BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Politic... The Penal Judicial System Reform

I beleive that the media representation that depicts free lawyers for criminals is misleading because to many Americans beleive that civil law is also free. Further more, too many Americans are losing property and other rights because there is no such thing as a free civil lawyer. I am impressed by the bravery of our policemen in making arrests in car chases, bank robberies, and I understand that they must be tough and sometimes even brutal in these instances. However, the media shows no honest representation of the vast numbers of losers in civil courts; and what is even more dangerous is outcomes of trials that is biased politically. Particularly when either litigants attorney may have a secret agreement with the other litigants attorney.
Politic... The Penal Judicial System Reform

I'm assuming you endorse a Penal Judicial System Reform, but you don't specifically address what this reform will entail. I assume this reform is limited to: 1. Getting rid of court appointed lawyers. I can't see how the claims you make later on can be addressed by reform. If you offer a method of reform, I will gladly debate it. Your case starts out with the incorrect premise that everyone who is given a "free civil lawyer" is a criminal. The initial reason people are assigned lawyers is to ascertain whether or not they are indeed criminals or simply an innocent who stands accused. I will start by refuting your points (as far as I could distinguish them). 1. "Too many Americans are losing property and other rights because there is no such thing as a free civil lawyer." Subpoint A:The most important thing our justice system can achieve is an accurate trial with a suiting punishment. That is justice. That being said, due to human error 100% accuracy is something that is impossible to attain. Instead, our justice system settles for creating arbitrary rules that ensure fairness. The paramount responsibility of our justice system is to ensure fairness in the course of attaining accuracy. This entails making sure everyone is represented by someone who understands the law. Of course, it's impossible to make sure that everyone's lawyer will be of equal skill. We can however ensure that everyone has a lawyer who can properly defend them. Claim: Making sure everyone has a lawyer is important to establish a level playing field, which is necessary for fairness. Subpoint B: The Social Contract states that people give up some rights to ensure other rights are protected. For example, we give up taxes so that we may enjoy social services. Our Constitution promises us the right to a fair trial. For the protection of this right, we give up (to some extent) the right to property (taxes). Since we give up these taxes anyway, and we are first and foremost promised a fair trial, it isn't an infringement of our rights to use our taxes to fund the court appointed lawyer system. Claim: The right to a fair trial outweighs the potential right to property. Beyond the getting rid of the free lawyers, I don't see what reforms you endorse. So I will approach this debate through two perspectives: 1. (First and foremost) Ensuring that the right's guarenteed to us by our social contract are upheld. 2. Making sure Utility is best served.
In Western Countries, Men's rights are more of an issue than Women's rights.

You have laid out a lot of interesting point in your previous article but I still disagree with you on a fundamental level 1. Women are not equally represented in government for despite the 50% population of women they represent only 20% of government positions http://www.thenation.com... 2.Women in the US before Obamacare were denied basic health services in their insurance such as birth control because it violated other peoples beliefs http://abcnews.go.com... 3.Women are slightly more likely to be abused in a relationship http://www.saveservices.org... 4.Laws that fail to account for the special needs of women in pregnancy (this was the worst one I found) http://www.nytimes.com... 5. Catcalling women is social acceptable The video is interesting but what I find really interesting is videos made to criticize this video that blame the women for wearing to attractive clothes or how she was asking for it because that opinion is unfortunately socially acceptable at least in America (I've only been across the pond once) 6. Women are offered less for the same type of job http://www.bloomberg.com... http://thinkprogress.org... http://blogs.scientificamerican.com... http://gender.stanford.edu... 7. Women are significantly less likely to be extremely wealthy http://fortune.com... 8. Despite Quotas in Britain women are still not equally represented in government http://www.ukpolitical.info... Conclusion although you make very interesting points in your argument by law men have more freedom than men thus I can not see this belief as honest.
In Western Countries, Men's rights are more of an issue than Women's rights.

