BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women are more sexually driven than men

So your stance is that a woman's sexual desire via chemical make up causes them to have less of an urge than a male? After carefully reading your statement, it would seem that this would actually mean that women still have more of a sexual desire than men. This evolution of the libido would mean that she would need to have sex continually in order to ensure she had babies. If her physical signs decreased to show she was in heat, how would she have b able to let males know she needed sex? She would change her life style, make herself more attractive. She would present herself in a more flirtatious way. She would manipulate herself in order to cause males to find her more desirable, since there would be no obvious signs. Which brings me back to my first points that I had in my original argument, in regards to the professions women choose to participate in and their looks. From my previous debate: [Jobs: there are more sex driven jobs for women than men. Pornography, prostitution, stripping, modeling, and possibly more that I am missing. Now you say "but those jobs were created by men for men", while there is historical evidence to show this, it has continued to the modern age, and is no longer forced sex slavery (though that is unfortunately still around) rather women willingly partake in these professions. This means that they only survive because of the consent of WOMEN not men. Using their bodies in an erotic way, encouraging sensual feelings. Looks: women, staggeringly more so than men, care about their appearance. In the animal kingdom, the gender that wants to encourage intercourse has a flashier, extravagant appearance, while the gender that is made to be sexed on is plainer. We see this in many aviary species (an easy example is peacocks), snakes, and some mammals, such as lions. True, within these species, the pretty ones are the males, still the principal applies. Women go out of their way to improve upon their appearance, by way of makeup, fashion, hairdo's, jewellery, etc with rare exceptions. Men, however, go out as they are from when they woke up for the most part. Yes, men groom, but not nearly to the extent women do. Fashion is a large factor in this. As anyone who has not lived in a cave can see, women fashion has begun to highlight the female persona more now than in the past, specifically on the breasts and hip area. This would not matter if women willingly chose to not wear these promiscuous garments. But they do, and it is becoming more widely accepted.] In both these cases, it is the females who are attempting to stir sexual feelings. They want it more than men, they just make men think they do. They want babies, and as you said, have no way to natural indicate that the time is right. Thus, they would need to have sex continually in order to assure they could ad would reproduce. You can't have an effect without a cause, and it seems women are just that cause. Therefore, they are the more sexually driven, and men are just poor suckers. On a personal note: Alaska. How cool is that?
Women are more sexually driven than men

I'm sorry that dumbsh*t decided to ruin your last debate. I emphathize. You asked for a female to debate you on this topic so here I am. Women are more sexually driven than men. I'm going to argue 'con' or against such a statement. I begin with some of my reasons: Each and every animal in the animal kingdom is subject to adaptive evolution to ensure the survival of it's species. Human evolution is particularly interesting where it has diverged from other mammals and even other primates. From the very beginning, human females have always had a cyclical libido. In light of this, it would make sense from a biological standpoint for males to develop the ingrained 'Copulative Imperative' or Male Biological Urge to Spread His Seed. The goal? To copulate with and impregnate as many females as possible within his lifetime to ensure that his genes are carried on through the next generations. This proved beneficial to both parties in the beginning because A: he was able to ensure his own success at producing offspring and B: his high libido would create a constant state of 'readiness' whenever her cycle came at the right moment to produce the right hormones and PH Balance that are conducive to conception and childbirth. And that is when things get very interesting... Unlike any other primate on God's green planet, the human female did something very unique. It HID itself. Chimps, Gorillas and Monkies all share a similar 'visual' period of ovulation in which the female exhibits certain behaviors and her buttocks and/or vagina swell and turn bright red to indicate when she is heat. Human females evolved so that not only could the males around her cannot tell if she's in heat but even if the female herself doesn't know when she's in heat. Human ovulation is a complete mystery and only today's powerful microscopes are able to tell for sure. "So what's the big deal?" you might ask. Well, this little fact changed everything about human sexuality and behavior. First, her libido had also decreased to reflect her subtle ovulation. If a male wasn't able to tell if a woman was ovulating, then he couldn't be sure that his copulation with her would successfully produce offspring. This breakthrough in female human evolution had evolved specifically to manipulate the male into sticking around for longer periods of time to ensure that A: she would produce offspring and B: that the offspring actually belonged to him and he wasn't cuckholded by another male. She evolved this hidden ovulation mechanism for a good purpose. Offspring have a better chance of survival when cared for by two parents. She and her baby were far better off with the male's hunting skills, protection and shelter. She could accomplish this and so much more not by increasing her libido, but by decreasing it to ensure that the male would stick with her even longer. I have so much more! But I need to let you go first..
The MPAA rating system is a useless entity

