BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pay gap

The pay gap is just an imaginary concept developed by feminists in order to get attention. When adding up to see what the pay gap actually is, no one puts in the amount of hours one works and what job they do. Counting hours do make a difference in pay and if people cannot come to that agreement then they are ignorant and just biased to confirming their belief. Petroleum engineers, right? They make a good amount of money yearly. Have you ever heard of a women saying that they want to be a petroleum engineer? No of course not. Women have maternity leave and do not have the willpower to work as much as others do. No one takes in account of certain jobs men and women have and how many hours they work, therefore creating this concept of an imaginary pay gap. However, people will just have belief perseverance and continue to believe in this made up concept.
If Iron Man Or Batman Were to Have a Death Match, Batman Would Definitely Win

Me? Fine then. >>> 1) With prep time, Iron Man would not stand a chance against Batman: Since PRO has not clarified the parameters of this topic, I shall do so. The resolution does not exclude fights with preparation, thus, we shall allow both parties to get time to prepare for this matchup. If Batman has preparation, Iron Man will not stand a chance in hell. With prior planning, Batman has been able to bring the entire Justice League to its knees as was the case in the "Tower of Babel" story arc: http://img68.imageshack.us... http://img65.imageshack.us... Note that it was Batman's clever planning which the villain known as Ras Al Ghul was able to use to bring down the entire justice league with ease. If this kind of preparation were used against Iron man, it is most likely that he'd suffer the same fate. And heck, given how easily the villain known as "Tracer" had hacked into Iron Man's armor in "Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman #2", there's no reason for us not to believe that Batman (who is one of his world's most well regarded scientist/detective/tactician/superhero) would not be able to accomplish the same in a battle with Mr. Stark. >>>2) Batman could use his personal "boom tube" to teleport Iron man into the sun. For those who aren't familiar, this is what a boom tube is: http://en.wikipedia.org... In the comics, Batman ends up possessing his own device after having had enough run ins with Darkseid. Thus, if Batman and Iron Man were to have a "fight to the death", Batman could simply use the boom tube to send Iron Man into the sun and thus, the fight would be over before it even started. And that's all the arguments I will provide for now. These points may need more elaboration in the following round. Later. :D
All Pitbull's should be euthanized

Alright sorry Dawgs yall gotta chill ya know chill ! HOLLA! BABY I HOLLA BACK AT YOU all around dat 24/7 yanadadamean dawg? to interpret: i deeply apologize for missing the last round casopia. i owe you one. homie. anywhom, my reason for not providing the hmtl link to the sources is because i am lazy. if you really are that interested in discrediting my sources than go check out the American Temperament Testing Society at ATTS. org. a source which i believe i sited last round. sadly, i do not have any sources backing up the claim that the euthanization of airbud and lassie would eventually lead to a nuclear holocaust. sorry to dissapoint you theLwerd. it would be lovley if you would stop harassing me. now on to attack my opponents contentions: 1. They're baby killers- has not substantiated this point once so ever. drop it. 2. They will bite your face off- provides no evidence that leads us to this conclusion. drop it. 3. They will bite your kids face off-"provides no evidence that leads us to this conclusion. drop it. 4. The dogs name is Pit Bull b/c they were raised to fight in pits. - im glad that my opponent brought this up because i forgot to mention this in my last round. pit fighting in the united states is illegal, and many experts agree that the main reason why we see agression in some pitbulls is because of the the way their owner has raised them. Mr. Goldfarb is an issues specialist for companion-care animals at the Humane Society of the United States . he states that "we should look beyond a dog's particular breed or bloodline into and furtherbehavior and responsible pet ownership" therein lies the problem. nytimes in 08 you should also look to the evidence i provided from the ATTS about pittbulls having a better approval rating than the average dog in reguards to Behavior Toward Strangers, Hidden Noise and gunshots, reaction to visual stimulus, reaction to Tactile Stimuli, and most importantly Self Protective/Aggressive Behavior which includes testing reactions to Non-Threatening people, threatening people, and agressive people. pitbulls -as i stated before have an 83.4 percent approval rating while the average score for most dogs was 81.6 percent. from this evidence we can easily and logically conclude that it is not every pitbull's tendency to randomly attack a human being, and according to the tests done they are more friendly than your average dog. drop his point. 4. Cesar Milan is an illegal immigrant- nice. -drop it 5&6. Their is an enormous overpopulation problem of dogs across the USA. Population of dogs (61,080,000) in the USA. Keep it that way by euthanizing pit bulls. why would we euthanize pitbills when according to the ATTS there are breeds far more agressive than them. if my opponent wants to advocate population control with dogs than so be it, but there is no reason why we should euthanize pitbulls before more agressive breeds. drop this. my opponent himself even agrees that the problem is not the pitbulls themselves but the "novice owners". so instead of euthanizing every single pittbull why dont we have mandatory pitbulls education training for owners and solve the problem.
All Pitbull's should be euthanized