Hello, I am Jacob Gibbs.Resolution: Talking only about issues directly affecting the social equality (or lack of) in developed Western countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States of America, Men's rights are more of an issue than Women's rights.DefinitionsMen's rights: Issues in which social inequality is a result of decisions/choices, whether consciously or subconsciously, motivated by a hatred, or discrimination against, men.Women's rights: Issues in which social inequality is a result of decisions/choices, whether consciously or subconsciously, motivated by a hatred, or discrimination against, women.(+ for the purpose of the debate, Social (in/)equality relates to (in/)equality of opportunity, not (in/)equality of outcomeRules1. No abuse of semantics.2. No resorts to insults or personal attacks.3. All Terms of Service apply.4. Breaking any rule constitutes a forfeit.StructureRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - ArgumentsRound 3 - Rebuttals
In Western Countries, Men's rights are more of an issue than Women's rights.

domestic violence First of all the source I used if you rad it said that men were victims of abuse in a relationship 40% of the time while for women it was closer to 50% so I did not clarify the exact number because it was in my source. I also made no claim that men are not abused in a relationship but simply that men are more often the abusers http://www.saveservices.org... lower pay jobs My opponent has just said that women are likely to get higher pay if they have a Doctorate which a very small percentage of America actually has however my sources account for the general workforce and was done by prestigious university such as Yale which as in my source shows that women were offered up to 11,000 dollars less than men Effect on work place performance How does this have anything to do with equality? Popularity I find this ironic because you claim that the number of women in goverment dose not matter because it has no correlation with discrimination but now because men are earning a lower percentage of jobs in goverment its discrimination. That is truly hypocrisy at its finest standards so if women treated men like women it wouldn't be seen as sexist? women view on men apparently 1000 women represent the views of 3,500,000,000 living in the world because your source was a poll of 1000 adults Feminist Bias in media Why on earth would you use fox news as a source? Sorry I can not continue this but know that I argue this as a man who thinks its frankly dangerous to assume the fight for female equality is over
Barack Obama is irrational.

One of Barack Obama's main rallying cries is that Washington is broken, that John McCain and Hillary Clinton have been part of the problem, not the solution. But the only thing Obama will do is expand Washington's power and control like WE'VE NEVER SEEN IN OUR 200+ YEARS AS A COUNTRY (with exception to the New Deal, from the socialist democrat darling FDR). Through nationalized health care, increasing taxes, environmental protectionism, business and corporate regulation, and more bureaucracy, Obama's future plan for Washington makes no sense at all with his original claim. If Washington is the problem and we need change, expanding Washington's power and control is the exact opposite solution that we need. His stance makes no sense and is completely irrational.
Barack Obama is irrational.

Thank you for starting the debate. My opponent's entire argument reasts on a logical fallacy. This fallacy is that the only possible way to fix governmental problems is to limit the government. While this is certainly an option, it is not the only option, and other options are not irrational. There is no reason why creating the right programs within the government can't correct certain governmental problems. Now, looking at my opponent's case against Obama point by point. On health care, Obama wants to create a system where people that need health care can get it. Obama says that Washington is "broken" here, because the government fails to provide for its people. On environmental protectionism, yeah, he wants to protect the environment. Using the government as a tool to reduce pollution isn't' in the least bit irrational. The government is "broken" here because it is inefficient in protecting the environment. Obama wants to change that. On business regulation, we live in a time where companies outsource and here illegal immigrants a lot. Some regulation is a good thing in order to keep these companies in line so they serve Americans as best they can. The government is "broken" here because it fails to keep these companies in line. On taxes, Obama wants to repeal certain tax cuts on the upper classes in order to pay for these programs. I realize a lot of people don't like taxes, but the money for correcting these problems has to come from somewhere. Obama has, several times, admitted that fixing these problems won't be easy, and that we'll all have to make sacrifices. This is true. If it means that you have to pay higher taxes, deal with it. It's not irrational. As far as the bureaucracy goes, I don't' see any evidence for this. It really just seems like a straw man argument. In order for you to accept my opponent's case, you have to accept that the only rational solution to governmental problems is libertarianism. While I do not negate the possible advantages of libertarianism, it is not the openly rational solution. There is no reason why putting certain governmental programs in place can't correct certain problems. Just because you don't think Obama's plan is the best doesn't make it irrational.
Global warming is a bigger issue than World Peace

Alright. First things first (I'm the realest..gosh that song's old), if we were to ensure the cooperation of our world organization, then we could accomplish so much more! Our world is run on money and competition. Greed is embodied into our human nature. However, if we were to collaborate, we could tackle this problem of global warming together. Thus, world peace places a higher priority on our list than global warming. Next, let's again remind ourselves that the rate of increase in temperature is 0.00612 degrees Fahrenheit per year. This minuscule figure tells us that we should have nothing to worry about. Therefore, I'd like to kindly remind Pro to chill out (pun intended) and remember that the world isn't anywhere near falling over the pit yet. Because of our natural urge to want more for ourselves, yes, we do fight wars over resources. Pro states it himself-they can contribute to the fire that fuels the flame for a war. However, we are nowhere near burning up. Therefore, I conclude my argument, and thus, the debate, with the notion that our society as the human race should focus on discontinue our quarrels and turn our eyes to the greater issues. After all, what good is trying to organize countries at war?
Global warming is a bigger issue than World Peace

