BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is third wave feminsim still feminism

Feminism is defined as "equality of the sexes". It is not just about women; it covers men as well. Now technically you could use the term masculism, but as it should mean equality of the sexes they are two words with the same thing meaning, and feminism is already in use and common. So feminism does cover the whole spectrum of gender, and yes it covers things that have nothing to do with women. First wave, second wave, third wave are merely labels that are put on feminism to vilify it. It"s all just feminism. Feminism is about equality, and that means that central characters being 57% male and only 31% female is not equality in books. https://www.theguardian.com... In 2010 EEDAR released a study finding 90% of all genre of games having male lead role, while only 51% could have female lead role, which is not equality in games. http://www.escapistmagazine.com... Although the 23% wage gap has to do with choices that women make, and is therefore a dishonest comparison. When you compare the same job title with comparable backgrounds and experience women still get paid 5 to 8% less than men. Glassdoor = 5.4% still unexplained - https://www.glassdoor.com... Payscale = 7% still unexplained. - http://www.payscale.com... Washington Post = 8% still unexplained - https://www.washingtonpost.com... When you look into fortune 500 company CEOs the number even get worse. Only 25 companies in the fortune 500 (that's 5%) have female CEOs. http://fortune.com... Also women are almost twice as likely to be the victims severe physical violence by an inmate partner. As well as 1 in 5 women will be raped in their lifetime, where is only 1 in 71 men will be raped. http://ncadv.org... Which likely plays a part in why only 25 percent of women are consistently orgasmic during vaginal intercourse. (The psyhcological issue here have got to be pretty strong) https://www.psychologytoday.com... I could go on, but ya feminism is still needed, and valid. So please stop trying to discredit it, and pretending like women already have equality"
Is third wave feminsim still feminism

I believe that what feminism stood for when it was first started was actually fighting for equal rights for women. things like owning land and voting were things women should have been able to do but now all i see is a bunch of "gender queer" people getting on buzzfeed and complaining about video games. i am not trying to make jokes about this even there are literally women who complain about things that have nothing to do with them and i believe that this should be stopped
The theory of evolution is compatible with the existence of God

TheGreatDebate, your response doesn't address the substance of this debate: my argument is "The theory of evolution is compatible with the existence of God", not "The theory of evolution is compatible with a particular literalistic interpretation of the Book of Genesis in the Bible". Most people who believe in God do not believe, for example, that plants existed before even stars did, as Genesis asserts. However, I will nevertheless point out that even if one assumes that the world and life were created in six 24-hour days (though I can't imagine what sort of meaning a 24-hour day would have considering that the first "days" occurred before the existence of the Sun!), that does not require one to conclude that evolution did not occur, much less that evolution is not occurring today. If God is capable of creating so much in a mere six days by "poofing" things out of nothingness, why would he not be equally capable of creating those things through a "sped-up" form of evolution? Considering that the scientific evidence strongly suggests evolutionary sequentialism throughout the fossil record, the idea that God used evolution to create the species (which is consistent with how we see God work his wonders in our daily life: through natural processes, albeit wondrous and beautiful ones) seems more in keeping with the idea that God is good, wise, etc. After all, if the "poof" method is true, then it seems that God is a deceiver, since why would the evidence suggest evolution if evolution weren't the truth? In contrast, evolutionary creation suggests that God is no deceiver, no trickster. And it is no less glorious for God to create things through the amazing natural laws he crafted, than it is for him to ad-hoc "poof" species out of thin air; in fact, it is more remarkable and praiseworthy if God was able to create life through such an elegant, simple process, rather than having to personally poof each arbitrary cow and turtle and seagull out of thin air like some schizophrenic gumball machine. God works in mysterious ways, and it is pure arrogance to assume that he could not, or would not, use evolution as one of the tools in his Creation. Note that my argument is not that he _necessarily_ did so: to conclude that, one would have to look at the evidence, not just theology. Rather, my argument is that God _could_ have done so, and that fallible human beings should not leap to the assumption that he did not just because they find the "poof" story a bit snazzier or more dramatic.
The theory of evolution is compatible with the existence of God

Hey Rob. Ok, here is why Evolution is NOT compatible with the existence of God according to the Bible (Which you will most likely believe in if you believe in God). In the book Genesis, is states the God created The Universe, the World, Sun, Moon, Stars, Plants, Animals, and People, all in SIX days. The theory of Evolution states millions and billions of years. But The Bible, the word of God Himself sasy it happened in SIX days.
The theory of evolution is compatible with the existence of God

