BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is ok for a man to hit a woman.

I opponent has not proved a single thing about self-defense for men. He has only proved that he has watched one video, and will base his entire knowledge on this video. This is something an average fox news viewer would do. In the video, it says that 40% of men suffer from domestic abuse. My opponent seemed to leave out some vital facts. According to the Guardian, Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available. 2007-08 but fell to 37.7% in 2008-09. This is a British crime survey. But Britain men are not the global issue. a26;Every 9 seconds in the US a woman is assaulted or beaten. a26;Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women"more than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined. http://www.theguardian.com... http://domesticviolencestatistics.org...
It is ok for a man to hit a woman.

Challenge Accepted. 40% of domestic violence is suffered by men. Now, that might seem relatively miniscule. DareLondon did a social experiment to see how the public reacted to domestic abuse, both man-hitting-woman and woman-hitting-man. How the public reacted to a man hitting a woman? Intervention and warnings to call the police. How the public reacted to a woman hitting a man? SMILES, LAUGHTER, AND ENCOURAGEMENT. That's right, folks, my argument of women having the upper hand is proven! According to society, if a woman hits a man, then it is okay, without any regards to the man! (The social experiment video can be found here: http://www.youtube.com... )
It is ok for a man to hit a woman.

First off, pro, the title is misleading. I realized that AFTER I posted the debate. Mistake on my part. Sorry. The topic should be if it is ok to hit a woman IN SELF DEFENSE. Second off, this isn't about "women should be abused ." This is about if a man has a right to defend himself if he is attacked by a woman. Again, title mistake on my part. A man has the right to defend himself from a woman if the woman is assaulting the man. Lots of people believe that men have no right to defend themselves from women. In the Declaration of Sentiments, there is a line saying, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal.” Basically, men and women are equal. Yet, society's rule saying that "Men cannot hit women no matter what" basically gives women the upper hand. Not so equal now, is it?
It is ok for a man to hit a woman.

"Women are useless". That was the motto before the western world advanced. I would like to give the pro an example of a "Women are useless" in the England colonies. Women were supposed to stay at home. In order to be a good women you must be quiet, pious, and do all the chores. They were not supposed to socialize. They would be called a witch if they revolted against these rules. Women were thought to be inferior. This is an example of how women were treated before western society advanced. We have these rules, so we don't go back to them.
It is ok for a man to hit a woman.

When a girl hits a guy, everyone thinks that the guy did something bad. But when a guy hits a girl, everyone thinks that the guy is a "horrible, mysogynistic, sexist jerk." Say Alice hits Bob, then Bob hits Alice back. Everyone will think that Bob is evil. But what if Bob is defending himself? What if Bob is trying to save his own life? If Alice hit Bob repeatedly, but Bob followed society's rule of "A man should never hit a woman," then Alice could kill Bob! That is why I think that men should have the right to defend themselves from women. Con, your move.
Female high school teachers should not be prosecuted for sex with male high school students

The argument above has so little ground to stand on, I'm just going to skip to the cross. I. Cross-Examination"What are we punishing? In reality what crime or harm has this great, dedicated teacher done? Maybe aggravated assault on the penis? Physical abuse due to aggressive use of tongue, mouth, oiled hand, oiled-breast? "Any form of 'assault' or physical abuse is generally illegal. So yes, that would be the crime they are being charged for. "What my opponent will need to show is the harm caused by Ms. Lafave, the Makes and Models model, who willing modeled a student"s penis in her mouth. Show me the crime. "1. No I don't Pro has BoP. He should have proved no crime was being comited as underaged sex is currently a crime. 2. My opponent already stated what these crimes were in that last statement. So he is essentially negative BoP at this point. II. Closing statementThat's it. Everything else Pro said was either irrelevant or sexually irrelevant. Pro has not proven molestation justifiable and therefore has made basically no argument for resolution. Had fun.
Female high school teachers should not be prosecuted for sex with male high school students

