BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Christian Bible Does Not Teach Sexual Oppression/Inferiority

while i take the position the bible does put women in an inferior role, i'm probably not who you thought would argue. i'm not arguing that because of that, women should be treated inferior, like many christians would argue. my agenda would be simply to point out the oppressive nature of the bible itself, and tagently how i think the bible is not the word for word word of God. if you dont want to debate me, just start a new thread and copy and paste bible passages. ---When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) --Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. also, if you look at the NT, it says women should not wear hats in church. it says women should take an inferiror position because of the LAW. often people says it's a cultural thing, but it explicitly says the law. even if these are not the way things are done anymore, it still does not answer why it ever was. http://www.evilbible.com...
The Christian Bible Does Not Teach Sexual Oppression/Inferiority

The Bible does not teach sexual oppression. There is, above anything, a phenomenal lack of opression in the Bible, compared to, say, its historical contemporary the gnostic Gospel of Thomas. Paul does state that the two sexes were built with different roles in mind, and based on simple genetics this ought to be obvious. But any notion that one sex is, should, or would have to be inferior to the other is the result skewed cultural values and sexism and not of the Christian faith itself. Nor are the two roles meant to be taken as absolutes, as the Bible is filled with examples of men exuding feminine traits, and women exuding masculine traits. Moreover, in the very beginning Genesis ascribes female oppression as a consequence of the Fall, meaning that it is a corruption of the form relationships are intended to take and therefore, something we are to work against. Finally, it's true that most Churches deny women positions of pastoral authority, but the bulk of the theological purpose behind this single restriction is symbolic. A woman simply does not invoke the sensation of Christ any more than a man invokes the sensation of Hillary Clinton. But this symbol is important because it stems from the traditional sacramental role of the Church, where every acute detail of the Church had been designed to represent key aspects of the Faith, including the figure of Christ as the head of the Church. It is in this light no more discrimination to deny a woman the job of pastor than it is to deny her the job of playing Santa Clause. And so with these things in mind, a cultural oppression of women does not stem from a proper understanding of Biblical faith, but rather, simply from the flawed human culture which that faith must cut through.
Banning Zoos

As said in my last post, Most species of animals thrive in most zoo environments. Yes, For large animals zoos may not be the smartest thing, Although if the animal has some sort of disability it might be better off in a zoo. Animals such as reptiles, Insects, And amphibians do well in zoos. For that matter we shouldn't ban all zoos. We can put laws or regulations in place that make it extremely hard for some zoos to house large animals like the polar bear and elephant. Also, Zoos are good places because they, "have the potential to educate the public about conservation issues and inspire people to protect animals and their habitats. " http://learnenglishteens. Britishcouncil. Org/skills/reading/upper-intermediate-b2-reading/are-zoos-good-thing For a lot of zoo visitors that's the case. I donated $100 to a bird sanctuary when I was young because I went to a zoo. You see although I agree some zoos are not good places, Most have a positive impact on the world.
Banning Zoos

The animals can instead be brought to animal sanctuaries. These are essentially natural habitats which are protected from deforestation and poaching, Much like the Taman Negara. And I believe that ALL Zoos are bad environments for animals, As zoos are typically characterized by enclosures, Small limited amounts of space. A zoo will never be able to replicate a polar bear's natural habitat, For example. It is not true that animals have better life in zoos, As because of this limited amount of space in enclosures. This results in Zoochosis. Gus, A polar bear kept in Central Park Zoo, Was found swimming obsessively 12 hours a day. Https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Gus_(polar_bear) So Zoos drive animals crazy! Further, A study by National Geographic found that wild elephants in protected areas of Africa and Asia live more than twice as long as those in European zoos! [https://news. Nationalgeographic. Com/news/2008/12/wild-elephants-live-longer-than-their-zoo-counterparts/] Explain this?
Banning Zoos

I recognize that some zoos are bad environments for animals, But banning all zoos is a bit harsh. There are better ways to stop the zoos that are bad environments for animals then to ban them. There are also some other problems that arise when zoos are banned. Where would all the animals go when the zoo closes for instance. Not only this but most species of animals have a better life in zoos. "Their movement might be restricted (but not necessarily by that much) but they will not suffer from the threat or stress of predators (and nor will they be killed in a grisly manner or eaten alive) or the irritation and pain of parasites, Injuries and illnesses will be treated, They won"t suffer or die of drought or starvation and indeed will get a varied and high-quality diet with all the supplements required. " https://www. Theguardian. Com/science/lost-worlds/2014/aug/19/why-zoos-are-good (I would write more but, No room)
Banning Zoos

