BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People should not work after retirement

Unemployment among college grads is currently 53%. . http://www.theatlantic.com... What this means is that people who should be entering the workforce and gaining experience from people who are about to retire, are not doing so. As you can see here . http://www.wageproject.org... the mean salary of a (male) 18-24 year old is $24k and a 25-34 is $40k. However, the mean salary of a person 45-64 is approximately $60k and even after that he'll make approximately $55k. Not that it's a surprise that people with more experience make more money. Nonetheless, if older people are forced to retire at say, 55 or possibly younger, a greater number of younger people can be hired and trained. This is not to conclude that more people means more or even equal productivity, but over time, they too will gain experience and be able to contribute. They must get the experience at some point. This amount of time doesn't change if the starting point is moved to an older age(that is to say, it takes 5 years to gain 5 years of experience, whether that is between 25-30 or 30-35). So, it is better to get that experience when they are younger and making less and will be able to use that experience in the field longer. My first argument sums to this: Young people are not getting opportunities in the workforce because older people are staying on longer. Secondly, I believe that "you can't teach an old dog new tricks". We live in a world that we constantly want change. We want the newest technology to improve our methods and make for more efficient and reliable products. With the burst of technology over the past 10-20 years, older people never quite got the handle of it. The problem is when businesses retain out-dated practices because the older generations refuse to adapt to new technologies. Yes, we need the experience of the older generation, but we also need the freedom to implement new things. The longer the older generation holds on, the longer it will take for new technologies to be implemented. My second argument sums to this: The workplace would keep better pace with technology if the older generation were forced to retire. Lastly, everyone should get their chance. Old people trying to hold on because "they have a job to do" is selfish. Get a hobby, travel. .. write a book. This world only belongs to you for a very short time compared to us. We should have more of a say on how it is governed. Get out of politics, get out of the judicial system, get out of the business world. This isn't your world anymore. Why is someone on their deathbed (as in someone who will die before the new President gets inaugurated) allowed to vote but a 17 year old kid working at Burger King and has a kid not? My first argument sums to this: Young people will live in this world much longer, they should control i
People should not work after retirement

I will be arguing that once people reach the age of retirement, they should not continue to work (at the company they retired from or any other). The first round will just be for acceptance. My opponent must believe that it is beneficial to the individual and/or society for people to work after retirement. However, "they need the money" is not an acceptable reason for one to work longer. It is assumed that social security benefits would increase so that people who have reached retirement would still be sufficiently provided for should they be unable to provide for themselves in retirement. This will obviously increase costs. It is up to both debaters to take this into account in their argument and discuss how this will effect the rest of the system.
Men are smarter than women.

======== Conclusion ======== The only things my opponent has been able to demonstrate thus far is that he holds bigoted i.e. (unjustified) views against women, and that he is amply capable of creating hasty generalizations. One single study cannot possibly confirm what my antagonist is trying to prove. He also fails to realize that men have subjugated women for centuries. This alone demonstrates the main flaw in my opponents reasoning. How are we to judge the universal intelligence of men and women if both groups aren't on equal playing fields? Best, Freeman
Men are smarter than women.

The assertion that men are smarter than women, as a universal claim, entails the notion that men are smarter than women regardless of environmental factors. In other words men are genetically predisposed to be smarter than women. He has provided no evidence that this is true. He gives one case study, with no sources, and from there makes the sweeping generalization that men are more intelligent than women. The decades of data, research, double blind studies, and Meta analysis that would vindicate my opponent's position have yet to be produced. He can't possibly prove the resolution because the evidence and research he would need to point to isn't available. Resolution Negated Best, Freeman
Men are smarter than women.

Intelligence:Intelligence is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn. Evidence: Recent studies have raised questions about the validity of this claim, he said. One such study showed that men have larger brains than women, a 100 gram difference after correcting for body size. Rushton found similar results in a study of gender and brain size. When Rushton and colleagues weighted each SAT question by an established general intelligence factor called the g-factor, they discovered that males surpassed females by an average of 3.6 IQ points.
Paul and Bloomberg Campaign

