BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In conversation with...

So I will start of by arguing in defence of why gender roles are unprogressively to society. This first post will be impartial arguing both for pro and con, in order to be authentic and unbias. Last year at uni I produced an education on Norway's; government model and how they are such as stable, not corrupt, peaceful country due to their female employment policy ( ie a board of directors must include a min. 2 women). It is fact that women excel in industries such as nursing, education, and business, whereas men are more hands on as mentioned. Some people, esp. conservatives believe in gender roles because it worked for their parents whilst growing up, however this doesn't factor for families suffering domestic abuse. Abuse of all kind is unnecessary, one should treat someone how one wants to be treated. On the other hand, here is why feminism has gone too far: Women are more powerful than men think, this hurts our ego, they can have a baby with someone else and we'd never know (paternity tests aside). They have the birth to our kin, we have no control over this. Women in general are so temperamental and fragile, we just want to chat, whereas all they do is shout (generic), its painful for mens' mental state. Gender pay gap: A man shouldn't earn more than his equivalent female counterpart in the same role just cos he is a man. Again more discrimination. I don't like discrimination, discrimination only causes more hate, educate don't hate. Sexual energy: Some people express their energies in a rough manner, this might be due to their difficult upbringing, but know that BDSM and rape are not socially acceptable, so if one does have such desires, it should remain to himself and his partner, not the general public. Religion: Man can not claim god created men before women just because the bible proclaims it, because the bible was written by man, not god. My main problem with women: They are soooo hypocritical, always telling us we don't listen to them, but they do their own thing themselves. My main admiration of women: They are so delicate, but at the same time so determined to make it in this world.
In conversation with...

Hello sir. You may recall on previous accounts that i antagonised you saying that you needed therapy for your misogynistic ideologies, however this won't be the case this time. I want to understand your views and why you feel the way you do, in order for us to debate coherently and professionally, about topics such as gender roles and feminism etc. I believe women can benefit society because they're smarter than men, whereas you believe they should be our slaves. Here are the rules so no boundaries are crossed 1: Topical personal, one quick look at my profiles and u can see im an antagonistic lunatic, but at the same time very knowledgeable, so we'll stay respectful. 2: Honesty over ego, both of us need to be honest about our opinions. 3:The aim of this is to bridge the gap between extremist views and socially acceptable views. Look forward to your response. Honesty: Disclaimer to me being impartial: I fear women socially because i have issues with mother, emotionally neglected me. Porn addiction, so views of women distorted. My grandmother does everything for me almost. Nonetheless i dont publicly defame women, i let them do their own thing. They're statically smarter as mentioned, n know how to work around our ego. pray tell ur opinions of women.
In conversation with...

Well that's where my dilemma lies. Since I have a such a non existent relationship with my parents, I'd argue that those women were the only ones I know, especially considering my isolated child-teenhood. It can be construed that those women have groomed me in a way that I'm psychologically dependant on them, however that is my individual perception n have no actual proof apart from them being so bloody manipulative. Now this is where i am exposed, and further explains why i decided to debate you. Almost all the time, i have impulses and in fact do hit my grandmother, despite my love for her, it's simply because she is so Goddmn psychologically controlling. For example, she plays so many mind games n guilt trips, it p1sses me off. Moreover if i do show my affections, her response seems unauthenticate n contemptible. She does the same thing to everyone, yet everyone comes crawling for her advice n assistance. In her defence, she probably fears old age, however it shouldn't allow her to do the things she goes. Moreover she is so backwards and against antidepressants n counselling, further highlighting her control issues. Hence this discussion to get your opinion on how to improve masculinity. Now quickly on to my aunts, I'd say they were my true mothers as a youth, i even had desires to marry one of them (see oepidus effect), it was weird I always used to 'slap' her butt, she didn't say anything, i was not even 10. Anyway as soon she got married it seems like they totally forgot about me. They constantly put me down for not being vocal or social enough, that in turn had an opposite, mentally damaging effect (its scientifically proven that if you constantly highlight someone's flaws, it gets 10x worse), psychologically destroying me. Now when i point this out to them, they turn it round saying I'm malevolent, that i throw their help in their face, that i use them whenever I feel like. Bullsh1t. Yep so I'm sure you can understand why it so difficult to become an independent man's man given these circumstances, please do give your opinions and explain your way of life, n how people like me should live in order to become fearless of women. This may have to continue after the rounds end. it's easy to say just fuk them but not if you are so broken mentally. Tupac before he became famous was so respectful towards women, but he soon learned that b1tches aint nothing,that get only get in our way. I'm starting to realise that now.
Video games have more positive benefits than negative ones

