BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is better to be a man than to be a woman in the United States.

.. "-things that you hear famous athletes, musicians, singers, and movie stars saying. 2 - Valentine's Day-is about impressing women. Anniversaries are about pleasing the wife. Dates- the woman retrieves preferential treatment. Most dating rituals in the US has the woman being asked out, the male paying for the meal, the male opening doors, the male pulling out chairs, and the male catering to the woman's whim. 3 - Mating-the man begs, pleads, pays,. .. for physical contact with the woman. A male obtains a higher paying job and a higher paying house and a new car-not just to impress other men, but to impress women. The human male is subject to the same condition as the male peacock and other male mammals; the male must parade, dress, and strut in an attempt to impress the sought after female. 4 - Crimes and punishment - the woman is sometimes beaten, taken, and abused in other ways. Society has progressed to the point that the female can point at a man and say-"Look what the man did to me. " Society does not have adequate punishments, but society is indeed discussing improvements to properly punish the male. Whereas, the male is often disregarded if he states that a female beat or abused him. Society unfortunately laughs at the man and thinks less of him as a man. 5 - In the same vein, men do not have the same flexibility as women. Women can work or stay at home and still be considered women, mothers, wives, . .. feminine. Yet, men are still stigmatized with being stay at home dads, especially if they are stay at home spouses without even children to raise. These men are considered deadbeats. Women are freer in this respect. 6 - If sperm banks were populated with millions of donors, women could maintain the population for a period of time without men. However, men need women to create offspring. .. and, feed them. Females create children, feed children, are more sought after, and have more freedoms and flexibilities. Men do not.
It is better to be a man than to be a woman in the United States.

For the sake of this debate, I am assuming we are in a post Hillary Clinton presidency timeframe. Pay equality has finally been achieved; equal pay for equal work is no longer just a slogan. Cleavage is no longer the number one way to sell burgers, cars, Internet sites, cell phones, you get the idea--everything. From a purely biological standpoint, the male experience is superior to the female experience. Consider: 1. The simple mechanics of having male genitalia. This is the most fundamental differentiator in an absolutely essential distinguisher of the male experience. Not only as crudely as "the world your urinal" , but in more real terms the health benefits or the lack of health issues associated with male genitalia versus female genitalia alone makes the male experience in life better. There is no "monthly friend" to deal with. There are no massive hormonal swings to deal with, either monthly or menopause, aside from the one that is associated with puberty and generally considered a bad time for both sexes. The attendant infections and other diseases unique to female genitalia are essentially unknown to the vast majority of men. And the routine uptake and maintenance alone that goes with owning female genitalia is a significant hit on quality of life. I do concede prostate cancer sucks, but it is also one of the easier cancers to prevent and treat. 2. Sexual dimorphism. While human females are more than capable of metaphorically snapping off your head, it's nothing like being a male praying mantis. Along with our superior size and physicality, men have significant quality-of-life benefits in general. There always are tall females, but on average it is a man who will be able to reach that item on the top shelf. Our superior male upper body strength allows us to place excessively heavy things on that top shelf which can only be frustrating to even tall females thus reducing the quality of their human experience.
It is better to be a man than to be a woman in the United States.

Despite decades of feminist advances to try to bring equality to the sexes, it is still far better to be a man than to be a woman. Even if absolute equality was achieved in all measures, being a man is superior. First round is acceptance. 2nd round is for the presentation of primary arguments. The only sources or references that may be used are the direct experience of the person in the gender. The 3rd round is for rebuttal of the second-round arguments, and final position. Only the rebuttal statements in the 3rd round may introduce new arguments. Spelling and grammar count.
Neoliberalism is the answer for international development.

First of all, it shouldn't be called neoliberalism. It should be called classical liberalism, known currently as libertarianism. As to how it would effect the economy and the livelihood of workers, it would make BOTH SOAR. It would greatly improve the lives of many people. Yes, I know, big bad business is exploiting workers. Well, actually, it isn't, because the people there get paid MORE than without the companies outsourcing. Yes, it does perpetuate elitism. But, then again, SO ARE ALL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMICS. That's just something that you can't get away from, no matter how hard you try. It's just that with the libertarian system, only people actually work hard to get to that position (okay, some people have inheritance, but still), so it's justified. And plus, capitalism is the only successful system out there. Hmmm... Socialism has failed every time it has been tried. Hmmm... Gee, I wonder if every other system other than capitalism will turn out like that. Well, one short and blunt answer: YES IT WILL!!!
Neoliberalism is the answer for international development.