Before I begin my Construct, I must commend my opponent. His bravery to debate such a topic is admirable. I must also thank him.For making this debate so easy.I. Construct Let's start off by identifying the reason laws like these are made in the first place. Children (being 17 or younger) are commonly restricted by law for certain reasons. Those reasons mainly have to do with a lack in life experience. Laws bind children to an adult to make vital decisions for the child until he reaches adulthood. Adults can be trusted to make logical decisions with the child's best interest at hand. The same cannot be said for the kid. Sexual interaction is one such vital moment in a person's life. Much like driving or getting a job.Currently, there are laws in place that protect these children from sexual interactions with an adult. There are also laws limiting the time at which a child is allowed to begin sexual relations known as "Age of Consent"These laws are in place to make sure that only teenager in his adolescence can have relations with another teen in adolescence and adults may only have relations with other adults.My opponent is suggesting that there be made an exemption.II. Cross-Examination "...I will be the first to admit my willingness to work with police organizations across the country root out these criminals; I am even willing to allow these women to perform the same "crimes" on my body."This is completely irrelevant to the debate. Pro should refrain from voicing his sexual desires in the middle of an argument."The only thing unjust here is this kind of behavior is the unjust legal system."How is this unjust? The school teacher had relations with a teenager who wasn't of age. That is a crime that was punished as it should have been. My opponent has not given a reason to suggest these relations were justifiable. "It is unclear whether the alleged criminal swallowed the evidence or spit it out at the crime scene." This 'evidence' spoken of was not mentioned anywhere in Pro's explanation of this event. Also how does the destruction of this evidence relate to the resolution? "It is clear these women should not be prosecuted and the victims who endured "sex in a hotel room" on multiple occasions or received oral sex should not be referred to victims;"Actually, Pro has not made this statement clear at all. All he did was provide 2 cases in which an illegal crime was comited and say that it was justified without so much as a single reason.My opponent then goes on to say the biology teacher who comited the first crime was not doing wrong simply because it was a "hands on experiment"Experiment or not, illegal is illegal.Illegal sex with an adult = Illegal sex with a biology teacher.III. Closing RemarksPro has failed to fulfill his BoP. His construct was nearly non-existent and the only justification he gave was that one criminal was a Biology teacher.Until Pro has made an actual statement that supports the resolution, I am forced to question his reasoning behind these criminal affairs.
Female high school teachers should not be prosecuted for sex with male high school students

For each round I will provide quotes from reports of recent cases, one or two will be enough, to show convincingly no crimes are being committed. If my opponent does think or argue these students are "victims" and have be violated be forced into causal sex with attractive older women, I will be the first to admit my willingness to work with police organizations across the country root out these criminals; I am even willing to allow these women to perform the same "crimes" on my body. Two weeks ago a women named Rachelle Heenan "was arrested for allegedly have sex with a student in a hotel rooms on multiple occasions," CBS Dallas Fort-Worth reports. [1] The student was 18 but under Texas law it is a crime for a teacher to have sex with a student even if they are of legal age. [2] So what did this criminal do? "Ultimately the victim and the suspect met each other in the parking lot of a private gym in Fort Worth, held conversations inside the vehicle, and ultimately led to kissing," Criado told CBS Dallas Fort-Worth. "The victim met the suspect at a local hotel in Fort Worth and they eventually had sex for the first time. They did have sex after that, I believe multiple times." The only thing unjust here is this kind of behavior is the unjust legal system. A second case: Megan Denman, a 29-year-old social sciences teacher at Hoover High School in Fresno, Calif., was arrested for allegedly performing oral sex on and sleeping with a student who was under 18, KFSN TV reports.[3] Now unfortunately I could not find the a mug shot, so it remains unclear whether this women was attractive or unattractive, which might provide some insight into how long the "victim" suffered for a long duration before leaving behind evidence on the perpetrator"s body, face or breasts. It is unclear whether the alleged criminal swallowed the evidence or spit it out at the crime scene. It is clear these women should not be prosecuted and the victims who endured "sex in a hotel room" on multiple occasions or received oral sex should not be referred to victims; the only sense in which they are victims is that "crimes" stopped because of prosecuting these very nice educators, who believe that education isn"t just about the class room it is also about the bedroom. The first women was a biology teacher, and from my perspective, she provided a hands-on experiment on human anatomy"these women should be receiving national education grants for the courageous work and afterschool counseling; they are innovators, not criminals. Free these women! Stop the injustice! [1] http://dfw.cbslocal.com... [a mug shot is included] [2] http://www.nbcdfw.com... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Female high school teachers should not be prosecuted for sex with male high school students

Female teachers (especially attractive females) should not be prosecuted for engaging in sexual relations with high school male students. Rules and general guidelines: This debate will not permit or consider discussing same sex relationship (i.e. male teachers, male students; female teachers and female students) This debate will not consider or permit the discussion of middle school aged students This debate will not consider or permit for discussion situations where the female teacher has drugged the male student or encouraged them to be involved in criminal or violent behavior. And for the sake of debate let"s say we are talking about males aged 16"that means my opponent cannot try something like "well imagine a gifted students who has skipped several grades and is a high students but he is only seven years old" because that is not what this debate is about at all. Definition of sexual relations: oral, anal, vaginal"and any other kind of sexual fetish as long as it is between a high school female teacher and male high school student. That means no threeways, gang bangs, or other people at all. Or to put in succinctly: take the position that directly addresses the question and provide a good argument for why female teachers should be prosecuted. Citations or sources are welcomed but are not necessary in this debate since it is largely a matter of matter of opinion.
Hunting of whales that are not in danger of extinction.