Con makes the assertion that someone who plays video games, is trapped in their room and has no social life. That is an assumption that is not supported by any statistics or facts. Someone is just as capable of being social and playing games, as someone who does not play games at all. In fact certain games require you to be social. RPGs teach you team work and utility and coordinating with other uses, while shooters require you to actually move in unison in order to achieve a goal. All require proper communication and the ability to coordinate (especially those online) Con says I provided reasons with no grounding, but I linked to sources that stated and supported what I was referring too. Cognitive behavior is improved along with problem solving capabilities, which can be utilized through puzzle games and other games that require you to do hard objectives. Critical thinking and fast reflexes can be found in shooters and games that make you think on the spot in order to react properly. Awareness comes from paying attention to what is around you on the game, there are studies that support that actual transitions to real life. All of the reasons I supported are cited and supported in the sources below the first round. R1) violence My adversaries only contention against video games are violent video games. He fails to realize that all video games are not violent, and that most studies actually negate his contention. ( http://abc7.com... ) . They act as a catalyst for aggression in a ways, but they are not the primary cause. Teens that commit violence that play video games, often have pre existing problems that are highlighted by playing the video games. Meaning if a person that has psychological problem plays a violent video game , it can have negative effects. The same can be said if he were to go hunting though. The issue is the person not the game itself. Pro has an extra round, id ask him to pa
Video games have more positive benefits than negative ones

Who is more useful to society, healthier and has better well-being: a bespectacled child, cooped in his dark bedroom having played video games unrestricted for the last 16 hours sniping down virtual targets and dying of fatigue? Or his twin brother attending school and socialising with his friends, building valuable friendships that will carry him through his life? Here I am going to point out that my adversary has provided a seemingly wide plethora of reasons to prove his stance, he has provided no logical reasoning to substantiate them. I challenge him to prove them in the next round - or I shall treat them as invalid and take the debate. Also, analysing his "10" reasons, 1,2,9 and 10 are essentially the same. So are 6,7 and 8. So that leaves him with only 5 unsubstantiated reasons. Even if all this is untrue, this debate is not about throwing out plus points of both sides, but COMPARING THEM and seeing which are BETTER. I will rebut his points in my 3rd round. I take it that seems he did not make any reference to my myopia point, he agrees with it completely. Violent video games The idea behind this point is the proliferation of violent video games has a negative psychological effect on children and on society. 90 percent of games rated E10+ and above have some kind of violent imagery, and violence is often portrayed as justified, fun, and without negative consequences (Iowa State University). One study found that 70% of E-rated games involved deliberate violence, and 65% reward violence or require violence to advance in the game. Studies have found that violent games promote feelings of hostility and aggression, desensitize the player to violence, and skew the player's perception of what constitutes violence. Long term effects include increased impulsiveness. Given that the brain sometimes is unable to differentiate real life and games, children are then subconciously influenced to carry out such violence in real life without understanding the consequences.
Video games have more positive benefits than negative ones

Positive effects of video games 1. Cognitive response 2 . Problem solving capabilities 3. Hand high coordination 4. Awareness 5. Social Skills (when online, despite what my adversary says 6. initiative-building 7. motivation 8. competitive nature 9. increased brain activity 10. critical thinking In addition most researches and studies show that video games have more positive effects than negative. http://www.psychologytoday.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://kidshealth.org... http://everydaylife.globalpost.com... http://www.psmag.com...
Video games have more positive benefits than negative ones

Since side Proposition has not posted any definitions to set up the debate, I will take on the task: Definitions: Video Games are games that are played by a human interacting with objects on the screen via a user interface, such as buttons on a console, controller or touchscreen buttons on a phone. Case thrust: Video games as a whole encourage negative behaviours in players. The side that wins the debate will be the side that can show how each effect of video gaming is more detrimental/helpful to players and to society in general. Substantives: 1) Inherent harm (Round 1) 2) Violent video games (Round 2) Rebuttals: 1) "they do" Firstly, this is not true as video games have a whole host of negative side effects not only physiologically but mentally and psychologically, as I will explain later in my substantives; such as increased risk of myopia, encouraging anti-social behaviour and subconscious negative influences. Even if all this is untrue, this substantive is literally only 2 words. Unaided by any logic, and ungrounded in real life examples, this point can be dismissed as one that is untrue and cannot be taken seriously 1) Inherent harm a) Anti-social behaviour The idea is that video games encourage people to spend excessive time gaming, thus reducing important time spent with family and friends. Many people buy games because they are appealing to them, suggesting that these games are more appealing than interaction with friends and family. So this means that they have subconsciously placed these games OVER this interaction. This is bad because you are then unable to maintain meaningful relationships with family and friends, which important because maintaining them are essential to preserving the family, the building block of society b) Increased risk of myopia Having proved to you that video games are being placed in higher priority than social interactions, this means that protracted length of time will be spent gaming, leading to increased risk for myopia.
politics is the topic

