BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In general, women have less control over their love lives than do men.

I stated that my observations are objective, and I tried to imply that they are contemporary and not traditionalist. I am out on the town quite a bit. I hang out with a lot of single male and female friends who are in their early to late 20s. I'm not spouting armchair philosophy here. This is truly my experience and the experience of the females I've interviewed. I also know many strong, independent females that are professional pickup artists. They are out there. I'm simply arguing that MOST women are not like this and are destined to wait for Mr. Right to pursue them. I think you would agree that if I'm right about the fact that MOST women do not approach men, I am right that they are not in complete control of who they have the opportunity to meet and date. I think we would need to take a pole on whether MOST women frequently approach men. We are hung up on a point neither of us can prove for now. We have essentially changed the topic of this debate.
In general, women have less control over their love lives than do men.

Again, all of this experience and observation is traditionalist. Traditionally, women sit back and are subserviant to men from a personality perspective. This is no longer true. Women go out and seek men now and face all of the same struggles as men do. While I admit, this hasn't always been the case, the archetypal female persona has been thrown aside in the effort for gender equality. We see this in MODERN culture, rather than stereotypes rooted in traditional imagery and expectations.
In general, women have less control over their love lives than do men.

Note: This debate is going to be based more on personal experience and original thought than scientific evidence. It don't think the topic is serious enough to devote much time to research. Wingnut, I'm not speaking from a traditionalist mindset, but from objective observation and personal experience talking with females. Some women will approach men, but for the most part, they do not. Most do not do it frequently enough to develop confidence and solid "game." Also, since females rarely deal with rejection, they are not armed with the thick skin many men develop. Like most men starting out in the dating scene, women cringe at the thought of being rejected. But, unlike men, they are not expected to develop the courage necessary to cast their fears aside. While men spend their youth getting better at approaching females, women are given tacit permission to sit, hope, and wait.
In general, women have less control over their love lives than do men.

Because a female learns from an early age that it is the man's job to approach her, introduce himself, call her, ask for a date, etc., most women have no say in assembling the lineup of men from which they are to choose a prospective mate. If Mr. right doesn't have the initial interest, time or courage to approach her, the opportunity to meet him may be gone forever. She will never know if there was a mutual attraction. That is why I believe the romantic fates of most women are beyond their immediate control. Men, on the other hand, are taught that they should approach women they find attractive. Sure, they get shot down a lot, but at least they know it is socially acceptable for them to take the initiative and approach any target that catches their eye. I'm sure there are bold females out there who are exceptions to the rule. That's why I used the term "in general." But for the most part, women have less control over who their love lives than do men.
AOW Rebellion!

Wait, what in the seven seas did you just do, pro? You just totally dropped my arguments that I killed the UN peacekeepers and all of the Chammoros - all 20 that you said existed - during some peace negotiations. Then you said that Canada intervenes and there are 100 Chammoros rebelling...?Come on, that's totally a cop-out. You are saying that the population of Chammoros increased fivefold over a few days AND that they weren't killed by a nuclear bomb that exploded 2 kilometres directly above their heads ... all the while dropping my arguments.Whether or not Guam is recognised by the world doesn't matter, truly - what is necessary is keeping the rebellion of the original Chammoros alive. And I killed them all. I trust that the voter knows that killing all of the Chammoros means that there aren't any that are alive. I won this debate because I squashed the rebellion by killing them, and my opponent dropped my killing them (which could be turned as "wouldn't happen", but he didn't say that). Squashing the rebellion is the point of this debate, not having the nations of the earth be at war with the US.
AOW Rebellion!