Sorry for my long delay, I have been busy Argument: While it is true that currently the climb of global warming is slow, just wait for the "point of no return." Haven't heard of it? There are multiple website talking about it, so go search it up. Anyway, the point of no return is basically the fact that when global warming reaches a point of badness, it will tumble, pick up speed, and there will be no way to stop it. One example of this are the polar ice caps melting. As more ice melts, there is more water to attract warmth. As the water gets warmer, the ice melts faster. See how that could tumble out of control? Now, how does this have to do with anything? Well, there will be a "runaway" in global warming. What is currently a really small amount increase per year, could very well become catastrophic, maybe even 0.5 degrees a year. And it will be near impossible to stop it. If things don't change by 2020, we will hit the point of no return by 2042. Rising temperatures can cause major drought and wildfires (just look at California,) and it can even cause computers to over heat. Imagine what would happen if hospital machines, machines keeping people alive, over heated because of the 120 or so degree Fahrenheit temperatures that could be seen if we don't stop global warming from tipping to the deep end. If all of a sudden, there were no more wars, how would we get everyone to get together, be friends, and stop global warming in such a small time frame. Remember, most of the world's economies rely of burning coal and oil, which causes global warming. So, even if everyone unified all of a sudden, which isn't very likely, there would be a huge risk of destroying all economies to fix it. And if everyone destroy's their economy to fix global warming, how can they help the others with dead economies. Huh, not very black and white, is it?
Global warming is a bigger issue than World Peace

First off, Pro states that plants would be shriveling and dying because of the greater temperature. I'd like to point out that while that is a sobering possibility, it wouldn't be happening anywhere in the near future. According to the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, the global temperature has risen 1.53 (Fahrenheit) since the Industrial Revolution. In about two and a half centuries, our global temperature has only gone up by that non-remarkable amount (0.00612 per year). In 50 years, our global temperature will have risen only .3 degrees Fahrenheit. I don't believe that's a large enough amount to carry any significance in it. As for the prospect of weighing human lives on a scale, so many more lives would be saved if we were to have world peace. Pro states that wars only occur every 20 or so years and cause tens of millions of inexcusable deaths, however, global warming causes 400,000 deaths a year. I'd like to point out that these figures are questionable, and that even if tens of millions of people did die in these "superwars" that occur every other decade, the proportion of deaths per year is greater by that of which caused by war. (ten million / 20 = 500,000). Next, wars don't occur just every 20 years. Especially from our developed country's biased eye, we love to twist figures. Our globe is in chaos right now. Just look at the Yemen Civil War or the infamous ISIS fight. It doesn't take an extremely bloody war to capture our attention. We have the power to destroy ourselves right now, and the only thing stopping us from doing so is the knowledge that others contain that power also. War is a terrible thing, and world cooperation would be the easiest solution to our problems.
Global warming is a bigger issue than World Peace

First, this is my first time debating, so apologizes for some mistakes Argument: Hunger you say? That's going to be hard to fix if all the plants are shriveling and dying because of the over-livable heat! Many websites say that if global warming was stopped, it would help world peace a lot. Oil and coal are major contributors in a strong economy, and can be a large point in a war. If we stop global warming by not burning and using the resources, we no longer have that strong reason to go to war. Also, global warming is causing a lot more than fiercer storms. Lots of people may die in wars, but how many people are dying by abnormally large tsunamis and hurricanes, which are larger due to global warming. War happens once every 20 or so years and kill a few ten million each time, which is a lot and is inexcusable. Global warming, however, kills about 400,000 people a year[1] (through means of tsunamis, hurricanes, etc.), and that number is constantly growing. True, it currently doesn't kill as many as wars do, but what about in 50 years? [1] http://goo.gl...
Global warming is a bigger issue than World Peace

As for the topic of the debate: I do believe that global warming is not our greatest issue. World peace is an issue of the utmost urgency. Pro states that despite having wars, "we are still alive and 'healthy. '" However, I'd like to point out that our world is in turmoil today. Global warming only causes fiercer storms, while the agitation in the world produces a much sharper hunger for a reaction.
Global warming is a bigger issue than World Peace

