BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Hillary and the democrat party really for woman's rights

I posted this in my first post,"If Hillary and the democrat party were the defenders of women and women's rights as they claim to be ( would they be selective in backing women or would they get behind all women) trying to advance in a world that has been so unfairly against them, in feminists opinion....." I believe that this statement would establish that I don't find evidence that Hillary and the democrat party can claim that either Hillary or the democrat party is for advancing all females, just those who follow the leftist democrat party line that tells women that they are victims and need government to come to their rescue if they're going to succeed. Women have joined other groups recognized as victims who demand government grant them preferences.
Is Hillary and the democrat party really for woman's rights

Lookingatissues Pro (for) When looking up the word ...FOR ) in the Thesaurus in the OxFord American Writer's Thesaurus under (favor,) I find as a definition for the word,... "For" is " Favor." " she looked at him with "favor," The word,"Pro," in the dictionary means," favoring, supporting...." The word,"CON," means..... " against." indicating that you don't agree with what I posted on Debate.org about Hillary and the democrat party, not truly being the defenders of feminists and women's rights, as they have claimed so often to be. Con responded,"Tough....."Pro is debating against the resolution so I automatically win." CON.....Your statement isn't true,... I am in "favor," with what I posted, that, as I posted, Hillary and the democrat party aren't the defenders of women's rights and feminists as they profess to be.
Is Hillary and the democrat party really for woman's rights

Hillary Clinton just recently suggested that the republicans didn't back women's rights as the democrats do when she stood in front of a mike while campaigning and she bad- mouthed Donald trump and the republican party for not identifying with women in their struggles. If Hillary and the democrat party were the defenders of women and women's rights as they claim to be would they be selective in backing women or would they get behind all women trying to advance in a world that has been so unfairly against them, in feminists opinion. A recent article posted on the internet reveals that maybe the democrats aren't really the defenders of women's rights as they claim themselves to be. The recent Internet article was referring to the republican woman,"Carly Fiorina," running for the presidency and the up coming debates being held on CNN. The Internet article referred to CNN as," (Clinton News Network)" ...which stated,"and many in the political class want to keep Carly off the debate stage...." The Media and the elite intelligentsia in Education have long been recognized as a arm of the democrat party so its not surprising that CNN was labeled as," Clinton News Network..." /Democrat party Mouth piece.After Hillary and the democrat party not defending this woman's chances to advance herself in the world can Hillary and the democrats still tout that they are for all for women's rights I claim that Hillary and the democrat party is only interested in defending women's rights when the woman is a democrat, other wise, she is on her own and the Hillary and the democrat party say, Have at her, we don't know her. Well so much for the defenders of women's rights.
Time is just a concept, and cannot exist by itself.

After reading my opponent's debate on time, I feel that I must clarify, for myself, what my opinion is. Knowing that he can cite several philosophers and scientists on this topic and that I have little to no outside information on this topic, I know that even if there is a fatal flaw in my reasoning, it will be dealt with efficiently. That having been said, I believe that the concept of time is simply a necessary measure developed to describe the phenomenon of change. The concept of change, I believe, is just a result of human thinking. Upon forming beliefs on how things are, what they are, what they do, and what they should do, we define change. Thus, we see time as a necessary 4th dimension and do not question its existence. In that case, the concept of time, like the concept of change, would be an arbitrary, artificial concept that cannot exist without human bias.
Democracy or Dictatorship? (Democracy is pro, Dictatorship is con)

Since my opponent has forfeit-I will briefly restate my arguments: I. What the past has told us. II. The Benefits of Democracy A. Power to the people B. Keeping the leaders in check III. Tyranny"what it is. What are the benefits of democracy? Well, in capitalistic democracies, every man can reap what he has sown. Which is basically a fancy way of saying "IF you make the money, you can use it how you like-not what the government tells you to do with it". You can vote for leaders in a democracy, you can be the leader (yes-every man makes a decision on government matters) in a direct democracy, it makes your voice heard. Anyways-thanks for the debate. If you do not forfeit again then I will make a longer argument!
Democracy or Dictatorship? (Democracy is pro, Dictatorship is con)

Democracy or Dictatorship? Which one is a better form of government?Democracy: a form of government in which people choose leaders by votingDictatorship: rule, control, or leadership by one person with total powerBetter: more attractive, appealing, effective etc.government:a particular system used for controlling a country, state, etc.1st Round:Acceptance2nd Round: Arguments3rd Round: Arguments+Rebuttals4rth Round Rebuttals+ConclusionPlease only debate this IF you are serious. I would like a decent debate.
Violent videogames cause violence in players

