BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should the U.N. Monitor Civil Rights in Non-Member Nations

Personally I don't think the U. N. should monitor civil rights in non-member nations. Since our potential violator isn't a member of the U. N. the U. N. shouldn't feel obligated to be the human rights police officer of this country. Of course there has to be some some degree of human rights. But who gave the U. N. the divine right to decide what is right or wrong. .. . No one! !! Individual countries should be able to decide for themselves what their human rights should be based on the countries beliefs and what the people want. But for a group of less than 200 people really be able to decide the future of billions of people, that sounds stupid and it doesn't seem like it will work very well.
There is significant proof of election fraud in New Hampshire as of 1/11/08

I am taking the For position. It is extremely unlikely that the random samples that were polled before the election would be as far off from the actual results as they were. One possible, and indeed even likely, explanation for this would be widespread voter fraud, be it intentional or accidental. The fact that the numbers seem skewed to the benefit of national favorites, but local underdogs, would only seem to support the idea (particularly given that the campaigns in question would certainly have access to the kind of resources necessary for such wide-scale voter fraud).
There is significant proof of election fraud in New Hampshire as of 1/11/08

Polling voters is a serious task, but it does not necessarily represent the opinions of voters on election day. Any number of reasons could have caused the election to go for a different candidate than predicted. While voter fraud is one possibility- it is not the only possibility. Remember my proposition is whether or not there is 'strong evidence' for voter fraud, not "the possibility of voter fraud". It is very possible Hillary Clinton's showing of emotion swayed female voters to change their votes from Obama to Hillary. It is also very possible that her showing of emotion caused new people to vote for her that had not previously planned to- after all, voter turnout was higher than expected. There is also the possibility that people lied at the original polling. People may be afraid of being called racist, or, for any number of reasons claim that they will vote for a black man- but vote for Hillary when it comes down to actually voting. Whatever it may be, I have yet to see from you- or anyone else anything more than the mere 'possibility' of voter fraud rather than 'strong evidence' of voter fraud.
Iraq War

I accept and look forward to this challenge. I realize that this first round is solely for acceptance, however I would like to make a statement to the voters before the debate begins. As there will only be one round of actual debate, and my opponent has made clear that clash is not meant to happen, I encourage voters to consider this debate on a standard of comparative advantage. This means you should weight the advantages and disadvantages provided by both sides, and at the end vote on for whoever provides the better world. I look forward to con's opening remarks.
The masons should not be considered a terorist organization.

hold the phone thats a pretty ourageous claim you are making their which will requre some evidence as im pretty sure that pretty much every country in the world is in the IMF , excluding north koera , cuba etc but countries like america and the uk , russia , china , japan , france so on are in the IMF you claimed the masons control the IMF , therefore controling the goverment... i think i will need some proof from you that the masons control the world ... but if they do , and do so without the consent of the people , and certain countrys have particapated in terrorists acts , therefore if that country that was in the IMF has commited a terrorist act , the masons surely must be terrorists.
The masons should not be considered a terorist organization.

You can and have ; not an underground, but a masonic rothschild hidden in plain view community. The masons should not be considered a terorist organization; they are a controlling organization; by controlling the money supply of most countries, using the IMF and the world bank, and all other banks they control. By controling the money supply of countries ,they control the governments of the countries who belong to the IMF..
Once Saved Always Saved

I'd like to apologize for my lack of punctuality in the last round, though what I'm doing now is equally a sad. I have to forfeit the debate due to time. I literally am waking up at 6 and not getting home until 11 until saturday. (i go to high school and work at mcdonalds).I would love to try to do this debate again in the future, as pro has proven to be very knowledgable in this topic, which is a great "relief" from the indifference at my high school. Perhaps when spring break arrives? I'll probably be shutting down my account until then anyway.
current state of feminism in first-world countries