I am not asserting that God exists; I am not even asserting that the theory of evolution is true, although I'll gladly argue that in another debate. Here, my argument is that the existence of a god does not contradict evolutionary biology, as creationists often imagine. First, and most importantly, let's define "evolution". According to the RHAD, it's "Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." According to the AHD, it's "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." With evolution properly defined in its scientific context, there seems to be no reason to believe that if God exists, evolution can't occur. All that is required for evolution is heredity (e.g., you inherit traits from your parents), variation and mutation (e.g., you differ from your parents in minor ways), and natural selection (e.g., people with traits that are helpful for reproduction tend to have more offspring than others, which means they pass on those traits more to the next generation and those traits become more common). To avoid misunderstandings, we must also establish what evolution is not. For example, evolution is not abiogenesis ("life from non-life"), the separate theory that early life developed through chemical reactions between organic molecules. Evolution is not dependent upon abiogenesis, and abiogenesis is not an evolutionary process in the biological sense.
The theory of evolution is compatible with the existence of God

Why would God make life evolve or whatever you want to call it happen over millions or billions of years, when he can create something in a day? Why would God make a any lifeform take mill-billions of years when it can happen "like that." Here is why evolution is false. They have recently proved that the Reath is as young as 10,000 years old, not millions. In the Bible, it says that God created Man in his own image, and when he created him, he is the same as he is today. That fossil thing that the evolutionists try to use to prove evolution, was challenged. They say that it is millions of years old, and to prove that it is millions of years old, THEY USE THE FOSSIL THING! They use it to prove itself! There is no proof for evolution, and no proof or reason God would use it.
Feminism is not misandry, but rather the belief in gender equality

I don't have much to say, as my opponent has forfeited this round, but I would like to correct an error that I made in Round 3. I said, and I quote, "Misogynists say, 'Wow, that man claims to have been raped? That must be false, as that would make him a coward, which only men are.'" I meant to say, "Misogynists say, 'Wow, that man claims to have been raped? That must be false, as that would make him a coward, which only women are.'" I realized that I had made an error, so I am correcting it now.
Feminism is not misandry, but rather the belief in gender equality

Even though my opponent has forfeited this round, I would like to make another point about the sexism against women that exists in society. In society, it is considered acceptable for men to show their nipples, but not for women. This is a blatant double standard. Some people might object, and say that the nipples of women are inherently more sexual than the nipples of men. However, I disagree. The nipples of women have both the functions of lactating and of sexual arousal. The nipples of men only have the function of the latter, except for in some rare cases. So, it would be illogical to deny that this is a double standard in society.
Feminism is not misandry, but rather the belief in gender equality

Feminism actually does care about the rights of men, as misogyny sometimes adversely affects men. (I know that I said that women overall have it off far worse than men do, but I did not mean that sexism only adversely affects women, but rather that sexism against women is far more common than sexism against men. For the record, I'm just trying to clarify right now.) It's a misogynistic and patriarchal view not to believe men who say that they have been raped. It's misogynistic to think that men can't get raped because "real men" want to have sex all the time anyway. Misogynists say, "Wow, that man claims to have been raped? That must be false, as that would make him a coward, which only men are." All in all, since sexism against women can negatively affect men, feminism actually is a movement that is meant to protect the rights of men, so I argue that my opponent is wrong when they say that "Still all rights should be upheld all the time at all times".
Feminism is not misandry, but rather the belief in gender equality

I do believe in the rights of men as well as the rights of women. The reason I'm a feminist is that there is very little sexism against men compared to sexism against women. Feminism focuses on the problems that women face rather than the problems that men face because men face very few problems, while women face many problems. Feminists want women to have the rights that men already have. By saying that equal rights for people of all genders should be upheld over the rights of a few women, you're ignoring the fact that men already have rights in nearly every place in the world. The same can not be said for women.
Feminism is not misandry, but rather the belief in gender equality

In this debate, I am going to argue that feminism is not misandry, but rather the belief in gender equality. Before we begin, I will define the definitions of "misandry", "sexism", and "gender equality". I define "misandry" as the belief that males are inherently inferior to females. I define "sexism" as the belief that one gender is superior to at least one other gender. Note that I said "at least". Finally, I define "gender equality" as the belief that no gender is inherently superior to any other gender - that is, being male isn't inherently better than being female, being female isn't inherently better than being male, etc. If someone accepts this debate and they wish to challenge one or more of these definitions, they may do so. Why am I taking the proposition that feminism is not misandry, but rather the belief in gender equality? Because, overall, women have it off far worse than men do. Here are some examples: 1) If a woman sleeps with many people, she's shamed and called a slut. If a man sleeps with many people, he's revered and called a stud. That is a blatant double standard in our society that is sexist against women. 2) Women are sexually objectified far more than men are. Just look up the word "sexy" on Google Images, and you will see that nearly all of the pictures are of women. 3) In Saudi Arabia, women are not legally allowed to drive, but men are. That is a blatant double standard against women. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Overall, women have it off far worse than men do, so that is why I am taking the stance in this debate that I am taking.
I can convince you to be against Same-Sex marriage

