BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
modern day feminism does more good than harm

Modern day feminism does more harm than good, and within my speech I will prove this. Feminism may have started out as a good cause, fighting for equality and women's rights. But modern day feminism is focused on female supremacy and the hatred of man. "Apparently, mysogyny is reprehensible and evil but misandry is virtuous and laudable. I could probably list 1,000 quotes from leading feminist theorists that are extraordinarily offensive and deeply sexist. If the same feminist quotes were altered such that the word "man" was changed to "woman", the quotes in question would be construed as horrifyingly sexist. I am sure that most readers are familiar with the words of Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon to the effect that all men are rapists, and that heterosexual sex is nothing short of rape. I should add that according to many feminists, men who consume pornography are at the very least "rapists-in-training." I wonder how we might go about reproducing given that heterosexual mating is apparently "violently penetrative." I suppose that with the advances of artificial insemination, men are disposable (some feminists have incidentally argued for this position). Or perhaps men might learn to inseminate women via "no touch" tantric sex. Alternatively, we can explore the possibilities of human cloning as a means of extending our genes. Anything will do as long as we eradicate "penetrative heterosexual mating" from the repertoire of human sexuality," says Gad Saad, Ph.D. He sums up my point clearly. Feminism has turned into an act of man-hate and an idea of female superiority, and that is why it does more harm than good. Thank you, and I look forward to the next round.
modern day feminism does more good than harm

Sorry for the confusion Ben, I meant you don't refute until the third round and only refute one round and then do your closing statement.I am making the claim that modern day feminism does more harm than good, when I mean modern day feminism I mean intersectional feminism which is more known online due to the fact many of them are online activist who create gofundme acocunts and raise awareness then doing sit ins. Modern day feminism, better known as intersectional feminism, is more than just equal rights it also fights for LGBT+ rights & racial rights. Intersectional feminism is more about the social double standards both woman and man face. With many men looking down-upon for being feminine or having feelings. While women in third world countries are still facing forced marriages, sexual abuse, being poinsned for speaking out against their sexual abuser. Even women in America, Canada, & The United Kingdom are facing social standards as far as free the nipple & even multiple sexism jokes.One thing that I shouldn't have to point out but the things intersectional feminism does for men. When Jaden Smith wore a skirt and was the headline of Louis Vuitton's womens clothing [http://www.thewrap.com...] many people dragged him but the intersectional feminist family was there to encourage him because we advocate for letting boys be feminine. Another thing intersectional feminism did for men was when the NFL cheeleader was evicted because she raped a 14-year-old boy the victim faced a lot of blacklash and comments like "I would've let her rape me", "I'd like to be raped by that", etc. The feminist family [modern day] advocats so much for rape and sexual abuse victims. One of my last claims is about what the intersectional feminism does for racism & for the people in third world countries espically in time of the middle east wars. The feminist family is one of the most involed people in #blacklivesmatter movement in the time of Sandra Bland, Tamir Rice, etc. We've also advocated for letting in the migrants understandgint that America itself was based off migrants. Although we have plenty of radical feminist who are referred to as 'white feminist' meaning inclusive to women, white, black, chiristian feminism. In conclusion, I believe modern day feminism, better know as intersectional feminism does more harm than good and I'm sorry for the short paragraphs I'm writing this in school. Bes of luck.defentions[Intersectionality] is a concept often used in critical theories to describe the ways in which oppressive institutions (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, xenophobia, classism, etc.) are interconnected and cannot be examined separately from one another.
A person cannot be in love with two people simultaneously

I accidentally chose the wrong side of this argument. I thought it read A person can be in love with two people simultaneously and you were the con. However, i will try to debate this to the best of my abilities. Love is defined as an intense feeling of deep affection. This feeling is so intense that it is what makes a woman you may have met in your 20's (a spouse) as important as a woman you have known your entire life (a sister). These deep affections are also about making sacrifices and choices to give your love to an individual. Once you share your love with numerous people the deepness and quality of this love is somewhat tainted because love is just liking everything in existence besides existence itself. It does not have an unlimited supply. If you love two people equally it means that you are not willing to sacrifice one for the other and it shows that you cannot reach the intense deepness love entails, something that a person can reach by being willing to sacrifice other things and people, for that one person. Thus, showing love in it's ultimate, raw form.
A person cannot be in love with two people simultaneously

Yaaaay another cliche social perspective. First round for acceptance, and for my opponent to post his/her argument if he/she so chooses. Person: Human Being, Homo Sapien In love: romantic love, Eros love. No new arguments in the fourth round. Let's make this a good debate, no equivicating, or silly semantic tactics. Come at me bro or Bro-et...
The state should not ban same-sex marriage.

