BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women have equal rights but are not the same as men.

Gracias (thank you in Spanish) for the debate! My opponent, the instigator, has the burden to prove that women have equal rights and that they're not the same as men. In short I have to refute only one of these statements however Ill try to tackle both propositions. =====Women Rights===== Obviously some women do have equal rights and some don't. Now more women do not have equal rights, meaning that the correct statement would be that women don't have equal rights. Sources to prove that more women don't have equal rights: http://www.care2.com... http://www.fao.org... http://media.www.ramcigar.com... http://www.meforum.org... http://www.suite101.com... http://www.thestar.com... http://www.globalissues.org... Clearly more women don't have equal rights therefore my opponent is incorrect. =====Are not the same===== If women are humans but are not the same as men because they have trivial physical differences. Then she should not be considered a female: http://www.foxnews.com... I just felt like also adding this: http://en.wikipedia.org... However she is considered female meaning that its ridiculous to suggest that few physical differences would make someone different. In conclusion women are the same as men just like one man is the same to another despite deformities, race, age and disabilities.
Music battle: Rap [for flow only]

[1] Can not cna [2] "Aggressive pipsqueak" don't make judgements about people you don't know. [3] Once again Debate.org is a place for debates, unless you can prove that your "rap/music battle" relates in any way whatsoever, I will not participate. [4] In your round explain how this "battle" relates, then I will post a "rap" of my own [5] You did not need to define my words, I know what they mean unlike you.
Music battle: Rap [for flow only]

Intellectual[1]: appealing to or requiring use of the intellect.Intellect[2]: the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, especially with regard to abstract matters.Rap[3]: a type of popular music of US black origin in which words are recited rapidly and rhythmically over an instrumental backing.Retard[4]: a person who has a mental disability.Please do explain how those definitions cna justify your stament you aggressive pipsqueak :)NOW FOR MY RAP OF THIS ROUND :)Sources:[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[3] http://oxforddictionaries.com...;[4] http://oxforddictionaries.com...;http://www.youtube.com...
Abortion

This round should be short and sweet along with repetitive about what you previously said, according to official debate orders. Abortion should be illegal because if the brutality and inhumane actions taken to have an abortion. The hypocritical oath and the fact that alternatives are available. People are being prosecuted for performing an abortion and are being charged with murder. Even though we need to protect what we have here, we need to reproduce and repopulate the next generation. You shouldn't be hypocritical about how people would abort children since you weren't aborted yourself. Voters, who did a better job? Are you more swayed one way of another because of your non-bias answer? Please, step out of your box of opinion. I dare you.
Military Conscription is unjust

Hello, this is The Categorical here to pose a challenge. Since this debate will only have two rounds the first round will be me giving my case and my opponent attacking it. The second round will be my defense and my opponents final attack. The negative has to pose no format but please be someone with a lot of LD experience. I made it to nationals and am hoping to win (post scriptum: I have terrible spelling) Resolved: military conscription is unjust Military Conscription: compulsory or involuntary service directed to aid during times of conflict predominantly in the military. Compulsory: Mandatory and coercive or enforced order. Justice: A moral duty. V: Justice VC: Maximization of possible freedoms Since the resolution is based upon involuntary military service whether it be active or stationary it should be deemed important to note that the negation of this resolution invariably robs one out of options. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for military service but forcing individuals to risk life and limb to help their country is no longer justice. Under my criterion of maximization of possible freedoms compulsory military action is condemned not because military action is bad, but because it is compulsory. Contention one: Compulsory Justice is no longer justice. As I stated earlier I am all for military service, only if it is voluntary. The problem with a draft is that it robs us of an option to negate. Even if we save the country, the world, the universe, it is no longer justice. It is an action out of fear for retribution and as it can clearly be seen, fear does not constitute justice. Again, allowing the people to do whatever they want is not a constituent of justice either. This is why the affirmative position is based upon practicality. We must still enforce the law even if we know compulsory enforcement is wrong. The affirmative does not advocate a military draft but as fate may see it for practicality it is necessary HOWEVER IT IS NOT JUST. a: Fear doesn't constitute justice As the European philosopher Kant stated, Good Will is that which is intrinsically good. Therefore it must be derived from duty and a sense of justice than inclination and fear. So, to commit to be just one must want to do justice because it is the right thing to do not because one is forced to. A military draft is followed because of fear from retribution from the government. The government may fine you or put you in jail. Whatever the case military service is compulsory and thus enforced. Any citizen fearful of retribution will enact the draft. Operating out of fear is not justice. Justice is made up of good will a sense of duty but not fear.
Evolution vs Creationism

