BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Equal rights for women (I'm for)

Like I had stated before, one of the things I had clearly defined earlier was equal pay. I probably should've given more things that I want to change, but that's not to say I didn't give ANY definition of what I think of Equal Rights. Another thing I feel that women deserve that they don't have is in Saudi Arabia, women cannot get driver's licenses. Stuff like this doesn't just happen in America. In India, some road safety rules don't apply to women. In Yemen, they're only considered half a witness in court. In Saudi Arabia and Vatican City Women can"t vote. In Yemen, women cannot leave their house without their partners permission unless its a life or death or other emergency.Also, as far as it comes to the study of the hours men and women work, I agree with you. I never said it was a true fact. In fact, I said the opposite. It gives us results from the group of people tested, not everyone on earth, so it cannot be 100% accurate. And, due to births and deaths, again, we would need to have the test done again and again, so there's no ABSOLUTE way to prove that men work more hours. That's only applying to the group tested, not the population as a whole. It's an interesting thing to test, but sadly, since science is always changing, an so are the people on earth, this isn't possible. And as far as it comes to races, I know that race isn't just defined by skin color alone. There's more to it than that. But, however, what I was saying is that other people were JUDGING them unfairly BECAUSE of their skin color. Back then, they thought, "They don't have feelings, and shouldn't deserve rights white's do." That's KIND OF what is happening here. We aren't being open enough to how women feel about these kind of things. Put yourself in their shoes, and think, "What if I was denied these things? Would I like it? Is it fair?" also, even though our Creator would probably want us to have unalienable rights, Thomas Jefferson wrote this himself, first of all, and second of all, it's not like God actually told him that, right? I believe in God and all, but come now, Thomas Jefferson probably would've told everyone else if God actually talked to him and told him to right that down. There's probably more I'm forgetting, but that's just current knowledge that I have.
Equal rights for women (I'm for)

You're right on some of the things mentioned. But again, I think you're using the definition of "same," in contrast to "Equal." We're all "Different," I get that. And, even though we cannot fully be "Equal," in ourselves alone due to everyone being unique from everyone else, (job, house, income, etc.) as you have clearly expressed, we should at least have "Equal RIGHTS" here. We live in a free, democracy, where we can govern ourselves. So why should differences in people affect what rights they do and don't have? That's kind of like The Civil War done all over again. Excluding rights that all U.S. citizens have just because of skin color, which makes them different, which is a poor judgment. So why is gender considered a factor in what rights women have? If Thomas Jefferson would've thought that since women are U.S. citizens too, they would deserve the endowed Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness the Declaration of Independence gives us. And women need men more than men need women? You made some good points on that one, but just the same, here are some of my arguments against that. 1. Women actually give birth to the baby or babies, that are a part of the population. 2. To keep our population at a steady and equal level, the mother should give birth to at least one girl and boy, to replace the male and female, so they can have a boy and girl to keep our species going, but keep it at a reasonable level of an equal amount of men and women. 3. Because eggs are scarce, that means there is a limited time for reproduction and fertilization from men. Thus, I think that we both need one another equally. An, while we're at it, how does that even effect equal rights? And as far as working hours go, they probably didn't record every working-man or woman on the earth, so there's no way to get 100% accurate results on that. In fact, with people being born and dying, the tests would need to be taken again and again. It gives us some plausible results, but not 100% accuracy. And, speaking of which, The pay for the hours they work should be the same. Why? Not only would it help women in poverty or low income get more money, If the man is paid the same for each hour, if he works more than the woman does, (or vice versa) Then he/she is getting paid more in the end, although the pay for hours is still the same for the woman and man. And, the poverty/ low-income percent would go down a bit. In fact, women would be more encouraged to get a job if it pays more, also dropping down the unemployment rate, and raising more money for the economy. So, even though inequalities or differences exists between each human being, we are all equal in freedom and in this country itself.
Equal rights for women (I'm for)

I agree with you up to a certain point. We are all different, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should be treated differently because of those differences themselves. We should accept one another for who we are, and should not be judged by others. Let god make his judgments, (if you're religious like me) that shouldn't be in the hands of anyone else but him. What I define by "equal rights," is not that we are all the "same." "Same," and "equal," are not the same thing. Let's not confuse the definitions of those very two seemingly same-meaning words. See link: http://www.thefreedictionary.com.... See link for "equal.":http://www.thefreedictionary.com.... What I define as "equal rights," is that women should have the same rights and privileges that men do, regardless of race, gender,economic situation, etc. But yet, despite fighting for this for years, women still don't have every right a man does. Like, men get more pay than women do. On average, for every dollar a man is paid in a job, a women gets 75 cents for the same job. Not always the case, but it's still happening. In fact, there is still some challenges regarding career promotions, due to gender and family responsibilities. Sometimes, SOME men, not all men, (i'm a guy and luckily I'm not like this) are kind of like "Door-mat walkers", where they leave out a women's voice in business or think their opinion doesn't matter, or they think they're the "Dominant gender." How can this be true if we need one another for reproduction? Although it's been better than it used to be, it could be better. Those are just off the top of my head, but I'll research more about this later.
Equal rights for women (I'm for)

