BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This poem captures what alot of males want to do to females

in conclusion Cons own evidence supports my claim that this poem captures what alot of males want to do to females con says that at least 79% of of people ie con implies males get turned on by females -which is alot of males my evidence supports my claim when I show of this 79% that get turned on by females voyeurism is prevalent in society ie the is alot of it done and "Research shows that like almost all paraphilias voyeurism is more common in men than in women" and plus a girl herself states alot of males like looking at her panties http://www.literotica.com...... "I did, I noticed that lots of guys would try to look up my skirt whenever they got the chance. " thus from the evidence I give and the evidence con give I have proven my claim thus I should win the debate
This poem captures what alot of males want to do to females

My opponent makes a large straw man argument saying that 79% of the world is turned on by women, but you have to realize and factor in the female and male populations in there. On average, the world's population of men are under half, they are about 49% males as of last year. (http://data.worldbank.org...) So when you factor in my statistics of 21% of the male population turned off by females then you see that only leaves us with a 28% of males that are turned on. You have to realize that the debate is about the word a lot. I have proved in this debate that there are a lot of women who do not do so. Also when you add into the equation the nation's where males and females are separated religously and viva clothing; like in the Middle East, you can see that the the balance is then tipped into my favor showing that the majority of males do not wish to do so. (http://www.tradingeconomics.com...)
Nerd Debate: The Lord of the Rings is not the story of Frodo Baggins, but rather Aragorn.

In this debate, I will argue in favor of the resolution. My opponent must prove that the Lord of the Rings is not in essence the story of Aragorn and the Men of Numenor. BOP is shared. Legitamate sources are anything authored by Tolkien, and this website:http://tolkiengateway.net...;
Abortion

There is a MAJOR difference between "life" and "human life." A fetus is alive, but it is not a human. You claim to have sources that say a fetus is human; however, there are plenty of sources which claim that a fetus is not. Here is one of many: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org... I'll ask you some simple questions from yet another source: http://addictinginfo.org... if human life were to start before birth, then why is age counted from the start of birth, rather than from the start of pregnancy? If a fetus is a person then why aren"t adoptions finalized until after the baby is born? If a fetus is a person, why is no one (I shouldn"t speak too soon) suggesting the death penalty for women who have abortions? If a fetus is a person does that mean a pregnant woman is two people? Can she drive in the carpool lane? Can she buy two items when a store advertises "one per customer" sales? The list of questions goes on. Just because you have a "source" claiming the fetus is a human does not mean it is. In fact, it shows a lack of understanding how sources work. I could just make a website, claim a fetus is human, give faulty logic, and then you could use that as a source. In fact, that's what you did right now: use a source with faulty logic. Moreover, just because a fetus BECOMES a human doesn't mean that it IS a human. A caterpillar BECOMES a butterfly, but it is not yet a butterfly. A baby BECOMES an adult, but it is not yet an adult. A fetus BECOMES a human, but it is not yet a human. It is a fetus. However, EVEN IF YOU FALSELY ASSUME A FETUS IS HUMAN, WHICH IT IS NOT, ABORTION STILL IS ALLOWED. It comes down to the argument of "A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her own body." The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. Is human B not letting human A use his kidney considered murder? No. Is a mother not letting a fetus use her body considered murder? Again, no. If the fetus can survive on its own, then abortion is more of an up in the air debate. However, if the fetus needs the mother's body (which it does), abortion comes down to the simple principal of a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to. The fetus is a part of a parasitic relationship; although its body is affected, it's using the body of the mother to survive.
Abortion

I apologize for the delay. I will be arguing against abortion. I hope that round 1 was not all of Pro's argument but all Pro seems to indicate that abortion is a right. I am unaware of such a right. Since pro did not make many arguments for abortion I will give a brief outline of arguments against abortion and I will try to incorporate some counterclaims as well. Life Begins at ConceptionIt is a foregone conclusion that what is in a mother's stomach is a living being and not simply a body part of the woman's body. End of story. [1]Those who are pro-choice tend to avoid calling to murder by pointing out that since the baby isn't viable it is more justifiable. I am assuming pro is fine with pretty much all forms of abortion that take place because pro did not give any period of time. If we use what I just gave as a reference, babies can become viable sometimes as early as 22 weeks. [2]Even prior to that, why is there any justification for killing a living baby just because it cannot survive on its own? Plus if one were to just wait a few weeks, the baby will become viable. Proponents of abortion, especially those who consider it a right, tend to argue that since abortion is the deliberate termination of a baby in the womb, if the government would outlaw abortion they would be "forcing" women to have a baby which is unjust. This is blatantly false. The government is not "forcing" people to have babies by preventing the murder of them. The government is simply executing one of its primary roles which is to protect the life of people. The government has every right to prevent people from murdering each other. And guess what? A women has every right to not get pregnant. I look forward to your response. Sources:[1]: . https://www.princeton.edu...[2]: . http://www.nytimes.com...
There's nothing wrong with homosexuality

