BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Modern feminism is beneficial to America, and does not cause harm.

Modern feminism is good, it is currently fighting for better woman salaries, they only earn around 74 cents on the dollar of a man. Why does the pay gap exist? Women don't negotiate their salaries as well as men. Why is that? Since we percieve women as weak and we discourage them from climbing the corporate ladder etc. We should make women feel as strong as men and empower them. The other day, i asked my female class why she didn't participate in class, and she responded saying "im not that strong of a person like boys." This infuriated me because i know that modern feminism is fighting against this social perception. I support abortion rights for females, they have every right to do what they want and they should continue to be able to do that. i support the fact that modern feminism is fighting against rape. We should educate college students on rape and how to avoid/prevent it. We need to teach dudes that it's totally not okay, and women that you should probably not get super drunk and go to a party where there are drunk men. We need to teach America that it is not okay to percieve women as merely pieces of meat for their pleasure. Many of my male friends believe this and i tell them that they're more then just "@u%%ies" but humans as well. They believe me but still continue to partially objectify them for beings of their own pleasure. When someone doesn't "get the @u%%y" he's seen as inferior. Modern feminism fights against this by ending the objectification of women. Our society sometimes sees women as something that men compete for and that if you can't compete for it, your a loser of some kind since you can't "get the @u$$y." I support the fact that feminism has always fought against domestic violence and has sought to end it. Implementing support centers, care hotlines, and altering our perceptions, feminism has done good and modern feminism seeks to build off and support the previous generations Modern Feminism in effect is trying to stop harm. Harm can be in the form of domestic violence where typically an abusive male may endanger his wife, but also vice versa. Harm can come in the form of social pressures to objectify and use women for objects of gratification. Harm can also come in the form of taking away liberty(abortion). Harm also includes the salary gap that women fail to attain and therefore is unjust.
Modern feminism is beneficial to America, and does not cause harm.

I am a Male Modern feminist and i would love to debate this topic, i accept. my only concerns for this debate is that con does not use radicals as examples of the harmful feminists. here are the list of topics i define as third wave feminism: -anti-rape culture -abortion rights -sexual harrassment against women -other societal issues and we should define "harm" as immoral or unjust effects.
Modern feminism is beneficial to America, and does not cause harm.

I'm just a kid who's four, Each day I grow some more! I like exploring, I'm Caillou So many things to do, Each day there's something new I'll share them with you I'm Caillou My world is turning, changing each day! With mommy and daddy and finding my way- Growing up is not so tough Except when I've had enough But there's lots of fun stuff I'm Caillou, Caillou, Caillou... (And me, and me, and me!) Read more at http://www.lyrics.com... http://www.lyrics.com...
There should not be music at mass.

Well, music is just a fill in so the priest does not have to talk so much. Because there is music, kids go home with the songs stuck in their head and their parents ask them, what did the priest talk about in mass today, the kid would say, "uhhhhhhh....... I forgot. The songs were so catchy!"Why can't you just sing to God? God also tells us that those who brag about their faith are not good followers, but those who keep their faith to themselves and worship God are great followers. I have heard this in mass many times. Why sing in mass? See who has the best voice? Yeah, no. We are simply supposed to worship God. Not compete for him.
There should not be music at mass.

Really, I didn't know there are churches that sing wile a speaker is talking, if so, just ask for that to be changed. I don't see how it's distracting, because in the bible there are multiple verses in which it tells us that if we love God and are thankful we should sing. Examples of this are Psalm 100:1-2,Psalm 95:1-2,Colossians 3:16,Psalm 147:1,Psalm 150:1-6 ,James 5:13,Psalm 13:6,Psalm 105:2 ,Psalm 33:3 ,Psalm 59:16 ,Hebrews 2:12, etc. God has told us that we are exalting him when we sing of him and his works, and for many people singing hymns is when they most feel the presence/spirit of God/Holy Ghost. Most who would suggest this would have another reason, such as being self-conscious, embarrassed, or just lazy, but those who are trying to pay attention in mass would know these things, and if someone doesn't want to follow probably the easiest commandment of His, there's no reason for them to even go to Mass. Appropriate music invites the Spirit. We are to praise him with song.
Trump's Southern border WALL