This debate is philosophical in nature rather that wholly political. The viewpoint will be from a pre-society under Rawls' Original Position. This debate is therefore not limited to the United States but is rather discussing the idea of same sex marriage in the realm of Justice as a whole. Rules 1. First round is acceptance only 2. No new arguments in the final round 3. No trolling 4. No semantics 5. No rudeness Good luck :)
This house would prosecute santa for tresspassing.

But what if i don't want santa(?Santa?) to enter my house? If I as parent of my underage children deny them any gift not from family. What right dose santa have to enter. If i wish to no longer receive mail i can I can even elect to receive it at an alternate location. Can santa not do the same. If you have a no trespassing sign on your property mailmen can not enter it unless you explicitly give them that ability.
This house would prosecute santa for tresspassing.

OK so here is the primary argument for the opposition side.Implied easement.Ok, so implied easement is not a physical documentation. if it was it would not be called implied easement. As we know, easement is a legal right of access, which allows access to a private property. In most cases, private property is illegal to enter without a right of easement. Except in a select few cases. Santa is one of those cases.Any government authority may enter a private property unhindered, I.E the police or the ambulance service. But so may personal service providers. So milkmen, postmen and the like are allowed an implied bill of access because you have employed their services. Technically you do not employ Santa. Santa just gives. However it is also possible to withdraw implied easement, so that nobody except government authorities may enter private property. And therefore, without withdrawing this right, you are indirectly claiming that Santa and or any employees of Santa may enter your property.Pressing chargesDo you really want to press charges for somebody entering with in most cases you express permission(like leaving milk out for Santa, however legally permission does not overwrite the parameters of private property) and giving you gifts? Of course not. If you celebrate Christmas, and no matter how you look at it, that is giving the patron of Christmas Nicholas Claus permission to enter your property.It is possible not press charges against a trespasser and this is what we here on the opposition believe should be done.So we put it to you today that Santa has an implied right of easement and that you should not press charges against somebody you want to enter but has no easement rights.Thank you and I encourage you to vote opp!
This house would prosecute santa for tresspassing.

Mailmen cannot enter a locked premises. Entering a locked premises without warrant or verbal permission is Breaking and entry. Implied Easement dose not cover the inside of your house. Santa is breaking the law by entering your house without permission. And you keep saying that santa is needed to have Christmas. "If a person did not want Santa in their house, Santa would not enter because they would not be celebrating Christmas. " You are still celebrating Christmas. Christmas is about the coming of the Christian savior Jesus.
This house would prosecute santa for tresspassing.

May I remind the prop that his argument is not over our personal feelings toward Santa but rather whether or not we can prosecute him for trespass.The answer is no. You keep saying that if you do not want him in your property there is no implied easement. Not true. I could take the postman to court for entering my garden, but I would not win simply because I didn't want him there, I did not officially withdraw his implied easement. Therefore he cannot be prosecuted.I would like to summarise the oppose arguments in the following way.We believe that Santa cannot be prosecuted for trespass because he has a legal right of access to private property. If a person did not want Santa in their house, Santa would not enter because they would not be celebrating Christmas. So Santa has never broken the law, he never enters unwanted and the proposition failed to provide any solid arguments though out the whole debate. that is why my arguments have been so short, because I have nothing to rebut.Thank you and I urge you to vote opp!
This house would prosecute santa for tresspassing.

Santa is not needed for Christmas. If I have no desire for his presence in my house their is no implied easement. If I don't want him in my house he is trespassing. How can you have any right to say that if I don't want Santa in my house I am not celebrating Christmas. Besides when I saw mama kissing Santa when I was I kid I knew I wanted him as fare a way from my wife as possible.
Is maths easy

Most problems and challenges require patient volition and you need to word hard on all of them. None of them are easy. But the easiness of maths is relative to the person. Like, for most people who don't pay attention at school, they think that maths is hard because they don't understand anything. But those who do have paid attention, understand the concepts and they can solve it . and they feel that maths is "easy" compared to their peers. Another thing about this is, that some people are just born with natural maths instincts. Their brains can grasp complicated maths things more than most people can, without trying very hard. like if u ask a normal person "Hey dude, whats 192 * 123?" they will be like "What" BUT if you were to ask a crazy smart person who is a natural born genius , they will immediately tell you "23616" (Unless they're stuck-ups too, then, they will go "Why the do you need it. Im not gonna waste my mental energy on such a pointless thing" )
Attempted Suicide Should Be A Criminal Offense.

