BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Male Privilege Exists

Hello, Respectively I will say male privilege exists. However, My definition of male privilege may differ from yours and in my defense this is because you did not go into detail with your initial argument. This is why typically I don"t engage in debates where my opponent offers no information in his initial viewpoint except "you go first" lol. Perhaps at the end of this, We will agree but we shall see. I believe male privilege exists because as a female I face many challenges that a man would normally not. For example, A man can walk down the street, Fill up his gas tank, Go to a store or work with minimal if any harassment. As a woman, I cannot say the same. I am catcalled and harassed on a daily basis doing all of the above, Even when dressed modestly. Virtually anytime I experience being catcalled and harassed it is by a man - not saying all men do this, But it is an important distinction. Furthermore, As a working professional I have been questioned multiple times in fortune 500 companies on my plans involving child-bearings whereas my male counterparts were not asked the same questions, Despite being interviewed at the same time on the same credentials by the same company. In professional settings, I have been treated as in-superior to my male counterparts many times. I can provide more examples if you wish, My point being is that it does happen, And frequently. However, I want to clarify I am not blaming all men for this at all. I have many male friends and family who have nothing to do with this issue and support women"s equality. But to say men don"t have privilege above women, Especially in terms of simply existing without being catcalled or harassed in public is simply wrong.
Pro is capable of participating effectively in a formal debate on a topic Pro is familiar with.

I appreciate Pro's prompt reply.I accept Pro's definitions.However, I will be arguing against the affirmation that "Pro is capable of participating effectively in a formal debate Pro is familiar with."Rebuts:1. Pro states, "Goal of this argument is to provide a coherent and well-communicated idea."According to Merriam-Webster, a valid dictionary, the definition of "coherent" is "logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated; coherent style; a coherent argument." [1] This argument was not coherent or well-communicated; as, contradicting the definition, Pro jumped directly from the knowledge of what a debate is to the assumption that the definition will determine behavior in a debate (in the argument supporting the first premise). However, the definitions alone do not provide any insight into the conduct of a debate other than what any debate is meant to do: present opposing sides of an affirmation and attempt to disqualify one. Those definitions do not imply any strategies that are crucial to being an effective participant in a debate, e.g. presenting solid contentions with valid reasoning and evidence to support them. This is clearly demonstrated in Pro's argument, as only flawed reasoning is incorporated into his argument, with no evidence to support it. Therefore, I have successfully invalidated Pro's goal of the argument.2. Pro consistently states that he can only participate in debates that he does not "lack sufficient background knowledge" in.a) First of all, this invalidates his own claim that "I am capable of participating in a formal debate." Clearly, if the formal debate in question concerned a topic that Pro is unfamiliar with, he would not be able to stand a chance in the debate spotlight. b) In addition to the previous statement, his claim comes in conflict with the affirmation of this debate: "Pro is capable of participating effectively in a formal debate on a topic Pro is familiar with." His claim covers ground that extends far past the grounds of the affirmation, which only contains those topics that Pro is familiar with. His statement is irrelevant to this debate and therefore invalid.3. Pro states, "I think I have demonstrated an awareness of what a debate is."a) In this statement, the incorporation of the word "think" clearly shows uncertainty on Pro's part. Therefore, Pro's point is already unstable, as he has shown through his uncertainty that he is considering the opposite: that Pro has not demonstrated an awareness of what a debate is. Logically, Pro is supporting my side of this argument and has invalidated his own.b) Also, as I have previously stated in my first rebut, the "awareness of what a debate is" does not constitute competency in debate. Competency is the bare minimum of efficiency, and as this is the goal of the affirmation, the lack of competency would clearly invalidate it.I have rebutted the claims that embody the entirety of Pro's speech. Thank you, and the spotlight is now on Pro.Sources:[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Pro is capable of participating effectively in a formal debate on a topic Pro is familiar with.

