BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Developing countries should publish birth control policy

The other reason I think developing country should publish birth control policy is that the education resource of developing countries may not rich. Lots of developing countries don"t have ability providing every child to school. If they publish birth control policy, they can give more children opportunity to come to school. In some developing countries, family don"t let girls come to school. I know some of the reason is about culture and religion, but female education always affect countries" development. From the research, we can know that most women who had higher education will implement a better family plan, they know how to take care of birth control and how to respect new life. Women without higher education may not good on this aspect. "Laxenburg, Austria - 28 July 2011 -- Future trends in global population growth could be significantly affected by improvements in both the quality and quantity of education, particularly female education." (Regan, L. 2011) From this article we can see that the population growth have lots of things to do with female"s education level. Because "more educated women generally have fewer children, better general health, and higher infant survival rates" (Regan, L. 2011)."The education was related to "human quality", which means education "affects health, economic growth, and democracy, these projections provide a more comprehensive picture of where, how, and under what conditions human well-being is increasing." (Regan, L. 2011). From the article, we can find out that if developing country provide more opportunity to female, the society will improve a lot. "The population problem is integrally linked with justice for women in particular. Advancing gender equity, through reversing the various social and economic handicaps that make women voiceless and powerless, may also be one of the best ways of saving the environment, working against global warming and countering the dangers of overcrowding and other adversities associated with population pressure. The voice of women is critically important for the world's future"not just for women's future." (Mia. M. 2003) The author mainly discussed the measure to help woman have higher education level. The author believes that it is very important for young woman realize the responsibility they have for give birth and raise children. The author thinks that the primary education should have the duty to teach young girl about the life"s meaning and respects of people"s life. School should have sex educational curricula to lead young women realized the importance of taking safety measures during the sexual life. If developing countries can have more education resource for each child, the can make family plan education universal.
Developing countries should publish birth control policy

The reason that China was forced to implement a one-child policy was the form of government they were using, Communism, wasn't working. They were a developing, Communist, backwards nation that was having too many babies. It wasn't actually that many children though; their resources simply couldn't support a growing population because of the rife corruption and faulty bureaucracy. Had China had a working government and food distribution system, the one-child policy would not have been necessary. As most countries, especially developing, are not communist, this should not be a problem. Instead, the government of these countries should be revamped to more effectively support the population.
Supporting the Criminalization of Marijuana is Not Racist

Thanks again to tulle for this debate. Since it is the last round, I'll offer a brief summary of my arguments.In the previous round, I argued that race itself is not solely biological - it is a social phenomenon. In other words, race is defined by a set of meanings (created by humans) that are given to different physical characteristics. A Latino man is not biologically different than a White man in any significant way - the difference is social. Different groups of people are afforded a different social status (and this status is not always established politically, as it is often a purely cultural or social fact).Therefore, I argued that the criminalization of marijuana is racist. Why? Because criminalization of marijuana changes the social landscape: while different ethnic groups smoke marijuana in equal numbers, the number of Black men arrested for smoking marijuana is significantly greater than the number of White men arrested for smoking marijuana. In effect, the way race is defined changes - Black men are defined as inherently more criminal than White men. This is a social fact, just as race itself is a social fact defined by its social context.My opponent has not offered a response to my argument, as she forfeited the last round. I forfeited a round as well, the second round, so I ask readers to not take off conduct points from either of us. That said, my argument has not been countered. Hence, the resolution is negated.
Supporting the Criminalization of Marijuana is Not Racist

