BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does provocative dress promote rape

Men can't help getting turned on by how women dress, however, they CAN help what they do when turned on. They could just go behind a building and relieve themselves but instead they go rip a woman's clothes off against her will." This is a valid point, but remember this poll is whether or not provocative dress PROMOTES rape. now on with my point. First of all I would like to note out something. I would like to ask everyone reading this to imagine your work setting or school setting. What kind of women generally attract the most attention? (not to be mean) but is it the unattractive ones, or the ones who go out flashing their bodies and putting themselves out there for everyone to see? Those are the ones that attract the most attention and the ones most men will glare at. Therefore it stands to reason that they are more of a target and more likely to get raped because they choose to dress in that manor.
Does provocative dress promote rape

What do you think of celebrities like Miley Cirus and Nikki Manaj? Do you think that they are a good influence on kids, strutting their "stuff" on stage for the world to see. They're basically just world famous strippers. One its a terrible influence on our kids, two it lessens the worlds already low viewpoint of us, and three it lowers the standards by making people think that stuff like that is 'cool' and that people need to dress like that to fit in and be accepted. and three, it sets a stereotype that all American women have to endure. But simply by covering that up, you will defy that stereotype that the entire world sees, and be thought of on a higher level. I for one prefer a women with enough class to cover that stuff up. Now a Women has the right to walk freely at night and remain safe from assault. But they take that right away and endanger their own safety by putting themselves out there for the world to see, which especially isn't a good idea alone, at night. If you dress like that you may attract unwanted sexual attention.
Does provocative dress promote rape

I would like to apologize for my opponent missing the last round. hopefully he will still be here for the rest of the debate. Feminists have long said that "all men are rapists" It's in a mans biology to be attracted to the female anatomy, and when you show it - they are going to look, and not think about much else. I mean lets face it ladies, do you honestly put on those short shorts and spaghetti straps to AVOID attention? and one of the things that angers me the most is when a women says something like "i want to find a man who loves me for my brain, not my boobs" and then they wear a revealing spaghetti strap shirt that shows off half of their chest. One of the most cliche sayings today is "don't judge someone by what they look/dress like" But in reality that is simply not true. People make a first impression on you when they look at they way you dress. Do you honestly expect to get a job by walking into an interview half naked? No. the boss is looking for someone professional and professionally dressed. Different scenario, would you rather walk down a path with someone who sags their pants and has gold plated teeth? or would you feel much safer traveling down a path with a business man/women in a suit and tie? One of the things my father always told me was "how you dress is how you present yourself to the world" the dress is the individual objectifying themselves and demanding less respect not more. You will be treated in the manor in which you dress. Now obviously women don't go out of their way to get raped. But if they appeal to a mans sexual interest in the way they dress, it is more likely that they will get raped. Now the man chose to rape the women, and the man was attracted to the women. The woman didn't chose to be raped. But she could have not drawn as much attention to herself if she had dressed in a more appropriate manor.
A Canadian-style National Healthcare system would be a good thing for the United States to have.

Note: This debate is not over the Iraq war, which costs one 6 thousandth of a Canadian Healthcare plan anyways. Therefore, my opponent should not bring it up. This being the last round, we will wrap this up. My opponent has agreed that life is the most important thing in any debate it is involved in. My source (regarding the reason Canadian Healtchare cost so much less than American Healthcare) from R2 states that the Canadian Healthcare system does not give its patients quality healthcare or timely healthcare. Therefore, the money is not more wisely spent. Doctors know more about healthcare than government officials. As for competition, my opponent's argument assumes that all health treatments have already been invented. However, they haven't. Canadians who can't get treatment in Canada often resort to getting healthcare in America, because Canada doesn't offer these treatments. Elaboration: "Expenses for dental care, prescriptions, ambulance service, private hospital rooms, and eyeglasses are not covered by the Canadian government, although these expenses are included in the figure for U. S. health expenditures" In addition, "Canada has a younger population than the U. S. , with 11% of its citizen over the age of 65 compared to 12.2% in the U. S. , and a much smaller population of inner-city poor (who tend to have higher incidence of drug abuse and teen pregnancy). Both factors add disproportionately to the U. S. health-care bill. " Further, "The Canadian health system covers only part of expenses incurred by citizens who, fed-up with either the waiting lists or inadequate service under the government's "rationed" system, seek treatment in the United States or in private Canadian clinics. " . http://www.nationalcenter.org... My opponent has also conceded that adopting the Canadian Healthcare system would stop all innovations in the healthcare industry. This includes cheaper medicine and equipment as well as the cures for the many types of cancers, HIV, diabetes, hearth disease, and heart attack. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that: 1) Canada does not provide many health benefits that are freely experienced in the U. S. 2) Canada's higher life expectency has little or nothing to do with their healthcare system. 3) Canada's healthcare system gives a lower quality of healthcare than in the U. S. 4) If the U. S. , which produces more new medicine than any other country, were to adopt this plan, then an overwhelming majority of new healthcare discoveries would be stopped. 5) Canada often denies or postpones treatment to its patients, who are forced to get medicine from America. 6) America has a better healthcare system than Canada. Knowing this, the voter, on the basis of life as the most important thing in any debate concerning it, should vote against the Canadian Healthcare System and against the resolution.
A Canadian-style National Healthcare system would be a good thing for the United States to have.

