BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Boys Should Be Allowed to Play with Dolls

"I'm sorry if I insulted you. I wasn't calling you stupid, I really wasn't." It's all good! Now then... There are many unforeseen consequences that can occur if boys are allowed to play with dolls, you may think that "boys can play with anything" and "dolls are harmless", but you'd be very wrong. First what do boys typically like? Fighting, playing with toy guns, sword fighting, tag, football, etc. All of which in some way are violent and competitive. But did you ever think to ask why? Well theses types of rough physical sports prepare young boys to become men later in life [1,2]. Dolls just can't provide this type of learning, can boys learn how to fight? No, can they learn how to stick up for themselves? No. They really can't learn much from dolls. And the few lessons they possibly could learn, like "playing nice" or "sharing", could just as easily be learn through, regular boy activities. Also as i previously stated most boys do not play with dolls, at least boys in the that are older then seven , so what that means is that they will have a harder time making male friends as most of their (male) classmate will not be interested in playing with dolls. How many boys do you think would accept the invitation to "come over! and play tea with my doll's" Very few when they could play football, build a fort... set things on fire, etc. And sure maybe some girls would say yes, but then that boy would have a harder time making male friends. So boys should go make swords out of tree branches, or some other masculine activity and shouldn't play with dolls.
Boys Should Be Allowed to Play with Dolls

I'm sorry if I insulted you. I wasn't calling you stupid, I really wasn't. Okay, new arguments. The reason I think boys should be able to play with dolls is because force gender rules sometimes do more harm than good. There is nothing wrong with a man who wants to wear make up and wear a dress. It's important that at a young age that boys are taught that just because they don't play with trucks doesn't make them sick or weird, just different. If not, the child could go through constant problems trying to fit in. Not only that but saying a boy should only play with certain toys is silly. Why does it matter if a boy plays with a doll? It's a toy, that's it. It's not going to hurt the boy in the long run. It's only hurt him if people judge him and say that he's a freak for liking a doll. The real big problem is this idea that men need to be 'manly.' That seems to do more harm in the end. As for my nephew: yes, he is three but it shows that gender roles don't really play an issue until older. He doesn't CARE that he is playing with girly toys. He just wants to play and have fun.
Boys Should Be Allowed to Play with Dolls

You sent me articles about kids trying to kill other kids. You do realize that's just human nature right? Yes, it's sad that they are kids but sometimes, there are things out of our control. Maybe those kids were sick in the brain. You are trying to say that only boys are capable of violence? [1] Again, you make it seem like every single boy is the same. You can't lump them all together. There are a lot of men who'd rather stay at home and do the cooking then work. You have to be more open minded about this because everyone is different. Did you forget that there are male models, fashion designers and even males who make dolls? [2] Sally just wants a gay friend? Really? Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Most children don't even have a concept of gay when they're young. But if they do, I doubt that would be a big role in choosing to play with a boy who is playing with a doll. It's more like, "Hey, you're playing with something I like." When I was a kid, I was into Pokemon and so were most of the boys. Therefore, I hung out with the boys. It's that simple. There is also this. I have a nephew. He is three. I collect dolls and he comes down to my room to play with them. He'll brush their hair and make them fight. He doesn't realize they are girls just yet. He just wants to play. That's all. You turn! [1]http://www.cbsnews.com... [2]http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com...
Boys Should Be Allowed to Play with Dolls

"Now I understand that little kids are be mean but little kids can also be sweet and understanding". I'm not saying that kids can't be kind or "understanding", neither am i implying that in every situation they will be bullied or ostracized, i agree in certain situations. maybe even most , a boy could play with dolls and have no negative social repercussions. However is it worth letting your son face the unnecessary risk of being made more vulnerable to bulling, and the potential social problems that could arise? Again whether you like it or not, our society is filled with bullies and people who could be considered psychopaths. And a boy who play with dolls is going to be their red meat. Please skim a few of these articles and tell me if all kids are "sweet", most are... but it only take one to make a boys life a living hell. [1] [2] [3] "That and not all boys are the same either. Some boys like to play rough while others prefer to read a book. Honestly, it'll depend on the child." Yes that's true to a extent, I had friend's who were more academic, and other who were more physical, most fell somewhere in between. But nearly none, of us liked to play with dolls! Honestly how many boys play with dolls? Or want to for that matter? How many will pass the transformer or the G.I Joe or the power Ranger, or the Nerf Gun, for a cabbage patch kid? VERY FEW! Unless of course their parents are trying to make some pathetic political statement and are forcibly buying them dolls. " Sally will see it and say, 'What a nice doll you have! Can we play together?' " She's probably just looking for a Gay friend. "As for violence against women, I doubt a child would think violence against a woman would be okay just because he hit or destroyed a doll. A real parent would teach their kids at an early age that violence is wrong and not acceptable." Maybe, maybe not, but for the sake of our women we shouldn't take the chance! I look forward to seeing your arguments. [1] http://articles.orlandosentinel.com... [2] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com... [3] http://www.cnn.com... Previous round Sources [1] http://www.bradley.edu... [2] http://www.cnn.com...
Boys Should Be Allowed to Play with Dolls