John Edwards has never been given the chance to get the job done which i quote my opponet has said.As far as getting the oil refineries to go down we don't need to drill we need to regulate it which no candidate has done. Shame on them.We are also quoted by my opponet that john edwards can't get his state to support him who cares what matters is what he does.my answer for a poorman is not that hes not educated but he can't win because the wealthy controls the white house.congress nor the president has done anything in 8 years wake up america isn't time we give a real person a chance whos for the people.And this is what John Edwards stands for.Plus what are we going to do if nothing is done in the next 8 years because of these candidates who lie to us.If john edwards does't win than a independent will.WE need strong leadership And i think john edwards can provide this.
politics is the topic

The problem with that is Edwards has done nothing to "get the job done" when he was in public service. His voting record is abysmal, and he was despised by the people he represented in his home state because he never followed up on any of the promises he made to get elected in the first place. You can't judge a man based on what he says, you have to base it on what he's done. Bringing the troops home from Iraq is far more complicated than simply making a phone call. No matter who the next POTUS is, we won't be leaving Iraq any time soon. Of that I can assure you. I'm not sure where you get the other "don't know what Edwards knows". John Edwards has the LEAST amount of experience among all the front runners on both side of the Isle. He's the least qualified as far as "what he knows". John Kerry was always a front runner for the nomination. John Dean grabbed an early lead but self destructed, all but handing the nomination to Kerry. Edwards doesn't have the support of the voters in his own home state, has a small, poor track record in politics, and simply trails by too much this close to the primaries to be considered a viable candidate.
politics is the topic

IT's time for a real change and edwards is the man to get the job done. He wants our boys from irag to come home.Hillery clinton has proven over and over to be double standard but edwards has done nothing but told the truth.With obama he has proven that he is not ready for the job. Edwards is also sole believer in not giving immigrants a license in the United States.Like I say the only thing the candidates didn't say we need to regulate gas. Edwards has his plans and is well qualify to run this country.The other candidates no, because they don't know what edwards knows.Edwards is a top runner, if you remember they said john kerry was not but he won the democratic party.John edwards will prove to be the best man for the job.If we vote otherwise our country is in trouble.
politics is the topic

You believe John Edwards is the best man to win what? The Democratic primary? Highly unlikely. The Presidency? I think the Republicans would LOVE to see Edwards as the challenger. A man who can't carry his own state can't win, and John won't carry his home state in the primaries, let alone the general election. Gas keeps going up because Oil prices keep going up. What "stand" do you want the President to take? Oil continues to go up for several reasons, starting with demand being at an all-time high and even at max production there is an inability to meet demand. We also don't have enough refineries to produce gasoline, again creating a supply vs. demand problem. The reason we don't have enough refineries has nothing to do with the POTUS, however. It is Congress that has prevented approving additional refineries. Bush has been nothing close to the worst POTUS, but that's another debate. I'm not sure what "mess" you refer to or what makes you think we are leaving these problems to our children. Both Johnson and Carter created and left FAR more problems around the world than the Bush Admin. We just didn't have CNN giving sound bites every 5 minutes about them. I'm not sure what you are getting at on the poor-man President = corrupt Gov't thing. Since the position generally requires a pretty high degree of education, it's probably best no "poor man" has ever won the Presidency, don't you think? I don't want some uneducated person holding the most powerful position in the world, do you?
politics is the topic

I beleive that John Edwards is the best man to win. Mrs. clinton is double standard.There is one point that none of the candidates did not bring out and that was gas regulation. Gas keeps going up because our president not willing to take a stand against this.We are going to have major problems in our country because we don't have a govt that is working together.Bush is the worst president we had in the united States.He is leaving and leaving a big mess behind him.We continue to go this route and we will leave the problems to our children.Plus if you look back at american history a poor man has never been president. why because our govt is corrupted.
politics is the topic