97% of teens play video games (99% of boys 94% of girls) according to a 2008 pew study. When the teens (12-17) were asked what their three favorite games were Halo 3 came in second with 104 mentions and GTA (no specific version) came in 8th with 58 mentions. With such a large amount of video game players who are playing violent video games (in their most impressionable years no less) why is it that so few people are psychopaths and murderers/rapists/harassers? Not only that, but as video game popularity has grown teen violence (10-24) has gone down, from 850.8 arrests per 1000 in 1995 to 423.1 arrests per 1000 in 2011*. Correlation of course doesn't necessarily mean causation, but it seems pretty strange that there would be a negative trend if violent games did cause violence, what could possibly be so significant a factor in crime that it would both decrease crime and eliminate video games effect in it. I'd like to see you find this magical element that is reducing crime (and find proof that games cause violence) it would be pretty interesting I assume. *Note: This is only for males, girls have remained pretty much stationary, but this might actually help my case as, again according to pew, males were more likely to play violent video games and to play games frequently. http://www.pewinternet.org... http://www.cdc.gov... Over to you pro.
Violent videogames cause violence in players

Well it appears I'm going to have to go this far as to use my own example of why vidio games cause violence I lays thought experiments help so idecided to experiment on myself when I was 7 I told my mother my plans and she accepted yi if I wanted so there on I only played violent vidio games like all the call of ditys gtas and red dead redemtion . I started to notice that I grew up having anger problems . Let me tell you I never had anger problems I grew up smart but was till a very violent kid I think things no on ther kid will think I now love the thought of death and violance my thoughts have changed so much that the if you get me mad enough I will reach a point wre my voice gets deaper all my emotions get shut off and I will kill with ought remorse if youngest in my way of my plans
Violent videogames cause violence in players

Grand Theft Childhood was about the attacks on video games being incorrect/overstated. (http://www.amazon.com...) "Many violent games have become more realistic." I think that most people can still tell the difference. I would like to link to a brilliant video about how violent video games desensitizes us to violent video games, not real life violence. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com...) Addiction is not the same thing as violence. You can be addicted to anything non-violent video games, cheese, movies, books. To much of anything is a bad thing. I stated in my opening that aggression doesn't equal violence. I would like to do a full take down of this study, but I can not because my opponent has, again, not properly cited his sources. I therefore ask the voters to ignore this argument. Finally, on the assertion that the Columbine shooters played a lot of a (non-specified) violent video game. Here is some evidence that nullifies this point. "The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. According to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure." "Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population." (http://www.pbs.org...) Because my opponent failed to provide compelling arguments-and sources for those arguments he did make, while I did not I urge a Con vote.
Violent videogames cause violence in players

The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys that played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. Violent computer games have long been popular with teenagers, and with the improvement in technology, many violent games have become more realistic. Excessive violent gaming can become a serious problem because teenagers can develop antisocial behavior and become disconnected from reality, according to Laura Berk, professor of psychology at Illinois State University. According to Berk, teenagers who frequently play violent video games are more likely to become withdrawn. She states that addiction to violent games is a cause in itself. A 2010 BBC news report about the risk of computer addiction included an interview with a 19-year-old boy who skipped school and had angry outbursts if his parents tried to stop him from playing a violent video game. The American Psychiatric Association is calling for more research before placing computer games addiction as an international recognized mental health disorder Violence as Normality A research report in the May 2010 issue of "Psychological Bulletin" led by Iowa State University psychology professor Craig Anderson found that violent gaming can increase feelings of aggression and antisocial behavior in teenagers, regardless of their sex. Overexposure to violent images found in computer games can lead to the view that violence is a normal way of life. Berk also writes that the Columbine High School teenage murderers were obsessed with playing a violent video game. abcnews.go.com " Technology
Rap Battle Four

... Geez, I'm no good at rapping, but HELLO INTERNET! (: Um, O.K here I go I guess. (Internet, please don't hate on me, I trust you (: ) I MUST WIN THIS RAP. Log on to my computer, see this challenge. Going to accept and tip this balance. I know I'm not the best, but maybe I can pass this test, because of my HANDS OF GOLD. They're awesomeness is out of my control. I knocked down an entire hal... I GIVE UP. Anyway. If anyone wants to play me on XBOX, THATS WHERE I'm pro. (GAMERTAG:GAMERTHUMB360)
American must agressive pursue renewable energy sources for automobiles.