Thank you for accepting my argument! Now I understand that little kids are be mean but little kids can also be sweet and understanding. If Little Billy is playing with a doll, than maybe Sally will see it and say, "What a nice doll you have! Can we play together?" You are assuming that all kids will automatically judge Billy because he is doing something different. Yes, there are still gender roles but slowly, they are still changing and when they do, parents will teach their kids differently. Not all children are the same. That and not all boys are the same either. Some boys like to play rough while others prefer to read a book. Honestly, it'll depend on the child. As for violence against women, I doubt a child would think violence against a woman would be okay just because he hit or destroyed a doll. A real parent would teach their kids at an early age that violence is wrong and not acceptable. Your turn!
Boys Should Be Allowed to Play with Dolls

First off lets talk about gender roles, yeah i know its not the 1950's and girls can wear pants and vote, men can cook and clean, but like it or not, gender rolls still exist [2]. Keep this in mind, and now think of what will happen to a boy that plays with dolls, we'll call him billy, he is a first grader, and like most kids loves to play at recess. And on one particular day billy decides to bring his favorite barbie doll's from home, its great they have high heels, they each have their own purse even a car to ride in, I don't know what ever the expensive barbies have. Anyway, He stars to play with them and is having fun. When all of a sudden Grossberger a 3th grader walks by and sees the dolls, he stares then smiles a wicked smile and shouts "Hey everyone billy plays with dolls! " then all the other kids at recess start to laugh and giggle calling him names, which makes poor billy run away, shoving the dolls in his bag as he try's to fight back tears. That's a unfortunate, unfair situation for little bill, but one that could be easily predicted. So boys should not play with dolls because in doing so they risk becoming social outcasts, who are endlessly made fun of. Also, Boys are brutal, ferocious, little things packed full of energy ( i know i was one), they treat toys like south park treat's political correctness (poorly), so if a boy plays with doll's, he'll more then likely smash his doll's with rock's, and make them fight. Well then that's teaching him that violence against women is OK, and that's just terrible!
Legend of the Seeker stays true to The Sword of Truth books.

"Staying true" to a book does not consist of matching a 4 sentence synopsis of it. It may not require matching every detail-- but character, theme, and climax are crucial to the essence of a story. None of the above match, as I have demonstrated. Let's say I took Star Wars. Luke Skywalker still leaves chasing after his android, and stormtroopers kill the couple that raised him. He goes on a mission to aid resistance to the powers that be. Eventually he blows a giant superweapon to bits, and fights his father, pretty much second in command of the universe. Except Luke finds the blueprints for the superweapon and goes mad for a while, blowing both the Jedi and Sith to bits. Is it true to the original story? No. It might be valid art (I enjoy Legend of the Seeker) but its characters are fundamentally different, and indeed so too is the world, however superficially it may copy the plot structure (which by the way, a lot of books have the same basic plot structure-- is The Wheel of Time true to the Sword of Truth? No and vice versa. Different stories, even if in places they can have very similar plot structures. ) ""love conquers all" is a very prevalent theme in the television show actually." Conquers some more like, or it would take more than "having his attention somewhere else" for Kahlan's confession to be a nonneutralized element in the time travel.
Legend of the Seeker stays true to The Sword of Truth books.

In order to "Stay true to a book," you can alter a few details, but not if they are crucial to the climax, theme, or character. In the book, Richard is presented as incorruptible and the boxes of Orden as a neutral force. Indeed, a major theme throughout the books is that power can be used for both good and evil-- by book 3 Richard is indisputably ruler of the same land that his father once was, with the same unconditional authority in both law and fact (Actually MORE in law, even the illusion of Midlands sovereignty is abolished by Richard). In the show, the boxes of Order corrupt Richard on the grounds of too much power. This means we are dealing with a fundamentally different Richard, and, indeed, a fundamentally different moral universe. In the books, love conquers, if not all, at least all illusions of it-- the Confessor's power has no effect on Richard, there is no trace of lack of love for Kahlan for it to overwrite. This is used as a tool in the climax, which deals in the Book 1 theme of "People are stupid." Not understanding the nature of what it is Confession does (not understanding what love is), but nevertheless wanting the consequences enough to believe whatever he's told, Darken Rahl pays the price by opening the wrong box. In the show, Kahlan's confession power is quite powerful toward Richard, even if it reacts with other magic that prevents it from fulfilling its proper purpose, if it were neutral already no such reaction would be possible-- and no other such trick that preserves the "People are stupid" theme is present. Also, the boxes are destroyed in the show. This prevents the series from progressing later on, when Richard (Quite unaided by any confession) uses them to banish the Imperial Order and its sympathizers to our world after creating it. Furthermore, the boxes of Orden ARE supposed to be the gateway to the underworld, the tearer of the veil for the purpose of the stone of tears, in the books. Since they are destroyed, there should be no gate for Darken Rahl to come through.
Legend of the Seeker stays true to The Sword of Truth books.