How is John the "#1 contender"? He's a distant 3rd in most polls I've seen just in the Democratic primaries. We are talking about a man who isn't real sure what he believes, who lost re-election in his own home state, who really has nothing for a public service record, and whose greatest claim to fame is being an ambulance chasing personal injury lawyer. THIS is the man you believe is the #1 contender to become the next President of the United States?
politics is the topic

You think Saddam Hussein was killed because of oil? For starters he was tried, convicted, and hanged by the Iraqi Government for war crimes. The United States had nothing to do with his fate. We found him and turned him over to the Iraqi authorities. Do you know that by Iraq forming a new Government we now have LESS control over Iraqi oil, not more? Edwards has done absolutely nothing either as a public servant or as a private citizen with a huge, energy guzzling home, to indicate he would, or has any interest in "finding a more efficient and economical solutions to our oil/fuel problems". Not a single thing. Actions speak much louder than words. Where is Edwards going to find this "universal health care"? It's not lost, it's simply not cost effective in any of it's current forms. Edwards hasn't come out with a comprehensive plan to change that. Again, just a lot of hot air with no action to back it up. I think you might be confused as to what a refinery is. First, Congress most certainly DOES regulate them. They are for turning crude oil into usable fuels. No, it is NOT more cost effective to import gasoline and fuel oil than it is to refine it here. Congress has prevented a much needed expansion of refineries for a couple of decades now. That severely limits gasoline production, driving up price. Again you speculate with "John Edwards is a big fan of Education", as if the other candidates aren't. Being a fan of something and having a plan to improve it are two entirely different things. On your border control argument, again, Edwards has done nothing in the past and given no plan on this issue. He simply mimics what the polls say the voters want to here with no clear vision on fixing the problems. This has always been Edwards Modus Operandi, and is why he has never been an effective leader. What does Hillary have to do with Edwards? Last I checked there are some 15 candidates still running for President, not just Edwards and Clinton. In short, Edwards can not win, will not win, and has done nothing to suggest he should win other than repeat whatever the poll on the issue of the day says most people support. A well trained Parrot could mimic poll numbers just as well as John Edwards, that doesn't make it the best choice for office.
politics is the topic

I think that Sadam Hussein was killed because of oil. John Edwards would find more efficient and economical solutions to our oil /fuel problems. John Edwards is a candidate who will work along side the average American family who is middle class. John Edwards would find ways to bring our men and women in the military home to the safety of their friends and families. Our oposition has stated that we were in Iraq because of president Hussein , which I find is not true. John Edwards would find universal health care for all of America. We as Americans should find efficient ways to regulate our oil and gas . Our oponent had stated that congress controls the United States oil which is not true. The oil refineries on United States soil are not being used because it is cheaper to use the oil over seas. John Edwards is a big fan of education for our children . John Edwards would control our borders more effectively ,then they are now. Hillary Clinton would be very debatable due to the fact that she is very hypocritical. Hillary Clinton has voted in congress on the republican side on important issues,regarding our military.Is she really a democrat? Mr.John Edwards would clean up the political mess that Mr.Bush has made. A poor man cannot win because the rich man has the main control of our government which is not for the people. We as citizens should be allowed to voice our opinions to our government officials, but they do not listen to us on the whole ,so our opinion is not voiced. I think that the congress should ask the average person what they think before they vote so that they have an informed opinion of the candidate.John Edwards would bea great president ,because he would be for the people.
politics is the topic

John was never "given the chance"? Edwards was a U.S. Senator who voted to authorize full force against Iraq. I quote Senator Edwards at the time: "Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility." Now that he seeking the Presidency, he all of a sudden believes the war was a bad idea. Baloney. He's doing what he always does, taking whatever position the polls say is most popular. Who cares if the people of his own state support him? We should. They elected him to office once and found out very quickly that what he says and what he does are very different things. I have no idea what you mean by "the wealthy contols the White House". Ross Perot was FAR more wealthy than George Bush and Bill Clinton combined, yet didn't come close to winning that election. In fact, Clinton was the only NON wealthy person in the election. And what that has to do with John Edwards is beyond me. He's the WEALTHIEST politician in the race this year, by far. If Edwards doesn't win then an Independent will? Was that a joke? No independent stands any chance of winning a national election.