"Round 2...yay!" In round one I talked about the increasingly high medical bills in the US. My opponent says that a universal health care system would force every American to pay a health insurance, but my question is, is: Does my opponent think it is reasonable for the US to be so heavily invested in international affairs such as Iraq (and every American pays for it), but neglects the important issues back in the home front? Shouldn't every American have the right to live a healthy life and be attended by a reliable doctor regardless of their income, medical history or standard of living? Yes, it is true that Canadians pay higher taxes that Americans but in my opinion their money is more wisely spent. Also, low income Canadian families and those in assistance can be exempted. Canadian's pay about 55% of of what Americans play for health insurance, and still have higher life expectancy, and lower infant mortality rate, and of course, everyone is covered. Many Americans have access to quality health care while ALL Canadians have access to similar practices at a considerably lower cost. Also, Canadian's pay 9% of National GDP to insure 100% of citizens, while Americans pay 14% GDP to insure 85% of citizens. I would also like to say that I'm sure we could find stories (good and bad) about each system but to accurately compare the two systems it is more reasonable to compare service levels than to trade anecdotes. My opponent also believes that competition inspires innovation,which is true, but in such a delicate subject which deals with people's lives, I would say that it would be more human to give each person the same opportunity. By saying that a market-oriented medical system, my opponent is saying that getting medical treatment is the same as buying a luxury car.
A Canadian-style National Healthcare system would be a good thing for the United States to have.

First, I will refute my opponent's case, then I will create my own. My opponent's case is this: 1. More is spent on medical bills in America than Canada. 2. Often, bankruptcy is caused by health costs. 3. Canada's health care is currently better. However, A Universal Healthcare system would force a health insurance cost on every american. A universal healthcare system would not lower health costs. The government would pick up the tab on the american health spending. Taxes would go through the roof. As a result, instead of filing for bankruptcy due to health costs, one is imprisoned and/or stripped of their home, car, etc. . http://money.howstuffworks.com... Canadian Life expectancy: 81.16 . http://www.indexmundi.com... United States life expectancy: 78.14 . https://www.cia.gov... The United States is fourty-first in life expectancy, and the fourty countries leading it have smaller populations (in population, U. S. is third) and not all have universal healthcare systems. . https://www.cia.gov... . https://www.cia.gov... Now, to my points. 1. National Healthcare kills people. 2. National Healthcare stints medical innovation. 1. In particular, Canadian Universal Healthcare kills people. Many people do not even get treatment, and over two-fifths don't die in a hospitiol. . http://www.city-journal.org... This source is written by a Canadian who was fond of his country's healthcare system until he became face to face with it. The doctor writes: ". .. to contain rising costs, government-run health-care systems invariably restrict the health-care supply. Thus, at a time when Canada's population was aging and needed more care, not less, cost-crunching bureaucrats had reduced the size of medical school classes, shuttered hospitals, and capped physician fees, resulting in hundreds of thousands of patients waiting for needed treatment—patients who suffered and, in some cases, died from the delays. The only solution, I concluded, was to move away from government command-and-control structures and toward a more market-oriented system. " This article also details a few examples of people whose health is postponed unreasonably by a bureaucrat. I will expand on this point in a later argument. 2. National Healthcare systems hault develpment of new medicines. This also kills people indirectly. Competition between societies, companies, people, and families inspire innovation. . http://www.amd.com... People want to have things done easier and better than others. However, a national healthcare system would eliminate this competition and so eliminate progress in the medical fields. I will elaborate in other rounds. Good luck to my opponent.
A Canadian-style National Healthcare system would be a good thing for the United States to have.

