BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Boys are mentally superior to girls

Your argument is based a lot on individual examples but of course these prove nothing. It is totally invalid to make an assumption that boys are mentally superior to girls based on one or two individual examples. You have provided no actual references such as statistic, studies etc. therefore there is not much for me to go on in terms of rebuttal. Again the only thing is that you are generalizing with no actual valid backbone to your argument. You say things like "He achieved a perfect score in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Circuits and Electronics exam. That is one of the hardest academic feats an adult can achieve, let alone a child. This proves that boys are mentally superior to girls". This argument is an extreme fallacy and makes little sense. Your only argument is based on such examples therefore it cannot be a valid argument. It is the exact same as saying that a few priests harmed some little boys therefore all priests are pedophiles. (excuse my lack of a better example but it is the exact same principle). It is a ridicoulos notion and an unfair generalization. Bringing this back to the debate title I will actually attempt to use cited sources for my argument rather than irrelevant individual examples that have no validation (with all due respect). Also you failed to define "mentally superior" however you seem to just deal with intelligence from your argument so I will do the same. Here are the graphs that chart the mean IQ of the NCDS respondents by sex at ages 7 and 11. Notice that girls are slightly statistically more intelligent than boys at both ages. At age 7, the mean IQ for girls is 100.6 while the mean IQ for boys is 99.4. Also At age 11, the mean IQ for girls is 100.4 while the mean IQ for boys is 99.6. (. http://rsrc.psychologytoday.com...) (. http://rsrc.psychologytoday.com...) Also girls on average mature faster than boys,(. http://www.federalwaymirror.com...) The male advances in intelligence do not appear until after puberty. Since girls mature faster, they have an upper hand of making decisions faster than boys at an early age. Based on all I have just said and the studies shown, I think it is realistic to conclude that Boys are in fact not mentally superior (intelligence) to girls.
Boys are mentally superior to girls

. I will convince you that boys are mentally superior to girls. A prime example of this is a boy named Battushig Myaganbayar. He comes from a middle class neighbourhood in Mongolia. He achieved a perfect score in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Circuits and Electronics exam. That is one of the hardest academic feats an adult can achieve, let alone a child. This proves that boys are mentally superior to girls as out of the 340 students that achieved a perfect score on the test, not one of them was a girl. Another example of a boy genius is Michael Kearney. He graduating at the age of six in 1990. He enrolled at Santa Rosa Junior College in Sonoma County, California, graduating at age 8 with an Associate of Science in Geology. He is listed in the Guinness Book as the world's youngest university graduate at the age of ten, receiving a bachelor's degree in anthropology from the University of South Alabama. This further proves my point that boys are mentally superior to girls. Another example that has recently happened is Tedx. Tedx is a company for youths that have innovative ideas worth spreading. A genuine love of learning and the ability to focus are two of the characteristics that have seen 11-year-old Tristan Pang achieve so much in such a short time. Year Seven at Ficino School, Tristan teaches himself at home and has been sitting Cambridge International Exams since he was nine and earning top grades. This just says it all. Girls cannot do the same thing as boys as in Tedx, boys were rated better than girls. GIRLS CANNOT DO THE SAME THING AS BOYS.
Intelligent Design

Can a Scientist give a rational argument as to Intelligent Design that the majority of other scientists can and should agree with? As an opening bid, the Proponent will take the Pro on this topic and the Con will make the case against Intelligent Design having any relevance to the Scientific Community. RULES: This will be a Formal Debate with Formal Debate Rules and the Rules of this site, with this one exception. The Opponent shall go first and shall contribute to the actual definitions used in conjunction with the proponent. The winner shall be the person whom the majority of people being persuaded, either for or against. (I ask that those whom want to judge keep an open mind before casting their votes.) The rounds will be: Round 1 Opening Round where the opponents greet each other and form the necessary agreements about terms. This will be open for two hours. Round two will consist of the Con presenting the case against, while the Pro presents the proponents perspective. This will be open for a maximum of 24 hours at which time if one or neither of the opponents post the other wins by forfeiture. Round three will consist of alternative arguments both con and pro. This will be open for a maximum of 24 hours at which time if one or neither of the opponents post the other wins by forfeiture. Round three will be used to dissect the opposition's arguments in a rational and logical manner. This will be open for a maximum of 24 hours at which time if one or neither of the opponents post the other wins by forfeiture. Round four will be for varied questions with the opponents giving arguments directly addressing the question. This will be open for a maximum of 24 hours at which time if one or neither of the opponents post the other wins by forfeiture. Round 5 will be for closing arguments from both factions in which the opposition can attempt to discredit by any means necessary. This will be open for a maximum of 24 hours at which time if one or neither of the opponents post the other wins by forfeiture.
Intelligent Design