Although the resolution was worded negatively so that I could take the "Pro" position, it is difficult for me to anticipate what my opponent's arguments will be and, therefore, this round will focus on a rebuttal of the most common argument I have heard for why supporting the criminalization of marijuana is racist. Debate. org member Korashk explains in one thread: "it has to do with how enforcement works. Something like 50%+ of drug related offenders in prison are minorities, despite that not being anywhere close to a representative percent of those that use drugs. The argument is that the drug war disproportionately affects minorities, and is therefore racist. " [1] In the context of this thread, the term "drug war" was used to also encompass the criminalization of marijuana. ==Arguments== 01. That a crime disproportionately affects minorities does not make the criminalization of a behaviour racist. There are several crimes that disproportionately affect minorities, including homicide. [2] Regardless of whether homicide should or should not be legal, the legal status of homicide in and of itself is not racist, despite disproportionately affecting minorities. For a law to be racist it would have to imply that the behaviour or activity is inherent in that race. Not all minorities smoke marijuana, nor is marijuana smoking exclusive to minorities. 02. That racial profiling is an issue does not make the criminalization of a behaviour racist. Black people are more likely to be pulled over by police officers than white people. [3] This is not an argument for the legalization of any driving offence, nor does it make the criminalization of any driving offence racist. ==Conclusion== In this round I have brought forth the following arguments: The first is that criminalizing a behaviour that is not inherent for a certain race is not racist. The second is that, although racial profiling is a problem, it does not make the criminalization of any behaviour racist. By extension, those who support the criminalization of marijuana are not racist, because the criminalization of marijuana is not racist. I look forward to any rebuttals my opponent may have, as well as any new arguments he would like to present. Thank you for your time. ==Sources== [1] . http://www.debate.org... [2] . http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov... [3] . http://www.cbc.ca... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Supporting the Criminalization of Marijuana is Not Racist

==Resolved==Supporting the Criminalization of Marijuana is Not Racist. ==Definitions==Marijuana: cannabis [1] --- for the purpose of this debate, we are talking about marijuana for recreational use.Support: to speak in favour of (a motion); to give approval to (a cause, principle, etc); subscribe to [2]Criminalization: the process by which behaviours and individuals are transformed into crime and criminals. [3]Racist: to discriminate against members of particular racial groups [4]; the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others; abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief [5] ==Miscellaneous== This debate is not about whether marijuana should or should not be legal so please do not derail it as such.Round 1 is for the acceptance of the resolution and definitions. However, if my opponent would like to present an argument during the first round, that would be fine---this would mean Con must not use the final round. If you have any questions or concerns, please direct them to the comments and I will do my best to be accommodating.I will argue that the illegality of marijuana is not racist, while my opponent will have to argue that it is. We will share the burden of proof.Thank you.==Sources== [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(drug)[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://dictionary.reference.com...
I found out I am gay

Ok. I would like to say, That you aren't gay. You just admitted to molesting little children. So, You aren't gay, Though you are a pedophile. And you did admit to that too. But you shouldnt do that cause you can go to jail for it. Its a crime. You can be gay, If you like men. Or Bisexual if you like men and women. But you aren't just gay if you like little boys or girls. So yea sorry mate but yea.
I found out I am gay

I found out I am gay I was walking down the street And saw a little boy who was maybe age 5 I wanted to fu*ck him Is it gay if he is only 5 I am a guy It is still gay I am a guy attracted to boys I like little boys I like to molest them, I am gay But I also like to molest little girls So I am bisexual Finding out what I am is difficult for me I am so many things I am gay I am pedophile I am bisexual I am heterosexual I won't think about it It is irrelevant As long as I molest children I will be fulfilled I really like to molest children It makes me happy I won't let anything stop me From molesting beautiful children I will be remembered as a child molester
The Massive Normie Immigration

Disclaimer: This arguement is about meme politics not regular politics The massive immigration count of normies to the internet has reached its peak. It at the same time has both spread memes and killed them at the same time, the problem here is that the normies have significantly changed the meme climate drastically. They came in a short amount of time in massive numbers and overwhelmed the citizens of multiple websites. The change of the atmosphere has killed of many memes and has shortened the lifespan of the average meme by 80%. The lifespan of memes now ranges from one week atleast to 3 months at best. Normies have also tried to disguise themselves as outsiders in a desperate attempt to fit in. We have two choices, we can either regulate or educate, and it's looking like the latter is a way more pheasible option to choose. It seems that the memescape has changed for the worse and i'm not quite sure how new memes are going to survive in this climate longer then those that tried before. The important thing overall is that we need to protect the memescape at all costs from cringey uncultured normies.
Star wars is better than christmas

lkfa;lksgjoiasnla;jfl;isdjfliashgopuqh4uopghdjs;kgnkjasr;phgoiels;jfaishgjsdlnboajfklasl;dknsadlvnals;jglaskdjfl;dsajfla;dskjfsl;dfjasdl;fjasl;dfjadsl;kfjalskvaldskjalks;gjlksjgsadlk;fjasd;lfjdsalk;fjdsalk;fjadslk;fjadslk;fjsl;fldsjflkasjflkadsjal;kdsfjaldsfja;lsfjas;dljfslkd;fjasl;kfjas;dfjasl;kdfjlk;fjasdlkfjdsal;kfja;sdlkfdsal;jfdal;ksa;dsfkjsadhgkjlasdhfkljasdhfkjlashgkaslghdskajlhgasdkjhgdsakjghadskjghdakjsghldsakfhdakjshfsalkdjf'haskdljf'hsadlkjfhasdlkjf'hsadlkjfhasdkljfhasdkfhadskjlf'hsadlkjfhdsakjlfhasdkjfhdsakfjl#LOL
Star wars is better than christmas

