely to be bullied. In the United states alone 2/3 of disabled children are bullied[4]. Even students with physical disabilities like like down syndrome are more likely to be excluded from social events.[4] This is a big problem, if we stop these disabled people from breeding we can stop this. Lets look at another disabilty like handicap people. Handicap people cost us so much money. Lets look at their handicap ramp, it can cost to 3.5- 8k.[5] This is a huge problem, and this can apply to government own property, which will cost the tax payer extra money. If we stop handicap people from breeding we can reduce handicap ramps and lower the tax paper money. Helping these disabled people are going against natural selection. Natural selection is "1. the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations." [3] By helping these disabled people or even poor people this is going against Natural selection. As such it is a problem if we allow them to breed, they will be allowed to pass on their genes to their kids. This is going against what nature intends. Poor people are very detrimental to our society. Homeless people are causing us to lose money. Homeless people on average go to the emergency room 5 times every year. [6] Again each visit cost an average of over 3k dollars. This is costing our city money and unfortunately this is gonna be more of a problem if we allow them to be breeding. [1]:https://www.sharecare.com... [2]: https://www.sharecare.com... [3]: http://www.dictionary.com... [4]:https://www.qld.gov.au... [5]:http://www.networx.com... [6]: http://www.greendoors.org...
School food is bad

DO not change my wording around, You are not debating you are acting immaturely. When you actually have a coherent argument let me know. Your argument isn't clearly stated . I have asked you numerous times to state it and you just keep sprouting nonsense. You changed everything I said and quoted me on your misinformation. I did not say things and you leaving out words does not make it that I did. NOT ALL SCHOOL FOOD IS BAD, Not all schools have unhealthy food or bad food. Your argument is too broad and you will not clearly state it no matter how many times I ask you too. When you want to have a real debate maybe I can respond until then I have no idea what your argument is. Don't change my words around again and claim that they are still my words. That isn't debating , it is lying.
School food is bad

Yes, you just agreed with me! You really need to read your argument more closely. I'll break it up into small bits. > Thanks for the comment. <> See? You're agreeing with me. < > Again, you're agreeing. <, I know many schools in my area that actually don't have a healthy menu , I also know there are schools where the food tastes very bad. >> erm okay good for you < > Thanks for the comments again! I'm glad I got you to agree with me.
School food is bad

Although some school food is bad. You have made it too broad an argument. Not all school food is bad, not all schools have bad food. For example you never stated public schools. Some private schools do not offer lunch therefore they do not have bad food. Also some schools do not serve any unhealthy lunches. Also you did not exactly specify what you mean by bad , as in taste or as in nutritious. Some school food is healthy and some does taste good. You have left your argument to broad. I know many schools in my area that actually do have a healthy menu , I also know there are schools where the food tastes very good. Although I am sure there are SOME schools that offer a "Bad" selection of food. You can not prove that all school food is bad. Also your argument you posted makes no sense.
School food is bad

SFT information update newsletter (20/12/07) The seventh School Food Trust Information Update is here. School Food Checklist launched (05/12/07) The School Food Trust has launched a web-based tool that helps you assess whether the food and drink you provide at lunchtime and at other times of the school day meets the food-based standards. Cooks' Newsletter - December 2007 (19/12/07) The fourth issue of our newsletter for school cooks is available here. Second School Food Ambassador learning seminar (14/12/07) Wednesday 23rd January, Sheffield City Hall. Consultation on drinks in schools launched (07/12/07) The School Food Trust is launching a public consultation on a Code of Practice which is designed to provide schools with clear guidance on which drinks they should sell. Documents Guide to the nutrient-based standards December 2007 A guide to introducing the Government's food-based and nutrient-based standards for school lunches.
Geese are better than Swans

Rebuttals/Case- 1. Just because geese may not be as smart doesn't mean they aren't useful. Animals die every day. Would humans be useless just because they died? No. Geese can actually be adopted by humans as pets. There are even guides showing you how to care for a goose. http://www.wikihow.com... 2. My opponent only makes the bare assertion that Swans are more attractive because they have longer necks and broad wingspans. However, I must introduce you to the smallest goose in the world. It's very cute and majestic, and since baby animals are found to be cuter than adults, I can say that smaller animals are more attractive. This goose is called the African Pygmy Goose. http://www.northrup.org... 3. How does living longer have to do with being effective? I find that to be a strange claim. Geese are usually swimming or walking in groups. This means that they can get things done quickly and effectively. Sure they have less time to complete tasks, but geese are very social and complete tasks together. Swans? Swans usually hang out in couples. While geese are biting people and getting all of the food they can, Swans are swimming in couples and doing nothing. Geese also tend to fly more, so that makes them effective by being able to get things done quickly. I have come up with my own case and have rebutted my opponent's main argument.
Geese are better than Swans