I would like to know how much you think it will cost to build this "great" wall with a big door so the illegal immigrants can come back legally. Also, why would Mexico pay for a wall that they do not need? I rarely hear of American citizens illegally immigrating to Mexico and taking jobs. Mexico does not need a wall; therefore, they will definitely not pay for it. A former Mexican president has come out against it explicitly, so consequently all of Mexico, with the exception of a small number of citizens, will be against paying for the wall.
Trump's Southern border WALL

Just to make clear, I am a conservative. I believe we have a problem on the Southern border. I am not happy with the job President Obama has done with securing the Southern border. However a wall will not work for America at this point in time for one particular reason. This wall will cost $10,000,000,000. That does not include the construction of the wall (A). Do not forget we are a nation that is approaching 20 trillion dollars of debt. We can not afford to build a wall that ultimately does not guarantee the result of a secure Southern border. When Mr. Trump says Mexico will pay for it, I can not take that seriously. I understand he is a supreme businessman, but lets be serious. We are the United States.Let's take a more diplomatic approach in securing the border, not an approach that breaks international law. (A)www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/donald-trump-Mexico-wall/
Trump's Southern border WALL

We already have a border control guard system and look how that's working.Illegal's get into America every day.We should keep the ones we have and build the wall.Besides Trump will create tons of other jobs that don't have to involve border control. And yes the fee applies when you send money to any part of the world.But what i'm saying is that Trump might increase the fee for anyone sending money to Mexico not Paris,or London. There are people who do not want the wall,but you cannot forget about the people who want the wall.Illegal's are taking jobs from American's.If Trump builds this wall the American people will gain more jobs. I would like to say thank you to my opponent for debating this important topic with me. I hope you do see the good thing that this wall will do.
Trump's Southern border WALL

So if I'm understanding correctly, the fee people pay comes back to the United States? That money could be used on so many other things! Let's hire more border patrol guards instead of using that money to build a wall! That way we create more jobs at the same time! Plus, if we are using OUR money, then Mexico is not paying for it like Mr. Trump says they will. The point is, there is no way we can absolutely guarantee Mexico will pay for a wall. Or that this wall will work. You also say that this fee applies when you send money to any part of the world. Why would you punish people sending money to Paris, France? Or London, England? That is like raising taxes! You say you are conservative but that sounds like a liberal policy! Let's not punish U.S. citizens who do not want a wall, by making them pay more for sending money out of this country that might not go to Mexico. I appreciate my opponent debating me on this topic, and I respect all of their opinions. I ask that you see that this wall will not work because of the cost and that it does not guarantee that illegal immigration will stop.
Trump's Southern border WALL

This wall will cost about $8 to $10 billion dollars.There are ways that Trump can make Mexico pay for this wall. Here's one way, each year Hispanics send about $23 billion to Mexico and to their families there. Lets say there is a guy named John. John is illegal but he got his papers and now has a job. Each month John sends $100 to his family in Mexico.Every time someone sends money somewhere in the world they get charged some money to send it. So John sends $100 and he has to pay an extra $10 to send the money.One thing that Trump can and might do is to increase the fee you have to pay to send money to Mexico.So Trump might increase that fee you have to pay by $30.So we use that money and we can pay for the wall.
There is no contradiction between free will and determinism

Your definition of free will appears to be a decision that occurs completely out of the blue..... Which of course is non-sense. The reasoning and emotion that influences a persons will is not an external force it's an internal, part and parcel, make-up of a persons consciousness - their free will. On the subject of THE definition you give for free will, I think the only place for this is in the garbage. The idea that because a decision is even influenced by an external circumstance means it's not a free decision is absurd. This, to my mind, is a very basic and self apparent fact. I would have deep concerns about anyone who thought otherwise. The quote by Kurt Gï¿½del clearly refers to a deterministic universe 'knowing in advance precisely what one will do'. Given a deterministic universe this has no bearing on the issue of a person making free decisions. Even if a person is able to determine their future choices, then this is the case, a person will always confirm to their will.
There is no contradiction between free will and determinism

I reiterate that free will is very specifically defined as making choices that are not influenced by external forces - and Pro seems to acknowledge that external forces influence human thought. Pro's argument instead seems to be that "free will" is some ambiguous term for a human's thought processes, but this is not the case. I will also ignore Pro's quote as it has no obvious context (determinism is mentioned nowhere) and is of no real value to the discussion.
There is no contradiction between free will and determinism

