BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
American Feminism is Going too Far

I don't understand why there is so much victim blaming going on."I hope you know they would have been executed regardless."First of all, King Henry only executed his wives because they kept birthing daughters. They knew that if they could give birth to a son they would get to live. Secondly, what gives you so much moral authority to judge them? During the 9/11 attacks, people knew that no matter what they did they would die, but most were so overcome by fear that they couldn't fight back. Is it their fault that the planes crashed? No, of course not. It's NEVER the victims fault."As far as your cute sexual harassment summary, carry some pepper spray, a taser, and a mobile phone."That's a ridiculous statement. Why on earth would somebody's response to sexual harassment be to whip out a taser and shoot somebody? They would almost certainly be fired. "Did these grad students really think a seventy year old man inviting them to a hotel room was going to give them a jigsaw puzzle?"Many of these cases date back all the way to the 60's. Cosby was not nearly that old then. Secondly, many times they were tricked into visiting him with excuses such as career advice. thirdly, in many of the cases they were having various drinks, sometimes coffee, and then he drugged and raped them [6]. They had no idea that he had ill intentions. Again, it is NEVER the victims fault."Abortion is legal in a number of states and if a woman did not want to conceive she should have abstained or used contraceptives."What is she was raped? What if she did use contraceptives and they failed?"Discrimination in academia is illegal, you can't get turned down or fall behind men because you are a woman, it just doesn't work that way"Did I not explain the subconscious bias against women? It's not always active discrimination. It's hard to prove intent on subconscious discrimination because there is none.---I can't figure out where Pro believes that feminism has gone too far. Pro agreed that many aspects of feminism have not gone "too far", and cannot provide any concrete examples of places where feminism has in fact done so. She has simply made obscure statements saying that women should just work harder even when I have shown that women face obstacles that men don't have to. Women should have equal rights to men, and fighting for those rights should not be given a deadline. Feminists should not be criticized for asking "society to change their view points on topics they have already established." Slavery used to be an established idea, and yet here we are, society intact. Giving one party rights that another party has always has does not take right away from those that already have it. Finally, I don't believe that Pro fully understood my point that the laws in general support equality, but our culure doesn't. One of the major things that feminists are trying to accomplish is the change the culture to become more accepting of women.[6] http://www.slate.com...
American Feminism is Going too Far

There are actually plenty of males that consider themselvs feminist. Feminism is, by definition, "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities" [3]. It's not exclusive to women in any way. I believe that everybody should be equal."Any one of Henry VIII's wives could have stabbed him in his sleep but they didn't. They didn't fight for freedom."I love that example of Henry VIII because it is so completely ignorant of the fact that one cannot simply kill a king. Yes technically his wives could have murdered him in his sleep, but they would have been executed for it. Even if they escaped, where would they go? Everything they ever knew was in that city, and the open road was extremely dangerous for women who traveled alone. Plus even if they made it to another city what would they do? Guards would surely go searching for them. Women have been subjugated and oppressed for millennia. Was it women that banned the education of women? No, of course it wasn't. It wasn't women that chose not give themselves the right to vote. The idea that women put themselves into this position is inane. One should not have to earn equal rights. They should be given to them no matter what."No company owner is stupid enough to drive away a huge influential force in his business just because she's a woman."I'm not just talking about being fired or not being given an opportunity because somebody is a woman. I'm also referring to sexual harassment. 64% of women scientists claim to have been either sexually harassed or assaulted while in the field [5]. They should have to deal with that, and that is why feminism in the US is still necessary.---If equal pay for equal work is the only legitimate gripe Pro has about American Feminism, then I don't believe that she has met the burden of proof that it has gone "too far". Feminism isn't just about fair pay. It's also about abortion, contraceptive use, ending discrimination in academia, ending sexual harassment and sexual assault. These are all noble causes.[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4] http://www.businessinsider.com...[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
American Feminism is Going too Far

