BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
On average who is smarter men (Pro) or women (Con)

"The points my opponent points out are all well and good with only one problem their all conjecture. For how exactly do you measure a average intelligence of a gender, with a IQ test, a analyse of topical conversations, or some other type of measurement." -> My opponent simply makes the claim that my arguments are conjecture with providing any serious argument to support her position. The idea that one could provide irrefutable evidence on a subject as ambiguous as measuring of a person intelligence, yet alone an entire sex, is nonsense. Furthermore, empirical evidence is contrary to the very spirit of debating as concrete proof eliminates the need for debating. Therefore, this debate and debates in general must carry a level of speculation as this is the only way to progress an issues that has no reliable empirical test to validate one point over another. Therefore, the debaters can only be judge on the logically consistency of the arguments. "My opponent has not given any proof behind his claims and merely says that women are less smart because of his social interactions." -> Ignoring the logical frame work of my argument and then claiming that it does not empirically prove my point is not a good refute. Instead, you should explain why my argument is flawed or show that there is a positive intellectual aspects to social interactions. Unsupported opinion: "For me personally girls in my school are smarter than boys on their tests but these again are not the only measures of intelligence." You are making a counter-argument to your position: "Also how will you account for a lack of education because women are unfortunately far less likely to receive a education." "Although their have been studies that have found women smarter than men" -> The study say that for generation women have had lower IQs (which does not necessary indicate intelligence) and that recently they have bridge the gap. It then goes on to states that a few studies show women higher without taking into account the studies that show men higher. It bias and sensationalist.
Gay marriages should be left alone.

Marriage, as defined by Thefreedictionary.com: "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." Thus, I contend against the pros talk of leaving gay marriage alone. Marriage is to be held between a man, and woman, nothing more, nothing less. Man, as defined by Thefreedictionary.com: "An adult male human." This removes any possibility of attacks at marriage being able to be incestuous, or through young-old couples. Woman, as defined by Thefreedictionary.com: "An adult female human." This removes any debate left that the opponent could sustain over the definition of Marriage. First, David R. Usher states: "The reason why marriage between men and women is an unfettered constitutional right is because its equalizing power is uniquely fundamental to the success of the human race and society itself; where this absolute right does not affect anyone adversely because it is totally inclusive of both sexes." Second, David R. Usher[2] elaborates about societal damage: "Deconstruction of fatherhood since 1960 has resulted in very large numbers of young men not becoming a part of society. Approximately half of men are removed from their families, with little or no cause, usually over their strident objections. Their sons often don't finish high school, don't go to college, don't integrate into the workplace, and often end up in the underground economy and prison. This expands the belief that men are bad which, in turn, fortifies radical feminist policy seeking total control of society, family, and economic resources to women. Same-sex marriage would create the perfect gender-segregated two-tiered society in the eyes of feminists. This model is already largely in place due to divorce and the welfare/child-support state. It is only lacking the false "right" for any two women to marry each other. The history of entitled "women's choice" indicates same-sex marriage and civil unions will accelerate the demise of traditional families far beyond the startling numbers we have seen during the past forty years. Social data indicates we are already most of the way down this road, and that we have gone too far driving men out of society. It is time we not only strike down the Massachusetts decision, but take aggressive action reversing anti-family policy in divorce law that brought us to the present-day situation." Lastly, David R. Gusher[3]: "The concept of "equal protection under the law" requires protection of heterosexual marriage before consideration of anything else. Where "sexual orientation" is predominantly a behavior, it does not classify as a race, sex, or creed for the purpose of seeking this equal protection. Law serves an intentional purpose of intentionally directing individual choices so that a just, free, and equal society can exist. This necessarily means that same-sex marriage is unconstitutional." Thus, Gay marriage should not be left alone, and should be banned. There is no constitution supporting gay marriages, only for equal protection under the law which does not directly looks towards Marriage.
Gay marriages should be left alone.

Hello ! I am a christian and a social conservative. Be it resolved that it is a bad idea to interfere in people's private lives over marriage of any kind, traditional or " non-traditional ", and that government should stay out of these issues, neither legislating for or against gay marriage, you are arguing against this, you have 8,000 characters, go. remember: * Gay marriage should be left alone. * No constitutional amendment on anything. * happy hunting.
Saltwater crocodile vs Great white shark