The Legend of the Seeker, based on Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth book series, has certainly taken some liberties with the show but still stays true to the story. Ignoring all the massive liberties taken with the show I will explain why this show stays true to the books. to an Extent at least. 1. The original story of Richard accepting the position of Seeker and undertaking the quest to defeat Darken Rahl and gather the Boxes of Orden are still there. 2. Zedd is still his Grandfather. 3. Kahlan is still the Mother Confessor. 4. The Mord-Sith were kept exactly the same. 5. Episode 9 Puppeteer was pulled straight from the book with zedd taking the place as Giller. 6. Richard and Kahlan aknowledge that the love they share cannot be acted upon. 7. Season 2. Defeating Darken Rahl tore the veil to the Underworld and it can only be repaired wit the Stone of Tears. 8. Richard becomes Lord Rahl. 9. Little details. Kahlan's special smile, Richard's raptor gaze, Zedd's voracious hunger, the distinctive ring of the Sword of Truth are all in the show. At one point in the show Richard stares continously at Denn'as braid as she is talking to Kahlan. the one thing Richard found pleasing about Denna in the book.
The Big Bang Theory

The Big Bang Theory: So, in this debate I will be arguing that the big bang theory is false. The Big Bang theory says that there was a piece of matter the size of a sugar cube, and it blew up and suddenly there is all these random particles which formed quarks and electrons which formed the nuclease which formed hydrogen atoms. Then they formed nebulas which formed stars which blew up and formed planets. So, first off, how do they know it was the size of a sugar cube, better yet, how do they know that there was one, and what set it off? Why are all the particles exactly even to all like particles, an up quark is equal to all the trillions of up quarks in existence, a down quark is equal to all the down quarks in existence, why? So, after these particles came into existence, how is it that all of them, every single one formed a hydrogen atom, consider this; there are trillions of atoms in your body alone, how many compose earth, how many compose our solar system, our galaxy, our universe, and who knows how many others, and that is how many times this design repeated without fail. So, consider the next part, hydrogen atoms are too small to pull together to form nebulas, remember here, these were the biggest particles at the time, and if it all blew up they would all be dispersed. So then this guy Steven hawking"s, as intelligent as he is, decided to form an entirely new theory, he says that they all "appeared- out of nothing, you heard me right, he says that trillions to the trillionth power to the trillionth power etc. hydrogen atoms, all alike, appeared out of nowhere. Well, we can all thank Steven hawking"s, for his ingenious problem solving, you solve a problem of a ridiculous theory, by coming up with an even more ridiculous theory. ""The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane."- Nikola Tesla
Taking Kid Out Of School For Vacations

School might be for learning but you can also learn stuff from vacations like what is it to have fun and you have fun and you can make lots of friends and party and learn what it is to have different friends and best friends and I think you should be able to take kids out for vacation and teach them how to take care of kids. Going on vacation is one of the best things to do! That's what I say! I think people and their kids should be on vaca for at least 1 time in their lives! Being on vaca=COOL!
It is probable that God exists

This is like debating with a computer... No offence taken, I hope. So what you're saying is, that we don't really know what happened at the true beginning of the universe(if there was one) but that the universe that we can see was once concentrated into one point, just not the whole. Brilliant. And also that the beginning of the universe(if there was one) can be explained by energy that we haven't yet identified, which exists WITHIN the universe. Again, you're creativity astounds me. What happened to the day when intellectuals trusted in logic? Seems if something hasn't been theorized, tested twenty times by five different independent teams of scientific experts, proved, disproved, and proved again, published in four different b.s. scientific journals, and finally had three different mindless books written about it, it can't possibly be true. The "intelligent" rung of humanity has truly gone to the dogs. This will be my last debate. Say what you will. Perhaps I'll be back someday when people finally learn to use that thing between their ears, and realize the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Thank you, and good night.
It is probable that God exists