This debate is a discussion arguing whether the theory of Evolution or Creationism is the cause of our origins.I, pro, will be arguing that humans were created through evolution, while con argues for creationism.Rounds:R1) AcceptanceR2) Main ArgumentR3) Rebuttals (no new arguments)R4) Response to Rebuttals (no new arguments) Rules:1) Use proper grammar and sentence structure. Please look over your arguments before posting them to make sure that you didn't accidentally make a grammatical mistake or use malapropism.2) Do not troll or use insults as your argument.3) Please be very clear and specify on what you're discussing. Explain a point in detail so that commentators and voters can understand what you're trying to say.4) Using comments to expand on your argument is not allowed.
Set one age as the age limit to drink, smoke, ect.

Any person can get a license at the minimum age of 16. Not that many people need one before the age of 16 so it can stay. Past the age of 16 anyone can get a license as long as they pass the tests. 18 is the age that I think everything should be set to besides, obviously, getting a drivers license. Schools already teach or at least should be teaching students in health class about the effects of alcohol. They know the effects By the age of 18. It just comes down to how they use that knowledge. The same is said for purchasing weapons, specifically guns. People should be able attend gun safety courses and be able to purchase handguns and get a concealed carry permit at the age of 18. Right now 18 year olds are allowed to purchase Shotguns and rifles. Why not any firearm? Random age limit that i also want changed is the age limit used for renting cars (because why not). My knowledge of it had been 25 years and up can rent a car, however it seems to have been going down. Some car rentals are at age 20. Some are at 21. The reason why they put this age limit so high is due to the amount of auto accidents people from the age of 18-21 get it. I think that it should be lowered to 18. If an 18 year old has a perfect record with no accidents and no traffic infractions on their record, then they should be able to rent a car. I know some places allow people to rent a car at the age of 18, however not all car rentals are like this. 18 is an age where a person hits adulthood and should allow people to have full freedom with no more age restrictions.
Set one age as the age limit to drink, smoke, ect.

As I stated in my response in round one, I don't completely agree with the way age restriction laws are used, but I do think that they are present for a reason. As far as the driving age is concerned, you mentioned that you wouldn't change the required age, and then mentioned that passing the written driving exam is the reason that people get a driving license. So, does this mean that you would want to keep and/or do away with the driving age, and make a single age restriction for everything else? Secondly, as I pointed out in my last response, a large amount of people between the ages of 18 and 24 die every year from alcohol consumption or alcohol-related injuries. If the responsibilities that you are talking about are knowing how to take care of yourself, then as you stated, drinking to the point of causing injury is not a reasonable way to take care of ones self. I'm not saying this because I don't think living on your own requires plenty of responsibility, or that the drinking age would change the amount of DUI's in young adults, but because I don't think that it's a fair assumption that everyone knows the effects of alcohol or that drinking too much is dangerous. Furthermore, the evidence that I provided in the last round suggests that people really don't know plenty about the responsibilities that come with moving out and going to college once they simply turn 18. In any case, our debate is about changing age laws to a single age that would let you drink and smoke, and whatever else. Throughout each round, I still don't have a clear idea about what single age you are thinking that might be.
Set one age as the age limit to drink, smoke, ect.

Bottom line is everyone must pass the written and driving exam to get a license. when they do that it doesn't matter. 16 is just an age to where a person starts needing a car for school and or a job. From a young age a persons parents can teach them the "rules of the road" and get them to know all the laws until they are ready to get a license and a car. It's just a convenience. It is how I learned to drive a car. Some one doesn't need to have a license to drive a car as long as they follow the laws and don't get pulled over. What causes someone to get a DUI? Them making the decision to drink and then drive. Its a persons choice to drink and drive. Nobody is forcing them to. It is up to the person to find a ride home if they are too intoxicated. A person is able to know how much is too much. If a student chooses to drink and blow his life away from alcohol and not focus on school that is their own issue. I'm not saying they deserve it. Its a choice that one makes. Since the age is 21, most college students shouldn't be drinking anyway. All of these deaths could be prevented. It isn't the law of the drinking age's fault this is happening. Changing the age would still just be a law that people take and abuse. >what do you mean when you say that 18 year olds know plenty about the responsibilities that come with moving out and going to college? Living on ones own requires plenty of responsibilities. People have to know to take care of themselves. Drinking to the point of causing self injury is not a reasonable way to take care of ones self. Everyone knows the effect of alcohol and knows drinking too much is dangerous. They are the only ones that can save themselves. Nothing else can be done.
Set one age as the age limit to drink, smoke, ect.