Zoos constantly reinforce an image that it promotes animal conservation, Such as by replacing cages with more natural settings. By doing this, The public is actually tricked to believing this image. But, The truth is, Zoos fail to do what the public expects. National Geographic states that only 212 out of the 2400 zoos even meet the standards of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA), But it is estimated that even these 212 zoos spend less than 3% of their yearly budget in conservation and education. Still, People are going to keep believing zoos are doing tremendous conservation work, However inherently false this is, Because it is much easier to believe someone else is shouldering the burden of such responsibility, Than they shoulder it themselves. In order to protect animals, Zoos must be banned.
Affirmative Action is Not Justified

Affirmative action(AA) is wrong because reverse racism is still racism. AA helps out females and POCs at the expense of the CIS HET White Males. The reason why males and caucasians are more likely to be CEOs and leaders of big businesses is because they tend to be more qualified and more interested in those fields. The government should not help solve POCs tending to not get into as good of jobs. Minorities should depend on themselves to get good jobs. Caucasian males tend to already do this. So do Asian males. It's why their GDP per capitas are similar to each other and high compared to other races. It's now time for most Blacks and Hispanics to Emulate the Caucasians and Asians. It's now time for females that want to be CEOs to emulate male CEOs. Rebuttals: "These should occur in the workplace" No. Workplaces have already gone liberal enough. It's time for them to pick people on the basis of qualifications, not skin color or chromosomes. "at colleges and in general education in order to fix the problem of discrimination against marginalized groups and under representation of women" Women already make up the majority of college graduates and minorities already are more likely to attend school in general than Caucasians because they tend to have more kids. Yet, just being in the education system doesn't work. What does work for the individual is not the power of society, but the power of themselves. What POC and women should do to even the playing field against CIS HET White Males: Emulate, not take.
Affirmative Action is Not Justified

By affirmative action I mean mechanisms such as quotas or all female shortlists for certain positions. These should occur in the workplace, at colleges and in general education in order to fix the problem of discrimination against marginalised groups and underrepresentation of women and ethnic minorities in top positions. I look forward to my opponent"s argument and hope this will be a productive debate. A forfeit is an automatic loss by the way. I am Con so I am justifying affirmative action and Pro is criticising it. Good luck
Equality In Human Society Is Impossible

My, goodness. Judges, bear with me. PRO laments that I disregarded his examples of North Korea and China, yet fails to realize that in offering the United States as an example of extant equality (as he defined the word "equality") in human society, I proved that equality is not only possible, but realizable. So, that negates the resolution that "equality in human society is impossible." But since he mentioned it, I think I'll talk more about the extent to which his argument is flawed. PRO's idea is that because North Korea and China are what they are, inequality is "inherently" a "part of human nature." There are a few problems with this notion: (1) the fact that he is fallaciously generalizing absolutes from isolated cases, (2) the fact that his general conclusion about human nature does not follow from the state of things in either country he cites, (3) the fact that even if his argument were deductively valid, it is irrelevant, because he's talking about human nature whereas the resolution is about human society and whether or not equality is possible. PRO importunes me to "provide him with a nation in human history that has not had inequality" -which is, likewise, a fallacious scope shift -because we are only talking about the kind of inequality which he defined in the first round, which is "the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc." I have demonstrated that the United States is an example of a society in which that society's members enjoy the quality or state of having the same legal rights and the same social status as citizens. As such, within the scope of his definition, I have negated the resolution because the United States example illustrates that equality is NOT impossible. PRO continue to deviate beyond the scope of the resolution or his definition which he offered in the first round, in ways I see no reason to rehash. I have demonstrated that equality as PRO defined it is not impossible, and therefore I have won this debate and PRO has failed to sustain his BOP.
Equality In Human Society Is Impossible