5.4.16100 Chammros Are rescued By Canada And Rebel, with 50 Men Who are healded. The rebellion is Akive5.5.16As The Mainland Itself Is being under attack by all the Countries in world, America Starts Crumbling. Americans Get the War unpopular.5.6.16America is too busy Dealing with the world, And Guam is not a Priority. Guam is recgonized by all The countries in the world, Thus the rebels win. 5.7.16As Mainland Is being Attacked by All the Nations, It cannot afford to keep it's islands. Ameruca flees to It own Land5.8.16Guam Is taken.5.9.16Generaks refuse To use more Nukes, As The world can beat america in WMD.5.10.16As 2 Million invade Sacramento, America Starts to crumble.5.11.16Enbargoed and Crippled, America is forced back to the Rockies. 5.12.16The world Turns and Bombs the USA, America Outnumbered. As Oil cannot come in in america, Pilots continue crashing. 5.13.16Guam Is recgonized by the World. Thus, I win. Vote pro!Continuing:12.1.16America Is exhuasted, War grows Unpopular, The world Claims Naval, Air,Economic, Cyber, and Land Superiority.12.1.17After 2 Years, America can go no more and surrenders a War with earth.
AOW Rebellion!

1. The Suspense of aid, racial tensions, and general problems would still lead to a rebellion.2. I object Con using a loophole to Penalize me.3. Rigging the votes is possible anytime. It never had to be PRESIDENTIAL Votes, Thus it can be rigged. 4. I doubt eradicating the population would pass authority. Politicians would call it weak, Generals would call it absurd, Foreigners would say it's a crime.5. Coco's island revolted and is alive, Thus the rebellion is alive.6. Using a Nukes is a DIRECT Violation against The USA's Nike policy, which says Nukes are only used to deter Attackers. I was not attacking Mainland, Thus The Idea wouldn't pass.WAR 2.16.16Most Of coco's Island refuses to side with Loyalists.2.17.16About 100 Men Join the rebellion2.20.16North Korea and China Takes The Nukes as "No" and starts Supporting The rebellion. India, Brazil, Russia Are considering doing the same. Putin Even suggests Nuking Mainland in a Interview.2.30.16Supplies arrive. NATO Refuses to back the US because con admitted eradicating Guam's Population Would get everyone Angry.1.1.16Mainland Seriously Considers Not using more nukes,as China and North Korea May Strike back, causing nuclear war. There also is Doubt on using Nukes to crush an Small island.1.2.16Rumors that Germany is supplying Guam are prevalent.1.5.16North Korea sent 200 Medicine50,000 Solders20 Fighters10 Patrol boats1 Missiles 50 TanksChina SentEssential supplies100,000 Solders20 Fighters50 Tanks1 MissilesIndia senthundred thousand cans To Guam via the UN.1.6.16Russia recognizes Coco's island/Guam as a country. Putin says Any more nukes will lead to russia doing the same.1.7.16a Message from ASEAN."ASEAN is Concerned as America has destroyed the Guam Population. This included Asian Minorities. As a result, ASEAN Will Send humanitarian aid to coco's island, and expects $50 Million. Thank You for your Cooperation1.8.16America is suspended From the G71.10.16G7 is slowly collapsing.1.11.16Widespread protests occur in Mainland Over Nuking Guam. Experts say it's unnecessary.1.12.16Russia Supports Guam. India Blocks diplomatic relations with America, The rest of the world is a bit reluctant to help America. 2.15.16Russia readies It's nuclear arsenal. Guam Apparently has A Leopold.2.16.16Germany Denies giving aid. 2.17.16 China and North Korea Invade Saipan.2.20.16 Overwhelming Them by surprise, Span's hastily called Milltas Are Destroyed. Bombers Fly. and Target Ships and Planes.2.22.16Russia Sends in men on Saipan.2.23.16Russia starts using more advanced technology, testing the t-14 armada and su-30 bringing 10 of each.2.24.16China fires non Nuclear ICBM at mainland.2.25.16India and Germany Officially Admit they supported Guam behind Mainland's back.2.26.15Coco's island gets ready to take back Mainland. Mainland never put Troops in Guam, so it's basically a Empty place.2.17.16Without Real resistance besides Bombs, Rebels invade Guam, Easily stumping the mighty. . . Trees.2.18.16Rebels Convert to Gurellia Warfare.
AOW Rebellion!