There are so many holes and assumptions made...there are so many facts that indirectly lead to statements that do not and should not be the conclusions drawn...erroneous leads (causal factor A Leads to conclusion B) All these I could point out, but these have already been pointed out by a plethora of people... If the voter really believes him/herself to be convinced by pro's arguments after absorbing these points (from the links in round 4) in detail, then it is the voter's freedom to vote pro. Otherwise, con is the victor. The viewing of these links are not imperative though, and the voter may vote on personal bias. Remember: This is subjective voting. Do what you will, I'm done here.
I can convince you to be against Same-Sex marriage

"I can convince you to be against Same-Sex marriage" I apologize and will drop my original contention under the context of this quote: I didn't realize that the resolution really is not the resolution at all. . . ""The only criteria voters will have to base their decision on is whether they are convinced personally that the gay marriage position is untenable...." Basically, every (anti) gay marriage person will be allowed to rain subjective vote-bombs with no other reason than that he or she is / isn't in accordance with gay marriage." The above statement stands. If, in the listener's opinion, I should go to one of the many debates of the exact same topic where pro has used the exact same contentions and ideas(VERBATIM!) and take arguments from there (I'd rather not), I may just do exactly that. In fact, I could just refer to one of the debates where the pro-gay marriage side is winning (or has won) and have the reader's read from there. Reason: Subjective, opinionated votes. Summary: Regardless of the means used: if the reader is convinced by con OR unconvinced by pro, Then Con Wins. Rather than go through the pains of refuting my opponent's attempts at convincing the reader, I will make my attempts by having the reader analyze my opponent's opponents arguments in one of these links and vote based on their opinions afterwards. My opponent loses drastically: http://debate.org... http://debate.org... http://debate.org... http://debate.org... http://debate.org... http://debate.org... My opponent is completely and utterly destroyed in this one. The destruction leaks into the comments section: http://debate.org... I have read every one of the above after accepting this debate and am very well equipped to crush you outside of the semantic arena. *wink-wink* Read these and decide for yourselves whether pro is still able to convince you.
I can convince you to be against Same-Sex marriage

My opponent fails to convince me. As stated before: "The only criteria voters will have to base their decision on is whether they are convinced personally that the gay marriage position is untenable...." Basically, every (anti) gay marriage person will be allowed to rain subjective vote-bombs with no other reason than that he or she is / isn't in accordance with gay marriage. "I can convince you to be against Same-Sex marriage" All con has to do to win is to remain unconvinced throughout the debate. Continual verbal rejection of pro's resolution down to round 5 will suffice in this area. I, Beginner, remain unconvinced.
I can convince you to be against Same-Sex marriage

In this debate, it won't actually be much of a debate. I am just here to try to see if I can convince somebody or people that my position on the redefining or gay marriage issue is valid and keeping marriage between a man and a woman is the right thing to do overall. Since this will be more of a personal emotional reason as to why somebody may want to change their position on this issue or admit that their position is invalid, I doubt I will be able to convince the unreasonable. However, its worth a try and I am pretty confident because in this debate I will be going ALL OUT. This means anything and everything that may compell a gay so-called marriage supporter to take or view their position to be invalid is going to be in this debate. This also involves trying to convince my opponent to take my position. Let me give you an outline as to what I will demonstrate: 1. show why gay marriage is not a civil right or civil rights issue at all 2. explain the true purpose of civil marriage 3. explain the many public policy reasons why we should not redefine marriage 4. Destroy the reasons given out by proponents as to why we should redefine it 5. Destroy any other claim made by gay so-called marriage proponents Like I said, this is going to be a very informal debate. The only criteria voters will have to base their decision on is whether they are convinced personally that the gay marriage position is untenable and invalid or agree with me that traditional marriage should not be redefined. Lastly, the arguments displayed here will definitely be different and interesting, so ANYbody who supports redefining marriage or gay marriage is going to want to read this debate and vote. I encourage everyone else who is interested in this topic to take a look. This one will definitely be a MUST see. I will make sure I won't forfeit and stay on top as well. Let it BEGIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People who abandon their pets should go to jail.