Our previous, incomplete debate was here: http://www.debate.org... 1. Yes, this IS the fight. So shark can't turn back like like it would want to, and it should fight unlike in real life. I'm repeating that saltwater crocodiles are a great fighters, and are much more aggressive than sharks. The fight is supposed to be realistic battle between two animals and not the robots. Shark can't swim away on a separate territory, but it would try to avoid fight. 2. You just cited Google search. If you ever do this, always check sources. The shark average size has no source at all (although it is right). The crocodile size cites the zoo website, which also has no sources. The maximum size of the saltwater crocodile is 6.3 meters, with partial tail loss [1]. I assume that this crocodile would have a mass of about 1200 kg, or 2650 lbs. This is based on the estimation of Lolong, which is about 6.17 meters in length and 1075 kg [2]. And he was measured at the day of capture (nearly 100 people were required to catch him), after a long fight trying to escape. Experts agree that the largest great white captured is about 20 feet and 4200 pounds [3]. 3. Size isn't everything! First, since the crocodile is an experienced fighter, it would know how to kill the opponent, or at least try fighting methods. The shark is NOT adapted for a big prey. It simply wouldn't know what to do. It's built for speed, not fights. Then, the crocodile's jaws are really strong. Their bite force is more than 4500 lbs, and it is much more than that of a shark. The reptile's teeth are big and hold good to the jaws. The shark's teeth are smaller and not hold to the jaws very good. The are sharp, which is good for killing a soft prey. Crocodile has solid shell surrounding it, which is a problem for the fish. Both animals are strong, but it is pretty obvious that with all these factors crocodile wins. 1. http://crocodilian.com... 2. http://www.academia.edu... 3. http://www.discovery.com...
I think Raiders of the Lost Ark is better than the original Star Wars(and all the other ones)

Star wars has more films and based on a far more interesting plot. Yeah, Raiders of the lost Ark has a focus on the Ark of the Covenant, but Star wars has a more diverse and thick plot. In Star Wars, there's a lot of characters which have their own goals, ambitions, flaws, and desires whereas in Indian Jones - Not so much. Star Wars is also a very long storyline considering the movies, games, comics, books, etc. so it's an entire universe.
I think Raiders of the Lost Ark is better than the original Star Wars(and all the other ones)

OK. I will now tell you why I think Raiders is better than Star Wars!Point 1: Indiana Jones is a better main character than Luke Skywalker. I will now elaborate: a) Harrison Ford is a more experienced actor than Mark Hamill. b) Indiana Jones has a more fleshed-out personality. Luke's kind of a stale character.That's all I'll post for now, I ran out of time. I will rebuttal your posts!
I think Raiders of the Lost Ark is better than the original Star Wars(and all the other ones)

Since you are using the very horrible, awful, stinky prequel trilogy as an example, all of those arguments are automatically invalid. The prequel trilogy did EVEVERYTHING wrong! It ruined 1/2 of the Star Wars movies. Everyone had high expectations because George Lucas directed and wrote all three of them, but they were proved wrong. Even fans of Star Wars hate the prequel trilogy. I mean, that's just a sign of a bad movie, when the fans of the franchise hate it. Ol' George just wanted to rake in cash from kids and fans of the original trilogy.This video explains it better than me:;Well then, now that I got that rant over with, I better start explaining why I think Raiders is a bit better than the original trilogy, and WAY better than the prequel trilogy. a) everything I said in my previous args[]b) You don't need to have a huge universe with lots of characters to have fun watching a movie - do you? I thought not...c) The pure fun absorbs you into Raiders, and you sometimes find yourself unconsiously jumping up and whipping the air.d) Star Wars just isn't the PURE movie it was anymore. You have merch, EU, and (ugg) the prequel trilogy. Indiana Jones is still just the trilogy it always has been - and the same universe. There isn't as much merch as Star Wars, though there is Indiana Jones 4 (ugg), but that is one movie. Star Wars has THREE horrible movies, with merch and bad EU to boot. In short, Indiana Jones is purer than Star Wars. e) It is more action-packed.
I think Raiders of the Lost Ark is better than the original Star Wars(and all the other ones)

What's so special about raiders of the lost Ark? Simply that Indiana Jones is finding the lost Ark of the Covenant. Star Wars covers a more vast plot. Star Wars is about battling the sith and bringing down the trade federation which dominated many solar systems (1). Episode 1 is about how they attack Naboo as the Jedi must defend the galaxy from them (2). This is also the moment the Jedi meet Anakin Skywalker who plays a very vital role in the Star Wars saga. There is also a lot of character progression on all characters even the Sith (Darth Maul). Darth Maul also a backstory that you catch a glimpse of and you find out more in the books. He's a Sith lord who is loyal to Darth Sidious and uses fear to cripple his foes. He progresses as he seeks to achieve his goal. Obi Wan Kenobi progresses as he learns more from Qui Gon. The droids also prove to be very useful. Anakin Skywalker also progresses as he learns how to use the force and leaves his home to become a Jedi. Padme Amidala also plays an important role as a Queen of Naboo and her people. There are different civilizations that you encounter and characters that you can't hate like R2-D2 and C-3PO as well as humor. Episode 2 delves deeper into Anakin's character as he grows in the force but you also see a darker side of him just a bit. I'll stop there because i don't want to spoil it for anyone. There's more action and fighting in the Star Wars universe. There's not just light-saber duels, but also shoot outs, space battles, droid battles, wars,etc. There's alot of politics involved as well as insight into the mind of the Jedi and Sith. Star Wars characters leave behind memorable quotes. Themes touch on philosophy, loyalty, courage, good and evil, friendship, love, betrayal, hope, discipline, hate, power, list goes on. Indiana Jones is a myth, whereas Star Wars is on another level in a galaxy far far away :P Sources: 1. http://starwars.wikia.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
I think Raiders of the Lost Ark is better than the original Star Wars(and all the other ones)