My opponent misinterprets my argument. Before I proceed here is a video: . http://www.youtube.com...Ok lets proceed. I never argued the actual problem was society, rather the ratings actual meaning is subjective towards parents. In today's society, everyone sees violence my 10 year old sister watches R movies (if the only reason is the violence). The point is mild violence in kids shows (you know like kung fu panda or something) is alright in societies standards. You have failed to see my argument. Then my opponent again goes on lists on how the boards are biased. Every board that rates somethings are bias, people reading books and writing reviews are bias, so anything with a bias is now useless. Some bias is good, they generally are biased towards drugs, sex, and language. Violence has some bias but is slightly less moderated. My opponent has failed to show the MPAA prevents sex language etc in to movies. As stated, if there was no rating parents might bring their kids to movies full of sex or drug references. So these "biases" prevent people from being exposed to this stuff. Also having a conservative leader means more STRICT MORE STRICT ratings, hence it should be beneficial. Now my opponents points are refuted, my opponent drops these arguments:> Movie ratings generally prevent drugs, sex, and language from kids movies> Stakeholders > How the MPAA ratings are surveyed and therefore generally in touch with society > Board members/raters parents > How the movies he cited where rated wrongly where actually rated correct in MPAA standards and with society> Producers paying to have their films to be rated is not political lobbying, they are paying for a service (my opponent argues lobbying, refuted round 3)> Privacy of board members> Never responded to BOP, hence has the full BOP> Help make guidelines to prevent people from watching inappropriate things (r2)> Inform parents (r1-2)> Great tool for parents I missed a few from round 1, but this is the whole debate. My opponent makes red herrings which I refuted and then at then he tries to funnel the debate on one issue that he has a chance at winning: How the MPAA is bias with society. I have refuted this last and this round, hence the only issue he was banking on was refuted. As my opponent drops almost all of the argunments in the debate, argunments to con are warented. To make a summary:S/G - My opponent int he early part of the debate using text massage language, no capital I's. Neglects to put spaces in between paragraphs. Point to CON. Arguments - My opponent dropped nearly single argument in this debate Conduct - You choose, I think its tied. Sources - We both had sources, tied.
The MPAA rating system is a useless entity

I see that my opponent argues that it is not the fault of the MPAA but our soceity. However, the board members of the MPAA bring in biasness from their own areas of life. Take for instance, Joan Grave the previous chairman for the MPAA, she is conservative. The final ratings go through her and this means if she has a background of being conservative she is going to usally tend to keep movie ratings the same. You contradict yourself by saying the ratings do change overtime due to soceity. It is actually the board members biasness that contriubtes to faulty ratings.
The MPAA rating system is a useless entity

My opponent shows he has not read my argument, I claimed his last paragraph was a rant (cant tell if its a blob or a paragraph) because he mainly argued red herrings and subjective opinions. My opponent then claims my views on if the board should be kept secret refutes my point, but contrary. Your argument was secret boards are bad, I refuted this as I proves ALL boards outside the US where not secret. Hence your argument is refuted. And my views on whether it should be secret apply to US MPAA meetings. My opponent has mainly dodged the argument and tries to twist the meanings to benefit him. My opponent then argues the parents ratings to not go with the majority, but fails to look at my former arguments of the MPAA takes surveys of parents and fixes the problems so that they do fit the majority opinion. [1] My opponent ignores this fact, again: "Parents decide the ratings. An independent board of parents rates each film. Their job is not to determine if a movie is "good" or "bad," but to rate each film as they believe a majority of their fellow parents would rate the film — taking into account sexuality, violence, language and other factors. The purpose of the ratings system is to provide clear, concise advance information to parents about film content so parents can determine what movies are appropriate for their kids while preserving freedom of expression for filmmakers and the film industry."[2] My opponent has failed to argue having an approval is "bad". A stakeholder is merely someone who gets affected by a large amount by that companies action. [3] And their support is vital to its living. This is not bad, ALL or MOST companies have this in their system, this means all companies are bad. My opponent still has not defended his faulty reasoning. ALL companies represent stakeholders, hence your argument means all entities need to be banned. Further, most of the stakeholders we are talking about are the parents that are elected to the ratings boards and the people themselves. Most parents support the MPAA. So the point is, your argument here is flawed and is mainly a red herring. My opponent is then trying to cause me to source load on how "g" movies are accurate etc. Showing a source is not an argument, I have learned this over time. One study, though as my opponent is so eager, shows the MPAA is good at reducing drugs, sex, and language and is good at regulating those, but fails in preventing violence. www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org So it prevents all things, and as society is welcoming of violence I see no problem of this. CONCLUSION: My opponent still has he FULL BOP, and has failed, in all cases. I have clearly make room for a lot of doubt in his points, hence a CON vote is still warranted. 1. http://kidstvmovies.about.com... 2. http://www.mpaa.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The MPAA rating system is a useless entity