With that being said, I have made my case as to why Intelligent Design has no place in science. Reasons being that Intelligent Design cannot be tested scientifically and therefore cannot be in science. Also, it implies that the laws of nature must be suspended, in which you need significant amounts of evidence to have anyone support your claim. Also, it would serve a useless purpose in Science because it cannot be tested and therefore it would be just like giving up and saying "Well it was god who did it! " instead of actually testing and finding out the answers. You should vote Con due to the fact that Pro failed to refute ANY of my arguments in the second round. In the third round he stuck to ONE argument in which I refuted. In the fourth round Pro seemed to be confused as to what we are debating about. The Burden of Proof was on Pro as he said in round 2: "The Burden of Proof is on me, since I make the claim, as to whether a Scientist can and should properly make the correct argument as to Intelligent Design having any useful purpose in Science. " Pro failed to meet the Burden of Proof he assumed upon himself.
Intelligent Design

My opponent misses the whole point of my arguments, while actually admitting that we should be teaching these things exist. For example, my opponent mentions numerous times where the logical fallacies of our Scientific and Philosophic Ancestors failed. He said that Thales thought the Earth was sitting in water, but how would my friend know this if not for it being studied? This same concept is what I advocate for. While we know that the thinking was flawed, without studying history we wouldn"t know that they were. We cannot, by any real sense, dismiss these ideas that made these great scientists and philosophers stop investigating, or we fail to understand why they did. Studying why they believed in Intelligent Design is just as important as studying why Newton said that the bodies being moved in the heavens was inspired by The Great Mechanick. History is every bit as important as any other field of Science. What people believed is just as important as studying as the Big Bang, or anything else for that matter. The Archaeological Field attempts to not only find out where people lived, but also what they believed, ate, drank, etc. Why? Because without knowing these things we cannot find out about our past. Intelligent Design has always been an important part of these fields of study.
Intelligent Design

I did not fail to address how we know historical figures did believe in some sort of Intelligent Design. Like I said, most famous historical scienctists were Alchemists, does that mean we shouldn't discredit alchemy? No, because we know alchemy is wrong. Thales: We're not dismissing his findings, we're dismissing his intelligent design. Thales also believed the earth was floating in water, should we not dismiss that too? Let me be very clear on this, Intelligent Design concept is NOT randomly dismissed. It is dismissed because it lacks the evidence and especially dismissed in it's involvment in life, because we have found a theory, with supporting evidence to discredit it. Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught as a science or in science at all. It was a philosophy idea that many scientists subscribed to. It's concept should be dismissed.
should schools unblock all websites when the students are at home then block them again

I'm assuming that you mean school computers. I do not believe that this should happen, because school computers are meant to be used for educational use only, not for playing games, checking "Instant ham" and looking at memes. The usage of such websites slow down computers, and would make the intended use of the computer, schoolwork, much less inefficient. Unblocked websites on school computers would let students get distracted by websites that are unneeded in school situations.
Barcelona is better than Manchester United

>I will take the "major achievements" as a tie. They came from the Manchester United website. >Next, my opponent claims to have the best player in the world in Ronaldinho. Firstly, Ronaldinho doesn't even lay for Barcelona, he plays for AC Milan (. http://www.acmilan.com...). Next, Ronaldinho's production has dropped off recently. He went from 21 goals to 8. As far as the best players go, Manchester United has three of the top strikers in the game: Wayne Rooney, Dimitar Berbatov, and Carlos Tevez. Additionally, they have a player who scored 42 goals last year in addition to winning the Ballon D'or (. http://news.bbc.co.uk...): Cristiano Ronaldo. >My opponent did not address the worth of Manchester United ($) or their history. He therefore drops them. >I hope this is an easy vote. My opponent did not beat anything I said, and di not even know who played for his team. Please vote CON. Thank you.
Barcelona is better than Manchester United

Barcelona has won many cups before too. Barcelona happened to have one of the best players in the world. I mean the best player in the world. Ronaldinho the club's major achievements include: http://www.sportspundit.com... * 18 La Liga * 24 Copa del Rey (Spanish Cup) (record) * 7 Supercopa de Espana * 2 European Cup/UEFA Champions League * 4 UEFA Cup Winners' Cup * 2 European Super Cup I dont know if my opponent is lying about the number of trophies. I have evidence to back my argument up. My opponent makes no point about the number of trophies they won because that doesn't matter. What matters is who has the better team.
Barcelona is better than Manchester United