Neoliberalism is the wrong answer for international development. It simply does not take small, undeveloped markets into account, for one. And for another, it completely ignores the situation of the poor who themselves are routinely overlooked by the ensuing forms of development. To clarify my position, I am what sociology calls a Political Economist. I see the current forms of neoliberal development as fostering a sort of class conflict, as well as perpetuating elitism. Given that global capitalism cares only about capital accumulation, it is naive to think its forms will implement policies in poorer countries which actually concern the poor themselves. As we've seen almost exclusively throughout free market globalized development strategies, living wages and just working conditions are denied, for example. I'm not sure where my opponent would like to take us in this debate, but here is at least my preliminary view on the matter.
Neoliberalism is the answer for international development.

Yes, we can be satisfied with the lesser of two evils. In the end, not everybody would get wealthy off of the system, but MORE people WOULD get wealthy off the system. And if it weren't for the multinational corporations in India, poverty would probably hover about 75% or more and 90% of the population couldn't read. And as you said before, there are not large pieces of pie for everyone. But with this system, MORE people get a LARGER piece of pie, instead of highly regulated economies where ONLY THE GOVERNMENT gets the large pieces of pie and the people suffer for it. Is THAT how you want it to be?
Neoliberalism is the answer for international development.

Sweatshops are not justifiable. Even if workers determine they are the best for them, we cannot be satisfied with the lesser of two evils--especially in terms of living wages. The belief that the underdeveloped can pull themselves out of their condition if they work hard enough is one of the great fallacies about capitalism. Look at the current welfare system in the US. Under TANF, after one's 5-year access period to welfare has expired, 60% of working individuals (that is people exhibiting the "personal responsibility" the free market-based program calls for) are still living below the poverty line. There are clearly structural elements to underdevelopment. To deny this is to avoid the facts. THIS is why modernization theory doesn't work!! The case of India is a perfect example of this. It is clearly informed by modernization theory. By giving transnational corporations free reign, we see the same situation here as in Latin America. India has a poverty rate of around 35-40%, with 50% illiteracy. As we see in the cases of countries succumbing to global capitalism, its people feel the burden of this "development." You can say the economy has grown. And sure, perhaps it has. But what does this indicate? It indicates only an increase in GNP. It fails to inform us of the distribution of this capital, however. And if we are agreeing that it is in fact the transnational corporation who takes advantage of "open markets," then they are the ones reaping the profits, not the people. The people, then, are neglected in favor of capital accumulation, which brings me to my final point. You said capital accumulation drives people to compete. However, obviously if the transnationals are making the money, and the people are not benefitting (hence the ~37% poverty rate). When you say this makes "everyone wealthier as a whole," this once again ignores the distribution of profit. A transnational keeps the profits, for this is how its success is measured. A larger pie does NOT mean a larger piece for everyone. In the end the forces of global capitalism care only about capital accumulation. They do not redistribute the wealth amongst the workers in a way which benefits them. Poverty and literacy rates remain dismal in countries where neoliberalism has been implemented. The "better goods and services" are not obtained by the foreign workers, but only by the already-developed individuals. Neoliberal economic development is NOT a strategy with which we can be satisfied. It fosters the growth of transnational corporations, while ignoring the well-being of the individual. This is simply unacceptable.
Neoliberalism is the answer for international development.

First of all, if the businesses outsourcing that own the sweatshops, and the workers determine that this is the best choice for them, then it's justified. Second of all, EVERY SYSTEM has some people succeeding and many more people failing, that's just how the world works. Life's not fair. It's a fact. Only this makes it FAIRER. If everything were fair, we literally could not do anything. Third of all, it's not modernization "theory:" It's modernization FACT. You described it's every aspect, and that's why it works. The underdeveloped CAN pull themselves out of those conditions. It's happened before under the same system. Why can't it happen again? Fourth of all, underdeveloped countries do not surrender their power and sovereignty. As a matter of fact, they usually encourage this. Case and point: India. India has become a world economic power, and part of the reason is that they offer incentives for manufacturers that are outsourcing there. They have "Free Enterprise Zones" that give manufacturers 10 year tax holidays. What do you think? And last but not least, the obsession with capital accumulation drives people to compete, producing better goods and services, and makes everyone wealthier as a whole. Your rebuttal?
Neoliberalism is the answer for international development.