I see what my contender is trying to do, that being revealing himself as one of the few males that considers himself a feminist by his standards to appeal to women by fighting for an equality that already exists. By all means, power to you. However, at the end of the day, you are a boy, with boyish features and a male anatomy who does not think like a woman as feminine as you might be. Have you ever heard the song lyric, "don't save her, she don't wanna be saved", by J. Cole? If you think about it, women have always been second class because they have put themselves in that position, as unfortunate as that is. It is up to individuals to change that, not a whole army of angry women born into a society their ancestors created for them. Pick up a history book and look at how women are merely baby makers and personal chefs and maids to their husbands. Any one of Henry VIII's wives could have stabbed him in his sleep but they didn't. They didn't fight for freedom. They did not fight for education and work until much later. Many women, not all, have put themselves in the second class position. Anyone can be a head of a multi-million dollar enterprise or get the job they want or salary they want, if they want it enough. For example, my aunt went to an ivy league university [Columbia], at 15, before becoming SVP of a branch of one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies on the globe [Merck]. That being said, frankly, not just anyone can be anything or get anything they want if they are not up to the standards for it, or else the world would be utter chaos. No company owner is stupid enough to drive away a huge influential force in his business just because she's a woman. Another thing, of course they get paid less, everyone starts out with a little, and it grows too. The rate of growth for women is significantly less than the vast majority of men due to very simple reasons. Studies have shown men take riskier approaches when it comes to building their careers. They also ask for raises in a more suitable way and more often. Women are caught up in other ideals, respectively. Me and many other women have agreed we take on other responsibilities besides work which means we are not at the workplace as much as men, meaning we get paid less. It's not fair to be paid the same if we aren't doing as much work. You can agree with that. At the end of the day, equality is important. However, fighting for equality and peace between the genders is like having sex for virginity. I never said women can't be feminists. I just said it can get out of hand by asking for too much too late. It's hard to quickly change society's view points after thousands of years of the established, "women are the second class". http://ideas.time.com... http://www.npr.org... http://www.phillymag.com...
American Feminism is Going too Far

Every single example provided by Pro fails to merit the use of the word "extreme", or is downright incorrect. I'd like evidence that shows that women are "asking for higher wages for lesser jobs". Also, I fail to see what is extreme about "freeing the nipple". "I say, things are good the way they are now at least in the states."Current cultural norms are not necessarily better, so I would like to use this opportunity to call out Pro on her use of the is-ought fallacy. "Places that should be helped are those such that have women suffering to stay alive."Just because somebody else has it worse, does not mean that one should not strive to help their current situation. Why should those women struggle to stay alive when there are women that die without having the option to struggle? It's not selfish to want things to be better for yourself when others have it worse. Should I never be happy because somebody else has it better?"Women and men are not the exact same people, otherwise there would be no genders."I'd like to refer Pro to the US Supreme Court Brown v. Board of Education where the idea of "separate but equal" from the case Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned."We have the ability to do everything a man does and that for a lot of people is enough."Just because women have the "ability" to do everything that a man can do does not mean that there isn't cultural and institutional sexism that prevents women from doing certain things. Roughly 19% of engineering students are female [1]. This is due to the fact that in science fields men are seen more desirably even when they have the same credentials as women [2]. Modern American feminism fights to end cultural and institutional oppression.[1] https://www.asme.org...[2] http://www.nytimes.com...
American Feminism is Going too Far

American feminism is a force to be reckoned with nowadays. I myself am a woman and believe all people should be treated fairly regardless the gender, size, shape, color, ethnicity, etc. However, overly extremist feminists are taking their freedom for granted thus making the rest of us women have an angry spoiled appearance compared to the many of oppressed, voiceless women in counties such as Iran or Palestine. Many women nowadays are asking for way too much, like higher wages for lesser jobs, and "freeing the nipple" because they think it isn't fair that men get too. Frankly put, women and men are not the exact same people, otherwise there would be no genders. It's much too late in the game for women to push their limits on dress codes and over expectation. I say, things are good the way they are now at least in the states. Places that should be helped are those such that have women suffering to stay alive. Not knowing that the next day they could be killed because a few strands of hair was showing. Bottom line, I'm fortunate as are so many fellow women in this country. We have the ability to do everything a man does and that for a lot of people is enough.
united airlines should get shut down