Unfortunately, I did not realize that the debate was only 1 day to argue, so please forgive me if this is not the best rebuttal. ==REFUTATION OF PRO'S OPENING ARGUMENTS==I want to first apologize if I do not fully understand your arguments. My opponent has argued that the universe had a beginning. If I were to grant this to my opponent, why should I think that God is the only "prime mover" or cause of the universe? My opponent's arguments can be summed up as followed: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe had a cause. Indeed, if the universe has a cause, then my opponent must answer why God is the only cause there could possibly be. Is the Big Bang the cause of the universe? I want to examine the evidence for the Big Bang Theory, the theory I hold to be true. However, before we do such a thing, we need to know what the BBT actually says. The BBT says, "In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler. " [1] 1) Large-scale homogeneity One of the key assumptions made in the BBT is that the universe is, at some scale, homogenous. On a large scale, this is true as can be seen from the plot above [2]. This is exactly what the BBT predicts. how can the universe be infinitely old? This is the key objection that my opponent is arguing. The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big Bang. However, the observable Universe was concentrated into a point. The distinction between the whole Universe and the part we can see is important. Take a look at the image below. On the left for 1 Gyr after the BB, and on the right is the current Universe 13 Gyr after the BBT [3]. The size of the box in each view represents 78 billion light years. The green circle, on the other hand, is the part of the Universe that we can currently see. On the left, the same part of the Universe is shown by the green circle, but the green circle is just a tiny fraction of the 78 byl box. The 78 billion light year box is always full, and it is always an infinitesimal fraction of the infinite universe [4]. Something Cannot Come From NothingThis is another key point that I shall elaborate on. First, when scientists say the word "nothing" when discribing the Big Bang, they do not mean the word as we know it. In fact, a vaccum is not empty. Take a look at this chart. What we see is that 73% of the matter in the Universe is dark energy (i. e. , energy that cannot be seen) [5]. This refutes the idea that the universe came out of nowhere. Morover, we know that something can, in fact, come from nothing. In quantum field theory, we call these things "vacuum fluctuations. " [6] | CONCLUSION |I have given support for the Big Bang Theory, and shown why my opponent's resolution that the Universe had to come from God is false. Thanks! ____________Reference[1] . http://www.talkorigins.org...;[2] . http://www.talkorigins.org...;[3] . http://www.astro.ucla.edu...;[4] Ibid. [5] . http://www.talkorigins.org...;[6] . http://www.talkorigins.org...;
It is probable that God exists

Thank you for challenging me to this debate. I assume the first round is for acceptance only. Just to clarify, "God" will be defined with the attributes that are commonly associated with the Judeo-Christian God. (These attributes include, but not limited to: (1) All powerful, (2) All-good, (3) Perfect in every way, (4) Present everywhere, (5) Free will, and (6) Transcendent). Good luck.
Should schools require uniforms

My final argument is that uniforms are often uncomfortable. Uniforms are often not available in plus sizes which can be hard for kids that wear a larger size. Also uniforms can often be stiff or scratchy. You definitely do not want kids to be messing with their uncomfortable clothes all day instead of focusing. This may be short but my final argument is that uniforms are sometimes made with a see through fabric, which can cause girls undergarments to show through, which can cause the girls to be made fun of.
Should schools require uniforms

Being bullied by kids because you wear uniforms does happen a lot, but If all schools started having their students wear uniforms it would be less of a problem. So if you wore uniforms in 5th grade and then switched to 6th there wouldn't be any discrimination towards other students. Also, whether you wear uniforms or not you will always be stereotyped, wearing uniforms prevents you from being further stereotyped based on the style of your clothing, if everyone chose their own clothes, one kid may be called gay because he likes to wear pink shirts even if he is not gay, or a girl might be called poor if her clothes are all stained and worn and she might just be living with parents who don't take the time to buy her new clothes. Wearing uniforms prevents kids from judging each other because they are all put on the same level wearing the same thing.
Should schools require uniforms

I also believe that students at other schools and members of the public may judge students by their uniforms. When I was a kid in elementary school we had to wear uniforms. When I got to Middle School and did not have to wear a uniform all the kids their judged me and bullied me because they thought kids that wore uniforms were snobs. I don't know why they thought this, I guess it was just implanted into their brains by society. Therefore, not wearing uniforms will help prevent students from being stereotyped. Also, uniforms are often dry clean only and that can be expensive for the families.
Should schools require uniforms

I Believe that school uniforms should be in all schools. it would teach kids to accept each other more and help kids find themselves, instead of worrying about how to fit in as far as dressing goes, and it would help kids follow the dress code of their school. If more schools required that a student wear uniforms maybe they wouldn't be so expensive but there are places you can get them cheap, just like every other expensive thing in this world , and usually a school will offer a loan uniform to the kids who can't afford one.