To prove why a Canadian-style Health System would be more beneficial to The United States, I must begin by pointing out the overly costly health care bills most Americans have to Pay compared to those in other countries. In Canada, for example, an average of $917 is spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, in the United States, an average of $3,372. As a result of the increasingly high health care prices, 50% personal bankruptcy in America is due to medical bills. It is believed that less than 1/2 of all the medical care in the U. S. is supported by concrete evidence that it works accordingly to its price according to the Congressional Budget office, in other words, it is not proven for a fact that its efficiency meets its price. Due to the high prices, health insurance coverage is extremely high, so about 40% of Americans do not have health insurance. 1/4 of those who are uninsured, claim that such high hospital bills changed their lives in a negative way, violently increasing their debt. Also. .. talking about bankruptcy, a study in Harvard shows that the average debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000, and 68% of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. .. yeah. But YET, life expectancy in Canada (who as I mentioned earlier spends a significantly less that the U. S. ) is still higher! And infant mortality rate is still lower!
Absolute truth exists

I am new to this site, so forgive me if there's some etiquette I'm unfamiliar with. I am using this as a learning experience. My argument for the existence of absolute truth is really three-fold. Argument one: The statement "there is no truth" is a self-defeating statement. In order for it to be true, it must be false. Therefore, there must be truth. And to add an addendum to it that the only truth is, in fact, that there is no truth is a cop-out. First of all, if the "only" truth is that there is no truth, then who's to say there aren't other truths? If you can have one truth, then there must be others. Secondly, if you're going to use a definitive statement that there is no truth, there must be true reasons to back that up. You must have arguments to support your premise. If these statements are also false (as the premise, itself, states), then the original statment must be incorrect. Argument two: There are definite absolute truths that we can observe. Everyone dies, it's just a natural process of living beings. Everyone requires food, water, and oxygen to live. There's no getting around it. There are absolute truths that occur in front of our very eyes. Argument three: There are subjective truths, and objective truths. A subjective statement is one in which there can be many truths. For example, if I say mint chocolate chip is the best ice cream, that's a subjective statement. It's only the best because it's my favorite flavor. Someone else may enjoy a different brand of ice cream, so to them another flavor may be the best. An objective statement is one that is true regardless of who believes it. Water is made up of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule. If I walk up to you and say, water is not H2O, water is actually C2HOAU, you're going to look at me as if I'm a crazy person. Water is H2O regardless of who believes it. This is an objective truth. It will not change, no matter who believes it. -Conclusion- While "there is no truth" seems to be a fairly common belief, under close scrutiny I don't believe it can be proven correct. I look forward to my opponent's response.
Homework

Everyone HATES homework. I do too. It doesn't mean homework doesn't help. First off, homework teaches time management. If you do sports and stuff AND have homework you have to manage your time wisely. Second of all, it teaches responsibility. If you forget it, you have to learn that there are consequences and take your punishment. And homework is there to help you review the topics you learned so you don't forget a topic after class. Plus it's scientifically proven it helps. You just got beat!
The song "Sexual Healing" by Marvin Gaye is the best song to play when seducing/making love2 a woman

While some of my opponents arguments are solid, like the fact that the song has good vocals, he also says that your lady will be singing along. I have a number of problems with this point. 1. If she is that into the song, the lady might think that she is actually having sex with Marvin. She will probably scream out MARVINNNNN!!!!! Do you want that? This also means that she will overestimate your abilities. 2. What if the woman who is singing makes your ears bleed? This would make it really horrible, unless bloody. ears are a fetish of yours. Instead, I suggest this song: The chicken dance. Why? Even if the lady's singing sucks, she can only dance. More movement=more pleasure. Replace some body parts in the dance [1] and bam! Instant epicness. Your move. 1.http://www.ehow.com...
The song "Sexual Healing" by Marvin Gaye is the best song to play when seducing/making love2 a woman

Well starting off Marvin Gaye is the master of classic love songs and who better than a man that has been singing since the 1950's-1982. When making love/seducing a woman their is no better song to put on than Sexual Healing. It sets the mood perfectly with it's lovely instrumental and his breath taking vocals. In no time while your pulling off the thong of that special someone she will be singing right along with Marvin Gaye asking you to give it to her. Marvin Gaye himself has experienced love issues and he knows we all need Sexual Healing so theirs no point in not playing this song to help set the mood just right.
No "Corruption" of Holy Bible

Okay, here's a list of definitions for corruption 1. dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery. "the journalist who wants to expose corruption in high places" synonyms:dishonesty, unscrupulousness, double-dealing, fraud, fraudulence, misconduct, crime, criminality, wrongdoing; More antonyms:honesty the action of making someone or something morally depraved or the state of being so. "the word "addict" conjures up evil and corruption" synonyms:immorality, depravity, vice, degeneracy, perversion, debauchery, dissoluteness, decadence, wickedness, evil, sin, sinfulness, ungodliness; formalturpitude "his fall into corruption" antonyms:morality, purity archaic decay; putrefaction. "the potato turned black and rotten with corruption" 2. the process by which something, typically a word or expression, is changed from its original use or meaning to one that is regarded as erroneous or debased. synonyms:alteration, bastardization, debasement, adulteration "these figures have been subject to corruption" the process of causing errors to appear in a computer program or database Clearly, there are many definitions, and if you don't narrow it down, I don't know which type of corruption you're referring to
Jerusalem should become an independant city state