I would like to start off by saying that I am a Ron Paul supporter but will stick to the debate topic and not stray off onto the issues represented in politics this year. You a presenting that Paul and Bloomberg run as 'extra-party' candidates for this November election. First off, Bloomberg has stated he will not run for president despite the rumors, so until he makes it 'official' he cannot be included in this debate. Now, onto Ron Paul. He is staying in the Republican party until the end, because should there be a brokered convention he would still have a chance at winning. The media does not present him as a candidate and therefore not many people know about him. Should there be a brokered convention, he would be able to present his ideas to America along with the rest of the candidates remaining without being limited in his 'air-time'. He has more delegates than the media projects even though he is still most likely in fourth place at the time being. Should Paul not win the nomination, he may as well run as a libertarian candidate just as he did back in 1988. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'extra-party' therefore i am presuming you want to create another party (kind of like TR did when he came in second around the beginning of the 20th century). Creating a 'new' party would not do anything for this nation because the 2 parties we have, have polarized each other so much, people are more likely to make a 'lesser of two evils' vote than vote for a party that is new. Especially in this day in age. If there does happen to be a McCain-Hillary race, that would leave the door open to a third party candidate to do well. However, that party cannot be formed out of 'mid-air'. I'm wondering if you heard about the rumor McCain is not a natural born citizen? There is a rumor he was born on a ship in leased territory owned by panama thereby not making him a viable candidate for the presidency.
Paul and Bloomberg Campaign

I think Ron Paul and Mike Bloomberg and anyone else for that matter, should run as extra-party candidates for president. I think at this point we can realistically infer that Paul will not win the Republican nomination. Paul supporters, please don't argue with me here, this isn't my position. In this election, perhaps more so than any other election in recent memory, there is an overwhelming part of the voting population who will remain vastly unrepresented by either of the major party candidates, no matter who they are. Therefore, in the interest of making America a better democracy, we should have major extra-party candidates run in November, particularly Paul and Bloomberg as they have been rumored to do so. I write this somewhat out of personal interest. If there is a McCain-Hillary November I think I am going to write in Newt Gingrich.
Paul and Bloomberg Campaign

I would like to start off by restating the main debate issue: "Ron Paul and Mike Bloomberg and anyone else for that matter, should run as extra-party candidates for president." This is what the debate is about. I think we have both agreed upon the fact that there should be a third party incorporated into the United States political system. The part we disagree upon is that the third party candidate would actually have a legitimate chance at winning. You say that Perot got a 'good chunk' of the vote a few years ago, which in fact he did. Yet he still came in 3rd place far behind the other two candidates. The last time that a third party actually came in second was when TR ran for the Bull Moose party. He came in second. But that's beside the point, the fact is, he lost. A third party candidate would have barely any chance at winning this election or even coming close to winning. I figure that about 30% of the population in the USA, is straight republican, and 30% of the population is straight democrat. That leaves 40% left over of people who decide on issues and are independents. Sure that leaves it open for those 40% to vote in a third party, but that's considering every voter votes for them. You clearly agree with my stance that people would feel like they are 'wasting their vote' and so I don't see how your argument can withstand your position. "[People would feel like they are wasting their vote] is a recent problem" I wouldn't have ANY problem voting for a third party candidate (especially if this November ballot turns out to be Hillary-McCain) but I can't see the stubborn [a lot (not all) of people are whether they agree or not] American people voting for a candidate not associated with a major party. As for Bloomberg entering the race, we will find out soon enough if he is in it or not. This isn't about him though, and therefore I will leave it at that. This debate has turned out to be whether a candidate from a third party could enter the race and be in contention for the presidency. That clearly wouldn't happen even though I would applaud the American people for making that happen (should that be the outcome). Having said all of my argument in this round and others, I would like to thank all of you voters who took the time to read this debate thoroughly and vote for the winner of the debate instead of your personal opinion. Thank you and it is greatly appreciated!
Paul and Bloomberg Campaign

So you agree with my principle argument that we should have extra-party candidates. The only thing left to address is your cynical view of the American voter. Paul and Bloomberg could run. There is plenty of time until November and there will be several debates between the candidates in those months. Just because there has been a large frenzy over the nomination doesn't mean that an extra-party candidate wouldn't have time to be heard. "I don't think the american people have what it takes to vote for someone in a third party. A lot of people feel like they would be wasting their vote." This is a recent problem. Perot got a good chunk of the vote just a few years ago. The reason a third party hasn't been prominent is because Nader hasn't campaigned much and has a reputation for being the perpetual vote trash can. If there is a third-party candidate in contention, people will vote for them. Just because there hasn't been one in the past two elections, doesn't mean its impossible. Whether Paul and Bloomberg will run hasn't been my argument. This is simply a debate about whether or not there should be extra-party candidates. You clearly agree with me here, so I don't see the ambiguity.
Paul and Bloomberg Campaign