Indiana Jones has detailed mythology and religion. It has high adventure aspects that completely dwarf Star War's entire universe. In Indiana Jones, you feel like it is actually happening right at the moment you watch it. You get completely absorbed in it's story, and the writing is a lot better than in Star Wars. Plus, Indiana Jones doesn't need to have it's own universe because it's not fantasy (like Star Wars is! Well technically it's a space opera, but whatever) or sci-fi. Even if it did have it's own universe, that would actually make it worse, proving that your argument of star wars being because of it's own universe invalid. Also, movies don't need to have a bunch of comics, videogames, and merch to be better than one that does. Oh, and a franchise doesn't need to have a long storyline to beat one that does. And when does having more films make Star Wars have a far more interesting plot? Just because it has more films doesn't really mean that the story is better. In Indiana Jones there are characters with better personalities than in Star Wars - though I will admit, Star Wars does have more characters with the personality traits mentioned above by you. But that doesn't mean that Indiana Jones doesn't have characters like that. I actually genuinely think that Indiana Jones has quite a bit of characters like that, with the main character at the forefront of that. Again, I will say, the main character Luke is very stale, especially compared to other characters in Star Wars. Geoge and co. could've fleshed out his personality a bit more. I think people who think that Star Wars is way better than Indiana Jones will agree with me that Indiana Jones is a better character than Luke. I would say that Indie is a better character than even Han Solo.That's all I'll post for now... I can't wait to see your rebuttals!
christianity vs science

I give respect to my opponent, shipman for informing me as to the reason why he had to forfeit. He sent me a direct message and I feel it is only fair that everyone should see it. "Would you please be so kind to allow our debate to be postponed until sometime next week.? My Internet shutoff unexpectedly and they said they could come and fix it as soon as possible. I am using my phone and it would be very hard to type all I need on it. We could copy and paste everything we have thus far and continue next week. If you allow it to be. Thanks." I wouldn't mind postponing the debate, but I believe whatever we have here ought to be judged on its own, then we can continue the same exact topic on another debate. In conclusion, I will let the judges decide.
christianity vs science

since i dont have enough text space for my original argument... i guess i will start this off by asking a few questions to someone who knows a few things about religion and science. i would prefer someone who is very strong in "non believing" and can answer these questions quite specific. 1.) what made you turn into a "non believer".? 2.)what are your perceptions on God,and Jesus Christ.? 3.)what is your definition of logic.? 4.)do you use "Logic" when denying the existence of Jesus Christ, or God.? 5.)has anyone ever tried to force you into believing.? 6.)if yes how did this make you feel.? 7.)whats your thoughts on Free-Will.? 8.)if there is no god or jesus, whats your opinion on how we are here.? please be specific. 9.)do you believe in good and evil.? 10.)what is your number one argument when proving Jesus Christ, or God false.? after you answer these questions i will begin to try and prove to you why your answers are wrong. my goal- persuasion/ (extremely hard to do) thanks and i will accept any critism against my arguments I actually look foward to them.(:
There should be no representation without taxation

47% of people in the United States are dependent upon government support: they believe that they are victims; they believe the government has a responsibility to care for them; they believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. These students, disabled war veterans, old age pensioners and other freeloaders don't pay Federal taxes, so politicians shouldn't have to worry about them - they'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives - but some politicians feel they need to pretend to care about them because, outrageously, these idle scroungers are allowed to vote. The United States of America was founded on the principle of "no taxation without representation" so it therefore follows that there should be no representation without taxation - and that means those people who don't pay Federal income tax should not be allowed to influence the lives of decent, hard-working citizens by electing namby-pamby. wish-washy, bleeding-heart liberals who believe in stealing money from corporate asset-strippers, investment bankers and other wealth creating individuals and handing it out to indolent young scholars, work-shy cripples and lazy geriatric spongers. No tax, no vote - it's as simple as that. Vote Pro. Thank you.
Deism is the only reasonable belief system that includes a god

