BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Emotional Expression

Thanks, although I made a embarrassing amount of ... I sometimes leave traces of the old sentences when I edit. It's either a individual problem or a common foreigner's problem, and I usually see it right after I pressed the "submit" button. Anyway. My first debate here was way worse than this. My opponent just kept on defining multiple BOP for me and I did not even know what a BOP was. I struggled the whole time. I am still learning a lot basics in every debate. But if you get the hang of it, you can learn to approach topics from multiple sides and that keeps your thoughts flexible and awake. Debating itself is a pretty cool thing and I hope this first debate did not discourage you. In terms of a final statement: I've basically said everything I wanted to, Pro did not extend the argumentation in this round further, so I am left to say thanks to my opponent for initiating this friendly debate and thanks to any voter for reading it.
Emotional Expression

I'm sorry if my argument wasn't clear. I am arguing that it is wrong and very unfair to judge a person for how they view the world and how they feel about something. It is wrong to view someone as a bad person if they do not share our opinion on religion, media, culture, superstition, tradition, art, etc. I have seen many people excluded because of their lack of interest in the latest news, celebrities, games, and for being of a different culture and tradition. I am pro for emotional expression and having the ability to express your true self without fear of judgment, exclusion, or bullying.
Emotional Expression

Hello Eldunari, thanks for initiating this debate. As you did not set any specific guidelines I am assuming that the first round is for acceptance (in terms of fairness), but I'd really like to use it to ask for further clarification of your topic. At the moment I presume that you argue, that it is wrong to use information about a person concerning his or her preferences to built your opinion about them. I'll take the Con side from the position that preference and taste are an important part of relationships and also link to a persons moral perception. And if you are surrounded by people that you have nothing in common with or don't approve your choices, you may consider this as a bad sign in one or many ways. I am looking forward to reading your arguments, although I hope you will keep the douple-Questionmarks to a minimum. It's probably supporting your statement, that different is better, but it is really a pain (lovely, we have ourselves the first example of the debate's problem).
Anarchy

it seems that you do not have any idea how anarchy worked... if you go back to history, you find that we only had war during the anarchy area and we cant afford to go back to that. You never explain how you gonna make things work under anarchy. we need an institution or a government in place to make things work well. even lookin at debate.org, we have people administrating the website so that people would not violate anything here. we cant do anything we wanna do here because there are rules we must follow and for instance we can use dirty words here. without governments in place, how do you expect countries to deal with each other?? we trade based on rules, we deal with each other base on rules. the government or state is in place to protect the citizen and help them too. the state represents the people and that is the way to go. that didnt happen under anarchy and that was why we saw the french revolution, war in somalia, jamaica,spain and many other places... people want their rights to be protected up there. thanks
Anarchy

From time to time, you'll notice that government only worsens the ordeals of their citizens. No one has the right to tell anyone else to do. Simple as that. There are laws to nature. Thanks to Locke, we know specifically what these laws are. Life, liberty, and property. So now that we have this, why would we need government intervention at all? Could we not be like the proles in a communistic society, and learn the trade? There's just no reason as to why we have to follow rules set forth by other people that were born in the same way that we were. I don't believe in that "everyone is equal, some people are just more equal" crap. We all came out the same. No one has authority over me except God, Allah, whatever you want to call him.
Anarchy

Good day I would like to challenge you on this topic. I also have a problem with you because you have defined what you really want. I believe that Anarchy is not the way to go and there is no we can go back to it. What really happened under anarchy? there are no rules or laws. There is no political authority, no principle and we just live in political disorder and violence. Commons sense my dear that is not possible. We need a government in place that cares for the people. We need laws in place and we also need authorities to enforces those laws. With anarchy, I don't see how we could even communicate or have a debate. Even on this web, we do have rules to follow and that is what we need. so please clarify your stand and I deal with your ideas in my next argument. What are the benefit or anarchy? how do you expect us to survive under it and so on? Thank you
The patriarchy cannot be eradicated while a capitalist system still exists