As far as it comes to cultural rights, it's defined as "rights that allow communities and their people access to culture, arts and production of art, protect "human rights," (which I'll define more clearly later) which ensures happiness and joy to the people and their communities, being able to take part in elections, and much more. "Human Rights" is defined as, "certain inherited "egalitarian" (meaning the same for every person.) rights entitled to each and every human being." Women not being able to vote in Saudi Arabia and Vatican City is itself a violation of Cultural Rights. If they can't take part in elections, then why are men allowed to do so? And just because it's how their country's people believe and "that's the way their laws are" doesn't necessarily justify it. Cultures and its people constantly change, and so do laws. Each person on earth is equal in freedom. Discrimination amongst genders is not acceptable, as we are judging by a human-quality, or something associated with oour own species. Rights don't have to be natural to benefit both genders. I'm not saying each human is the same, but we should have the same rights. Change is happening in our world, whether it'd be government, politics, etc. In those other countries I mentioned earlier, gender-discrimination is still ongoing. In a way, it's actually oppressing, or very controlling. You think it's okay to just allow unjustified control of gender? I don't. What do (some) men have against women in the first place? Were judging on something that we are different from one another on. But why? There's no call for that at all. If we were all the same (gender, age, thoughts and feelings, interests, etc.) The world would be a very boring place. If women in another country can't drive, how are they supposed to get around if they have to travel long distances, like getting to a place several miles away? Walk? Oh yeah, that's really fast. And what about women who can't even vote? Their opinion is pretty much ignored. Any justification for this? I didn't think so. What about road safety? That's concerning life and death there. That shouldn't be ignored. And spousal-permission is needed to leave your own house? Any good reason for why that's needed? Other than keep the women like an animal in a cage, I probably can't say. Half a witness in court? Yet she's a full,complete human being? Real rational. You'll have to forfeit Round 5, so we'll have an equal amount of arguments, since I didn't make one for the first round. Good luck!
The bible is God's word

While my opponent has chosen to result to anger and ad hominem attacks, I will choose to continue the debate formally. The reason that Catholics have 73 books in the bible and Protestants have 66 is because of Martin Luther's reformation. Martin Luther was critical of the Deuterocanonical books, also called the Apocrypha. Luther believed that these books were not truly god's word, but more the words of godly people. And so protestants do not include these books in their bibles. In the end the issue comes down to faith. Some believe that the bible is simply the work of many men who acted on their own. Others believe that the bible is the work of men through whom god spoke. By this account the bible is the word of god, transcribed by men.
The bible is God's word

I think with the verses and points I posted before,I have been able to drive my point home. As the pro,I think the best thing you can do is to refute my points instead of accusing me of not respecting people's opinion. Moreover,you said translation is not an easy task,IS IT TRANSLATION THAT MADE THE CATHOLIC BIBLE 73 AND THE PROTESTANT BIBLE 66?? To round up my point,I still insist that the bible is not God's word but a book that contains the word of man,trees,satan.angels,animals etc When pilate was accusing jesus,was that GOd talking? In songs of solomon,who was talking,GOD OR SOLOMON? The bible is not and will never be God's word.
The bible is God's word

While many editions and translations of the Bible exist, all come from the same source, the original scriptures. These are the words of god, in my view and in the view of many in the world. However, as most of the Global populous does not speak Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek, and so translations have been made. Translating is not an easy task either, especially translating documents. In addition words may have different meanings, depending on context. And I would like to ask the Con to maintain decorum in this debate and remain polite throughout, and be sure to be respectful of others views and convictions. http://www.mml.cam.ac.uk...
The bible is God's word