Ok first I want to point out my opponent is kinda arguing outside my definitions I set and outside the resolution. Secondly at the begining of the debate i defined "wrong" to find logical fault with. Ok being gay has nothing to do with genetics, thats bull and he has no proof to prove the claim and personal experinces do not count as a source nor does you saying your teacher said so thats not a source. Begin born gay is like say I was born loving video games, or the color blue. Which is untrue preferences are base upon personal intrest we gain as humans. When we are just born we have no concept of homosexuals or the color blue, but your argument says they do, sadly for you they don't. Its just something you like, and don't try to justify it with genetics just accept it you like what you like because you choose to like it. I like the color blue because i choose to like it. PS. I don't like being called ignorant just because you don't understand the argument insults were not called for, and it makes you sound ignorant for saying it. 1/ I am going to drop point one its semantics. 2/ I don't argue adoption at all in fact he wants to make the a marriage/adoption issue when this debate isnt about gay right but weither homosexuality is logically wrong. Which I stated that in nature homosexuality is wrong making it logically wrong. Monkeys killing each other is not lack of morals its the lack of not even having the concept of nature and morals. Monkeys understand neither morals nor nature whatever actions they take isn't of great conscience a debunks the argument of animal homosexuality because they don't even comprehend what they are doing! Genetics is already attacked/defended against. (Your last point is also pretty ignorant. You could just as well say the penis is for the anus it makes no difference. Leaves and trees and protons and electrons have nothing to do with it. I am arguing that it is fine! That is what Ok means! What are you arguing then?!) Really.... Your the ignorant one, in nature Penis is made specifically for the Vagina is that a hard concept for you little brain to wrap around or do you really know nothing of science. My examples in nature was leafs to a plant or neutrons to an atom or blood for the heart. Everything in nature has a specific function and the penis function is for the vagina and the vaginas for the penis. To reproduce nothing more nothing less, Oral or anal sex is not nature because your mouth is for eating and your rectum is for crapping not to have penis's in. Its not of nature therefore logically wrong. 3/ Oh wow like a care about your anti christian site, For one the bible was written by man back before women were treated like humans back then they were property and if you don't like what happened back then well sorry. Further more I honestly don't care its irrelevent to my argument Marriage is a Christian, muslim, and jewish thing which doesn't allow homosexuality and seeing how they have more members than -Confucianism-Satanism-Hinduism I believe i reperesent the majority. Points its logically wrong even if you don't believe legally or religously wrong.
There's nothing wrong with homosexuality

Firstly I'd like to apologize for not being able to post my response last time; I have no excuse I've just been really busy so if seen as fit, judges can vote against me on CONDUCT for that. Secondly I'd like to say that I do not believe the burden of an argument lies with me as you are arguing against something that is widely accepted as OK. Also my argument is basically if there is no IMPORTANT reason against homosexuality (which I don't believe there is) then it should be accepted as OK because otherwise we are upsetting and taking privelages from fellow equal humans. Right. Rebuttals. 1) I still think movie's are never a good reference. They are full of fiction even when they are set in today's society and it's difficult to tell the difference sometimes. You are still not made it clear what you are talking about! Please next time explain what you mean. Surely straight couples can do the same thing? If so this argument is easily debunked. 2) Wikipedia is under-rated. Yes for articles about famous people might go on and change things but I'm pretty sure (and I have checked with my biology professor) that this article is 100% accurate. I didn't say you argued against adoption. I said having gay marriage would REDUCE The number of children in the care system. This is a positive thing as it gives those kids better lives AND reduces the amount of public taxes going into the system. As a rebuttal to your argument: "Naturally sex is the reproductive system and anal sex and oral sex is not natural therefore wrong.", I put forward: "Vaginal intercourse is a part of the reproductive system but playing chess is not and therefore wrong.". It doesn't seem particularly sensible now! As for monkeys killing eachother; this is true but that is a LACK OF MORALS not a genetic thing or a way animals are born it's decisions they make. Homosexuality is not a decision it's the way you are born and I don't want you to come back with 'no it's not' because I have friends that are 15 who are gay who I trust and are great people and have said when everyone else said they liked girls the REALISED they liked boys (or vice versa for lesbians). Your last point is also pretty ignorant. You could just as well say the penis is for the anus it makes no difference. Leaves and trees and protons and electrons have nothing to do with it. I am arguing that it is fine! That is what Ok means! What are you arguing then?! 3. Ok: Rape: http://www.evilbible.com... Murder: http://www.evilbible.com... Slavery/Torture in the bible: http://www.evilbible.com... Here are some religions that allow homosexuality or even directly support it: -Confucianism -Satanism -Hinduism to name a few. There is no such thing as a 'proper' religion. All religions are proper. If I said now I was a 'noienaoeigta-ist' and believed the universe was created by a giant fuchsia coloured teapot, that would be a proper religion. I'm not going to write a conclusion this time as I think my points speak for themselves. *he I look forward to your rebuttals. Owen
There's nothing wrong with homosexuality

