BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sexism is still in Australia

before we begin I would like to offer the following observations and definitions to clarify the grounds and framework of the debate that shall follow. first, from the Cambridge English dictionary (all definitions will come from here) actions based on a belief that particular jobs and activities are suitable only for women and others are suitable only for men. this is the only term in the resolution that truly needs to be defined. I shall offer some simple guidelines for the debate 1. No ad hominems. 2. No new arguments in your final rebuttal (per standard debate rules. ) 3. Standard debate rules apply in regard to dropped arguments. I shall be making my case primarily by attacking my opponents case and pointing out the errors in her arguments. 1. My opponent has stated that the AFL only shows football games for the men's league on mainstream television stations. However, my opponent mistakenly attributes this to sexism while the true cause is something far less sinister. Ratings. it's all about making money. Just like in any business people want to provide the people with what they want. Scientific fact: men are on average stronger and faster than women on account of that little Y chromosome we have. This makes men's sports typically more interesting to watch for most people. It's also important to note that women's sports are televised. They are given an outlet. 2. My opponent states that the first bounce has been removed from women's sports (I'm assuming football. I'm not a big connoisseur of sports) However, my opponent has failed to provide the reasoning behind this decision taking the conclusion without context. Surely they didn't just decide to do it on a whim. (this would require reliable evidence by the way) Perhaps the average woman struggles to complete this athletic feat? we don't know. the evidence my opponent provided is not complete by any means and lacks citation. I was also unable to find any reference to this in my research. I challenge my opponent to provide reliable evidence so I can fully understand the context of the argument. 3. next my opponent brings up a personal story and uses it to justify her claims. Simply because you can throw a shot put farther than the boys in your class doesn't mean everyone can. to determine that all women can do this is cherrypicking the evidence. Your story may have been more prominent evidence wise if you had stated that EVERY female student in your class could consistently outperform the men over the course of your middle and high school career. If suddenly my opponent mirrors this statement I would question the validity of her story. moreover, your profile says that you're thirteen years old. In this time frame, most people would have just started to go through puberty. this would cause the differences between men and women to be present to a lesser degree. I believe that refuting these points is a more than adequate way to state my case.
Sexism is still in Australia

Sexism IS still in Australia, take AFL for example, yes they brought in a girls team but what about other sports and why isn't the women's football on main channels when the men's football is on. Did you also hear the fact that they are taking out the first bounce of the games because women aren't strong enough to do it! Why do people still believe these awful and sexist comments! arent we all told from a young age to not judge a book by its cover, so why are we judging women because of they shape, size and strength. just because some women are weaker than other men, Men can also be weaker than women. Take for example a few weeks ago in PE, we were doing shot put, the girls were given a 2kg shot put but the boys were given a 3kg shot put. I was able to throw the shot put the furthest out of my class with 8.6 m, the boys were then complaining because they all threw it shorter than me and then blamed it on the weight of the shotput, so our teacher gave all the boys another go with the 2kg one and none of them could throw it as far.
Sexism is still in Australia

I shall begin by pointing out some major flaws in my opponent's logic. 1. my opponent stated that 1 third of women believe that it would be easier to get their dream job (I'm assuming if they were a man, that's not specified) and that 14% of girls believe that they have the same opportunities "of women. " Not certain that one makes sense honestly, but let's roll with it. Simply because someone believes something, doesn't make it true. I can believe that I can fly, but that doesn't mean if I jump off a cliff I won't plummet to my death. My opponent's argument is, therefore, flawed in that it only accounts for belief and not facts. 2. guys. .. my opponent. she's done it. she's proven. .. absolutely nothing. Her rebuttal failed to counter my actual point because that evidence would still fail to factor out all of the variables. I attempted to follow the links my opponent provided to confirm this, but they're both to the same page and are for her first point. The new evidence provided by my opponent has in no way refuted my previous point. I had also neglected to point out in my previous case that my opponent had dropped every single argument I had made in my original statement.
Sexism is still in Australia

according to ABC.net.au 1 third of women and girls believe that it would be easier to get there dream job and 14% of girls believe they get the same opportunities of women. For your last argument, you are wrong, the government's human rights website states that the average age gap between men and women is about 15-18 cents. http://www.abc.net.au... http://www.abc.net.au...
Sexism is still in Australia