Topic: A patriarchal society cannot be eradicated while a capitalist system still exists.The pro will argue that: A patriarchal society cannot be eradicated while a capitalist system still exists.The con will argue that: A patriarchal society can be eradicated while a capitalist system still exists.Capitalism is defined as:an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.Patriarchal Society is defined as:A male-dominated power structure throughout organized society and in individual relationships.Message me if you are interested in this debate.
The patriarchy cannot be eradicated while a capitalist system still exists

I was unsure of my position because I could not before the debate dismiss the notion that patriarchy exists within my own capitalist"s nation, and the internal prejudice to blame its existence on something tangible. The desire to connect one of societies troubling issues with its economic system, while an uncomfortable fit, had its appeals. What I found during my research was starker than I could have thought. Capitalism, with all its flaws, is either irrelevant or has a positive correlation. Pro, for all the hard work, was trying to connect class struggle with patriarchy. The notion that the only way to eliminate, say the issue of equity in child rearing duty"s, was to live without economic competition " or perhaps the economic controlling force of the bourgeoisie. This is simply not proved out in pros debate. I truly wish it were proven. Knowing an exact cause to the problem would provide a roadmap to a resolution. Pro, thanks again for the debate, and making me thing this through. I can answer this question with confidence now - The patriarchy CAN be eradicated while a capitalist system still exists.
The patriarchy cannot be eradicated while a capitalist system still exists

My opponent has repeatedly argued that when it comes to eradicating this patriarchal society, capitalist nations achieve better results than non-capitalist states. My opponent notably used Cuba as an example of a non-capitalist nation doing very little to protect women, even though Cuba was ranked the 15th best place in the world for women(the United States was 23)[1]. While there are fewer non-capitalist countries, it is also important to note that Venezuela a very anti-capitalist nation enacted labor laws that saw the "working week reduced to 40 hours and maternity leave increased to 6.5 months".[1] Also, it is worth noting that when capitalist nations adopt socialist policies such as regulation of markets, labor laws, etc. conditions for women increase very positively. Cultural prejudices exist because of economics systems. Economic systems particularly capitalism create inequality which results in development of prejudice between different groups. "Racism, like other forms of capitalist ideology, reflects the reality of social oppression and exploitation, but it inverts cause and effect. It is bourgeois not only in its historic origins, but also in its social function"providing a rationale for the misery, suffering and injustice which are an inevitable part of the free-market package." [3] Capitalism, and all other class divided societies create and nurture prejudice and racism. This is crucial in understanding why the liberation of women will not be achieved while a capitalist state exists. This is because capitalism causes a conflict between the exploited and the exploiters, capitalism is used as a tool to benefit the patriarchy. Capitalism cannot eliminate cultural bias and prejudice because capitalism created the class divisions the allow prejudice, exploitation, and racism to exist. The feminist struggle against the patriarchy is an essential part of class struggle, and the only way for the patriarchy to be fully and effectively eradicated is through establishment of a society based on free association. Capitalism and free association are incompatible, as capitalism is inherently hierarchical and creates a struggle between those who are on top and those who are not. The feminist struggle against the patriarchy and the proletariat's struggle against the bourgeoisie are one and the same. It is true that capitalist nations can be reformed in some aspects to the benefit of the people but in reality the end of the class struggle, and the end of the patriarchy cannot be fully achieved while capitalism still exists. [1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2]http://venezuelanalysis.com... [3]http://www.bolshevik.org...
The patriarchy cannot be eradicated while a capitalist system still exists