I don't see the psychological or physical arguments as constraints they are what define our decision making process. If they are a constraint, what are they constraining? A decision making process? What is an unrestrained will? It's.... ....nothing. Not the same as a free will. "There is no contradiction between free will and knowing in advance precisely what one will do. If one knows ones self completely then this is the situation. One does not deliberately do the opposite of what one wants." ~ Kurt Gï¿½del
There is no contradiction between free will and determinism

Thanks first to boggleface for this debate. This happens to be one of my favourite subjects to discuss. - I feel it wise to clarify in advance the meaning of free will: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... "1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will. 2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will." While we're at it, I might as well include determinism: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... "The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs." - Two types of deterministic influences come to my mind that could be used in argument against free will. I will explore them both below. - 1. The psychological level. It makes sense from a survivability perspective to say that, when humans make decisions, the mind draws upon knowledge, experience and present conditions to decide the best course of action. We probably wouldn't have survived to this day had our ancestors' choices to flee from predators been reliant on a chemical coin toss. It's much more logical to say that thought processes and algorithms are in place to make analyses and predictions and consequently decisions. It then follows that the human mind isn't making a free decision completely out of the blue, but comes to a conclusion that has outside influences. For example, a parent of a child being asked whether the child can have a pet dog may say no based on their fear of dogs stemming from when they themselves were attacked by one. Another example may be someone declining to go to their favourite restaurant with friends because they're too tired from work. In yet another example, a person may not want to go into some woods because they've heard stories of an axe murderer that lives there. In effect, experience, conditions and knowledge tell the human what to do, think and choose, regardless of how complicated the individual's working psychology may be. - 2. The physical level. It has already been agreed that in a deterministic universe, physical processes at the very least are at the mercy of determinism. If we also accept that the human body is an entirely physical entity, even if we then stretch to the unimaginable idea that human decision making is the result of spontaneous releases of chemicals or electrical signals, those physical manifestations are still influenced by determinism - and by extension, so is the decision making process that relies on them. - So to draw all appropriate connections and tie up all loose ends: free will is defined as "choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances," but as we have found here, choices are indeed the product of external circumstances.
There is no contradiction between free will and determinism

The definition I gave is taken straight from the dictionary - which I linked to. To summarize this discussion: "free will" is very clearly dictionary-defined as the ability to make decisions that are not determined by external influences. I have already argued how the mind is influenced by determinism on both the physical level (cells, chemicals, electricity) and its inputs (environment, circumstances, past experiences, etc). Note that my opponent has not argued against these, but rather against my quoted definition of free will and its conflict with his interpretation. Thanks anyway to Pro for the discussion.
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day

There are plenty of empirical facts to back up why breakfast is not THE most important meal of the day. Sure, it is important; I won't deny that. However, just because it is somewhat beneficial does not mean it is the most important one of the day. Lunch can make or break a job interview; dinner could make or break a date. Eating dinner with your family, for instance, is hugely important, as indicated by a multitude of studies. Eating too much at breakfast would not be good for your weight, nor would eating typical breakfast foods like eggs, bacon, sausage, or buttered toast, which are all high in cholesterol. These can all be backed up by experimentation. Finally, breakfast is not that important because you can still operate without it. For instance, I didn't eat breakfast this morning, but I have done more homework today than I have in a long time, and I was even able to check my argument for proper spelling and grammar without using the tools in Microsoft word! In fact, I don't think I ate breakfast once over this entire debate and still somehow managed to write properly. So all in all, just because breakfast can be important, it doesn't mean that it is most important. For empirical evidence, I will provide some links for your viewing pleasure: . http://nutrition.about.com... . http://www.sciencedirect.com... (again) . http://www.bates-communications.com... This has been fun.
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day

I have provided numerous arguments as to why breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Maintain health weight, perform at optimum levels and ensure healthy eating habits. All these arguments have empirical fact to back them up. For example whether great philosophers of the past had the empirical facts that we do today about the health benefits and static surrounding eating breakfast, they could still gather through experience. By one day eating breakfast to the next day. From which, they would discover the difference and the benefits that they receive when food was consumed. The best way to start your day off right is to eat a healthy breakfast!
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day