I accept. Thank you for offering this interesting debate. The belief system that I will argue to be more reasonable than deism is that of theism. To clarify, I will argue that there is at least one god, and not only that this god is the creator of the human race but plays a role in the governance of the universe. Theism- belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the worldhttp://www.merriam-webster.com...I look forward to your opening arguments next round.
Deism is the only reasonable belief system that includes a god

Mr. He,My resolution is that Deism (http://en.wikipedia.org...) is the only reasonable belief system that also beliefs in a god, or a Creator. Your burden of proof is:1st: proving Deism not to be s reasonable belief system, 2nd: provide and argue another belief system that believes in a Creator/god to be more reasonable then Deism. Reasonable: agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical http://dictionary.reference.com... Good luck!
Liberalism is Good for America

Sorry was sleeping but you made some outrageous claims. Firstly you conceded all my points I made in the 4th round Since this is the last round I will just rebut your claims. Oh wait. You didn't make any claims about liberalism. You made them on Obama. Again this is a debate about LIBERALISM. Failures of a Democratic President have nothing to do with anything This is not a debate about Obama. You were on track on the 2nd and 3rd but R1 and now R4 is talking about the failures of Obama. Conduct points will be taken away. We were talking about age old Philosophical question of Is Liberalism/Conservatism good? That's all
Liberalism is Good for America

Your assumption that liberals hate profit is misleading Liberals don't hate profit. Nobody does except Communists and Fascists. The extremes on BOTH sides. Liberals don't want to tax all the profits from companies. That's just wrong. They just want to make sure they are paying their fair share so the bulk of the taxes does not fall on the middle class The government can, like it has done in the past, regulate prices. There's a reason all the oil companies don't get together and just hike prices up. The government sets price ceilings so that no company can wrong the consumer. However with a smaller government companies can wrong the consumer again. So conservatism would, in the end, wrong the consumer. Liberals do not want to tax small businesses. President Obama already showed that in his debate with Mccain where he said he would tax small businesses. When a company is taxed and raises their prices consumers can go to small businesses and buy products this will encourage businesses not to hike up prices and again the government can regulate these said prices using price ceiling definition. Now onto healthcare Obama care has already saved millions of lives and billions of dollars (http://www.upworthy.com...) And again right wing economics like Trickle Down destroy jobs Reagan unemployment- 7.5 to 10.8 Obama unemployment-6.3 to 4.7 If that doesn't show why Obama isn't destroying jobs then I don't know what will Oh wait.......... https://tse2.mm.bing.net... Again proves that Obama is creating jobs (4.5 million in private sector) Also I don't understand why you think Liberals hate Christianity. I used to be a Christian and I was just as liberal In fact Jesus himself would probably be a liberal.
Liberalism is Good for America

Okay so lets rebut your claims 1) Welfare is used as a way to help poor people live. The income of a welfare recipient in California is 584 dollars a month. And this is a LIBERAL state. So lets calculate that 584 times 12 is 7004 So the annual income for a welfare recipient in California is 7004 dollars. In southern states welfare is probably even lower thanks to Republicans trying to butcher it. So if you think you can live a lavish life style off of 7004 dollars or less in Southern States go ahead! But hey why not look at more facts 80 of welfare recipients are children. Hmmm not so pro-life by cutting welfare funding then. Illegal Immigration: The question is not keep borders open or not. Its about closing them after or before we've solved the problem It currently takes 15 years or even more in order to come to this country from Central America unless your really rich. We are letting people suffer to the Cartels and we don't care enough to help them. Secondly illegal immigrants take jobs that no one else will. Its not like their is a job shortage. People can take jobs when they want. There are many Americans who are too sick to work and too disabled to work. Its not like illegal's are "stealing" jobs from those people. Also illegal immigration helps strengthen the economy. They often get paid less then the minimum wage and still pay taxes (http://mythopedia.mediamatters.org...) Liberals do not fight FOR criminals They want to rehabialitate them. If you think getting 18 years for 4 ounces of weed is fair then you need to get reality check. I have yet to hear an real life example of a liberal (a credible one) fighting for a criminal's right rape someone Liberals keeping poor americans out of school? Your example of this is hilarious. You cite the Parrelsole act (Which allows vouchers for kids to go to private schools) but you fail to understand that the basis of this was to allow segregation to continue in schools. Yup that's true. George Bush passing the No Child Left Behind was not Conservative it was liberal. Just because the president was right wing doesn't mean everything he does is right wing Killing Job Oppurtunities........ You cited Ronald Reagan for this...... Ronald Reagan unemployment went from 7.5 to 10.8 thanks to his economic policies of trickle down. What your sources fail to cover was that if the government helps out the small business which he proposed no jobs would be lost. Its like defending sweatshops. "If we don't keep sweatshops and raise minimum wage to 1 dollar an hour then we will lose jobs" Lol Change is difficult Vote Pro