It is true that women have made considerable progress in many capitalist nations. Women do have many more opportunities and rights than they have had in the past. But having these new rights and opportunities, however, does not mean that the patriarchy has been completely eradicated. The issues of the patriarchy run far deeper in capitalist societies than equal wages and equal opportunities in jobs. Women in Iceland and Norway undoubtedly have many opportunities and considerable economic equality. However, the fact that women have become increasingly powerful members of the bourgeoisie in these countries does not mean that the patriarchy is close to being eliminated. Claiming that the patriarchy is close to extinction because women have more power, such as in government jobs, and because women outnumber men in universities, for instance, ignores the plight of working class women. Working class women are the ones who have historically been the most disadvantaged by the patriarchy, as I detailed in round 2. The main issue with capitalism and patriarchy is that the idea that women are the ones who take care of the children and the home, and this belief is deeply rooted in society. Even in Scandinavian countries like Denmark, women still face this burden. What is worse is that with all this capitalist progress for women in the workplace, women now face the double burden of working and taking care of children.(1) In this regard, capitalism still continues to perpetuate the patriarchy and impede its elimination, despite it appearing that women have made progress on the surface. How can a society where women face the burden of labor and childcare, two difficult and draining jobs, not be considered patriarchal? It is hard to deny that bigotry and prejudice against women continue to exist, ideologically and culturally. Despite all the positive progress some women have made economically under capitalism, it is evident that the patriarchy still has a strong foothold in society as a result of many factors including cultural prejudices. Capitalism has not helped women achieve much progress in this regard. In fact, capitalism is the root of the cultural prejudice that holds women back. Because of women"s traditional role in childbearing, child care, and housework having no value in a capitalist system, prejudices have formed and continue to exist. Capitalism and the patriarchy do in fact work together. The "progress" that women have made in many advanced capitalist nations does not indicate the elimination of the patriarchy. The patriarchy is rooted far too deeply in society for superficial progress such as wage equality and higher employment rates for women to mean that it is on the road to extinction. The patriarchy continues to exist in society through unrealistic expectations of women and strong social prejudices. Capitalism is the root cause of these issues, and therefore the patriarchy will continue to exist as long as capitalism also exists. (1) http://www.marxist.com...
The patriarchy cannot be eradicated while a capitalist system still exists

“Capitalism is an organized system to guarantee that greed becomes the primary force of our economic system" - Michael Moore The patriarchal society exists within the capitalist society without question. Recognizing the existence of the issues is akin to recognition of global warming – you either accept reality, or contort realty to fit your internal wish. The relative degree to which one society is patriarchal to another is a reality as well. While not entirely a fan of capitalism myself, when I first read the question my internal answer was “the two are unique onto themselves”. Then I had to do some honest thinking of the relationship between patriarchy and capitalism. Where they overlap and influence each other. What is the general status of patriarchy within capitalist and non-capitalist societies. When we start to enumerate countries have achieved the best results in eliminating patriarchy and that intersect with the definition of “capitalist” provided by pro, it is Scandinavian countries leading the way. The “Nordic Model”, while Socialist politically are none the less free markets [1]. So if I accept that the best of countries, the ones with the best record in moving towards eliminating patriarchy, say Iceland [2] or Norway [3], are capitalist is there any relationship between the two? If there is any relationship, is it positive, negative, neutral? Well, capitalism by the definition given and in every resource I run across is unequal by design, but not necessarily unequal by gender. In other words, I start to loop back around to my first thought. The two are mutually exclusive. However, there’s more! Capitalism unequally rewards based on a number of factors. Some factors are trite, but the one that leaps to mind is greed. With greed as a prime motivator, can we find a reason to connect capitalism and elimination of patriarchy? Well, intellectually sure! If greed overrides all, then I have no use for favoring one sex over another. Motivated by greed, patriarchy CAN be eradicated while a capitalist system still exists. Next up, patriarchy in the law and government. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.forbes.com... [3] http://www.forbes.com...
The patriarchy cannot be eradicated while a capitalist system still exists