Id' like to preface this round by saying that some of what my opponent said wouldn't happen at all, so we should declare anything that happens as a direct result of impossible actions to be completely void."Widespread Rumors of rigged Elections Occur in Guam and Texas"There is nothing that is possible to rig, for there are no elections that would be at that time except for "early voting", which nobody would know if there was rigging of votes or not, since votes are not disclosed at that time.As a direct result, many of the actions in the resulting from these rumors (the strikes and the escalation) should be counted as void. In fact, all of my opponent's round is effectively declared void through basic AoW procedure.I'd also like to point out that my opponent broke his own rule - rule 11, which says that he must state a reason for the rebellion in round one. We were in round two when the reason for rebellion was announced, thus he should be penalised for not following rules.Now, I'd like to properly define what a "WMD" is and if I can use nuclear weapons in this round, saying as WMDs are not allowed in accordance with rule 2. WMD is defined as: "any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector ... any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.” Note that if I use a nuclear weapon, but the intention of the weapon is just for mass death via explosion and NOT radioactivity, I am in accordance with rule 2.2.15.16 - the US fires multiple W88's into Guam (no reason necessary as pro didn't actually give a reason and it is up to them to do so), airbursting them so that no radioactivity kills any civilians in order to not be labeled as a WMD attack against its own citizens. The plot of areas in which are affected and where the W88's are fired into is shown below. Alex Wellerstein's algorithm suggests that there are 50,000 estimated casualties due to fire and PSI, and 147,000 estimated injuries [1]. It appears that because Guam has a total population of ~200,000, I have squashed the rebellion through injury and death. Con (me) has won against the Guam-ians, only at a cost of the world being angry. Vote con :)[1]. http://nuclearsecrecy.com...[2]. https://www.fbi.gov...;(WMD definition)
AOW Rebellion!

For this round, I will not provide a link to my forces because some of my forces include people that are stationed within the US-owned island of Guam, which is rebelling (which is the point of this debate). Per AoW rules, breaking two rules will result in a forfeiture. I hope my opponent will agree with me on this point - we need to have this debate on point and deviating from the rules draws away from the debate at hand. Thank you and good luck! May God bless you with better grammar in the following rounds.
AOW Rebellion!

This is a special type of AOW, In which I am defender and Try to Rebel, then keep the Island of Guam. My opponent Must crush the rebellion.Rules:1. No kritiks, semantics, etc. etc.2. The use of WMDs are banned.3. I am defending, And will go in round 2.4. Con may not have ANY sort of Support from the outside, Pro may.5. More countries may Join if wanted, on PRO.6. Electronic warfare is allowed, But EMPs are not.7. State your forces, or link your forces At round 1.8. Apply in comments.9. Morale is a factor.10. Con ONLY wins if The Rebellion is COMPLETELY Crushed. If Not, I win.11. I will give The reason for rebellion in round 1.GUAMPopulation: 159,358Other chammoros in the mainland: 75,000
Time never changes

Faced with the inevitability of total logic must be very daunting. I have left my opponent with no choice but to spit the dummy and concede defeat. My opponent just wants to slavishly agree with every mainstream theory and never question anything. My last reference was with Robert Distinti's website which has over 50 videos of his theories. But did my opponent reference any of them in his reply? None! This is a debating website which discusses ideas dummy. It is not about being safe and agreeable. It is up to you to find errors in my logic and calculations. But, I think I am wasting my time on this website because their are too many spoilt brats who have never had to work hard at anything in their short lives. Note - I don't have any references (evidence) to give you because I am the originator of these concepts.
Time never changes