Suicide is not choosing between life and deathSuicide is not the choice between life and death, but rather the choice of the time and manner of death. If one has a right to life then they also have a right to death. A terminally ill person who is in huge amounts of pain should be able to decide whether they succumb to the illness (cancer for example), or go peacefully through the use of drugs, knowing that they have lived their lives well. In the end, it is their life and it is not the job of the government to condemn them, rather allow them to live their lives autonomously without fear of external interferences like theft causing them harm. The individual should make their final farewells to their friends and family when they decide, not the illness. These cases are different to the "normal" types, when one could be considered emotionally or mentally unstable, and it would wrong to generalise each and every case in the same way.Society can spread the message that suicide is unacceptable without criminalising the individualThe world can spread the message that suicide is bad without actually criminalising those who attempt it. In the end, you will only be punishing the people who actually fail the act. The legislation will not deter those who wish to go through with it, and the people who aren't successful (who have already decided that the world is bad enough) aren't likely to change their opinion if they would be branded a criminal and punished (even admittance to a mental institute would be considered a bad punishment).The law would be impractical and would not be enforcable in any worldOne of the main reasons why attempted suicide was decriminalised in 1961 in the UK was because it wasn't being enforced to a sufficient extent. Around 1 million people each year die because of suicide, and many more attempt it. The amount of resources needed to enforce the law would be ridiculous, and the amount of actual cases where people would be found and sent to these mental institutes would be tiny. Attempted suicide should not be an offence, as it is the individuals autonomous choice and is perfectly justifiable in certain situations
Attempted Suicide Should Be A Criminal Offense.

Oops 2 is Opening Arguments and 3-4 are Rebuttals.Attempted suicide is the same concept as attempted murder.I mentioned the definition of attempted murder not because they would be tried under attempted murder necessarily, but to prove that attempted suicide is, in term, attempted murder. By the definitions I have provided, in order for someone to be guilty of attempted murder, the murder should have been intentional. in short, suicide is intentional and is the ending of one life, and under those terms, it is murder. Thus, attempted suicide is ttempted murder.Do I believe that the punishments should be the same as those of attempted murder? No. I say this simply because suicide is an action one does to oneself and is evidence that the individual is willing to take their life. Murder does not show that the individual is any danger to themselves, but to other people. A possible punishment would be time in a mental institution, perhaps for the same time an individual would be in jail for murder.Attempted murder is an offense, so therefore attempted suicide should be as well.
Kneeling at the anthem

Thank you for responding. When people kneel at the anthem they are protesting. There is nothing wrong about protesting. In America you have the right to protest. You don't have to agree with it. They could care less about what we think but its their right. They are just taking advantage of their rights. If you don't like people having the freedom of protest then find somewhere else to go or run for president, but in America its their right and you have no control over it.
Kneeling at the anthem

How's it going. I realize that people have a right to not stand during the anthem, so I am not going to argue about that aspect. However, I do think that having a right to do something does not make it socially acceptable. For example, I can call somebody fat and stupid; I have a right to do so, but that does not mean I should be doing that. In fact, I should not be calling people any names, nobody should. I think kneeling for the flag is disrespectful. Bottom line: should it be legal? Yes. Should it be happening? No.
Kneeling at the anthem

Recently football players and other sports people have been kneeling at the anthem. A lot of people think that this is not okay for players to kneel at the anthem. However it is their right as an American citizen. The first amendment is, " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " If you see anywhere it says you are not allowed to protest please make that known but for know I think you have the right to kneel at the anthem. It is just your opinion that you feel they should not kneel at the anthem.
Kneeling at the anthem

"I understand you don't think it's right..." yes, isn't that what we're debating? "What they do is not up to debate." Then why are we debating this? "Half of those athletes are probably just doing it for money." That is quite possible. I guess I could write a letter but that is beside the point. I understand they are trying to make a statement but the question is: is kneeling an appropriate way to go about this? There are plenty of other ways to make statements including social media campaigns, petitions, etc. that don't involve disrespecting the flag.
Kneeling at the anthem

