BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Men V/S Women (who is better?)

First of all Russian , the topic isn't about Gender Equality . So , please stick to the topic . Secondly , you are saying about giving respect to girls , this is not also related to the topic and please explain what's the meaning of "take off their coats". And now to stretch the topic , the real meaning of this debate (topic) is Men v/s Women , it's not gender equality . And if you do not agree to the topic then why have you participated . The sense in this topic is this , "In which things are women better than men ?". Plain and simple . You are continuously speaking about gender equality which makes no sense to the topic . As I may remind you that the first rule of debate is "STICK TO THE TOPIC" and if you do not agree , do not participate . SIMPLE ! Now if you want to continue this debate , then , STICK TO THE TOPIC....!!!!!!
Men V/S Women (who is better?)

As men it is our civic duty to show kindness to women, ex. Give up our seats, take off their coats, etc. "and if you want to discuss about birth, then there is not only women who is important, there are men who are the same important for birth" that's what you said, well, here's news, who has to give birth? The women! I know how birth works, i know that a man contributes, but the woman has to physically give birth! To say men are better than women is sexist and rude, any gentlemen would respect the fact that we are supposed to open the door for women instead of saying were better than them.
Men V/S Women (who is better?)

Whoa ....... I think so you have not read the topic well .... and my opinion also ...... you are saying that gender equality ..... well i am not refusing as its a good thing , but you may read my opinion that why are girls given more opportunities ... ex . reservation of seats .......... then where is gender equality now? . And if you asking about cleaning and all that home stuff , then i a may tell you in America there is book named as 'THE DADDY SHIFT" which says that men do the same work that women those like cleaning . And if you want to discuss about birth , then there is not only women who is important , there are men also who are the same important for birth.
Men V/S Women (who is better?)

I am a man, but i'm not on either side of this, I'm just here to prove equality 1. Women have to do a lot of stuff, like give birth, clean the house etc. 2. Women do a lot for us guys to, they go out of their way to try to make us like them 3. Yes, men are typically stronger. But women have to be pretty strong to give birth Neither is better than the other, they are both equal
Men V/S Women (who is better?)

Boys are always better than girls in every thing . For ex. physically . For election seats are reserved for women then also men are more in politics .Why are women given more opportunities like reservastion of seats in buses , reservation for seats for jobs etc...?Both men and women are given equal opportunity then also there are more men in every fields of work . For ex navies , armies etc ....In games such as cricket , football , rugby . There are never men v/s women as they know that men are physically more strong . Gimme a replay.........!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Regarding third-trimester abortions

"The reasoning behind this involves the fact that the respect to sentient life is what holds our society together." --------------------------------------- "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry to the Virginia House of Burgesses Is there a value to sentient life? Of course there is. That was never at dispute. But in 1775, the people of America said sentient life is all good and nice ... but was it was not something for which men and women give up their liberties for. And they were just talking about their own sentient lives. No one said, hey, hold on a minute, let's put our liberties aside because it might jeopardize British lives. Had our government been shackled by an unwavering respect for sentient life, we would have NEVER liberated ourselves from the tyranny of Great Britain. And we would have NEVER liberated the Black men and women of the south from the clutches of slavery. There are just some things more important than American sentient lives. Not to mention the sentient lives of non Americans. -------------------------------------------------------------- At the beginning of the debate, I raised the issue of personal liberty. To which my opponent replied "What good would economic values and personal liberties be if our society lost its fundamental value holding it together?" But that's just it isn't it? Isn't Personal Liberty something worth dying for? Worth fighting for? Worth killing for? Am I to understand that the sentient life of others is worth more than our own personal liberties? If the British came tomorrow to our shores to chain our women, are we to sit idly with our thumbs twiddling because the British are sentient lives? A fetus is not an American citizen. And if sentient, it is hardly so. But to be frank, I don't care how sentient the fetus is. No one has the right to shackle American women. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you and Good night. Was a pleasure exchanging opinion.
Regarding third-trimester abortions