Your response has nothing to do with the argument at hand. You did not response to the argument at hand, in stead you go off topic. Lunch is the most important meal of day is not the argument at hand. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day as previously stated for the following reasons, maintain a healthy weight and gives you the nutrients needed to perform at optimum levels in school or work place. This argument is backed up with the links to empirical facts, to back up argument. Conclusion: Con negates the argument/topic at hand.
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day

Another reason I would say that lunch is the most important meal of the day is because it is good for socialization. "Doing lunch" with someone is one of the friendliest things you can do. It isn't as serious as taking someone to dinner, and it makes more sense than going out to breakfast. Going out to breakfast would require that both people would have to both wake up on time and set aside a chunk of time to spare for breakfast. If a person works early in the morning, as most do, it would be difficult to smoothly do both of those things. Lunch is easier to plan, since a person would be more awake by lunchtime and would not be in a rush to get anywhere. Although going out to breakfast is nice, it is not as useful as taking someone to lunch. For instance, having a lunch meeting with a coworker or potential client is a good tool for building strong relationships. Talking over lunch is one of the most important things we do. Here is an article that shows how having lunch with someone can be an effective business tool: http://www.bates-communications.com... It explains that making small talk over lunch will strengthen a bond between two people because it gives the two people a chance to relax, helps to get conversation moving from businesslike to friendly, and "create positive experiences that can become lasting memories."
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day

Your return has no empirical facts. A synopsis of a situation of a breakfast that causes gas is on the basis on a perhaps one time experience,there is of way to say that this would or could happen. This is based on what study? Would any doctor or governmental study would say that this is good for you to maintain your health? As your for argument of maintaining weight being will power. If that were the case, just having will power I could just maintain a healthy weight, when there are numbers of studies stating that is not the case. . http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov... . http://www.cdc.gov... Hence,these arguments are not reasons that breakfast is not the most important meal of the day.
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day

Although breakfast may provide you with fuel for your brain, it also provides you with fuel for your digestive system. What I mean is this: Imagine you are at that meeting. You did eat breakfast, so you aren't thinking about eating (but even if you didn't eat, you would have been professional enough to focus on what was important and not on how hungry you were). You are in the meeting, and even though you have eaten, your stomach is growling. In this case, however, your stomach is growling because you have gas from what you ate for breakfast. Perhaps it was eggs, maybe it was hash browns. Whatever it was, it has given you gas and you can't control it. You are offending the people in the meeting with your gas. On this particular day, breakfast was not the important meal; the lunch with the higher-ups after the meeting would have been, but you ruined your chance of going to it with them because they were turned off by your smell. Eating breakfast is more of a threat to your weight than lunch. The foods that people typically think of for breakfast, like eggs, buttered toast, sausage, bacon, etc. are all high in cholesterol. While there may be healthier alternatives, they are not as appealing, and when you wake up you want to eat something really great. There are far more fresh, lean options for lunch that are indeed appetizing, like green salads and tuna sandwiches. Some have argued that eating breakfast will help you to not be as hungry over the course of the day. I know this to be false. Most days I do not eat breakfast, and I find that on days that I do, I am no less hungry than I would be on the days that I don't eat breakfast. If we want to say that breakfast is the most important meal of the day because it will help to control your weight, we need to rethink what I have just mentioned. The real key to controlling weight is willpower, so use your willpower to skip breakfast and opt for a healthy, delicious lunch. Conclusion: Because you ate breakfast, you lost out on a promotion because you couldn't control your gas and missed out on the proceeding luncheon. Breakfast does not factor into weight control.
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day

Argument Eating a healthy breakfast helps you control your weight. Eating breakfast provides your brain with fuel it need to function at optimum levels. Eating breakfast provides you will healthy eating habit throughout your life time. Imagine you skip breakfast on a day of a important meeting that can make or break your possibility of a promotion. You skipped breakfast and now minutes before your presentation is about to your stomach is growling and you are starving. You can't concentrate on the task at hand. All you can think about is about how hungry you are. Conclusion Now that you have eaten breakfast; you lost out on a promotion. . http://www.kelloggs.ie...