Your argument for why non-endangered whales shouldn't be hunted is.. - humans aren't endagnered - we value our own species more than animal - discrimination of animal races on earth I fail to see how any of those arguments have anything to do with the actual topic, which is about whales. You are CLEARLY advocating why we shouldn't kill animals, there is no question about that. That is not what I intended for this debate.
Woman face more challenges in Western society than men do

Thank you for taking me up on my challenge, I look forward to having a civil debate friend. My argument is not that woman have easier lives then men- I want to be clear on that from the start. I do not want to demean the challenges faced by females, but instead shed light on the fact that males live equally difficult lives, thought for different reasons. There are 2 primary categories of challenges men face, and both deal with discrimination on an institutional level. The first being legal, the second societal. Let's start with legal- and let's start by crunching some numbers 1. In 83% of divorce cases woman gain primary custody. 2. Men face 63% longer jail sentences than woman for the same crime. 3. Woman are 2X more likely to be released with no prison time then men 4. Woman half to pay less child support, and are more likely to not pay their child support. 5. Woman are 9x as likely to be found innocent of spouse murder according to the Bureau of justice statistics This paints a clear, and sad picture. There is a clear pattern of discrimination here against men. The statistics speak for themselves Now let's crunch some societal numbers 1. Men are 3.5x more likely to commit suicide then woman 2. Woman now control more than half of the nations wealth 3. Men are 4 times more likely to be murdered than woman 4. Men make up 95% for workplace fatalities 5. To counter the claim (and I could add more but won't) of woman making less I will show that in the PDF below from the US Census men work 57% of the hours in the US 6. Men fight wars- although woman can fight wars now, in Vietnam 72 woman were killed, and almost 50,000 men were killed. 7. Although the STEM field is dominated by men (not due to discrimination) woman are more likely to be hired 2:1 The basic thing here is this- woman and men face equal and unique challenges. This myth exists that only woman face discrimination in Western Society and that men live these privileged, easy going lives. The truth is that men live difficult lives and that the myth of woman facing more issues than men is harmful to both sexes. Suicide stat: https://afsp.org... Wealth stat: http://www.businessinsider.com... Murder stats: https://www.psychologytoday.com... Workplace death and hours worked: http://www.bls.gov... STEM hire stats: http://www.pnas.org... Child support stats: http://www.census.gov... Men vs woman prison sentances: http://www.law.umich.edu... I am trying to provide easy to read sources, if need be I can provide more sources as well as source studies (although they are long and complex to understand)
Woman face more challenges in Western society than men do

Thank you to Con for offering this debate. I will be taking the Pro position. Even though there have been many advancements for women in Western society, they still face many more challenges and obstacles to succeeding in life than men do. I will argue that Western women must put up with and overcome more difficulties to achieve the same goals as men. I will allow Con to make the opening arguments first. This looks to be a very timely and relevant discussion - I'm looking forward to it.
Woman face more challenges in Western society than men do

Do woman face more difficulties than men in Western society? Are woman's lives harder then men's lives (generally speaking)? I say no but welcome someone to prove me wrong. This does not need to be a proper debate, we can be casual but there are some basic rules. Rules 1. No name calling 2. No sexist, racist, or homophobic remarks (obviously we are discussing gender roles, so by sexism I mean discrimination based on sex. example- Men are too stupid to be doctors. An example of not being sexist would be- Men are less likely to be doctors based on ________) 3. Let's try to be civil 4. Let's try to keep it as factual as possible 5. If data/stats are posted the sources must be posted as well Let's have some fun!
Halo 1, 2 and 3

The name "Halo," refers to a massive intergalactic weapon and is also the ring above angels' heads; that is intriguing irony. In response to: "IGN has given Halo 4 a 9.8 But it gave the new zelda game a 10. It is good but not the best." The topic is Bungie's Halo 1, 2, and 3 only, not Halo 4. What I can tell from, http://nintendo.wikia.com..., is that Zelda: A Link Between Worlds, November 22nd, 2013 was the latest Zelda game. According to IGN here, http://www.ign.com...;, this game only scored 9.4. Most Zelda games are adventures however are only 1-player games. Halo 1, 2, and 3 allow a maximum of 16 players. In response to: "I will start by adressing the Fact about how there are so many different"video games. They are all very differnet from eachother so it would be very hard to just rank a game as the best ever beause there are so many." There are already ranking systems. E.G. the aforementioned "IGN." As opposed to not having a best series of all time, I believe there should be one. Gaming companies should be rewarded for their fantastic efforts.
Halo 1, 2 and 3