Though I do agree that the actions that United Airlines took were abhorrent, it does not mean they should be shutdown. The companies CEO will decide to run his company as he sees fit, Whether or not that includes over booking. The entirety of the situation is that the man was asked to leave the flight for a later one and would not concede and disembark. Had he followed the commands of the flight crew and security officers he would have been amply compensated with a multi flight flight voucher or hotel stay (as is regular in my experience with flying) and would not have had to be dragged from the plane.
united airlines should get shut down

1 reason why united airlines should get shutdown because they reportedly overbooked by 4 people and randomly choose people to get off ,the first pair were an old couple, second was an woman going by herself and lastly was an doctor. The doctor refused to get off beaause he had work and surgerys to save lives so they made him get off by dragging him by his legs like an animal no human nor animal should be treated like this. He had blood rushing down his face, after watching that video I cried on how people can get away with this and actually drag a man off his seat after he paid for the flight to go save lives.
Toilets should be done away with

My opponent feels I have changed my position by saying it wasn't to have people brew an actual sh-t storm IRL.I actually did not change my position, because my position never was "poop willy nilly all over the place".In round one there are still places are considered, but never would I have suggested just randomly on the "ground and streets" as you had said in one of your arguments. A compost bin, a ditch in your backyard, a outhouse, and container are very different from just the ground and streets. I will elaborate on my ideas of what lavatories would be like if you want, but the floor and streets would not be included.
Toilets should be done away with

In the beginning of the debate, (round one), you stated: Instead of taking a dump or wizz in a toilet, since human waste products are biodegradable, one could take a dump in their very own backyard, compost bin, or outhouse. And if they are on the go, in a small to medium size container (depending on the load). Kill two birds with one stone and take a dump when you walk your dog. Pee in the shower!" Now you are changing your position by saying this: I feel you might misunderstand my position. My position isn't get rid of toilets and have people poop willy nilly all over the place. My position is simply to do away with toilets. We would still have respective lavatories/poop-incubators for waste disposal. This a complete change in position.
Toilets should be done away with

My opponent states "Wow, way to not make your arguement clear. That completely changes the whole debate. " I'm not sure if this is some sort of sarcasm and I'm honestly not sure what you ,my opponent, the con, is responding to. If the you feel my arguments are unclear, my entire posistion and a list of my affirmations on the subject (including fallacious ones) are in the first round for you to nitpick at. Since my opponent gave no arguments or rebuttals in round 2, I have no other arguments to make for round 3 to make it fair.
Toilets should be done away with

"Well, to give you a statistic, an average human poops about 1460 pounds per year. If you multiply that number by the billions of people on this earth, well, that's a lot of poop. "My opponent says the average person poops 1460 times a year. .. That's a lot right? Look at that stockpile in your backyard. Well actually the poop amounts to 360 pounds a year, but people also produce something like 96 gallons of saliva a year. It's not the that much over an entire year, even for that one person. Outside and buried, poop decomposes, much faster than a year. And considering poop itself is 50% bacteria, one persons poop degrades quite rapidly especially outside, as opposed to sewage treatment where everyone's poop is bundled up in a huge mass that takes longer to dissolve in the water. It is constantly reducing in the outside world so that 360 pounds of poop has gotten in shape by the new year. And people already have and do this, the toiletless lifestyle is not a newfangled idea! These people aren't surround by their own crap everywhere they go either. Have you ever went camping or used an outie? "So to do away with toilets, this would basically be asking the world for disease. "My opponent says getting rid of toilets is asking for disease, yet toilets are only a place to dispose of waste, not a method. This is important because: 1) The method of waste disposal is a factor for disease, hardly the place 2) Following a sound method of waste disposal can work without a toilet. "If we all would just poop on the ground and streets, the poop would be just like a spreading contaminant and would reach wells, waterways, and streams. " I feel you might misunderstand my position. My position isn't get rid of toilets and have people poop willy nilly all over the place. My position is simply to do away with toilets. We would still have respective lavatories/poop-incubators for waste disposal.
Toilets should be done away with

I honestly laughed out loud when I read this debate topic. Well, to give you a statistic, an average human poops about 1460 pounds per year. If you multiply that number by the billions of people on this earth, well, that's alot of poop. So to do away with toilets, this would basically be asking the world for disease. Literally everyone would have cholera not to mention all of the other sicknesses to gross you out. If we all would just poop on the ground and streets, the poop would be just like a spreading contaminant and would reach wells, waterways, and streams. All water would look nice and brown, like chocolate milk :) Though I agree with you that they cost alot of money that most people don't have, the sanitation is really necessary.
Toilets should be done away with