>Manchester United were founded in 1878 as Newton Health. Since then, they won the following trophies, championships, etc: FA Premier League / Football League Division One 1. 1908 2. 1911 3. 1952 4. 1956 5. 1957 6. 1965 7. 1967 8. 1993 9. 1994 10. 1996 11. 1997 12. 1999 13. 2000 14. 2001 15. 2003 16. 2007 17. 2008 FA Cup 1. 1909 2. 1948 3. 1963 4. 1977 5. 1983 6. 1985 7. 1990 8. 1994 9. 1996 10. 1999 11. 2004 Football League Cup 1. 1992 2. 2006 FA Charity / Community Shield 1. 1908 2. 1911 3. 1952 4. 1956 5. 1957 6. 1965 7. 1967 8. 1977 9. 1983 10. 1990 11. 1993 12. 1994 13. 1996 14. 1997 15. 2003 16. 2007 17. 2008 European Cup / UEFA Champions League 1. 1968 2. 1999 3. 2008 UEFA Super Cup 1. 1991 European Cup Winners' Cup 1. 1991 Intercontinental Cup 1. 1999 >Manchester United have flourished and currently have the highest value of any athletic team in the world, over 1.8 billion usd. >I await my opponent's response.
The Existence of God

hey, I love this topic. To clarify, are we assuming the Bible to be a valid source? I understand that by using it we need to then debate the legitimacy of the Bible, but at the same time everything we know about the Christian God derives itself from Scripture. It should be noted that it won't be my only source, as in I won't just chuck verses at you until you hate life. Please answer in either your 1st argument or in the comments. Cheers.
The Existence of God

In this debate, I intend to discuss and debate the God of the Christian origin. As Con, I will be arguing that God does not exist, and Pro, my opponent, will be arguing that God does exist. To eliminate any confusion during the debate, I have provided a list of definitions, the round structure, and rules. These are to be followed at all times. Definitions: God: A supreme, omniscient, omnipotent, morally perfect being that is thought to have created the universe and rules it. Theist: The belief that god(s) exist. Atheist: The belief that god(s) do not exist. Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Omniscient: All-knowing, knows past, present, future. Omnipotent: having unlimited power; ability to do anything. Faith: Having the belief in god(s) Debate Structure: First round: Acceptance only. Second round: Arguments only. Third round: Rebuttals only. Fourth round: Counter-rebuttals. Rules: Forfeiture is an automatic loss. My accepting the debate, you accept all the definitions and rules. Do not limit your duties. E.g. only proving that there is a possibility that God exists. No ad-hominem attacks. Cite all sources used. Breaking any rules will result in an automatic loss. Citations: Merriam Webster
The Existence of God

So, I guess is counter rebuttal. Okay, first to clarify something I did not first realize. My primary argument was indeed a fallacy, as you need to believe in God first for it to be evidence, or circular reasoning. I'll give you that one. I'm used to debating people who already believe in God at some capacity, so this is a relatively new debate environment. The second one, however has much to be argued. You claim I used a God-in-the-gap fallacy. However, does not everyone fill the gap in with something? There is God-in-the-gap, or Science-in-the-gap, or IDon'tHonestlyKnow-in-the-gap. The "in-the-gap" idea is just substituting an unknown for something else that cannot be proven yet. It's apparently acceptable to believe that science can explain everything. the is filling that gap in with the promise that we will one day discover it.... we just don't know when. This is similar to God-in-the-gap. Another problem here is I claim everything, discovered or not, was created by God. The earth revolves around the sun because God made it that way. I also understand that since he was intelligent, he created natural laws for reality to follow by. Even though I argue God-in-the-gap, I would still be right even if there was a mechanic. I know what you're thinking "That's convenient, he is right either way by that logic". Exactly, and that leads to 2 extremes. Either I am wrong, and God does not exist and everything is just discovered as-is with no creator, or I am right. There is no observable presence of God, so I cannot give give you the kind of proof you want, just like I cannot prove to you an observable presence of gravity. I'll end with this. Logic and Reason are great tools, and Christians who know their doctrine respect its ability. However, they can only make sense of things that are observable to some extent. We can prove gravity logically because we observe it pulling on things. I look at the history and complexity of our reality, and see the signs of an intelligent designer. Is that God? or maybe Allah, Zeus, or some other God? From there, it's just a matter of how well you can defend your doctrine and your faith. Thank you, and vote whichever way you feel.
The Existence of God