here we go! i strongly negate the resolution that all pit bulls should be euthanized. I will begin by attacking my opponent's case and conclude with the construction of my own. my opponent makes the implication that because "there are aggression issues with pit bulls" that all pit bulls should be euthanized. before i propose my argument against this statement, lets get one thing straight. my opponent reveals within his own case that there clearly are exceptions to the notion that all pit bulls have "aggression issues" with Ceaser Milan's pit bull Baby. So although there are pit bulls who may be aggressive, it would be fallacious to conclude that all pit bulls are aggressive, or that there is any correlation between ALL pit bulls and aggression. Now that we have that straight, my opponent's whole case lies upon the notion that ALL pit bulls should be euthanized because of aggression issues. He -and I- have clearly established that there is no link between ALL pit bulls and aggression. However, my opponent advocates that because of a few aggressive pit bulls we should wipe the pit bull specimen of dog in its entirety off the face of this planet. should all humans be euthanized because a few are aggressive? should we furthermore eliminate every specimen off the face of this planet whom has ever shown any signs of aggression? you answer yes to the questions provided when you side with the logic of the PRO. now on to my points CONTENTION 1(& only)- hyped up! despite what the media has hyped them up to be, pit bulls are incredibly less dangerous than the average breed. "In a study of 122 dog breeds by the American Temperament Testing Society, Pit bulls achieved a passing rate of 83.9%. Beagles scored 78.2% and golden retrievers, 83.2%. " ATTS. org in 08 "In the ATT test, a dog is put through a series of confrontational situations, and any sign of panic or aggression leads to failure of the test. THE HIGH SCORING OF PITBULLS IN THIS STUDY DISPROVES THE WIDELY HELD BELIEF THAT THIS BREED IS INHERENTLY MEAN AND AGRESSIVE TO PEOPLE. " williams in 08 to euthanize this breed of dog because of aggressive nature would be completely illogical, for there are several breeds that are much more aggressive, breeds including some of america's most beloved dogs, Lassie and Airbud. which we all know the impact of euthanizing Lassie and Airbud would inevitably be a WW3 concluded by a nuclear holocaust.
You shouldn't have to read the book in order to understand its movie adaptation.

Thank you kindly for accepting my challenge. Before we get to the literal debate, I do believe it is necessary to point out two (2) counts of the word "I" not being capitalized in my opponent's argument. "when i watched Lord of the Rings i did not fully understand but the book does explain many things that are unclear in the movie." This does nothing to disprove my statement -- you have only conceded either poor writing or a lack of understanding the film/story. My argument stands that a film should suit as many people as possible -- this means fully explaining the plot in a concise and clear manner. My opponent used no proof to suggest I was incorrect in suggesting this -- all he used is an example of the exact thing I'm complaining about.
You shouldn't have to read the book in order to understand its movie adaptation.

A common refrain for critically/commercially unsuccessful movies based on books among fans is "You needed to read the book to understand it. " I am trying to convey that this is inadvertently acknowledging a poor screenplay. If a film needs its viewers to read a book to understand the plot, this is a bad movie. Pro will have to debate that it is okay for a film to require plot knowledge from its viewers.
Should black history be taught in schools

If we were to enforce more knowledge of black americans, then there would be more controversy over their history. Evermore, people would want black history to be part of the whole curriculum of school's history, and there would be no American history. When the day comes when black history is more envoy did in teaching, when will other races be involved? It would be just the same as American and African Americans, they all want to be involved in the teachings of scj
Should black history be taught in schools