Before we begin. .. . "As well, in reference to third-trimester abortions, the sentient life is physically and directly killed. In your analogy, the females, or for that matter anyone else, are not directly killing the parasites by choosing not to serve as their hosts. The parasites would merely die by default. " So lemme get this straight. .. You're against abortion . .. but if there was a medical procedure where the mother can cut off nutrients to the fetus and thus allow the fetus to die of starvation . .. that'd be cool with you? As long as you don't literally kill it it's all cool? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anyway, so far the debate has boiled down to this fundamental difference of opinion. Pro believes that good government policy should take into account the economy, personal liberty, and quality of life. Con believes that everything should take a back seat to the "sanctity" of sentient life. So if you share Pro's point of view, vote Pro, otherwise vote Con. If you're not certain which point of view you're in alignment with, think about the following hypothetical example: (1) Every year, thanks to the One Child Policy, Chinese women across the country have no choice but to have abortions because the government mandates this as a population control. HOWEVER, it is in the power of the United States to allow all pregnant Chinese women to come into the United States. Should the US adopt an open door policy for all pregnant Chinese women? If your answer is yes, then vote Con. If no, vote Pro. (2) An adult pig is technically more intelligent and more "sentient" than a 3 year old child. (Thus far more sentient than a third-trimester fetus) In light of learning this, would you stop eating pork?
Regarding third-trimester abortions

"I am not necessarily saying that third-trimester abortions would be either good or bad in regards to the economy, personal liberties, or the quality of life. What I am saying is that the most important value should be maintained. By keeping this value intact, our collective society can function normally." Right now you probably work a 9 to 5 job, bringing back a pay check so you can feed your family. Imagine if the government decided that you only need half of that to survive and so takes that pay check away from you and then spends it on food to feed people in Darfur. After all, half your pay check will still feed your kids. It might make your life miserable, but hey, what's more important? Your freedom, your standard of living? or sentient life? Now who here thinks this would be an absurd national policy? Raise your hand. Or better yet, vote for Con. Because let's face it ... if we accept the idea that sentient life takes precedence over personal liberties, then heck, we couldn't even have fought the Civil War. IF we invaded the South, the war would have caused the loss of sentient life. Since sentient life is more important than the quality of life, we should have just let black people keep slaving away at the plantations, as long as their slave masters only beat them and not kill them. Because hey, sentient life takes precedence right? ----------------------------------------------- Let approach this debate from another angle. Imagine if there exists a sentient parasite. For the sentient parasite to live, it has to feed off a female. Is it good national policy for force all females to serve as hosts to these sentient parasites? If I was a female and you told me that it's good national policy to have me host a sentient parasite, I would beat you with whatever weapon is within reach. ------------------------------------------------ So to repeat: Argument #1B: Third-trimester abortions are good for the economy, personal liberties, and quality of life. As I argued in the first segment, Good National Policy has to take a lot of issues into consideration. Starting with the economy. Women who have children also invariably tend to take maternity leave. The fewer children, the more women working, the healthier and more productive the economy. Secondly, women have greater personal liberties, which is a given. And third, women won't have to undergo the unbearably painful experience of child birth until they are ready. Thus the quality of life for American citizens improves. Therefore we should have third trimester abortions. Thank you.
Regarding third-trimester abortions

"As a collective and society, we ought to respect human life in the third-trimester by allowing it to progress and further its development." Many abortion debates boil down to the degree of development which distinguishes between a fetus and a baby. Well I for one have had enough with the foreplay. Let's assume for the sake of argument, that a third-trimester fetus is the equivalent of a baby. I still don't give a rat's behind. Argument #1A: National Policy SHOULD NEVER EXCLUSIVELY focus on the "sanctity" of human life. Instead Good National Policy should ALSO take into consideration the economy, personal liberties, and quality of life. If our government wanted to protect life, then it should ban the use of automobiles. Automobiles are one of the leading causes of death nationwide. But if I told everyone we should ban automobiles to preserve the lives of innocent pedestrians, you'd call me insane. So what tens of thousands of people die in automobile crashes? We still allow people to drive because of the economic benefits which makes life worth living. If you want to ban the use of third-trimester abortions, It is NOT ENOUGH to say, they're almost the same as babies. Good National Policy must take into consideration the impact on the economy, the impact on personal liberties, and the impact on individual quality of life. Argument #1B: Third-trimester abortions are good for the economy, personal liberties, and quality of life. As I argued in the first segment, Good National Policy has to take a lot of issues into consideration. Starting with the economy. Women who have children also invariably tend to take maternity leave. The fewer children, the more women working, the healthier and more productive the economy. Secondly, women have greater personal liberties, which is a given. And third, women won't have to undergo the unbearably painful experience of child birth until they are ready. Thus the quality of life for American citizens improves. ------------------------------------------------- At this point oboeman, you have 3 choices before you. Choice 1: Argue that Good National Policy should Only take into consideration the sanctity of human life (oh and I am sooooo ready for this) Choice 2: Even though it's a bad policy we should implement it anyway to make religious people happy (which in my opinion would be a fantastic and creative rebuttal, albeit a difficult course to navigate) Choice 3: forfeit the next however many rounds. I shall await your reply.
Regarding third-trimester abortions

