BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Who's the better group of MCs (solo careers count too)? Juice Crew vs. A Tribe Called Quest

First of all, let's analyze the names the groups: "Juice Crew" and "A Tribe Called Quest." The word "tribe" indicates more of strong brotherhood, indicating the close bond established by the group over the years. "Crew," on the other hand, sounds more like a group of people thrown together on a maritime vessel, which only assume is floating on an ocean juice, given their name. It's probably carrot juice, too. Just awful.Furthermore, back in the 1940s, Hitler had a plan to eliminate the Juice. If not for meddling efforts of those diehard Juice fans, Hitler's plan might have been completed. However, even today, nearly 80 years after Hitler's Juice Crewsade, there are still many who understand the fact that the Juice do not deserve there place in the same league as other great people such as the A Tribe Called Quest. Therefore, history is the anti-Juice side as well.The most obvious fact that proves who is the better group is that A Tribe Called Quest is still together, while Juice Crew has split, and today almost no one remembers the wailing tones of Biz Markie, or the soulful gibberish of Craig G. Meanwhile, even though A Tribe Called Quest is still together, many of their members are known for their independent work as well, and today, despite the haters, Q-tip's soft sensation still graces the ears of people across the country.
On balance, Western Society is not patriarchal

In Western society, the patriarchy is now becoming recognized and therefore minimized. I am not arguing that every person in the society sticks to the patriarchy nor am I suggesting that it is as severe as the Middle East. 1) Inequality of income. Men, on average, are paid more than women for the same jobs. For every dollar a man makes, a woman makes 77 cents of that. This fact was stated by Barack Obama who has no bias in this inequality. It should be made clear that women are making less money than men in the SAME jobs. 2) Barbara Corcoran. She is a savvy business woman who often speaks about the difficulties she faced when growing her business. She states that she was used to men speaking to her "like [she] was a little girl." She would dress in the sexiest outfits possible to increase her odds of making deals. This is not the case with men mostly because the business world is dominated by men. 3) In fields such as engineering, business, and software development, women are ostracized from the community. Women have to work twice as hard to prove themselves in these industries to be successful. 4) Women received the right to vote in 1919. This is AFTER minority races gained this right. Today, we still have racism even though the issue "dissipated" long ago. Children learn about Martin Luther King in elementary school but have to take APUSH to learn about the suffragettes. The ignorance of men to realize that women are the same is not educated in schools as much as race equality yet racism still exists. To get rid of stereotypes, you must educate the masses. The public is not educated. 5) In several movies and television series, women are portrayed as dainty and fragile while men are big and strong. Because these stereotypes are still in mainstream entertainment, people still believe women are less than men. 6) Only 18.3% of governmental positions are held by women. Of those women, only 13 of them hold a leadership position. Out of all the Supreme Court Justices, only 4.6% have been women. 4.2% of women are CEOs even though 44% are in union leadership. 7) In moral authority, 75% of those who work with charities are women, yet women hold only 21% of leadership positions in them. 10% of women are leaders in the Christian religion (comprising Cathollics and Protestants). Sources: http://thoughtsonliberty.com... https://onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca... http://www.whitehouse.gov... http://jezebel.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
On balance, Western Society is not patriarchal

Seeing a lot of discussion regarding a 'patriarchy' on DDO, I figured it would be interesting to actually debate it. I will be arguing that, on balance, western society is not patriarchal. Con will be arguing that western society is patriarchal. BoP is on Con. Definitions For the purposes of the debate, I will consider 'western society' to be the societies within Canada, Western Europe and the USA. Patriarchal: 'relating to or denoting a system of society or government controlled by men.' (1) Rules - Con must start in round 1, since he has the BoP. - Con must make no arguments or rebuttals in round 4 - No excessive reliance on semantics (1) Google: 'Define patriarchal'
Gun Rights

To begin my argument, I will rebuttal your claims. First of all, you did not list any evidence for your statements. Second of all, you have to look beyond the accidents even though they are a very sad tragedy. Look at all the lives saved due to law-abiding citizens using firearms. For instance, law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day (1). Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker (2). I know many people, including you, are probably worried about gun-related accidents like the ones you have mentioned in your argument. A polling company, YouGov, did a poll asking people what they think is the most dangerous city in the United States. 53% of polling participants found Chicago to be the most dangerous city in America (3). Chicago also happens to have extremely strict restrictions on buying firearms. In June 2014, Chicago City Council passed a law making it harder to obtain firearms amid background checks and long waiting periods (4). Does this mean that Chicago is now safer? The answer is NO. The city saw a surge in gun violence in 2016: 762 murders, 3,550 shooting incidents, and 4,331 shooting victims, according to a statement released by the Chicago Police Department (5). These strict gun laws virtually do not do anything because only law-abiding citizens will follow these laws. Criminals, murderers, and gangs will obviously not follow any laws. The definition of criminal is someone who breaks the law (6). In conclusion, strict gun laws do not work because the only people following them will be citizens, not criminals. Sources 1. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law 2. Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185. 3. . http://ijr.com... 4. . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 5. . http://www.cnn.com... 6. . https://www.vocabulary.com...
Gun Rights