My case defense: 1. That movie is a good reference they use marriage to be able to put his life insurence on his friend who was pretending to be gay with him. You can't argue marriage benefits, its the law to have your spouse be your beneficiary. 2. One Wiki is not a good source and should never be used as evidence in a debate. Secondly Naturally sex is the reproductive system and anal sex and oral sex is not natural therefore wrong. I never argued against adoption, just that homosexuality is not natural therefore wrong. My argument parts fit still stand. As well as the animal thing being homosexuals they only have homosexual activity they do not stay homosexual its more likely to say they have homosexual and heterosexual behavor because animals dont know better :/ yeah, Thats like saying oh killing peoples okay because some monkeys kill other monkeys , ignorant animals don't know right from wrong they have no concept of nature. We do which is scientifically all things have a purpose. Example the penis is for the vagina or leaves are to trees or electrons and protons and to atoms. homosexual activity is un natural you might argue that well if we wanna do it well thats all fine and dandy but thats not my point. 3. Prove it I want a source that proves the bible says raping,killing and torturing as well as where they allow gay marriage in the religion and not an altered form I mean like baptist, catholic even. Marriage is a religious concept and the religions do not allow homosexuality therefore my point still stands that ..... Religiously,Legally, and logically homosexuality is wrong. As well as my opponent doesn't really have a case she just attacked mine.
There's nothing wrong with homosexuality

Thank you for your acceptance and response. :) When I said valid, I meant it's as OK and acceptable as heterosexuality but I agree with gay marriage as well so we shall go by your definition. Rebuttals: 1) What you see in a film isn't often a good source to go by as can be seen here. I don't see any way in which it could be abused. You don't just suddenly get benefits from the government for being married to someone of the same sex. I am here to argue for equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals and this includes marrige. I am an atheist (and an anti-religious) and I think it is clear now that we are past the stage of marriage being a thing of religion and is now seen as an important part of a couples life (religious or non religious) where they basically agree to spend the rest of their lives with each other. 2) Logically homosexuality is not wrong. In fact particularly in the coming years it's going to be very important. If you are born homosexual and find yourself attracted to the same sex then obviously it is impossible to have kids without the aid of technology or a third party (e.g. sperm donor) but adoption isn't actually a bad thing at all. This is for 3 main reasons: a- It gives kids in care an opportunity to be adopted (and I know that couples who can't have kids adopt but there aren't enough). b- With more kids coming out of the care system, less money would be needed to be put into it so the government would have that money to spend elsewhere. c- With population booming all over the world cutting down on the amount of kids we have might actually be a good idea. Adoption can help this. I would most certainly argue that animals can be homosexuals. Have a look here; http://en.wikipedia.org... for a list and explanations of the behavior the animals carry out. Sex was intended by natural selection to keep the species going but more recently we have accepted it to act as a reproductive system, but also a way of showing our love for someone and enjoying ourselves. It's not dangerous (most of the time) to have anal or oral sex so if both people enjoy it; why the heck not?! 3) Islam is a mainstream religion and is completely against homosexuality but Christianity only condemns gay sex not homosexuality itself. Me being atheist, I think and have the evidence to back up that the bible and quran are basically rubbish. The bible condones torture, rape and murder as does the quran but I don't suppose too many religious people believe that's ok! In conclusion, homosexuality is just as acceptable as heterosexuality. Why can't we just chill out and have some fun sometimes! Thanks and I look forward to your rebuttal.
There's nothing wrong with homosexuality