If you say the bible is God's word,you should not forget to tell the audience which of the bibles is God's word because i know of many,for example: {1}---Original manuscripts {2}---Most ancient copies {3}---ancient versions {4}---vulgate Bible {5}---Wycliffe Bible {6}---Tyndale Bible 1535-1536 {7}---Mathews Bible 1537 {8}---Great Bible 1539 {9}---Geneva Bible 1560 {10}---Bishop Bible {11}---King James 1611 {12}---Revised Standard Version (R.S.V) 1611 {13}---Authorized Standard Version (A.S.V) 1901 reproduced in 1928 {14}---R.S.V 1952 {15}---R.S.V 1971 {16}---Dauy Reproduced in 1609.. Which of these bibles was insired by holyspirit? In addition,the catholic bible has 73 chapters while the protestant bible has 66 chapters,WHICH OF THEM IS GOD'S WORD?? Moreover,i should not hestitate to let you know that God is not an author of confusion nor will God contradict himself,for example: 2chronicles22:2 of niv bible says: 2 Ahaziah was twenty-twoyears old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother""s name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri. And from the king james bible[KJV],we read: Forty and two years oldwasAhaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name alsowasAthaliah the daughter of Omri. - King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition As if that is enough,i still wonder who was adding and substracting because: The NIV,rsv,nwt leaves out 16 entire verses 1. Matthew 17:21:"" 2. Matthew 18:11:"" 3. Matthew 23:14" 4. Mark 7:16:"" 5. Mark 9:44:"." 6. Mark 9:46:" 7."mark11:26 8. Mark15:28" 9. Luke 17:36:" 10. John 5:4:"" 11. Acts 8:37:" 12. Acts 15:34:" 13. Acts 24:7:"" 14. Acts 28:29:" 15. Romans 16:24 16. I John 5:7: i will further butress my point,by saying the bible consist of the word of man,word of God,word of stone,animals,angels,satan etc..for example: Judges 9:13 ASV American Standard Version And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my new wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to wave to and fro over the trees? IS THIS GOD'S WORD? Furthermore,we read more words that are not of God in the bible, Matthew 15:27 "7"8 Parallel Verses New International Version "Yes it is, Lord," she said. "Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table." IS THIS GOD'S WORD?apparently NO! I reserve my comment for now
The bible is God's word

As a devout Roman Catholic I believe that the bible is god's word. This is not just because my church teaches it, but because Catholics and all Christians believe the Jesus Christ was not only God's son, but God incarnate. We believe in the holy trinity, the three persons that make up one god, These are the Father (God), the Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit, and therefore as the bible is the words of Jesus Christ, it is the word of God. But Catholics are not the only ones that believe that the bible is god's word. Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians and Mormons all believe that the bible is God's word. And Jews accept the old testament as the word of god as god spoke through the prophets. Muslims also believe the Koran is gods word as it was dictated to Mohammed by god. Atheists are not expected to accept the bible or other scriptures as God's words, as they do not believe in god. Therefore I will not insult their views In addition inconsistencies in the bible are to be expected, as the bible was originally written in 5 different languages and hundreds of translations exist. When documents are translated errors are bound to occur and as the bible has been translated hundreds of times over the last 2000 years. In addition the vast majority of these inconsistencies occur in different books of the bible. While in the book of Mark, Jesus's tomb is described simply as a rock tomb, in the Book of John it is a garden tomb. And while in the book of Mathew, the tomb is described as newly carved, the book of Luke describes it as old and simply unused. While these are just a few examples, there are many more instances of this happening thin the bible.
The motorways should be cleansed of lane-hogging scum

First of all, I should congratulate my opponent on his lateral thinking – that certainly wasn't the sort of rebuttal I was expecting! Secondly, I should apologise for the brevity of my response, I'm running the deadline right to the wire here. Thirdly, I should like to address my opponent's arguments in turn as follows: "Disadvantage 1: Extinction of Lane-hoggers lead to Instability in Ecosystem" I didn't say I wanted lane-hogging scumbags to starve to death – I may want that to happen, but I didn't say that. In any case, the motorways are primarily used for long distance journeys and I'm sure the lane-hoggers could pick up food supplies locally. "Disadvantage 2: Extinction of Lane-hoggers helps other D0uchebags like "lax bros" to become more prevalent will not occur." The removal of lane-hogging scumbags from the motorway network will not reduce stress. With these selfish bastards out of the way, normal drivers will be able to exploit the full performance potential of their cars and travelling at very high speeds can be very stressful, as the embedded YouTube clip explains. Therefore, "Disadvantage 3: Alt possibility: Overcompensation" will not take place. Please vote Pro in favour of the resolution. Thank you. http://www.youtube.com...
The motorways should be cleansed of lane-hogging scum