PRO is making the claim, therefore PRO carries the BOP. The resolution we're debating is this: "Equality in human society is impossible." What that means is that there is no conceivable strategy by which equality could be facilitated. The resolutions speaks about human society generally, not specifically addressing any one society against which extant social norms could be reasonably argued as having any impact or not. I'll work within the scope of pro's definition for equality. (Some minor notes: whether equality is subjective or objective is beyond the scope of this debate, and no requisite assumption thereof is needed.) PRO's main argument is this: People cannot be equal because they will always seek to make something elite. PRO cites that all previous instances to achieve equality have failed, but limits the scope of "previous examples" pursuing equality to "communism." PRO cites North Korea and China as examples, and concludes that human nature precludes equality because inequality is "ingrained in our very nature." How lovely. Aside from none of his arguments, evidence or examples cited not actually affirming the resolution, he has in no way substantiated the claim that inequality is inherent to human nature. w/e I want to focus specifically on PRO's definition of equality which reads "the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc." What he has to do to win this debate is argue that there is no conceivable possibility that human beings could share an existence in which they have "the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc." Rights and social status are codified in law. So, if any society's law is founded on the idea that all men are created equally, that they are endowed with equal rights by their creator, and that none are of a higher class than another, then that means that the law has facilitated a quality or state of having the same rights and social status among that society's members. This is the case in the United States. Constitutional rights are the source of legal and social equality in US society. Constitutional rights are indispensable to citizenship and guaranteed to all Americans. The 14th Amendment reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." From this we derive that not only is equality possible, but it is codified into law. I have provided one example in which equality as PRO defined it is possible, meaning that equality cannot be impossible. Consequently, I have rendered impossible any chance of PRO meeting his BOP and therefore, I have already won this debate. Peace and Love, YYW
Equality In Human Society Is Impossible

Let us begin, but before that I need to clarify something. "If CON can illustrate even one way that equality, as PRO defined it, to be realized -however outlandish, bold or irrational- then PRO necessarily looses this debate." This is true. However, I still possess the ability to post rebuttals to your ideas, because I am arguing that equality could never be achieved in HUMAN SOCIETY, meaning that they must therefore be at least semi realistically applicable to human society. If your arguments are outlandish, bold, and irrational, I can still disprove them or at least attempt to. Now that is done with, I will proceed with the debate. 1. The central point- This is central to understanding my argument, and part of the epicenter. If equality is achieved, a equilibrium like state, then there will be a new branch of individuals. These people will attempt to seek something to make them in the elite. Whether it be power, wealth, social status etc. They will try to seek something to put them above the rest. This will happen eternally, and is nigh impossible to stop as it is part of human nature. Even if people bring themselves up to date and in the same position as these, "elites" these "elites" will still strive toward more and more wealth, power, social status etc. Even if we discount the above argument, even the subtlest fluctuation in the flow of equality disrupts it, thereby making even the most minuscule of advantages halt the equality in this fictitious society. 2. All attempts within the history of humanity to achieve perfect equality have failed. To address this point I point to the most well known example of a people trying to reach equality, communism. To further show this I will point to examples of communist systems that have failed. 1. North Korea- A supposed communist country, this nation has immense disparity between its dictator and its citizens. The economy is horrendous, and there is no freedom at all. However, this is irrelevant, as the main question is whether there is equality. The answer is a resounding no, as key officials and dictator have the luxury while with others the best they may achieve is a frugal, if not starving, lifestyle. https://www.cia.gov... 2. China has seen a steadily increasing amount of inequality since it has welcomed the west into its economy, making the nation that had already been ravaged by things such as the great leap forward see even more inequality between the rich and poor, the haves and have nots. http://www.forbes.com... http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... 3. It s part of human nature- It is part of human nature to dominate our environments, so it is only natural that humans attempt to become advanced beyond others, to succeed more and get more. This is ingrained in our very nature. I will post more next round, I look forward to cons arguments.
Equality In Human Society Is Impossible

I accept. In this first round I want to make explicitly clear what must be done for either side to win this debate. The resolution reads: "equality in human society is impossible." PRO must argue that there is no conceivable way that equality, as he defined it, could ever come to be. Not that certain conditions render it impossible, but that that there is no possibility of equality ever existing -that equality is inconceivable. CON must only argue that equality is conceivably possible, given some set of conditions. If CON can illustrate even one way that equality, as PRO defined it, to be realized -however outlandish, bold or irrational- then PRO necessarily looses this debate. No semantic nonsense. With that, let's have some fun.
Equality In Human Society Is Impossible