In case you haven't heard, Paul announced today that he would NOT run as a third party candidate because he would focus on his re-election campaign in Texas. They may be the most likely candidates for a third party run, and I COMPLETELY AGREE with you that they SHOULD run because "[We] believe that we should make available as many choices as possible to voters, especially in such a critical election with the non-representative candidates (hillary-mccain) that are likely to run," however, Paul has now announced that he WON'T run and I dont see how Bloomberg could just jump into the race when he hasn't been parts of debates, hasn't gotten his side of the issues out there, and doesn't have the support to run because by the time he jumps in, people will have made up their minds on who they are voting for. I agree that a 3rd party should be implemented into our government system, but I don't think the american people have what it takes to vote for someone in a third party. A lot of people feel like they would be wasting their vote. I know there are TONS of parties for Bloomberg to join as well, the only problem is, is that those parties don't have complete ballot access in all states. I think it is a good idea you propose, and I support it, but it just won't happen.
Paul and Bloomberg Campaign

Ok, so you don't answer the argument at all. Romney dropping out means the convention won't be brokered, most likely. This means what little chance Paul had is now gone. I meant this to be a debate about extra-party candidates conceptually. But, Paul and Bloomberg should run as they are the most likely extra-party candidates. You agree that Paul should run. There are countless parties that could support Bloomberg. Just because the media ignores them doesn't mean there aren't any. Also, he could run as an independent. So, since the debate has been about November since rd 1, I don't see how you have answered ANY of my points. I agree Paul should stay in the GOP race and get his message out there. But, when he doesn't get the nod, he should run as a extra-party candidate in November. Paul and Bloomberg are just two examples. I believe that we should make available as many choices as possible to voters, especially in such a critical election with the non-representative candidates (hillary-mccain) that are likely to run.
Paul and Bloomberg Campaign

Ok, so you say that Bloomberg would run as a third party candidate. Which party? He couldn't and wouldn't be able to conjure up a party out of nowhere. Paul has more than 12 delegates and that is not because of super tuesday. The media presents the delegate count as proportional to the straw poll results which mean nothing. Paul's strategy is to get his supporters to become delegates. I wont old Super Tuesday against you, and I also wont hold Romney dropping out as another thing against you. However, Staying as a candidate in the GOP contest, is a plus for Paul because he gains more of a conservative base while remaining popular with the independents and democrats. Sure he may have to run as an independent but at the moment, he is better off running in the GOP race to gain popularity and support, along with being able to participate in a nationally viewed debate amongst McCain and Huckabee. I agree with you that we need a third party, but I disagree that those candidates should be Paul or Bloomberg and that they should run as third-party candidates. I hope that Paul would run as a third-party in November should he not win the GOP nomination, however now is not the right time to do that.
Paul and Bloomberg Campaign

OK, extra-party means running as a candidate not affiliated with the two major parties. Bloomberg could still run. Many candidates said they were not interested in running just a short time before declaring thier candidacy. No doubt Bloomberg would wait until the two major tickets are set to declare as a third party candidate. Next, Paul currently holds 12 delegates. Compare that with Huckabee and Romney at roughly 200 and McCain at nearly 500. Even in a brokered convention, it would be hard to argue for a Paul nomination. Reagrdless, whether or not they will run is irrelevant to the debate. I argue that they should run as extra-party candidates. Paul did in 88 as you pointed out. Creating another party wouldn't necessarily be necessary, though it is possible. I don't see how a party couldn't form under someone like Bloomberg. You admit that a third party would do well, so I don't see a problem. People should not have to be faced with a 'lesser of two evils' type of decision. This is exactly why we should have more than two viable candidates for president in November. Paul and Bloomberg are most likely to be those, so I mnetioned their specific candidacies.
Every mother love their children.

What is love? All you need is love. Love lifts us up where we belong! The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return. Who sings of all of Love's eternity Who shines so bright In all the songs of Love's unending spells? Holy lightning strikes all that's evil Teaching us to love for goodness sake. Hear the music of Love Eternal Teaching us to reach for goodness sake.
Every mother love their children.

Well since my opponent has yet to return this round, I'll take his position and argue that "Every mother loves their children". Dictionary.com definition of love: "1.a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. " Let us keep in mind that love is, like all other emotions, a biological reaction. Certain chemicals are secreted and one feels affection or "love" for another. In this case, when a mother gives birth, and subsequently nurses her child, a chemical called oxytocin is flooded within her body. This chemical has two purposes, the first being that it stimulates mammary glands (which produce milk), and the second it makes it physically impossible for a mother to not "love" her child. During the first 3 years of the child's life, a mother's happiness is most strongly triggered by her child's happiness. At the same time, her feelings of affection is entirely monopolized by her child, as it is the main source for those chemical reactions. Simply put, not only do ALL mothers love their children, but it is impossible for a mother to not love her children.
Every mother love their children.

