BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Feminism is about equality.

my opponent has forfeited once again. I will simply reiterate what i said earlier. Feminism does not have a focus on equality. This is mainly derived from the women-centric advocacy. To advocate for women's rights, but not do the same for men, is to increase the rights that women have. The areas that i mentioned (Selective Service/Voting, Domestic Violence, and Rape) are areas wherein women have been given protections, or rights, that were not extended to men.For men, voting is not a right, it is a privilege. Men are liable to be arrested and convicted of a felony, should they not sign up for Selective Service. There is no compulsory public service for women, Feminism has not made it a point to fix this. By virtue of the clause "equality of the sexes" this should be a focus of Feminism.Domestic Violence law is not based upon the fact that a partner is being abusice. Rather, the Duluth Model, from which the VAWA was made, assumes that men are the perpetrator. It should be said that, by virtue of the aforementioned clause of the definition of feminism, this should not be the case. Abusive relationships should not be tolerated, regardless of the gender of the victim. The fact that men are more capable of damaging their partner is not a viable excuse to ONLY punish men.Legally, it is not possible for a woman to rape a man. The definition of rape requires penetration; consent is not a part of the legal definition of rape. Rape is only a punishible crime when a man is the perpetrator. The gender of the victim is irrelevant. The issue lies in the fact that "consent" is a mind-state. Penetration is an action, and herein lies the problem. I believe i have provided sufficient evidence and support in favor of my position. Given my opponents consecutive forfeitures, and lack of evidence and support, i would also state that i have presented the stronger argument.
BIRT statutory release be abolised

It also helps to have your sides straight. Think of pro as saying "I am for" and con as "I am against", and then putting the topic afterward. This means that you are saying you are against BIRT statutory release being abolished. I am the side that does want it abolished. You want it kept because of the side you are on. If it is a matter of pro and con you have chosen the wrong position. In the future, if you truly want to get experience from this site and being able to apply it to a real debate, you should simply make an actual argument. That way you will be able to see what an actual opponent will say in rebuttal to your statements and prepare yourself. Make an actual debate and actually debate it. As they say, practice makes perfect. On BIRT statutory release: It should be abolished. A criminal should be obligated by law to serve the full term of his imprisonment in accordance to his crime. Without the fear of rotting in jail criminals will run rampant. Knowing that they have to ability to get out early gives criminals that much less to fear. Rather than having the threat of wasting 20 years of their life for rape, they will know that they could easily get off in 12. That is 8 more years of undeserved freedom. 8 more years the criminal would have had to spend staring at a concrete wall they will now be able to spend in the outside. To them, 12 is infinitely better than 20, making it almost like a slap on the wrist. Criminals need to know that they will never get off easy for breaking the law. They need to fear the loss of their life to small concrete room. Otherwise, we might as well just give them 'get out of jail free' cards. Darth_Grievous_42 out.
BIRT statutory release be abolised

Okay then I'll make it formal, good afternoon ladies, gentlemen, honorable judges and worthy opponents, thank-you for taking the time to participate in this debate. The resolution we are arguing is BIRT statutory release be abolished in Canada. And as the Negative team apparently we strongly believe that this resolution must and will fall. To support my argument i would like to rebutt some of the key points made by the opposition... (you can base a whole negative speech on rebuttal, in fact what i do is i write a speech and weave in points of rebuttal) Now we the negative (scince the affirmative has neglected to define the resolution) define our resolution as the following: statutory realease: the law in which prisioners of federal prison are released after 2/3s of their jail time. abolished: no longer in use. There fore we the negative (me the negative) believe that we should abolish this law. I would put points in eventually have a speech with a woven rubuttal as stated however i havent searched the topic yet and was hoping someone else new about it!
BIRT statutory release be abolised

It would wholly depend on what BIRT statutory release is. You do not give the audience or the opponent any information that is crucial to your argument. A good debater provides enough of their own information (preferably with sources) so that someone with absolutely no prior knowledge of the topic would have a thorough understanding of it. Without providing any evidence your argument appears to be extremely weak. That would greatly help your chances in both your competition and the current debate at hand. Please provide information on this subject as Google is not being very helpful.
Free will exists