I acknowledge and appreciate Con's initiative. I too hope for this to be interesting. I currently believe I am capable of effectively participating in debates such as this on the DDO, except where I lack sufficient background knowledge, which for now is the majority of popular topics, including those I want most to participate in. It is my general lack of knowledge that prompts me to begin my reputation within DDO with a debate that questions my ability to participate in a debate and remain a valid participant for the duration of the debate. According to (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...), a debate is "a discussion involving opposing points; an argument.". According to the same website, an argument can be "a course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood". (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) See also : http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... I agree with these definitions: I think a debate is a discussion involving opposing ideas, in which the advocates of each idea attempt to discredit the others' position in favor of their own. I think I have demonstrated an awareness of what a debate is. To support my position, I use the preceding sentence to complement my claim, which is as follows: I am capable of participating in a formal debate. Premise: I possess accurate knowledge of what a debate is. Argument: I have demonstrated the consistency between my idea of what a debate is and the knowledge of more reputable sources by linking the sources directly to their definitions and subsequently stating my derived definition (which appears to be consistent with my sources). Therefore, regardless of any experience I have with debate, I can then use this knowledge to determine my behavior when attempting to participate in a debate, thus leading to me effectively being a valid participant (assuming I possess the relevant background necessary to contribute to the progress of the debate topic at hand). Goal of this argument is to provide a coherent and well-communicated idea.
Pro is capable of participating effectively in a formal debate on a topic Pro is familiar with.

This debate exists to determine whether or not Pro is capable of participating effectively in debates on the DDO that involve topics I am knowledgeable of. Debate will last three rounds, as Con's first post will be a declaration of acceptance, and the last will consist of both sides' final word, regardless of final opinion. Character limit is ten thousand. Argument deadline is 72 hours. Voting period is ten days. BoP is on me, so I expect the first round from Con to be a rebuttal of the points made in my initial argument; however, I do not assert this as mandatory. Con is free to use any and all tactics and strategies in its' attempt to refute my claim, whether they be valid and logically sound or not (apart from using the first round for anything other than a declaration of acceptance, or the last round to expand on arguments for or against its' position). Con is free to research my profile to support its' claims. Con is free to use information from the internet to attempt to refute my position. Con is free to use information from physical sources to attempt to refute my position. *Con is free to use logically sound and unsound arguments in its' attempt to prove my incompetency. *Con is free to use the opening argument (in round two) to declare the details and arguments of its' position, in place of limiting that argument to an attempt to rebut my opening argument. All regulatory principles assigned to Con are assigned to me, where applicable, except in the instance of *, where in the first, I may only use the first Argument (second round) to state my position and initial arguments in favor of the position, and in the second, be limited to logically sound arguments for the duration of this debate, and only to support my position by complementing my previous arguments and refuting Con's arguments. Be advised: I intend to use this debate to evaluate my critical thinking skills and, potentially, my research skills as well. Good luck to both sides.
Why women are inferior to men

I believe women are inferior to men but before all of you feminists star typing up a shitstorm in the comments let me explain. Im not sexist, I have nothing against woman, i was raised by my single mother and my two older sisters. This helped me found the believe strongly in women position in the world, where it is in the kitchen. Cook clean and make babies. I will give some good evidence in the next round but ifrst i just wanted to introduce my arguemente like that,
Islam becoming the dominant religion in the upcoming years

Many people, specifically the United States (where I'm from), have a massive bias against Islams. I find that there is a distinct difference between being Islamic and being an extremist. It makes sense for people to hate Islam, especially when you consider the terrorist attack of 9/11, and not to mention the Boston bombing, the terrorism in France, etc. I guess what I am trying to say is, aren't we being to harsh on the religion itself? I have studied the Islamic religion and its origins all the way back to its founding by Muhammad. I don't remember the prophet Muhammad saying "let us slaughter all who appose us" or "let us strap bombs to our chests in the name of Ala". Muhammad was very much like Jesus Christ, he taught, prophesied, and spread goodwill and love. I was reading that only around 8% of Muslims believe in extremism. So why are we clumping in the other 92%? Didn't Christianity and Islam both stem from the same source, Abraham of old? I believe it could be argued that Ala is the same god as the one Christians believe in. There isn't much difference between the two religions, only that in the beginning they were separated from one another. One could also argue that Christianity throughout history has caused more death than all of the extremists of Islam have done all together. So I therefore think it is unprecedented for us to judge so harshly a religion that has nothing to do with the unnecessary deaths of innocent people. They say that Islam will become the major religion of the world, overtaking Christianity. I say that is just fine, there isn't much difference, and the people are for the most part good. Besides, hasn't Christianity been in the spotlight long enough? I have the same feeling when people say blacks are going to out number white people in the future...So what!? There is no reason the be angry about that. Change is a good thing in most cases, and if there is no reason to believe otherwise, then I choose to look to the good of anything before passing judgement.
Islam becoming the dominant religion in the upcoming years

