BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Abortion should not be legal due to women killing the children in the womb. There is about 1.1 million U.S. abortions each year. Nearly 22% pregnancies end in abortion. With abortion you are killing an innocent child. The Sixth Commandment of the Bible's Old Testament, "Thou shalt not kill", applies to all human beings, including unborn babies. http://abortion.procon.org... http://studentsforlife.org...
Normal Behavior by boys is discriminated in schools

"But your argument is based entirely off prejudice thinking. " oh here we go, Mr genius here going to tell me how im sexist. "There is no such thing as girl behavior, " What? There are clear physiological differences in boys and girls. Ok, You are denying science and actual statistics. There are defined differences in what girls and boys like, AND THATS OK, Whats not ok is schools only caring to girls and what they like and their mindset. Girls and boys are different, ACCEPT THAT FACT. "Based on policy" The policy is against boys imagination. Again, Its showing. Boys get lower grades, Less bound to go to college and get less honors. You didn't rebuttal my points, You just said that im sexist and im absurd, But they are real boys who are affected by this.
Normal Behavior by boys is discriminated in schools

Not to sound glib, But your argument is based entirely off prejudice thinking. "Girl behavior is the standard in school" There is no such thing as girl behavior, Unless you count menstruation and child birth. Are you saying that schools are making boys menstruate and have babies? "Boys prefer action and comic books. " False. This is a sexist statement. Kids like what they like. Some girls like action and comic books. "Boys who are forced to read stories like Little House On a Prairie aren't happy" False and furthermore, I read that book as a kid and loved it. Pioneers are cool. Once again, This all comes down to the fact that you think there are male and female behaviors. It's false and it's making you think like a sexist. "Only stories that are full of emotion and have deep poetry are praised but boys tend to write about action, " More prejudice. Boys are allowed to feel emotion and boys write about emotional things all the time. "Jonathan Welsh, Age 7 was suspended because he made a pretend gun out of a pop-tart. " While I don't necessarily agree with this suspension, The fact is that they suspended him based on policy, Not his gender. It's not discrimination if the rules apply to everyone. Boys being suspended isn't evidence of discrimination. You said yourself that boys statistically get suspended more, So calling it discrimination is just a red herring. "At recess boys should be able to bring their competitive spirit, " So should girls and what even is your point here? Now that I've shown the robust absurdity of my opponent's argument. I would just like to point out the topic is pertaining to discrimination. My opponents argument has only pointed to policies that he thinks are discriminatory, But he's using discrimination to arrive at these conclusions. If there is discrimination, Then he needs to point to more than just some policies, He needs to show that the policy or the people enforcing them are singling out boys specifically by gender and just because the boys happened to break a rule that also applied to girls. your floor.
Normal Behavior by boys is discriminated in schools

Professor Michael Thompson observed, Girl behavior is the standard in school, While boys are treated like being a defected girl. Its showing. Boys are far less likely to go to college, Get much fewer honors and get pretty crappy grades. For example, Boys score lower on reading tests not because their dumb but because they're just boys. Boys prefer action and comic books. However the books today in school clearly do not interest boys. Boys who are forced to read stories like Little House On a Prairie aren't happy. A study conducted by Ralph Fletcher concluded that classrooms like to use The Confessional Poet. Only stories that are full of emotion and have deep poetry are praised but boys tend to write about action, A monster devouring a city and competitions. A third grader made a drawing of a pirate battle and the boy got in trouble, However the dad was astonished that the teacher got him in trouble. Boys are 5x more likely to get expelled from PRESCHOOL. In grades K-12 boys account for 70% of suspensions. Hardly a week goes by and you hear a story about how boys being boys are suspended. Jonathan Welsh, Age 7 was suspended because he made a pretend gun out of a pop-tart. At recess boys should be able to bring their competitive spirit, But recess has been lost by 50% and games like red rover, Tag and dodgeball are not allowed.
Normal Behavior by boys is discriminated in schools