I will now put my opponent's argument into my own words, and then respond to my opponent. My opponent says all our wishes and our desires are generated by our brain, and this process of generation cannot be consciously controlled since we do not control the chemical and neuronal reactions that the brain uses in order to generate our wishes. My opponent's conclusion from this is that ALL our wishes are hardwired. In other words, all our wishes, and the actions that follow those wishes are dictated by the inevitable, and unchangeable laws of science. Lastly, my opponent asserts that all human beings are robots essentially. My counterargument lies in the fact the way our brain functions is significantly different from that of other animals. This significant difference is our ability to think in ways that animals cannot. To give an example... animals are compelled to reproduce and produce offspring. This behavior is in fact, hardwired into the brain. Animals do not have the ability to make a decision against the brain's dictation. This is clearly not true in the case of humans, even though our brain, also is hardwired for us to have sex. Thus, the reason we are "conscious" is that we have the ability to veto what our brain wants us to behave, contrary to what my opponent is trying to prove. Our desires are not unchangeable in the sense that we do have the ability to change our brain's wishes it generated. Once the brain has generated a wish, that wish can be reevaluated at any time. Although the way brain functions is through physical means, this does that automatically mean there is no free will. Our wish can be changed and changed again whenever. We can keep changing the wish our brain gives us until we are satisfied with our brain's final wish, regardless how this wish is generated. If indeed the brain cannot be used to the benefit of our "free will", why would the brain reform its beliefs and wishes even when no new information comes in? From this dilemma, it must follows that there IS indeed a free will that dictates what thoughts the brain should think (albeit that the thinking process is a physical process). Indeed, we humans are unique because we do not behave in ways that we ought to. Our wishes, desires, and thoughts are no longer shaped by biological evolution. Through evolution, our brain has programmed us to have sex and to eat whenever we are hungry, yet we are able to protest to what is programmed into our brain. Contrary to what my opponent has said, we cannot be robots. Robots cannot think in ways that it is not programmed to, or doubt its own programmed command and regenerate the command. Yet these are the traits that we humans process. The observations that I have presented challenge what my opponent believes to be the case, and my opponent would have to reconcile my observations with his, or poke holes at my observations in order to win this debate.
Women are being treated unfairly in the United States.

IntroductionI would like to debate the issue of sexism regarding females. I believe that women are being treated unfairly in the United States and that reform is a moral obligation. My opponent will argue the opposite. Certain rules must be followed in order to ensure that this debate is rational, fair, logical, factual, and mature. For clarification, this debate only regards women in the United States. I am aware that sexism occurs almost everywhere, but the United States is, in my view, exceptionally disgusting forwards females.Rules1. There will be no forfeiture. If it occurs, the judges will select the other debater as the winner. 2. All sources will be cited. All formats - MLA, APA, Chicago, etc. - are acceptable.3. Proper spelling and grammar will be used.4. Trolling will result in the judges choosing the opposite debater as the winner. Trolling is intolerable. RoundsOne: My opponent will accept the debate and acknowledge the rules.Two: Each debater will present main arguments. There will be no rebuttals in this round.Three: Each debater will offer rebuttals and any final arguments.Four: Each debater will conclude the debate with any final rebuttals and a summary.Debate SettingsRounds: 4Time to Argue: 72 hoursArgument Maximum: 10,000 charactersVoting Period: 2 weeksVoting Style: JudgeVoting System: Select Winner
All parents should be required to attend parenting classes before having a child.

Now into the main course. First off, the stats I choose to show are all about bad parents, as my opponent has pointed out. This in itself is proof that bad parents exist, which, in essence, is why I believe that parents should be educated prior to parenthood. Yes, I understand that good parents exist as well. I never once stated that they didn't. As I hope I implied earlier, the point of the education would be to reduce the amount of bad parents, thus reducing the amount of children that end up neglected and/or abused. Also, it is impossible to tell whether a parent will be good or bad before they begin parenthood. Offering classes for aspiring parents would not only serve to reduce child harms, but also would benefit the parent in question, as they may learn "life hacks" on how to better raise children. Now addressing the questions- first off, yes, on numerous occasions innocent people have gone to jail because of the crimes of others- but that isn't the point. The truth is, the questions that have been listed don't exactly relate to the main idea. Being framed in a trial and paying for a bill both come after the wrongdoing has been committed, whereas teaching parenting skills would occur long before the chance to make the mistakes, such as abuse and neglect, and preventing the mistakes from ever occurring. The scenarios are not cut from the same cake. Proving my point further, here is an example of a situation that does relate to the resolution. First, it is not legally acceptable for people who don't pass their drivers test to drive for long distances. If we are teaching aspiring drivers how to be responsible with cars, why are we not teaching aspiring parents how to be responsible for another person's life? That's not the only thing either. Aspiring doctors are required to complete their education in medicine, aspiring engineers are also required complete their education in engineering--- the list goes on. Again, knowing that, why are aspiring parents not required to be educated beforehand? Yes, drivers still crash, doctors still make mistakes, and engineers aren't always the best- but with education, crash rates and mistakes are lowered significantly, and it would work in the same way for parenting. As I stated earlier, the very existence of bad parents proves the fact that aspiring parents should be required to attend parenting courses. Whether or not the statistics convince my opponent of the necessity of the resolution, the statistics undoubtedly prove the presence of bad parents- a harm the world is better off without. Taking my leave with those words, I still strongly believe that all parents should be required to take parenting classes before parenthood, and I hope that my arguments have served to reaffirm the resolution.
All parents should be required to attend parenting classes before having a child.