In the Seventies the United States reached "Peak Oil" Production. That incident resulted in the long gas lines of the seventies. We are now or has approached the "Peak Oil" production for the world supply of oil. As the sources, production and location of new oil diminishes the price of oil will continue to rise. As the price of oil rises at a very high rate, our economy suffers. The price of oil presently effects almost everything in economy. Food distribution, fertilizers for food, retail products, choices in everyday, will be adveresely effected. One of the first casualties of high oil prices is Starbucks. Recently Starbucks had to close hundreds of store due to low sales. The low sales was caused by less cash on hand by the consumers. Because Starbucks provides "luxury" coffee and epresso, the consumers would rather save their money for gas than purchase coffee. An electric car is ideal to immeadieately take the US off of its addiction to oil. We must take action now to or we and our children will suffer the consequences.
American must agressive pursue renewable energy sources for automobiles.

My fellow American, In your rebuff of my argument you offer off-shore drilling as a solution. "That may be true, but what's stopping us from drilling off of our shores and in ANWR? It will not take 10 years, contrary to liberal talking points. Think I'm just pulling these stats out of my arse? I'm not (http://www.freerepublic.com......)." Off-shore drilling is not a solution. Using a a quote from one lone oil company will not reduce the price of oil. The Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration states that off-shore drilling will not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030." See the following link: http://www.eia.doe.gov... The U.S. obtains 60% of its oil from foreign countries; 40% of the oil is produced domestically. You are falsely asserts that: "We have the potential to produce more oil than Saudi Arabia right here in our own country." The United States does not have the oil reserves that Saudi Arabia has. The United States has 11 years of Oil Reserves left while the Saudis has 81 years of oil reserves left. In 2007, the Saudis produced 10.2 billions barrels of oil per day. In 2009, they are expected to produce 12.9 billion barrels of oil per day. On the contrary the United States in 2007, produced 5 billion barrels per day. Therefore, we do not have the ability to produce more oil than Saudi Arabia. Your statement goes against basic math and logic. http://www.eia.doe.gov... With respect to your statement on Electric Vehicles: "...it doesn't matter how agressively we pursue it, if it's not at a low enough price where the average American can afford it, then it won't sell. It's really quite simple. I eagerly await your rebuttal. The continuing high price of gasoline has made the electric car more affordable. Presently, the Electric Car has not been produced at a mass scale. The truth of the matter is that you do not equate the cost to own, operate and maintain a vehicle with the original price of a car. The Saturn eV in 1999 was leased for $300 per month. Accounting for inflation, that leased price now would equal $380 per month. Considering, that most Americans such as myself ar spending more than $200 per month for gas, $400 per month sounds economical. Furthermore, as the demand for these car will undoubtedly go up, the price will go down (Law of Supply & Demand). In addition, a car that runs on compressed air will be produced in the United States, India, and London and is cited for release in 2010 will cost $17,000. http://zeropollutionmotors.us... There are too many proven technologies that is available for the United States to remain dependent on oil. Maintain an Oil Economy also means maintaing the oil wells, shipping routes, and stability of the Middle East. This has come at the cost of trillions of dollars and at the expense of American lives. American cannot wait until the year 2030 for prices to effectively go down. We must act now.
American must agressive pursue renewable energy sources for automobiles.

Thank you for starting this debate, as I very much wanted to talk about this issue. "We are now or has approached the "Peak Oil" production for the world supply of oil." That may be true, but what's stopping us from drilling off of our shores and in ANWR? It will not take 10 years, contrary to liberal talking points. Think I'm just pulling these stats out of my arse? I'm not (http://www.freerepublic.com...). "As the sources, production and location of new oil diminishes the price of oil will continue to rise. As the price of oil rises at a very high rate, our economy suffers. The price of oil presently effects almost everything in economy. Food distribution, fertilizers for food, retail products, choices in everyday, will be adveresely effected." I'm not arguing about this, as the effect of high oil prices is clearly taking a toll on Americans in the grocery store and beyond. This, I agree with you on. However, "aggresively pursuing" new fuels and energy can not take place and succeed without something to fuel our cars until said fuel reaches all gas stations. You can rant all you want about "Big Oil™" but when it's all said and done, it won't do a thing to decrease the price of gasoline. In fact, if we tax the oil companies more, as Nancy Pelosi proposes, it'll only increase gas prices. "One of the first casualties of high oil prices is Starbucks. Recently Starbucks had to close hundreds of store due to low sales. The low sales was caused by less cash on hand by the consumers. Because Starbucks provides "luxury" coffee and epresso, the consumers would rather save their money for gas than purchase coffee." I'm not disagreeing with you on this, because Starbucks is ABSOLUTELY VITAL to my survival. But if we really want to lower gas prices, our government must drill for oil anywhere it is available, but they should also pursue renewable energies as well. There is no reason we can't do both. "An electric car is ideal to immeadieately take the US off of its addiction to oil. We must take action now to or we and our children will suffer the consequences." Right, we must take action. Though I don't really know what particular "action" you have in mind, besides telling people to inflate their tires. We have the potential to produce more oil than Saudi Arabia right here in our own country. There's no reason we can't do it, besides the fact that the environmentalist wackos are crying crocodile tears to Congress about ANWR and our precious shorelines. Other countries are drilling for oil off our coast, why don't the environmentalists go cry to Cuba? Maybe because Cuba doesn't let the environmentalists control our oil intake. On the electric car, it doesn't matter how agressively we pursue it, if it's not at a low enough price where the average American can afford it, then it won't sell. It's really quite simple. I eagerly await your rebuttal. Captain America
Govt will use global warming and health issues as excuses to control every aspect of your life.