You're just not getting it. You said. "A study by a top professor concluded that yes, Girls and boys are different in many ways" What study? You didn't link a source nor did you name the study. Anybody can just say that there's a study. Here, I'll do it right now just to show how absurd this is: "A study by a top professor concluded that Dr. Franklin is wrong" You see how silly this is? You didn't even try to make logic out of it. You just asserted it. You said. "Also Physiological differences do not equal the body. " Oh dear, Physiological MEANS pertaining to the body. Please look this word up before you keep using it the wrong way. You said. "The Zero Tolerance Policy is the exact policy that are against boys. " Once again, That's a bold assertion. The policies do not mention boys specifically and they only denote behaviors. Behaviors are not linked to genders. It's like you refuse to justify your claims. You said "I gave you an example. Reading tests" You're missing the point. I don't need proof of test scores. I need proof of discrimination being correlated to the test scores. There are a million reasons why there test scores could be lower. Including physiology for all we know. You don't get to claim it's from discrimination unless you rule out the other possibilities. You said "German and French customs are different, Am I racist for saying that? " Yes you are. Customs are not specific to a nationality. They're specific to groups of people regardless. It's not a French custom, It's a custom of SOME people in France. By attributing it to their national identity, You're being prejudice. In closing. You simply did not provide enough evidence. You wanted to prove discrimination, And you made a bunch of claims, But you didn't connect any of the claims to discrimination and some of your claims didn't have justification. I believe that I have provided sufficient rebuttals and counterproofs to show that the policies are not related to genders so there simply isn't any correlation. Good debate.
Normal Behavior by boys is discriminated in schools

A study by a top professor concluded that yes, Girls and boys are different in many ways. Thats ok and saying that doesn't make you sexist. Also Physiological differences do not equal the body. Yes, Even though a girl can display some boys behavior, There brain is fundamentally different. How can you deny this? Boys and girls share some different interest and thats ok. The Zero Tolerance Policy is the exact policy that are against boys. You say thats it a BOLD assertion, But how? Do boys share some different qualities of interest, Sure, But they have the same brain. I gave you an example. Reading tests. Boys score lower because books commonly chosen by the schools are not interested in the eyes of boys. I did show examples of boys getting discriminated more, But you write it off as sexism and BOLD assertions. German and French customs are different, Am I racist for saying that?
Normal Behavior by boys is discriminated in schools

You said " oh here we go, Mr genius here going to tell me how im sexist. " Was this suppose to be a rebuttal? Your behavior meets the textbook definition of sexism. You're attributing certain behaviors and desires to people based of their gender, Instead of basing them on their individuality. If you want people to stop calling you sexist, Then stop being sexist. You said "What? There are clear physiological differences in boys and girls" Yes, Physiological, Aka, Their bodies. Their bodies have nothing to do with general behaviors. Any behavior that a boy displays could also be displayed by a girl. The policies enacted in schools are aimed towards negative behaviors. It doesn't matter which gender displays these behaviors. It's only discrimination of there's a double standard. A boy got in trouble for making a gun out of pop tart, But the school would punish the girl for the same thing, So it's not discrimination. You said "You are denying science and actual statistics. There are defined differences in what girls and boys like" I am not denying science. There is nothing in science that claims that boys and girls necessarily like different things. You're just spouting off your prejudices and claiming them as science. You said "The policy is against boys imagination" That's a bold assertion. Every boy has a different imagination, So you cannot make an objective statement concerning their imagination, Unless the policy actually states verbatim that it does as much, Which it doesn't. You said "Again, Its showing. Boys get lower grades, Less bound to go to college and get less honors. " So what? Boys get lower grades. That doesn't prove anything, You're not showing any correlation to the two, I rebutted this in my last response and yet you claim I haven't. If you want to assert this point, Then you have to give me either data or a logical argument between the correlation, And you've given me neither. I just want to reiterate that we're talking about discrimination here. That means your feelings on the matter don't mean anything. You need to show that people are specifically setting a double standard and you have not shown that. The rules in schools apply equally to both genders, So it's not discrimination. Your Floor.
Zelda Games Are Highly Underated

I'd just like to say thanks for this debate, it's been really fun :) I'll start off by going over what my opponent talked about most recently. First, on the issue of Phantom Hourglass. I would argue that game has simply not aged very well. At the time, it was impressive, as the most advanced Zelda handheld game. Yet, played today, its touch screen controls seem very gimmicky, and the game is just outdated compared to vastly superior Zelda handheld games like A Link Between worlds. Next, on whether or not they are still ranked the best. There's two Zelda games in the top ten on this list (http://www.slantmagazine.com...) published in 2014. The games hold up extremely well. Games that are still coming out, like the somewhat recent Link Between Worlds, are very well received as well. Majora's Mask may well have had increased interest because of the 3DS release- but that can only be an argument that the game once was underrated. The 3DS release has returned Majora's Mask to it's proper standing. At the end of the day, I don't think Zelda games are "highly underrated". They're consistently some of the best selling games of all time, loved by critics and fans alike. I don't think they are underrated at all, yet alone highly underrated, when millions of fans are dedicated to these games, and the franchise is doing better than ever.
Zelda Games Are Highly Underated

