BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The moral obligation in an automated future

Change scares people, but change drives innovation. I would assume that a debate similar to this occurred during the agricultural revolution, when instead of needing 200 people to work on a farm, there then only needed to be 5. Or maybe during the industrial revolution, when instead of the textile industry needing an absurd amount of labor to create a small amount of clothing, a machine could make it with 50 times the production speed of a human. The point is that in a complex economy, things are going to change, evolve, and grow. Their will always be jobs for people. I am very confident in that. The only renowned economist I've seen blowing a whistle, pointing a finger, and jumping up and down about this issue is a socialist working for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The moral obligation in an automated future

With the ever improving automated technology in industry, retail and vehicles it has been speculated that as many as 50% of all jobs could become automated by 2025. My question is not "is such automation moral", my question assumes such automation has already happened. In such a future, where a large chunk or even a majority of the jobs become automated and thus leads to massive unemployment, what moral obligation do the employed minority have to the unemployed if at all. I am taking the side that there is no moral obligation by the employed to the unemployed. I think that a welfare state of such a fashion is vastly different than those that exist now. Welfare in the US, I use this as an example as I am a resident of the US, is, at least in spirit, to give those under the poverty line a financial boost to rise above the line. Whether or not such a rise ever happens is irrelevant, the system was established to give the opportunity for such an economic elevation. In a welfare state of majority unemployed and most likely unemployable the welfare would only sustain such a population and be nothing but a net drain on the economy. To be clear I am not suggesting the unemployed should starve, or be eliminated in some way. I am asking for a debate about whether or not a moral obligation exists for skilled or executive employed citizens to support unemployable unskilled laborers or skilled workers with skills that could be replaced with automation.
Third Wave Feminism

their main argument is the pay gap, which is that in America, women are paid 75c for every $1 a man is paid. some reasons that they believe this is the motherhood conspiracy. If you are wondering what that is, it is when women who are mothers are believed to have more commitment than men or single women, so they face higher expectations and less chance of a promotion. a different argument is that sexism still exists and employers might accidentally undervalue women, and overvalue men. on the topic of rape, I don't think that most people understand that a woman can rape a man, so they tend to overlook that, which is probably the reason 3rd waves think that.
Third Wave Feminism

Alright, so my main argument against it would be the over victimization, that is something really common nowadays, people say they are opressed, or the world is unfair only for the sake of saying it and feeling better about them selves, I honestly dont see how females are 'opressed' nowadays, it just seems like a really distant thought to me, the argument feminists use the most is that 'we are raped way more' and that kind of stuff, and thats absolutely fake: Studies have shown us lately that in USA more men are raped anually than females, might seem absurd but if you count prison rape, thats the actual truth. And I dont think we should overlook rape in jails just because people did something bad, but thats another issue. So how would you say females are opressed in our modern day world in democratic countries?
Third Wave Feminism

Well, the wage gap to me doesn't seem reasonable at all. They just got general earnings of both genders and then Obama came up with that statement, well, what I'm trying to say is, they didn't compare two individual people just salaries and earnings in general. More men apply to riskier jobs, such as the military and that stuff, which pay more. Women tend to pick safer jobs, and that pay less, and I don't think that is anything to do with society pressuring the genders into doing so, just that our bodies are proper to doing certain types of jobs, and the ones that demand the most of our body are normally more appropriate for males.
Banned from voting....

My opponent still refuses to put forth an argument, and meanwhile decides to project random nonsense out of his text. Con has ultimately failed to fulfill his Burden of Proof, thus, sending his pitiful balderdash straight into the depths of a poor quality argument. Conduct-PRO. Conduct goes to Pro for not making up random gibberish and getting off topic. Arguments-PRO. Con failed to fulfill his BoP, and failed to rebut my questioning on his position.
This House Would abolish homework