If everyone is going to have a gun what is going to happened. Many people have children. And if you have children and guns in your hose, it makes everything dangerous for them and for you. Stephen Brumby: "Nothing Stephen knew about guns, it seems, could have prevented his father from accidentally shooting him dead Sunday at a Sarasota, Florida, gun range". No name."A boy accidentally shot his father while they were hunting together in France before turning the gun on himself". " A 12-year-old boy died when he was shot through the eye by a friend who was trying to scare him with an gun for a prank". Those are only three out of thousands and thousands accidents that have happened. .
this person should be tortured

For this final round I'm just going to stick my points, torture will lead to no good, and human beings should be treated like human beings. If somebody does something wrong like the scenario you came up with we shouldn't torture that person, we should show them that what they did was wrong. If we torture they might get into a state of mind that doing terrible thing is ok, because the supposed are doing it to. Also when we release these prisoners, because we don't hold all of them forever, they will still have a violent state of mind because of what happened to them. Also no matter what somebody has done they shouldn't have they same thing done to them because we don't live by hummurabi's code any more and they are human beings!. Every single human being deserves to be treated equal no matter what they have done. It has been fun my friend.
this person should be tortured

maybe at some point in its infancy as an advancing nation afghanistans will hold a grudge. but for all the reasons in my past post, it's not likely in the long run to mean anything, really. you did cite a shoddy website to prove your grudge point. i appreciate that you think we must treat them as humans as the inherent right thing to do. i guess i just disagree. i dont think what theyd say is probably going to be false. and even if it was in the scenario i devised we keep torturing untill they say what's true, or we think they dont know any more. given theyve shown they almost surely know, it's worth a shot to torture, even if we got nothing. but there's a high probability tht we would get something. if you know something to save others and it'd prevent you from ebing tortured to save them and you, wouldnt you tell? probably most would
this person should be tortured

When torturing somebody they are going to say something and there is the tinniest chance that it is true but you can't rely on them, it is almost like relying on a magic 8 ball http://vox-nova.com... . No, we shouldn't sink to their level because the whole point of capturing them is to to tell them that what they did was wrong. When being tortured they detainee might still think that doing horrible things is right but only to them and that would put a HUMAN BEING in a horrible state of mind. It doesn't matter what anyone person does they still deserve to be treated like a human. Countries and groups still hold grudges over very small things and Afghanistan will keep a grudge with us if we continue to torture their citizens. http://katiekatie3.wordpress.com...
this person should be tortured

"we shouldn't sink to their level" if you wanted to argue that it's inherently wrong to torture them, that is one thing. you seem to go on though with practical reasons why we shouldn't do it. but if htose practical reasons can be overcome.... why not go ahead with it? you haven't said it's wrong even then. but as to the practical points. first you say "torture simply doesn't work" but then go on to say "pobably going to lie". which means that even according to you, there's a chance they won't lie, and thus a chance it will work. in this case, we next to know that they know the information. and we can test the information they give to determine the accuracy. if a guy who clearly knows the info lies, we can torture until he tells. if the person knows the info, i'd argue they will probably tell to avoid torture. most wouldnt want torture instead of saving some women etc. you also say afghanistan etc would no longer be our allie if they ever get off their feet. real countries wouldn't hold grudges about specific people who killed or did wrong to other people. they'd just look out for the economic bottomline. that's how china, india, etc is with the USA. you can have people killing each other and the worst that might happen is economic sanctions, not a lack of relationship. even those sanctions probably won't happen w just a few bad apples. most would understand the need or issue of torturing someone even if it's their citizen, if that person is allowing tons of people to die. it doesn't make enough sense that it'd actually happen that they would disown us. if the person knows the info.. most people wouldn't be against torturing them until they give the info. most people wouldn't be against that. if you can stop tons of women and children from being tortured and killed... you assume the responsibility if we decide to torture you for your lack of candor. you'll be tortured till it seems you dont know, or till you tell. if the person keeps showing that they know, they pobably know, and we'll torture until or if they spill the beans. my guess is they would, but even if they woudn't... it was worth a shot. all your practical concerns aren't valid enough.
this person should be tortured