My firend, i think that you did not read the whole resolution that i mentioned earlier as resolution 181-(11). That resolution states that if at that time the arab higher committee in palestine and the arab league have accepted it, jerusalum would have become and independant city state. Now you mention who is going to control that city state, that let me tell you that in that resolution it is written that UN - united nations - would supervise or monitior the actions within the land of jerusalum so neither palistines or jews will have control over it and if they choose to violate this, then they would be violating an international law, and ofcourse that can only happen when both sides agree that jerusalum becomes an idependant city state. And now you will mention that the city would run dry if this happens, but infact you are wrong, the city will run by the money of the tourists because Jerusalem hold great significance to three religions of the world. Money would also come from people buying food, taxes, etc... so this money would be more than enough to sustain the city and make it an attraction
Jerusalem should become an independant city state

While your solution sounds viable in theory, it is just impractical. First of all, it wouldn't change the fact that Jerusalem is split in two. Who would lead this new nation? If a Jew was elected, the Palestinians living there would be angry. If a Palestinian was elected, the Jews would be angry. The split in the city is so major that making the city independent wouldn't solve much. Not to mention the fact that Israel is already at a disadvantage n the Middle East (Source: https://i2.wp.com... https://i1.wp.com...) Taking away Jerusalem would only make the weak nation even weaker and increase the chance of another invasion. You've also forgotten that city states just aren't viable long term. Studies have shown that after 200 years, city states tend to suffer economic stagnation due to the development of oligarchies (Source: https://press.princeton.edu... https://ideas.repec.org... ) This is of course ignoring the fact that ethnic conflict tends to have an impact on the economy, a very negative impact. There's a reason why places like Somalia and South Sudan aren't economic superpowers. This also wouldn't change the fact that both sides still claim the entire land, and releasing Jerusalem wouldn't really solve the entire problem. If anything it would only hurt negotiations because there'd ow be a THIRD sovereign nation in the area. And finally, the Jews were there first. I'd go on, but I want to give you a chance to have a say.
Jerusalem should become an independant city state

The motion basically means that the plot of land of Jerusalem becomes a city which has its own laws and does not run by other countries laws. As most of us here are familiar that the current president of USA, Mr. Donald trump, is proposing a new policy and if accepted makes jerusalum the capital of isreal, and then it will act as a fuel in the isreal-palestine conflict. The oppsotion party will make an argument regarding the fact that why we shouldn't support the motion but you should consider that not supporting it is not morally right. I would like to remind you that Jerusalem holds gret significane to the three religions of the world. Both isreal and palistine are fighting for Jerusalem to be their capital and many people have died. SO IS IT MORALLY RIGHT THAT PEOPLE DIE??? I would like to bring it to your good knowlege that on 29th november 1947, the jewish leaders accepted the partion plan which was proposed by the United nations as resolution 181-(ll). The resolution recommended the creation of independant arab and jewish states and a special regime for the city of jerusalum. Even though jews accepted the resolution, the arab league and arab higher committee in palestine rejected it, opposing any creation of independant city state of jerusalum. The next year after the resolutiob was rejected, war started and it was known as the war of 1948. HISTORY HAS SHOWN US WHAT HAPPENED WHEN WE DENIED TBAT JERUSALUM SHOULD BECOME AN INDEPENDANT CITY STATE, IT LEAD TO WAR OF 1948. ONLY BY SUPPORTING THE MOTION, THERE WILL BE PEACE BETWEEN ISREAL AND PALISTINE. If we don't support the motion, war is the only solution. Both isreal and palistine are fighting for jerusalum and only by supporting the motion it will be more likely that the plot of land of Jerusalem will become an independant city state which will promote peace
life is game

I don't think our lives play with each other. For instance, i do not think everything in life is about competition. Many nations dont go to war just to say they won. some go to war help handle the injustice that is occurring in an area as USA has done for quite sometime. Another example is there is no competition when you are enjoying life surrounded by loved ones enjoying great food and music and listening to funny stories. Life is not a game as we all are destined for something,no matter what.
life is game

before there is a game it must first begine like you being born with brown eyes. you see haveing faith and beliveing in distaney is ok but so is god and americals. look at it from diffrent angle we fight wars millions of people die just to say they won a war. today everthing is a about compition whos batter etc so in game. life is a game in aspeact that our lifes play with each other.