Hello, Pro, and thank you for accepting my topic. I see your points about the differences in wages and "rape culture", and mostly agree, but my point still stands: feminism, in its current state, is obsolete. For starters, let's look at the wage issue. There is one major difference in paying wages to a man and a woman - the possibility of the latter getting pregnant. That means that, for at least half a year (the last trimester and newborn care) the woman is unable to work, and stays home with her child, while still getting her wages. And, if the goal of the employer is to maximize profits, that is an issue and can lead to losses. So, the option of the employer is either to not employ women (an even bigger inequality) or pay a smaller wage than to male employees. This is not a question of sexism and disrespect towards women. It is a question of economics. While this is obviously unfair, it is, by far, the most efficient solution. I cannot say much about the rape issue, and mostly agree with you. Good point, pro. Also, I would like to defend my representation of feminism. While the shirt issue might not be what feminism stands for, things like this is what feminism is known for in modern countries, and the most common association that people have with the word "feminism" is "angry women that dress up like vaginas" (http://proteinwisdom.com...). I know that this is wrong, and is a misrepresentation, but that's mostly what happens. The FEMEN movement is a textbook example. And let's not forget P***y Riot, the girls who danced in balaclavas in the main temple of Russia. They claimed what they did was "a social protest for equality". The feminist movement itself is noble, and has a good goal, but how they choose to portray themselves in public just shows what they are truly like. In a recent TIME vote over which word should be banned in 2015, the word "feminism" takes the cake, which just shows how tired people are of the condition of it in today's society. And, lastly, in the tangled mess of customs, standards, traditions and social rules in the society that is, women, while they may not know it, have more privileges than men. For example, in Russia (I'm Russian myself, that's why I refer to it more), all men over 18 are conscripted to the army, while women are not, which doesn't mean they are not free to join. People tend to trust women more and most civilized men are raised with a notion that all men and women should be treated and respected equally. The court issue is, too, an example. This is, too, an inequality that feminism claims to fight for, but lately feminist are just concerned with women's rights, and some even want to diminish the rights of men.
current state of feminism in first-world countries

I look forward to debating this topic. Good luck to both of us, con. I will be taking the "pro" position of this argument, "Feminism is not obsolete." Feminism still has a large place in the parts of the world con mentioned. There are several issues that warrant the existence of the feminist movement. For example, the huge wage gap issue. Women are paid on average about 70% less than men doing the same job. In some areas the gap is smaller, in others larger. However, there are extremley few lines of work where pay is equal between sexes. Feminism activley works to bring this issue to light and work to give men and women equal pay for equal work. Another issue is what is commonly called "rape culture." Contrary to a certain conception, rape culture is NOT the assertion that men are all wired to rape women or that all heterosexual sex is rape. It is simply the widespread trivialization and sometimes even condonement of rape. Such examples include the popular phrase "she was asking for it" or the cultural view that men cannot be raped because of the belief that all men want to have sex all the time (More on that later.) These two things barley scratch the surface of misogyny in modern society. Does gender equality really exist in a society where this is the norm? Next, I'd like to address con's critiscisms of feminism. The "feminist" backlash over a shirt depicting sexualized women was irrational and disgusting. Such body shaming goes against everything feminism stands for. However, this potrayal of feminism as the view of the entire movement is simply rediculous. This misrepresentation of a sincere movement that works for the good of men and women is foolish and counterproductive. Con also said something along the lines of "most [feminists] dont do anything to help." (sic) Feminism has and still does do much in the pursuit of gender equality. Since the advent of the feminist movement, more women have started to take elected office, the pay gap has lowered, and society's view is slowly but surley changing. Lastly, I will assert my own claim: that feminism is in the best interest of women and men alike. For starters, the perception that only women may be feminists is false; our lot is as diverse as the day is long. I said before that a part of rape culture was denying that men could be raped. This is only one way a male dominated society harms men as well as women. Mem are denied custody of children under the grounds that women are superior caregivers. Men are mocked for doing housework. Men are shamed for displaying any "feminine" qualities. Feminism would eliminate these problems plaguing men. In light of all these facts, can it really be said that feminism is obsolete? If the state of feminism is so bad, as con claims, why not become a feminist yourself so you can do what others fail to?
current state of feminism in first-world countries

In the 21st century, in countries with a rather equal social status of people of any gender, race, religion or sexuality, such as America or the UK, feminism has been rendered obsolete. There is simply no major issue with gender equality in those countries, so feminists resort to hating on this dude's shirt (http://www.theverge.com...) or criticising woman characters in video games (gamergate). Note that there is an actual fight for gender equality going on in less fortunate countries, where a little girl can be shot in the head for defending her right to go to school, but instead of in any way helping, these "feminists" just make life that much annoying for everyone. I know that one doesn't cancel out the other, but let's be honest here, most of them don't really do anything to help. Sorry if the text was too harsh. Let me know if you want to join.
religion should be eliminated in the US