ah, the wage gap myth. Despite the fact that this "notion" has been dismantled time and time again, many people continue to cling desperately to the idea. Allow me to simply reiterate the facts of the matter. 1. Women, when they are paid less, are not the victims of sexism. The original studies and surveys that determined that the wage gap exists, were fundamentally flawed as they did not factor in occupational differences, Time taken off, or hours put in. More valid studies have shown that women and men are paid the exact same amount when you factor out all of these variables. Indeed, when one factors out the differences between women and men the apparent wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing. (1) Simply put, the wage gap doesn't actually exist, No matter how much you may wish it were so. I believe that the reason that people cling to the idea to such a degree, is because that if they accepted the truth that it didn't exist they would have lost one of their final remaining points. Then all they'd have left is the sexist air conditioning. (yes it's a thing. Look it up if you want to lose more faith in humanity.) Now that I've invalidated your one and only point, I await your next argument. (1) Claudia Goldin, an economics professor at Harvard University.
Should Student Appreciation Day Be A National Holiday

Teachers have holidays for us students to show our appreciation towards them being hard-working and patient in teaching us. Students Appreciation Day shouldn't be a National Holiday because of the following reasons. 1. Students still hadn't prove much of themselves yet. They are still in the process of learning. 2. Students go to school to study and some are even forced to go to school because they do not want to or too lazy to attend. They do not work hard that much unlike teachers. According to Deno Machino "Every day you go to school, you have the chance to learn something that will change your life forever.You are rewarded with knowledge. " Are you so self centered that you need acknowledgement for making a better life for your self? Most of your teachers had the chance to be anything in this world, but they chose to pursue a career that helps you. While most professions help society, none are quite like a teacher. While a doctor may save your life once you become ill, a teacher saves your life by giving you the knowledge to be able to live. Without teachers, you could not afford a house, car, or the doctor. Without a teacher, this doctor would not have the knowledge to save your life. (Source: http://www.smallworlds.com...) And besides, without teachers, we wouldn't even learn a lot of things.
Should Student Appreciation Day Be A National Holiday

You got solid facts, but logically there are alternatives. One, if students were that lazy they wouldn't getup period. Even, if mom and dad threaten them they wouldn't get up. REBELLION! Two, all students can skip school and hang-out somewhere random. TBH I actually thought about because I getup very early in the mourning, but because I really care don't do that. Technically, you're right students hadn't proved themselves yet, but the point is that they are going through the process of proving themselves. Plus, we work-hard and we have put-up with a couple of those teachers who hit our last nerve. I'm a straight A student, but at some point in my life a had teacher who sat at her desk all-day, literally. According to a couple teacher confessions they don't care, they only want the decent money. True story.
Obi Wan Kenobi would have become Sith.

Thanks you for you for making it clear. 1. Although the death of his master did seem to turn him close to the dark side, it didn't cause him to do anything against the Jedi order. "Well this is the only way that Obi Wan was able to beat Darth Maul." Obi wan has not encountered Darth Maul before so we cannot come to the conclusion that he can *only* defeat an enemy using anger. 2. "Count Dooku said this to Obi Wan in episode 2 but Obi Wan didn't become a Sith or show any sign that he might act on what Dooku said to him. Interestingly, even though Obi Wan was called to the dark side before Anaiken, it was Anaiken who turned to the dark side before Obi Wan ever could." 3. Sadness does not always lead to aggression, as seen with Yoda when hundreds of his fellow Jedi were killed in the battle of Geonosis. In his battle with count dooku, he did not pull out his lightsaber until Count Dooku did. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtFadZ1dodM) Also., Obi Wan didn't kill Anaiken and wasn't trying to hurt him until the very end. We hear him trying to talk to Anaiken, even in the end. My points: the main factor that turned Anaiken to the dark side was the fear of his love interest, Padme, dying. While Anaiken broke the Jedi code and married her, Obi wan has done nothing like this, making him less prone to turning to the dark side. That is all for now, I look forward to your next argument.
Obi Wan Kenobi would have become Sith.

I would like to revise this debate too " Obi Wan Kenobi would have become sith if the Republic had not fallen. " So this is the scenario we would have been in. Yoda defeats Darth Sidious. Then Obi Wan Defeats Anakin. So I have three examples that may have caused Obi Wan to become Sith. 1. The Death of his master. Everyone knows that when you use anger for the force or in a lightaber duel you are using the dark side of the of the force. Well this is the only way that Obi Wan was able to beat Darth Maul. As seen in the following video. . http://www.youtube.com... 2. Count Dooku his master's master spoke of him building up his rage. When Count Dooku captured Obi Wan Kenobi he spoke to Kenobi as if it was planned for him to become sith. I could not find a video on this but it is seen when Count Dooku capture Obi wan. 3. My third and Final point is when Obi wan killed Anakin. This was another case where he felt sad and angry. Sadness leads to aggression as seen with Anakin and his mother. . http://www.youtube.com...
Obi Wan Kenobi would have become Sith.