Greetings. In this particular debate, I am arguing that third trimester abortions (assuming development within normal parameters) be banned, unless the life of the mother is at stake. I realize that this is quite a common and rather conventional debate topic, but I have seen and heard of too many similar debates "solved" only upon opinion, personal belief, and flawed logic. Let me proceed with a definition: Abortion – the artificially induced expulsion/death of an embryo or fetus. Third-trimester fetuses have such a high degree of neural and brain development (assuming development within normal parameters) that depriving them of life would be deplorable, and nearly equivalent to the intentional killing of human life following the event of birth. As a collective and society, we ought to respect human life in the third-trimester by allowing it to progress and further its development. Please note that my objective in this debate is to prove that, assuming development within normal parameters, the abortions of third-trimester fetuses should be illegal in the United States, unless the life of the mother is at stake. I look forward to the debate.
it should be compulsory to poop and make dinner at the same time

Good evening, the discussion today is that it should be made compulsory for people to poop whilst they make dinner. However, I feel the saying, "don't excrete where you eat," has, and is, the most important lesson we can learn from society. Knowing my opponent personally, I can say with certainty that he does NOT wash his hands, which has lead to many a case of cholera at our family gatherings. In fact, my opponent's poop covered mittens have lead to the death of my second wife and child. My family numbers only 16 after my opponent's dreadful poop-cooking fiasco's, and i wish to not lose any more. I'll finish with a quote from Gahndi, "A poop for a poop gives the whole world blood infections." Thank you.
it should be compulsory to poop and make dinner at the same time

good evening voters, today i wish to talk disuses a very serious issue plaguing society today. People in our generation are being oppressed, not even being able to enjoy themselves in their own home. currently human beings such as myself are being forced by public opinion, to not cook and poop at the same time. i feel that when i make dinner every time that i am excreting simultaneously, the meal turns out far better. my family of 23 will often comment on my cooking when i made it pooping at the same time. especially for number 17 jimmy, who was coincidentally conceived while i was pooping, while the scientific evidence is lacking, I still believe strongly in my ideas. i mean there is no evidence or my religion of raelian, but i still strongly believe
it should be compulsory to poop and make dinner at the same time

Sup my nigs. My internet foe has stated that, due to his culture, he should be allowed to spread his poopy hands all over the food my wife and child eat. I pose a question to you, dear reader. Why should my opponent, a chef, be allowed to perform such a heinous act when we, the the consumers of his meals, are under his duty of care. Why should my opponent be allowed to smear poop all over our family's meals, simply because of a cultural saying? In MY country, we have a saying which goes "Rape ngempango yingcugco" which translates roughly to, "Don't tread on my penis, also don't poop on my food." Thank you for listening.
it should be compulsory to poop and make dinner at the same time

Good evening again voters, my opponent has stated that his wife and children died at the hand of 'poop meals'. What he doesn't understand is that there is a classic Aussie saying that supports my argument and that is 'put another poop on the barbie' it is a strong cultural stand point that has been apart of my heritage for years to come my father did it and his father did it and his step father did it and then his mum did it after him. I think that my opponents wife and child should also go to his local hardware store, buy a bag of poo, take a teaspoon a day and eat the poo everyday in order to strengthen their immune systems. Anyone who cannot digest poo is a 'woosy poo-poo'. My poo adds another element to the meal, one of both texture and flavor. another pyramid on the food chain, it is essential that people of today are able to take a 'poop' and cook their dinner because there simply is not enough time in a day. Personally at work sometimes I need to 'drop the kids off at the pool' and do it at my desks so as I don't sacrifice work time as i need it to feed the kids and harvest more fecal matter. i also do my bit to support the economy. i find when i eat fast food, my feces has almost an entirely new experience to it and it is definitely worth the salmonella. because of this i eat up to 23 kilograms of fast food a day, i have been told by the manager at work that my obsession with pooping and making dinner at the same time has kept his business running far more than he expected. People may say you can "die" from eating poop but personally I think they are liars because I eat it and I don't die so therefore you can't die eating poop that is wrong. many Kazakhstanee scientists are also prepared to back up my evidence. poo is not the killer here, the real villains are infact the vacciantors.
It's time to crackdown on bent bankers, felonious financiers and shady stockbrokers