Hi jmaas,If you are unwilling or unable to answer any of my questions then that is as it is.Islam is divided and it will implode on itself just as Christianity did in the past. It will proliferate into a plethora of inbred cousins who will be competitive and hostile to each other. This will be global in terms of the noise of their disputes but not in terms of influence. Catholicism will remain the worlds dominant religion of choice and it is more likely to be attractive to the great unwashed in the future. I will not be participating in any of these shenanigans and I would advise all secular States to be firm in their stances against religious infractions against our basic human freedoms. This Utopian Islam that you hallucinate about does not exist in reality and it never will.I enjoyed talking to you and I thank you for your time.
Islam becoming the dominant religion in the upcoming years

Okay, I think we've gone off the rails here a little bit. I have said nothing of women's rights, sexual abuse, or witch burning... You asked me in your last debate "how could I deduce from your submission that you are in need of further reading on Islam?", and perhaps I put that a bit poorly and I apologize for that. I was hoping you would read the principles that Islam was founded on, and the teachings of Muhammad, both of which I do not know if you have taken the time to study. I do not doubt your abilities as a scholar or your knowledge. I'll put the link below to the Five Pillars of Islam (their 10 commandments so to speak) in case you did not know: https://www.saudiembassy.net... My original debate was if it is a good idea or not for Islam to become the dominant religion within the next 50 years. I do not intend to go off on tangents such as women's rights or sex exchange. I understand that is happening, but what I am interested in is numbers and statistics. And thank you for letting me go further with a comparison with Christianity, because it is so easy to compare the two. For instance, If we were talking about Christianity instead of Islam, I would not want to dwell on the Westboro Baptist Church and their fowl deeds when we have the rest of the Christian population to consider. That is the sentiment I intend to dwell on, not a cluster of people within a larger group, but the larger group itself. Islam as a larger group are a good and wonderful people, just as you said Christianity is. That is the point I am after. Now, to be fair, I did say that Christianity has done some pretty foul things throughout time, and that is true. I was merely trying to put into perspective that the entirety of Islam is not dangerous or have twisted idealism. We cannot cluster an entire body of people into a throw off sect. And please site your sources, I certainly have. I'd like to see proof to back up your statement saying that most of Islam is dangerous.
Islam becoming the dominant religion in the upcoming years

Hi jmaas,With the greatest of respect, jmaas. How could you deduce from my submission that I am in need of further reading on Islam? Is it because I reject it as nonsense? Can an Islamic scholar not conclude that the stuff is worthless? Can they not achieve this state of wisdom? I know alot more about the different sects of Islam than you might imagine. For starter,you might like to explain why this 'wonderful thing' is so fractured and hostile to itself. Explain this if you can. One crowd belief that the secular administration of Islam is to be done by succession from the Mohammad family while the other expounds the virtue of local democratic succession within their priesthood. They both hate and despise each other to the point of violence and bloodshed in many of the countries of the Middle East. Are you going to tell me that Catholics and Protestants do/did the same. Is this the logic of your submission, ie that the others are as bad or worse. Is this the weakness of what you are about. Why do Shias and Sunni Muslims hate each other. More importantly, in you opinion , which of them is correct in their religious understanding about Islam. Which side are you on.If you cannot answer the above then there is little point in you advertising 'the wares' of this antique garbage. You make the point yourself in comments when you attempt to defend Islam by mentioning the horrors of Catholicism in the middle ages. That is something wonderful to be going forward with into the future. It is better than witch burning. Wow! I do not want to have anything to do with a third world religion that turns women into domestic possessions and sex and procreation into a cloak and dagger undertaking . I will take my chances with a 'bunny ranch' any time. (At least it is transparent in its intent) I am male and I consider the female in all their forms to be beautiful and interesting. I consider them as complete humans just as myself and I refuse to dictate wisdom to them. I refuse to regard their demeanour as 'sinful' in any way and I reject the necessity for religious intervention in the area of human sexuality. Just because a young woman is 'topless' on a beach does not mean that I am going to jump her. Her skin is the same as mine and her youth is to be admired. Do you want these women in black tents, jmaas. Why is this the preaching of Islam.Islam despises the west and all its many perversions, while simultaneously using its technology to advance its influence. Islam is nuclear, it is internet savvy and it is ambitious within the laws of capitalism. It wants it's cake and eat it and it does all this on 'God be good to Him' waffle. Give us all a break and stop defending this 'fraud'. Thanks.
Islam becoming the dominant religion in the upcoming years