While MOST mothers are undoubtedly affectionate towards their children, it's an overstatement to suggest ALL mothers love their offspring. Let's take a look at this case for example: http://www.liveleak.com... Mother shot 8-year-old daughter in leg to win $1 bet Or this story: http://club.cdfreaks.com... A mother is under arrest, accused of selling a 12-year-old daughter into prostitution and trading a 14-year-old daughter for a car. This of course has yet to include the mother-children relationships when children are much older, when the rivalry becomes much more heated. Think Jerry Springer. As far as parental relationships go into the children's 20s or 30s, love is no longer requirement as it is a blessing. I believe that while mothers would likely care for their children, unconditional love is difficult to fathom as to say "EVERY". Perhaps, "Most mothers love their children".
BMW is better than Mercedes-Benz

Mercedes-Benz plays a pioneering role particularly in the field of safety technology. Many innovative ideas which became reality for the first time in a Mercedes-Benz passenger car continue to influence all aspects of automobile development to this day. They include the anti-lock braking system (ABS, 1978), the airbag (1980) and the Electronic Stability Program (ESP", 1995). Today, Brake Assist Plus with PRE SAFE Brakes, the drowsiness detection system ATTENTION ASSIST, Blind Spot Assist, Lane Keeping Assist and Collision Prevention Assist, installed as standard in the Mercedes-Benz A- and B-Class, together with many other driver assistance and comfort systems, make Mercedes-Benz vehicles the safest automobiles in the world.
BMW is better than Mercedes-Benz

"The best or nothing". What is the Mercedes talking about? Definitely not about them self, because it's clear for everyone that they are not best, it is silly to assert that you are the best. Usually this is argument of children or the side which doesn't have any real advantages and they starting give some stupid phrases such this, while the tag line of BMW is intelligible. It suggests that this car gives you joy and satisfaction behind the steering wheel. It is the tool for the best driving in the world and this is true by far. Mercedes is car for retirees that live and believe in stereotypes where Mercedes is the best. For other sane part of population it isn't secret that BMW went ahead the Mercedes-Benz. Just check the amount of sales of both. You will understand that the time when Mercedes was on the first place already passed away. Now it's time of the best one - BMW.
BMW is better than Mercedes-Benz

Given their disparate histories, geography, and culture, conflict is inevitable. Daimler, Mercedes' parent, is the successor to a company founded in 1883 that invented the automobile and never tires of reminding the world of that fact. BMW got started in 1917 as a maker of aircraft engines and didn't get into making cars until 1928. Stuttgart, home to Mercedes, is a grey factory town where the sun seldom shines, while BMW is rooted to party-happy Munich. Finally, Mercedes, elitist to its core, reveals its true self in its motto "The best or nothing," coined by Gottlieb Daimler. BMW fashions itself as creator of the "ultimate driving machine," a tagline created by an American advertising agency
BMW is better than Mercedes-Benz

The fact that Mercedes was the first company, who invented the car doesn't mean that today they are the best in this field. I know a lot of cases when some new player entered the game and became the number one. For example look at the market of cell-phones in 2006-2007. Nokia sells the majority of phones and nobody can compete with them, but in 2007 Apple with their iPhone suddenly came on the scene and the reaction of Nokia was something like this:"It is nice product, but it won't achieve any real success". However, where is Nokia now and where is Apple now? That's what I'm talking about. Returning back to BMW's past. At the beginning, BMW was creating aircraft engine, but this experience gave only positive effect, when they started making engines for cars. They already had experience in developing more difficult airplane engines. Secondly, of course BMW doesn't produce any trucks, etc., but this fact doesn't interfere to make best passenger cars and when I say that BMW is better than Mercedes, I don't mention trucks and other kind of vehicles, that BMW doesn't make. We can't compare things that BMW doesn't have in principle. Mercedes owned Maybach and it has closed, while BMW's Rolls-Royce thrives and their sales increase every year. Also as an opponent for Mini, Mercedes has Smart. I didn't see nothing worse than Smart. One thing that I also want to mention is net profit of these companies. The net profit of BMW twice more even than Daimler AG. According to JD Power statistics, BMW has 114 defects for 100 cars, while Mercedes only 106. I agree that there is some small difference which is not in favor for BMW, but this is all because of the manner of usage. Almost all owners of BMW try to drive fast, that is why spare parts die faster. Thus, in my mind, BMW is better almost in every way for general consumer, because it's more comfortable and more sporty than opponent - Mercedes-Benz.