While I agree that people should be learning to drive from an early age, and I think most people that plan on driving do start at least learning to earlier than the legal age limit, I don't agree the time spent learning doesn't matter. After driving for some time, it may seem like almost a second-nature, but that doesn't not necessarily mean that it is second-nature to someone who has never been behind the wheel of a car before. Someone who has never actually driven a car before may not know the rules put in place by Driver's Education. On the other hand, there certainly people that are well beyond 16 years old that do not follow the traffic laws set in place, whether it be speeding, passing on the right, or not using the left lane to pass, or something else. So, when you talk about someone learning how to drive, are you talking about the ability to turn a car on, put it in drive, and push down on the gas pedal? Regarding alcohol, I also don't think it can be assumed that everyone knows to drink responsibly or the effects of alcohol on the body. I would even go so far as to say that there is plenty of evidence to support the opposite; that people, regardless of age (but especially those between 18-21), don't always drink responsibly or know the effects that alcohol will have on their body. According to Madd.org, not only is the rate of drunk driving accidents highest among 26 to 29 year olds, but 30% of all drivers arrested or convicted for drunk driving are repeat offenders. Another statistic, provided by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism suggests that 1,825 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die from alcohol-related injuries, and about 1 in 4 college students report academic consequences from drinking, including missing class, falling behind in class, doing poorly on exams or papers, and receiving lower grades overall. Keeping these in mind, what do you mean when you say that 18 year olds know plenty about the responsibilities that come with moving out and going to college?
Set one age as the age limit to drink, smoke, ect.

Honestly, driving isn't a huge thing. It just so happens to have an age limit. People should be learning to drive from an early age. It isn't something that has too much effect on, well, anything. Almost everyone drives, so when they learn/ get a license doesn't matter. People learn the responsibilities to drive quick and it is the same with everything. Everyone knows, for instance, the phrase "Drink responsibly" that is said on alcohol ads. People know the effect of alcohol. Everyone is responsible for their own actions when it comes to alcohol consumption. Once people turn 18 and leave home they know plenty about the responsibilities that come with moving out and going to college. With the 3 year difference between 18 and 21 people are pretty much in the same position. They are still moved out and, for most, still attending college with all the same responsibilities. Nothing really changes so why the 3 years?
Set one age as the age limit to drink, smoke, ect.

I will be arguing the "con" side of this debate, and taking the position that there are age limits and restrictions for a reason. While I do not totally agree that the current age restrictions placed around certain things here in America, I do believe that there are reasons to the restrictions that are currently in place. Regarding driving laws, it seems perfectly reasonable for a persons to have to wait until they are around 16 years old to be able to drive a vehicle without a parent present - in most states in America, someone can actually receive their license slightly earlier than this, depending on how quickly they finish Driver's Education. Now, you mentioned that you do not think that the age to drive should be changed. Given that you are arguing for a single age limit, does this mean that 16 years of age should be the only age restriction for everything that you've mentioned (driving, military service, drinking, etc)?
Set one age as the age limit to drink, smoke, ect.

Young adults get many adult responsibilities at the age of 18. Some claim the age of 18 as adulthood. Even though people ages 18-20 are still not able to do certain things because they are under an age limit. So the big question is at what age is a person an 'Adult'? why not have just one age that people must be to do anything from drinking to renting a car and so on. A person can get a job at the age of 16 as well as get a license. This is the first age limit that people face. This age limit doesn't give people complete freedom. I do not think this age should be changed. Most people do not face enough problems in high school where they make "adult" decisions. They wait until the age of 18 to move freely in the world... to an extent. One of the hardest jobs to do is serve in the military and a person could be risking their life overseas and when they get home they are still under the age limit or drinking. The least thing a soldier can do after a tour is have a drink. Outside of drinking many things require one to be at least 21 to do. some even are at least 25 years of age. Purchasing weapons have a range of age limits. How can a person at the age of 18 purchase a rifle at a local outdoors store but cannot purchase a handgun because they are not 21 years of age? what is the difference? Both are guns. Both are highly dangerous. Too many laws that restrict people from doing things. We can't keep up with how old we have to be to do anything.
C-14 in diamonds proves the earth is young