With many thanks to Sieben for accepting this challenge, I should like to respond to his comments as follows: 1 – Capitalisation. The banks have been asked to put a certain amount of money in reserve – to capitalise themselves – in order cover any possible future losses so they don't have to turn to the taxpayer in times of need. The amount they set aside does not reflect the banks' performance – even highly profitable banks have chosen not to capitalise themselves but to use their profits to pay their traders and senior executives massive bonuses instead. 2 – Lending to business. Banks make money by lending money at a higher rate of interest than they borrowed it at – fractional reserve banking is part of that and there is no real problem with that concept. However, with interest rates at a record low and the perceived risk of insolvency so high, the banks have decided that lending to smaller companies is not the best use of their capital resources. They would rather invest in other areas of finance such as mergers and acquisitions, futures, commodity trading, foreign exchange, asset management, derivative trading, equities and so on where massive profits (and losses) can be made quickly and easily – in other words they are more interested in making a quick buck than in long-term gains – and that's what caused the recent financial crisis. The lack borrowing facilities means that smaller companies do not have access to the finance they need to either solve short-term cash flow problems or to expand their businesses. This results in job losses or missed opportunities to create new jobs, which is bad for the economy and has a negative impact on society as a whole. 3 – Regulations. It is true that in the US and the UK some minor taxes have been proposed – and have met with fierce opposition from bankers and right-wing politicians, but no major tax on profits or bonuses has yet been implemented. Counter Plan. The use of commodities such as gold as alternatives to cash may indeed put pressure on the retail banks to get their acts together and offer their customers a better service. However, the economic crash was caused by the banks' investment banking divisions. The problem is that if the banks' corporate investments collapse and the bank goes bust the public's deposits will be swallowed up. An idea may be to separate the banks into corporate and retail entities to protect the public's deposits but a collapse would still impact on ordinary people whose private pensions are invested through the failed bank. For this reason I reassert that no bonuses or dividends should be paid unless the banks meet the government's and the regulatory authorities' lending and capitalisation targets in full. Thank you.
Abortion practiced on a baby with a beating heart should be illegal

As much as the pro side tried to rebuild her case, I must still bring forth the fact that even though women may not know before the eight week mark if they want an abortion, making abortion illegal AFTER the eight week mark would force them to rush their decision and potentially make a rash decision that would mean they chose to abort a child rather than keep it. I did bring this up in my first round so hopefully now pro understands that her point clearly falls. Now, unfortunately, pro brought up the idea of abortion as a form of "murder," well, that just lowers the standard of the debate a significant amount. We could go back and forth all day saying, "it's murder," "it's not," but really, what we have to decide is should we be forcing out morals on a(what is supposed to be) private decision of a mother? Until you are yourself put in that position you cannot walk around all high and mighty about this topic. Sure, you believe it's wrong, but who are you to tell someone else they are a horrible person if they believe something differently. The fact is, it is the mother's choice. The mother is not going around blowing up big buildings or becoming a serial killer, she is just trying to make a very difficult decision as to whether or not she wants to bring a child into the earth or not. Carrying an unwanted child can be very emotionally devastating so the idea of, "live with your consequences," is just plain not compassionate. Do you want a child to think of itself as a "consequence" when growing up? NO. This is no life for a child. This is why CLEARLY con already wins this debate. I am eager to see pro try and rebuild her case and invite any and all of her NEW constructive points she will have to bring forth.
Abortion practiced on a baby with a beating heart should be illegal

I would like to clarify my purpose in this debate. The reason I have brought forth evidence against all abortion is because, like my oponent mentioned, most women don't know before the eight week mark if they want an abortion or not. So speaking against all abortion must occur. And while this is a bit extreme, I ask those reading this debate to imagine abortion as a form of murder. The definition of murder, given by dictionary.com is: "to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously" Face the facts: taking a human beings life is inhuman and barbarous. Fetuses are human beings, no matter how small. So abortion is a form of murder. Keeping this in mind, I urge those judging this round to vote pro. Thank you.
The government should abolish death penalty

You say that if someone is put into a prison, it will be more worse a punishment than death itself. You may be correct to some extent but in a country like India, as I told earlier, it is easier to get bail. Even though a criminal is put into jail, (in India) he will have all the luxuries and wont fell one bit sad. (I mean for the politicians and other rich people who get caught in India for big scams). For example, see the famous bollywood actor Salman khan, he was supposed to be in custody for five years, but was released on bail to produce and act in a movie and now, he is doing his own reality program (big boss) . He was charged for drinking and driving and killing people by running over them in his drunken state and he killed two black bucks.You see not always you see someone in jail for even two years (in India)and people dont even suffer in jail and wont be separated from their family for long. By torturing criminals to death is the only way justice is rightfully served to them.