No I don't think this man should be tortured even though he is the scum of the earth for letting those terrible things happen we shouldn't sink to their level. Also torture simply doesn't work, because think about it if you are determined to keep something a secret and somebody is torturing you, you're probably going to lie. Another reason not tho torture this man is we as a country don't want to look bad, because if Afghanistan ever gets it together and we want to be allies with them they probably wont because we tortured their citizens. I look forward to the rest of the debate.
this person should be tortured

Bob colluded with terroist groups around the country. Bob wants the US to leave Afghanistan and their terror groups won't stop until the US complies. every other day, the groups of terrorists will rape, torture, and kill a group of ten women with their children in US cities, towns, etc. Bob is in custody of the US. he knows the city and two women who will be chosen each time. He predicts that in two days the women will be chosen from X city. this happens a few times thus establishing Bob almost surely knows future events too. After the deed, he discloses the names of the women he knew who would be involved. no one is able to communicate to Bob, so Bob shows that he knows the city and names in advance, in his own mind. there are no ways to give this information to Bob, Bob is in sealed custody. Bob has the knowledge to prevent known people from getting raped tortured and killed. He likely has the information to capture the perpetrators. Bob should be tortured to acquire the information, for at the very least the names of the people he knows will be involved. there's no other way to get the info, and it's the moral thing to do, to torture bob, when there's no other ways to get the info, and all other tactics with Bob have not worked . eg, rough interrogation, roughing him up, softer torture like waterboarding etc.
Vainglory Topic: Is Lyra OP

I accept. I will be arguing that Lyra is not overpowered and can be stopped. The burden of proof lies on Pro as they have to prove that Lyra can overcome anyone or anything based on the definition I will provide. I propose this format: Round 2: Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals and Conclusion Overpowered: to have more strength, force, or effect than (someone or something) Sources may be a hardship for this debate, but I will try my best. Good Luck to Pro!
In America, The Laissez-Faire principle of "Trickle-Down" economics does not work

First off I would like to point out that Laissez-faire is French for "let it-perform" Laissez meaning let it, and faire meaning perform, or do. Laissez-faire suggests that if you leave the economy alone, it would fix it's self. Unlike Keynesian economics which proposes state intervention. The Trickle-Down economics is the policy of providing tax cuts or other benefits to businesses in the belief that this will indirectly benefit the broad population.Although Trickle-Down economics is not as effective as Laissez-faire, it is more effective than Left Wing Keynesian economics, which proposes an opposite "trick up" theory. Businesses are the back bone of the economy. When businesses are successful they produce jobs, and higher wages. Competing Businesses allow for an increase in the GDP, and innovations in society. When the government invests in businesses, the businesses invest that money. When businesses invest money, they make more money. When businesses get larger they hire more people, and pay higher wages.
In America, The Laissez-Faire principle of "Trickle-Down" economics does not work

My side: I will be arguing that trickle-down economics do not result in benefits for the lower classes. Format: I will be using the Public Forum style. The four rounds (after this): -Round 2: Opening Statement/Constructive -Round 3: Rebuttals -Round 4: Summary/Questions/Something... -Round 5: Final Focus Note: I'm arguing that trickle-down doesn't actually "trickle-down", not that it's not fair. That's not the point of the debate. Looking forward to it!
parents should pay their teen children if they get straight a's in their report cards

First of all, my contention #1 from Round #1 stands unrefuted. 2nd, my opponent thinks Adolf Hitler has nothing to do with the debate. That is extremely false. Adolf Hitler has nothing to do with this debate because he's the only person who can have facts. No one else can have facts. Why? Because Adolf Hitler doesn't exist thus he can have a fact that's non-existent because all facts are non-existent. My opponent says he never mentioned Adolf Hitler. I think he just did. Also 13-19 fetuses will destroy the world if they get paid. My opponent fails to staate why it is such a big exaggeration and fails to state why my contentions have nothing to do with the debate. I ask for the conduct point for this debate due to the Round 2 forfeit by my opponent and his "less than 1,000 words" arguments. I ask for the spelling and grammar point due to my opponent having bad punctuation and misspelling multiple words. I ask for the arguments point due to my opponent not fulfilling his BOP. I ask for the sources point because I got more sources thn my opponents. Sources:
parents should pay their teen children if they get straight a's in their report cards