"My opponent says " That time is not an object and that space is not an object" But then goes on to imply that space / time is an object. Wow! Now, How confused can a person get! Of course Con, 1+1 =3! Everybody knows that! "Pro commits ad hominem. (ad hominem is a logical fallacy, An argumentative fallacy, And plainly a cheap move)I never said space-time is an object. I merely said it is physical. Read my arguments again. And my definition of object as well thank you. "Quote - "What is space though? The correct answer is no-one knows"But then my opponent implies that space is really space/ time ("That is exactly what I just said. Noone knows. Noone knows what space-time is either. What is it really? Energy? Aether? Definitely not matter. What is energy? What is energy made of? What are planck length fabric oompaloompas made of? But my point is pro pretends to know exactly what it is. "Yes folks, The science world must like the concept of an aether because they have several alternative names for it so that they don't have to mention that science world taboo word the 'aether'. "That's because all the definitions of aether don't work in our physical calculations. Define me what you think "Aether" means. Afterwards, I'll tell you about stellar aberration. "The truth is that the aether pushes the Earth around the sun. Thus, The speed of the aether is exactly the same as the gravitational constant. Thus, Gravity push is really aether push. Gravity doesn't pull in other words, It pushes from space. Pulling is another illogical concept. Aetheric pressure is all persuasive and holds matter together. This pressure is generated at the galactic centre where aether jets shoot out at right angles to the galactic spin. "Theoretical, Theoretical, Theoretical. This reminds me of many flat earther arguments. They are designed to answer all questions, Whilst having zero evidence. You could do this even with theories as crazy as the earth is on top of the shell of a giant turtle. And how does the aether push the Earth in only one direction, When it is theoretically present everywhere? I am interested now in this aether argument. As a debater, I shouldn't, But I do accept the logic in the idea of an aether being pushed out of galactic centres, Or supermassive blackholes. Relativistic jets are truly a mystery.
Time never changes

My opponent says " That time is not an object and that space is not an object" But then goes on to imply that space / time is an object. Wow! Now, How confused can a person get! Of course Con, 1+1 =3! Everybody knows that! Quote - "What is space though? The correct answer is no-one knows" But then my opponent implies that space is really space/ time (which is just another name for the aether as quoted by Einstein himself). Yes folks, The science world must like the concept of an aether because they have several alternative names for it so that they don't have to mention that science world taboo word the 'aether'. Some alternative names that the science world uses would include - virtual photons, Space/time, Bosons, Quarks, Quantum vacuum, Planck's constant and frame of reference. Thus, The science world is constantly playing a game of cat and mouse with the aether theory. Michelson and Morley experiment - This experiment assumes that the Earth moves through a stationary aether. Thus, They were looking for a speed of the aether which was equivalent to the speed of the Earth going around the sun. They didn't find this speed but found a much slower speed and concluded that the aether doesn't exist. The result was called a 'null result' which just means that they didn't get what they were expecting so they ignored the slower speed of the aether. Thus, We see the stupidity and arrogance of the science community by ignoring the results because it didn't match their expectations. The truth is that the aether pushes the Earth around the sun. Thus, The speed of the aether is exactly the same as the gravitational constant. Thus, Gravity push is really aether push. Gravity doesn't pull in other words, It pushes from space. Pulling is another illogical concept. Aetheric pressure is all persuasive and holds matter together. This pressure is generated at the galactic centre where aether jets shoot out at right angles to the galactic spin. https://www. Iflscience. Com/space/relativistic-jets/ https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=acxwIRoleuA
Time never changes