None of the reasons you stated are why it is becoming the most populous religion (or more specifically why it is not according to your argument), and it IS becoming the most populous religion. It is currently the second largest religion trailing Christianity. According to the Pew Research Center, Muslims will outnumber Christians by 2070, and not for the reasons you said, but interestingly, for the reason of fertility. Islam is projected to grow more than twice as fast as any other religion due to their high number of people being born into Islam. As to you stating that Islam is a tribal desert religion that preaches nonsense, I disagree. I would highly suggest you read the principles that Islam is founded on (equivalent to the 10 commandments in Christianity) and if you have the time, the teachings of Muhammad. You'll find that the principles are the same as the Bibles, that is, what Jesus Christ teaches, which are moral principles such as love others, be gracious, be honest, etc. They are principles that you can find in a child's story book, but they remain good principles that help us live better lives, which I'd say is anything but "nonsense" as you stated. You are right though, if the world becomes impoverished, or if famine occurs, etc then of course human beings will flock to religion to gain some relief from their suffering, they always do. But, from what the numbers show, people are not flocking to Islam because of the destruction of earth, no, in fact they are flocking to that religion for their own spiritual purposes, just as people flock to Christianity. I feel you are being naive on the subject matter and need to study up a bit on the history of Islam.
Islam becoming the dominant religion in the upcoming years

Hi jmaas, There is little chance of Islam becoming the dominant religion of the future. Islam is retroism to the extreme. It attempts to make the human race go backwards. Humans are not for turning. Islam is a tribal desert religion which preaches nonsense. It puts half of the worlds population into submissive bondage because of its masculine dominance. If this religion is to become dominant it will only occur if the following conditions exist, ie poverty, famine, war and global destruction. In such circumstances the poor and hapless might flock to this Neolithic cave for sanctuary. You must explain to us what the global benefits of this thing actually are.You must explain why a Hell doctrine in 2016 is not to be ridiculed.Listen to me, you are young, get a hobby. Climb a mountain or take up gardening. You should not waste your breath advertising this perversion IMHO
I will not contradict myself.

1. Is Mongoose a relative of yours? 2. Would you root for Ovechkin or Crosby? 3. Would you root for the previous champion or the underdog? 4. Do you like annoying people? 5. Do you like being annoyed? 6. Do you make rules to only benefit yourself? 7. Are you altruistic? 8. Do you believe that Jimmy Buffet is musically inclined? 9. Do you like music that is good? 10. Do you debate in real life?
I will not contradict myself.

Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses. 6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses. 7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are irrelevant, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. Good luck.
I will not contradict myself.

1. Are your answers on the BIG Issues actually your opinions? 2. Is the dictionary a reliable source? 3. Is the bible a reliable source? 4. Should the government be able to say who is married and who is not? 5. Should government be able to regulate religious institutions? 6. Is marriage a religious institution? 7. Should people be able to harm themselves without the government harming them further? 8. Are jailtime and fines ways to harm people? 9. Do you smoke marijuana? 10. Have you ever lied?