So there you are, motoring down the outside (overtaking) lane making decent progress at a steady speed (for purposes of this debate, we'll assume you are not exceeding the speed limit, but in reality we know that you may well be because the speed limit is set at a ludicrously sedate 70mph) when the traffic up ahead all snarls up as vehicles move from the inside lanes to the outside lane, thus forcing you to slow down. And the reason they are all being funnelled into the fast lane? Because some selfish, thoughtless, inconsiderate, cardigan-wearing, Tory-voting, Daily Mail-reading, middle-aged arsehole of a wanker (typically driving a Volvo V70, an E-Class Mercedes or a Lexus GS) is on his way to the golf course has clicked the cruise control in at a leisurely 65mph, and is sitting in the middle lane either oblivious of, or not caring about, the traffic chaos he is causing behind him. And why isn't this driver in the slow lane where he should be when he's not actually overtaking anything? Who knows, but I expect the driver considers himself too posh to drive in the inside lane with the lorries, coaches and ‘the poor' driving their ‘squalid, clapped-out old bangers'. And you know what really gets people's goat? What really, really makes motorists seethe? It's that there are 6,000 speed cameras on British roads [1] which take sneaky pictures of motorists that happen to stray over the speed limit, and every surreptitious snap results in 3 points on your license and a fine, yet, disgracefully, there are currently no cameras taking pictures of motorists who fail to observe lane discipline. It's time to redress the balance in favour of the decent law-abiding motorist who has better things to do with his time than crawl down the motorway at 65mph – it's time to convert the speed cameras into lane discipline-enforcement cameras. This way, the lane-hogs will either learn to abide by the law or will amass enough points on their licences to be disqualified from driving. With properly observed and enforced lane discipline, as they have in Germany, the traffic will run smoother and thus allow the Government to abolish the speed limit on the motorways. On most of the German Autobahn network there is no limit on how fast you can drive which has huge time and cost savings benefits for individuals and businesses. Therefore, I reaffirm that the motorways should be cleansed of lane-hogging scum. [1] http://www.speedcamerasuk.com... Note: I have argued on the basis of the British experience but I have noticed lane-discipline is just as bad in some other countries and am very happy to debate the matter in more general terms.
Homework Hinders Learning

okay I see your points. Yes i do agree that some homework may be pointless like doing cross words and puzzles and such like that, but your still practicing, for example say you have to do a cross word puzzle for your vocabulary words in lets say science, they give you the definition and you try and find the word... sounds like learning to me because you are learning the definition of the word as your find it. On the other hand different teenagers have different ways of doing their homework and studying and some are just smart enough to get the homework done faster than others so I guess the teenagers finding time to do stuff is their time on how fast they get done and their study habits. I know I set up a schedule like if I have a test coming and a different one on the same day I would pick the subject I suck more in and spend more than a half hour or so, then the subject I'm most efficient in I study a little less because I understand it, homework is study material basically. I f you do the homework your studying (atleast thats how I see it, and most of my friends). Doing homework is just a more effective way of studying. Most teachers do give out lots of homework depending on what they are learning, some may give very little for many reasons. Homework is good, but yes it may be overbearing at some times, but we learn more from our mistakes, which mostly come from the homework we do!
Homework Hinders Learning

I agree with your opening statement but I didn't technically clarify how much homework hinders our learning. I'm actually going well in foreign language and my family speaks other languages so in some cases it isn't that bad. Yes you type in the question find the answers and change the words to make it fit to your standards but still it isn't that much learning involved. I agree with you too all our weekends are different. But after outside school activities on a weekday and weekend I myself have to stay home most of the weekend and do homework but that doesn't go for every teenager in the world. All of my friends have to do it to, It may be just my school who knows. This is actually research for me , as I was doing research for my debate speeches on this topic I came along to this website and joined now I'm getting plenty of ideas for both sides. So you are slightly doing my homework in some ways even though you are on the other side of the world. But this is actually quite fun. I agree its practice but sometimes teachers just give you the same things over and over again even when everyone gets it and it is pointless especially when you have other homework that is more and more important than that. I agree not everybody tries but that just brings other students down because some people don't like to try because they think school is a waist of time. We all have different opinions the subject. This debate is huge and in Toronto they have actually been discussing giving homework the sack. Also do you see older people bringing there work home with them ? In some situations yes but not nearly every day of the year ( while school is on and when people work ). Not every school day we get alot of work at all so they could bring the homework out and work on it with us in class if we are not that busy. Or if they are so concerned about us not completing set homework they should either make school longer ( which is horrible for everyone but if it gets the job done why not ) or set a time in class were you could work on the homework.