I must say that is a brilliant argument. Though I am not giving up. XD Zelda games in my opinion are still underrated even though most of its games are still quite popular like you stated, though unfortunately in 2007 Nintendo published on the DS : The Legend Of Zelda : Phantom Hourglass in the first month of this new Zelda game it received brilliant reviews and even later in the year received IGN's Game of the Year award. But now even though certain gaming websites like IGN for example rate it over 4 stars many people now dislike this game and go against it even though in general it is a very good game with decent graphics, good gameplay and brilliant mind-bending puzzles. Also responding to your claim that Zelda games are consistently ranked amongst the best games of all time. Are they still? We are talking in the present tense here. Also are they still rated like that on Metacritic, after all it has been many years since some of the games releases, things change but the reviews might not with it. Responding also to your claim about the fact that "Majoras mask is very well loved ." And still has brilliant reviews in my opinion I believe this is only due to the new Nintendo 3DS release that has come recently.
Zelda Games Are Highly Underated

Yeah me to. :D This is my first one so yeah... XD First of all many people dislike and hate Zelda games just cause of there age. People also underrate them due to there bad graphics in some of the older games even though back then they where quite good. People in this new found generation just see it and think "Terrible graphics, old, nope." Though inside that grubby old Family Computer Disc box there is a brilliant exiting, game awaiting. For example many years ago Zelda: Majoras Mask was on of the best games in the series, as for now well... its rated the worst and most underrated one. Unfortunately many people have left the old games like Zelda at the back of the cupboards even after the new release of the Legend Of Zelda : Majoras Mask 3D. And there appearance in the new Super Smash Bros. People nowadays sadly like gun, action and horror games with a lot of gore and violence. These are some of the reasons why these fantastic games are underrated.
A long face is better than a wide face, physically.

This is a personal opinion, everybody has a different idea of what is beautiful. Just because you think a slim faced woman in a bandanna is beautiful, that does not mean everybody else does. Besides, it is entirely sexist to say that a wide face "spoils a woman", the merits of anyone cannot be based simply on their physical appearance, beauty is a social construct, and saying that something that is entirely your own opinion would "spoil" a person is quite oblivious and offensive.
A long face is better than a wide face, physically.

I would argue that just because a face is wide, does not mean that it looks squashed. A person can have a wider face, but still have features that aren't "squashed" (for lack of a better term). And a person with a longer, or slimmer face, can have features that are flatter, or "squashed". Besides, who is to say that either of these are better than the other? http://www.herinterest.com... http://www.hairfinder.com... (hope those links work, sorry if they don't!)
Mormonism is Irrational and Flawed

I accept. Since both sides are presenting cases, I assume the burden of proof is shared. Thus, it's my job to show that Mormonism is rational and coherent as much as it is my opponent's to prove that it is irrational and flawed. I propose the following definitions for the terms that were not mentioned: Irrational - without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.[1] Flawed - having imperfections.[2] With that said, let us begin. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Mormonism is Irrational and Flawed

Hello all. This debate is on the merits of Mormonism, and whether or not is irrational to believe in it. I will be arguing the position that Mormonism is a flawed religion, and therefore it is irrational to be a Mormon. My opponent will be opposed to this view.FormatR1: AcceptanceR2: All Main ArgumentsR3: Rebuttal (no new arguments)R4: Final Rebuttal/ConclusionDefinitionsMormonism: Mormonism is the predominant religious tradition of the Latter Day Saint movement of Restorationist Christianity. This movement was founded by Joseph Smith in the 1820s. During the 1830s and 1840s,Mormonism distinguished itself from traditional Protestantism. ---------------------------I await my opponent's acceptance.
Republicans or Democrats

The Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb Parties represent 2 sides of the same coin. The post WW2 leadership by leaders of both parties. . . Equally appalling. Both Parties favor the vile Patronage system established by the Whig Walpole in the 1830s Britain. States Rights Corrupt Washington Bites. Time to move the National Capital to Virginia and burn Washington to the ground and convert it to the National grave yard.
Republicans or Democrats

People will debate over which party is better. In my opinion, It is ALL speculation and how you look at it. For example, Democrats are more focused on taxes, And taking money out of things. As example, Mania Dhingra (Senator for WA state) is all for putting taxes on cars, A basic necessity. There is good things about Democrats though, Like emphasizing on healthcare. Republicans are opposite. They reduce taxes on taxed goods and put money into things. They started putting money into NASA. Raising minimum wage. More employment and etc. Personally I think both sides has its ups and downs, But I will be honest with you guys. I am more Republican. Comment on what you think and believe!
Homework Should Be Banned