That is just my point. American history is not a complete American history until it includes all the events and experiences that make it American history. If you have ever tried to do a chemistry experiment without using all of the chemicals, you would not have the desired reaction. All I propose is that the system be corrected to include all of the elements so that our education system can achieve the desired goal. Today we argue for one aspect of underrepresented history, later we will argue for the equalization of Hispanic history, then on to Native American underrepresented history. Our society should continue on this trend until ALL history is American history. However, we can only argue one history at a time. Today it's black history.
Should black history be taught in schools

Many black people have made significant contributions to American history and to world culture. However, the average student who receives a diploma in the United States is not aware of this. The student cannot be aware of this simply because their is no importance associated with historical contributions of black people. I take the position that an understanding of black history is not only important for all races to have, it is a necessity. My opponent will argue that it is not necessary/important for grade school children in the United States to learn about black history. This is not a debate about race. It will be about the educational significance (if any) to understand a history that has been hidden in the American educational system.
The whole world should drive on the right (i.e. the left) side of the road.

In response to my opponent's cost rebuttal I should like to argue that there"s no need to spend billions reconfiguring junctions, asymmetric or otherwise. Imagine you are viewing aerial footage of traffic negotiating an intersection. Now, imagine running the film in reverse. Do all the cars crash? No, of course not. It's just like reversing the flow of electricity in a circuit, it doesn't matter which way the current flows, the appliance still works. All that needs to be done with the roads is to turn some signs around and repaint some road-markings, small beer compared with the savings made through standardising the steering mechanisms on cars worldwide. We should remember that most developed countries that now drive on the wrong side of the road, including the USA, used to drive on the left. The reason for this was that most people are right handed and in the days before cars were common and horse-drawn transportation was the norm, it was more convenient to slash an approaching enemy with one's sword as he passed by on one's right-hand side. You may think that this is irrelevant now that people no longer routinely carry swords but think about it: these days people carry guns instead, and shooting a motorist that has irritated you in some way is so much easier sitting on the right-hand side of the car than the left, at least for people who are right handed anyway. Moving on it is true that the USA and China have huge populations but so do many of the countries that drive on the left: India has 1.184 billion (just slightly less than China); Indonesia 234 million (just slightly less than USA); while Pakistan has 170 million and Bangladesh has 164 million inhabitants (both comfortably more populous than Russia). {1] Also, spare a thought for people in France, Germany, Italy and most other European countries who drive over to Britain to see for themselves what a civilised country is like. When they emerge from the Channel Tunnel or a cross-Channel ferry they will suddenly find their steering wheels are on the wrong side of the car! Obviously this is very dangerous, especially when overtaking, because they cannot see what is coming towards them on the opposite side of the road. In conclusion, we now live in a global village and it makes perfect sense for everybody to drive on the right, i. e. the left, side of the road. Thank you. [1] . http://www.worldatlas.com...
The whole world should drive on the right (i.e. the left) side of the road.

Greetings, Mr. Eggleston, I have seen your work on this site and it is an honor to debate you. You are indeed a very accomplished and skilled debater. I hope you don't mind someone who's kind of a noob taking the debate. :D Since Pro did not specify whether first round is for acceptance or not, I will make a case for why the whole world should NOT switch to driving on the "right" side of the road (that is, literally the left side). From THIS POINT forward in my argument, to avoid confusion, "right side of the road" refers to literally the right-hand side of the road. I'll begin by noting the map that Pro sourced in his first reference. I encourage all of you following the debate to look at it- there are enormous amounts of countries that drive on the right side of the road. There are a few notable countries that drive on the left, such as India, the UK, Australia and Japan. But, the three most powerful nations in the world- the USA, Russia and China- ALL drive on the right side of the road. [1] Suppose the whole world were to enact a massive change to driving on the left-hand side of the road. Pro claims that it would save billions in automobile development. But what about everything else? Pro must not have taken into account the MASSIVE changes in infrastructure such a change would bring require. You would not only need to switch around ALL the road signs in right-hand-driving world, but many existing highway interchanges and exits would become useless. According to BBC, about one in 10 motorway junctions are incomplete or asymmetric. This would require rebuilding those junctions, which obviously costs money. The British government calculated that it would have cost them 264 million pounds to overhaul the system in 1969, which translates to about 3.4 billion today. [2] The USA alone has the most road mileage in the world with 6,586,610 km. China is third with 4,106,387, and Russia is fifth with 1,283,387. Imagine the immense cost involved in changing from the right to the left in the USA, let alone the cost combined with China and Russia! [3] Again, Pro says that the change would save us billions in the auto industry, but it would also COST billions upon billions. I was also amused by his treatment of people in Asia/Africa/Americas as "heathen cannibals, warpath-dancing savages and insurgent colonials." Especially considering the nations that drive on the LEFT, if you don't consider only Britain, Japan, Australia and India. You get all sorts of things like random islands that may better fit that rather strong description [4] [1] http://www.globalfirepower.com... [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [3] https://www.cia.gov... [4] https://answers.yahoo.com... ( I realize that sourcing Yahoo Answers would generally not be considered good referencing, but it is nevertheless instructive for this discussion.)
The whole world should drive on the right (i.e. the left) side of the road.