Good luck. I do not agree ALL parents should be required to take parenting classes BEFORE having a child. Let me start by stating, all stats you choose to show, will only serve to prove, that while there are bad parents, there are also many good parents. This begs the question, why should good parents be required to learn how to parent, when its only the bad ones who need the instruction? Do good citizens go to jail for the crimes bad citizens commit? Does your cell phone provider charge you for your neighbors unpaid bill? The list goes on and on. All I'm asking for is proof why all parents should be required to take parenting classes, and child abuse statistics won't convince me. Those stats are not about ALL parents, instead they are ALL about the bad parents
All parents should be required to attend parenting classes before having a child.

The purpose of this argument is to prove that it should be required for aspiring parents to take parenting courses before having children. The Con debater should not, under any circumstances, accept the resolution as true. 1-Every year more than 3 million reports of child abuse are made in the United States involving more than 6 million children (a report can include multiple children). The United States has one of the worst records among industrialized nations " losing on average between four and seven children every day to child abuse and neglect. 1-https://www.childhelp.org...
Conceal Carry Laws reduce violent crime

My opponents points are this: Why can't I know if he carries? Open carry is better Accidents Note the resolution states violent crime, and only his open carry (deterrence) applies. I will refute them all, though, as these gun myths annoy me. --> why cant I know? The question is why should you care, CCW permit holders are law abiding. --> Open carry He starts out with I do not want a phsyciatrist with a gun. Well first there are many requirements to obtain a gun. Most of which prevent this. Here they are: 21 years of age Backround check Mental check Training This lowers the point largely. Meaning it is statistically impossible. Also, note his argumentation here is an appeal to probability fallacy. He takes a probability (which is very low, and of the millions of permit holders not one has done anything) he assumes it to be absolute. Therefore his argunment is null and void. Now open carry would not deter. At all. They know whose armed and who to avoid. They will see the gun and waltz away. Now with concealed carry they don't know whose armed. In open carry the risk is seen and avoided, no risk. With concealed they can't avoid it. They can't say "look she's armed" and leave without a scratch. I'm conceal carry they have to guess. Guess where they are. If they mess up they get shot. The logic is clear? "The case for concealed handgun use is similar. The use of concealed handguns by some law-abiding citizens may create a positive externality for others. By the very nature of these guns being concealed, criminals are un- able to tell whether the victim is armed before they strike, thus raising crim- inals' expected costs for committing many types of crimes"(1) Even if it deter it is a red herring as it does not prove CCW is bad. --> Accidents 1. Irrelevant, this has nothing to do with violent crime. 2. Never has happened, I am not denying it won't happen, but it has never happened 3. Does not hurt anyone. Watch: 0 CCW accidents have occurred (that involve death). Pretend 100 have happened, 10 in death. 10 dead because of the law. **also note (FYI) police accidentally kill 350 ppl every year. Wanna ban police? The reduction in murders with CCW was 8 times higher then the accidental death rate. (1) Let's make it into numbers you can understand. Small city of 1000 people. 10 deaths via accident 80 lives saved (minus 10) = 70 lives saved 7% decrease in murder with these fake numbers based on real ones.(1) Meaning lives are saved. -summary- 1 First con arg irrelevant 2 fallictic and refuted 3 irrelevant and refuted -my opponent dropped my argunments- Detterence Data -> aka he dropped all of it Args - pro his case is irrelevant and was refuted. He dropped all of my argunments too. Sources - he had none, me. And all of mine where from academic journals. Conduct - me for his FF Spelling - tied Conclusion: Kinda simple vote, pro. Source: (1) Lott, John R. Mustard, David B. "CRIME, DETERRENCE, AND RIGHT-TO-CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS" Journal of legal studies, 1997
Conceal Carry Laws reduce violent crime

Why shouldn't I get to know if someone is carrying?If someone is acting like a lunatic I might tolerate that behavior if they are unarmed, but if they are armed I want to be able to get away.Instead of allowing concealed carry, only open carry should be allowed. The individual is more advantaged by open carry than concealed anyways. If you are openly carrying the criminal will know and avoid you. With concealed carry since most citizens aren't carrying criminals are unlikely to suspect that you are carrying. You want to avoid trouble in the first place if you can. That's why open carry makes more sense than concealed carry in deterring crime.Furthermore there is the risk of accidents and the right for citizens to know you are carrying so they can avoid you to avoid accidents.
Conceal Carry Laws reduce violent crime