In this debate I will be taking the Pro (Anti-toilet) posistion.Exceptions: Space craft pooping systems, because there is nowhere but space in space.Rules:No semanticsYou must say lavatory instead of restroom and bathroomGood conduct pleaseThe term toilet extends to urinalsArguments I'm making:Toilets are a waste of money and space in your home-Without a toilet there would be more room in buildings for other junk like soda cans.-You wouldn't have to worry about the plumbing that comes with a toilet. (no more clogged toilets)Toilets stink up your home and require your time to clean.-No more smelly lavatories-No more moms asking you to "clean the toilet!"Toilets contribute to pollution.-Sewage from toilets cause water pollution-Sewage pollution is a risk factor for gastrointestinal disorders.-Water contaminated by sewage with pathogenic bacteria are consumed by shellfish and when eaten raw or partially cooked case people to be ill.-Raw sewage destroys streams and rivers.-People put things down the toilet that they aren't suppose to. -Without the toilets, there would be no need for those smelly sewage plants that smell like the shits.-Sewage stinks really bad and comes from toilets.http://gobiidae.com...People do not need toilets. -humans have lived for thousands and thousands of years without the use of toilets.-Humans are the only animal on the planet that makes and uses toilets to poop in.Every other animal does their buisness outside and do not have any problems with the poop.-Toilets are unsexy.Alternatives:Instead of taking a dump or wizz in a toilet, since human waste products are biodegradable, one could take a dump in their very own backyard, compost bin, or outhouse. And if they are on the go, in a small to medium size container (depending on the load). Kill two birds with one stone and take a dump when you walk your dog.Pee in the shower!
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people.

My friend, thank you for re-iterating your argument; however, I will contest the premise of your argument that "the value of human life is immeasurable." Philosophically, this may perhaps be proven true. However, the reality is that people place values on human lives all the time -- especially in dire situations. For example, the men aboard the Titanic (during the disaster of the early 1900's) waited patiently while women and children boarded the life-rafts first. Many of those men sacrificed their lives to save others. Take the sad story of Mumpy Sarkar, a twelve year old girl from India who committed suicide in order to donate her organs to her ailing family members (let alone dying family members). To say that these individuals don't assess and/or compare the values of not only their own lives but the lives of those around them, would lack logic and basic common sense. My friend, you aren't suggesting that these peoples' actions are immoral, are you?
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people.

Now onto my case: The value of human life is immeasurable. Therefore, to say that we can be more productive in any way by saving the greater amount is neither logical, nor morally acceptable. How do you measure and compare the quantity of of x verses the quantity of y + z if you don't know the values of x, y, or z. Thus, whether the life of the one is you or anybody else on this planet, it is immoral to end it no matter the ends. Is utilitarianism (in the resolution) necessarily restricted to pure quantity (in the resolutions situation) anyway? 1 doctor living and 10 crackpots dieing does not necessarily refute utilitarian ideals, despite the fact that 10 lives outweigh 1. Isn't the 1 doctor providing for society still doing the greater good for the greater amount of people (as opposed to the 10 crackpots). Does utilitarianism necessarily mean the greatest good towards the scenario provided in the resolution? Or can it also mean the greatest good provided by that person to society if allowed to live?
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people.

My friend, Thank you for thoroughly articulating your position. In response to Contentions 1, 2, and 3, I submit that I thoroughly agree with the spirit and intention of your position however I believe that your argument is fundamentally flawed. Your argument, fails to consider suicide for the purposes of saving the lives of others. Suppose you are reading the newspaper and you discover a disturbing article. 55 people have contracted a rare disease and will surely die within 24 hours unless they receive an injection of a serum containing a small ammount of an extremely rare type of blood. You are only one of two people worldwide that have the required blood. You make your way to the clinic armed with a needle and begin to extract the blood yourself, storing it in jars. Feeling faint, you write a note stating that you have provided enough blood to save the 55 people, dying shortly thereafter. Your debate asks me why it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people. I ask you why that innocent person cannot be myself.