BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Are women annoying hypocrites when it comes to feminism

In regards to the feminist argument I was not using the text book definition I was using it to refer to those feminist who claim that they fight for women to be equal to men. Of course not all women are annoying hypocrites, which should go without saying. But regardless, one my biggest driving points is the Domestic Violence laws in America. Do you know that in a lot of states men can be taking and detained based on an accusation! All the women has to do is say he did something and he's forced to either leave or be taken into custody. I don't see these women fighting for this to be changed so that men and women are on even levels. I worked for years as a DCF officer and saw first hand how the legal system treats men. They treat them like their disposable. In all the custody battles I was involved in almost 2 years unless the woman had basically given up, the father never won. 1 in 6 cases of custody according to the US Census goes to the mother. I don't see women trying to equal that ground. The funniest statistic is women are more likely not to even get charged with child support in the event that they don't win. No peep about evening that up. It's all because our society has so brainwashed men that a women can never be a dead beat no matter what the circumstance unless a man is to blame. It's amazing. What about women getting almost 2 and half years less for committing the same crime as men. According to the United States Census Bureau women receive prison sentences that average a little over 2 years less than those awarded to men. Even after controlling for circumstances such as the severity of the offense and past criminal history, women receive more lenient sentences. Approximately 9.5 months of the female advantage cannot be explained by gender differences in individual circumstances. In other words if women faced the same sentencing structure as men, women would on average receive 15.4 months less prison time than men rather than 24.9 months less prison time. Most of the gender gap arises from convictions via guilty pleas, which account for the vast majority of the convictions observed in our data. Besides gender, we find evidence that judges took into account factors such as family circumstances which are expressly prohibited from consideration when awarding sentences but I don't' hear a peep about making this equal yet I can't turn on the tv without hearing women screaming about men making more money for the same job. To me I defined that as hypocritical in every sense of the word.
Are women annoying hypocrites when it comes to feminism

Hello Pro, I am your Contender and today I would like to argue and oppose your topic. To start off, I believe women are not annoying hypocrites when it comes to feminism because one, feminism is definition means:" the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men" Now this is the true definition of a feminism and according to the definition, Pro's first point does not correspond well with the actual definition, so may I ask pro to provide an examples of how or why women are annoying hypocrites when it comes to feminism.
Are women annoying hypocrites when it comes to feminism

I am so sick and tired of women and their double standard bull crap. They claim they want everything to be equal when in all actuality they want the world to be easier for them at the expense of everyone around them. They claim they want to be treated equal yet they constantly fight for the ability to get rights men don't have. They claim that men don't take their problems seriously yet commonly make jokes about the problems normal men have to deal with. I can go into more detail but I'll do that after I've had someone to debate. Please explain this to me because I'm so annoyed.
The Problem of Evil

This is so funny at least some people will get a laugh. Okay, I'll explain it to you. I am an atheist, I do not believe in God, my arguments, if you actually understood them, are argument against a God. So stop already, this is not a debate. This is you making a fool of yourself to all who are viewing this nonsense. "I read your profile and I reread the first statement, slow as a snail." I think your slow as a snail....get a clue dude! I am officially retracting this debate.
The Problem of Evil

I read your profile and I reread the first statement, slow as a snail. And I still think that the 2004 tsunami is indirectly caused by the rubbing of rocks 4.6 billion years ago. Read my first statement again. This is science. Learn Earth Science. Some evil are caused by bad decisions. The people in Germany voted for Nazis in 1933, and they're an evil party. So praying for God is just as useful as using lots of expired hydrochloric acid to kill bacteria in wounds. And God did none of those things, learn some science.
The Problem of Evil

I can see that my valuable time in putting together my arguments has gone to waste. It makes me so angry when people are daft, I guess I should have made the obvious stipulation that I require an opponent that identifies with the God that was clearly stated in my arguments, perhaps this is my fault. I didn't need an atheist to explain to an another atheist (me) the the nature of the world (scientifically). But since I am not willing to forfeit or lose a debate over someones ignorance I will continue this debate anyways. The CON concedes that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exits, therefore the debate is over. So much for a stimulating debate. I will post this debate again with the necessary stipulations to avoid this problem from happening.
The Problem of Evil