It is called neoliberalism as it places an emphasis on global development economics. To denote it as liberalism would be to miss this key point. Secondly, to address your satisfaction in the increased pay of third-world workers, I'm not sure simply saying they make "MORE than without the companies outsourcing" is an acceptable view. Should we in the developed world, with access to most of the global power and finances, accept this? Can we morally accept the sweatshop as a tolerable form of employment? I would suggest a step backwards from this viewpoint to examine the logic behind the "othering" of the underdeveloped. In follows then, should we feel uneasy about inhumane wage labor, that viewing capitalism as OK because it is "the only successful system out there" is unacceptable. Once again, can we be content with a system which in order for some to succeed, requires the failure of many more? To state that neoliberalism positively effects both the market and the livelihood of workers is to express, in sociological theory, the view of a modernization theorist. Modernization theory sees the opening of markets as the best strategy for development because it leads to a "larger pie" from which societies can take. It sees any economic activity as good for everyone because this would, according to its theorists, stimulate growth as a whole. The idea is that through the presence of global business, the competitive spirit is created, and the underdeveloped can pull themselves out of their conditions. On the other hand, the Political Economist sees this as a fundamentally elite model. When markets are "opened up," by institutions such as the World Trade Organization, the already-developed corporation has the best access to the resources. Furthermore, the counties permitting this globalization of their markets, who are informed by modernization theorists, find themselves surrendering both their power and sovereignty as nations. This is a logical view. For example, look at the Mexican Government's rewriting of its Constitution just after its signing of NAFTA to repossess indigenous lands, allowing corporations to bid on them. The Political Economy approach, then, sees the "competitive spirit" as a failed idea; global market strategies enable the transnational corporation to transcend borders, exploiting local peoples with underpaid labor, in order to maximize its profit, and maximize its profit only. This sort of obsession with capital accumulation, as encouraged under modernization theory and neoliberalism, is not the answer to global development. The priority this strategy places on economics clearly undermines the well-being of the individual. Neoliberalism is an idea with which we cannot accept.
Christianity is wrong

Well that's not very polite Farticus. Does my opponent have parental permission to be on this site as required by the Terms of Service? What are the criteria that my opponent would apply to a religion in order to judge if it is wrong? How does Christianity somehow meet these criteria that, by implication, all the other religions do not meet? What are my opponent's values? Where are you going with this? So what? Who cares? My opponent's opening arguments are not complete until this info has been supplied. That is a forfeit since that all should be done in the first round. Thank you for a very enjoyable debate
Christianity is wrong

Today on the Hill: House Energy and Commerce (10 a.m.): Communications, Technology, and the Internet Subcommittee holds a hearing on "An Examination of Competition in the Wireless Industry.". 2123 Rayburn. Tim Geithner is up to no good again. He probably wants to shut down the Internet because it is too much competition for newspapers. This guy is just no good. Online debating: Currently serious debaters avoid online debating, and for good reason. We need a set of rules, or a set of sets of rules, that can be specified and agreed to before beginning the debate, and scoring criteria that reflect those rules, and experienced moderators. We need to give some thought as to how to adapt debating tournament rules to online debating. The debaters have to have confidence that all will be able to vote, and will vote fairly. Cell phones must not be used to verify identity. There should be more flexibility in specifying the debate. There should be voting after each round. More statistics should be available. It should be possible to display debates by category. More participation, and proper debating technique learned by all should be encouraged. Educators need to look more to the Internet for the delivery of "open courseware" utilizing "distance technology." Debating has moved from the courts into the auditorium. Its next move is the big one.
Should we put constraint on media for national security

SO my opponents only response to my arguments is to say that the government will become a dictatorship, and he leads off to say about the present world, internet, paper, radio, and tv are the only links between news and the people. He leads off on a doomsday, saying that the government will be able to control all of humanity. WRONG. Look at it today. Perfect example. Look at the US. We have constraints on the media from finding out about military secrets, and yet we are still ourselves. No government dictatorship. Last time I checked, we still have freedom of speech, and the Bill of Rights. So really , my opponents still hasn't made a valid point. We can extend all my arguments. I urge an affirmative ballot.
Should we put constraint on media for national security