Christmas occurs annually whilst Star Wars occurs less frequently [1]. This renders Star Wars to be an objectively superior occasion to Christmas [2]. Christmas is essentially an infinite occasion that is not planned to end in a particular date [1]. Star Wars is finite and has an ending to it [3]. Since it is finite we cannot continue to look forward to it every single year and due to this Star Wars is objectively superior (and thus, better) than Christmas because it is a rare occasion that should be cherished more than an annual event that as far as we know will be inifinite [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://starwars.wikia.com...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
The War on Christmas Exists

I am going to keep my closing statements brief, given that things are very busy with family and friends over the holidays and I don't have time to write another 10,000 characters, and also because this topic has shifted from what I initially challenged to a specific definition (exactly what I said I did not want to happen). Since Pro and I both agree on what is happening, the focus of this debate is what the definition of the word defeat is. Pro tried to say that defeat means to diminish the importance of something without any source. I provided three definitions of defeat: - to win a victory over (someone or something) in a war, contest, game, etc. - to cause (someone or something) to fail - to control or overcome something (Meriam-Webster Dictionary) I have argued that attempting to remove the Christian ideals from public celebrations put on by government organizations is not a war on Christmas. There is no large organizations trying to prevent people from being able to celebrate Christmas in the comfort of people's own home, this is a movement to get a specific religious practice moved from public, government funded organizations. Anti-religious propaganda does not constitute a war. Everyone group wants to spread their beliefs and Christian groups are at least as guilty as atheist groups for spreading their own views on other faiths. My opponent then cites an article about atheists mocking Christians about the rapture not happening as proof that this argument is not only about government. Not only is the article irrelevant because it has nothing to do with Christmas and mockery is in no way an act of war, but this is one instance where the Christians were proven to be 100% wrong in their prophecy. When someone tells people to sell everything they own and give up your entire life, the they turn out to be complete frauds, mockery is warranted. That is I no way related to the war on Christmas. In summary, my opponent clearly ignored my opening request to clarify definitions prior to accepting thins debate, then he went on to use an obscure definition to formulate his entire argument. This debate comes down to whether or not an attempt to diminish the importance of Christmas so that it can be treated on par with other religious holidays is a war on Christmas or not. I would argue that this is not a war. I am sorry to anyone who read this debate hoping for an actual, decent debate. You could have saved time by looking up the definition of the word defeat in the dictionary.
The War on Christmas Exists

To start I want to clarify that my initial definition of war did not merely state "an organized effort by a large organization to defeat Christmas". My definition said to "stop or defeat". So for Pro to move forward with the understanding that he must only prove that there is an attempt to diminish the importance of the Christian conception of Christmas is simply not the intent of this debate. I had noted in my initial statement that this debate should be impossible to accept and that anyone wishing to challenge me should contact me first. After my initial challenger backed out, I did not realize I had to reset the settings to block new challengers, so Pro accepted this debate without my consent. The reason I wanted to wait to determine a challenger is so we could clarify such definitions before the debate began, rather than wasting rounds arguing about what we think a word should mean. I am not willing to continue this debate under the context that Pro is trying to argue. My argument is based around the idea that there is no large organization attempting to put an end to Christmas. There are movements in place that look to diminish the importance of the Christian conception of Christmas, since that concept of Christmas is what dominates the majority of North American culture. The majority of people moving to diminish the influence of the Christian concept of Christmas are looking for an opportunity to celebrate their beliefs the way they would like and not have an opposing belief system forced on them. An attempt to diminish the importance of Christmas is not a war on Christmas any more than the women's rights movement is a war on men's rights, or the civil rights movement was a war on white rights. It might sound worse given the words that Pro chose (attempt to diminish the importance of Christmas). I would argue that what is really happening here is a movement for religious rights, and a movement for equality is not a war on the privelaged majority. If Pro is not willing to accept this as the argument that I am putting forth, under the definitions that I laid out, then Pro can forfeit this debate or we can get it cancelled because I specifically stated that I am not looking to argue and bicker over semantics, and I will further clarify now that I am not here to argue and bicker over what we are debating.
The War on Christmas Exists