"What I mean by time not changing is that time can't speed up or slow down. Time is just an abstract concept which is not a thing or an object in itself. Physicists have tried to turn time into an object by creating space / time. This is an illogical concept. " Time is not an object. Space is not an object. An object is anything that has an identifiable collection of matter. Matter exists within space. Space and time are even beginning to be thought of as the same thing. What is space though? The correct answer is noone knows. Pro fails to understand that it doesn't matter what he is defining time as, he is still not arguing against the resolution. Can time change? Yes. Does it matter if it's a concept or an object? Not really. This is what pro is debating. Otherwise he should've changed the resolution to: "Time is not tangible" or something like that. This is why pro has already lost this debate. Anyways, I'll argue his other resolutions. "You have fallen into the science world's trap. . . . " Pro here says he thinks he understands time better than the hundreds of physicists in known history. I doubt this. "The universe is made primarily of aether which flows and moves. "Pro goes on about aether, Providing no sources. This is a controversial claim. Even if pro gives sources in the next round, I believe voters should deduct source points. Thank you. Einstein rejects the notion of an aether. It's a good logical theory. But it ultimately failed. Einstain says: "According to this theory there is no such thing as a "specially favoured" (unique) co-ordinate system to occasion the introduction of the æther-idea, And hence there can be no æther-drift, Nor any experiment with which to demonstrate it. . . . Thus for a co-ordinate system moving with the earth the mirror system of Michelson and Morley is not shortened, But it is shortened for a co-ordinate system which is at rest relatively to the sun" - https://resonance. Is/the-end-of-the-aetherHowever, This is only an alternate explanation. But truly, Einstein conceded that the aehter does exist. Exist, It's not "ether", It's space-time itself! Space-time is a physical product, So of course there has to be some truths to the aether argument. So the aether, Which is actually space time as physicisists agree, Is the thing that changes time. You say time never changes. You introduce the idea of the Aether. But your argument SUPPORTS the my stance. Space and time are one of the same thing. And space-time is the aether itself. I look forward to the next round, This debate is much more interesting than I thought :).
Time never changes

What I mean by time not changing is that time can't speed up or slow down. Time is just an abstract concept which is not a thing or an object in itself. Physicists have tried to turn time into an object by creating space / time. This is an illogical concept. Physicists are not good at commonsense or grammar and make basic mistakes like this all the time. Time is merely a concept and every kindergarten child knows that you can't turn a concept into an object. That is of course, Unless you are Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein, Then, You can do as you please. Quote: "Whether or not time is a dimension of its own is a topic that is beyond the both of us" You have fallen into the science world's trap of thinking that time concepts are beyond the understanding of the common man. The science world is full of over complication. This is done to confuse people into thinking that science and physics are beyond their understanding. This is just a con trick to create the illusion of superior knowledge, Which leads to more prestige, Income and status. A lot of scientists are just plain dumb arses and should be employed as street cleaners. Quote : "space curves" The universe is made primarily of aether which flows and moves. This is what creates the illusion of curved space. Experiments have been conducted to prove that time changes with acceleration. Unfortunately, They have not included the existence of an aether which explains why the clocks would slow down with acceleration. The aether pushes on the clock mechanism which causes a physical hindrance to the clocks movement. Thus, We have a logical physical reason as to why the clock slows down and we don't have to rely on illogical theories about time changing and space curving.
Time never changes

I think your argument has already fallen apart. By your logic, Time certainly can change, Depending on changes in spin and rotation. Of an electron yes? Whether or not time is a dimension of its own is a topic that is beyond the both of us. But by your logic, And the confines of this debate, I believe your argument is flawed. If time is a measurement of spin and rotation which are merely other words for speed and acceleration, Then of course time can change. Anyways, Space is a dimension. It has been proven that as space curves more and more, Time changes along with it. It's debatable, But recently scientists don't consider time to be a dimension of its own but that space time is one dimension. https://phys. Org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension. Html
Does will be ethical to artificialy be means of genetic engineering to increase human IQ

I agree with you but only partial, yes if cigarettes came into use were found to be beneficial for health (Sic1) What we know today as it was a big mistake. But it was the same with other inventions, such as X-rays when the when the first X-ray tube was patented by Willhelm Roentgen, people were playing it during the show illusionist in circuses and other similar events. Rich people buy X-ray tubes for their families to show off in front of friends, well we all know how fun today with ionizing radiation may be over, but with time doctors discovered the use in medical diagnostics. It was similar with aviation, air transport has considerably reduced travel time, but binds a risk of an aircraft accident. Likewise, it may be the improvement of human mind and what goes with it an increase in IQ, there is no smoke without fire, every new invention brings with it some risk, but we can be sure that when we do not take this challenge we may one day be defeated by machines, by artificial Intelligence (AI)