First off, ISIS is not trying to come to the United States and make us communist (communism is a religion, by the way) but they are trying to instill fear. Fear motivates people to do things and back down. ISIS is not trying to take our religion nor our income, you are clearly mistaken. They want their own state for the Islamic people, which is why they are trying to control most of the world-state Syria. They believe that they are doing everything under god which is quite the contrary, but that is their belief. The United States was colonized by the British not in hope for freedom of religion but to have someone to control. They had no desire to give us freedom of religion. We wouldn't be stopping anything and it wouldn't change anything. In America, you have the right to be sociable with whatever religion to desire to practice under.
Childrens' stockings should now be made rectangular to suit today's Cyber Techno Internet children.

First of I wish you a merry Christmas as this is the final round From what I have observed from living in the Midwestern portion of the US is that children ages 0-10 seem more interested in things such as legos,trains,and cars. Also you did not address my question of why they would be shoved in a stocking instead of being wrapped and placed under a tree. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Couldn't fit second
Childrens' stockings should now be made rectangular to suit today's Cyber Techno Internet children.

I should inform Con that now, all a child wants for xmas is a tablet and other technology and web pages such as Twit and facepage and everything. Children as young as 2 now use tablets [1]!Also, tablets break easily so they'll always get a new one [2].I know all about Cyber Techno internet "kids".Thank you. Sources[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[2] http://psd.tutsplus.com...
Childrens' stockings should now be made rectangular to suit today's Cyber Techno Internet children.

In this day and age, children don't have toys anymore, they have kindles and tablets and other square/rectangular things. That's why I call for childrens' stockings to now be made rectangular! It's not as good as it used to be! But hey, it fits today's cyber children better!This is why I think that. It would just fit better. Besides, no child would get one individual massive sock for Christmas!Thank you.
Graffiti can be art.

However, I am narrowing the debate topic to "whether Graffiti is art" because "can be" is too opinionated and leaning too much in favor of my opponent's side. Since my opponent didn't define any words I would like to take the time now to define the words used in this discussion. graffiti is defined as "unauthorized writing or drawing on a public surface"(1) art is defined as "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. "(2) My Opening Statement: By definition, graffiti is unauthorized and therefore is a crime. If the drawing is authorized then it is called a mural, which is defined as "a large picture painted or affixed directly on a wall or ceiling. "(3) To clarify my statement, I am saying that graffiti is by definition a crime. If the drawing is authorized it is classified as a mural, otherwise it is defacing someone else's property and cannot be considered art. (1) . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) . http://dictionary.reference.com... (3) . http://dictionary.reference.com...
it should be illegal to have pets of all the types

I can see that my opponent has argued that we should turn all pets into food because we originally had to feed them. So, from this, the conclusion would be that it should be illegal to have pets because we need to turn them into food, otherwise they will "eat all the time" and "steal [sic] from [us]". The argument assumes that:1. Animals are evil in 'making this decision'2. We can't choose to eat other things OR we don't have enough things to eat to sustain life3. The suffering inflicted on these animals is of no consequence4. Already imposed legislation (in virtually every first world country) prohibiting the mistreatment of pets should be abolished to avoid contradictionI believe these rebuttals will suffessfully counter-argue a major contention of Pro's argument. Should my rebuttals be successful, my opponent's argument cannot assume that animals are "evil" (and hence, the argument will fall apart).Rebuttals:Pets do not choose which actions they performEvil necessitates that there is a choice between good and evil.In the absence of being able to make a decision, neither good nor evil can be used as labels. For example, a tree that falls on a house cannot be called evil as it had no choice in the matter, despite its action being to cause of great suffering. A pet, say a dog, is not capable of thinking what consequences their actions have other than what use the actions will have in regards to their needs. The dog will, perhaps instinctively, perform based on what needs it has. Pets are unable to understand that their actions can hurt other creatures According to an article from 'Animal Welfare and the Moral Value of Nonhuman Animals', "animals are not self-aware and live in an eternal present"[1]. Seeing as they are not self-aware (at least to a substantial extent), animals are unable to understand that their actions can have negative impacts on other animals. Animals can understand that attacking other animals may result in the other animal attacking him or her back, but this is the limit of understanding in regards to action and consequences for animals.ConclusionAnimals are not evil because they are incapable of making decisions based on the harm to other enitities (other than self-interest). Therefore, the resolution is negated.[1] Law, Culture and the HumanitiesFebruary 2010 vol. 6 no. 1 24-36
it should be illegal to have pets of all the types