I am arguing the Con side for this debate. It is up to Pro to prove that a war on Christmas actually exists. Round 1: Pro will begin opening arguments in Round 1. Since I am placing the BOP on my opponent here, I am giving Pro both the first and last words. Round 2: Con's opening argument and Pro's rebuttal. Round 3: Rebuttals. Round 4: Closing statements/conclusion. No new arguments from Pro in their final round. Definitions: War - an organized effort by a large organization to stop or defeat something that is viewed as dangerous or bad. Exist - to be real. No semantics, no arguing about definitions. By accepting this debate you are accepting the above definitions. I am not looking to debate someone who only wants to give a brief opinion on the topic, but rather someone who is willing to present a well thought out, decently organized argument for the motion. This debate should be impossible to accept, so if you'd like to be Pro is this debate, please state your case in the comment section or message me.
WAR GAME SCENARIO: Russia Versus Chosen Nation

Russian planes fly over densly populated areas of the Netherlands, dropping care packages for the people, as main road networks were cut off due to the brief war, and begin aiding in restoring morale.I will allow the Netherlands to remain its own sovereignty, with its own economy, own laws, and its own military. There will be no sanctions against the Netherlands for the war. The only stipulation is that the Netherlands becomes a Russian Territory (as the Philippinnes to the U.S) and the presence Russian military remains. The Russian military will act as a national police force, but will also be used for military needs; they will not interfere with the everday-life of the people. One last thing, the Russian military will carry the burden of neutralizing the rebel force IF AND ONLY IF the Netherlands agree to the above stipulations.As for the Rebels, they will be dealt with shortly. They cannot escape, as Netherlands' borders are closed due to reconstruction; no one can enter or leave, the Russian military has formed a massive barrier. The military begins conducting operations to neutralize the rebels. It is estimated that the rebel force willl be no more in 2 weeks.
WAR GAME SCENARIO: Russia Versus Chosen Nation

"We want a white peace, and that is all. We must all forget the past and what has happened here. Unite as one both nations have until the finish of the Dutch. We wish ye Russians best of luck." -Prime Minister*Bomb goes off**News Report*After recent hearings of a bomb going off in the Russian Embassy of the Netherlands(which is where both sides met). Over 25 Russians have died in this bombing, and 20 Dutch civilians died too. Recent reports say that the Dutch Rebels have caused this madness and plan to fight back these Russians and push them out of the Netherlands. No one knows where the Dutch Rebels are all we know is they are swift and fast in there attacks.*Message From Rebels*Leave and Never come back Russians!!!
WAR GAME SCENARIO: Russia Versus Chosen Nation

I was not expecting a surrender, especially so early in the war. Diplomatic means are under way to sign a treaty between Russia and the Netherlands. Russian forces move into Amsterdam to secure the city, and Russian forces will continue to be present in the Netherlands.I understand if you forfeit; I will assume that the Netherlands government will be working on the diplomatic parts of the treaty and restoring morale to the people of the Netherlands.
WAR GAME SCENARIO: Russia Versus Chosen Nation

Here is the map as I see it so far in this War Game: Day 15I have decided to reinforce the northern border by taking out 100,000 citizens of are labor force to form a militia. To help hold the lines on the Northern border.Day 16Concrete Bunkers, Trenches, and Tank Traps are being made on the shoreline of the Netherlands to help hold off any invasion.Day 19 Two artillery fields with four artillery pieces are to be made to start firing at the enemies fleet.Day 24 We have decided to make a WMD and it will be a chemical weapon and it is Sulfur Mustard. Doesn't seem harmful but this stuff is deadly and can kill you like any other.Day 25 250,000 Gas mask are to be made in the next couple days o help fight off chemical weapons. This may not work due to these gas mask were a gas mask invented in the 1940s. Day 43 Netherlands today has stopped the fighting for Easter. Day 44 War continuesNow it is your turn my enemy.