While motorists in civilised countries such as Britain, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa drive on the correct side of the road: i.e. the left-hand side; the heathen cannibals, warpath-dancing savages and insurgent colonials in parts of Asia, Africa and the Americas insist in driving on the wrong side of the road: i.e. the right-hand side of the road. [1,2,3] This means global car manufacturers such as Toyota, Land Rover, Nissan, Jaguar, Mitsubishi, Bentley, Honda, Rolls-Royce, Suzuki, Aston-Martin and Subaru have to spend lots of money converting cars from right-hand drive to left-hand drive for certain foreign markets, and those costs are passed on to consumers worldwide. Now, if only everybody drove on the left-hand side of the road billions would be saved in development costs and we would all pay less for new cars. Thank you. [1] http://www.worldstandards.eu... [2] http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
0 equals 2

My opponent gives a worthy response, but I believe it does not disprove my method. When something is divided by zero, it is undefined. Not infinite. (When dividing 0 by 0, 0 could go into 0 either 3 times, or a million) It is "unknown" (because it can be any value) so we usually can't determine it. But in this case, I am giving a value to the equation. It doesn't matter how many times zero went into zero because the equation still holds true. The entire equation is mathematically sound because there is not a single step where the equation is unequal/untrue.
0 equals 2

Marvelous. The way I will achieve this is very simple. 0/0=(100-100)/(100-100)=(10-10)(10+10)/(10(10-10)) Make sense so far? In the numerator, I have changed the format, but it still equals zero because the (10-10) is zero, and anything multiplied by zero is zero. In the denominator, I have simply factored out a 10. Next, the (10-10)s divide out to 1, so we can remove them: (10-10)(10+10)/10(10-10)=(10+10)/10 Finally, the last simplifications: (10+10)/10=20/10=2 0=2 Now of course, my opponent will cry out: "You can't divide by zero!", and to that I ask...why not?
Americans giving twice as much to charity might not make much of a difference

I will be debating this topic, and will be for doubling charity, and the influence of doing so. So, let me start off by saying CHARITY IS A GOOD THING. Also, let me add THE MORE THE BETTER. Sure, it might not seem like much, but it's just baby steps if you want to call it that. Little by little, slowly making a difference (yes, it's unnoticeable because this is a pretty big world than what some take it granted for, and there is many people in this world). It would seem more so logical that doubling charity for ANYTHING is beneficial. Now, for educational donations, it does make a big difference. I mean think about it, all that extra money is going for new textbooks, new football fields (for those wanting to get ahead by that). Extra money even going to get better educators to come in, yeah this all helps. It's crazy to think doubling charity wouldn't help. All because the first baby step is not so noticeable. One reason the change isn't seen by the human eye is not because of the educators in those cases, it's because of students and their laziness, and all the distractions with these high tech phones, and everything else they got going on which lowers their academic scores. This is the main reason in fact you don't see a change. So technically doubling is good by default, but basically it has it's downsides and not so good due to laziness and unwilling to learn. So the issue isn't doubling charity donations at all in educational donations, it's getting students to learn. Now as for doubling charities in other donation places, well, again the more the better.
Americans giving twice as much to charity might not make much of a difference

Doubling charity giving might not achieve that much good. { Such as poverty reduction and improving educational outcomes} I am not sure I 100% agree with that, so I thought I would test it out. Current trends of charity giving sees places of worship get more money than the charity arms of those places of workshop {I would argue that is not good}. Education donations do not seem to be making significant changes to educational outcomes. So, would doubling really help. If the money continued to be allocated the same way. So I am going to argue no {at this point in time}