First off I do not hate homosexuals in anyway shape or form so please if I come off gay bashing im not trying to, thanks. :) First defining some things When my opponent says valid or validity of homosexuality I will define that as valid under the law or marriage. Meaning is it valid in the law or marriage process. As well I will define wrong as to find logical fault with. Case: 1. Legally homosexual marriage has great potential for abuse, like the movie I now pronounce you chuck and larry. People could use homosexual marriage only for beneficial gain under the law. marriage before the law was a religious thing, most religions don't allow homosexuality. So when the original idea of marriage was put into law homosexual marriage was not allow because it was an adopted religious law put into the law. 2. Logically homosexuality is wrong, seeing how homosexuals without the help of technology they could never bare children of their own, and only adoption is the only option. As well its natural for creatures to be heterosexual. Now some might argue that some animals behave in homosexual activity, this does not mean they are completely homosexual. As well as the fact that the parts fit. The male reproductive system is specifically under nature made for the female reproductive system. As well as your rectum is not meant for sex be the digestive system, anal sex is a un natural act of sex as well as oral. Yes I know i'll get letters. 3. Again marriage before the law was a religious thing, most religions don't allow homosexuality. Therefore religiously homosexuality is not a valid practice. So in conclusion theres no validity in the Law,Nature, and religion.
Feminism is necessary in modern First World countries.

Statistics do not show support for differences in wage To begin with, I recognize that my initial sources were substandard, but Pro is guilty of the same mistake. Pro cites a source surveying managers, and only managers- a study that also does not take in account personal choices, which is a major factor creating the wage gap myth. It's often that men work longer hours, and do not have paternity leaves that slow their advancement and pay raises. In 2009, the US Department of Labour released a study on the wage gap, examining over 50 peer-reviewed papers [1]. Once personal choices were taken in account, the wage gap drops to somewhere in between 4.8% to 7.1%- or in other words, women appear to be making 92 to 95 cents to a man's dollar. Another study by the AAUW cites the wage gap to be 6.6 cents, and that includes comparing higher-paying jobs such as lawyers to lower-paying jobs such as librarians (as they all fall under the banner of 'other white collar') [2] Both sources have also said that they could not know with certainty whether this remaining wage gap is really due to sexism, or simply due to personal choices not taken in account. More educated feminists themselves have admitted that in this way, the wage gap is very close to zero [2]. It is clear that the wage gap in First World countries is insignificant. Feminists doing terrible things I do not claim that some feminists doing terrible things means that all feminists are terrible. That being said, there is a problem when feminists do terrible things and other feminists refuse to call them out, just because they're feminists , as can be seen in [5] of my first argument. As well, there is a difference between the dictionary definition and what happens in reality. North Korea is officially "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea." Is it democratic? Is it a republic? Not at all. It's actions that matter. Feminists can claim that they're for gender equity for all, male, female, and non-gender-conforming folk, but it's their transmisogynist [3], man-hating [4] actions that most feminists feel free to ignore as those feminists are "not REAL feminists" that reveals its true nature. Domestic Responsibilties This is completely irrelevant. The question is whether feminism is necessary in modern First World countries, not still developing Third World countries where feminism is certainty still important and necessary. The claim that feminists are needed in First World countries has been rebutted. [1]http://www.consad.com... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://everydayfeminism.com... [4] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
Feminism is necessary in modern First World countries.

Many of the arguments feminists utilize to justify the existence of a feminist movement in developed countries are outdated or myths. For example, the wage gap does not exist. Putting aside the fact that it is illegal to pay someone less for doing the same job [1], discrepancies in wages result from the fact many women simply are not going into higher paying jobs, and often quit early to take care of family [2]. While it can be argued that this wage gap is a result of the 'patriarchy' forcing sexist social norms upon us, it does not change the fact that the modern-day First World woman has a great deal of freedom when choosing their education, career path, and even family life. Personal choices must be taken into account. Other myths are described at [2], but listing them all would be tedious. Suffice to say that First World feminism often relies on falsehoods. But even putting aside that fact, First World feminism often engages in other terrible acts, such as co-opting movements to promote men's health [3], treating all men as potential rapists (guilty until proved innocent, essentially) [4], among others. This may have been tolerable if feminists actively tried to regulate their movement, but criticisms of feminism are taken as either sexism or internalized misogyny, depending of the gender of the one criticizing it. Indeed, even when feminists are clearly doing terrible things, such as being shown as sexual abusers, some feminists may still defend them [5]. In all, it is clear that First World feminism runs on the spread of falsehoods about women's plight in developed countries, and it could even be argued that it is causing more harm than good. [1] http://www.eeoc.gov... [2 ] http://time.com... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [4] http://blog.simplejustice.us... [5] http://time.com...