We all understand what the resolution means, no semantics on the "a law cannot physically do anything". No semantics period, actually. Any semantics with anything results in an auto FF. Asking for what and argument means (if you dont understand it) in the comments is ok. =Definitions/clarifications= Conceal carry - The Conceal carry law we will debate in this debate is shall issue or nondiscriminatory laws (same thing). The reason I chose this is because this is the only data I found studies on both sides. A shall issue law is one where if the person meets the well specified criteria (no criminal record, not crazy, 21 years of age etc) they are now eligible for a permit. Now here is where it diverges from "may issue". After you fit these criteria no discretion is involved in handing the permit to you -- it must be issued. Violent crime - No one cares about auto theft as that is not life threatening, so I narrowed the debate to the violent crime spectrum. Violent crime is composed as: Murder, Rape, Robbery, and assault. [1] We are ignoring negligent manslaughter as I found no data on this from either side. So only those 4 named. I must prove that on balance 3/4 of those things reduce when these laws are passed. Reduce - Lower the rate, or number of these instances. *** Any semantics is an auto FF 1t round acceptance, clarifications, definition, or BOP discussion. (my opponent merely states I accept) If this is not followed its an auto FF. No semantics here either. The BOP is even, I prove it lowers violent crime, my opponent argues IT RAISES IT. @people in comments: Yes there are two studies showing the con side, so dont argue its impossible to win as con. Also, one can have an external source page like this: (http://www.debate.org...) That is not any conduct, source, or any vote violation in this debate. I also ask my opponent to use good sources, as most (if not all) of my sources will come from refereed academic studies or they will come from books. I want my opponent to know what he/she is talking about, so before accepting I want my opponent to read this article: http://islandia.law.yale.edu... (study) I want my opponent to read this as it is a study for the con side, this is proof it is not impossible to win this debate btw. remember, con just writes round one "I accept". Go. [1] http://www.fbi.gov...
Poached eggs are better than fried eggs

My opponent refutes my proposition on the basis of two related arguments: 1. I did not define 'better' and so the debate can be won simply by arguing using a different definition. .. 2. 'Better' as a personal taste is an opinion and so each opinion is equal and refutes each other. My response to these criticisms is as follows: 1. First I concede to the opponent's first criticism that 'better' was not specifically defined and so I now produce the definitions from dictionary. com which we can surely agree on as being acceptible. 1. of superior quality or excellence: a better coat; a better speech. 2. morally superior; more virtuous: They are no better than thieves. 3. of superior suitability, advisability, desirability, acceptableness, etc. ; preferable: a better time for action. 4. larger; greater: the better part of a lifetime. 5. improved in health; healthier than before. With reference to some of the definitions I can prove poached eggs are better. 1. Poached eggs are more virtuous then fried eggs. a. Prepared food can be virtuous or morally superior to other food. Muslims and Jews, for example, both have an idea of morally permissable food if it is prepared in a particular way. Chicken meat itself is not virtuous, but when it is prepared in a certain way then it becomes virtuous and thus morally superior to other food. b. Permissible food by Muslims and Jews is partly justified by it being pure and clean. c. Poached eggs are purer and cleaner than fried eggs because they do not use fats and oils to make them. d. As prepared food can be virtuous and clean and pure food is virtuous, then poached eggs are more virtuous than fried eggs; therefore meeting the definition of 'better'. 2. Poached eggs are healthier than fried eggs. a. As mentioned above, poached eggs do not involve frying, oils or fats to prepare them, therefore they are healthier. b. Being healthier matches a definition of 'better'. 3. Poached eggs are more preferable than fried eggs. a. For the above reasons that poached eggs are more virtuous and healthier, they are therefore more preferable to fried eggs. b. Being more preferable matches a definition also. 4. Poached eggs are also more preferable in that they use fewer of the world's resources - namely oil or fat that is used to fry eggs; poached eggs only use water. In response to my opponent's 2nd argument, 'better' is not only an opinion as defined in dictionary. com. Therefore, Poached eggs are better because a. they are more virtuous b. they are healthier c. a and b taken together makes them more preferable d. they are more preferable as they use fewer world resources . http://dictionary.reference.com...=/
Poached eggs are better than fried eggs

I negate the resolution that poached eggs are NOT better than fried eggs because of personal tastes and opinions and my opponent's negligence in setting a proper definition for the word "better." Taste buds change, along with people's opinions regarding food. While one person might say that a certain food, such as a poached egg, is tastier than another, a different person might say otherwise, which puts foods, like eggs, at an equal place, meaning that no egg is superior because stating so would be a matter of opinion and therefore illegitimate. "Better" is a very vague statement and depends on personal and cultural values. While my opponent claims that poached eggs are healthier than fried eggs and therefore "better," he or she opens the door for me to add in my two cents and say that no, fried eggs are "better" because I prefer their taste over poached eggs. This would take me back to my first point. Another person could argue that fried eggs are "better" than poached eggs because they have received glory from the book "Green Eggs and Ham." There are numerous arguments as to why one egg could be "better" than the other because I could define the word any way I choose since my opponent has not done so. "Better" is clearly treated by my opponent as an opinion rather than a word with a set definition.