Global Warming. It is our biggest issue. I didn"t choose world peace because we were always be fighting. For as long as we have lived, we have fought. And yet, we are still alive and "healthy". Global warming, on the other hand, is a new problem. A new problem that isn"t going away. Our ice caps are melting, raising our temperatures and killing hundreds of arctic animals. By raising temperatures, it"s evaporating more water, making the ground dryer, making it harder for plants to grow. Less plants, less food, less people. Not to mention the fact that it"s incredibly uncomfortable to be in super hot weather. Plus, if global warming is stopped by no longer burning oil, there is no longer the danger of what would happen if there is no more oil to burn. In short, wars will always be a problem, but it will never threaten our extinction. Unless stopped, global warming will.
Schools and government

Dear Rose212, I am not talking only about America. I am talking about what is happening globally. And in my opinion, low test scores have nothing to do with how governments influence schools with their beliefs. Students still know things, even with the low test scores and the low literacy rates. And if you still believe that schools and government have no relationship between them, then why some researchers show that people with low literacy rate tend to believe easier what is said to them? so, they will believe what they are told without any second thoughts or doubts about what they have heard. About the wars section. Yes, indeed we have wars but each country tries to make its citizens believe that they werent responsible about it. And like i have previously said, Cypriots learn the cypriot side and Turskish people the turkish side without being sure if what they have just learned is true or not. They just believe it because its their country telling something and they learn it from primary education until highschool or until college! So, in order to keep the government up dont they do it from schools?
Schools and government

@Rose212 I dont disagree with you. However, dont you think that governments put students learn what they want them too? For example, in history books, each country shows what they want them to learn and believe. For example, Americans learn that america hasnt done any mistakes and dont know the whole story. Another example is with Cyprus. In their history books they learn that Turkish done horrible thing during the war of 74 and Turkish's in their history books show that they did the war just to keep peace and that the turkish people who were at the island were at risk so they came to save them. So what side is the correct one? no one really knows, except from the governments and those who signed different contracts during the war. So each government provides students with the information they want them to know. To sum up, i still believe that schools keep the government alive.
Schools and government

School's don't keep the government alive. Many students lack off in school, and don't do his/her work. According to a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy, 32 million adults in the United States cannot read. That's 14 percent of the population. 21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates can't read. In the dictionary the definition for the word, "government" is; the governing body of a nation, state, or community. How do school's keep the government alive?
Did Jesus commit suicide? He foreseen his betrayal and death.

Jesus had very free will. He very easily could have gotten out of Dodge and avoided his foreseen and predicted death. Whether it was a ticking bomb or a speeding train or a bunch of servants ordered by authorities under strict control He willingly sacrificed Himself for a cause. Certainly a good cause indeed, but a voluntary submission to be killed. I do agree that Jesus would never have committed suicide without a higher purpose. I'm convinced that Jesus committed martyrdom and not conventional suicide. You win the debate. You don't need to explain to me what a train is, it was my story. I look forward to future debates.----->Face-of-the-deep
Did Jesus commit suicide? He foreseen his betrayal and death.

"I had no idea that sitting in my car after it stalls on the railroad tracks and letting the train hit me, in not suicide. I only wish the insurance company and the law agreed." Well, it's not exactly that simple. The action of allowing the train to hit you in the vast majority of cases essentially takes the away the agency of the train driver. Let me explain further, the train driver often cannot stop in time to prevent the death of the individual. That's why the individual in question would be committing suicide. He is taking advantage of the lack of control a train to end their own life. The only one with free will in the scenario is the individual, as any choice the driver makes will result in the death of person choosing to end their life. Pilate chose to have Jesus executed. Jesus did allow it, but the people who brought him to Pilate, Pilate who ordered the execution, and the people who put him on the cross all had their free will. They could have refused to go any further with the execution of Jesus. Would it have been futile? Yes. Would Jesus have been executed anyway? Definitely. However, those people still chose to end Jesus' life. You are the only one choosing to end your life in the train scenario. "So if I pay you to kill me, it's not my action but only yours?" Legally, yes. "I know we are talking about Christianity, but in other religions allowing yourself to be killed for a higher cause is supposed to be a Holy act, isn't it?" First, we aren't talking about other religions so this is completely irrelevant. Second, even if we were, allowing yourself to be killed is not suicide. I await my opponents final response.
Did Jesus commit suicide? He foreseen his betrayal and death.

I had no idea that sitting in my car after it stalls on the railroad tracks and letting the train hit me, in not suicide. I only wish the insurance company and the law agreed. So if I pay you to kill me, it's not my action but only yours? I know we are talking about Christianity, but in other religions allowing yourself to be killed for a higher cause is supposed to be a Holy act, isn't it?