First of ya'll you have said you could do something because it's your right even though it's not the right thing to do twice. Anyway I understand that you don't think its right but what they do is not up to debate. They don't care about the people at home thinking what their doing is wrong. They are just trying to make a statement which they obviously are. Half of those athletes are probably just doing it for money. If you want to change something why don't you write a letter to some of those people who are kneeling.
Kneeling at the anthem

Again, I understand they have a right to do so. I"m not trying to take away anybody"s freedom. However, having a right to do something does not mean you should do that thing, or else one can say everybody should be owning guns and writing newspapers. I have a right to be a jerk, doesn't mean I should act like one. I think there are two reasons against kneeling: first, it"s not respectful to the flag; second, I don"t even think it"s effective in its purpose. Obviously the flag represents our country and the people who fought to preserve our freedom; I think they should be honored by saluting it. For the second reason, what is kneeling supposed to accomplish? I don"t think any racist is gonna be watching football and think "these guys aren"t standing, maybe I should change my ways." There are more efficient ways to meet the objective these athletes have. I especially don"t think they should be doing this right before the games. People tune in to watch football, not activism. What do you think?
God exists.

Ave.[No Initial State Argument]Pro drops the entirety of this argument (once more). I have an argument on my side that shows god cannot exist that has gone unanswered. This tips the preponderance of evidence towards my side.[Bare Assertions]I asked Pro to give us some reasons to think that god created the Earth, and that everything came from a prior something. Pro ignores this and does not give us any reasons to think these things are true. Again, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.[Contradiction]I showed that Pro was contradicting herself. She never responded to this argument. Another dropped point.[Dreams and Visions]Pro drops this argument.[Pro's Proof]There is nothing about Pro's proof that demonstrates anything requiring the supernatural. There were traitors, murderers, sexual deviants, and malicious, hateful, envious people during the times Revelation and Titus were written. Why do you need a supernatural being to make those observations? None of those verses even make a prediction about the future. They describe the present moment or the past.[Preponderance of the Evidence]Pro dropped the following points.- God created the Earth.- Every something came from a prior something.- My argument as to why Pro was contradicting herself.- My argument against the existence of god.- My argument against the argument from dreams and visions.[Sources]I gave more sources than Pro, and they were of good quality.[Conduct]Pro broke a rule by giving arguments in the first round. Vote on that as you wish.Vale.
God exists.

Con is very persistent, tough, and reasonable. I like a difficult challenge, you're doing a great job. But like he said, I need proof. So, here's proof: Talking about nowadays But outside are dogs (meaning, traitors or bad people) and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murders and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie. Revelations 22:15 For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. Titus 3:3 All of these of verses talk about today and there's a lot more verses in the Bible
God exists.

Ave.[No Initial State Argument]Pro drops the entirety of this argument. I have an argument on my side that shows god cannot exist that has gone unanswered. This tips the preponderance of evidence towards my side.[Bare Assertions]Pro does not give any reason to accept her factual assertions. She asserts that god created the world, when nebular theory is a better explanation of the fact that planets exist. She asserts that everything came from something, without any evidence. She asserts that the Bible has told us things that would happen in the future, and they have actually come true. No evidence or sources have been offered to accept any of these claims as true. By the dictum 'What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence', I dismiss these claims.[Contradiction]Pro states that everything came from something. Presumably, god is contained within this 'everything'. Yet, Pro also states that god came from nothing. If god came from nothing, then we have an example of something that did not come from another something, which contradicts the premise that everything came from something.[Dreams and Visions]Pro does nothing to show that, because something happens in a dream, it correlates to reality. I've had dreams about the Lord of the Rings. I've had dreams where I've talked to people I know in real life, but in situations that obviously didn't occcur. Why does dreaming about something mean it exists or happened?Vale.
God exists.

Sorry for doing that. But I have to say, you are very persistence. But I'm not giving up without a fight! And God created the world (obviously because everything came from something, except God. He came out of nowhere). If God doesn't exist, then why are we here?! And why do dreams and visions come to people (it's happened to me), where God is actually talking to them or showing them symbolic things?! Even the bible is giving us proof about what's going on in the world and they're coming true! Think about it, the Bible is like, 1000 years old!
God exists.

I'm here because I think God is alive and he is right now in heaven watching over us. And there's proof! Many testimonies have been told where the person has seen Jesus and God (not their face, though). And miracles have happened (like a child who had a comma, but when her church prayed for her, she awoke). And I just want to say one thing, I don't care who votes for me or not! I'm just happy in what I believe in! And more proof: After becoming a Christian, I was never the same again!