My opponent has now said I gone in a rant and that I did not include that this only not about USA because did not mention that. Yes you are right about these statements. However, let me clarify that your statement of parents being the board room in round 2. You said that they are there and later on round 3 that they should be keep secret. But, if you do not know these members how can you even state that they are parents, let a lone in the best interest of all parents like this is even possible. Answer Me this please HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT these supposed "parents" get the right rating that a majority of parents agree with. OFCOURSE THEY CANNOT you know why? because the MPAA board do not conduct surveys, they do not go state to state asking people about how they are doing their job. You know what they do they state on their website MPAA.org that " the MPAA as 80 percent approval rating among STAKEHOLDERS" If the MPAA are representing stakeholders WHY HAVE THIS ENTITY. This organization wants to seem important BUT THEY ARE NOT EVEN close to importance in this society, on the contrary, they made everyone believe that they are. SHOW ME empirical studies where they found about the usefulness of these ratings. I have shown in ROUND 1 that there is evidence that these ratings a re inaccurate in the 'G' article I stated ROUND 1.
The MPAA rating system is a useless entity

My opponent is trying to reverse my argument from ratings move with society to society moves with ratings. This makes no logical sense. When people are creating a rating for, oh, my little pony they will likely say will my kid care that they are singing this song? They will not likely think oh this needs to be rated R because its gay. No, they go based on language and what parents PARENTS THINK (society changes what they think). If anything it is a both way thing, as if the rating change due to society society will adapt. So if anything, the rating goes one way the other goes another. My opponent here is saying look lets compare this to a documentary. One got rated R the other PG-13. I have watched the movie kings speech, it has very very vulgar language. Some (most) parents would disprove. It is rated 'R' for language. My opponent fails in the argument on producers as it does not look at how they are paid. "In turn, the board is funded by film distributors and producers, who pay a fee to have their films rated."[1] Its not like political lobbying, its like paying for any other service. Keeping rating board members is not bad at all, its basic decency and privacy. You also point out only the US keeps it secret, but this helps my case as you never said in the resolution nor your round 1 statement that this debate was limited to the US. Hence this point fails to hurt the MPAA in other countries. My opponent then goes on a tangent that seems to have little backing behind it, mainly an opinion rant like a low quality blog. So I will not even refute it. My opponent still has the FULL BOP yet has failed to refute my case (drops much of it) and as he has the full BOP still fails to prove it is fully useless... 1. http://parentpreviews.com...
The MPAA rating system is a useless entity

Now, i want to understand clearly what you are trying to say. You said parents and adults make the MPAA. then you say that society influences how things are rated. yes this does seem valid argument , however, now you are assuming that film ratings are strictly influenced from society. Could it not be that society is influenced by these ratings. let me remind you, that my argument about Hunger games is not to say that they didnt deserve rated R but that compared to the Documentary bull, which got a Rated R because a few curses. Do you approve of that. Another thing you fail to mention was that the MPAA rating system is funded from large studious. So dont you think that the MPAA have to adhere to these movies like hunger games, which came from big studios. The funny thing you are quick to point out that there are adults and PARENTS in these boards that rate films. But do you know we are the only country in the world that keeps our board secret. Now how pathetic is it to hear from the chairman the reason for this is because this will relieve pressure from big studious to persuade the parents. But if the parents are in it for the better intention then why does it matter? Does the MPAA do not trust the outside wolrd. Well, why should we ever trust them. I say kick them to the curve look at the internet they have no rating system. LOOk the world is still standing. The MPAA is a useless entity because they make themselves seem to be an important organization when they are just trying to seem important. Sure you got me when you said parents do use the mpaa rating as a guide. BUT DO ALL PARENTS ACROSS THE U.S. use their guide. Matter of fact. I tried prove to you this organization lack to help people to see directly what is precisely being objected. SOURCES http://www.imdb.com... Sylveste, S. (1999) MPAA ratings system gets F from critics, filmmakers. Retrieved from http://articles.cnn.com... Graves, J. (2008) The movie rating system: Its history, how it works, and its enduring value. Retrieved from www.mpaa.org Jacobson, J. (2000) 'G' isn't always 'good' for kids. Retrieved from http://www.media-awareness.ca... Ann, A. (2007) The case for and against the mpaa. Retrieved from http://articles.cnn.com... Toone, T. (2011) MPAA ratings: Organization says it's 'for parents by parents,' but critics question system. Retrieved from http://www.deseretnews.com... David, B. (2011) As "The King's Speech" receives a new PG-13 rating. Retrieved from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com... Chetwynd, J. (2006) Escaping "r" bondage. Retrieved from http://www.media-awareness.ca...
The MPAA rating system is a useless entity