First of all I just said id like to forfeit this debate but it looks like you didn't let me. okay fine first of all how does the name, idea, or thought of Hitler have to do with this debate!!?. I never mentioned him and were talking about teens not him!. second you said that if parents paid there teens we would "DESTROY THE WORLD", OKAY THIS IS A MAJOR EXXAGERATION AND WERE JUST TEENS WE CANT DESTROY THE WORLD!. Mainly what I'm trying to say is this two contentions have nothing to do with the debate. Thanks for debating against and I still think parents should pay their teen children if they get straight a's in their report cards. thanks for your time
parents should pay their teen children if they get straight a's in their report cards

I refuse to allow my opponent to state that I restated her facts. Thus I will have some contentions. Contention #1: Facts don't belong to anyone besides Adolf Hitler. We all know this. Why most people don't acknowledge this is the mystery. Adolf Hitler is the only one who has facts. Everything anyone says is always an opinion. Whether we think it's a fact or not, facts are an illusion. Such as most people believe that the fact is that Innomen is exactly who he claims to be. However, little do we know that Innomen is actually Zeus. the God of the Sky, trying to appear to all mankind like a human being. He looked all over the Earth and found the figure he matched with most, then came onto DDO and struck lightning at all who didn't worship him or opposed him which is why you don't see The_Fool_On_The_Hill, SocialPinko, Askbob, Cobo, Rhea97, and everyone else. Thus we can assume that no one has a "fact" because there are no facts. The only person who has facts is Adolf Hitler. Why? Adolf Hitler doesn't exist thus only he can have facts. You may say, I thought you said there are no facts, which is true. Someone who doesn't exist can own something which doesn't exist but someone who does exist can not own something which doesn't exist just like someone who doesn't exist can't own something which exists. Contention #2: The 13-19 Fetuses would destroy the world if they got paid. Well, fetuses are already straight in their mother's wombs and have "areas" in their ears which is the orgin osf the explosive noises and their minds which are the sources of win lists thus if they get cash, the world will end. They will use that money to carve out oft heir mother's womb, kill her, and then slaughter everybody in the hospitals. Then they would be super-powered since they could make explosive noises, win lists and have "areas", they would use the money to kill everyone since we all know fetuses are the smartest, and kill everyone alive. Thus this idea is horrifying. I'm done for tonight. Sources: http://www.counterbalance.org... (My other source is in the PM of Innomen)
parents should pay their teen children if they get straight a's in their report cards

First of all, I will be giving out definitions. She had no definitions but obviously we know what she's talking about. After these definitions, there will be no debate about the definitions. Definitons: Parents: A source or cause; an origin. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Pay: To give money to in return for goods or services rendered. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Teen: The numbers 13 through 19. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Children: Unborn infants; Fetuses. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Straight: Heterosexual. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... A's: Area. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Report: An explosive noise. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Cards: A win list. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Thus my opponent must prove that sources give money to 13-19 fetuses if they earn heterosexual areas in their explosive noise win lists. That absolutely makes no sense. If the resolution makes no sense, how do we expect this case to make sense? Let's find out. My opponent's first statement is that there are two reasons for this resolution. It's that the 13-19 fetuses should get something in return for getting good grades. Where is anything about good grades? I don't see anything about good grades so in my opinion that's absolutely irrelevant to the resolution. The part my opponent is supposed to be arguing is that 13-19 fetuses should get something in return for earning heterosexual areas in their explosive noise win lists. Well, that makes zero sense for an argument. I ask my opponent to make more than 1 sentence arguments for her contentions. My opponent's 2nd argument is that parents should always pay their kids once in a while. What in the world? This argument has nothing to do with children and why should sources pay something that has nothing to do with the resolution? I have no idea what my opponent is talking about since both her arguments have nothing to do with the resolution. Now I will say the BOP is on Pro but that doesn't mean I can't state why the resolution makes no sense at all. Contention #1: The Resolution makes no sense thus the argument doesn't make sense. See the resolution is that sources should pay their 13-19 fetuses to get heterosexual areas in their explosive noises' win lists. I don't understand this resolution. Thank you people. As I've said, the BOP is on Pro and I have nothing to prove except to refute my opponent's arguments. Thank you.
People diagnosed with HIV should be interred in gay flu colonies until a cure for AIDS is found.

I apologize for misquoting you about sending all gays to a separate, isolated community. You have actually made a strong argument and have answered my questions very well.However, this does not conclude that HIV positive gay men should be isolated from their family, friends, an society. Like I said earlier, people can get tested for HIV and can let their partner know they are infected before they participate in intercourse. There are many precautions that either individual can take to minimize the chances of getting HIV, whether it be using protection or not participating in intercourse at all.Thanks for the debate. It was actually one of the better two-round debates.