I will first start by saying that the Halo series is a great set of games. I remember Playing HALO 3 on my cousins XBOX. I however do not agree that They are the best games of all time.I will start by adressing the Fact about how there are so many different video games. They are all very differnet from eachother so it would be very hard to just rank a game as the best ever beause there are so many.IGN has given Halo 4 a 9.8 But it gave the new zelda game a 10. It is good but not the best.
All sporting events should not charge the US Military

Pro barely tackles the resolution. "All sporting events. " This means every sporting event in the world, so therefore, the (only) argument, "if it wasn't for the military, the event might not ever [have been] held" is pointless. Pro provides no argument to account for those who live in countries not saved by the American military. Such countries exist, especially in Africa. Why should they let the US military into their sporting events for free? Even so, other countries are not due eternal debts to when the US helped them in the past. For example, the US military helped liberate France in the 1940s. However, no one who was in the military then, is in the military now, so why should someone currently in the US military get to enter French sporting events for free? Seeing as Pro has burden of proof, he lost this debate being unable to explain circumstances such as these. For my argument. Those hosting sporting events should have freedom to do as they wish. For example, if they're ideologically against the action committed by the US army as a whole or a specific member wanting to get into free, it would make sense for them to want to force them to pay (if accepting them at all. )
Does The Universe Have A Beggining

In Hoyle's view, if matter could be created out of nothing one time, then why not have it happen all the time? It is a Pagan wisdom. The LORD's Bible contradicts this fact in stating the universe is essentially deterministic. For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined he also called; and those he called he also justified; and those he justified he also glorified. ~ Romans 8:29-30 I may use this example for believing in determinism and assert the fact that nowhere in the Bible does it say the universe begins, but merely heavens and earth were created 'in the beginning' so as to imply the heavens and the earth are that beginning. If the universe is it's own beginning, as you have implied with that steady state theory, then it is also its own end, hence nullifying the entire beginning.
Does The Universe Have A Beggining

Indeed The Big Bang is "just a theory" in the philosophical sense, but you do not offer a better alternative theory or even an opposing theory what s ever either Scientific or Theological. Nor do you back up your any of your claims with a single supporting article. as for what you said here:"The Big Bang in fact occurred everywhere is what the theory entails. It is useless as to tell mankind the origins of the universe as it rests on the theory of a multiverse (more than one universe). This is what I interpret the meaning of my opponent's following claim to be: "The distant and therefore ancient universe is not the same as the younger universe nearby." I absolutely agree with you that the Big Bang is everywhere as it was the origin of the universe. as for you discrediting Observations of 20th century Astronomers as Supported by http://www.pbs.org... , until you show me evidence that directly shows me those observation were never made, I will stand by that claim. Nor do you prove your claim of Multiverses with any supporting sources of any kind. as for your "analogy" I do not find one shred of Evidence within it, nor do I find it able to refute my claims about the "Big Bang Theory."
Does The Universe Have A Beggining

Although, I do not have a physics degree, I am a physics major. Based on my knowledge of the Big Bang theory, which is still 'just a theory' in the philosophical sense it has many inconsistencies. It is a common hasty generalization of the priest's theory, that the Big Bang occurs in one place, an infinite density. In fact, the infinite density is supposed to be smeared out over an infinite and empty space-time. The Big Bang in fact occurred everywhere is what the theory entails. It is useless as to tell mankind the origins of the universe as it rests on the theory of a multiverse (more than one universe). This is what I interpret the meaning of my opponent's following claim to be: "The distant and therefore ancient universe is not the same as the younger universe nearby. Permit this analogy: The Big Bang is like an alien in a nearby galaxy with very suspicious behavior. The Big Bang Alien is our first encounter of E.T. through telescopes. The fact that the Big Bang Alien is discovered in our neighboring galaxy is dangerous. We know nothing of the Alien race. They could be essentially Big. This is vague. In fact, the Alien race could be in the neighboring galaxy as much the same way a king goes out into the battle field to first talk politics with his opponent. Perhaps the Alien King we have discovered is in fact leading an army out of the far and past distant universe on all sides---attacking us out of the past essentially. The existence of the Big Bang is insufficient to disprove such a dangerous position and in fact presupposes it.