You have not presented any reason why the presence in C-14 in diamonds would suggest a young earth. You have failed to demonstrate how young diamonds suggest a young earth. You failed to present any source demonstrating numbers you cited. You have failed to demonstrate that the "apparent C-14 ages" are just... apparent. Your only source states in the TITLE that all C-14 measured in diamonds are for calibration - "...to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds". You have been unable to provide any confirmed false dates for C-14 dating. You have presented no alternative to radiometric dating. You have done nothing to demonstrate all other dating methods are mistaken. You've even gotten to the point of saying "C-14 exists, so the earth is young." Honestly, it would have been more refreshing if you're just said "Godsaidso" and been done with it. That ends my arguments. Now, to address your shocking ignorance of science... No one has EVER claimed the earth is flat based on scientific methods. Personally, despite having researched the issue, I have yet to see any source suggesting anyone has ever actually claimed the earth is flat. Even the Old Testament presents a partially-round earth (as nearly identical to the Greek model). http://findingkolob.weebly.com... Science is not people. It's not specific claims of truth. It's not facts or measurements. It is a METHOD to evaluate claims for truth. Science is never wrong, even if people sometimes are. However, there has not been a single scientific theory to have been discredited. When we compare that to religion - "flat earth" (as you call it), earth-centered universe, young earth, lack of evolution... There has NEVER been a single religious prediction demonstrated to be true! Not one. If you think there has been, challenge me to a debate. But come better prepared. I appreciate your time and effort, but to be very blunt... I'm not impressed. You are irrational.
C-14 in diamonds proves the earth is young

It's actually an argument from *valid* authority. "Experts" was a key word.You would use the same argument when the 'experts' said the earth was flat. It would not matter if 99% of the entire scientific community said the earth was made out of cheese, it just would not matter!You're referring to *fracturing* it. To crush it (to break apart individual atoms) is practically impossible. No worries.Where have you heard this? Lighter samples are crushed using mortar and pestle, harder are crushed using machines and so on, when does 'burning' come into play? What laboratory are you working at / where have you seen this?Alright, since we know 100% was C14, after 5,730 years, 50% is left. After 183,360 years, 1.56% is left.After 34,000 years 1.56% is left.Assuming perfect measurements (Pro has yet to provide a source) .004pMC = 1,466,880 yearsSee my first post for the source, if you want a 2nd source I'll post that as well. Then, it's not the correct age. Where are you getting these numbers? You would need 250 half lives for that, when that's nearly 40 times the amout we need for 0.12 pMC.No they aren't. If that were true, you could just say "C14 exists. Ergo, the universe is > 100k years"No, I could not say that, because C-14 is constantly made. However, if I found C-14 inside an object you claim was made at the beginning of the universe, then I can say that the universe is young. Depends on the sample size. Provide a source.Sample size has nothing to do with that.Diamonds were not created from atmospheric carbon dioxide. I never said that. They probably had some contamination of C-14 during formation, which according to UC Berkeley was one billion years ago.
C-14 in diamonds proves the earth is young

"Argumentum ad populum. Rejected." It's actually an argument from *valid* authority. "Experts" was a key word. >It's not extremely hard to crush, it's only hard to scrape or cut. You're referring to *fracturing* it. To crush it (to break apart individual atoms) is practically impossible. No worries. >We have to know the original amount Alright, since we know 100% was C14, after 5,730 years, 50% is left. After 183,360 years, 1.56% is left. Assuming perfect measurements (Pro has yet to provide a source), .004pMC = 1,466,880 years, past the "at least 1 billion" Con has already accepted. I would not consider over a billion years "young". >if they do, they are automatically less than 100,000 years. No they aren't. If that were true, you could just say "C14 exists. Ergo, the universe is > 100k years". But, for a really young universe, go with hydrogen-7 (half life of 21x10^-21 seconds). >You know how many atoms we are talking about when it's 50,000 years / 0.12 pMC? Much more than one or two. Even if it were one or two, Depends on the sample size. Provide a source. >please read up on some literature. Sure. Provide the source, and I will familiarize myself with at. As I've stated, the only "literature" I've seen is from the Institute for Creation Research. Do you have that in a full-color pamphlet for me to hand out? >It's relative to our current ppm., Diamonds were not created from atmospheric carbon dioxide. If you only eat elemental carbon, you have bigger issues than the age of diamonds. (See comments.) Many diamonds didn't even form on earth! As stated above, if diamonds were formed of pure C14, it would allows an EARTH of over 1 billion years. Demonstrate otherwise.