Responses to rebuttals: 1. My point was that just because Obi Wan used anger against Darth Maul does not mean that he is completely reliant on his anger. 3. Please provide sources or examples for these two statements. 4 This does not change the fact that Jedi were killed in the battle, again, provide a source for your claims 5. Quotes by Obi Wan during the battle of Mustafar: "You were my brother, Anakin; I loved you." "I have failed you, Anakin; I have failed you." "Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil!" Obi Wan clearly did not wish to kill Anaiken and was not fighting him out of anger. He tried talking Anaiken out of it. Lets also look at the conditions in which Obi Wan had to fight Anaiken: -The only other Jedi he knew was Yoda, who had to fight Darth Sidious since Obi Wan wouldn't last too long against him -Anaiken had just threatened to kill Obi Wan -Anaiken had just killed most of the Jedi-including children-at the Jedi Temple. (Source: http://starwars.wikia.com...) 6. While forming close bonds with another person(a.k.a, Marriage) is against the Jedi Order, falling in love is not. (source: http://starwars.wikia.com...) Obi Wan didn't marry unlike Anaiken which would go against the Jedi Order. Also, if Obi Wan would vengefully kill, he would have killed the bounty hunter that killed his first love interest, Siri Tachi, which he didn't, proving he wouldn't follow the path of Anaiken (Source: http://starwars.wikia.com...) So far, you have failed to show how the republic not falling would change Obi Wan's descision to remain a Jedi which is the focus of this debate. I am curious to see how you end this debate.
Obi Wan Kenobi would have become Sith.

1. You say he was not able to beat him without anger. As seen in the video at the point of defeat he uses anger and triumphs over Darth Maul. 2. There has always been sith in the jedi. Obi Wans master was trained by a sith lord. Who was trained by the great and powerful Yoda. 3. Obi Wan had always been jealous of his master taking Anakin in. Being Jealous is a serious sign of sith. 4. There were not hundreds of jedi who died in that battle not even close. At the most 50. 5. Obi Wan knew he had to kill him when Anakin said," Either you are with me or you are my enemy." In which case Obi Wan replied," Only a sith deals in absolutes, I will do what I must." Clearly stating that not only was he sith but the fight would be to the death." 6. There was a point in time where Obi Wan Fell In love which is against the jedi order http://www.youtube.com... This site also explains how Obi Wans love was killed by the vengful Darth Maul. http://starwars.wikia.com... Obi Wan wanted more revenge than to stop Maul. These are all reasons why Obi Wan Kenobi would have become sith.
A monarchy is a good thing

Before I elaborate fully on the major benefits of having a monarchy, let me first deal with an issue which, I believe, is one of the key things that causes people to dislike monarchism. It"s the issue of equality. Today, most of us live in a democratic society that tells us that everyone is born with equal opportunities and equal standing. A monarchy, supposedly, stands in stark contrast to this: a baby can be born into a royal family and immediately become a celebrity and famous without having lifted a finger! In reality, this criticism just attacks one aspect of an overarching matter which is impossible to deal with: human nature. These days, there are plenty of people who are born immediately famous and well-off in families of celebrities or presidents. People, as The Spectator once pointed out, naturally honour important or famous people like millionaires, athletes, and celebrities, and it is these same feelings that allow people to glorify and celebrate monarchs. Children born into these sorts of families present the same equality problems as that of a royal family, and there is nothing we can do about that. So criticising the monarchy for not encouraging equality is attacking one offshoot of something that isn"t actually a problem, but human nature. As such, if a monarchy is useful, having them by no means contradicts democracy and the possibility of equal opportunities. It is also interesting to point out that many royals find it very difficult to live with the constant presence of the media they "enjoy". Prince William and Princess Kate of the UK have tried to stop media from regularly publishing photos of Prince George and instead have tried to only publish his photos once every six months approximately. Many royals would be just as happy without the crown, suggesting that it"s not they who are insisting their rule like dictators but they are being held firmly to the post by the people " a significant democratic achievement if you ask me. What I have tried to show here is that the common criticisms that monarchies receive are not so simple and are unjustified. I will later describe how a monarchy can actually strengthen and benefit their nation; socially, politically, and culturally.
A monarchy is a good thing