I hope that it will be a educational and entertaining debate for the both of us. I would also like to thank the voters for voting based upon the arguments, and not based upon the debaters themselves. To the debate at hand: The resolution is about whether or not we should put constraint on media for national security. My job is to affirm, and say that we should, and my opponent will try to prove we should not. My opponents points: He argues one point. He says that we should allow un-restricted access to anything at affects the public. REFUTATION: 1. Under your world that you suggest, the media will have access to anything they want. My arguments that I'm about to make will directly counter this, so keep reading. C1. The government will become less effective. You can't be effective as a governing body if you are constantly having to look over your shoulder and worry about what the media will think. The media will become a block to society, and intead of providing more information, they will become an issue of the government's effectiveness. That leads me to my second contention. C2. The governmet has to protect some information, but if the media has unrestricted access, that could jepordize national security. Information about war, battles, logistics, and other matters of national security could come under the scrutiny of the media. This poses a security risk to any country, since their enemies only have to look at the media for their opponents next move, or number to troops, or how much we has spent, etc. C3. This sets a deadly precedents because nations will never feel safe with anything they do, knowing their enemies will be watching all their moves. Thats it for now, but theres 4 rounds left.
Blue is better than red!

My opponents argument seems to be that Pepsi is better than Coke and since Pepsi is blue that means that it beats "red" because Coke is red. Let's look at this: Coke had a total net income of $ 11.8 billion in 2010 [1]. Pepsi, on the other hand gained $ 06.3 billion dollars in net income in the year 2010. This evidence proves that Coke has sold more than Pepsi making it a better seller and better overall in the terms of sales. So how can Pepsi possibly be better? If it were better than Coke the numbers for Pepsi would be greater, correct? I rest my case and extend my argument further. There is nothing to refute as my opponent hasn't put up much of a fight. Sources: [1] http://www.sec.gov... [2] http://www.sec.gov...
Blue is better than red!

On the contrary, I have actually proven that red is better than blue. As stated in my argument, the definition of the word "better" is "more attractive, favorable, or commendable." Seeing as red attracts attention in such instances as stop lights, fire engines, and even the physical attraction to women's dresses seen in the study, it fits the definition of "better." Also, red is a more favorable color as I showed that " Judges of tae kwon do have been shown to favor competitors wearing red protective gear over blue [2] When asked, a significant majority of people say that red abstract shapes are more "dominant", "aggressive" and "likely to win a physical competition" than blue." The judges FAVORED competitors in red more than the competitors in blue. Thus, that is two of the three characteristics that define the word "better." My opponent has only stated one reason why blue is better than red. He states that: "I think blue is better than red because red is the color of blood/violence." Although, my opponent is correct about red being the color of blood, he greatly assumes that blood equals something bad or violent. Blood is what gives us life. Blood is what ties families together. Blood is the life force of humans and animals. Without any blood how could we ever survive? My opponent has made an attempt that ranks below mediocrity. He never explained WHY blue is better than red. He actually just proved that red is the color of blood and as I stated, blood = life.
Blue is better than red!

wikipedia is not a source. You have actually supported me because you do not understand what you are saying. You said red is a dangerous sign such as a fire truck because there is a danger--support to me You said red stop sign are suppose to get drivers attentive so they won't crash--support to me You said that fire is red but can't fire kill you?--support to me You have supported me instead of rebutting me therefore you yourself are saying that blue is better than red. (and I agree)
Baptizing in the "Name" of Jesus satisfies the Matt. 28:19 (titles) requirement.

In your echoing of my scriptural references (Act 2:28- ...name of Jesus Christ Acts 8:16- ...name of the Lord Jesus Acts 10:48- ...name of the Lord. And I would add Acts 22:16- " And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Ananias' commandment to Saul of Tarsus/Paul), a theme emerges. It is the utilization of a (singular) name in water baptism. Also, the name is revealed as Jesus. (Jesus, Lord Jesus, Lord Jesus Christ, etc.). When, in the biblical narrative, commanded to be baptized in the "Name of the Lord" or "Name of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost", this is not a contradiction in scripture from baptism in the name of Jesus. What if one were to say "be baptized in the name of the Savior" and then, the occurrences of the book of Acts, where they are baptized in the name of Jesus (or Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus), were referenced? Could we then deduce, that an error was NOT committed by Peter on the day of Pentecost when he said "... be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ..." (Acts 2:38), or with Cornelius' household (Acts 10) or Paul in (Acts 19). It's important to note that who you are referring to as the Rock of Matt. 16:18 was the very preacher on the day of Pentecost who said "... be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ..." (Acts 2:38) The events that I referenced occurred from approximately 33 A.D. to 70 A.D.. Yours is the new/false gospel, found ONLY in "Christian history".