Round 4 is specified for counter-rebuttals. I will rebut Hiskid’s rebuttals, and he will rebut mine. As this is my last response of the debate, I will have a longer conclusion than normal. Rebuttal of R1: Hiskid rebuts my argument of omnipotence by claiming that it is contradictory; specifically Logic Step 3. Logic Step 3 reads, “Since the ability of being a married bachelor is impossible, it is impossible to have the ability to do all things.” Hiskid is claiming that this is a “contradiction in terms” similar to, "Can he do something he can't do" and "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" This is exactly what I meant in Logic Step 3; omnipotence is contradictory, it is a “contradiction in terms” and is a fallacy, which is why it is impossible for God (or any god) to exist. I believe Hiskid interpreted my argument wrong for I found the rebuttal quite confusing. I hope my response clears it up though. Rebuttal of R2: Hiskid rebuts my argument of morality by claiming that we just don’t know the all the facts so it’s alright. Evidence of this is underlined. “Lets put it in this way. A man is in a store where a mugger is attacking the cashier. He could attack if he wanted, but doesn't. By law, is this man guilty? Of course not! I mean, it sucks that he didn't help, but we don't know his reasons. Maybe he has a family, or something else that led him to decide to stay away. Just because God exists in a reality where there is sin doesn't mean he himself is sinful” This is a fallacy of appealing to ignorance. Rebuttal of R3: In this rebuttal Hiskid attacks my argument from perfection. He attacks it two ways, so I will focus on the first now. “They were tempted by Satan and fell into sin. As a result they became wicked and evil (The majority anyways).” Hiskid is saying that God made them perfect, but then Satan made them imperfect. This is not necessarily true; a being that can be corrupted is not perfect, since it is potentially imperfect. An entirely perfect being would be incorruptible The other way Hiskid attacked it was citing the definition of Hebrew Nacham. In his link it gave definitions of Nacham and one of them read, “to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent” (Repent: to feel regret or contrition) (2) My argument is proven right again and Hiskid’s attacks are defeated. Conclusion: I have defeated all of Hiskid’s arguments, and have defended my own. This has been an enjoyable debate, Hiskid was a great opponent and I loved debating him. Sadly this is my last reponse, after Hiskid’s response this debate will be in the hands of the voters. To anyone reading this; thank you, and Vote Con! Citations: (1) http://www.biblestudytools.com... (2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Female infants should be exterminated

I am just going to speak my opening arguments with one simple question. Do you realize that females are literally NECESSARY for humanity to survive??? And not only that, you should really give women a bit more credit. They literally bleed for an entire week every month, and during that time, they experience extreme pain and discomfort due to cramping and hormone imbalances. The purpose of that? Girls are capable if this really neat thing. You are NEVER gonna guess what it's called. I believe most of society refers to is as "pregnancy" or "the act of producing a living human being". At the end of every single "month", women have to get rid of their unused eggs, as they have died. So, the real question here...is it possible for humanity to survive without the thing that LITERALLY produces more humans?
Female infants should be exterminated

Are women truly equal? Are they even worthy representatives of our species? I've been engrossed in a deep euphoric state of intellectual thought as of late. I've been conducting numerous thought experiments being, how to better the human race. I've come to an interesting conclusion that women are responsible for a lot of evil in the world. It is at that conclusion I propose we begin annihilating female infants leaving 10% left for breeding purposes once they become ripe. In a dangerous situation what is the female response? It's to scream. That scream is a call for help. "Help me I'm f*cking useless" Upon hearing a scream from a female adrenaline will be released from any male who hears it, prompting them to respond with all their male might and fury. The point is, these screams are a survival adaptation which has been adapted for better acquiring male help. Males are the basis of female evolution. This can be further seen by looking at useless sexual traits women have, including big breasts and big rear ends. Whereas male evolution is based around the environment the male is within and the manipulation of that environment, for example, muscle mass to protect and to provide, a sharper mind for hunting and tracking. This all comes together to tell us that, women are secondary and used for their organs. Whereas men are primary. Considering the primary role men have played throughout all of human existence, can we agree that the male life is more valuable than the female life? To that, shouldn’t we begin eradicating those which seek to harm us? Be it man-eating lions, or man-hating females. Allow me to elaborate. Women have a chemical and hormonal imbalance that makes them emotionally unstable and irrational. This is dangerous and when you consider women make up roughly 50% of the population you can quickly see why we have so many problems in the world. Some would argue that men are equally as bad, I would agree, but who raises these men? Indeed it is women. I will leave you with a philosophical question. Would you kill one female infant to save the lives of many hundreds of men? If you wouldn't, then you're probably a sexist bigot. This debate has been made in memory of a dear friend. We will miss you. I saw a photo of my friend’s girlfriend without make-up and she looked like a witch. She looks normal with make-up, knowing this, she forfeited her contraceptives without telling him and now he has a child. R.I.P my friend, you were caught in a trap.