Before getting started I would like to clarify that since PRO is making the assertion here, he must bear the whole burden of proving objectively that ‘Monarchy is a good thing’. Since usually what is good and what is bad is attributed on a relative basis with a specific standard used for comparison we can safely assume that PRO has upheld the resolution if he, manages to show that the advantages of monarchy, as PRO had already mentioned, OUTWEIGHS the disadvantages. As CON in this debate I only have to show that the disadvantages are just as equal in significance as the advantages, if not greater or cast enough doubts on the claims he makes supporting the resolution and make them appear shaky. Also PRO has agreed to have this debate, be restricted to four rounds as opposed to the assigned five rounds. So, as agreed NO, NEW ARGUMENTS or anything related to the debate whatsoever, shall be made in the fifth round. Looking forward to a fun and rejuvenating debate. Over to you PRO.
A monarchy is a good thing

This debate will have 5 rounds that should go on the lines of this: 1st: Opening statement, how you will structure the debate, initial thoughts and arguments. 2nd AND 3rd: More strong arguments, concrete, but no discussion regarding the opponent"s arguments. 4th: First comments about opponent"s arguments, arguments directed against opponent, more arguments for your opinion 5th: More of what is in 4th round, plus concluding discussion and statement. I am not too strict about sources; I accept the use of Wikipedia as a source. In fact, I won"t mind if no source is given, so long as the statistics used or statements made are valid and not made up. If they are flatly contradicted by a reliable source, then I will not consider them. I find this an important topic because many people are very critical of monarchies, particularly in the UK where I live, and I don"t think all the criticism is justified. I think there are actually many benefits from having a monarchy. I will argue that having a monarchy is a good thing for a country, with the benefits of having a monarchy outweighing the losses.
Age Restrictions For Body Modification

There is nothing special that someone 18 or older has or can do that allows them to make the decision of how to decorate their body opposed to someone thats 15 or 16. Its a legal form of age discrimination. We are being denied services because of our age. America was created in a search for freedom, but the freedom to express yourself is reserved for those of age? That isnt right. Not to mention, we'll get them anyway. Whether its a self piercing(which can be extremely dangerous) or a friend giving us a tattoo in their garage(insanely unsanitary). It only makes sense to remove the age restriction or at the least lower it. Tattoo/piercing parlors across the nation are, on average, more sterilized and clean than our average hospital! Its a matter of not only freedoms, but of saftey. Age restrictions for body modifications should be removed for every state.
Age Restrictions For Body Modification

Because we must get approval from our parents it is ultimately up to them if we can express ourselves through tattoos and piercings. It restricts us, who are perfectly capable of deciding for ourselves. I am an excellent student with college ambitions and am completely drug free which is PLENTY more than i can say for most people in this nation who are "of age" to get a tattoo. Of all things to require of someone who wishes to get a tattoo or piercing professionally done. Why is age the ultimate factor in deciding who can and cant? Why can a drunk adult decide they want a tattoo but a teen who is in their right mind cant? why isnt there a law to prevent those under the influence of drugs or alcohol from getting a tattoo. There's risk in everything we do, not just teenagers, but humanity as a whole. If medical bills were the big issue, then anyone not of age shouldnt be able to play a sport, or eat fast food, or be exposed to many other things that i've come in contact with everyday. Cause after all eating the wrong foods can cause medical problems. A tattoo is a risk, just like walking down the stairs is a risk, you could fall and do some serious damage, but there's no age requirement for comming in contact with stairs. Contact with animals or nature in general should be strictly forbidden because theres to much risk of a medical issue occuring. But i dont need to have my mother sign a permission slip telling the school i can walk up and down all the stairs everyday, or stating i can walk home in the snow. Every human being has a right to their own body. The government or your parents cannot force you to become an organ donner, they cannot force you to recieve medical treatments which you disagree with. If anyone has seen the movie My Sister's Keeper, then that is an excellent example! The little girls parents should not have been legally able to force her to donate so much because her sister was dying. That should've been her choice. Our freedoms as Americans are not limitless, but no one should be able to take away the right to do with our own bodies as we please. That should include our appearance, not just our internal organs. We should have a right do put on our body what we wish. They cannot control our haircut or color, the clothes we wear, or the make up i put on. So how come they can control our tattoos and piercings? If the age restriction was removed, and I was refused a tattoo by an artist, then i could legally sue because of age discrimination. The artist is denying me a service which i could legally obtain based on nothing more than the number of times i've been around the sun.