The patriarchal society that exists today is a core part of the capitalist system. Capitalism ultimately is the exploitation of workers, especially women who often face a double burden of wage and domestic labor. The patriarchy is a manifestation of coercive hierarchy that does not value domestic labor. Due to this manifestation women are oppressed through systems of capitalism and private property. The liberation of women can only be achieved through the creation of a society based on free association which is incompatible with capitalism. Capitalism is the foundation of the modern patriarchal society, and because of this the two are inseparable and the struggle against the patriarchy is ultimately a part of the overall class conflict. Class conflict, or the class struggle, is the tension that exists in society due to competing socio-economic interests and desires between people of different classes. The patriarchy has effectively created a class conflict between men and women, which the capitalist system plays a crucial role in perpetuating. Capitalism perpetuates this conflict through the dual exploitation of female labor, specifically the double burden of wage and domestic labor that women often face in the modern world. The capitalist system takes full advantage of this in order to keep down a woman's wages and her rights as an individual and as a worker. The exploitation of women by the existing patriarchal society is seen in the struggle of the proletarian housewife. Her domestic labour is similar to wage exploitation but differs because a housewife cannot produce a surplus good and therefore does not produce anything of value in the capitalist system; that is, her work does not produce a profit. The proletarian housewife is responsible for producing the labor-power commodity but in a capitalist society her service is not valued, ensuring women's subordination in the patriarchy. As one socialist put it, "Of course, the proletarian woman often faces the double burden of wage and domestic labor. Capitalism takes full advantage of the ideology that woman"s "primary" role is in the home to keep down her wages and rights as a worker." Capitalism and the patriarchy work hand in hand to ensure the subordination of women by removing them "from a direct role in value production in a society where value is the end-all and be-all." The question we are debating is whether or not the patriarchy can still be eradicated in capitalist society. Simply put, the patriarchy cannot continue to exist because the feminist struggle against the patriarchy is at its core part of the overall class conflict between the exploiters and the exploited. Just as capitalism necessarily exploits the workers, it necessarily exploits women as well, perpetuating the continued existence of the patriarchy. Sources: https://www.marxists.org...
Gun control lowers crime

1) introduction: In this debate we discuss "gun control lowers crime" In this debate I will stand on the pro side and I offer my arguments in favor of the pro side. 2) definition: 2-1)Gun control: governmental control over the ownership of arms, whether through passing legislation on prohibition or imposing limitations on who and under what conditions is entitled to posses, store, carry and use weapons. 2-2) public: Anywhere that is not a private property and is accessible to people without legal restrictions. by this definition a venue such as a shooting club which demands a membership for entrance does not fall into the public category. 2-3) private: anywhere that is not public. I begin my argument by referring to the following census: http://news.nationalpost.com... I proceed with comparing an instance of a country, United States of America: accepts unrestricted access to guns ranging from handguns up to semi-automatic assault rifles under the soul condition that the owner be firstly a citizen and secondly older than 21 years with 2 other countries. against, firstly: Canada: allows ownership of weapons under the following conditions. 1) The owner must acquire the gun ownership license http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca... through a process resembling the driver's license acquisition. 2) Any long Gun must be registered 3) access to ammunition is restricted 4) The Gun must not be carried in public areas. 5) The owner is legally assumed to make every measure that the gun remains inaccessible to non license holders, which includes,criminals, friends, minors... under the owner's responsibility. secondly Switzerland: Every able male is enlisted in the Swiss militia
Gun control lowers crime

According the the set rule of the debate I'll solely conclude here, though I'm positive that the reader can extract necessary rebuttals to the questions put forward in the last round from my previous arguments. Conclusion:Through this debate I used cross-sectional data and comparing two countries, one in which the gun control laws are next to nothing, USA and another one which takes gun control rather seriously, Canada.I maintain my case showing different comparisons that I offered in the previous rounds that gun control is an effective way for controlling the gun related crimes. After the exclusion or serious reduction of gun related crimes using gun control laws, it is further the responsibility of a proper body of law enforcement to reduce the other forms of crime and making the society as safe as possible. In other words gun control is a necessary step but on its own not sufficient. Still combined with other necessary steps its a process that leads to a safer society.Vote for the side with the better argument. Cheers
Abortion ought to be permissible in the case of rape

Forgive me for my forfeiture, I honestly haven't been able to be at a computer in quite a while. I will concede my points of conduct. "First of all, the point of this debate isn't on whether or not abortion is murder or it's immoral or something like that. For this reason, arguments like "abortion is murder, so it's never permissible." My opponent clearly doesn't want a real debate if he says that the murder debate is irrelevant, which was the basis of my argument.