pets trick everyone by being so cute, but they just take your money because they want to eat alll the time. thats why i stopped feeding my cat a year ago, becasue he was just stealing from me. he died, and now i money to buy more food for me and my family, we also get to buy clothes, because we wear out of them very fast. also, pets cause allegeries in people, that means they hurt others. if u hurt others, u need to go away, that means pets are evil, that means that NOONE should can have them, if they have them, then the pet is taken away and turned into food so the person can eat food.
I will lose this debate.

As this is my first debate on this site, it is reasonable to conclude that I will debate a more experienced and accomplished debater, so I will probably lose. If I do lose this debate, the resolution is correct and proven, and thus I win. If, however, I somehow win the debate, then the resolution is affirmed and I obviously should lose the debate. Either way, I conclude that I will lose this debate. Thank you in advance for accepting, and good look to my learned opponent.
Jerusalem is the Jewish Holy Capital

Ok, acknowledged. Addressing Your Further Statements "It is true that the Quran Jerusalem never actually mentions Jerusalem, but that does not mean it has no importance". The fact that the Quran makes no mention of Jerusalem is an example of that, originally, it was of no significance to Islam. The alleged importance now is still very limited in religious and historical support. Your examples of its importance are also lacking in theological accuracy. -Sacred to Sunni Muslims The claim that Jerusalem is sacred for the Sunni Muslims is actually based on one verse from the Quran, in which it says: "Glory be to Him Who made His Servant to go on a night from the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque of which We have blessed the precincts, so that We may show to him some of Our Signs; surely He is the all-Hearing, the all-Seeing." One verse alone, in which Jerusalem is never mentioned, is hardly a reason for the city to be of such considerable holiness to Sunni Muslims. No mosques existed in Jerusalem until 632. 50 years after Muhammed's death, so it's impossible that any reference was being made to a mosque in Jerusalem in this verse. -the Islamic prophet Muhammed visited the city on a nocturnal journey There is no evidence (in the Quran or elsewhere) that Muhammed ever visited the city. Any "visit" would've been a dream, not in real life. When Muhammed made this claim to the Meccan's, even they did not take it seriously. In later years one of Muhammed's wives Aisha, so insisted that it was not a journey (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 265) -because of this journey it was the first Qibla (direction of prayer) Again, this a journey that Muhammed did not make. Most Islamic scholars concede that the first direction of prayer was towards Mecca, as it is now. As previously stated, Muslims pray in the opposite direction of Jerusalem. -the Dome of the Rock is Islamic and where Muhammed ascended to heaven. Granted that the Dome is Islamic, but the claim that it's where Muhammed ascended to heaven is extremely lacking. Allegedly, he was supposed to have (spiritually) come from Mecca in Saudi Arabia and then to Jerusalem. If it did happen (which is highly unlikely) it again does not indicate any real historical significance to Islam. By "real" I imply something that actually happened in reality, as it has done for the Jews in Jerusalem for over 3000 years. Additionally, this particular claim claim was made in the Hadith's years after Muhammed's death. -Al-Asqa mosque is considered one of the holiest sites to Sunni, Shiite, and Sufi Muslims This premise is based on just one mosque, so as a reason to assert a city being your Holy Capital, it's lacking. There are Muslim mosques in cities all over the world, yet these cities are not laid claim to. (1.) http://www.thereligionofpeace.com... (2.) http://www.islamic-awareness.org... (3.) http://answering-islam.org...
Jerusalem is the Jewish Holy Capital

To start i want to state that i do not hate any religion i am just defending my opinions.It is true that the quaran never actually mentions jerusalem, but that does not mean it has no importance. Also, just because jerusalem is mentioned so many times, does not mean it any more important.Example of signifigance in Islam-Sacred to the Sunni people-The Islamic prophet Muhammad visited the city on a nocturnal journey.-Because of this journey it was the first Qibla {direction of prayer}- The dome of the rock is islamic and where Muhammed ascended to heaven-Al-Aqsa Mosque is considered one of the holiest sites to the Sunni, shiite, and Sufi Muslims