Counter Rebuttal: C1:You can always get help from teachers with your homework, the purpose for afterschool work is to familiarize yourself with the materials you're learning. That's why it's essential to have homework for subjects such as Math or English, when studying coursework outside of schoolwork you're giving yourself maximum exposure to the materials which not only aid in understanding but will improve your performance significantly. Counter Rebuttal: C2: Mandatory highschool classes almost necessitate homework, not because it's useless but because it aids in helping students learn the material being studied. Abolishing homework would decrease performance significantly. Counter Rebuttal: C3: I ask that my opponent please list a source the next time he quotes directly from a study. If a student applies themself accordingly they can balance coursework. I have a friend that's taking 4 AP classes and attends sport meetings regularly and goes to scouting events. And my opponent himself stated that students aren't dilligent with their time. Which proves that the fault is not in the homework, but the student. Counter Rebuttal: C4 & C5: Again, my opponent tries to blame homework for the fault of the student. Cheating has nothing to do with the assignment of homework. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ask that my opponent uphold his BoP, and present us with a case for his position! Thank you,
This House Would abolish homework

C1 Rebuttal: If you can't understand material at school, you should ask the teachers to explain it clearly than have students just left out to figure it out on their own. Teachers might be able to give a clearer definition or explanation of the problem at hand. C2 Rebuttal: Yes, high school students can choose some of their classes, but in public school, a lot of the harder classes are mandatory such as math, science, English, etc. They come with a heavy workload of homework hindering after-school activities. C3 Rebuttal: According to a study done by the Los Angeles Times, students have more than 2 hours. Actually 3 or more hours of homework. Not as many teenagers are as diligent about their time management as you are. The US Census Bureau did a study in 2013 and found that 67% of students are more stressed out because of their large amount of homework and don't get enough sleep at night. Yes, efficiency is an important tool to have, but homework is not the way to teach it. C4 Rebuttal: See the final sentence in my C3 Rebuttal. C5 Rebuttal: At home, students are more likely to look on the internet for easy answers where at school, they are less likely because they might get caught. Cheating is not the way of life. It's better to have a teacher help you than to just look up answers on Google.
This House Would abolish homework

NOTE: This is an official Connecticut Debate Association resolution. The whole point of public schools is to teach the students then and there, not to send them home with hours of homework, especially in 9th through 12th grade. When a student has hours of homework to do, it gets very stressful, chiefly when that student has other after-school programs to attend. Students often stay up late at night completing their homework and do not get enough sleep, therefore not preparing them for the next day
Evolution is false

Evolution is change. However what's debated is how much change can happen. Variations can happen, but major change cannot. Your example of the Africans only proves variation. There's very much evidence that shows evolution doesn't have enough time to happen(even assuming the 4.6 billion year old time scale) http://www.trueorigin.org... http://www.unmaskingevolution.com... http://creation.com... 1. Glue As I've said, it would mean there's not enough time for evolution. I don't man when glue was invented LOL. The molecules in it would've decayed, so we couldn't make glue. It would just be white liquid. 2. Law of Large Numbers It shows that evolution contradicts a law, since evolution says over time creatures get more diverse and can never devolve. Your dead example fails, since before we were born we had no conscious. So you actually proved the law. 3. Flagellum Con strawmans the argument. It's not false because someone says it but because evidence shows it. Using that logic all of science is wrong. Your heart example would require the model of human evolution to be slight changes for all organs. That's not the model however it is for the flagellum. 4. Mates You don't get it. " For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going."[1][2] 5. Thermodynamics That's not all what Thermodynamics says. Creationwiki writes "This is a nearly accurate statement of the 2nd law, although entropy is actually a measure of unusable energy, not useful energy. However when entropy is examined statistically it can be considered a measure of randomness. Now the more random a system is the more disordered it is. The formula for statistical entropy is: http://creationwiki.org... S is entropy. k is the Boltzmann Constant = 1.380 6504(24) X 10-23 J K-1 is the number of equivalent equally probable configurations. This is a direct measurement of disorder. Random or disordered systems have such a significantly higher number of equivalent equally probable configurations, that they can basically be considered inevitable. Now it is true that entropy is not equivalent to disorder, but entropy is logarithmically related to disorder. Entropy can be considered a measurement of disorder in the way that the Richter Scale is a measurement of earthquakes or decibels are a measurement of sound. The result is that it is accurate to call entropy a measure of disorder." [1] http://www.conservapedia.com... [2] http://www.wnd.com...
Evolution is false