My first response after reading your stuff -God does not exist at all. -The 2004 tsunami is caused when the solar system formed, rocks crashed each other at high speeds, creating friction and heat. (Of course, indirectly) -The Earth was a ball of fire 4.6 billion years ago because of the friction. -The outer layers of the Earth cooled down, but not the inner layers. -Those caused convection in the Earth's interior. -They caused plates to move at a few centimeters a year, enough in a thousand years and BOOM!!!!!! -God did not do all this stuff, it's science. Just so you know and if you're curious.
Resolved: The government should regulate the internet

Opening case: For this debate, I will go through a variety of reasons why government regulation would be harmful. If regulation would do more harm than good, it should not happen. Argument will be weighed later in the round. Argument one: speed Government regulation of the internet would make internet speed far slower for users. Looking at an article from the dailycaller, internet speed would be drastically reduced by government regulation. The impact here is large: slowing down of the internet for everyone. Argument 2: productivity Government regulation would set the internet far behind private industries resulting in a productivity loss. "Congress ended common carrier regulation of railroads in 1976, trucking and bus lines in 1980, and airlines in 1984. The common carrier Public Switched Telephone Network is becoming obsolete and being transitioned out of existence because it makes no sense to invest in it, given its unworkable burden of a thousand obsolete common carrier regulations. Common carrier regulation of broadband would threaten the growth and productivity of the communications revolution of broadband, smartphones, tablets and the Internet of things." [1] Additionally, "That's understandable but the idea that the government will do a good job of regulating the Internet (whether by blanket decrees or on a case-by-case basis) is unconvincing, to say the least. The most likely outcome is that regulators will freeze in place today's business models, thereby slowing innovation and change. " [2] This shows that government regulation likely won't be effective and that it will harm innovation. Argument 3: morals This will be an opinion-only argument, though it is important none-the-less. For many, the internet is a place of refugee. The internet is a place where all the stresses of daily life are released into an area of care-free. People deserve this zone where actions don't have consequences. In this world, so many actions have so many consequences, yet being able to use the internet without the fear of the government's eyes should be a right. Argument 4: public opinion Only 26% of adults agree with government regulation [3]. Clearly the public doesn't want regulation which is one reason it shouldn't happen. In addition, only around 30% think that the regulation done is done effectively [3]. This means that even if the public were to be convinced of government regulation being beneficial, they would not think that it would be done well. Argument 5: Why a solution for no problem? The internet runs smoothly as is, if there is nothing wrong, it doesn't need to be regulated [4]. When regulating would slow down the internet and harm the economy [4], while it doesn't solve any problem (as none exists), it would be pointless at best to regulate the internet. [1] http://dailycaller.com... [2]http://reason.com... [3]http://www.rasmussenreports.com... [4]http://www.washingtonpost.com...
websites are not legitimate sources for gading formal papers

The website "turnitin.com" is not a good form of grading formal papers. The website does not make it more efficient for teachers to teach students rather it is computerized to decide what is considered plagiarism and what is not when an actual human being is ten times more capable of noticing plagiarism in the case of a paper not being in a students "own words." The website compares what is turned in to other papers, that of which runs the risk of comparing the matter of writting instead of the taking an idea and sayin it is then yours. (That is what plagiarism is defined as) And who's to say the paper that was turned in is not the students "own words?" This is a mosconception of puting things and ideas into your own words when many writtings especially college student writings are very much similar; for example word choice.
websites are not legitimate sources for gading formal papers

First of all, I would like to point out the typo on the debate title. I think when you said "gading" you obviously meant grading. I would also like to say that the purpose of turnitin.com was not created and is not used for teachers to be lazy. The purpose of it is to catch other students plagiarizing. It is also a quicker and easier way to grade any type of paper. In our modern-day society filled with new technology, it is not strange or unusual to find this type of website. This site makes it possible for teachers to spend more time teaching their students, rather than constantly grading papers. Thank you.
Usage of internet being beneficial for children.

You stated yourself that i won't have proof that the internet can be incorrect and full of rubbish, But im sorry to say i do have evidence. The internet is created for people to add on facts and help people. The public can add on facts especially on places like wikepidia. This will tell the children fake news and therefore not helping the childs brain develope. You say that it needs the right usage. What if a child doesnt know the right usage and searches up inappropiate searches. My first point is that hackers can illegally damage websites which may effect the child. Peodofiles can use the internet to approach children, How is this a good thing.
Usage of internet being beneficial for children.