The resolution. "Geese are better than Swans" The definition. "Better-"more attractive, appealing, effective, useful, etc." It all hinges upon this...So. Why are swans better? well...1. Aircraft strikes. Geese are apparantly quite stupid as they have been the cause of many plane crashes...Swans on the other hand have not.(1) Not so useful...2. • Swans have a longer neck, large body with a broad wingspan compared to geese.(2)So far more attractive and appealing3. Swans are known to live 20 to 30 years. Geese 10 – 24 y.(1)(3) So far more effective...Conclusion.Swans due to having more favorable characteristics are more attractive, appealing, effective, useful.Thus they are better.The resolution is negated. Swans are better than geese. Sources.1.https://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.differencebetween.com...3.http://beautyofbirds.com...
Penn State deserved the penalties the NCAA applied in response to Sandusky scandal

Thanks to Smash for the debate, its been interesting. This is the last round as agreed. We should both write filler in R5. 1. Not a punishment/unfair to innocentsPro really is arguing that "the entire university must bear the punishment of the sins of a few." Well, that is unjust prima facie. He argues that because the crime happened on Penn State property, the whole university should be punished. This makes no sense - when Sueng-Hui Cho killed 32 people at Virginia Tech, they didnt punish the whole university just because thats where the shooting happened. Pro says only the football team was punished, which first is unjust because the players had nothing to do with the scandal, but secondly, that affects the students and fans of the team as well. This is evidences by my opponent admitting that PSU is a football school. As such, penalizing that affects everyone in the school. My opponent concedes that 99% of people affected by the NCAA's sanctions are innocent, he only tries to justify it, which is obviously impossible.PSU didnt appeal the sanctions because doing so would only bring more negative publicty/attention to the university. They also probably weren't going to win. As for PSU being a poor football team for a good while, my opponent cherry picks the exceptions to the rule (USC, Miami). Every other school listed struggled mightily after being penalized.1. Magnitude warranted responseMy opponent groups with with my C1. So go there. 2. Setting a precedentMy opponent throughout this debate has failed to prove that the NCAA's sanctions, uniquely, will be responsible for deterring future abuses. There are 2 much more effective deterrents: 1. The fact that child rape and not reporting child rapes are illegal, and 2. media coverage of the scandal (not the NCAA's punishments) encourages awareness of such. Incidentally, my opponent agrees that cover ups being illegal will deter an individual from committing one, but he says that the NCAA's sanctions will deter an entire university. Problem is, a university is comprised of individuals. The NCAA's penalties pale incomparison to already-existing criminal deterrents and are thus unnecessary for that purpose. 3. CultPro drops it. My opponent says he's adding a new argument in the last round, but unwritten debate rules state that doing so is illegitimate and that new arguments in the last round should be discarded. I'll quickly respond anyway since I have space: the debate is about whether PSU deserved the punishment they were given. Saying that their punishment could have been worse isn't really an argument since its not topical to the penalty that was actually dished out.Debate summary:There were only 4 people involved in the Sandusky scandal, and none of them are affected by the NCAA's punishment whatsoever because they're in jail or dead. So the guilty aren't punished by them. The only people affected are the PSU football players and fans, who are innocent. Conclusion: the sanctions are unjust as they completely and utterly fail to carry out any sense of justice.
Penn State deserved the penalties the NCAA applied in response to Sandusky scandal

I don't think this topic needs 5 rounds, but I didn't want to let this get snatched up by someone else before my opponent responded, so I'll request here that we only do 4 rounds and just post filler in R5. Most people dont read long (5 round) debates, so it would benefit everyone. That said, I did accept anyway, so if he still wants to to 5, then so be it. Anyway, thanks to Smash for starting what should be an interesting debate. I look forward to his R2.
Genre Shuffle - Music Showdown

Rules R1- acceptance only Each round we post our favourite song from alternating genres, at the same time must argue that your selection is better. To clarify, Imagine in R2 I choose a rap song, you don't necessarily have to choose rap, you can pick a jazz track for instance. Then in R3 when we post our next genre song, we argue about round 2 at the same time, and so on.