Essentially, I will be arguing that economic and social equality in human society is impossible, and that it is unachievable by humans. No trolling, the lay out of rounds are detailed below 1. acceptance only 2. opening arguments 3. rebuttals and closing remarks definitions 1. Equality-the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc. By the way, for the purposes of this debate we will be assuming that equality is not subjective, rather a universal concept. Meaning that there can be no arguments accusing equality as a different definition than the one posted.
People should be allowed to erect public statues of whoever they choose

First of all, the name Shawn613 is my first name and the area code I live in: Ottawa. Also, not wanting to be rude, I would like to thank my opponent for thanking me for my argument. I really appreciate it. I will attempt to summarize your point for a more organized rebuttal, and I sure hope I get what you're saying right seeing as how this is the final round. Con point: Taste and tact must be taken into account when erecting a monument that is in a public space. Fair enough. I shouldn't have to look at something I find distasteful when I'm out for a walk or whatever. In theory, anyway. In reality, taste is a purely subjective thing. Just because I find something distasteful and it offends my sensibilities, doesn't mean everyone else does, and doesn't mean I have the right to demand it be taken down. Now my opponent is a no doubt fantastic debater with a habit of critical thinking, so seeing as he would no doubt destroy my flawed point I posted in the paragraph above, I will do his job for him. The problem with my point above is that the examples of his offensive situations posted above, particularly and hilariously, "angry demonstrations from the female students of The University of California if a statue of some porn-star p1ssing into a slut's mouth was erected within their communities", would spark ire from the majority of a community and not exclusively from myself. Great point, Shawn (why thank you). However, this whole line of argument is flawed for two reasons in that it has already been rendered irrelevant in my first point, and the resolution provided by this debate's creator has not been supported by his points. Allow me to elaborate... It's true what my opponent says, that a statue of an adult film star urinating into a prostitute's mouth would cause quite the commotion. However, the resolution is that people should be allowed to erect statues of WHOever (whomever?) they choose, not, "People should be able to erect statues of WHATever they want". So, even if what Con is saying is true, that public sensitivities should disallow pornographic images from being carved in stone in public areas, it does not apply to the resolution. Secondly, ignoring Con's confusion regarding his own debate, what I said in Round 1 still holds true regardless. Suppression of ideas or opinions is not only FAR more dangerous than a pornographic statue, but is the most dangerous violation of human rights imaginable, and we should not under any circumstances allow it. Especially if that circumstance is some people shielding their child's eyes as they cross the street.
People should be allowed to erect public statues of whoever they choose

In fact, I share my opponent's dislike of censorship and firmly believe that freedoms of speech and of artistic expression should be upheld wherever possible. However, many people, for example conservative prudes; religious fanatics and militant feminists may be less enlightened and want to see lots of things banned. Nevertheless, their opinions are as valid as anyone else's and their voices must, therefore, be heard. To illustrate this point, please consider the famous Manneken Pis in Brussels: a public statue of a little boy urinating into a fountain. [1] This is borderline acceptable in terms of public decency but what if it inspired a German pornographer to commission a similar statue, but having the naked boy replaced with a naked man, also with his lad in his hand, but instead of urinating into a fountain, the man urinates into the open mouth of a statue of a naked woman kneeling before him? The Germans are fond of that sort of thing and that statue might be acceptable if erected on Germany's street of shame: the Reeperbahn in Hamburg [2]. After all, there would be nothing inherently offensive about such a statue - the Three Graces [3] depicts naked sisters in an incestuous, homoerotic embrace and Michelangelo's David [4] has got his todger out for all to see - and both statues are considered respectable works of art. However, what if the German pornographer had his statue erected next to the Parish Lantern Tea Room in the genteel village of Walberswick, England [5] or opposite the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah [6] or outside the Faculty of Women and Gender Studies, University of California, Berkeley? [7] I am sure there would be cries of outrage from the prim old spinsters that make up the majority of residents of Walberswick and there would be protests of rage from the Bible-thumping Mormons that are predominant in Salt Lake City and there would be angry demonstrations from the female students of The University of California if a statue of some porn-star p1ssing into a slut's mouth was erected within their communities. The sensibilities of the local community must be taken into account when erecting statues – that's why I say people shouldn't be allowed to erect statues willy-nilly. Thank you. [1] . http://www.bruxelles.be...; [2] . http://maps.google.co.uk... [3] . http://www.artfund.org... [4] . http://smarthistory.org... [5] . http://maps.google.co.uk... [6] . http://maps.google.co.uk... [7] . http://maps.google.co.uk...