When children access the internet on large publicly visible screens in safe and public surroundings, The net can be their most beneficial friend. Groups of children can learn almost anything by themselves using the internet. My worthy opponent might suggest that the internet is full of rubbish and that children will learn incorrect things from it but does he have proof? Does he have evidence? NO When children work in groups they invariably find the right answers. This is because they interact with each other and quickly correct erroneous notions. . At last I would like to say that internet is like a blessing in disguise and you have to find the right usage and implement it. . .
Short story battle! (2)

This is another short story battle. You know the story (no pun intended). Vote based on your favorite stories!1. Each round will consist of ONE SHORT STORY. 2. It can be absolutely any genre you want so long as it stays within the number of characters.3. When you people vote I would appreciate it if you would make a comment on which story out of all of them was the best.4. When making your story you must type a title to go with it so that people that vote can just type the title of the one/(s) they enjoyed. Good luck!
Short story battle! (2)

The Tricycle of TerrorIts only one night till my birthday! Little Billy thought as he was going to bed early so he could get the present his parents have been telling him about the entire week. As Billy was laying on his bed he thought of so many things that the present could be. Could it be a pet? Video Games maybe? How about another toy car for my collection! Billy thought happily in his bed until all of the excitement brought him drifting into dreams of toy cars and video games. As he dreamt of all the cars he had wished to have, he could see them within his dreams. Mustangs, Vipers, He would always want cars like these. The next thing he knew he was awake in his bed and a lumpy figure was right in front of his door. As Little Billy crept towards the figure he noticed a cloak over it and dragged it off. From within the cloak was a slick red tricycle with black handle bars and a cover over each of the wheels to make it look old and classic. What is this?! This isn't what I wanted! Ugh! Billy was absolutely furious. He ran straight down the corridor to his parents room passing his play room and his fathers office to be met by his parents front door to their room. With Billy mad, he slammed hi front fist which mad a loud enough sound to wake up an army. "Mom! Dad!" Billy cried out. Billy could hear one of his parents getting up which meant they heard his plea. Although, at the same time he could hear rustling sounds from the other side of the corridor. As the intensity grew, Billy felt like it was forever until he heard the door about to open. But at the same time Something had grabbed him from behind him. When his parents opened the door all they had seen was a tiny tricycle with its wheels turned to them and a trickle of blood on the handlebars.
Short story battle! (2)

Sorry but first thing I've got to say is that was funny pro! Well anyway on to my story....Everybodys doin it!Well readers, Somebody started it and apparently me and my friend haven't done what everyone else is doing yet and my friend is telling my to do it with him. So, here's the soon to be awkward story..My friend and I Kevin just walking to first period overheard an argument that went a bit like this. "Dude did you hear? He did it! Andy actually did it!" The guy on the right said. The one on the opposite side responded, "Yeah man! I'm going to do it tonight! I'm totally excited!" The guy on the right agreed and the soon stared at both me and my friend. Since we were total nerds always trying to get some attention in this low life school we once again got pounded and left by the back of the school to wait for the old janitor to pick us up before class started. "Dude you heard that conversation? Their gonna do it! Ill try to how about you?" My friend Kevin asked while we were on our way to class. "Nah man, id rather not...." I said quietly. As the day went on Kevin would not stop asking if we could do it together. He would ask every five minutes if id get mad and every single second if I didn't look like I was annoyed. Until our bus ride home he asked one last time. "Dude, please!? Please, please, please!!" He asked again for the five hundredth time. "Alright! God! What else will it take for you to SHUT UP!" I aid waking up all of the birds in the trees outside.And so, Kevin, and me, and everyone else who was going to do it met at a secret location that I definitely cannot tell you. One guy that looked about like a teacher at school asked everyone, "Are you all ready?" Everyone said yes and we plunged into the dark abbys of the end of a bridge.The EndIf you guys are still confused about this "Doing it thing", what it means is that they were actually going to jump off a bridge, not do anything you were thinking of...
Abortion should not be an option for parents.

Since there is nothing to debate with, I will re-emphasize my key point about the government.As I stated above, the government has no right to legislate the reproductive systems of women. This is because they would be legislating the women themselves, the government would be legislating a woman's body, not anything else. When women aren't allowed to have legal, safe abortions, then they have to go through illegal, back-alley abortions. Also, by denying abortion as an option for rape victims, we possibly force traumatized women to relive their rape through their child, which is unfair to both the mother and the child.
Abortion should not be an option for parents.