My opponent has failed to show how these two excuses are not directly geared to regulate, ban or otherwise limit personal freedom. These two issues are a politicians dream. Global warming being the better of the two. There is no way for anyone to have to take responsibility when this turns out to be a complete sham on the whole world. They are all in on it hook line and sinker. There is not a single politician in Washington that will even question global warming. Only politicians say the debate is over with regard to global warming. You will never hear a reputable scientist say this and put his or her reputation on the line as a scientist. What you will hear them say is "Many questions remain unanswered before any conclusive findings can be put forward." Yet politicians are passing and presenting legislation left and right to limit and regulate ban or otherwise make illegale anything and everything they arbitrarily chose to put a label on as being a threat to all human kind. The more absurd the legislation is, the more it makes my case. Fat people and soda drinkers you are next on the list. Under the disguise of health care. Once govt gets control of health care, that's it. Your freedom will disappear. Govt policy wonks will just sit there and make villains out of ever possible thing they can think of that might make someone fat or cause high cholesterol, anything, you name it. It will all be banned in the name of reducing health care costs. You have all the proof you need on this. Govt has sent you a clear as day message as to what they will do when they get control of health care with the fat people and soda issues. http://www.politico.com...
Govt will use global warming and health issues as excuses to control every aspect of your life.

Let's see, I have had time to reflect upon the fact that all my opponent is going to do is debate sources and shift the focus on the sources rather than show that it is not the intention of govt to use global warming and health issues to control and regulate every aspect of our lives. I have provided sources that show that gov't uses the two excuses to write legislation to take control of and regulate every aspect of our lives. The fact that some of the bills are still on the table or that some have not passed is what is irrelevant. It is the pattern that matters. Govt has consistently shown that it is using these two excuses to pass what ever they can to control and regulate our lives. There has been no legislation put forward under these two excuses that will free me from taxes or give me more choice or restore anything to a state that was once legal or unregulated. Govt will continue to submit bills that take freedoms away and tax and regulate under these two excuses. They just passed a bill expanding regulation over cigarettes and a tax increase to go with it. As far as what govt? We can include the UN which is a world Govt of sorts. They are the ones that will be in charge of cap and trade and all affairs that have to do with global warming world wide. They to will set restrictions and levy taxes and make laws that will be used to control your life. My opponent needs to come up with some kind of argument of his own rather than just debate sources. I have shown a pattern in govt with regard to these two excuses. And the pattern can plainly be seen every single night on any news channel you care to watch. A new bill is in congress to regulate or ban something. Dismissing sources and arguing samantics about the content of the sources wont cut it. They are all pieces of legislation put before congress by people who work in govt. My opponent says one person is not the govt. But it only takes one person to write a bill and present it to congress and then congress will vote on it if it is allowed to make it to the floor for a vote. There are no pieces of legislation before congress that are not directly connected to these two excuses. I can show more if my opponent likes, but he needs to show some legislation before congress that shows there is no pattern and that govt is not trying to use these two excuses to control every aspect of our lives. I shall present no more sources for my opponent to redirect the debate unless it would answer a rebuttal of philosophical importance made by my opponent with regard to the resolution.
The debate of God's notion of free will

Big things coming down the pike ..... when they come .... pick up a king James Bible 1611 edition, that's the one I use. They haven't butchered it ! Oh and don't take the mark of the Beast. You'll no it because it will be FORCED on everyone. You won't be able to buy, sell, work or anything without it AND it WILL NOT BE OPTIONAL. If you take it ..... you will have NO CHANCE of salvation! You'll KNOW the truth of my statement WHEN it happens, don't listen to those saying this is the mark or that is the mark. THE MARK will be the one you CANNOT refuse!!!! That should be plain enough! God Bless!