I am sorry, I had to study for exams, but you never put rules in place saying that if I missed a round I lost.I am also dissapointed that after three rounds, you haven't even thought about putting up a definition of evolution. Heck, we could be debating about Pokemon evolution. So I am going to post the definition of evolution.Evolution- change over timeSo I guess we are debating on whether change over time occurs. For example, and I am not trying to sound racist, but Africans usually have no hair on their legs.This was usually because of their cold environment. But when they were forced to America, they were forced to adapt to colder environments and because of that, they got hair on their legs to keep them warm. I, for one, am an African American with hair on my legs. This is a type of evolution which helps us adapt to the environment we live.GlueI am going to challenge the validity of that argument and ask what does that have to do with this debate.First off, did someone do a study over 20,000 years to prove that glue takes 20,000 years to deteriorate? Cause the last time I checked , glue was invented in 1750, which is not even enough time to even do that study. The only way to prove that is through carbon 14 dating. But if that is the case, then my opponent automatically, forfeited because carbon 14 dating justifies Darwin's evolution theory.Law of Large NumbersHow does that first even relate to this debate? Second, so time is going to go backwards? Nobody can come from the dead so that statement has no purpose in this debate.MatesEvolution is the changing over time so of course, the new born animal needs time to develop to have reproductive organs. Think of a new born baby having sex.Thermodynamics My opponent is misleading you voters. The second law of thermodynamics says that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." from the website http://www.emc.maricopa.edu...Flagellum My opponent committed the fallacy of Over Reliance of Authority, simply stating that evolution is false because the man said so. That doesn't prove that evolution is false even with the example of the flagellum. If someone removed a man's heart, he couldn't survive, but that doesn't mean that evolution is false. Nothing my opponent said is true and doesn't justify that evolution is false.
Evolution is false

Thanks for accepting. 1.Glue The molecules that hold glue together are short lived, in 20,000 years they would've decayed.[1] Thus the universe is less than 20,000 years. Too little time for evolution. 2. Law of large numbers. The law of large numbers say that things tend to revert to their average over time. Evolution directly contradicts this 3. Flagellum " The flagellum of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of irreducible complexity as publicised by Professor Michael Behe. Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, Professor Ken Miller attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum."[2] 4. Mates All animals would've just happend to evolve at the same time as a mate with perfect reproductive parts. 5. Thermodynamics The second law of thermodynamics says over time things tend to disorder. Evolution is in direct contradiction. [1] Jefferson, Jack Decay of Atoms (2006). [2] www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Evolution#Irreducible_Complexity
Video Games are a good thing

It is unarguable that video games contain large amounts of violent content but that violent content in normal humans not predisposed to having violent behavior will not be any more violent than if they had never played any video games. In fact it will reduce their violent behavior because they can take out their anger for the outside world in a controlled environment. It is proved that video games increase cognitive reasoning, spatial cognition, organizational skills, listening abilities and teach people to plan and think before they react. It is also agreed upon that many business owners prefer to higher people who play video games because the aspire to be greater. There is no proven data that consistently says that regular people will be negatively affected at all by playing video games. Some will say it causes us to have ADHD and ADD tendencies, but I believe that is just how we receive information these days. We don't read whole magazines and papers. The news tell us 3-5 sentences stories and try to get as much info out as fast as possible. One can not even argue it causes people to get fat because that is a personal choice. I played video games in High school everyday, but I also ran and lifted weights everyday. Plus, anymore video games are on the Kinect and other motion sensing games make you get up and move. I don't know were you are going to get an argument in here.
Video Games are a good thing

My worthy opponent as I said earlier - many surveys are taken and the result is that the video games are not a good thing. So we cannot neglect them...some of them are - The Entertainment Software Association states that 20% of video game players are boys under the age of 17, 26% are over 50 (regardless of gender), and that the average game player is 34. In a survey of 1,102 teenagers aged 12 to 17, 97% of them said that they play video games. The most concerning statistic has to deal with the fact that young people are routinely able to get their hands on video games that are rated "M" (mature) or "AO" (adults only); however, few games have earned the AO rating. Three-quarters of parents who were surveyed said that they check the ratings on their kid's games. However, half of the boys who were asked about their favorite game listed a game with an "M" or "AO" rating as their favorite, compared with 14% of girls. And there are so many incidents in our society and they are taking place only because of the video games. We have to think about them also. One of them are - - On November 29, 2010 in South Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 16-year-old boy Kendall Anderson bludgeoned his mother to death in her sleep with a claw hammer after she took away his play station. Many of the parents don't know about the games - how it is? They buy what their children say and even most of the children don't bother all about this. They only think about their entertainment and nothing more.
USA should have more gun restrictions