The MPAA rating systems goal as outlined by my opponent is to rate films G, PG, PG-13, R, etc. My opponent does get that correct. Now, my opponents case fails as it argues the rating has "no effect". But this makes no sense, you ask any kid (well most) and these kids that where 6 years old probably did not watch R movies. The MPAA creates a situation where the parents can easily see if it is age appropriate, or what they feel is age appropriate for their kids. As the MPAA notes: "The MPAA wants to help parents make informed decisions about what their kids are watching whether it's in the theater, at home or online. We've pulled together a guide for parents to learn more about film, TV and video game ratings as well as how to avoid dangers in the online environment. "[1] The MPAA and their ratings also talk about piracy, the rating talks about pornography (a rated G movie wont have pornography) etc. Saying the MPAA is useless is not defensible, as already I have proved it has some effects. The MPAA rating DOES NOT show if the movie is "good" or bad. The rating gives parents an idea of what content based on how appropriate the movie is. The MPAA gives a before hand peak. If it is rated R for violence, parents know there will be violence in there. If its rated G for general audiences they will be able to know its appropriate for anyone. As the MPAA notes: "Movie ratings provide parents with advance information about the content of films, so they can determine what movies are appropriate for their young children to see. Movie ratings do not determine whether a film is "good" or "bad." They simply provide basic information to parents about the level of various elements in the film, such as sex, violence and language so that parents can decide what their children can and cannot see." [2] This means the ratings give a clear message to parents, does my kid want to watch this? Well maybe, but what do I feel. Do I want to watch this? The MPAA rating is very useful to parents. And the best part: the ratings are selected by parents too. On November 1st, 1968, the modern system was born. It now still exists and flourishes today, and keeps parents informed. "More than 40 years later, the rating system endures and evolves as a useful and valued tool for parents and an essential guardian of Americans' freedom of artistic, creative and political expression."[3] 1. http://www.mpaa.org... 2. http://www.mpaa.org... 3. http://www.mpaa.org...
We cannot know reality without the Christian God

The 3 Philosophies presented by my opponent did not disprove that God was a necessary component of their functioning. The 3 theories he presented first hand were Not facts, but also did not disprove God's presence. As God, by definition - with no further parameters - is what gives those theories causality. Furthermore I presented the fact that we can discern the validity of one God over another, because Creation is substantially provable through science. The planet left a geographical mark when it expanded from within itself on the third day of creation, which is through the science of physics Factually the event which would take place given the model of creation when applied to the laws of physics: ~ there was darkness (no perceived element of Light, as it is today) yet there was matter, and the World (which was the least dense molecules entirely enveloping the denser) presented the perfect condition for Light to become manifest. It (the light) then took the path of least resistance while always clinging o something (the studied behaviour of energy) and molecularized the gaseous and liquid elements, and once it reached the bottom of the Ocean began to expand the earth itself. Which can be proven to have taken place through geology. Furthermore I explained the nature of God's basic parameters: That love does not oppose wrath. That omnipotence does not oppose all-knowing. But My opponent decided to address those Aspects of God's personality/being as being Oxymoron's, which is not true. And disregarded the aspects of those attributes which make God the Agent which gives Thought functionality and the substances of Stipulation(knowledge). But to be frank; My first clause that: The undefined parameters of "The Christian God" - whether fully perceived, or only partially alluded to - are assuredly a portion of his reality and thus if Were not real, as they are a contingent part of his reality, His entire existence would be Not. I elaborated this in the conversation thread if anyone cares to look into it more ~ That in an atheistic perspective of reality, where everything is Thus dependant on Math alone to determine all events, The Christian God is still present as a Notion, Imposing, known in every language, and being the most influential agent of Human ethics, society and Culture. So to close my final argument I would like to add with elation, that My God has a very influential role in my life as a personal friend, as he is the friend of many peoples around the world today, & That Throughout this debate we are not breaking Grounds in philosophical debates: BUT THAT These debates have been very thoroughly discussed, studied and debated throughout Spanish, French, English, Italian, Greek, German, Slavic, Iranian, Hebrew, Indian, Chinese, Punjab and varying other cultures throughout history & they have all come tot he same conclusion that: God, by definition is the Agent by which humanity Thinks. Thank You. Amen brotha's and to make a point, I was very pragmatic. Thank you.
We cannot know reality without the Christian God

Thanks to Pro for wasting last round.Remember that the burden of proof is on Pro. However he gave no arguments whatsoever to support his point. He just talked about the need of a creator, which I showed is nonsense. Then he claimed there's a god, without any evidence. However, I proved his god is impossible to exist cause there are some contradictions in its definition. I gave plenty of evidence showing that we do not need god to know reality. I think it's enough. The resolution is truly and absolutely negated, and I can say I know this without the necessity of god hahaha....Hope that Pro gives some true logical argument at least in the last round.....