Homework Should Be Banned Madam Chairperson, Adjudicators, Members of the proposing team, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ellie O"Driscoll and I am delighted to oppose the motion "Homework Should Be Banned". Homework should not be banned! The average man works 8.4 hours per work day while the average woman works 7.7 hours per work day. We need to be prepared for the hours we will be introduced to in the future. In Ireland, one primary school day is around 5 hours 40 minutes. Homework is adding on the hours that an adult worker has to deal with. Homework is giving you a taste of what to expect when you get a job. It is defining how you work which results in how you live. Homework is determining what life you will receive after college. Will you be a good worker or a bad worker? I can assure you, with homework in place, you"ll be the best worker you can be! A study carried out by Concordia University showed that homework provides an opportunity for parents to interact with and understand the content their students are learning so they can provide another means of academic support for students. Memphis Parent writer Glenda Faye Pryor-Johnson says that, "When your child does homework, you do homework," and notes that this is an opportunity for parents to model good behavior for their children. A fellow online debater also stated that first and foremost, students are bound to become more responsible by doing homework. This is because it is a given task to be completed and submitted at a due date. They will learn what they must do and when they must do it. Consequently, their time managing skills will improve. They will learn how to divide their tasks among other extracurricular activities and set aside time for electronics which will be helpful in organization and peace of mind.
Spongebob is better than Dora.

The majority of children are forming sentences by 3 years of age. A child who could not comprehend Dora could not possibly be expected to comprehend Spongebob. Dora is targeted at a younger audience than Spongebob. Dora is tailored to educate our children. Spongebob is tailored to entertain. Surely, we can agree that education is far superior to entertainment when it comes to our children.
Spongebob is better than Dora.

I can see that is one possible way to view it. Children are capable of learning multiple languages by the age of 5. http://www.canadacollege.edu... Also, children can start creating sentences as early as 2 years old. http://www.multcolib.org... As you can see, children are capable of learning not only their English at four years old, but their Spanish as well.
Spongebob is better than Dora.

Better in what way? If by "better", you mean better at teaching our kids to be obedient servants to the greedy, power hungry corporate offices. If by "better", you mean better at teaching our children to lay down and take every insult without sticking up for himself, then I would agree. Spongebob is the epitome of the mindless worker. Educated enough to enjoy his mediocre house in a mediocre neighborhood, but not enough to realize that he is being used by the greedy Mr. Krabs. Dora teaches our children logic as well as the basics of the Spanish language. This alone is reason enough to see that Dora is better than Spongebob.
Banning of the "morning After Pill"

you say that all the other drugs on the market that have side effects is not a sufficient enough argument but what does the pill defer from other ones that cause all types of cancers and altzers . Taking the morning after pill does not guarantee any of the symptoms its simply a warning that there maybe a risk when taking the pill. The same risk you take when you consume any prescription medicine. It is up to the consumer whether they want to take it or not. Only one person can decide if the risks are worth it and that is the women faced with the life altering decision of having a baby. If we didn't have this pill more babies would end up at the doorstep of churches or behind dumpsters abandoned by mothers who can not handle it.
Banning of the "morning After Pill"

The argument that every drug has side effects is not a sufficient enough excuse for the use of this potentially dangerous drug, and the fact that other drugs have side effects doesn't make it okay for them to be on the market especially one as unnecessary as this one. The example you use of water drags us to the red herring fallacy as you bring premises that have little to do with the conclusion and is pointing out one harmful ingrediant in our drinkingwater but ignore the fact that the positives and necessity of our everyday drinking water unlike this drug which is not essential at all There are plenty of other contraceptives out there already and just providing this harmful back up even further damage these woman and there decision making
Banning of the "morning After Pill"

you are right the morning after pill does come with side effects just like every other drug on the market. . The water we take our medication with contaminated with fluoride that can damage the brain and bones of the consumer. It is banned in over ten countries including china, Japan and all of Europe but yet is nearly found in all aspects of American consumption. I am not saying the morning after pill makes it ok to have unprotected sex regardless of what age you are. We know teenagers are not the only ones using this product although they are the majority, we are just giving does how are unprepared for a child or not ready to have one the option of not doing so.
Banning of the "morning After Pill"

Sex has become more socially accepted and teenagers are having sex at a younger age but this does not condone the use of a pill with a primary ingredient with many dangerous side effects . If anything this further proves my point because now the risk is being exposed to teenagers which are much more likely to need this "back up" plan more frequently than adults and further putting themselves at risk and continually damaging their menstrual cycles that can pair with their already complicated hormonal imbalance. The view of teenage moms and the financial Burdens they go through would be a solid defense if it was only used by teenagers but the fact is that the pill is used by females of all ages and poses a health risk that is not necessary.
Banning of the "morning After Pill"

1. sex has become more socially accepted and statistics show that more teenagers are having sex at a younger age then they where ten years ago. 2. although the morning after pill is not a alternative to using condoms and other forms of safe sex. It gives you that second option in case a accident does occur. 3. not everyone can financially support a child. 80 percent of teenage moms end up on welfare and do not finish their education therefore limiting job opportunities in the future. c: the morning after pill should not be banned