Alright. First off, I would like to thank my opponent for creating an interesting debate. 1. "Nothing at all really passes, even something as simple as more background check restrictions."Now I dislike this sentence. It has many flaws in it. [1] Obama is actually planning to do more background checks AND banning military style weapons from the public. He actually gave a speech about gun control this year! Also, there are background checks required for certain jobs. (Say a terrorist wants to work as a flight attendant) They check his/her background information. This helps make sure that no terrorists do something again, (like 9/11)2. "Australia had a Manhattan pro to reduce guns, enacted strict gun control, and has had fruitful results."[2] That may be the story for Australia, but in Britain it was way worse. Britain has always tried to enforce gun control, but have always failed. In 1987, due to their strict gun control laws, the Hunger ford Massacre happened, killing many people. Not to mention that about 10 years later, Dunblane school massacre of 1996 happened. Both of these killed around 20 to 30 people EACH.3. "It's beyond me why we in the USA can't even pass more backgorund checks."I just said Obama plans to. 4. "It's common knowledge that having a gun in your home is likely to cause more violence." [3] No it's not common knowledge, actually having a gun in your home can protect your from burgulars, terrorists,(a little extreme, but it can happen) and other things as well. (such as intruders)5. "Not all criminals are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun." Not all, but most are. Criminals are thieves or murderers who will do anything to achieve their goal. (rob a bank, murder a person/revenge, rob a home, etc.)6. "If we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect." It will have SOME positive, but mostly negative effect. What will we do if a criminal breaks in? Also, if guns go illegal for civilians, it will just be like marijuana, people will be smuggling them everywhere.I'm done, Pro, you are up. Cites:[1]- http://www.whitehouse.gov...[2]- http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.safewise.com...
USA should have more gun restrictions

the USA is pretty unique because of how pervasive our support of gun culture is (why nothing at all really passes, even something as simple as more background check restrictions, even after so many mass shootings), and guns themselves. we may not be like other countries that have done so much so successfully (perhaps even to the point that more gun access could reduce violence when 'good guys' have guns? not sure i'd go that far), but it's not to say they haven't had success. australia had a manhattan project to reduce guns, enacted strict gun control, and has had fruitful results, lower homicides and never since then a mass shooting. (can't be said for before the reform) japan probably has the opposite of a gun culture, but it's clear that they too show that restrictions can have positive effects, nary even a murder, extremely, obscenely low. it's beyond me why we in the USA can't even pass more background checks restrictions etc. there's so much grassroots support for it, i'd suppose there's not enough politicians wanting to stick their neck out for it. it's common knowledge that having a gun in your home is likely to cause more violence. (everyone might think they are the exception, but obviously everyone isn't) if restrictions caused less guns, even to some extent, it would have some necessary positive effect. it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect. but the die hards for some reason are against it, and the politicians can't muster change.
Science Refutes God

The motion is science refutes God. I have the distinct advantage here of arguing in favor of the motion because in fact we have evidence, reason, logic, rationality, and empirical methods on our side, whereas the opponent has vague hopes and fears, and they're arguing in favor of a motion that's hanging on for its existence by mere shreds of emotional and ideological spaghetti, much like this type provided by the flying spaghetti monster, one of the equally irrational gods which science provides no support for. But I first want to begin by clarifying the nature of the motion, because the motion isn't science disproves God. It's science Refutes God. And that's very important because you can't disprove a notion that's basically vague and unfalsifiable. I could not -- there's no way to disprove the notion that God didn't create all of us 15 seconds ago with the memories of the amusing comments we heard before that. There's no way we can disprove that, okay. And that's really important to recognize that those kind of unfalsifiable notions are unfalsifiable, as I say. But we can ask, is it rational to expect that that's likely. And here I want to emphasize that 500 years of science have demonstrated that God, that vague notion, is not likely. It's irrational to believe in God.