I'll accept.The fact that MO legalized the purchase of alcohol on Sundays shows that the country is ready to go against the Judeo-Christian tradition that has been running this country for ages. Just because the government already shares a lot of irresponsible values with the Bible does not mean that it is okay. And a hunter can go shoot a doe during hunting season. A mother has the right to an abortion because there is no human being inside of the mother during the first trimester. And while there are many options, as you say, that does not mean that we have to eliminate abortion as one of them. Also, some births can negatively affect a mother, even kill her. Also, there is the simple fact that the government has no right to legislate the reproductive systems of women.
Abortion should not be an option for parents.

I do not think that abortion should be legal. Some might say, "Well just because the Christian religion is against abortion, that should not mean it should be illegal in the eyes of the government." My question is: how can you say that when it was just legalized in MO to by alcohol on Sundays a few years ago. The American government already sets itself up to be hand in hand with the Bible. But even without the religious stand, I can argue this topic. If a hunter can not go out and shoot himself a doe, or a bald eagle whenever he wants, how can a mom have the right to terminate the life of the most vulnerable, defenseless, harmless human beings? There are PLENTY of options for a mom that does not want to raise her child. In many towns, any parents who do not want to keep their baby can drop their baby off at the hospital without saying a word. Another option that will give an unwanted baby the life it deserves is adoption. This will give the child a chance at life. Yes, it will grow up not knowing who his/her biological parents are, but it is better than not letting the baby live. Another key point is that when a teenager or early adult has a child at such a young age, they are not very confident in themselves when it comes to raising a child. When most parents that are forced to raise a child at a young age grow a little older, they are usually so glad that they had their child. These are the reasons I think abortion should not be legal.
All Else Being the Same, a Moral Position in War is Untenable

For anyone reading this debate, there is a concurrent debate with a different opponent on the same resolution that I started at the same time as this one:http://www.debate.org...As it is, I ask for the conduct vote against my opponent, as he has clearly forfeited this debate, and the rules in round #1 were clear that forfeits would be scored:- This debate is a "no scoring" debate with the exception of conduct - forfeits, flaming, seriously sidetracking the debate, plagiarism, and cheating the character limit are some examples.
Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today.

My opponent has the burden of the proof. My opponent has not stated how or why obesity is the most pressing issue in America, he has only stated that it is a pressing issue.As Con, I will take the opposite stance. A recent Gallup Poll reported what Americans thought what was the most important problem in America today. The results are shown below[1]: As we see above, obesity wasn't even on the list. The economic issue Americans thought as most important was unemployment/jobs and non-economic Americans thought as most important was dissatisfaction with the government.Let's take another poll. What Americans thought as the top five "Most Important" U.S. problems are listed below[2]: Now that we have an understanding of what the American population thinks, let's go on to the why and how. Obesity is an issue, but it is nothing compared to the United States's debt crisis, struggling economy, poverty rate, war relations, etc. My opponent has yet to prove how obesity is more of an issue then all of these things. Since my opponent hasn't brought up a legitimate argument for me to rebut, the task of rebutting goes to my opponent.Sources1. http://www.gallup.com...2. http://www.gallup.com...
Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today.

Obesity is obviously the most urgent issue in America today. As I stated above obesity affects 1 out of every three adults and 2 out of every 19 kids ages 2-19. Obesity does more than just make a person look bigger / fatter, it also increases the risk of many serious health conditions such as the following ; Heart disease in adulthood very high blood pressure high cholesterol high blood sugar type two diabetes certain types of cancer strokes Respiratory Disease Musculoskeletal Disorders and finally, obesity has been linked to high depression rates. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...
Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today.

Obesity is the most urgent problem facing America today. Today, 36% of all adults ( people over 18 ) are obese! That is 1 in every three adults. what's more is that obesity rates have doubled from 1990 going from 15% to 30%! However, this major issue does not just affect adults. 2 out of every 9 kids ages 2-19 are obese. This is not a problem that will just resolve its self, without immediate attention obesity rates could double again and again and again until the entire population is obese! Do you really want a society where the children of the future all can't do many of the physical activities that we enjoy today due to their weight? http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...