I disagree. rather than focus on sending these mentally ill people to jail because of animal cruelty, we should help these people get better. maby they do not realize what they are doing to these animal because of their illness. who knows, when these people are treated for their diseases maybe they will become better pet owners than most people in the world. therefore I stand my ground that those who abuse animals shouldn't be sent to jail but get help that they need because they might like pets
People who abandon their pets should go to jail.

Hoarders is a perfect example because these animals are being abused horrendously; they live clustered together in dirty unsafe environments where their owners don't even realize that they are suffering these animals are shuffled to the side without a backwards glace. Anyone who has the intent to harm animals should be dealth with accordanly; whether its jail or being sent away where things like this could never happen again.They should not have the right to even own an animal with a past charge
People who abandon their pets should go to jail.

I disagree. Michael Vick is just one of those case that fit the minority of people who is healthy and harass animals for fun. the majority of people is mentally ill in some way that cause them to harass pets. in on instance the tv series called Hoarders depict a old woman who have many cats roaming her house in their own filth because the woman was to ill mentally not physically to take care of these cats and her self. most of these cats are neglected of the basic supplement like food.
People who abandon their pets should go to jail.

No I disagree I don't think that it all has to do with mental or social problems but mostly because of money. look at Michael Vick he was caught participating in illegal dog fighting; he was a professional football player who made millions of dollars and he still wanted to make more. Most of these animals are caged and forced to fight which is sad because they behave in a hostile and dangerous manner because their owners have let them believe that this is how to act, this is direct abandonment.
People who abandon their pets should go to jail.

i disagreed. most people who tortured animals have psychological problems of their own. those problems can either be mental or social. only a small amount of people in this country torture animals for fun and when they gets caught and go to jail, it is only than authority learn about their mental or social problems in the past that makes them behave that way. a healthy person who own pets are more stable and less likely to abuse pet than a mental one. so i feel they should be background checks
People who abandon their pets should go to jail.

Never less these owners should be punished for this crime; abandonment is not just about these animals being disregarded and cast out ,but as well as the ones who are being abused, locked up, and starved to death or even the ones who are forced to fight when only one can win and the other will die. No animals should ever feel that way it is up to us to love and protect these creatures and take them out of harms way they cannot decide for themselves where their life will take them but we can.
People who abandon their pets should go to jail.

i disagree. sure there are pet owners these days who abuse their pets and some do dies. but the only reason why those pets dies is because their are locked in a cage and and not fed. put those pets in the street to fend from themselves and one will see they will learn fast how to survive. it is a natural instinct that nature embedded in our genes including pets for survival. the reason why a small amount of pet do die is because their are gaged up by their masters and not fed, rather than releas
People who abandon their pets should go to jail.

The only thing that makes humans and animals the same is their ability to show affection.Animals will not find themselves being in jail;some learn faster and have the ability to adapt to new surroundings but one must understand that only a small amount actually continue to live the rest die out because of starvation or the inability to protect themselves from other animals because they never learned those skills from being out in the wild or perhaps havn't interacted with other animals to learn
People who abandon their pets should go to jail.

i disagree. pets are like humans. when those pets are left on their own, they are more likely to learn other special ability to cope with their surroundings. like humans, when the environment changes for them like going to prsion for the first time, those humans know they have to adjust to prison life to survive. anything less means those prisoners gave up on life. this is true in many sense because some prsioners who cannot cope with prison life commits suicide soon after.
Miley Cyrus

I will subsequently respond to contentions: Dream If she is no longer doing what she had said she wanted to do, then her dreams must've changed overtime. Why would she do this if she didn't want to do it? Influence Children would no longer think that she's still a role model unless they really still liked her the way she is. It's called "opinions". You don't really need an explanation as to why you this or that is your opinion. People may just feel that way inside.
Miley Cyrus

Some adults liked the old Miley and were okay with her and let their children whatch things such as Hannah Montana. But some parents don't know how to block things. Then the children who have experienced her as a great role model think she still is, start doing what she does. What is it with her and her hair, drugs, and breaking dreams. Her dreams. Her hair I think that she went a little crazy while getting her hair cut. Drugs if it is illegal then why does she do it? Breaking her own dreams. A few years ago while in a public interview she said that her dream was to become a famous good role model to young girls. Look at what she has become .I known that I wouldn't want my little sister who is 11 to be like that.